[D&E Spoilers] Red or Black?

[Sand Snake No. 9]

Sorry, double post.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I mean, I don't think Robb put Jon ahead of Bran, Rickon, Sansa or Arya by legitimizing Jon. I don't believe Ned could have decided to make Bran his heir without forcing Robb to give up his claim, right?

In theory, a lord, and especially a king, can name anyone that he wants as his heir. Usually they just let it pass to the oldest son, but if Aegon IV had wanted to put Daemon ahead of Daeron specifically, he could have.

[Summerqueen]

In theory, a lord, and especially a king, can name anyone that he wants as his heir. Usually they just let it pass to the oldest son, but if Aegon IV had wanted to put Daemon ahead of Daeron specifically, he could have.

So birthright is factored differently in Westeros. I never knew that.

Aside: What was the point of what Sam's dad did, then? Didn't he threaten his life to make Sam reject his claim? Why would that be necessary if he could just say "ignore this lout; Dickon is my heir."

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Aside: What was the point of what Sam's dad did, then? Didn't he threaten his life to make Sam reject his claim? Why would that be necessary if he could just say "ignore this lout; Dickon is my heir."

That I don't know, unless he thought Sam or someone else would try to press his claim even if he did name Dickon his heir. Or it's just a good excuse to get Sam on the Wall, plot-wise. Like I said, it is customary for it to go to the oldest son, but I don't think it has to. Given that Aegon IV was the king, he could have put Daemon up as his official heir if he'd wanted to.

[Gurkhal]

I'd go with the Targaryens because, well the Targaryen king was the legal heir and laws are to be followed for stability in society with a few exceptions. And the thought that Daemon would be a better warrior than his trueborn half-brother is not even close to justify an exception. Both Daemon, Bittersteel and whoever else should've been more than grateful for both being legitimized and if they really want to make a name for themselves the could form their own Houses or cadet branches of the Targaryens. But they had no right or claim on the Iron Throne above their older sibling.

[a free shadow]

If I was a lord, I would send ravens to both Daemon and Dareon with some well thought out story. Repeatedly, if needed. Maybe my smallfolk are starving on the brink of death. Maybe a big pack of wolves have slain half of my people. Whetever the story, it would have a grain of thruth in it. And if one of them bothers to respond me with good advice or even send a wagon of turnips, I would go with that one. Because I am a lord, I am responsible for my people and want them to have that kind of king.

[YoungGriff the Conqueror]

Daemon because he is my namesake lol. Well, close enough anyway :) ALTHOUGH I think the sword means he should be the king/heir in Aegon's eyes but by law Daeron 2 is the rightful king. In comparison Samwell Tarly is the heir to his house by law but Dickon is given the valyrian sword anyway because his father wishes he is the heir. It could also mean he hopes people see him as the heir though....

[King Bronn l]

Not true. If you've read A Sworn Sword, you know that being on the losing side may take your titles/lands/incomes and deliver them to a more loyal and trustworthy subject.

I believe it is in A Sworn Sword or possibly The Mystery Knight. But again, I am not entirely sure if I am just misremembering.

The risk of the game,no matter which side you support. However if I support the status quo, I doubt I'm as richly rewarded if they win. Theirs more "upheaval" for lack of a better word, if the pretenders win, and I like my prospects of advancing, myself and my house better.

[Arland]

And like I said before, you're complaining that Daenerys' family treated her like property when that's also how Daemon treated her — like a toy that had been taken away from him.

What is your basis claiming that Daemon saw in her a toy. You try to play on similarity of words, but it is false.

The fact that there exists a phrase " a toy that had been taken" and that She was also taken , doesn't mean that she was a toy for him. Hostages are also "Taken", and life can also be "taken"... Are all those toys?

Daemon loved her enough to risk everything his life included - that is only admirable.

Marriage as an expression of love is a pretty modern idea, at least as far as the marriages of the wealthy go. Marriage has almost always been about the transfer of money, titles, property, etc. That's just how it was, and both parties going into it knew this. This was the tradeoff of being born into a wealthy family. And acting like Daenerys' situation was any worse than anyone else's, including her own brother's, or that it was worth the Blackfyre Rebellion, is an extreme logical overstretch, in my opinion.

That is wrong. Marriage as a result of love is very ancient idea (see Rachel and Jacob in bible for example). Institution of arranged marriage doesn't mean lack of choice. The point was (or at least should have being) that a son or a daughter has a choice among probable suitors.

It didn't had to be a love at first sight, but the idea was that as long as a husband / wife are generally ok, the couple will learn to love each other. Matchmakers were trying to find a suitable and likable parties and a future couple were given time to spend together to see if is going well. Society looked very badly on a father who tried to marry his daughter against her will - hence so many folk tales (at least in medieval slavic tradition) criticized exactly such behavior and glorified a hero who fought for his beloved against her greedy father.

Not to say that in my personal view , marrying someone against her will to be entire life with someone she doesn't love or want is not very different from enslavement - expected or not. So if someone rises against such act , for personal or other reasons, I say -Hurray!

You should also note that in male dominated society like Westeros , forcing a husband on a women, actually meant forcing a master on her - that as opposed to arranged marriages for males, who could simply ignore their new wife if they pleased to do so.

[The hairy bear]

Daemon rebelled because he couldn't have Daeron's sister Daenerys. That's what it was about. You're arguing in favor of a guy who kicked over the pail of milk because he didn't get the girl he wanted.

I don't think that this was the main reason behind the rebellion at all. The way Ser Eustace puts it in TSS, this was most likely an argument stressed and highlighted by singers and romantics. By the time Daeron I came to the throne, Daemon Blackfyre already had two sons (The twins that died on the Redgrass Field).

And at TMK, it is said that "it was Fireball as much as Bittersteel who convinced Daemon Blackfyre to claim the crown, and rescued him when Daeron sent the Kingsguard to arrest him". It doesn't sound at all like Daemon was a spurned lover that wanted to avenge a slight. It's only years into Daeron's reign that some discontented nobles used Daemon as a figurehead for their rebellion.

[Rob the God]

Blackfyre

Because i choose Bittersteel over Bloodraven any day

Why do people like him so much? All he did was gathering his archers and kill his half brother and his sons from far away. He deserved bittersteel taking away his eye.

[FirstSwordofBraavos]

I would back Daeron. Not only because he was the rightful heir, but also because I have a deep lying hatred of every person who brings about an unnecessary war.

And both Baelor and Maekar were fine heirs.

[David Selig]

Daeron of course. A king needs to be smart a hell of a lot more than to be a badass fighter. Supporting a claimant for the throne because he's a better fighter is really stupid. Not to mention that Daemon seems like a spoiled brat who started a war because he felt slighted.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

My point is that you're arguing in favor of a concept of marriage that pretty much doesn't exist in Westeros for most royal/noble people, men and women. You can have a head-in-the-clouds view of swooning romance or whatever, but that doesn't excuse or give legitimacy to the Blackfyre rebellion. If he wanted to marry her, he could have gone to take her back himself or fought Maron Martell in a duel or better yet just sucked it up and loved her in the chaste, chivalrous way you're no doubt familiar with. That thousands of other people died, not just him, was a pretty damn selfish thing on his part.

There's a reason that fairy tales are fairy tales: They don't reflect real life.

And Rachel and Jacob still required Rachel's father's permission to marry. Rachel was still, for all intents and purposes, her father's property to give away and then Jacob's property because he literally worked 14 total years to "buy" her. Also, if you actually read Genesis, there's a lot of talk about Jacob's love for Rachel but little if anything about Rachel's love for Jacob. If Jacob had wanted Rachel and worked for her, he still would have had her father's permission to marry her, regardless of her own feelings. So I'm not sure they're the sterling example you seem to think.

Royalty often didn't have a choice with suitors. Kings and queens set their kids up at a very young age, sometimes even from birth, and the kids — again, male and female — were expected to suck it up and do it for their families. This was a tradeoff for being part of a powerful, wealthy family: Sometimes you didn't have much of a say at all in whom you married.

So again, I don't see what about Daenerys' marriage to Maron Martell was that godawful or that unprecedented. Her ancestors had to marry their brothers, for pete's sake. Are you outraged on their behalf or just hers? Should Aemon the Dragonknight have gone to war with his brother over Naerys? Maybe you think so, I don't know.

[FirstSwordofBraavos]

I agree with AppleMartini. Marriage for all purposes was a diplomatic deal, to secure peace. I can't empathize with either Daemon or Rhaegar, who ignited unrest, war, destruction for 'love'. Shallow, selfish humans who thought with their dicks, not brains.

[Elaena Targaryen]

I was under the impression that Aegon legitimized his bastards to sow discord and this may be the reason he gave Daemon the sword as well. He did not legitimize them out of the kindness of his heart because he cared for them so much. He did it because he was a real mean sob.

So like I said I would do the opposite of what some thought he wanted, Daemon because of Blackfrye, and go for Daeron the Good. Why jump into the mess Aegon the Unworthy wanted when you finally have a good king?

[Arland]

Shallow, selfish humans who thought with their dicks, not brains.

It is an ugly world where person fighting for his and his beloved's freedom is considered shallow selfish or thinking with "dicks".

I say this is a fight of a person for his right to choose his fate...It is a fight for FREEDOM, not less.

This notion that a person for some family duty (and actually not even for it but for a greed of a father), has to surrender his freedom and turn in a bad slave is pure collectivism in it's worst form. Next may be you will suggest forcing people to marry according to some eugenic master plan...

You know what - when it comes to choosing a mate, people have every right to be selfish. It is their body and their right and their personal freedom and nobody has any right to tell them what to do in this matter...

My point is that you're arguing in favor of a concept of marriage that pretty much doesn't exist in Westeros for most royal/noble people, men and women.

I am not sure about that. We don't really know what is accepted in Westeros and what not. We have some bad examples of forced marriages, but there is no indication that this is the norm. I would guess this is very much depended on a father, with a bad ones not giving a choice and good once considering the children's wishes as well.

And also... the fact some injustice is done regularly doesn't make it less of injustice. So I will always support the one who goes against it.

And Rachel and Jacob still required Rachel's father's permission to marry. Rachel was still, for all intents and purposes, her father's property to give away and then Jacob's property because he literally worked 14 total years to "buy" her

So what is your point? You said that marriage for love was a modern concept. I showed you that it was not. Obviously father's permission is needed , but it doesn't change the fact that the idea of marriage for love is very old.

There's a reason that fairy tales are fairy tales: They don't reflect real life.

First . Those are not "fairy tales" but folk tales, and there is a big difference. Second, they, as any work of literature certainly reflect the morals and attitudes of society that produced them. Folk tales and legends are a literature of middle ages and they teach about medieval society exactly as contemporary literature (fictional as well) teaches about modern society.

Consider modern cheesy story about some corrupt politician/drug lord getting away with raping some girl or whatever , with her badass fiance going to learn some kong- fu and eventually kicking his butt. It is a fairy tale - we know that in reality rich and powerful mostly do get away with any crime they do. But the story does demonstrate the morals of our society. The same way with medieval folktales - they simply feature benevolent Magician or a Baba Yaga instead of some old wrinkled kong fu master.

[LordBlackfyre]

As my name suggests I would follow Daemon. That's not to say I believe he is the rightful heir even if he had Blackfyre (even though I do believe that the sword has meaning). Putting aside all the reasons why he rebelled, in a martial society such as Westeros, he is a leader I would rather follow. I know Daemon was nowhere near bookish but was it said anywhere that he wasn't intelligent at all?

Im enjoying reading everyones reasons for and against either claimant because personally I think the Blackfyre rebellion is one of the most interesting time periods of the stories.

[Arland]

Robert is Daeron's progeny, too.

You would bring THAT as a proof of a good dynasty? That one lost it to children of his wife's and her brother !!!

Face it : In the long run Targerians lost it. Blackfyre will prevail!

And Blackfyre sounds so much cooler then Targarian.... really.

[Fire and Blood!]

Usually when it comes to a decision of what I would do if I was in Westeros, I always support the pro-Targaryen cause.This one is more difficult because it's Targ vs Targ.Still I would support Daeron hi is the rightful heir AND a better king(if you are not going to have a war, who needs a warrior-king anyway?).That beeng said I do believe the sword to be important and think effort should have been made to be taken back after Daemon's defeat.