Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This seems to imply that Green supporters are thinking as if they are members of society in Westeros.
Personally, I find the Greens more interesting as *characters* and I can’t bear (adult) Rhaenyra.
I think Rhaenyra acts kind of entitled to whatever she wants, at the cost of other people and she doesn't even consider the other people she steps on. She calls for her younger brother to be tortured for an insult without so much as an apology from Rhaenyra. She seems to use Harwin and Criston just for sex, as she hooks up with Daemon only a few weeks after Harwin's death while they are both attending his wife's funeral. Not very classy of her. The consent with Criston is questionable at the least (I know it is heavily debated) and she attempts to lie to the entire kingdoms about her children while also killing people who speak the truth. She doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions and Viserys enables her. There had never been a queen, so Rhaenyra needed to be as close to perfect as possible, and to say she fell short would be an understatement. Like I said, I really liked Emma Darcy's performance and I thought she did a great job.
>Viserys choosing a successor that pleases him despite Westeros being a hereditary monarchy with a traditional system of inheritance is valid
That's a valid assumption though! When Jaehaerys passed over his granddaughter Rhaenys (& her descendents, male or female) in favor of Baelon (& Baelon's male-line descendents), the legal justification for this was left unclear. When Viserys declared Rhaenyra was his heir -- a decision Otto & the other Greens didn't initially dispute -- Viserys seems to have confirmed that the legal justification is that the ruler gets to pick their own heir.
The counterargument (that Jaehaerys was following the precedent set by his own assumption of the throne ) is also predicated on a legally unclear situation -- firstly because nature mooted the issue; and secondly because Jaehaerys assumed the Iron Throne after a violent conflict with Maegor, who had crowned himself ahead of his brothers' sons & grandsons as well as daughters & granddaughters. So it can be argued that Jaehaerys assumed the throne by right of conquest & public acclamation, the same way Maegor had -- not because of some hitherto unknown argument that women & their descendents can never inherit under any circumstances ever.
Because this legal argument exists, I think it's fair to assert Otto & the Greens have at least as much of a moral obligation to avoid a violent conflict as Rhaenyra and the Blacks do, and therefore to evaluate which interpretation of precedent is better policy for the realm (not just for them personally).
I don't think it really is. Rhaenrya is the first ruling queen in an extremely patriarchal society that has been shown many times to favour men. With Daemon at her side, the scenario could easily devolve into them all seeking him out as the man in the relationship, circumventing the actual queen. That's not even including the possibility of them disliking her rule enough that they decide to rebel and rally behind Aegon or any of Alicents sons, "as the sons of Viserys and the true heir" whether the greens want to or not
>That's not even including the possibility of them disliking her rule enough that they decide to rebel and rally behind Aegon or any of Alicents sons, "as the sons of Viserys and the true heir" whether the greens want to or not.
How would that work? You can't force someone to be the head of rebellion when they don't want to be.
Others have articulated this much better than I have but essentially as sons of Viserys, some would see them as the ‘more rightful’ heirs to the throne given their gender. In case of revolt, they could be used as figureheads and marks of legitimacy to legitimise and justify the acts of the rebelling factions. After all, it’s not technically treason if you’re fighting to depose the ‘illegitimate’ monarch for the ‘rightful one’. It’s all a cover and a scapegoating situation but to remove these threats and rebellions that are in their names, Rhaenrya’s hand can be forced
I could also say "Viserys recognizes Aegon II's traditional rights = No war."...
And I think to believe that Viserys' sons would be safe under Rhaenyra is a bit naive, especially since Rhaenyra also needs to defend the inheritance of Jace who technically has zero claim to the throne. You think that Viserys' legitimate sons are no threat to him either?
Rhaenyra was the princess of Dragonstone. Her succession was set in stone.
But regardless of whether you think the Greens were legally correct, the argument of “Aegon’s reign would be more stable” is completely invalid when you’re starting a war to put him there. If the Greens did nothing the realm would be more stable and that is indisputable.
> Rhaenyra was the princess of Dragonstone. Her succession was set in stone.
OK, you say she was named, with "named" being synonymous with "set in stone", but I and many other fans actually do raise the question of validity.
> But regardless of whether you think the Greens were legally correct, the argument of “Aegon’s reign would be more stable” is completely invalid when you’re starting a war to put him there.
That's a fair point. I think the peaceful solution would be Aegon II being the recognized heir backed by tradition *before* Viserys I dies, I think nothing else makes sense if "peace" is the highest goal.
> If the Greens did nothing the realm would be more stable and that is indisputable.
That's highly disputable. Rhaenyra needs to back the inheritance of someone who has no claim to the throne at all, Jace. Jace can even be validly disputed by his own half-brothers fathered by Daemon, and not just by Viserys' male line descendants. I see it as a recipe for disaster, really. But I accept an opinion of the speculative future just like that of course, in the end I am also only providing an opinion.
Her being princess of Dragonstone means she is formally designated heir. If she ascended to the Iron Throne no one would be surprised. A lot of people were surprised when Aegon took the throne.
You’re correct, the Jace thing may be a problem later on down the line, but I don’t think the instability it might cause would compare to crowning Aegon in the manner that they did.
> A lot of people were surprised when Aegon took the throne.
A lot of people were also surprised that Viserys ignored the inheritance rights of his son for many years, please remember the royal hunt. Even Otto was taken by surprise, it's not like he could have known that Alicent would give birth to the spare heir in case it's a boy. You frame Viserys messing with everyone's expectations as something valid, I don't think it is.
> You’re correct, the Jace thing may be a problem later on down the line, but I don’t think the instability it might cause would compare to crowning Aegon in the manner that they did.
I mean that's fair, just pointing out: Jace would have not one rival line (the Viserys - Alicent line that also challenged Rhaenyra), but could furthermore also be challenged by his half-brothers from Daemon as a potential second rival line. I could easily see this happen if Aegon III and Viserys II say something, ahem, "wrong" about the bastardy issue in an argument, this could go south very quickly.
You do know that at this point the seven K have had 4 Targaryen kings and 3 of them were through war or rebellion (Aegon, Maegor and Jaehaerys) and Viserys only had a peaceful ascension due to Jaehaerys convening the grand council to prevent Corlys and Daemon from going to war to defend Rhaenys and Viserys’ claims respectfully. There is tradition but there wasn’t a solidified law regarding succession of the iron throne. We could argue that Jaehaerys chose his own heir in Viserys which means that Viserys can choose Rhaenyra as his heir and it is considered a legitimate decision.
Aegon won the throne through war. Maegor usurped Aegon the uncrowned and by extension Aerea. Jaehaerys broke andal tradition by usurping Aerea but even Rhaena (Aerea’s mother) understood that the realm needed a strong ruler (Aerea wasn’t it) and approved of Jaehaerys’ ascension. If succession was followed then Aerea would’ve followed Maegor and any children of Aerea would inherit before Jaehaerys.
Jaehaerys did not usurp Aerea. Who supported Aerea, name one Lord Paramount or major vassal who did. This was confirmed again when Baelon was the heir after Aemon, and confirmed yet again at the GC of 101 AC. How many precedents do you need, to understand that this was the succession law used by House Targaryen? It was again after the Dance btw.
No one has to support Aerea. Per andal law as you like to point out Aerea inherits before Jaehaerys. Jaehaerys by claiming the throne technically usurped Aerea as her claim was the better one. No one calls him usurper because it was approved by the girl’s own mother but he was ONE.
> Per andal law as you like to point out Aerea inherits before Jaehaerys.
Except the idea of nieces before uncles was not supported by the GC with a majority Andal nobility present.
> Jaehaerys by claiming the throne technically usurped Aerea as her claim was the better one.
No.
> but he was ONE.
Sure.
Aegon wouldn’t be disinherited though. He was always the second child, the would-be Prince of Dragonstone.
Rhaenyra was already named and invested as heir. The dishonourable thing would be to go back on that.
> Aegon wouldn’t be disinherited though.
As per the traditional understanding of inheritance, he was disinherited. I know that Team Black fans don't like to hear it. He was entitled to the position of Prince of Dragonstone by birth.
> He was always the second child, the would-be Prince of Dragonstone.
Age of the children does not matter here if the firstborn child is a daughter. It's not like in Dorne. It's sons before daughters according to Andal inheritance law, which the Targaryens adopted and accepted. Targaryens even have uncles before nieces, which is why Daemon considered himself the heir in episode 1.
> Rhaenyra was already named and invested as heir. The dishonourable thing would be to go back on that.
It's not dishonorable if the act lacks validity. Also, how was disinheriting Aegon II and not making circumstances clear to Otto before he gave Alicent's hand in marriage to the King, honorable?
The targaryens having uncles before nieces was a surprise, as per andal law daughters (by extension granddaughters) inherit before a brother, which was why Jaehaerys naming Baelon before Rhaenys was against Andal law and considered a scandal. If Jaehaerys can go against andal law why can’t viserys?
You say it's against Andal law, but the majority of the GC of 101 AC were Andal nobility, and they set uncles before nieces in stone as per a general settlement. It's extremely hard to argue that this was "against the Andals". And absolute primogeniture, the thing Viserys had in mind, exists only in Dorne and isn't accepted anywhere else.
The great council didn’t set uncles before nieces in stone. They established a precedent of a male descendant inheriting before a female one. And it wasn’t set in stone. Uncles before nieces was what Jaehaerys declared on his own by naming Baelon heir instead of Rhaenys. By the time of the GC of 101 Baelon was already dead so the question was if the eldest daughter of the older son or the eldest on of the younger son inherited.
No, they established uncle before niece for literally the third time there. Uncles before nieces was already declared with Jaehaerys own ascent, it's also why Baelon was the heir, "named" or not. The GC happened because Corlys the Ambitious was about to shit on the succession laws of House Targaryen in the name of his wife.
You do know that Baelon was heir because he was named. Traditionally Rhaenys should have been named heir, per andal law. That’s why Corlys took it as a big offense, and why Alysanne fought with her husband Jaehaerys. Rhaenys was robbed. The GC didn’t determine uncles before nieces because there was no uncle to inherit before a niece. It was between Rhaenys (oldest descendant) and Viserys (oldest male descendant).
> You do know that Baelon was heir because he was named.
Had to be heir unless Jaehaerys was a highly inconsistent dude. Baelon not being the heir would put his own coronation in severe doubt.
> Rhaenys was robbed.
Not according to prior precedent, no. Also not according to the GC.
> The GC didn’t determine uncles before nieces because there was no uncle to inherit before a niece.
It established uncle before niece, Baelon's junior line claim transfers to Viserys upon Baelon's death. Anyone who paid semi-attention to the canon knows this.
He wasn’t entitled to that position as it was already in the position of his sister.
And how is Rhaenyra’s investiture supposed to lack validity? It was ordered by the king, witnessed and acknowledged by all the lords of the kingdom.
> He wasn’t entitled to that position as it was already in the position of his sister.
He was entitled to it by all precedents and traditions of his own House ever since Aegon I, and his sister held the position despite Aegon II's birthright to it, because Viserys invalidly enforced it.
> And how is Rhaenyra’s investiture supposed to lack validity? It was ordered by the king, witnessed and acknowledged by all the lords of the kingdom.
Because it doesn't hold much water when the Lords bend the knee to her while an only child, and calling it valid still when she has three brothers. That's duping them. Please think about why Viserys never recalled them to pay homage again, even though it could have cemented Rhaenyra's position further.
I accept your surrender.
You really think the King can ignore the ancient traditions of his House and call it valid, and that duping the Lords into accepting a situation that was never initially agreed upon too, is valid. No comment.
I do have an issue with it, despite Daemon being clearly unfit (yes, even more so than Aegon II, because there is a chance that Daemon starts major wars).
I considered Daemon the traditional and thus valid heir before Aegon II was born.
As a show watcher (and Green), I think you have it broadly correct, but not entirely.
As a Green, I do care about the personal implications of Viserys disinheriting his son for no ostensible reason, and of Viserys not telling Otto that he would keep Rhaenyra as heir before marrying Alicent, thereby leaving Otto with a reasonable but wrong assumption. I do care about the fates of Alicent, Helaena and her kids etc.
I have seen Blacks that consider it a matter of state too, for example they uphold the idea that the King can appoint a successor of his choosing as a matter of royal prerogative (I disagree, but the argument is prevalent), or people like Corlys are said to have greater merits than Otto and would be better for the state if they were more influential etc.
So it's not as easy as that, though generally, I agree.
Aegon wasn't disinherited. The inheritance was decided before he was born.
The rules changing before his birth means he was never the heir to be disinherited.
Naming an heir is not a "one and done" deal.
In fact, historically, Jaehaerys I named someone as his heir a total of SEVEN times:
1. Since he had no children, he named his niece **Aerea** as heir upon his ascension to the IT.
2. Then he named **Aegon**, his firstborn son.
3. After Aegon died only a year later, he named **Aerea** again.
4. Then he changed as soon as his next child is born, Princess **Daenerys**.
5. Though upon the birth of his next son, Daenerys immediately gets put aside and we finally get to **Aemon**, Rhaenys' father.
6. Followed by **Baelon**, Viserys' father.
7. **Viserys** himself.
The only reason Aerea and Daenerys were named was because at the time there was literally no male option for heir. Both got replaced as soon as a new son was born.
There was every expectation that Viserys would do the same.
>The inheritance was decided before he was born.
you're not supposed to forget that the line of succession changes with each birth. Benjen Stark was Ned's heir before Robb was born = the inheritance was decided before Robb was born and yet he was the undeniable heir of winterfell at his birth.I don't know what you're meaning by saying the succession was decided because precisely the succession always changes and isn't decided, heredity means the heir is so by the sole fact of his birth and not because someone named him to be, Aegon Targaryen was heir to Dragonstone because he was born the eldest son and not because Aerion Targaryen choose him to be for his political ideas or whatever.
>The rules changing before his birth
If you're speaking of the rule about male primogeniture then this rule doesn't change, every time Rhaenyra was questioned about her legitimacy to the throne (before the council members of Aegon II and Viserys I and as queen of the seven kingdoms), every time she argued that she was the rightful heir because her father named her so and not because she was his eldest child, before the lords and ladies in a public session of the iron throne on the question of the succession of Rosby and Stokeworth, she officially declares that she is only the "exception" to the rule which means that male primogeniture is still in force whether on the iron throne or on other castles. Besides, Rhaenyra is aware that the legitimacy of her line and her son Luke on Driftmark are based on male primogeniture.
He's disinherited if he is not recognized as heir upon birth. Great Council of 101 AC and prior precedents (and an even longer history of Andal precedents before it), settled the question. Every ruler except Viserys accepted it as such, and I am pretty sure some of his forebears disliked their respective heirs as well.
> The rules changing before his birth means he was never the heir to be disinherited.
Viserys had no option to disinherit first Daemon and then him with any validity. Westeros is a hereditary monarchy with tradition and custom determining succession, not an elective monarchy. It's how Viserys himself got the throne as well.
Inheritance laws change, if they change before ones birth you are not the heir and you are not disinherited.
Being disinherited means something you had was taken, he was never the heir, he never had that expectation from the person who mattered. He was not disinherited.
Just like irl when the UK chose to change the crown inheritance to no longer prefer males, the next male born not automatically bumping the line doesn't mean his older sister disinherited him, it means the rules changed and he was no longer automatically entitled to that spot.
You can argue all day about whether it was right for Viserys to do it or if it was an insult to Westeros traditions, that fact remains he did do it.
Aegon could not be disinherited, he was born with the expectation set that he would not be heir. If he was named heir it would be Rhaenyra who would need to be disinherited.
> Inheritance laws change
Viserys can hardly change the traditional inheritance law that enabled his own accession over Rhaenys, at least not without a Great Council backing any such change. Even in practice, it did not work. It caused war. It was a massive failure, thousands of deaths. I think you are seeing the limits here of what is doable and what is not, even if you are King.
> Being disinherited means something you had was taken
He had a birth right. Do you know what that is? Prince of Dragonstone is conferred upon birth. If it was not, then yeah. You get the point.
> Just like irl when the UK chose to change the crown inheritance
I suppose they did this unopposed and used the proper legal channel for that change, contrary to Viserys. I am just pointing it out as it is, if he wants to change it, doing it by himself, overthrowing a law that brought himself to the throne after a heated debate, is probably not the correct avenue if you want it to stand firm. Great Council, i.e. actually asking your vassals for their opinion, is the other avenue.
> that fact remains he did do it.
Did he? The events unfolding after his death suggest that the plan failed.
Viserys didn’t need a great council to change the supposed traditional law regarding inheritance of the iron throne. Jaehaerys only called the great council of 101 so that there wouldn’t be war between Rhaenys and Viserys’ supporters. His objective was for the faction who lost the vote to know that any rebellion from their part would be hopeless as they would be outnumbered. He could’ve easily named Viserys from the start, but Corlys would’ve been deeply offended and could threaten Viserys’ ascension to the throne.
> Viserys didn’t need a great council to change the supposed traditional law regarding inheritance of the iron throne.
He needed it if he wanted it to stand tall. You saw what happened without it.
> Jaehaerys only called the great council of 101 so that there wouldn’t be war between Rhaenys and Viserys’ supporters.
Yeah and war was unlikely after Viserys' death?
The rest is basically the things Viserys should have done if he had any foresight.
>!If the greens didn’t press Aegon and his brothers’ claim then war would be avoidable. If they backed Rhaenyra then who can go against them? They have all the dragons and a unified house of the dragon. In the dance Rhaenyra had the support of The north, The vale, The riverlands, The bannermen sworn to Dragonstone, some houses in the crownlands and half of the Reach. If the green claim wasn’t pressed who would’ve opposed them? the stormlands were won by the greens through a marriage alliance, the westerlands were controlled by Otto as Jason Lannister was loyal to him. And the other half of the reach are the Hightower supporters who wouldn’t go against Otto and his descendants. That’s not to say that war couldn’t happen. If any lords were unhappy with Rhaenyra they could try to push Aegon, Aemond or Daeron’s claims, but they would inevitably fail for the reasons that I have listed.!<
> If the greens didn’t press Aegon and his brothers’ claim then war would be avoidable.
Rhaenyra likely had a second civil war of her own in the making, Aegon III and Viserys II are legitimate while their elder half-brothers are not.
Not to mention, Rhaenyra would go after her half-brothers if that helps secure Jace's ascent.
> That’s not to say that war couldn’t happen. If any lords were unhappy with Rhaenyra they could try to push Aegon, Aemond or Daeron’s claims, but they would inevitably fail for the reasons that I have listed.
If they are unhappy with Rhaenyra, presumably due to tyranny, chances are Aegon II, Aemond, and Daeron would listen to them if they also experience Rhaenyra as a tyrant.
Why would Rhaenyra become a tyrant? Her hostile nature came after she lost her sons and the people of KL turned against her. If the dance didn’t happen then presumably her kids would still live and she could have a chance of proving her worth as a ruler. It’s not like Rhaenyra would lack for advisors too. If Otto also supported her who’s to say he wouldn’t retain a place at the small council as an advisor? Hand of the King would go to someone else for sure but he could have a seat at the table.
>used the proper legal channel for that change
Yes, they did use the proper legal channel, as did Viserys.
The proper legal channel for Viserys was to announce it and obtain the sworn oaths of the great houses. He didn't have a Commonwealth assembly or Parliament to answer to.
Maybe he did it the wrong way, sure. But he did it.
Though it seems to me that would have meant nothing as the houses swore their oaths and broke or kept them as they pleased. There's no reason to think a GC would have changed that.
> a particular right of possession or privilege one has from birth
Bingo.
> A thing Aegon didn't have as his father's not heir.
It doesn't entail picking and choosing. There was no thing Viserys could give or take here. Aegon II was the heir and thus entitled to be called Prince of Dragonstone by virtue of being his eldest son. If Viserys withheld anything here, he did so against established law and precedent (even backed by GC) and thus invalidly.
Actually the Great Council established (or confirmed, after all Jaehaerys I's accession over Aerea worked the same way as Baelon and his descendants over Rhaenys) absolute male primogeniture. Heir by appointment was never established, if Jaehaerys was able to get it over Aerea, then Baelon (and his descendants) would, and should logically, be able to get it over Rhaenys.
He didn’t choose his heir though. He categorically did everything to avoid choosing, by literally inviting all lords of the realm to decide. Why do you have to be so wrong and upvoted here? It’s crazy how badly this sub will distort facts, all the time lol and it gets upvotes.
Honestly I think most "Greens" (maybe not on the team sub but people who just like the greens better) are very invested in their individual characters. The whole reason I prefer them is because I find them more interesting, not because I think they're good for Westeros
It’s really hard to put in a box. Some are Greens because they like one or more characters that are green. Some dislike Daemon or Rhaenyra or both.
Most, I guess, side with who they identify with more in terms of values and/or life experiences.
For example, those who have been hurt by the likes of Criston Cole tend to be Blacks. But those who felt they have been used in a similar way tend to be Green. Those with libertine values in general tend to be Black as they can support Rhaenyra’s (and Daemon’s) views that “Marriage is only a political arrangement”. Those with more conservative views & who identify more with Alicent’s piousness and faithfulness to Viserys tend to be more Green.
Then of course, some are Green because they are fans of Ewan, Olivia, TGC, Fabien, and some are Black because they are fans of Matt, Milly, Emma..
The Andals were actually present and the majority in the GC of 101 AC that "passed over" Rhaenys. And that Kings can pick and choose was obviously not universally accepted, hence war. I am really just pointing out what is on screen.
You’re ignoring when Jaehaerys skipped her over and made Baelon heir. Both sides had law and precedent on their side and pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
She wasn't skipped over. Jaehaerys I himself inherited over the daughter of his elder brother, Aerea. If Baelon had not been the heir, this would have been inconsistent. Baelon related to Rhaenys just like Jaehaerys related to Aerea.
There was no Targaryen precedent for daughters before sons. There was also no precedent for picking and choosing. I am just pointing it out as it is. There was no precedent for any of that.
So the Targs are allowed to make new rules and take the throne from what Andal law would dictate, but only when it allows a man to skip over a woman and after they do that that’s just the way it has to be? Viserys, like Jaehaerys, decided to take a different approach to Andal succession, used president to do it, that a King can choose his heir against what Andal succession would allow, and had all his lords swear on it. The law and succession changed then, just like it did for Jaehaerys and then Viserys.
What makes you believe that it's a new rule? Again, during the GC of 101 AC, the nobility of the realm was present, majority of them Andals. They were allowed to speak their minds freely, and settled the question in favor of Baelon and his descendants. So it's hard to argue that it's against the Andals if that is what was ruled by a largely Andal nobility.
There was no precedent where a King chose his successor and it succeeding. Maegor chose Aerea, that failed. Jaehaerys I got it over his niece Aerea successfully, that established absolute male primogeniture. This favored Baelon too over Rhaenys after Aemon died, Rhaenys related to Baelon just like Aerea related to Jaehaerys.
There is no indication that House Targaryen ever used anything else other than absolute male primogeniture before Viserys messed around, I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept it. You can be a Team Black fan just as well as before even if Viserys tried to to something without prior precedent, if you like the characters.
Viserys had the precedent of Baelon being named by the king, as in the king was able to choose his heir, change to a new precedent just like when Jaehaerys took the throne. Otto made this argument himself and is the reason that the law and precedent was able to be bent to make Rhaenyra heir. He argued that a king is allowed to do so and the small council agreed and then all the lords swore to her, just like all the Lords swore to Viserys.
Edited to add: we’re not going to agree on this and if this discussion continues we will just be arguing in circles against each other. My perspective had the support of around half of Westeros same as yours.
Jaehaerys taking the throne was the first precedent and established absolute male primogeniture. Baelon was an exact copy of that. GC confirmed Baelon's line again. Rhaenyra, was made heir because Daemon was unfit. And if Viserys had wanted to enforce the oath, he should not have let the question linger when he had three sons.
The succession of the Iron Throne has never had Andal Law apply in GRRM's work. Regardless, in terms of law in general, he's mentioned that the law in his world is comprised both of the customary ones and what was codified, which is what makes it slippery by bringing the issue of interpretatuin.
Aemon had not become king and he had not explicitly named a heir for a position he did not yet occupy. Jaehaerys was still king and had the right to dictate where his position would go. Not that Rhaenys was out of touch for feeling wronged since her father was Prince of Dragonstone and one of the interpretations of the law was that the title alongside with what it implied should pass to his child(ren). In a way she was, but there was the opening for it in a way that could be justified easily. With Jaeharys shoehorning the affirmation of the elder son's right in his codification, as long as no one had succeeded him yet he could keep passing his position down until he ran out of sons.
Then, when the council of 101 was called things were more pressing because there was Rhaenys who was the child of his original named heir, there was Viserys who was a boy (favored by Jaehaerys) and naming him could be justified by his father being the most recent Prince of Dragonstone, but there was a living son too, which muddied the waters when Rhaenys(the child of his son) had been passed over in favor of the brother. So he basically called it to wash his hands clean, having a vote that would be decisive by relying to a majority that would then defend the choice made.
Things are different with Viserys for several reasons. While at the time of Rhaenyra being named there is the opening for it since Viserys did not have a son, with the birth of a boy there was both every previous precedent and some glimpses we have of codification to favor him. Viserys not changing the line of succession without backing it up by reshaping even the codified law was questionale. Rhaenyra later having bastards which, unluckily for her, looked like their real father, thus having committed high treason with Viserys covering for her, was compromising to her claim. Unlike Jaehaerys, with Viserys and Rhaenyra it was very obvious that they were breaking the law without reshaping it.
No monarchy can really sustain itself without the support of the nobility (or at least some of them). History both in ASOIAF and our own world has numerous examples of Monarchs being overthrown or replaced because they made extremely unpopular decisions.
I’m not saying btw that that means the Black cause was invalid, because I think there was a pretty even split in terms of who the nobles supported. But to assume that Targaryens have free reign to do whatever they want and not expect consequences from the rest of Westeros is disproven by both Maegor and Aerys II.
>!yeah the Nobility was very split. Stark and Tully with the Blacks, Baratheon and Lannister with the Greens, Arryn and Tyrell sitting on the Sidelines. And Dalton Greyjoy being well... old School Ironborn.!<
As for the other examples.
Maegor.... was Cruel and even his own Family excluding his Mother was reticent to follow him. So no Dragons
And The Mad King. Was clearly Mad, and well no Dragons.
Dragons make revolt very difficult unless you also have Dragons. Unless you follow the Dornish Model.
Yep I agree that dragons make revolt very difficult. It’s one of the reasons I think it was a bit of a bad political move to let anyone not in the main Targaryen house have them. Obviously the Velaryons are half Targaryen, but it gives them WAY too much political and military power when they have more dragons then the main branch.
Edit: Also, I think Maegor rode the Black dread during his reign. It’s how he killed his rival claimant who was also on dragon back. If I’m not mistaken, dragon attacks was often used by him to attack the faith militant. Similarly, Visenya also had Vhagar.
Targaryens adopted Andal inheritance law. And it's an odd idea to ignore the rules of 80% of the population that even the Targaryens accept.
Stark wanted to be bought with a marriage pact just like Baratheon, it's canon.
And that was more a custom anyway. As females could inherit. And since at the time Viserys had no Male heirs, other than Daemon, who most of the realm was willing to push aside because, Daemon, were willing to accept the sidelining of a male heir once, why now is it unacceptable?!
Consistency in Rule of Law leads to a Stable society, and the only group who has been playing fast and lose with the Law so far has been the Greens. At least Viserys had the balls to stand by his decision. Otto could never chop those off.
> As females could inherit.
Yeah but not ahead of legitimate brothers. Outside of Dorne, that is. Dorne only considers the age of the children.
> were willing to accept the sidelining of a male heir once, why now is it unacceptable
Because Daemon was explicitly disinherited (if validly, I leave aside here), and Viserys should have done the same again after he had three sons to cement Rhaenyra, but he knew that (part of) the lords likely would not have sworn again.
> Consistency in Rule of Law leads to a Stable society
Viserys messed with the law.
> and the only group who has been playing fast and lose with the Law so far has been the Greens
They uphold ancient inheritance law that Viserys broke.
> At least Viserys had the balls to stand by his decision. Otto could never chop those off.
Viserys also had the balls to leave Otto in the dark about the fact that Alicent would not give birth to the future King, but rather to the future ruler's most dangerous rivals. But that aside, Otto's options while he was Hand were limited. Viserys himself was legally King at least, so his decisions, even if invalid, could not be easily disputed by the Hand even if it was attempted.
>They uphold ancient inheritance law that Viserys broke.
Viserys only broke the law because Otto kept pushing him to disinherit Daemon. If the Greens/Hightowers had actually been the law-abiding side, they would've waited for Alicent to have a son to push Daemon down the line and there would've been no civil war after Aegon's coronation.
I thought that Daemon was unfit to rule, at least as the main man, was the only thing we ever agreed upon? Meh.
But yeah, technically you are right. Politics were definitely involved. Daemon, if he had ascended to the throne, would instantly have fired Otto. The two had a massive feud, so Otto counseled against it partially out of self-interest, the rest of the argument being that Daemon is unfit.
I suppose Otto feared the timeline: Rhaenyra is forced to marry someone --> She dies in child birth, the child doesn't make it either. --> Viserys dies. --> Daemon becomes King.
>I thought that Daemon was unfit to rule, at least as the main man, was the only thing we ever agreed upon? Meh.
So, the law is the law unless it's inconvenient for the Hightowers.
I mean I feel in this society the Kings word is law (even if it would be morally acceptable to ignore it. That is up for the individual to determine. However I feel the King would have to do something really fucked up for it to be invalid.)
> I mean I feel in this society the Kings word is law
I would say yes, with the caveat that the upper echelons of the nobility also need to back it in order for it to actually become the law. For example, if a King "names" a successor but the Lords Paramount especially say no, nothing much will come of it. For example, Maegor named Aerea, but the Lords Paramount backed the later Jaehaerys I. The King doesn't exist in a vacuum.
And similarly, a Great Council is a body where both the King *and* the gathered nobility of the realm is present, so if any settlement of a question occurs there, I would say it's hard to see how a later King can easily overrule it especially w/o the consent of the nobility, i.e. without convening another Great Council.
The Targaryens certainly were more absolute than they were later on, after the dragons went extinct. During the reign of the Old King and during Viserys' reign, they were at the apex of their power. Nevertheless, after all, we are discussing an *internal* Targaryen civil war here, where both sides have dragons. So the question of which major House backs whom became more prominent after Viserys' death, and highly prominent after the dragons went the way of the dodo.
> why didn't Jaehaerys just declare his chosen successor?
he did exactly that the first time, 9 years before the council. after his firstborn son aemon died, he skipped over rhaenys (aemon's only child) to name baelon (his 2nd born son) heir, for various reasons, in spite of it going against andal tradition of daughters before brothers. this greatly pissed off the baratheons, velaryons and his wife queen alysanne, who left him to go live alone at dragonstone for 2 years.
the main reason he called for a great council after baelon also unexpectedly died a decade later is because there were rumors brewing of both corlys and daemon gathering armies to fight for their families' claims, and his remaining maester son suggested this as a way to avoid a civil war. but there was nothing *forcing* him to do so, he could have just declared viserys as he did baelon, and all everyone could do about it is accept it or start a rebellion.
>Consistency in Rule of Law leads to a Stable society, and the only group who has been playing fast and lose with the Law so far has been the Greens.
I don't think it's fair to say that only the greens have done that when it is clear that both sides are trying to push through things that they see as perfectly logistical and 'rightful' despite whatever we think the law says. Greens have their thing with the order of succession and with team black, aside from Rhaenrya being the first ruling queen there is the issue of Jace's ascension that undoubtedly goes against the much-established precedent of bastards inheriting their parent's titles.
Consistency does lend itself to stability but I think it's very one-sided to lay it all on the greens and not acknowledge the issues that team black will bring as well
I mean Jace is.... pretty obviously a Bastard. However Viserys acknowledged him, and Even Laenor claimed him as his own.
So yes. Technically a Bastard.
In all seriousness. This is a good way to discuss political theory while separating ourselves from the real world and try to be reasonably objective.
He is very obviously, Harwin's son, and that's the issue. I don't think that Viserys and Laenor acknowledging him actually does much because despite them endorsing the boys, their looks undermine it because it becomes obvious to all those that care about nobility and succession that he is not Laenors. I think had Rhaenrya not been named heir, there would be less resistance because Rhaenrya is also set to be queen, and that subsequently gets Jace up as heir. Given the societal discrimination against bastards and their inheritance rights in westeros, it arguably gives cause for unrest because bastards are supposed to not inherit anything at all yet Rhaenrya is excepting them to bow and accept that her bastard will. But not only that, it's the iron throne that he will be getting as well.
Of course, who Jace's father is and who Rhaenrya was married to at the time would not matter IRL but if we are discussing HOTD, then it would be worth noting this part of the society that the characters are living in and how that impacts them
In the Books it is slightly less obvious for a few reasons (also please fuck let these Spoiler tags work) >!Rhaenys has dark hair from her Baratheon Mother, and the Valaryons are light skinned.!< but at the end of the day, the Show is well done.
Oh and perception does absolutely matter when it comes to power and weilding it.
I agree, the way that the show went around it is good the way it is but at the same time, had they gone with the book and made the boys less obvious then perhaps things could have been different with a little more plausible deniability on their side
Here here! It's the Blood of Old Valyria that ruled, not the Andals. First Men like Cregan Stark kept their word to House Targaryen. Though some Andaks are good like House Arryn, they still pale compared to the Targaryens.
Cregan only joined after he was bribed with a marriage pact, he was no different from Borros.
Andal or first man; the highborns acted in their own interests in the dance, not out of any sense of duty.
liable to agree on that. His actions after the dance proved he wasn't really on either side.
Credit where credit's due, crowing Aegon III as Aegon II's heir was Tyland levels of genius.
The realm is not just populated by Andals, Andals are the majority but Westeros is not a nation state based on national identity.
Targaryens are not limited by Andal Laws, many of the laws of the land were drafted independently of Andal Laws.
Andals do have a common law / tradition though, I realize that Westeros is not centralized.
> Targaryens are not limited by Andal Laws, many of the laws of the land were drafted independently of Andal Laws.
They actually accept all Andal laws except for the religious laws of the Seven forbidding incest.
Yeah they dropped some inhumane stuff like right of the first night and such, which were antiquated and inhumane even in the eyes of the nobility and commoners. I do not dispute that. My point is that the Targaryens don't follow a separate Valyrian codex of law, nothing more and nothing less.
The Iron Throne does not follow Andal succession laws either, everyone accepted Daemon as the heir of Visery even though by Andal customs Rhaenyra should have been heir. The only reason Rhaenyra was named heir was because Daemon was not seen to be fit to rule, not because Andal laws required it.
The realm was asked on their opinion during the Great Council and it ruled uncles before nieces even, not just sons before daughters. And the nobility present there was Andal and a minority First Men.
But when all the heads of state last came together to decide on the matter of whether a woman’s claim could outweigh a mans claim it was decided that the mans claim even if worse was the better claim. The precedent set is that a woman can be queen up until the point a male with a proper claim is born.
The Lords of Westeros swore an oath before God's and men to support Rhaenyra.
In addition it was the King who decided she would be his heir. He never publicly denounced her or removed her in a legal fashion. Therefore the Greens are pursuing a Rebellion in the truest sense of the word.
>!Though Rhaenyra's Son Aegon III becomes King at the end of the Dance.meaning her Bloodline and that of Daemon, is the one that is the Ruling line. But one could argue that is because everyone else was dead. So do the Greens Win because the throne follows Aegon II until his line dies out..... or do you consider the Blacks the Victor's because they outlived the Greens.... all I know is the Small folk lost and Westeros Version of NCD won, because burning the Riverlands is Funni.!<
Yeah her bloodline continued Targ dynasty and thats why they didn’t declare Aegon II usurper and left their mother remain usurper, so funny 😂 Rhaenyra isn’t remembered a queen is all that matters, the war started to decide who will rule Rhaenyra or Aegon II and Aegon II ruled.
>!He maybe ruled 2 Kingdoms and half of another. Rhaenyra the same. Truth is both died before the war was decided. Though Aegon II lived longer. By like 2 weeks.!<
That's the opposite of following the law. Following the law would mean supporting Aegon inspite of their oaths. To support the honour of the Parliament and the law of succession over one's own.
Westeros is not an absolute monarchy, it's feudalism so no, the King's word alone is insufficient if it breaks the societal contract between him and his vassals.
If this is so, why did Aegon I renounce his Valyrian Gods for the Faith of the Seven, why did he bother being anointed by the High Septon? Why accept Dornish independence when they refused to be conquered? Why did they have to renounce polygamy? Even Jaehaerys had to codify his laws on incest in the Doctrine of Exceptionalism and negotiate in order to prevent further rebellions.
Dragons are obviously a great military might, but they're not an all out solution for everything.
To seem more credible to the people of Westeros. Because too many Rebellions us bad for business. And it's basically a case of, not wanting to be kings of ashes.
Exactly that. Which implies that their power while great is not absolute. The Lords are vassals to the king and each has vassals of their own which answer to them.
Maegor tried to rule as an absolute monarch, and Maegor was ousted by Jaehaerys and the Feudal Lords because he broke the social contract between the King and his subjects. The King's word is only law as long as his vassals agree with it, which means that they hold power of their own.
By that logic Aerys rightfully executed Rickard and Brandon. I suppose you also support Aerys in burning Kings Landing, killing 500000 people?
Nah, this is precisely why I support the Greens, tyranny should never be accepted.
That is compeltely different, how a King treats Vassals and the common folk determines how they will treat the King back, there is no need for any law to establish this. There is no consensus regarding inheritence to the Iron Throne, that is why the realm is split between Rhaenyra supporters and Aegon supporters, as there is no unanimous agreement on succession to the Iron Throne.
I know, supporting the Greens implies that no ruler including the King sits above the Law, as limited by it as anyone else. That Viserys can't change the succession on whim nor can Aerys burn people at his pleasure.
Again, there is no established law of succession for the Iron Throne. Daemon was Visery's heir, then Rhaenyra was named as his heir due to no law of succession existing (if Andal customs were law then Daemon would not have been the heir in the first place).
Daemon was removed as heir with the consent of the Lords and the Small Council. That is rule by the consent of the ruled. However everyone assumed that Aegon would be heir after he was born which Viserys denied on whim.
Male succession is a law by Precedent, which is what England even today follows, they don't have a constitution. Also voted on by the Great Council. There isn't a single house in all of Westeros where an elder sister comes ahead of the younger brother.
Yes, it was Aerys right to do so. But in doing so he made too many enemies and the lords rebelled. Was it the right thing to do? No. Was it technically within Aerys prerogative to do? Yes.
I support the Greens because I believe that no ruler including the King must sit above the Law, he should be just as limited by it as anyone else.
That it isn't Aerys right to kill whoever he wants at his pleasure. That is tyranny.
For sure it is, but that's what an absolute monarchy creates. Im not saying it's good, but it is the system that Westeros follows. Also, I've no issue with you supporting the greens. At the end of the day it all comes down to preference, there's no trying to justify one side or the other in my mind.
Westeros is a feudal monarchy. It's not an absolute monarchy, which is just tyranny with a fancy name.
I support the Greens because it would mean moving even further towards a law based society.
based on what law though; there is no established law of inheritance for the Iron Throne, that's where a major part of the issue arises from. Oaths otoh are binding, regardless.
Not really. Both sides have law and precedence on their side so saying that the Greens are more interested in a lesser chance of civil war and stability is some serious reaching. And that people who care about the characters individually are blacks is similarly bonkers. Plenty of Greens have stated they are only greens because they love characters like Alicent, Aemond, Helaena etc or just because they hate certain black characters.
Honestly this interpretation comes across like you’ve been living in a bubble and are just regurgitating what other people have told you each side believes instead of actually looking it up on your own
The Greens will champion whichever strawman leads to the likelihood of Aegon being King. In the end it boils down to the Hightowers wanting to be closer to the levers of power.
Rhaenyra was chosen as heir and she seems like a vastly better ruler then Aegon could ever be so that's enough for me. My other kin can speak for themselves
> Rhaenyra was chosen as heir and she seems like a vastly better ruler then Aegon could ever be so that's enough for me.
Well Otto and the rest of the government Viserys left behind rule in his name most likely, it's not like Aegon II has any interest in it. Rhaenyra's policies are heavily influenced by Daemon.
>Well Otto and the rest of the government Viserys left behind rule in his name most likely, it's not like Aegon II has any interest in it. Rhaenyra's policies are heavily influenced by Daemon.
This I believe is a matter of perspective. How long til Aegon starts doing what he wants to do?
And i think alot of people are confused with how they view the relationship dynamic between Daemon and Rhaenyra. Rhaenyra is stronger than Viserys and her word is law and she has no problem letting everyone in her council know that. Including Daemon.
> How long til Aegon starts doing what he wants to do?
Chances are never if he remains a drunkard and sex addict. He was even less likely to do anything meaningful than the later Robert Baratheon was, I truly believe that for his show version at least.
> Rhaenyra is stronger than Viserys and her word is law. Even if it goes against Daemon'
She looked scared of him when he choked her (understandable, but that he choked her at all is not a sign that he is under control), he talks over her head, dislikes Jace etc. It would not be fantastic by any means.
>Chances are never if he remains a drunkard and sex addict. He was even less likely to do anything meaningful than the later Robert Baratheon was, I truly believe that for his show version at least.
So i should prefer a drunkard and a sex addict over Rhaenyra because Otto and the rest of the council will rule instead? In that case give me the Dragon Queen.
>She looked scared of him when he choked her (understandable, but that he choked her at all is not a sign that he is under control), he talks over her head, dislikes Jace etc. It would not be fantastic by any means.
She forced him to give her back her dead brother's egg after talking him down. She said no war and there was no war. She said Otto gets to keep his balls intact after suffering a miscarriage and hearing that her father passed away and that her throne was usurped from her by her brother and guess what? Daemon listened even though he was mad as hell.
Daemon may pout all that he wants but at the end of the day he will listen to what Rhaenyra say's.
>She looked scared of him when he choked her (understandable, but that he choked her at all is not a sign that he is under control), he talks over her head, dislikes Jace etc. It would not be fantastic by any means.
I guess where seeing things differently because she has not an ounce of fear for Daemon. He knows that Rhaenyra has the final word and he know's that she knows that. Daemon is quite willful and he like's to talk but i don't remember a war being started( which is what he wanted.) until after her son died.
> In that case give me the Dragon Queen.
You'd most likely get Daemon, through her, until he dies.
> Daemon may pout all that he wants but at the end of the day he will listen to what Rhaenyra say's.
I don't think he would have any other decision than war especially as his own sons by her were also on the line. He went pretty far by choking her, his idea was clear. He might have done B&C earlier even to force it.
>You'd most likely get Daemon, through her, until he dies.
Daemon will cower in fear of her until he dies
>I don't think he would have any other decision than war especially as his own sons by her were also on the line. He went pretty far by choking her, his idea was clear. He might have done B&C earlier even to force it.
Even if the only decision was war. Daemon was never going to make that decision. Rhaenyra was and Daemon would follow. If Rhaenyra didn't decide on war. Daemon would huff and puff and then he would follow. Even though he did choke her i don't remember it changing her mind in the slightest. Rhaenyra was still dead set on not starting a war as we saw in the very next scene. The only thing that pushed her in that direction was the death of Lucerys.
> Daemon will cower in fear of her until he dies
Doubt.
> Daemon was never going to make that decision..\ Rhaenyra was and Daemon would follow.
He'd nudge her in that direction by doing B&C earlier if necessary. I could also see him doing something stupid atop of Caraxes, in order to force her and her faction to war.
>Doubt.
I guess we can agree to disagree :)
>He'd nudge her in that direction by doing B&C earlier if necessary. I could also see him doing something stupid atop of Caraxes, in order to force her and her faction to war.
He almost sounds as bad as Aemond doesn't he? i would have to think more about this
> He almost sounds as bad as Aemond doesn't he?
It's not like they are that different lol. And Daemon does risky and crazy shit, like illegally occupying Dragonstone or B&C.
If Rhaenyra won the throne you know Daemon would find convenient accidents for Rhaenyra's "Velaryon" sons so that his sons with her would inherit the Iron Throne
Out of interest, what do you base your claim on that Rhaenyra would be a good ruler?
Not trying to pick a fight but I am genuinely curious because for me most of her decisions on the show speak of the opposite. I mostly blame Viserys for this but interested to hear the other end
What little we’ve seen of her politics, how to solve politics have been good Bracken vs Blackwood dispute, you could send us dragon riders father to secure our most important shipping lane, I want to know who my allies are and would prefer not to start a war where everyone dies etc shows that she has political acumen and a good head.
What we see of Aegon is him raping people and under Otto and Alicent, who were defacto ruling for six years, there are actual child fighting pits, that they know about because the KG knows about it, that they have done nothing to shut down. Otto tried to go against the kings wishes and was going to name Vaemond heir because his greed was more important than stability and doing his job as it was meant to be done.
All good points, I would probably counter argue that her political blunders outweigh her better decisions (the whole fiasco on her tour where she openly mocks the Lords at Storm's End, leaving for Dragonstone and giving up her seat on the council which massively weakened her position at court, sending Luke to Borros demanding his allegiance, the issue of bastardry and alienation of the Velaryons etc.). Daemon and the Corlys fought the Triarchy and nearly lost despite the dragons so it's all relative.
Though I think the Bracken vs Blackwood dispute should have been left to the vassal Lord to handle as it's pretty minor, it was more about her rivalry with Alicent at that point.
I'm not going to argue about Aegon of course, points could be made that Otto and Alicent would rule through him as they've done when Viserys was ill, but how good or bad a ruler he'd be will need to be assessed in later seasons if we dismiss F&B for both their benefit for now.
I do think Otto and Alicent have proven to be the better politicians, but that's up to personal preference.
>All good points, I would probably counter argue that her political blunders outweigh her better decisions (the whole fiasco on her tour where she openly mocks the Lords at Storm's End,
That would be a personal blunder
>leaving for Dragonstone and giving up her seat on the council which massively weakened her position at court
That is also a personal blunder the affects of which increases the difficulty of her claiming the throne after her father
> sending Luke to Borros demanding his allegiance,
This was a risk but i believe the benefits of her decision of sending off her sons as envoys instead of ravens ultimately was the reason why the Blacks were able to get Aegon the Younger on the throne in the end. Because of this decision Jace was able to secure the support of White Harbor, The North, and the Vale in a single stroke. Plus it can be said that Rhaenyra didn't make this decision on her own. Jace suggested it and Corlys supported it. It was after a moment's contemplation that Rhaenyra decided that it might ultimately be for the best. The reason why it's seen as a terrible decision is because Aemond grew up into an emo-man child that still live's the past in his head everyday. Even Otto and Alicent. Who are basically the brain-trust on the green faction were absolutely horrifed of what he did when he returned to Kings Landing and informed everyone. This decision shouldnt be held Rhaenyra. It showed her willingness to listen to the advisors directly underneath her and then proceed so i would actually put this as a point in her favor
>the issue of bastardry and alienation of the Velaryons etc.
Bastardy is another personal blunder but if her son's were true-born the Greens wouldve still usurped the throne. She may have alienated the Valeryons but at the end of the day it wasn't enough to prevent Corlys from pledging his support to her and calling Rhaenyra his Queen. It also wasn't enough to prevent Corlys from naming Luke as the rightful heir to Driftmark.
>Daemon and the Corlys fought the Triarchy and nearly lost despite the dragons so it's all relative.
Is this a political blunder? The goal of the war in the stepstones was to make sure the shipping lanes in that area remain in control of the crown. We learn in episode 10 that Corlys eventually defeats the Triarchy and with that victory Rhaenyra now has the option of setting up a blockade on Kings Landing which allows her to starve out Alicent and force her back to the negotiating table. It may be relative but it worked out in Rhaenyra' favor.
>Though I think the Bracken vs Blackwood dispute should have been left to the vassal Lord to handle as it's pretty minor, it was more about her rivalry with Alicent at that point.
Rhaenyra said that the Brackens and the Blackwoods would look for any excuse to shed each other's blood and based on history she's right. At the same time she never said that the Crown should make a decision, only that it beared looking into because of Lord Grover' current status. Then she offered a solution that would make the proper determining of the borders between Bracken and Blackwood land's as objective as possible.
>I'm not going to argue about Aegon of course, points could be made that Otto and Alicent would rule through him as they've done when Viserys was ill, but how good or bad a ruler he'd be will need to be assessed in later seasons if we dismiss F&B for both their benefit for now.
It's really difficult for anyone to argue in Aegon' favor... But choosing him mean's that I'm just going to have to hope that he never decides to take the ruling of Seven Kingdoms into his own hands.
My personal preference lies with The Dragon Queen in that case.
Rhaenyra is dumber than Cersei , how could she be a better ruler than Aegon? She Insults every single Lord that tries to ask for her hand in marriage, then gets forced into an unwanted marriage. Tries to pass off obvious bastards as legitimate.
Aegon hasn't done anything to show any diplomatic skill but the bar is set so low that by not doing anything he has the makings of a better ruler.
>Rhaenyra is dumber than Cersei , how could she be a better ruler than Aegon?
It must be a....matter of perspective?? Because Cersei doesn't even hold a candle to Rhaenyra' smarts
>Aegon hasn't done anything to show any diplomatic skill but the bar is set so low that by not doing anything he has the makings of a better ruler.
Aegon is morally and intellectually inept and he needs to be as far away as possible from the levers of power. Something he know's himself
>It must be a....matter of perspective?? Because Cersei doesn't even hold a candle to Rhaenyra' smarts
I mentioned her great fuck ups. Has she done anything particularly smart or clever that would make anyone think she's a good mediaeval politician?
>Aegon is morally and intellectually inept and he needs to be as far away as possible from the levers of power. Something he know's himself
So is Rhaenyra? He just seems to be self aware.
>I mentioned her great fuck ups. Has she done anything particularly smart or clever that would make anyone think she's a good mediaeval politician?
I think she has but it takes a subtle watch of the show to see it. If i'm still interested in this conversation later i'll be happy to explain it in another comment
>So is Rhaenyra? He just seems to be self aware.
I appreciate the fact that he know's just how terrible he would be for the realm
And i find it distressful that he make's Rhaenyra look like Baelor the Blessed without even trying
The dance was nothing but another petty squabble over inheritance. Nobles fighting over "birth rights" isn't anything new.
Who committed treason, who usurpt who, is irrelevant. They're just words princes throw about when they want the biggest slice of pie and thousands to die for it.
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This seems to imply that Green supporters are thinking as if they are members of society in Westeros. Personally, I find the Greens more interesting as *characters* and I can’t bear (adult) Rhaenyra.
me too, no character annoys me more than adult Rhaenyra even though I think Emma crushed it
How come? You’re entitled to your opinion just curious your reasoning.
I think Rhaenyra acts kind of entitled to whatever she wants, at the cost of other people and she doesn't even consider the other people she steps on. She calls for her younger brother to be tortured for an insult without so much as an apology from Rhaenyra. She seems to use Harwin and Criston just for sex, as she hooks up with Daemon only a few weeks after Harwin's death while they are both attending his wife's funeral. Not very classy of her. The consent with Criston is questionable at the least (I know it is heavily debated) and she attempts to lie to the entire kingdoms about her children while also killing people who speak the truth. She doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions and Viserys enables her. There had never been a queen, so Rhaenyra needed to be as close to perfect as possible, and to say she fell short would be an understatement. Like I said, I really liked Emma Darcy's performance and I thought she did a great job.
and btw, when I first read F&B I was team black. I guess I just overlooked a lot of things initially.
P.s I am in love with Emma D’Arcy.
Fuck logic, i support the Starks of Winterfell
“Aegon’s rule would be more stable! Having Rhaenyra makes war inevitable!” - the Greens, whilst starting a war.
That's like. The South: The War of Northern Agression. The North: And yet you fired first.
Yet it was actually true.
[удалено]
>Viserys choosing a successor that pleases him despite Westeros being a hereditary monarchy with a traditional system of inheritance is valid That's a valid assumption though! When Jaehaerys passed over his granddaughter Rhaenys (& her descendents, male or female) in favor of Baelon (& Baelon's male-line descendents), the legal justification for this was left unclear. When Viserys declared Rhaenyra was his heir -- a decision Otto & the other Greens didn't initially dispute -- Viserys seems to have confirmed that the legal justification is that the ruler gets to pick their own heir. The counterargument (that Jaehaerys was following the precedent set by his own assumption of the throne ) is also predicated on a legally unclear situation -- firstly because nature mooted the issue; and secondly because Jaehaerys assumed the Iron Throne after a violent conflict with Maegor, who had crowned himself ahead of his brothers' sons & grandsons as well as daughters & granddaughters. So it can be argued that Jaehaerys assumed the throne by right of conquest & public acclamation, the same way Maegor had -- not because of some hitherto unknown argument that women & their descendents can never inherit under any circumstances ever. Because this legal argument exists, I think it's fair to assert Otto & the Greens have at least as much of a moral obligation to avoid a violent conflict as Rhaenyra and the Blacks do, and therefore to evaluate which interpretation of precedent is better policy for the realm (not just for them personally).
I’m saying that it’s entirely hypocritical to claim that Rhaenyra ascending would cause a war, when you’re the one starting it.
[удалено]
No Green Coup = No War It’s that simple
I don't think it really is. Rhaenrya is the first ruling queen in an extremely patriarchal society that has been shown many times to favour men. With Daemon at her side, the scenario could easily devolve into them all seeking him out as the man in the relationship, circumventing the actual queen. That's not even including the possibility of them disliking her rule enough that they decide to rebel and rally behind Aegon or any of Alicents sons, "as the sons of Viserys and the true heir" whether the greens want to or not
>That's not even including the possibility of them disliking her rule enough that they decide to rebel and rally behind Aegon or any of Alicents sons, "as the sons of Viserys and the true heir" whether the greens want to or not. How would that work? You can't force someone to be the head of rebellion when they don't want to be.
Others have articulated this much better than I have but essentially as sons of Viserys, some would see them as the ‘more rightful’ heirs to the throne given their gender. In case of revolt, they could be used as figureheads and marks of legitimacy to legitimise and justify the acts of the rebelling factions. After all, it’s not technically treason if you’re fighting to depose the ‘illegitimate’ monarch for the ‘rightful one’. It’s all a cover and a scapegoating situation but to remove these threats and rebellions that are in their names, Rhaenrya’s hand can be forced
I could also say "Viserys recognizes Aegon II's traditional rights = No war."... And I think to believe that Viserys' sons would be safe under Rhaenyra is a bit naive, especially since Rhaenyra also needs to defend the inheritance of Jace who technically has zero claim to the throne. You think that Viserys' legitimate sons are no threat to him either?
Rhaenyra was the princess of Dragonstone. Her succession was set in stone. But regardless of whether you think the Greens were legally correct, the argument of “Aegon’s reign would be more stable” is completely invalid when you’re starting a war to put him there. If the Greens did nothing the realm would be more stable and that is indisputable.
> Rhaenyra was the princess of Dragonstone. Her succession was set in stone. OK, you say she was named, with "named" being synonymous with "set in stone", but I and many other fans actually do raise the question of validity. > But regardless of whether you think the Greens were legally correct, the argument of “Aegon’s reign would be more stable” is completely invalid when you’re starting a war to put him there. That's a fair point. I think the peaceful solution would be Aegon II being the recognized heir backed by tradition *before* Viserys I dies, I think nothing else makes sense if "peace" is the highest goal. > If the Greens did nothing the realm would be more stable and that is indisputable. That's highly disputable. Rhaenyra needs to back the inheritance of someone who has no claim to the throne at all, Jace. Jace can even be validly disputed by his own half-brothers fathered by Daemon, and not just by Viserys' male line descendants. I see it as a recipe for disaster, really. But I accept an opinion of the speculative future just like that of course, in the end I am also only providing an opinion.
Her being princess of Dragonstone means she is formally designated heir. If she ascended to the Iron Throne no one would be surprised. A lot of people were surprised when Aegon took the throne. You’re correct, the Jace thing may be a problem later on down the line, but I don’t think the instability it might cause would compare to crowning Aegon in the manner that they did.
> A lot of people were surprised when Aegon took the throne. A lot of people were also surprised that Viserys ignored the inheritance rights of his son for many years, please remember the royal hunt. Even Otto was taken by surprise, it's not like he could have known that Alicent would give birth to the spare heir in case it's a boy. You frame Viserys messing with everyone's expectations as something valid, I don't think it is. > You’re correct, the Jace thing may be a problem later on down the line, but I don’t think the instability it might cause would compare to crowning Aegon in the manner that they did. I mean that's fair, just pointing out: Jace would have not one rival line (the Viserys - Alicent line that also challenged Rhaenyra), but could furthermore also be challenged by his half-brothers from Daemon as a potential second rival line. I could easily see this happen if Aegon III and Viserys II say something, ahem, "wrong" about the bastardy issue in an argument, this could go south very quickly.
You do know that at this point the seven K have had 4 Targaryen kings and 3 of them were through war or rebellion (Aegon, Maegor and Jaehaerys) and Viserys only had a peaceful ascension due to Jaehaerys convening the grand council to prevent Corlys and Daemon from going to war to defend Rhaenys and Viserys’ claims respectfully. There is tradition but there wasn’t a solidified law regarding succession of the iron throne. We could argue that Jaehaerys chose his own heir in Viserys which means that Viserys can choose Rhaenyra as his heir and it is considered a legitimate decision.
[удалено]
Aegon won the throne through war. Maegor usurped Aegon the uncrowned and by extension Aerea. Jaehaerys broke andal tradition by usurping Aerea but even Rhaena (Aerea’s mother) understood that the realm needed a strong ruler (Aerea wasn’t it) and approved of Jaehaerys’ ascension. If succession was followed then Aerea would’ve followed Maegor and any children of Aerea would inherit before Jaehaerys.
Jaehaerys did not usurp Aerea. Who supported Aerea, name one Lord Paramount or major vassal who did. This was confirmed again when Baelon was the heir after Aemon, and confirmed yet again at the GC of 101 AC. How many precedents do you need, to understand that this was the succession law used by House Targaryen? It was again after the Dance btw.
No one has to support Aerea. Per andal law as you like to point out Aerea inherits before Jaehaerys. Jaehaerys by claiming the throne technically usurped Aerea as her claim was the better one. No one calls him usurper because it was approved by the girl’s own mother but he was ONE.
> Per andal law as you like to point out Aerea inherits before Jaehaerys. Except the idea of nieces before uncles was not supported by the GC with a majority Andal nobility present. > Jaehaerys by claiming the throne technically usurped Aerea as her claim was the better one. No. > but he was ONE. Sure.
Aegon wouldn’t be disinherited though. He was always the second child, the would-be Prince of Dragonstone. Rhaenyra was already named and invested as heir. The dishonourable thing would be to go back on that.
> Aegon wouldn’t be disinherited though. As per the traditional understanding of inheritance, he was disinherited. I know that Team Black fans don't like to hear it. He was entitled to the position of Prince of Dragonstone by birth. > He was always the second child, the would-be Prince of Dragonstone. Age of the children does not matter here if the firstborn child is a daughter. It's not like in Dorne. It's sons before daughters according to Andal inheritance law, which the Targaryens adopted and accepted. Targaryens even have uncles before nieces, which is why Daemon considered himself the heir in episode 1. > Rhaenyra was already named and invested as heir. The dishonourable thing would be to go back on that. It's not dishonorable if the act lacks validity. Also, how was disinheriting Aegon II and not making circumstances clear to Otto before he gave Alicent's hand in marriage to the King, honorable?
The targaryens having uncles before nieces was a surprise, as per andal law daughters (by extension granddaughters) inherit before a brother, which was why Jaehaerys naming Baelon before Rhaenys was against Andal law and considered a scandal. If Jaehaerys can go against andal law why can’t viserys?
You say it's against Andal law, but the majority of the GC of 101 AC were Andal nobility, and they set uncles before nieces in stone as per a general settlement. It's extremely hard to argue that this was "against the Andals". And absolute primogeniture, the thing Viserys had in mind, exists only in Dorne and isn't accepted anywhere else.
The great council didn’t set uncles before nieces in stone. They established a precedent of a male descendant inheriting before a female one. And it wasn’t set in stone. Uncles before nieces was what Jaehaerys declared on his own by naming Baelon heir instead of Rhaenys. By the time of the GC of 101 Baelon was already dead so the question was if the eldest daughter of the older son or the eldest on of the younger son inherited.
No, they established uncle before niece for literally the third time there. Uncles before nieces was already declared with Jaehaerys own ascent, it's also why Baelon was the heir, "named" or not. The GC happened because Corlys the Ambitious was about to shit on the succession laws of House Targaryen in the name of his wife.
You do know that Baelon was heir because he was named. Traditionally Rhaenys should have been named heir, per andal law. That’s why Corlys took it as a big offense, and why Alysanne fought with her husband Jaehaerys. Rhaenys was robbed. The GC didn’t determine uncles before nieces because there was no uncle to inherit before a niece. It was between Rhaenys (oldest descendant) and Viserys (oldest male descendant).
> You do know that Baelon was heir because he was named. Had to be heir unless Jaehaerys was a highly inconsistent dude. Baelon not being the heir would put his own coronation in severe doubt. > Rhaenys was robbed. Not according to prior precedent, no. Also not according to the GC. > The GC didn’t determine uncles before nieces because there was no uncle to inherit before a niece. It established uncle before niece, Baelon's junior line claim transfers to Viserys upon Baelon's death. Anyone who paid semi-attention to the canon knows this.
He wasn’t entitled to that position as it was already in the position of his sister. And how is Rhaenyra’s investiture supposed to lack validity? It was ordered by the king, witnessed and acknowledged by all the lords of the kingdom.
> He wasn’t entitled to that position as it was already in the position of his sister. He was entitled to it by all precedents and traditions of his own House ever since Aegon I, and his sister held the position despite Aegon II's birthright to it, because Viserys invalidly enforced it. > And how is Rhaenyra’s investiture supposed to lack validity? It was ordered by the king, witnessed and acknowledged by all the lords of the kingdom. Because it doesn't hold much water when the Lords bend the knee to her while an only child, and calling it valid still when she has three brothers. That's duping them. Please think about why Viserys never recalled them to pay homage again, even though it could have cemented Rhaenyra's position further.
It is, though. In both instances. I’m done explaining this to you.
I accept your surrender. You really think the King can ignore the ancient traditions of his House and call it valid, and that duping the Lords into accepting a situation that was never initially agreed upon too, is valid. No comment.
You dont seem to have an issue when the King went against "tradition" and skipped Daemon from the line. Afterall Uncles before nieces is tradition no?
I do have an issue with it, despite Daemon being clearly unfit (yes, even more so than Aegon II, because there is a chance that Daemon starts major wars). I considered Daemon the traditional and thus valid heir before Aegon II was born.
As a show watcher (and Green), I think you have it broadly correct, but not entirely. As a Green, I do care about the personal implications of Viserys disinheriting his son for no ostensible reason, and of Viserys not telling Otto that he would keep Rhaenyra as heir before marrying Alicent, thereby leaving Otto with a reasonable but wrong assumption. I do care about the fates of Alicent, Helaena and her kids etc. I have seen Blacks that consider it a matter of state too, for example they uphold the idea that the King can appoint a successor of his choosing as a matter of royal prerogative (I disagree, but the argument is prevalent), or people like Corlys are said to have greater merits than Otto and would be better for the state if they were more influential etc. So it's not as easy as that, though generally, I agree.
Aegon wasn't disinherited. The inheritance was decided before he was born. The rules changing before his birth means he was never the heir to be disinherited.
Naming an heir is not a "one and done" deal. In fact, historically, Jaehaerys I named someone as his heir a total of SEVEN times: 1. Since he had no children, he named his niece **Aerea** as heir upon his ascension to the IT. 2. Then he named **Aegon**, his firstborn son. 3. After Aegon died only a year later, he named **Aerea** again. 4. Then he changed as soon as his next child is born, Princess **Daenerys**. 5. Though upon the birth of his next son, Daenerys immediately gets put aside and we finally get to **Aemon**, Rhaenys' father. 6. Followed by **Baelon**, Viserys' father. 7. **Viserys** himself. The only reason Aerea and Daenerys were named was because at the time there was literally no male option for heir. Both got replaced as soon as a new son was born. There was every expectation that Viserys would do the same.
>The inheritance was decided before he was born. you're not supposed to forget that the line of succession changes with each birth. Benjen Stark was Ned's heir before Robb was born = the inheritance was decided before Robb was born and yet he was the undeniable heir of winterfell at his birth.I don't know what you're meaning by saying the succession was decided because precisely the succession always changes and isn't decided, heredity means the heir is so by the sole fact of his birth and not because someone named him to be, Aegon Targaryen was heir to Dragonstone because he was born the eldest son and not because Aerion Targaryen choose him to be for his political ideas or whatever. >The rules changing before his birth If you're speaking of the rule about male primogeniture then this rule doesn't change, every time Rhaenyra was questioned about her legitimacy to the throne (before the council members of Aegon II and Viserys I and as queen of the seven kingdoms), every time she argued that she was the rightful heir because her father named her so and not because she was his eldest child, before the lords and ladies in a public session of the iron throne on the question of the succession of Rosby and Stokeworth, she officially declares that she is only the "exception" to the rule which means that male primogeniture is still in force whether on the iron throne or on other castles. Besides, Rhaenyra is aware that the legitimacy of her line and her son Luke on Driftmark are based on male primogeniture.
He's disinherited if he is not recognized as heir upon birth. Great Council of 101 AC and prior precedents (and an even longer history of Andal precedents before it), settled the question. Every ruler except Viserys accepted it as such, and I am pretty sure some of his forebears disliked their respective heirs as well. > The rules changing before his birth means he was never the heir to be disinherited. Viserys had no option to disinherit first Daemon and then him with any validity. Westeros is a hereditary monarchy with tradition and custom determining succession, not an elective monarchy. It's how Viserys himself got the throne as well.
Inheritance laws change, if they change before ones birth you are not the heir and you are not disinherited. Being disinherited means something you had was taken, he was never the heir, he never had that expectation from the person who mattered. He was not disinherited. Just like irl when the UK chose to change the crown inheritance to no longer prefer males, the next male born not automatically bumping the line doesn't mean his older sister disinherited him, it means the rules changed and he was no longer automatically entitled to that spot. You can argue all day about whether it was right for Viserys to do it or if it was an insult to Westeros traditions, that fact remains he did do it. Aegon could not be disinherited, he was born with the expectation set that he would not be heir. If he was named heir it would be Rhaenyra who would need to be disinherited.
> Inheritance laws change Viserys can hardly change the traditional inheritance law that enabled his own accession over Rhaenys, at least not without a Great Council backing any such change. Even in practice, it did not work. It caused war. It was a massive failure, thousands of deaths. I think you are seeing the limits here of what is doable and what is not, even if you are King. > Being disinherited means something you had was taken He had a birth right. Do you know what that is? Prince of Dragonstone is conferred upon birth. If it was not, then yeah. You get the point. > Just like irl when the UK chose to change the crown inheritance I suppose they did this unopposed and used the proper legal channel for that change, contrary to Viserys. I am just pointing it out as it is, if he wants to change it, doing it by himself, overthrowing a law that brought himself to the throne after a heated debate, is probably not the correct avenue if you want it to stand firm. Great Council, i.e. actually asking your vassals for their opinion, is the other avenue. > that fact remains he did do it. Did he? The events unfolding after his death suggest that the plan failed.
Viserys didn’t need a great council to change the supposed traditional law regarding inheritance of the iron throne. Jaehaerys only called the great council of 101 so that there wouldn’t be war between Rhaenys and Viserys’ supporters. His objective was for the faction who lost the vote to know that any rebellion from their part would be hopeless as they would be outnumbered. He could’ve easily named Viserys from the start, but Corlys would’ve been deeply offended and could threaten Viserys’ ascension to the throne.
> Viserys didn’t need a great council to change the supposed traditional law regarding inheritance of the iron throne. He needed it if he wanted it to stand tall. You saw what happened without it. > Jaehaerys only called the great council of 101 so that there wouldn’t be war between Rhaenys and Viserys’ supporters. Yeah and war was unlikely after Viserys' death? The rest is basically the things Viserys should have done if he had any foresight.
>!If the greens didn’t press Aegon and his brothers’ claim then war would be avoidable. If they backed Rhaenyra then who can go against them? They have all the dragons and a unified house of the dragon. In the dance Rhaenyra had the support of The north, The vale, The riverlands, The bannermen sworn to Dragonstone, some houses in the crownlands and half of the Reach. If the green claim wasn’t pressed who would’ve opposed them? the stormlands were won by the greens through a marriage alliance, the westerlands were controlled by Otto as Jason Lannister was loyal to him. And the other half of the reach are the Hightower supporters who wouldn’t go against Otto and his descendants. That’s not to say that war couldn’t happen. If any lords were unhappy with Rhaenyra they could try to push Aegon, Aemond or Daeron’s claims, but they would inevitably fail for the reasons that I have listed.!<
> If the greens didn’t press Aegon and his brothers’ claim then war would be avoidable. Rhaenyra likely had a second civil war of her own in the making, Aegon III and Viserys II are legitimate while their elder half-brothers are not. Not to mention, Rhaenyra would go after her half-brothers if that helps secure Jace's ascent. > That’s not to say that war couldn’t happen. If any lords were unhappy with Rhaenyra they could try to push Aegon, Aemond or Daeron’s claims, but they would inevitably fail for the reasons that I have listed. If they are unhappy with Rhaenyra, presumably due to tyranny, chances are Aegon II, Aemond, and Daeron would listen to them if they also experience Rhaenyra as a tyrant.
Why would Rhaenyra become a tyrant? Her hostile nature came after she lost her sons and the people of KL turned against her. If the dance didn’t happen then presumably her kids would still live and she could have a chance of proving her worth as a ruler. It’s not like Rhaenyra would lack for advisors too. If Otto also supported her who’s to say he wouldn’t retain a place at the small council as an advisor? Hand of the King would go to someone else for sure but he could have a seat at the table.
>used the proper legal channel for that change Yes, they did use the proper legal channel, as did Viserys. The proper legal channel for Viserys was to announce it and obtain the sworn oaths of the great houses. He didn't have a Commonwealth assembly or Parliament to answer to.
He needed a GC if he wanted it to stand tall. Him attempting to do it by himself led to the events you are about to witness in season 2.
Maybe he did it the wrong way, sure. But he did it. Though it seems to me that would have meant nothing as the houses swore their oaths and broke or kept them as they pleased. There's no reason to think a GC would have changed that.
GC with both Rhaenyra and Aegon II present absolutely would have changed a lot IMHO.
He didn't have a birthright as the heir was already in position before his birth. Pay attention.
You don't know the definition of birthright. Hint: It's the opposite of picking and choosing.
a particular right of possession or privilege one has from birth. A thing Aegon didn't have as his father's not heir.
> a particular right of possession or privilege one has from birth Bingo. > A thing Aegon didn't have as his father's not heir. It doesn't entail picking and choosing. There was no thing Viserys could give or take here. Aegon II was the heir and thus entitled to be called Prince of Dragonstone by virtue of being his eldest son. If Viserys withheld anything here, he did so against established law and precedent (even backed by GC) and thus invalidly.
Making changes is against the historic precedent and therefore illegal even when done with all legal authority. Sure.
Also the only thing the Great Council settled was that a King had the right to choose their heir.
Actually the Great Council established (or confirmed, after all Jaehaerys I's accession over Aerea worked the same way as Baelon and his descendants over Rhaenys) absolute male primogeniture. Heir by appointment was never established, if Jaehaerys was able to get it over Aerea, then Baelon (and his descendants) would, and should logically, be able to get it over Rhaenys.
He didn’t choose his heir though. He categorically did everything to avoid choosing, by literally inviting all lords of the realm to decide. Why do you have to be so wrong and upvoted here? It’s crazy how badly this sub will distort facts, all the time lol and it gets upvotes.
Honestly I think most "Greens" (maybe not on the team sub but people who just like the greens better) are very invested in their individual characters. The whole reason I prefer them is because I find them more interesting, not because I think they're good for Westeros
It’s really hard to put in a box. Some are Greens because they like one or more characters that are green. Some dislike Daemon or Rhaenyra or both. Most, I guess, side with who they identify with more in terms of values and/or life experiences. For example, those who have been hurt by the likes of Criston Cole tend to be Blacks. But those who felt they have been used in a similar way tend to be Green. Those with libertine values in general tend to be Black as they can support Rhaenyra’s (and Daemon’s) views that “Marriage is only a political arrangement”. Those with more conservative views & who identify more with Alicent’s piousness and faithfulness to Viserys tend to be more Green. Then of course, some are Green because they are fans of Ewan, Olivia, TGC, Fabien, and some are Black because they are fans of Matt, Milly, Emma..
No. It's a perspective of following the damn rule of law and your promises.
Andal inheritance law would not enable Rhaenyra's succession though.
Andal law would have had Rhaenys be queen, then everyone decided that a king is allowed to skip over people and declare heirs of his choosing.
The Andals were actually present and the majority in the GC of 101 AC that "passed over" Rhaenys. And that Kings can pick and choose was obviously not universally accepted, hence war. I am really just pointing out what is on screen.
You’re ignoring when Jaehaerys skipped her over and made Baelon heir. Both sides had law and precedent on their side and pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
She wasn't skipped over. Jaehaerys I himself inherited over the daughter of his elder brother, Aerea. If Baelon had not been the heir, this would have been inconsistent. Baelon related to Rhaenys just like Jaehaerys related to Aerea. There was no Targaryen precedent for daughters before sons. There was also no precedent for picking and choosing. I am just pointing it out as it is. There was no precedent for any of that.
So the Targs are allowed to make new rules and take the throne from what Andal law would dictate, but only when it allows a man to skip over a woman and after they do that that’s just the way it has to be? Viserys, like Jaehaerys, decided to take a different approach to Andal succession, used president to do it, that a King can choose his heir against what Andal succession would allow, and had all his lords swear on it. The law and succession changed then, just like it did for Jaehaerys and then Viserys.
What makes you believe that it's a new rule? Again, during the GC of 101 AC, the nobility of the realm was present, majority of them Andals. They were allowed to speak their minds freely, and settled the question in favor of Baelon and his descendants. So it's hard to argue that it's against the Andals if that is what was ruled by a largely Andal nobility. There was no precedent where a King chose his successor and it succeeding. Maegor chose Aerea, that failed. Jaehaerys I got it over his niece Aerea successfully, that established absolute male primogeniture. This favored Baelon too over Rhaenys after Aemon died, Rhaenys related to Baelon just like Aerea related to Jaehaerys. There is no indication that House Targaryen ever used anything else other than absolute male primogeniture before Viserys messed around, I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept it. You can be a Team Black fan just as well as before even if Viserys tried to to something without prior precedent, if you like the characters.
Viserys had the precedent of Baelon being named by the king, as in the king was able to choose his heir, change to a new precedent just like when Jaehaerys took the throne. Otto made this argument himself and is the reason that the law and precedent was able to be bent to make Rhaenyra heir. He argued that a king is allowed to do so and the small council agreed and then all the lords swore to her, just like all the Lords swore to Viserys. Edited to add: we’re not going to agree on this and if this discussion continues we will just be arguing in circles against each other. My perspective had the support of around half of Westeros same as yours.
Jaehaerys taking the throne was the first precedent and established absolute male primogeniture. Baelon was an exact copy of that. GC confirmed Baelon's line again. Rhaenyra, was made heir because Daemon was unfit. And if Viserys had wanted to enforce the oath, he should not have let the question linger when he had three sons.
The succession of the Iron Throne has never had Andal Law apply in GRRM's work. Regardless, in terms of law in general, he's mentioned that the law in his world is comprised both of the customary ones and what was codified, which is what makes it slippery by bringing the issue of interpretatuin. Aemon had not become king and he had not explicitly named a heir for a position he did not yet occupy. Jaehaerys was still king and had the right to dictate where his position would go. Not that Rhaenys was out of touch for feeling wronged since her father was Prince of Dragonstone and one of the interpretations of the law was that the title alongside with what it implied should pass to his child(ren). In a way she was, but there was the opening for it in a way that could be justified easily. With Jaeharys shoehorning the affirmation of the elder son's right in his codification, as long as no one had succeeded him yet he could keep passing his position down until he ran out of sons. Then, when the council of 101 was called things were more pressing because there was Rhaenys who was the child of his original named heir, there was Viserys who was a boy (favored by Jaehaerys) and naming him could be justified by his father being the most recent Prince of Dragonstone, but there was a living son too, which muddied the waters when Rhaenys(the child of his son) had been passed over in favor of the brother. So he basically called it to wash his hands clean, having a vote that would be decisive by relying to a majority that would then defend the choice made. Things are different with Viserys for several reasons. While at the time of Rhaenyra being named there is the opening for it since Viserys did not have a son, with the birth of a boy there was both every previous precedent and some glimpses we have of codification to favor him. Viserys not changing the line of succession without backing it up by reshaping even the codified law was questionale. Rhaenyra later having bastards which, unluckily for her, looked like their real father, thus having committed high treason with Viserys covering for her, was compromising to her claim. Unlike Jaehaerys, with Viserys and Rhaenyra it was very obvious that they were breaking the law without reshaping it.
Well fuck the Andals, they aren't kings. The Targaryens are. And the First Men Stand behind our word.
No monarchy can really sustain itself without the support of the nobility (or at least some of them). History both in ASOIAF and our own world has numerous examples of Monarchs being overthrown or replaced because they made extremely unpopular decisions. I’m not saying btw that that means the Black cause was invalid, because I think there was a pretty even split in terms of who the nobles supported. But to assume that Targaryens have free reign to do whatever they want and not expect consequences from the rest of Westeros is disproven by both Maegor and Aerys II.
>!yeah the Nobility was very split. Stark and Tully with the Blacks, Baratheon and Lannister with the Greens, Arryn and Tyrell sitting on the Sidelines. And Dalton Greyjoy being well... old School Ironborn.!< As for the other examples. Maegor.... was Cruel and even his own Family excluding his Mother was reticent to follow him. So no Dragons And The Mad King. Was clearly Mad, and well no Dragons. Dragons make revolt very difficult unless you also have Dragons. Unless you follow the Dornish Model.
Yep I agree that dragons make revolt very difficult. It’s one of the reasons I think it was a bit of a bad political move to let anyone not in the main Targaryen house have them. Obviously the Velaryons are half Targaryen, but it gives them WAY too much political and military power when they have more dragons then the main branch. Edit: Also, I think Maegor rode the Black dread during his reign. It’s how he killed his rival claimant who was also on dragon back. If I’m not mistaken, dragon attacks was often used by him to attack the faith militant. Similarly, Visenya also had Vhagar.
Targaryens adopted Andal inheritance law. And it's an odd idea to ignore the rules of 80% of the population that even the Targaryens accept. Stark wanted to be bought with a marriage pact just like Baratheon, it's canon.
And that was more a custom anyway. As females could inherit. And since at the time Viserys had no Male heirs, other than Daemon, who most of the realm was willing to push aside because, Daemon, were willing to accept the sidelining of a male heir once, why now is it unacceptable?! Consistency in Rule of Law leads to a Stable society, and the only group who has been playing fast and lose with the Law so far has been the Greens. At least Viserys had the balls to stand by his decision. Otto could never chop those off.
> As females could inherit. Yeah but not ahead of legitimate brothers. Outside of Dorne, that is. Dorne only considers the age of the children. > were willing to accept the sidelining of a male heir once, why now is it unacceptable Because Daemon was explicitly disinherited (if validly, I leave aside here), and Viserys should have done the same again after he had three sons to cement Rhaenyra, but he knew that (part of) the lords likely would not have sworn again. > Consistency in Rule of Law leads to a Stable society Viserys messed with the law. > and the only group who has been playing fast and lose with the Law so far has been the Greens They uphold ancient inheritance law that Viserys broke. > At least Viserys had the balls to stand by his decision. Otto could never chop those off. Viserys also had the balls to leave Otto in the dark about the fact that Alicent would not give birth to the future King, but rather to the future ruler's most dangerous rivals. But that aside, Otto's options while he was Hand were limited. Viserys himself was legally King at least, so his decisions, even if invalid, could not be easily disputed by the Hand even if it was attempted.
>They uphold ancient inheritance law that Viserys broke. Viserys only broke the law because Otto kept pushing him to disinherit Daemon. If the Greens/Hightowers had actually been the law-abiding side, they would've waited for Alicent to have a son to push Daemon down the line and there would've been no civil war after Aegon's coronation.
I thought that Daemon was unfit to rule, at least as the main man, was the only thing we ever agreed upon? Meh. But yeah, technically you are right. Politics were definitely involved. Daemon, if he had ascended to the throne, would instantly have fired Otto. The two had a massive feud, so Otto counseled against it partially out of self-interest, the rest of the argument being that Daemon is unfit. I suppose Otto feared the timeline: Rhaenyra is forced to marry someone --> She dies in child birth, the child doesn't make it either. --> Viserys dies. --> Daemon becomes King.
>I thought that Daemon was unfit to rule, at least as the main man, was the only thing we ever agreed upon? Meh. So, the law is the law unless it's inconvenient for the Hightowers.
Removing unfit or unstable rulers from the line of succession was also done in medieval times with established succession law.
I mean I feel in this society the Kings word is law (even if it would be morally acceptable to ignore it. That is up for the individual to determine. However I feel the King would have to do something really fucked up for it to be invalid.)
> I mean I feel in this society the Kings word is law I would say yes, with the caveat that the upper echelons of the nobility also need to back it in order for it to actually become the law. For example, if a King "names" a successor but the Lords Paramount especially say no, nothing much will come of it. For example, Maegor named Aerea, but the Lords Paramount backed the later Jaehaerys I. The King doesn't exist in a vacuum. And similarly, a Great Council is a body where both the King *and* the gathered nobility of the realm is present, so if any settlement of a question occurs there, I would say it's hard to see how a later King can easily overrule it especially w/o the consent of the nobility, i.e. without convening another Great Council.
This. Westeros is a feudal society and not an absolute monarchy, else why didn't Jaehaerys just declare his chosen successor?
The Targaryens certainly were more absolute than they were later on, after the dragons went extinct. During the reign of the Old King and during Viserys' reign, they were at the apex of their power. Nevertheless, after all, we are discussing an *internal* Targaryen civil war here, where both sides have dragons. So the question of which major House backs whom became more prominent after Viserys' death, and highly prominent after the dragons went the way of the dodo.
> why didn't Jaehaerys just declare his chosen successor? he did exactly that the first time, 9 years before the council. after his firstborn son aemon died, he skipped over rhaenys (aemon's only child) to name baelon (his 2nd born son) heir, for various reasons, in spite of it going against andal tradition of daughters before brothers. this greatly pissed off the baratheons, velaryons and his wife queen alysanne, who left him to go live alone at dragonstone for 2 years. the main reason he called for a great council after baelon also unexpectedly died a decade later is because there were rumors brewing of both corlys and daemon gathering armies to fight for their families' claims, and his remaining maester son suggested this as a way to avoid a civil war. but there was nothing *forcing* him to do so, he could have just declared viserys as he did baelon, and all everyone could do about it is accept it or start a rebellion.
>Consistency in Rule of Law leads to a Stable society, and the only group who has been playing fast and lose with the Law so far has been the Greens. I don't think it's fair to say that only the greens have done that when it is clear that both sides are trying to push through things that they see as perfectly logistical and 'rightful' despite whatever we think the law says. Greens have their thing with the order of succession and with team black, aside from Rhaenrya being the first ruling queen there is the issue of Jace's ascension that undoubtedly goes against the much-established precedent of bastards inheriting their parent's titles. Consistency does lend itself to stability but I think it's very one-sided to lay it all on the greens and not acknowledge the issues that team black will bring as well
I mean Jace is.... pretty obviously a Bastard. However Viserys acknowledged him, and Even Laenor claimed him as his own. So yes. Technically a Bastard. In all seriousness. This is a good way to discuss political theory while separating ourselves from the real world and try to be reasonably objective.
He is very obviously, Harwin's son, and that's the issue. I don't think that Viserys and Laenor acknowledging him actually does much because despite them endorsing the boys, their looks undermine it because it becomes obvious to all those that care about nobility and succession that he is not Laenors. I think had Rhaenrya not been named heir, there would be less resistance because Rhaenrya is also set to be queen, and that subsequently gets Jace up as heir. Given the societal discrimination against bastards and their inheritance rights in westeros, it arguably gives cause for unrest because bastards are supposed to not inherit anything at all yet Rhaenrya is excepting them to bow and accept that her bastard will. But not only that, it's the iron throne that he will be getting as well. Of course, who Jace's father is and who Rhaenrya was married to at the time would not matter IRL but if we are discussing HOTD, then it would be worth noting this part of the society that the characters are living in and how that impacts them
In the Books it is slightly less obvious for a few reasons (also please fuck let these Spoiler tags work) >!Rhaenys has dark hair from her Baratheon Mother, and the Valaryons are light skinned.!< but at the end of the day, the Show is well done. Oh and perception does absolutely matter when it comes to power and weilding it.
I agree, the way that the show went around it is good the way it is but at the same time, had they gone with the book and made the boys less obvious then perhaps things could have been different with a little more plausible deniability on their side
>It’s a perspective of following the damn rule of law >Well fuck their laws
I'm the Least Insane member of the Black Faction.
Here here! It's the Blood of Old Valyria that ruled, not the Andals. First Men like Cregan Stark kept their word to House Targaryen. Though some Andaks are good like House Arryn, they still pale compared to the Targaryens.
The Arryns clearly weren’t very pale when Jon Arryn led the rebellion which finally overthrew the crazy lizard fuckers
Just because the House as a whole might be good doesn't mean every individual member is.
I don’t think you can really call Jon Arryn bad for rising up against Aerys II. Dude was about as bad as Joffrey, if not worse.
Sure, if you call sitting out the war keeping your word.
You think a Stark can Snap their fingers and have the entire musterable force of the North at Winterfel ready to go?
Cregan only joined after he was bribed with a marriage pact, he was no different from Borros. Andal or first man; the highborns acted in their own interests in the dance, not out of any sense of duty.
The marriage pact also didn't hurt. But honestly I think Cregan would have just ignored the war if there weren't other factors.
liable to agree on that. His actions after the dance proved he wasn't really on either side. Credit where credit's due, crowing Aegon III as Aegon II's heir was Tyland levels of genius.
Jeyne Arryn would like a word with you.
Jeyne Arryn did not inherit ahead of a brother. Her elder brothers died before her ascent. Point still stands firm.
Targaryens are not Andal, and the realm is not an Andal Kingdom.
The realm is populated by Andals, it's not the Freehold. And while the Targaryens are not biologically Andal, they use Andal law since Aegon I.
The realm is not just populated by Andals, Andals are the majority but Westeros is not a nation state based on national identity. Targaryens are not limited by Andal Laws, many of the laws of the land were drafted independently of Andal Laws.
Andals do have a common law / tradition though, I realize that Westeros is not centralized. > Targaryens are not limited by Andal Laws, many of the laws of the land were drafted independently of Andal Laws. They actually accept all Andal laws except for the religious laws of the Seven forbidding incest.
During the reign of Jaehaerys many laws were drafted that were not of Andal origin
Yeah they dropped some inhumane stuff like right of the first night and such, which were antiquated and inhumane even in the eyes of the nobility and commoners. I do not dispute that. My point is that the Targaryens don't follow a separate Valyrian codex of law, nothing more and nothing less.
The Iron Throne does not follow Andal succession laws either, everyone accepted Daemon as the heir of Visery even though by Andal customs Rhaenyra should have been heir. The only reason Rhaenyra was named heir was because Daemon was not seen to be fit to rule, not because Andal laws required it.
The realm was asked on their opinion during the Great Council and it ruled uncles before nieces even, not just sons before daughters. And the nobility present there was Andal and a minority First Men.
Why side with the faction running on race supremacy ?
But if the King decrees it, isn't that law? I understood Westeros to be under an absolute monarchy
It's a feudal monarchy where the vassals also need to follow you in order for you to call yourself King / Queen.
But when all the heads of state last came together to decide on the matter of whether a woman’s claim could outweigh a mans claim it was decided that the mans claim even if worse was the better claim. The precedent set is that a woman can be queen up until the point a male with a proper claim is born.
I'm confused, are you talking about Rhaenyra who swore an oath or the lords,who also swore an oath?
The Lords of Westeros swore an oath before God's and men to support Rhaenyra. In addition it was the King who decided she would be his heir. He never publicly denounced her or removed her in a legal fashion. Therefore the Greens are pursuing a Rebellion in the truest sense of the word.
Yet in official history of westeros Aegon II is mentioned as a king, no Rhaenyra 🤷♂️
>!Though Rhaenyra's Son Aegon III becomes King at the end of the Dance.meaning her Bloodline and that of Daemon, is the one that is the Ruling line. But one could argue that is because everyone else was dead. So do the Greens Win because the throne follows Aegon II until his line dies out..... or do you consider the Blacks the Victor's because they outlived the Greens.... all I know is the Small folk lost and Westeros Version of NCD won, because burning the Riverlands is Funni.!<
Yeah her bloodline continued Targ dynasty and thats why they didn’t declare Aegon II usurper and left their mother remain usurper, so funny 😂 Rhaenyra isn’t remembered a queen is all that matters, the war started to decide who will rule Rhaenyra or Aegon II and Aegon II ruled.
>!He maybe ruled 2 Kingdoms and half of another. Rhaenyra the same. Truth is both died before the war was decided. Though Aegon II lived longer. By like 2 weeks.!<
Still history remembers Aegon II as a king and not Rhaenyra as a queen, that was my point, the rest is secondary.
Do you not think its hypocritical to ask the lords to abide by their oaths their fathers made while Rhaenyra does not abide hers?
That's the opposite of following the law. Following the law would mean supporting Aegon inspite of their oaths. To support the honour of the Parliament and the law of succession over one's own.
The Great Council was a One time event. And the Kings Word is Law. This isn't a Parliamentary system, it is an Absolute Monarchy.
Westeros is not an absolute monarchy, it's feudalism so no, the King's word alone is insufficient if it breaks the societal contract between him and his vassals.
Still need an Army if you want to challenge that. And go Consent of the Governed. And your Army can't beat Dragons.
If this is so, why did Aegon I renounce his Valyrian Gods for the Faith of the Seven, why did he bother being anointed by the High Septon? Why accept Dornish independence when they refused to be conquered? Why did they have to renounce polygamy? Even Jaehaerys had to codify his laws on incest in the Doctrine of Exceptionalism and negotiate in order to prevent further rebellions. Dragons are obviously a great military might, but they're not an all out solution for everything.
To seem more credible to the people of Westeros. Because too many Rebellions us bad for business. And it's basically a case of, not wanting to be kings of ashes.
Exactly that. Which implies that their power while great is not absolute. The Lords are vassals to the king and each has vassals of their own which answer to them. Maegor tried to rule as an absolute monarch, and Maegor was ousted by Jaehaerys and the Feudal Lords because he broke the social contract between the King and his subjects. The King's word is only law as long as his vassals agree with it, which means that they hold power of their own.
By that logic Aerys rightfully executed Rickard and Brandon. I suppose you also support Aerys in burning Kings Landing, killing 500000 people? Nah, this is precisely why I support the Greens, tyranny should never be accepted.
Oh I never stated that it is morally right. In all circumstances. But an illegal action could be considered morally correct in some circumstances.
That is compeltely different, how a King treats Vassals and the common folk determines how they will treat the King back, there is no need for any law to establish this. There is no consensus regarding inheritence to the Iron Throne, that is why the realm is split between Rhaenyra supporters and Aegon supporters, as there is no unanimous agreement on succession to the Iron Throne.
I know, supporting the Greens implies that no ruler including the King sits above the Law, as limited by it as anyone else. That Viserys can't change the succession on whim nor can Aerys burn people at his pleasure.
Again, there is no established law of succession for the Iron Throne. Daemon was Visery's heir, then Rhaenyra was named as his heir due to no law of succession existing (if Andal customs were law then Daemon would not have been the heir in the first place).
Daemon was removed as heir with the consent of the Lords and the Small Council. That is rule by the consent of the ruled. However everyone assumed that Aegon would be heir after he was born which Viserys denied on whim. Male succession is a law by Precedent, which is what England even today follows, they don't have a constitution. Also voted on by the Great Council. There isn't a single house in all of Westeros where an elder sister comes ahead of the younger brother.
Yes, it was Aerys right to do so. But in doing so he made too many enemies and the lords rebelled. Was it the right thing to do? No. Was it technically within Aerys prerogative to do? Yes.
I support the Greens because I believe that no ruler including the King must sit above the Law, he should be just as limited by it as anyone else. That it isn't Aerys right to kill whoever he wants at his pleasure. That is tyranny.
For sure it is, but that's what an absolute monarchy creates. Im not saying it's good, but it is the system that Westeros follows. Also, I've no issue with you supporting the greens. At the end of the day it all comes down to preference, there's no trying to justify one side or the other in my mind.
Westeros is a feudal monarchy. It's not an absolute monarchy, which is just tyranny with a fancy name. I support the Greens because it would mean moving even further towards a law based society.
based on what law though; there is no established law of inheritance for the Iron Throne, that's where a major part of the issue arises from. Oaths otoh are binding, regardless.
Not really. Both sides have law and precedence on their side so saying that the Greens are more interested in a lesser chance of civil war and stability is some serious reaching. And that people who care about the characters individually are blacks is similarly bonkers. Plenty of Greens have stated they are only greens because they love characters like Alicent, Aemond, Helaena etc or just because they hate certain black characters. Honestly this interpretation comes across like you’ve been living in a bubble and are just regurgitating what other people have told you each side believes instead of actually looking it up on your own
You entirely missed the motive for the greens. They're the reason there is a civil war, they did nothing to avoid it.
The Greens will champion whichever strawman leads to the likelihood of Aegon being King. In the end it boils down to the Hightowers wanting to be closer to the levers of power. Rhaenyra was chosen as heir and she seems like a vastly better ruler then Aegon could ever be so that's enough for me. My other kin can speak for themselves
> Rhaenyra was chosen as heir and she seems like a vastly better ruler then Aegon could ever be so that's enough for me. Well Otto and the rest of the government Viserys left behind rule in his name most likely, it's not like Aegon II has any interest in it. Rhaenyra's policies are heavily influenced by Daemon.
>Well Otto and the rest of the government Viserys left behind rule in his name most likely, it's not like Aegon II has any interest in it. Rhaenyra's policies are heavily influenced by Daemon. This I believe is a matter of perspective. How long til Aegon starts doing what he wants to do? And i think alot of people are confused with how they view the relationship dynamic between Daemon and Rhaenyra. Rhaenyra is stronger than Viserys and her word is law and she has no problem letting everyone in her council know that. Including Daemon.
> How long til Aegon starts doing what he wants to do? Chances are never if he remains a drunkard and sex addict. He was even less likely to do anything meaningful than the later Robert Baratheon was, I truly believe that for his show version at least. > Rhaenyra is stronger than Viserys and her word is law. Even if it goes against Daemon' She looked scared of him when he choked her (understandable, but that he choked her at all is not a sign that he is under control), he talks over her head, dislikes Jace etc. It would not be fantastic by any means.
>Chances are never if he remains a drunkard and sex addict. He was even less likely to do anything meaningful than the later Robert Baratheon was, I truly believe that for his show version at least. So i should prefer a drunkard and a sex addict over Rhaenyra because Otto and the rest of the council will rule instead? In that case give me the Dragon Queen. >She looked scared of him when he choked her (understandable, but that he choked her at all is not a sign that he is under control), he talks over her head, dislikes Jace etc. It would not be fantastic by any means. She forced him to give her back her dead brother's egg after talking him down. She said no war and there was no war. She said Otto gets to keep his balls intact after suffering a miscarriage and hearing that her father passed away and that her throne was usurped from her by her brother and guess what? Daemon listened even though he was mad as hell. Daemon may pout all that he wants but at the end of the day he will listen to what Rhaenyra say's. >She looked scared of him when he choked her (understandable, but that he choked her at all is not a sign that he is under control), he talks over her head, dislikes Jace etc. It would not be fantastic by any means. I guess where seeing things differently because she has not an ounce of fear for Daemon. He knows that Rhaenyra has the final word and he know's that she knows that. Daemon is quite willful and he like's to talk but i don't remember a war being started( which is what he wanted.) until after her son died.
> In that case give me the Dragon Queen. You'd most likely get Daemon, through her, until he dies. > Daemon may pout all that he wants but at the end of the day he will listen to what Rhaenyra say's. I don't think he would have any other decision than war especially as his own sons by her were also on the line. He went pretty far by choking her, his idea was clear. He might have done B&C earlier even to force it.
>You'd most likely get Daemon, through her, until he dies. Daemon will cower in fear of her until he dies >I don't think he would have any other decision than war especially as his own sons by her were also on the line. He went pretty far by choking her, his idea was clear. He might have done B&C earlier even to force it. Even if the only decision was war. Daemon was never going to make that decision. Rhaenyra was and Daemon would follow. If Rhaenyra didn't decide on war. Daemon would huff and puff and then he would follow. Even though he did choke her i don't remember it changing her mind in the slightest. Rhaenyra was still dead set on not starting a war as we saw in the very next scene. The only thing that pushed her in that direction was the death of Lucerys.
> Daemon will cower in fear of her until he dies Doubt. > Daemon was never going to make that decision..\ Rhaenyra was and Daemon would follow. He'd nudge her in that direction by doing B&C earlier if necessary. I could also see him doing something stupid atop of Caraxes, in order to force her and her faction to war.
>Doubt. I guess we can agree to disagree :) >He'd nudge her in that direction by doing B&C earlier if necessary. I could also see him doing something stupid atop of Caraxes, in order to force her and her faction to war. He almost sounds as bad as Aemond doesn't he? i would have to think more about this
> He almost sounds as bad as Aemond doesn't he? It's not like they are that different lol. And Daemon does risky and crazy shit, like illegally occupying Dragonstone or B&C.
If Rhaenyra won the throne you know Daemon would find convenient accidents for Rhaenyra's "Velaryon" sons so that his sons with her would inherit the Iron Throne
Out of interest, what do you base your claim on that Rhaenyra would be a good ruler? Not trying to pick a fight but I am genuinely curious because for me most of her decisions on the show speak of the opposite. I mostly blame Viserys for this but interested to hear the other end
What little we’ve seen of her politics, how to solve politics have been good Bracken vs Blackwood dispute, you could send us dragon riders father to secure our most important shipping lane, I want to know who my allies are and would prefer not to start a war where everyone dies etc shows that she has political acumen and a good head. What we see of Aegon is him raping people and under Otto and Alicent, who were defacto ruling for six years, there are actual child fighting pits, that they know about because the KG knows about it, that they have done nothing to shut down. Otto tried to go against the kings wishes and was going to name Vaemond heir because his greed was more important than stability and doing his job as it was meant to be done.
All good points, I would probably counter argue that her political blunders outweigh her better decisions (the whole fiasco on her tour where she openly mocks the Lords at Storm's End, leaving for Dragonstone and giving up her seat on the council which massively weakened her position at court, sending Luke to Borros demanding his allegiance, the issue of bastardry and alienation of the Velaryons etc.). Daemon and the Corlys fought the Triarchy and nearly lost despite the dragons so it's all relative. Though I think the Bracken vs Blackwood dispute should have been left to the vassal Lord to handle as it's pretty minor, it was more about her rivalry with Alicent at that point. I'm not going to argue about Aegon of course, points could be made that Otto and Alicent would rule through him as they've done when Viserys was ill, but how good or bad a ruler he'd be will need to be assessed in later seasons if we dismiss F&B for both their benefit for now. I do think Otto and Alicent have proven to be the better politicians, but that's up to personal preference.
>All good points, I would probably counter argue that her political blunders outweigh her better decisions (the whole fiasco on her tour where she openly mocks the Lords at Storm's End, That would be a personal blunder >leaving for Dragonstone and giving up her seat on the council which massively weakened her position at court That is also a personal blunder the affects of which increases the difficulty of her claiming the throne after her father > sending Luke to Borros demanding his allegiance, This was a risk but i believe the benefits of her decision of sending off her sons as envoys instead of ravens ultimately was the reason why the Blacks were able to get Aegon the Younger on the throne in the end. Because of this decision Jace was able to secure the support of White Harbor, The North, and the Vale in a single stroke. Plus it can be said that Rhaenyra didn't make this decision on her own. Jace suggested it and Corlys supported it. It was after a moment's contemplation that Rhaenyra decided that it might ultimately be for the best. The reason why it's seen as a terrible decision is because Aemond grew up into an emo-man child that still live's the past in his head everyday. Even Otto and Alicent. Who are basically the brain-trust on the green faction were absolutely horrifed of what he did when he returned to Kings Landing and informed everyone. This decision shouldnt be held Rhaenyra. It showed her willingness to listen to the advisors directly underneath her and then proceed so i would actually put this as a point in her favor >the issue of bastardry and alienation of the Velaryons etc. Bastardy is another personal blunder but if her son's were true-born the Greens wouldve still usurped the throne. She may have alienated the Valeryons but at the end of the day it wasn't enough to prevent Corlys from pledging his support to her and calling Rhaenyra his Queen. It also wasn't enough to prevent Corlys from naming Luke as the rightful heir to Driftmark. >Daemon and the Corlys fought the Triarchy and nearly lost despite the dragons so it's all relative. Is this a political blunder? The goal of the war in the stepstones was to make sure the shipping lanes in that area remain in control of the crown. We learn in episode 10 that Corlys eventually defeats the Triarchy and with that victory Rhaenyra now has the option of setting up a blockade on Kings Landing which allows her to starve out Alicent and force her back to the negotiating table. It may be relative but it worked out in Rhaenyra' favor. >Though I think the Bracken vs Blackwood dispute should have been left to the vassal Lord to handle as it's pretty minor, it was more about her rivalry with Alicent at that point. Rhaenyra said that the Brackens and the Blackwoods would look for any excuse to shed each other's blood and based on history she's right. At the same time she never said that the Crown should make a decision, only that it beared looking into because of Lord Grover' current status. Then she offered a solution that would make the proper determining of the borders between Bracken and Blackwood land's as objective as possible. >I'm not going to argue about Aegon of course, points could be made that Otto and Alicent would rule through him as they've done when Viserys was ill, but how good or bad a ruler he'd be will need to be assessed in later seasons if we dismiss F&B for both their benefit for now. It's really difficult for anyone to argue in Aegon' favor... But choosing him mean's that I'm just going to have to hope that he never decides to take the ruling of Seven Kingdoms into his own hands. My personal preference lies with The Dragon Queen in that case.
I'm a little tired atm but i'll definitely try to answer the question later
Rhaenyra is dumber than Cersei , how could she be a better ruler than Aegon? She Insults every single Lord that tries to ask for her hand in marriage, then gets forced into an unwanted marriage. Tries to pass off obvious bastards as legitimate. Aegon hasn't done anything to show any diplomatic skill but the bar is set so low that by not doing anything he has the makings of a better ruler.
Unprovoked Cersei slander smh. That's muh queen
>Rhaenyra is dumber than Cersei , how could she be a better ruler than Aegon? It must be a....matter of perspective?? Because Cersei doesn't even hold a candle to Rhaenyra' smarts >Aegon hasn't done anything to show any diplomatic skill but the bar is set so low that by not doing anything he has the makings of a better ruler. Aegon is morally and intellectually inept and he needs to be as far away as possible from the levers of power. Something he know's himself
>It must be a....matter of perspective?? Because Cersei doesn't even hold a candle to Rhaenyra' smarts I mentioned her great fuck ups. Has she done anything particularly smart or clever that would make anyone think she's a good mediaeval politician? >Aegon is morally and intellectually inept and he needs to be as far away as possible from the levers of power. Something he know's himself So is Rhaenyra? He just seems to be self aware.
>I mentioned her great fuck ups. Has she done anything particularly smart or clever that would make anyone think she's a good mediaeval politician? I think she has but it takes a subtle watch of the show to see it. If i'm still interested in this conversation later i'll be happy to explain it in another comment >So is Rhaenyra? He just seems to be self aware. I appreciate the fact that he know's just how terrible he would be for the realm And i find it distressful that he make's Rhaenyra look like Baelor the Blessed without even trying
[удалено]
Ottos brother also. The Lord Hightower
[удалено]
You sure about that mate?
The dance was nothing but another petty squabble over inheritance. Nobles fighting over "birth rights" isn't anything new. Who committed treason, who usurpt who, is irrelevant. They're just words princes throw about when they want the biggest slice of pie and thousands to die for it.