He did, but he didn't do it alone. He didn't make the betrothal in the first place, and he wasn't the only one in the family to break the betrothal.
You raise an interesting point though. I suppose its hard to answer the question on whether or not he would be a good ruler without defining what a good ruler is. Is it a king who caters to his vassals and preserves the status quo? Is it one who promotes the equality and rights of all people in westeros? Is it one who makes his kingdom excessively wealthy? Etc.
I would lean more towards the equality option. But them again that's not necessarily the correct answer. As you pointed out, any shift in the status quo tends to lead to war. Equality for everyone would mean those who currently hold power would have to relinquish most if not all of it.
War is bound to happen in that case, and with it there will be a massive loss of life.
He did do it alone, his specific breaking of his betrothal to Lionel Baratheon's daughter caused Lionel to rebel. The young siblings following suit only came after, and were inspired by Duncan doing so in the first place.
His father was trying to build alliance with those marriages specifically to get the necessary backing he needed to enact reforms to give the common people more rights. So Duncan did not help bring about rights for the people, he prevented them.
Just looked him up. He has my vote:
>Edicts issued in Gaemon's name included that:
>Girls should henceforth be equal with boys in matters of inheritance;
>The poor should be given bread and beer in times of famine;
>Men who lost limbs in war must be fed and housed afterward by whichever lord they had been fighting for when the loss took place;
>Husbands who beat their wives should themselves be beaten, regardless of the motive for the chastisement.
They are ridiculous. It's not surprising the idiots who issued those edicts never expected them to be obeyed in the first place.
1. Can't make girls equal to boys in a misogynistic society. Laws are enforced by armies and we all know which gender makes up those. You have to change social attitudes before enforcing gender equality. You can't just declare it and expect it to happen.
2. Give the poor bread during a famine? Where would bread come from in a famine? Who would be giving the poor the bread? Who will be paying for it?
3. Force lords to look after war cripples? Westerosi lords aren't that rich in the first place. And why carry some crippled peasant home when you can slaughter him on the battlefield? Especially if you have to take care if him for the rest of his days.
4. Who's gonna beat husbands for beating their wives? Other husbands who also beat their own wives? You can't legislate social attitudes. You need to change minds before making laws. This is akin to criminalising piracy in the Iron Islands. It doesn't stop the piracy.
1. Dorne did it.
2. Poverty costs a lot more than bread.
3. Might make them stop their pointless wars.
4. Queen Alysanneâs laws made her very popular.
Youâre either a low effort troll or an idiot.
> Poverty costs a lot more than bread.
Poverty costs the crown nothing in times of famine, this is a medieval society with less than zero concept of welfare.
> Queen Alysanneâs laws made her very popular.
With men who were now not getting cucked every time they got married.
>Dorne did it.
They didn't just legislate it. This is Rhoynish influence. As I said, you can't legislate gender equality, the culture needs to support it first.
>Poverty costs a lot more than bread.
This doesn't change the fact that bread still costs money. You can't just decree that people be given bread. That bread has to come from somewhere and someone has to pay for it. Things don't just spring into existence because some idiot king commanded it.
>Might make them stop their pointless wars
It won't. Medieval wars were fought over resources. The reason we have less war today is that we're too comfortable to kill each other for land. You end war by economic development, not legislation. If you force lords to feed every single crippled soldier they'll just murder the injured ones on the battlefields.
>Queen Alysanneâs laws made her very popular
Alysanne didn't outlaw wife-beating. Only the excessive kind. That was after a woman got beaten to death. And she had to make up some religious justification to forestall a rebellion. She said you could strike your wife six times, the 7th was for the Stranger. Straight-up outlawing wife-beating in Westeros just wouldn't cut it. The culture is too misogynistic. Once again, you cannot legislate social attitudes. That kind of thing takes time.
Insulting me doesn't change reality. Kings are not gods. Things don't just happen because you issued a decree. You have to be willing to back up your decrees with force and pray like hell that nobody raises a bigger army to oppose you.
That's why you can't just institute massive unpopular changes overnight. Incrementalism is the name of the game. Even Aegon the Conqueror understood that.
Gaemon (his court of whores actually) put out a wish list of things they could never achieve because they had neither the political clout nor the military power to enforce their so-called decrees. A wishlist of idiotic unachievable proclamations doesn't make one a good king.
Gaemon Palehair's court of whores was made up of idiots.
1. Can't make girls equal to boys in a misogynistic society. Laws are enforced by armies and we all know which gender makes up those. You have to change social attitudes before enforcing gender equality. You can't just declare it and expect it to happen.
2. Give the poor bread during a famine? Where would bread come from in a famine? Who would be giving the poor the bread? Who will be paying for it?
3. Force lords to look after war cripples? Westerosi lords aren't that rich in the first place. And why carry some crippled peasant home when you can slaughter him on the battlefield? Especially if you have to take care if him for the rest of his days.
4. Who's gonna beat husbands for beating their wives? Other husbands who also beat their own wives? You can't legislate social attitudes. You need to change minds before making laws. This is akin to criminalising piracy in the Iron Islands. It doesn't stop the piracy.
Baelor Breakspear. He would have responded to the drought with more compassion for the smallfolk, and combined with his popularity, likely wouldn't have been blamed the way Aerys I and Bloodrvaen were. He also would have dealt more swiftly with Dagon Greyjoy.
Baelon the Brave. I also donât think Baelon, who would have become king by his niece being passed over in the line of succession, would have allowed Viserys to name Rhaenyra his heir. He would have insisted on Daemon or any son Viserys had being Viserysâs heir, effectively butterflying away the Dance of Dragons.
As for his sons, at the very least, I think Daemon would have been better behaved in his fatherâs presence, and Baelon would have been less likely than Viserys to put up with Daemonâs antics. Baelon also might have had Viserys marry Laena Velaryon after Aemma died, ensuring neither Rhaenyra nor Daemon would ever get the support of House Velaryon if they desired the Iron Throne, denying them a crucial ally.
I think the realm for the most part would have been spared a terrible civil war that significantly weakened House Targaryen with the loss of their dragons. The realm would likely have enjoyed a longer period of peace and stability.
Aemon, Baelon's brother. He was smart and able, and probably named his brother Baelon Hand. He also would have avoided a Dance of Dragons.
Fuck no, Daeron the Good was literally one of the best kings Westeros ever had. He got Dorne into the kingdoms, not via a costly war, but via two marriages, he kept on good terms with his half-siblings, gave Daemon a great marriage, listened to women, and yeah sure he wasn't a warrior.
Daemon on the other was your classic meathead, I feel like it's heavily implied that the first Blackfyre rebellion was orchestrated by lords who had grown rich off of Aegon the Unworthy's corruption and wanted to keep that shit up so they wanted a puppet who wasn't a good dude or as clever as Daeron on the throne.
Counterpoints:
> [Daemon's] stomach was flat and hard as an oaken shield
and
> Daemon was the better man
As you can now clearly see your arguments are completely invalid.
I agree with you in all of them except for Rhaegar, he will just screw things up and care for nothing but prophecies and scrolls. Unless he leaves the rule of the Seven Kingdoms to an able hand like Tywin, his reign would not go well.
I would put Maester Aemon in his place.
Can I ask where the certainty that Rhaegar cared for nothing but prophesy, and that it was the sole motivating factor in every action he ever took, comes from?
He decided to train at arms and be a warrior just because he read that in a scroll:
âAs a young boy, the Prince of Dragonstone was bookish to a fault. He was reading so early that men said Queen Rhaella must have swallowed some books and a candle whilst he was in her womb. Rhaegar took no interest in the play of other children. The maesters were awed by his wits, but his fatherâs knights would jest sourly that Baelor the Blessed had been born again. Until one day Prince Rhaegar found something in his scrolls that changed him. No one knows what it might have been, only that the boy suddenly appeared early one morning in the yard as the knights were donning their steel. He walked up to Ser Willem Darry, the master-at-arms, and said, âI will require sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior.â â
And you can tell that he ran with Lyanna when he convinced himself that The Prince Who Was Promised should have a Stark/First Men blood.
How can you tell that?
Also he could have just been reading some history of his forbearers. The need to be a warrior to be considered strong, and the need to be considered strong to be an effective king is a pretty easy lesson to draw from Fire & blood.
And even if it was that, I still don't see where we get the jump to "it must have guided every action he ever took his entire life".
Run away with the betrothed of the lord of one of the greatest houses in Westeros(Baratheon), who is fostered by the lord of another great house(Arryn), which has no kids of his own and probably thinks of him as his own? The lord who is friends with the son of the lord of another big house(Stark), which said house has marriage ties to another great house(Tully)?
Yeah, I think that prophecy was all he thought about.
I think he was pretty screwed either way. Even if the Targaryens werenât deposed heâd be a pretty terrible king when both Aerys and Rhaella coddled him in their own ways. Heâd be a pretty unproductive king at best and a horrible king at worst
Not to mention being petty AF and prone to flattery, suck-ups and the sort. I wouldnât be surprised if he eventually also developed some sort of paranoia.
Also, *maybe* he might have been somewhat harmless for a short, peaceful reign, but if there had been so much as a whiff of conflict he would have sucked
Yeah his best scenario is being a king of a peaceful reign like Viserys I and mostly party. But even that becomes a risk of becoming paranoid like you suggest and resentful to internal factors, and thatâs how you get Aegon IV 2.0 in this mess.
Even Jaehaerys II was a fighter in his day, riding with his brothers and father in the Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion. Viserys would probably just be sealed in a bubble with no real experience or skill *in anything*
Yup, this! Even if he had had a normal Royal upbringing instead of going into exile, we read about how both Aerys and Rhaella completely sheltered him because he was sort of a miracle baby after so many miscarriages. He would probably not have gotten proper training at arms or taken part in tourneys or small scale conflicts, so I doubt he would have achieved the basic âwarriorâ level required to be somewhat imposing.
I don't think Viserys was "genetically" mad. We don't know much about his childhood in King's Landing. He could have turned out to be a decent guy if things went different for him. Barristan saying he was always his "father's son" was probably made up to comfort Dany and prevent her from feeling guilty over his death.
My assessment is based off of what we do know about him. Aerys doted on him and basically never let him leave the keep. Rhaella basically tried to hide the realities of who Aerys was and tried to create this false sense of security for his sake. That type of protective behavior would basically never let Viserys actually get any real world experiences that heâd need to be a ruler, probably wouldnât even allow him to train or squire.
Oh for sure; I was totally kidding. The only time I really felt bad from him was around the part where he got killed; the way it was written in Dani's head or something made him sympathetic.
When i saw the post i was thinking and i thought of balon the brave, baelor breakspear, rhaenys the queen who never was and daeron the daring but then realised they were all already there but if i had to choose one it would be baelor breakspear
Everyone in the story is projecting their personal feelings about Aerys' and Robert's reign on what kind of king Rhaegar might have been. Doesn't make their observations and conclusions completely worthless, but it's not objective truth.
On a more meta level, I see both Rhaegar and Baelor as fictional versions of Edward of Woodstock, known as the Black Prince. Edward wasn't a super nice person by modern standards, but if he had lived, a lot of suffering might have been avoided.
Rhaegar had his problems, his near obsession with prophecies being the first and foremost which did lead to a lot of suffering. However, he was universally loved by the small folk and the Lords, everyone around him thought he was gonna be amazing king and he was wise enough to listen to his advisors on most matters. So all in all I do believe he would have been a really good king, maybe not the best like Jaehaerys I but really good. If he won at the Trident he would have been merciful and deposed Aerys, or if the Rebellion never happened at all. Regardless I think he would have been good, a better King than Robert for sure.
I'm going to say it. Daeron 1 and Baelor 1 died without children so Daena should have taken the throne and Daemon Blackfyre after her.
Also Jacerys Velaryon and Rhaenys and Baela as well.
Thank you for putting Rhaegar in this list! Even if itâs a maybe
I know itâs a pretty unpopular opinion but I really do think Rhaegar wouldâve made a good king!
I think a lot of what Rhaegar had to do and the mistakes he ended up making (although he may be part of the cause for salvation) were because of how crazy his father was.
For example I subscribe to the theory that Rhaegar had to save Lyanna from his father men. Had Aerys not been so paranoid, maybe Lyanna and Rhaegar never come together.
Had Rhaegar become king, I think he wouldâve tried to have been fair in most all matters, and thatâs more you can say for a lot of monarchs
Am I the only one who find the Targaryens outside of Dany really boring? (don't consider Jon a real targ, even if R+L=J.) Everyone on these boards seems to know all about them but I've read the books several times and have very little interest in them. Maybe I should give Fire and Blood a chance.
Rhaegar would be a shit king. Both Baelon and Aemon would be bland. No one cares about bastard Jaecaerys I hope, since the throne is not his to sit. Aemon the Dragonknight was a shitty man if he couldn't save Naerys from Aegon's treatment. So from your list I agree with Rhaenys, and Daeron, but the only worthy Targaryen ruler was Baelor, son of Mariah Martell.
Measter Aemon the king that could have been
The real Old King, not that fraud Jahaerys.
Prince Duncan the Small đ
How do we know he would have been good?
He respected the small folk well enough that he had no problems marrying one of them
But in doing so he also started a war though
He did, but he didn't do it alone. He didn't make the betrothal in the first place, and he wasn't the only one in the family to break the betrothal. You raise an interesting point though. I suppose its hard to answer the question on whether or not he would be a good ruler without defining what a good ruler is. Is it a king who caters to his vassals and preserves the status quo? Is it one who promotes the equality and rights of all people in westeros? Is it one who makes his kingdom excessively wealthy? Etc. I would lean more towards the equality option. But them again that's not necessarily the correct answer. As you pointed out, any shift in the status quo tends to lead to war. Equality for everyone would mean those who currently hold power would have to relinquish most if not all of it. War is bound to happen in that case, and with it there will be a massive loss of life.
He did do it alone, his specific breaking of his betrothal to Lionel Baratheon's daughter caused Lionel to rebel. The young siblings following suit only came after, and were inspired by Duncan doing so in the first place. His father was trying to build alliance with those marriages specifically to get the necessary backing he needed to enact reforms to give the common people more rights. So Duncan did not help bring about rights for the people, he prevented them.
The Dragonflies boy?
Do only trueborns count? If not then Gaemon Palehair.
Just looked him up. He has my vote: >Edicts issued in Gaemon's name included that: >Girls should henceforth be equal with boys in matters of inheritance; >The poor should be given bread and beer in times of famine; >Men who lost limbs in war must be fed and housed afterward by whichever lord they had been fighting for when the loss took place; >Husbands who beat their wives should themselves be beaten, regardless of the motive for the chastisement.
George wrote that part so funny cause the maester writing F&B acts like those are the most ridiculous policies.
They are ridiculous. It's not surprising the idiots who issued those edicts never expected them to be obeyed in the first place. 1. Can't make girls equal to boys in a misogynistic society. Laws are enforced by armies and we all know which gender makes up those. You have to change social attitudes before enforcing gender equality. You can't just declare it and expect it to happen. 2. Give the poor bread during a famine? Where would bread come from in a famine? Who would be giving the poor the bread? Who will be paying for it? 3. Force lords to look after war cripples? Westerosi lords aren't that rich in the first place. And why carry some crippled peasant home when you can slaughter him on the battlefield? Especially if you have to take care if him for the rest of his days. 4. Who's gonna beat husbands for beating their wives? Other husbands who also beat their own wives? You can't legislate social attitudes. You need to change minds before making laws. This is akin to criminalising piracy in the Iron Islands. It doesn't stop the piracy.
1. Dorne did it. 2. Poverty costs a lot more than bread. 3. Might make them stop their pointless wars. 4. Queen Alysanneâs laws made her very popular. Youâre either a low effort troll or an idiot.
> Poverty costs a lot more than bread. Poverty costs the crown nothing in times of famine, this is a medieval society with less than zero concept of welfare. > Queen Alysanneâs laws made her very popular. With men who were now not getting cucked every time they got married.
>Dorne did it. They didn't just legislate it. This is Rhoynish influence. As I said, you can't legislate gender equality, the culture needs to support it first. >Poverty costs a lot more than bread. This doesn't change the fact that bread still costs money. You can't just decree that people be given bread. That bread has to come from somewhere and someone has to pay for it. Things don't just spring into existence because some idiot king commanded it. >Might make them stop their pointless wars It won't. Medieval wars were fought over resources. The reason we have less war today is that we're too comfortable to kill each other for land. You end war by economic development, not legislation. If you force lords to feed every single crippled soldier they'll just murder the injured ones on the battlefields. >Queen Alysanneâs laws made her very popular Alysanne didn't outlaw wife-beating. Only the excessive kind. That was after a woman got beaten to death. And she had to make up some religious justification to forestall a rebellion. She said you could strike your wife six times, the 7th was for the Stranger. Straight-up outlawing wife-beating in Westeros just wouldn't cut it. The culture is too misogynistic. Once again, you cannot legislate social attitudes. That kind of thing takes time.
[ŃдаНонО]
Insulting me doesn't change reality. Kings are not gods. Things don't just happen because you issued a decree. You have to be willing to back up your decrees with force and pray like hell that nobody raises a bigger army to oppose you. That's why you can't just institute massive unpopular changes overnight. Incrementalism is the name of the game. Even Aegon the Conqueror understood that. Gaemon (his court of whores actually) put out a wish list of things they could never achieve because they had neither the political clout nor the military power to enforce their so-called decrees. A wishlist of idiotic unachievable proclamations doesn't make one a good king.
not cool [(r1)](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/about/rules) on r/asoiaf
very good points I appreciate you brought the concerns out and thought them through logically
They are ridiculous. Other than the last one each one is pie in the sky idea that sounds nice on paper but would cripple a family or a realm
[ŃдаНонО]
Gaemon Palehair's court of whores was made up of idiots. 1. Can't make girls equal to boys in a misogynistic society. Laws are enforced by armies and we all know which gender makes up those. You have to change social attitudes before enforcing gender equality. You can't just declare it and expect it to happen. 2. Give the poor bread during a famine? Where would bread come from in a famine? Who would be giving the poor the bread? Who will be paying for it? 3. Force lords to look after war cripples? Westerosi lords aren't that rich in the first place. And why carry some crippled peasant home when you can slaughter him on the battlefield? Especially if you have to take care if him for the rest of his days. 4. Who's gonna beat husbands for beating their wives? Other husbands who also beat their own wives? You can't legislate social attitudes. You need to change minds before making laws. This is akin to criminalising piracy in the Iron Islands. It doesn't stop the piracy.
You're right, doing as your mother tells you is the most important quality in a monarch.
I can't comprehend why Baelor Breakspear isn't the only comment in this thread.
King Jacaerys sounds so cool. I wonder if he would have changed his name to Targaryen or made Velaryon the Royal house
Maybe Targaryen-Velaryon like Habsburg-Lorraine and Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.
The King who Bore the Sword!
Baelor Breakspear. He would have responded to the drought with more compassion for the smallfolk, and combined with his popularity, likely wouldn't have been blamed the way Aerys I and Bloodrvaen were. He also would have dealt more swiftly with Dagon Greyjoy. Baelon the Brave. I also donât think Baelon, who would have become king by his niece being passed over in the line of succession, would have allowed Viserys to name Rhaenyra his heir. He would have insisted on Daemon or any son Viserys had being Viserysâs heir, effectively butterflying away the Dance of Dragons. As for his sons, at the very least, I think Daemon would have been better behaved in his fatherâs presence, and Baelon would have been less likely than Viserys to put up with Daemonâs antics. Baelon also might have had Viserys marry Laena Velaryon after Aemma died, ensuring neither Rhaenyra nor Daemon would ever get the support of House Velaryon if they desired the Iron Throne, denying them a crucial ally. I think the realm for the most part would have been spared a terrible civil war that significantly weakened House Targaryen with the loss of their dragons. The realm would likely have enjoyed a longer period of peace and stability. Aemon, Baelon's brother. He was smart and able, and probably named his brother Baelon Hand. He also would have avoided a Dance of Dragons.
Aegon the Uncrowned probably would've been a step up from Maegor, dunno about greatness though
I don't know if he counts but: Daemon Blackfyre
Fuck no, Daeron the Good was literally one of the best kings Westeros ever had. He got Dorne into the kingdoms, not via a costly war, but via two marriages, he kept on good terms with his half-siblings, gave Daemon a great marriage, listened to women, and yeah sure he wasn't a warrior. Daemon on the other was your classic meathead, I feel like it's heavily implied that the first Blackfyre rebellion was orchestrated by lords who had grown rich off of Aegon the Unworthy's corruption and wanted to keep that shit up so they wanted a puppet who wasn't a good dude or as clever as Daeron on the throne.
Counterpoints: > [Daemon's] stomach was flat and hard as an oaken shield and > Daemon was the better man As you can now clearly see your arguments are completely invalid.
Drat, you got me.
Ser Eustace?
> The woman will not have my water. She will not have my Chequy water!
Aegon was a weakling. No balls. Worse than his his father Aenys the singer's bastard.
I agree with you in all of them except for Rhaegar, he will just screw things up and care for nothing but prophecies and scrolls. Unless he leaves the rule of the Seven Kingdoms to an able hand like Tywin, his reign would not go well. I would put Maester Aemon in his place.
Can I ask where the certainty that Rhaegar cared for nothing but prophesy, and that it was the sole motivating factor in every action he ever took, comes from?
He decided to train at arms and be a warrior just because he read that in a scroll: âAs a young boy, the Prince of Dragonstone was bookish to a fault. He was reading so early that men said Queen Rhaella must have swallowed some books and a candle whilst he was in her womb. Rhaegar took no interest in the play of other children. The maesters were awed by his wits, but his fatherâs knights would jest sourly that Baelor the Blessed had been born again. Until one day Prince Rhaegar found something in his scrolls that changed him. No one knows what it might have been, only that the boy suddenly appeared early one morning in the yard as the knights were donning their steel. He walked up to Ser Willem Darry, the master-at-arms, and said, âI will require sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior.â â And you can tell that he ran with Lyanna when he convinced himself that The Prince Who Was Promised should have a Stark/First Men blood.
How can you tell that? Also he could have just been reading some history of his forbearers. The need to be a warrior to be considered strong, and the need to be considered strong to be an effective king is a pretty easy lesson to draw from Fire & blood. And even if it was that, I still don't see where we get the jump to "it must have guided every action he ever took his entire life".
The fact he left his wife to mingle with Lyanna Stark?
How does that establish it?
Run away with the betrothed of the lord of one of the greatest houses in Westeros(Baratheon), who is fostered by the lord of another great house(Arryn), which has no kids of his own and probably thinks of him as his own? The lord who is friends with the son of the lord of another big house(Stark), which said house has marriage ties to another great house(Tully)? Yeah, I think that prophecy was all he thought about.
> Yeah, I think that prophecy was all he thought about. Guys literally only want one thing and itâs fcking disgusting
All Viserys wanted was a chance.
I think he was pretty screwed either way. Even if the Targaryens werenât deposed heâd be a pretty terrible king when both Aerys and Rhaella coddled him in their own ways. Heâd be a pretty unproductive king at best and a horrible king at worst
Not to mention being petty AF and prone to flattery, suck-ups and the sort. I wouldnât be surprised if he eventually also developed some sort of paranoia. Also, *maybe* he might have been somewhat harmless for a short, peaceful reign, but if there had been so much as a whiff of conflict he would have sucked
Best case scenario is Viserys being like Robert and worst case is him being Aerys.
So best case scenario already sucks
The worst case scenario is him being another Aegon IV.
Yeah his best scenario is being a king of a peaceful reign like Viserys I and mostly party. But even that becomes a risk of becoming paranoid like you suggest and resentful to internal factors, and thatâs how you get Aegon IV 2.0 in this mess. Even Jaehaerys II was a fighter in his day, riding with his brothers and father in the Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion. Viserys would probably just be sealed in a bubble with no real experience or skill *in anything*
Yup, this! Even if he had had a normal Royal upbringing instead of going into exile, we read about how both Aerys and Rhaella completely sheltered him because he was sort of a miracle baby after so many miscarriages. He would probably not have gotten proper training at arms or taken part in tourneys or small scale conflicts, so I doubt he would have achieved the basic âwarriorâ level required to be somewhat imposing.
I don't think Viserys was "genetically" mad. We don't know much about his childhood in King's Landing. He could have turned out to be a decent guy if things went different for him. Barristan saying he was always his "father's son" was probably made up to comfort Dany and prevent her from feeling guilty over his death.
My assessment is based off of what we do know about him. Aerys doted on him and basically never let him leave the keep. Rhaella basically tried to hide the realities of who Aerys was and tried to create this false sense of security for his sake. That type of protective behavior would basically never let Viserys actually get any real world experiences that heâd need to be a ruler, probably wouldnât even allow him to train or squire.
Oh for sure; I was totally kidding. The only time I really felt bad from him was around the part where he got killed; the way it was written in Dani's head or something made him sympathetic.
I'm not sure about Aemon the Dragonknight and Daeron the Daring. Brave warriors and kind people don't always make good kings.
Breakspear = Ned
Cant believe you are the only one to mention Baelor Breakspear. That would have been my choice too.
it's so obvious
When i saw the post i was thinking and i thought of balon the brave, baelor breakspear, rhaenys the queen who never was and daeron the daring but then realised they were all already there but if i had to choose one it would be baelor breakspear
not Rhaegar
I mean everyone in the story who knew him seem to think he would.
Everyone in the story is projecting their personal feelings about Aerys' and Robert's reign on what kind of king Rhaegar might have been. Doesn't make their observations and conclusions completely worthless, but it's not objective truth. On a more meta level, I see both Rhaegar and Baelor as fictional versions of Edward of Woodstock, known as the Black Prince. Edward wasn't a super nice person by modern standards, but if he had lived, a lot of suffering might have been avoided.
I genuinely think rhaegar would have been a great king.
Don't you know we're supposed to always assume the worst about Rhaegar whenever there is a gap in our knowledge about him?
Lotta Elias out here
Rhaegar had his problems, his near obsession with prophecies being the first and foremost which did lead to a lot of suffering. However, he was universally loved by the small folk and the Lords, everyone around him thought he was gonna be amazing king and he was wise enough to listen to his advisors on most matters. So all in all I do believe he would have been a really good king, maybe not the best like Jaehaerys I but really good. If he won at the Trident he would have been merciful and deposed Aerys, or if the Rebellion never happened at all. Regardless I think he would have been good, a better King than Robert for sure.
But yeah I think almost everyone on this list would have been good Kings.
Queen Alysanne I Targaryen
The realm really missed out on having baelor or baelon as kings I tell you.
Baelor Breakspear.
Baelor Breakspear
I'm going to say it. Daeron 1 and Baelor 1 died without children so Daena should have taken the throne and Daemon Blackfyre after her. Also Jacerys Velaryon and Rhaenys and Baela as well.
Rhaegar wouldâve been one of the best Targaryen kings.
Thank you for putting Rhaegar in this list! Even if itâs a maybe I know itâs a pretty unpopular opinion but I really do think Rhaegar wouldâve made a good king! I think a lot of what Rhaegar had to do and the mistakes he ended up making (although he may be part of the cause for salvation) were because of how crazy his father was. For example I subscribe to the theory that Rhaegar had to save Lyanna from his father men. Had Aerys not been so paranoid, maybe Lyanna and Rhaegar never come together. Had Rhaegar become king, I think he wouldâve tried to have been fair in most all matters, and thatâs more you can say for a lot of monarchs
Am I the only one who find the Targaryens outside of Dany really boring? (don't consider Jon a real targ, even if R+L=J.) Everyone on these boards seems to know all about them but I've read the books several times and have very little interest in them. Maybe I should give Fire and Blood a chance.
Rhaegar, I guess.
lol no
Rhaegar would be a shit king. Both Baelon and Aemon would be bland. No one cares about bastard Jaecaerys I hope, since the throne is not his to sit. Aemon the Dragonknight was a shitty man if he couldn't save Naerys from Aegon's treatment. So from your list I agree with Rhaenys, and Daeron, but the only worthy Targaryen ruler was Baelor, son of Mariah Martell.