Why Daemon Blackfyre Rebelled

[The Bard of Banefort]

We're told many times in the books that Daemon Blackfyre had to be "convinced" to rebel against King Daeron II and claim the crown for himself. This is very interesting phrasing on George's part, since it suggests a disinclination, or even reluctance from Daemon. Even someone like Maekar, who by all rights should despise Daemon, echoes this sentiment. 

Quote

 My father says that it was Fireball as much as Bittersteel who convinced Daemon Blackfyre to claim the crown, and rescued him when Daeron sent the Kingsguard to arrest him. 

 

Quote

Whatever the case may be, Aegor Rivers soon began to press Daemon Blackfyre to proclaim for the throne, and all the more so after Daemon agreed to wed his eldest daughter, Calla, to Aegor. Bitter his steel may have been, but worse was his tongue. He spilled poison in Daemon's ear, and with him came the clamoring of other knights and lords with grievances.

TWOIAF does not give a reason for why Daemon betrayed his older half-brother, only saying that it was an impulsive decision and chalking it up to vanity. People in-universe believe it was because Daeron had forbidden him to wed Daenerys. Fans have also speculated that Daemon had become embittered by the prejudice he experienced as a bastard. But there may be an even simpler reason for why Bittersteel's "poison" took root, and it can be found all throughout ASOIAF.

Quote

Queen Alicent echoed him. “Nor will they spare my children,” she declared. “Aegon and his brothers are the king’s trueborn sons, with a better claim to the throne than her brood of bastards. Daemon will find some pretext to put them all to death. Even Helaena and her little ones. One of these Strongs put out Aemond’s eye, never forget. He was a boy, aye, but the boy is the father to the man, and bastards are monstrous by nature.”

 

Quote

Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children."

 

Quote

Catelyn said nothing. Let Ned work it out in his own mind; her voice would not be welcome now. Yet gladly would she have kissed the maester just then. His was the perfect solution. Benjen Stark was a Sworn Brother. Jon would be a son to him, the child he would never have. And in time the boy would take the oath as well. He would father no sons who might someday contest with Catelyn's own grandchildren for Winterfell.

 

Quote

"Precedent," she said bitterly. "Yes, Aegon the Fourth legitimized all his bastards on his deathbed. And how much pain, grief, war, and murder grew from that? I know you trust Jon. But can you trust his sons? Or their sons? The Blackfyre pretenders troubled the Targaryens for five generations, until Barristan the Bold slew the last of them on the Stepstones. If you make Jon legitimate, there is no way to turn him bastard again. Should he wed and breed, any sons you may have by Jeyne will never be safe."

 

Daemon had seven sons, and a few daughters too. No matter how loyal he remained to Daeron or how benevolent Daeron was to him, the risk of war between their children or grandchildren would always be there, and they were both certainly aware of this. Even if the kids all managed to get along, the political factions in Westeros, which were especially volatile after the annexation of Dorne, would still seek to pit them against each other for their own gains. In real life, the last Plantagenet boy, Edward, was hardly much of a threat to the Tudors--he spent most of his life in confinement, and was likely mentally handicapped. But malcontents still sought to use him as their symbol for rebellion, so he was put to death.

And the kicker is, this wasn't baseless paranoia from the Blackfyres. Bloodraven did kill three of Daemon's sons--two of whom died during the war, and were therefore sanctioned by Daeron, however implicitly. No matter how genial Daeron was, there would always be people around him who saw the danger and wanted to strike first, as Bloodraven did when he lopped off Aenys' head before the Great Council of 233. Much like Cat argued in ASOS, Robb's children would never be truly safe if Jon was legitimized, and vice versa. The great tragedy is that in trying to protect his children, Daemon instead ensured their deaths.

I find this a likelier cause for Daemon's rebellion than simple vanity or long-stewing anger over being denied a second marriage. It would also explain why Bittersteel became even more adamant that Daemon rebel after his marriage to Calla, since any children they might have would be similarly marked. And it would explain why George has written Daemon in a way that consistently stresses his virtues (unlike, say, Aegon II, who is depicted as a pouty loser) and places the blame for the rebellion on the people around him.

TL;DR: Daemon Blackfyre rebelled to protect his children

[Ran]

He should have rebelled when he had, like, two sons, or three, then, if that was truly his concern. And he shouldn't have taken two 12 year old boys to the battlefield.

And then, too, his other sons are left the fuck alone in exile, putting the lie to the idea that they wer ever in danger from Daeron. I think we can take it as a given that Baelor Breakspear wouldn't have been a threat to them, either.

None of this really makes sense to me. It makes more sense that as more and more people decided he was a prince who could contest the throne, more and more people worked on him over time, until we reach the tipping point in his vanity. He was the golden bastard, everyone around him were sycophants, that's going to get to you eventually.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Ran

[The Bard of Banefort]

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

He should have rebelled when he had, like, two sons, or three, then, if that was truly his concern. And he shouldn't have taken two 12 year old boys to the battlefield.

And then, too, his other sons are left the fuck alone in exile, putting the lie to the idea that they wer ever in danger from Daeron. I think we can take it as a given that Baelor Breakspear wouldn't have been a threat to them, either.

None of this really makes sense to me. It makes more sense that as more and more people decided he was a prince who could contest the throne, more and more people worked on him over time, until we reach the tipping point in his vanity. He was the golden bastard, everyone around him were sycophants, that's going to get to you eventually.

Ran, you’ve always defended Cat for worrying that Jon’s children would endanger her grandchildren, and she had no more evidence than Daemon did. And unlike Jon, Bloodraven is a genuinely ruthless and Machiavellian person. Daenerys and Viserys were sent into exile, and Robert still sent assassins after them. Robert was a negligent drunk, but he was never considered cruel or calculating by anyone in Westeros (asides for perhaps Cersei).

Everything GRRM has written about Daemon has portrayed him in a positive light (just compare his Amok description to the ones for Aegon II and Rhaenyra, who were the focus of another civil war). Nothing that we’ve read about him suggests he was particularly vain or petty.

[Gilbert Green]

34 minutes ago, Ran said:

And then, too, his other sons are left the fuck alone in exile, putting the lie to the idea that they wer ever in danger from Daeron. I think we can take it as a given that Baelor Breakspear wouldn't have been a threat to them, either.

"Do unto others before they can do until you", has a perverse wicked logic to it, 20/20 hindsight notwithstanding.  I don't think it can be entirely ruled out as a factor in Daemon's thinking (along with vanity and whatever else).  Those who choose to make war do not tend to think kind thoughts about their chosen enemies, if only because of the need to justify oneself.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Just now, Gilbert Green said:

"Do unto others before they can do until you", has a perverse wicked logic to it, 20/20 hindsight notwithstanding.  I don't think it can be entirely ruled out as a factor in Daemon's thinking (along with vanity and whatever else).  Those who choose to make war do not tend to think kind thoughts about their chosen enemies, if only because of the need to justify oneself.

Plus, this is the same story where Ned Stark made his seven-year-old son watch him behead someone. Podrick was serving in battle as a squire when he was 10. It’s all part of the martial training

[SeanF]

It’s a case of “Get Your Retaliation In First.”

As against that, fratricide, while not unheard of, is not normative in Westeros.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Ran, you’ve always defended Cat for worrying that Jon’s children would endanger her grandchildren, and she had no more evidence than Daemon did.

And what did she worry about regarding Jon? That raising him as virtually equal to her sons, and no doubt honoring him in time with a seat of his own (as Jon thinks his father likely intended to do) would put the grandchildren in mind that they should be ruling and not their cousins.

So what's Daemon's excuse, being the person who is the Jon Snow in this scenario, for turning against the brother who was crowned and who had, by all accounts, treated him well? Do you mean that he was "protecting his children" because he thought that, well, hey, I'm loyal, but I can't say my sons will be and they may go and start a rebellion... so I should start it first?

It's absurd. Daemon was not thinking of protecting his children. He was thinking that he had enough support to take the throne.

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

And unlike Jon, Bloodraven is a genuinely ruthless and Machiavellian person.

Daeron is not. Baelor Breakspar is not.

Hence Daeron having treated Daemon honorably, and not a word has ever been said that any of his children ever had so much as a sniffle that could be blamed on Bloodraven. 

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Daenerys and Viserys were sent into exile, and Robert still sent assassins after them.

Daemon's children went into exile, and 16 years and two kings later all of them who had not died on a battlefield are alive with no signs of any assassins ever being sent after them. They died when they tried to win the throne, by hook or by the crook.

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Ran

[Alester Florent]

It does seem that there was a substantial opposition party to Daeron, which eventually recruited Daemon as a figurehead, rather than Daemon being a thrusting rival to Daeron who attracted supporters.

In that context I could believe that Bittersteel persuaded Daemon that his children would be in danger from Bloodraven, or failing Bloodraven from other jealous Targs.

Daemon of course has a better claim to the throne than Daeron twice over in the eyes of his supporters, firstly (and more importantly) as the son of Aegon, rather than Aemon's bastard, and secondly as the senior grandchild of Aegon III through the female line. And Daemon's kids look a lot more like Targs than Baelor does. If you accept these arguments (which are not without their flaws), then the Blackfyres are a perpetual threat to the Targaryens and a sensible/ruthless Targ will eliminate them even if Daeron and Baelor B aren't that way inclined.

Even so I suspect that even if it was put forward, it was just one of a number of things that persuaded Daemon to rebel.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

It does seem that there was a substantial opposition party to Daeron, which eventually recruited Daemon as a figurehead, rather than Daemon being a thrusting rival to Daeron who attracted supporters.

In that context I could believe that Bittersteel persuaded Daemon that his children would be in danger from Bloodraven, or failing Bloodraven from other jealous Targs.

Daemon of course has a better claim to the throne than Daeron twice over in the eyes of his supporters, firstly (and more importantly) as the son of Aegon, rather than Aemon's bastard, and secondly as the senior grandchild of Aegon III through the female line. And Daemon's kids look a lot more like Targs than Baelor does. If you accept these arguments (which are not without their flaws), then the Blackfyres are a perpetual threat to the Targaryens and a sensible/ruthless Targ will eliminate them even if Daeron and Baelor B aren't that way inclined.

Even so I suspect that even if it was put forward, it was just one of a number of things that persuaded Daemon to rebel.

Daeron’s pro-Dornish policy was a source of real resentment.

[Ran]

Daemon's party of supporters were basically the "deplorables" of Westeros, a hodge podge of people with many different (but generally petty) reasons to support a rebellion... but as George says, and as Ser Eustace underscores, the seed of the rebellion, the thing that gives these disparate people the idea of rebellion, is Daemon's existence as one of "two princes" who has a credible claim to the the throne.

If Daemon had not been legitimized, if he had never received Blackfyre, Daeron the Good's reign would probably not have faced any rebellions at all because the people with reasons to want Daeron gone wouldn't have coalesced into a single group.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Ran

[The Bard of Banefort]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

And what did she worry about regarding Jon? That raising him as virtually equal to her sons, and no doubt honoring him in time with a seat of his own (as Jon thinks his father likely intended to do) would put the grandchildren in mind that they should be ruling and not their cousins.

So what's Daemon's excuse, being the person who is the Jon Snow in this scenario, for turning against the brother who was crowned and who had, by all accounts, treated him well? 

I doubt there's anything I could say to change your mind at this point, but here goes. . . 

The threat cuts both ways. Cat's not thinking about how Jon's heirs will fare because she doesn't care about them. If her grandson or great-grandson turned out to be paranoid or incompetent, why wouldn't he view his cousins as a threat and try to take them out? Would Aerys have left any rival claimants to the throne alive? He barely trusted his own son. 

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Hence Daeron having treated Daemon honorably, and not a word has ever been said that any of his children ever had so much as a sniffle that could be blamed on Bloodraven. 

We hardly know anything about that time period so far. Everything has been left deliberately vague so it can be teased out in future stories. I don't know if my theory is correct, but that's what it is: a theory. At this point, it's just as likely as anything else. And character's acting out of a fear for their children has been a prominent theme in this story ever since "promise me, Ned" and Ned incriminating himself to prevent Sansa's possible execution--something he didn't have any proof would happen at that point either.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Daemon's children went into exile, and 16 years and two kings later all of them who had not died on a battlefield are alive with no signs of any assassins ever being sent after them. 

And how could Daemon have foreseen that? He wasn't psychic. 

[Alester Florent]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Daemon's party of supporters were basically the "deplorables" of Westeros, a hodge podge of people with many different (but generally petty) reasons to support a rebellion... but as George says, and as Ser Eustace underscores, the seed of the rebellion, the thing that gives these disparate people the idea of rebellion, is Daemon's existence as one of "two princes" who has a credible claim to the the throne.

If Daemon had not been legitimized, if he had never received Blackfyre, Daeron the Good's reign would probably not have faced any rebellions at all because the people with reasons to want Daeron gone wouldn't have coalesced into a single group.

Agreed, although that doesn't explain why Daemon agreed to become the figurehead for the rebels.

GRRM has said it was over the Daenerys thing, but the timelines don't really make sense: by the time Daenerys was married off, Daemon was already married himself (with the relevant betrothal organised by Aegon, not Daeron) so Daenerys wasn't available for him to marry anyway - and Daemon didn't rebel until several years after Daenerys's marriage. It no doubt contributed to Daemon's decision but it clearly wasn't the trigger.

[Ran]

Yes, the timeline for Daenerys is, to me, just as problematic as the timeline for "protecting his children". He waited a damned long time (and had a lot of kids!) if that was really a part of it. TWoIaF offers the rumor that Daemon wanted Daenerys as a second wife, but, well...

It's also pretty incredible if you think about it -- that if it _is_ part of his own resentments towards Daeron, it just shows how much vanity was involved on his part.

9 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

And how could Daemon have foreseen that? He wasn't psychic. 

He could have forseen it from the fact that Daeron never did anything but treat him honorably and with respect. What else can be use to forecast but the precedents of his relationship with Daeron up to that point? ANd then look at the character of the sons at that time. How in the world could he gotten the impression that Baelor, then the heir, was liable to assassinate his children? His reputation preceeded him. 

The only person who seemed set on killing his nephews was ... Daemon. So I do find the theory kind of outrageous, that he's driven out of concern for his children, when he's the one getting kids (his own, in the end, but it could have been his brother's) killed.

 

[SeanF]

Fratricide is not the norm in this world.  You can’t justify a war against your brother, because your brother *might* turn on you, or his heirs *might* turn against yours.

Otherwise, every younger brother or step-brother would be justified in rebelling.

[Ran]

You know, on further reflection, I could have seen a scenario where Daemon did it "for the children": if the rebellion happened a decade later, it could have been that his eldest sons Aegon and Aemon could have forced his hand. They could have been the sort of ambitious, covetous offspring, entertaining talk of treason, of how their father should be king and they princes and heirs to the throne, etc., until finally things came to a head and Daemon had to choose between joining them because they were doomed otherwise or he had to abandon them and leave them to their fate after having conspired in a treasonous plot.

 

[Lord Varys]

It seems weird to think one can decide such a question at this point ... as we have yet to get a proper depiction of Daemon Blackfyre the person and an actual depiction of his relationship with his royal half-brother.

But insofar as claims and fears are concerned Daemon Blackfyre and his sons are just younger princes, nothing more.

Them being in danger from Daeron and his four sons is just nonsense. It is like saying the Young Dragon and Baelor were in danger from uncle Viserys and his sons and grandsons. Or Aemon and Baelon's few offspring were in danger from each other.

There is no reason for hatred and fear there. Daemon Blackfyre is lifted up beyond measure through Blackfyre and his legitimization. His natural reaction should have been - and likely way, originally - gratitude to Daeron II for actually letting their father's decree stand.

There is no question who the king is when Daeron II is crowned ... and what little we know certain people only get pissed with Daeron's policies during his reign, not from his conduct as Heir Apparent (although certainly some people like Fireball had certain issues from the start).

Until we know more the narrative indicates Daemon Blackfyre was effectively a figurehead of ambitious and/or pissed people who wanted to get rid of Daeron II, his Dornish queen, and his half-Dornish sons. Not so different from how some Reach lords, some Tyrells included, might have viewed Renly compared to the prospect of a Lannister-run government.

In relation to killing close relatives - that also falls flat, in my opinion, for Alicent's sons in case of Rhaenyra ruling as queen. The succession was clear and the Targaryens were an incestuous dynasty. Yeah, Rhaenyra having only sons and Alicent but one daughter made matches there hard ... but they could have patched things up by marrying Jaehaera to Aegon or Viserys, by marrying Rhaenyra's Visenya - had she lived - to little Maelor, by pairing Jace's kids with whatever other children Aegon or Aemond or Daeron had eventually produced.

The Daemon-Daenerys George has to subtly rewrite to make the timeline make more sense, and there is also potential to add more goodwill and dynastic maneuvering by considering matches between Daeron's family and Daemon's sons - say, by suggesting to pair younger children of Daemon's with Maron and Daenerys' firstborn child, etc. It might have also been possible, age-wise, to pair Rhaegel or Maekar with Daemon's eldest daughter Calla, say. There are so many royals around in that era that the actual pairings of Daeron's son look somewhat weird - Bloodraven's sisters could also have made fine brides for some younger princes. It would be odd if nobody ever considered this. But there could be a lot of reasons why such matches fell through - other romances, extreme personal dislike, early/unexpected deaths, etc.

Daeron II doesn't strike one as a guy too stupid to grasp the advantage of dynastic marriages. However, it could also turn out that Daeron II categorically decided not to include any of his bastard half-siblings into the matches he made for his sons. If that were the case then he might actually have antagonized Daemon and the others to a point.

[frenin]

12 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

and Robert still sent assassins after them.

Only after they started conspiring against him, they were left alone for 13 years.

I find the "my children are in trouble" a slippery slope.

 

[Lord Varys]

Addendum:

To play up Daemon Blackfyre as a future pretender FaB II could shed light on some concrete plans (or rumors thereof) of Aegon IV pushing aside Daeron as his Heir Apparent in favor of Daemon Blackfyre ... with Aegon's early death cutting them short.

If something like that was on the table - or elder folks later fed Daemon the idea that such ideas were on the table - then Daemon's ambition would be a bit more justified.

In fact, it could make some sense that Aegon's silly 'All my bastards are legitimate now' decree was kind of the shithead plan B of a dying asshole who belatedly realized that he didn't have the power to prevent Daeron from becoming king. He couldn't declare Daeron a bastard, couldn't disinherit him as he was rotting alive in bed, and Daemon was far from old enough to be propped up as alternative pretender.

So he basically did his best to ruin things for Daeron and everybody else by doing something which could very well cause House Targaryen to rip itself and the Realm to pieces in 2-3 generations. After all, not just Daemon Blackfyre could have founded his own cadet branch - Bittersteel and Bloodraven and the lesser sons and daughters could have, too. It could have become an even greater mess.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Just now, frenin said:

Only after they started conspiring against him, they were left alone for 13 years.

I find the "my children are in trouble" a slippery slope.

 

Daenerys claims that the reason why they moved from city to city her whole life was to evade Robert’s agents. It started long before AGOT.

[frenin]

1 minute ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Daenerys claims that the reason why they moved from city to city her whole life was to evade Robert’s agents. It started long before AGOT.

Nope, that was Viserys's paranoia and even Dany is aware of it. Robert never went after them until AGOT, and he himself states that it would have been easy task till Illyrio guarded them.

 

Quote

They had wandered since then, from Braavos to Myr, from Myr to Tyrosh, and on to Qohor and Volantis and Lys, never staying long in any one place. Her brother would not allow it. The Usurper's hired knives were close behind them, he insisted, though Dany had never seen one.

 

Quote

Ned knew better than to defy him when the wrath was on him. If the years had not quenched Robert's thirst for revenge, no words of his would help. "You can't get your hands on this one, can you?" he said quietly.
The king's mouth twisted in a bitter grimace. "No, gods be cursed. Some pox-ridden Pentoshi cheesemonger had her brother and her walled up on his estate with pointy-hatted eunuchs all around them, and now he's handed them over to the Dothraki. I should have had them both killed years ago, when it was easy to get at them, but Jon was as bad as you. More fool I, I listened to him."
"Jon Arryn was a wise man and a good Hand."

 

Quote

Lord Renly shrugged. "The matter seems simple enough to me. We ought to have had Viserys and his sister killed years ago, but His Grace my brother made the mistake of listening to Jon Arryn."
"Mercy is never a mistake, Lord Renly," Ned replied. "On the Trident, Ser Barristan here cut down a dozen good men, Robert's friends and mine. When they brought him to us, grievously wounded and near death, Roose Bolton urged us to cut his throat, but your brother said, 'I will not kill a man for loyalty, nor for fighting well,' and sent his own maester to tend Ser Barristan's wounds." He gave the king a long cool look. "Would that man were here today."

 

Even in Westeros, most people are not fond to kill children, in both the Blackfyre's case just as the Targlings, they were dealt with when they were conspiring to get the throne, which obviously means that the regards their enemies had on them no longer apply.

That's the lesson that ought to be learned here, if you don't try to stab people you will not get stabbed. Trying to usurp the throne because "they might kill my children" more often than not is simply a justification for one own ambition.