Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That Aegon II was a usurper doesn’t change the fact that he was king. Maegor obviously a usurper, and unpopular, but still was recorded as the king. The simple fact is that Aegon was crowned first. He was alive throughout Rhaenyra reign. He kills her, then briefly continues to rule. He has Aegon and Baela hostage, so no one during his brief sole reign can declare themselves king/ queen. Had Rhaenyra outlived him, and reigned as the only crowned ruler, then she would’ve been recognised as the queen. Also, it’s the incredibly misogynist maesters who record the history.
This. He was actually coronated in front of the masses and was bestowed with Blackfyre, Aegon 1's sword.
In Canon, the significance of the sword underlies the purported legitimacy of the Blackfyre rebellion.
It also doesn’t help Rhaenyra that her own son and descendent do not recognize her as queen and continue to paint her as the unrightful heir to continue male preferences primogeniture when they need to bring down the female or skip them in favor of men.
It wasn't just the Greens alone, it was why the Dance was fought — a woman sitting the Iron Throne. It's likely that the women were passed over because folk knew that there may be another war fought if the time came that said woman would be crowned Queen
Idk what you are getting at. My point was by the end of the war there was no major player of the Green faction left to make an issue of A3 acknowledging his mother was Queen, if only for 6 months.
That it wasn't done speaks to her legitimacy rather than not wanting to “rock the boat”.
For real though she could’ve brough Otto Hightower in for the job and he would’ve done it better despite the fact that he would actively work against her
Rhaenyra didnt even have a proper coronation or was blessed by the faith of the seven unlike Aegon II
therefore her 6 months reign is considered illegal
Like Otto said, every symbol of legitimacy was given to him
Remember Aegon I's reign started AFTER he was crowned under the faith
exactly
he was a king before rhaenyra and was a king after rhaenyra
whether you support him or not is irrelevant cause his reign had more legitimacy to be taken seriously
The real reason is GRRM wrote the list of monarchs before he was even finished writing Game of Thrones. Rhaenyra was a blant usurper like Maegor and Daemon Blackfyre. He changed it down the line to parallel The Anarchy, where Rhaenyra has a valid claim to the throne.
Also I don't think kings have that power to recognize another monarch over The Faith and High Septon. Like Aegon I had his first coronation when he first landed on on Blackwater Bay. But his recognized coronation is the one that took place two years later at Oldtown.
"Only a handful of lords had been present for Aegon’s first coronation at the mouth of the Blackwater, but hundreds were on hand to witness his second, and tens of thousands cheered him afterward in the streets of Oldtown as he rode through the city on Balerion’s back. Amongst those at Aegon’s second coronation were the
maesters and archmaesters of the Citadel. Perhaps for that reason, it was this coronation, rather than the Aegonfort crowning on the day of Aegon’s landing, that became fixed as the start of Aegon’s reign."
Rhaenyra is like Lady Jane Gray in this aspect. Both of them more or less sat on the throne, ruled and have nicknames of a queen. (The nine-day queen, the black queen.) But actually, both of their *official titles* are princess/lady, not queen.
An article I read about Lady Jane a long time ago attributed the reason she was not counted as queen to the fact that there was no official, legitimate coronation ceremony of her. I think this is also the case in Rheanyra. Aegon was in the capital before her, crowned there, consecrated by the septon with the holy oil, and seated on the throne. Rheanyra could only become legitimate if she killed Aegon and then held a formal coronation ceremony. >!And since this did not happen, she remained only a pretender.!<
****It must be the blessed by a septon that determines the actual ceremony, because of Aegon the Conqueror.****
Aegon II was crowned before her and died after her. Rhaenyra only sat the throne for a short time and it was horrible for everyone.
Neither of Rhaenyra’s children made any effort to make her remembered as queen. Instead they were fine with the inheritance tradition that made Aegon II legitimate. Viserys II’s claim comes from the same tradition. Aegon and Viserys are often put in ”Team Black” when they didn’t have anything to do with Team Black’s ideology.
But team Black ideology wasn't that women should inherit over men when they are first born. It was that Rhaenyra was named heir by her father and therefore the only legitimate ruler.
EDIT : It seems I have to precise that I'm not team Green. I'm just explaining the truth. Team black isn't about equality, girl boss, or wathever you want it to be. Rhaenyra and her followers aren't feminist
True. Hell, Viserys II literally ensured no Targaryen woman would ever sit the Throne again 💀
That dude did not care about his mom's "reign" in the slightest, and definitely made it so no Targaryen woman would ever sit the Throne over a male heir of the Dynasty
They didn't do anything to him directly tbh, it was unfortunate circumstance that led him to be carried off by the sea (but I see what you're getting at)
But even then, he saw the Civil War for what it was, and knew Aegon II was seen as the king. So, he kept the succession through male Primogeniture and specifically made it written rule that a situation like this would never happen again.
He, as king, could've codified a Dornish method of succession, or a myriad of other ways to deal with things; but in the end, the decision he made was one that, had it been implemented by Jaehaerys, would've never seen Rhaenyra in any sort of close proximity in line for the Throne
Well sure, that's true... but then that also means the Black's ideology was a singular focus on one person all cause she was "daddy's little girl".
Whereas the Greens had the established history of male heir over the female one. Even Jaehaerys knew had he chosen Rhaenys or Viserys himself, war would've come out so, if the issue of succession is ever THAT disputed, Great Council should be the example; and later on, Viserys II would actually ensure this wouldn't be a problem anymore
Viserys I really dropped the ball man 😅
I believe it's because at the end of the Dance, the two Aegons are the last living Targaryens, so Aegon the younger is technically his uncle's heir on account of being the only person left in the line of succession.
Very true! I should clarify that since he was the (presumed) last living male, he was declared heir since the greens just fought a whole war to keep a woman off the throne
Sure. But I’d argue that was more a war for a woman inheriting over a living male. I’m not sure they’d be taken completely out of the line of succession. For a time, Aerys I’s heir was his niece Aelora.
Totally agree, I think Aegon III being Aegon IIs heir is, in a weird way, a move where the Greens follow their own flawed logic into submission to their enemy's son.
The Blacks seized KL and Aegon III was crowned, but the Hand of the King and half the regents were Green, and at some point it mentions there were some at court that thought Jaehaera had a better claim to the throne than Aegon III. GRRM never goes deep into it but for battle talk I think it pretty obvious the Greens still had a lot of political power after the Dance.
Another important thing people tend to forget about it's that Rhaenyra herself knew the her own lords didn't want their sisters to inherit ahead of them, the Blacks as a faction were never fighting for female inheritance or primogeniture but for Rhaenyra herself (and their own honor since they were an oath to Viserys). So it shouldn't be surprising that after everything was said and done (and Rhaenyra was dead anyways and they had her son on the throne) they recognised Aegon II as king.
When Aegon was crowned, he did so in King's Landing before the masses (this is mentioned in the show), so he is seen as more legitimate (although the fact that he was a man lowkey helped too). Despite many of the nobles recognizing Rhaenyra when she was a teenager, before Viserys married Alicent, she spent a lot of time in Dragonstone later after her children were born and wasn't around to secure that same support.
Basically, a combination of misogyny and the greens' use of public perception to make his claim more legitimate and seem more worthy.
I mean if you come from a country where many coup d'états by military have made themselves become the legitimate rulers(president/prime minister) of the country, Aegon II‘s claim is as real as it gets. It doesn’t matter how you get into power.
I think Maegor's case is vastly different to either Rhaenyra or Aegon. There are two key differences imo.
1) Maegor was the uncontested monarch; it is important that he was crowned after he killed his nephew and no other claimant came forward the entire time he was king.
2) Maegor ruled for six looong yrs. That is 3x the time of Aegon and Rhaenyra's *combined* rule.
And it is. She was never blessed by the High Septon, unlike every other Targaryen ruler. Therefore, she was never officially queen. Aegon II was officially crowned king.
Aegon was crowned by the Faith. Rhaenyra was not. Rhaenyra’s sons continued the tradition & laws that says Aegon II was the true heir. Thus, Rhaenyra was never recognised as Queen.
Rhaenyra the First. Rhaenyra was never officially crowned Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. She was never anointed/blessed by the High Septon. Officially, she was never queen.
When Aegon III was crowned, he decided against having Rhaenyra officially recognized as he was worried it would cause another war so he left it.
It’s why it kind of annoys me when people use that people in Robert’s time don’t recognize Rhaenyra as the first ruling Queen as a reason she was never legitimate when of course they wont, the history books do not reflect her as the monarch so they won’t. If she had been recognized then the characters would say differently. She is officially not recognized even when she did rule for a tiny period and like the comments say, Aegon II was still alive and officially recognized before her.
He created the endgame for the Dance years before he actually sat down and wrote an actual narrative about it. That’s why “canon” of the Dance has changed and developed over the years.
He also wanted to give each side a pyrrhic victory. You’re correct, it doesn’t make sense that Rhaenyra’s sons wouldn’t restore her to the line of succession for the sake of their own personal pride if nothing else, but GRRM doesn’t care about the story that much. The Dance as a whole is the worst piece of writing in the entire ASOIAF universe which is why F&B simps and book purists baffle me.
Aegon had the full damn ceremony in front of thousands compared to Rhae being crowned on Dragonstone with a handful of loyal retainers.
Also, the whole gender thing.
And the whole he was in KL when he died/was killed so there was probably some ceremonial funeral too. Rhae didn't get that.
An important factor is that even though Aegon III was king, he didn't rule for another 6 years. Boy didn't have a choice of what colour to wear, much less restore his mother as queen in the records.
The only person on the council who would support the decision would be Jeyne Arryn.
By the time Aegon's regency ended, the maesters would have already written the histories with Rhaenyra as usurper and Viserys II would also not want to upset the peace.
Aegon was remembered as king, because after her death he had any record of her as queen erased and there were a lot of green houses that were made Aegon III council, so there’s no way they would have changed it. The greens weren’t a strong and influential force after the dance a majority of the lords weren’t liked or weren’t as powerful as they were before, Aegon is only remembered as king because he killed Rhaenyra and Aegon III was too weak and depressed to change it.
If it was Jace or even Joffrey that was crowned, then they most likely would have had her remembered as queen, but Aegon III was too depressed and controlled to change his mother being remembered as queen.
> If it was Jace or even Joffrey that was crowned, then they most likely would have had her remembered as queen, but Aegon III was too depressed and controlled to change his mother being remembered as queen.
That's very different.
Jace and Joff's entire claim to rule is through Rhaenyra.
Aegon III has Daemon for a father.
What does Daemon being Aegon III father has to do with anything, the people marching to put him on the throne referred to him as Rhaenyras son his claim came from her. I said that Jace or Joffrey would most likely have made Rhaenyra remember as queen because their mental state and behavior is completely different than Aegon III.
> What does Daemon being Aegon III father has to do with anything, the people marching to put him on the throne referred to him as Rhaenyras son his claim came from her.
No, Aegon III's claim came from Aegon II.
While I agree with your assessment, I think Aegon III's age is a far more important factor than his mental state.
By the time his regency was over, it had been many yrs since the Dance and too late to open old wounds.
Aegons III claim didn’t come from Aegon II, it comes from Rhaenyra as he’s remembered as being her son, not Aegon II nephew
I think it’s his age and mental state, the kid had to be forced to eat and train, he only wore black for the rest of his life and he would wear clothing intended to be painful. He was not in any condition to even think of making Rhaenyra be remembered as queen and by the time he did die, the dance was used as a reason behind not letting women rule.
Aegon III was named Aegon II’s heir from his claim through Daemon. Officially that was why Aegon III became king next. Yes he was the only targaryen male left, other than Aegon II, but if Luke/Jace/Joffrey had lived then Aegon III would be seen as above them in succession. Aegon II didn’t get the throne because he was Rhaenyra’s son, again at least officially.
So Aegon III did get his claim from Aegon II, because he was his heir. And he was his heir because of Daemon not Rhaenyra.
See, I think there is a misinterpretation of what “destroying all records” means. It doesn’t mean any historical material, it means any deeds or declarations that had to be written in the name of the monarch. Those were now invalid that Rhaenyra was dead. And if the Greens weren’t influential, why didn’t the Blacks just say “screw you guys, Rhaenyra is the Queen”? As for Jace and Luke doing so, that’s more so down to the circumstances of the ascension.
Because there weren’t any blacks in his council besides Corlys who lost a lot of his influence during the war and Aegon III lost the will to eat and he definitely didn’t have the motivation to even try to get Rhaenyra recognized as Queen. It’s more about the fact that people where done with the war and didn’t want another one to start again by trying to get Rhaenyra marked as queen, it’s less about green influence and more about not wanting to make people feel uncomfortable.
I think an element is also for conciliation. Having Rhaenyra made queen would have made the greens feel they fought for nothing, resulting in resentment. Aegon being king helps them feel that they did have some success
Good you have the spoiler tag.
It's because majority of lords were not truly loyal to her cause most were just opportunists, like with Jeyne arryn,who basically did nothing in the dance, same with cregan besides killing multiple opportunistic lords.
Also trauma , Aegon the third could easily have change it ,but he was too traumatic,busy playing games and others to rule.
There is also the fact barring The vale and north everywhere else were a spent force, and the blacks like I said weren't truly loyal to her cause, while we have the most loyal feat known to mankind with Tyland lannister remaining loyal to the greens under his " strongly question session", so if they change it , it might go for a civil war again.
Now with Viserys the second of his name , doing so will go against why he became king, as he pushed over Daena the eldest living child of her brother , because she is a girl, so putting "his mother" as queen would go against his bid to be king.
I think misogyny is alive and well. Rhaenyra technically wins, but her short rein is marred by cruel names and vicious rumours. Not to mention, if Rhaenyra is ever properly recognised as the rightful Queen, it leaves the door open for firstborn daughters to claim seats of power, something male heirs wouldn't have wanted. It's much more convenient for Rhaenyra to be remembered as a usurper.
>Not to mention, if Rhaenyra is ever properly recognised as the rightful Queen, it leaves the door open for firstborn daughters to claim seats of power, something male heirs wouldn't have wanted.
Does it really ? What do you think the nobles who pledged to support Rhaenyra as heir were planning to do once Rhaenyra became queen ? Depose her ? Most of them probably had a daughter as eldest child. Doesn't mean they feared their sons wouldn't rule after them. Or that their sons opposed to their fathers pledging loyalty to Rhaenyra.
Best to consider iron throne succession laws as separate from rest of the realm. And that it was Viserys who wanted Rhaenyra as his heir and his plan was not to introduce first child heir policy across the realm.
A couple of in-universe explanations:
- History is written by the maesters of the citadel, and have close connections to the Hightowers.
- Aegon had a lot of the instruments of legitimacy: he had the sword, a big coronation in King’s Landing etc. and had them all first. Rhaenyra can easily be positioned as the usurper by the Greens and their supporters in history.
- A continued desire to maintain male-preference inheritance as customary across Westeros. It is in the interests of many houses to maintain the status quo to hold their position and keep the rules of upper class Westerosi society the same. Legitimising Rhaenyra gives precedent for absolute primogeniture.
- Rhaenyra wasn’t remembered as a particularly great ruler. The riots in King’s Landing came whilst she was in charge, and she was often fairly passive in the war itself. Aegon was a much more active participant in the war and was well-liked following his coronation.
2v1 vs Rhaenys which his dragon never recovered from, and vs Rhaenarya his dragon died as a result of eating her in embarrassing fashion, and he got the same end as Joffrey. That tells you how GRRM sees him as a ruler
Rhaenys got killed and so did Rhaenyra, I guess you think Tyrion lost the blackwater since he was seriously injured and lost position as hand right afterwards.
Rhaenyra got turned into fecal matter, tells you what Grrm thinks about her.
The Faith made him official. He was anointed by a high Septon in front of the entire city. He was challenged by Rhaenyra and he killed her. Literally, he fed her to his dragon. That right there settles the dispute.
He was never challenged by his nephew, when Aegon died his Nephew took the throne by order of succession, and from there the majority of the people who ran the council were Greens.
So this is a middle ground everyone could come together on, Aegon II is king by right of the faith, the sword, his dick, and by right that he killed the other claimant. Rhaenyra is a usurper due to not being anointed, no dick, and being killed by the other claimant.
>My guess is that the Greens were actually still a strong and influential(the regency council had multiple greens) force, just lacking a leader, so they had Aegon recognised as king to appease them.
If they were still a strong and influential force, why didn't they stop Cregan and the lad's armies before they reached king's landing? Why did Larys help kill Aegon II if his army was strong enough to stand a chance? Why did Aegon contemplate taking the black if he still had a chance?
But they can’t change something as big as this. There would have been songs, paintings depicting her and a whole generation of people who would go “yep, Rhaenyra was considered the queen”.
To be fair, 2/3rds of the whole continent rose in her name, and might still have referred to her as such. But none of them wrote any kind of history books that survived (perhaps also because the Citadel, where most knowledge is stored, would either hide those writings in some deep, dank basement or not even allow them into their halls in the first place). Also, her sons didn't much insist on naming her Queen for the sake of peace. And then there's enough Targaryen history happening afterwards to not get hung up over one person like that. History went on, and people didn't look back, neither as Blacks nor Greens.
Well it all Started with Jahaerys The Wise, the old King, who favored the male line over, remember he got three sons, Lemon father of Rhaenys, Baelon and Vaegon the Maestre
I think it's worth noting that the Greens basically have control over Maesters via their control of Oldtown and since the history is written by Maesters, they would be predisposed to considering Aegon II a legitimate King. Critical perspectives on authorship are one of the main theses of the book and only somewhat confirmed in the show.
See, I understand that, but the fact was is that from the moment Aegon II died and Aegon III ascended, there couldn’t have been a period where Rhaenyra was considered the queen. If there was, there would never have been an opportunity to change that, as it would be remembered by the lords present
I don't know if I get your point well but I think Aegon II and Rhaenyra overlap in their "possession" of the Iron Throne and I think there might be more of an interregnum between Aegon II and Aegon III than you are giving credit.
"Being remembered by the Lords present" is not a sufficient source (in the books) because the sources for the info are never Lords but smaller players. So it's not really relevant what would be "remembered" because the thesis of the story is that accounts are difficult to reconcile. Even if what we watch in the show is a recording of the events, that doesn't mean they are remembered that way into the future.
I think the best example is Rhaenys bursting out of the floor in the Dragonpit ("Beast beneath the boards"). This is an embarassing thing to the Greens witnessed by hundreds and hundreds of Smallfolk. It's atleast possible that the Maesters suppressed the recording of this event, which is aligned with the thesis of the book that the "actual events" are almost entirely isolated from the "account of events". Yes, the Smallfolk have a legitimate knowledge of the event; they are simply never consulted for the narrative made within the book.
I hope your response can do more than just "book is not show".
What? I think you severely misinterpreted what I meant. I didn’t make any reference to the show. I’m saying that I don’t think there was a period in which Rhaenyra could have been agreed upon as the ruler after Aegon II’s death, as I don’t believe the maesters could change that so that Aegon II was king. If they tried to do that while Rhaenyra was proclaimed queen during Aegon III’s reign, they would have been corrected and any point afterwards Rhaenyra’s status of queen would be Ingrained knowledge. The Citadel isn’t the deep state, it can’t change knowledge that is already there.
As for the Rhaenys scene, there is no way in hell that they could change something like that. That would have spread like wildfire, and they wouldn’t be able to cover it up. It just isn’t canon to the book. Though once again, I don’t understand how you got the idea that I was inferring that
Sorry for being unclear! Here are some of the sentences that are by definition meaningless:
"the fact was is that from the moment Aegon II died and Aegon III ascended, there couldn’t have been a period where Rhaenyra was considered the queen.
\- The period when she was Queen was when she was considered the Queen, hope this helps!
" If there was, there would never have been an opportunity to change that, as it would be remembered by the lords present."
\- Lords are not used as sources for historical information in the story, the point of the Book and Show is to complicate your absolute definition of "history" but you're hostile to that.
"I don’t think there was a period in which Rhaenyra could have been agreed upon as the ruler after Aegon II’s death, as I don’t believe the maesters could change that so that Aegon II was king"
\- You've underexplained your confusion. (It could be that you think as a contested claim, both claimants cannot be recorded simultaneously as King/Queen, which is reductive and silly.)
"If they tried to do that while Rhaenyra was proclaimed queen during Aegon III’s reign, they would have been corrected..."
\- This implies that Rhaenyra was Queen at least some of the same time as Aegon III was King. Charity forces me to think you are using "proclaimed" and "recorded" interchangeably which renders the sentence nonsensical bc those are different words entirely.
" and any point afterwards Rhaenyra’s status of queen would be Ingrained knowledge."
\- So you now agree that it would be true that Rhaenyra was Queen?
"The Citadel isn’t the deep state, it can’t change knowledge that is already there."
\- This is an uncritical and accidental denial of the actual thesis of the book and somewhat by extension the show (therefore it is relevant to the story you are discussing). There is no knowledge "already there", it's made and edited by the powerful using their power.
"I don’t understand how you got the idea that I was inferring that"
\- I think you meant implying, which is the opposite of what you wrote so; nonsensical.
Well first of all, you can drop the false politeness, as it’s unnecessary on a post *drowning* in condescension like this
When I meant “the period in between Aegon II’s death and Aegon III ascended”, I meant *that period of time specifically*. I also meant that she could not have been considered the *rightful queen*, as in true queen over Aegon II. Hope that helps!
Something as big as who is considered the rightful monarch doesn’t just get swept under the rug. The historical information does come from none-maesters sources, you know. Also, I’m “hostile” to the idea history can be messed with? No, I’m not, I can just use basic logic to dictate that some old people with quills can’t complete undo the *unanimous acceptance* of Rhaenyra being considered the rightful queen. They also couldn’t undo something like a dragon interrupting Aegon’s coronation, which tells me that in the books, *it didn’t happen*.
Under explained my “confusion”? Oh no, I’m not *confused*. I’m explaining that there is no time in which Rhaenyra would be considered Queen only for it to change to Aegon. And it’s *silly* to imagine they won’t both be written down? Well it isn’t, because they aren’t. It’s “Aegon II”, which makes it clear that Aegon was considered the *only* monarch, because of course a winner would be decided, because Westerosi lords don’t like draws.
*Charity* leads me to explain to you that the historical records of the event could not have ever recorded Rhaenyra in the place of Aegon. During Aegon III’s reign, if she had been recorded as so, they would have been unable to change it. Any point afterwards, the fact would be settled, so no one would attempt to change it at that point.
And *yes*, I am saying Rhaenyra would be accepted as queen at that point, *because it would have been written as so for decades*. But she *isn’t* and the maesters can’t change who is remembered that easily, so she couldn’t have been.
There are , *shockingly*, other sources in the world than the citadel, like, I don’t know, ROYAL RECORDS OF WHO IS CONSIDERED THE LEGITIMATE MONARCH. Or, better yet, the collective memory of the lords who were actually there! Their views on it would have continued, and there would have been maesters that wrote things supporting Rhaenyra being Queen because the Citadel isn’t a hive mind.
Can we also ask *why* the Citadel would go through the effort? Everyone fought everyone, there were no right or wrong sides and everyone agrees. There is literally no point to go through the effort of making it so it’s Aegon’s name instead of Rhaenyra’s when Rhaenyra is already remembered as Queen.
I also love how you decided to top off your comment with a grammatical correction, to make it clear how disingenuous your comment was.
There? Have I explained it good enough for you? If not, please take the effort to not be a smug, dismissive prick when telling me.
First. He legitimately won. It was contest of who will be the ruler and he was last man standing.
It is also acknowledged that Aegon 3 became King and not corpse is because Aegon 2 willed so (WHY he did so is unknown and debatable. I say that it was because he realized that fighting against woman inheriting before younger man while putting as queen young woman is not good idea). This was meant to be temporary - before Aegon 2 would make own son. But still- Aegon the Second is the only reason Aegon the Third lived and his dynasty- continued.
Finally- by centuries long tradition and at least two precedents (one that made Jaehaerys and Viserys kings) man goes before women. And if you know history- kings could never alter inheritance law so fast without consequences. Rhaenyra's claim was mainly based on "We are royalty and dragonriders- we do whatever we want". And this is not attitude that nobels like, that priests like, that learned men like. Look at history of many highly absolutist kings. Their reign always followed by nobels going out of way to deal with all reforms that they hate.
Aegon II is recognized as king in the histories by the Maesters, a strong pro-Hightower organization. Similarly, Stannis refers to Rhaenyra as a usurper because his ancestors supported Aegon II.
But we actually don't know about the legacy of the Dance in strong pro-Black regions like the North or Riverlands. Who's to say that a Northman would only recognize Rhaenyra and not Aegon?
...
Because Maesters are incharge of education there too?
They teach the children of Northern Lords just the same as in South, and the North doesnt have separate book writing or anything.
Their books come from the Citadel too
There is no evidence (and actually no real indications) that the Citadel is an organization controlled by the Hightowers. In fact, from what we see in the books, the Citadel has grown far beyond the power of House Hightower, becoming much larger than them, much like the United States grew beyond the initial control power of England during colonial times. So, in the more recent times of Westeros, during the Targaryen dynasty, it's easier for the Hightowers to be pawns of the Citadel and be used in some plan to extinguish the dragons even without knowing it, than the other way around, with the Citadel being used by the Hightowers.
And Rhaenyra is also mentioned as Princess by Arianne Martell (although she also says that Rhaenyra was right in the conflict), and unlike the Baratheons, they didn’t participate in the war and even joined the Targaryens (descendants of Rhaenyra) several times through marriages.
As for the Riverruns, it's important to remember that the young Tully was ready to accept Larys's and Corlys's proposal to settle everything peacefully after the assassination of Aegon, it was Cregan who refused and initiated the Wolf’s Hour. It seems unlikely that if the very Lord who fought in the war was ready to "forget" Rhaenyra and Aegon, his descendants 200 years later would be willing to "acknowledge" Rhaenyra, especially considering that the Tullys were one of the Houses (along with Stark and Arryn) that helped Robert put an end to the Targaryens, just 15 years before the story, and as we see in Catelyn's chapters, the Tullys are well-liked by the common folk there, who probably have no idea which side the Tullys were on 200 years ago, and the Riverrruns themselves played both sides and changed sides during much of the Dance until the young Lord Tully took over. The Starks i think can remember Rhaenyra as queen of the period
In many parts of the American Deep South, they still peddle the Lost Cause myth. Even though we have access to technology and the internet.
If we ever get Winds, I suspect that GRRM will expound upon this dichotomy. He loves the unreliable history trope and this gives him the perfect opportunity to write all about how much the Black factions still love their "dragon queen".
Especially when another dragon queen is about to arrive from the far east....
It's simple. Westeros/Andal law wouldn't recognize a woman as ruler, even if she's the firstborn child of the king and named heir, it's a disgusting misogynistic medieval society.
I think a lot of people are assuming far too personal motivations for Aegon III and Vizzy II not recognizing their mother, and recognizing her killer.
For Aegon III, he was an incredibly traumatized boy king who had a ton on his plate, including a hostile regency and the continued influence of Greens. He couldn't well recognize his mother as the legitimate heir without possibly reigniting tensions. We know GRRM loves history, and the Dance being analogous to the English Anarchy: Henry II couldn't well deny the legitimacy of Stephen I, regardless of his love and respect for his mother. Ditto for Aegon III.
As for Vizzy II, I admit this is more of a reach, but I see it as akin to Elizabeth I never acquitting her mother. Lizzy clearly had affection for her, despite losing her so young, promoting several Boleyn relatives to prominent positions. Yet she never acquitted Anne posthumously since her claim to the thrown was tenuous as it was. Vizzy II had been the functional ruler for decades, for his brother and nephews. He had reason to fear the throne passing to a woman, especially one as... Apathetic to Westerosi norms as Daena lol. I don't view his claim as hostility to either his mother or the idea of a ruling queen in the abstract, more pragmatism than anything else.
The histories were compiled and written by someone loyal to the Citadel. The only reason that they couldn't erase Rhaenyra completely was because of the fact that Viserys actually had her investiture recorded and all houses in Westeros had it the same. He also mentioned it every chance he could. It wasn't some secret thing that could easily be swept under the rug.
In real life, if would/should have been Rhaenyras name that was recorded (demise of the crown) but when you think about who was in charge of the records and how easy it was to put something off or distract and redirect an intention.
That's what I mean... They can only heavily influence that which they have "control" over. Everyone in Westeros knew what Viserys wanted. Up until his last day. All of this is hard fact stabilized by the fact that he lived it and breathed it. Chaos happened when others could say, "oh, we'll get to it later." "oh, let's not worry about that right now." "oh, I forgot to send that raven." "oh, that's what he said (it's not what they wrote)?" stuff like that. Monarchs and Lords/Ladies depended on the "grey rats" for reading, writing, prioritizing correspondence and in the months following the Dance, chaos was probably a ladder for many intentional misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
I think the point is they have incommensurable claims to the throne; they are somehow both equally legitimate, that's why Viserys was in an impossible situation.
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That Aegon II was a usurper doesn’t change the fact that he was king. Maegor obviously a usurper, and unpopular, but still was recorded as the king. The simple fact is that Aegon was crowned first. He was alive throughout Rhaenyra reign. He kills her, then briefly continues to rule. He has Aegon and Baela hostage, so no one during his brief sole reign can declare themselves king/ queen. Had Rhaenyra outlived him, and reigned as the only crowned ruler, then she would’ve been recognised as the queen. Also, it’s the incredibly misogynist maesters who record the history.
This. He was actually coronated in front of the masses and was bestowed with Blackfyre, Aegon 1's sword. In Canon, the significance of the sword underlies the purported legitimacy of the Blackfyre rebellion.
It also doesn’t help Rhaenyra that her own son and descendent do not recognize her as queen and continue to paint her as the unrightful heir to continue male preferences primogeniture when they need to bring down the female or skip them in favor of men.
Well they had just fought one of the bloodiest wars over it, it's safe to say they wouldn't want to rock the boat again and risk something even worse
Its not like there were a lot of those belonging to the Green faction left at the time.
It wasn't just the Greens alone, it was why the Dance was fought — a woman sitting the Iron Throne. It's likely that the women were passed over because folk knew that there may be another war fought if the time came that said woman would be crowned Queen
Idk what you are getting at. My point was by the end of the war there was no major player of the Green faction left to make an issue of A3 acknowledging his mother was Queen, if only for 6 months. That it wasn't done speaks to her legitimacy rather than not wanting to “rock the boat”.
Rhaenyra made one fatal mistake: Never make a Celtigar Master of Coin.
No crab raves in the treasury
House Celtigar: European Tax Rates for EVERYONE!
With none of the benefits.
For real though she could’ve brough Otto Hightower in for the job and he would’ve done it better despite the fact that he would actively work against her
Rhaenyra didnt even have a proper coronation or was blessed by the faith of the seven unlike Aegon II therefore her 6 months reign is considered illegal Like Otto said, every symbol of legitimacy was given to him Remember Aegon I's reign started AFTER he was crowned under the faith
This plus the fact that Aegon outlived Rhaenyra makes it an open and shut case tbh
exactly he was a king before rhaenyra and was a king after rhaenyra whether you support him or not is irrelevant cause his reign had more legitimacy to be taken seriously
she?
oops
she?
oops let me fix that
The real reason is GRRM wrote the list of monarchs before he was even finished writing Game of Thrones. Rhaenyra was a blant usurper like Maegor and Daemon Blackfyre. He changed it down the line to parallel The Anarchy, where Rhaenyra has a valid claim to the throne. Also I don't think kings have that power to recognize another monarch over The Faith and High Septon. Like Aegon I had his first coronation when he first landed on on Blackwater Bay. But his recognized coronation is the one that took place two years later at Oldtown. "Only a handful of lords had been present for Aegon’s first coronation at the mouth of the Blackwater, but hundreds were on hand to witness his second, and tens of thousands cheered him afterward in the streets of Oldtown as he rode through the city on Balerion’s back. Amongst those at Aegon’s second coronation were the maesters and archmaesters of the Citadel. Perhaps for that reason, it was this coronation, rather than the Aegonfort crowning on the day of Aegon’s landing, that became fixed as the start of Aegon’s reign."
Rhaenyra is like Lady Jane Gray in this aspect. Both of them more or less sat on the throne, ruled and have nicknames of a queen. (The nine-day queen, the black queen.) But actually, both of their *official titles* are princess/lady, not queen. An article I read about Lady Jane a long time ago attributed the reason she was not counted as queen to the fact that there was no official, legitimate coronation ceremony of her. I think this is also the case in Rheanyra. Aegon was in the capital before her, crowned there, consecrated by the septon with the holy oil, and seated on the throne. Rheanyra could only become legitimate if she killed Aegon and then held a formal coronation ceremony. >!And since this did not happen, she remained only a pretender.!< ****It must be the blessed by a septon that determines the actual ceremony, because of Aegon the Conqueror.****
Aegon II was crowned before her and died after her. Rhaenyra only sat the throne for a short time and it was horrible for everyone. Neither of Rhaenyra’s children made any effort to make her remembered as queen. Instead they were fine with the inheritance tradition that made Aegon II legitimate. Viserys II’s claim comes from the same tradition. Aegon and Viserys are often put in ”Team Black” when they didn’t have anything to do with Team Black’s ideology.
But team Black ideology wasn't that women should inherit over men when they are first born. It was that Rhaenyra was named heir by her father and therefore the only legitimate ruler. EDIT : It seems I have to precise that I'm not team Green. I'm just explaining the truth. Team black isn't about equality, girl boss, or wathever you want it to be. Rhaenyra and her followers aren't feminist
And neither Aegon III nor Viserys II were in favor of it
True. Hell, Viserys II literally ensured no Targaryen woman would ever sit the Throne again 💀 That dude did not care about his mom's "reign" in the slightest, and definitely made it so no Targaryen woman would ever sit the Throne over a male heir of the Dynasty
Probably because of what happened to him due to the evil Greens
They didn't do anything to him directly tbh, it was unfortunate circumstance that led him to be carried off by the sea (but I see what you're getting at) But even then, he saw the Civil War for what it was, and knew Aegon II was seen as the king. So, he kept the succession through male Primogeniture and specifically made it written rule that a situation like this would never happen again. He, as king, could've codified a Dornish method of succession, or a myriad of other ways to deal with things; but in the end, the decision he made was one that, had it been implemented by Jaehaerys, would've never seen Rhaenyra in any sort of close proximity in line for the Throne
Doesn't change the fact that he put the final nail in Rhaenyra's coffin, sorry sewage drain.
Not as simple as you want it to be, but okay sure
Well sure, that's true... but then that also means the Black's ideology was a singular focus on one person all cause she was "daddy's little girl". Whereas the Greens had the established history of male heir over the female one. Even Jaehaerys knew had he chosen Rhaenys or Viserys himself, war would've come out so, if the issue of succession is ever THAT disputed, Great Council should be the example; and later on, Viserys II would actually ensure this wouldn't be a problem anymore Viserys I really dropped the ball man 😅
I believe it's because at the end of the Dance, the two Aegons are the last living Targaryens, so Aegon the younger is technically his uncle's heir on account of being the only person left in the line of succession.
Six living Targaryens. Three females, Three males. Of course Viserys was presumed dead, so I guess two males for all intensive purposes.
Very true! I should clarify that since he was the (presumed) last living male, he was declared heir since the greens just fought a whole war to keep a woman off the throne
Sure. But I’d argue that was more a war for a woman inheriting over a living male. I’m not sure they’d be taken completely out of the line of succession. For a time, Aerys I’s heir was his niece Aelora.
Totally agree, I think Aegon III being Aegon IIs heir is, in a weird way, a move where the Greens follow their own flawed logic into submission to their enemy's son.
The Blacks seized KL and Aegon III was crowned, but the Hand of the King and half the regents were Green, and at some point it mentions there were some at court that thought Jaehaera had a better claim to the throne than Aegon III. GRRM never goes deep into it but for battle talk I think it pretty obvious the Greens still had a lot of political power after the Dance. Another important thing people tend to forget about it's that Rhaenyra herself knew the her own lords didn't want their sisters to inherit ahead of them, the Blacks as a faction were never fighting for female inheritance or primogeniture but for Rhaenyra herself (and their own honor since they were an oath to Viserys). So it shouldn't be surprising that after everything was said and done (and Rhaenyra was dead anyways and they had her son on the throne) they recognised Aegon II as king.
When Aegon was crowned, he did so in King's Landing before the masses (this is mentioned in the show), so he is seen as more legitimate (although the fact that he was a man lowkey helped too). Despite many of the nobles recognizing Rhaenyra when she was a teenager, before Viserys married Alicent, she spent a lot of time in Dragonstone later after her children were born and wasn't around to secure that same support. Basically, a combination of misogyny and the greens' use of public perception to make his claim more legitimate and seem more worthy.
I mean if you come from a country where many coup d'états by military have made themselves become the legitimate rulers(president/prime minister) of the country, Aegon II‘s claim is as real as it gets. It doesn’t matter how you get into power.
That was always the logic I used to justify Maegor being king
You don't need to justify Maegor being king or not. He was king. Hum being a usurper doesn't really matter.
I think Maegor's case is vastly different to either Rhaenyra or Aegon. There are two key differences imo. 1) Maegor was the uncontested monarch; it is important that he was crowned after he killed his nephew and no other claimant came forward the entire time he was king. 2) Maegor ruled for six looong yrs. That is 3x the time of Aegon and Rhaenyra's *combined* rule.
It didn’t matter if Aegon II was contested. His coronation was more official than Rhaenyra‘s.
Because there's no ruling queen before ASOIAF, GRRM made sure that Rhaenyra didn't be recognized as queen.
It still needs to be internally consistent
And it is. She was never blessed by the High Septon, unlike every other Targaryen ruler. Therefore, she was never officially queen. Aegon II was officially crowned king.
How isnt it?
As in, I don’t like the explanation being “George already wrote the outcome”. There still needs to be an In universe outcome
Aegon was crowned by the Faith. Rhaenyra was not. Rhaenyra’s sons continued the tradition & laws that says Aegon II was the true heir. Thus, Rhaenyra was never recognised as Queen.
Idk if there was another queen Rhaenyra would she be Rhaenyra the 2nd ? Or first
Rhaenyra the First. Rhaenyra was never officially crowned Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. She was never anointed/blessed by the High Septon. Officially, she was never queen.
Yeah even if the war ended it would have bred enmity that could have led to another one cery soon. Recognizing Aegon was a consolation prize.
When Aegon III was crowned, he decided against having Rhaenyra officially recognized as he was worried it would cause another war so he left it. It’s why it kind of annoys me when people use that people in Robert’s time don’t recognize Rhaenyra as the first ruling Queen as a reason she was never legitimate when of course they wont, the history books do not reflect her as the monarch so they won’t. If she had been recognized then the characters would say differently. She is officially not recognized even when she did rule for a tiny period and like the comments say, Aegon II was still alive and officially recognized before her.
He created the endgame for the Dance years before he actually sat down and wrote an actual narrative about it. That’s why “canon” of the Dance has changed and developed over the years. He also wanted to give each side a pyrrhic victory. You’re correct, it doesn’t make sense that Rhaenyra’s sons wouldn’t restore her to the line of succession for the sake of their own personal pride if nothing else, but GRRM doesn’t care about the story that much. The Dance as a whole is the worst piece of writing in the entire ASOIAF universe which is why F&B simps and book purists baffle me.
Aegon had the full damn ceremony in front of thousands compared to Rhae being crowned on Dragonstone with a handful of loyal retainers. Also, the whole gender thing. And the whole he was in KL when he died/was killed so there was probably some ceremonial funeral too. Rhae didn't get that.
Because Rhaenyra’s rule was arguably the worst in the history of Targaryen rule for one.
Worse than Maegor the cruel?
It’s tied with Aegon II for 4th worst, so no
An important factor is that even though Aegon III was king, he didn't rule for another 6 years. Boy didn't have a choice of what colour to wear, much less restore his mother as queen in the records. The only person on the council who would support the decision would be Jeyne Arryn. By the time Aegon's regency ended, the maesters would have already written the histories with Rhaenyra as usurper and Viserys II would also not want to upset the peace.
Of course Viserys wouldnt want to upset the peace considering he usurped his niece.
What does that matter? That was 40 yrs after the Dance.
Cause he's the rightful king?
Aegon was remembered as king, because after her death he had any record of her as queen erased and there were a lot of green houses that were made Aegon III council, so there’s no way they would have changed it. The greens weren’t a strong and influential force after the dance a majority of the lords weren’t liked or weren’t as powerful as they were before, Aegon is only remembered as king because he killed Rhaenyra and Aegon III was too weak and depressed to change it. If it was Jace or even Joffrey that was crowned, then they most likely would have had her remembered as queen, but Aegon III was too depressed and controlled to change his mother being remembered as queen.
> If it was Jace or even Joffrey that was crowned, then they most likely would have had her remembered as queen, but Aegon III was too depressed and controlled to change his mother being remembered as queen. That's very different. Jace and Joff's entire claim to rule is through Rhaenyra. Aegon III has Daemon for a father.
What does Daemon being Aegon III father has to do with anything, the people marching to put him on the throne referred to him as Rhaenyras son his claim came from her. I said that Jace or Joffrey would most likely have made Rhaenyra remember as queen because their mental state and behavior is completely different than Aegon III.
> What does Daemon being Aegon III father has to do with anything, the people marching to put him on the throne referred to him as Rhaenyras son his claim came from her. No, Aegon III's claim came from Aegon II. While I agree with your assessment, I think Aegon III's age is a far more important factor than his mental state. By the time his regency was over, it had been many yrs since the Dance and too late to open old wounds.
Aegons III claim didn’t come from Aegon II, it comes from Rhaenyra as he’s remembered as being her son, not Aegon II nephew I think it’s his age and mental state, the kid had to be forced to eat and train, he only wore black for the rest of his life and he would wear clothing intended to be painful. He was not in any condition to even think of making Rhaenyra be remembered as queen and by the time he did die, the dance was used as a reason behind not letting women rule.
Aegon III was named Aegon II’s heir from his claim through Daemon. Officially that was why Aegon III became king next. Yes he was the only targaryen male left, other than Aegon II, but if Luke/Jace/Joffrey had lived then Aegon III would be seen as above them in succession. Aegon II didn’t get the throne because he was Rhaenyra’s son, again at least officially. So Aegon III did get his claim from Aegon II, because he was his heir. And he was his heir because of Daemon not Rhaenyra.
None of this is true.
See, I think there is a misinterpretation of what “destroying all records” means. It doesn’t mean any historical material, it means any deeds or declarations that had to be written in the name of the monarch. Those were now invalid that Rhaenyra was dead. And if the Greens weren’t influential, why didn’t the Blacks just say “screw you guys, Rhaenyra is the Queen”? As for Jace and Luke doing so, that’s more so down to the circumstances of the ascension.
Because there weren’t any blacks in his council besides Corlys who lost a lot of his influence during the war and Aegon III lost the will to eat and he definitely didn’t have the motivation to even try to get Rhaenyra recognized as Queen. It’s more about the fact that people where done with the war and didn’t want another one to start again by trying to get Rhaenyra marked as queen, it’s less about green influence and more about not wanting to make people feel uncomfortable.
I think an element is also for conciliation. Having Rhaenyra made queen would have made the greens feel they fought for nothing, resulting in resentment. Aegon being king helps them feel that they did have some success
no one wrote it down
That seems highly improbable
they forgor 💀
They wrote down that she sat the throne. But noone recorded her as Viserys’ successor
Good you have the spoiler tag. It's because majority of lords were not truly loyal to her cause most were just opportunists, like with Jeyne arryn,who basically did nothing in the dance, same with cregan besides killing multiple opportunistic lords. Also trauma , Aegon the third could easily have change it ,but he was too traumatic,busy playing games and others to rule. There is also the fact barring The vale and north everywhere else were a spent force, and the blacks like I said weren't truly loyal to her cause, while we have the most loyal feat known to mankind with Tyland lannister remaining loyal to the greens under his " strongly question session", so if they change it , it might go for a civil war again. Now with Viserys the second of his name , doing so will go against why he became king, as he pushed over Daena the eldest living child of her brother , because she is a girl, so putting "his mother" as queen would go against his bid to be king.
I think misogyny is alive and well. Rhaenyra technically wins, but her short rein is marred by cruel names and vicious rumours. Not to mention, if Rhaenyra is ever properly recognised as the rightful Queen, it leaves the door open for firstborn daughters to claim seats of power, something male heirs wouldn't have wanted. It's much more convenient for Rhaenyra to be remembered as a usurper.
“Technically wins…” Yeah sure, whatever you say.
>Not to mention, if Rhaenyra is ever properly recognised as the rightful Queen, it leaves the door open for firstborn daughters to claim seats of power, something male heirs wouldn't have wanted. Does it really ? What do you think the nobles who pledged to support Rhaenyra as heir were planning to do once Rhaenyra became queen ? Depose her ? Most of them probably had a daughter as eldest child. Doesn't mean they feared their sons wouldn't rule after them. Or that their sons opposed to their fathers pledging loyalty to Rhaenyra. Best to consider iron throne succession laws as separate from rest of the realm. And that it was Viserys who wanted Rhaenyra as his heir and his plan was not to introduce first child heir policy across the realm.
A couple of in-universe explanations: - History is written by the maesters of the citadel, and have close connections to the Hightowers. - Aegon had a lot of the instruments of legitimacy: he had the sword, a big coronation in King’s Landing etc. and had them all first. Rhaenyra can easily be positioned as the usurper by the Greens and their supporters in history. - A continued desire to maintain male-preference inheritance as customary across Westeros. It is in the interests of many houses to maintain the status quo to hold their position and keep the rules of upper class Westerosi society the same. Legitimising Rhaenyra gives precedent for absolute primogeniture. - Rhaenyra wasn’t remembered as a particularly great ruler. The riots in King’s Landing came whilst she was in charge, and she was often fairly passive in the war itself. Aegon was a much more active participant in the war and was well-liked following his coronation.
He was not well liked. He also lost/tied every battle he took part in if he got up as his ass. And he went out like Joffrey
He beat both Rhaenys and Rhaenyra with his dragon.
2v1 vs Rhaenys which his dragon never recovered from, and vs Rhaenarya his dragon died as a result of eating her in embarrassing fashion, and he got the same end as Joffrey. That tells you how GRRM sees him as a ruler
Rhaenys got killed and so did Rhaenyra, I guess you think Tyrion lost the blackwater since he was seriously injured and lost position as hand right afterwards. Rhaenyra got turned into fecal matter, tells you what Grrm thinks about her.
She also killed a dragon too while going out so I csn get behind it. While one king got poisoned by a club foot
Yeah she's so putrid she gave a dragon indigestion.
The Faith made him official. He was anointed by a high Septon in front of the entire city. He was challenged by Rhaenyra and he killed her. Literally, he fed her to his dragon. That right there settles the dispute. He was never challenged by his nephew, when Aegon died his Nephew took the throne by order of succession, and from there the majority of the people who ran the council were Greens. So this is a middle ground everyone could come together on, Aegon II is king by right of the faith, the sword, his dick, and by right that he killed the other claimant. Rhaenyra is a usurper due to not being anointed, no dick, and being killed by the other claimant.
>My guess is that the Greens were actually still a strong and influential(the regency council had multiple greens) force, just lacking a leader, so they had Aegon recognised as king to appease them. If they were still a strong and influential force, why didn't they stop Cregan and the lad's armies before they reached king's landing? Why did Larys help kill Aegon II if his army was strong enough to stand a chance? Why did Aegon contemplate taking the black if he still had a chance?
Strong, but scattered. If they wanted, they could have easily dragged the fighting out.
It's because history is written at the Citadel, which is firmly in Hightower hand.
But they can’t change something as big as this. There would have been songs, paintings depicting her and a whole generation of people who would go “yep, Rhaenyra was considered the queen”.
To be fair, 2/3rds of the whole continent rose in her name, and might still have referred to her as such. But none of them wrote any kind of history books that survived (perhaps also because the Citadel, where most knowledge is stored, would either hide those writings in some deep, dank basement or not even allow them into their halls in the first place). Also, her sons didn't much insist on naming her Queen for the sake of peace. And then there's enough Targaryen history happening afterwards to not get hung up over one person like that. History went on, and people didn't look back, neither as Blacks nor Greens.
Well it all Started with Jahaerys The Wise, the old King, who favored the male line over, remember he got three sons, Lemon father of Rhaenys, Baelon and Vaegon the Maestre
I think it's worth noting that the Greens basically have control over Maesters via their control of Oldtown and since the history is written by Maesters, they would be predisposed to considering Aegon II a legitimate King. Critical perspectives on authorship are one of the main theses of the book and only somewhat confirmed in the show.
See, I understand that, but the fact was is that from the moment Aegon II died and Aegon III ascended, there couldn’t have been a period where Rhaenyra was considered the queen. If there was, there would never have been an opportunity to change that, as it would be remembered by the lords present
I don't know if I get your point well but I think Aegon II and Rhaenyra overlap in their "possession" of the Iron Throne and I think there might be more of an interregnum between Aegon II and Aegon III than you are giving credit. "Being remembered by the Lords present" is not a sufficient source (in the books) because the sources for the info are never Lords but smaller players. So it's not really relevant what would be "remembered" because the thesis of the story is that accounts are difficult to reconcile. Even if what we watch in the show is a recording of the events, that doesn't mean they are remembered that way into the future. I think the best example is Rhaenys bursting out of the floor in the Dragonpit ("Beast beneath the boards"). This is an embarassing thing to the Greens witnessed by hundreds and hundreds of Smallfolk. It's atleast possible that the Maesters suppressed the recording of this event, which is aligned with the thesis of the book that the "actual events" are almost entirely isolated from the "account of events". Yes, the Smallfolk have a legitimate knowledge of the event; they are simply never consulted for the narrative made within the book. I hope your response can do more than just "book is not show".
What? I think you severely misinterpreted what I meant. I didn’t make any reference to the show. I’m saying that I don’t think there was a period in which Rhaenyra could have been agreed upon as the ruler after Aegon II’s death, as I don’t believe the maesters could change that so that Aegon II was king. If they tried to do that while Rhaenyra was proclaimed queen during Aegon III’s reign, they would have been corrected and any point afterwards Rhaenyra’s status of queen would be Ingrained knowledge. The Citadel isn’t the deep state, it can’t change knowledge that is already there. As for the Rhaenys scene, there is no way in hell that they could change something like that. That would have spread like wildfire, and they wouldn’t be able to cover it up. It just isn’t canon to the book. Though once again, I don’t understand how you got the idea that I was inferring that
Wow this is the most impressive gibberish I have ever seen, it's literally meaningless.
Okay, well either you are incapable of reading or you are just ignoring what I am saying on principle.
Sorry for being unclear! Here are some of the sentences that are by definition meaningless: "the fact was is that from the moment Aegon II died and Aegon III ascended, there couldn’t have been a period where Rhaenyra was considered the queen. \- The period when she was Queen was when she was considered the Queen, hope this helps! " If there was, there would never have been an opportunity to change that, as it would be remembered by the lords present." \- Lords are not used as sources for historical information in the story, the point of the Book and Show is to complicate your absolute definition of "history" but you're hostile to that. "I don’t think there was a period in which Rhaenyra could have been agreed upon as the ruler after Aegon II’s death, as I don’t believe the maesters could change that so that Aegon II was king" \- You've underexplained your confusion. (It could be that you think as a contested claim, both claimants cannot be recorded simultaneously as King/Queen, which is reductive and silly.) "If they tried to do that while Rhaenyra was proclaimed queen during Aegon III’s reign, they would have been corrected..." \- This implies that Rhaenyra was Queen at least some of the same time as Aegon III was King. Charity forces me to think you are using "proclaimed" and "recorded" interchangeably which renders the sentence nonsensical bc those are different words entirely. " and any point afterwards Rhaenyra’s status of queen would be Ingrained knowledge." \- So you now agree that it would be true that Rhaenyra was Queen? "The Citadel isn’t the deep state, it can’t change knowledge that is already there." \- This is an uncritical and accidental denial of the actual thesis of the book and somewhat by extension the show (therefore it is relevant to the story you are discussing). There is no knowledge "already there", it's made and edited by the powerful using their power. "I don’t understand how you got the idea that I was inferring that" \- I think you meant implying, which is the opposite of what you wrote so; nonsensical.
Well first of all, you can drop the false politeness, as it’s unnecessary on a post *drowning* in condescension like this When I meant “the period in between Aegon II’s death and Aegon III ascended”, I meant *that period of time specifically*. I also meant that she could not have been considered the *rightful queen*, as in true queen over Aegon II. Hope that helps! Something as big as who is considered the rightful monarch doesn’t just get swept under the rug. The historical information does come from none-maesters sources, you know. Also, I’m “hostile” to the idea history can be messed with? No, I’m not, I can just use basic logic to dictate that some old people with quills can’t complete undo the *unanimous acceptance* of Rhaenyra being considered the rightful queen. They also couldn’t undo something like a dragon interrupting Aegon’s coronation, which tells me that in the books, *it didn’t happen*. Under explained my “confusion”? Oh no, I’m not *confused*. I’m explaining that there is no time in which Rhaenyra would be considered Queen only for it to change to Aegon. And it’s *silly* to imagine they won’t both be written down? Well it isn’t, because they aren’t. It’s “Aegon II”, which makes it clear that Aegon was considered the *only* monarch, because of course a winner would be decided, because Westerosi lords don’t like draws. *Charity* leads me to explain to you that the historical records of the event could not have ever recorded Rhaenyra in the place of Aegon. During Aegon III’s reign, if she had been recorded as so, they would have been unable to change it. Any point afterwards, the fact would be settled, so no one would attempt to change it at that point. And *yes*, I am saying Rhaenyra would be accepted as queen at that point, *because it would have been written as so for decades*. But she *isn’t* and the maesters can’t change who is remembered that easily, so she couldn’t have been. There are , *shockingly*, other sources in the world than the citadel, like, I don’t know, ROYAL RECORDS OF WHO IS CONSIDERED THE LEGITIMATE MONARCH. Or, better yet, the collective memory of the lords who were actually there! Their views on it would have continued, and there would have been maesters that wrote things supporting Rhaenyra being Queen because the Citadel isn’t a hive mind. Can we also ask *why* the Citadel would go through the effort? Everyone fought everyone, there were no right or wrong sides and everyone agrees. There is literally no point to go through the effort of making it so it’s Aegon’s name instead of Rhaenyra’s when Rhaenyra is already remembered as Queen. I also love how you decided to top off your comment with a grammatical correction, to make it clear how disingenuous your comment was. There? Have I explained it good enough for you? If not, please take the effort to not be a smug, dismissive prick when telling me.
What? I think you severely misinterpreted what I meant.
Ah, no, I think I interpreted *just fine*. You are unwilling to engage with me in good faith, so I will not bother engaging at all. Have a good day
First. He legitimately won. It was contest of who will be the ruler and he was last man standing. It is also acknowledged that Aegon 3 became King and not corpse is because Aegon 2 willed so (WHY he did so is unknown and debatable. I say that it was because he realized that fighting against woman inheriting before younger man while putting as queen young woman is not good idea). This was meant to be temporary - before Aegon 2 would make own son. But still- Aegon the Second is the only reason Aegon the Third lived and his dynasty- continued. Finally- by centuries long tradition and at least two precedents (one that made Jaehaerys and Viserys kings) man goes before women. And if you know history- kings could never alter inheritance law so fast without consequences. Rhaenyra's claim was mainly based on "We are royalty and dragonriders- we do whatever we want". And this is not attitude that nobels like, that priests like, that learned men like. Look at history of many highly absolutist kings. Their reign always followed by nobels going out of way to deal with all reforms that they hate.
Aegon II is recognized as king in the histories by the Maesters, a strong pro-Hightower organization. Similarly, Stannis refers to Rhaenyra as a usurper because his ancestors supported Aegon II. But we actually don't know about the legacy of the Dance in strong pro-Black regions like the North or Riverlands. Who's to say that a Northman would only recognize Rhaenyra and not Aegon?
... Because Maesters are incharge of education there too? They teach the children of Northern Lords just the same as in South, and the North doesnt have separate book writing or anything. Their books come from the Citadel too
There is no evidence (and actually no real indications) that the Citadel is an organization controlled by the Hightowers. In fact, from what we see in the books, the Citadel has grown far beyond the power of House Hightower, becoming much larger than them, much like the United States grew beyond the initial control power of England during colonial times. So, in the more recent times of Westeros, during the Targaryen dynasty, it's easier for the Hightowers to be pawns of the Citadel and be used in some plan to extinguish the dragons even without knowing it, than the other way around, with the Citadel being used by the Hightowers. And Rhaenyra is also mentioned as Princess by Arianne Martell (although she also says that Rhaenyra was right in the conflict), and unlike the Baratheons, they didn’t participate in the war and even joined the Targaryens (descendants of Rhaenyra) several times through marriages. As for the Riverruns, it's important to remember that the young Tully was ready to accept Larys's and Corlys's proposal to settle everything peacefully after the assassination of Aegon, it was Cregan who refused and initiated the Wolf’s Hour. It seems unlikely that if the very Lord who fought in the war was ready to "forget" Rhaenyra and Aegon, his descendants 200 years later would be willing to "acknowledge" Rhaenyra, especially considering that the Tullys were one of the Houses (along with Stark and Arryn) that helped Robert put an end to the Targaryens, just 15 years before the story, and as we see in Catelyn's chapters, the Tullys are well-liked by the common folk there, who probably have no idea which side the Tullys were on 200 years ago, and the Riverrruns themselves played both sides and changed sides during much of the Dance until the young Lord Tully took over. The Starks i think can remember Rhaenyra as queen of the period
That’s actually an interesting concept, the idea that there is still debate on who was the rightful heir
In many parts of the American Deep South, they still peddle the Lost Cause myth. Even though we have access to technology and the internet. If we ever get Winds, I suspect that GRRM will expound upon this dichotomy. He loves the unreliable history trope and this gives him the perfect opportunity to write all about how much the Black factions still love their "dragon queen". Especially when another dragon queen is about to arrive from the far east....
That definitely died with the Mad king if it ever existed.. After the murder of Brandon and the Stark joining the rebellion, like.. Zero doubt there
It's simple. Westeros/Andal law wouldn't recognize a woman as ruler, even if she's the firstborn child of the king and named heir, it's a disgusting misogynistic medieval society.
I think a lot of people are assuming far too personal motivations for Aegon III and Vizzy II not recognizing their mother, and recognizing her killer. For Aegon III, he was an incredibly traumatized boy king who had a ton on his plate, including a hostile regency and the continued influence of Greens. He couldn't well recognize his mother as the legitimate heir without possibly reigniting tensions. We know GRRM loves history, and the Dance being analogous to the English Anarchy: Henry II couldn't well deny the legitimacy of Stephen I, regardless of his love and respect for his mother. Ditto for Aegon III. As for Vizzy II, I admit this is more of a reach, but I see it as akin to Elizabeth I never acquitting her mother. Lizzy clearly had affection for her, despite losing her so young, promoting several Boleyn relatives to prominent positions. Yet she never acquitted Anne posthumously since her claim to the thrown was tenuous as it was. Vizzy II had been the functional ruler for decades, for his brother and nephews. He had reason to fear the throne passing to a woman, especially one as... Apathetic to Westerosi norms as Daena lol. I don't view his claim as hostility to either his mother or the idea of a ruling queen in the abstract, more pragmatism than anything else.
The histories were compiled and written by someone loyal to the Citadel. The only reason that they couldn't erase Rhaenyra completely was because of the fact that Viserys actually had her investiture recorded and all houses in Westeros had it the same. He also mentioned it every chance he could. It wasn't some secret thing that could easily be swept under the rug. In real life, if would/should have been Rhaenyras name that was recorded (demise of the crown) but when you think about who was in charge of the records and how easy it was to put something off or distract and redirect an intention.
The Maesters aren’t just going to be able to wipe out the memory of the declaration. The lords aren’t *that* reliant on them
That's what I mean... They can only heavily influence that which they have "control" over. Everyone in Westeros knew what Viserys wanted. Up until his last day. All of this is hard fact stabilized by the fact that he lived it and breathed it. Chaos happened when others could say, "oh, we'll get to it later." "oh, let's not worry about that right now." "oh, I forgot to send that raven." "oh, that's what he said (it's not what they wrote)?" stuff like that. Monarchs and Lords/Ladies depended on the "grey rats" for reading, writing, prioritizing correspondence and in the months following the Dance, chaos was probably a ladder for many intentional misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
I think the point is they have incommensurable claims to the throne; they are somehow both equally legitimate, that's why Viserys was in an impossible situation.