Four New Cast Members Announced

[Aelwen]

34 minutes ago, Ran said:

And yet people have forgiven the people who have killed family members and loved ones in the real world.

It usually takes some time and effort. Or Aegon was so exhausted that he stopped feeling anything. In that case he wouldn't have sired children too since people with such severe depression rarely have libido either. 

And I find it weird that both boys just forgot their mother. No child named after her, nothing. As if their mother was a criminal or tortured them herself. They were ashamed of her?

Spoiler

Lady Diana was not a saint, but her sons named their daughters after her. 

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Aelwen

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

It think it is, if you don't want to end with a completely different story. An adult Aegon III would have been expected to lead his mother's armies during the Dance. He would have been executed by Aegon II. There would have never been any regency. If the Strong boys had been older they would already be married and with sons, and if they were younger, their bastardy would be a minor issue...

The story never needed any elder siblings for Aegon III nor him being a prisoner of Aegon II. All that was established in the main series is that Aegon III watched Rhaenyra being fed to Aegon II's dragon - which he could have done from afar, atop his own dragon, or some other such scenario. There is, of course, also a scenario imaginable where Aegon II can have Aegon III as prisoner but lack the power to execute him - say, because Aegon III's loyalists have close relatives of his as hostages (his mother, wife, children, siblings). All that could have worked better than what we got.

10 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

A 14 year old boy, sharp or not, definitely has agency. Any 14 year old has fully formed preferences and wishes, and even though Rhaena and Baela took the initiative in the ball, it was ultimately Aegon's decision to choose Daenera.

The regents could have ignored Aegon's choice, but the regents hoped to be in the king's good graces when, in three years, he reached majority. And it's not like they could force Aegon III to say the vows or consumate the marriage.

It may have been his decision. But the way I interpret the entire thing Aegon III was not so much making a choice there but going through with a plan his sisters made with him earlier. They would have been stupid to rush in there with a little girl - regardless how pretty she was - and just hope that their brother, who actually was to marry a woman who could give him children, would pick her.

And, sure, the regents could have forced the king to marry a woman of their choosing - just as royal parents can and do force princes and princesses do the same. Aegon III may have been king, but he was a minor. And he and Jaehaera were most definitely forced to marry each other earlier. Even Joffrey is effectively forced to marry Margaery Tyrell. It is not his choice, he is told what to do by his mother and grandfather.

Also, none of the regents actually act as if they want to be in the good graces of the king later on - especially not Unwin Peake.

10 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Its doubtful, since the Summerhall reports that in the first edition of TWOIAF were attributed to Maester Glyndayn, were later changed to some maester Corso. If George had intended to maintain Glyndayn as the last maester of Summerhall, he wouldn't have corrected a published work.

Oh, didn't know that. I mean, I'm not buying any new edition of TWoIaF that comes out. Can you give me the new quotes there?

10 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

For the sake of nuisance, I'd like that during Robert's youth Maegor and Vaella were still alive and/or they had some descendants. That would muddy the succession a little bit.

Not insofar as the degree of kinship was concerned. Vaella's would have been an obscure passed over and very distant female branch ... and Maegor and his hypothetical children were passed over, too. They could be part of a succession regime, but I very much doubt they would come before any descendants of Aegon V.

10 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't see Aegon III's court as "pretty much black" at all. He dismisses all the regents and the Hand (both greens and blacks), and we have no reason to believe that he favored either side during his rule. Most of the kingsguard was of minor houses (Raskyn, Whithouse, Cobb, Warwick), Isembard Arryn was from a distant branch of the family,... And the very little we know of his reign seem to indicate that he did want to leave the civil war behind (and that wouldn't be possible if you exclude one side from court).

Nah, the regents Aegon III dismisses were guys chosen by lot. They were neither Black nor Green. The Black-and-Green regency council era ended with the Secret Siege and the deposition of Thaddeus Rowan. The leadership of the Kingsguard at the beginning of the Regency era was Green at the top (Willis Fell & Marston Waters) with the other places filled by Blacks. As Fell and others later died, Peake filled them up with his cronies who then also died. Then come new men in, men who are more likely to become Aegon's own men.

Thanks to Unwin Peake, Aegon III is freed from his Green queen and marries a Velaryon (i.e. Black) queen, the ward of Baela and Alyn. As the book closes Aegon III starts to get his own inner circle of loyalists - Viserys, Sandoq the Shadow (who I expect is going to remain at his court even after Larra leaves, perhaps even joining the KG eventually), etc. which, for better or worse, you would call 'Black' since they are loyal to Rhaenyra's son. The lords and houses Aegon III has friendly and close(r) ties with are all Blacks - Tullys, Blackwoods, Starks, Arryns. Prominent Green houses like the Lannisters and Baratheons are out of the game, having no adult leaders for the time being. The Hightowers are the only exception there.

There is no indication he is going to feature any former Greens. In fact, we can expect that former Greens will continue to trouble him both in the business of the fake Daerons (who but former Greens are going to support them?) as well as the conclusion of the story of Alys Rivers and her son. The Dance of the Dragons isn't really over yet, and Aegon III's is not going to be a peaceful reign. He is perceived as a weak and passive king, so he will face challenges left and right. Some might even come from former Blacks he antagonized (Torrhen Manderly) ... but so far we know most of the former Black houses are remarkably loyal to him, personally, whilst the former Greens have effectively no reason to love him at all.

10 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Regardless of how Garmund and Rhaena ended marrying, it's politically very significant that the last dragonrider is married to Lord Ormund's son. And we also see no sign that Aegon III's sons ever intended to favor the old black allies (Elenna marries a Plumm and a Penrose).

Elaena is married off for the first time by Viserys II's son Aegon IV decades later ... and then by Daeron II who might actually marry Elaena to a cousin of theirs (a descendant of Baela or Rhaena).

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

Pretty much this, from what he says at the end of Fire and Blood. He shows no signs of wanting revenge or reprisal on anybody, he just wants to not be bothered, and decides that just being a good ruler will be sufficient.

That's a clear misinterpretation. That's a big 'Fuck you!' to the lords and their silly games - tourneys, chivalry, balls, entertainment, etc. ... but not a statement whether His Grace, the king has forgotten the wrongs done to his mother, his father, his brothers, his sisters, his first wife and queen, his second wife and queen, his friend, Gaemon Palehair, and his own person.

Aegon III clearly isn't the person to start another conflict or war ... but the way he took power shows he also doesn't care about what people think of him. He doesn't mince words or actions, and shows he will no longer caper to the whims of his court now that he is in charge. It is obvious that this kind of attitude won't win him the hearts and minds of his (noble) subjects ... which, in turn, should provide the fake Daerons and Alys Rivers' boy with enough support to launch rebellions and even make a bid for the throne in the future.

Also, of course, Aegon's personality makes it also increasingly unlikely that he'll ever have people around him who had close connections to the people who killed his mother, father, brothers, etc. He had to suffer that thing during the regency era - but events conveniently freed from doing a great purge himself. Like Jaehaerys I was having none of Maegor's KG, an adult Aegon III would never have suffered his person and family being protected by the likes of Willis Fell and Marston Waters.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

And in any case, did Garmund Hightower kill any of Rhaena's kin? Just because he maybe fought on the "Green" side doesn't mean he was a conspirator who was involved in anything dishonorable. People in the real world have ended up on opposite sides of conflicts and then after the conflict is done have become friends, even partners. 

Garmund Hightower was Ormund's youngest son, a page at Highgarden during the Dance. He participated in no fighting.

And if you think about it - pairing the last dragonrider and the king's sister with a thirdborn son of a lord isn't exactly an obvious match. So there might be a story to this - love match, ugly way of Aegon III to get of the dragon sister (if he forced them to live at Oldtown rather than KL or on Dragonstone), or something else. But it strikes one as a very unlikely arranged match considering the age gap and the obscurity of Garmund Hightower.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Aelwen said:

It usually takes some time and effort. Or Aegon was so exhausted that he stopped feeling anything. In that case he would have sired children too since people with such severe depression rarely have libido either. 

And I find it weird that both boys just forgot their mother. No child named after her, nothing. As if their mother was a criminal or tortured them herself. They were ashamed of her?

  Hide contents

Lady Diana was not a saint, but her sons named their daughters after her. 

 

That doesn't make much sense, either. Especially Aegon III was very close to his mother, defending her until the very end. He even owes his crown to her fighting for her cause. People try to come up with explanations for this, but it doesn't make much sense. Like the whole thing that Rhaenyra is not counted as queen when she was crowned and sat the throne, etc. and her sons continued the royal dynasty while the Green branch was completely destroyed.

Rhaenyra is kind of modelled on Empress Matilda - but unlike Rhaenyra she was never crowned queen, so it makes sense that she is not counted as one. But Rhaenyra was and wielded royal power and had her sons succeed her ... so history should at least count Rhaenyra as queen for the brief time she actually reigned and ruled (the six+ months she sat the Iron Throne in 130 AC.

Aegon III and his successors would effectively never encourage anyone to honor the memory of Aegon II and his branch, so the guy should actually disappear into obscurity whilst Rhaenyra would be remembered as a tragic hero or martyr. Her determination is what put the branch of House Targaryen in charge that prevailed.

That nobody ever had a Rhaenyra Targaryen before and after the Rhaenyra we know is also kind of odd. We don't know where the name came from nor why it wasn't ever used afterwards. George still could add another Targaryen girl named Rhaenyra to the family tree in the future - or at least have a Blackfyre woman named Rhaenyra.

[The Bard of Banefort]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaena and Corwyn should be a non-issue in any case, as it clearly is Rhaena Targaryen herself who suggests the guy as her husband. Certainly, we have no coverage of Rhaena's time in the Vale in the book but it is actually possible Rhaena just had a crush on the guy which Corwyn never actually noticed ... and then he was formally asked by the regency council to marry the king's half-sister and he was pleasantly surprised and had no reason to refuse.

Hound-Sansa stuff I always found disgusting - yes, they seem to be very close on an emotional or developmental level, but there is a very unpleasant power imbalance there. And it is really gross that he lusts after her since effectively AGoT. Littlefinger at least has the excuse that the girl looks very much like her mother did in that age. It is thus not him being drawn to a child woman, etc. but another version of the love of his life.

Littlefinger-Sansa is certainly creepy in more traditional predatory context, but always have the feeling that one third of Littlefinger actually respects Sansa. He wants her to learn to be as great a player as he is. Sandor, on the other hand, has nothing to offer to Sansa but self-loathing, a truly ugly face, and rage about the injustices of the shitty world they live in. And I shudder at the thought of them exchanging kisses or having sex. With Littlefinger, I think, there is a chance for Sansa to turn the tables if their 'relationship' ever get more serious. A Littlefinger seduced by Sansa could actually end up as her pawn.

Lol no, Littlefinger does not respect Sansa or want her to become a player. He views her as a possession and is training her to be his perfect woman, including helping him with his schemes when needed. He would never want her to do any scheming on her own. He monologues to her constantly because he’s showing off—he wants her to admire just how brilliant he is for figuring everything out.

As for physical attraction, look, I hope I don’t upset anyone when I say this, but guys really don’t realize how good they have it in this regard. Women will be attracted to anyone. In no world should Pete Davidson have had this many beautiful girlfriends, but lo and behold. And unlike the Hound, Pete isn’t built like a WWE wrestler either.

Edited May 3, 2023 by The Bard of Banefort

[Aelwen]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra is kind of modelled on Empress Matilda - but unlike Rhaenyra she was never crowned queen, so it makes sense that she is not counted as one. But Rhaenyra was and wielded royal power and had her sons succeed her ... so history should at least count Rhaenyra as queen for the brief time she actually reigned and ruled (the six+ months she sat the Iron Throne in 130 AC.

I apologize for my emotional outburst, but I must disagree. She was not a loser like Rhaenyra. It is unfair to compare her to Rhaenyra, as they are vastly different characters.

Wik:

"When acting as regent in Italy, she found the local rulers were prepared to accept a female ruler. She was not called upon to make any major decisions, instead dealing with smaller matters and acting as the symbolic representative of her absent husband, meeting with and helping to negotiate with magnates and clergy. 

On her return from Germany to Normandy and Anjou, Matilda styled herself as empress and the daughter of King Henry. Matilda gathered revenues from the royal estates in the counties under her control, particularly in her core territories where the sheriffs were loyal to her cause. She appointed earls to rival those created by Stephen.[ She was unable to operate a system of royal law courts, however, and her administrative resources were extremely limited, although some of her clerks went on to become bishops in Normandy.

Matilda spent the rest of her life in Normandy, often acting as Henry's representative and presiding over the government of the Duchy. Matilda helped to deal with several diplomatic crises."

Here is quote about Mathilda from an article about Women in Royal succession: 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10991-006-9007-9

"Matilda was never proclaimed queen; it is not clear whether preparations for her coronation were proceeding when in June the people of London turned against her and she made a precipitate withdrawal.

Contemporaries admired Stephen for bravery in battle, dignity in captivity, and the generosity and chivalry he displayed throughout his reign; Matilda’s attitudes and personality, as well as her sex, counted against her. Matthew suggests that her failure in 1141 was in no small measure due to her insisting ‘on her right to exercise power in person’ and inability because of her sex to act as a military commander, along with her unfortunate character traits of arrogance and disregard of advice.

Huneycutt, considering contemporary writings in detail, concludes that Matilda’s supporters saw her primarily as the conduit through which hereditary right passed from Henry to his grandson, and that she deprived herself of considerable support by seeking the throne for herself."

Edited May 3, 2023 by Aelwen

[Aelwen]

Quote

Rhaenyra is kind of modelled on Empress Matilda - but unlike Rhaenyra she was never crowned queen, so it makes sense that she is not counted as one. But Rhaenyra was and wielded royal power and had her sons succeed her ... so history should at least count Rhaenyra as queen for the brief time she actually reigned and ruled (the six+ months she sat the Iron Throne in 130 AC.

Rhaenyra was not annointed by the Faith. She just wore a crown.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Aelwen

[Zamila]

42 minutes ago, Aelwen said:

Do you hint at Aegon deciding it was his mother fault to start the war?

Not only his mother, but his older brothers were killed too.

And he just decided to forget it and move on?

To me, Aegon just chose not to have a clear attitude in public regardless his personal feelings. He did have his personal thoughts which was unknown to everyone. Having too obvious favorism or preference is not a wanted quality for a ruler. Especially for the rulers like Aegon III who only wanted to recover the realm from war. So, I'd say we never know if he ever let the thing pass in his mind. But in action he did the right thing to let it pass

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Lol no, Littlefinger does not respect Sansa or want her to become a player. He views her as a possession and is training her to be his perfect woman, including helping him with his schemes when needed. He would never want her to do any scheming on her own. He monologues to her constantly because he’s showing off—he wants her to admire just how brilliant he is for figuring everything is.

But he does encourage her to do her own thinking, to figure out what both he and other people do and want. That's him teaching her political lessons she can also use in the future. She is also a pawn, but one that he wants to stand on her own feet eventually. George really does have Littlefinger have three conflicting takes on Sansa - he desires her as Catelyn 2.0, he views her as a pawn because of the claims she has, and he views her as the daughter he and Cat should have had. And in the latter capacity he really acts as a real father would. He wants to prepare her to play the game. But since that's not his only interest/intention with her, things are more complex, messy, and gross.

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Aelwen said:

Rhaenyra was not annointed by the Faith. She just wore a crown.

We don't know that for sure. There would have been a castle septon on Dragonstone, and one would imagine she had him anoint her, too. Aegon II was just anointed by some septon, too, Eustace, not the High Septon, who was too old and frail to travel to KL for Aegon's coronation.

That should not be a decisive factor there. Even more so as we would assume that Rhaenyra made Eustace anoint her, too, once she took the throne in 130 AC. If being anointed was seen as an important part of legitimate kingship and queenship it should have happened.

In fact, the High Septon not anointing either pretender but only Viserys I, one assumes, and then Aegon III again can, in combination with the fact that neither Rhaenyra nor Aegon II went with the proper Targaryen banner, seen as a symbolic indication that neither of them was seen as a proper monarch. It is the High Septon anointment that makes the Faith espouse a particular monarch. Some castle septon isn't enough.

Aegon II's restoration to the throne is also incomplete since he never actually sits the Iron Throne again. Insofar as the throne is concerned it is Viserys I, Aegon II, Rhaenyra, 'Trystane Truefyre' ... and then Aegon III.

My point regarding Matilda was that history doesn't count her as queen because she was never crowned and never properly styled queen. But nobody says she never 'the Lady of the English' which was the title she used prior to her planned coronation. Rhaenyra clearly used the title of queen, was crowned, sat the Iron Throne, and exerted as much or more power for a time over the Seven Kingdoms as Aegon II did. In Westeros the crucial 'kingmaking' ingredient is a coronation (that's what Aegon the Uncrowned is lacking which is why he is not counted as 'King Aegon II' - Prince Aegon is, at this point, also just a prince and not yet King Aegon VI because he was neither proclaimed nor crowned king, etc.) and the physical possession of the Iron Throne of Aegon the Conqueror. Whoever sat that throne is counted as a sitting monarch even if he was usurper. Rhaenyra is the only exception there. Which is even odder since she was her father's anointed successor.

The High Septon's anointment is also pretty crucial - but as I said: That's also lacking for Aegon II.

[Aelwen]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know that for sure. There would have been a castle septon on Dragonstone, and one would imagine she had him anoint her, too. Aegon II was just anointed by some septon, too, Eustace, not the High Septon, who was too old and frail to travel to KL for Aegon's coronation.

It is all headcanons. In the books it is never said and never mentioned. So... it doesn't matter.

In a sense the coronation shouldn't matter so much. A king is dead- long live the king (or a queen). Charles III became the king the moment his mother died, the coronation will be just a formal ritual. 

But in a succession crisis such ceremonies do matter. Especially in the middle ages. Real life monarchs waited for the Pope annointment or blessing. 

 

Quote

Rhaenyra is the only exception there. Which is even odder since she was her father's anointed successor.

Because GRRM decided so. I think it is that simple in that case. He needed to make it so no Queen has ever said on the Iron Throne. 
And eventually it will be Bran who will sit it or whatever will be then. Weird message, to be honest. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Aelwen

[Zamila]

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make much sense, either. Especially Aegon III was very close to his mother, defending her until the very end. He even owes his crown to her fighting for her cause. People try to come up with explanations for this, but it doesn't make much sense. Like the whole thing that Rhaenyra is not counted as queen when she was crowned and sat the throne, etc. and her sons continued the royal dynasty while the Green branch was completely destroyed.

Rhaenyra is kind of modelled on Empress Matilda - but unlike Rhaenyra she was never crowned queen, so it makes sense that she is not counted as one. But Rhaenyra was and wielded royal power and had her sons succeed her ... so history should at least count Rhaenyra as queen for the brief time she actually reigned and ruled (the six+ months she sat the Iron Throne in 130 AC.

Aegon III and his successors would effectively never encourage anyone to honor the memory of Aegon II and his branch, so the guy should actually disappear into obscurity whilst Rhaenyra would be remembered as a tragic hero or martyr. Her determination is what put the branch of House Targaryen in charge that prevailed.

That nobody ever had a Rhaenyra Targaryen before and after the Rhaenyra we know is also kind of odd. We don't know where the name came from nor why it wasn't ever used afterwards. George still could add another Targaryen girl named Rhaenyra to the family tree in the future - or at least have a Blackfyre woman named Rhaenyra.

I feel like there's high possibility that Aegon personally being a firm supporter of his mother's claim his wholelife. He still remembered every single detail of his mother's murder when he confronted Marston Waters and reprimanded him harshly for it. That's the rare private occasion when Aegon showed his personal feelings. However, it would be controversial for him to openly show his attitude on this matter which would bring back the remains of the old conflict. That's the last thing he wanted to see after the war. So he just simply didn't mention it anymore. 

[Aelwen]

6 minutes ago, Zamila said:

I feel like there's high possibility that Aegon personally being a firm supporter of his mother's claim his wholelife. He still remembered every single detail of his mother's murder when he confronted Marston Waters and reprimanded him harshly for it

I think he just hated people who doomed her. It says nothing about whether he supported her claim. He may have thought his mother should have stepped aside and accepted the terms for peace.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Aelwen

[Zamila]

5 minutes ago, Aelwen said:

I think he just hated people who doomed her. It says nothing about whether he supported her claim. He may have thought his mother should have stepped aside and accepted the terms for peace.

That would be an unknown area unless we will have a pov of him in the future (unlikely) But that makes him a interesting character to study for sure. However I don't think it's proper to discuss any character's unidentified emotional issue here haha. After all it's an official announcement post

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Aelwen said:

It is all headcanons. In the books it is never said and never mentioned. So... it doesn't matter.

In a sense the coronation shouldn't matter so much. A king is dead- long live the king (or a queen). Charles III became the king the moment his mother died, the coronation will be just a formal ritual. 

But in a succession crisis such ceremonies do matter. Especially in the middle ages. Real life monarchs waited for the Pope annointment or blessing. 

In a medieval context such rituals are not just confirmations or fancy rituals but necessary acts to create a king. From a historical perspective Aegon II would certainly also be king - he is proclaimed and crowned first, so he would reign until his deposition by Queen Rhaenyra in early 130 AC, then we would have the brief reign of Rhaenyra, followed by short period of anarchy, after which Aegon II was restored to the throne. The notion that the reign of Aegon II lasted from early 129 AC until his death in 131 AC is just not accurate. It is like saying Henry VI's reign continued while Edward IV was king - and vice versa Edward IV also continued to reign during the brief time of Henry VI's restoration to the throne.

1 hour ago, Aelwen said:

Because GRRM decided so. I think it is that simple in that case. He needed to make it so no Queen has ever said on the Iron Throne. 

There is no need for that since there could have been ruling queens. If George wanted a setting where Daenerys Targaryen is going to be the first ruling queen of Westeros - or the first woman with a decent shot at that position - then he should have just made Rhaenyra more a failed pretender. Never give her a proper coronation, never allow her to put her fat ass on the Iron Throne, never make her the chosen and anointed heir of her father. And not make Aegon II's successor Rhaenyra's son.

In fact, if you go back at the appendix of AGoT then Rhaenyra seems more a sister challenging a brother who was the rightful and chosen successor of their father ... not the chosen heir whose throne was stolen by usurping brother. The impression I had from the Dance prior to any detailed narrative was that Rhaenyra was more an ambitious Visenya-like person who simply felt her little brother was unsuited for the crown and she would do a better job. And that somehow her side prevailed in the end because her son was the eventual successor of Aegon II.

This original sketch of Rhaenyra has her more as a Daemon Blackfyre - somebody who thought they should rule, not somebody who was chosen to rule by their father.

1 hour ago, Zamila said:

I feel like there's high possibility that Aegon personally being a firm supporter of his mother's claim his wholelife. He still remembered every single detail of his mother's murder when he confronted Marston Waters and reprimanded him harshly for it. That's the rare private occasion when Aegon showed his personal feelings. However, it would be controversial for him to openly show his attitude on this matter which would bring back the remains of the old conflict. That's the last thing he wanted to see after the war. So he just simply didn't mention it anymore. 

Aegon's private opinion is pretty clear. We don't have to look at his words during the regency era but his actions during the Dance - and his final defense of his mother. That is all we need to know. Although we also see that he definitely views his mother as a ruling queen.

Considering Aegon III's court when he finally seizes power in his own right there is little reason to assume he could 'provoke' anyone. The Greens at his court are gone, and neither we nor they, in-universe, have any reason to assume he is going to favor them in the future. Why would he? He is a deeply distrustful person so the last people he would turn to are the former enemies of his mother and himself. And as I already said - the most powerful Green houses (Lannisters and Baratheons) are in disarray and without strong leadership.

And it also must strike us as obvious that the false Daeron and Alys Rivers' son will only be able to challenge Aegon III's kingship by gaining support among former Green loyalists. Fervent former Blacks are not likely to declare for or fight for a guy claiming to be Prince Daeron nor for a young boy/youth who is supposed to be Aemond's trueborn son. It is not impossible that Aegon III will also antagonize some former Blacks - like he did with Torrhen Manderly - but that's less likely. Especially Unwin Peake we can expect to throw his lot with the Rivers boy or a fake Daeron since he has every reason to fear the king's vengeance.

What I could see Aegon III doing is to not move against Alys Rivers and her son, to confirm them in their possession of Harrenhal and acknowledge Alys' boy as his bastard cousin. Aegon III and his brother suffered horribly during the Dance and it would make sense for him to refuse to make his cousin suffer in a similar way. But that will then a decision that is going to come back to haunt him as Alys' boy grows older, mounts a dragon, and declares himself the rightful king as the male heir through the male line, etc. That could certainly motivate more than a few former Green to support his rebellion.

If some things along those lines to happen than Aegon III could technically want to be a peacemaking king and all that - but his lords and subjects would not follow his lead there. They would constantly rebel, for the Rivers boy or this or that fake Daeron. And such crises the Iron Throne would not overcome by constantly pardoning or favoring former Greens. Instead we should see Aegon III and Viserys striking down such rebellions with a vengeance, especially if old enemies of the Blacks were leading figures in such rebellions.

[Aelwen]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If George wanted a setting where Daenerys Targaryen is going to be the first ruling queen of Westeros - or the first woman with a decent shot at that position - then he should have just made Rhaenyra more a failed pretender. Never give her a proper coronation, never allow her to put her fat ass on the Iron Throne, never make her the chosen and anointed heir of her father. And not make Aegon II's successor Rhaenyra's son.

But we know from show spoilers that Dany is not intended to become the first ruling Queen. I don;'t see the message here, maybe there is no one. 

Interesting note about Rhaenyra's design, but if she had been intended to be more ambitious, her story certainly failed to show it. She lacks talents just like Aegon.

 

Quote

 Although we also see that he definitely views his mother as a ruling queen.

I don't remember where he publickly called her a Queen in the books. (Neither Viserys will in F&B 2 part, I am sure.)  He was upset that she was killed, yes.

Quote

Aegon III and his brother suffered horribly during the Dance and it would make sense for him to refuse to make his cousin suffer in a similar way. But that will then a decision that is going to come back to haunt him as Alys' boy grows older, mounts a dragon, and declares himself the rightful king as the male heir through the male line, etc. 

There is no dragon to mount. 

[The hairy bear]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It may have been his decision. But the way I interpret the entire thing Aegon III was not so much making a choice there but going through with a plan his sisters made with him earlier. They would have been stupid to rush in there with a little girl - regardless how pretty she was - and just hope that their brother, who actually was to marry a woman who could give him children, would pick her.

Yeah, I agree that he and his half-sisters surely had came to an agreement beforehand.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And, sure, the regents could have forced the king to marry a woman of their choosing - just as royal parents can and do force princes and princesses do the same. Aegon III may have been king, but he was a minor.

A prince will have to obey his father's wishes because he is probably going to live many more years, and he could desinherit you if you don't obey him (just as Egg did with Duncan).

But that's not the case with Aegon III. He was already king, and Lord Peake and the regents couldn't change that. And in just three years he could impose his own will.

What can Peake do if Aegon III doesn't say the vows? Whip Gaemon? And even if Peake somehow managed to find a septon willing to perform a marriage by delegation, once king, Aegon III wouldn't have any trouble annuling an unconsumated marriage.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, didn't know that. I mean, I'm not buying any new edition of TWoIaF that comes out. Can you give me the new quotes there?

Here's Corso's letter with ink spilled over it in some misshap (instead of Archmaester Glyndayn's work being damaged by fire.

Here's the introduction to Gyldayn's work, who is still alive, but strangely has his work misplaced, destroyed, and damaged by neglect or fire. I guess his desk resembles mine...

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Nah, the regents Aegon III dismisses were guys chosen by lot. They were neither Black nor Green. The Black-and-Green regency council era ended with the Secret Siege and the deposition of Thaddeus Rowan. The leadership of the Kingsguard at the beginning of the Regency era was Green at the top (Willis Fell & Marston Waters) with the other places filled by Blacks. As Fell and others later died, Peake filled them up with his cronies who then also died. Then come new men in, men who are more likely to become Aegon's own men.

Thanks to Unwin Peake, Aegon III is freed from his Green queen and marries a Velaryon (i.e. Black) queen, the ward of Baela and Alyn. As the book closes Aegon III starts to get his own inner circle of loyalists - Viserys, Sandoq the Shadow (who I expect is going to remain at his court even after Larra leaves, perhaps even joining the KG eventually), etc. which, for better or worse, you would call 'Black' since they are loyal to Rhaenyra's son.

If you argue that Merryweather, Stackspear and Grandison were neither Black nor Green, then I don't see how we can count as a black partisan a six-year old girl whose parent constested Alyn's claim and whose grandfather openly declared that Rhaenyra's sons where bastards. As I see it, Daenaera is actually a wife that can be supported by both Blacks and Greens.

Same with Snadoq. He didn't thake part in the war, and no one in Westeros associates him with the Blacks or the Greens. He is just loyal to the king. That doesn't make him black. (we don't consider Tyland Lannister a black, do we?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make much sense, either. Especially Aegon III was very close to his mother, defending her until the very end. He even owes his crown to her fighting for her cause. People try to come up with explanations for this, but it doesn't make much sense.

Why would anyone whose goal is to reunite the realm and leave the civil war behind name his daughter after one of the rival claimants? Aegon wasn't much loved as a king and his situation is precarious enough. It wouldn't be in his interest to antagonize the old green supporters, the citizens of King's Landing, the Stokeworths, the Mootons...

The name Rhaenyra brings bad memories to most of the Westerosi. It's politically inconvenient. It makes perfect sense to me.

Doesn't a similar thing happens with the name John among the English kings? He has a bad reputation, so his descendants have decided to name their sons with names that have more favorable associations.

[Aelwen]

4 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Doesn't a similar thing happens with the name John among the English kings? He has a bad reputation, so his descendants have decided to name their sons with names that have more favorable associations.

Some say name Charles had bad reputation too.... 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Aelwen

[frenin]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Pretty much this, from what he says at the end of Fire and Blood. He shows no signs of wanting revenge or reprisal on anybody, he just wants to not be bothered, and decides that just being a good ruler will be sufficient.

Except if your last name is Baratheon that is, who were for some odd reason targetted?

Was argued before but it is still quite convenient that the Dance of the Dragons is the only civil war that ends with this huge show of unity that even makes people share the power.

It's a problem neither Daeron the Good nor Robert, nor Maegor, nor the Lannisters after the Blackwater or Jaeharys ever had.

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by frenin

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Aelwen said:

But we know from show spoilers that Dany is not intended to become the first ruling Queen. I don;'t see the message here, maybe there is no one. 

Dany definitely will seize the Iron Throne. Whether she will still be alive and sitting on it in the Epilogue of the last book is another matter.

1 hour ago, Aelwen said:

Interesting note about Rhaenyra's design, but if she had been intended to be more ambitious, her story certainly failed to show it. She lacks talents just like Aegon.

She is not as stupid as Aegon. No silly statues from her, nor commands to kill all the rat catchers in the city.

1 hour ago, Aelwen said:

I don't remember where he publickly called her a Queen in the books. (Neither Viserys will in F&B 2 part, I am sure.)  He was upset that she was killed, yes.

It is pretty subtle, but the only interpretation of that quote is that Rhaenyra was running things as queen:

Quote

“A king should have a Hand of his own choosing,” said Aegon III [to Torrhen Manderly], rising to his feet. “You have served me well, no doubt, as you served my mother before me, but it was my lords who chose you. You may return to White Harbor.”

Torrhen Manderly sat on Rhaenyra's council while she was ruling as queen in King's Landing.

1 hour ago, Aelwen said:

There is no dragon to mount. 

Alys claimed there was and the poor guy saw one. Vhagar could easily enough have produced some eggs while Aemond and Alys were flying around in the Riverlands. Even if that was a lie/deception, there are other dragons left to mount - Silverwing and the Cannibal and perhaps even some hatching during the reign of Aegon III. I expect that the last healthy dragons (Morning, perhaps others) will die during the Rivers boy thing around 150 AC, then we'll have two stunted and twisted dragons hatching in 152 AC the last of which will then die in 153 AC.

37 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

A prince will have to obey his father's wishes because he is probably going to live many more years, and he could desinherit you if you don't obey him (just as Egg did with Duncan).

But that's not the case with Aegon III. He was already king, and Lord Peake and the regents couldn't change that. And in just three years he could impose his own will.

What can Peake do if Aegon III doesn't say the vows? Whip Gaemon? And even if Peake somehow managed to find a septon willing to perform a marriage by delegation, once king, Aegon III wouldn't have any trouble annuling an unconsumated marriage.

They could just push him until he breaks and consents. I mean, you know how often the governments of young kings arranged matches for them and they went through with them? That's business as usual. And it is not that Aegon III was willing or capable of resisting his regents and Hands all that much. The boy was like pudding as, especially, the issue of his Kingsguard shows.

37 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Here's the introduction to Gyldayn's work, who is still alive, but strangely has his work misplaced, destroyed, and damaged by neglect or fire. I guess his desk resembles mine...

@Ran You really should rewrite the later paragraph there, too. An unfinished manuscript is usually neither partially misplaced nor burned.

37 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

If you argue that Merryweather, Stackspear and Grandison were neither Black nor Green, then I don't see how we can count as a black partisan a six-year old girl whose parent constested Alyn's claim and whose grandfather openly declared that Rhaenyra's sons where bastards. As I see it, Daenaera is actually a wife that can be supported by both Blacks and Greens.

Well, I'd not say that the Velaryons ever turned Green. Corlys pretended pretty badly ... and Alyn himself was even worse. The whole 'LOYAL!' thing was nonsense if the queen Addam was loyal to was no longer the queen of House Velaryon at the time of his death. Daenaera's father made his peace with Alyn, Alyn married Aegon III's sister, and Daenaera became their ward. It is pretty clear whose pawn she is when they make her queen.

And to be clear - the lot regents could have been partisans of either side. We just don't know. Since they were chosen by lot they were chosen not to staff the regency council with leading members of the two factions.

37 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Same with Snadoq. He didn't thake part in the war, and no one in Westeros associates him with the Blacks or the Greens. He is just loyal to the king. That doesn't make him black. (we don't consider Tyland Lannister a black, do we?)

Sandoq would be Aegon's own man, of course. Tyland was Green and turned Black if you consider Aegon III as Black - which he was the figurehead pretender of the Black faction after Rhaenyra's death. Tyland made his king's interests his own - even against his former allies, even against his own house and sister-in-law. But he also never forgot his old friends on the Green Council as the whole Orwyle affair shows.

37 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Why would anyone whose goal is to reunite the realm and leave the civil war behind name his daughter after one of the rival claimants? Aegon wasn't much loved as a king and his situation is precarious enough. It wouldn't be in his interest to antagonize the old green supporters, the citizens of King's Landing, the Stokeworths, the Mootons...

The name Rhaenyra brings bad memories to most of the Westerosi. It's politically inconvenient. It makes perfect sense to me.

And the name Aegon doesn't have the same sound after Aegon II and, especially, Aegon IV? The whole thing doesn't make much sense. Just as it makes no sense that there was only one Alysanne Targaryen and only three Jaehaerys Targaryens.

37 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Doesn't a similar thing happens with the name John among the English kings? He has a bad reputation, so his descendants have decided to name their sons with names that have more favorable associations.

That's more a dynastic thing - some dynasties liked some names more than others (think of the Georges), but the name John didn't fell out of favor. Henry III's third son was named John, Edward I's eldest son was another John, Edward II's second son was a John, too, and John of Gaunt was, obviously, yet another John.

The Edwards only got popular for a time because Edward I's only surviving son was another Edward. The Williams fell out of favor because Henry II's eldest son, a William, died early. Henrys got popular because of Henry II, etc.

There were also always lots and lots of Richards - like with the Johns it wasn't a popular name for an eldest son but for a second or third son. Neither the Lionheart nor Richard II or Richard III were firstborn sons. Richard II had an elder brother named Edward who died early, the Lionheart had two elder brothers, and Richard was the youngest son of eight.

There is just no reason whatsoever why there should only be one Rhaenyra. And there is literally no reason why Rhaenyra is a Rhaenyra and not, say, an Alysanne or Alyssa or Daella. Viserys and Aemma had one son who died in the cradle before Rhaenyra - we don't know that name. But honoring their firstborn daughter with a Rhaenys-sounding name while there was another Rhaenys who was kind of a rival to Baelon is odd.

[Annara Snow]

On 5/3/2023 at 9:09 PM, Aelwen said:

Do you hint at Aegon deciding it was his mother fault to start the war?

Not only his mother, but his older brothers were killed too.

And he just decided to forget it and move on?

Aegon II is dead, Aemond is dead, Jace got killed in battle by some random Myrish crossbowman, Joffrey got killed by his mother's dragon Syrax (dead) because of a rebellion by the smallfolk who were supporting the Shepherd (dead). Who's Aegon supposed to be getting revenge against, exactly? 

The smallfolk of KL?

The whole of Myr?

Everyone who ever was on the Green side, so roughly half the realm?

Jaehaera?

Was he supposed to hate her? Then she had at least as much reason to hate him and want revenge, by the same logic. Its hard to forget when some men threatened to rape and kill you and then beheaded your twin brother right in front of you (at the orders of Aegon III's father)*. Her mother, father and both brothers are also dead. Had she lived  what revenge do you propose she should have done? 

*oh yeah, that was in the name of "revenge", against small children and a completely innocent woman.

Leyton Hightower should have also, I guess, taken revenge for his father getting killed in war. The Baratheon daughters and son for Borros getting killed in war, Lannisters for Jason and so on.

The entire realm should be a gigantic version of the Bracken and Blackwood feud, then...? Or maybe this whole etern revenge (including against people who had nothing to do with it) thing is stupid, pointless and destructive (as the Dance itself showed, with characters escalating violence to get revenge).