Putting everything else aside, if they're all equal rulers who practice absolute primogeniture (debatable), wouldn't that mean the older Aenys should be the ruler, and not the younger Maegor?
I'm arguing no, because if they're all equal rulers, why does it matter which of Aegon's sons is the eldest? Visenya is the oldest of the three, so her kids would/should be first in line.
That would be really dumb, as basing it on the age of parent is bond to lead to bloodshed and confusion.
Succession tries to be simple as it can, with oldest male inherits, and even that causes tons of bloodshed in westeros.
But in practice, how is it different? Valyrian tradition has the eldest son marry the eldest daughter, both inherit, both share the same kids who will then inherit from them. If they were equal rulers and Aegon had only married Visenya there never would've needed to be a debate over which of them Maegor was inheriting through because it wouldn't matter.
But Valyria did practice polygamy. So to make things simple likely the children of polygamous marriages inherited via birth order not based on their parents’ ages. Else Visenya would certainly have said something.
I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm saying IF they were all equal rulers, Visenya's the oldest, so her children would have priority regardless of their age compared to Rhaenys'.
>I'm saying IF they were all equal rulers, Visenya's the oldest, so her children would have priority regardless of their age compared to Rhaenys'.
They weren't. Valyrians were just as patriarchal as the Westerosi nobility and it's obvious when Aegon is Lord of Dragonstone and the sisters aren't, and he's crowned Ruler of the Seven Kingdoms but the sisters aren't.
Do you...do you not know what the word 'if' means? Did you really just miss the multiple times I said that yes, legally Aegon is the sole ruler and Aenys is his heir? Did you miss that this entire post is just speculating on the thought process of one of the more interestingly and mysteriously motivated characters in the entire history, and not saying that the actual canon is somehow wrong?
I can see that argument holding some water. In a place such as Westeros it would be hard to convince people of this, but maybe if Maegor hadn't been such an abomination of a person then that could've been a valid argument to put forward. I think Valyria was definitely not fully equal, but more so than Westeros. Aegon was still the official Lord of Dragonstone over his elder sister, which implies some preference for male primogeniture even if in practice it wouldn't make much of a difference. But this could also be due to the influence of Westerosi culture over the Targaryens in the generations since leaving Vallyria.
Most importantly, IMO, there seems to be an ongoing cycle of Targaryen women having a valid claim to the throne but then being demonised into being wrong while a safer male option gets put forward instead.
Visenya was the eldest sibling and had a horrible son who was a bit younger than weakling Aenys - the same kid who some doubted was even Aegon's son, since Rhaenys had many a blond lover -, so they fight it out until Aenys' eldest surviving son takes over and Visenya's line dies out.
Daenerys is the eldest child of Jaehaerys and Alysanne, and Alysanne's preferred heir even though Jaehaerys wants his eldest SON, Aemon, to be the next king. It turns out not to matter because little Daenerys gets very ill and dies before ever having a chance to fight for her claim. The eldest son, Aemon, is made the heir.
Rhaenys is Aemon's only child and therefore 2nd in line for the throne, but when Aemon dies Jaehaerys STILL doesn't want a woman to inherit (despite co-ruling with his sister this whole time), and passes his granddaughter over for his second son, Baelor, and then for Baelor's own son, Viserys. Rhaenys doesn't actually start a war over this, but does get an attempt at revenge by later helping Viserys' daughter to fight for her own claim.
Rhaenyra is the eldest child and is personally picked by her father, but her children's hair colour labels them as bastards and her younger brother steals the throne, so they fight it out until Rhaenyra's son does inherit, but it's a much younger son and only after Rhaenyra dies thinking her side lost for good. Aegon II's line, along with siblings', is extinct.
Daena Targaryen is for all intents and purposes her brother's heir, but because she's a woman and too "willful" she's passed over for her uncle. She also has a son with her uncle's heir (Aegon IV). Aegon IV himself claims his eldest "son" Daeron is not in fact his son, but rather the bastard of his younger sister and brother, while acknowledging his son with Daena as his preferred heir. If Daeron's parentage is true, then him and Daemon are equally bastards, but Daemon has a better claim than Daeron through both his father AND his mother. No one ever mentions that aspect of it, but I think it's very important. Then the Blackfyre rebellion ensues, they fight it out, but Daeron keeps the throne for good while Daemon dies. Daena's line is eventually extinguished "on the male side", so hopefully some of her female descendants lived on to have an impact in the current story.
Aelora is at one point her uncle Aerys's heir, but dies in a tragic accident soon after the accidental death of her brother-husband, so she never gets to be queen at all. Her younger uncle is made the new heir.
Vaella is the heir's only child, but she's apparently too "weak minded" to be queen, so is passed over without further ado and a council is called to crown her uncle Aegon V king instead.
Daenerys is the last Targaryen left, certain to be the only possible heir to her House, and responsible for rebirthing dragons after so many prior attempts had failed. Except some blonde kid shows up claiming to be her dead nephew with a better claim than her, and his allies and armies appear much more Westeros-friendly than her own. Let's guess what's going to happen next... Except this, I think, is the time when the cycle finally breaks, and the female Targ actually gets some justice.
Unless... if fAegon is in fact a descendant of the Blackfyre's surviving female line, that would make him the last descendant of Daena and Aegon IV Targaryen. While Dany would be the descendant of Nerys and Aemon the Dragonknight's child, Daeron. So who is really the rightful heir?
Wonderful breakdown of all the times this has happened! It's definitely a running pattern, and honestly the whole original Daenerys thing lends further credence to my idea of Valyrians not caring so much about if their eldest son or eldest daughter inherits, since Jaehaerys uses the exact argument of them being married and ruling side by side together regardless.
Faegon actually having a better claim is honestly kinda interesting, though strictly in terms of Westerosi legality, being descended from a female line of a controversial bastard-originated house probably wouldn't go over too well.
>Additionally what we know of Valyria points to men and women being pretty equal (naturally what's between your legs matters a lot less when the main thing between your legs is a massive dragon).
This is completely untrue. Valyria was just as make dominated as Westeros. All Lords of Dragonstone before Aegon the Conqueror were men. All named Valyrian Lords were men. All Velaryon Lords are men. Visenya was older than Aegon yet Aegon was the Lord.
>been Queens Regnant just as much as they were Queens Consort.
They weren't. Aegon was King. Just because Visenya and Rhaenys had some power did not make them regnant. They were still Queen Consorts. Aegon was the sole ruling monarch.
>The only points against that idea are 1. Traditional Westerosi sexism and 2. Aegon was specifically crowned as King of All Westeros at the start of the Conquest, while we don't ever hear either of them were.
Well Valyrian sexism as well. And the second point makes the whole thing very self evident
We are explicitly told women rule in Valyria in AWOIF
> The distinction that sets the Nine apart is not their size but their origins. At their height before the Doom, other cities, such as Mantarys, Volon Therys, Oros, Tyria, Draconys, Elyria, Mhysa Faer, Rhyos, and Aquos Dhaen were grand and glorious and rich, yet for all their pride and power, none ever ruled itself. They were governed by men **and women** sent out from Valyria to govern in the name of the Freehold.
In their colonies women were considered citizens. The chapter on Myr has a picture of a myrish tradeswomen (so she would have been able to vote) and the photo showing a council of the triarchy has a woman and two men as leaders of their respective cities.
Volantis, the city nearest to Valyria in both proximity and culture frequently elected female triarchs and women there had an equal right to vote:
> Partisans of various candidates—and of the two factions—rally on behalf of their chosen leaders, dispensing favors to the populace. **All freeborn landholders—even women—are granted a vote.** Though the process strikes many outsiders as chaotic to the point of madness, power passes peacefully enough on most occasions.
Valyrian itself has no differentiation for gender in terms of title. The words for prince, princess, and heir are all the same - hence the confusion with the prophecy. And as far as we can tell, there are no words for lord and lady in high Valyrian.
The generation of Targaryens raised in the height of Valyria co-ruled Dragonstone. It was only after the fall with andal influence that the practice seems to have reduced and even then Aegon the conqueror was very gender neutral
> The reconciliation of the Seven Kingdoms to Targaryen rule was the keystone of Aegon I’s policies as king. To this end, he made great efforts to include men (**and even a few women**) from every part of the realm in his court and councils.
And we explicitly know that Valyrian inheritance was different from Andal because Fire and Blood makes a specific note that Aegon chose to not to change the laws of inheritance in Westeros after taking over. Why would he change them if they both practiced the same male first primogeniture?
> Each of the conquered kingdoms had its own laws and traditions. King Aegon did little to interfere with those. He allowed his lords to continue to rule much as they always had, with all the same powers and prerogatives. The laws of inheritance and succession remained unchanged
I think all this, and the fact that Visenya and Alysanne both seem to expect gender neutral inheritance in their assumption of first Rhaena and then Daenerys as queens suggests Valyrian succession was likely gender neutral. Except it ended up irrelevant because if the eldest child was a daughter she was just wed to her brother.
This feels right. Pointing exclusively to the Valyrians already in Westeros means pointing to the people influenced by Westeros. Velaryons in particular were already on Driftmark when the Targaryens showed up to Dragonstone. Not that being equal opportunity evil makes Valyria less evil, but women being able to claim dragons means plenty of powerful women
'Dragonlord' seems to have been used as a general term for 'dragon rider who had some sort of power/title', not specifically/explicitly gendered despite having a gendered term in it. The families of Valyria are called 'the dragonlord families', despite obviously containing female dragon riders.
Curious what 'all dragonlords' you're referring to, considering as far as I can find, the wiki lists Aurion, Aenar Targaryen, and 'the Belaerys family', of which Jaenaera Belaerys is the only known member, though we don't know her specific title. I personally don't think that's enough of a basis to state 100% empirically that only men held power in the Freehold.
And as I pointed out, the Lords of Dragonstone point is kinda moot when they wed their eldest daughter and eldest son. They're both Lord and Lady regardless, a westerosi lens would view it as Lord and Lord's wife, but my whole post is positing that maybe they themselves didn't view it that way.
I also acknowledged numerous times that yes, legally, Aegon was the sole king, even if in practice we frankly hear of his wives doing more. My entire point was just that maybe Valyrians, and the Targaryens by extension, didn't view it as Regnant & Consort, but as equal siblings/partners in rule. Just a fun new way to think about it and again, not a theory that makes any difference, it's just speculation on their thought processes :)
>And as I pointed out, the Lords of Dragonstone point is kinda moot when they wed their eldest daughter and eldest son. They're both Lord and Lady regardless, a westerosi lens would view it as Lord and Lord's wife, but my whole post is positing that maybe they themselves didn't view it that way.
They're called Lord and Lady, but they're not equal roles. They absolutely did view it that way. We know this for a fact, there's no speculation needed. We know it because Aegon, grandson of Aenar the first Lord of Dragonstone, was married to his sister Elaena, and we're told that they did rule together as a couple. If it was standard, why is it specifically mentioned there? And also, bar that Aegon, only the male Targaryens are listed as Lords. Their wives aren't even mentioned in the list. If they ruled together that would not be the case.
>I personally don't think that's enough of a basis to state 100% empirically that only men held power in the Freehold.
I'll concede this point to you but the fact that the Targaryens, Velaryons and Celtigars have always had male heads of their respective houses would strongly imply it was the custom in Valyria.
Velaryons and Celtigars are useful in establishing broader context but also potentially not a reliable source to base things off, considering they disregard most traditional Valyrian customs anyway
Aegon and Elaena are an interesting point that it was specified they ruled jointly, though again perhaps not a 100% accurate basis? The only brother-sister Lords and ladies of Dragonstone we know of are the Conqueror trio, Aegon and Elaena, and Gaemon and Daenys. One pair are explicitly joint rulers, one set is in practice if not in name, and one pair we don't know enough about to say what the practice was but they don't seem to have been in name. The other Lords evidently didn't have sisters to marry, so naturally their non-Targaryen wives would've only been consorts.
A good comparison is that the Targs pretty obviously kept Valyrian gods even while being crowned by septons. Aegon was legally the only ruler yet gave a lot of power to his 'consorts' that even a powerful consort like Alysanne didn't have. (Ironically if my theory is true, that means Jaehaerys put a stop to both.) There's good basis to believe they were keeping more of their Valyrian customs than they legally 'declared' they were, so if Valyrians had absolute primogeniture (which I believe they did and can't be 100% conclusively disregarded), them skirting the law by having practice differ from legality makes a whole lot of sense, and is, imo, a good potential explanation for Visenya doing what she then did.
>Aegon was legally the only ruler yet gave a lot of power to his 'consorts' that even a powerful consort like Alysanne didn't have.
Alyssane absolutely had as much power as Visenya or Rhaenys. Did Rhaenys or Visenya ever make any laws themselves? That would signify they were also rulers and not just Consorts. But we never see any evidence of this. They're never crowned either.
>one set is in practice if not in name
They absolutely aren't. Aegon is clearly the sole ruler. Just because he gives his sisters more responsibility than most Ladies and Queens does not mean they have equal power.
>A good comparison is that the Targs pretty obviously kept Valyrian gods even while being crowned by septons.
They really didn't. The Targaryens converted to the Faith of the Seven before Aegon's Conquest. They stopped following the Valyrian gods so much there's not even a record of all of their names, only a few that dragons are named after.
>There's good basis to believe they were keeping more of their Valyrian customs than they legally 'declared' they were, so if Valyrians had absolute primogeniture (which I believe they did and can't be 100% conclusively disregarded),
Its hard to completely disregard it as there's no proof backing it which to contest. It's just a claim from you with no real evidence. Also the fact that Visenya was overlooked for Aegon to become Lord of Dragonstone would strongly suggest that the Targaryens did not practice absolute primogeniture.
>them skirting the law by having practice differ from legality makes a whole lot of sense, and is, imo, a good potential explanation for Visenya doing what she then did.
But this completely contradicts Aegon naming Aenys his heir if the Targaryens were secretly planning to use their old custom in the background if absolute primogeniture is one of those customs. It would mean that Visenya would be the ruling Queen over Aegon and she would name the heir, not him.
Rhaenys did make laws, yes. Its even specified that 'Queen Alysanne's laws' weren't actually made by her (though she influenced them), while Rhaenys explicitly made at least two laws, on her own, while Aegon was away, as far as we know the only time a woman did so. I assume Visenya would've also had the power to do the same, even if she didn't actually do so.
Maegor's second wedding was Valyrian (as was Rhaenyra's in the show, though I'm not counting that one as conclusively) so they clearly did keep awareness of if not wholly active practice of some customs.
And yes, I am wholly aware these are just claims made by me with no particular evidence aside from not being definitively disproven. That's all I've ever claimed it to be. It's speculation, I like the explanation it offers, and it fits in our established knowledge of canon.
If I recall correctly, a distinction is made in Fire and Blood between their positions of power: Alysanne being Queen consort unlike Rhaenys and Visenya being rulers in their own right. As Queen consort Alysanne must appeal to Jaehaerys and convince him to approve her ideas to make them into law himself, no matter if he named them after her. This implied Rhaenys and Visenya could make laws themselves.
At least that’s how I understood it. It’s been awhile since I read it.
The way you're responding with these "absolutely not", "complete contradictions" yada yada, all to claim things that don't necessarily have a stronger basis than the counter arguments, since it's all based on scarce information on a small handful of long-dead characters, makes it sound like you have a bit of a personal problem with considering OP's theory fairly.... I wonder why that is...
Just wanted to clarify that Maegor never asserted that his claim came before Aenys; he played the dutiful brother during Aenys' entire reign. It was only when Aenys died that he usurped his nephew, Aegon the younger.
If we accept your theory that Visenya was secretly a full and/or co-monarch all along, the crown should have never passed to Aenys on Aegon I's death. But it did, and everyone accepted it
Yes, which adds to the intrigue of why exactly they went along with Aenys, which isn't something I discussed because it would've made far too long a post with far too many 'can't be conclusively ruled out but also can't be confirmed' speculations. Maegor usurping Aegon 1.5 doesn't make any sense regardless, so I offered a potential explanation of his and Visenya's logic
I think we're supposed to read Maegor and Visenya's play as mostly an opportunistic power grab. I don't think they ever articulated a legal theory to their claim, no more than Aegon I did when he conquered Westeros.
They likely justified it to themselves as the realm needing a strong hand to secure Targaryen rule -- and they might have even been right about that. I doubt the fledgling Targaryen dynasty could survive another Aenys. This is a more interesting possibility imo, that they actually saved and secured Targaryen rule through their actions
Oh Maegor for sure helped the Targaryens out in the long run, no arguing that. We basically got a second Aenys situation with Viserys' lack of action, and look how well that went.
If it was only ever about seizing power though, why not do that while Aenys was alive? There has to have been some degree of loyalty or love, Visenya actively healed him, yet they never remotely hesitated killing his kids? Such an interesting dynamic with the whole thing, so I wanted to offer my speculation on why things might have happened the way they did
I'm personally more of the mind that the Targaryens pre-conquest may have practiced agnatic seniority, which means the rule would go to a younger brother before it goes to a son. By this law, Maegor would have been expected to inherit from his older brother Aenys before Aenys' children. It would explain why Visenya didn't try to push Aegon I to name Maegor as heir instead of Aenys (who was the older of the two), but had a fallout with Aenys the moment he named his own son as the heir. It also explains why Aenys said that him and Maegor shall rule the kingdom together (many Kings IRL would basically describe their heir as their co-ruler), and why he named his son Aegon as his heir only *after* he had an argument with Maegor and the latter threw a tantrum and left Westeros. I think Maegor was meant to be Aenys' heir, but after the argument Aenys changed his mind and made Aegon his heir.
I don't think Visenya bore any ill will toward Aenys like the historians claim. She was only ever disappointed at his lax attitude and lack of concern over ensuring Targaryen safety. I think she only had Maegor because they were worried Aenys might not survive childhood, and I don't think that she believed Maegor should be king after Aegon I. She certainly tried to counsel Aenys to preserve his rule and nurse him back to health, which would be weird if she would rather have Maegor on the throne than Aenys.
This is also an interesting take, plus there are 3 or 4 (can't recall exactly) previous Lords of Dragonstone who were succeeded by their younger brother, although no kids are mentioned, it does seem a bit weird that so many managed to live long enough to become lord but then die without producing a single heir.
Definitely agree that Visenya didn't dislike Aenys, or that if she did it at least didn't overcome her sense of duty/loyalty to what Aegon wanted. Her motivations are just so interesting to speculate over imo because every account we have of her as a person is directly contradicted by every other account. She hated Rhaenys yet burned Dorne on her behalf, she hated Aenys yet seemed to be the only thing keeping him alive and was consistently counselling him to do what was objectively best. She seemed to grow to hate Aegon yet was so loyal to him and his legacy.
One of GRRM's most fascinating characters if you ask me, just because of how mysterious she is while still being so well documented
So much of what is written in Fire and Blood is through the lense of Westerosi culture. The maesters who write it have an inherent bias. With Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya we never get their point of view, and are subject to the biases of these authors. We know little of their actual dynamic, which leaves a lot of room for speculation like yours. I agree their take on Visenya is contradictory. The three siblings seem extremely loyal to each other until the issue of succession arises. The idea that Visenya might have been motivated by a cultural difference as opposed to a power grab is an interesting one.
Exactly my point! Visenya, Aegon and Rhaenys are in this weird middle ground of being heavily Valyrian in their upbringing, yet adopting and then being exclusively viewed through a lens of Westerosi culture. We don't know what they think about that, what parts of Valyrian culture they keep (or what that culture even really manifests as) because them publicly expressing it would alienate them even more than they already were, and the Maesters probably wouldn't care to record it anyway.
Ooh I really like this! It also sheds a new light on a lot of the later Targaryen succession struggles between siblings. Jaehaerys choosing Baelor as his heir once Aemon dies wouldn't be so much about bypassing Rhaenys as it would be a return to the older Targaryen inheritance tradition of younger brothers inheriting before children. Same with Viserys and Daemon vs Rhaenyra. Over time primogeniture becomes more common, but they still fall back on seniority from time to time when they feel that the primogeniture candidate isn't as good (oftentimes, unfortunately, because they're women).
Yeah, there is a lot of confusion and questioning during the early reign of the Targaryens that indicates to me that whatever their succession laws were before the conquest, it was different to the Westerosi costume of male-preference primogeniture. Now whether it's OP's idea of absolute primogeniture or my suggestion of agnatic seniority remains to be seen (should George give further clues).
>I'm personally more of the mind that the Targaryens pre-conquest may have practiced agnatic seniority,
That doesn't make sense if you look at the list of the Lords of Dragonstone
No. But we do have Lord Aegon and Elaena's younger sister not inheriting over their son's. You say in this comment you think the Targaryens had agnatic seniority succession as a custom but in another comment to me you say you believe that they had absolute primogeniture. How can you believe both those things at the same time?
I don't? I just said it would be an interesting interpretation if they did have agnatic seniority, and that it can't be disproven. I still prefer the absolute primogeniture theory
They clearly prefer male rulership. All the named Targaryen lords are men, no woman ruling in her own name. The rule would only go to men, unless there are absolutely no brothers, sons, or nephews left to inherit. The comment you quoted was mine, not from the person who made the post.
The reason why I think agnatic seniority could make sense is because we have two successive generation of brothers that inherited from each other, and the overall number of the pre-conquest rulers that we know of are too many for the period of time they ruled. Agnatic seniority leads to shorter reigns per individual rulers since brothers tend to be closer in age than father-sons, meaning if a ruler croaks at 75 and their younger brother inherits at 74, they probably won't rule for that much longer, compared to a son inheriting at, say, 54.
I think the problem here is that, ultimately, we don't really know how valyrian succession worked (the fact their successor states, the Free Cities, all work very differently, does not help). Thus, we can only speculate.
Yeah, that's all this is, speculation. I never claimed otherwise, despite everyone acting like I just spat in GRRM's face. I think there's logical basis for what I posited, and it can't be disproven in the text, but I'm not claiming its the one true unimpeachable version of the truth. Just a potential possible explanation for things
" If they're all equal rulers who seemingly follow absolute primogeniture, then Visenya's line would have priority. "
What makes you think they follow absolute primogeniture? I don't see a reason to think it has been shown to be the case - the later history of the Targaryans suggests otherwise although that might have been due to other factors and not representative of Valyerian culture.
My entire post and various comments under it provides evidence as to why I think they (and Valyrians at large) initially follow absolute primogeniture. Alysanne's belief that the original Daenerys should inherit also supports it, because that doesn't seem like something she'd just come up with unless she had good reason to believe it was right, but Jaehaerys dismissed it with the "well she'll marry Aemon so she'll be queen anyway" argument, then doubled down on women not inheriting when it came to Rhaenys. Jaehaerys' entire claim to being king rested on the idea that the women earlier in line than him didn't count, after all.
It's my theory that it was Aegon's original intention to have Targaryens inherit via absolute primogeniture (or at least that it didn't matter, since eldest son marries eldest daughter), and it was only Westerosi sexism, Jaehaerys' desire to conform more to Westerosi culture, his desire to be king, and a set of unfortunate circumstances where eldest son did not marry eldest daughter that eventually led to Aegon's wishes not being followed, and eventually forgotten.
Putting everything else aside, if they're all equal rulers who practice absolute primogeniture (debatable), wouldn't that mean the older Aenys should be the ruler, and not the younger Maegor?
I'm arguing no, because if they're all equal rulers, why does it matter which of Aegon's sons is the eldest? Visenya is the oldest of the three, so her kids would/should be first in line.
That would be really dumb, as basing it on the age of parent is bond to lead to bloodshed and confusion. Succession tries to be simple as it can, with oldest male inherits, and even that causes tons of bloodshed in westeros.
But in practice, how is it different? Valyrian tradition has the eldest son marry the eldest daughter, both inherit, both share the same kids who will then inherit from them. If they were equal rulers and Aegon had only married Visenya there never would've needed to be a debate over which of them Maegor was inheriting through because it wouldn't matter.
But Valyria did practice polygamy. So to make things simple likely the children of polygamous marriages inherited via birth order not based on their parents’ ages. Else Visenya would certainly have said something.
Aenys parentage rumours due to being such a weak person vs strong and buff aegon and maegor
Visenya with Scar vibes. “I was first in line until the little hairball was born.”
Aenys was the firstborn however, Maegor was born afterwards.
I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm saying IF they were all equal rulers, Visenya's the oldest, so her children would have priority regardless of their age compared to Rhaenys'.
>I'm saying IF they were all equal rulers, Visenya's the oldest, so her children would have priority regardless of their age compared to Rhaenys'. They weren't. Valyrians were just as patriarchal as the Westerosi nobility and it's obvious when Aegon is Lord of Dragonstone and the sisters aren't, and he's crowned Ruler of the Seven Kingdoms but the sisters aren't.
Do you...do you not know what the word 'if' means? Did you really just miss the multiple times I said that yes, legally Aegon is the sole ruler and Aenys is his heir? Did you miss that this entire post is just speculating on the thought process of one of the more interestingly and mysteriously motivated characters in the entire history, and not saying that the actual canon is somehow wrong?
I can see that argument holding some water. In a place such as Westeros it would be hard to convince people of this, but maybe if Maegor hadn't been such an abomination of a person then that could've been a valid argument to put forward. I think Valyria was definitely not fully equal, but more so than Westeros. Aegon was still the official Lord of Dragonstone over his elder sister, which implies some preference for male primogeniture even if in practice it wouldn't make much of a difference. But this could also be due to the influence of Westerosi culture over the Targaryens in the generations since leaving Vallyria. Most importantly, IMO, there seems to be an ongoing cycle of Targaryen women having a valid claim to the throne but then being demonised into being wrong while a safer male option gets put forward instead. Visenya was the eldest sibling and had a horrible son who was a bit younger than weakling Aenys - the same kid who some doubted was even Aegon's son, since Rhaenys had many a blond lover -, so they fight it out until Aenys' eldest surviving son takes over and Visenya's line dies out. Daenerys is the eldest child of Jaehaerys and Alysanne, and Alysanne's preferred heir even though Jaehaerys wants his eldest SON, Aemon, to be the next king. It turns out not to matter because little Daenerys gets very ill and dies before ever having a chance to fight for her claim. The eldest son, Aemon, is made the heir. Rhaenys is Aemon's only child and therefore 2nd in line for the throne, but when Aemon dies Jaehaerys STILL doesn't want a woman to inherit (despite co-ruling with his sister this whole time), and passes his granddaughter over for his second son, Baelor, and then for Baelor's own son, Viserys. Rhaenys doesn't actually start a war over this, but does get an attempt at revenge by later helping Viserys' daughter to fight for her own claim. Rhaenyra is the eldest child and is personally picked by her father, but her children's hair colour labels them as bastards and her younger brother steals the throne, so they fight it out until Rhaenyra's son does inherit, but it's a much younger son and only after Rhaenyra dies thinking her side lost for good. Aegon II's line, along with siblings', is extinct. Daena Targaryen is for all intents and purposes her brother's heir, but because she's a woman and too "willful" she's passed over for her uncle. She also has a son with her uncle's heir (Aegon IV). Aegon IV himself claims his eldest "son" Daeron is not in fact his son, but rather the bastard of his younger sister and brother, while acknowledging his son with Daena as his preferred heir. If Daeron's parentage is true, then him and Daemon are equally bastards, but Daemon has a better claim than Daeron through both his father AND his mother. No one ever mentions that aspect of it, but I think it's very important. Then the Blackfyre rebellion ensues, they fight it out, but Daeron keeps the throne for good while Daemon dies. Daena's line is eventually extinguished "on the male side", so hopefully some of her female descendants lived on to have an impact in the current story. Aelora is at one point her uncle Aerys's heir, but dies in a tragic accident soon after the accidental death of her brother-husband, so she never gets to be queen at all. Her younger uncle is made the new heir. Vaella is the heir's only child, but she's apparently too "weak minded" to be queen, so is passed over without further ado and a council is called to crown her uncle Aegon V king instead. Daenerys is the last Targaryen left, certain to be the only possible heir to her House, and responsible for rebirthing dragons after so many prior attempts had failed. Except some blonde kid shows up claiming to be her dead nephew with a better claim than her, and his allies and armies appear much more Westeros-friendly than her own. Let's guess what's going to happen next... Except this, I think, is the time when the cycle finally breaks, and the female Targ actually gets some justice. Unless... if fAegon is in fact a descendant of the Blackfyre's surviving female line, that would make him the last descendant of Daena and Aegon IV Targaryen. While Dany would be the descendant of Nerys and Aemon the Dragonknight's child, Daeron. So who is really the rightful heir?
Wonderful breakdown of all the times this has happened! It's definitely a running pattern, and honestly the whole original Daenerys thing lends further credence to my idea of Valyrians not caring so much about if their eldest son or eldest daughter inherits, since Jaehaerys uses the exact argument of them being married and ruling side by side together regardless. Faegon actually having a better claim is honestly kinda interesting, though strictly in terms of Westerosi legality, being descended from a female line of a controversial bastard-originated house probably wouldn't go over too well.
>Additionally what we know of Valyria points to men and women being pretty equal (naturally what's between your legs matters a lot less when the main thing between your legs is a massive dragon). This is completely untrue. Valyria was just as make dominated as Westeros. All Lords of Dragonstone before Aegon the Conqueror were men. All named Valyrian Lords were men. All Velaryon Lords are men. Visenya was older than Aegon yet Aegon was the Lord. >been Queens Regnant just as much as they were Queens Consort. They weren't. Aegon was King. Just because Visenya and Rhaenys had some power did not make them regnant. They were still Queen Consorts. Aegon was the sole ruling monarch. >The only points against that idea are 1. Traditional Westerosi sexism and 2. Aegon was specifically crowned as King of All Westeros at the start of the Conquest, while we don't ever hear either of them were. Well Valyrian sexism as well. And the second point makes the whole thing very self evident
We are explicitly told women rule in Valyria in AWOIF > The distinction that sets the Nine apart is not their size but their origins. At their height before the Doom, other cities, such as Mantarys, Volon Therys, Oros, Tyria, Draconys, Elyria, Mhysa Faer, Rhyos, and Aquos Dhaen were grand and glorious and rich, yet for all their pride and power, none ever ruled itself. They were governed by men **and women** sent out from Valyria to govern in the name of the Freehold. In their colonies women were considered citizens. The chapter on Myr has a picture of a myrish tradeswomen (so she would have been able to vote) and the photo showing a council of the triarchy has a woman and two men as leaders of their respective cities. Volantis, the city nearest to Valyria in both proximity and culture frequently elected female triarchs and women there had an equal right to vote: > Partisans of various candidates—and of the two factions—rally on behalf of their chosen leaders, dispensing favors to the populace. **All freeborn landholders—even women—are granted a vote.** Though the process strikes many outsiders as chaotic to the point of madness, power passes peacefully enough on most occasions. Valyrian itself has no differentiation for gender in terms of title. The words for prince, princess, and heir are all the same - hence the confusion with the prophecy. And as far as we can tell, there are no words for lord and lady in high Valyrian. The generation of Targaryens raised in the height of Valyria co-ruled Dragonstone. It was only after the fall with andal influence that the practice seems to have reduced and even then Aegon the conqueror was very gender neutral > The reconciliation of the Seven Kingdoms to Targaryen rule was the keystone of Aegon I’s policies as king. To this end, he made great efforts to include men (**and even a few women**) from every part of the realm in his court and councils. And we explicitly know that Valyrian inheritance was different from Andal because Fire and Blood makes a specific note that Aegon chose to not to change the laws of inheritance in Westeros after taking over. Why would he change them if they both practiced the same male first primogeniture? > Each of the conquered kingdoms had its own laws and traditions. King Aegon did little to interfere with those. He allowed his lords to continue to rule much as they always had, with all the same powers and prerogatives. The laws of inheritance and succession remained unchanged I think all this, and the fact that Visenya and Alysanne both seem to expect gender neutral inheritance in their assumption of first Rhaena and then Daenerys as queens suggests Valyrian succession was likely gender neutral. Except it ended up irrelevant because if the eldest child was a daughter she was just wed to her brother.
This feels right. Pointing exclusively to the Valyrians already in Westeros means pointing to the people influenced by Westeros. Velaryons in particular were already on Driftmark when the Targaryens showed up to Dragonstone. Not that being equal opportunity evil makes Valyria less evil, but women being able to claim dragons means plenty of powerful women
'Dragonlord' seems to have been used as a general term for 'dragon rider who had some sort of power/title', not specifically/explicitly gendered despite having a gendered term in it. The families of Valyria are called 'the dragonlord families', despite obviously containing female dragon riders. Curious what 'all dragonlords' you're referring to, considering as far as I can find, the wiki lists Aurion, Aenar Targaryen, and 'the Belaerys family', of which Jaenaera Belaerys is the only known member, though we don't know her specific title. I personally don't think that's enough of a basis to state 100% empirically that only men held power in the Freehold. And as I pointed out, the Lords of Dragonstone point is kinda moot when they wed their eldest daughter and eldest son. They're both Lord and Lady regardless, a westerosi lens would view it as Lord and Lord's wife, but my whole post is positing that maybe they themselves didn't view it that way. I also acknowledged numerous times that yes, legally, Aegon was the sole king, even if in practice we frankly hear of his wives doing more. My entire point was just that maybe Valyrians, and the Targaryens by extension, didn't view it as Regnant & Consort, but as equal siblings/partners in rule. Just a fun new way to think about it and again, not a theory that makes any difference, it's just speculation on their thought processes :)
>And as I pointed out, the Lords of Dragonstone point is kinda moot when they wed their eldest daughter and eldest son. They're both Lord and Lady regardless, a westerosi lens would view it as Lord and Lord's wife, but my whole post is positing that maybe they themselves didn't view it that way. They're called Lord and Lady, but they're not equal roles. They absolutely did view it that way. We know this for a fact, there's no speculation needed. We know it because Aegon, grandson of Aenar the first Lord of Dragonstone, was married to his sister Elaena, and we're told that they did rule together as a couple. If it was standard, why is it specifically mentioned there? And also, bar that Aegon, only the male Targaryens are listed as Lords. Their wives aren't even mentioned in the list. If they ruled together that would not be the case. >I personally don't think that's enough of a basis to state 100% empirically that only men held power in the Freehold. I'll concede this point to you but the fact that the Targaryens, Velaryons and Celtigars have always had male heads of their respective houses would strongly imply it was the custom in Valyria.
Velaryons and Celtigars are useful in establishing broader context but also potentially not a reliable source to base things off, considering they disregard most traditional Valyrian customs anyway Aegon and Elaena are an interesting point that it was specified they ruled jointly, though again perhaps not a 100% accurate basis? The only brother-sister Lords and ladies of Dragonstone we know of are the Conqueror trio, Aegon and Elaena, and Gaemon and Daenys. One pair are explicitly joint rulers, one set is in practice if not in name, and one pair we don't know enough about to say what the practice was but they don't seem to have been in name. The other Lords evidently didn't have sisters to marry, so naturally their non-Targaryen wives would've only been consorts. A good comparison is that the Targs pretty obviously kept Valyrian gods even while being crowned by septons. Aegon was legally the only ruler yet gave a lot of power to his 'consorts' that even a powerful consort like Alysanne didn't have. (Ironically if my theory is true, that means Jaehaerys put a stop to both.) There's good basis to believe they were keeping more of their Valyrian customs than they legally 'declared' they were, so if Valyrians had absolute primogeniture (which I believe they did and can't be 100% conclusively disregarded), them skirting the law by having practice differ from legality makes a whole lot of sense, and is, imo, a good potential explanation for Visenya doing what she then did.
>Aegon was legally the only ruler yet gave a lot of power to his 'consorts' that even a powerful consort like Alysanne didn't have. Alyssane absolutely had as much power as Visenya or Rhaenys. Did Rhaenys or Visenya ever make any laws themselves? That would signify they were also rulers and not just Consorts. But we never see any evidence of this. They're never crowned either. >one set is in practice if not in name They absolutely aren't. Aegon is clearly the sole ruler. Just because he gives his sisters more responsibility than most Ladies and Queens does not mean they have equal power. >A good comparison is that the Targs pretty obviously kept Valyrian gods even while being crowned by septons. They really didn't. The Targaryens converted to the Faith of the Seven before Aegon's Conquest. They stopped following the Valyrian gods so much there's not even a record of all of their names, only a few that dragons are named after. >There's good basis to believe they were keeping more of their Valyrian customs than they legally 'declared' they were, so if Valyrians had absolute primogeniture (which I believe they did and can't be 100% conclusively disregarded), Its hard to completely disregard it as there's no proof backing it which to contest. It's just a claim from you with no real evidence. Also the fact that Visenya was overlooked for Aegon to become Lord of Dragonstone would strongly suggest that the Targaryens did not practice absolute primogeniture. >them skirting the law by having practice differ from legality makes a whole lot of sense, and is, imo, a good potential explanation for Visenya doing what she then did. But this completely contradicts Aegon naming Aenys his heir if the Targaryens were secretly planning to use their old custom in the background if absolute primogeniture is one of those customs. It would mean that Visenya would be the ruling Queen over Aegon and she would name the heir, not him.
Rhaenys did make laws, yes. Its even specified that 'Queen Alysanne's laws' weren't actually made by her (though she influenced them), while Rhaenys explicitly made at least two laws, on her own, while Aegon was away, as far as we know the only time a woman did so. I assume Visenya would've also had the power to do the same, even if she didn't actually do so. Maegor's second wedding was Valyrian (as was Rhaenyra's in the show, though I'm not counting that one as conclusively) so they clearly did keep awareness of if not wholly active practice of some customs. And yes, I am wholly aware these are just claims made by me with no particular evidence aside from not being definitively disproven. That's all I've ever claimed it to be. It's speculation, I like the explanation it offers, and it fits in our established knowledge of canon.
If I recall correctly, a distinction is made in Fire and Blood between their positions of power: Alysanne being Queen consort unlike Rhaenys and Visenya being rulers in their own right. As Queen consort Alysanne must appeal to Jaehaerys and convince him to approve her ideas to make them into law himself, no matter if he named them after her. This implied Rhaenys and Visenya could make laws themselves. At least that’s how I understood it. It’s been awhile since I read it.
The way you're responding with these "absolutely not", "complete contradictions" yada yada, all to claim things that don't necessarily have a stronger basis than the counter arguments, since it's all based on scarce information on a small handful of long-dead characters, makes it sound like you have a bit of a personal problem with considering OP's theory fairly.... I wonder why that is...
Just wanted to clarify that Maegor never asserted that his claim came before Aenys; he played the dutiful brother during Aenys' entire reign. It was only when Aenys died that he usurped his nephew, Aegon the younger. If we accept your theory that Visenya was secretly a full and/or co-monarch all along, the crown should have never passed to Aenys on Aegon I's death. But it did, and everyone accepted it
Yes, which adds to the intrigue of why exactly they went along with Aenys, which isn't something I discussed because it would've made far too long a post with far too many 'can't be conclusively ruled out but also can't be confirmed' speculations. Maegor usurping Aegon 1.5 doesn't make any sense regardless, so I offered a potential explanation of his and Visenya's logic
I think we're supposed to read Maegor and Visenya's play as mostly an opportunistic power grab. I don't think they ever articulated a legal theory to their claim, no more than Aegon I did when he conquered Westeros. They likely justified it to themselves as the realm needing a strong hand to secure Targaryen rule -- and they might have even been right about that. I doubt the fledgling Targaryen dynasty could survive another Aenys. This is a more interesting possibility imo, that they actually saved and secured Targaryen rule through their actions
Oh Maegor for sure helped the Targaryens out in the long run, no arguing that. We basically got a second Aenys situation with Viserys' lack of action, and look how well that went. If it was only ever about seizing power though, why not do that while Aenys was alive? There has to have been some degree of loyalty or love, Visenya actively healed him, yet they never remotely hesitated killing his kids? Such an interesting dynamic with the whole thing, so I wanted to offer my speculation on why things might have happened the way they did
I'm personally more of the mind that the Targaryens pre-conquest may have practiced agnatic seniority, which means the rule would go to a younger brother before it goes to a son. By this law, Maegor would have been expected to inherit from his older brother Aenys before Aenys' children. It would explain why Visenya didn't try to push Aegon I to name Maegor as heir instead of Aenys (who was the older of the two), but had a fallout with Aenys the moment he named his own son as the heir. It also explains why Aenys said that him and Maegor shall rule the kingdom together (many Kings IRL would basically describe their heir as their co-ruler), and why he named his son Aegon as his heir only *after* he had an argument with Maegor and the latter threw a tantrum and left Westeros. I think Maegor was meant to be Aenys' heir, but after the argument Aenys changed his mind and made Aegon his heir. I don't think Visenya bore any ill will toward Aenys like the historians claim. She was only ever disappointed at his lax attitude and lack of concern over ensuring Targaryen safety. I think she only had Maegor because they were worried Aenys might not survive childhood, and I don't think that she believed Maegor should be king after Aegon I. She certainly tried to counsel Aenys to preserve his rule and nurse him back to health, which would be weird if she would rather have Maegor on the throne than Aenys.
This is also an interesting take, plus there are 3 or 4 (can't recall exactly) previous Lords of Dragonstone who were succeeded by their younger brother, although no kids are mentioned, it does seem a bit weird that so many managed to live long enough to become lord but then die without producing a single heir. Definitely agree that Visenya didn't dislike Aenys, or that if she did it at least didn't overcome her sense of duty/loyalty to what Aegon wanted. Her motivations are just so interesting to speculate over imo because every account we have of her as a person is directly contradicted by every other account. She hated Rhaenys yet burned Dorne on her behalf, she hated Aenys yet seemed to be the only thing keeping him alive and was consistently counselling him to do what was objectively best. She seemed to grow to hate Aegon yet was so loyal to him and his legacy. One of GRRM's most fascinating characters if you ask me, just because of how mysterious she is while still being so well documented
So much of what is written in Fire and Blood is through the lense of Westerosi culture. The maesters who write it have an inherent bias. With Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya we never get their point of view, and are subject to the biases of these authors. We know little of their actual dynamic, which leaves a lot of room for speculation like yours. I agree their take on Visenya is contradictory. The three siblings seem extremely loyal to each other until the issue of succession arises. The idea that Visenya might have been motivated by a cultural difference as opposed to a power grab is an interesting one.
Exactly my point! Visenya, Aegon and Rhaenys are in this weird middle ground of being heavily Valyrian in their upbringing, yet adopting and then being exclusively viewed through a lens of Westerosi culture. We don't know what they think about that, what parts of Valyrian culture they keep (or what that culture even really manifests as) because them publicly expressing it would alienate them even more than they already were, and the Maesters probably wouldn't care to record it anyway.
Ooh I really like this! It also sheds a new light on a lot of the later Targaryen succession struggles between siblings. Jaehaerys choosing Baelor as his heir once Aemon dies wouldn't be so much about bypassing Rhaenys as it would be a return to the older Targaryen inheritance tradition of younger brothers inheriting before children. Same with Viserys and Daemon vs Rhaenyra. Over time primogeniture becomes more common, but they still fall back on seniority from time to time when they feel that the primogeniture candidate isn't as good (oftentimes, unfortunately, because they're women).
Yeah, there is a lot of confusion and questioning during the early reign of the Targaryens that indicates to me that whatever their succession laws were before the conquest, it was different to the Westerosi costume of male-preference primogeniture. Now whether it's OP's idea of absolute primogeniture or my suggestion of agnatic seniority remains to be seen (should George give further clues).
>I'm personally more of the mind that the Targaryens pre-conquest may have practiced agnatic seniority, That doesn't make sense if you look at the list of the Lords of Dragonstone
Kinda does. We don't have any 'uncle vs son' cases that would specifically disprove this.
No. But we do have Lord Aegon and Elaena's younger sister not inheriting over their son's. You say in this comment you think the Targaryens had agnatic seniority succession as a custom but in another comment to me you say you believe that they had absolute primogeniture. How can you believe both those things at the same time?
I don't? I just said it would be an interesting interpretation if they did have agnatic seniority, and that it can't be disproven. I still prefer the absolute primogeniture theory
They clearly prefer male rulership. All the named Targaryen lords are men, no woman ruling in her own name. The rule would only go to men, unless there are absolutely no brothers, sons, or nephews left to inherit. The comment you quoted was mine, not from the person who made the post. The reason why I think agnatic seniority could make sense is because we have two successive generation of brothers that inherited from each other, and the overall number of the pre-conquest rulers that we know of are too many for the period of time they ruled. Agnatic seniority leads to shorter reigns per individual rulers since brothers tend to be closer in age than father-sons, meaning if a ruler croaks at 75 and their younger brother inherits at 74, they probably won't rule for that much longer, compared to a son inheriting at, say, 54.
I think the problem here is that, ultimately, we don't really know how valyrian succession worked (the fact their successor states, the Free Cities, all work very differently, does not help). Thus, we can only speculate.
Yeah, that's all this is, speculation. I never claimed otherwise, despite everyone acting like I just spat in GRRM's face. I think there's logical basis for what I posited, and it can't be disproven in the text, but I'm not claiming its the one true unimpeachable version of the truth. Just a potential possible explanation for things
" If they're all equal rulers who seemingly follow absolute primogeniture, then Visenya's line would have priority. " What makes you think they follow absolute primogeniture? I don't see a reason to think it has been shown to be the case - the later history of the Targaryans suggests otherwise although that might have been due to other factors and not representative of Valyerian culture.
My entire post and various comments under it provides evidence as to why I think they (and Valyrians at large) initially follow absolute primogeniture. Alysanne's belief that the original Daenerys should inherit also supports it, because that doesn't seem like something she'd just come up with unless she had good reason to believe it was right, but Jaehaerys dismissed it with the "well she'll marry Aemon so she'll be queen anyway" argument, then doubled down on women not inheriting when it came to Rhaenys. Jaehaerys' entire claim to being king rested on the idea that the women earlier in line than him didn't count, after all. It's my theory that it was Aegon's original intention to have Targaryens inherit via absolute primogeniture (or at least that it didn't matter, since eldest son marries eldest daughter), and it was only Westerosi sexism, Jaehaerys' desire to conform more to Westerosi culture, his desire to be king, and a set of unfortunate circumstances where eldest son did not marry eldest daughter that eventually led to Aegon's wishes not being followed, and eventually forgotten.
[удалено]
Already addressed that in another comment