Why Daemon Blackfyre Rebelled

[Mourning Star]

21 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But the first Blackfyre rebellion only started after Daeron tried and failed to imprison Daemon. 

As far as Daemon knows is not paranoia, they are coming for him.

I think this is the most overlooked detail.

I would question if Daemon ever would have rebelled at all.

Bittersteel may have been for rebellion all along, but I do think it was Bloodraven who started the Blackfyre rebellions.

In the end, years of such talk bore their fruit, and Daemon Blackfyre made his decision. Yet it was a decision he made rashly, for word soon reached King Daeron that Blackfyre meant to declare himself king within the turn of the moon. (We do not know how word came to Daeron, though Merion's unfinished The Red Dragon and the Black suggests that another of the Great Bastards, Brynden Rivers, was involved.) The king sent the Kingsguard to arrest Daemon before he could take his plans for treason any further. Daemon was forewarned, and with the help of the famously hot-tempered knight Ser Quentyn Ball, called Fireball, he was able to escape the Red Keep safely. Daemon Blackfyre's allies used this attempted arrest as a cause for war, claiming that Daeron had acted against Daemon out of no more than baseless fear. Others still named him Daeron Falseborn, repeating the calumny that Aegon the Unworthy himself was said to have circulated in the later years of his reign: that he had been sired not by the king but by his brother, the Dragonknight.

 

[KingAerys_II]

Why Daemon rebelled.

Quoting Homelander : I am stronger, I am smarter, I am better, I am better

[The Duck and the Field]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Bittersteel may have been for rebellion all along, but I do think it was Bloodraven who started the Blackfyre rebellions.

Would be kind of funny if the real genesis behind the rebellion was the feud between Bloodraven and Bittersteel, with Daemon and Daeron being manipulated into fighting each other.

[Mourning Star]

13 minutes ago, The Duck and the Field said:

Would be kind of funny if the real genesis behind the rebellion was the feud between Bloodraven and Bittersteel, with Daemon and Daeron being manipulated into fighting each other.

If I'm being honest, I think it is almost certainly the case, and we see echos of the same feud with Illyrio/Dragon eggs/The Gold Company and Bloodraven/The Others/The Children of the Forest in the current story

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

I would say that Stannis or Renly are more than justified in rising in rebellion against Joffrey. They (or at the very least Renly) knew their lifes were in danger, and claiming the throne was the best way to gather support. Very similar to what Robert did against Aerys, the only diference is that Aerys gave a order before the rebellion, and Renly rebelled before the execution came for him.

We are not in the Ottoman Empire here. Just because you fear your king for good or bad reasons doesn't mean you have the right to steal his throne. That is nonsense. If you are actually mistreated it might be a different thing. But, you know, even if you are the king's brother him exiling you doesn't mean you have a right to be king all of a sudden.

I mean, Renly's take on things is especially nonsensical. Renly isn't even like Henry of Bolingbroke. Nobody exiled him, nobody stole his inheritance from his recently deceased father. Renly just wants to be king and pretends that his sister-in-law and nephew might murder him. Even if he had evidence for this ... the proper counter to something like that is, perhaps, poison and assassination, not crowning yourself and plunging the Realm into a civil war.

But not to confuse things:

Our issue is the question if a bastard half-brother of a king can want the throne himself on the basis of being summoned into the king's presence by his Kingsguard. And there is zero basis for this. Every courtier or counselor or family of the king might be summoned to his presence by the Kingsguard. That is no pretense for rebellion.

Also, we don't talk young nephew vs. older uncle here ... but younger brother vs. older, royal brother. That is a difference of day and night.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

There is also than chance that others started to rumor to force Daeron's hand and he started the very thing he tried to prevent.

While that is possible, nothing in the text states that Daeron's Kingsguard told Daemon why the king wanted to see him. What we know is that he was summoned and the fled, rising in bloody rebellion. We have various precedents in the books where the Kingsguard summon various people - they usually don't come with explanations as to why the king wants to see the person in question.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Daeron had lots of reason to fear Daemon.

Daeron had his legitimacy contested not by Daemon, but by Aegon IV himself that would not gain anything by making such claims. Daeron was probably not a very popular king, getting rid of Aegon's IV corrupt court probably made him several enemies, making peace with Dorne was not a popular move, giving them several privileges also made him enemies.

That is irrelevant. Daeron II was king for twelve years at that point and he had as many friends or more friends than Daemon Blackfyre - which is why he won the war in the end. Also, having enemies and opponents in the Realm doesn't mean Daeron has to fear his half-brother. The guy apparently needed to be convinced by Daeron's actual enemies, so he and Daeron didn't have lots of personal issues. And whatever issues they had apparently weren't enough to convince Daeron II to clandestinely murder or arrest Daemon - which he surely could have done if he had been a paranoid evil half-brother.

The 'Daeron Falseborn' nonsense should have had little to no weight. The Dragonknight publicly dealt with it, and if it had been an important thing in 184 AC the court and lords of Aegon IV would have not crowned Daeron king, and some guy would have grabbed Daeron's spindly arm stopping him from mounting a throne that wasn't his to take.

Instead, it is crystal clear that the Blackfyre Rebellion is the result of a treasonous tapestry woven by different people and from different source stories. One is the Daeron Falseborn story, another is the Blackfyre sword thing being interpreted as a sign that Aegon IV wanted Daemon to succeed him (nonsense as Aegon IV always had the authority and power to disinherit Daeron and name Daemon his heir - he also had the authority to declare Daeron a bastard, especially after Aemon's and Naerys's deaths, while legitimizing Daemon and all his other bastards), yet another is Daemon's prowess at arms which is a thing that only comes into full bloom during Daeron's reign, yet another thing is Daeron II making a number of crucial enemies during his reign especially with his Dornish policies. Perhaps the looks of Daeron's heir, Baelor Breakspear, are yet another. We don't know so far.

Bottom line is, this rebellion was a thing that came into being slowly over many years and has effectively nothing to do with Daeron II's standing at the time of his coronation in 184 AC. At that time Daemon was yet a boy, and the other great bastards were younger still. Fireball was yet master-of-arms and not yet pissed that he was passed over as KG which only happened some time after Daeron II's ascension. And so on and so forth.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Daemon is Aegon IV  legitimate son, he was his favorite and elder if Daeron is from Dragoknight, even his female line had a strong claim, he had a big simbol of power in Blackfyre, he was popular with the martial nobility, he was married to a very powerfull family in Tyrosh, had his own seat and lands.

That is all just talk. Daeron II is the crowned and anointed king. He is in charge. He doesn't have just a seat, he has the royal castle, the Iron Throne, and Dragonstone. He is also popular with the people and the nobility to a point, he has strong sons to fight for him, very loyal friends in the Martells and Dornishmen, etc.

And, no, Daemon is not Aegon IV's legitimate son. Daeron is. It was proven in a trial-by-combat by the Dragonknight himself. Daemon is, in the end, a legitimized bastard ... and thanks to Aegon's legitimization decree most likely also not Aegon's eldest legitimized bastard son. One who has to thank Daeron II even for his marriage and legitimization. Because we know from the Hull boys that some monarch legitimizing somebody doesn't have to stand. Rhaenyra legitimized the Hull boys but they later had to push Aegon II and then even the regency government of Aegon III to see Alyn 'Velaryon' succeed to Driftmark.

The idea that the dying wishes of Aegon IV magically became and remained law is a huge stretch. Daeron II could have undone that silly nonsense ... that he didn't, that Daemon and all the others could claim to be legitimate Targaryens now is something they owe to their royal half-brother.

George actually has to give us a proper narrative how the rotting ruin Aegon IV could actually legitimize all his bastards. There was no precedent for such nonsense in the entirety of the Targaryen reign. And as we know ... what one king does another can unmake. Deathbed decrees can be ripped into pieces like Robert's was. Even if Aegon had a lot of cronies or even the High Septon himself stand witness as he declared all his bastards legitimate ... Daeron II could have done the same with his cronies and the same High Septon re-declaring his half-siblings bastards again. That he didn't do this, and even showed favor to his highborn half-siblings shows he didn't view them as a threat ... and that he wanted them all to get along.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Daemon was much more dangerous than Stannis is for example, and we see that Tywin wanted to deal with Stannis before Stannis even claimed the throne.

Daemon eventually gets dangerous because his campaign apparently went well to a point, not because of his claim. That is a joke. Stannis is a danger because of his claim, because Robert had no legitimate children. Also, of course, Daemon Blackfyre as a whole is only 'dangerous' from hindsight. The notion that anyone expected this guy to make the Targaryen dynasty tremble (or rather one branch of his as he is a Targaryen, too) is ludicrous. He was just a popular bastard with effectively no lands nor bannermen.

George could have made Daemon a wealthy man in his own right - say, through an inheritance and incomes left to him by his mother. Instead, we have it said that Daeron II of all people gave Daemon some land and the permission to build a keep. He made him a landed knight, not Daemon himself.

Ran keeps reiterating the Osgrey talk about 'two princes'. But that is factually wrong. Osgrey may have seen it that way, but the facts are that there were no princes at all. There was a king who had ruled pretty successfully for twelve years and there was a knight who never was a prince but born a bastard. So far nobody ever styled Daemon Blackfyre 'prince' and I'm sure nobody ever will since nobody ever styled Bloodraven, Bittersteel or Shiera Seastar 'prince' or 'princess'. Hell, as far as we know those morons still go by their bastard names ... which is ludicrous as their royal father made them all proper Targaryens.

[The Bard of Banefort]

It’ll be interesting to see, assuming we get to read FB2 one day, if Daeron turns out to be the perfect king who did nothing worth incuring the wrath of his lords, or if he’ll make a few genuinely bad decisions that will make the rebellion less black and white. GRRM found a way to knock Jaehaerys down a peg in FB1, so I’m guessing he’ll do the same for Daeron.

Rather than starting a new thread, I’m just going to post two related questions here:

1. Did Maekar receive Summerhall as a reward for leading in the first rebellion? It’s a bit odd that he has a castle/title but two of his older brothers don’t.

2. Why marry Baelor to a Dondarrion? I realize that this was to counterbalance the influence of the Dornish, but still, the Dondarrions seem relatively lowborn for a future Queen consort.

[Ran]

I expect George's take isn't that Daeron is perfect, but that his instincts towards law and order led him to allow the cancer of Daemon drawing disaffected nobles to him to grow and grow until it was too late. Aerys I's reign featuring a quasi-police state run by Bloodraven seems like a reaction to a perceived lack of Daeron the Good's reign.

As George has said, not all bad men were bad leaders, and not all good men were good leaders. While Daeron the Good was clearly a pretty good leader overall, the biggest problem in his realm was one that I'm sure some counselled him to nip in the bud and he refused to do it. And so instead of one man dying, tens of thousands died.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Ran

[Kal-L]

On 7/29/2023 at 8:45 PM, frenin said:

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. 

Thanks, it applies to so many things.

On 7/31/2023 at 3:58 AM, Arthur Peres said:

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But the first Blackfyre rebellion only started after Daeron tried and failed to imprison Daemon. 

As far as Daemon knows is not paranoia, they are coming for him.

Good point, as said by @Mourning Star this is the most overlooked detail.

As said earlier in the thread, Daemon Blackfyre de-facto represented a danger for Daeron's line, thus for several reasons.  Legitimate son of Aegon IV, officially recognized by his king father as well as grandson of King Aegon III through his mother. The truth is that there could have been a war between Aegon III descendants and his brother Viserys II with the same problematic as the Dance (and the Great council of 101 AC). Could a woman (here Princess Daena) be on the throne ?

@Ran Do we know what happened to Princess Daena after she gave birth to her son Daemon in 170 AC ? We know that Queen Naerys died after giving birth to Daenerys two years later making Aegon IV a widow. Why didn't he marry his cousin to unify both line, especially as he hated both Aemon and Daenerys and suspected Daeron, his son who didn't share his hatred for Dornish, not to be his ? Daena was never said to have die in childbirth and we know she always refused to say who was the father of Daemon which imply that she wasn't there by the time Aegon IV legitimised Daemon.

Anyway to go back to the origins of Blackfyre rebellion, it seems to me that Daeron -although determined to be a lawful king- as well as his loyal followers would have been well aware of the danger that represented Daemon. If Daeron's nature prevented him from taking care of the problem directly, someone more ruthless and calculating (Bloodraven) could have very well ensured to push Daemon to act first in order to force the confrontation that was needed. Another King would have probably not needed his Hand to scheme behind his back for him to do what was "required" in order to deal with Aegon IV's last curse once for all.

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 minute ago, Kal-L said:

Thanks, it applies to so many things.

Good point, as said by @Mourning Star this is the most overlooked detail.

As said earlier in the thread, Daemon Blackfyre de-facto represented a danger for Daeron's line, thus for several reasons.  Legitimate son of Aegon IV, officially recognized by his king father as well as grandson of King Aegon III through his mother. The truth is that there could have been a war between Aegon III descendants and his brother Viserys II with the same problematic as the Dance (and the Great council of 101 AC). Could a woman (here Princess Daena) be on the throne ?

@Ran Do we know what happened to Princess Daena after she gave birth to her son Daemon in 170 AC ? We know that Queen Naerys died after giving birth to Daenerys two years later making Aegon IV a widow. Why didn't he marry his cousin to unify both line, especially as he hated both Aemon and Daenerys and suspected Daeron, his son who didn't share his hatred for Dornish, not to be his ? Daena was never said to have die in childbirth and we know she always refused to say who was the father of Daemon which imply that she wasn't there by the time Aegon IV legitimised Daemon.

Anyway to go back to the origins of Blackfyre rebellion, it seems to me that Daeron -although determined to be a lawful king- as well as his loyal followers would have been well aware of the danger that represented Daemon. If Daeron's nature prevented him from taking care of the problem directly, someone more ruthless and calculating (Bloodraven) could have very well ensured to push Daemon to act first in order to force the confrontation that was needed. Another King would have probably not needed his Hand to scheme behind his back for him to do what was "required" in order to deal with Aegon IV's last curse once for all.

Naerys didn’t die giving birth to Daenerys. She died during a stillbirth many years later.

[Kal-L]

46 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Naerys didn’t die giving birth to Daenerys. She died during a stillbirth many years later.

Thanks for your correction, I mixed it up.

It should have been obvious since Aegon became King the year of Daenerys's birth.

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

It’ll be interesting to see, assuming we get to read FB2 one day, if Daeron turns out to be the perfect king who did nothing worth incuring the wrath of his lords, or if he’ll make a few genuinely bad decisions that will make the rebellion less black and white. GRRM found a way to knock Jaehaerys down a peg in FB1, so I’m guessing he’ll do the same for Daeron.

Actually, I think FaB made Jaehaerys even larger than he loomed before the book, as we knew effectively nothing about him then. He just looks a tidbit bad in some respects because Alysanne is smarter still. What I especially like about Jaehaerys, actually, is veiled threat thing. The earlier impression of 'the Conciliator' was that his was a reign of peace and plenty and he Mr. Moderator Nice Guy ... and that is not what he was at all.

If you get down to the issue of actual ruling and government I think Jaehaerys basically made no mistakes at all. Nothing in that field came back to haunt him or his family ... and even his decision to pass over Rhaenys only became a problem because Baelon died prematurely. He would have been as great a king as his father. And Viserys wasn't that bad, either, all things considered. Honestly not sure if book Laenor had it in himself to be a good king.

With Daeron II we might see more of the guy that people imagined Jaehaerys I was before FaB - a genuinely peace-loving guy who was good a conciliation and moderation.

Osgrey's story about the Rebellion confuses things. It creates the picture of war that took place early on in Daeron's reign and gives the implication that Daemon was a viable alternative to Daeron from the start. Basically a Dance like scenario where there is a succession war after the old monarch dies - or shortly thereafter. But as the dates and ages stand, Daeron II is both a much older and more senior man than Daemon Blackfyre. The guy is born in the same year as Daeron's eldest son, he could have been Daeron's son, so this challenge stands on altogether different feet than the Osgrey narrative implied.

15 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

1. Did Maekar receive Summerhall as a reward for leading in the first rebellion? It’s a bit odd that he has a castle/title but two of his older brothers don’t.

We don't know when he got it, so it is hard to say. Could be that it played a role. Another could be that Maekar actually married a Dayne from Dorne, so having them living closer to Starfall may have been something they wanted. In fact, it might even turn out that Dyanna Dayne wasn't just some Dayne but the Lady Dayne of Starfall (likely be a bit too much to ask, but still possible).

15 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

2. Why marry Baelor to a Dondarrion? I realize that this was to counterbalance the influence of the Dornish, but still, the Dondarrions seem relatively lowborn for a future Queen consort.

Best take on that thing is that Jena Dondarrion was another Targaryen cousin like Aelinor Penrose now is. If we take the second Laena Velaryon as ancestor there then we could see her ending up with a Penrose guy and they produce at least two children together - one would be Ronnel who eventually ends up with Elaena and is father of Aelinor through a previous marriage, and a daughter who marries a Dondarrion and is mother to Baelor's future wife, Jena.

Another line Jena Dondarrion could go back to is her being descended from one of the six daughters of Garmund Hightower and Rhaena Targaryen. Then one of those girls is likely going to be her mother rather than grandmother as Rhaena and Garmund aren't married yet. In fact, considering Garmund's age they might only marry in the 140s.

Yet another take could be her being a descendant of Daenaera Velaryon if she outlived Aegon III and took a second husband after his death. If Daenaera married a Dondarrion a daughter of hers might very well have been considered as a bride for a future king.

If Jena Dondarrion had no Targaryen link, wasn't chosen as bride for the Prince of Dragonstone because she was a Targaryen cousin or other close relation we would face a very big conundrum. We hear a lot of talk about Egg marrying Betha Blackwood being a scandal. But a Dondarrion being the future queen is something nobody so much as mentioned as a reason why Daeron II was unpopular? That makes no sense.

(It is already pretty silly as it stands as a Dondarrion guy shows up in THK and folks talk a lot about the Dondarrions there ... yet nobody mentions that Valarr's mother and Baelor's wife actually is a Dondarrion. In light of all that I think if there is a chance that George ends up tweaking the family tree for FaB II a little bit again then it would be to change Baelor Breakspear's wife. Perhaps from a Dondarrion to a Baratheon ... although that would then add other hair baggage, so perhaps just go with Baelor being married to a sister as Aerys I originally was.)

The only way to make this make sense is if people accepted Jena as Baelor's wife because of her Targaryen blood - and considering Valarr's more pronounced Valyrian looks George could also go with Jena being a kind of Daenaera Velaryon beauty miracle, i.e. a very distant Targaryen/Valyrian descendant who nonetheless inherited distinct Valyrian looks.

On the basis of actual political matches only Rhaegel Targaryen and Alys Arryn make sense. And, perhaps, to a lesser degree Maekar and Dyanna Dayne. The two Stormlands matches to the elder sons look ludicrous. If one had been a Baratheon it would have made sense, and a Dondarrion perhaps to a younger son to favor the Marcher lords. But even that is quite odd as Maekar definitely was married before the Blackfyre Rebellion - and if he was, then it is likely that the other sons were married already, too, or at least betrothed. So neither Jena nor Aelinor would have been chosen as brides because of things their fathers or brothers did or didn't do during the rebellion.

But there is another subtle sentence in TWoIaF which indicates that Daeron II actually did have some buddies in the Stormlands after all - the sentence where Aegon IV's reasoning about his silly Dornish war is given. Supposedly Aegon wanted to attack Dorne to drive a wedge between Daeron's Martell in-laws and some of his closest friends - which seem to have been Stormlanders or Marcher Lords. Aegon wanted to have a war so there would be fresh blood between the strongest supporters of his heir.

That is also where I think Ronnel Penrose fits into all that. He is no great Master of Coin but ends up on the Small Council and gets a princess to wife because of ... what exactly? Likely because he was a close friend and ally of Daeron II ... which, in turn, could be explained by them growing up together as cousins court. If the second Laena is Ronnel's mother then he could be born roughly at the same time as Daeron II himself and they could be companions at court in their childhood like, say, Aerys II and Steffon Baratheon later are. That would then also explain why a match is made between Daeron's second son and Aelinor Penrose - which is yet another over-the-top honor for House Penrose. Those guys got two Targaryen matches in a row.

That is a lot of speculation, to be sure. But it kind of adds up, especially since Stormlanders provide a sizable Targaryen contingent under Baelor Breakspear on the Redgrass Field. It feels more likely, I think, that the Marcher Lords of the Reach were more in camp Blackfyre than the Stormlanders. Although some of them might have followed the Black Dragon still, like, say, the Carons, Selmys, Swanns or Tarlys.

14 hours ago, Ran said:

I expect George's take isn't that Daeron is perfect, but that his instincts towards law and order led him to allow the cancer of Daemon drawing disaffected nobles to him to grow and grow until it was too late. Aerys I's reign featuring a quasi-police state run by Bloodraven seems like a reaction to a perceived lack of Daeron the Good's reign.

Isn't the police state a result of the destabilization during the Great Spring Sickness and the subsequent drought? The former was a horrible calamity, greatly removing the hold the Crown had over the former rebels in the form of hostages given. The latter is explicitly mentioned both in TSS and TMK.

Aerys I is viewed as a weak king, but Daeron II is remembered as a guy with a firmer hand despite him not being a martial man.

14 hours ago, Ran said:

As George has said, not all bad men were bad leaders, and not all good men were good leaders. While Daeron the Good was clearly a pretty good leader overall, the biggest problem in his realm was one that I'm sure some counselled him to nip in the bud and he refused to do it. And so instead of one man dying, tens of thousands died.

While it is possible Bloodraven may have urged his beloved brother to murder Daemon, I doubt the guy would have given such counsel without his own judgment being clouded. For better or worse, Daemon is not described as a guy who orchestrated his own rebellion - and until we know the details the both factions might have actually be surprised by the amount of people who joined Daemon ... kind of like the Greens are completely surprised by the support Rhaenyra ends up having in the Reach.

If we look at things it was Daeron II who made those bastards 'great'. If the king had declared that this Daemon Blackfyre character and his buddy Aegor were not welcome at his court nor in his Realm then this would have had dire consequences for the boys - and they were just boys in 184 AC. In fact, Daemon Blackfyre was both without a father and, most likely, a mother in 184 AC. Aegor and Brynden had the families and kin of their respective mothers ... which means Daeron would have faced some prospective trouble if he wanted to kill or exile or dispossess them. But Daemon and Shiera were all alone, effectively wards of the Crown. Yes, yes, Daemon Blackfyre was tall and strong lad ... but still a minor in 184 AC. And King Daeron II would have been his legal guardian in absence of a father and a mother. The lad didn't have the money to pay the dowry for the hand of Rohanne of Tyrosh.

[The Bard of Banefort]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, I think FaB made Jaehaerys even larger than he loomed before the book, as we knew effectively nothing about him then. He just looks a tidbit bad in some respects because Alysanne is smarter still. What I especially like about Jaehaerys, actually, is veiled threat thing. The earlier impression of 'the Conciliator' was that his was a reign of peace and plenty and he Mr. Moderator Nice Guy ... and that is not what he was at all.

If you get down to the issue of actual ruling and government I think Jaehaerys basically made no mistakes at all. Nothing in that field came back to haunt him or his family ... and even his decision to pass over Rhaenys only became a problem because Baelon died prematurely. He would have been as great a king as his father. And Viserys wasn't that bad, either, all things considered. Honestly not sure if book Laenor had it in himself to be a good king.

With Daeron II we might see more of the guy that people imagined Jaehaerys I was before FaB - a genuinely peace-loving guy who was good a conciliation and moderation.

Osgrey's story about the Rebellion confuses things. It creates the picture of war that took place early on in Daeron's reign and gives the implication that Daemon was a viable alternative to Daeron from the start. Basically a Dance like scenario where there is a succession war after the old monarch dies - or shortly thereafter. But as the dates and ages stand, Daeron II is both a much older and more senior man than Daemon Blackfyre. The guy is born in the same year as Daeron's eldest son, he could have been Daeron's son, so this challenge stands on altogether different feet than the Osgrey narrative implied.

We don't know when he got it, so it is hard to say. Could be that it played a role. Another could be that Maekar actually married a Dayne from Dorne, so having them living closer to Starfall may have been something they wanted. In fact, it might even turn out that Dyanna Dayne wasn't just some Dayne but the Lady Dayne of Starfall (likely be a bit too much to ask, but still possible).

Best take on that thing is that Jena Dondarrion was another Targaryen cousin like Aelinor Penrose now is. If we take the second Laena Velaryon as ancestor there then we could see her ending up with a Penrose guy and they produce at least two children together - one would be Ronnel who eventually ends up with Elaena and is father of Aelinor through a previous marriage, and a daughter who marries a Dondarrion and is mother to Baelor's future wife, Jena.

Another line Jena Dondarrion could go back to is her being descended from one of the six daughters of Garmund Hightower and Rhaena Targaryen. Then one of those girls is likely going to be her mother rather than grandmother as Rhaena and Garmund aren't married yet. In fact, considering Garmund's age they might only marry in the 140s.

Yet another take could be her being a descendant of Daenaera Velaryon if she outlived Aegon III and took a second husband after his death. If Daenaera married a Dondarrion a daughter of hers might very well have been considered as a bride for a future king.

If Jena Dondarrion had no Targaryen link, wasn't chosen as bride for the Prince of Dragonstone because she was a Targaryen cousin or other close relation we would face a very big conundrum. We hear a lot of talk about Egg marrying Betha Blackwood being a scandal. But a Dondarrion being the future queen is something nobody so much as mentioned as a reason why Daeron II was unpopular? That makes no sense.

(It is already pretty silly as it stands as a Dondarrion guy shows up in THK and folks talk a lot about the Dondarrions there ... yet nobody mentions that Valarr's mother and Baelor's wife actually is a Dondarrion. In light of all that I think if there is a chance that George ends up tweaking the family tree for FaB II a little bit again then it would be to change Baelor Breakspear's wife. Perhaps from a Dondarrion to a Baratheon ... although that would then add other hair baggage, so perhaps just go with Baelor being married to a sister as Aerys I originally was.)

The only way to make this make sense is if people accepted Jena as Baelor's wife because of her Targaryen blood - and considering Valarr's more pronounced Valyrian looks George could also go with Jena being a kind of Daenaera Velaryon beauty miracle, i.e. a very distant Targaryen/Valyrian descendant who nonetheless inherited distinct Valyrian looks.

On the basis of actual political matches only Rhaegel Targaryen and Alys Arryn make sense. And, perhaps, to a lesser degree Maekar and Dyanna Dayne. The two Stormlands matches to the elder sons look ludicrous. If one had been a Baratheon it would have made sense, and a Dondarrion perhaps to a younger son to favor the Marcher lords. But even that is quite odd as Maekar definitely was married before the Blackfyre Rebellion - and if he was, then it is likely that the other sons were married already, too, or at least betrothed. So neither Jena nor Aelinor would have been chosen as brides because of things their fathers or brothers did or didn't do during the rebellion.

But there is another subtle sentence in TWoIaF which indicates that Daeron II actually did have some buddies in the Stormlands after all - the sentence where Aegon IV's reasoning about his silly Dornish war is given. Supposedly Aegon wanted to attack Dorne to drive a wedge between Daeron's Martell in-laws and some of his closest friends - which seem to have been Stormlanders or Marcher Lords. Aegon wanted to have a war so there would be fresh blood between the strongest supporters of his heir.

That is also where I think Ronnel Penrose fits into all that. He is no great Master of Coin but ends up on the Small Council and gets a princess to wife because of ... what exactly? Likely because he was a close friend and ally of Daeron II ... which, in turn, could be explained by them growing up together as cousins court. If the second Laena is Ronnel's mother then he could be born roughly at the same time as Daeron II himself and they could be companions at court in their childhood like, say, Aerys II and Steffon Baratheon later are. That would then also explain why a match is made between Daeron's second son and Aelinor Penrose - which is yet another over-the-top honor for House Penrose. Those guys got two Targaryen matches in a row.

That is a lot of speculation, to be sure. But it kind of adds up, especially since Stormlanders provide a sizable Targaryen contingent under Baelor Breakspear on the Redgrass Field. It feels more likely, I think, that the Marcher Lords of the Reach were more in camp Blackfyre than the Stormlanders. Although some of them might have followed the Black Dragon still, like, say, the Carons, Selmys, Swanns or Tarlys.

Isn't the police state a result of the destabilization during the Great Spring Sickness and the subsequent drought? The former was a horrible calamity, greatly removing the hold the Crown had over the former rebels in the form of hostages given. The latter is explicitly mentioned both in TSS and TMK.

Aerys I is viewed as a weak king, but Daeron II is remembered as a guy with a firmer hand despite him not being a martial man.

While it is possible Bloodraven may have urged his beloved brother to murder Daemon, I doubt the guy would have given such counsel without his own judgment being clouded. For better or worse, Daemon is not described as a guy who orchestrated his own rebellion - and until we know the details the both factions might have actually be surprised by the amount of people who joined Daemon ... kind of like the Greens are completely surprised by the support Rhaenyra ends up having in the Reach.

If we look at things it was Daeron II who made those bastards 'great'. If the king had declared that this Daemon Blackfyre character and his buddy Aegor were not welcome at his court nor in his Realm then this would have had dire consequences for the boys - and they were just boys in 184 AC. In fact, Daemon Blackfyre was both without a father and, most likely, a mother in 184 AC. Aegor and Brynden had the families and kin of their respective mothers ... which means Daeron would have faced some prospective trouble if he wanted to kill or exile or dispossess them. But Daemon and Shiera were all alone, effectively wards of the Crown. Yes, yes, Daemon Blackfyre was tall and strong lad ... but still a minor in 184 AC. And King Daeron II would have been his legal guardian in absence of a father and a mother. The lad didn't have the money to pay the dowry for the hand of Rohanne of Tyrosh.

George made Jaehaerys less perfect through his conflicts with his wife and daughters. That may seem like small potatoes compared some of the terrible policies of other kings, but for a lot of fans (particularly young female ones) this forever tainted him in their eyes.
 

Daeron is already the closest thing the audience has to a self-insert king (he’s a nerd who would probably read fantasy books if he had any), so his great flaw being that he was too merciful feels like a bit of a cop-out. I don’t think most readers would hold Daeron’s lack of athleticism against him. It would be more interesting if we saw that he actually did favor the Dornish at the expense of the other lords, for instance, rather than being a king whose only crime was being a tolerant nerd. It’s like how Bowen Marsh spent all of ADWD trying to make Jon see that he was alienating the Watch and Jon just shrugged him off, to his detriment.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

George made Jaehaerys less perfect through his conflicts with his wife and daughters. That may seem like small potatoes compared some of the terrible policies of other kings, but for a lot of fans (particularly young female ones) this forever tainted him in their eyes.
 

Daeron is already the closest thing the audience has to a self-insert king (he’s a nerd who would probably read fantasy books if he had any), so his great flaw being that he was too merciful feels like a bit of a cop-out. I don’t think most readers would hold Daeron’s lack of athleticism against him. It would be more interesting if we saw that he actually did favor the Dornish at the expense of the other lords, for instance, rather than being a king whose only crime was being a tolerant nerd. It’s like how Bowen Marsh spent all of ADWD trying to make Jon see that he was alienating the Watch and Jon just shrugged him off, to his detriment.

It’s interesting how Ned seemed to be speaking for the author when he said “mercy is never a mistake”, at the Small Council where they discussed murdering Daenerys.

But, the narrative so often suggests the opposite.  Showing mercy blew up in the faces of Ned, Daeron II, Aenys I, and Daenerys in Meereen.

Mercy is treated as weakness and cowardice.

[Kal-L]

7 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

George made Jaehaerys less perfect through his conflicts with his wife and daughters. That may seem like small potatoes compared some of the terrible policies of other kings, but for a lot of fans (particularly young female ones) this forever tainted him in their eyes.

Well he turned him into a mighty warrior which he wasn't until F&B.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Kal-L said:

Well he turned him into a mighty warrior which he wasn't until F&B.

I mean, in George's mind he may always have been a good fighter but it was not revealed until F&B. 

Same with his sexism towards his own daughters, may have been something he intended all along, may have been something he came up with as he wrote. 

Only George knows.

[SaffronLady]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Mercy is treated as weakness and cowardice.

Mercy without the power to back it up is of course treated as weakness and cowardice even in real life.

I will suggest, in turn, we look at examples where mercy (well, clemency and magnanimity included) did work:

A1gon naming the various Lords Paramounts from defeated former kings (west, Vale, North);

V1serys forgiving Daemon's adventure into the Stepstones;

Da2ron's peaceful integration of Dorne;

Robert forgiving Tyrell and Dornish support of the Targs.

[Kal-L]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I mean, in George's mind he may always have been a good fighter but it was not revealed until F&B. 

In TWOIAF, Jaehaerys is specifically mentionned to be good with the lance and a bow. No mention of a sword. You'll note that there was absolutely no reason to specify these skills, especially if he had always had in mind Jaehaerys to be the mighty swordsman he was portrayed to be in F&B.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Kal-L

[Ran]

11 minutes ago, Kal-L said:

In TWOIAF, Jaehaerys is specifically mentionned to be good with the lance and a bow.

I'm aware. Other characters who are knights who are skilled with the lance also tend to be skilled with other melee weapons., so being shocked that he was also good with a sword seems strange.

[Kal-L]

20 minutes ago, Ran said:

I'm aware. Other characters who are knights who are skilled with the lance also tend to be skilled with other melee weapons., so being shocked that he was also good with a sword seems strange.

That has nothing to do with Jaehaerys's example. None of these characters were portrayed as anything but "good knights"  which differs entirely from who having skills at a specific weapons singled out as Jaehaerys has. If Jaehaerys was to be great at every weapons (which is not the case for everyone), there was absolutely no reasons to emphasized his skills at the some lance and bow - especially if it was to suddenly magnify him with another weapon in the next book.

Edit : The fact that Jaehaerys is now said by his master-at-arms to have surpass his uncle Maegor who was actually always portrayed as mighty warrior, being the youngest knight of his time, defeating grown up knights as a kid is very telling on the retcon that occured in F&B.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Kal-L

[Ran]

His master-at-arms was kissing the royal ass, and the fact that he also says Jaehaerys isn't up to being a Kingsguard in skill underscores it

His performance against Stinger was not the performance of a paragon of swordsmanship on the level of Maegor, it was simply a disciplined and capable swordsman fighting tactically.