Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, frenin said:

But the High Septon and the Faith pulled a Tyrell and remained silent on the matter, even when they were sitting in the base of power of the Green most fervent partisan and his cousin's dragon. I don't think that one should believe that the fact that the septon whatever married Aegon and Rhaena or Jaeharys and Alyssane as a sign that the Faith approved those unions.

 

Sure and so did Aegon, Rhaenyra's partisans won the war.

 

Seems like semantics to me.

He was betrayed because the Blacks were going to take the city by storm and kill them and his council did not want to go down with him. The people who betrayed him were quite literally urging him to surrendering to the Blacks and beg for mercy.

After the Muddy Mess Aegon's days were numbered, two armies were coming to kill him and no one was coming to save his ass.  

 

 

Sure but his proposal doesn't make much sense.

Or better said, it makes no sense why would the Blacks ever accept it. It's not like the Greens were going to contest them anytime soon, they had all accepted a pardon that didn't include acknowledging Aegon as the truly righful monarch and delegitimizing Rhaenyra.

The only thing the Greens accept when pardoned is acknowledge Aegon the younger as ruler, lay down the swords and that Aegon will marry his cousin...

Aegon II being the righful king, Rhaenyra being randomly delegitimized even after her partisans won, they sharing actual power in the new regime... are all gifts from the heavens that Corlys just decided to grant.

 

 

And yet he went after the Baratheons and brought them "nothing but ill" for them going against his mother.

 

 

If there is a single monarch officially acknowledged, the Throne itself is categorically naming one of the parties as traitors.

Funnily enough... The party the won the war.

 

All in all, the Greens should have won or at least the Blacks should have far less leverage than they had. All the Greens being decisively defeated bar Lyonel Hightower, who conveniently enough could neither start the war anew nor he had much interest to help Aegon anyway, makes this the trade of the century.

I could see the sense of offering a general pardon to the Greens, but the side that’s triumphed has no reason to place itself in the wrong.

The narrative that Rhaenyra was no Queen seems to me like the Westerosi version of the Lost Cause, a false account of history that many people bought into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The narrative that Rhaenyra was no Queen seems to me like the Westerosi version of the Lost Cause, a false account of history that many people bought into.

Yikes, the thing is it's just the opposite.  The histories we're given aren't under a false impression of why the war was started.  Indeed, the historians have extraordinary insight into the intimate conversations and interactions that led to the war.  Bob Woodward eat your heart out.  It's more like they refuse to acknowledge Lincoln was legitimately elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's more like they refuse to acknowledge Lincoln was legitimately elected.

This analogy treats the matter of the succession as having some sort of long clear history, but it did not.

The crown had gone from Aegon to his eldest son and _then_ his next eldest son (after killing off his nephew, who happened to not be the eldest child of his father -- that was Rhaena, who was never treated as a potential heir despite being Aenys's first born), and then to Maegor's remaining nephew (after having killed off another nephew in the interim) and then to the eldest son of a younger son after he and then the Great council passed over the eldest son's only daughter and then her own son on two occasions.

The Targaryen tradition of succession was anything but clear, which is why Viserys attempted to make Rhaenyra a done deal by having the lords swear to her. but the actual preponderance of evidence was that the tradition was forming that throne could never pass to or even through a woman if there were other options. This tradition held after that, as Viserys II took the throne instead of Daena the Defiant. 

I think that's what sways the histories more than anything. The declaration of Aegon III as Aegon II's heir before Aegon's death reinforced the preponderance of tradition that men always came first, and this has been maintained. Most notably by that other son of Rhaenyra, Viserys II, who succeeded his brother rather than his brother's eldest surviving daughter Daena.

No doubt there's some heterodox maester out there insisting that Rhaenyra's reign should have been listed as being concurrent with Aegon's, and someone else who argues that no, sitting the Iron Throne effectively deposed Aegon II for a few months and then his reign started again after her death... but that's heterodoxy for you.

(I say all this as someone who firmly believed that there was not in fact a firm tradition that said a king could not pick whatever heir he wanted, and that Rhaenyra should have succeeded Viserys.)

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any in-universe problem with Rhaenyra not being considered a legitimate queen by the end of the third century.

During Aegon III's reign, why would anyone want to get involved in the discussion of who had actually been the rightful king?! He was the heir of both Rhaenyra and Aegon II, so it was a moot point, but at the same time concluding that either of them had been an usurper would have the ugly implication that half the lords of the realm had been traitors. There was even one of the regents who had declared for both claimants!

And a few decades later... the Targaryen kings would much prefer to paint Aegon II as the rightful king: the idea that a woman could inherit the throne would immediately make the Blackfyre line (through Daenna) as the legitimate one. Even the idea that a king could decide unilaterally over the succession could be seen as dangerous, given that Aegon IV's favoritism towards Daemon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ran said:

This tradition held after that, as Viserys II took the throne instead of Daena the Defiant. 

I always found it weird that Aelora was named heir which such precedent at hand, given that she had tons of male cousins and an uncle. She's not right? It's a typo.

 

55 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

And a few decades later... the Targaryen kings would much prefer to paint Aegon II as the rightful king: the idea that a woman could inherit the throne would immediately make the Blackfyre line (through Daenna) as the legitimate one. Even the idea that a king could decide unilaterally over the succession could be seen as dangerous, given that Aegon IV's favoritism towards Daemon.

Agree, it is far more paltable that Aegon as rightful king was a narrative that happened during Viserys and Daeron the good's reigns than Rhaenyra being considered a usurper from the get go.  The regency and Aegon III would comment nothing on the issue to not piss people off and then decades later Viserys would use his uncle as a tool to secure power on his mother's detriment. But the idea that Corlys got the Blacks to acknowledge Rhaenyra as a usurper right of the bat is too hard to swallow.

But also and BTW, the beef the Targaryen siblings appear to have had with the Baratheons ove their loyalties during the war make little sense with the sentiment of Aegon trying his best to not reopen wounds.

 

On other matters, as a proof that fan culture will rot our brains... Daemons' and Alicent's actors are being harassed so much the actress has deleted her Twitter account. Sigh

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't see any in-universe problem with Rhaenyra not being considered a legitimate queen by the end of the third century.

During Aegon III's reign, why would anyone want to get involved in the discussion of who had actually been the rightful king?! He was the heir of both Rhaenyra and Aegon II, so it was a moot point, but at the same time concluding that either of them had been an usurper would have the ugly implication that half the lords of the realm had been traitors. There was even one of the regents who had declared for both claimants!

He was the son of the martyred queen and he himself acknowledges her queenship at the end of FaB.

55 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

And a few decades later... the Targaryen kings would much prefer to paint Aegon II as the rightful king: the idea that a woman could inherit the throne would immediately make the Blackfyre line (through Daenna) as the legitimate one. Even the idea that a king could decide unilaterally over the succession could be seen as dangerous, given that Aegon IV's favoritism towards Daemon.

I don't think so. You have to keep in mind that none of Rhaenyra's descendants would have any inclination to remember Aegon II and his kin fondly. Not Aegon III nor Viserys II. They would all honor the memory of their parents and their slain half-brothers. And there is just no chance that 'the consensus in Westeros' at the end of the Dance was that Aegon II was 'the rightful king'. He not only lost the war but was murdered by his own court because he refused to yield.

I mean, it is not hard to understand that historians and singers alike would celebrate the victorious branch of the dynasty in their songs and books. Praising Aegon III, Viserys II, and their children and grandchildren means praising Rhaenyra and Daemon, too. You cannot paint them as failures or traitors and still hope to gain favor with the royals. And you can also not suck up to Rhaenyra's descendants if you do not paint Aegon II as a villain. He very much was in his dealings with Rhaenyra and the treatment of her children, especially Aegon III himself.

Daemon Blackfyre's maternal line was irrelevant, what made him a promising pretender was the fact that he was the legitimized son of King Aegon IV who was given the sword of kings.

Most importantly, though, we know that Daeron the Good's court was staffed with Dornishmen and Dornishwomen and the queen at his side was a Martell princess. If there was an era in Targaryen history where the royal court would have been seriously considering equal primogeniture it would have been during the reign of Daeron II due to Myriah's presence at court ... and Daeron's own deals with the Prince of Dorne.

That this thing didn't come up seems to have been solely due to the fact that Daeron II and Myriah had only sons. If they had had, say, three elder daughters and only one son then you can be sure Daeron II would have been pressured by his wife to name their eldest daughter his heir.

One could also imagine that Aerys I being half-Martell is part of the reason why he ended up naming Aelora his heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, frenin said:

I always found it weird that Aelora was named heir which such precedent at hand, given that she had tons of male cousins and an uncle. She's not right? It's a typo.

Held and held! Aelora obviously did not end up succeeding to the throne, after all.

This is potentially one of those grey areas where George has an inclination but may not be firmly decided, BTW. We'll have to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd imagine that Aelora as Heir Apparent will be the result of the friction between Aerys I/Bloodraven and Maekar as well as Maekar being viewed as an accursed kinslayer throughout the Realm. Aelor apparently dies in 217 AC, and I imagine that Aelora died during/after the Third Blackfyre Rebellion.

Maekar's alleged 'leadership' during that war could have been what brought Aerys I and Bloodraven around. If Maekar played a or the crucial role in defeating Haegon Blackfyre and/or possibly saving the life of his royal brother during the fighting, this might explain why they eventually named him Heir Apparent rather than turning to Daenora after Aelora's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 You have to keep in mind that none of Rhaenyra's descendants would have any inclination to remember Aegon II and his kin fondly. Not Aegon III nor Viserys II. They would all honor the memory of their parents and their slain half-brothers. And there is just no chance that 'the consensus in Westeros' at the end of the Dance was that Aegon II was 'the rightful king'.

As I was trying to expose in my previous post, my understanding of the situation is that 'the consensus of Westeros' at the end of the Dance was that it was taboo to discuss who was 'the righful king'. It just wasn't a matter that anyone wished to revisit. It was not a topic to bring up in polite conversations. Everyone agreed to put this horrible time behind.

No one is questioning that Aegon and Viserys privately honored the memory of her mother, or remembered her half-brothers fondly. But why would Aegon the Depressive or Viserys the Pragmatic want to antagonize half of the realm and jeopardize the reconciliation by issuing controversial decrees that would benefit no one but the memory of dead people?

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, it is not hard to understand that historians and singers alike would celebrate the victorious branch of the dynasty in their songs and books. Praising Aegon III, Viserys II, and their children and grandchildren means praising Rhaenyra and Daemon, too.

Such historians and singers would find it difficult to find patrons in half the households of the realms. A traveling bard that was crossing the Reach would have a hard time remembering where it is opportune to sing about the evil Hightowers and their depraved machinations. Even at the royal court, I wonder if anyone would consider convenient to sing in front of Tyland Lannister and Willam Stackspear about the great victory at the Fishfeed, in front of Lord Manfryd about of the cowardly betrayal of the Mootons, or in front of Lord Commander Marston Waters about his vile treasonous acts at the fall of Dragonstone.

I'd say that most sensible singers would prefer to sing about Jonquil, Florian the Fool and Symeon Star-eyes.

This pattern is not unusual in countries that are trying to get over a civil war.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Daemon Blackfyre's maternal line was irrelevant, what made him a promising pretender was the fact that he was the legitimized son of King Aegon IV who was given the sword of kings.

If Daemon Blackfyre's maternal line was not used as a selling point, and his supporters preferred to stress other factors when defending his ascension, it's precisely because the idea that women and their descendants were excluded from the line of succession had already sunk in. Or in other words, because Rhaenyra was seen as an illegitimate queen.

Once Viserys II came to the throne, he and his descendants would be very interested in promoting that line of thought.

Edited by The hairy bear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

As I was trying to expose in my previous post, my understanding of the situation is that 'the consensus of Westeros' at the end of the Dance was that it was taboo to discuss who was 'the righful king'. It just wasn't a matter that anyone wished to revisit. It was not a topic to bring up in polite conversations. Everyone agreed to put this horrible time behind.

No one is questioning that Aegon and Viserys privately honored the memory of her mother, or remembered her half-brothers fondly. But why would Aegon the Depressive or Viserys the Pragmatic want to antagonize half of the realm and jeopardize the reconciliation by issuing controversial decrees that would benefit no one but the memory of dead people?

Such historians and singers would find it difficult to find patrons in half the households of the realms. A traveling bard that was crossing the Reach would have a hard time remembering where it is opportune to sing about the evil Hightowers and their depraved machinations. Even if was visiting court, I wonder if anyone would consider convenient to sing in front of Tyland Lannister and Willam Stackspear about the great victory at the Fishfeed, in front of Lord Manfryd about of the cowardly betrayal of the Mootons, or Lord Commander Marston Waters vile treasonous acts at the fall of Dragonstone.

I'd say that most sensible singers would prefer to sing about Jonquil, Florian the Fool and Symeon Star-eyes.

This pattern is not unusual in countries that are trying to get over a civil war.

If Daemon Blackfyre's maternal line was not used as a selling point, and his supporters preferred to stress other factors when defending his ascension, it's precisely because the idea that women and his descendants were excluded from the line of succession had already sunk in. Or in other words, because Rhaenyra was seen as an illegitimate queen.

Once Viserys II came to the throne, he and his descendants would be very interesting in promoting that line of thought.

It all smells very wars of the rosies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

As I was trying to expose in my previous post, my understanding of the situation is that 'the consensus of Westeros' at the end of the Dance was that it was taboo to discuss who was 'the righful king'. It just wasn't a matter that anyone wished to revisit. It was not a topic to bring up in polite conversations. Everyone agreed to put this horrible time behind.

I find this argument plausible but hard to explain.

The War of the 5 Kings, the Blackfyre Rebellions, the Robellion... Were all terrible civil wars that left the country scarred but in all of them there is a party that clearly considers itself the righful one (Eustace's speech) and is seen publicly as the rightful side.

Why this didn't happen in the Dance is just convenience since the Greens were defeated so badly, and no the Hightowers are not a excuse, the Tyrells and the Martells could have done far more harm than Lyonel Hightower ever could and they still kissed Robert's ass and publicly at least cursed the Targaryens.

Ditto with the Blackfyre supporters, they were branded as traitors. Half the country fought for the Targaryens or the Blackfyres, that did not stop the winning side to lionize themselves... Yet this does not happen in the Dance for reasons known only to Martin.

What makes the Greens so necessary to appease? What did they have that made the Blacks unable to ignore, sideline them as it happened in every other rebellion... It's not like they were even vital for the new regime a la Mace and Tywin.

Even Renly, who was partially rehabilitated, is still said to have repented for his treason and aided the legitimate king against his usurping brother.

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

As I was trying to expose in my previous post, my understanding of the situation is that 'the consensus of Westeros' at the end of the Dance was that it was taboo to discuss who was 'the righful king'. It just wasn't a matter than anyone wished to revisit. It was not a topic to bring up in polite conversations. Everyone agreed to put this horrible time behind.

Then nobody would have viewed Aegon II as 'the rightful king', either. They would have treated the Dance as an interregnum where no clear king existed.

Which is, as I laid out above, the road George seems to have been taken on the symbolic level by not having the High Septon endorse or anoint either pretender, by having neither of them use the proper Targaryen banner, and, quite noteworthy, by making a point of it that Aegon II was not actually restored to the Iron Throne physically after Rhaenyra's death.

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

No one is questioning that Aegon and Viserys privately honored the memory of her mother, or remembered her half-brothers fondly. But why would Aegon the Depressive or Viserys the Pragmatic want to antagonize half of the realm and jeopardize the reconciliation by issuing controversial decrees that would benefit no one but the memory of dead people?

They wouldn't antagonize half the Realm. The Greens were done, they abandoned Aegon II almost to a man. Even a fervent Green like Tyland Lannister became a stalwart follower of Aegon III, going as far as to actually imprison the Dowager Queen Alicent.

I also see no textual evidence of any sort that the existing factionalism and enmity at the end of the Dance had anything to do with personal loyalty to Aegon II. Rather, it seems, the fighting itself had created deep wounds and hatred between certain people, but there is actually no sign that the Westerosi were as passionate about this Blacks vs. Greens thing as certain people in the fandom are.

Also, it seems quite clear that Aegon III and Viserys II both will be forced to push the claim they inherited from their mother, the true queen, when their rule is challenged by the fake Daerons and, especially, Aemond's son.

I mean, do you actually think Aegon III will be able to dismiss those pretenders by reiterating that his uncle Aegon II was strong-armed into accepting his as heir by Corys Velaryon at a time when both Corlys and Queen Jaehaera - whose claim certainly did strengthen Aegon's own - were long dead?

As per the Green view both Daeron the Daring and Aemond's son would come before Aegon III ... and considering Aegon's personality most of the Realm would likely think even a fake Daeron and a bastard prince were better suited for the throne than Aegon the Broken.

So if Aegon III and Viserys didn't reiterate the claim of their mother, the memory of their parents and their half-brothers who died in the fighting to call upon the support of their old allies we can assume that Rhaenyra's sons would have not prevailed.

(We can, of course, assume that they were also supported by some former Greens - Lyonel Hightower and Alyn Velaryon are already good friends at the end of FaB, and the bond should only deepen once Rhaena marries Lyonel's brother Garmund. But there should be other former Greens who will throw in with the Daerons and Aemond's son.)

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Such historians and singers would find it difficult to find patrons in half the households of the realms. A traveling bard that was crossing the Reach would have a hard time remembering where it is opportune to sing about the evil Hightowers and their depraved machinations. Even if was visiting court, I wonder if anyone would consider convenient to sing in front of Tyland Lannister and Willam Stackspear about the great victory at the Fishfeed, in front of Lord Manfryd about of the cowardly betrayal of the Mootons, or Lord Commander Marston Waters vile treasonous acts at the fall of Dragonstone.

Who said anything on celebrating the partisans of Rhaenyra? We are talking the Targaryen dynasty, which means Rhaenyra and Aegon II and their immediate family. The bad Hightowers would be Otto and Alicent, in any case, and their reputation is pretty black centuries later. Otto is viewed as a very bad Hand, and Alicent died a prisoner.

And to be sure - we don't talk to fucked-up regency era where Aegon III kept his mouth shut and Viserys and Baela and Rhaena also didn't speak their minds openly all that much. The time to suck up to Rhaenyra's sons would have been once they ruled the Realm in their own right.

For decades patronage and favors would come from the hands and lips of Aegon III and Viserys II and their sons, and that would encompass all the Realm, singers and maesters and septons as well as lords and knights.

Whereas Aegon II had no descendants. There was nobody who would want to honor his memory or pay singers and maesters and septons to paint a favorable picture of him.

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I'd say that most sensible singers would prefer to sing about Jonquil, Florian the Fool and Symeon Star-eyes.

We know there are songs about the Dance.

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

This pattern is not unusual in countries that are trying to get over a civil war.

We see how kings who lost civil wars and did horrific deeds were destroyed by later historiography - think of Richard III and Edward II. Rhaenyra lost, too, but her sons prevailed, so she should not have suffered the fate she did. But Aegon II and his entire family should have, because they lost everything.

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

If Daemon Blackfyre's maternal line was not used as a selling point, and his supporters preferred to stress other factors when defending his ascension, is precisely because the idea that women and his descendants were excluded from the line of succession had already sunk in. Or in other words, because Rhaenyra was seen as an illegitimate queen.

I don't think so. I mean, Daemon Blackfyre is first and foremost a legitimized bastard. What ennobles him is the great favor shown to him by the king his father, not his descent from a slutty princess who apparently died early. Perhaps Daemon's double Targaryen ancestry helped him have such prominent Valyrian looks ... but not anything else.

No Blackfyre partisan would bother with defiant Daena's claim since stressing that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the kingship of both Viserys II and Aegon IV ... the very kings who need to be for Daemon to be the son of a king.

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Once Viserys II came to the throne, he and his descendants would be very interesting in promoting that line of thought.

We have to wait and see how Viserys II comes into his throne. I'm expecting that this tale will be rewritten/put into a different context, since there is simply no chance that childless Baelor did not name an heir. And if he did name an heir, then the succession in 171 AC would have been rock-solid. Viserys would be Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone since Baelor's early reign, being named shortly after the king set aside his sister-wife and took a septon's vows to close the door on marriage for good.

Baelor's sisters were half-criminals, imprisoned throughout the reign of their royal brother, with Daena becoming a slut who gave birth to a bastard. Even if it made sense that Baelor would at the same time imprison his sisters as if they were criminals while also entertaining that any of them could succeed him - which actually makes no sense at all - then the notion that a royal princess who gave birth to a bastard could actually succeed the throne as the heiress of pious Baelor is completely outlandish. That would never happen. At best folks might consider Septa Rhaena and Princess Elaena as potential queens. But since Baelor imprisoned them as well, there is no chance that he ever thought they could succeed him. And with the girls being imprisoned they would have no party of their own, no friends among the lords, no husbands or in-laws who could take up arms to defend their claims.

I'm actually expecting that Baelor's succession will have to do literally nothing with the outcome of the Dance, and everything with Baelor's own issues with women and his sisters specifically. There could be still be some friction there between Baelor and Viserys over the conduct of Viserys' wastrel son Aegon, but Daeron may have been pretty close to his cousin Baelor - naming his eldest son after him, honoring Baelor together with Prince Maron after the union was complete, possibly even financing the creation of the huge statue of Baelor the Blessed in front of the Great Sept, etc. - that the prospect that Daeron might one day rule as King Daeron II might have been the deciding factor there.

(And I also still like that idea that Viserys II - and possibly Baelor as well - intended for Aegon to be passed over in the succession, with crown passing from Viserys II directly to Daeron II, and this triggering the murder of Viserys II if Aegon was truly behind his death.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, frenin said:

I find this argument plausible but hard to explain.

The War of the 5 Kings, the Blackfyre Rebellions, the Robellion... Were all terrible civil wars that left the country scarred but in all of them there is a party that clearly considers itself the righful one (Eustace's speech) and is seen publicly as the rightful side.

Why this didn't happen in the Dance is just convenience since the Greens were defeated so badly, and no the Hightowers are not a excuse, the Tyrells and the Martells could have done far more harm than Lyonel Hightower ever could and they still kissed Robert's ass and publicly at least cursed the Targaryens.

Ditto with the Blackfyre supporters, they were branded as traitors. Half the country fought for the Targaryens or the Blackfyres, that did not stop the winning side to lionize themselves... Yet this does not happen in the Dance for reasons known only to Martin.

What makes the Greens so necessary to appease? What did they have that made the Blacks unable to ignore, sideline them as it happened in every other rebellion... It's not like they were even vital for the new regime a la Mace and Tywin.

Even Renly, who was partially rehabilitated, is still said to have repented for his treason and aided the legitimate king against his usurping brother.

Had the Blacks opted for complete extermination of their opponents, at the end of the War, there was nothing to stop them.  They had won completely.

Complete extermination was never an option for Robert, as the power of the Reach was far too great, and Dorne was far too inaccessible.

So, as you say, it’s strange that Robert should win the propaganda battle (although a Targaryen restoration may make that a temporary victory) but the Blacks did not.

Hence my reference to the Lost Cause, upthread, where the losers had success in persuading others that they were righteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

Hence my reference to the Lost Cause, upthread, where the losers had success in persuading others that they were righteous.

The more you think about, the less sense the idea that in-universe history would erase Rhaenyra's queenship/short rule makes.

Even the idea that people would actually use the Dance as a precedent against female inheritance is kind of weird. Rhaenyra may have been killed, but her cause and bloodline were vindicated by Aegon III's coronation.

The outcome shouldn't have been that women shouldn't rule ... but that they actually can rule because subsequent kings of House Targaryen are now Rhaenyra's descendants.

It makes no sense that Aegon III and Viserys II would downplay the claim of their mother. They only ever sat the Iron Throne because of Rhaenyra. If she hadn't been named heir, if there hadn't been a war fought to push through her claim Aegon and Viserys would have disappeared into obscurity.

Aegon III isn't crowned because he is the last Targaryen left alive ... but because his side won. If they had lost and Aegon II had died somehow, Aegon the Younger would have been killed, and Jaehaera would have succeeded her father as queen.

And immediately after the Dance Aegon III's own heirs are his half-sisters because they are literally the only Targaryens left. The regents can't agree who should be named heir, but that doesn't change the fact that one of them would have been crowned queen had Aegon III died prematurely.

What one can see happening is that Aegon II is viewed as the more legitimate monarch because he was crowned first and prevailed against Rhaenyra ... he would be viewed as a successful usurper like Maegor in this regard. But later, after the rise of Aegon III, everybody would downplay Aegon II's kingship, painting it as an abberation and usurpation

But he was also deposed and restored, so of course history would never claimed he reigned from 129-131 AC but rather throughout 129 AC to be deposed early in 130 AC, to only be restored at the very end of that same year.

All the books claiming that Aegon II reigned and/or ruled from 129-131 AC are factually incorrect and misleading. That simply isn't the case. Aegon II isn't Joff or Tommen - kings who faced a lot of rebellions and opposition and never actually properly ruled all of the Seven Kingdoms in a meaningful sense. But they at least kept the Iron Throne until they died/so far. Aegon II lost it early in 130 AC. At that point his reign ended for the time being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon III isn't crowned because he is the last Targaryen left alive ... but because his side won. If they had lost and Aegon II had died somehow, Aegon the Younger would have been killed, and Jaehaera would have succeeded her father as queen.

Didn't the Greens support agnatic primogeniture, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Didn't the Greens support agnatic primogeniture, though?

Depends who you ask. There may have been some people in their camp who went with the 'iron precedent' interpretation of the Great Council ... but Otto clearly wasn't one of those, no? The Greens were mostly about sons should come before daughters.

In the end Aegon II's only remaining heir (to his knowledge - he deems Daeron dead and doesn't know anything about his nephew by Aemond) is his daughter Jaehaera. She is the one Aegon II and Alicent want as the king's heir. They only accept Aegon the Younger to placate Corlys who they intend to get of as soon as they no longer need him ... along with Aegon the Younger.

It is pretty obvious that if the Greens had won on the Kingsroad - and had also magically defeated or forced the submission of the Northmen and the Vale armies - that Aegon II would have dissolved his daughter's betrothal to his attainted traitor scum nephew, naming her his sole heir (until he had a new son of his own if he could still father children).

It is supposed to be ironic that Aegon II's only remaining heir is a daughter, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But he was also deposed and restored, so of course history would never claimed he reigned from 129-131 AC but rather throughout 129 AC to be deposed early in 130 AC, to only be restored at the very end of that same year.

And we've arrived at the true reason Rhaenyra is not recognized - Martin is determined never to specify months or "moon turns."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DMC said:

And we've arrived at the true reason Rhaenyra is not recognized - Martin is determined never to specify months or "moon turns."

Well, he came up with the first or second day of the first, second, etc. moon of this or that year for his 'precise dates' for births or deaths, so that is no excuse.

But you could just as easily fly with chronology covering years only:

Viserys I (103-129 AC)

Aegon II (deposed) (129-130 AC)

Rhaenyra (130 AC)

Aegon II (restored) (130-131 AC)

The reader would immediately realized that Rhaenyra's reign fits into the 'two terms' of the reign of Aegon II.

But thinking about this George may have moved the fall of KL into the first days of 130 AC to avoid deposing Aegon II in 129 AC. That was a late change in the FaB manuscript.

Edited by Lord Varys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, he came up with the first or second day of the first, second, etc. moon of this or that year for his 'precise dates' for births or deaths, so that is no excuse.

It was a joke.  C'mon, smile!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...