Why Daemon Blackfyre Rebelled

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

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.

 

 

 

 

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. 

Fair enough, but Robert also says he would have sent assassins after them if Jon Arryn hadn’t convinced him not to, so it’s not like he was incapable of doing so. The point still stands: even if Viserys and Dany were safe, they still believed they were in danger. 
 

7 hours ago, Ran said:

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.

 

I hadn’t considered that, but it’s not too far out of the realm of possibility that they encouraged the rebellion. Robb and Daeron I were leading foreign military campaigns when they were 14; it’s not hard to envision a pair of 12 year olds becoming indoctrinated in their family’s cause.

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

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.

I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding in the comments here. I’m not saying that Daemon should have rebelled or was even justified in doing so—it was clearly both foolish and wrong. Daemon was a traitor and a would-be usurper, full stop. What I’m suggesting is that he may have had a more sympathetic motivation than mere vanity. This is the one that I find most consistent with the themes of ASOIAF. Jaime doesn’t give a groat for any of his kids in his POV chapters, yet GRRM has always insisted in interviews that he pushed Bran in order to protect them. If we were supposed to see Daemon as a flat-out villain, I think he’d be written more like Aegon II. Instead he’s more like Rhaegar, who fans think is an idiot but whom GRRM has described as a “lovestruck prince.”

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

That is not entirely clear. Yes, Robert apparently never sent out assassins after Viserys and Dany ... but that doesn't mean nobody ever tried to kill them on Robert's behalf. Cersei also doesn't pay assassins/searchers/the Faceless Men, etc. to find and murder Tyrion ... but she puts a price on his head and offers rewards and people take out their knives and start butchering dwarfs.

Viserys not having to evade professional assassins doesn't mean he was never in the position where nobody tried to capture him and sell him and Dany to Robert ... or kill him and sell his corpse to Robert. Robert's hatred of the Targaryens must be even more well-known by the time AGoT begins as Cersei's love for dead dwarfs is known by the time of mid-AFfC/ADwD.

And we have to keep in mind the guy was forced to leave the mansion in Braavos when he was about 12 ... and was, unless George bothers to elaborate on things, completely on his own with no (or not much) cash.

The notion that no magister or merchant prince tried to take advantage of him, treating him like Viserys II was treated as a child in Lys, say, doesn't strike one as very likely. He may have found himself in quite a few very dangerous situations in his youth and older age. And it is indeed a miracle that this guy is still around in 298 AC.

By comparison, the Blackfyres seem to be well off in exile. Daemon II returns as a wealthy, pampered prince, so safe and secure in his position that he didn't even feel the need to include Bittersteel in his plans. Rohanne of Tyrosh seems to be a close relation - daughter or sister, perhaps - of the Archon, so hers would be a very wealthy family even if the Archon of 211 AC was no longer a relation of hers. That means the Blackfyres would have had a very pleasant and privileged exile in Tyrosh - and there is indeed no hint at at all that even Bloodraven as Hand plotted to actually murder the Blackfyres in exile. How Aenys Blackfyre ends up being murdered is certainly and interesting story ... but so far we don't know what happens during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion nor what Aenys Blackfyre, specifically, does that might earn him Bloodraven's enmity.

One also wonders who the hell Kiera of Tyrosh will be. With a little bit of tweaking she could be a younger daughter of Daemon Blackfyre ... but she could also be a sister or daughter of Rohanne from a second marriage. It is quite intriguing that both Valarr and Daeron the Drunk are married to her. Could easily be that she was a kind of stabilizing element between the Targaryens and Blackfyres, a way to patch things up, which fell through when Valarr died prematurely and there was no child. Vaella the Simple is only born in 222 AC, i.e. after the Third Rebellion, so Daeron might only end up being married to her as a reconciliation effort after the Third Rebellion. King Aerys I was pretty lenient towards Bittersteel, so there may have been other olive branches there as well.

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not entirely clear. Yes, Robert apparently never sent out assassins after Viserys and Dany ... but that doesn't mean nobody ever tried to kill them on Robert's behalf. Cersei also doesn't pay assassins/searchers/the Faceless Men, etc. to find and murder Tyrion ... but she puts a price on his head and offers rewards and people take out their knives and start butchering dwarfs.

Viserys not having to evade professional assassins doesn't mean he was never in the position where nobody tried to capture him and sell him and Dany to Robert ... or kill him and sell his corpse to Robert. Robert's hatred of the Targaryens must be even more well-known by the time AGoT begins as Cersei's love for dead dwarfs is known by the time of mid-AFfC/ADwD.

And we have to keep in mind the guy was forced to leave the mansion in Braavos when he was about 12 ... and was, unless George bothers to elaborate on things, completely on his own with no (or not much) cash.

The notion that no magister or merchant prince tried to take advantage of him, treating him like Viserys II was treated as a child in Lys, say, doesn't strike one as very likely. He may have found himself in quite a few very dangerous situations in his youth and older age. And it is indeed a miracle that this guy is still around in 298 AC.

By comparison, the Blackfyres seem to be well off in exile. Daemon II returns as a wealthy, pampered prince, so safe and secure in his position that he didn't even feel the need to include Bittersteel in his plans. Rohanne of Tyrosh seems to be a close relation - daughter or sister, perhaps - of the Archon, so hers would be a very wealthy family even if the Archon of 211 AC was no longer a relation of hers. That means the Blackfyres would have had a very pleasant and privileged exile in Tyrosh - and there is indeed no hint at at all that even Bloodraven as Hand plotted to actually murder the Blackfyres in exile. How Aenys Blackfyre ends up being murdered is certainly and interesting story ... but so far we don't know what happens during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion nor what Aenys Blackfyre, specifically, does that might earn him Bloodraven's enmity.

One also wonders who the hell Kiera of Tyrosh will be. With a little bit of tweaking she could be a younger daughter of Daemon Blackfyre ... but she could also be a sister or daughter of Rohanne from a second marriage. It is quite intriguing that both Valarr and Daeron the Drunk are married to her. Could easily be that she was a kind of stabilizing element between the Targaryens and Blackfyres, a way to patch things up, which fell through when Valarr died prematurely and there was no child. Vaella the Simple is only born in 222 AC, i.e. after the Third Rebellion, so Daeron might only end up being married to her as a reconciliation effort after the Third Rebellion. King Aerys I was pretty lenient towards Bittersteel, so there may have been other olive branches there as well.

Daemon II thought he didn’t need Bittersteel because of his dreams. He saw the dragon hatching and the Kingsguard (or at least Dunk) and thought he was golden.

My guess is that Kiera is from a powerful Tyroshi family that has the influence to counterbalance Rohanne’s. All of Tyrosh can’t unite behind the Blackfyres if half of them are in allegiance with the Targaryens. What’s stranger is that Daeron would wed the future king to a foreigner. He saw firsthand how the Westerosi reject foreign queens. Even Alyssa Velaryon said as much a century earlier.
 

 

[Angel Eyes]

Something I've wondered about Daenerys (Daeron II's sister): how come she never got any flak like Daeron got about possibly being Aemon the Dragonknight's kid with Naerys? Or do we not know about whether or not she did?

[frenin]

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Fair enough, but Robert also says he would have sent assassins after them if Jon Arryn hadn’t convinced him not to, so it’s not like he was incapable of doing so.

Sure he is, everyone is if their hand is forced, i don't think anyone actually had that much desire to do itt and so thy let them  be till they became a threat, kinda like the Blackfyres.

 

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The point still stands: even if Viserys and Dany were safe, they still believed they were in danger. 

Viserys certainly did, Dany much less so.

It's the cost of war.

But neither Robert, Jon Arryn nor Daeron, Bloodraven acted against them till they started looking sus.

Maybe the danger is playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.

 

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

What I’m suggesting is that he may have had a more sympathetic motivation than mere vanity.

Certainly so, i just think the "i did it for my kids" is simply vanity with extra steps.

At the end of the day, Martin did say that Daeron and Daemon clashed quite a few times and that one of the reasons he chose to marry her to Dorne was explicitly so Daemon couldn't do it, that doesn't really make sense given the timeline but it does mean that their relationship was rocky and Daeron was well aware of the danger Daemon presented from some time.

 

 

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Jaime doesn’t give a groat for any of his kids in his POV chapters, yet GRRM has always insisted in interviews that he pushed Bran in order to protect them.

Yeah that one remains Martin's most nonsensical move lol, he really tried to get readers to forgive him.

I'm not a fan of writers using post hoc justifications, Jaime had time to reflect on that event and all he thought was Cersei.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

but that doesn't mean nobody ever tried to kill them on Robert's behalf.

It means exactly that, Robert's regime did not try to get them murdered, and it was apparently pretty easy to do so for years, that is the opposite of Cersei who, quite explictly, did try to get Tyrion offed.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Viserys not having to evade professional assassins doesn't mean he was never in the position where nobody tried to capture him and sell him and Dany to Robert ... or kill him and sell his corpse to Robert.

That is not Robert's fault and honestly, Dany quite literally tell us Viserys is making it up.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

and there is indeed no hint at at all that even Bloodraven as Hand plotted to actually murder the Blackfyres in exile.

I don't think he ever could, much like Robert could not touch the Targlings when they were under llyrio.

 

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Daemon II thought he didn’t need Bittersteel because of his dreams. He saw the dragon hatching and the Kingsguard (or at least Dunk) and thought he was golden.

That is just one aspect of it. Daemon II comes to Westeros in fine clothes, with expensive armor and clothes and the bearing of a royal prince. His attempts and disguising himself as a hedge knight are very poor - as poor as to be expected from a pampered prince. He could perhaps deceive other lords and great knights, but he cannot deceive Dunk at all.

His is the bearing of a man who grew up as a wealthy prince in Tyrosh, and he is, in that sense, distinctly different from Viserys and Dany. Their life was much more meager from the start, even at Braavos with Darry.

That would indicate that Daemon II was not just living off coin Peake and others sent to him in exile ... but that he and his family had considerable wealth and incomes, most likely through their mother and her family. Would not surprise me if it turned out that one Blackfyre son ended up becoming a career politician in Tyrosh - say, nameless son number six or seven.

12 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

My guess is that Kiera is from a powerful Tyroshi family that has the influence to counterbalance Rohanne’s. All of Tyrosh can’t unite behind the Blackfyres if half of them are in allegiance with the Targaryens. What’s stranger is that Daeron would wed the future king to a foreigner. He saw firsthand how the Westerosi reject foreign queens. Even Alyssa Velaryon said as much a century earlier.

That is the other take on things there ... but it kind of feels weird. The Targaryens never did that, and to marry Baelor's heir of all people to such a person - and not, say, his brother Matarys or one of Maekar's elder boys - feels odd. Especially since Daeron already faced problems with his Dornish queen - and then picked a Dondarrion bride for his heir (even if Jena does have some Targaryen ancestry she isn't from a great house nor likely to have distinct Valyrian features - although, of course, if she had such features that fact alone could explain why she was chosen).

Thus I think my take on things there might make more sense. Daeron II was apparently sterner to the rebels than people thought he would be ... but I don't think he would have wanted that Daemon's surviving children and his widow suffer for Daemon's mistakes. So I could see some kind of reconciliation going on there between Rohanne and Daeron II, things that never really got off the ground (Valarr and Kiera are not likely to have been married long in THK).

What makes me think that there might be more to this whole thing is that Kiera and Daeron apparently produce no children for over 10 years. If she was just 'some woman' it would be hard to see why she got two Targaryen princes for a husband, and so far nothing indicates Daeron married Kiera in the two years between the death of Valarr and TMK.

If there was a political value to Kiera's hand then she and Daeron should have married quickly after Valarr's death, with her father or whoever was the one brokering insisting the Targaryens fulfill their part of the bargain. But the way things seem at this point it is not unlikely - perhaps even likely - that Daeron only married Kiera after the Third Rebellion, at a point when he, too, was second in line to the throne, after his father, Prince Maekar.

54 minutes ago, frenin said:

It means exactly that, Robert's regime did not try to get them murdered, and it was apparently pretty easy to do so for years, that is the opposite of Cersei who, quite explictly, did try to get Tyrion offed.

Cersei doesn't send professional assassins after Tyrion, either. Sure enough, she doesn't know where he is, but she also doesn't hire professional bounty hunters or assassins to track him down. Instead, he just puts a price on his head.

Robert, too, could have put a price on Viserys' head. We don't know that he didn't. But we do know that Tywin correctly assumed Robert would like it if somebody murdered Aerys and his family, so he did it, meaning other people could have also come to the conclusion Robert would also like it if somebody killed the last remaining Targaryens for him.

Robert not sending assassins after Viserys doesn't mean nobody ever tried to off him thinking he would be doing Robert a favor nor that Viserys was shadowed by Robert's agents (in Varys' employ), etc.

54 minutes ago, frenin said:

That is not Robert's fault and honestly, Dany quite literally tell us Viserys is making it up.

Dany has little to no clue what her brother did throughout their time together.

54 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't think he ever could, much like Robert could not touch the Targlings when they were under llyrio.

They were just staying with Illyrio for about six months before AGoT began. We have no clue where they were before, but we do know that Dany spend time with common people on the street, etc. so Viserys' lodgings were obviously not always behind high walls guarded by Unsullied. Also, of course, they wouldn't have traveled on their own ships, etc.

It might certainly be that Viserys was only troubled or hectored or even attacked by men he thought were in Robert's employ ... when they were not exactly that. But in context only Westerosi people or people with ties to Westeros would have bothered with the Beggar King. The rest would have cared as much as the Westerosi care about Jalabhar Xho.

Of course, it is clearly an exaggeration that the Usurper 'tried' to have Viserys killed ... but this doesn't mean Viserys never felt threatened or was threatened/attacked by people who wanted to kill or capture him.

[Gilbert Green]

19 hours ago, Ran said:

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

It may be wicked, but it is not absurd. 

The 2 ideas are not in conflict.  If you don't have enough support to take the throne, then you obviously don't make a move on the throne.  Because by doing so you endanger yourself AND your children.  And, in such circumstances, the throne is less likely to make a move against you (and your children), because it does not (yet) regard you as much of a threat.

But what if you DO have enough support to take the throne?

Well, the logical and wicked thing for Daeron to do in that situation is to eliminate the threat before it materializes.  To get rid of Daemon AND Daemon's children.  This is, probably, what Daemon would do in Daeron's shoes.

And if Daeron fails to do this because of moral scruples, the wicked perspective on that is that Daeron is naive and foolish.  But a naive and foolish person can "wise up" and take action at any time.  Aerys as well was nicer in his younger days, but changed after a little stress and danger gave him a new outlook on life.  Alternatively, Daeron can die and be replaced by someone who is guided by "wiser" counsels, like, say, the counsels of Bloodraven.

But if Daeron and/or his counselors have yet to "wise up" to the "wise" course of conduct, that's great.  It means that you get to strike first, maybe with the advantage of surprise.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just one aspect of it. Daemon II comes to Westeros in fine clothes, with expensive armor and clothes and the bearing of a royal prince. His attempts and disguising himself as a hedge knight are very poor - as poor as to be expected from a pampered prince. He could perhaps deceive other lords and great knights, but he cannot deceive Dunk at all.

His is the bearing of a man who grew up as a wealthy prince in Tyrosh, and he is, in that sense, distinctly different from Viserys and Dany. Their life was much more meager from the start, even at Braavos with Darry.

That would indicate that Daemon II was not just living off coin Peake and others sent to him in exile ... but that he and his family had considerable wealth and incomes, most likely through their mother and her family. Would not surprise me if it turned out that one Blackfyre son ended up becoming a career politician in Tyrosh - say, nameless son number six or seven.

That is the other take on things there ... but it kind of feels weird. The Targaryens never did that, and to marry Baelor's heir of all people to such a person - and not, say, his brother Matarys or one of Maekar's elder boys - feels odd. Especially since Daeron already faced problems with his Dornish queen - and then picked a Dondarrion bride for his heir (even if Jena does have some Targaryen ancestry she isn't from a great house nor likely to have distinct Valyrian features - although, of course, if she had such features that fact alone could explain why she was chosen).

Thus I think my take on things there might make more sense. Daeron II was apparently sterner to the rebels than people thought he would be ... but I don't think he would have wanted that Daemon's surviving children and his widow suffer for Daemon's mistakes. So I could see some kind of reconciliation going on there between Rohanne and Daeron II, things that never really got off the ground (Valarr and Kiera are not likely to have been married long in THK).

What makes me think that there might be more to this whole thing is that Kiera and Daeron apparently produce no children for over 10 years. If she was just 'some woman' it would be hard to see why she got two Targaryen princes for a husband, and so far nothing indicates Daeron married Kiera in the two years between the death of Valarr and TMK.

If there was a political value to Kiera's hand then she and Daeron should have married quickly after Valarr's death, with her father or whoever was the one brokering insisting the Targaryens fulfill their part of the bargain. But the way things seem at this point it is not unlikely - perhaps even likely - that Daeron only married Kiera after the Third Rebellion, at a point when he, too, was second in line to the throne, after his father, Prince Maekar.

Cersei doesn't send professional assassins after Tyrion, either. Sure enough, she doesn't know where he is, but she also doesn't hire professional bounty hunters or assassins to track him down. Instead, he just puts a price on his head.

Robert, too, could have put a price on Viserys' head. We don't know that he didn't. But we do know that Tywin correctly assumed Robert would like it if somebody murdered Aerys and his family, so he did it, meaning other people could have also come to the conclusion Robert would also like it if somebody killed the last remaining Targaryens for him.

Robert not sending assassins after Viserys doesn't mean nobody ever tried to off him thinking he would be doing Robert a favor nor that Viserys was shadowed by Robert's agents (in Varys' employ), etc.

Dany has little to no clue what her brother did throughout their time together.

They were just staying with Illyrio for about six months before AGoT began. We have no clue where they were before, but we do know that Dany spend time with common people on the street, etc. so Viserys' lodgings were obviously not always behind high walls guarded by Unsullied. Also, of course, they wouldn't have traveled on their own ships, etc.

It might certainly be that Viserys was only troubled or hectored or even attacked by men he thought were in Robert's employ ... when they were not exactly that. But in context only Westerosi people or people with ties to Westeros would have bothered with the Beggar King. The rest would have cared as much as the Westerosi care about Jalabhar Xho.

Of course, it is clearly an exaggeration that the Usurper 'tried' to have Viserys killed ... but this doesn't mean Viserys never felt threatened or was threatened/attacked by people who wanted to kill or capture him.

We don’t know when Daeron got married or when he died, only that Vaella was born in 222. So Daeron may not have been married for very long.

It’s also possible that Kiera died in childbirth. Daeron apparently contracted the pox from a whore, and there’s no mention that he gave it to his wife (nor would how he contracted it likely become public knowledge if she were still alive at the time).

[frenin]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei doesn't send professional assassins after Tyrion, either. Sure enough, she doesn't know where he is, but she also doesn't hire professional bounty hunters or assassins to track him down. Instead, he just puts a price on his head.

Which is tantamount to trying to kill him.

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert, too, could have put a price on Viserys' head. We don't know that he didn't.

We literally do, like this is discussed extensively in the first book. We're told Arryn convinced Robert against acting against the children.

You're conveniently making an assumption that is never made or even hinted, both Robert and Renly say that no attempts on the Targlings was made, putting a bounty on their heads... is literally an attempt on their life.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert not sending assassins after Viserys doesn't mean nobody ever tried to off him thinking he would be doing Robert a favor nor that Viserys was shadowed by Robert's agents (in Varys' employ), etc.

Why are you narrowing it down to simply sending assasins? Both Robert and Renly really much express that they mae no attempt on the kids' lives (have them killed), you not only need to "send assasins" to have someone killed, spreading the rumour to have the kids killed, putting a bounty on their head is 100% trying to have someone killed.

 

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Dany has little to no clue what her brother did throughout their time together.

And Viserys is half mad and full of paranoia. He's the opposite of reliable, he's deluded.

We have three different accounts disproving but we're to hold to his because it makes for better drama?

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They were just staying with Illyrio for about six months before AGoT began. We have no clue where they were before, but we do know that Dany spend time with common people on the street, etc. so Viserys' lodgings were obviously not always behind high walls guarded by Unsullied. Also, of course, they wouldn't have traveled on their own ships, etc.

Sure, Robert says that prior they were under Illyrio they were easy to kill but once Illyrio had them it became impossible.

I find it odd that even when Robert acknowledging how easy killing them was but he ultimately decided against it, we're arguing that he tried to after all but somehow ¿failed? and we never hear about those attempts.

The Blackfyres in exile seemed to have a similar fate and were protected by powerful patrons, i very much doubt the Targaryens could have killed them without direct war.

 

 

5 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

The 2 ideas are not in conflict.  If you don't have enough support to take the throne, then you obviously don't make a move on the throne.  Because by doing so you endanger yourself AND your children.  And, in such circumstances, the throne is less likely to make a move against you (and your children), because it does not (yet) regard you as much of a threat.

It seems again to me a slippery slope for ambition, if that were the case, every time a King died, his descendants would kill all the other pretenders like in the Ottoman Empire.

Given this is clearly not the norm, i find this argument just a pretext.

 

[Lord Varys]

The idea that Daemon and his children were in any danger from Daeron II prior to the Rebellion is very much out there. Daemon was but a bastard and Daeron rose to the throne unchallenged. Aegon IV legitimized Daemon and the others on his deathbed, which means this would have been new information to everybody in the Realm by the time Daeron put his ass on the Iron Throne.

Daemon and his sons came after Daeron and his sons and eventually grandsons. Considering to remove or murder them is like Robert planning to murder Renly to stop him from potentially stealing the throne from his sons. Yes, Renly, the ass head, ended up trying to do this, but this wasn't the rule and effectively a consequence of Robert successfully usurping the throne earlier.

After the Redgrass Field, after Daemon Blackfyre unsuccessfully tried to steal the throne, it would have made sense for the Targaryens to get rid of all the Blackfyres ... but even that didn't happen. So this is a very unlikely scenario.

What I could see is that the number of Daemon's sons eventually put some pressure on him regarding what to do with so many male heirs. Providing properly for his huge family - which a king could be better than a little prince with whatever minor keep and lands he had - might have eventually become an issue. One could see his self-image, the way others said they saw him, and the reality of his modest life clashing with each other until he actually thought he should be king.

12 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

We don’t know when Daeron got married or when he died, only that Vaella was born in 222. So Daeron may not have been married for very long.

Yeah, that was my point there. The late birth of Vaella indicates they might have married only after the Third Rebellion in 219 AC - like Egg and Betha married in 220 AC, perhaps also as a result of events taking place in 219 AC.

But if this was the case it would be very odd if Kiera was just 'some woman' from Tyrosh with a connection to an Archon or faction who wasn't tied to Rohanne. If that were the case it seems likely that her match to a second Targaryen prince would have been made shortly after Valarr's death and not years later. As I said, we can rule out the possibility that Daeron married Kiera in 209-TMK ... as it would have been mentioned if Egg's brother had married off screen.

12 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

It’s also possible that Kiera died in childbirth. Daeron apparently contracted the pox from a whore, and there’s no mention that he gave it to his wife (nor would how he contracted it likely become public knowledge if she were still alive at the time).

Death in childbirth is not a bad idea for her as she clearly gave birth to Vaella somewhat late in life - for Westerosi standards at least.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Which is tantamount to trying to kill him.

LOL, but you do realize that a price on your head ain't the same as actively sending assassins after you, right? And as I said - Robert hadn't told Tywin and Jaime to murder Aerys and his family ... but they correctly guessed that Robert wanted that to happen and were rewarded afterwards. The idea that other folks thought they could buy Robert's favor by offing Viserys isn't far-fetched at all.

Bottom line is: It is irrelevant what Robert and Jon decided in KL if they didn't also send a memo to Viserys that he was safe. The claim that Viserys is not justified in his assessment that he was in danger is unjustified as we don't know what Viserys bases the claim on. The fact that he is somewhat unhinged in AGoT doesn't mean nobody ever tried to kill him.

And while Robert might not have actively sent men after Viserys ... Viserys is correct in his assessment that Robert wants him and his sister dead.

[SeanF]

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And while Robert might not have actively sent men after Viserys ... Viserys is correct in his assessment that Robert wants him and his sister dead.

In the modern world, there are plenty of people in Viserys’ position who may not be actively hunted by the government of the country they fled from but (a) would be putting their head in a noose if they tried to return home and (b) have good reason to fear casual assassination, or the government changing its mind.

If I’d offended Putin, for example, I’d have reason to fear dying of poison or falling from a high building, even if it turned out that Putin actually had other priorities than murdering me.

Viserys’ worries were not irrational.  

While he and Dany had asylum in Braavos, I expect that murdering them would have caused diplomatic complications.  As the years went on, so Robert lost interest.

Edited July 30, 2023 by SeanF

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

but you do realize that a price on your head ain't the same as actively sending assassins after you, right?

You're the one anchoring yourself in sending assasins, when what Robert and Renly state is that they did not act on them in anyway.

And putting a bounty on someone's head is 100% trying to get that someone killed, it is baffling to pretend otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert hadn't told Tywin and Jaime to murder Aerys and his family ... but they correctly guessed that Robert wanted that to happen and were rewarded afterwards.

And Robert still did not act on either,

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The claim that Viserys is not justified in his assessment that he was in danger is unjustified as we don't know what Viserys bases the claim on. The fact that he is somewhat unhinged in AGoT doesn't mean nobody ever tried to kill him.

No, the obvious assertion by Dany, Robert and Renly that no one was behind them, it's an obvious hint that... no one tried to get him. The only reason there is to even entertain Viserys when there are several accounts disproving him is... that it makes for better drama. Because we're at this point taing someone cleary deluded and unreliable

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And while Robert might not have actively sent men after Viserys ... Viserys is correct in his assessment that Robert wants him and his sister dead.

No, he is not.

Quote

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."

If it was easy to get at them and kill them for years but they ruled against it... it is literally because they did not care to kill them.

[Ran]

100% right, Frenin. Viserys was paranoid and deluded. Robert sent no one, hired no one, made no efforts to encourage anyone, because Jon Arryn convinced him. Simple as that.

[Alester Florent]

Robert didn't send anyone after Viserys, and may have only posted the bounty as a kind of token gesture. But it's still in Robert's interest to keep Viserys paranoid and on his toes, moving from city to city and wearing down his credibility and prestige by pawning off heirlooms, without getting the opportunity to stay in one place and build up prosperity and political support as some previous exiles did. So if Viserys wants to believe that Robert is hunting him, so much the better.

A different king who is more concerned about Targaryen loyalists in his midst might try to bring Daenerys home and marry her to Joffrey, but Robert doesn't seem at all concerned about his dynastic legitimacy in the eyes of his subjects nor do any of them give him real reason to be.

[Lord Varys]

I guess some people are kind of losing it. Guys, even if Robert never put a formal bounty on Viserys' head - the entire Realm and folks beyond knew the guy hated the surviving Targaryens. That alone puts a target on Viserys' head. And the man felt that.

Nobody is saying it is confirmed that men thinking they were executing Robert's unspoken will ever attacked Viserys ... but he believes it, and saying he was paranoid and deluded - which he may have been to a point - doesn't confirm he was wrong about the feeling of being hunted.

If George ever bothers telling us how a penniless, helpless Viserys could grow in a foreign environment without caretakers of friends after Darry's death - and I'd actually like to read that story because as things stand right now they are ludicrous - we might have information enough to judge whether the guy was only imagining things ... or if he had good or at least plausible reasons to assume that Robert's thugs were following him.

Also, guys, not sure about your your takes on concepts - wishing somebody dead ain't the same as telling somebody to murder the person in question. But if you are a king folks might actually interpret the wishes you utter as commands to do something about the problem you think you have. Do I really have to point you to Henry II and Thomas Becket there? And we know that Robert Baratheon wanted the fucking Targaryens dead. This is a well-known fact when those books start. It doesn't come as a surprise. So it would also not come as a surprise if some moron had actually tried to kill Viserys thinking they were doing Robert a favor - like morons actually think they are doing Cersei favors when they murder random dwarfs.

Viserys Targaryen can conclude that the Usurper wants him dead simply by thinking about his dead elder brother Rhaegar, about the murder of his father, King Aerys, and the murders of his sister-in-law and niece and nephew. Even if Robert had written letters to Viserys offering him reconciliation and Dany the hand of Prince Joffrey - Viserys has every reason and every right to think the man wants him dead.

3 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Robert didn't send anyone after Viserys, and may have only posted the bounty as a kind of token gesture. But it's still in Robert's interest to keep Viserys paranoid and on his toes, moving from city to city and wearing down his credibility and prestige by pawning off heirlooms, without getting the opportunity to stay in one place and build up prosperity and political support as some previous exiles did. So if Viserys wants to believe that Robert is hunting him, so much the better.

As I keep saying, Viserys' impression is his own, and we cannot say that it is based on nothing but figments of his imagination. He had no way to know that Jon Arryn convinced Robert not to send any assassins - not that sending out assassins would necessarily mean they would have reached Viserys, etc. - so his conclusion there is sound and makes sense even if he was totally mistaken about people trying to kill him.

Although I'd actually be surprised if nobody ever tried to kill Viserys nor do I think the guy was mistaken about Robert's henchmen following him. Robert had people watching Viserys and his sister, that is confirmed, and it stands to reason that some such spies might have been seen by Viserys or even captured by this or that magister or merchant prince who was hosting the Targaryens for a time when they were trying to sneak in or out of the premises.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Lord Varys

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

As I keep saying, Viserys' impression is his own, and we cannot say that it is based on nothing but figments of his imagination. He had no way to know that Jon Arryn convinced Robert not to send any assassins - not that sending out assassins would necessarily mean they would have reached Viserys, etc. - so his conclusion there is sound and makes sense even if he was totally mistaken about people trying to kill him.

Oh yeah, I think Viserys's fears were at heart well-founded. He may have been a bit excessively paranoid, and done his best to inculcate Dany in that same paranoia, but I can't say I think he was entirely wrong for thinking Robert was after him - because he could well have been and better safe than sorry. And Robert certainly did nothing (and had no reason) to dissuade him from believing this.

[Arthur Peres]

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.

[SeanF]

3 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.

He was organising a revolt, before they came for him.

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Oh yeah, I think Viserys's fears were at heart well-founded. He may have been a bit excessively paranoid, and done his best to inculcate Dany in that same paranoia, but I can't say I think he was entirely wrong for thinking Robert was after him - because he could well have been and better safe than sorry. And Robert certainly did nothing (and had no reason) to dissuade him from believing this.

It actually seems he shielded Dany from things a lot. No talks about the Mad King, for instance. That his narrative wasn't bothering with Jaime's fucked inner motivations or the complexities of the war is hardly a surprise. Would be like expecting Bran to explain the intricacies of the War of the Five Kings to Rickon.

13 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.

Well, you wouldn't say that Stannis or Ned or Tywin are justified to rise in bloody rebellion or try to claim the throne for themselves just because the king sends his Kingsguard to escort them to him. Daemon Blackfyre wasn't his royal brother's equal, he was his bloody subject. He has to do what he is told.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

He was organising a revolt, before they came for him.

That is, so far, the implication. Could turn out Daeron II was some kind of political moron who tried to arrest or murder his half-brother for no reason but paranoia and fear ... but the chances for that are very low indeed.

Something like Rhaenyra insisting that her half-brothers have to go or Robert wanting all Targaryens be dead is the result of an attempted or successful usurpation. If then are claimants left who have as good a claim as yours - or technically even a better claim -, if they can serve as a rallying point for your remaining enemies it can be dangerous.

But that such things are not really that big of a deal - and that people are not actually particularly paranoid about such things - we can see with Maegor the Cruel not coming after Aegon the Uncrowned and his other nephews until they gave him cause. Maegor was a bloody usurper and Aenys' sons (and daughters) all had better claims than he did ... yet he didn't care much about that.

Also, Viserys and Daemon never were particularly afraid of Aemon's descendants nor, it seems, Aegon V of the children of his elder brothers.

So the idea that Daemon Blackfyre feared for his life or the life of his children is very unlikely in context as Daeron II had effectively no reason to be afraid of him. Part of the reason why the rebellion could take off will likely turn out to be that Daeron II was too lenient and too naive there - both not thinking that Daemon would try to pull something like that nor that he would actually get sufficient support for such an enterprise to actually pose a real threat to him.

And in context we shouldn't forget that Cat deems Jon's potential children only a threat with the Blackfyre experience in mind. It is the only example that a bastard pretender and his get became a pain in the ass to the royals to some degree ... and it is actually hard to swallow in context. Daemon may have been able to inspire a lot of personal loyalty, but Daemon II was a joke. Haegon and Daemon III may have been different to a point but they were little more than exiled sellsword lords. And Maelys was a monster.

[Arthur Peres]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, you wouldn't say that Stannis or Ned or Tywin are justified to rise in bloody rebellion or try to claim the throne for themselves just because the king sends his Kingsguard to escort them to him. Daemon Blackfyre wasn't his royal brother's equal, he was his bloody subject. He has to do what he is told.

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.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is, so far, the implication. Could turn out Daeron II was some kind of political moron who tried to arrest or murder his half-brother for no reason but paranoia and fear ... but the chances for that are very low indeed.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

So the idea that Daemon Blackfyre feared for his life or the life of his children is very unlikely in context as Daeron II had effectively no reason to be afraid of him. Part of the reason why the rebellion could take off will likely turn out to be that Daeron II was too lenient and too naive there - both not thinking that Daemon would try to pull something like that nor that he would actually get sufficient support for such an enterprise to actually pose a real threat to him.

 

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.

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.

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.