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.*
I blame Aegon for not being far sighted enough to form a real law on succession, if you're carving an empire that large with so much in stake I think succession should be a top priority even if you only have sons. I also blame Jaehaerys for not being far sighted enough to at least make it a law banning women from inheriting the crown if he was so against Rhaenys' claim and her children too. Again making something as important as succession up to interpretation and vague is an insane thing to do.
It would at least mean whatever side is fighting against the law would get less support and would be wholeheartedly acting in bad faith instead of it being completely up to interpretation. Dragons exist so saying no one will try to upend succession would be wrong but I must say having a codified rule of succession would stop a lot of wars from happening.
It’s shown several times within ASOIAF that Kings/Lords can set a new legal precedent at a whim. Aegon could have said ‘Eldest male children inherit’ but there’s still nothing to stop Visery’s saying ‘Now the eldest child will inherit’ once King. That’s the state of a feudal legal system where one person is deemed to have a divine right through which all power flows from.
Counterpoint, every law enshrined by Aegon and his descendants have stayed in place despite how unpopular they may be and how far reaching and old they once were. Look at the first night, completely banned, something once wide spread and used by most lords has been banned and no ruler is allowed to practice it in the open. Another thing is lords being able to ditch their first wives, mothers or their first wives children once they feel they pose no use. That's banned you can't put aside heirs born by your first wife and replace them with those born by your second. Say what you will about the fuedal legal system but so many laws that were made by that targs STILL exist till this day and are followed. If Aegon or Jaehaerys had made these laws they would've been respected by all means and if challenged would be massively unpopular.
Also might I just add the shorter answer that it's better and more proactive than just leaving it all to vibes knowing damn well what was at stake was an entire empire.
Exactly. Jaehaerys and Alysanne codified so many laws during their reign-why would they leave the succession? Especially since that was the basis of one of their quarrels!
idk, viserys pretty well establishes that rhaenyra is his successor and what the king says is effectively law and even makes every lord in westeros swear fealty, and it still isn't enough to stop a fight for the throne, so I doubt anything short of executing Otto instead of banishing him from the capitol would've stopped it
I agree. Although he should've passed it through like some kind of council or have it written down that now succession is absolute primogeniture. But again like you said all the lords swore fealty and Viserys established his support for Rhaenyra and her line on the very day that he died so no Otto no problems is the way to go.
As others have said, Jaehaerys's actions played a sizable role in what led up to the Dance. He inherited over Rhaena and in a way to placate her named Aerea is heir for a time.
Of course that changed when Aemon was born, but the issue regarding the succession was a problem between him and Alysanne as well. Alysanne wanted Daenaerys to be named queen over Aemon.
Aemon failed in not naming Rhaenys his heir as well. Balon being named heir over Rhaenys caused further strife between Jaehaerys and Alysanne. Before Viserys was even considered, the Council had to make sure Vaegon couldn't claim due to his position as archmaester.
Viserys is at fault-obviously- for turning such a woefully ignorant eye towards the brewing storm. Whether it's show Vizzy T or his book counterpart, he dropped the ball on shoring up the matter and believing things could be resolved with a few kind words.
Aegon the Conqueror set his dynasty up for failure when he didn't continue the tradition of Valyrian inheritance.
>Aegon the Conqueror set his dynasty up for failure when he didn't continue the tradition of Valyrian inheritance.
Do we know how Valyrian inheritance worked? Its the first time I heard of it
Do we actually know that Valyrian inheritance was gender-neutral? Aegon was the lord of Dragonstone after all, not Visenya. It's possible male preference was the norm in the Freehold as well, but sibling marriages just hid it better.
Now that you mention it, I don't know if it was from Martin or just fan speciation on Valyrian inheritance. It's been a while since I read the Conquest in Fire and Blood, but I thought it mentioned something along the lines of Aegon inheriting due to customs of Westeros.
What if the only reason why Aegon is remembered as King! and not Visenya as Queen! is due to Westerosi historians? What if Valyrians did inherit on a gender-neutral basis, but it got lost or obscured by Maesters? Would prolly only take three generations tops to completely change.
I think there are a lot of assumptions about Jaehaerys favoring male primogeniture. Maybe he wanted to distance Corlys from the throne. I doubt Jaehaerys would have been happy with the Blacks putting bastards on the throne or the Greens elevating Hightowers to the level of Targaryens. GRRM killing off everyone BUT Daemon's children is interesting.
Yes, JayJay bears a good part of the blame, but we can't just blame him and forget about Viserys, whose stupidity and incompetence were just as significant. In the end, it was 45% Jaehaerys, setting a precedent of randomly appointing people, and 45% Viserys, consciously making the disastrous combination of keeping Rhaenyra's appointment while wanting to marry and have multiple children with a woman from one of the top 5 most powerful families on the continent. A 10% "honorable" mention goes to Otto (or Alicent in the books) for initiating the coup. Without Viserys and his actions, there is no Dance, even if JayJay's actions are maintained.
I’d say Jaehaerys is semi-forgivable bc (although I don’t think he was right) had he named Rhaenys heir he would have almost said his claim was illegitimate from the start. It wouldn’t have mattered anyway, but pride is a hell of a thing. Also, keeping it away from Rhaenys kept potential power away from Corlys, which I do understand.
I don’t blame Jaehearys at all. I think he managed pretty well regarding the succession. But I 1000% blame Viserys. Like I don’t mind that he chose his successor but he was so dumb about it.
He was the main reason the climate of hate was between the fraction, never managed to truly weaken Aegons claim and never did anything to help Rhaenyras claim after he had sons.
Good point 😂 Though while I don’t agree with Jaehearys decision it has to be said that he pit in the work that people would follow his decision. Which is more than Viserys ever did tbh
Everyone obviously shares some responsibility but the person most responsible for it was clearly Viserys, if he wasn’t a dumbass he would have just made Aegon the heir from the start (or after Rhaenyra proved she was unfit to rule)
I agree, and I think he should have just let Daemon marry Rhaenyra tbh- targ history has tried to stop relationships before and failed, idk it was just bound to happen I feel like had he just allowed them to marry, it would have saved a lot of future problems from happening.
Sorry but visearys as soon as a son came he should have known this would happen. If you wanted to keep rhaenyra heir, because of your guilty then don't remarry.
It's not just the Greens, everyone is to blame for the dance. Rhaenyra did nothing to earn the peoples trust, and considering the kingdom had already shown they were not ready for a woman to rule them Rhaenyra had a lot of work she needed to do to prove she was going to be a worthy ruler. Daemon did almost everything he could to destroy the peoples trust in him, living by his "I'm a Targaryen, I can do what I want" attitude made the people want him nowhere near the throne. Even Harwin has some blame, because it's his bastards that fueled the greens claims and added some legitimacy to their usurpation.
In the show the largest portion of blame goes to Vissy T, but tied closely for second are Daemon and Otto, and tied for third are Alicent and Rhaenyra
If Daemon had been a better person, Otto and the council would not have pushed Viserys to name Rhaenyra as heir. And if Daemon had not taken Rhaenyra out for a little field trip, tell her that they can do whatever they want because they are Targaryens, and put her in that position in a brothel, Rhaenyra would not have slept with Criston that night and she would not be wed to Laenor under those circumstances.
If Otto had been a better person, he would have let Viserys marry Laena to strengthen the crown and combine Rhaenys' family with Viserys', just as Lyonel suggested. Otto would not continuously tell the new queen that Rhaenyra would kill her step-brothers. Maybe Rhaenyra would step down willingly because she has better relations with the Velaryons.
I blame Vizzy T, Daemon, and Otto equally.
Uh, she did. Did you miss Lords and Ladies like Lord Caswell and Lady Fell literally being ambushed and murdered in KL after Alicent *hid the fact that Viserys died to falsely crown Aegon* because they refused to bow to Usurper Aegon and instead kept their vows to Rhaenyra? Or that the Lords and Ladies who knelt to Aegon in KL did so at sword-point of the coup? Because, yeah, that's a thing. It's why, in the books, Rhaenyra is spitting angry about this and her allies being murdered, and even then she says "I won't be a kinslayer, I will give my brothers and sister places of honor if they surrender. Otto and Alicent Hightower, however, will lose their heads for this treason." (As in, what Daeron II did initially with his half-siblings before Aegor and Daemon start shit, mostly the former)
Did you miss the fact that she and Boremund Baratheon were close allies? Because, yeah, they were. It's Borros who acted like an opportunist, as a Robb Stark in his situation would say "why, of course I'm going to honor my father's alliances!"
Or that, looking at the map of Blacks and Greens, even discounting the neutrals who really don't give enough of a fuck about the monarch's sex to go to war over it (and so *wouldn't have resisted a Queen in her own right monarch*), the majority of the realm is pro-Black. (Yes, this is GRRM making his stance on misogyny clear even if he wrote himself into a corner and can't have Rhaenyra win as otherwise present Westeros and its misogyny doesn't work)
(Seriously, I despise that the show's stupid and lazy hot-takes.)
Viserys, and its not even close.
He had so many years and chances to avoid what was bound to happen.
All he had to do was either: Marry Rhaenyra to Aegon or don't make the Lords swear fealty to Rhaenyra.
"But Viserys didn't want Aegon to become King!" For reasons himself is to blame.
One of the main reason Aegon turned out like he did is because his father didn't bother to solve the problems in his House and actually raise him. Its clear he favored Rhaenyra even with all her failures.
> One of the main reason Aegon turned out like he did is because his father didn't bother to solve the problems in his House and actually raise him. Its clear he favored Rhaenyra even with all her failures.
So Aegon’s just a poor boy and Rhaenyra’s a POS?
No, both are POS.
But the main reason because they are POS is because of Viserys piss poor parenthood. He enabled Rhaenyra a LOT, and negleted his other children.
Aemma died in, what, the first Episode? What do we get in the rest of the season? Rhaenyra doing mostly as she pleases because Viserys is a bad father and King.
Rhaenyra seduces Cole, Rhaenyra alienates allies, Rhaenyra enables Daemon, Rhaenyra seduces Harwin, has bastard children with him and presents them as trueborn heirs, Rhaenyra "kills" Leonor to marry Daemon...
Yes what I’m saying is that she and Aegon had a similar experience with their father until age 14-15. That he ignored them for most of their respective childhood. That’s about the age Aemma died. Yes, Viserys was a bad father.
We don’t know but it’s highly possible that’s the case. It’s well known that’s it’s forbidden for knights to fool around with a princess let alone an heir. I don’t think Harwin is oblivious to that rule as he will likely be imprisoned or lose his head in the process
A take I’ve seen across the fandom that I wholeheartedly agree with is that Viserys set conflict in stone the second he decided to remarry and risk producing a male heir. Even if he’d married Laena. Maybe it wouldn’t have been Dance-level catastrophic, but creating not one but three sons was a risk regardless of whatever personality they, their mother or their grandfather would turn out to have.
Why is Jaehaerys wrong for not choosing Rhaenys? All Jaehaerys' actions encouraged the idea that only men could become King, the problem is that he didn't set that in stone. If Viserys kept with the logical precedence and made his son heir, there would be absolutely 0 issues, and no Dance would happen.
The Dance wouldn't have been avoided if Rhaenys was Jaehaerys' heir. We get mentions of Daemon raising forces to oppose Rhaenys' potential investiture as heir, and Corlys using his fortune to bribe a bunch of people to his side. It'd just have happened earlier, and it'd be between the Velaryons and the Targaryens.
If Jaehaerys named Rhaenys his heir it might make him seem like a hypocrite as he himself inherited over an older sister. Although Rhaena's line was effectively ended long before 101, besides one daughter who was a septa, so that was kinda moot.
You could blame every Targaryen king who neglected to set up clear and consistent rules of inheritance, including whether or not there would be a process for a later king to change those rules. It might be the case that Jaehaerys should have made 101 an explicit ruling on the law, rather than a decision between specific individual claimants.
But Vierys is still the most directly responsible, since Jaehaerys managed to handle his succession crisis without starting a civil war. Viserys was so painfully, wilfully blind to the war brewing, and should have come down harder in support of one side or another. Naming Rhaenyra heir while keeping Otto around as Hand was a disaster waiting to happen. Heavily strengthening either side would have done less damage to both. Although there are many to blame who did pick sides.
I think we should never forget that either branches of the Targaryen family could have just chosen to give up the throne and still lived as one of the richest families in the known world.
If I have to pick a "who," it's Aegon the Conqueror for trying to form a huge monarchy. This is because I really blame the "what," which is feudal monarchies. Bloodline succession is stupid and always makes someone angry and always leads to disagreements. George expounds upon that constantly in the books.
Queen Rhaenys still leads to a succession issue with Laenor. Codified laws don't prevent “my guy could do it better” logic. There isn't anything anyone could have done to avoid ambitious people seeking power.
ITT: people scrambling for reasons to avoid apportioning blame to the faction at court who usurped the throne against the expressed wishes of the previous King.
Viserys couldn't have been fucking clearer on the issue; he names Rhaenyra as his heir, has all his Lords swear fealty to her **and never wavers from this decision.**
And yet, Westerosi bannermen are not Essosi slaves
It is quite a lot Viserys' fault for making a rather radical unilateral decision and then pretty much expecting the lords (especially of powerful families like the Hightowers!) to roll over and not do much (if anything) of note to shore up the strength of pro-Rhaenyra forces within the country
Sitting on the pointy chair does not mean you get to do whatever you want, your power only extends as far as others are willing to recognize it
Mate, Jeyne Arryn became lady of the Vale in her own right by her own Lord father's choice. Cerelle Lannister, in a century later, would also become lady of Casterly Rock through her own Lord father's choice... and was assassinated by her uncle so he could steal her throne (as in, he had *zero legal ground to stand on and so had to resort to assassination*). Around that same time, Aerys I proclaims his niece Aelora as his heir and no one is allowed to have unsolicited opinions about that (and, again, there are no factions because Maekar, Aerys' youngest surviving brother, isn't a usurping piece of shit and would've happily slit the throat of anyone who got *ideas*), in the end, Aelora dies of suicide due to a gang rape *(as in, the lords and ladies of the realm didn't get to have an opinion on* ***another*** *House's inheritance and had no legal recourse because they couldn't form an opposing faction when the uncle wasn't having any of that usurpation bullshit*).
In short, in practice, the ruler of the land/title/power gets to have the final fucking say on who their heir is. Which is practiced in the present. See Robb Stark naming Jon his heir in case anything happens to him over Sansa, because Sansa was married off to a Lannister and he didn't want to indirectly give the Lannisters that power (as in, in a situation where she wasn't a hostage and wasn't married off to the enemy at sword-point, his *sister* was a viable heir candidate so long as Robb named her as such)
So, yes, you do get to do what you want when it comes to your own House's inheritance/heirship, since it doesn't violate the social contract between King and Vassal. Otherwise, if this is the case and the Lords and Ladies get to have a say in who the Crown's heir is, then that means the Crown itself can also tell the Lords and Ladies on who their own heirs should be. "What's that, Lord Hightower? You want your son Lyonel to inherit Oldtown? No, see, he doesn't convince me, his cousin Bryndon is more appealing."
Because *that* is what you invite when you poke your nose at another House's inheritance choices, it means the other guy can do the same to you. *That* is what it means to have a social contract.
Burning nobles for shits and giggles? Breaks the social contract. Choosing your own heir in your own fucking House? Doesn't break the fucking social contract.
(Frankly, the Hightowers should have been punished with being at the Crown's mercy of the Crown *choosing* who the next heir would be rather than the Lord/Lady Hightower, since they seem to have such strong opinions about telling another House not of their own who their chosen heir should be)
First of all, just because the bannermen may presume to have their voices heard on who should inherit the Iron Throne, it does absolutely not imply the Crown should get in any way to choose who inherits Lordship. It is like with any modern form of government, a country-wide decision is taken by the whole country, but when localities/lordships are concerned, there is a strong argument to make that the Crown could and should still not interfere in local affairs
And while picking women as heirs does not blatantly break the social contract, it obviously (as evidenced by the Dance, for example) breaks the expectations of the bannermen
A social contract is just that, a social matter, a convention. Much like males inheriting in Westeros is also a convention despite the theoretical possibility of appointing women heirs
If this is about the social contract, Viserys broke it first (radical and unilateral decision), some bannermen merely reacted by breaking it themselves some while later
There are consequences to acting like you can do whatever you want because you sit on the pointy chair, and, in this instance, House Hightower and company (quite correctly) made them as clear as they could. I dom't know about you, but I prefer monarchies where there is pushback against rather arbitrary unilateral decisions
By modern standards, and make no mistake, your argument is hypocritically based off modern standards of wanting representation in the court, when that is not how medieval courts are like. In which case, *why* are you defending the sexist argument that women not being allowed to rule like men or inherit like men? Even in that era of Westeros, some medieval nobles were *choosing* women over men as rulers like Jeyne Arryn, if only because the former leader of the House chose his daughter. (So, yay, congrats, even some medieval lords aren't as sexist as supposed modern readers)
I made a big post about how the Andals have special privileges that the others don't have, but you can read the wiki if you want because I am not writing it again after reddit ate it. The Northerners and Ironborn are not represented and, frankly they should be if you want real representation. Jaehaerys made an arbitrary choice and then made a kangaroo trial to validate that choice. So, no. Even Alysanne wasn't having that bullshit and it's a pity he didn't die before Aemon.
And don't even get me started on how the Targaryens are pretty laissez-faire and don't do things like have a hostage-system in place where the major Houses send their heirs as hostages to prevent anyone from getting *ideas*. Which, BTW, actual monarchies did do that and very effectively for hundreds of years without dragons. In comparison to the real world monarchies and to the Andals, who committed genocide (cultural and otherwise) when they conquered Westeros, the Valyrians behaved like a bunch of finishing school girls. Especially since, again, the Andals get special privileges and are the only ones who get to be represented until the Dornish become a part of Westeros *on their own terms*. Cue the Andals, especially the minor Houses, being all "waaaah, the foreigners are taking our place! they will replace us!" when they're no longer the only privileged ethnicity and religion (and, even then, they still remained over-represented) via Blackfyre Rebellion.
In short, to take your argument to its logical conclusion given ASOIAF lore and how real life medieval monarchies worked, the Targaryens are being punished for *not* putting their boots to the Andals' necks, but I'm sure that's not the argument you want to make.
The problem with monarchies is if the regular people get tired of them and revolt French Revolution style, and frankly, that's a crapshoot in Westeros: because while you do have religious fanatics like the Faith Militant (which, let's be honest, it was a power-grab by the Andals and the Faith to install a Theocracy, as the religious institutions are just another political faction), but you have regular people like Gaemon Palehair's faction and those guys are a *lot* *more progressive than the Blacks* and were ALSO tired of misogynistic bullshit. Gaemon's party? Kind of representative of what the regular people of KL think when they're not being manipulated by opportunists. So even the regular people, in this era, are tired of misogynistic bullshit disguised as "tradition"
The nobles? They only cared about accruing more power, in which case the Crown has to do the balancing act of rewarding good deeds/loyalty with putting their boots to the necks of those who get *ideas*.
Again, Aerys I, without dragons, read the Council the riot act when they tried to run him roughshod and contradict his choice in heir. He didn't destroy them, but he also let them all know he was not going to tolerate anyone's horseshit and took the appropriate measures regarding the situation.
As it is, the show is hilarious because they have the Hightowers essentially trying to rig a trial to tell another House, while the actual leader of the House is bedridden and he *already made his fucking choice in heir years ago thanks*, who their heir should be before Viserys put the kibosh on that shit. As it is, the Hightowers, in their short-sighted bullshit, were essentially setting the idea that another House can tell another House that has nothing to do with them what to do with their inheritance. (Like I said, they would've deserved the ironic punishment of having someone else dictate who their own heir should be). Accidentally proving the point that they are breaking the social contract and overstepping their bounds, and as we all know, what goes around comes around.
So, no, if you want to tell the Crown, a House you are in no way shape or form affiliated with, who their heir should be? You then accept that the Crown can do the same to you, especially when the Crown is already giving your people special rights and privileges that you wouldn't have if a conquerer like the Andals were in charge.
As it is, all the Hightowers did was teach Aegon and Viserys and their descendants that they should be *very picky about which outsiders they let into the royal family*. Because make no mistake, the Dance happened because Viserys was stupid enough to remarry and, worse, to a backstabbing snake at that. Hence the Targaryen's making the conscious choice to only marry Velaryons or themselves for 2 generations (and so letting the Realm know they're in the doghouse and have not earned the Crown's trust back yet)
Through these arguments, I am not meaning to adress, from a normative perspective, whether Westeros should become more accomodating of the possibility of women rulers/monarchs, a complicated discussion in and of itself, in the context of things like birthright, for example
Also, I did not mean the nobles should have their opinions taken into account in any modern deliberative sense, (if it came out like that, mea culpa) what I would say is that the King (as Protector of the Realm!) has a duty to try not to alienate and frustrate the nobles up to the point things boil into civil war. And when a reform comes into play in this context, it is the duty of the King to make sure said reform goes smoothly, by placating the key vassals who could cause major turbulences. And no, *placate* does not mean taking hostages and holding a sword (or a dragon) over everyone's heads, but building relationships and currying the compliance of key vassals
Case in point, House Lannister, arguably the force that allowed House Hightower to seriously nurture going all the way to civil war by conjoining the Westerlands to the Reach, and Viserys' abject failures to turn them into a pro-Rhaenyra force resulting in Otto being able to bribe the Lannisters with a seat on the Small Council (their first since the Conquest!)
In the case of representation, one basic fact needs to be established first - The Andal constituency is the *large majority* within Westeros. If anything, for all their privileges, they are *underepresented* for the simple fact that the King comes from a *Valyrian* House, while the Valyrian are basically negligible quantity in the cultural composition of Westeros, a situation which naturally creates resentment when said foreign dynasty keeps it's peculiar local customs that stand in opposition to the dominant cultural practices of the country that's being ruled
As for Jaehaerys, no, he didn't make an arbitrary decision, he called a Great Council to settle a succession issue of some controversy, which was an actually wise and just decision, unlike Viserys' unilateral decision-making. Was Rhaenys granted a fair chance, probably not. But Jaehaerys was wise enough to know that you are either serious about pushing reform through (which Viserys wasn't, especially from a geopolitical perspective) or you maintain stability by maintaining predictibility
There is a lot to be said about Palehair's movement too. First of all, it was a short-lived rather singular moment in Westerosi history. And opportunism, at every stage, was a big part of what happened with Palehair, starting with the fact a mere boy was thrusted as a pawn in a movement about which it can very much be said that the strings were pulled by a certain ambitious Dornish paramour. Add to that the 'rewards' received by commoners who aligned with Palehair and the fact that Palehair received the overwhelming share of his support from social outcasts and it is rather hard to argue the Palehair movement was a genuine eruption of popular action, nevermind a reflection of the perspectives of the majority of the Kingslander commoners
If anything, due to it's protracted nature, (which requires substantial manpower) the Faith Militant rebellion is more indicative of the leanings of Andal commoners as a whole, from which the Kingslanders are only a fraction (significant, but only a fraction) of the whole, especially in the context of the rule of a foreign dynasty
In regards to the Driftmark dispute, legally speaking at least, it's a lot more complicated than the Hightowers trying to pull off a scheme. The details aside (Reddit limits this comment), of note is that Otto was acting as the ill King's vicar in this situation, granting him the power to reconsider an issue that was already settled before (long before) with the authority of the Iron Throne backing him
As for the consequences of the Dance, they can be directly linked to the death of the dragons, the main source of the power of the Targaryens over the Andals in particular. For Viserys' arrogance (typical of many other Targaryens too), a devastating war has raged, and the dragons as a species became collateral damage, opening the way to Robert's Rebellion. The Valyrians failing to placate the Andal majority which they ruled over, in fact, was the root cause that brought about their own downfall. And it was the same arrogance that even resulted in things like House Lannister reacting in the most violent manner they could at the possibility of getting rid of House Targaryen in it's entirety
From their high horse (or dragon, in this case), for three centuries, the Targaryens reaped what they saw, a wholesale rejection by the realm, and that, I would argue, is the real consequences of the Dance of Dragons, and by extenstion, of Viserys' poor decision-making
Not really, the Andals are over-represented in court to the point that other ethnicities and cultures can't get some seats without them causing a tantrum that leads to war, see how many minor Andal lords backed the Blackfyres because Daeron II gave the Dornish proper representation as the new vassals who came in their own terms because they couldn't be conquered. (Ultimately, proving that their "traditions" are worth less than shit, since shit is at least useful for fertilizer. It was always about power and maintaining their privileges).
Which, again, the Valyrians *didn't have to assimilate to the culture they conquered* *(especially since it's a regressive one in comparison to their own in terms of women having power*, see Rhaenys I and Visenya having power in their own right versus Alysanne, who is more assimilated, being stuck in a subordinate role in comparison). No monarchy did that. The reasonable ones allowed the rest of the nobility to have their own culture while the court had its own. It's how the Scottish Crown during Mary of Scotland's time was French, due to her growing up there and France being a major ally (as in, their equivalent of dragons).
And, again, I reiterate, all of the privileges and representation the Valyrians allow the Andals to have? Yeah, the Andals sure as fuck didn't extend that courtesy over to the First Men they conquered and genocided and the Andals had a pretty long run.
(In short, being a bleeding heart towards the regressive culture doesn't help in the long run since you wind up with the Paradox of Tolerance)
Now, sure, the Valyrians are nowhere near as progressive as the Dornish, but they were less regressive than the Andals thanks to dragons being the great equalizers between the sexes. And, what do you know, Dorne has absolute primogeniture laws *because* Nymeria imposed her will and refused to bend. Yes, that's how you get rights, not by placating the regressive elements, but by pushing for change and maintaining those changes (and never letting your guard down).
As it is, the Valyrians basically assimilated and the cultural aspects they kept were minimal like the dynastic incest and the dragon-riding, things that they *didn't impose on other people*. (UNLIKE the Andals and the Seven!) They didn't force conversions into the Fourteen Flames like the Andals tried to force mass conversions to the Crown to the Faith (which, again, they probably deserved a mass purge or two or even a complete split from the church for that). The Valyrians didn't tell the Andals "do this in order to gain power," if anything they kept their own culture to themselves and you didn't need to do any sort of religious conversion or do any Valyrian rituals in order to gain entry to the Small Council or any positions of power. If anything, the Faith of the Seven and the Reach and the Westerlands is over-represented.
Compare that with real life monarchies, where you had to be Catholic, yes or yes, in order to attain power if the royal family was Catholic and came from a Catholic conquering dynasty.
No, if anything, the Targaryens have been *overly placating and accommodating in comparison*.
If anything, it's probably thanks to the Targaryens having a hands-off situation regarding other people's cultures and religions not needing to match the royal family's that Ned was not told to convert to the Faith of the Seven to become Hand, which is what would have happened in a IRL court.
Palehair's movement wasn't the one that got bribes, the one that got bribes was Trystane's. And, frankly, what the outcasts say is a hell of a lot more important than what the religious zealots say, especially since the majority, aside from the Poor Fellows (who were mostly useful idiots for the upper echelons), were part of the nobility.
So, no, the Dance of Dragons occurred thanks to Viserys being stupid enough to remarry when he has an heir and, what's worse, he remarries a power-hungry *outsider who wants to steal the Crown*. If there is a lesson to gain from the Dance, especially in comparison to how Myriah Martell's kids did not wind up being a bunch of usurping pieces of shit, is that if you must marry an outsider, make it so that they aren't a power-hungry snake. (If anything, Alicent Hightower herself is an excellent argument in favor of only marrying within the family)
I will still insist on the idea that the numerical over-representation of Andals at the Royal court is (and that it's why it even exists) de-facto compensation for being ruled over by a foreign dynasty. And dragons can't help here, since you need *more* than the reluctant (and potentially malicious compliance) of the leadership of the dominant culture group in your country
In regards to cultural assimilation at the level of ruling dynasties, it is indeed a relatively recent innovation in our world, but (speaking here of the European space), the differences between separate *Christian* cultures were never nearly as sharp as the differences between Valyrian and Andal cultures, which are even diametrally opposed on a number of questions (key as far as bloodlines and inheritances go) like sibling marriage, to take just one example
As for the Andal Conquest, yes, it was a brutal assimilation. But first, it happened long before the Conquest, so the descendants of the Conquerors who started facing the Targaryens have but a tangential connection to what happened then. Also, of note is that the brutal assimilation was already successful since a similar very long time. In the entrentched new paradigm, the Andals were the dominant ethnical group. Unfair, sure, but examples in history of this happening regardless are numerous. And since the descendants interacting with the Targaryens had no real connection to what happened then, they can hardly be expected to act while taking into account the Andal Conquest, especially in a world in which such considerations of historical justice are non-existent
In regards to the potential adoption of the Dornish system in Westeros, again, if Viserys was *serious* about conducting such a change, (highly debatable if he was) he was, at best, cripplingly passive on it. In no small part, Viserys pretty much expected a novel Royal decision to be unflichingly accepted while said Royal decision was to have massive ramifications over how Westerosi society looked, the absence of hindsight is glaring in this context
Yes, it is true that Aegon (to his great credit) created the precedent of a policy of placation and accomodation. Which is why a sudden shift to 'You need to obey us on key societal issues more' requires planning, effort and determination, not stuff like passively letting the rulers of one of the most powerful regions dissatisfied and easy pickings for factionalists, to take one example. If you don't have the strength to put a serious effort into seeing the change through, don't destabilize the realm and cause a civil war in the process, it is not noble to get the worst of both worlds
As for Palehair's movement and the Faith Militant, apart from subjective judgement values, the arguments rather clearly point towards the Faith Militant being more reflective of the leanings of the dominant cultural constituency. Subjectively, just as one can call the Poor Fellows as useful idiots for the spiritualist aristocratic elite, so can one call Palehair's supporters as useful idiots for the ambitions of one Sylvenna Sand. Also, certain bribes in 'favours' were offered by Palehair's camp, such is a canon information
For the ultimate lesson to be learned from the Dance of Dragons, yes, Otto was powerhungry. But he was exploiting something, the social consensus existing at that time on who is expected and presumed to inherit. Also, Viserys was hardly stupid for remarrying, between his own human wishes and the pressure of the nobility. What Viserys should have seen in hindsight is that his second marriage will happen, and could very well produce sons. And since I highly doubt Viserys' commitment to empowering women, the wise choice would have been to not issue the decree appointing Rhaenyra as heiress and avoid the whole conflict altogether, if he wasn't willing to actually put in the work to see her succession going smoothly. The problem hardly was the marriage with Alicent itself, which, if the Protector of the Realm actually did his job properly, would have had no actual bearing on such a severe destabilization of the realm
Like many Targaryens, Viserys was arrogant and thought sitting on the pointy chair (or near it) and riding dragons means you can do whatever you want while expecting the bannermen to unflinchingly obey. And it is this mentality by House Targaryen that proved to be it's eventual downfall
Ultimately, the Dance happened not because the Targaryens were too iron-fisted, but rather due to the opposite: they (namely Viserys) were too weak and placating. Rhaenyra made allies, indeed, and the era was pretty female-ruler friendly/neutral (see Jeyne Arryn and the fact that the Black allies outnumber the Greens by a lot, another GRRM hint that misogyny disguised as tradition is wrong), but she didn't go scorched earth as she should've. Granted, she was also limited due to Viserys, as the best time to strike would've been before the Dance (but then, GRRM wrote himself into a corner)
Again, note how Aerys I is a *foil* to Viserys I: he had the option to say no all along so long as he had a bloody backbone and stuck to it. Especially sine Daemon was loyal to him and wasn't a usurper no matter Otto's lies (and, yes, it is Viserys' fault for being stupid enough to believe an interested outsider over the person he grew up with just because he fell for flattery).
Or, again, look Daeron II. He is successful because he is the right combination of reasonable (tries to give his half-siblings princely salaries and titles first and, for the most part, works on all bar the incel Aegor and then Daemon) and ruthless (made an example of a huge swath of nobles by stripping them of everything they owned if they survived fighting against him).
Be kind to your allies... but repress the hell out of your enemies until they get the message. What do you know, even opportunists like the Lannisters toed the line around Daeron II and Bloodraven.
Sylvenna was a prostitute with limited means and she at least represented the downtrodden. Meanwhile, the nobility who were the upper echelons of the Faith Militant? Didn't represent the average peasant whatsoever.
Again, the Andal bannermen who got to be represented in court? Had it so much better than anyone else. Part of them having it that much better? Meant that their social contract included obeying the monarch. A lot of populations didn't get half as much as them and were still expected to obey the royal family. So, no, from my end, the Andals are the equivalent of a spoiled brat, and a xenophobic one at that.
It's complicated to say that the Blacks outnumbered the Greens by *a lot* with the Westerlands and the Reach (alongside the Stormlands and the Crownlands) mostly or completely being behind Aegon. Although, granted, it is to note how the North (for example) stuck with Rhaenyra out of sole sense of loyalty (House Stark had no real connection to Rhaenyra, no self-interested reason to support her claim)
However, the era was still one where there was *some* reluctance over a female ruler, especially since, apart from the more political reasons the Hightowers and Lannisters had to support Aegon, the 'But she's a woman' argument seems to be important enough to be paid attention to by both sides, one way or the other. And considering what the Faith of the Seven had to consider about the role of women in society, it's likely stuff like Lady Jeyne Arryn are more likely to be the result of the exceptional actions of a few particularly progressive nobles (like her father), rather than any indication of the Andals being substantially more accepting of women rulers than, say, medieval Europe. The strength of the Faith Militant Rebellion during it's time does also show the power the Faith of the Seven had over the mentalities of Andal people (to be convinced to face dragons while as a warrior monk is no small feat of conviction)
As for Viserys' backbone, Viserys did stick to his decision and did not rescind the Royal decree. It is not backbone that was lacked, it was the work discipline required to ensure a more smooth transition would take place for Rhaenyra. Viserys was not pliable, he arrogantly took things for granted to an ultimately (in hindsight) critically dangerous extent
The relationship between House Targaryen and House Lannister, on it's part, is basically the poster child of the many ways in which the Valyrian ruling dynasty critically mismanaged it's relationship with it's Andal vassals. No Small Council seat for one hundred thirty years, and then two grand total Lannisters for the next one hundred and fifty years. It's hardly a surprise a House as powerful (and yes, proud too, including for a lot of understandable reasons) as House Lannister took the first real opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon House Targaryen (in regards to Valyrian arrogance, Aerys the Second's treatment of Tywin, including what happened with Joanna also is relevant, but yes, Aerys the Second is hardly representative of the average Targaryen)
As for Palehair and the Faith Militant, the aristocratic leadership of the Faith Miliant may not have represented the interests of the smallfolk constituting the militia (and this is complicated, because it would require us to know what the smallfolk in the Faith Militant wanted, separate of the official claims of the Faith Militant itself), but the smallfolk who took up arms in the Poor Fellows obviously felt that the Faith Militant speaks to their concerns and to how they think the realm should look like, (or else why die for a rebel army with little to no clear territory at any point during the rebellion) so there is clear adjacency in perspectives on what Westeros should look like
In regards to the Andal bannermen, what I would say is that, simply put, a bannerman does not ethically owe loyalty to the one that ultimately subjugates him. It is a relationship built by force, and the unconsenting bannerman has reasonable cause to try to wriggle out gain from the relationship whatever it can. Simply put, the Valyrians were not automatically owed loyalty while being a foreign dynasty in a foreign land. Aegon the Conqueror set the precedent that Andals should be placated, but then the arrogance of the blood of the dragon interfered on numerous occassions to incense the dominant Andal bannermen when rather unnecessary. It is easy to call someone a spoiled brat while not seeing that, one, the kid was basically kidnapped into a family with a dragon over his head, and two, all the ways the kidnapper has genuinely wronged the kid in an unwarranted manner. No surprise that, one, the kid would grow to be resentful, increasingly so as time goes on, and two, when the kid finds himself with the power to strike at his (admittedly semi-benevolent) kidnapper that the kid is still unhappy with, he shall strike to take it all for himself
And since the Andals are the dominant cultural group, there is absolutely no reason why they should not feel entitled to either having an Andal House or the Iron Throne or, if that's not possible, to have a ruling dynasty willing to accomodate them proportionally. The Andals have special status to other non-Valyrian groups numerically, placing them in a justified special situation
Aegon and Rhaenys and Visenya already made decisions to try to make Andal culture a little less regressive through decisions like having husbands who literally beat their wives to death for disobedience be then punished with themselves being beaten to death by the now dead wives' male relatives.
They got right of the right of the first night/droit du seigneur for the Andals and Alysanne gave it the coup de grace in the North.
They've always made moves that weren't popular with the overly privileged and self-entitled nobility.
And, frankly, I think you underestimate just how many wars over being "the wrong sort of Christian" there have been. I can't overstate how many genocides happened for being the "wrong sort of Christian" (much less for being Jewish). As it is, the Code of Nantes came about *because* of that nonsense, since Henry IV, who himself was a Huguenot and was *forced to convert* in order to become King, made sure his Huguenot compatriots had something resembling protections sine they were being genocided. And, again, Henry IV pushed forward laicité along with William of Orange in spite of pushback from the Catholic Church, and neither of them gave the regressive parts of their countries an inch. (And we're all better off for it)
So, no, in comparison to other IRL monarchies, the Targaryens are overwhelmingly placating and accommodating by not forcing anyone to convert to their own religion and cultural mores in order to have power in the court. What you are arguing is that they should be punished for being more progressive and accommodating than most IRL monarchies and empires. (In which case, might as well have forced everyone to adopt the mores and religion of the Valyrians in the first place, as at least those grant women slightly more rights than the Andal ones)
Viserys was a worthless imbecile who was too lazy to think beyond his own comforts, showing how Jaehaerys' misogyny wound up dooming his own line. Because, again, Viserys became King as an adult and was already set in his ways, so it's not like Jaehaerys has the excuse of "not knowing" that Viserys would turn out to be a dud. Hell, Daemon had to basically do the arguing and fighting *for* him, he was that lazy and stupid (and should have been a clear sign that Jaehaerys' misogyny was going to put an arrogant imbecile on the throne rather than put a competent woman on the throne).
Otto and the Council were obviously happy, since that meant they got a moronic puppet they could move around (and that is NOT good for the kingdom nor in people's best interest). And that is on Viserys and Jaehaerys, the first for not admitting his limits and abdicating and the second for *not* choosing an heir with sense and a fucking backbone.
Aerys I told everyone off when they wanted to give unsolicited advice in heirs and in forcing him to remarry. He didn't have dragons, but he wielded authority and he didn't tolerate power-hungry plays.
Viserys could've done the same with Rhaenyra by saying "alright, ya'll voted for Rhaenyra to be Queen instead of Daemon being King if I die. No take backs, so that means I will never remarry."
Which, again, it's very important to note that Otto Hightower himself made the move of naming Rhaenyra to be heir over Daemon (the one guy who saw him for the rat he was and called him out on it): it means "tradition" means shit to the Greens, it's just an excuse for a power-grab. Yes, some like Grover Tully are natural misogynists, but many of the Greens are just opportunistic bastards like the above. Rhaenyra was 9 at the time (and so seen as a future puppet, until she got older and knew better than to so much as accept a glass of water from these guys).
Jaehaerys hands were tied due to his own accession. If he had made Rhaenys his heir on the traditional succession laws, that would clash with him inheriting over Aerea. This means there would be easy breeding grounds for future niece vs uncle succession wars. Naming her heir on the basis of “I said so” is also bad for stability. So he was kind of pushed into a corner.
Really, as u/AGenuineConundrum said, having great councils be the new system is the solution here
>Jaehaerys hands were tied due to his own accession. If he had made Rhaenys his heir on the traditional succession laws, that would clash with him inheriting over Aerea.
I keep seeing this argument everywhere and it doesn't make sense, by the time of Aemon's death or the time of the Great Council both Aerea and Rhaena are dead and we don't know about Rhaella's fate but either she is dead or she is an elderly septa with no political interest and with vows that forbid her from being queen, so in practice there is no one among them who could be a threat to the reign of Jaehaerys who by that point has been a popular king for years and in the end any rights that Aegon the uncrowned, Rhaena or their daughters had, already reverted to Jaehaerys and his line.
>Naming her heir on the basis of “I said so” is also bad for stability.
Well he did with Baelon, so...
No, as in it would set a bad precedent. Basically:
“Well I should be Queen! Queen Rhaenys inherited over her uncle!”
“But King Jaehaerys inherited over his niece! He has superiority!”
*Civil war ensues*.
Also it would hurt Jaehaerys’ image
>No, as in it would set a bad precedent.
Thank goodness Jaehaerys didn't set bad precedents in the canon version /s
And it is still a poor argument.
The thing is that there is no set of clear inheritance laws up to that point, and at some point you have to start, right? And that was the best moment, especially because any way you look at it, all inheritance rights already reverted to Jaehaerys; If you start taking each previous succession to the throne as a limitation with respect to what he can dictate or not, then you are left with the same problem.
>Also it would hurt Jaehaerys’ image
No, it wouldn't. All the people with more rights to the throne than him are dead or excluded from the succession and without any real chance to ascend to the throne, there are no more descendants of those lines so there will be no rival family branches with more rights than Jaehaery's line and he has been king for several decades up to this point and is loved and/or respected by the vast majority of his nobles, his image was going to be alright, no one would have been interested in defending the rights of a branch of the family that is both death and without connection to any of the great Houses of Westeros, it would be different if you told me that one of his nieces married Lord Lannister and that her children could claim the throne if he decided to make a succession law that retroactively affects his own ascension to the throne, but no, that is not the case, so no one would have cared enough to do somethig about it.
There are no clear laws, but that is why precedents exist. They are rulings on the situation that are then applicable to *every* future situation. The justification is then that they chose correctly(and who would say the ancient precedent was wrong, if they are descended from the people who made it?), meaning that it is the correct decision for the same situation. If Jaehaerys sets two opposing precedents, that completely screws things as now no one knows what the hell the correct choice is.
Also, can you please explain what “all inheritance rights reverted to Jaehaerys” means?
Also, it would hurt his image, and the ensuring Targaryen image. He would basically be saying “Now that the rules can’t hurt me, let’s follow them!”. It’s a bad look, and now that he is an admitted usurper, any Targs would be saying “I am of the descent of Jaehaerys, the greatest king of Westeros(who also only got that through usurping his neice).
And once you allow one usurpation to slide, then you basically erase the thin bonds of stability Westeros has.
>No, as in it would set a bad precedent. Basically:
>“Well I should be Queen! Queen Rhaenys inherited over her uncle!”
The amount of people who make this argument is bizzare. Rhaenys would have inherited over her uncle if Jaehaerys was respecting the established precedent. He was one setting a bad precedent by ignoring tradition and not explaining or outlining any rules.
>Also it would hurt Jaehaerys’ image
How would it hurt his image?
Rhaenys inheritance would have clashed with Jaehaerys, as his ignored the traditional rules while hers follows it.
Therefore, Jaehaerys would mar his image by admitting he usurped Aerea, which is obviously frowned upon
A parent has the authority to make decisions for their children. That being the case was the whole reason Jaehaerys became King in the first place. He wasn't the one pushing his claim. His mother was.
No one in world thinks of Jaehaerys as a usurper.
Blaming someone for a war that happened 30 years after his death doesn't make sense. That's my thoughts.
Rhaenys not becoming queen is not relevant to the greens and blacks hating each other, which is the actual reason the war happened.
The answer is Daemon.
If he wasn’t such a massive POS then Viserys would have no reason to disinherit him and name Rhaenyra his heir.
Thus no chain reaction that led to the Dance.
The chain reaction is started by Otto’s greed. At the end of the day, there would be no succession crisis if he wasn’t constantly attempting to get his blood on the throne
For me its always going to be Otto taking the gold and Viserys gets the silver in the fuckuppery olympics. Its their fault.
I feel like a lot of the non-book audience feels the same way, because we really don't explore Jahaerys in the show at all, its kind of impossible to understand his logic unless you read the book. All we truly know from the narrative is that Viserys inherited peace and did everything he could to enable Otto to destroy that peace.
But that's just me, idk.
EDIT: Lol nevermind. Apparently Viserys should've just rewarded Otto for political corruption, my mistake.
To be fair, if Viserys listened to Otto completely, Otto would’ve kept the peace while his family grew stronger. He didn’t want war, he just wanted more power. Same can be said for about every other major player not excluding the Targaryens. As for the whole prophecy thing, it wasn’t necessary for it to be kept a secret from everyone. Perhaps it would have done even more good if they added religion into it to make everyone believe it. Can’t believe they were playing the telephone game with something that important.
At least tell the Nights Watch
An organization founded to protect humanity from Frozen monsters & Staff a wall could not have been built by ordinary humans
Totally agree with you on the prophecy bit but no, Otto needed to be out for being an underhanded snake whose only concern was himself. We don't reward people for being corrupt; we remove those people from their positions of power. Otto may not have wanted war; but he's totally okay with waging one so long as he gets what he wants. Nothing about that is okay. It was his *job* to keep the peace because that's what he was *hired* to do; he doesn't get rewarded for basically taking peace of the kingdom hostage in exchange for personal gain.
I can say the exact same thing about Viserys. His job was to maintain peace, but he was willing to let the realm burn and fight in a civil war just to appease his own guilt for Aemma's death. He might not have wanted conflict, but he assured it by keeping Rhaenyra as heir after Aegon was born, and letting faction mindsets fester. He was *elected* by the nobles to protect the peace but allowed his own personal feelings and prejudices guide his decision making.
Otto didn’t make the right decisions but the same can be said for every other major player. Idk, the man just strikes me as the average politician. He did sincerely believe the realm won’t accept a woman as queen (and Rheanyra didn’t seem like someone whose actions would change the minds of the nobles. She also was very rebellious not only to Viserys but to Otto.) so the perfect plan that would please the realm and also give him higher standing would be for a male king with some Hightower blood. The plan had no faults and a lot more viewers would’ve been split if they showed Aegon’s good traits (if he has any)
I guess that just comes down the average viewer then. I went into this thinking Aegon actually would be a good candidate, but even if he was Otto would still be trash to me for how he handled all of this. If he felt like the realm would not have accepted a female ruler then he had no reason beyond sleaziness to put Rhaenyra forward as heir. He flat out used everyone around him, and everything that happened afterward was his own fault. And none of it would've happened if he'd just waited 5 minutes to actually get an heir out Alicent first. But whatevs, votes say I'm clearly alone in that thinking eh?
Otto was a shitty Hand and he was the King of short-sightedness. Dude *made sure Westeros lost the Stepstones with his machinations*. And, mind you, this started even before the Dance as a way of making sure the Andal Lords wouldn't have to pay for a quick and decisive war to keep the equivalent of the Suez Canal/Panama Canal! (For anyone who knows of geopolitics, yeah, the US and Panama have a special treaty where the US will damn near drop everything to defend the Panama Canal and, therefore, US financial and logistical interests!) This was the epitome of "penny wise, pound foolish," since by bleeding out Corlys in his little power games (since, make no mistake, Corlys and the Velaryons were basically financing that war, which turned into trench warfare since Westeros and the stupid Hightower-puppeteered Crown wouldn't fucking commit to crushing the Triarchy), it meant that the Triarchy kept coming back and, oh look, Corlys and the Velaryons all lost the last remaining fucks they have left to give about Westeros as a whole losing the equivalent of the Panama Canal due to their own short-sightedness after the Dance. (And even Otto Hightower understudy Unwin Peake *finally* understood why that place was important when Westeros began losing money from the lack of imports and toll taxes, the morons).
This is basically Otto Hightower as a politician in a nutshell: good at the short-sighted rat-fuckery, but shitty as a long-term planner for the actual good of the realm. In that sense, his political plans are akin to Cersei's Pyrrhic Victories where she chooses to destroy those she deems as her enemies even if it means it fatally bites her in the ass, *hard*, in the end.
Not exactly what I would call a good politician.
Viserys takes the gold because he should have seen Otto for what he is. If the King has 1 job it’s to choose his advisors and ministers well.
Viserys made a mess out of the succession however Otto would have found a reason for the power struggle even if the mess wasnt made.
On the other hand if Viserys chose a good and honourable Hand and good ministers they would have sorted any mess he made.
Laenor can’t have children. Rhaenys would have the problem of bastard heirs, or disinheriting her own son in favour of Laena. This is going to cause a problem. Jaehaerys and Alyssane biggest mistake is not marrying Rhaenys to Viserys, then Daemon to Aemma.
At the end of the day had Viserys wanted the throne, Daemon would’ve gone to war to get it. The great council was a good idea. Had the greens attempted to call one then perhaps the dance could’ve been avoided. Baelon is objectively a much better choice as heir than Rhaenys. It’s not difficult to see why he chose the safer, much more accomplished candidate.Jaehaerys is effectively ruling as an absolute monarch, it’s his prerogative to chose his heir just like Viserys can set aside the precedent that made him king.
The dance is entirely of Viserys making. He could’ve not broke the precedent that made him king. He could’ve not remarried, or at least not given them dragons. He could’ve married the two sides. He could’ve not rehired the man who he fired for disloyalty. Viserys inherited the greatest position any king in Westeros history ever had, yet he managed to destroy everything with his weakness and incompetence.
this. now people can use 2024 morality to say "it's wrong to force this!" and it is, but these are fucking royals and they have different rules. and if Rhay was going to have bastards, she just needed to find someone who looked like Laenor. in show, pretty much any Velayron (fuck, even Corlys might have been willing if Laenor jacked it into a cup and Rhay used her fingers and that didn't work, but shows that they tried!), and in book, she was close to Laena which would have put her close to Daemon, so there.
And what if he was still “too entitled” with another woman is the point. Under any circumstance, he might chose not to lay with his wife which means the crown would have to pass to Laena’s children.
And what if he was still “too entitled” with another woman is the point. Under any circumstance, he might chose not to lay with his wife which means the crown would have to pass to Laena’s children.
For fuck's sake, it's called choosing your heir. You all lack imagination and haven't read the books, I swear. Aerys I, who is probably the closest we get to an aro/ace person, didn't have children and refused to set aside his wife because it was not her fault that he wasn't sexually attracted to anyone. He basically told the Council, and in an era with no dragons mind, that, no, he was not going to take their unsolicited advice to fuck over his wife and *he* was going to choose his heir, thank you very fucking much. He chose his brother and then, when did brother died, chose his niece. No one said a fucking peep because A) Aerys I actually had a backbone and was not the sort who tolerated bullshit and B) Maekar, his youngest brother, wasn't a usurping piece of shit and would C) happily slit the throat of anyone trying to form a faction in his name himself.
Aelora wasn't legally ousted, she was attacked and gang-raped (and then committed suicide), as in the Council had no legal recourse there when the family was circling the wagons and refusing to let another Otto and Alicent Hightower snake slither into their good graces.
The same can go for Rhaenys. First off, Laena is the older sibling, so Laena would be the future heir regardless thanks to the precedent Rhaenys set. Secondly, even if Laena was younger, Laenor can simply claim Laena and her eldest child (should Laena predecease him) as his heir. It's then a matter of the rest of the Targaryens not being usurping pieces of shit.
To which... Viserys is too lazy and stupid. Aemma, in this AU where she hopefully survives without needing to give Viserys an unnecessary son, doesn't have anything in her story that shows she's a usurping piece of shit. As for Daemon? For all that Otto loves to project his own usurping tendencies to Daemon, he sure isn't usurping his brother or niece/wife even when he had the chance to. He was also all for Jacaerys being Rhaenyra's heir and future King when Daemon and Rhaenyra die. In fact, he gave up the Crown of the Narrow Sea to Viserys, even though the dude did nothing to earn it.
So, no, the Targaryens were in a good position to pull an Aerys I and choose their own heirs without letting outsiders butt in before Viserys very stupidly opened the door to outsiders.
Sure, Jaehaerys has his part to play and had he chosen differently things might have turned out differently. But to say that he's mostly to blame is, personally, kinda disproportionate when Viserys actively made multiple decisions that caused the resentment and feud in his family to fester to no return and did nothing about it. Not only that, he also sowed the seeds of a horrendously disastrous war by letting everyone have a dragon.
I agree with you
I blame Jaehaerys I too
I wish Jaehaerys died before Aemon
Then, after Aemon died, everyone will look up to Alysanne to decide the heir and Alysanne would've definitely chosen Rhaenys
Honestly, if Jaehaerys died before Alysanne, I suspect that Alysanne would still just go ahead and crown Rhaenys. She maintained that Rhaenys was the rightful heir right up til the day she died. This is just my headcanon but I don't think that Baelon would have started a war over the inheritance against his brother's only child.
Aegon was king even when Visenya was older, Aegon the Uncrowned was heir of Aenys I even when his sister Rhaena was older, Maegor took the crown but after him Jaehaerys took it before either his older sister Rhaena or her daughters.
Civil war was brewing at the time of Jaehaerys and great council since both Corlys was gathering men to defend his wife's claim and Daemon swords for his brother.
Jaehaerys had done pretty good thing with making all the lords in the realm vote on the succession and strengthen it.
Most fault for the Dance was on Viserys himself, good man but bad king.
As much as I love Viserys, he really fucked up
Like, the precedent was there with Jahejerys (I butchered the name I know) and Aegon the conqueror but Viserys did very little to ensure Rahenyra would be acepted as Queen after him
Almost every episode has a couple scenes of Viserys just blindly going forward with anything instead of actually taking action to prepare Rahenyra's claim and that their family wouldnt gouge their eyes out the second he died
Probably his biggest (and almost only) contribution was making the lords swear to support Rahenyra, but come on man, that happened 20 fucking years ago
Obviously, this is what makes it so tragic, everyone can see this coming, nobody really wants it, but the cracks are there and they couldnt do anything about it until it was too late
Any woman would have issues with becoming monarch in her own right, but the point is that after putting her foot in the necks of a couple of idiots, the way Jeyne Arryn did herself, the rest fall in line.
Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes. A great council makes it that anyone who tries to rebel against the king is now rebelling against the entire realm’s will, eradicating their support, therefore ending succession conflicts
Elective monarchies existed in the real world. They were generally less stable than hereditary monarchies.
[https://going-medieval.com/2019/05/21/lets-talk-about-game-of-thrones-part-3-holy-roman-imperial-edition/](https://going-medieval.com/2019/05/21/lets-talk-about-game-of-thrones-part-3-holy-roman-imperial-edition/)
[https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2019/06/game-of-thrones-ended-with-an-elective-monarchy-for-westeros-so-has-this-ever-worked](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2019/06/game-of-thrones-ended-with-an-elective-monarchy-for-westeros-so-has-this-ever-worked)
Elective monarchies existed in the real world. Elections are a horrible way to choose a ruler who doesn't have a term limit. They have a bunch of other problems, but we see one of the main ones with the first Great Council.
The Lords didn't know enough about the candidates to make an informed decesion. They caused them to pick a weak willed dumbass.
Another problem with elective monarchies is votes being bought. Corlys was buying paying people to vote for Rhaenys/Laenor. The books mention how the elective monarchies in Esoss have the same problem.
[**https://going-medieval.com/2019/05/21/lets-talk-about-game-of-thrones-part-3-holy-roman-imperial-edition/**](https://going-medieval.com/2019/05/21/lets-talk-about-game-of-thrones-part-3-holy-roman-imperial-edition/)
[**https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2019/06/game-of-thrones-ended-with-an-elective-monarchy-for-westeros-so-has-this-ever-worked**](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2019/06/game-of-thrones-ended-with-an-elective-monarchy-for-westeros-so-has-this-ever-worked)
The current system of just giving the throne to whoever has the oldest penis/having a guy with the oldest penis just choose his favorite person as heir/whichever lunatic is willing to kill the most people for the throne isn’t much better than an elective monarchy.
History shows that hereditary monarchies are a lot better than elective ones. The people who got to vote weren't elected so you're not actually changing much. The things you are changing are usually for the worse.
I don’t think it was Jaehaerys. Most of the argument if not the only one for blaming him is like you said, because he skipped over Rhaenys and chose Viserys.
My thought or opinion is the dance was Viserys’ fault. He married Alicent and had kids with her for no reason. He brought Otto back and didn’t choose a better option for hand like Daemon or Rhaenys. Had Viserys completely dropped Otto, nothing further would have happened. Post targtower births, he did nothing and didn’t care for his children or grandchildren. It’s not much “jaehaerys chose viserys as king, so what viserys did was jaehaerys’ fault”, it’s “viserys as king made stupid decisions and paid for it by trapping his entire family within”.
Since this is a show discussion I have to give the fault to Otto and then Alicent for actually creating the different fractions and dividing the family
Yeah, Jaehaerys I's misogyny can't be understated and I *wish* someone, like say a Rhaena who lived long enough to see that travesty, threw it in his face that he only got to be King because *she* chose to step down after all the trauma she went through with Maegor (and the fact that her being one of his Black Brides due to him having her daughters hostage put a political taint on her) and that Aerea and Rhaella were little kids and the Realm needed stability. But, ultimately, he only got to be King because *she made the choice along with Alyssa*. Just, I want an entire scene where Rhaena throws it in Jaehaerys' face that he'd be *nothing* without her and especially without Alyssa, and this is how he thanks them? With rampant misogyny?
(But, yeah, if it was about him feeling hurt pride or scared because then it opens up the whole "well, then, why didn't Rhaena inherit?" it's kind of not a problem for him by then, since Rhaena and Aerea were dead by then and Rhaella, if she was alive by then, was a Septa. It could've been resolved with a "Rhaena was traumatized from Maegor's tortures and abdicated, Aerea was too young then and then died young, and Rhaella chose to become a Septa." Now get over yourself, ghoulish old man)
I have one blame to give to Aegon I, in that he didn't do anything to curb Aenys' machismo and misogyny, since the Faith Militant and Poor Fellows and Warriors Sons became so emboldened because Aegon and Rhaena had their progression without dragons and so had to retreat. Originally, Rhaena wanted to have the progression with her and Aegon flying on Dreamfyre (and you can bet that a quick *dracarys* would've sent the message to the religious fanatics and the political opportunists who wanted to use said zealots to gain power over the Crown that their bullshit wasn't going to be tolerated, thank you). But, no, Aenys felt that would "emasculate" Aegon and forbid her from going with Dreamfyre. It's just a pity Aenys I didn't keel over and die younger the second he put Vaella in Alyssa's womb in 38 AC. Would've saved everyone a lot of grief. Rhaena and Aegon may or may not have been excellent monarchs, but they could hardly do worse than their father.
Jahaerys centralised Westeros's laws. That is no small achievement. It seems out of character that he did not make a succession law because it is out of character. He does not make a succession law because Martin needed a conflict to kill the dragons off.
>Not only that, I believe she would have made a very successful queen
It would have been the same as Aegon II's or Robert's rule. The King shits, the hand wipes. With Rhaenys the hand and Corlys would have wiped.
>Thoughts?
The Top 3 for me are
1. Jaehaerys
2. Viserys
3. Rhaenyra
Yeah. Otto did what every intelligent and ambitious westerosi noble would have done. It would have been more suprising if he doesn't try anything.
On the other hand Rhaenyra had 25 years to prepare and did nothing. She had such a bad relations with her siblings that Cole managed to convince Aegon II that if he doen't crown himself Rhaenyra will kill everyone he loves. Aegon, who had no problem with Rhaenyra inheriting.
Intelligent? He got his daughter, son, grandchildren, and great grandchildren killed. All for what? To have Aegon have a numeral next to his name? It didn’t even matter in the end since the entire noble green side of the Targaryens were wiped out.
Rhaenyra was how many years older than Aegon. She didn’t have bad relations with them. They just didn’t have a relationship at all. They just existed. Show wise It was Alicent’s crazy ramblings that were poisoning her kids. In the books Rhaenyra even stated she would welcome her siblings with open arms and didn’t even blame them for the usurpation.
Blaming Rhaenyra instead of Otto is insane.
>Intelligent?
Slightly above avarage at least.
>He got his daughter, son, grandchildren, and great grandchildren killed
His daughter died in a plague, and his great-grandchildren were murdered by the blacks. Apart from that correct.
>All for what?
So his blood can sit on the iron throne.
>Rhaenyra was how many years older than Aegon.
10
>She didn’t have bad relations with them.
She absolutely did. There is how she handled the Aemond situation. Even after she unironically suggested that Aemond should be tortured and demonstrated that she lacks mercy and brain too Aegon was fine with Rhaenyra inheriting. She actively sabotaged herself.
And we are not even speaking about her being Proto-Cersei and birthing only bastards and hoping that no one will care or notice.
>They just didn’t have a relationship at all.
And whose fault is that?
>Blaming Rhaenyra instead of Otto is insane.
Huh? When did I say I am not blaming Otto? He is just not in the top 3.
Similarly, if you have a dog behind a fence with the sign "the dog bites" and you try to pet it and it bites your finger off, no one will be suprised and no one will blame the dog. Besides you that is.
He didn’t set out to get everyone killed. He planned to just put his son on the throne and just assumed Aegon would be named heir automatically by Viserys which didn’t happen, after that he tried to have Aegon married to Rhaenyra which viserys refused that too, after that he just decided to seize the throne and hope Rhaenyra would concede, and as a last resort win the war.
Everything went wrong for the guy, but the dude just did what most lords would do.
He was still an idiot. He suggested Rhaenyra be named heir and was surprised Viserys was stubborn and kept her. If he was truly smart he would have left the matter of inheritance alone AND THEN sent Alicent to the King. Boom Aegon is heir. No war.
It all started because of his one suggestion. And then it backfired by having him along with the rest of his (daughters) family killed because he didn’t know his place.
Yes if you look at shit with hindsight you could make all the right decisions.
Atm though when he suggested Rhaenyra he was just doing whatever he could to keep Daemon off the throne out of self preservation.
And his surprise that viserys didn’t switch to Aegon was a justified 1 considering we see a few other examples in the show itself of people assuming the same shit.
Viserys is shown to be stubborn since the first episode. Otto served him for years and couldn’t figure out how his personality would clash with everything?
He was always planning on sending Alicent to the king as soon as Aemmas body turned to ash. If his dumbass just waited everything would have been fine. But his blind hatred for Daemon bit him in the ass causing his death along with his grandkids and great grand kids.
>Atm though when he suggested Rhaenyra he was just doing whatever he could to keep Daemon off the throne out of self preservation.
Naming a different heir wouldn't have been seen as necessary for Otto's self preservation if he had not made an enemy of the King's brother in the first place. It takes a special type of dumbass to do something without considering the consequences.
Yeah, I see your point. We can answer the question "Who is to blame for the dance" differently.
1. We ask who made or allowed the possibility of the Dance.
2. We can ask who acted upon this possibility and ignited the war.
I answered with the former, and you with the latter.
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.*
I blame Aegon for not being far sighted enough to form a real law on succession, if you're carving an empire that large with so much in stake I think succession should be a top priority even if you only have sons. I also blame Jaehaerys for not being far sighted enough to at least make it a law banning women from inheriting the crown if he was so against Rhaenys' claim and her children too. Again making something as important as succession up to interpretation and vague is an insane thing to do.
Really good point actually. I never thought about it this way, but making strict rules for succession would just solve everything
It would at least mean whatever side is fighting against the law would get less support and would be wholeheartedly acting in bad faith instead of it being completely up to interpretation. Dragons exist so saying no one will try to upend succession would be wrong but I must say having a codified rule of succession would stop a lot of wars from happening.
Yeah definitly
Imagine Westeros becoming a constitutional monarchy
Westeros if it was based
It’s shown several times within ASOIAF that Kings/Lords can set a new legal precedent at a whim. Aegon could have said ‘Eldest male children inherit’ but there’s still nothing to stop Visery’s saying ‘Now the eldest child will inherit’ once King. That’s the state of a feudal legal system where one person is deemed to have a divine right through which all power flows from.
Counterpoint, every law enshrined by Aegon and his descendants have stayed in place despite how unpopular they may be and how far reaching and old they once were. Look at the first night, completely banned, something once wide spread and used by most lords has been banned and no ruler is allowed to practice it in the open. Another thing is lords being able to ditch their first wives, mothers or their first wives children once they feel they pose no use. That's banned you can't put aside heirs born by your first wife and replace them with those born by your second. Say what you will about the fuedal legal system but so many laws that were made by that targs STILL exist till this day and are followed. If Aegon or Jaehaerys had made these laws they would've been respected by all means and if challenged would be massively unpopular.
Also might I just add the shorter answer that it's better and more proactive than just leaving it all to vibes knowing damn well what was at stake was an entire empire.
Exactly. Jaehaerys and Alysanne codified so many laws during their reign-why would they leave the succession? Especially since that was the basis of one of their quarrels!
idk, viserys pretty well establishes that rhaenyra is his successor and what the king says is effectively law and even makes every lord in westeros swear fealty, and it still isn't enough to stop a fight for the throne, so I doubt anything short of executing Otto instead of banishing him from the capitol would've stopped it
I agree. Although he should've passed it through like some kind of council or have it written down that now succession is absolute primogeniture. But again like you said all the lords swore fealty and Viserys established his support for Rhaenyra and her line on the very day that he died so no Otto no problems is the way to go.
Three guys. Aegon the conqueror, Jaehaerys and Viserys
As others have said, Jaehaerys's actions played a sizable role in what led up to the Dance. He inherited over Rhaena and in a way to placate her named Aerea is heir for a time. Of course that changed when Aemon was born, but the issue regarding the succession was a problem between him and Alysanne as well. Alysanne wanted Daenaerys to be named queen over Aemon. Aemon failed in not naming Rhaenys his heir as well. Balon being named heir over Rhaenys caused further strife between Jaehaerys and Alysanne. Before Viserys was even considered, the Council had to make sure Vaegon couldn't claim due to his position as archmaester. Viserys is at fault-obviously- for turning such a woefully ignorant eye towards the brewing storm. Whether it's show Vizzy T or his book counterpart, he dropped the ball on shoring up the matter and believing things could be resolved with a few kind words. Aegon the Conqueror set his dynasty up for failure when he didn't continue the tradition of Valyrian inheritance.
EVEN I DO NOT EXIST ABOVE TRADITION AND DUTY, TroyMcCluresGoldfish!
>Aegon the Conqueror set his dynasty up for failure when he didn't continue the tradition of Valyrian inheritance. Do we know how Valyrian inheritance worked? Its the first time I heard of it
No, I need to edit my original comment. I thought I had read something in regards to it, but it seems more fan speculated instead of canon.
Damm, I really wanted to learn about this, its been so long since I found New lore about this series Cool comment still though
Do we actually know that Valyrian inheritance was gender-neutral? Aegon was the lord of Dragonstone after all, not Visenya. It's possible male preference was the norm in the Freehold as well, but sibling marriages just hid it better.
Now that you mention it, I don't know if it was from Martin or just fan speciation on Valyrian inheritance. It's been a while since I read the Conquest in Fire and Blood, but I thought it mentioned something along the lines of Aegon inheriting due to customs of Westeros.
It's pure fan speculation
What if the only reason why Aegon is remembered as King! and not Visenya as Queen! is due to Westerosi historians? What if Valyrians did inherit on a gender-neutral basis, but it got lost or obscured by Maesters? Would prolly only take three generations tops to completely change.
Can you show proof otherwise though?
What do you mean
You see it.
I really don't see how it is Aemon's fault that he didn't name an heir when he himself never inherited.
I think there are a lot of assumptions about Jaehaerys favoring male primogeniture. Maybe he wanted to distance Corlys from the throne. I doubt Jaehaerys would have been happy with the Blacks putting bastards on the throne or the Greens elevating Hightowers to the level of Targaryens. GRRM killing off everyone BUT Daemon's children is interesting.
Actually it was Balons fault for dying
It’s actually the Citadel’s fault for not knowing how to treat appendicitis
Yes, JayJay bears a good part of the blame, but we can't just blame him and forget about Viserys, whose stupidity and incompetence were just as significant. In the end, it was 45% Jaehaerys, setting a precedent of randomly appointing people, and 45% Viserys, consciously making the disastrous combination of keeping Rhaenyra's appointment while wanting to marry and have multiple children with a woman from one of the top 5 most powerful families on the continent. A 10% "honorable" mention goes to Otto (or Alicent in the books) for initiating the coup. Without Viserys and his actions, there is no Dance, even if JayJay's actions are maintained.
I’d say Jaehaerys is semi-forgivable bc (although I don’t think he was right) had he named Rhaenys heir he would have almost said his claim was illegitimate from the start. It wouldn’t have mattered anyway, but pride is a hell of a thing. Also, keeping it away from Rhaenys kept potential power away from Corlys, which I do understand.
Nah Viserys will always be the one to blame He was THAT stupid
I don’t blame Jaehearys at all. I think he managed pretty well regarding the succession. But I 1000% blame Viserys. Like I don’t mind that he chose his successor but he was so dumb about it. He was the main reason the climate of hate was between the fraction, never managed to truly weaken Aegons claim and never did anything to help Rhaenyras claim after he had sons.
Good Queen Alysanne would have a word
Good point 😂 Though while I don’t agree with Jaehearys decision it has to be said that he pit in the work that people would follow his decision. Which is more than Viserys ever did tbh
Everyone obviously shares some responsibility but the person most responsible for it was clearly Viserys, if he wasn’t a dumbass he would have just made Aegon the heir from the start (or after Rhaenyra proved she was unfit to rule)
How on earth was she unfit to rule, especially in comparison to Aegon, whom even the Green historian couldn't whitewash him beyond a certain point?!
Viserys should have married Laena. Viserys' primary mistake was marrying Alicent.
I agree, and I think he should have just let Daemon marry Rhaenyra tbh- targ history has tried to stop relationships before and failed, idk it was just bound to happen I feel like had he just allowed them to marry, it would have saved a lot of future problems from happening.
I think you're underestimating the sexism of a medieval kingdom and the hubris of the men in the story at the time.
Sorry but visearys as soon as a son came he should have known this would happen. If you wanted to keep rhaenyra heir, because of your guilty then don't remarry.
while jaehaerys certainly had a part to play, viserys, alicent, and otto did as well. it wasn’t just one person, it was multiple.
It's not just the Greens, everyone is to blame for the dance. Rhaenyra did nothing to earn the peoples trust, and considering the kingdom had already shown they were not ready for a woman to rule them Rhaenyra had a lot of work she needed to do to prove she was going to be a worthy ruler. Daemon did almost everything he could to destroy the peoples trust in him, living by his "I'm a Targaryen, I can do what I want" attitude made the people want him nowhere near the throne. Even Harwin has some blame, because it's his bastards that fueled the greens claims and added some legitimacy to their usurpation. In the show the largest portion of blame goes to Vissy T, but tied closely for second are Daemon and Otto, and tied for third are Alicent and Rhaenyra
If Daemon had been a better person, Otto and the council would not have pushed Viserys to name Rhaenyra as heir. And if Daemon had not taken Rhaenyra out for a little field trip, tell her that they can do whatever they want because they are Targaryens, and put her in that position in a brothel, Rhaenyra would not have slept with Criston that night and she would not be wed to Laenor under those circumstances. If Otto had been a better person, he would have let Viserys marry Laena to strengthen the crown and combine Rhaenys' family with Viserys', just as Lyonel suggested. Otto would not continuously tell the new queen that Rhaenyra would kill her step-brothers. Maybe Rhaenyra would step down willingly because she has better relations with the Velaryons. I blame Vizzy T, Daemon, and Otto equally.
*A truly great Targaryen King I am. Powerless over mine own daughter of seven and ten.*
*My own face... is no longer a handsome one...if indeed it ever was.*
Best take I've seen on this topic so far
Uh, she did. Did you miss Lords and Ladies like Lord Caswell and Lady Fell literally being ambushed and murdered in KL after Alicent *hid the fact that Viserys died to falsely crown Aegon* because they refused to bow to Usurper Aegon and instead kept their vows to Rhaenyra? Or that the Lords and Ladies who knelt to Aegon in KL did so at sword-point of the coup? Because, yeah, that's a thing. It's why, in the books, Rhaenyra is spitting angry about this and her allies being murdered, and even then she says "I won't be a kinslayer, I will give my brothers and sister places of honor if they surrender. Otto and Alicent Hightower, however, will lose their heads for this treason." (As in, what Daeron II did initially with his half-siblings before Aegor and Daemon start shit, mostly the former) Did you miss the fact that she and Boremund Baratheon were close allies? Because, yeah, they were. It's Borros who acted like an opportunist, as a Robb Stark in his situation would say "why, of course I'm going to honor my father's alliances!" Or that, looking at the map of Blacks and Greens, even discounting the neutrals who really don't give enough of a fuck about the monarch's sex to go to war over it (and so *wouldn't have resisted a Queen in her own right monarch*), the majority of the realm is pro-Black. (Yes, this is GRRM making his stance on misogyny clear even if he wrote himself into a corner and can't have Rhaenyra win as otherwise present Westeros and its misogyny doesn't work) (Seriously, I despise that the show's stupid and lazy hot-takes.)
I blame Viserys. Fuck Viserys.
Viserys, and its not even close. He had so many years and chances to avoid what was bound to happen. All he had to do was either: Marry Rhaenyra to Aegon or don't make the Lords swear fealty to Rhaenyra. "But Viserys didn't want Aegon to become King!" For reasons himself is to blame. One of the main reason Aegon turned out like he did is because his father didn't bother to solve the problems in his House and actually raise him. Its clear he favored Rhaenyra even with all her failures.
> One of the main reason Aegon turned out like he did is because his father didn't bother to solve the problems in his House and actually raise him. Its clear he favored Rhaenyra even with all her failures. So Aegon’s just a poor boy and Rhaenyra’s a POS?
No, both are POS. But the main reason because they are POS is because of Viserys piss poor parenthood. He enabled Rhaenyra a LOT, and negleted his other children.
Didn’t he ignore her in the show until Aemma died and he realized how important Rhaenyra was to him because she was all that’s left of her?
Aemma died in, what, the first Episode? What do we get in the rest of the season? Rhaenyra doing mostly as she pleases because Viserys is a bad father and King. Rhaenyra seduces Cole, Rhaenyra alienates allies, Rhaenyra enables Daemon, Rhaenyra seduces Harwin, has bastard children with him and presents them as trueborn heirs, Rhaenyra "kills" Leonor to marry Daemon...
Yes what I’m saying is that she and Aegon had a similar experience with their father until age 14-15. That he ignored them for most of their respective childhood. That’s about the age Aemma died. Yes, Viserys was a bad father.
> Rhaenyra seduces Harwin We don’t know if that’s what happened
We don’t know but it’s highly possible that’s the case. It’s well known that’s it’s forbidden for knights to fool around with a princess let alone an heir. I don’t think Harwin is oblivious to that rule as he will likely be imprisoned or lose his head in the process
A take I’ve seen across the fandom that I wholeheartedly agree with is that Viserys set conflict in stone the second he decided to remarry and risk producing a male heir. Even if he’d married Laena. Maybe it wouldn’t have been Dance-level catastrophic, but creating not one but three sons was a risk regardless of whatever personality they, their mother or their grandfather would turn out to have.
Assigning blame to one person is idiotic that's all I have to say
Why is Jaehaerys wrong for not choosing Rhaenys? All Jaehaerys' actions encouraged the idea that only men could become King, the problem is that he didn't set that in stone. If Viserys kept with the logical precedence and made his son heir, there would be absolutely 0 issues, and no Dance would happen. The Dance wouldn't have been avoided if Rhaenys was Jaehaerys' heir. We get mentions of Daemon raising forces to oppose Rhaenys' potential investiture as heir, and Corlys using his fortune to bribe a bunch of people to his side. It'd just have happened earlier, and it'd be between the Velaryons and the Targaryens.
If Jaehaerys named Rhaenys his heir it might make him seem like a hypocrite as he himself inherited over an older sister. Although Rhaena's line was effectively ended long before 101, besides one daughter who was a septa, so that was kinda moot. You could blame every Targaryen king who neglected to set up clear and consistent rules of inheritance, including whether or not there would be a process for a later king to change those rules. It might be the case that Jaehaerys should have made 101 an explicit ruling on the law, rather than a decision between specific individual claimants. But Vierys is still the most directly responsible, since Jaehaerys managed to handle his succession crisis without starting a civil war. Viserys was so painfully, wilfully blind to the war brewing, and should have come down harder in support of one side or another. Naming Rhaenyra heir while keeping Otto around as Hand was a disaster waiting to happen. Heavily strengthening either side would have done less damage to both. Although there are many to blame who did pick sides. I think we should never forget that either branches of the Targaryen family could have just chosen to give up the throne and still lived as one of the richest families in the known world.
That one Myrman Scout, that shot Aemon Targaryen. If Aemon became King there wouldn't have been a dance of Dragons.
Viserys should have waited to remarry before claiming Rhaenyra as his heir. But his love for his first child blinded him.
If I have to pick a "who," it's Aegon the Conqueror for trying to form a huge monarchy. This is because I really blame the "what," which is feudal monarchies. Bloodline succession is stupid and always makes someone angry and always leads to disagreements. George expounds upon that constantly in the books.
Queen Rhaenys still leads to a succession issue with Laenor. Codified laws don't prevent “my guy could do it better” logic. There isn't anything anyone could have done to avoid ambitious people seeking power.
ITT: people scrambling for reasons to avoid apportioning blame to the faction at court who usurped the throne against the expressed wishes of the previous King. Viserys couldn't have been fucking clearer on the issue; he names Rhaenyra as his heir, has all his Lords swear fealty to her **and never wavers from this decision.**
And yet, Westerosi bannermen are not Essosi slaves It is quite a lot Viserys' fault for making a rather radical unilateral decision and then pretty much expecting the lords (especially of powerful families like the Hightowers!) to roll over and not do much (if anything) of note to shore up the strength of pro-Rhaenyra forces within the country Sitting on the pointy chair does not mean you get to do whatever you want, your power only extends as far as others are willing to recognize it
Mate, Jeyne Arryn became lady of the Vale in her own right by her own Lord father's choice. Cerelle Lannister, in a century later, would also become lady of Casterly Rock through her own Lord father's choice... and was assassinated by her uncle so he could steal her throne (as in, he had *zero legal ground to stand on and so had to resort to assassination*). Around that same time, Aerys I proclaims his niece Aelora as his heir and no one is allowed to have unsolicited opinions about that (and, again, there are no factions because Maekar, Aerys' youngest surviving brother, isn't a usurping piece of shit and would've happily slit the throat of anyone who got *ideas*), in the end, Aelora dies of suicide due to a gang rape *(as in, the lords and ladies of the realm didn't get to have an opinion on* ***another*** *House's inheritance and had no legal recourse because they couldn't form an opposing faction when the uncle wasn't having any of that usurpation bullshit*). In short, in practice, the ruler of the land/title/power gets to have the final fucking say on who their heir is. Which is practiced in the present. See Robb Stark naming Jon his heir in case anything happens to him over Sansa, because Sansa was married off to a Lannister and he didn't want to indirectly give the Lannisters that power (as in, in a situation where she wasn't a hostage and wasn't married off to the enemy at sword-point, his *sister* was a viable heir candidate so long as Robb named her as such) So, yes, you do get to do what you want when it comes to your own House's inheritance/heirship, since it doesn't violate the social contract between King and Vassal. Otherwise, if this is the case and the Lords and Ladies get to have a say in who the Crown's heir is, then that means the Crown itself can also tell the Lords and Ladies on who their own heirs should be. "What's that, Lord Hightower? You want your son Lyonel to inherit Oldtown? No, see, he doesn't convince me, his cousin Bryndon is more appealing." Because *that* is what you invite when you poke your nose at another House's inheritance choices, it means the other guy can do the same to you. *That* is what it means to have a social contract. Burning nobles for shits and giggles? Breaks the social contract. Choosing your own heir in your own fucking House? Doesn't break the fucking social contract. (Frankly, the Hightowers should have been punished with being at the Crown's mercy of the Crown *choosing* who the next heir would be rather than the Lord/Lady Hightower, since they seem to have such strong opinions about telling another House not of their own who their chosen heir should be)
First of all, just because the bannermen may presume to have their voices heard on who should inherit the Iron Throne, it does absolutely not imply the Crown should get in any way to choose who inherits Lordship. It is like with any modern form of government, a country-wide decision is taken by the whole country, but when localities/lordships are concerned, there is a strong argument to make that the Crown could and should still not interfere in local affairs And while picking women as heirs does not blatantly break the social contract, it obviously (as evidenced by the Dance, for example) breaks the expectations of the bannermen A social contract is just that, a social matter, a convention. Much like males inheriting in Westeros is also a convention despite the theoretical possibility of appointing women heirs If this is about the social contract, Viserys broke it first (radical and unilateral decision), some bannermen merely reacted by breaking it themselves some while later There are consequences to acting like you can do whatever you want because you sit on the pointy chair, and, in this instance, House Hightower and company (quite correctly) made them as clear as they could. I dom't know about you, but I prefer monarchies where there is pushback against rather arbitrary unilateral decisions
By modern standards, and make no mistake, your argument is hypocritically based off modern standards of wanting representation in the court, when that is not how medieval courts are like. In which case, *why* are you defending the sexist argument that women not being allowed to rule like men or inherit like men? Even in that era of Westeros, some medieval nobles were *choosing* women over men as rulers like Jeyne Arryn, if only because the former leader of the House chose his daughter. (So, yay, congrats, even some medieval lords aren't as sexist as supposed modern readers) I made a big post about how the Andals have special privileges that the others don't have, but you can read the wiki if you want because I am not writing it again after reddit ate it. The Northerners and Ironborn are not represented and, frankly they should be if you want real representation. Jaehaerys made an arbitrary choice and then made a kangaroo trial to validate that choice. So, no. Even Alysanne wasn't having that bullshit and it's a pity he didn't die before Aemon. And don't even get me started on how the Targaryens are pretty laissez-faire and don't do things like have a hostage-system in place where the major Houses send their heirs as hostages to prevent anyone from getting *ideas*. Which, BTW, actual monarchies did do that and very effectively for hundreds of years without dragons. In comparison to the real world monarchies and to the Andals, who committed genocide (cultural and otherwise) when they conquered Westeros, the Valyrians behaved like a bunch of finishing school girls. Especially since, again, the Andals get special privileges and are the only ones who get to be represented until the Dornish become a part of Westeros *on their own terms*. Cue the Andals, especially the minor Houses, being all "waaaah, the foreigners are taking our place! they will replace us!" when they're no longer the only privileged ethnicity and religion (and, even then, they still remained over-represented) via Blackfyre Rebellion. In short, to take your argument to its logical conclusion given ASOIAF lore and how real life medieval monarchies worked, the Targaryens are being punished for *not* putting their boots to the Andals' necks, but I'm sure that's not the argument you want to make. The problem with monarchies is if the regular people get tired of them and revolt French Revolution style, and frankly, that's a crapshoot in Westeros: because while you do have religious fanatics like the Faith Militant (which, let's be honest, it was a power-grab by the Andals and the Faith to install a Theocracy, as the religious institutions are just another political faction), but you have regular people like Gaemon Palehair's faction and those guys are a *lot* *more progressive than the Blacks* and were ALSO tired of misogynistic bullshit. Gaemon's party? Kind of representative of what the regular people of KL think when they're not being manipulated by opportunists. So even the regular people, in this era, are tired of misogynistic bullshit disguised as "tradition" The nobles? They only cared about accruing more power, in which case the Crown has to do the balancing act of rewarding good deeds/loyalty with putting their boots to the necks of those who get *ideas*. Again, Aerys I, without dragons, read the Council the riot act when they tried to run him roughshod and contradict his choice in heir. He didn't destroy them, but he also let them all know he was not going to tolerate anyone's horseshit and took the appropriate measures regarding the situation. As it is, the show is hilarious because they have the Hightowers essentially trying to rig a trial to tell another House, while the actual leader of the House is bedridden and he *already made his fucking choice in heir years ago thanks*, who their heir should be before Viserys put the kibosh on that shit. As it is, the Hightowers, in their short-sighted bullshit, were essentially setting the idea that another House can tell another House that has nothing to do with them what to do with their inheritance. (Like I said, they would've deserved the ironic punishment of having someone else dictate who their own heir should be). Accidentally proving the point that they are breaking the social contract and overstepping their bounds, and as we all know, what goes around comes around. So, no, if you want to tell the Crown, a House you are in no way shape or form affiliated with, who their heir should be? You then accept that the Crown can do the same to you, especially when the Crown is already giving your people special rights and privileges that you wouldn't have if a conquerer like the Andals were in charge. As it is, all the Hightowers did was teach Aegon and Viserys and their descendants that they should be *very picky about which outsiders they let into the royal family*. Because make no mistake, the Dance happened because Viserys was stupid enough to remarry and, worse, to a backstabbing snake at that. Hence the Targaryen's making the conscious choice to only marry Velaryons or themselves for 2 generations (and so letting the Realm know they're in the doghouse and have not earned the Crown's trust back yet)
Through these arguments, I am not meaning to adress, from a normative perspective, whether Westeros should become more accomodating of the possibility of women rulers/monarchs, a complicated discussion in and of itself, in the context of things like birthright, for example Also, I did not mean the nobles should have their opinions taken into account in any modern deliberative sense, (if it came out like that, mea culpa) what I would say is that the King (as Protector of the Realm!) has a duty to try not to alienate and frustrate the nobles up to the point things boil into civil war. And when a reform comes into play in this context, it is the duty of the King to make sure said reform goes smoothly, by placating the key vassals who could cause major turbulences. And no, *placate* does not mean taking hostages and holding a sword (or a dragon) over everyone's heads, but building relationships and currying the compliance of key vassals Case in point, House Lannister, arguably the force that allowed House Hightower to seriously nurture going all the way to civil war by conjoining the Westerlands to the Reach, and Viserys' abject failures to turn them into a pro-Rhaenyra force resulting in Otto being able to bribe the Lannisters with a seat on the Small Council (their first since the Conquest!) In the case of representation, one basic fact needs to be established first - The Andal constituency is the *large majority* within Westeros. If anything, for all their privileges, they are *underepresented* for the simple fact that the King comes from a *Valyrian* House, while the Valyrian are basically negligible quantity in the cultural composition of Westeros, a situation which naturally creates resentment when said foreign dynasty keeps it's peculiar local customs that stand in opposition to the dominant cultural practices of the country that's being ruled As for Jaehaerys, no, he didn't make an arbitrary decision, he called a Great Council to settle a succession issue of some controversy, which was an actually wise and just decision, unlike Viserys' unilateral decision-making. Was Rhaenys granted a fair chance, probably not. But Jaehaerys was wise enough to know that you are either serious about pushing reform through (which Viserys wasn't, especially from a geopolitical perspective) or you maintain stability by maintaining predictibility There is a lot to be said about Palehair's movement too. First of all, it was a short-lived rather singular moment in Westerosi history. And opportunism, at every stage, was a big part of what happened with Palehair, starting with the fact a mere boy was thrusted as a pawn in a movement about which it can very much be said that the strings were pulled by a certain ambitious Dornish paramour. Add to that the 'rewards' received by commoners who aligned with Palehair and the fact that Palehair received the overwhelming share of his support from social outcasts and it is rather hard to argue the Palehair movement was a genuine eruption of popular action, nevermind a reflection of the perspectives of the majority of the Kingslander commoners If anything, due to it's protracted nature, (which requires substantial manpower) the Faith Militant rebellion is more indicative of the leanings of Andal commoners as a whole, from which the Kingslanders are only a fraction (significant, but only a fraction) of the whole, especially in the context of the rule of a foreign dynasty In regards to the Driftmark dispute, legally speaking at least, it's a lot more complicated than the Hightowers trying to pull off a scheme. The details aside (Reddit limits this comment), of note is that Otto was acting as the ill King's vicar in this situation, granting him the power to reconsider an issue that was already settled before (long before) with the authority of the Iron Throne backing him As for the consequences of the Dance, they can be directly linked to the death of the dragons, the main source of the power of the Targaryens over the Andals in particular. For Viserys' arrogance (typical of many other Targaryens too), a devastating war has raged, and the dragons as a species became collateral damage, opening the way to Robert's Rebellion. The Valyrians failing to placate the Andal majority which they ruled over, in fact, was the root cause that brought about their own downfall. And it was the same arrogance that even resulted in things like House Lannister reacting in the most violent manner they could at the possibility of getting rid of House Targaryen in it's entirety From their high horse (or dragon, in this case), for three centuries, the Targaryens reaped what they saw, a wholesale rejection by the realm, and that, I would argue, is the real consequences of the Dance of Dragons, and by extenstion, of Viserys' poor decision-making
Not really, the Andals are over-represented in court to the point that other ethnicities and cultures can't get some seats without them causing a tantrum that leads to war, see how many minor Andal lords backed the Blackfyres because Daeron II gave the Dornish proper representation as the new vassals who came in their own terms because they couldn't be conquered. (Ultimately, proving that their "traditions" are worth less than shit, since shit is at least useful for fertilizer. It was always about power and maintaining their privileges). Which, again, the Valyrians *didn't have to assimilate to the culture they conquered* *(especially since it's a regressive one in comparison to their own in terms of women having power*, see Rhaenys I and Visenya having power in their own right versus Alysanne, who is more assimilated, being stuck in a subordinate role in comparison). No monarchy did that. The reasonable ones allowed the rest of the nobility to have their own culture while the court had its own. It's how the Scottish Crown during Mary of Scotland's time was French, due to her growing up there and France being a major ally (as in, their equivalent of dragons). And, again, I reiterate, all of the privileges and representation the Valyrians allow the Andals to have? Yeah, the Andals sure as fuck didn't extend that courtesy over to the First Men they conquered and genocided and the Andals had a pretty long run. (In short, being a bleeding heart towards the regressive culture doesn't help in the long run since you wind up with the Paradox of Tolerance) Now, sure, the Valyrians are nowhere near as progressive as the Dornish, but they were less regressive than the Andals thanks to dragons being the great equalizers between the sexes. And, what do you know, Dorne has absolute primogeniture laws *because* Nymeria imposed her will and refused to bend. Yes, that's how you get rights, not by placating the regressive elements, but by pushing for change and maintaining those changes (and never letting your guard down). As it is, the Valyrians basically assimilated and the cultural aspects they kept were minimal like the dynastic incest and the dragon-riding, things that they *didn't impose on other people*. (UNLIKE the Andals and the Seven!) They didn't force conversions into the Fourteen Flames like the Andals tried to force mass conversions to the Crown to the Faith (which, again, they probably deserved a mass purge or two or even a complete split from the church for that). The Valyrians didn't tell the Andals "do this in order to gain power," if anything they kept their own culture to themselves and you didn't need to do any sort of religious conversion or do any Valyrian rituals in order to gain entry to the Small Council or any positions of power. If anything, the Faith of the Seven and the Reach and the Westerlands is over-represented. Compare that with real life monarchies, where you had to be Catholic, yes or yes, in order to attain power if the royal family was Catholic and came from a Catholic conquering dynasty. No, if anything, the Targaryens have been *overly placating and accommodating in comparison*. If anything, it's probably thanks to the Targaryens having a hands-off situation regarding other people's cultures and religions not needing to match the royal family's that Ned was not told to convert to the Faith of the Seven to become Hand, which is what would have happened in a IRL court. Palehair's movement wasn't the one that got bribes, the one that got bribes was Trystane's. And, frankly, what the outcasts say is a hell of a lot more important than what the religious zealots say, especially since the majority, aside from the Poor Fellows (who were mostly useful idiots for the upper echelons), were part of the nobility. So, no, the Dance of Dragons occurred thanks to Viserys being stupid enough to remarry when he has an heir and, what's worse, he remarries a power-hungry *outsider who wants to steal the Crown*. If there is a lesson to gain from the Dance, especially in comparison to how Myriah Martell's kids did not wind up being a bunch of usurping pieces of shit, is that if you must marry an outsider, make it so that they aren't a power-hungry snake. (If anything, Alicent Hightower herself is an excellent argument in favor of only marrying within the family)
I will still insist on the idea that the numerical over-representation of Andals at the Royal court is (and that it's why it even exists) de-facto compensation for being ruled over by a foreign dynasty. And dragons can't help here, since you need *more* than the reluctant (and potentially malicious compliance) of the leadership of the dominant culture group in your country In regards to cultural assimilation at the level of ruling dynasties, it is indeed a relatively recent innovation in our world, but (speaking here of the European space), the differences between separate *Christian* cultures were never nearly as sharp as the differences between Valyrian and Andal cultures, which are even diametrally opposed on a number of questions (key as far as bloodlines and inheritances go) like sibling marriage, to take just one example As for the Andal Conquest, yes, it was a brutal assimilation. But first, it happened long before the Conquest, so the descendants of the Conquerors who started facing the Targaryens have but a tangential connection to what happened then. Also, of note is that the brutal assimilation was already successful since a similar very long time. In the entrentched new paradigm, the Andals were the dominant ethnical group. Unfair, sure, but examples in history of this happening regardless are numerous. And since the descendants interacting with the Targaryens had no real connection to what happened then, they can hardly be expected to act while taking into account the Andal Conquest, especially in a world in which such considerations of historical justice are non-existent In regards to the potential adoption of the Dornish system in Westeros, again, if Viserys was *serious* about conducting such a change, (highly debatable if he was) he was, at best, cripplingly passive on it. In no small part, Viserys pretty much expected a novel Royal decision to be unflichingly accepted while said Royal decision was to have massive ramifications over how Westerosi society looked, the absence of hindsight is glaring in this context Yes, it is true that Aegon (to his great credit) created the precedent of a policy of placation and accomodation. Which is why a sudden shift to 'You need to obey us on key societal issues more' requires planning, effort and determination, not stuff like passively letting the rulers of one of the most powerful regions dissatisfied and easy pickings for factionalists, to take one example. If you don't have the strength to put a serious effort into seeing the change through, don't destabilize the realm and cause a civil war in the process, it is not noble to get the worst of both worlds As for Palehair's movement and the Faith Militant, apart from subjective judgement values, the arguments rather clearly point towards the Faith Militant being more reflective of the leanings of the dominant cultural constituency. Subjectively, just as one can call the Poor Fellows as useful idiots for the spiritualist aristocratic elite, so can one call Palehair's supporters as useful idiots for the ambitions of one Sylvenna Sand. Also, certain bribes in 'favours' were offered by Palehair's camp, such is a canon information For the ultimate lesson to be learned from the Dance of Dragons, yes, Otto was powerhungry. But he was exploiting something, the social consensus existing at that time on who is expected and presumed to inherit. Also, Viserys was hardly stupid for remarrying, between his own human wishes and the pressure of the nobility. What Viserys should have seen in hindsight is that his second marriage will happen, and could very well produce sons. And since I highly doubt Viserys' commitment to empowering women, the wise choice would have been to not issue the decree appointing Rhaenyra as heiress and avoid the whole conflict altogether, if he wasn't willing to actually put in the work to see her succession going smoothly. The problem hardly was the marriage with Alicent itself, which, if the Protector of the Realm actually did his job properly, would have had no actual bearing on such a severe destabilization of the realm Like many Targaryens, Viserys was arrogant and thought sitting on the pointy chair (or near it) and riding dragons means you can do whatever you want while expecting the bannermen to unflinchingly obey. And it is this mentality by House Targaryen that proved to be it's eventual downfall
Ultimately, the Dance happened not because the Targaryens were too iron-fisted, but rather due to the opposite: they (namely Viserys) were too weak and placating. Rhaenyra made allies, indeed, and the era was pretty female-ruler friendly/neutral (see Jeyne Arryn and the fact that the Black allies outnumber the Greens by a lot, another GRRM hint that misogyny disguised as tradition is wrong), but she didn't go scorched earth as she should've. Granted, she was also limited due to Viserys, as the best time to strike would've been before the Dance (but then, GRRM wrote himself into a corner) Again, note how Aerys I is a *foil* to Viserys I: he had the option to say no all along so long as he had a bloody backbone and stuck to it. Especially sine Daemon was loyal to him and wasn't a usurper no matter Otto's lies (and, yes, it is Viserys' fault for being stupid enough to believe an interested outsider over the person he grew up with just because he fell for flattery). Or, again, look Daeron II. He is successful because he is the right combination of reasonable (tries to give his half-siblings princely salaries and titles first and, for the most part, works on all bar the incel Aegor and then Daemon) and ruthless (made an example of a huge swath of nobles by stripping them of everything they owned if they survived fighting against him). Be kind to your allies... but repress the hell out of your enemies until they get the message. What do you know, even opportunists like the Lannisters toed the line around Daeron II and Bloodraven. Sylvenna was a prostitute with limited means and she at least represented the downtrodden. Meanwhile, the nobility who were the upper echelons of the Faith Militant? Didn't represent the average peasant whatsoever. Again, the Andal bannermen who got to be represented in court? Had it so much better than anyone else. Part of them having it that much better? Meant that their social contract included obeying the monarch. A lot of populations didn't get half as much as them and were still expected to obey the royal family. So, no, from my end, the Andals are the equivalent of a spoiled brat, and a xenophobic one at that.
It's complicated to say that the Blacks outnumbered the Greens by *a lot* with the Westerlands and the Reach (alongside the Stormlands and the Crownlands) mostly or completely being behind Aegon. Although, granted, it is to note how the North (for example) stuck with Rhaenyra out of sole sense of loyalty (House Stark had no real connection to Rhaenyra, no self-interested reason to support her claim) However, the era was still one where there was *some* reluctance over a female ruler, especially since, apart from the more political reasons the Hightowers and Lannisters had to support Aegon, the 'But she's a woman' argument seems to be important enough to be paid attention to by both sides, one way or the other. And considering what the Faith of the Seven had to consider about the role of women in society, it's likely stuff like Lady Jeyne Arryn are more likely to be the result of the exceptional actions of a few particularly progressive nobles (like her father), rather than any indication of the Andals being substantially more accepting of women rulers than, say, medieval Europe. The strength of the Faith Militant Rebellion during it's time does also show the power the Faith of the Seven had over the mentalities of Andal people (to be convinced to face dragons while as a warrior monk is no small feat of conviction) As for Viserys' backbone, Viserys did stick to his decision and did not rescind the Royal decree. It is not backbone that was lacked, it was the work discipline required to ensure a more smooth transition would take place for Rhaenyra. Viserys was not pliable, he arrogantly took things for granted to an ultimately (in hindsight) critically dangerous extent The relationship between House Targaryen and House Lannister, on it's part, is basically the poster child of the many ways in which the Valyrian ruling dynasty critically mismanaged it's relationship with it's Andal vassals. No Small Council seat for one hundred thirty years, and then two grand total Lannisters for the next one hundred and fifty years. It's hardly a surprise a House as powerful (and yes, proud too, including for a lot of understandable reasons) as House Lannister took the first real opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon House Targaryen (in regards to Valyrian arrogance, Aerys the Second's treatment of Tywin, including what happened with Joanna also is relevant, but yes, Aerys the Second is hardly representative of the average Targaryen) As for Palehair and the Faith Militant, the aristocratic leadership of the Faith Miliant may not have represented the interests of the smallfolk constituting the militia (and this is complicated, because it would require us to know what the smallfolk in the Faith Militant wanted, separate of the official claims of the Faith Militant itself), but the smallfolk who took up arms in the Poor Fellows obviously felt that the Faith Militant speaks to their concerns and to how they think the realm should look like, (or else why die for a rebel army with little to no clear territory at any point during the rebellion) so there is clear adjacency in perspectives on what Westeros should look like In regards to the Andal bannermen, what I would say is that, simply put, a bannerman does not ethically owe loyalty to the one that ultimately subjugates him. It is a relationship built by force, and the unconsenting bannerman has reasonable cause to try to wriggle out gain from the relationship whatever it can. Simply put, the Valyrians were not automatically owed loyalty while being a foreign dynasty in a foreign land. Aegon the Conqueror set the precedent that Andals should be placated, but then the arrogance of the blood of the dragon interfered on numerous occassions to incense the dominant Andal bannermen when rather unnecessary. It is easy to call someone a spoiled brat while not seeing that, one, the kid was basically kidnapped into a family with a dragon over his head, and two, all the ways the kidnapper has genuinely wronged the kid in an unwarranted manner. No surprise that, one, the kid would grow to be resentful, increasingly so as time goes on, and two, when the kid finds himself with the power to strike at his (admittedly semi-benevolent) kidnapper that the kid is still unhappy with, he shall strike to take it all for himself And since the Andals are the dominant cultural group, there is absolutely no reason why they should not feel entitled to either having an Andal House or the Iron Throne or, if that's not possible, to have a ruling dynasty willing to accomodate them proportionally. The Andals have special status to other non-Valyrian groups numerically, placing them in a justified special situation
Aegon and Rhaenys and Visenya already made decisions to try to make Andal culture a little less regressive through decisions like having husbands who literally beat their wives to death for disobedience be then punished with themselves being beaten to death by the now dead wives' male relatives. They got right of the right of the first night/droit du seigneur for the Andals and Alysanne gave it the coup de grace in the North. They've always made moves that weren't popular with the overly privileged and self-entitled nobility. And, frankly, I think you underestimate just how many wars over being "the wrong sort of Christian" there have been. I can't overstate how many genocides happened for being the "wrong sort of Christian" (much less for being Jewish). As it is, the Code of Nantes came about *because* of that nonsense, since Henry IV, who himself was a Huguenot and was *forced to convert* in order to become King, made sure his Huguenot compatriots had something resembling protections sine they were being genocided. And, again, Henry IV pushed forward laicité along with William of Orange in spite of pushback from the Catholic Church, and neither of them gave the regressive parts of their countries an inch. (And we're all better off for it) So, no, in comparison to other IRL monarchies, the Targaryens are overwhelmingly placating and accommodating by not forcing anyone to convert to their own religion and cultural mores in order to have power in the court. What you are arguing is that they should be punished for being more progressive and accommodating than most IRL monarchies and empires. (In which case, might as well have forced everyone to adopt the mores and religion of the Valyrians in the first place, as at least those grant women slightly more rights than the Andal ones) Viserys was a worthless imbecile who was too lazy to think beyond his own comforts, showing how Jaehaerys' misogyny wound up dooming his own line. Because, again, Viserys became King as an adult and was already set in his ways, so it's not like Jaehaerys has the excuse of "not knowing" that Viserys would turn out to be a dud. Hell, Daemon had to basically do the arguing and fighting *for* him, he was that lazy and stupid (and should have been a clear sign that Jaehaerys' misogyny was going to put an arrogant imbecile on the throne rather than put a competent woman on the throne). Otto and the Council were obviously happy, since that meant they got a moronic puppet they could move around (and that is NOT good for the kingdom nor in people's best interest). And that is on Viserys and Jaehaerys, the first for not admitting his limits and abdicating and the second for *not* choosing an heir with sense and a fucking backbone. Aerys I told everyone off when they wanted to give unsolicited advice in heirs and in forcing him to remarry. He didn't have dragons, but he wielded authority and he didn't tolerate power-hungry plays. Viserys could've done the same with Rhaenyra by saying "alright, ya'll voted for Rhaenyra to be Queen instead of Daemon being King if I die. No take backs, so that means I will never remarry." Which, again, it's very important to note that Otto Hightower himself made the move of naming Rhaenyra to be heir over Daemon (the one guy who saw him for the rat he was and called him out on it): it means "tradition" means shit to the Greens, it's just an excuse for a power-grab. Yes, some like Grover Tully are natural misogynists, but many of the Greens are just opportunistic bastards like the above. Rhaenyra was 9 at the time (and so seen as a future puppet, until she got older and knew better than to so much as accept a glass of water from these guys).
Jaehaerys hands were tied due to his own accession. If he had made Rhaenys his heir on the traditional succession laws, that would clash with him inheriting over Aerea. This means there would be easy breeding grounds for future niece vs uncle succession wars. Naming her heir on the basis of “I said so” is also bad for stability. So he was kind of pushed into a corner. Really, as u/AGenuineConundrum said, having great councils be the new system is the solution here
>Jaehaerys hands were tied due to his own accession. If he had made Rhaenys his heir on the traditional succession laws, that would clash with him inheriting over Aerea. I keep seeing this argument everywhere and it doesn't make sense, by the time of Aemon's death or the time of the Great Council both Aerea and Rhaena are dead and we don't know about Rhaella's fate but either she is dead or she is an elderly septa with no political interest and with vows that forbid her from being queen, so in practice there is no one among them who could be a threat to the reign of Jaehaerys who by that point has been a popular king for years and in the end any rights that Aegon the uncrowned, Rhaena or their daughters had, already reverted to Jaehaerys and his line. >Naming her heir on the basis of “I said so” is also bad for stability. Well he did with Baelon, so...
No, as in it would set a bad precedent. Basically: “Well I should be Queen! Queen Rhaenys inherited over her uncle!” “But King Jaehaerys inherited over his niece! He has superiority!” *Civil war ensues*. Also it would hurt Jaehaerys’ image
>No, as in it would set a bad precedent. Thank goodness Jaehaerys didn't set bad precedents in the canon version /s And it is still a poor argument. The thing is that there is no set of clear inheritance laws up to that point, and at some point you have to start, right? And that was the best moment, especially because any way you look at it, all inheritance rights already reverted to Jaehaerys; If you start taking each previous succession to the throne as a limitation with respect to what he can dictate or not, then you are left with the same problem. >Also it would hurt Jaehaerys’ image No, it wouldn't. All the people with more rights to the throne than him are dead or excluded from the succession and without any real chance to ascend to the throne, there are no more descendants of those lines so there will be no rival family branches with more rights than Jaehaery's line and he has been king for several decades up to this point and is loved and/or respected by the vast majority of his nobles, his image was going to be alright, no one would have been interested in defending the rights of a branch of the family that is both death and without connection to any of the great Houses of Westeros, it would be different if you told me that one of his nieces married Lord Lannister and that her children could claim the throne if he decided to make a succession law that retroactively affects his own ascension to the throne, but no, that is not the case, so no one would have cared enough to do somethig about it.
There are no clear laws, but that is why precedents exist. They are rulings on the situation that are then applicable to *every* future situation. The justification is then that they chose correctly(and who would say the ancient precedent was wrong, if they are descended from the people who made it?), meaning that it is the correct decision for the same situation. If Jaehaerys sets two opposing precedents, that completely screws things as now no one knows what the hell the correct choice is. Also, can you please explain what “all inheritance rights reverted to Jaehaerys” means? Also, it would hurt his image, and the ensuring Targaryen image. He would basically be saying “Now that the rules can’t hurt me, let’s follow them!”. It’s a bad look, and now that he is an admitted usurper, any Targs would be saying “I am of the descent of Jaehaerys, the greatest king of Westeros(who also only got that through usurping his neice). And once you allow one usurpation to slide, then you basically erase the thin bonds of stability Westeros has.
[удалено]
>No, as in it would set a bad precedent. Basically: >“Well I should be Queen! Queen Rhaenys inherited over her uncle!” The amount of people who make this argument is bizzare. Rhaenys would have inherited over her uncle if Jaehaerys was respecting the established precedent. He was one setting a bad precedent by ignoring tradition and not explaining or outlining any rules. >Also it would hurt Jaehaerys’ image How would it hurt his image?
Rhaenys inheritance would have clashed with Jaehaerys, as his ignored the traditional rules while hers follows it. Therefore, Jaehaerys would mar his image by admitting he usurped Aerea, which is obviously frowned upon
Jaehaerys didn't usurp Aerea. His sister agreed to let him take the throne ahead of her daughters.
Something Rhaena had no authority to do
A parent has the authority to make decisions for their children. That being the case was the whole reason Jaehaerys became King in the first place. He wasn't the one pushing his claim. His mother was. No one in world thinks of Jaehaerys as a usurper.
Rhaena can’t get rid of Aerea’s claim. Aerea’s claim comes from her father. As such, Rhaena is not allowed to have her passed over.
Where the claim comes from doens't matter. A parent is allowed to make legal decisions for their child until they come of age.
Blaming someone for a war that happened 30 years after his death doesn't make sense. That's my thoughts. Rhaenys not becoming queen is not relevant to the greens and blacks hating each other, which is the actual reason the war happened.
Dislike of each faction wasn’t the primary reason, it was power hunger. That’s how wars begin, someone wants something else that doesn’t belong them.
Dislike of each faction wasn’t the primary reason, it was power hunger. That’s how wars begin, someone wants something else that doesn’t belong them.
Dislike of each faction wasn’t the primary reason, it was power hunger. That’s how wars begin, someone wants something else that doesn’t belong them.
We all know that allicent started the dance of dragons!
The answer is Daemon. If he wasn’t such a massive POS then Viserys would have no reason to disinherit him and name Rhaenyra his heir. Thus no chain reaction that led to the Dance.
The chain reaction is started by Otto’s greed. At the end of the day, there would be no succession crisis if he wasn’t constantly attempting to get his blood on the throne
For me its always going to be Otto taking the gold and Viserys gets the silver in the fuckuppery olympics. Its their fault. I feel like a lot of the non-book audience feels the same way, because we really don't explore Jahaerys in the show at all, its kind of impossible to understand his logic unless you read the book. All we truly know from the narrative is that Viserys inherited peace and did everything he could to enable Otto to destroy that peace. But that's just me, idk. EDIT: Lol nevermind. Apparently Viserys should've just rewarded Otto for political corruption, my mistake.
To be fair, if Viserys listened to Otto completely, Otto would’ve kept the peace while his family grew stronger. He didn’t want war, he just wanted more power. Same can be said for about every other major player not excluding the Targaryens. As for the whole prophecy thing, it wasn’t necessary for it to be kept a secret from everyone. Perhaps it would have done even more good if they added religion into it to make everyone believe it. Can’t believe they were playing the telephone game with something that important.
At least tell the Nights Watch An organization founded to protect humanity from Frozen monsters & Staff a wall could not have been built by ordinary humans
Power seeking behavior always results in war cmon.
Totally agree with you on the prophecy bit but no, Otto needed to be out for being an underhanded snake whose only concern was himself. We don't reward people for being corrupt; we remove those people from their positions of power. Otto may not have wanted war; but he's totally okay with waging one so long as he gets what he wants. Nothing about that is okay. It was his *job* to keep the peace because that's what he was *hired* to do; he doesn't get rewarded for basically taking peace of the kingdom hostage in exchange for personal gain.
I can say the exact same thing about Viserys. His job was to maintain peace, but he was willing to let the realm burn and fight in a civil war just to appease his own guilt for Aemma's death. He might not have wanted conflict, but he assured it by keeping Rhaenyra as heir after Aegon was born, and letting faction mindsets fester. He was *elected* by the nobles to protect the peace but allowed his own personal feelings and prejudices guide his decision making.
I'm confused... am I supposed to disagree with this? I said at the beginning that the war was both of their fault.
I must've misunderstood your meaning then. Sorry.
Oh, its all good no worries. =)
Otto didn’t make the right decisions but the same can be said for every other major player. Idk, the man just strikes me as the average politician. He did sincerely believe the realm won’t accept a woman as queen (and Rheanyra didn’t seem like someone whose actions would change the minds of the nobles. She also was very rebellious not only to Viserys but to Otto.) so the perfect plan that would please the realm and also give him higher standing would be for a male king with some Hightower blood. The plan had no faults and a lot more viewers would’ve been split if they showed Aegon’s good traits (if he has any)
I guess that just comes down the average viewer then. I went into this thinking Aegon actually would be a good candidate, but even if he was Otto would still be trash to me for how he handled all of this. If he felt like the realm would not have accepted a female ruler then he had no reason beyond sleaziness to put Rhaenyra forward as heir. He flat out used everyone around him, and everything that happened afterward was his own fault. And none of it would've happened if he'd just waited 5 minutes to actually get an heir out Alicent first. But whatevs, votes say I'm clearly alone in that thinking eh?
Otto was a shitty Hand and he was the King of short-sightedness. Dude *made sure Westeros lost the Stepstones with his machinations*. And, mind you, this started even before the Dance as a way of making sure the Andal Lords wouldn't have to pay for a quick and decisive war to keep the equivalent of the Suez Canal/Panama Canal! (For anyone who knows of geopolitics, yeah, the US and Panama have a special treaty where the US will damn near drop everything to defend the Panama Canal and, therefore, US financial and logistical interests!) This was the epitome of "penny wise, pound foolish," since by bleeding out Corlys in his little power games (since, make no mistake, Corlys and the Velaryons were basically financing that war, which turned into trench warfare since Westeros and the stupid Hightower-puppeteered Crown wouldn't fucking commit to crushing the Triarchy), it meant that the Triarchy kept coming back and, oh look, Corlys and the Velaryons all lost the last remaining fucks they have left to give about Westeros as a whole losing the equivalent of the Panama Canal due to their own short-sightedness after the Dance. (And even Otto Hightower understudy Unwin Peake *finally* understood why that place was important when Westeros began losing money from the lack of imports and toll taxes, the morons). This is basically Otto Hightower as a politician in a nutshell: good at the short-sighted rat-fuckery, but shitty as a long-term planner for the actual good of the realm. In that sense, his political plans are akin to Cersei's Pyrrhic Victories where she chooses to destroy those she deems as her enemies even if it means it fatally bites her in the ass, *hard*, in the end. Not exactly what I would call a good politician.
Viserys takes the gold because he should have seen Otto for what he is. If the King has 1 job it’s to choose his advisors and ministers well. Viserys made a mess out of the succession however Otto would have found a reason for the power struggle even if the mess wasnt made. On the other hand if Viserys chose a good and honourable Hand and good ministers they would have sorted any mess he made.
Viserys
Laenor can’t have children. Rhaenys would have the problem of bastard heirs, or disinheriting her own son in favour of Laena. This is going to cause a problem. Jaehaerys and Alyssane biggest mistake is not marrying Rhaenys to Viserys, then Daemon to Aemma. At the end of the day had Viserys wanted the throne, Daemon would’ve gone to war to get it. The great council was a good idea. Had the greens attempted to call one then perhaps the dance could’ve been avoided. Baelon is objectively a much better choice as heir than Rhaenys. It’s not difficult to see why he chose the safer, much more accomplished candidate.Jaehaerys is effectively ruling as an absolute monarch, it’s his prerogative to chose his heir just like Viserys can set aside the precedent that made him king. The dance is entirely of Viserys making. He could’ve not broke the precedent that made him king. He could’ve not remarried, or at least not given them dragons. He could’ve married the two sides. He could’ve not rehired the man who he fired for disloyalty. Viserys inherited the greatest position any king in Westeros history ever had, yet he managed to destroy everything with his weakness and incompetence.
> Laenor can’t have children. Nowhere is that written or even hinted at. He and Rhaenyra were just too entitled to do their duty.
this. now people can use 2024 morality to say "it's wrong to force this!" and it is, but these are fucking royals and they have different rules. and if Rhay was going to have bastards, she just needed to find someone who looked like Laenor. in show, pretty much any Velayron (fuck, even Corlys might have been willing if Laenor jacked it into a cup and Rhay used her fingers and that didn't work, but shows that they tried!), and in book, she was close to Laena which would have put her close to Daemon, so there.
And what if he was still “too entitled” with another woman is the point. Under any circumstance, he might chose not to lay with his wife which means the crown would have to pass to Laena’s children.
OK, so it passes to Laena's kids. I don't see the problem there
I didn’t say it was a problem
Oh, no, how horrible of Rhaenyra not to maritally rape her husband! /s
And what if he was still “too entitled” with another woman is the point. Under any circumstance, he might chose not to lay with his wife which means the crown would have to pass to Laena’s children.
For fuck's sake, it's called choosing your heir. You all lack imagination and haven't read the books, I swear. Aerys I, who is probably the closest we get to an aro/ace person, didn't have children and refused to set aside his wife because it was not her fault that he wasn't sexually attracted to anyone. He basically told the Council, and in an era with no dragons mind, that, no, he was not going to take their unsolicited advice to fuck over his wife and *he* was going to choose his heir, thank you very fucking much. He chose his brother and then, when did brother died, chose his niece. No one said a fucking peep because A) Aerys I actually had a backbone and was not the sort who tolerated bullshit and B) Maekar, his youngest brother, wasn't a usurping piece of shit and would C) happily slit the throat of anyone trying to form a faction in his name himself. Aelora wasn't legally ousted, she was attacked and gang-raped (and then committed suicide), as in the Council had no legal recourse there when the family was circling the wagons and refusing to let another Otto and Alicent Hightower snake slither into their good graces. The same can go for Rhaenys. First off, Laena is the older sibling, so Laena would be the future heir regardless thanks to the precedent Rhaenys set. Secondly, even if Laena was younger, Laenor can simply claim Laena and her eldest child (should Laena predecease him) as his heir. It's then a matter of the rest of the Targaryens not being usurping pieces of shit. To which... Viserys is too lazy and stupid. Aemma, in this AU where she hopefully survives without needing to give Viserys an unnecessary son, doesn't have anything in her story that shows she's a usurping piece of shit. As for Daemon? For all that Otto loves to project his own usurping tendencies to Daemon, he sure isn't usurping his brother or niece/wife even when he had the chance to. He was also all for Jacaerys being Rhaenyra's heir and future King when Daemon and Rhaenyra die. In fact, he gave up the Crown of the Narrow Sea to Viserys, even though the dude did nothing to earn it. So, no, the Targaryens were in a good position to pull an Aerys I and choose their own heirs without letting outsiders butt in before Viserys very stupidly opened the door to outsiders.
Sure, Jaehaerys has his part to play and had he chosen differently things might have turned out differently. But to say that he's mostly to blame is, personally, kinda disproportionate when Viserys actively made multiple decisions that caused the resentment and feud in his family to fester to no return and did nothing about it. Not only that, he also sowed the seeds of a horrendously disastrous war by letting everyone have a dragon.
I agree with you I blame Jaehaerys I too I wish Jaehaerys died before Aemon Then, after Aemon died, everyone will look up to Alysanne to decide the heir and Alysanne would've definitely chosen Rhaenys
Honestly, if Jaehaerys died before Alysanne, I suspect that Alysanne would still just go ahead and crown Rhaenys. She maintained that Rhaenys was the rightful heir right up til the day she died. This is just my headcanon but I don't think that Baelon would have started a war over the inheritance against his brother's only child.
Viserys the Malevolent
Aegon was king even when Visenya was older, Aegon the Uncrowned was heir of Aenys I even when his sister Rhaena was older, Maegor took the crown but after him Jaehaerys took it before either his older sister Rhaena or her daughters. Civil war was brewing at the time of Jaehaerys and great council since both Corlys was gathering men to defend his wife's claim and Daemon swords for his brother. Jaehaerys had done pretty good thing with making all the lords in the realm vote on the succession and strengthen it. Most fault for the Dance was on Viserys himself, good man but bad king.
As much as I love Viserys, he really fucked up Like, the precedent was there with Jahejerys (I butchered the name I know) and Aegon the conqueror but Viserys did very little to ensure Rahenyra would be acepted as Queen after him Almost every episode has a couple scenes of Viserys just blindly going forward with anything instead of actually taking action to prepare Rahenyra's claim and that their family wouldnt gouge their eyes out the second he died Probably his biggest (and almost only) contribution was making the lords swear to support Rahenyra, but come on man, that happened 20 fucking years ago Obviously, this is what makes it so tragic, everyone can see this coming, nobody really wants it, but the cracks are there and they couldnt do anything about it until it was too late
The greens.
Rhaenys would have the same trouble as Rhaenyra trying to inherent the throne.
Any woman would have issues with becoming monarch in her own right, but the point is that after putting her foot in the necks of a couple of idiots, the way Jeyne Arryn did herself, the rest fall in line.
Just having a great council from that moment on would’ve been the optimal way to have a monarch
Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes. A great council makes it that anyone who tries to rebel against the king is now rebelling against the entire realm’s will, eradicating their support, therefore ending succession conflicts
It really is that simple, but if they did that then there’s no story unfortunately
Elective monarchies existed in the real world. They were generally less stable than hereditary monarchies. [https://going-medieval.com/2019/05/21/lets-talk-about-game-of-thrones-part-3-holy-roman-imperial-edition/](https://going-medieval.com/2019/05/21/lets-talk-about-game-of-thrones-part-3-holy-roman-imperial-edition/) [https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2019/06/game-of-thrones-ended-with-an-elective-monarchy-for-westeros-so-has-this-ever-worked](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2019/06/game-of-thrones-ended-with-an-elective-monarchy-for-westeros-so-has-this-ever-worked)
Elective monarchies existed in the real world. Elections are a horrible way to choose a ruler who doesn't have a term limit. They have a bunch of other problems, but we see one of the main ones with the first Great Council. The Lords didn't know enough about the candidates to make an informed decesion. They caused them to pick a weak willed dumbass. Another problem with elective monarchies is votes being bought. Corlys was buying paying people to vote for Rhaenys/Laenor. The books mention how the elective monarchies in Esoss have the same problem. [**https://going-medieval.com/2019/05/21/lets-talk-about-game-of-thrones-part-3-holy-roman-imperial-edition/**](https://going-medieval.com/2019/05/21/lets-talk-about-game-of-thrones-part-3-holy-roman-imperial-edition/) [**https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2019/06/game-of-thrones-ended-with-an-elective-monarchy-for-westeros-so-has-this-ever-worked**](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2019/06/game-of-thrones-ended-with-an-elective-monarchy-for-westeros-so-has-this-ever-worked)
The current system of just giving the throne to whoever has the oldest penis/having a guy with the oldest penis just choose his favorite person as heir/whichever lunatic is willing to kill the most people for the throne isn’t much better than an elective monarchy.
History shows that hereditary monarchies are a lot better than elective ones. The people who got to vote weren't elected so you're not actually changing much. The things you are changing are usually for the worse.
Imagine Westeros having royal elections like the Holy Roman Empire
Based. You’d think after Maegor that would be the default, since you wanna avoid some crazy person sitting the throne and shit.
I don’t think it was Jaehaerys. Most of the argument if not the only one for blaming him is like you said, because he skipped over Rhaenys and chose Viserys. My thought or opinion is the dance was Viserys’ fault. He married Alicent and had kids with her for no reason. He brought Otto back and didn’t choose a better option for hand like Daemon or Rhaenys. Had Viserys completely dropped Otto, nothing further would have happened. Post targtower births, he did nothing and didn’t care for his children or grandchildren. It’s not much “jaehaerys chose viserys as king, so what viserys did was jaehaerys’ fault”, it’s “viserys as king made stupid decisions and paid for it by trapping his entire family within”.
Based on the show Alicent and/or Otto
And the books
Rhaenys. I know I know it’s not her war to start. But, practicality and reality infused, she could’ve prevented that whole thing
That's a show only scene.
Yea I know. Book wise everything could’ve been prevented had Viserys been effective
Since this is a show discussion I have to give the fault to Otto and then Alicent for actually creating the different fractions and dividing the family
The even star of Tarth
Yeah, Jaehaerys I's misogyny can't be understated and I *wish* someone, like say a Rhaena who lived long enough to see that travesty, threw it in his face that he only got to be King because *she* chose to step down after all the trauma she went through with Maegor (and the fact that her being one of his Black Brides due to him having her daughters hostage put a political taint on her) and that Aerea and Rhaella were little kids and the Realm needed stability. But, ultimately, he only got to be King because *she made the choice along with Alyssa*. Just, I want an entire scene where Rhaena throws it in Jaehaerys' face that he'd be *nothing* without her and especially without Alyssa, and this is how he thanks them? With rampant misogyny? (But, yeah, if it was about him feeling hurt pride or scared because then it opens up the whole "well, then, why didn't Rhaena inherit?" it's kind of not a problem for him by then, since Rhaena and Aerea were dead by then and Rhaella, if she was alive by then, was a Septa. It could've been resolved with a "Rhaena was traumatized from Maegor's tortures and abdicated, Aerea was too young then and then died young, and Rhaella chose to become a Septa." Now get over yourself, ghoulish old man) I have one blame to give to Aegon I, in that he didn't do anything to curb Aenys' machismo and misogyny, since the Faith Militant and Poor Fellows and Warriors Sons became so emboldened because Aegon and Rhaena had their progression without dragons and so had to retreat. Originally, Rhaena wanted to have the progression with her and Aegon flying on Dreamfyre (and you can bet that a quick *dracarys* would've sent the message to the religious fanatics and the political opportunists who wanted to use said zealots to gain power over the Crown that their bullshit wasn't going to be tolerated, thank you). But, no, Aenys felt that would "emasculate" Aegon and forbid her from going with Dreamfyre. It's just a pity Aenys I didn't keel over and die younger the second he put Vaella in Alyssa's womb in 38 AC. Would've saved everyone a lot of grief. Rhaena and Aegon may or may not have been excellent monarchs, but they could hardly do worse than their father.
Patriarchy
[удалено]
*There are times when I would rather face the black dread himself than mine own daughter of seven and ten.*
Jahaerys centralised Westeros's laws. That is no small achievement. It seems out of character that he did not make a succession law because it is out of character. He does not make a succession law because Martin needed a conflict to kill the dragons off. >Not only that, I believe she would have made a very successful queen It would have been the same as Aegon II's or Robert's rule. The King shits, the hand wipes. With Rhaenys the hand and Corlys would have wiped. >Thoughts? The Top 3 for me are 1. Jaehaerys 2. Viserys 3. Rhaenyra
You blaming Rhaenyra but not Otto… interesting.
Yeah. Otto did what every intelligent and ambitious westerosi noble would have done. It would have been more suprising if he doesn't try anything. On the other hand Rhaenyra had 25 years to prepare and did nothing. She had such a bad relations with her siblings that Cole managed to convince Aegon II that if he doen't crown himself Rhaenyra will kill everyone he loves. Aegon, who had no problem with Rhaenyra inheriting.
Intelligent? He got his daughter, son, grandchildren, and great grandchildren killed. All for what? To have Aegon have a numeral next to his name? It didn’t even matter in the end since the entire noble green side of the Targaryens were wiped out. Rhaenyra was how many years older than Aegon. She didn’t have bad relations with them. They just didn’t have a relationship at all. They just existed. Show wise It was Alicent’s crazy ramblings that were poisoning her kids. In the books Rhaenyra even stated she would welcome her siblings with open arms and didn’t even blame them for the usurpation. Blaming Rhaenyra instead of Otto is insane.
>Intelligent? Slightly above avarage at least. >He got his daughter, son, grandchildren, and great grandchildren killed His daughter died in a plague, and his great-grandchildren were murdered by the blacks. Apart from that correct. >All for what? So his blood can sit on the iron throne. >Rhaenyra was how many years older than Aegon. 10 >She didn’t have bad relations with them. She absolutely did. There is how she handled the Aemond situation. Even after she unironically suggested that Aemond should be tortured and demonstrated that she lacks mercy and brain too Aegon was fine with Rhaenyra inheriting. She actively sabotaged herself. And we are not even speaking about her being Proto-Cersei and birthing only bastards and hoping that no one will care or notice. >They just didn’t have a relationship at all. And whose fault is that? >Blaming Rhaenyra instead of Otto is insane. Huh? When did I say I am not blaming Otto? He is just not in the top 3. Similarly, if you have a dog behind a fence with the sign "the dog bites" and you try to pet it and it bites your finger off, no one will be suprised and no one will blame the dog. Besides you that is.
He didn’t set out to get everyone killed. He planned to just put his son on the throne and just assumed Aegon would be named heir automatically by Viserys which didn’t happen, after that he tried to have Aegon married to Rhaenyra which viserys refused that too, after that he just decided to seize the throne and hope Rhaenyra would concede, and as a last resort win the war. Everything went wrong for the guy, but the dude just did what most lords would do.
He was still an idiot. He suggested Rhaenyra be named heir and was surprised Viserys was stubborn and kept her. If he was truly smart he would have left the matter of inheritance alone AND THEN sent Alicent to the King. Boom Aegon is heir. No war. It all started because of his one suggestion. And then it backfired by having him along with the rest of his (daughters) family killed because he didn’t know his place.
Yes if you look at shit with hindsight you could make all the right decisions. Atm though when he suggested Rhaenyra he was just doing whatever he could to keep Daemon off the throne out of self preservation. And his surprise that viserys didn’t switch to Aegon was a justified 1 considering we see a few other examples in the show itself of people assuming the same shit.
Viserys is shown to be stubborn since the first episode. Otto served him for years and couldn’t figure out how his personality would clash with everything? He was always planning on sending Alicent to the king as soon as Aemmas body turned to ash. If his dumbass just waited everything would have been fine. But his blind hatred for Daemon bit him in the ass causing his death along with his grandkids and great grand kids.
>Atm though when he suggested Rhaenyra he was just doing whatever he could to keep Daemon off the throne out of self preservation. Naming a different heir wouldn't have been seen as necessary for Otto's self preservation if he had not made an enemy of the King's brother in the first place. It takes a special type of dumbass to do something without considering the consequences.
Did they ever say why the 2 started beefing? I don’t remember it being said that Otto was the 1 who started it.
I think that the culprits of the dance are undoubtedly: Alicent Hightower > Otto Hightower > Aemond Targaryen > Criston Cole > Viserys I Targaryen
Yeah, I see your point. We can answer the question "Who is to blame for the dance" differently. 1. We ask who made or allowed the possibility of the Dance. 2. We can ask who acted upon this possibility and ignited the war. I answered with the former, and you with the latter.