[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Some insights into HOTD and ROP’s viewership:

https://variety.com/2022/streaming/news/house-of-the-dragon-rings-of-power-streaming-ratings-1235429705/

So only 35% of HotD's viewers were 18-34. 

We've speculated before that HOTD's audience is skewing older which is why it doesn't have the same online presence as GoT did. It seems like it was indeed the case.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy

[Ran]

16 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

We've speculated before that HOTD's audience is skewing older which is why it doesn't have the same online presence as GoT did. It seems like it was indeed the case.

The season 7 premiere had a 36.7% viewership of 18-34s. I think that's a pretty marginal difference, so I suspect the idea that its online presence is less than that of GoT has a lot more to do with it being the first season of the show. It certainly appears to have more presence than comparable, new genre shows right now, just based on search trends.

ETA: Season 5's premiere had a 33% 18-34 viewership.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Ran

[The Bard of Banefort]

I don’t think search trends have quite the same effect that social media engagement does. The only thing they really have in common is that they’re both online. That said, plenty of people in their 30s and 40s use social media (especially the “media journalists” who are getting grayer every day).

I always wondered why the Google trends for GOT were still high, since you presumably don’t need to keep googling it once you have a video link. Then it occurred to me that a lot of people are probably consulting the wiki while they watch to help keep track of all the characters haha.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

It is important to remember when discussing the topic of why Aegon II was allowed to be viewed as rightful king in the history books is the Dance is based mainly off of ”The Anarchy” and Henry II for a variety of reasons let the history books list Stephen as the rightful ruler over his mother. So the reasons Henry let that happen (not reopening old wounds and her bloodline ended up ruling anyway so she’s the real winner) are likely the same reasons for Aegon III letting his his uncle get listed over his mom

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

It is important to remember when discussing the topic of why Aegon II was allowed to be viewed as rightful king in the history books is the Dance is based mainly off of ”The Anarchy” and Henry II for a variety of reasons let the history books list Stephen as the rightful ruler over his mother. So the reasons Henry let that happen (not reopening old wounds and her bloodline ended up ruling anyway so she’s the real winner) are likely the same reasons for Aegon III letting his his uncle get listed over his mom

As has been repeatedly said here, the difference here is that King Stephen was never formally deposed, just as Empress Matilda was never properly crowned Queen of England/the English. Hence, Henry II could certainly view his mother as the rightful monarch, the queen who should have been, the queen from who he himself drew his claim ... but neither he nor his supporters could actually claim that Matilda was ever crowned or ever properly ruled over England. Nobody could force the public or history to count Matilda as an English queen when she was neither properly crowned nor ever properly ruled.

Rhaenyra-Aegon II are different not only because Rhaenyra was crowned, but also because Aegon II was actually deposed and replaced by Rhaenyra for a time. She didn't just say she was queen, she actually ruled as queen, sitting the Iron Throne, with her sons Joffrey and Aegon at her side.

Most importantly, though, Aegon III was crowned because his loyalists defeated Aegon II in the field, were about to take the capital, causing Aegon II's own court to turn against the king, murder him, so they could crown Aegon III and save their necks.

Stephen-Henry II came to a peaceful understanding that the crown would pass from Stephen to Henry upon Stephen's death. Stephen wasn't defeated and murdered the way Aegon II was.

Stephen-Matilda are also different in the sense that for most of his reign Stephen's reign was actually broadly acknowledged by the English people, whilst Matilda was not (unlike with Normandy which passed Matilda and her husband when they conquered it), whereas Aegon II was never more of a king than Rhaenyra was a queen ... possibly even less so, if you consider who actually declared for Rhaenyra and supported her and who stood with Aegon II.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

As has been repeatedly said here, the difference here is that King Stephen was never formally deposed, just as Empress Matilda was never properly crowned Queen of England/the English. Hence, Henry II could certainly view his mother as the rightful monarch, the queen who should have been, the queen from who he himself drew his claim ... but neither he nor his supporters could actually claim that Matilda was ever crowned or ever properly ruled over England. Nobody could force the public or history to count Matilda as an English queen when she was neither properly crowned nor ever properly ruled.

Rhaenyra-Aegon II are different not only because Rhaenyra was crowned, but also because Aegon II was actually deposed and replaced by Rhaenyra for a time. She didn't just say she was queen, she actually ruled as queen, sitting the Iron Throne, with her sons Joffrey and Aegon at her side.

Most importantly, though, Aegon III was crowned because his loyalists defeated Aegon II in the field, were about to take the capital, causing Aegon II's own court to turn against the king, murder him, so they could crown Aegon III and save their necks.

Stephen-Henry II came to a peaceful understanding that the crown would pass from Stephen to Henry upon Stephen's death. Stephen wasn't defeated and murdered the way Aegon II was.

Stephen-Matilda are also different in the sense that for most of his reign Stephen's reign was actually broadly acknowledged by the English people, whilst Matilda was not (unlike with Normandy which passed Matilda and her husband when they conquered it), whereas Aegon II was never more of a king than Rhaenyra was a queen ... possibly even less so, if you consider who actually declared for Rhaenyra and supported her and who stood with Aegon II.

It is true that there are key differences between the two (Henry II probably didn’t feel the same about Stephen that Aegon III feels Aegon II considering Stephen didn’t murder Matilda in front of Henry lol) but the grander point does stand that for Aegon III/Henry II it was politically convenient to let sleeping dogs lie on this issue

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

It is true that there are key differences between the two (Henry II probably didn’t feel the same about Stephen that Aegon III feels Aegon II considering Stephen didn’t murder Matilda in front of Henry lol) but the grander point does stand that for Aegon III/Henry II it was politically convenient to let sleeping dogs lie on this issue

In what way convenient? Aegon III must have hated his evil uncle, he defended his late mother to the last, and he ascended the throne over the dead body of his uncle, after that uncle had suffered a crushing defeat in the field and was left with effectively no supporters whatsoever.

Everybody would have fallen over themselves to forget 'the reign' of Aegon the Dead, and for Aegon III and Viserys it would have been more than just inconvenient to forget the queenship of their martyred mother.

And as I said - it seems the sleeping dogs will be wide awake during Aegon III's reign. Those fake Daerons are likely to rebel during his reign, just as his reign is going to see the end of Alys Rivers and Aemond's son - who most likely will be more severe challengers to his rule, especially if they have a dragon of their own.

It makes no sense that the Broken King and his followers are not going the strengthen his claim by pointing out that he is the son of Queen Rhaenyra to counter the stronger claims (if you go by male line) of the Daerons and Aemond's son. If Aegon III's government would want to defend his claim by highlighting that he is Daemon's son or Aegon II's 'chosen heir' then everything should go down the toilet. Daeron the Daring and Aemond's son would both have much stronger claims compared to that. After all, Queen Jaehaera is long gone, so Aegon III cannot use her claim to strengthen his own.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In what way convenient? Aegon III must have hated his evil uncle, he defended his late mother to the last, and he ascended the throne over the dead body of his uncle, after that uncle had suffered a crushing defeat in the field and was left with effectively no supporters whatsoever.

Everybody would have fallen over themselves to forget 'the reign' of Aegon the Dead, and for Aegon III and Viserys it would have been more than just inconvenient to forget the queenship of their martyred mother.

And as I said - it seems the sleeping dogs will be wide awake during Aegon III's reign. Those fake Daerons are likely to rebel during his reign, just as his reign is going to see the end of Alys Rivers and Aemond's son - who most likely will be more severe challengers to his rule, especially if they have a dragon of their own.

It makes no sense that the Broken King and his followers are not going the strengthen his claim by pointing out that he is the son of Queen Rhaenyra to counter the stronger claims (if you go by male line) of the Daerons and Aemond's son. If Aegon III's government would want to defend his claim by highlighting that he is Daemon's son or Aegon II's 'chosen heir' then everything should go down the toilet. Daeron the Daring and Aemond's son would both have much stronger claims compared to that. After all, Queen Jaehaera is long gone, so Aegon III cannot use her claim to strengthen his own.

The biggest political convenience is that there were powerful people/houses who’s support Aegon III needed throughout that at one point or another supported Aegon II so declaring II a usurper and by extension those people and houses traitors would make things awkward 

[The Bard of Banefort]

Now that I think about it, will they be able to release Dunk and Egg before HOTD is finished? Even if they alternate years, it would probably be confusing for a lot of people, since they both concern Targaryens at different points in the timeline. 
 

Speaking of confusions, the one big misconception I’ve seen among show-only fans is that a lot of them think Rhaenys is Viserys’ older sister, not his cousin. I think the explanation that Rhaenys was the cousin with the better claim may have gone over many people’s heads, especially since the rules of inheritance is a foreign concept for many of us.

Edited November 14, 2022 by The Bard of Banefort

[Lord Varys]

46 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

The biggest political convenience is that there were powerful people/houses who’s support Aegon III needed throughout that at one point or another supported Aegon II so declaring II a usurper and by extension those people and houses traitors would make things awkward 

But that's the thing - he didn't need any Greens nor did he get much from them throughout the Regency era (or they from him - Tyland even refused the Lannisters aid against the Ironborn). Chances that the Black houses will turn against him during his own reign are pretty slim, too, nor will the Lannisters or Hightowers turn against him now that (1) Alyn Velaryon's fleet has helped Johanna Lannister enact her vengeance against the Ironborn, and (2) Rhaena Targaryen is going to marry Garmund Hightower (not to mention that Alyn Velaryon and Lyonel Hightower are already close friends).

But as has been pointed out repeatedly ... the issue is not so much that Aegon III and his successors should have erased Aegon II's kingship. Rather they should (and likely would) have put Rhaenyra at his side as a queen whose claim was equally strong, so that the question who 'the true monarch' was couldn't be answered conclusively.

Although they would all be of the opinion that Rhaenyra was the rightful queen since she was named heir by King Viserys I and she was the person from whom they all inherited their claim.

In that sense, official chronicles should duly mention Aegon II as successor to Viserys I (through usurpation), Rhaenyra as successor of Aegon II after she deposed him, Aegon II as successor of Rhaenyra after he was restored to the throne after her death, and Aegon III as successor of Aegon II after Aegon II was murdered in the wake of his final defeat in the field.

[frenin]

10 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

but the grander point does stand that for Aegon III/Henry II it was politically convenient to let sleeping dogs lie on this issue

It was not tho. 

Or at least no more convenient than say Daeron the Good blackening all the Blackfyre supporters' reputation.

There are glaring differences between the Anarchy and the Dance. 

9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Speaking of confusions, the one big misconception I’ve seen among show-only fans is that a lot of them think Rhaenys is Viserys’ older sister, not his cousin. I think the explanation that Rhaenys was the cousin with the better claim may have gone over many people’s heads, especially since the rules of inheritance is a foreign concept for many of us.

Viserys and Rhaenys call each other "cousins" plenty of times in the show. It's a matter of attention.

 

10 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

The biggest political convenience is that there were powerful people/houses who’s support Aegon III needed throughout that at one point or another supported Aegon II so declaring II a usurper and by extension those people and houses traitors would make things awkward 

Again, this is not different than the rest of civil wars in Westeros's history. That's what pardons are for.

[DMC]

wrong thread

Edited November 14, 2022 by DMC

[DMC]

On 11/13/2022 at 1:32 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Some insights into HOTD and ROP’s viewership:

https://variety.com/2022/streaming/news/house-of-the-dragon-rings-of-power-streaming-ratings-1235429705/

ROP's U-curve over time looks pretty standard.  HotD's initial bump up a couple weeks in suggests the bad taste of Season 8 did still hurt them at first and it took some "word of mouth" to get viewers on the fence.

[ShadowKitteh]

On 11/9/2022 at 7:45 AM, Ran said:

the idea that because Rhaenyra sat the throne a few months she was now actually queen is just something that doesn't make sense to me.

Why should time-served matter? It still happened in the story. 

Considering the story is based on the wars of the roses… Edward V, one of the famous Princes in the Tower who was never anointed and mysteriously disappeared causing Richard of Gloucester to proclaim himself King Richard III, is definitely counted as one of England’s Kings and why Henry VIII was succeeded by his son Edward VI instead of Edward V.

Jane Grey who was Edward VI’s chosen heir on his deathbed because he didn’t want Mary to bring Catholicism back to England, ruled for only nine days, and whose rule was, “disputed” is still acknowledged as the Nine Days Queen.

Henry VI, who was deposed by Edward IV, then was briefly reinstalled on the throne for a few months before being re-deposed by Edward IV, is the closest parallel to Rhaenyra and Aegon II.

Rhaenyra wasn’t some scullery maid who wandered into the throne room one day and decided to have a seat. She was Viserys’s chosen heir who every lord of the Seven Kingdoms swore fealty to, and she actually ruled and made decisions, etc, which is more than Edward V and Jane Grey got to do.

William Henry Harrison died 32 days after being sworn and is still acknowledged as being the 9th President of the United States. 

[Ran]

7 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Considering the story is based on the wars of the roses…

ASoIaF is based on the Wars of the Roses, the Dance is based on the Anarchy. Neither Aegon not Viserys are seen as kings, though, following the death of Aerys.

In England, one or the other became king instantly on the death of Aerys, and then were deposed and attainted when Robert was crowned. But that's not what happens in Westeros.

Instead, what seems to happen it's that there cannot be more than one person seated in the Iron Throne and claiming a crown. Nobody succeeded Aerys until Aerys was dead, and then the throne was vacant and it was taken by Robert. When Maekar died, no one instantly ascended to the throne -- it was empty until the Great Council decided. 

But someone did succeed Viserys I: Aegon II, and he remained king until his death because only death can unmake a king. His successor was Aegon III, his nephew. His sister attempted to claim his seat and domain, but he yet lived, anointed by the gods, etc. Rhaenyra was no more Queen of the Seven Kingdoms by occupying the Red Keep and sitting the Iron Throne than Trystane Truefyre was King of the Seven Kingdoms when she abandoned it.

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Ran

[The hairy bear]

On 11/14/2022 at 4:40 AM, Lord Varys said:

for Aegon III and Viserys it would have been more than just inconvenient to forget the queenship of their martyred mother.

Rhaenyra had fled from King's Landing in the midst of a widespread revolt against her, she was seen as a cruel and capricious ruler, and even within the black camp she had antagonized many original supporters (Corlys had been thrown in the black cells, Alyn Velaryon had reason to blame her for the death of his brother, she had executed lords Rosby and Stokeworth, she was not welcomed at Duskendale, etc.).

Why would Aegon III or Viserys want to be associated with her? She wasn't someone who was fondly remembered anywhere in the realm!

On 11/14/2022 at 4:40 AM, Lord Varys said:

It makes no sense that the Broken King and his followers are not going the strengthen his claim by pointing out that he is the son of Queen Rhaenyra to counter the stronger claims (if you go by male line) of the Daerons and Aemond's son. If Aegon III's government would want to defend his claim by highlighting that he is Daemon's son or Aegon II's 'chosen heir' then everything should go down the toilet. Daeron the Daring and Aemond's son would both have much stronger claims compared to that.

Nope. Daeron the Daring or Aemond's son would be unlegitimazed bastards, and of uncertain paternity at that. Aegon III remains Jaehaerys I's indisputable heir. Either through female line (Rhaenyra), or trough male line (through Daemon).

On 11/14/2022 at 5:42 AM, Lord Varys said:

Although they would all be of the opinion that Rhaenyra was the rightful queen since she was named heir by King Viserys I and she was the person from whom they all inherited their claim.

Aegon III and his successors inherit their claim from BOTH Rhaenyra and Aegon II. We have absolutely no basis to assume the later Targaryen monarchs thought that Rhaenyra had been the rightful ruler.

On 11/14/2022 at 3:51 AM, Lord Varys said:

As has been repeatedly said here, the difference here is that King Stephen was never formally deposed, just as Empress Matilda was never properly crowned Queen of England/the English.

It has also been repeatedly counterargued that other English kings are counted as kings without having been crowned, and most importantly, that if Henry II had really wanted to have her mother listed in the official lists and Stephen of Blois relegated to an usurper, he could have done it (or at least try it). But once he got the throne he obviously had other priorities, and whatever political capital he had he would want to put into more useful and controversial uses.

Additionaly, I don't see how a hastily arranged private ceremony at a local sept, attended by a handful of regional lords, qualifies as being "properly crowned". Would historians consider Matilda a ruling queen of England if she and her husband had organized a crowning performance at Normandy?

Edited November 15, 2022 by The hairy bear

[frenin]

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Why would Aegon III or Viserys want to be associated with her? She wasn't someone who was fondly remembered anywhere in the realm!

Who does remember fondly Aegon II? His own people refused to aid Borros Baratheon at all.

What advantage does honor Aegon II offer over honoring the woman whose soldiers put you on the throne?

Viserys is a toss up since he was an infant when the war happened but Aegon does remember her fondly.

But the big question here is... Why is the appeasement to the Greens, and especially to such extent,  seen as logical and necessary?

Jaeharys I pardoned the Lords who supported Maegor but he still did everything in his power to blacken Maegor's reputation, not that hard anyway.

 

 

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Would historians consider Matilda a ruling queen of England if she and her husband had organized a crowning performance at Normandy?

Had she ruled? You can bet many historians would have.

Wasn't the treaty he and Stephen had based on both of them acknowledging Stephen as King of England?

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

But someone did succeed Viserys I: Aegon II, and he remained king until his death because only death can unmake a king. His successor was Aegon III, his nephew. His sister attempted to claim his seat and domain, but he yet lived, anointed by the gods, etc. Rhaenyra was no more Queen of the Seven Kingdoms by occupying the Red Keep and sitting the Iron Throne than Trystane Truefyre was King of the Seven Kingdoms when she abandoned it.

That notion reads like bad fan fiction. We know that Westeros knows the concept of abdication and deposition. Rhaegar's whole Great Council idea apparently included the idea that the Mad King could be forced to abdicate or accept a regency government. The word 'abdication' is also used for Prince Duncan giving up his claim to the Iron Throne.

The idea that only death can unmake a king is ludicrous. I mean, you are aware that three kings and one queen bent the knee to Aegon the Conqueror and lived out their lives thereafter as mere lords/lady?

Westeros is a pretty primitive monarchy, where a monarch is made by proclamation and coronation. If you don't have either or both you are not even a pretender to the throne (for instance, Prince Aegon is right now still just Prince Aegon and not King Aegon VI Targaryen because neither he himself nor his coterie of followers nor any other authority has so far proclaimed him king, nor did he have even a modest or private coronation - unlike his uncle, King Viserys III Targaryen, who was crowned with his mother's crown on Dragonstone in the wake of his father's death).

Rhaenyra had all that - and more. She took the Iron Throne and ruled as queen for half a year. She was a proper monarch. Arguments don't change that, and it just makes no sense that historians in-universe would not acknowledge her short reign.

Trystane Truefyre never had a coronation that we are aware of, but more importantly - he was never acknowledged as king by more than his ragged band of followers. Rhaenyra was acknowledged as queen by about as many people as recognized Aegon II as their king, possibly by more.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Rhaenyra had fled from King's Landing in the midst of a widespread revolt against her, she was seen as a cruel and capricious ruler, and even within the black camp she had antagonized many original supporters (Corlys had been thrown in the black cells, Alyn Velaryon had reason to blame her for the death of his brother, she had executed lords Rosby and Stokeworth, she was not welcomed at Duskendale, etc.).

How is this relevant when we discuss whether she ruled as queen or not? Maegor and Aegon II fared much worse at the end of their particular reigns, yet nobody ever said that they didn't properly rule.

And you are stretching things there - Alyn Velaryon celebrated his brother Addam with the epitaph 'LOYAL' on his grave, did he not? Who do you think he was loyal to? Rhaenyra Targaryen, of course. He died for her cause, and if Alyn celebrates this loyalty it tells us who he himself was loyal to, no?

Also, the levies from Stokeworth and Rosby abandoned Aegon II on the Kingsroad, did they not, whilst the knights from Duskendale defected to the Blacks who fought under Rhaenyra's banner.

And in general - who the hell cares about the feelings of lesser lords? We talk about the king's mother here.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Why would Aegon III or Viserys want to be associated with her? She wasn't someone who was fondly remembered anywhere in the realm!

That seems to be a monstrous exaggeration on your part. Rhaenyra's memory was so strong, apparently, that the Lads, the Northmen, and the Vale marshaled their troops to destroy Aegon II ... who himself was so 'popular' that his leal followers had to offer nothing but excuses before and after he was murdered.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Nope. Daeron the Daring or Aemond's son would be unlegitimazed bastards, and of uncertain paternity at that. Aegon III remains Jaehaerys I's indisputable heir. Either through female line (Rhaenyra), or trough male line (through Daemon).

Daeron the Daring was the son of King Viserys I - by agnatic primogeniture he comes before any sons Rhaenyra and Daemon may have had. Of course, the Daerons would have to prove that they were who they said they were - but we would assume that those people weren't just village fair pretenders. We assume that they were able to convince crucial lords that they actually were Daeron the Daring, gathering a following, etc. so that the king had to march against them, capture them, and then persuade (or torture) them to admit that they were fake. That would be how it was 'proven' that they were liars.

And to be clear - it is still possible that George makes one of those Daerons the real deal - or so convincing a guy that folks cannot really say if he was a liar or not.

If Aemond's son actually has a dragon he will have much more legitimacy than the broken boy on the throne. Alys' son is basically the first iteration of Jon Snow - whose father, Aemond, was conveniently not married when he fell in with Alys Rivers. Alys' claim that they married is hardly outlandish.

And all those people in the Realm who apparently hated Rhaenyra would prefer Aemond's son over Rhaenyra's broken brat - who seems to have been more unpopular as a boy than Rhaenyra ever was. She at least inspired loyalty in her kin and court ... but Aegon III cannot even do that.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Aegon III and his successors inherit their claim from BOTH Rhaenyra and Aegon II. We have absolutely no basis to assume the later Targaryen monarchs thought that Rhaenyra had been the rightful ruler.

They would think along those lines, though, since Rhaenyra's and Daemon's branch of the family was their own branch as well. If your great-grandparents were Rhaenyra and Daemon then your preferred side in the struggle they had with your long dead cousins would be theirs ... because they are your ancestors, the people who had to exist so you could come to be.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

It has also been repeatedly counterargued that other English kings are counted as kings without having been crowned, and most importantly, that if Henry II had really wanted to have her mother listed in the official lists and Stephen of Blois relegated to an usurper, he could have done it (or at least try it). But once he got the throne he obviously had other priorities, and whatever political capital he had he would want to put into more useful and controversial uses.

I'm not expert on the matter, but to my knowledge there is no 'official list' of English medieval kings which is run by the English Crown. Various historians decided that Matilda is not counted as a queen, and on the basis of the fact that back then a coronation was actually necessary to create a monarch - which changed in later days, of course. Charles III is the British monarch from the moment Elizabeth II breathed her last. He will still be crowned next year - and that is signficant symbolically - but it is no longer a necessary act to establish his kingship.

Back in the 12th century this king of thing still was very much necessary, though. And to our knowledge Matilda actually never styled herself 'Queen of England/the English'. History recognizes her 'the Lady of English' because that's the title we know she used.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Additionaly, I don't see how a hastily arranged private ceremony at a local sept, attended by a handful of regional lords, qualifies as being "properly crowned". Would historians consider Matilda a ruling queen of England if she and her husband had organized a crowning performance at Normandy?

It is not the coronation. Rhaenyra being crowned on Dragonstone doesn't make her queen, her taking the Iron Throne and ruling the Seven Kingdoms for half a year does. More so, of course, the deposition/effective abdication of Aegon II during Rhaenyra's reign. Nobody said we should reckon Rhaenyra's reign lasted from her coronation on Dragonstone until her death in 130 AC. Rather, her reign and queenship effectively lasted the half year she sat on the Iron Throne. And during that time Aegon II was most definitely not the king.

The idea that Aegon II remained king while he hid in the middle of nowhere is ludicrous. He gave up his throne, just as Rhaenyra did when she fled the city. Rhaenyra is queen in part by virtue of Aegon II giving up the throne. We could say it was different if Aegon II had made a tactical retreat at the head of an army, had continue to try to exert his kingship at some other place in the Realm. But he didn't. He ran away and hid.

There is no chance that any serious in-universe historian would claim that Aegon II reigned from 129-131 AC without interruption.

[Ran]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know that Westeros knows the concept of abdication and deposition. Rhaegar's whole Great Council idea apparently included the idea that the Mad King could be forced to abdicate or accept a regency government. The word 'abdication' is also used for Prince Duncan giving up his claim to the Iron Throne.

Yes, yes, abdication, swearing vows of the Night's Watch also removes the crown. But Aegon II did not abdicate, and no Great Council has decided that Aegon II should be deposed, nor ever would. Only death ended Aegon II's occupancy of the Iron Throne, and only death ever would as he wasn't going to join the Night's Watch or abdicate or be deposed by the Great Council. Rhaegar's theories are just that -- a theory, because it never came to pass, and nothing like it ever has in the Seven Kingdoms.

He might have been deposed by the Blacks, but they failed to do that, and regardless, to be deposed means he was king. To abdicate also means he was king. Rhaenyra could never be considered a proper queen because there was already a king, a king who had not been deposed, who had not abdicated, who was still alive. Possession of the Iron Throne matters about as much as possession of the crown or the sword -- they are symbols, but they are not the realm. But, as I've shown, the consistent principle seems to be that the first to be crowned and sit the Iron Throne is the person who the history records as a king. Joffrey and Tommen are the successors of Robert, and whoever gets rid of the Lannisters and mounts the throne next will be listed as the next ruler. 

Quote

Trystane Truefyre never had a coronation that we are aware of, but more importantly - he was never acknowledged as king by more than his ragged band of followers. Rhaenyra was acknowledged as queen by about as many people as recognized Aegon II as their king, possibly by more.

Per F&B, Ser Perkin the Flea crowned him, and then had witnesses watch as he mounted the Iron Throne. That's about as much a proper coronation as Rhaenyra's own, from what we know, since in both of her coronations the role of the Faith goes unmentioned.

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Ran

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Yes, yes, abdication, swearing vows of the Night's Watch also removes the crown. But Aegon II did not abdicate, and no Great Council has decided that Aegon II should be deposed, nor ever would. Only death ended Aegon II's occupancy of the Iron Throne, and only death ever would as he wasn't going to join the Night's Watch or abdicate or be deposed by the Great Council. Rhaegar's theories are just that -- a theory, because it never came to pass, and nothing like it ever has in the Seven Kingdoms.

That is too limiting a view how kingship and reigns/rules are measured. It is not just the ritual of the coronation (or an earlier proclamation) it is, in the end, success.

And George couldn't help himself and made Rhaenyra too damn successful. If he wanted her to not count as a monarch at all he could have kept her ass off the throne. It was his call. I mean, he had to add two sub-titles to the Dance chapter of FaB - Rhaenyra Triumphant and Rhaenyra Overthrown. If she triumphed, she became queen, and if she was overthrown she was overthrown as queen. That's just how it is. Also, the last chapter of The Dying of the Dragons - 'The Short, Sad Reign of Aegon II' sets apart Aegon's post-restoration reign from his earlier reign ... not to mention that it implicitly confirms that Aegon's actual reign was, well, short ... and not in the sense that it lasted only 2+ years but only a couple of months. To maintain the guy reigned throughout the entire Dance just isn't feasible in the light of that.

(I guess George also wants us to take away from the whole thing that Aegon II only kind of came into his own through his painful experiences ... his early reign was more the reign of Alicent and Otto and Criston and Aemond than it was ever the reign of Aegon II. After he was restored he at least made some calls of his own and the final decisions.)

And I think we all never expected Rhaenyra to ever sit the throne prior to the FaB manuscripts. The information we had listed Aegon II as king until the end of the Dance, so it seemed reasonable to assume if she was just a pretender attempting to take the throne that she never actually sat the throne.

That is also what we assume for the other monarchs whose reigns we don't know in exhaustive detail. We don't think any of them were forced to abandon the throne and live under some rock for months or years in the face of some crisis. If a detailed account of the Blackfyre Rebellions were to reveal that Daemon or Haegon Blackfyre toppled Daeron II or Aerys I for a couple of months during those wars it would cause similar problems since the claim that they reigned from 184-209 and 209-221 AC would then be erroneous. The same if one of the fake Daerons or Aemond's son toppled the Broken King for a time.

My argument isn't that Aegon II never was king - it is that Rhaenyra's short reign during the time of Aegon's deposition means she should be seen as a proper monarch, too, and that there is simply no reason why official and unofficial historiography should deny or erase that simple fact. Especially in light of who continued House Targaryen after the Dance.

Westerosi history is not written by the victor to the degree that simple facts of history are denied. Else Maegor's entire kingship would have been erased.

The interpretation that Aegon II 'won' his personal battle with Rhaenyra is fine. That's what happened. But it is childish to assume that he or his followers would insist during the short time of his restoration that (1) Rhaenyra was never the queen when she drove him out of KL and ruled for half a year, or (2) that the victorious Blacks and Rhaenyra's own sons would allow such an interpretation to stand. Their side won. They had the upper hand. They would not back down on that issue.

And it is clear that most of Rhaenyra's laws and acts during her short reign stood - the legitimization of the Hull boys, the Celtigar taxes (which were only revoked by Tyland acting as Hand of Aegon III), the succession of Stokeworth and Rosby, etc. George has Aegon II specifically burn the decrees of the dayfly king Gaemon Palehair, but none of his half-sister's laws and decrees.

Aegon III and Viserys II would have likely even increased the role of their mother if she had been a minor pretender - after all, they only got the throne and continued the main branch of House Targaryen because of her efforts. But the idea that they would just sit idly by while historians and scribes in their employ would erase the actual queenship and reign of their mother is pretty unlikely.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

He might have been deposed by the Blacks, but they failed to do that, and regardless, to be deposed means he was king. To abdicate also means he was king. Rhaenyra could never be considered a proper queen because there was already a king, a king who had not been deposed, who had not abdicated, who was still alive.

They did depose him and Aegon II effectively gave up the crown by running away. If you want to reckon the reigns of these two monarchs then Aegon II's ended when he fled the capital ... and Rhaenyra's ended when she fled it, too. The woman who returned to Dragonstone was no longer a ruling queen, just as Aegon II was no king when he conquered Dragonstone. He was simply a warlord. Aegon II's reign begins again or continues when he is restored to the throne.

And you also have to keep in mind that Aegon's own followers had no idea for months whether he was still alive or not. A king who is presumed dead neither reigns nor rules. He doesn't even pretend to kingship in a meaningful sense. The books seem to be dealing with this condundrum again with Stannis' alleged death - which could lead to the proclamation of a Queen Shireen and to confusion in Stannis' camp who the true monarch if it turns out that Stannis isn't dead.

You can say that Aegon II and Henry VI were both still 'the rightful king' while they were hiding in the middle of nowhere attended by a couple of servants. But that they were actually reigning or ruling at that time you cannot say. And when the rival pretender is toppled or deposed than justice is served and the world is again as it should be ... but this doesn't unmake the fact that the king in question was deposed earlier and had been restored.

Aegon II and Rhaenyra both are effectively like Henry VI and Edward IV during the Wars of the Roses. Both monarchs are properly crowned and anointed but then they are deposed by/in the name of their respective rivals. No history of England pretends neither monarch wasn't deposed and subsequently restored/reinstated ... because that's what happened. And that's what happened during the Dance, too. And that the crucial thing in determining who is a proper monarch is whether they actually ruled or not can also be drawn from the Wars of the Roses - Edward IV's father Richard of York had declared himself king but was captured and killed before he could actually get himself coronated or properly acknowledged - hence he is also not counted among the kings.

The question whether one of the monarchs was 'false' or 'a pretender' has no bearing on the question who actually reigned and ruled the country during that time.

Westeros understands those concepts, else they would have never accepted the reign of Maegor - who all agreed did usurp the throne. Maegor's reign also shows that while having all trappings of legitimacy and power does help, it has little bearing on when you receive them. Maegor was only anointed by the High Septon in 43 AC after he broke the Faith ... yet his reign began with his coronation on Dragonstone.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Possession of the Iron Throne matters about as much as possession of the crown or the sword -- they are symbols, but they are not the realm. But, as I've shown, the consistent principle seems to be that the first to be crowned and sit the Iron Throne is the person who the history records as a king. Joffrey and Tommen are the successors of Robert, and whoever gets rid of the Lannisters and mounts the throne next will be listed as the next ruler. 

I don't think time and date of a coronation matters there. Success matters, and although short term success might be unmade pretty quickly, it would still find its way into the pages of the history books.

If you imagine for a moment that Stannis had won on the Blackwater, taking the throne, but not being able to capture Joffrey, only to be later slain in turn, with the Realm seeing a restoration of a victorious King Joffrey ... then sure as hell people would recognize that Stannis ruled as king for however long the time was he could hold the throne. We would then have two 'terms' for the reign of King Joffrey - before his deposition and thereafter.

The Iron Throne is the crucial symbol of royal legitimacy if we talk the Kings of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men - whoever wants to be that guy has to sit the throne. If he or she doesn't, they are pretenders. That is what the appendices of the main series reflect as well - the Kings on the Iron Throne come first, and they are the true monarchs, regardless of strength of claim or birthright or identity.

It is Maegor's kingship that establishes the importance of the Iron Throne there. It may have been created by the Conqueror and it symbolizes Targaryen kingship - but as a symbol it is so powerful that it also makes kings. Whoever sits on it and has the strength to hold it will (eventually) be seen as the rightful king. We might even see that kind of thing happening in the books if Euron were to ever seize the Iron Throne. We also kind of see it with Robert and also with Cersei's decision to keep the court of King Tommen in KL despite the fact that Casterly Rock is grander and more secure.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Per F&B, Ser Perkin the Flea crowned him, and then had witnesses watch as he mounted the Iron Throne. That's about as much a proper coronation as Rhaenyra's own, from what we know, since in both of her coronations the role of the Faith goes unmentioned.

The role of the Faith regarding both Aegon II and Rhaenyra seems largely irrelevant since Eustace was just a septon, not the High Septon - and we have no reason to believe Rhaenyra was not also anointed by a septon (either her own septon on Dragonstone or Eustace who bend the knee to her after her rise to the throne). If such an anointing was crucial to be seen as a proper monarch then it is pretty obvious Rhaenyra wouldn't have missed it. And we know it somewhat important in light of Cersei's actions in AFfC.

(But I actually don't think the Faith angle matters in the Dance case since the High Septon himself stayed neutral in the entire conflict. The High Septon didn't endorse any pretender, so whatever support individual septons gave Rhaenyra or Aegon wouldn't matter much.)

Trystane becomes the crucial pretender of the dayfly kings because he sits the Iron Throne. But him we can dismiss as a mere pretender because literally no noble house that we know of actually ever recognized him as king. Aside from House Strong, perhaps, and that only for five minutes. Rhaenyra may have had a modest coronation, but having a grand coronation show is no prerequisite to being recognized as monarch - being recognized is. And she was recognized by as many people as Aegon II was, or more.

But I'd say that a truly detailed kings list of the Dance era would look like this:

103-129 AC: Viserys I

129-130 AC: Aegon II (deposed)

130 AC: Rhaenyra (fled)

130 AC: Moon of the Three Kings (Interregum, three competing pretenders)

130-131 AC: Aegon II (restored)

131-157 AC: Aegon III