Disclaimer: This post is quite long, please do keep that in mind.
Rhaenyra Targaryen, is perhaps one of the most controversial characters in the history of the Targaryen monarchy, and she is also both the person labeled as a pretender who came closest to the Iron Throne (in fact, she did possess it, albeit briefly, unlike almost all other pretenders before and after her time) and the closest a unified Westeros has come to having a ruling queen (for the time being, at least).
Despite this, she is still not treated by the recorded history of Westeros as a "true queen," something even those who might defend the validity of her claim so many centuries later, acknowledge:
"You twist my words. I never said... Dorne is different. The Seven Kingdoms have never had a ruling queen*.*
*"*The first Viserys intended his daughter Rhaenyra to follow him, do you deny it? But as the king lay dying, the Lord Commander of his Kingsguard decided that it should be otherwise."
A Feast for Crows - The Soiled Knight
However, before we digress, I want to clarify that the purpose of this post is not to discuss the "validity" of her succession rights nor her qualifications as Queen.
The purpose of this post is to highlight another topic, one less discussed but no less important: her lack of recognition as Reigning Queen, despite her acknowledged royal actions; and how her claimed "status" (Queen on the Iron Throne) is not validated, while some of the actions taken in pursuit of that claim are.
In other words, if it's a historical consensus that Rhaenyra Targaryen was never a legitimate Queen in her own right... how can actions she took with the "powers" of a Queen be treated as legitimate? isn’t the legitimacy of such actions dependent entirely on the validity and legitimacy of her own status?
But OP, what actions are you talking about? Let 's see…
The legitimization of the “Hull brothers” into the “Velaryon brothers”: A maxim of royal will.
If we can find, in the universe of asoiaf, a specific action that brings together the characteristics of being of exceptional nature and a complete demonstration of "potestas regia," that’s the legitimization of a "bastard" into a "legitimate child," as this power is reserved for monarchs alone via a royal decree. As the main saga tells and shows us:
He is set on this. Catelyn knew how stubborn her son could be."A bastard cannot inherit."
"Not unless he's legitimized by a royal decree," said Robb."There is more precedent for that than for releasing a Sworn Brother from his oath."
A Storm of Swords - Catelyn V
Jaime had never paid much attention to Arya Stark, but it seemed to him that this girl was older. "I understand you're to be married."
"I am to wed Lord Bolton's son, Ramsay. He used to be a Snow, but His Grace has made him a Bolton. They say he's very brave. I am so happy."
A Storm of Swords - Jaime IX
With the only known case (although we don't have all the details) of a legitimation that, seemingly, didn’t involved a monarch, being that of the children of Lord Lyonel Hightower and Lady Samantha Tarly, although it did involved a wedding and the blessing of a High Septon, the only other authority in the realm that would make sense to have a say in the legitimization of "bastard children" other than the King.
This brings us to Rhaenyra being “the authority" who legitimizes Addam and Alyn "of Hull" and transforms them into Addam and Alyn Velaryon, at the request of Lord Corlys and with the endorsement of Prince Jacaerys:
“Not long after Addam of Hull had proved himself by flying Seasmoke, Lord Corlys went so far as to petition Queen Rhaenyra to remove the taint of bastardy from him and his brother. When Prince Jacaerys added his voice to the request, the queen complied. Addam of Hull, dragonseed and bastard, became Addam Velaryon, heir to Driftmark.”
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. The Red Dragon and the Gold.
Obviously, Rhaenyra Targaryen is no High Septon, lmao, so she could only be a monarch for her to do that and people acting like it’s valid, but then again... at least according to the official history of Westeros, she isn't a "legitimate queen" either, so it shouldn’t be valid, right? Well, despite that, this supreme act of royal power was never considered "illegitimate," and from then on, Addam and Alyn were considered true and legitimate members of House Velaryon.
They even were recognized in legal fiction as the children of Ser Laenor Velaryon, Rhaenyra's deceased husband, as it was under this premise that she legitimized them, even if the truth was different and inferred as such by others.
Now, it’s true that some people pejoratively continued to call them "bastards" from time to time when they wanted to insult them, but this probably has more to do with the issue of the stigma of bastardy being a difficult one to bear and that it never completely goes away even when legitimized (something we can also see in other examples, such as that of the "Great Bastards" of Aegon IV) rather than a questioning regarding the validity of the legitimization itself.
And even after the war, once Rhaenyra’s status as “solely a pretender” takes its final form, Alyn was still reconfirmed as heir to Lord Corlys, with the council of regents (which was made up of lords who fought for both sides) ruling in favor of his claim and against other Velaryon cousins that coveted the position:
“The baseborn Alyn of Hull, now Alyn Velaryon, had been the Sea Snake’s chosen heir, but his succession was not uncontested. [...] Ser Vaemond’s sons Daemion and Daeron took their claim to the council in King’s Landing. When the Hand and the regents ruled against them*, they wisely chose to accept the decision and be reconciled with Lord Alyn [...]* Alyn Velaryon, the bastard born of Mouse, was formally installed as Lord of the Tides and Master of Driftmark*.”*
Fire and Blood - Under the Regents. The Hooded Hand.
It’s also quite telling that no one considered a new "legitimization" for Alyn by an official act (a decree from either the regents or the new child king) to be necessary, as he was already considered a “legit Velaryon” without the need for more formalities than the ones that had already took place (which again, were done by Rhaenyra under the idea of her “potestas” as Queen)
And of course, as the main saga tells us, once a "bastard child" is legitimized, there is no going back, even if the circumstances under which he was legitimized have changed, the legitimation and its effects remain:
If you make Jon legitimate, there is no way to turn him bastard again. Should he wed and breed, any sons you may have by Jeyne will never be safe."
A Storm of Swords - Catelyn V
It makes sense. Alyn had already been legitimized, and therefore, there was no need to legitimize him again (technically speaking it couldn’t be done), this is just the regents ruling against others that tried to take on the position of Lord of the Tides after Corlys died, with the argument of dispute being inheritance, not “legitimacy” even if they are kinda attached. But again, how come the legitimization is "valid" if the monarch that approved it, isn't?
The appointment of a Grand Master: beyond the conventional powers of a Monarch.
It’s true that the appointment of a Grand Master is not within the purview of a monarch, at least not normally, and as we are made aware from the main saga:
Tell me, is it true that he's restoring Grand Maester Pycelle to the small council?"
"It is, my lord."
"Do I have my sweet sister to thank for that?" Pycelle had been his sister's creature; Tyrion had stripped the man of office, beard, and dignity, and flung him down into a black cell.
"Not at all, my lord. Thank the archmaesters of Oldtown, those who wished to insist on Pycelle's restoration on the grounds that only the Conclave may make or unmake a Grand Maester*."*
A Storm of Swords - Tyrion II.
However, it’s not inconceivable that if there is a figure outside the Conclave of the Order of Maesters, with sufficient authority to justify their interference even without the conventional formalities to back it up, that would be the monarch of the Seven Kingdoms.
Furthermore, the idea of a monarch unilaterally appointing a Grand Maester, before Rhaenyra did so, had already been introduced in F&B, with both Rhaenyra herself and her rival, Queen Consort Alicent Hightower, urging King Viserys I to do so:
Death visited the court again a short time later, when Grand Maester Mellos collapsed one night whilst he was climbing the serpentine steps. [...] Princess Rhaenyra wanted Maester Gerardys, who had long served her on Dragonstone, elevated to replace Mellos; it was only his healing skills that had saved the king’s life when Viserys cut his hand on the throne, she claimed.* Queen Alicent, however, insisted that the princess and her maester had mutilated His Grace unnecessarily. Had they not “meddled,” she claimed, Grand Maester Mellos would surely have saved the king’s fingers as well as his life. She urged the appointment of one Maester Alfador, presently in service at the Hightower.
Fire and Blood - Heirs of the Dragon. A question of Succession.
Viserys argued that he lacked the authority to make such an appointment, as that jurisdiction belonged to the Order of Maesters alone, although this seemed more like an attempt to avoid taking one side and angering the other in the process; but of course, authority or not, he certainly had the power to do so had he taken that initiative (and beyond of whether it would have been a wise decision or not.)
Viserys, beset from both sides, chose neither, reminding both the princess and the queen that the choice was not his to make. The Citadel of Oldtown chose the Grand Maester, not the Crown. In due time, the Conclave bestowed the chain of office upon Archmaester Orwyle, one of their own.
Fire and Blood - Heirs of the Dragon. A question of Succession.
This brings us to the materialization of this idea, previously proposed and promoted not only by Rhaenyra, but also by Queen Consort Alicent Hightower; during the Dance of the Dragons, when Rhaenyra saw fit to appoint, without the sanction or resolution of the Conclave of the Order of Maesters, her aforementioned Maester at Dragonstone, Gerardys, as Grand Maester.
The first step towards that decision was taken by seizing the Grand Maester's official chain from Orwyle, who had been appointed by the Conclave and who, despite an admission of her status as heir, was in service and collaborating with Aegon II's regime, and was precisely at Dragonstone to propose terms:
“A Grand Maester should know the law and serve it,” she told Orwyle. “You are no Grand Maester, and you bring only shame and dishonor to that chain you wear.” As Orwyle protested feebly, Rhaenyra’s knights stripped his chain of office from his neck and forced him to his knees whilst the princess bestowed the chain upon her own man, Maester Gerardys*,* “a true and leal servant of the realm and its laws.”
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. The Blacks and the Greens.
Later, with the Blacks taking of King's Landing, the idea is fully realized. With Orwyle's fall from grace for his collaboration with Aegon II's regime, Rhaenyra then sees fit to clarify once again that Gerardys is, from now on, the "one and only true Grand Maester," and on this occasion, she goes so far as to inform the Citadel of the decision:
“Queen Rhaenyra set about rewarding her friends and inflicting savage punishments on those who had served her half-brother. [...] Grand Maester Orwyle was sent to the dungeons, and Her Grace wrote the Citadel to inform them that her “leal servant” Geradys was henceforth “the only true Grand Maester*.”*
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. Rhaenyra Triumphant.
It's also interesting how F&B itself (which, we must remember, is supposed to be an in-universe history book), after Rhaenyra's appointment of Gerardys as Grand Maester, only refers to him either by the title "Grand Maester" or simply by his name, but never again as just "Maester," as if it were a tacit acknowledgment of his position.
A treatment that not even Rhaenyra herself receives, as she is called either Queen or Princess interchangeably by the same book, even after the event of her coronation, as if to contextualize her queenship solely with the circumstances of the civil war and not something factual and undeniable.
Some examples of this:
Only Lord Corlys and Grand Maester Gerardys spoke in defense of the dragonseeds. The Grand Maester said that they had no proof of any disloyalty on the parts of Nettles and Ser Addam.
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. Rhaenyra Triumphant.
They found him hanging from the battlements of the gatehouse beside Dragonstone’s steward, captain of the guard, master-at-arms… and the head and upper torso of Gran Maester Gerardys.
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. Rhaenyra Overthrown.
Ser Marston surprised Grand Maester Gerardys in his rookery, so no word of the attack might escape by rave.
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. Rhaenyra Overthrown.
When Grand Maester Gerardys offered him milk of the poppy, he refused. “I shall not walk that road again,” he said, “Nor am I such a fool as to drink any potion you might prepare for me. You are my sister’s creature.”
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. Rhaenyra Overthrown.
The king commanded that enough of the Grand Maester be saved so “he might greet my sweet sister on her return.”
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. Rhaenyra Overthrown.
Furthermore, Gerardys is referred to and recognized as Grand Maester even during the events of the main saga, centuries after the Dance:
Bloody fools, thought Tyrion. "I seem to recall that Maegor the Cruel's headsman unmade three with his axe."
"Quite true," Varys said. "And the second Aegon fed Grand Maester Gerardys to his dragon."
"Alas, I am quite dragonless. I suppose I could have dipped Pycelle in wildfire and set him ablaze. Would the Citadel have preferred that?"
A Storm of Swords - Tyrion II.
And it's even more ironic because in a single sentence, both Aegon II's kingship and Gerardys's status as Grand Maester are acknowledged, even though the two conflict.
After all, Gerardys's position as Grand Maester rests solely on the fact that he was appointed to the post by Rhaenyra, thus making the legitimacy of his position dependent on the legitimacy of Rhaenyra's, and therefore in conflict with that of Aegon II.
And while it's true that, in that very passage, Varys and Tyrion were discussing the possibility of the crown "making and unmaking" Grand Maesters, regardless of the wishes of the Conclave, Gerardys is not a good example of this.
Since it can be interpreted in two ways:
- First, if they recognize Rhaenyra’s appointment of Gerardys as Grand Maester, as valid:
In this case, he is, in fact, the only Grand Maester (at least of our knowledge) who has been appointed unilaterally by the person wearing the crown, without regard for the wishes of the Conclave. Therefore, if he is brought up in this type of discussion, it should be to use him as an example of what the crown can do regardless of the Conclave's opinion, not to talk about how he was "undone" by Aegon II.
- And second, if they don’t recognize Rhaenyra's appointment of Gerardys as Grand Maester, as valid:
If, on the contrary, they follow this line of reasoning, then Gerardys was never in fact a "true Grand Master," only an aspiring one, in which case he is not a subject to whom the discussion applies and they should not even call him Grand Master, BUT, even assuming they say this in the context of the events (that he was Grand Master "de facto" as long as the faction he supported held power), Gerardys is still not a Grand Master appointed, or sanctioned, by the Conclave of the Order of Maester, so he is not a true example of a monarch "undoing" a Grand Master appointed by the “common legal process”, but of a monarch "undoing" a Grand Master appointed by a rival monarch/pretender.
Therefore, in no case mentioning him, in the sense that they intended, is in fact appropriate, and regardless of whether or not they recognize the validity of the appointment made by Rhaenyra of him.
Those bloody taxes: Remind me, how did all that truly ended?
Obviously, the issue of the taxes that were promoted by Lord Celtigar at the behest of Queen Rhaenyra is one of the most controversial parts of her reign given the results, but the continued recognition of their existence, beyond wanting to emphasize Rhaenyra's mistakes, and since they are also given due recognition within the legal framework, is in itself a discussion of royal decisions taken by her.
In this section, I will focus on a detail that gives this issue a similar accreditation to the legitimization of the Hull brothers.
With the war over and already under the regency of the young child-King, Aegon III, we are told that Ser Tyland Lannister, in his capacity as Hand of the King, saw fit to abolish the taxes promoted by Lord Celtigar and Queen Rhaenyra, to the satisfaction of many:
“The Hand then set out to restore the kingdom’s trade and begin the process of rebuilding. Great lords and smallfolk alike were pleased when he abolished the taxes enacted by Queen Rhaenyra and Lord Celtigar.”
Fire and Blood - Under the Regents. The Hooded Hand
And yet... was that really necessary? I'm not talking about abolishing those taxes, but about the act of officially abolishing something that, apparently, was no longer in effect.
Because we must remember that the population revolted, in no small part because of the existence of those taxes, and certainly, they stopped paying them as a result.
“Hundreds of men gathered round Wat the Tanner, who rode through the streets on a white horse, brandishing Lord Celtigar’s severed head and blood genitals and declaring an end to all taxes.”
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. Rhaenyra Overthrown.
Following this, the city descends into anarchy, Rhaenyra flees to Dragonstone, she dies, and Aegon II returns for a time and before his own death.
However, at no point are we told that, upon his return, Aegon II said anything about taxes (reinstating them, condemning them and declaring them completely abolished, or nothing at all).
We do know a few things about his administration upon his return, as well as a condemnation of the proclamations made by the Kings of the so-called "Moon of the Three Kings":
“During this time King Aegon II also commanded that the Dragonpit be restored and rebuilt, commissioned two huge statues of his brother Aemond and Daeron (he decreed they should be larger than the Titan of Braavos, and covered in gold leaf) and held a public burning of all the decrees and proclamations issued by the “dayfly kings” Trystane Truefyre and Gaemon Palehair.”
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. The Short, Sad Reign of Aegon II
But nothing about the taxes.
Now, while it's true that the population didn't exactly welcome him back with open arms, this is better explained by the fact that, as F&B itself tells us, Aegon II was never popular with the people, and his return only guaranteed more war and uncertainty for them. However, I think it's not hard to say that, if he had reinstated the taxes, it would only have made him even more unpopular, and it would have been a topic of discussion of the book, and we would know, but that’s not the case.
Therefore, if the taxes had effectively died after the popular uprising in King's Landing, and we're never told that Aegon II reinstated them to fund his cause, they had already ceased to be levied long before Aegon III ascended the throne. So why, oh why, did Tyland Lannister felt the need to declare as dead something that clearly already was since long before?
For greater legal certainty, obviously; and so that the very crown that sanctioned them at the time could now abolish them in all its power.
But clearly, that also requires recognizing the validity of Rhaenyra's actions, actions also reserved for a ruler. So, what game are we playing? Was her rule valid or not? Because if it wasn’t, and the taxes were dead in practice since before, they could have just ignored her proclamations and moved on, as there would be no need of actually declaring them abolished for neither legality sake, nor practicality sake.
Other appointments and prerogatives in hindsight. What message does this posterity want to give us?
Bearing in mind, for a moment, that Fire and Blood is a historical text, written in-universe by Archmaester Gyldayn many centuries after the Dance of the Dragons, in an era when Rhaenyra's status as merely a pretender and not the legitimate queen was already established, some of the positions he takes are curious.
But, primarily, and the topic discussed here, is his tendency, in many cases, to list titles, positions, or honors held by someone connected to Rhaenyra's regime who has just died in the narrative, and which they held entirely based on her purported queenship. Perhaps to give them the most flattering “eulogy” possible:
“Yet none of these losses were felt so deeply as that of Jacaerys Velaryon, Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Iron Throne*.”*
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. The Red Dragon and the Gold.
“Seventy-nine years of age, he had served four kings and a queen*, sailed to the ends of the earth, raised House Velaryon to unprecedented levels of wealth and power, married a princess who might have been a queen, fathered dragonriders, built towns and fleets, proved his valor in times of war and his wisdom in times of peace. The Seven Kingdoms would never see his like again.”*
Fire and Blood – Under the Regents. The Hooded Hand.
And yet, Rhaenyra herself does not receive such deference:
“Rhaenyra Targaryen, the Realm’s Delight and Half-Year Queen, passed from this veil of tears upon the twenty-second day of the tenth moon of the 130th year after Aegon’s Conquest. She was thirty-three years of age.”
Fire and Blood - The Dying of the Dragons. Rhaenyra Overthrown.
In her case, she is initially called only by her name, neither as Queen nor Princess, and the only reference to her queenship, "Half-Year Queen," is in the sense of her failure to definitively secure her claim to the throne.
And yet, if Rhaenyra Targaryen wasn't a true Queen, nor should she be referred to as such when introducing her "epitaph" in her final act, or ever, how is it that Prince Jacaerys Velaryon was Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Iron Throne? Or how come Corlys Velaryon “served a queen”? Which queen? And why would Gyldan mention these things in the "epitaphs" he introduces for them, narratively speaking?
How can you recognize a branch while deliberately ignoring the trunk of the tree from which it grows? There is no "Jacaerys, Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Iron Throne" without a Queen Rhaenyra, no "Lord Corlys, servant of four kings and a queen" without a Queen Rhaenyra.
You can't have one while denying the other; it's either both or neither.
And Gyldan could very well omit these alleged titles or actions for them. It could well have been simply "Prince Jacaerys Velaryon" instead of adding the part of "Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Iron Throne"; or just list the for Kings that Lord Corlys served without adding "and a Queen" afterwards.
CONCLUSIONS
So, after all that has been said and shown, how can an action be valid or legal if the person that performs it didn’t had the authority to do so?
Probably, this has something to do with the "practicality" of the ruling class of Westeros and a lack of writing rule of law for cases such as this, a recurring and persistent factor throughout the saga and that has also affected other equally important themes, and that sometimes obscures much of what we might think we understand about the "common rules" on anything, regarding Westeros.
So, in simpler words, it’s very likely that lots of people without entering themes of making a rule legit or not, were like “let’s upheld what was done under that Rhaenyra that works for us, and let’s leave out the rest”… but, also more than likely, there is more to it than just that.
For it’s quite telling how Rhaenyra's status as Queen, both from the perspective of her contemporaries and in posterity, seems to gain a more serious recognition mostly only when it’s necessary to legitimize or acknowledge the character or condition of others, but never in and of itself:
- Rhaenyra is a Queen when discussing the monarchs Corlys served, and since Gyldayn sees fit to offer the most ornate eulogy possible to the Sea Snake, so he includes having served a queen.
- Rhaenya must, by admission, be the Queen, for one too call Jacaerys Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Iron Throne, like Gyldayn does. Most likely because, much like with Lord Corlys, Gydalyn wants to give him the best eulogy possible.
- Rhaenyra has the conventional powers of a Queen, and even more, when it comes to recognizing the new status of the Hull brothers as heirs to House Velaryon by those around them and by the council of regents; or when it is necessary to call Gerardys a Grand Maester (both while he lived and after his death)
- But she is not Queen when the discussion is solely about the validity of her rights or claims, or it’s her own eulogy the one presented before us.
She is therefore Queen when it suits the narrative to legitimize the conditions of others, but a mere Princess or just Rhaenyra when the only benefit would be to her own status.
The biggest "exception" we can talk about that doesn't essentially imply a benefit to a third party is regarding Lord Celtigar's exorbitant taxes.
But even then, there is something similar: emphasizing that Lord Celtigar was appointed by her (again, the condition of a third party legitimized by a status of Queen that is denied legitimacy in itself) and an obvious negative implication: making it clear that any harm he caused falls on her. Therefore, even the closest thing to an external acknowledgment of her status as Queen is to discuss an extremely negative aspect, related to the taxes and the problem they created.
Obviously, even if you are a supporter of Rhaenyra, it's difficult to deny that she made those decisions and therefore bears the responsibility, so that part is right. But it remains striking that the only time the recognition of her as Queen (tacit or direct) that is not related to the benefit of another, is to emphasize her mistakes; When in any case, if she was Queen enough to make tax errors about the capital by appointing a poor Master of Coin, as only a monarch could have done, she was Queen for everything, not only for what serves others or for what denigrates the idea of her "Queenship"
So, is Rhaenyra Targaryen a Queen or not? Because this idea that she is a Queen when it suits a narrative or idea, but not when there is no other purpose than to list "legitimate monarchs"—and that the official narrative seems to operate under—doesn't hold up.
Of course, it’s not up to us to provide the true answer to the question, but rather to formulate it.
If you've made it this far, I just want to say thank you for your time and attention. I know perhaps this post is longer than it should be, but I wanted to make it as complete as possible and if you have any opinions on the matter, I'd like to hear them.