Is it definitely true that Daeron I had no issue?

[KingAerys_II]

16 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Although Charles XII had more valid reasons to go to war than Daeron ! did.

Charles had an alliance of three countries who wanted to bite off pieces of his territory. Daeron decided to conquer Dorne without being provoked.

Not true. Aliandra Martell encouraged the stony dornishmen to raid the dornish marches. 

Then remember the first and second Vulture kings and the attempt of Morion to attack the Stormlands. 

I am curious to know how a brilliant general as Daeron became victim of a trap made by the Wyls that are champions in doing war crimes, one of his Kingsguards was an Oakheart too

Edited October 27, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[Lord Varys]

The obvious reason why George might end up adding a betrothal or perhaps even a marriage and children to Daeron I is simply because his succession and the continuation of the dynasty is a natural topic for a detailed history of his reign and the late(r) reign of his father.

There is an imbalance in the marriage policy and while Aegon and Viserys may be the closest friends and brothers it stands to reason that they already knew that Daeron and Aegon the Unworthy were not. They grew up with two branches of House Targaryen ripping each other to pieces so it is actually already strange that Naerys married her brother Aegon rather than her cousin Daeron. Aegon III and Viserys both should have been very aware of the fact that their children or grandchildren could behave like the children of Alicent and their own mother. Just like it was a mistake to marry Helaena to Aegon II, it seems like a blunder to marry Naerys to Aegon IV. That only makes sense if there was a better match made for Daeron already - say, to a daughter of Baela or Rhaena.

You can compare it to the story of young Jaehaerys and Alysanne. TWoIaF has the somewhat naive version that they just married each other and there were no problems ... after half the Realm just rebelled in part over the incestuous union of their elder siblings. That their mother would allow them to marry and that it would go through easily and that the court would prefer that marriage to Jaehaerys and Alysanne taking other spouses was always something that made little sense if you thought about it in detail.

Equally nonsensical is the idea that nobody would broker a match for the lately born eldest son of Aegon III. Especially since he will have three sisters in due time, one first cousin, and a unknown number cousins from his aunt Baela and six female cousins from his aunt Rhaena. The guy drowns in closely related potential brides - and we would have to add to that other noble girls as well.

They would want to broker a match for him on his nameday. At latest by the time Viserys married his daughter to his son rather than his nephew. The idea that nobody ever thought about a bride for the Heir Apparent is nonsensical.

Of course, Daeron could the postpone his wedding indefinitely after he became king - or he could even dissolve a betrothal. But that would then be a story element. The idea that his father and mother and uncle and aunts never wanted him to marry or forgot to arrange matches for him is not plausible.

[Hippocras]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The obvious reason why George might end up adding a betrothal or perhaps even a marriage and children to Daeron I is simply because his succession and the continuation of the dynasty is a natural topic for a detailed history of his reign and the late(r) reign of his father.

There is an imbalance in the marriage policy and while Aegon and Viserys may be the closest friends and brothers it stands to reason that they already knew that Daeron and Aegon the Unworthy were not. They grew up with two branches of House Targaryen ripping each other to pieces so it is actually already strange that Naerys married her brother Aegon rather than her cousin Daeron. Aegon III and Viserys both should have been very aware of the fact that their children or grandchildren could behave like the children of Alicent and their own mother. Just like it was a mistake to marry Helaena to Aegon II, it seems like a blunder to marry Naerys to Aegon IV. That only makes sense if there was a better match made for Daeron already - say, to a daughter of Baela or Rhaena.

You can compare it to the story of young Jaehaerys and Alysanne. TWoIaF has the somewhat naive version that they just married each other and there were no problems ... after half the Realm just rebelled in part over the incestuous union of their elder siblings. That their mother would allow them to marry and that it would go through easily and that the court would prefer that marriage to Jaehaerys and Alysanne taking other spouses was always something that made little sense if you thought about it in detail.

Equally nonsensical is the idea that nobody would broker a match for the lately born eldest son of Aegon III. Especially since he will have three sisters in due time, one first cousin, and a unknown number cousins from his aunt Baela and six female cousins from his aunt Rhaena. The guy drowns in closely related potential brides - and we would have to add to that other noble girls as well.

They would want to broker a match for him on his nameday. At latest by the time Viserys married his daughter to his son rather than his nephew. The idea that nobody ever thought about a bride for the Heir Apparent is nonsensical.

Of course, Daeron could the postpone his wedding indefinitely after he became king - or he could even dissolve a betrothal. But that would then be a story element. The idea that his father and mother and uncle and aunts never wanted him to marry or forgot to arrange matches for him is not plausible.

While I think your logic is mostly correct here for much of Westerosi history, I do wonder if the thinking was a little bit different during the years 136 - 172. Viserys II very much prioritized trade and relations across the Narrow Sea, and while his actual reign was short, he was Hand of the King for a significant part of the pre-Blackfyre era. He was married to a Lyseni, and may have been trying to build greater networks in the Free Cities.

We know, for example, that Rhaena was betrothed to a Braavosi. The curiously serious effort later on to marry Kiera of Tyrosh to not one but two different crown princes suggests that the marriage was seen as essential for peace. I believe she was Daena Targaryen's daughter, and that Viserys married Daena off to Tyrosh shortly after Daemon's birth. His logic there would have been similar to Rhaena's Braavosi match, and her presence and influence in that city would have been a factor in Daemon Blackfyre's marriage to Rohanne.

And so Daeron I may have been an exception to the general historical pattern, and his betrothal or marriage may also have been about trade and influence across the Narrow Sea rather than family tree containment. It was only after the year 182 (Daemon given Blackfyre), that family tree containment became a very urgent priority again.

That said, I do agree that a daughter of Rhaena is probably top contender. I say Rhaena not Baela, because Rhaena was the one who still had a dragon at the end, she was the one who married across the divide into the Hightower family, and she did not nearly kill the man that many still alive had seen as the rightful King. Rhaena's daughter was the peace-making match, not Baela's.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Hippocras

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Hippocras said:

While I think your logic is mostly correct here for much of Westerosi history, I do wonder if the thinking was a little bit different during the years 136 - 172. Viserys II very much prioritized trade and relations across the Narrow Sea, and while his actual reign was short, he was Hand of the King for a significant part of the pre-Blackfyre era. He was married to a Lyseni, and may have been trying to build greater networks in the Free Cities.

Don't think that makes much sense as Viserys married his eldest son to his only daughter. He was clearly in favor of Targaryen sibling incest. So if he had a voice in the marriages of Aegon III's children he would have either been in favor of sibling incest there, too, or he would have pushed for his daughter marrying Daeron in a cousin match.

5 hours ago, Hippocras said:

That said, I do agree that a daughter of Rhaena is probably top contender. I say Rhaena not Baela, because Rhaena was the one who still had a dragon at the end, she was the one who married across the divide into the Hightower family, and she did not nearly kill the man that many still alive had seen as the rightful King. Rhaena's daughter was the peace-making match, not Baela's.

Sure enough, Rhaena might have produced a daughter close in age to Daeron. In fact, considering Garmund's age her firstborn daughter could have been born in the same year as Daeron or around that time.

But we should also consider Queen Daenaera Velaryon. If Daeron is matched with a cousin rather than his sister Daena then their Velaryon mother might have been key there - even more so since Baela and Alyn were her foster parents in the wake of her own parents' death and the people who made her a most unlikely queen. She may have wanted closer ties to Alyn and Baela. And Aegon III, too, who was a fan of Alyn's even back during the Regency era.

I'm not doubting that the dragonrider Rhaena was very influential while Morning was still alive ... but we don't know when she died, nor if Garmund Hightower was ever as powerful or prominent a figure as Alyn Velaryon. I doubt it on the basis that he was but a third son. Also, we have no reason to believe that the Garmund match was 'peace-making'. By 136 AC relations between Oldtown and KL are great again, thanks to Lady Sam and the friendship of Lyonel Hightower and Alyn Velaryon. And back when Aegon III's succession was discussed by the regents no Green on the council had issues with Baela attacking the late Aegon II. People don't seem to care much about that.

And while Rhaena and Garmund may have lived in Oldtown or at some other place eventually, Baela and Alyn will be fixtures at court or close to court throughout their lives.

[Hippocras]

Since Garmund was the third son, not first or even second, I doubt they lived at Oldtown. He and Rhaena would have been at court, even more so than Alyn who was off on voyages frequently. And Baela was definitely controversial. I doubt she would have suddenly changed her ways after marrying Alyn, and her behaviour before that cause the regents to want to pass over her in favour of Rhaena as heir.

  

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And back when Aegon III's succession was discussed by the regents no Green on the council had issues with Baela attacking the late Aegon II. People don't seem to care much about that.

This isn't true. It was brought up as a point against Baela (by Westerling I believe? Or Manderley?) during the succession discussions.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Hippocras

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

Since Garmund was the third son, not first or even second, I doubt they lived at Oldtown. He and Rhaena would have been at court, even more so than Alyn who was off on voyages frequently. And Baela was definitely controversial. I doubt she would have suddenly changed her ways after marrying Alyn, and her behaviour before that cause the regents to want to pass over her in favour of Rhaena as heir.

Aegon III had no place for a dragonrider at his court, causing Rhaena to move to Dragonstone in the last years of the Regency. It is not all that likely that she would be allowed to keep the castle as her seat indefinitely. The fact that she ended up married to as irrelevant a second husband as Garmund Hightower indicates that Aegon III and Viserys may have put her in her place.

The marriage to a landless third son who was also much younger than she is clearly neither a sign of favor nor does it constitute advancement on her part. The king could have granted her another seat of her own, but it is unlikely she was very welcome at the Red Keep while Morning was still alive. Lord Lyonel would be a very rich lord and he could have offered his brother and his wife hospitality in Oldtown or perhaps even the Hightower itself.

Baela was not more controversial than Rhaena when the succession is discussed. Some people on the council favored her, some Rhaena. And nobody cared that Baela killed Sunfyre and severely injured Aegon II.

[Hippocras]

@Lord Varys

Some of your statements do not match my information. Curious about your sources.

1. Serious efforts were made to pass over Baela in favour of Rhaena, precisely because of her controversial behaviour and the fact that she had tried to kill Aegon II.  It was Westerling who brought that up in discussions.

2. Garmund was possibly the same age as Rhaena. We have no direct information that he was younger. He was also well connected because of his wardship at Highgarden. Him being third son was not necessarily a slight to Rhaena, and her and Baela remained close, while Alyn of course was friends with his sister-in-law/stepmother. There is nothing at all in what I have read to indication that Rhaena was out of favour. Aegon of course did not like dragons, while Rhaena loved Morning, but you are really drawing a lot of conclusions re: Rhaena's status from that that I don't think are well-founded.

 

There is a story to be told there certainly, about when and how Morning died and what it meant for Rhaena's relationship with Aegon. One thing I am certain of though is that it would not have been only Rhaena who fought for her dragon's life if it came to that; Baela would have fought with her, and if either fell out of favour because of it then they both did.

 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

 

Some of your statements do not match my information. Curious about your sources.

1. Serious efforts were made to pass over Baela in favour of Rhaena, precisely because of her controversial behaviour and the fact that she had tried to kill Aegon II.  It was Westerling who brought that up in discussions.

I checked and I forgot Westerling's statement there. However, nobody wanted to pass over Baela. The regents were at odds as to what half-sister of Aegon III should succeed him, if any. There was no heir, and they were deliberating who could be the king's presumptive heir - which would be their choice since they were ruling the Realm (and the king).

However, the opinion of one of the regents on whether Baela Targaryen - then yet unmarried - should succeed her royal half-brother were he to die without issue is completely different from the question if a daughter of Baela Targaryen and Alyn 'Oakenfist' Velaryon would make a good match for Aegon III's eldest son - especially since the mother of said son was a Velaryon, too, the former ward of Baela and Alyn.

House Velaryon will hold a lot of sway at Aegon III's court because his wife and queen is a Velaryon, because one of his half-sisters is the Lady of Driftmark, and because the king is really fond of the Lord of Driftmark, Alyn Velaryon.

2 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

2. Garmund was possibly the same age as Rhaena. We have no direct information that he was younger. He was also well connected because of his wardship at Highgarden. Him being third son was not necessarily a slight to Rhaena, and her and Baela remained close, while Alyn of course was friends with his sister-in-law/stepmother. There is nothing at all in what I have read to indication that Rhaena was out of favour. Aegon of course did not like dragons, while Rhaena loved Morning, but you are really drawing a lot of conclusions re: Rhaena's status from that that I don't think are well-founded.

Lyonel Hightower is one year older than Baela and Rhaena, so his second brother can't be of the same age as the twins. More over, Garmund Hightower is a page and cupbearer at Highgarden at the end of the Dance, not yet a squire, so it stands to reason he is about Egg's age in THK, i.e. not yet a teenager, perhaps even younger. Garmund's elder brother Martyn is a squire with the Redwynes at the same time.

The usual career of highborn boys is that they serve as pages before they become squires.

Rhaena already falls out of favor in FaB. At the end of Regency she retreats to Dragonstone because she doesn't get along with her royal half-brother. They are not close. It is because of her dragon, of course, and Aegon's hatred and fear of dragons is not going to get better as Morning grows larger.

2 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

There is a story to be told there certainly, about when and how Morning died and what it meant for Rhaena's relationship with Aegon. One thing I am certain of though is that it would not have been only Rhaena who fought for her dragon's life if it came to that; Baela would have fought with her, and if either fell out of favour because of it then they both did.

I expect that Morning and Rhaena will die in the last dragon battle around 150 AC, being fought against Aemond's son at Harrenhal. But, of course, if Morning gets sick and dies earlier then Rhaena might very well blame her dragon-hating royal brother, especially if she were to get sick and die while housed at the Dragonpit.

[KingAerys_II]

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I checked and I forgot Westerling's statement there. However, nobody wanted to pass over Baela. The regents were at odds as to what half-sister of Aegon III should succeed him, if any. There was no heir, and they were deliberating who could be the king's presumptive heir - which would be their choice since they were ruling the Realm (and the king).

However, the opinion of one of the regents on whether Baela Targaryen - then yet unmarried - should succeed her royal half-brother were he to die without issue is completely different from the question if a daughter of Baela Targaryen and Alyn 'Oakenfist' Velaryon would make a good match for Aegon III's eldest son - especially since the mother of said son was a Velaryon, too, the former ward of Baela and Alyn.

House Velaryon will hold a lot of sway at Aegon III's court because his wife and queen is a Velaryon, because one of his half-sisters is the Lady of Driftmark, and because the king is really fond of the Lord of Driftmark, Alyn Velaryon.

Lyonel Hightower is one year older than Baela and Rhaena, so his second brother can't be of the same age as the twins. More over, Garmund Hightower is a page and cupbearer at Highgarden at the end of the Dance, not yet a squire, so it stands to reason he is about Egg's age in THK, i.e. not yet a teenager, perhaps even younger. Garmund's elder brother Martyn is a squire with the Redwynes at the same time.

The usual career of highborn boys is that they serve as pages before they become squires.

Rhaena already falls out of favor in FaB. At the end of Regency she retreats to Dragonstone because she doesn't get along with her royal half-brother. They are not close. It is because of her dragon, of course, and Aegon's hatred and fear of dragons is not going to get better as Morning grows larger.

I expect that Morning and Rhaena will die in the last dragon battle around 150 AC, being fought against Aemond's son at Harrenhal. But, of course, if Morning gets sick and dies earlier then Rhaena might very well blame her dragon-hating royal brother, especially if she were to get sick and die while housed at the Dragonpit.

I think there was a battle of dragons involving Silverwing, the Cannibal, Morning and Sheepstealer. 

And it's possible the Cannibal was Aurion dragon,so I don't think he was a Westerosi dragon. 

Dragonriders of the dragons? Aemond bastard, Rhaena, Saera bastards, Aegon, Nettles

Edited October 28, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

I think there was a battle of dragons involving Silverwing, the Cannibal, Morning and Sheepstealer. 

Sheepstealer will likely die in the Mountains of the Moon without ever being involved in anything, and there are hints Silverwing might suffer a similar fate.

The Cannibal might yet gain a rider, though.

2 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

And it's possible the Cannibal was Aurion dragon,so I don't think he was a Westerosi dragon.

There is about zero chance of that. 

2 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

Dragonriders of the dragons? Aemond bastard, Rhaena, Saera bastards, Aegon, Nettles

Aemond's son (we don't know if he was his bastard) might already have a dragon if the reports from Harrenhal can be believed. Could easily be the case as Vhagar was a she-dragon and might have produced some more eggs before her death.

But, of course, if there is another and final dragon battle involving Aemond's son then we would have him and his dragon on the one side, and (at least) Rhaena's Morning on the other.

Of the remaining Targaryens at the end of the Regency Baela and Viserys are both candidates to claim the Cannibal, Silverwing or any other dragons that might yet hatch. Baela, especially, seems pissed that she lacks a dragon, while Viserys longs for a dragon, too, holding on to his dragon egg.

But it seems just as likely that we will only see Aemond's boy with his dragon going against Rhaena and her Morning, with both killing each other at Harrenhal. In fact, having the last healthy Targaryen dragon dying a sudden and violent death at Harrenhal would have made both the deaths of the last two she-dragons soon thereafter a really pressing concern. If there were 'dragon sicknesses' affecting and killing young drakes and hatchlings throughout the 130s and 140s while there was one strong and healthy dragon left with Rhaena the dragon power of House Targaryen was not yet completely gone, and Aegon III could afford to ignore the problem.

I do expect the 'Citadel conspiracy' or 'dragon poisoning plot' being enacted very subtly, targeting only dragon eggs and hatchlings, thus cutting off the new generation of Targaryens from cradle dragons, while the last adult dragons were not targeted in the same way. In fact, I doubt that the Citadel wanted to get rid of all the dragons but rather intended to severely limit their numbers. If the king retained 1-2 dragons for himself and his heir, say, central power would be strengthened, the succession secured, and a succession/civil war like the Dance of the Dragons permanently avoided.

The dragons were a problem only if there were too many, not when they were just 2-3, and all of those under the firm control of the king. The Citadel and the maester system have no intrinsic interest in eroding central power as the rule of law and reason they care about cannot be enforced if the Realm were to fracture again or if local lords would once again grow into petty kings in all but name.

[SaffronLady]

13 hours ago, Hippocras said:

2. Garmund was possibly the same age as Rhaena.

According to the wiki age calculation for Garmund and that we do know when Rhaena was born, Rhaena was at most ten years Garmund's senior, and at least they were born in the same year.

12 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

And it's possible the Cannibal was Aurion dragon

Dude chill. I'm sure you could persuade Ran to create a fanfiction sub-forum or something...

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Citadel and the maester system have no intrinsic interest in eroding central power

Yes, but they are also anti-magic. If the Conclave believes it has an alternative method of maintaining central power to replace dragons, then it would show its anti-magic face.

[KingAerys_II]

Silverwing is probably the dragon Alys Rivers hides in the Harrenhal, there are people saying "the witch has a dragon. 

There is Nettles riding Sheepstealer, she is worshipped as a goddess by the mountain clans in the Vale. 

About the Cannibal here are all the theories about him:

1. He was the young hatchling dragon of Maegor, but the King considered him unworthy. 

2. He is a Westerosi dragon and the mount of the Night King. 

3 He is Aurion dragon. 

4 He is waiting for Azor Ahai on Skagos 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

According to the wiki age calculation for Garmund and that we do know when Rhaena was born, Rhaena was at most ten years Garmund's senior, and at least they were born in the same year.

The same year is quite unlikely as a guy of the same age as Rhaena isn't likely to serve as a page and cupbearer in 131 AC.

Chances are pretty good that the age gap between Rhaena and Garmund is similar to that of Larra and Viserys.

6 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Yes, but they are also anti-magic. If the Conclave believes it has an alternative method of maintaining central power to replace dragons, then it would show its anti-magic face.

They are not necessarily 'anti-magic' as the Higher Mysteries are openly studied and taught at the Citadel and even current members of House Hightower are rumored to practice magic. They are skeptical about magic in the hands of 'the people' and, one imagines, also of magic as an instrument of the rulers.

If there was a conspiracy then it was anti-dragon, not anti-magic in general. If the latter was the case Marwyn would have never be made Archmaester for the Higher Mysteries. Instead, the office would have been vacant for decades or centuries, and magical research at the Citadel would be banned.

Thus it strikes me more likely certain crucial figures at the Citadel looked at the Dance and the devastation that happened - and considered what could have happened had the dragons been unleashed against Oldtown, Lannisport, or King's Landing - and then decided to ensure that this would not happen again, even if there was another succession war.

As I said, perhaps they didn't want to kill them all but merely stop their multiplication so the Targaryens were stuck with 1-2 big ones. That would have ensured stability like it did during the era of the Conqueror and the Old King.

A strong central power without dragons is an illusion in such a large realm spanning a continent. Without the dragons central power would slowly erode, the lords would get stronger and the rule of law as established by Aegon I and Jaehaerys I would decline - and with that also whatever the maesters want to accomplish. You see how helpless the maester of the Goodbrothers is in AFfC when he wants to challenge Euron's power grab with legal talk.

[KingAerys_II]

Without dragons the Boltons restored the tradition to flay alive people and Euron doing Davis Jones stuff. 

The fact Septon Barth stated Targaryens came to Westeros to stop the Doom of Men seems an attempt to avoid the plan of his colleagues to accomplish the conspiracy 

[SaffronLady]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They are not necessarily 'anti-magic' as the Higher Mysteries are openly studied and taught at the Citadel

Just because you are against something does not mean you don't educate and train people about it. There are Marxist curricula and departments in the USA and Europe - even Japan - but that still does not make the governments of these countries not anti-Marxist.

Besides, regarding a subject like magic, the Conclave probably has no better option than to fight fire with fire.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A strong central power without dragons is an illusion in such a large realm spanning a continent.

The Empire of Brazil begs to differ.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Without the dragons central power would slowly erode, the lords would get stronger and the rule of law as established by Aegon I and Jaehaerys I would decline - and with that also whatever the maesters want to accomplish.

Given the circumstances the Targs certainly need some time to develop, but dragons are in the end just a fancy form of power projection ... and being the richest house in the realm is also a valid form of power projection, given time. Dragons could ease the process of Targ enriching but as human history shows, you don't really need dragons to centralize power.

A feudal system already damages central power just by existing, anyway.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You see how helpless the maester of the Goodbrothers is in AFfC when he wants to challenge Euron's power grab with legal talk.

He doesn't have the power to press his claim ... and in this case, Euron Greyjoy, member of the ruling house of the Iron Islands, was shoring up his dynasty's power with magic (his Cthulhu horn and other stuff), which is what you proposed to be necessary for the Targs.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Just because you are against something does not mean you don't educate and train people about it. There are Marxist curricula and departments in the USA and Europe - even Japan - but that still does not make the governments of these countries not anti-Marxist.

No such country teaches Marxism the way it was taught or is taught in socialist states, i.e. as a scientific method or the prevailing political/economical ideology.

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Besides, regarding a subject like magic, the Conclave probably has no better option than to fight fire with fire.

The impression we have is that the Higher Mysteries fell out of favor in the Citadel not because of 'a conspiracy' but because the majority opinion is that they no longer work the way they did.

But if the whole 'anti-magic thing' is something that went on for a long time, stretching back the death of the dragons 150 years ago, then it is quite odd that they would still have archmaesters for a subject they loathe ... or suffer a Lord of Oldtown who is into magic (which Lord Leyton and his daughter the Mad Maid apparently is).

In that sense it is more likely it was just a limited campaign against the dragons which magic in general being more something that is distrusted or avoided, not actively fought.

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

The Empire of Brazil begs to differ.

Not that I know of, or does the current Brazilian government actually properly 'rule' or 'control' the territory they claim belongs to their state?

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Given the circumstances the Targs certainly need some time to develop, but dragons are in the end just a fancy form of power projection ... and being the richest house in the realm is also a valid form of power projection, given time. Dragons could ease the process of Targ enriching but as human history shows, you don't really need dragons to centralize power.

The point is more that the rule of law needs a big stick to enforce said rule. Without it, in world such as Westeros the law would have no teeth at all. And we see it ... or do you remember a maester speaking up against Renly's treasonous power grab? Do Pylos or Cressen actively oppose Stannis' attempted usurpation? Is Luwin chastising Robb in letters for his treasonous separatism? Do the maesters in the Riverlands try to dissuade the Riverlords from their treason? Nope.

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

A feudal system already damages central power just by existing, anyway.

But it is clear what the Citadel wants is the rule of law and reason, i.e. less feudalism and a stronger monarchy.

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

He doesn't have the power to press his claim ... and in this case, Euron Greyjoy, member of the ruling house of the Iron Islands, was shoring up his dynasty's power with magic (his Cthulhu horn and other stuff), which is what you proposed to be necessary for the Targs.

It is just an example. Reason and law didn't stop Euron's original usurpation. Religions, superstition and Ironborn tradition got Aeron to call a Kingsmoot ... and there Euron triumphed with magic, yes. But he seized the Seastone Chair earlier with brute force.

And obviously dragons were symbols of royal power from the first Aegon to the third in this world. It is not I who made them this, it is George. And it does strike me as odd that the Citadel would want to weaken the central power they are dependent on. If the Realm was to fracture chances are good that maesters wouldn't be so welcome in whatever independent kingdoms might be formed. Other citadels might be founded, etc.

[Green Stag]

Don't forget that it wasn't that long after Daeron's death there was another brief succession crisis - Baelor had no offspring, and Daena and Viserys were both candidates for the throne.  IF Daeron I had any legitimate offspring, they would have been brought forth as a candidate as well.  Illegitimate offspring might have been brought forth as well.  

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Green Stag said:

Don't forget that it wasn't that long after Daeron's death there was another brief succession crisis - Baelor had no offspring, and Daena and Viserys were both candidates for the throne.  IF Daeron I had any legitimate offspring, they would have been brought forth as a candidate as well.  Illegitimate offspring might have been brought forth as well.  

Any such offspring could have been long dead by then. And if they were girls then they would have gone the same way as Baelor's sisters, even more so since they would have already been passed over for Baelor when he took the throne. Though, of course, if George were to add such offspring and they would still be alive they might come up again as claimants after Baelor's death. But that would be a minor thing which might only involve a 9-10-year-old girl (say, if Daeron were to have posthumous daughter).

But I actually don't think there will be a succession crisis in 171 AC. Baelor was unmarried, childless, and a septon for most of his reign. It was crystal clear that he would never father a child, male or female. Which means he would have named an Heir Apparent - not a presumptive heir but the guy who definitely follow him on the throne unless he predeceased him. And that person would obviously have been his uncle Viserys. There can't be any doubt about that. Baelor divorced his sister-wife, and imprisoned her and all his other sisters. There is no chance he would have wanted a queen he discarded or a sister he imprisoned to actually rule after his death.

That Baelor must have ruled on his own succession is also quite clear from the fact that both his elder brother Daeron as well as his father Aegon III died pretty early - and he himself nearly died early in his reign.

It may be that there were a few people at court who pushed for Daena's succession in spite of Viserys being the clear heir and successor, but that would be independent from Baelor naming Viserys his heir.

The idea that half-mad, physically weak king who nearly did in his first year on the throne would rule for ten years without naming a successor is ludicrous. That couldn't work.

[KingAerys_II]

There was no Daeron I offspring, it's clear, Daeron was 14 and spent 3 years warring in Dorne, no one could stop the ascension of the best king:Aegon IV, his wise words :"wash her and put her in the bed" 

[Alester Florent]

15 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

Silverwing is probably the dragon Alys Rivers hides in the Harrenhal, there are people saying "the witch has a dragon. 

There's no known connection between Silverwing and Harrenhal. Surely a more logical candidate would be Sheepstealer, or an otherwise unknown hatchling. 

15 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

About the Cannibal here are all the theories about him:

Those are very definitely not all the theories.

15 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

2. He is a Westerosi dragon and the mount of the Night King. 

Who?