Why didn’t Aegon III ever

[Maegor_the_Cool]

Recognize his mother as the Queen? Why did he allow the maesters to acknowledge Aegon II as King?

[Floki of the Ironborn]

Because he was too busy crapping on his allies and brooding all day.

[frenin]

9 hours ago, _Rhaegar_Targaryen_ said:

Recognize his mother as the Queen? Why did he allow the maesters to acknowledge Aegon II as King?

We simply do not know and the answer offered are unsatisfactory to say the least.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

12 hours ago, _Rhaegar_Targaryen_ said:

Recognize his mother as the Queen? Why did he allow the maesters to acknowledge Aegon II as King?

I also always wondered this. Just made no sense to me. Or Viserys, who was also King, and also Rhaenyra’s son. Or her grandsons. Literally they all come from her. I get that Westeros is sexist, but I still find it odd. 

[Ran]

What good would it have done to anything to have her called queen when most people either opposed her or, in allying with her, suffered greatly? The thing about Aegon III is that he doesn't really have any ego at play -- he hates being king but he'll do the job because it's his duty, but he's not going to relitigate the wrongs done him or his mother when the realm has finally, tenuously, found peace.

 

[Lord Varys]

The thing is, Gyldayn acknowledges Rhaenyra as queen as does Aegon III. She reigned and ruled for about half a year in 130 AC and historians duly record this. No in-universe source says Aegon II ruled and reigned from 129-131 AC as this didn't happen. Aegon II reigned until his deposition by Rhaenyra in early 130 AC, and then he was restored to the throne in early 131 AC.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Lord Varys

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

12 hours ago, Ran said:

What good would it have done to anything to have her called queen when most people either opposed her or, in allying with her, suffered greatly? The thing about Aegon III is that he doesn't really have any ego at play -- he hates being king but he'll do the job because it's his duty, but he's not going to relitigate the wrongs done him or his mother when the realm has finally, tenuously, found peace.

 

Anf Aegon II….didn’t have opposition nor cause hate? Actually…Rhaenyra won. Her side won the war. Meaning she had more allies at the end of the war. 

[SaffronLady]

12 hours ago, Ran said:

relitigate the wrongs done him or his mother when the realm has finally, tenuously, found peace.

Now that you mention it, aren't the Greens' primary representatives by the end of the Dance all widows? They may be pliable to accept a clause in the general peace accepting Rhaenyra as the rightful queen.

Not that GRRM ever specified the entire legitimacy issue though. Is Aegon III king by jure uxoris, or by succession from his mother? I dunno.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Anf Aegon II….didn’t have opposition nor cause hate? Actually…Rhaenyra won. Her side won the war. Meaning she had more allies at the end of the war. 

There were no real "winners", which was part of how the conflict was resolved. Cregan Stark wanted to continue prosecuting the war until the Greens accepted dead Rhaenyra as queen and Aegon III as her heir, but that was madness, and Corlys Velaryon played a key role in convincing people that there was a better way to end the war.

The Regency was basically a mix of Greens and Blacks. They didn't want to fight over which dead person had been legitimate ruler any more, raising up the specter of replacing Aegon II as usurper king or raising Rhaenyra up as legitimate queen could re-open old wounds when the matter was genuinely moot. Those who wanted to believe they fought for the right side were going to do so regardless of what the maesters recorded in their dusty tomes, right? So why then cause trouble over it?

 

56 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Not that GRRM ever specified the entire legitimacy issue though. Is Aegon III king by jure uxoris, or by succession from his mother? I dunno.

The ambiguity is part of the solution to the whole war. By the views the Greens held about 101 AC, Aegon III was the rightful heir because a woman could not sit a throne. But even if it pained some to see Rhaenyra's son on the throne, well, he was marrying Aegon III's daughter, so the two factions would be re-united by blood. OTOH, from the view of the Blacks, Aegon III was the rightful heir because Rhaenyra had been usurped, and marrying Aegon III's daughter simply helped kep the peace with the Greens.

But this takes us back to Aegon III, who ultimately doesn't give a shit about it. He doesn't want to be king, but he'll be king because he's supposed to be, and that's about it. He doesn't care enough to try and change how history perceives his mother, his uncle, or any other dead person. If he has to care about anybody, well, it'll be the living.

That is, in any case, my take.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Ran

[KingAerys_II]

Viserys II recognized Aegon II as a king to dishinerit Aegon III daughters and to take the throne

[SaffronLady]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Aegon III, who ultimately doesn't give a shit about it.

That's remarkably unusual for a king. Nevertheless, with other exhibits such as Baelor, the Dragonbane is ... fairly normal.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

He doesn't care enough to try and change how history perceives his mother, his uncle, or any other dead person. If he has to care about anybody, well, it'll be the living.

That is, in any case, my take.

Oddly suitable explanation for such a reclusive king. In any case, I'll keep my head up for F&B2.

[sifth]

Let's be real, when GRRM came up with the idea for the DotD's back in 1996, he didn't have the finer details planned out. That's why we get random lines, like Stannis saying Rhaenyra was at fault for trying to steal her brothers throne, despite the fact that she was the sworn heir to the throne and her brother was the one stealing it from her. It's no big deal and it's mostly small stuff you can just over look.

Edited December 3, 2023 by sifth

[SaffronLady]

3 minutes ago, sifth said:

Let's be real, when GRRM came up with the idea for the DotD's back in 1996, he didn't have the finer details planned out. That's why we get random lines like Stannis saying Rhaenyra was at fault for trying to steal her brothers throne, despite the fact that she was the sworn heir to the throne and her brother was the one stealing it from her. It's no big deal and it's mostly small stuff you can just over look.

Being Doylist takes all the fun out of theory crafting.

This is just a patch, this is another patch, this is obviously creative oversight, that is a dead end... I mean sometimes I am aware of all that, I just want to ignore it.

[frenin]

On 12/2/2023 at 8:10 PM, Ran said:

What good would it have done to anything to have her called queen when most people either opposed her or, in allying with her, suffered greatly?

Same thing, with steroids, can be said about Aegon II... And yet he is Aegon II.

 

 

21 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

Viserys II recognized Aegon II as a king to dishinerit Aegon III daughters and to take the throne

That's unironically the soundest reason there is.

 

23 hours ago, Ran said:

There were no real "winners", which was part of how the conflict was resolved. Cregan Stark wanted to continue prosecuting the war until the Greens accepted dead Rhaenyra as queen and Aegon III as her heir, but that was madness, and Corlys Velaryon played a key role in convincing people that there was a better way to end the war

Yeah, by amnesty, not by declaring Aegon II the rightful King and Rhaenyra a traitor.

The matter is indeed kinda hushed afterwards, only kinda brought by Munkun by declaring women could not inherit when discussing about Aegon's succesion.

Fact remains, there are lots of inconsistencies with the end of the Dance but we've gone over this before.

The way the war ends and the subsequent regency and how either sibling go down in history don't add up, then you have weirder things like the Baratheons somehow getting punished and sidelined for choosing the Greens, even though Oliver Baratheon was born when the war ended, and the Hightowers being rewarded for it...

Okay.

[Ran]

43 minutes ago, frenin said:

Same thing, with steroids, can be said about Aegon II... And yet he is Aegon II.

He was crowned and anointed by the Faith and sat the Iron Throne. He was, indisputably, king before Rhaenyra was ever "queen". And unlike him, Rhaenyra was never anointed by the Faith, even in her crowning in the Red Keep.

I should reiterate that I think Rhaenyra was robbed, but we're not wondering about that, we're wondering about why Aegon III, the melancholy king who could barely budge out of his rooms at times, didn't do anything to force the histories to record his mother as king... and I think we already know why, namely that he didn't care to do so.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Ran

[Hippocras]

The issue of Rhaenyra or Aegon II was over because both were dead, so a King participating in squabbling over how people saw her reign was not helpful. The issue of male primogeniture was moot, because the Greens had no (known) living male heir. No matter what route was used to arrive at Aegon III being rightful King, both sides by their own logic need to accept him as such. His reign was not threatened by opposing ideas about his mother, because even for those who saw her as illegitimate as queen needed to accept that Aegon III would still be King by the male line as the son of Daemon, brother of Viserys I.

But at the same time discontent over their loss was why several former Greens behaved the way they did. The war took on different forms under Aegon III, but was not completely resolved. It is why Unwin Peake (former Caltrops) behaved the way he did. It is why there were several fake Daerons that Aegon III later needed to contend with during his reign; as a living Daeron would be seen as more legitimate than Aegon by the Greens.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Hippocras

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

He was crowned and anointed by the Faith and sat the Iron Throne. He was, indisputably,

He was anointed by the Septon who was there, unlike say Aegon III or the first Aegon who were anointed by the High Septon.

At any point did Oldtown give his blessing.

 

1 hour ago, Ran said:

but we're not wondering about that,

Certainly, my point isn't whether Rhaenyra was robbed or not.

Simply that the aftermath of the Dance and how it goes down in history doesn't really add up with what we see in F&B. It becomes apparent it's one of those cases where Martin thought the ending first and that's why plenty see the dissonance.

 

Quote

@Hippocras

 

The War was not completely resolved because... Corlys Velaryon, after Cregan refused absolute power, decided to give power to the Greens, an arrangement that wasn't part of the original deal.

It's as if Jon Arryn decided to fill half the small council with Oberyn Martell and JonCon...  Or Daeron the Good decided to put Blacks in government, Tywin giving pro Starks...

It's a baffling arrangement that never happened or happens again that's specifically done so the story can flow a certain way, whereas this is fiction at the end of the day, you can really feel the hand of the author in the Dance, to an extent I've rarely see in his other works.

Edited December 4, 2023 by frenin

[Ran]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

He was anointed by the Septon who was there

Explicitly done on behalf of the High Septon, who could not make the journey due to frailty. At no point did the High Septon or the Faith denounce Aegon II or hail Rhaenyra during the conflict, and Rhaenyra eschews any sort of anointing by a septon in both of her crownings.

 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Tywin giving pro Starks

He filled the small council with people who had sided with Renly to begin with, OTOH. Since neither side was wrecked militarily and could have continued fighting for years more, the denoument of the conflict was basically a unity government rather than one side trying to assert dominance over the other.

[frenin]

28 minutes ago, Ran said:

Explicitly done on behalf of the High Septon, who could not make the journey due to frailty.

Fair enough.

 

28 minutes ago, Ran said:

At no point did the High Septon or the Faith denounce Aegon II or hail Rhaenyra during the conflict, and Rhaenyra eschews any sort of anointing by a septon in both of her crownings.

Indeed, at no point it is even hinted that the difference between Rhaenyra and Aegon is a Septon anointing them.

If that was so important, it'd happen.

 

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

He filled the small council with people who had sided with Renly to begin with,

You mean the people who are now his allies and have won him the war?

That seems a facile argument.

 

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

Since neither side was wrecked militarily and could have continued fighting for years more, the denoument of the conflict was basically a unity government rather than one side trying to assert dominance over the other.

But one side was wrecked militarily, in fact the only Green who could, theoretically at least, renew hostilities is Lyonel Hightower, who doesn't get a position of power!!

In the aftermath of the Robellion, Tyrells and the Martells are in a far better position of strength than the Greens are in the aftermath of the Dance and yet... 

The rest of the Greens were too weak or too busy to start the war and yet... those were the Greens who were appeased and if appeasement was so important, it's even weirder the fact that Cregan Stark, a hardcore Black, could have kept the Handship and the Regency for himself if he cared enough to protest for it.

All very sound.

 

[Lord Varys]

On 12/3/2023 at 10:00 AM, Ran said:

There were no real "winners", which was part of how the conflict was resolved. Cregan Stark wanted to continue prosecuting the war until the Greens accepted dead Rhaenyra as queen and Aegon III as her heir, but that was madness, and Corlys Velaryon played a key role in convincing people that there was a better way to end the war.

That is factually incorrect as all we learn in FaB is that Cregan wanted to punish Storm's End, Oldtown, and Casterly Rock for their treason, there is no indication that this was conditional on them accepting Rhaenyra as the late queen or Aegon III as her successor.

Cregan had an army he wanted to bloody and die in the fighting. That wouldn't have worked if he had given his enemies terms they might accept.

On 12/3/2023 at 10:00 AM, Ran said:

The Regency was basically a mix of Greens and Blacks. They didn't want to fight over which dead person had been legitimate ruler any more, raising up the specter of replacing Aegon II as usurper king or raising Rhaenyra up as legitimate queen could re-open old wounds when the matter was genuinely moot. Those who wanted to believe they fought for the right side were going to do so regardless of what the maesters recorded in their dusty tomes, right? So why then cause trouble over it?

The Regency has nothing to do with the Green defeat on the Kingsroad and the murder of Aegon II to proclaim Aegon III so that court and council saved their neck and were not killed by the approaching Black armies. Aegon III is king solely because his uncle's last army suffered a crushing defeat and because his own court decided to murder him because Aegon II refused to see that he had lost his war. If Aegon II had not lost his war and had died of natural causes around the same time Jaehaera or Aemond's son would have been crowned by the Greens, presumably, as they had a better claim than Aegon III. Team Green was, in the end, team Hightower-Targaryens, not team 'male heir in every possible scenario'. Certainly, some lukewarm Greens may have been more happy with a male monarch - even Rhaenyra's son - than lackwit female Jaehaera ... but not the men truly loyal to the cause of Alicent and Aegon II.

Corlys and the other Blacks end up including certain Greens in the Regency government - which is only the way it is because Cregan Stark related and resigned as Hand.

Aegon III's kingship is a fact of history since his proclamation immediately after the murder of Aegon II. His eventual coronation/reign was not conditional on the Greens accepting Corlys' generous terms. The new king was already made - and the old one murdered - and they just had to accept that or continue the war.

How lost and done the Green cause was we also see when no Greens actually demand that Aegon II's murderers are punished. Cregan does that because the traitors stole his victory. But aside from, perhaps, lonely Lyonel Hightower no Green leader seems to have given a fig about the blatant murder of Aegon II.

Hell, the new king could have even been complicit in his uncle's murder. He pardoned Corlys and owes his crown to traitors and kingslayers.

On 12/3/2023 at 10:00 AM, Ran said:

The ambiguity is part of the solution to the whole war. By the views the Greens held about 101 AC, Aegon III was the rightful heir because a woman could not sit a throne. But even if it pained some to see Rhaenyra's son on the throne, well, he was marrying Aegon III's daughter, so the two factions would be re-united by blood. OTOH, from the view of the Blacks, Aegon III was the rightful heir because Rhaenyra had been usurped, and marrying Aegon III's daughter simply helped kep the peace with the Greens.

There is some truth to that, but in context it is clear that nobody but the fool Munkun actually cared about the Great Council in its most rigid interpretation. Everybody else is much more pragmatic.

Imagining the Aegon-Jaehaera match as something loyal Greens would like also feels odd. It is like thinking Stannis' followers liking the idea Shireen should marry Tommen. It is actually quite disgusting in context.

Jaehaera's claim is neutralized by her marriage to Aegon III. Cregan even points that out as Lady Elenda could have proclaimed Jaehaera queen while she was still at Storm's End ... but after she was Aegon's little lady wife her person and claim were in the possession of Aegon III and his government.

On 12/3/2023 at 10:00 AM, Ran said:

But this takes us back to Aegon III, who ultimately doesn't give a shit about it. He doesn't want to be king, but he'll be king because he's supposed to be, and that's about it. He doesn't care enough to try and change how history perceives his mother, his uncle, or any other dead person. If he has to care about anybody, well, it'll be the living.

That is a very problematic interpretation as we can deduce how much Aegon III doted on his mommy from how he nearly died defending her life. We also know how close Aegon III was to his brother Viserys and that he idolized his elder half-brothers. The boy was not devoid of feelings.

He did have many issues in later life, but his love to his mother cannot be doubted. And thus it actually makes no sense to assume he would not honor the memory of his mother, father, and dead half-brothers.

The bigger problem with this entire issue is, though, that it makes no sense that (m)any lords and maesters living in a Westeros ruled by Rhaenyra's descendants would write a history painting her as a usurper as anyone looking for the favor of Aegon III, Viserys II and their descendants would praise them and their parents.

Nobody would want to remember Aegon II as 'the rightful king'. In this world, the gender issue would be completely overshadowed by the dynastic issue - and that has Rhaenyra and Daemon's bloodline as the winning bloodline, not Alicent's.

Aegon II and Rhaenyra meet effectively the same end - they are murdered by their enemies. The only difference is that power passes to Rhaenyra's sons while Aegon's bloodline is ended.

Singers and maesters and septons would remember Rhaenyra not as an evil usurper but a tragic hero who was martyred by a usurper.

If it turns out that this is not the case in Westerosi history it would actually be quite odd. And we don't know what happened as we don't even know yet how Rhaenyra is remembered by historians. 

On 12/4/2023 at 9:31 AM, Ran said:

He was crowned and anointed by the Faith and sat the Iron Throne. He was, indisputably, king before Rhaenyra was ever "queen". And unlike him, Rhaenyra was never anointed by the Faith, even in her crowning in the Red Keep.

We don't know if Rhaenyra was not anointed by the Faith, but it is confirmed that neither was ever anointed by the High Septon - which is the crucial thing showing support of the Faith, not 'some septon' doing it. In fact, it seems George deliberately decided to withhold the High Septon's blessing from Aegon II to show that he was not, in fact, the rightful monarch.

We see that Maegor really had broken the Faith when the High Septon married him to his black brides - but when he found some septon to marry him to Tyanna this didn't mean the Faith in general espoused polygamy - just as Septon Murmison officiating at the Rhaena-Aegon marriage didn't mean the Faith was suddenly in favor of sibling incest matches.

On 12/4/2023 at 11:58 AM, Ran said:

Explicitly done on behalf of the High Septon, who could not make the journey due to frailty. At no point did the High Septon or the Faith denounce Aegon II or hail Rhaenyra during the conflict, and Rhaenyra eschews any sort of anointing by a septon in both of her crownings.

That is not in the text and what we know of this High Septon actually indicates he he hid behind his age and alleged frailty to avoid to have to take a side in the succession struggle - which would have been the smart thing to do. Remember - the High Septon himself learned of Otto Hightower imprisoning a lot of people before Aegon's coronation, leading to him to inquire about their whereabouts. As those people were all (suspected) Blacks a High Septon firmly in the Green camp would have known why they were imprisoned and might have even approved of Otto's actions.

Also, Rhaenyra is crowned but once, on Dragonstone. When she takes KL she but takes possession of the Iron Throne and has people swear allegiance to her. There is no coronation there as she is queen since her coronation on Dragonstone. And the nameless castle septon could have easily enough anointed her head there. She would have had a septon there in any case.

From AFfC we also know that it is not just tradition for a High Septon to anoint a monarch at his or her coronation, but every new High Septon is expected to do it eventually - that is why the High Sparrow is supposed to do it. Tommen was already anointed by his predecessor at his unseen coronation in ASoS.

But that is not something that is recorded much by history, especially not in FaB. The idea that Eustace refused to anoint Rhaenyra is just weird. He was in her power and he only stayed in the Red Keep - or survived - because he swore fealty to her like everybody else in the castle. If that is the case - and it is - why and how do you think he would have survived refusing to anoint her?

And why would you think that the Rhaenyra of the books would not want to be anointed by a septon?