As for why Selyse specifically? Easy. The uglier the bride, the easier it would be to complain later, lmao.
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…
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Disclaimer: This post is quite long, please do keep that in mind. Also,absolutely everything stated here is based on the canon of the books; absolutely nothing is based on the TV show adaptation HOTD or its canon.
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…
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this post is to make a comparison of historical characters to those from asoiaf; I don't intend to guess if GRRM was actually inspired by any of this for his work, maybe he was or maybe not, I just like to compare asoiaf with real-life history, official inspiration or not.
Before we began comparing, allow me to introduce you to Don Álvaro de Luna:
Álvaro de Luna, born in 1390 and died in 1453, was a nobleman, military leader, and politician of the Crown of Castile (one of the precursor states of modern-day Spain). He was the most powerful man of his time, having controlled Castilian politics for almost three decades through Juan II, a weak-willed king.
Don Álvaro, born a nobleman but illegitimate, managed to reach the highest echelons of power, dominating the wills and destinies of entire kingdoms. This earned him numerous enemies and a whole dark legend against him, that accused him of using witchcraft and dishonorable methods to achieve his goals, with some true to it, as well as some propaganda nonsense. He did and achieve many a great and impactful things before his eventual fall from grace—which, despite being significant, did not mark the end of his influence.
And today, we will compare him with the equally powerful and equally infamous Lord Bloodraven, Brynden Rivers, Hand of the King and Master of Whisperers.
Final note: I know that Bloodraven served three Kings (Daeron II, Maekar I and Aerys I) and the latter two as Hand of the King, but when talking about his time as Hand, I will focus almost exclusively on his role as Hand of Aerys I since we don't know much about what he did or how he operated under Maekar.
Please, do consider that post it's really long because of its very nature, but I hope it makes up for it by being interesting for you... with all that out of the way, let's begin!
Of noble origins, but bastard born.
Both men were born into prestigious and politically important dynasties, albeit as “illegitimate children.”
Brynden Rivers was born in King's Landing in the year 175 AC, as the bastard son of none other than the King himself, Aegon IV of House Targaryen, and of Lady Melissa of House Blackwood, one of the many mistresses the King would have over the years, and member to an ancient and prestigious house from the Riverlands.
In contrast, Álvaro de Luna was born in in the town of Cañete, in Cuenca, in the year 1390, as the bastard son of the Aragonese nobleman Álvaro Martinez de Luna and Maria Fernandez de Jaraba. His father belonged to the influential family de Luna, which would have a very active and crucial role in Iberian politics at this time, producing a Queen Consort of Aragon, high ranking nobles and prelates, and even an Antipope.
Family drama
While not identical, the family situations of both characters involve extensive family drama.
In Bloodraven's case, his father was the King, and a rather promiscuous one, prone to excess and favoring corrupt courtiers. Through him, he had several half-siblings, with whom he had very diverse relationships, ranging from hatred to love. His rivalry with Aegor Rivers, his passion for Shiera Seastar, and his loyalty to Daeron II, his killing of Daemon Blackfyre and his two eldest sons, are all quite famous or infamous parts of his life.
As for Don Álvaro, his father would come to doubt whether he was truly his son (something Aegon IV also did, but with Daeron II), and would have various half-siblings on both his father's and mother's sides, with different relations. He was a close friend and ally of his maternal half-brother, Juan de Cerezuela, whom he helped become Archbishop of Toledo, but maintained a cold and distant relation with his paternal half-siblings, heirs to the family fortune in Aragon.
The last will of their fathers marked their futures, but in different ways, while Bloodraven was favored by his father's will (he was legitimized), the will of Don Alvaro's father didn't even mention him, leaving him nothing. Both also lost their fathers at a young age: Bloodraven was nine when Aegon IV died, and Don Álvaro seven when his own father died.
Physical appearance and personality
Okay, so no, Don Álvaro wasn't an albino, nor did he had a birthmark that resembled a "raven drawn in blood," but in terms of complexion, as well as presence and reputation, he has quite a few things in common with Bloodraven.
Per the words of GRRM, Lord Bloodraven was:
>«A shade under six feet tall and very thin, gaunt [...] Although he bears the Valyrian blade Dark Sister that once belonged to Aegon's Visenya, his favorite weapon is a tall bone-white weirwood longbow. He is an expert bowman.»
As for Don Álvaro, his contemporary, the poet and historian Fernán Pérez de Guzmán describes him in the following way:
>«He was small in stature and slight of face, but well-proportioned, of good strength, and a very good horseman, quite skilled in arms.»
Regarding presence and reputation, they are described by the aforementioned sources as follows:
Bloodraven:
>«With a grim unforbidding aspect and a sinister reputation as a sorcerer and spymaster.»
Don Álvaro:
>«Very astute in the palace, very witty and well-reasoned, although short of words for he was very discreet; a great dissembler, feigning and cunning, and he greatly excelled in using such arts and tricks, so much so that it seemed natural in him.»
So, we can conclude, based on those descriptions, that both men may have had a physique “atypical” for a warrior (not being the warrior type at first glance), but were very experienced with weapons and not strangers to the battlefield, as well as having a somewhat "dark" reputation associated with political manipulation and being the ideal of a palace courtier, adept like few in the most complex maneuvers of manipulation and intrigues, and perhaps… even something else.
For Don Álvaro, much like Bloodraven, would be accused of being a practitioner of "forbidding magical arts,” as we will see later on.
A youth at court climbing the ladder, thanks mama nuncle.
Both characters developed close ties to the spheres of power as they grew up and held positions at the royal court from a young age. In both cases, this was made possible by the favorable political connections some of their close relatives had with important people.
In Bloodraven's case, it's true he was born at court because he was the King's son, but that alone wasn't enough to guarantee his continued presence there. Consider, for example, the case of his half-brother and rival, Aegor Rivers, whom, given the poor relationship of his maternal relatives with high-ranking members of the court, was quickly sidelined. Therefore, his mother's good relations at court were key to ensure he always had a place there growing up.
In the case of Don Álvaro, he entered the service of the Castilian crown in his adolescence as a page or "doncel" to the then child-king Juan II, thanks to the favorable political connections of his uncle Pedro de Luna, the Archbishop of Toledo, and great-uncle, Antipope Benedict XIII, known as "the Pope Luna,” whom found a place for him at court.
His Majesty's firm right hand.
Both men would eventually reach the highest political position possible by the grace of their King, as recognition of their abilities and loyalty, having both already served steadily for years (Bloodraven had served Daeron II throughout his reign, and Don Álvaro had served Juan II since childhood)
In 209 AC, after his unexpected ascension to the Iron Throne, King Aerys I appointed his bastard uncle, Lord Bloodraven, as his Hand of the King.
In 1423, King Juan II appointed Don Álvaro as Constable of the Kingdom of Castile.
Both positions are equivalent, as they are not hereditary, granted by the King at his discretion to someone he trusts or favors; and represent the role of the monarch's right-hand man, the foremost of his advisors, and also the highest representative of royal authority other than the King himself.
Titles upon titles
The titles of "Hand of the King" and "Constable of the Kingdom" are the most important and highest-ranking that Lord Bloodraven and Don Álvaro held, respectively, but not the only ones.
Both men served their kings in other positions and capacities too.
In Bloodraven's case, in addition to being Hand of the King, he served as Master of Whisperers for Aerys I, thus being responsible for all that the position entailed (being the head of the King's intelligence network and have an eye in all that surrounded him), giving him even more power and control over the realm and it's politics, by merging two powerful and important positions.
For his part, Don Álvaro, besides being Constable, held the position of Grand Master of the Order of Santiago, one of the religious-military orders of the Crown of Castile. This placed under his command one of the most prestigious and elite military organizations in the realm, as well as all the wealth and political power that the Order possessed on its own, so, like Bloodraven, he had greater control over the politics of the realm by merging both titles in one person.
O Captain! My Captain!
Related to the previous point, and having already mentioned that Don Álvaro was also Grand Master of the Order of Santiago, we can draw another parallel: both men commanded elite military groups, particularly close to and loyal to them.
In Bloodraven's case, he had the "Raven's Teeth," his personal guard, and Don Álvaro had the Knights of Santiago, who, although a pre-existing order, forged a strong bond of loyalty towards him.
Furthermore both groups would show their loyalty above all, not only on the battlefield, but in what follows it, deciding to remain faithful to the image of their "captain" even after his fall from grace (Many "Raven's Teeth marched to the Wall with Bloodraven, and many Knights of Santiago protected Don Álvaro's family after his fall from grace)
His Majesty’s thinking head, if needs be, and by God, it needs be.
Both Aerys I and Juan II of Castile, monarchs that our two protagonist served, were considered kings of "weak character," more interested in other pursuits than in the true governance of the kingdom, which they left in the capable but wary hands of their right-hand men, Bloodraven and Don Álvaro.
Thus, much of the tenure of our two protagonists as "right-hand men" to His Majesty consisted more in filling the power vacuum left by a king uninterested in ruling, and in being the true "power behind the throne," rather than being a "supporter" following the directives of an active king.
>«The king's weakness of character, more interested in hunting and scholastic pursuits than in governing, left a void that De Luna skillfully filled.»
~"The King's Dagger: Álvaro de Luna, the King Without a Crown" by Fernando Nadal, circa 2025.
>«Aerys keeps his own apartments, and it is said that he would sooner take a book to bed than any woman." He filled his cup again. "Make no mistake, 'tis Lord Rivers who rules us, with his spells and spies. There is no one to oppose him.»
~ The Sworn Sword
Ruthless and unforgiving... loyalty
As the writer and journalist Fernando Nadal puts it in his work "The King's Dagger: Álvaro de Luna, the King Without a Crown":
>«De Luna never intended to supplant the king, but rather to govern through him, always maintaining the appearance of acting by royal mandate [...] At the same time, historical accounts suggest that he was a man of great determination and ruthlessness when necessary. He did not hesitate to eliminate political enemies when they posed a threat, revealing a pragmatic and, at times, ruthless side.»
A description that also fits Lord Bloodraven like a glove.
Neither of them ever betrayed any of the Kings they served, nor intended to; quite the contrary, they did much of their "dirty work." But they clearly had a decisive and authoritarian character, which especially came to light when serving a King uninterested in governing and deemed weak (Aerys I and Juan II) so much so that they seemed to be more in charge than the King himself.
Thus, they demonstrated a gift for getting things done, with accurate but brutal methods, which would earn them a somewhat questionable reputation, but would also allow them to keep things in order for their monarch’s and the crown’s sake, demonstrating that them acting on their names wasn’t just a “facade” but true loyalty, albeit one that puts them in charge a lot, perhaps thinking themselves more capable to defend such interests.
Well, well, but if it's his Majesty's troublesome cousins; Let's go screw them over! (Comparison The exiled Blackfyres /The Infantes of Aragon)
Both Lord Bloodraven and Don Álvaro had to face a rebellious political party, led by relatives of the King they served, but from another branch of the family (his cousins), with their sights set on His Majesty's throne and taking over the Kingdom.
As you surely know, Bloodraven had the task of dealing with the constant threat the Blackfyres posed to the Targaryen throne from their exile, this in the form of the children of Daemon Blackfyre (cousins of His Majesty Aerys I, as children of his uncle Daemon Blackfyre) and their persistent aspirations to the crown.
For his part, Don Álvaro had the task of confronting the so-called "Infantes of Aragon" (cousins of King Juan II, as children of his uncle Fernando of Antequera, later Fernando I of Aragon), who sought to seize political control of the Crown of Castile in their constant pursuit of the aggrandizement of their personal states and dynasty.
Both groups also have a similar composition. Daemon Blackfyre's children numbered ten, however, bit in exile there were eight Blackfyre children, at least three sons and one daughter. The gender of the others is unknown to us, but assuming that Calla wasn’t an only daughter, there were at least six sons and two daughters. In contrast, the Infantes of Aragon were the seven children of Fernando I of Aragon aka Fernando of Antequera, five sons and two daughters, so there is a similar number of members and even a similar gender ratio.
Also worth mentioning that the policies and most significant actions of these two right-hand men would be conditioned, influenced, or directly dictated by their constant struggle against said political party, which had supporters within the realm's own nobility.
And screw them over, I did.
Certainly, the constant struggle of Bloodraven and Don Álvaro against their aforementioned adversaries was not without setbacks, but it can be considered, in the grand scheme of things, an ultimate political triumph for both of them.
No Blackfyre, despite their multiple rebellions (three of which involved Bloodraven), was able to sit on the Iron Throne, and it was Bloodraven who, in many cases, was a thorn in their side, thwarting their plans. He was the one who ended the lives of Daemon Blackfyre and his sons at Redgrass Field, who arrested Daemon "II" before he could do anything more serious, and who captured his archenemy Aegor Rivers, also known as Bittersteel, after the third rebellion.
Similarly, it was Don Álvaro who ended the aspirations of the Infantes of Aragon, time and time again, despite their many schemes over the years. It was he who defeated them at the First Battle of Olmedo, ending the Castilian Civil War (this battle was his Redgrass Field, if you will), and before that, he thwarted an attempt by one of the Infantes to kidnap King Juan II himself, subsequently imprisoning the Infante. He also confiscated their titles and possessions after failed uprisings (such as Bloodraven with the supporters of House Blackfyre).
When I catch you! (Comparison Aegor Rivers aka Bittersteel/Infante Enrique of Aragon)
Both ministers had a "foil" or "great rival" to their political plans and careers, in both cases a prominent figure from the "rebel" faction (Blackfyres/Infantes of Aragon).
In Bloodraven's case, I believe the man needs little introduction; it's his half-brother Aegor Rivers, aka Bittersteel, one of Daemon Blackfyre's main supporters, and the man who would shoulder the Blackfyre's efforts to seize the throne after the first rebellion and Daemon's death.
In Don Álvaro's case, it's one of the Infantes of Aragon themselves, Enrique of Aragon, his father's third son, younger brother of Alfonso V of Aragon and Juan, King Consort of Navarre, and the most visible and active representative of the Infantes interests within Castile itself, his brothers being more focused on their own estates.
Thus, we can find significant points of comparison:
An evil sorcerer, the devil on the King’s shoulder, and then some more.
Both advisors had rumors circulating about them and how they used "arcane and dark arts" to enforce their will, accusing them of being “the cancer of the realm” for it, but, more specifically, in both cases, there were whispers that they controlled the King they served through “dark enchantments,” or something of the sorts:
>«He rules us now as well, make no mistake. King Aerys is his creature. It would not surprise to learn that Bloodraven had ensorceled His Grace, to bend him to his will. Small wonder we are cursed.»
~ The Sworn Sword
>«The said constable has bound and tied all your [the King’s] bodily and animal powers by magical and devilish enchantments.»
~ Excerpt from the Sentence of Medina del Campo
And while it's true that most of the times the worst version of said rumors was spread by their political enemies or people politically aligned against the faction they served—for example, that quote from The Sworn Sword is said by Ser Eustace Osgrey, a notorious Blackfyre supporter, and the claim that Álvaro de Luna "diabolically bewitched" King Juan II comes from a sentence written by the noble faction he opposed and with whom he was at war—it was not a belief exclusive to these adversaries, with many in the kingdom giving credence to such rumors.
Tampering with the royal line?
Both ministers would also be accused of tampering with the royal family; being held responsible in the eyes of many for the deaths of some of its members, and, in both cases, with the premise of having comited such "murders" to promote their political agenda and accumulate more personal power.
In the case of Bloodraven, beyond his actions against the Blackfyres, who were also his relatives, we can find accusations against him for having "murdered in their mother's womb" the heirs of Prince Valarr Targaryen, as well as insinuations of involvement in the deaths that occurred shortly before or during the Great Spring Sickness, such as those of Prince Baelor "Breakspear", King Daeron II, Prince Matarys, etc.
>«A shadow came at his command to strangle brave Prince Valarr's sons in their mother's womb. Where is our Young Prince now? Where is his brother, sweet Matarys? Where has Good King Daeron gone, and fearless Baelor Breakspear? The grave has claimed them, every one, yet he endures, this pale bird with bloody beak who perches on King Aerys's shoulder and caws into his ear.»
~ Mistery Knight
In the case of Don Álvaro, he would be considered responsible by many for the deaths of Maria of Aragon, Queen of Castile, the first wife of his King, Juan II, and that of her sister, Leonor of Aragon, Queen consort of Portugal (even being formally tried for it by his enemies later, but that in a moment)
>«The bodies of both were equally covered with welts after they died, and therefore it was believed that they had died from poisons, and we also read that in the trial against Don Álvaro de Luna, he was found to have influenced it, by giving herbs to the said Queens»
~ Memoirs of the Catholic Queens, genealogical history of the royal house of Castile and Leon, volume 2; by Enrique Flórez of the Order of Saint Augustine, circa 1761.
In both cases, the alleged murders were also attributed to a "sinister" motivation rooted in political machinations: to accumulate more personal power or to eliminate "political obstacles" to that end.
In the case of Bloodraven we can see the insinuation of why he would do such a thing in the very quote of the accusation, although it's not said "clearly", and that it's "prevailing" over the deceased (who would be the ones on the throne had they lived) in order to now be able to "sit on the shoulder" of the new King, a man considered weak, to "dictate and govern" through him.
In the case of Don Álvaro, the motivations are somewhat clearer, for the queens he supposedly murdered are Maria of Aragon and Leonor of Aragon, sisters of the Infantes of Aragon; Don Álvaro's greatest political enemies and the "proto-Blackfyres" of this comparison. And, as you can imagine, both supported the faction led by their brothers.
Therefore, the implication was that he eliminated them to remove obstacles, and maybe hoped to obtain a Queen more "cooperative" with his aims... which unfourtunately for him didn't happen, as the new Queen would even play a role in his ultimate downfall.
A sentence without court, for the master of them all
The end of our two protagonists political careers was swift, to say the least. Both were still in a good position when suddenly, everything collapsed in an instant and without warning.
In both cases, it was simply a matter of doing what they had been doing for decades, but now with an indisposed king, unwilling to tolerate their actions... a factor that changed everything.
Bloodraven convened a Great Council after Maekar's death, and broke the word he had given to Aenys Blackfyre of safe conduct, instead luring him into a trap to execute yet another Blackfyre pretender... nothing new under the sun, but the newly elected King, Aegon V, was not willing to tolerate it, and sentenced him to death (a sentence that would later be commuted).
In Don Álvaro's case, his mistake was making enemies and confronting high-ranking members of the nobility and the new queen, Isabel of Portugal (nothing new under the sun, he'd been doing the same thing for years with other nobles and another queen). And when one of his trusted men betrayed him, switching sides to the nobility and the queen and revealing some of his secrets, he ordered him assassinated (purging political threats, nothing new here either).
But the nobility and the queen, who had long been trying to turn King Juan II against him, took this as the perfect opportunity and managed to convince him, thus, just days after the assassination, Don Álvaro was arrested, summarily tried on countless charges, and sentenced to death (in his case, the sentence would be carried out, without any commutation)
Until we catch you
In an ironic twist of fate, the downfall of such formidable and almost all-mighty ministers would be linked to their greatest glory: their method of dealing with and eliminating his political enemies, the Blackfyres and the Infantes of Aragon.
Even though the demise of Aenys Blackfyre could be considered yet another victory for Bloodraven in his endless fight againt House Blackfyre, it was his ruthless and even dishonorable methods of dealing with him, and his attempt at a candidacy for the Great Council of 233 that would prompt the new King, Aegon V, to punish him in order to try to save face on behald of the crown.
As for Don Álvaro, one of the most notorious accusations against him (and already discussed in this post) was his involvement in the strange deaths of Queens Maria and Leonor of Aragon, sisters and defenders of the Infantes of Aragon, his enemies; an accusation now used in the trial against him to bring about his downfall.
Thus, although neither the Blackfyres with Bloodraven nor the Infantes of Aragon with Álvaro de Luna could finish them off in open battle, nor take the crown for themselves, they would finally manage to "reach them" in a way, since their final damning sentences were written with the blood of one of their own.
What I did, I did it for the good of the realm, the proud lord said, who now must bow so low…
When confronted by the new King, Aegon V, about the dishonorable death he had given to Aenys Blackfyre by having broken the word of the Iron Throne, Lord Bloodraven proclaimed that he had “sacrificed his personal honor for the good of the realm"
Famous is the anecdote, by which, while Don Álvaro was being led to the gallows, the herald tasked with proclaiming his many "felonies" and "misdeeds," seemed for a moment to have forgotten the speech he had been taught, for instead of mentioning that this was the consequence of the "disservices" that Don Álvaro had rendered to the crown (negative connotation), he mentioned that this was a consequence of the "services" rendered (positive connotation), to which, after hearing him, Don Álvaro exclaimed: “You speak well, son, for the services rendered, this is how they pay me."
Thus, neither of them acknowledged at any time that they had acted wrongly; on the contrary, they claimed to have done what they had to, or what was best, although both accepted their sentences in a rather dignified manner and didn’t really “push back” much.
An ignominious end for such a powerful man
By the time of their "demise", both men had served for decades as their King's right hand.
Bloodraven served two monarchs (Aerys I and Maekar I) as Hand of the King throughout their entire reigns, from 209AC to 233AC, thus holding the position for approximately 24 years.
Don Álvaro served only one king (Juan II) as Constable, but for a slightly longer period than Bloodraven, from 1423 to 1453, 30 years in the position.
After the sentence pronounced against Bloodraven, Aegon V offered to commute it if he would instead don the black and march to the Wall, leaving his entire political career and know life behind, marching as a condemned criminal. Bloodraven accepted this offer and left, never to return... in the same form, at least.
As already mentioned, in the case of Don Álvaro, the sentence was indeed carried out; thus, the man who had truly ruled Castile for decades was beheaded in Valladolid on June 2, 1453, in the name of the very same King he had served since he was a child, marking the end of an era... or not?
Damned with him, damned without him.
Aegon V's reign was not an easy one, beginning with a winter of more than three years; a bleak political landscape; and a reformist king in a rigid society. Perhaps, had he retained the man who once imposed his will and crown's will as needed, especially with a rebellious nobility, he might have achieved better results, even if he disagreed with the methods.
For its part, the death of Don Álvaro greatly strained the atmosphere, as it broke both King Juan II and Queen Isabel of Portugal, and much of the power of the crown itself.
In the King's case, understanding that he had consented to the execution of his great friend and lifelong ally, he ended up dying of grief and remorse barely a year later. And the Queen, who conspired to make it happen, ended up insane, claiming to see the ghost of Don Álvaro, who demanded justice. All of this opened the door to a nobility that constantly challenged the new King, just as they had sought to do with his father, and had already made in past reigns.
The Legacy of the Once and Future Master and Mentor
Like two ghosts haunting the narrative, and though they were gone, Bloodraven and Don Álvaro remained more than present in the future of those kingdoms, their kingdoms, or rather, the kingdoms they ruled as if they were their own.
Bloodraven, after his adventure with the Night's Watch, would go beyond the Wall, only to return in a different form, as if from another life. He was still a raven, but no longer one drawned in blood, but one with a third eye, perhaps a reminder of the one he lost and the thousands he once possessed; to observe, to influence the future of the realm, to utter the words "King. King," to one who perhaps must hear them, and to advise Brandon Stark.
It's true that it's yet uncertain how this will influence the future of Westeros. Perhaps he is shaping Brandon Stark to be the future king, or perhaps Brandon Stark is destined to support and advise the future king or authority figure of Westeros, as Bloodraven himself did in his former life. Perhaps his struggle now involves something greater than a throne made by men for men, but if one thing is certain, it's that whatever impact he leaves in the realm, it will be significant, like everything Bloodraven has ever done.
Don Álvaro, in turn, did not return to rise from the grave, nor did he need to, to leave a tangible and lasting legacy, although his ghost seemed to always accompanied the Queen there after. For just as Bloodraven may now be playing the role of mentor to future kings, or mentor to the mentor of future kings, in Don Álvaro's case, it was a reality.
For, driven by that remorse and madness that the Constable's execution had procured in her, Queen Isabel of Portugal, who had once conspired to end Don Álvaro's life, would end up saving the life of one of his closest friends and former pupil, Don Gonzalo Chacón y Martínez del Castillo, who had been hunted down for unwavering loyalty to Don Álvaro after his fall.
And in turn, Don Gonzalo would become not only the protector and champion of the Dowager Queen and her children, who, after the death of Juan II, suffered aggressions from his eldest son, the new King, Enrique IV, born from his marriage to the late Maria of Aragon, but he would also be the tutor and mentor of those young infantes, as if he were the father they had lost.
And although she was perhaps the least expected person to one day succeed on the throne, Isabel of Portugal's eldest daughter by Juan II, also named Isabel, a ward of Don Gonzalo, would become not only Queen of Castile one day, but one of the greatest monarchs those kingdoms had ever known: Isabel I of Castile, the Catholic Queen, the woman who, alongside her husband, laid the foundations of the Spanish empire, an empire on which the sun never set, and she did so with teachings passed down to her by her tutor, who had acquired them from his own tutor, the Constable who once dare to ruled.
Conclusions: To a large extent, both the story of Don Álvaro and that of Lord Bloodraven are cautionary tales about power, about how playing at being a king without actually being one never ends well, and the importance of not taking to ruthless actions, even for ends we consider just; yes...
But they also show how a man, born a bastard, made an enemy of half a kingdom for protecting his monarch's interests, considered a sorcerer and an ill-born creature, and then scorned by the very institution he so fervently served... can achieve a legacy even greater and more relevant than those with grander titles and more prestigious origins could, for this world belongs to men who act, and the Constable and the Hand, as efficient in their professions as they were ambitious in their endeavors, never ceased to act, neither beyond a Wall, nor beyond the realm of the dead, and are in part responsible for this world, they helped shaped.
If you've made it this far, thank you for your time and attention, hope you liked it. I know the post it's probably longer than it should, but I wanted it to be as complete as possible and if you have any opinions or comments about it, I'd like to hear them.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this post is to make a comparison of historical characters to those from asoiaf; I don't intend to guess if GRRM was actually inspired by any of this for his work, maybe he was or maybe not, I just like to compare asoiaf with real-life history, official inspiration or not.
Before we began comparing, allow me to introduce you to Don Álvaro de Luna:
Álvaro de Luna, born in 1390 and died in 1453, was a nobleman, military leader, and politician of the Crown of Castile (one of the precursor states of modern-day Spain). He was the most powerful man of his time, having controlled Castilian politics for almost three decades through Juan II, a weak-willed king.
Don Álvaro, born a nobleman but illegitimate, managed to reach the highest echelons of power, dominating the wills and destinies of entire kingdoms. This earned him numerous enemies and a whole dark legend against him, that accused him of using witchcraft and dishonorable methods to achieve his goals, with some true to it, as well as some propaganda nonsense. He did and achieve many a great and impactful things before his eventual fall from grace—which, despite being significant, did not mark the end of his influence.
And today, we will compare him with the equally powerful and equally infamous Lord Bloodraven, Brynden Rivers, Hand of the King and Master of Whisperers.
Final note: I know that Bloodraven served three Kings (Daeron II, Maekar I and Aerys I) and the latter two as Hand of the King, but when talking about his time as Hand, I will focus almost exclusively on his role as Hand of Aerys I since we don't know much about what he did or how he operated under Maekar.
Please, do consider that post it's really long because of its very nature, but I hope it makes up for it by being interesting for you... with all that out of the way, let's begin!
Of noble origins, but bastard born.
Both men were born into prestigious and politically important dynasties, albeit as “illegitimate children.”
Brynden Rivers was born in King's Landing in the year 175 AC, as the bastard son of none other than the King himself, Aegon IV of House Targaryen, and of Lady Melissa of House Blackwood, one of the many mistresses the King would have over the years, and member to an ancient and prestigious house from the Riverlands.
In contrast, Álvaro de Luna was born in in the town of Cañete, in Cuenca, in the year 1390, as the bastard son of the Aragonese nobleman Álvaro Martinez de Luna and Maria Fernandez de Jaraba. His father belonged to the influential family de Luna, which would have a very active and crucial role in Iberian politics at this time, producing a Queen Consort of Aragon, high ranking nobles and prelates, and even an Antipope.
Family drama
While not identical, the family situations of both characters involve extensive family drama.
In Bloodraven's case, his father was the King, and a rather promiscuous one, prone to excess and favoring corrupt courtiers. Through him, he had several half-siblings, with whom he had very diverse relationships, ranging from hatred to love. His rivalry with Aegor Rivers, his passion for Shiera Seastar, and his loyalty to Daeron II, his killing of Daemon Blackfyre and his two eldest sons, are all quite famous or infamous parts of his life.
As for Don Álvaro, his father would come to doubt whether he was truly his son (something Aegon IV also did, but with Daeron II), and would have various half-siblings on both his father's and mother's sides, with different relations. He was a close friend and ally of his maternal half-brother, Juan de Cerezuela, whom he helped become Archbishop of Toledo, but maintained a cold and distant relation with his paternal half-siblings, heirs to the family fortune in Aragon.
The last will of their fathers marked their futures, but in different ways, while Bloodraven was favored by his father's will (he was legitimized), the will of Don Alvaro's father didn't even mention him, leaving him nothing. Both also lost their fathers at a young age: Bloodraven was nine when Aegon IV died, and Don Álvaro seven when his own father died.
Physical appearance and personality
Okay, so no, Don Álvaro wasn't an albino, nor did he had a birthmark that resembled a "raven drawn in blood," but in terms of complexion, as well as presence and reputation, he has quite a few things in common with Bloodraven.
Per the words of GRRM, Lord Bloodraven was:
>«A shade under six feet tall and very thin, gaunt [...] Although he bears the Valyrian blade Dark Sister that once belonged to Aegon's Visenya, his favorite weapon is a tall bone-white weirwood longbow. He is an expert bowman.»
As for Don Álvaro, his contemporary, the poet and historian Fernán Pérez de Guzmán describes him in the following way:
>«He was small in stature and slight of face, but well-proportioned, of good strength, and a very good horseman, quite skilled in arms.»
Regarding presence and reputation, they are described by the aforementioned sources as follows:
Bloodraven:
>«With a grim unforbidding aspect and a sinister reputation as a sorcerer and spymaster.»
Don Álvaro:
>«Very astute in the palace, very witty and well-reasoned, although short of words for he was very discreet; a great dissembler, feigning and cunning, and he greatly excelled in using such arts and tricks, so much so that it seemed natural in him.»
So, we can conclude, based on those descriptions, that both men may have had a physique “atypical” for a warrior (not being the warrior type at first glance), but were very experienced with weapons and not strangers to the battlefield, as well as having a somewhat "dark" reputation associated with political manipulation and being the ideal of a palace courtier, adept like few in the most complex maneuvers of manipulation and intrigues, and perhaps… even something else.
For Don Álvaro, much like Bloodraven, would be accused of being a practitioner of "forbidding magical arts,” as we will see later on.
A youth at court climbing the ladder, thanks mama nuncle.
Both characters developed close ties to the spheres of power as they grew up and held positions at the royal court from a young age. In both cases, this was made possible by the favorable political connections some of their close relatives had with important people.
In Bloodraven's case, it's true he was born at court because he was the King's son, but that alone wasn't enough to guarantee his continued presence there. Consider, for example, the case of his half-brother and rival, Aegor Rivers, whom, given the poor relationship of his maternal relatives with high-ranking members of the court, was quickly sidelined. Therefore, his mother's good relations at court were key to ensure he always had a place there growing up.
In the case of Don Álvaro, he entered the service of the Castilian crown in his adolescence as a page or "doncel" to the then child-king Juan II, thanks to the favorable political connections of his uncle Pedro de Luna, the Archbishop of Toledo, and great-uncle, Antipope Benedict XIII, known as "the Pope Luna,” whom found a place for him at court.
His Majesty's firm right hand.
Both men would eventually reach the highest political position possible by the grace of their King, as recognition of their abilities and loyalty, having both already served steadily for years (Bloodraven had served Daeron II throughout his reign, and Don Álvaro had served Juan II since childhood)
In 209 AC, after his unexpected ascension to the Iron Throne, King Aerys I appointed his bastard uncle, Lord Bloodraven, as his Hand of the King.
In 1423, King Juan II appointed Don Álvaro as Constable of the Kingdom of Castile.
Both positions are equivalent, as they are not hereditary, granted by the King at his discretion to someone he trusts or favors; and represent the role of the monarch's right-hand man, the foremost of his advisors, and also the highest representative of royal authority other than the King himself.
Titles upon titles
The titles of "Hand of the King" and "Constable of the Kingdom" are the most important and highest-ranking that Lord Bloodraven and Don Álvaro held, respectively, but not the only ones.
Both men served their kings in other positions and capacities too.
In Bloodraven's case, in addition to being Hand of the King, he served as Master of Whisperers for Aerys I, thus being responsible for all that the position entailed (being the head of the King's intelligence network and have an eye in all that surrounded him), giving him even more power and control over the realm and it's politics, by merging two powerful and important positions.
For his part, Don Álvaro, besides being Constable, held the position of Grand Master of the Order of Santiago, one of the religious-military orders of the Crown of Castile. This placed under his command one of the most prestigious and elite military organizations in the realm, as well as all the wealth and political power that the Order possessed on its own, so, like Bloodraven, he had greater control over the politics of the realm by merging both titles in one person.
O Captain! My Captain!
Related to the previous point, and having already mentioned that Don Álvaro was also Grand Master of the Order of Santiago, we can draw another parallel: both men commanded elite military groups, particularly close to and loyal to them.
In Bloodraven's case, he had the "Raven's Teeth," his personal guard, and Don Álvaro had the Knights of Santiago, who, although a pre-existing order, forged a strong bond of loyalty towards him.
Furthermore both groups would show their loyalty above all, not only on the battlefield, but in what follows it, deciding to remain faithful to the image of their "captain" even after his fall from grace (Many "Raven's Teeth marched to the Wall with Bloodraven, and many Knights of Santiago protected Don Álvaro's family after his fall from grace)
His Majesty’s thinking head, if needs be, and by God, it needs be.
Both Aerys I and Juan II of Castile, monarchs that our two protagonist served, were considered kings of "weak character," more interested in other pursuits than in the true governance of the kingdom, which they left in the capable but wary hands of their right-hand men, Bloodraven and Don Álvaro.
Thus, much of the tenure of our two protagonists as "right-hand men" to His Majesty consisted more in filling the power vacuum left by a king uninterested in ruling, and in being the true "power behind the throne," rather than being a "supporter" following the directives of an active king.
>«The king's weakness of character, more interested in hunting and scholastic pursuits than in governing, left a void that De Luna skillfully filled.»
~"The King's Dagger: Álvaro de Luna, the King Without a Crown" by Fernando Nadal, circa 2025.
>«Aerys keeps his own apartments, and it is said that he would sooner take a book to bed than any woman." He filled his cup again. "Make no mistake, 'tis Lord Rivers who rules us, with his spells and spies. There is no one to oppose him.»
~ The Sworn Sword
Ruthless and unforgiving... loyalty
As the writer and journalist Fernando Nadal puts it in his work "The King's Dagger: Álvaro de Luna, the King Without a Crown":
>«De Luna never intended to supplant the king, but rather to govern through him, always maintaining the appearance of acting by royal mandate [...] At the same time, historical accounts suggest that he was a man of great determination and ruthlessness when necessary. He did not hesitate to eliminate political enemies when they posed a threat, revealing a pragmatic and, at times, ruthless side.»
A description that also fits Lord Bloodraven like a glove.
Neither of them ever betrayed any of the Kings they served, nor intended to; quite the contrary, they did much of their "dirty work." But they clearly had a decisive and authoritarian character, which especially came to light when serving a King uninterested in governing and deemed weak (Aerys I and Juan II) so much so that they seemed to be more in charge than the King himself.
Thus, they demonstrated a gift for getting things done, with accurate but brutal methods, which would earn them a somewhat questionable reputation, but would also allow them to keep things in order for their monarch’s and the crown’s sake, demonstrating that them acting on their names wasn’t just a “facade” but true loyalty, albeit one that puts them in charge a lot, perhaps thinking themselves more capable to defend such interests.
Well, well, but if it's his Majesty's troublesome cousins; Let's go screw them over! (Comparison The exiled Blackfyres /The Infantes of Aragon)
Both Lord Bloodraven and Don Álvaro had to face a rebellious political party, led by relatives of the King they served, but from another branch of the family (his cousins), with their sights set on His Majesty's throne and taking over the Kingdom.
As you surely know, Bloodraven had the task of dealing with the constant threat the Blackfyres posed to the Targaryen throne from their exile, this in the form of the children of Daemon Blackfyre (cousins of His Majesty Aerys I, as children of his uncle Daemon Blackfyre) and their persistent aspirations to the crown.
For his part, Don Álvaro had the task of confronting the so-called "Infantes of Aragon" (cousins of King Juan II, as children of his uncle Fernando of Antequera, later Fernando I of Aragon), who sought to seize political control of the Crown of Castile in their constant pursuit of the aggrandizement of their personal states and dynasty.
Both groups also have a similar composition. Daemon Blackfyre's children numbered ten, however, bit in exile there were eight Blackfyre children, at least three sons and one daughter. The gender of the others is unknown to us, but assuming that Calla wasn’t an only daughter, there were at least six sons and two daughters. In contrast, the Infantes of Aragon were the seven children of Fernando I of Aragon aka Fernando of Antequera, five sons and two daughters, so there is a similar number of members and even a similar gender ratio.
Also worth mentioning that the policies and most significant actions of these two right-hand men would be conditioned, influenced, or directly dictated by their constant struggle against said political party, which had supporters within the realm's own nobility.
And screw them over, I did.
Certainly, the constant struggle of Bloodraven and Don Álvaro against their aforementioned adversaries was not without setbacks, but it can be considered, in the grand scheme of things, an ultimate political triumph for both of them.
No Blackfyre, despite their multiple rebellions (three of which involved Bloodraven), was able to sit on the Iron Throne, and it was Bloodraven who, in many cases, was a thorn in their side, thwarting their plans. He was the one who ended the lives of Daemon Blackfyre and his sons at Redgrass Field, who arrested Daemon "II" before he could do anything more serious, and who captured his archenemy Aegor Rivers, also known as Bittersteel, after the third rebellion.
Similarly, it was Don Álvaro who ended the aspirations of the Infantes of Aragon, time and time again, despite their many schemes over the years. It was he who defeated them at the First Battle of Olmedo, ending the Castilian Civil War (this battle was his Redgrass Field, if you will), and before that, he thwarted an attempt by one of the Infantes to kidnap King Juan II himself, subsequently imprisoning the Infante. He also confiscated their titles and possessions after failed uprisings (such as Bloodraven with the supporters of House Blackfyre).
When I catch you! (Comparison Aegor Rivers aka Bittersteel/Infante Enrique of Aragon)
Both ministers had a "foil" or "great rival" to their political plans and careers, in both cases a prominent figure from the "rebel" faction (Blackfyres/Infantes of Aragon).
In Bloodraven's case, I believe the man needs little introduction; it's his half-brother Aegor Rivers, aka Bittersteel, one of Daemon Blackfyre's main supporters, and the man who would shoulder the Blackfyre's efforts to seize the throne after the first rebellion and Daemon's death.
In Don Álvaro's case, it's one of the Infantes of Aragon themselves, Enrique of Aragon, his father's third son, younger brother of Alfonso V of Aragon and Juan, King Consort of Navarre, and the most visible and active representative of the Infantes interests within Castile itself, his brothers being more focused on their own estates.
Thus, we can find significant points of comparison:
An evil sorcerer, the devil on the King’s shoulder, and then some more.
Both advisors had rumors circulating about them and how they used "arcane and dark arts" to enforce their will, accusing them of being “the cancer of the realm” for it, but, more specifically, in both cases, there were whispers that they controlled the King they served through “dark enchantments,” or something of the sorts:
>«He rules us now as well, make no mistake. King Aerys is his creature. It would not surprise to learn that Bloodraven had ensorceled His Grace, to bend him to his will. Small wonder we are cursed.»
~ The Sworn Sword
>«The said constable has bound and tied all your [the King’s] bodily and animal powers by magical and devilish enchantments.»
~ Excerpt from the Sentence of Medina del Campo
And while it's true that most of the times the worst version of said rumors was spread by their political enemies or people politically aligned against the faction they served—for example, that quote from The Sworn Sword is said by Ser Eustace Osgrey, a notorious Blackfyre supporter, and the claim that Álvaro de Luna "diabolically bewitched" King Juan II comes from a sentence written by the noble faction he opposed and with whom he was at war—it was not a belief exclusive to these adversaries, with many in the kingdom giving credence to such rumors.
Tampering with the royal line?
Both ministers would also be accused of tampering with the royal family; being held responsible in the eyes of many for the deaths of some of its members, and, in both cases, with the premise of having comited such "murders" to promote their political agenda and accumulate more personal power.
In the case of Bloodraven, beyond his actions against the Blackfyres, who were also his relatives, we can find accusations against him for having "murdered in their mother's womb" the heirs of Prince Valarr Targaryen, as well as insinuations of involvement in the deaths that occurred shortly before or during the Great Spring Sickness, such as those of Prince Baelor "Breakspear", King Daeron II, Prince Matarys, etc.
>«A shadow came at his command to strangle brave Prince Valarr's sons in their mother's womb. Where is our Young Prince now? Where is his brother, sweet Matarys? Where has Good King Daeron gone, and fearless Baelor Breakspear? The grave has claimed them, every one, yet he endures, this pale bird with bloody beak who perches on King Aerys's shoulder and caws into his ear.»
~ Mistery Knight
In the case of Don Álvaro, he would be considered responsible by many for the deaths of Maria of Aragon, Queen of Castile, the first wife of his King, Juan II, and that of her sister, Leonor of Aragon, Queen consort of Portugal (even being formally tried for it by his enemies later, but that in a moment)
>«The bodies of both were equally covered with welts after they died, and therefore it was believed that they had died from poisons, and we also read that in the trial against Don Álvaro de Luna, he was found to have influenced it, by giving herbs to the said Queens»
~ Memoirs of the Catholic Queens, genealogical history of the royal house of Castile and Leon, volume 2; by Enrique Flórez of the Order of Saint Augustine, circa 1761.
In both cases, the alleged murders were also attributed to a "sinister" motivation rooted in political machinations: to accumulate more personal power or to eliminate "political obstacles" to that end.
In the case of Bloodraven we can see the insinuation of why he would do such a thing in the very quote of the accusation, although it's not said "clearly", and that it's "prevailing" over the deceased (who would be the ones on the throne had they lived) in order to now be able to "sit on the shoulder" of the new King, a man considered weak, to "dictate and govern" through him.
In the case of Don Álvaro, the motivations are somewhat clearer, for the queens he supposedly murdered are Maria of Aragon and Leonor of Aragon, sisters of the Infantes of Aragon; Don Álvaro's greatest political enemies and the "proto-Blackfyres" of this comparison. And, as you can imagine, both supported the faction led by their brothers.
Therefore, the implication was that he eliminated them to remove obstacles, and maybe hoped to obtain a Queen more "cooperative" with his aims... which unfourtunately for him didn't happen, as the new Queen would even play a role in his ultimate downfall.
A sentence without court, for the master of them all
The end of our two protagonists political careers was swift, to say the least. Both were still in a good position when suddenly, everything collapsed in an instant and without warning.
In both cases, it was simply a matter of doing what they had been doing for decades, but now with an indisposed king, unwilling to tolerate their actions... a factor that changed everything.
Bloodraven convened a Great Council after Maekar's death, and broke the word he had given to Aenys Blackfyre of safe conduct, instead luring him into a trap to execute yet another Blackfyre pretender... nothing new under the sun, but the newly elected King, Aegon V, was not willing to tolerate it, and sentenced him to death (a sentence that would later be commuted).
In Don Álvaro's case, his mistake was making enemies and confronting high-ranking members of the nobility and the new queen, Isabel of Portugal (nothing new under the sun, he'd been doing the same thing for years with other nobles and another queen). And when one of his trusted men betrayed him, switching sides to the nobility and the queen and revealing some of his secrets, he ordered him assassinated (purging political threats, nothing new here either).
But the nobility and the queen, who had long been trying to turn King Juan II against him, took this as the perfect opportunity and managed to convince him, thus, just days after the assassination, Don Álvaro was arrested, summarily tried on countless charges, and sentenced to death (in his case, the sentence would be carried out, without any commutation)
Until we catch you
In an ironic twist of fate, the downfall of such formidable and almost all-mighty ministers would be linked to their greatest glory: their method of dealing with and eliminating his political enemies, the Blackfyres and the Infantes of Aragon.
Even though the demise of Aenys Blackfyre could be considered yet another victory for Bloodraven in his endless fight againt House Blackfyre, it was his ruthless and even dishonorable methods of dealing with him, and his attempt at a candidacy for the Great Council of 233 that would prompt the new King, Aegon V, to punish him in order to try to save face on behald of the crown.
As for Don Álvaro, one of the most notorious accusations against him (and already discussed in this post) was his involvement in the strange deaths of Queens Maria and Leonor of Aragon, sisters and defenders of the Infantes of Aragon, his enemies; an accusation now used in the trial against him to bring about his downfall.
Thus, although neither the Blackfyres with Bloodraven nor the Infantes of Aragon with Álvaro de Luna could finish them off in open battle, nor take the crown for themselves, they would finally manage to "reach them" in a way, since their final damning sentences were written with the blood of one of their own.
What I did, I did it for the good of the realm, the proud lord said, who now must bow so low…
When confronted by the new King, Aegon V, about the dishonorable death he had given to Aenys Blackfyre by having broken the word of the Iron Throne, Lord Bloodraven proclaimed that he had “sacrificed his personal honor for the good of the realm"
Famous is the anecdote, by which, while Don Álvaro was being led to the gallows, the herald tasked with proclaiming his many "felonies" and "misdeeds," seemed for a moment to have forgotten the speech he had been taught, for instead of mentioning that this was the consequence of the "disservices" that Don Álvaro had rendered to the crown (negative connotation), he mentioned that this was a consequence of the "services" rendered (positive connotation), to which, after hearing him, Don Álvaro exclaimed: “You speak well, son, for the services rendered, this is how they pay me."
Thus, neither of them acknowledged at any time that they had acted wrongly; on the contrary, they claimed to have done what they had to, or what was best, although both accepted their sentences in a rather dignified manner and didn’t really “push back” much.
An ignominious end for such a powerful man
By the time of their "demise", both men had served for decades as their King's right hand.
Bloodraven served two monarchs (Aerys I and Maekar I) as Hand of the King throughout their entire reigns, from 209AC to 233AC, thus holding the position for approximately 24 years.
Don Álvaro served only one king (Juan II) as Constable, but for a slightly longer period than Bloodraven, from 1423 to 1453, 30 years in the position.
After the sentence pronounced against Bloodraven, Aegon V offered to commute it if he would instead don the black and march to the Wall, leaving his entire political career and know life behind, marching as a condemned criminal. Bloodraven accepted this offer and left, never to return... in the same form, at least.
As already mentioned, in the case of Don Álvaro, the sentence was indeed carried out; thus, the man who had truly ruled Castile for decades was beheaded in Valladolid on June 2, 1453, in the name of the very same King he had served since he was a child, marking the end of an era... or not?
Damned with him, damned without him.
Aegon V's reign was not an easy one, beginning with a winter of more than three years; a bleak political landscape; and a reformist king in a rigid society. Perhaps, had he retained the man who once imposed his will and crown's will as needed, especially with a rebellious nobility, he might have achieved better results, even if he disagreed with the methods.
For its part, the death of Don Álvaro greatly strained the atmosphere, as it broke both King Juan II and Queen Isabel of Portugal, and much of the power of the crown itself.
In the King's case, understanding that he had consented to the execution of his great friend and lifelong ally, he ended up dying of grief and remorse barely a year later. And the Queen, who conspired to make it happen, ended up insane, claiming to see the ghost of Don Álvaro, who demanded justice. All of this opened the door to a nobility that constantly challenged the new King, just as they had sought to do with his father, and had already made in past reigns.
The Legacy of the Once and Future Master and Mentor
Like two ghosts haunting the narrative, and though they were gone, Bloodraven and Don Álvaro remained more than present in the future of those kingdoms, their kingdoms, or rather, the kingdoms they ruled as if they were their own.
Bloodraven, after his adventure with the Night's Watch, would go beyond the Wall, only to return in a different form, as if from another life. He was still a raven, but no longer one drawned in blood, but one with a third eye, perhaps a reminder of the one he lost and the thousands he once possessed; to observe, to influence the future of the realm, to utter the words "King. King," to one who perhaps must hear them, and to advise Brandon Stark.
It's true that it's yet uncertain how this will influence the future of Westeros. Perhaps he is shaping Brandon Stark to be the future king, or perhaps Brandon Stark is destined to support and advise the future king or authority figure of Westeros, as Bloodraven himself did in his former life. Perhaps his struggle now involves something greater than a throne made by men for men, but if one thing is certain, it's that whatever impact he leaves in the realm, it will be significant, like everything Bloodraven has ever done.
Don Álvaro, in turn, did not return to rise from the grave, nor did he need to, to leave a tangible and lasting legacy, although his ghost seemed to always accompanied the Queen there after. For just as Bloodraven may now be playing the role of mentor to future kings, or mentor to the mentor of future kings, in Don Álvaro's case, it was a reality.
For, driven by that remorse and madness that the Constable's execution had procured in her, Queen Isabel of Portugal, who had once conspired to end Don Álvaro's life, would end up saving the life of one of his closest friends and former pupil, Don Gonzalo Chacón y Martínez del Castillo, who had been hunted down for unwavering loyalty to Don Álvaro after his fall.
And in turn, Don Gonzalo would become not only the protector and champion of the Dowager Queen and her children, who, after the death of Juan II, suffered aggressions from his eldest son, the new King, Enrique IV, born from his marriage to the late Maria of Aragon, but he would also be the tutor and mentor of those young infantes, as if he were the father they had lost.
And although she was perhaps the least expected person to one day succeed on the throne, Isabel of Portugal's eldest daughter by Juan II, also named Isabel, a ward of Don Gonzalo, would become not only Queen of Castile one day, but one of the greatest monarchs those kingdoms had ever known: Isabel I of Castile, the Catholic Queen, the woman who, alongside her husband, laid the foundations of the Spanish empire, an empire on which the sun never set, and she did so with teachings passed down to her by her tutor, who had acquired them from his own tutor, the Constable who once dare to ruled.
Conclusions: To a large extent, both the story of Don Álvaro and that of Lord Bloodraven are cautionary tales about power, about how playing at being a king without actually being one never ends well, and the importance of not taking to ruthless actions, even for ends we consider just; yes...
But they also show how a man, born a bastard, made an enemy of half a kingdom for protecting his monarch's interests, considered a sorcerer and an ill-born creature, and then scorned by the very institution he so fervently served... can achieve a legacy even greater and more relevant than those with grander titles and more prestigious origins could, for this world belongs to men who act, and the Constable and the Hand, as efficient in their professions as they were ambitious in their endeavors, never ceased to act, neither beyond a Wall, nor beyond the realm of the dead, and are in part responsible for this world, they helped shaped.
If you've made it this far, thank you for your time and attention, hope you liked it. I know the post it's probably longer than it should, but I wanted it to be as complete as possible and if you have any opinions or comments about it, I'd like to hear them.
Literally, lmao. Context in comments.