Is it definitely true that Daeron I had no issue?

[SaffronLady]

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The only evidence for that is Marwyn's claim so far.

If you need evidence as direct as Marwyn's claim for anti-dragon conspiracies for every ASOIAF theory out there, textual analysis of the books would categorically fail to exist. Indirect evidence and parallel symbolism are more important here, but you dismissed them out of hand.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Doesn't change the fact that both are not exactly prestigious match by birth.

Among the top circles, yes.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The freak seasons are more and there is no evidence that animals have a deeper insight into the magical stuff that caused them. The changing of seasons is determined by many investigations and factors some of which might include natural behavior of animals. But the maesters are not 'told' them by the white ravens they themselves breed.

Another example of you dismissing indirect evidence, parallel symbolism, and the entire way GRRM writes his book.

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I daresay that this comparison is way off as the Grand Maester is elected by an assembly of university department heads, basically.

You want me to pry into university dean elections to find an exact match, then?

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure enough, they did the incest thing. But that is a private thing.

Marriage laws are not a private subject free from being protested about in street rallies, as the United States kindly showed us. The Doctrine of Exceptionalism was in and of itself a significant exception from common morals and laws of the land.

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon and Jaehaerys don't use their dragons to get what they want all the time. Neither does Viserys I.

Viserys had no dragon during most of his reign.

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is more my point than yours as I think if there is a conspiracy against dragons and, perhaps, also certain types of magic connected to them, it is the a pragmatic view of those magical animals being too dangerous than the idea that magic itself is dangerous or problematic. Magic is natural in this world and thus part of the things the Citadel studies and researches.

There are many ways magic could kill without involving dragons or blood and fire magic. Shadow babies, ice magic ... even shapeshifting magics like Faceless Men and skinchangers. There are many reasons to keep up an anti-magic crusade even if dragons don't exist at all in TWOIAF.

Studying something does not conflict with wishing the annihilation of the study subject.

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The maesters could do this as well if they followed in the footsteps of the Valyrians. They were not super humans or anything like that. Also, they might actually have a lot of Valyrian magical knowledge, anyway. They do have lots of Valyrian scrolls, etc.

The problem is, where the Valyrians merrily created beasts of war, worked slaves to death and used blood magic, the maesters don't do all of these things. The highest-ranking maesters may have the knowledge yet refuse to use it, like S.H.I.E.L.D top brass sealing away all sorts of alien shit. It may have been why the Citadel was anti-magic in the first place (if their wars with the skinchangers have not caused it already).

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't think the earlier kings succeeded at that. The King's Peace is something Aegon I enforced. The earlier kings may not have had that. We are told that the Targaryens had to end small civil wars and blood feuds among lords in the kingdoms they conquered. That is only the case because the kings before them either couldn't or didn't try.

FGS even Revolutionary France saw private duels popping up all over the place, why do you think there is a correlation between civil violence incidents and power centralization? Your framework of analysis is wrong and inevitably you come to the wrong conclusion.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Even under the Iron Throne a lord like Roose Bolton is almost a king in his own domains, doing what he wants, and ensuring the guys above him doesn't interfere with his crimes.

Because ... it is within his legal rights to be a king in his own domains, this is fantasy feudalism. And when he did betray his lord his lord's family was already in shambles to fight back, it's not a legal issue that let Roose Bolton walk away from the Red Wedding without a scratch.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That would have been much worse under the Stark kings - after all, even while the Starks finally brought the Boltons to heel they could never attaint them nor eradicate that rotten bloodline.

The Red Kings never challenged the Kings of Winter for royal titles after the latter drove them into vasslage. That's power being centralized, and I think your idea of centralization is asking too much of bronze age folks.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Gardener power might have been similarly limited. The kings controlling smaller domains like the Arryns might have had more direct control.

m i g h t. You could at least have said "the Hightowers hold Oldtown, so the Gardeners were on the backfoot in legitimizing hostile actions they take against other lords since control of the church was in another house". But no, you hold feudal kingdoms to ridiculous levels of centralization demands, then ignore the mechanics of how they do centralize power, and finally you put forth realm size as if it was a factor more important than common morals and laws.

If you don't get it, look how many petty kingdoms existed in medieval Armenia and Georgia at the same time.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The alchemists were influential enough during the Targaryen era to build a huge guildhall in the new Targaryen capital.

Driv-ing, not driv-en. And surprisingly, the GoA's legacy niche is also fire magic, something we both know the maesters suck at.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Not just that, but every Targaryen king or Iron Throne king we know of named an heir. Why on earth shouldn't Baelor do that if he ensured he would never have a trueborn child?

Seven bless him with life everlasting or stuff like that. It's not like he's totally sane.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't imprison someone you think could rule after you.

Ottoman succession laws after the 16th century disagree, but the precedent does not exist in Westeros, so within the context of the conversation your point stands.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Hightowers only are as prominent in that era as they are because of Otto and Alicent's lofty positions.

The Hightowers enjoy continental influence due to the sway they hold over the headquarters of a continent-spanning faith. For all the ruckus he raised, King Baelor dragging the Faith's HQ away from them was their true fall from grace, and his coup de maitre as king.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Or, that’s the Citadel’s cover story to save face for the fact that they haven’t been able to light the candles.

Perhaps. We could at least confirm nobody in the Citadel's history could publically light a glass candle, or it won't be part of their initiation ritual.

And it won't be the only thing they had needed a cover story for, anyway.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Now if the Maesters thought that they could hatch their own dragon, one under their control, their position on dragons (at least their dragon) might be different.

Interesting idea. Nephews who could tame dragons may suddenly abound.

1 hour ago, Hippocras said:

No, they are prominent because while most of the nobility of Westeros lost all their money with the collapse of the Rogare Bank, they did not.

Thanks for the reminder regarding the collapse of the Rogares. Seems a little funni that the Lannisters got themselves and their money caught up in a bank bust.

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, SaffronLady said:

Viserys had no dragon during most of his reign.

He doesn't have Balerion, but there are plenty of dragons in his immediate circle. Early in his reign he has Daemon and Caraxes. By the time that he has publicly fallen out with Daemon, he has Rhaenyra and Syrax. Later in his reign, Sunfyre and Vhagar are available. 

The royal family may be fatally divided amongst itself, but at heart, each of these people - Daemon, Rhaenyra, Aegon and Aemond - were I think, loyal to Viserys, and could be called on in the event of real diplomatic crisis. The only other family with access to dragons are the Velaryons, and they are brought into the fold with marriage alliances.

But that Viserys didn't land a dragon on top of a rebellious castle and roast the inhabitants doesn't mean that the dragons weren't important in his getting his way. Sure, he preferred to rule with a velvet glove, dealing with his vassals through diplomacy rather than threats, but as with Jaehaerys before him, everyone knew that there was an iron fist there too that he could use if necessary. It is to the credit of Viserys and Jaehaerys (and to some extent Aegon) that they didn't need to flex their dragons to rule effectively, but that doesn't mean that the realm wasn't fully aware what the dragons were capable of, having seen what happened under Aegon and Maegor, and that will surely have had a major impact on their ability to get their way.

And as soon as Viserys dies and the loyalty of various vassals needs to be shored up, both factions of the royal family start sending out dragons to their castles as diplomatic instruments with implicit threat, just as Aegon and Aenys did.

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

Again, Maekar did not name an heir, and obviously should have.  Nor did he apparently prepare anyone / have an heir apparent. 

There is much to be learned about the reign of Maekar, I think. We don't know, for instance, when Daeron died. So long as he was alive, there was a clear heir. If Daeron died not long before his father, then that introduces an instability into the succession that wasn't present previously.

Maekar was surely aware enough by this point to know that Aerion was utterly unsuitable as king. So he may not have treated Aerion as heir apparent, not naming him as Prince of Dragonstone, etc. He may simply have hoped that Aerion would destroy himself, and privately treated Aegon as heir-in-waiting, on the assumption that even if he didn't inherit, he would assume the Handship and effectively rule anyway.

But he didn't disinherit Aerion, and then Aerion left an infant son behind. Maegor was undoubtedly the true heir by normal succession law, but Maekar didn't have time to form an assessment of his character, let alone groom him as heir, before his own death.

Most likely, Maekar, if he left a will, named Bloodraven as regent, and Bloodraven called the Great Council of his own initiative, seeking to engineer the succession of Aegon V that he had wanted all along.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think it’s also possible that the Citadel just wants to hoard magic for themselves.  That they don’t want it practiced outside of the Citadel.  If they were the only ones who could take advantage of it, it would add to their power and influence.

Could be, but those people don't strike me as people who are after power. Even guys like Qyburn are after knowledge not after political power. They want people to finance and protect them, they don't want to run things.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Which might explain the real reason that they didn’t want dragons.  They didn’t control them, and they posed a threat to the Citadel.  Now if the Maesters thought that they could hatch their own dragon, one under their control, their position on dragons (at least their dragon) might be different.

Again, I think the Dance made it crystal clear why too many dragonriders are a problem, so they might have decided to reduce their numbers. Perhaps they wanted to eradicate them completely, perhaps not. At the end of FaB there are still three large adult dragons out there - Silverwing, the Cannibal, and Sheepstealer - and one healthy young drake in Morning. That number is more managable.

Also, Aegon III really did hate those beasts. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility that he sent out dragonslayers to kill any dragons going wild (Silverwing apparently did). Not to mention that the maesters at his court could have poisoned any young dragons with his silent permission.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Or, that’s the Citadel’s cover story to save face for the fact that they haven’t been able to light the candles.  But it also seems to be true that at some point in history, glass candles could be lit.  Which is a fact that the Citadel would undoubtably have been aware of.

Which may be the real reason why they kept trying.

Obviously, yes. I imagine they might have gone out after the Doom.

4 hours ago, Hippocras said:

No, they are prominent because while most of the nobility of Westeros lost all their money with the collapse of the Rogare Bank, they did not. Furthermore, they founded their own Bank, putting them in a position to either be very helpful or a big pain in the ass, depending on how they felt about various other families.

The ones who did the squandering were gone by then. Sam Tarly was in change and she knew what she was doing.

Founding a bank doesn't mean you are rich all of a sudden. And while some Westerosi lords lost money to the Rogares, certainly not 'most of them'.

3 hours ago, Green Stag said:

And my point is he isn't exactly mentally stable from the beginning of his reign.  And the imprisonment of his sisters had to do with him controlling his lust and avoiding sin, there is nothing to indicate he thought they may or may not be fit to rule.  

I start to get annoyed by the cop-out argument that Baelor was (partially) nuts, so he might have (not) done this or that. We don't know to what degree he was 'insane', but what we do know is that he had a lot of power to push through his queer ideas. And nothing in what he did indicates he believed he didn't need a royal successor.

You are right about the explanation as to why Baelor imprisoned his sisters according to the history books. But in what scenario does imprisoning close family members means you view them as your (potential) successors? If Baelor had been a usurper he might have imprisoned relations with a better claim, but imprisoning his little sisters while keeping his dear uncle as second most powerful man in the Realm sends a clear message.

Even if Baelor had said that Daena would succeed him - him imprisoning her would have undermined that even if he had started every prayer with a confirmation that his sister would be queen one day.

3 hours ago, Green Stag said:

Again, Maekar did not name an heir, and obviously should have.  Nor did he apparently prepare anyone / have an heir apparent.  

We don't know yet if Maekar named an heir after Aerion's death. As I said, he could have ... or not. But his case is quite different from Baelor's as has been pointed out now repeatedly.

3 hours ago, Green Stag said:

Daena being queen has nothing to do with her claim to the throne, and she was set aside and did not serve / act as queen in any case.  Rightly or wrongly after Viserys I being named heir it seems that only male heirs were considered (unless specifically named otherwise), so if no other action was taken the throne would likely go to Viserys II after Baelor.  If Baelor named and prepared Aegon IV or Daeron II, I don't think there would have been much or any resistance.

Daena was queen until she was set aside. And that was actually quite some time. Please do reread things before you partake in such a detailed discussion. Baelor sets aside Daena after his trip to Dorne - which, in total, might have taken a year or more if you consider the time he needed to recover from the snake pit experience.

The succession of King Baelor is on the table when the Dragonknight drags out his cousin out of the pit and he is close to death. Then the court has to consider who would succeed him should the Stranger carry him away. And that should have led to factionalism at that time. The hawks at court, for instance, could have backed Daena as she wanted to avenge her brother Daeron.

And, no, Viserys II ascension is not a given in case of a provision as there is no binding law and Viserys' own claim goes through his mother.

3 hours ago, Green Stag said:

I think that the Estermonts are cousins from Lyonel Baratheon's daughter, but that is a totally separate issue.  

I don't think such speculation holds much water as them being such close relations should make them more prominent at court - and both with Renly and Stannis.

Also, of course, technically the next in line after Shireen/Myrcella/Renly would not be some obscure Baratheon cousin but some Targaryen cousin - a descendant of Duncan's, Maegor's, Vaella's, or Egg's sisters if such people were around. Steffon Baratheon is the only descendant of Rhaelle Targaryen and Ormund Baratheon, and Steffon only had the three sons we know.

Some Baratheon cousin might be able to put forth a claim to Storm's End but not to the Iron Throne.

3 hours ago, Green Stag said:

It is all a matter degree.  If you own a house and 5 acres of land, you still have property to switch to someone else, etc.  Even if you don't have that, decisions about things like life support, tube feedings, etc may need to be talked about as well.  In my experience, about half of people will remain in denial and not want to talk about these things until they absolutely half to, and sometimes not even then.  

In most modern societies there are laws regulating inheritance in the absence of a will. But not in the fantasy feudal world of Westeros.

3 hours ago, Green Stag said:

Agreed.  They Hightowers took a big hit after the Dance, but they were probably the de facto rulers / power in the Reach both before and after the Dance, even without Otto and Alicent.  They kept their fortune after the collapse of the Rogare bank, and then established the Bank of Oldtown.  They made peace / friends with Alyn Velaryon.  They seem to have done well at holding on to their power in spite of being hurt by events of the Dance.  

While they were Lord Paramount, I believe the Tyrell's strength is relatively recently recent, occurring after the failed Peake uprising and the marriage to the Redwynes.

They were powerful during the reign of Viserys I due to Otto and Alicent. But not after the Dance. There Lyonel Hightower was, perhaps, strongarmed into submission by Lady Tyrell threatening to kill his brother Garmund.

The Hightowers lost a lot of prestige and troops during the Dance while the Tyrells lost nothing because they remained neutral. They gained, the Hightowers lost. They are clearly not done, but there is no indication anyone thought the king was in need to keep them sweet by marrying his younger widowed half-sister to the youngest brother of Lord Hightower.

[SaffronLady]

13 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

He doesn't have Balerion, but there are plenty of dragons in his immediate circle. Early in his reign he has Daemon and Caraxes. By the time that he has publicly fallen out with Daemon, he has Rhaenyra and Syrax. Later in his reign, Sunfyre and Vhagar are available. 

The royal family may be fatally divided amongst itself, but at heart, each of these people - Daemon, Rhaenyra, Aegon and Aemond - were I think, loyal to Viserys, and could be called on in the event of real diplomatic crisis.

I find it questionable that Viserys could keep them in check through sheer force of character alone. A dragonless king lording over dragonriders should have made an interesting scene for court politics, though.

[Hippocras]

15 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

The Hightowers enjoy continental influence due to the sway they hold over the headquarters of a continent-spanning faith. For all the ruckus he raised, King Baelor dragging the Faith's HQ away from them was their true fall from grace, and his coup de maitre as king.

This comment got me thinking a bit. I think it is a strong point. During the reign of Aegon III the Faith was still based at Oldtown. While a very very large number of powerful Houses lost a great deal of money from the fall of the Rogare Bank (text based fact, trigger Lord Varys's objections) the Hightowers led by Sam Tarly founded a bank, invested whatever they had left wisely and became financiers for a subset of families in Westeros. So while their influence over the church waned, their financial influence grew.

Something probably to examine in another thread is the nature and extent of this influence network. We know, for example, that Alyn Velaryon and Sam Tarly became friends. We also know that even though Alyn subdued Isembard Arryn's attempt to rule the Vale, he also recommended him as Master of Coin and worked with him to reform taxes and repair some of the damage done to various families by the collapse of the Rogare bank. So Sam Tarly controlled a Bank. She was connected potentially via Alyn Velaryon to Isembard Arryn, Master of Coin. She had a House Rowan mother, possibly the sister of Thaddeus Rowan. She was married to a Hightower, and Lyonel had an unspecified close family connection to House Redwyne. 

I think if we looked a the list of maidens from the Reach that she cheekily recommended to wed Aegon, we could see it as a glimpse of which families in the Reach that she had favourable connections to. A list of families NOT listed would therefore be interesting to see.

The secret siege resulted in the absolute shattering of Thaddeus Rowan due to his torture. As he was likely Sam Tarly's uncle, I doubt that went over well with her. So Peake and his gang made Sam Tarly, with all of her connections, into a bitter enemy I would say. The plot thickens!

One of the maidens that Sam recommended Aegon III marry was her sister Sansara. In another thread I mentioned a possible connection between the name Sansara and the name Sansa (speculative). Given that Thaddeus Rowan and Torrhen Manderly were both prominent players in the early reign of Aegon III, and given that both of their Houses were looking for advantageous matches at the time, the speculation that Sansara Tarly soon married Torrhen Manderly is not without basis. What is certain, regardless of whether Sansara was the mother, is that Jeyne Manderly, probably one of Torrhen's daughters, married Cregan Stark's son Rickon. Jeyne was the name of Sam and Sansara's Rowan mother, and Jeyne and Rickon then had a daughter they named Sansa. Families do tend to repeat names.

Manderly is connected to the new financial network by the fact that it was him who took Alyn's advice and appointed Isembard Arryn as Master of Coin. House Manderly also has a vague connection to silver, apparently with the ability to mint it. I don't know if they can actually mine it in the North or if their source is elsewhere, but having House Manderly, as a source of coin for an emerging financial network is another argument for why Sansara might have been matched with House Manderly at that point in time.

We know that Sansara was clever and very well-read. A true ancestor of Samwell. If my speculation is correct we are starting to see the general shape of a broad network of families during the reign of Aegon III that was centered around Sam's financial network on the one hand, Alyn Velaryon's voyages and exploits, and his resulting friendships on the other, and also based to a large degree on formative alliances built as the Kingdoms attempted to heal from the Dance.

 

[Green Stag]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I start to get annoyed by the cop-out argument that Baelor was (partially) nuts, so he might have (not) done this or that. We don't know to what degree he was 'insane', but what we do know is that he had a lot of power to push through his queer ideas. And nothing in what he did indicates he believed he didn't need a royal successor.

You are right about the explanation as to why Baelor imprisoned his sisters according to the history books. But in what scenario does imprisoning close family members means you view them as your (potential) successors? If Baelor had been a usurper he might have imprisoned relations with a better claim, but imprisoning his little sisters while keeping his dear uncle as second most powerful man in the Realm sends a clear message.

Even if Baelor had said that Daena would succeed him - him imprisoning her would have undermined that even if he had started every prayer with a confirmation that his sister would be queen one day.

20 hours ago, Green Stag said:

Bottom line up front:  1.  Yes, an official successor for Baelor should have been named.  2. No, I don't think Baelor necessarily wanted any of his sisters to take the throne after him.  3.  I think that it is possible, given Baelor's questionable mental status Viserys may have tried to avoid having him name an heir; and it may have been for selfish reasons to become king himself.  4.  I don't think Daeron I had any children; and I think if he did they would have been mentioned as possible candidates for succession, the same way Daena was.

 

Again I think a clear heir SHOULD have been appointed given the trouble with succession only a generation before, I stated this earlier, and again I also stated the Viserys was the obvious choice for successor.  

I don't see how saying Baelor being insane is a cop - out (locking up your sisters so you aren't "tempted" isn't in any way normal behavior)  and I'm not trying to state that he wished Daena to succeed him; if he did for some reason want her to be his successor, a very poor job was done of preparing her, and he certainly would have withdrawn any support after she was found to be with child.  I DO think that with some of Baelor's odd behavior, Viserys and the rest of the small council may have not wanted him to officially appoint an heir, for fear that the chosen successor may have been completely inappropriate and perhaps without any Targaryen blood, thus potentially creating a crisis where none needed to occur (as you say, Baelor seems to have been fairly popular, at least in some circles, so even a completely terrible named heir may have received some support).  

I also believe that unless Baelor otherwise attempted to appoint someone else, if he remained childless (which seems certain, given his behaviors (I think we agree on this)), the throne would go to Viserys.  Again from the Wiki:

According to Archmaester Gyldayn, in the eyes of many, the council of 101 AC established an iron precedent on matters of succession: that the Iron Throne could not pass to a woman, or to a male descendant of a woman.

(The above is referenced from The World of Ice and Fire)

Also note that Aegon III succeeded Aegon II over Jaeheara, again supporting the idea that a male successor was preferred.  As you say, this is not binding, however a declaration by the king of an heir may not be binding either, if it was then the Dance never would have occurred.  And again, Viserys may have guided him away from naming an heir, be it for selfish reasons so that he could try and become king, or concerns over Baelor's sanity and the choices he might make if he officially appointed someone.  

Now, back to the original question: Is it definitely true that Daeron I had no issue?:  Again, we cannot say for certain.  However my original argument was that after Baelor's death, Daena was considered by some to be a candidate for the throne and the rightful heir - it seems reasonable (to me), that if Daeron I had legitimate offspring (that was still living), they would likely have been mentioned as potential candidates for the IT.  That they already had been passed over might not have mattered - Rhaenys Targaryen was considered a viable candidate at the Council of 101, as were her two children, in spite of her being passed over previously.  Lack of evidence is in no way proof, however if Daeron had a child (that was living at least), I think the mention of Daena's claim vs that of Viserys would have been another likely place to mention it.  

It is very early here, I apologize for any rambling.  Do have a good day.  

[Hippocras]

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

Now, back to the original question: Is it definitely true that Daeron I had no issue?:  Again, we cannot say for certain.  However my original argument was that after Baelor's death, Daena was considered by some to be a candidate for the throne and the rightful heir - it seems reasonable (to me), that if Daeron I had legitimate offspring (that was still living), they would likely have been mentioned as potential candidates for the IT.  That they already had been passed over might not have mattered - Rhaenys Targaryen was considered a viable candidate at the Council of 101, as were her two children, in spite of her being passed over previously.  Lack of evidence is in no way proof, however if Daeron had a child (that was living at least), I think the mention of Daena's claim vs that of Viserys would have been another likely place to mention it.  

It is very early here, I apologize for any rambling.  Do have a good day.  

The caveat here is that his child would have been no more than 3 years old when Daeron died. Noone was ever considered when that young. If it was a daughter as well, she would not even have been discussed.

 

When Baelor died she would have been max. 13, and maybe only 10. So of course they would consider Daena over her. Alao worth noting is that a child born after Daeron's death would inevitably havd had to contend with questions regarding whether Daeron was even the father, fairly or unfairly.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Hippocras

[Green Stag]

1 hour ago, Hippocras said:

The caveat here is that his child would have been no more than 3 years old when Daeron died. Noone was ever considered when that young. If it was a daughter as well, she would not even have been discussed.

 

When Baelor died she would have been max. 13, and maybe only 10. So of course they would consider Daena over her. Alao worth noting is that a child born after Daeron's death would inevitably havd had to contend with questions regarding whether Daeron was even the father, fairly or unfairly.

Agreed, on both counts, an infant would almost certainly have been passed over for Baelor, however some 10 years later might have been considered.

My thought is if the hypothetical child existed (and I don’t think any did), it seems there would have been mention of a claim, the same way Daena’s rights were mentioned 

[Hippocras]

56 minutes ago, Green Stag said:

Agreed, on both counts, an infant would almost certainly have been passed over for Baelor, however some 10 years later might have been considered.

My thought is if the hypothetical child existed (and I don’t think any did), it seems there would have been mention of a claim, the same way Daena’s rights were mentioned 

I am not sure about that. If there is a story there with a child of Daeron then it is not one GRRM was ready to tell yet. Daena's mention was entirely because of the Blackfyre story which he was working out because of the Dunk and Egg series among other things. Daena needed to be mentioned because her being passes over is what made Daemon Blackfyre so dangerous. But if Daeron had a child who was loyal and was not contesting the succession, then her story can wait, be cause it has more to do with lineages and family histories that still need development.

Furthermore, if Daeron's child was passed over when he died, that decision was likely considered final. She did not descend from Baelor. So when Baelor died it was his line and what preceeded it that mattered, not Daeron's. Her claim would have fallen behind Daena's.

We can't answer whether such a child existed until GRRM finishes working out the histories. For now there is no particular sign of her. There are simply a number of curious marriages for which we are waiting for more information.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Hippocras

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

Bottom line up front:  1.  Yes, an official successor for Baelor should have been named.  2. No, I don't think Baelor necessarily wanted any of his sisters to take the throne after him.  3.  I think that it is possible, given Baelor's questionable mental status Viserys may have tried to avoid having him name an heir; and it may have been for selfish reasons to become king himself.  4.  I don't think Daeron I had any children; and I think if he did they would have been mentioned as possible candidates for succession, the same way Daena was.

We are not talking as if the information we have are thorough or complete. FaB showed that George feels free to expand on or change the TWoIaF material as well as on earlier novella versions of his own material (TSotD).

We could have said that it was 'canon' that Alysanne and Jaehaerys married each other peaceful and quiet and in accord with Alyssa Velaryon and Rogar Baratheon because that is certainly what TWoIaF implied. But they didn't.

The way to discuss this thing is not 'find out a way how George will keep the things intact we think we know' but rather: 'What makes for an interesting story in the scenario of a very pious childless king who takes a septon's vow and imprisons all his sisters, including his former sister-wife.'

The idea that the obvious succession issue will glossed over in a detailed history of his reign is very unlikely. The scenario of no named heir is not completely impossible but could only work in a 'Baelor was really and totally nuts' scenario ... which I actually don't think George is aiming for. Baelor the Blessed has extreme tendencies, but he was an effective and visionary king if he took charge, not somebody who lost the grip on reality.

Even his choices for High Septon are not that bad - within a religious framework innocence and natural piety can be good qualities. And High Septons that could easily serve as puppets or figureheads for the Crown are not so bad, either.

House Targaryen faces considerable succession trouble in those years. The dynasty is weak. First the dragons all die, then Aegon III dies early in his thirties, handing the throne to a mere boy, bringing back the specter of Aegon III's lousy Regency era. Daeron I rises to the challenge, of course, but then he, too, dies far too early after a devastating war which House Targaryen lost spectacularly in the end. His successor is but a brother, not a son, not an ideal case ... and the new childless king divorces his sister-wife and takes a septon's way, literally causing a future succession issue very early in his reign.

This is a big and glaring political problem. It could only be mended if Baelor's succession was clear from the start. At least technically by way of Baelor naming an heir. If that heir would then succeed smoothly would depend on other circumstances.

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

I don't see how saying Baelor being insane is a cop - out (locking up your sisters so you aren't "tempted" isn't in any way normal behavior) and I'm not trying to state that he wished Daena to succeed him; if he did for some reason want her to be his successor, a very poor job was done of preparing her, and he certainly would have withdrawn any support after she was found to be with child.

For a Targaryen, feeling tempted by a sister or thinking a sister is out there to seduce and having sex with you can be seen as pretty normal or at least not totally unusual.

You are right about the bastard thing. To make things interesting, George could have Baelor name Daena his successor early on his reign when takes his septon's vows only to disinherit her specifically after the birth of Daemon Blackfyre. I don't think that is very likely, but it would be a possible scenario. Aegon IV could even seduce Daena because he expected her to be queen one day (or soon, if he thought Baelor wouldn't live much longer).

There is certainly some story to the romance/affair of Aegon and Daena as Daena later refuses to name the father of her bastard. Why would she do that but to spare Aegon from Baelor's wrath?

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

I DO think that with some of Baelor's odd behavior, Viserys and the rest of the small council may have not wanted him to officially appoint an heir, for fear that the chosen successor may have been completely inappropriate and perhaps without any Targaryen blood, thus potentially creating a crisis where none needed to occur (as you say, Baelor seems to have been fairly popular, at least in some circles, so even a completely terrible named heir may have received some support).  

Again, that is you not getting the chronology straight. Baelor's weird 'appointments' of High Septons took place very late in his reign - earlier the then-ruling High Septon grew ever more powerful at court, influencing Baelor.

The succession question would have come up in the beginning at least thrice. When Baelor left for Dorne, when Baelor nearly died, when Baelor set aside Daena and took a septon's vow. Back then nobody would have thought Baelor would name some orphan or stone mason his successor. And they might not even have thought that at the end of his reign - as Baelor was, in the end, still a Targaryen and a king. Not somebody who gave up his crown to live in a hut to raise a street urchin to the seat of Aegon the Conqueror.

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

I also believe that unless Baelor otherwise attempted to appoint someone else, if he remained childless (which seems certain, given his behaviors (I think we agree on this)), the throne would go to Viserys.  Again from the Wiki:

According to Archmaester Gyldayn, in the eyes of many, the council of 101 AC established an iron precedent on matters of succession: that the Iron Throne could not pass to a woman, or to a male descendant of a woman.

(The above is referenced from The World of Ice and Fire)

That makes things look too easy. The Great Council made male succession look as the way to go in the eyes of many, yes ... but then Viserys I named Rhaenyra his heir and Aegon II was succeeded by Rhaenyra's eldest surviving son. The royal family wouldn't care much about the Great Council of 101 AC when the succession of Rhaenyra's sons and grandchildren were concerned. They would look back to Rhaenyra and Daemon, their parents/grandparents, and they definitely wouldn't view themselves as 'the rightful heirs and successors' of the bloody usurper and murderer Aegon II.

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

Also note that Aegon III succeeded Aegon II over Jaeheara, again supporting the idea that a male successor was preferred.

Aegon III got the throne by way of a Black coup. Aegon II was defeated in the field and then murdered by his own court and council. They propped up Rhaenyra's son as new king to placate the Lads, Cregan Stark, and Jeyne Arryn. Had the Greens beaten the Blacks in the field and Aegon II had died in the fighting or of natural causes they would have killed Aegon III and Daemon's daughter and they would have propped up Queen Jaehaera as new monarch and married her to a fervent Green loyalist or his heir.

It was certainly convenient that Aegon III was male and thus acceptable for such (former) Greens who went Green because of male chauvinism rather than for loyalty to Alicent, Otto, and their bloodline. Ditto due to Larys Strong's earlier machinations which resulted in the betrothal of Aegon and Jaehaera and them being named joint presumptive heirs. But for true followers of Aegon II and his bloodline Jaehaera was the rightful monarch, not Aegon III. That her claim was the stronger is even mentioned when the regency council discusses Aegon III succession.

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

As you say, this is not binding, however a declaration by the king of an heir may not be binding either, if it was then the Dance never would have occurred. And again, Viserys may have guided him away from naming an heir, be it for selfish reasons so that he could try and become king, or concerns over Baelor's sanity and the choices he might make if he officially appointed someone.

Obviously such a decree wouldn't be binding. But having Baelor name Viserys his heir backed, perhaps, by a religious sermon why women shouldn't rule could very well help further establish why Targaryen women shouldn't succeed to the throne - especially in the aftermath of the Dance and Aegon III and Viserys II being both the children of a woman, inheriting their claim from her.

Moreover, though, Viserys was much older than Baelor. The chances that he actually expected to succeed to the throne are quite small. Daeron and Baelor should have both outlived him. He might have expected Baelor to die close to the end of his reign when his fasting became extreme (or if he then decided to poison him because his rule was becoming too erratic) ... but he clearly didn't plan to become king one day when his own brother died early in 157 AC. If he had, Daeron and Baelor had died much earlier, one imagines.

That age gap problem actually makes Aegon IV and Daeron II the likelier heirs of Baelor - and that causes other problems as chances are very low that Baelor would have wanted to see his abusive and impious cousin soil his throne.

In fact, if you think along those lines we could see Baelor as not naming an heir if his presumptive male heir would be Aegon. But it never was, it was uncle Viserys.

1 hour ago, Green Stag said:

Now, back to the original question: Is it definitely true that Daeron I had no issue?:  Again, we cannot say for certain.  However my original argument was that after Baelor's death, Daena was considered by some to be a candidate for the throne and the rightful heir - it seems reasonable (to me), that if Daeron I had legitimate offspring (that was still living), they would likely have been mentioned as potential candidates for the IT.  That they already had been passed over might not have mattered - Rhaenys Targaryen was considered a viable candidate at the Council of 101, as were her two children, in spite of her being passed over previously.  Lack of evidence is in no way proof, however if Daeron had a child (that was living at least), I think the mention of Daena's claim vs that of Viserys would have been another likely place to mention it.

Sure. We would have to assume that if there are children of Daeron I they will be added in FaB II like the first Daenerys was added to FaB. However, minor claimants etc. can be added easily. The obscure claimants of the Great Council also were added on a whim in FaB.

However, TWoIaF is a very brief summary excluding a lot of details in many instances. Remember, the book doesn't even mention the death of Queen Alicent! In that sense, George could have technically written a long manuscript about a succession struggle after Baelor's death involving not only Viserys II and Daena, but also a posthumous daughter (or even a son) of Daeron I and perhaps even Alyn Velaryon and Baela Targaryen and their children vying for the throne. The fact that we don't read anything about that in TWoIaF wouldn't mean anything.

Thinking more about things it might also go very well if Viserys II rises to the throne by way of marrying or promising to marry Daena. He is a widower since Larra's death in Lys years before, and him not taking a second wife is just stupid from a dynastic point of view. The wedding might not happen since Viserys dies early, or it might happen but there might be no children. Or there could even be children there, too. They would not mess with the family tree much. More over, Viserys II being smart should have known that his freed nieces would retain their claims and might take other, dangerous husbands in due time if they weren't controlled.

As Hand he would have an excuse to not marry - huge workload, etc. - but as king he would need a queen.

[Ran]

I'll repeat what I've said before: George literally had nothing about Jaehaerys and Alysanne. No notes other than whatever details were already published. The stuff he added for TWoIaF was off-the-cuff. It's not a great surprise that once he worked on FaB that a lot changed, because he barely had anything to begin with.

But he has extensive, year-by-year, notes for the entire period from the death of Aegon III through to the first Blackfyre Rebellion and then on to the Dunk and Egg era. And he didn't touch those notes in any editorial way when he and we used them to write about that era in TWoIaF.  The only change I've seen since then was a small tweak in the Black Pearl's parentage, revealed first in a TWoW chapter preview he released.

It's really quite different. The insistence that he's going to introduce a queen and an heir after having had multiple opportunities to work them in in multiple versions of the family tree feels more like personal obsession with head canon than it does with how George actually works.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Ran

[The Bard of Banefort]

If George introduced a new queen for someone at some point, I think Maekar would be the best bet. I don’t think it’s likely to happen, but it is a little weird that, in spite of his many heirs, Maekar was widowed so young and remained unwed for all that time. (It would also be really funny if there were some scenes of eligible ladies fawning over him and him being all gruff and uncomfortable in response haha).

Edited November 1, 2023 by The Bard of Banefort

[Lord Varys]

57 minutes ago, Ran said:

I'll repeat what I've said before: George literally had nothing about Jaehaerys and Alysanne. No notes other than whatever details were already published. The stuff he added for TWoIaF was off-the-cuff. It's not a great surprise that once he worked on FaB that a lot changed, because he barely had anything to begin with.

He did change quite a lot of things, not just the marriage crisis stuff and the birth order of the children but also the entire Faith-Iron Throne with the Doctrine of Exceptionalism. That was all new. It greatly fits with things implicitly, of course, but it is all new invention.

57 minutes ago, Ran said:

But he has extensive, year-by-year, notes for the entire period from the death of Aegon III through to the first Blackfyre Rebellion and then on to the Dunk and Egg era. And he didn't touch those notes in any editorial way when he and we used them to write about that era in TWoIaF.  The only change I've seen since then was a small tweak in the Black Pearl's parentage, revealed first in a TWoW chapter preview he released.

It's really quite different. The insistence that he's going to introduce a queen and an heir after having had multiple opportunities to work them in in multiple versions of the family tree feels more like personal obsession with head canon than it does with how George actually works.

You know more about the working process, of course ... but you should keep in mind that George will actually write a history if or when he does work on FaB II. And writing a story is (or can be) different from year-by-notes for background information to keep family trees and ages straight and fix dates for historical events you plan to reference in later novellas or novels. He might want to produce an actual history book with some narrative lines and actual plots, not so much the kind of broad and superficial overview we get for some of the kings in FaB.

Sure enough - if he just wants to throw some badly fitting piece he could just write out the notes he still have. But one hopes he won't take that road, no? Nor is that the kind of thing he likes to do.

And, no, nobody insists he will or has introduce new queens. We just point out that it would sense to consider something. If you read some of my stuff on the topic my issue mostly is with there being no betrothal made for the Young Dragon. I don't say he should be married, although I certainly admit that I like that change.

Ditto for the second Viserys and, especially, Maekar. George actually keeps dropping the ball with his own incestuous family there. We should know why Viserys I and Rhaenys didn't marry each other, we should learn why Naerys is paired with Aegon rather than Daeron I, and we should definitely get explanation why young men and middle-aged kings didn't remarry when the dynasty's future was depending on the fertility of a spindly book worm married to a Dornishwoman.

Those are real political issues if you look at things in detail. People see this.

53 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

If George introduced a new queen for someone at some point, I think Maekar would be the best bet. I don’t think it’s likely to happen, but it is a little weird that, in spite of his many heirs, Maekar was widowed so young and remained unwed for all that time. (It would also be really funny if there were some scenes of eligible ladies fawning over him and him being all gruff and uncomfortable in response haha).

It is okay that Viserys as Hand and Maekar as a lord with six children didn't remarry. But for Viserys things change when Baelor sells Viserys' grandson to Dorne and ensures he would never have sons of his own.

If you look at it the entire peace treaty is rotten and should have caused major problems after Baelor took his septon's vows. 1-2 years before those Dornish assholes murdered the Young Dragon in cold blood and insulted the Iron Throne and the dynasty by throwing off the Targaryen yoke. If King Baelor never has children the throne will inevitably pass to or through Daeron's children by Myriah. Unless Baelor's sisters were real options as heirs.

The realistic prospect of a Queen Myriah Martell as early as 162-163 AC is very hard to swallow unless the people at court are to be imagined all as sheep who like to do everything Baelor says.

This is like Joffrey Baratheon marrying Sansa Stark to Tommen, then taking a septon's vows so everybody knows that one day Sansa or her kin and children would wield a lot of influence at court. After the war that just happened this kind of favoritism is insane.

For Maekar things change when he becomes king. Widowed king are unusual and stupid in any case, but widowers becoming king would simply marry. There is no reason not to, as marriage means not only more heirs - which is something Maekar could use as he is down to three sons to succeed him, anyway - but also to form an alliance, to have a woman at his side to do the queenly things.

Viserys II should and may have thought about another wife without going through with it before his death. But Maekar ruled for 12 years, he has no excuse at all.

And I don't think he had issues with women. He fathered six children on his late wife and the only good reason for him to not remarry would be to honor her memory.

[The Bard of Banefort]

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He did change quite a lot of things, not just the marriage crisis stuff and the birth order of the children but also the entire Faith-Iron Throne with the Doctrine of Exceptionalism. That was all new. It greatly fits with things implicitly, of course, but it is all new invention.

You know more about the working process, of course ... but you should keep in mind that George will actually write a history if or when he does work on FaB II. And writing a story is (or can be) different from year-by-notes for background information to keep family trees and ages straight and fix dates for historical events you plan to reference in later novellas or novels. He might want to produce an actual history book with some narrative lines and actual plots, not so much the kind of broad and superficial overview we get for some of the kings in FaB.

Sure enough - if he just wants to throw some badly fitting piece he could just write out the notes he still have. But one hopes he won't take that road, no? Nor is that the kind of thing he likes to do.

And, no, nobody insists he will or has introduce new queens. We just point out that it would sense to consider something. If you read some of my stuff on the topic my issue mostly is with there being no betrothal made for the Young Dragon. I don't say he should be married, although I certainly admit that I like that change.

Ditto for the second Viserys and, especially, Maekar. George actually keeps dropping the ball with his own incestuous family there. We should know why Viserys I and Rhaenys didn't marry each other, we should learn why Naerys is paired with Aegon rather than Daeron I, and we should definitely get explanation why young men and middle-aged kings didn't remarry when the dynasty's future was depending on the fertility of a spindly book worm married to a Dornishwoman.

Those are real political issues if you look at things in detail. People see this.

It is okay that Viserys as Hand and Maekar as a lord with six children didn't remarry. But for Viserys things change when Baelor sells Viserys' grandson to Dorne and ensures he would never have sons of his own.

If you look at it the entire peace treaty is rotten and should have caused major problems after Baelor took his septon's vows. 1-2 years before those Dornish assholes murdered the Young Dragon in cold blood and insulted the Iron Throne and the dynasty by throwing off the Targaryen yoke. If King Baelor never has children the throne will inevitably pass to or through Daeron's children by Myriah. Unless Baelor's sisters were real options as heirs.

The realistic prospect of a Queen Myriah Martell as early as 162-163 AC is very hard to swallow unless the people at court are to be imagined all as sheep who like to do everything Baelor says.

This is like Joffrey Baratheon marrying Sansa Stark to Tommen, then taking a septon's vows so everybody knows that one day Sansa or her kin and children would wield a lot of influence at court. After the war that just happened this kind of favoritism is insane.

For Maekar things change when he becomes king. Widowed king are unusual and stupid in any case, but widowers becoming king would simply marry. There is no reason not to, as marriage means not only more heirs - which is something Maekar could use as he is down to three sons to succeed him, anyway - but also to form an alliance, to have a woman at his side to do the queenly things.

Viserys II should and may have thought about another wife without going through with it before his death. But Maekar ruled for 12 years, he has no excuse at all.

And I don't think he had issues with women. He fathered six children on his late wife and the only good reason for him to not remarry would be to honor her memory.

It’s interesting that Daeron the Drunken was named for Daeron II, which would indicate that he was the firstborn grandson. Perhaps it just took Baelor and Rhaegal longer to conceive, or there were miscarriages, but Maekar seems to have been married off fairly young (not unlike Viserys II, although he probably wasn’t quite that young).

On the topic of names, it was pretty dumb for Daeron not to name any of his sons Aegon. He wore his father’s crown, after all, so he clearly understood appearances.

GRRM does tend to take a romantic approach to marriage, where people would rather stay unwed for thirty years than love again. The kings who did remarry (Maegor, Viserys I), aren’t regarded fondly for doing so.  Even Alyssa Velaryon’s second marriage is painted as bad judgement on her part.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

It’s interesting that Daeron the Drunken was named for Daeron II, which would indicate that he was the firstborn grandson. Perhaps it just took Baelor and Rhaegal longer to conceive, or there were miscarriages, but Maekar seems to have been married off fairly young (not unlike Viserys II, although he probably wasn’t quite that young).

Daeron is indeed the eldest grandchild of Daeron II. Aerion and Valarr are about the same age, but Daeron is two years older. And all three were conceived before the Blackfyre Rebellion.

I imagine that all matches for the four boys were made around the same time, early during the reign of Daeron II. Aerys I would have never been married off after Maekar and Baelor and Rhaegel had produced children of their own, in light of his character and interest, so it stands to reason the guy was betrothed at a time when he couldn't or wouldn't object all that much and the king and queen thought their second son should give them grandchildren.

I think once we get there it might turn out that the matches Egg and Betha try to make for the children sort of mirror the matches made for the sons of Daeron and Myriah. While I think that Jena Dondarrion is as much a cousin on the Targaryen side of the family as Aelinor Penrose (a descendant of Baela and/or Rhaena), Alys Arryn and Dyanna Dayne might have been total political matches. The Arryns are, perhaps, the most prestigious Andal house, and the Daynes could have played a crucial role in the preparation/negotiation of the union with Dorne.

Rhaegel taking as long as did might have to do with his madness causing him to be in a state of mind for months or years where he is not exactly interested in intercourse with his wife (or she with him). By the time of TSS and TMK Aelor and Aelora are yet deemed children (indicating they might be about Egg's age or slightly older) and Daenora hasn't been born yet, apparently.

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

On the topic of names, it was pretty dumb for Daeron not to name any of his sons Aegon. He wore his father’s crown, after all, so he clearly understood appearances.

Well, Baelor was born while Baelor the Blessed yet ruled, and Aerys I may have been born during the short reign of Viserys II.

The name Aegon actually seems to have fallen out of favor at that time, at least for the Targaryens. Which is hardly a surprise as Daeron II would likely have never intended to give the impression to honor his father by giving a son of his the name Aegon.

It is quite striking that Maekar only gives the name to his youngest son and Baelor and Rhaegel don't use it at all.

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

GRRM does tend to take a romantic approach to marriage, where people would rather stay unwed for thirty years than love again. The kings who did remarry (Maegor, Viserys I), aren’t regarded fondly for doing so.  Even Alyssa Velaryon’s second marriage is painted as bad judgement on her part.

I think he doesn't like the complications coming from this, although it is a bad take on royal politics. Lords and noblemen he just mentions or doesn't flesh out tend to remarry all the time, think about Jasper Wylde, Cassandra Baratheon's husband, Jon Arryn, Roose Bolton, Walder Frey and many of his sons, etc. Hoster Tully not remarrying is also quite silly, even more so in light of his attitude towards his brother.

Alyssa-Rogar are poorly fleshed out, in part because we have no clue there where she and the children stayed when they fled Dragonstone with the dragons. If they were at Storm's End for all those years or otherwise under Rogar's protection then we would have a more complex story there, with Rogar actually being more of a stepfather/mentor to Jaehaerys than it is later painted. It is completely ridiculous that they could hide two huge dragons from Maegor's spies for four years, but it would be even harder to swallow that Alyssa could go to Storm's End with the dragons and her children without already knowing that Rogar would take her in/protect her.

FaB glosses over and ignores the four years from 44-48 AC for Alyssa and the children, so the notion that the subsequent marriage is some kind of strange romance/power grab thing developing in 48-49 AC isn't really convincing. Realistically we would expect that a romance was going on between the two while they were hiding with Rogar and/or Alyssa's hand in marriage was the price she (and Jaehaerys) had to pay for Baratheon support against Maegor. In fact, we hear that Alyssa had been in contact with the great lords as early as 43 AC when she was trying to marshal support for Aegon the Uncrowned. Could be that her romantic/political link to Rogar Baratheon goes back to those days. The guy could have acted as envoy of his father, then still the Lord of Storm's End, perhaps.

In that sense we should, perhaps, better assume that things were actually pretty fine between Jaehaerys, his mother, and Rogar until after the Golden Wedding and their opposition to the marriage of Jaehaerys and Alysanne. Gyldayn's sources may have gotten things wrong there. We don't know much, but in light of the closeness of Jaehaerys and Alysanne they learning that their mother was fine with marrying Alysanne to Rogar's little brother might have hurt them very much.

[Hippocras]

15 hours ago, Ran said:

I'll repeat what I've said before: George literally had nothing about Jaehaerys and Alysanne. No notes other than whatever details were already published. The stuff he added for TWoIaF was off-the-cuff. It's not a great surprise that once he worked on FaB that a lot changed, because he barely had anything to begin with.

But he has extensive, year-by-year, notes for the entire period from the death of Aegon III through to the first Blackfyre Rebellion and then on to the Dunk and Egg era. And he didn't touch those notes in any editorial way when he and we used them to write about that era in TWoIaF.  The only change I've seen since then was a small tweak in the Black Pearl's parentage, revealed first in a TWoW chapter preview he released.

It's really quite different. The insistence that he's going to introduce a queen and an heir after having had multiple opportunities to work them in in multiple versions of the family tree feels more like personal obsession with head canon than it does with how George actually works.

 

I think he is sometimes just not sure what he wants to do and puts off certain decisions. It is not about changing things necessarily, but about him constantly leaving space to make certain decisions later. Because of that, I think there may be surprises along the road even for you.

I actually don't have the sense anyone on this thread is "obsessed with head canon". Noone is being all that pushy which is what has made this actually an interesting discussion. I personally just think that Jena Dondarrion remains a very large question mark, and so I enjoy speculating on what made her the right match for Baelor.

I will admit to a certain obsession with head cannon on one thing alone: That a series that involves blood magic, has extensive but incomplete family trees, and emphasizes a weird pattern of brother-sister marriages is one where bloodlines matter. We genuinely need to know who people ARE to understand their links to the magical elements of the series, not just the political.

[Green Stag]

3 hours ago, Hippocras said:

I personally just think that Jena Dondarrion remains a very large question mark, and so I enjoy speculating on what made her the right match for Baelor.

I agree, it seems there has to be something more to Jena Dondarrion's background to make her a good match for Baelor, more powerful houses exist in both the Reach and stormlands.  The simplest explanation is that she has Targaryen blood, but from whom?

I think some of the "blanks" may be a mixture of not being sure what he wants to do, as you say, and not wanting to give away a likely plot twist - the Frey family tree is almost fully complete, for example, with Stevron's oldest son Ryman's wife being a glaring exception that I think may come into play.  

[Alester Florent]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, Baelor was born while Baelor the Blessed yet ruled, and Aerys I may have been born during the short reign of Viserys II.

The name Aegon actually seems to have fallen out of favor at that time, at least for the Targaryens. Which is hardly a surprise as Daeron II would likely have never intended to give the impression to honor his father by giving a son of his the name Aegon.

It is quite striking that Maekar only gives the name to his youngest son and Baelor and Rhaegel don't use it at all.

There does seem to be a shift away from the traditional Targaryen names around the time that Daeron II was naming his kids. Aegon is an obvious omission, but there is no Viserys either, and that had been another name used at almost every opportunity (given that fathers and sons never share names, so far as we know). He does use a "Rhae-" name, although I believe those names had only been used for women until that point. Aerys and Maekar are original names. Baelor then carries this forward with two more original names, as does Rhaegel. 

This makes Maekar's kids all the more interesting because all the boys have very traditional Targ names, and Daella is also an old reused name. It's hard to see that as anything other than a statement given the context of Targ names at the time. Still no Viserys though. 

Daeron presumably only sneaked its way back into the Targ family tree via the Velaryons. I can't imagine Aegon III's being too keen to honour his uncle Daeron, the only previously known Targ with the name. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

There does seem to be a shift away from the traditional Targaryen names around the time that Daeron II was naming his kids. Aegon is an obvious omission, but there is no Viserys either, and that had been another name used at almost every opportunity (given that fathers and sons never share names, so far as we know). He does use a "Rhae-" name, although I believe those names had only been used for women until that point. Aerys and Maekar are original names. Baelor then carries this forward with two more original names, as does Rhaegel.

Nobody using the name Viserys is indeed kind of odd as Viserys II is the great patriarch of his branch of the royal family.

Aerys is a traditional Targaryen name. There was a Lord of Dragonstone of that name from whom Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters are descended.

Rhaegel and Maekar might be new names or new variations (Maekar could be a play on the Maegor/Maegon name). That Daeron II named his second son Aerys indicates Rhaegel and Maekar may also be named after famous ancestors from Dragonstone or Valyria.

The names of Baelor Breakspear's sons actually makes one wish George would retcon Jena Dondarrion into another Velaryon bride (a granddaughter of Alyn, say) or have her descended from a daughter of Alyn and Baela as the name Matarys especially is kind of reminiscent of some of the Velaryon Valyrian names (Monterys, say). I doubt those names are new. Valarr could actually turn out to be a Dornish name.

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

 Daeron presumably only sneaked its way back into the Targ family tree via the Velaryons. I can't imagine Aegon III's being too keen to honour his uncle Daeron, the only previously known Targ with the name. 

Yes, the Young Dragon is likely named after Daenaera Velaryon's father rather than Alicent's Daeron. And, of course, Aegon III may have also named him that way to make a statement that his son would be a real Daeron Targaryen, unlike the fakes which seem to have troubled his reign.

Baelor the Blessed seems to have been named after Baela, Daena after her mother Daenaera, Rhaena after Rhaena, and Elaena got a traditional name.

But thinking about things George should give Daenaera more children who were stillborn or cradle deaths, her first pregnancy resulting being a boy as it seems obvious that Aegon III would want to name his firstborn son after his beloved brother Viserys, just as Viserys named his firstborn son after the king. It might also be not so bad to give them a stillborn daughter they named after Rhaenyra.

Alternatively, Rhaena or Baela could have used the names Rhaenyra, Daemon, and Viserys for some of their children.