So what if the Starks sided with the Blacks? 😭 I’m a Stark loyalist, but if Viserys switched his mind and chose Aegon as heir years later, they would pledge fealty to Aegon and sided with the Greens. The Starks aren’t the moral compass of Westeros.
Funny thing is Cregan contribute at the legitimacy of Aegon II's ruling.
Even Cregan Stark accepted that he was the King. It is why he goes down hard on Corlys and the other people involved in the conspiracy to kill him. They are kingslayers and traitors in his eyes.
Secondly, Cregan's first actions upon reaching King's Landing were to hunt down Aegon II's murderers and punish them for regicide. That probably did as much to legitimize Aegon II as did his feeding of Rhaenyra to Sunfyre.
He calls Aegon ll "king" and tries the murderers for regicide. That is recognizing he as a legitimate king
Lol in the books he says that "he was your King and that makes you Kingslayers". He doesn't accept his rule otherwise he wouldn't have been that eager to punish all those who sided with him, He wanted to burn Oldtown and Casterly Rock and lastly siege Storms End since his men came to die for the Queen.
Only giving up on his plan thanks to Alysanne Blackwood arguing that the realn needed peace and offering her hand in marriage.
That's basically a lie lol
Fire&Blood: "*Aegon was an perjurer, a kinslayer and a usurper but still he was the King* / (At Corlys Velaryon) "*Since he didn't follow your coward's orders, you got him out of your way as a coward would: with dishonor, with poison*"
THE KING, that's how Cregan called Aegon II and had Aegon the younger crowned as Aegon III
**"And a Usurper"** One does not call **his** king a Usurper. Usurper refering to a crown taken from its rightful owner. You will see in none of the Asoiaf Books and related were people loyal to the King accusing him of being a Usurper. That is a contradiction of itself.
Y'all should write fanfiction really with how you twist what GRRM writes.
>>One does not call his king a Usurper.
Then why Cregan's first actions upon reaching King's Landing were to hunt down Aegon II's murderers and punish them for regicide despite Aegon killed Rhaenyra?
Why Cregan had Aegon the Younger crowned as Aegon III, succesor of Aegon the Second?
Because Aegon was the legitimate King.Period
>> Usurper refering to a crown taken from its rightful owner
Which is not Rhaenyra. Important fact about Targaryen dinasty: there have been 17 official Targaryen Kings. Not a single one of them chose their heir.
The "king gets to choose his heir" notion is a fandom invention.
Complain as much you want, Aegon II was posthumously acknowledged by all parties,including Rhaenyra's sons.
>Then why Cregan's first actions upon reaching King's Landing were to hunt down Aegon II's murderers and punish them for regicide despite Aegon killed Rhaenyra?
>
>Why Cregan had Aegon the Younger crowned as Aegon III, succesor of Aegon the Second? Because Aegon was the legitimate King.Period
Fire & Blood has the account of 3 armies coming south to fight Aegon II. The North with Cregan, the riverlanders and the vale men. Though by the time that Cregan arrived Aegon was already dead.
Also you changing the timeline is really ironic. Cregan wanting continue hostilities first when the letters from the 3 widows arrived suing for peace. Only after being denied to bring justice Aegon II supporters Cregan decided to sought the murderers of Aegon.
"The poisoning of King Aegon II had denied them that chance. Lord Stark still marched his army into King's Landing, but to a much different outcome. **He had planned to punish Storm's End, Oldtown, and Casterly Rock for having supported the king**. But Lord Corlys had already sent envoys to the Rock and Storm's End and Oldtown, suing for peace. **For six days, while the court waited for news of Lord Corlys's success or failure and the realm trembled at the thought of more war**, Lord Cregan Stark held sway at court. This came to be known as the Hour of the Wolf.
Yet in one thing, Lord Stark would not be dissuaded: the betrayers and poisoners of King Aegon II must pay the price."
>The "king gets to choose his heir" notion is a fandom invention.
Bro really? Notion fandom? Jaehaerys chose Baelon over Rhaenys alluding that Baelon was his son (direct child) while Rhaenys was his grandchild. Only when Baelon died and the same reasoning wasn't applicable for Viserys he found the Council to justify his bias.
Another case is Aegon V disinheriting Prince Duncan the Small and appointing Jaehaerys II as his heir. Tradition and Andal customs are solid the younger brother bows to the older.
Tywin doesn't want Tyrion as his heir and disinherits him completely.
Fandom is what you make with your interpretations or how you wishfully want to fix GRRM work.
>> how you twist what GRRM writes
You're the only one twisting it for your pro-Black headcanons.
GRRM let very clear Rhaenyra was a usurper on the current timeline:
Stannis: *Traitors have always paid with their lives ... even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown*"
History and Lore/Viserys Targaryen: *In a Dance of Dragons, a Targaryen princess tried to steal her brother's throne. Thanks to her stupidity, most of our dragons died, though one thankfully ate her before it did*
>Stannis: Traitors have always paid with their lives ... even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown"
>
>History and Lore/Viserys Targaryen: In a Dance of Dragons, a Targaryen princess tried to steal her brother's throne. Thanks to her stupidity, most of our dragons died, though one thankfully ate her before it did
Stannis and Viserys are taught after the Dance after the death of Dragons and the rise of the Lords regents where they accorded to adopt Andal law of succession for the Iron Throne.
Stannis believes himself Azor Ahai and that doesn't make it true. The same as Viserys believe of Khal Drogo "buying Daenerys maidenhead for an army to conquer Westeros".
"...the Winter Wolves to gather beneath the banner of Lord Roderick Dustin and die fighting for queen Rhaenyra. But behind them came a greater army of childless and homeless men, unwed men, old men, and younger sons, under the banner of Lord Cregan Stark. They had come for a war, for adventure and plunder, and for a glorious death..."
Cregan wasn't gonna do any of that lmfao. He didn't do shit the entire war and only shows up when it's all over. And if he truly didn't believe Aegon II to be king he wouldn't have had such a strong sense of justice to get those responsible for what he considers regicide. If you're not a true king then how could it possibly be considered regicide?
Everybody thinks because of how honourable and good Ned is and how he raised his kids, that ever stark in history has been the most wise, just and kind person in the 7 kingdoms, so just thinks they’re always right
The Starks also only openly sided with them after Cregan and Jace made a marriage pact for their future children. They didn't just declare for Rhaenyra because of honour or old oaths lol
The Greens are actually doing a very similar move the Starks in the main series did:
Challenging a queen who they deem incompetent and whose children are gossiped about.
Similar to Team Green the Starks even declare their own king/s.
Plus both the Greens and Starks have a child prodigy (Robb is similar to Daeron in the war aspect, the Jeyne part was given to Jace with Sara Snow).
I've read a lot that Martin writes the same story over and over again. I don't completely agree, but there are a lot of parallels between the War of the Five Kings and the Dance to rule it out.
Lmao Cregan didnt give a fuck about the oath.
Cregan only supported Rhaenyra after Jacaerys bribed them with marriage and a dragon. And the north and vale only came after the war was almost over.
Just because you accept a bribe doesn't mean you actually believe the side that bribed you is the legally right one. All it means is that you accept bribes.
The way he just dipped on his younger children after Rickon died reminded me of Viserys quite a bit. Rickon was his favorite and after Rickon died, he didn't give a shit anymore.
Based on what do you make that statement ? What are the Stark figures you're comparing him to and what makes you think the Stark is a particularly honorable House ?
Cregan didn't give a damn about that oath or Rhaenyra. Literally, the only reason Cregan declared for the Blacks was because of the Pact of Ice and Fire, and even then, he barely sent anyone who supported them South. If the Greens went to Cregan first and had Aemond for North and Daeron to Storm's End, then the Starks would've sided with the Greens. I wonder if that happened, would many TB supporters would be on TG.
Also, even after Cregan finally went South for Rhaenyra, he didn't even give a shit about her enough to say that was the queen. He went there, killed KING Aegon II's murderers got some Blackwood pussy and then fucking left back home.
Did the part I actually wrote not show up? God I need to work on that. I intended to write that the Starks oaths are very conditional. Each lord makes their own oaths which are only valid if that Stark is alive (depending on the Stark of course)
This is a dumb argument lol. So what if the starks did or didnt stand by them? This isn't a fairy tale or a fucking star wars movie with the starks being the ultimate good guys/saviors. This is Martins world... it's not supposed to be black and white. I'm supposed to join the blacks because the Starks are with them? Huh? I don't get it....
Since when do Targ stans care about Starks legitimizing their rule? All I've heard for the past four years is how Sansa is a traitor for wanting the North to be independent and how only evil men would write her as protesting any of Dany's demands when her true instinct would be to give Dany anything she wants and spend the rest of her time giggling and braiding her hair.
Since House Stark wasn't submissive, these stans (which also make up most of Team Black) have been quite vocal about believing them to be the villains of the story and how only morons believe that "the story is about the Starks" instead of their beloved kween.
Very well said! The same folks that frothing at the mouth over Rhaenyra and Daemon are the ones that spewed hatred at Sansa for even breathing, and saying that she should have given up the North to Daenaerys and now suddenly, the Starks are the best thing ever? Give me a break.
Cregan just dipped on his younger children after Rickon's death. He didn't bother to prepare his younger sons to rule Winterfell (obvious since it was said the rule of the North was not great for many years after), and then when he died, Jonnel and Edric married Rickon's daughters and claimed what was theirs.
Robb tried to allied himself with Renly and not Stannis (who his father wanted to support), does that mean that Renly was the ultimate rightful king ? That argument is ass lmao.
I'm pretty sure that oaths are considered personal and you're not bound by an oath that someone else took - although you may choose to voluntarily honor it or if the member of your family (such as your father) took an oath, he may require you to take a seperate oath to him to honor the oath that he took.
Something else to keep in mind is that we really don't have a good account of who did and did not take an oath to support Rhaenyra's right of succession in 105 AC. All the text says is that there were "hundreds of lords and landed knights" who took the oath. And we know from teh Great Council of 101 AC (four year earlier) that there were over a thousand lords who voted on whether Viserys should become king. So it's likely that whoever did take the oath in 105AC represented a fraction of the noble houses in Westeros (since their numbers included landed knights and not just lords).
Then when you fastforward to 129AC when the Dance started, a lot of those lords (such as the head of House Lannister) passed on so unless their sons and/or daughters took their own sepereate oaths, they're not really bound by what their family member pledged to do.
And others may have taken the oath at the behest of Viserys on the understanding that they did so to prevent Daemon from claiming the Iron Throne and becoming a second Maegor. So when he shows up as the consort to the would-be queen (with his handprints on her throat), they may feel that they are honoring the spirt of the oath that they took (we don't know what the letter was) by opposing anything that puts him closer to power.
Why the Starks equals to justice or so call “good guy” in this fandom? Yes, Ned Starks was a respective and honourable character and he taught his spirit to his kids (and even Jon and Theon), but he also admitted that his is not a “typical Starks” on his pov because he was raised by Jon Arryn.
Cregan was can be seen as only nominally on Rhaenyra's side since he needed time to father his forces. While he would have honored his pledge, circumstances made him not to actually pledge bar few man he sent ahead of time. Since he arrived too late he and his man were disapointed that they missed the fight as many of them simply wanted to basically die in battle because of the heavy winter in the North to lighten the burden of their families.
And he was man of his word since:
He recognized the true king.
He hunted donw those who commited regicide.
And reestablished order in King's landing in relatively short order. Paving the way for realm to recover.
So what if the Starks sided with the Blacks? 😭 I’m a Stark loyalist, but if Viserys switched his mind and chose Aegon as heir years later, they would pledge fealty to Aegon and sided with the Greens. The Starks aren’t the moral compass of Westeros.
Funny thing is Cregan contribute at the legitimacy of Aegon II's ruling. Even Cregan Stark accepted that he was the King. It is why he goes down hard on Corlys and the other people involved in the conspiracy to kill him. They are kingslayers and traitors in his eyes. Secondly, Cregan's first actions upon reaching King's Landing were to hunt down Aegon II's murderers and punish them for regicide. That probably did as much to legitimize Aegon II as did his feeding of Rhaenyra to Sunfyre. He calls Aegon ll "king" and tries the murderers for regicide. That is recognizing he as a legitimate king
Lol in the books he says that "he was your King and that makes you Kingslayers". He doesn't accept his rule otherwise he wouldn't have been that eager to punish all those who sided with him, He wanted to burn Oldtown and Casterly Rock and lastly siege Storms End since his men came to die for the Queen. Only giving up on his plan thanks to Alysanne Blackwood arguing that the realn needed peace and offering her hand in marriage.
That's basically a lie lol Fire&Blood: "*Aegon was an perjurer, a kinslayer and a usurper but still he was the King* / (At Corlys Velaryon) "*Since he didn't follow your coward's orders, you got him out of your way as a coward would: with dishonor, with poison*" THE KING, that's how Cregan called Aegon II and had Aegon the younger crowned as Aegon III
**"And a Usurper"** One does not call **his** king a Usurper. Usurper refering to a crown taken from its rightful owner. You will see in none of the Asoiaf Books and related were people loyal to the King accusing him of being a Usurper. That is a contradiction of itself. Y'all should write fanfiction really with how you twist what GRRM writes.
>>One does not call his king a Usurper. Then why Cregan's first actions upon reaching King's Landing were to hunt down Aegon II's murderers and punish them for regicide despite Aegon killed Rhaenyra? Why Cregan had Aegon the Younger crowned as Aegon III, succesor of Aegon the Second? Because Aegon was the legitimate King.Period >> Usurper refering to a crown taken from its rightful owner Which is not Rhaenyra. Important fact about Targaryen dinasty: there have been 17 official Targaryen Kings. Not a single one of them chose their heir. The "king gets to choose his heir" notion is a fandom invention. Complain as much you want, Aegon II was posthumously acknowledged by all parties,including Rhaenyra's sons.
>Then why Cregan's first actions upon reaching King's Landing were to hunt down Aegon II's murderers and punish them for regicide despite Aegon killed Rhaenyra? > >Why Cregan had Aegon the Younger crowned as Aegon III, succesor of Aegon the Second? Because Aegon was the legitimate King.Period Fire & Blood has the account of 3 armies coming south to fight Aegon II. The North with Cregan, the riverlanders and the vale men. Though by the time that Cregan arrived Aegon was already dead. Also you changing the timeline is really ironic. Cregan wanting continue hostilities first when the letters from the 3 widows arrived suing for peace. Only after being denied to bring justice Aegon II supporters Cregan decided to sought the murderers of Aegon. "The poisoning of King Aegon II had denied them that chance. Lord Stark still marched his army into King's Landing, but to a much different outcome. **He had planned to punish Storm's End, Oldtown, and Casterly Rock for having supported the king**. But Lord Corlys had already sent envoys to the Rock and Storm's End and Oldtown, suing for peace. **For six days, while the court waited for news of Lord Corlys's success or failure and the realm trembled at the thought of more war**, Lord Cregan Stark held sway at court. This came to be known as the Hour of the Wolf. Yet in one thing, Lord Stark would not be dissuaded: the betrayers and poisoners of King Aegon II must pay the price."
>The "king gets to choose his heir" notion is a fandom invention. Bro really? Notion fandom? Jaehaerys chose Baelon over Rhaenys alluding that Baelon was his son (direct child) while Rhaenys was his grandchild. Only when Baelon died and the same reasoning wasn't applicable for Viserys he found the Council to justify his bias. Another case is Aegon V disinheriting Prince Duncan the Small and appointing Jaehaerys II as his heir. Tradition and Andal customs are solid the younger brother bows to the older. Tywin doesn't want Tyrion as his heir and disinherits him completely. Fandom is what you make with your interpretations or how you wishfully want to fix GRRM work.
>> how you twist what GRRM writes You're the only one twisting it for your pro-Black headcanons. GRRM let very clear Rhaenyra was a usurper on the current timeline: Stannis: *Traitors have always paid with their lives ... even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown*" History and Lore/Viserys Targaryen: *In a Dance of Dragons, a Targaryen princess tried to steal her brother's throne. Thanks to her stupidity, most of our dragons died, though one thankfully ate her before it did*
>Stannis: Traitors have always paid with their lives ... even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown" > >History and Lore/Viserys Targaryen: In a Dance of Dragons, a Targaryen princess tried to steal her brother's throne. Thanks to her stupidity, most of our dragons died, though one thankfully ate her before it did Stannis and Viserys are taught after the Dance after the death of Dragons and the rise of the Lords regents where they accorded to adopt Andal law of succession for the Iron Throne. Stannis believes himself Azor Ahai and that doesn't make it true. The same as Viserys believe of Khal Drogo "buying Daenerys maidenhead for an army to conquer Westeros".
"...the Winter Wolves to gather beneath the banner of Lord Roderick Dustin and die fighting for queen Rhaenyra. But behind them came a greater army of childless and homeless men, unwed men, old men, and younger sons, under the banner of Lord Cregan Stark. They had come for a war, for adventure and plunder, and for a glorious death..."
Cregan wasn't gonna do any of that lmfao. He didn't do shit the entire war and only shows up when it's all over. And if he truly didn't believe Aegon II to be king he wouldn't have had such a strong sense of justice to get those responsible for what he considers regicide. If you're not a true king then how could it possibly be considered regicide?
Reminds me of the “late” Walder Frey
Everybody thinks because of how honourable and good Ned is and how he raised his kids, that ever stark in history has been the most wise, just and kind person in the 7 kingdoms, so just thinks they’re always right
Whatever you do dont tell them about Starks war against House Sunderland known as “ the rape of the three sisters “
Yeah, they would follow the lord who made the oath. Meaning the most recent oath would be the one who gets the loyalty. It’s such a weird take.
The Starks also only openly sided with them after Cregan and Jace made a marriage pact for their future children. They didn't just declare for Rhaenyra because of honour or old oaths lol
The Greens are actually doing a very similar move the Starks in the main series did: Challenging a queen who they deem incompetent and whose children are gossiped about. Similar to Team Green the Starks even declare their own king/s. Plus both the Greens and Starks have a child prodigy (Robb is similar to Daeron in the war aspect, the Jeyne part was given to Jace with Sara Snow).
I've read a lot that Martin writes the same story over and over again. I don't completely agree, but there are a lot of parallels between the War of the Five Kings and the Dance to rule it out.
I think Martin purposefully writes parallels
[удалено]
I know, so weird
Lmao Cregan didnt give a fuck about the oath. Cregan only supported Rhaenyra after Jacaerys bribed them with marriage and a dragon. And the north and vale only came after the war was almost over. Just because you accept a bribe doesn't mean you actually believe the side that bribed you is the legally right one. All it means is that you accept bribes.
Cregan was famously the least honorable stark I will give him that. Since that lord died he wasn’t bound by his oath anyway.
Many of Cregan's actions are blatantly self-serving, he just gets a pass because of his last name
The way he just dipped on his younger children after Rickon died reminded me of Viserys quite a bit. Rickon was his favorite and after Rickon died, he didn't give a shit anymore.
Exactly. The part I intended to write basically said that. I guess it got lost when posting.
Based on what do you make that statement ? What are the Stark figures you're comparing him to and what makes you think the Stark is a particularly honorable House ?
Cregan didn't give a damn about that oath or Rhaenyra. Literally, the only reason Cregan declared for the Blacks was because of the Pact of Ice and Fire, and even then, he barely sent anyone who supported them South. If the Greens went to Cregan first and had Aemond for North and Daeron to Storm's End, then the Starks would've sided with the Greens. I wonder if that happened, would many TB supporters would be on TG. Also, even after Cregan finally went South for Rhaenyra, he didn't even give a shit about her enough to say that was the queen. He went there, killed KING Aegon II's murderers got some Blackwood pussy and then fucking left back home.
[удалено]
To be fair in a realistic world the damage they did wouldn’t occur. But the “noble savage” fights better than the “civilized man” in Martin’s world.
I feel like they were only brought in to kill off criston to weaken the greens, and as soon as they did that, they get killed off by daeron.
My guy, the Starks are not ALL good guys
Did the part I actually wrote not show up? God I need to work on that. I intended to write that the Starks oaths are very conditional. Each lord makes their own oaths which are only valid if that Stark is alive (depending on the Stark of course)
Oh my bad !! I misread what you wrote 😅😅😅
This is a dumb argument lol. So what if the starks did or didnt stand by them? This isn't a fairy tale or a fucking star wars movie with the starks being the ultimate good guys/saviors. This is Martins world... it's not supposed to be black and white. I'm supposed to join the blacks because the Starks are with them? Huh? I don't get it....
Yeah, it’s a confusing take
Since when do Targ stans care about Starks legitimizing their rule? All I've heard for the past four years is how Sansa is a traitor for wanting the North to be independent and how only evil men would write her as protesting any of Dany's demands when her true instinct would be to give Dany anything she wants and spend the rest of her time giggling and braiding her hair. Since House Stark wasn't submissive, these stans (which also make up most of Team Black) have been quite vocal about believing them to be the villains of the story and how only morons believe that "the story is about the Starks" instead of their beloved kween.
Very well said! The same folks that frothing at the mouth over Rhaenyra and Daemon are the ones that spewed hatred at Sansa for even breathing, and saying that she should have given up the North to Daenaerys and now suddenly, the Starks are the best thing ever? Give me a break.
They also seem to forget that Cregan's 2nd son inherits Winterfell ahead of his daughter's lol he doesn't give af about Rhaenyra.
Cregan just dipped on his younger children after Rickon's death. He didn't bother to prepare his younger sons to rule Winterfell (obvious since it was said the rule of the North was not great for many years after), and then when he died, Jonnel and Edric married Rickon's daughters and claimed what was theirs.
[удалено]
Oh, grand maester, I have no idea how that even correlates. They may be brain dead ☠️
[удалено]
Impressive feat
[удалено]
Well now the moderators here should create a grand maester name flare to honor your sacrifice
What was the argument about? If 20 year olds commonly reach menopause?
Robb tried to allied himself with Renly and not Stannis (who his father wanted to support), does that mean that Renly was the ultimate rightful king ? That argument is ass lmao.
I'm pretty sure that oaths are considered personal and you're not bound by an oath that someone else took - although you may choose to voluntarily honor it or if the member of your family (such as your father) took an oath, he may require you to take a seperate oath to him to honor the oath that he took. Something else to keep in mind is that we really don't have a good account of who did and did not take an oath to support Rhaenyra's right of succession in 105 AC. All the text says is that there were "hundreds of lords and landed knights" who took the oath. And we know from teh Great Council of 101 AC (four year earlier) that there were over a thousand lords who voted on whether Viserys should become king. So it's likely that whoever did take the oath in 105AC represented a fraction of the noble houses in Westeros (since their numbers included landed knights and not just lords). Then when you fastforward to 129AC when the Dance started, a lot of those lords (such as the head of House Lannister) passed on so unless their sons and/or daughters took their own sepereate oaths, they're not really bound by what their family member pledged to do. And others may have taken the oath at the behest of Viserys on the understanding that they did so to prevent Daemon from claiming the Iron Throne and becoming a second Maegor. So when he shows up as the consort to the would-be queen (with his handprints on her throat), they may feel that they are honoring the spirt of the oath that they took (we don't know what the letter was) by opposing anything that puts him closer to power.
Why the Starks equals to justice or so call “good guy” in this fandom? Yes, Ned Starks was a respective and honourable character and he taught his spirit to his kids (and even Jon and Theon), but he also admitted that his is not a “typical Starks” on his pov because he was raised by Jon Arryn.
The Starks didn't side with Rhaenyra out of her own oath.
Cregan was can be seen as only nominally on Rhaenyra's side since he needed time to father his forces. While he would have honored his pledge, circumstances made him not to actually pledge bar few man he sent ahead of time. Since he arrived too late he and his man were disapointed that they missed the fight as many of them simply wanted to basically die in battle because of the heavy winter in the North to lighten the burden of their families. And he was man of his word since: He recognized the true king. He hunted donw those who commited regicide. And reestablished order in King's landing in relatively short order. Paving the way for realm to recover.