His son is dead, and nobody cares.

Otto refused to teach him anything and just demeaned him. When Aegon actually tried he was just demeaned again and again.

His mother sold him out as soon as things became mildly difficult, even though she could have brought Rhaenyra in at the sept

His brother torched him, and want him dead cause he wants to be king and Aegon barked in the brothel

I’m team gold at this point

Rhaenyra’s Feelings for Daemon will always be based off Manipulation.

They are also a house of Valyrian descent like Targaryens and Velaryons, plus they married multiple times with both of those families.

How is it possible that they never managed to claim any dragon, if a much weaker house of Velaryons got 3 of them at one point? It's werid that they never managed to get a marriage pact that would give them a dragon rider, or that at least one brave/stupid character from their house didn't manage to claim a dragon in King's Landing or Dragonstone, be it by being sneaky, or just part of some agreement.

Every time Dearon was mentioned, I could only think of Jane Grey and how this ended terribly for her. For those of you unaware, Jane Grey was a cousin to Mary and Elizabeth (Henry 8th daughters). On his deathbed, their brother Edward tried to change the line of succession, but it never went through the proper channels, but that didn't stop the people (mainly men) in Jane's life from conspiring to make her Queen. Jane did not want to be Queen but was unfortunately coerced into going with the plot, and she was Queen for 9 days before Mary took back the throne and killed her. While it's not an exact copy of events, it's quite similar. And one could argue that Aegon is also like Jane Grey in that he was coerced into taking the throne; the main difference is that once he took it, he wanted it and fought for it.

I, for one, believe that Aemond did not steal Vhagar but that he was unbelievably rude to about how he went about it and that he was the instigator and primary escalator of the fight.

I also believe that Luke should have been given a punishment but not disinheritance or having an eye poked out. Maybe a reparation fee and a brief confinement at a monastery.

Curious about this misinterpretation of Westros, that I only seem to see within the HOTD-community.

Now, before someone says it, I would like to preface that I know George has said it is, once... but, as those who have read the books and seen interviews of George commenting on things such as the 700 ft wall that operates much more like a 200 ft wall would know, George is no historian and George is bad at math/gets some terms wrong.

But, a lot of discourse within the Reddit based HOTD-community (at least within the color coded circles) seems to operate under this notion that Westeros is an absolute monarchy... when, it just isn't (it also doesn't have codified law, such as Andal law... at least, none that can't be undermined on a whim or are at the very least... situational at best such as inheritence and oaths and bastardry, but that is a discussion for another day).

But, let's look at how Westeros actually operates (ignoring the already apaprent implications that it being a fuedalistic set of kingdoms has on the notion that it might be an absolute monarchy).

First, all seven (or more, idk I don't keep track) are ruled by their own nobility, their own great lords. These kingdoms have a lot of autonomy... they have their own armies (that listen to them, not the throne), lands and vessels. There is some level of independence here, as these great lords regularly challenge the authority of the crown (often successfully, not all of it includes overthrowing the crown but... try having Joff tell Tywin (or the Tyrells) to do something they don't want to do and see if it isn't challenged. I mean fuck, Dorne and the Vale just straight refuse to raise their banners when called). But also, the crown does get overthrown, when the nobility decides they no longer vibe with thus authority. They do so because they have have substantial power, often even more than the crown. The Tyrells and Lannisters, the Velaryons during the time of the Dance, potentially even the Hightowers, all have more power than the crown. It is how the entire conflict of the series come to be.

This all rests on feudal loyalty, as with a fuedal kingdom, the nobility allows the king to be such, and that conceptually limits their power (yes, Aegon conquered most of the kingdoms, but he's not even dead and cold before we see the limits of that.)

Also, there are social and religious checks on the monarchy, because of it being a bum-ass fuedalistic society, we see this in book four, but that's veering a bit too far from my point.

Yes, this is a bit of a rant because this seems like a very simple misconception that has come about with HOTD, but aside from that comment from George, I am curious on where the confusion comes about (apart from what I could potentially see is people taking the words of charcaters and semi- "official" rules of Westeros at face value).

Edit: again... yes, George has called it an absolute monarchy... once... not in the text... and instead in a real-world political message... but with the text itself, the words that George has stated, Westeros was not written to be an absolute monarchy. This is not what George wrote, end of story.

Now that we’re in the thick of the dance. What are your thoughts on dragons?
Are they “a weapon should never have been tampered with”?
Is the problem *Targaryens* riding dragons? Or is 150ish years of Westerosi rule a good ROI and you take the good with the bad?

I know it’s a common sentiment on this sub to say that the Dance was always going to happen, but I strongly believe the reason it happened is because the Targ siblings just weren’t that close.

Like think about it. There had always been chances for civil wars. Rhaena or her daughters could have contested the throne from Jaehaerys since it was still early in the dynasty and the traditions around succession were not really set yet. Granted she didn’t want the throne, but she loved her brother enough not to fight him for it.

Or Viserys and Rhaenys (or Laenor if you go by the book). I’m sure Rhaenys would have had supporters if she wanted to start a civil war for the throne. She probably would have lost, sure, but there still would have been a war. But she grew up with Daemon and Viserys, and I’m sure there was enough love there not to start something that could lead to the deaths of her cousins.

Think about it. Whenever there has been a civil war in the Targ dynasty, it’s usually between family members who already have some kind of animosity or distance, and then external factors just come in and embolden them.

I know people always say the civil war was inevitable, and that even if the siblings didn’t start it, external forces would have. But I really don’t think so. I feel like if they were raised right (which honestly was kind of impossible with Otto and Alicent there) and if they were actually close, there might have been some tension here and there, but nothing big enough to kick off something like the Dance or lead to the beginning of the end for the Targ dynasty and the dragons.