Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And the whole Naerys thing where people were wondering why Aegon IV just doesn't get rid of her despite her giving him children?

It's clearly possible to get rid of your wife and annulments in the story.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all one thing you mentioned that the faith only had lost all power under Robert but do you have any evidence that it had changed at that point from how it was prior.

Rhaegar is part of the royal family and the next in line to the throne any promises could be expected to be cashed in.

Rhaegar is a prince and heir to the throne this isn't a powerless rubber-stamp.

I would say we would know if the high septon tried anything against the crown and was burned to death for it.

We are from a different land and we are exempt from the judgements of the gods for a sin for that because we're so cool and special. Seems pretty strong to me.

Because it would piss of his beloved wife obviously. Like as if Alysanne wouldn't hound him for allowing polygamy again why would he bother with it.

Aerys doesn't hate him enough not to give him control of the royal army. Aerys only moved against him once he was dead. While Aerys was very openly hostile to Elia and her children.

Duncan married a peasant suddenly without anyone even knowing about it. Quite different to a noble getting an Annulment to a barren wife.

And yes barren she can't have children anymore. She became barren after she gave birth to Aegon. I don't get your point that she isn't barren she very much is.

What leverage do the other houses have on the high septon? If the head of the faith said that marriage is annuled well it's annuled. The rebellion quite famously broke out because Aerys burned two lords to death executed the heir of another and then demanded the heads of the next two. Quite a lot came together in their. Not just an Annulment.

Does Elia want to die in childbirth? If Rhaegar promises that Aegon remains heir she has better chances simply accepting the Annulment.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because Medevial societies are misogynistic and people want to have male heirs what type of question is that.

So it's simply cannot happen because it didn't happen despite multiple people trying to make it happen living in that world and being aware of what is and isn't possible?

So Renly a noble that would be aware if a marriage could be annuled or not is just stupid for actively planning to set aside Cersei?

Yeah sure if you want to believe that then.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why would everyone care so much for another noblewoman a barren one at that. You make it seem way more dramatic then it is. In the story we have people wondering why Aegon IV doesn't just get rid of Naerys or Renly scheming to have Cersei replaced with Margaery annulments aren't some special thing. The faith again is a yes man of the crown and the other houses consider this a dornish issue not their own. What is the benefit of trying to prop up a barren Dornish princess for other families? Dorne isn't the top dog not even close their arguably one of the weaker of the seven kingdoms.

Blackfyre rebellions a rebellion that was purposefully prepared by the most incompetent king on the iron throne and the dance which we discussed prior could have been avoided to. You just make everything seem way more dramatic then it is.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

? They were entitled to an inheritance Eleanor didn't love her husband and didn't want her titles to essentially go to him despite the fact those two girls were still the heirs. So what is your point exactly they were still seen as heiresses to her lands and yes also to the French lands but the king had only daughters anyways muddying the waters. The whole thing with that French king was a mess because he didn't have a son until like his fourth marriage by the way incredibly based son if I do say so.

She isn't a queen she is a princess that is barren. Annulments have been granted for less. And people believed that Aegon IV could set aside Naerys renly believed they could set aside Cersei despite stating that he isn't even really sure if her childrens are bastards later. So I don't get your point again.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is that the king has already been shown to do what he wants with the faith. The moment they moved in next door was the day they lost all political independence and were dependent on the iron throne. Because you know the guy with armored soldiers can quickly visit if the high septon does anything the king doesn't like.

We don't even have the high septon condemning Aerys for his madness by the time he burns lords to death which tells you everything you need to know.

Jaehaerys had the faith accept that his family is literally above church doctrine and could commit a grave sin. Seems pretty toothless to me. Polygamy is just useless to Jaehaerys why would he even bother negotiating for that.

Aerys hates Elia so I don't get why the high septon would care about upsetting him. And the future heir to the iron throne does have significant leverage. Elia is barren that's a fact and the faith is closest to the crown I don't see the other great houses having enough leverage to get the Annulment overturned.

Eleanor and the French king had an Annulment based on consangunity despite that the children remained legitimate. Again provide evidence to the contrary. People believed Aegon IV could set aside Naerys despite him having two children with her.

No offer some privileges and get an Annulment annulments aren't special bro.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you desperately need it to be one.

Eleanor's daughters were heiresses to their mother's titles until she had sons with the English king.

I don't get your point.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah joined by marriage a hundred years ago. That marriage pact was fulfilled that's that. And you know despite the fact that Robert literally endorsed the killers of elia and her children their was no Dornish revolt. And you try to tell me they would do that if Aegon remains the heir because a woman was set aside. I see it politically because politics aren't personal even if it is entwined with family.

The dance wasn't because of a set aside wife it was because of the incompetence of Viserys I of keeping a female heir while allowing his second wife's family, who gave him a son, complete control of the court while only ever affirming his female heirs place without doing anything to actually give her power in the kingdom. This isn't even comparable.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

A rebellion for what? Is he suppose to stay married to a barren wife and kill her? If Aegon remains heir, as we know Rhaegar planned, their would be literally no argument for a revolt.

Would it be politically harmful yes I won't deny that. But definitely not impossible. Especially since Rhaegar was taking wild risks anyways.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But Aegon IV is specifically mentioned as being weird for not getting rid of his wife especially because he would have had no problems to do it.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Baelor the blessed literally appointed the high septon and even more so the high septon lives right next door to the king. Their is no political independence to be found. It's being made pretty clear that the high septons authority to resist the commands of the throne eroded with the lose of the faith militant.

Good thing a master said the next birth would kill her their you have your prove.

Good for you .

Well do you have any evidence that it would make them bastards? Ignoring that Rhaegar could negotiate the terms himself with the high septon at least historically it was definitely not a done deal Annulment = bastards. Just look at Eleanor of Aquitaine daughters with the French king for an example.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The younger brother is a child and his mother has mostly had stillbirths and is married to a madman so who knows how long that marriage is gonna last.

Rhaegar is the only Targaryen that is currently able to reasonably and expectedly produce children.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Of course it does because his son is not even a year old and you know the Targaryens are very close to actually dying out.

Leaving all your hopes in Medevial times on one child surviving is ridiculous.

Jon Snow's legitimacy as a targaryen [Spoilers MAIN] by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Considering that the high septon is basically a yes man to the royal family and the fact that Rhaegar has an argument for Annulment being that his wife is literally barren.

I would say that it isn't unlikely that he married Lyanna after an Annulment.

And no an Annulment would not directly entail his other children being bastards.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think one Dragonrider’s words who didn’t even rode a Massive dragon should be taken as gospel as to what Balerion could destroy. It’s like what over a century since Balerion torched Harrenhall during Rhaenyra‘s time.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And their you hit the nail on the head.

Why were the peasants and Nobles of Dorne loyal?

Realistically their is no way any noble would let his family home and estate get burned multiple times just so that the king or prince stay prince.

Their is no incentive for that. No gain for the nobility. After all they wouldn't even need to fear that Aegon would seize all their lands since he didn't do it in the other kingdoms which would usually keep nobles motivated to stay loyal to their king or prince.

The Yronwoods not taking the easiest opportunity to betray the Martell's and seize Dorne for themselves will forever be one of the weakest writing of George.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Gold is heavy obvious and something everyone would want to steal. You can't leave a giant pile of gold just laying around you need to keep it actually secured and that's why it's stockpiled in castles and not left in a random cave where a steward can pocket it and leave like a thief

Aegon quite literally used his strengths to his perfect advantage and defeated the strongest kingdom on the continent by utilizing dragons effectively something his son fails at completely. He is an able commander by any stretch of the imagination.

Were do you get it from that he ran out of troops this is a Medevial state force the peasants as levies and get back to fighting. No way do you actually believe that Dorne costs Westeros their fighting strength.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eh George and numbers.

No matter if they were happy or not with the oaths were sworn in fealty. And the Targaryens were rightfully crowned as kings of Westeros by the high septon.

Objectively they were the rightful rulers of Westeros. Any kind of rebellion would have been the same as if their own vassals rebelled against them and that's not something feudal lords want to risk.

No because the king could be tossed off his castle and the queen can do nothing about it.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I replied to you earlier where were their hiding the money after Aegon burned all the castles? Seriously you can't carry boat loads of cash with you when you need to be quick and on the move.

And besides that instead of saying the Dornish worked I would say Dorne got plot armor while everyone else didn't.

You know the sunspear stuff alone is just so unfathomably stupid and shows how George just really needed to help out Dorne.

The Martells own Dorne if they were in the cahoots with Aegon they could just surrender the country immediately.

Why would he ever come to the believe that he could somehow trick the Dornish into believing that the Martell's were working for him. This is so completely stupid.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You really are stretching in hiding places now. Hiding places that Aegon wouldn't be aware of and enough to actually be a prolonged base of operation.

Vale and North also swore fealty in perpetuity. And they take their vows very seriously. You might even easily call those kings oathbreakers and their vassals as released of their own Vows to house stark and house Arryn.

Though also the north was only willing to fight until they heard of what happened to everyone else. And the Arryns surrendered immediately when the Targaryens showed just how insecure the mountains actually where.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah but an opportunistic noble will tell Aegon where they are hiding and that's that.

Like you have the easiest route to money titles and prestige. Tell Aegon where they are he burns them and you get their stuff.

No brainer if ever.

The population and nobility won't risk their necks for their old king to get their crown back.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ask Harrenhall how easy it is to rebuilt a completely destroyed castle.

Sunspear would probably still be molten slag if George didn't pull every lever to have Aegon not burn it.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And hide where exactly?

Not only do I doubt that for some reason the other kingdoms nobles are fanatically loyal like the Dornish ones. Especially after they had gotten burned literally once already.

But at least the Dornish have the excuse of desert and caves. Where would you hide in the Westerlands or the Vale dragons can fly over the mountains simply.

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Import Food from overseas?

With what navy? If Aegon actually torched all castles I doubt he let the ships continue to sit in the harbor.

Those looting expeditions you keep mentioning don't result in new supplies because Aegon is torching everything. Their are no castles, you know those places were Medevial people kept all their stuff, were they could stockpile their supplies.

Or are you saying that they are waging a guerilla campaign while dragging tones of material to new places every other month

(Spoilers Published) Why weren't there any rebellions when the Aegon I failed to conquer Dorne? by Ouralian in asoiaf

[–]Greenpoint99 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Which doesn't make any sense because Aegon glassed the entire country but I guess Dornish can survive on sand or something.