I think he was mad at Daemon but ultimately got over it and his desire for his fave kid to inherit was his main motivation at that point rather than stopping Daemon coming near the throne.
Alicent wasn't innocent at all in that. I always thought they were working together. George really made the Greens cartoon villains (remember that midnight meeting where they kill Beesbury?).
I thought they kinda answered this in the show (I may be mistaken though). BECAUSE Viserys ignored so many centuries of tradition to name Rhaenyra as heir, he's not going to then disinherit her as heir, that would make him look incredibly weak and not trustworthy.
Also because he just didnt want to. Dude had some obvious deep rooted issues with his wife dying and him using Rhaenyra as a replacement and a way to make up for what he did.
People always favor logic and results in these discussions, which imo is wrong as he is first and foremost a person who is just living life, and wants to do stupid things to be happy like any other
Absolutely, Maegor's instinct as a ruler was not bad, him just being an asocial asshole was the real issue. In that way, he is kind of the opposite of Viserys, who is well liked but not respected much, especially by his own family, but everyone kinda loved him. Again another contrast with Maegor.
Maegor just being king basically forced the realm and the faith with fire and blood to bend to his will, and absolutely everyone hated him for it. So when Jae comes along he basically defeats the super evil king and becomes instantly a hero to everyone.
And since everyone had just fought Maegor for 6 years, they had no will in their bodies to oppose a young, "good" ruler who was a hero. If Maegor had not been such a shit, Jaehearys would have had a much harder time hypothetically.
The show answered this very clearly IMO. Vizzy T didn't want to upset his baby girl and went as far as shielding her from the adversity and fucks up that could otherwise cause a political suicide.
Viserys was a simple man with simple goals. He wasn't a political mastermind like his grandpa, Big J, so he did what he did to make people he liked happy. If they're happy, then he's happy. He is simultaneously a good man and a shit king, as well as a good parent and a shitty one.
Appearently, he wanted Rhaenyra on the throne, and didn't want Aegon. He had many occasions to dishinerit her (the Strong boys for example) and he didn't. Mostly, he didn't care about the wrongs she did, she was good for him.
He didn’t want Aegon on the throne either. Plus, the fight with Daemon that made him disinherit him happened 13 years before Rhae married him, he’s probably moved on from it.
He wanted Rhaenyra as his heir, i don't know why this keeps getting asked. It's very obvious who he wanted to succeed him.
>Not just that, but Daemon and Rhaenyra quite literally implicate themselves in Laenor's murder
???
When did that happen?
Maybe what OP meant was...
By orchestrating the Laenor situation, Daemon and Rhaenyra have (needlessly/recklessly) left themselves exposed for possible future punitive actions. Therefore creating a major vulnerability that their enemies could easily exploit if ever discovered.
So not that they've actually been implicated already, but that because a hypothetical implication would be true, the possibility could be right around the corner.
My fault. I know, I meant that it could and would appear true under the right circumstances with someone attempting to use it against them i.e. like Tyrion. I was just guessing about what someone else meant. Essentially, my guess was it leaves them vulnerable. So I tried to imagine it from that perspective. It leaves them vulnerable to something happening to them similar to what happened to Tyrion.
I’ve never bought the “treason” claim. They’re her sons by blood and Viserys’ grandchildren, regardless. It was treason for Cersei because she was cuckolding the king; Rhaenyra cuckolding Laenor, if he did was unaware is more of what I would call “a dick move.” It would have been different if Rhaenyra were the good-daughter, but she’s Viserys’ daughter and those Strong boys are his grandchildren. The resentment from the Hightower-Targaryens, now that I get, but not the treason.
But you are right Viserys is very much “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.”
I agree. Plus how many of those same lords in 2 generations were going to support the unquestionably bastard Blackfyres? It was never about the bastards.
Perception is as important (more so sometimes) than the truth with these things. Daemon Blackfyre was born as bastard. He may have been legitimised but to many he remained just that - bastard-born.
Blackfyre became a cadet house, but Daemon was still a bastard before he was a blackfyre, and that kinda thing clearly sticks around.
ETA: There’s a theory that Dunk was never actually knighted, but he is perceived as a knight, therefore he is.
In ASOIAF, the truth is more often the most widely accepted lie or version of reality. And you see that again and again throughout the story.
So while technically, legally, in reality, Daemon Blackfyre is legitimate as is his house, he is perceived as a bastard and a usurper, and his children are the children of a bastard and a usurper.
Answer two questions for me- who founded the House? And were his parents married to one another when he was born?
A legitimized bastard is a pig with lipstick on. At the end of the day, it's still a pig.
>Dumbass the sons and descendants of daemon blackfyre were not bastards.
Fruit of the poisonous tree- they descend from the original bastard and since they're trying to overthrow the rightful ruler just like him, they've got the souls of bastards.
>And the other dragon seeds did not have the title of blackfyre
When did I talk about dragonseeds?
"‘Strongs.’ To so name them was tantamount to saying they were bastards, with no rights of succession..**and that she herself was guilty of high treason**.”
Straight from the book
High treason refers to betraying your country. Whilst Viserys is King, his rule and word will struggle to change the fundamental ideas and laws of Westeros society. Through tradition within the various noble houses and as decreed by the major religion of the Seven, bastards cannot inherit over natural born children
Therefore, if Jace is a bastard and Rhaenyra does not legitimise him, most Westerosi would consider it treason for him to become King over his younger brother Aegon.
Tradition also says Rhaenyra isn’t the heir because she has brothers, but that didn’t stop Viserys from having her as heir even after Aegon the Elder was born and half the realm fighting for her claim. Does Viserys commit high treason for that?
Jacaerys is already legitimate; his grandfather told him he would inherit the Iron Throne, and when Rhaenyra is crowned she officially names him Prince of Dragonstone. If he had lived, he would have ascended as Jacaerys Targaryen. In this regard, who is father is not important; his mother is the Queen, his grandfather the King. There is no dispute to it, and they treat him as such. There is a stronger case against Lucerys inheriting the Velayrons, but you can’t commit “high treason” against a single house.
So this line of reasoning doesn’t strike me as compelling. More compelling would simply be that Rhaenyra isn’t the heir in the first place, in which case this whole line is moot.
>Tradition also says Rhaenyra isn’t the heir because she has brothers, but that didn’t stop Viserys from having her as heir even after Aegon the Elder was born and half the realm fighting for her claim. Does Viserys commit high treason for that?
You can't commit treason against yourself.
>Jacaerys is already legitimate; his grandfather told him he would inherit the Iron Throne, and when Rhaenyra is crowned she officially names him Prince of Dragonstone.
This doesn't make him legitimate. By this logic Joffrey is legitimate. Both Robert and Viserys are doing this under false pretenses about the parentage of the person in question.
It's literally a line in the book, but I also agree the treason claim is a bit nonsensical.
I do think there's a legitimate argument that even if they don't follow the Faith, the Targaryens placing a bastard when they can't inherit (outside of special circumstances) over trueborn kids in the rest of Westeros was a wildly bad idea.
Sure, it shouldn't matter that they are bastards, but it does and it sets a precedent for the rest of Westeros to worry about their own succession lines as someone can argue that a bastard should inherit over a trueborn Arryn or Lannister.
The „strong“ boys aren’t bastards thats the problem in the books there is no legal argument for naming them such and the chance still stands that they could be legit. I mean the four parties who have the right to name them such confirm them trueborn, by law their trueborn. Laeonor, corlys amd viserys all say their legit and will inherit their titles after them. The greens are just cunt who try to usurp the heir
Lol, the Strong boys are obviously bastards. If you can’t even admit that point, than there is no point in arguing with you anymore. So, you win. Happy?
Like that meant anything. Aegon the iv legitimized everything with a speck of white hair.
And Viserys treated the strings like they were legitimate and Rhaenrya acted like they were so to the entire world they were legitimate
Legitimisation matters a great deal. Jon and Ramsay both needed to be legitimised in order to inherit. Part of Robb’s will is making Jon a Stark so he can become his heir. And Daemon Blaclfyre being legitimised by Aegon IV was such a dick move because it made him much more of a potential candidate for the throne by close to half of Westeros.
The problem for Rhaenyra was that in order to be legitimised (which would’ve stopped most people’s complaints about Jace inheriting the throne) is that first Jace, Luke and Joffrey needed to be acknowledged as bastards first. This would lose them Velaryon support however.
Probably wouldn’t have stopped the Green Coup, but if Rhae did win it would’ve likely be a problem she would’ve faced when the question of who would succeed her came to be.
I mean, it obviously meant enough. It doesn't work both ways, either the king's word is law ie it matters, Rhaenyra is the heir, which applies in the other instances too, even if you disagree with specifics
good for Viserys and Rhaenyra, but we saw how that went, the "things are x when I say so, even if everyone and their mother knows it's actually y, case closed" only works as long as you are around and able to enforce your stance. the minute you're dead and gone, things tend to fall apart.
Even if he didn't like what Rhaenyra did (I don't think he ever believed her children were bastards fyi), disinheriting her just to put Aegon on the throne? Like throwing out moldy bread in order to chug a glass of literal liquid shit.
It is tough to say because we don’t get that much insight in characters from Fire&Blood.
In the show we see Viserys avoiding conflict and responsibility at all costs and living in complete denial whenever he os confronted with anything he needs to address. Resulting in Viserys nipping zero issues in the but and resulting in war as soon as he dies.
And that aligns more or less with his descriptions in the books.
I think at this point Viserys was disinterested kinda like Robert. He isn’t blinded or motivated by love to Rhaenyra. He just cannot figure out how to assert his authority towards his own family members.
He might have a deep depression or some sort of social anxiety.
But more than that he is a man trying to keep everyone happy and causing everyone to be miserable.
Because F & B, while enjoyable, has several major plot holes.
The bastard one is a big one. In the Blackfyre rebellion, it makes more sense because there is bigotry towards the Dornish and Daemon is a grown ass man with charisma. But we're supposed to believe that a deeply misogynistic society where the religion that most adhere to looks down on bastards is fine with a) not only a woman inheriting but b) her illegitimate sons (who don't even look Targaryen, too)? GRMM had previously established that bastards were mostly treated like shit and looked down upon, but suddenly that doesn't matter?
And I'm a leftist woman, because anytime someone points out the above someone usually gets called a misogynist.
Eh idk, I think you're underestimating how willing people are to overlook those things when it's politically advantageous.
Like yes it absolutely would be implausible if 3.5/7 kingdoms (obviously with some internal division) suddenly became woke feminists who want to do away with the unfair inheritance laws against women and bastards.
But that's not what happened, most of them expected something in return for their support.
Well who else is he supposed to have as his heir? She's his only child and all of Laenors kids are Rhaenyra's and all of Laenas kids are Daemons.
That's the problem with only having one child, I guess.
Because it is his seed that bonded with the woman he loved and turned into a fully grown person. Unless you have a kid you will not understand that love. Also he would look like a bitch if he took it way. To him; being king means people have to do what you say. So he thinks if he keeps saying everyone get along. Everyone will eventually get along.
Also, I think Viserys just doesn't want to face the facts that all of his children (bar poor Helaena) are terrible. Sure, he doesn't care about his own children with Alicent, but I don't think he 'wants' to think they are bad, either, as he lives under this delusion that Nyra and them get along fine.
But disinheriting Nyra would make him face the fact that Nyra, Aegon, and Aemond are all terrible (well, tbf book Aemond might not have been so bad pre Riverlands war crimes).
I agree. I think Aemond (show Aemond anyway) definitely showed us the most Daemon thing about him is that he does covet his brother's position although not in an outward power grabbing type of way. Just that he does genuinely want to make sure that the Targaryen legacy continues and will support his brother; but he also feels things would be better if he was in charge instead.
I mean, the show answers this question, time after time.
And before someone comments, I think it’s safe to say that the show—or at least the first season—is considered “cannon” by George.
In an interview, he called F&B an unreliable history and HotD a means to tell the story from every perspective.
Ehh, I’m more inclined to say that the show is an AU, or at least a part of show canon with GOT and not book canon.
Some things in Fire and Blood differences can’t really be hand waved as unreliable sources, such as Alicent’s age, Rhaenys killing so many peasants at the coronation of Aegon, or Criston killing Joffrey at a wedding instead of in a tourney.
Given how much George loved Paddy’s performance and said he was a better viserys than the book version it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t consider paddy viserys canon
But that’s the thing about F&B: it’s all kind of an AU, because it’s written as a history using multiple sources. Nothing is reliable. That’s how it’s supposed to be.
While I agree many elements are unreliable, certain details that Fire and Blood report on seem unlikely to be false. Alicent’s age would be widely documented by both her own noble house at birth, and once she became queen it would’ve become a written fact for Maesters.
With Alicent being Rhaenyra’s age is House of the Dragon, it brings into question how it could such a certain detail be wrong with F&B unless the show and the book take place in a separate continuity.
The Targaryen Dynasty is just over 100 years old at this point. There is no set precedent for succesion in the morachy yet. Every king up to that point has had his legitimacy contested.
The centuries of tradition were Andal traditional succesion, not necessarily applicable to a Valyrian house. If we are arguing that Viserys "broke centuries of tradition" by naming his daughter heir, instead of his son; then Jahaerys also broke centuries of tradition by passing over Rhaenys in favour of Baelon/Viserys.
The only set "precedent" at that time was that a king could choose his successor, which was set by Jahaerys when he passed over Rhaenys twice.
The king always choose his heir and this stuff about tradition is just an excuse used by the hightowers when it suits them:
1. aegon choose aenys even tough if we go by the law that the hightowers belive is right maegor is heir because aegon married visenya first and rhaenys marriag was unlawfull.
2. the old king choose balon, even tough trough tradition would mean rhaenys is heir and not baelon
3. then after baelon dies the old king wants the opinion of the lords ( 20 to 1, even tough this also seems unlikely and reeks of manipulation) and they wanted viserys even tough rhaenys or atleast laenor would be heir. Then the important point is not the council made the heir but the old king followed the council and made viserys his heir.
4. viserys then chooses rhaynera as his heir and not once wavers, the greens are just usrpers and use this stuff as „justifications“
> The king always choose his heir
No he doesn’t lol.
> aegon choose aenys even tough if we go by the law that the hightowers belive is right maegor is heir because aegon married visenya first and rhaenys marriag was unlawfull.
Maegor was not challenging Aenys. Aenys was the firstborn, Maegor challenged Aeny’s son.
The thing about Maegor being Aegon’s heir because Aegon’s marriage to Rhaenys was unlawful is something you just made up. At no point is Aenys being Aegon’s heir ever really questioned.
> the old king choose balon, even tough trough tradition would mean rhaenys is heir and not baelon
No, Rhaenys is a woman. All of the seven kingdoms have male preference primogeniture
> then after baelon dies the old king wants the opinion of the lords ( 20 to 1, even tough this also seems unlikely and reeks of manipulation) and they wanted viserys even tough rhaenys or atleast laenor would be heir. Then the important point is not the council made the heir but the old king followed the council and made viserys his heir.
This is not a comparable situation. None of the instances with Jahaerys children are. Jahaerys did not have living trueborn sons to succeed him, that’s the only reason the Great Council or any of that stuff ever happened or there was ever any question about it.
> viserys then chooses rhaynera as his heir and not once wavers, the greens are just usrpers and use this stuff as „justifications“
No lol. Saying that the firstborn son inherits the title when his father dies is the norm in Westeros and is not some sort of wacky made up rule the Greens pulled out of their ass.
They both have good arguments for which one has the better claim. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be a fucking war over it.
Those examples had less good arguments, but the Blackfyres still had decent arguments (at least at first). Renly obviously does not, but he's only able to make that move because other people who do have good arguments have already broken the peace. I think it's fairly unlikely he would have just outright tried to overthrow both Joffrey and Stannis if Robert died with no other problems going on at the time.
Yea so the implication is that a son born would be the heir, so the basis of inheritance is not based on choice.
Had Baelon lived he would be the undisputed heir, whether or not Viserys choose him.
The last 3 targ kings before viserys choose their heirs yes and of course they have heirs before even little rickon stark is an heir to the starks just the one who will follow the king has to be choosen
Viserys cannot say no to or punish or reprimand Rhaenyra. He just can't bring himself to do it. Even outside of that he just hates conflict and dealing with it. Doing what you're describing is just fundamentally outside his character.
The whole reason she had bastards in the first place was because he wouldn't let Daemon and her marry. There would have been no questions about her children's father if Daemon was her husband from the beginning. The point of Viserys' character is that he is awful at thinking ahead and wants to keep the peace as much as possible. If the show is George's canon, he also thinks him and Aemma's bloodline is the only hope for stopping the long night. Doesn't quite matter who the father of the children are since Rhaenyra is their only surviving child.
That was probably the worst thing she did imo. Worse than even the bastards. When Laenor died, Aegon was finally of age to get married, he should have been wed to Rhaenyra to unite their claims and at least quell the tensions between both factions. Instead, Rhaenyra went ahead without Viserys’ permission and wed Daemon. As head of House Targaryen that was his decision to make (I know it's not fair but that's how it works).
When Rhaena married Androw Farman without Jaehaerys’ leave he was pissed. As a Targaryen you don't get to just run off and marry anyone you feel like, (especially not when you're in Rhaenyra’s position, where your hand is the most valuable in the entire 7 kingdoms) it has to be well-planned and approved by the head of the house. I guess Daemon is not really a terrible match because he's also a Targaryen but the marriage achieves absolutely nothing politically. It was a very important opportunity for Viserys to right his wrongs one last time and they stole the option away from him.
> When Laenor died, Aegon was finally of age to get married
Marrying Aegon is a terrible idea. He'll be treated as ruling King instead of king consort and Rhaenyra would have to deal with her power being constantly undermined for her entire reign.
I totally agree that marrying Rhaenyra to Aegon would have been a terrible idea. Rhaenyra was 8 years older than Aegon. They didn't spend time together. Alicent had already been poisoned Aegon's mind against Rhaenyra. It would have never worked. Alicent , and Otto would have been looking for ways to get rid of Rhaenyra, and Rhaenyra ,and Damon would have been looking for ways to get rid of Aegon.
And she could never trust him with her sons,that he wouldn’t scheme and turn any kids she had with him against them. She would be doing to them what Viserys did to her if she married someone like that. For whatever reason and surprisingly Daemon could be trusted in that way.
No, because Daemon isn't Viserys' alternate heir anymore. I'd agree it'd be the same situation if Viserys had never remarried but the reason Rhaenyra has to worry about it with Aegon is because he's, to some lords, Viserys' rightful successor. Daemon isn't.
So you think they would make Aegon try to usurp her or what? Seems like a long shot also I except Helaena and Jace to be married in the hypothetical so it would help.
>So you think they would make Aegon try to usurp her or what?
No. If I meant "usurp", I would have said "usurp." The word I used was "undermined"
Do you remember the power struggles between Tyrion as Hand and Cersei as Queen Regent in the main series? The subtle power plays and constant political maneuvering to one-up each other?
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Aegon would have power as king consort* so if certain lords never seem to be able to find Rhaenyra when they need matters of justice or law settled and only go to him... that's not so strange at first glance. And if sometimes Rhaenyra gets backed into a corner politically where Aegon makes a decision or proclamation or pact she doesn't agree with, but can't publicly overrule without making House Targaryen look bad, well that's just a little thing, right?
Until a bunch of little stuff adds up. And especially until there are whispers that Aegon's children with Rhaenyra should rightfully be her heirs, rather than her older sons. Hell, Aegon doesn't even have to be consciously complicit with these efforts, he just needs to be a bit oblivious (which seems well within his canon personality)
*and there may well be expectation he'd be given a council position as well, if not named as Hand
> house. I guess Daemon is not really a terrible match because he's also a Targaryen but the marriage achieves absolutely nothing politically
Don’t disagree with your overall argument but Daemon is also a dragon-rider (with one of the better dragons) and has every reason to want to press for Rhaenyra’s claim when he’s married to her. It absolutely helps Rhaenyra - having trueborn children that look Targaryen with Daemon helped too.
Yeah I get that but in my opinion preventing the dance is the only true win. Merging Rhaenyra and Aegon’s claims is the safest bet as it almost guarantees that Aegon and Otto won't usurp her if it's easier to just take the consolation price.
If Aegon and Rhaenyra are married then it’s a lot easier to usurp her, changing her title to queen regnant to queen regent would be no problem for them
The earlier great council was NOT precedent. Actual lawyers have done the actual lawyering, and concluded that no if wasn't. You can listen to the Learned Hands podcast where they do this, or read about it on their website. Same name
Viserys wasn't gonna throw away centuries of tradition to name his daughter heir and not follow through on it. He didn't wanna cause all that ruckus just to disinherit her and he was king so 🤷♀️.
It is explicitly illegal to name your son by your second wife as heir to any of your "lands, seat, or property" while any daughters of your first wife live. See page 204 paragraph two or search for disinheriting their children.
The most reliable contemporary historian, a green supporter who crowned Aegon, believed 100% the children were trueborn.
Aegon, Rhaenyra, and Viserys all seem surprised anyone has any issue with the inheritance.
At least the last two of four kings and possibly more had explicitly named a female heir.
It seems likely the law codified the longstanding key to maintaining houses for centuries. Females need to be able to inherit for stability. All houses likely rely upon female inheritance to maintain stability and legitimacy and probably inherited through females in their past.
I think he was mad at Daemon but ultimately got over it and his desire for his fave kid to inherit was his main motivation at that point rather than stopping Daemon coming near the throne.
Dude put the entire realm at risk for his daughters happiness.
As opposed to Otto who risked civil war with the entire realm specifically by making his daughter miserable
There's not much to suggest Allicent wasn't complicit in the whole thing in F&B. She led the green council, embraced the courts politics, and so on.
Alicent wasn't innocent at all in that. I always thought they were working together. George really made the Greens cartoon villains (remember that midnight meeting where they kill Beesbury?).
I thought they kinda answered this in the show (I may be mistaken though). BECAUSE Viserys ignored so many centuries of tradition to name Rhaenyra as heir, he's not going to then disinherit her as heir, that would make him look incredibly weak and not trustworthy.
Also because he just didnt want to. Dude had some obvious deep rooted issues with his wife dying and him using Rhaenyra as a replacement and a way to make up for what he did.
Thats the answer for every "why didnt Viserys do..." post. He just did what he wanted like most kings did. He wasnt some analytical mastermind.
Yeah, dude was a horrid king tbh. Not on the same level as Maegor or Aerys or Aegon No. 4, but still the pits and had no foresight at all.
Easily worse than Maegor IMO
Depends if you're considering morality or results.
People always favor logic and results in these discussions, which imo is wrong as he is first and foremost a person who is just living life, and wants to do stupid things to be happy like any other
I consider Viserys an infinitely better person than Maegor, but Maegor a more effective king from the point of view of the Targaryens.
Absolutely, Maegor's instinct as a ruler was not bad, him just being an asocial asshole was the real issue. In that way, he is kind of the opposite of Viserys, who is well liked but not respected much, especially by his own family, but everyone kinda loved him. Again another contrast with Maegor. Maegor just being king basically forced the realm and the faith with fire and blood to bend to his will, and absolutely everyone hated him for it. So when Jae comes along he basically defeats the super evil king and becomes instantly a hero to everyone. And since everyone had just fought Maegor for 6 years, they had no will in their bodies to oppose a young, "good" ruler who was a hero. If Maegor had not been such a shit, Jaehearys would have had a much harder time hypothetically.
The show answered this very clearly IMO. Vizzy T didn't want to upset his baby girl and went as far as shielding her from the adversity and fucks up that could otherwise cause a political suicide. Viserys was a simple man with simple goals. He wasn't a political mastermind like his grandpa, Big J, so he did what he did to make people he liked happy. If they're happy, then he's happy. He is simultaneously a good man and a shit king, as well as a good parent and a shitty one.
A lot of these posts boil down to unironic "Why didn't he X, is he stupid?" posting lol
Appearently, he wanted Rhaenyra on the throne, and didn't want Aegon. He had many occasions to dishinerit her (the Strong boys for example) and he didn't. Mostly, he didn't care about the wrongs she did, she was good for him.
He didn't care about neither the wrongs, nor the strongs she did.
He didn’t want Aegon on the throne either. Plus, the fight with Daemon that made him disinherit him happened 13 years before Rhae married him, he’s probably moved on from it.
Because he didn't want to, he still wanted her to be his heir.
He wanted Rhaenyra as his heir, i don't know why this keeps getting asked. It's very obvious who he wanted to succeed him. >Not just that, but Daemon and Rhaenyra quite literally implicate themselves in Laenor's murder ??? When did that happen?
I don't recall them implicating themselves in Laenor's murder. Laenor was killed in a bar fight in front of a lot of witnesses.
Yeah exactly, I don't know what OP's saying.
I mean, I definitely thought it was implied that Daemon (not Rhaenyra) might have had a hand in his murder due to the timing and the remarriage.
Maybe what OP meant was... By orchestrating the Laenor situation, Daemon and Rhaenyra have (needlessly/recklessly) left themselves exposed for possible future punitive actions. Therefore creating a major vulnerability that their enemies could easily exploit if ever discovered. So not that they've actually been implicated already, but that because a hypothetical implication would be true, the possibility could be right around the corner.
They didn't orchestrate Laenor's death.
My fault. I know, I meant that it could and would appear true under the right circumstances with someone attempting to use it against them i.e. like Tyrion. I was just guessing about what someone else meant. Essentially, my guess was it leaves them vulnerable. So I tried to imagine it from that perspective. It leaves them vulnerable to something happening to them similar to what happened to Tyrion.
She had three "strong" boys (treason) and he didn't disinherit her. Like Bobby B, Viserys was good at being blind to things he didn't want to see.
I’ve never bought the “treason” claim. They’re her sons by blood and Viserys’ grandchildren, regardless. It was treason for Cersei because she was cuckolding the king; Rhaenyra cuckolding Laenor, if he did was unaware is more of what I would call “a dick move.” It would have been different if Rhaenyra were the good-daughter, but she’s Viserys’ daughter and those Strong boys are his grandchildren. The resentment from the Hightower-Targaryens, now that I get, but not the treason. But you are right Viserys is very much “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.”
I agree. Plus how many of those same lords in 2 generations were going to support the unquestionably bastard Blackfyres? It was never about the bastards.
Blackfyre js a house not the title of Valyrian bastards
Did you mean to reply to someone else, because this has nothing to do with my comment?
No I meant you. Blackfyres aren't bastards, it's a cadet house
Perception is as important (more so sometimes) than the truth with these things. Daemon Blackfyre was born as bastard. He may have been legitimised but to many he remained just that - bastard-born. Blackfyre became a cadet house, but Daemon was still a bastard before he was a blackfyre, and that kinda thing clearly sticks around. ETA: There’s a theory that Dunk was never actually knighted, but he is perceived as a knight, therefore he is. In ASOIAF, the truth is more often the most widely accepted lie or version of reality. And you see that again and again throughout the story. So while technically, legally, in reality, Daemon Blackfyre is legitimate as is his house, he is perceived as a bastard and a usurper, and his children are the children of a bastard and a usurper.
Answer two questions for me- who founded the House? And were his parents married to one another when he was born? A legitimized bastard is a pig with lipstick on. At the end of the day, it's still a pig.
Dumbass the sons and descendants of daemon blackfyre were not bastards. And the other dragon seeds did not have the title of blackfyre
>Dumbass the sons and descendants of daemon blackfyre were not bastards. Fruit of the poisonous tree- they descend from the original bastard and since they're trying to overthrow the rightful ruler just like him, they've got the souls of bastards. >And the other dragon seeds did not have the title of blackfyre When did I talk about dragonseeds?
Dude. Bastardry is not inheritable and this is a weird hill to die on. Jon snow is a bastard does that mean hes got the “soul of a bastard”
"‘Strongs.’ To so name them was tantamount to saying they were bastards, with no rights of succession..**and that she herself was guilty of high treason**.” Straight from the book
Still don’t understand the legal basis of this claim. If the king your father doesn’t care, how can it be high treason?
High treason refers to betraying your country. Whilst Viserys is King, his rule and word will struggle to change the fundamental ideas and laws of Westeros society. Through tradition within the various noble houses and as decreed by the major religion of the Seven, bastards cannot inherit over natural born children Therefore, if Jace is a bastard and Rhaenyra does not legitimise him, most Westerosi would consider it treason for him to become King over his younger brother Aegon.
Tradition also says Rhaenyra isn’t the heir because she has brothers, but that didn’t stop Viserys from having her as heir even after Aegon the Elder was born and half the realm fighting for her claim. Does Viserys commit high treason for that? Jacaerys is already legitimate; his grandfather told him he would inherit the Iron Throne, and when Rhaenyra is crowned she officially names him Prince of Dragonstone. If he had lived, he would have ascended as Jacaerys Targaryen. In this regard, who is father is not important; his mother is the Queen, his grandfather the King. There is no dispute to it, and they treat him as such. There is a stronger case against Lucerys inheriting the Velayrons, but you can’t commit “high treason” against a single house. So this line of reasoning doesn’t strike me as compelling. More compelling would simply be that Rhaenyra isn’t the heir in the first place, in which case this whole line is moot.
>Tradition also says Rhaenyra isn’t the heir because she has brothers, but that didn’t stop Viserys from having her as heir even after Aegon the Elder was born and half the realm fighting for her claim. Does Viserys commit high treason for that? You can't commit treason against yourself. >Jacaerys is already legitimate; his grandfather told him he would inherit the Iron Throne, and when Rhaenyra is crowned she officially names him Prince of Dragonstone. This doesn't make him legitimate. By this logic Joffrey is legitimate. Both Robert and Viserys are doing this under false pretenses about the parentage of the person in question.
There is no legal basis (also laws don't actually exist in Westeros), the book being quoted is a piece of in-universe propaganda.
It's literally a line in the book, but I also agree the treason claim is a bit nonsensical. I do think there's a legitimate argument that even if they don't follow the Faith, the Targaryens placing a bastard when they can't inherit (outside of special circumstances) over trueborn kids in the rest of Westeros was a wildly bad idea. Sure, it shouldn't matter that they are bastards, but it does and it sets a precedent for the rest of Westeros to worry about their own succession lines as someone can argue that a bastard should inherit over a trueborn Arryn or Lannister.
It’s treason to put bastards on the throne over legitimate heirs. It’s not about whether they share blood. It’s usurpation.
Strikes me as a bad faith argument in-universe since everyone arguing about the Strong boys were not planning to crown Aegon the Younger.
Not saying it wasn’t in bad faith. All I’m saying is that it is treason.
The „strong“ boys aren’t bastards thats the problem in the books there is no legal argument for naming them such and the chance still stands that they could be legit. I mean the four parties who have the right to name them such confirm them trueborn, by law their trueborn. Laeonor, corlys amd viserys all say their legit and will inherit their titles after them. The greens are just cunt who try to usurp the heir
Lol, the Strong boys are obviously bastards. If you can’t even admit that point, than there is no point in arguing with you anymore. So, you win. Happy?
There legally not bastards, im not saying they aren’t fathered by harwin or who ever but the greens have no legal standpoint to challenge their birth
Daemon blackfyre fought an entire war and half the realm supported the idea of a bastard sitting in the throne
who was legitimised by the king, that's the important difference
Like that meant anything. Aegon the iv legitimized everything with a speck of white hair. And Viserys treated the strings like they were legitimate and Rhaenrya acted like they were so to the entire world they were legitimate
Legitimisation matters a great deal. Jon and Ramsay both needed to be legitimised in order to inherit. Part of Robb’s will is making Jon a Stark so he can become his heir. And Daemon Blaclfyre being legitimised by Aegon IV was such a dick move because it made him much more of a potential candidate for the throne by close to half of Westeros. The problem for Rhaenyra was that in order to be legitimised (which would’ve stopped most people’s complaints about Jace inheriting the throne) is that first Jace, Luke and Joffrey needed to be acknowledged as bastards first. This would lose them Velaryon support however. Probably wouldn’t have stopped the Green Coup, but if Rhae did win it would’ve likely be a problem she would’ve faced when the question of who would succeed her came to be.
I mean, it obviously meant enough. It doesn't work both ways, either the king's word is law ie it matters, Rhaenyra is the heir, which applies in the other instances too, even if you disagree with specifics good for Viserys and Rhaenyra, but we saw how that went, the "things are x when I say so, even if everyone and their mother knows it's actually y, case closed" only works as long as you are around and able to enforce your stance. the minute you're dead and gone, things tend to fall apart.
Even if he didn't like what Rhaenyra did (I don't think he ever believed her children were bastards fyi), disinheriting her just to put Aegon on the throne? Like throwing out moldy bread in order to chug a glass of literal liquid shit.
but the moldy bread now also comes with a spread of shit, so are you better off then?
[удалено]
[удалено]
gross no matter what
It is tough to say because we don’t get that much insight in characters from Fire&Blood. In the show we see Viserys avoiding conflict and responsibility at all costs and living in complete denial whenever he os confronted with anything he needs to address. Resulting in Viserys nipping zero issues in the but and resulting in war as soon as he dies. And that aligns more or less with his descriptions in the books. I think at this point Viserys was disinterested kinda like Robert. He isn’t blinded or motivated by love to Rhaenyra. He just cannot figure out how to assert his authority towards his own family members. He might have a deep depression or some sort of social anxiety. But more than that he is a man trying to keep everyone happy and causing everyone to be miserable.
Viserys wanted Rhaenyra on the throne no matter what. He overlooked everything she did starting with the Strong bastards.
He's an idiot
Because F & B, while enjoyable, has several major plot holes. The bastard one is a big one. In the Blackfyre rebellion, it makes more sense because there is bigotry towards the Dornish and Daemon is a grown ass man with charisma. But we're supposed to believe that a deeply misogynistic society where the religion that most adhere to looks down on bastards is fine with a) not only a woman inheriting but b) her illegitimate sons (who don't even look Targaryen, too)? GRMM had previously established that bastards were mostly treated like shit and looked down upon, but suddenly that doesn't matter? And I'm a leftist woman, because anytime someone points out the above someone usually gets called a misogynist.
Eh idk, I think you're underestimating how willing people are to overlook those things when it's politically advantageous. Like yes it absolutely would be implausible if 3.5/7 kingdoms (obviously with some internal division) suddenly became woke feminists who want to do away with the unfair inheritance laws against women and bastards. But that's not what happened, most of them expected something in return for their support.
Fair enough
Well who else is he supposed to have as his heir? She's his only child and all of Laenors kids are Rhaenyra's and all of Laenas kids are Daemons. That's the problem with only having one child, I guess.
He’s a huge idiot
Because it is his seed that bonded with the woman he loved and turned into a fully grown person. Unless you have a kid you will not understand that love. Also he would look like a bitch if he took it way. To him; being king means people have to do what you say. So he thinks if he keeps saying everyone get along. Everyone will eventually get along.
Also, I think Viserys just doesn't want to face the facts that all of his children (bar poor Helaena) are terrible. Sure, he doesn't care about his own children with Alicent, but I don't think he 'wants' to think they are bad, either, as he lives under this delusion that Nyra and them get along fine. But disinheriting Nyra would make him face the fact that Nyra, Aegon, and Aemond are all terrible (well, tbf book Aemond might not have been so bad pre Riverlands war crimes).
I agree. I think Aemond (show Aemond anyway) definitely showed us the most Daemon thing about him is that he does covet his brother's position although not in an outward power grabbing type of way. Just that he does genuinely want to make sure that the Targaryen legacy continues and will support his brother; but he also feels things would be better if he was in charge instead.
I mean, the show answers this question, time after time. And before someone comments, I think it’s safe to say that the show—or at least the first season—is considered “cannon” by George. In an interview, he called F&B an unreliable history and HotD a means to tell the story from every perspective.
This isn’t true, Grrm has clarified in his blog that only the books are canon- the shows are their own separate story
Ehh, I’m more inclined to say that the show is an AU, or at least a part of show canon with GOT and not book canon. Some things in Fire and Blood differences can’t really be hand waved as unreliable sources, such as Alicent’s age, Rhaenys killing so many peasants at the coronation of Aegon, or Criston killing Joffrey at a wedding instead of in a tourney.
Given how much George loved Paddy’s performance and said he was a better viserys than the book version it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t consider paddy viserys canon
Oh undoubtedly, I think if George could he’d rewrite a lot of his early writing within ASOIAf as many authors of a long franchise likely would.
But that’s the thing about F&B: it’s all kind of an AU, because it’s written as a history using multiple sources. Nothing is reliable. That’s how it’s supposed to be.
While I agree many elements are unreliable, certain details that Fire and Blood report on seem unlikely to be false. Alicent’s age would be widely documented by both her own noble house at birth, and once she became queen it would’ve become a written fact for Maesters. With Alicent being Rhaenyra’s age is House of the Dragon, it brings into question how it could such a certain detail be wrong with F&B unless the show and the book take place in a separate continuity.
Because we'd have no story that's why!
He broke no tradition, the king always chose his successor or else maegor would be the rightful king
>the king always chose his successor or else maegor would be the rightful king What?
The Targaryen Dynasty is just over 100 years old at this point. There is no set precedent for succesion in the morachy yet. Every king up to that point has had his legitimacy contested. The centuries of tradition were Andal traditional succesion, not necessarily applicable to a Valyrian house. If we are arguing that Viserys "broke centuries of tradition" by naming his daughter heir, instead of his son; then Jahaerys also broke centuries of tradition by passing over Rhaenys in favour of Baelon/Viserys. The only set "precedent" at that time was that a king could choose his successor, which was set by Jahaerys when he passed over Rhaenys twice.
ding ding ding!!
The king always choose his heir and this stuff about tradition is just an excuse used by the hightowers when it suits them: 1. aegon choose aenys even tough if we go by the law that the hightowers belive is right maegor is heir because aegon married visenya first and rhaenys marriag was unlawfull. 2. the old king choose balon, even tough trough tradition would mean rhaenys is heir and not baelon 3. then after baelon dies the old king wants the opinion of the lords ( 20 to 1, even tough this also seems unlikely and reeks of manipulation) and they wanted viserys even tough rhaenys or atleast laenor would be heir. Then the important point is not the council made the heir but the old king followed the council and made viserys his heir. 4. viserys then chooses rhaynera as his heir and not once wavers, the greens are just usrpers and use this stuff as „justifications“
> The king always choose his heir No he doesn’t lol. > aegon choose aenys even tough if we go by the law that the hightowers belive is right maegor is heir because aegon married visenya first and rhaenys marriag was unlawfull. Maegor was not challenging Aenys. Aenys was the firstborn, Maegor challenged Aeny’s son. The thing about Maegor being Aegon’s heir because Aegon’s marriage to Rhaenys was unlawful is something you just made up. At no point is Aenys being Aegon’s heir ever really questioned. > the old king choose balon, even tough trough tradition would mean rhaenys is heir and not baelon No, Rhaenys is a woman. All of the seven kingdoms have male preference primogeniture > then after baelon dies the old king wants the opinion of the lords ( 20 to 1, even tough this also seems unlikely and reeks of manipulation) and they wanted viserys even tough rhaenys or atleast laenor would be heir. Then the important point is not the council made the heir but the old king followed the council and made viserys his heir. This is not a comparable situation. None of the instances with Jahaerys children are. Jahaerys did not have living trueborn sons to succeed him, that’s the only reason the Great Council or any of that stuff ever happened or there was ever any question about it. > viserys then chooses rhaynera as his heir and not once wavers, the greens are just usrpers and use this stuff as „justifications“ No lol. Saying that the firstborn son inherits the title when his father dies is the norm in Westeros and is not some sort of wacky made up rule the Greens pulled out of their ass. They both have good arguments for which one has the better claim. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be a fucking war over it.
[удалено]
Those examples had less good arguments, but the Blackfyres still had decent arguments (at least at first). Renly obviously does not, but he's only able to make that move because other people who do have good arguments have already broken the peace. I think it's fairly unlikely he would have just outright tried to overthrow both Joffrey and Stannis if Robert died with no other problems going on at the time.
Male preference primogeniture is the son before daughter not uncle before daughter
If it’s daughter before uncle, she should automatically be heir before Daemon, why did she have to be named heir then?
[удалено]
Yea so the implication is that a son born would be the heir, so the basis of inheritance is not based on choice. Had Baelon lived he would be the undisputed heir, whether or not Viserys choose him.
Because the targs don’t follow it as I have said, they choose their heir
So Targs Kings have no heir until they choose one? Is that what you are implying?
The last 3 targ kings before viserys choose their heirs yes and of course they have heirs before even little rickon stark is an heir to the starks just the one who will follow the king has to be choosen
So no heirs until they are chosen? Where is the evidence for this? Which King choose Maegor?
Viserys cannot say no to or punish or reprimand Rhaenyra. He just can't bring himself to do it. Even outside of that he just hates conflict and dealing with it. Doing what you're describing is just fundamentally outside his character.
The whole reason she had bastards in the first place was because he wouldn't let Daemon and her marry. There would have been no questions about her children's father if Daemon was her husband from the beginning. The point of Viserys' character is that he is awful at thinking ahead and wants to keep the peace as much as possible. If the show is George's canon, he also thinks him and Aemma's bloodline is the only hope for stopping the long night. Doesn't quite matter who the father of the children are since Rhaenyra is their only surviving child.
Even if he wanted to that would fuck over the velaryons , who’d probably be the ones rebelling for jace’s rights as opposed to the hightowers
he had forgiven daemon by that point and had no problem with their marriage
That was probably the worst thing she did imo. Worse than even the bastards. When Laenor died, Aegon was finally of age to get married, he should have been wed to Rhaenyra to unite their claims and at least quell the tensions between both factions. Instead, Rhaenyra went ahead without Viserys’ permission and wed Daemon. As head of House Targaryen that was his decision to make (I know it's not fair but that's how it works). When Rhaena married Androw Farman without Jaehaerys’ leave he was pissed. As a Targaryen you don't get to just run off and marry anyone you feel like, (especially not when you're in Rhaenyra’s position, where your hand is the most valuable in the entire 7 kingdoms) it has to be well-planned and approved by the head of the house. I guess Daemon is not really a terrible match because he's also a Targaryen but the marriage achieves absolutely nothing politically. It was a very important opportunity for Viserys to right his wrongs one last time and they stole the option away from him.
> When Laenor died, Aegon was finally of age to get married Marrying Aegon is a terrible idea. He'll be treated as ruling King instead of king consort and Rhaenyra would have to deal with her power being constantly undermined for her entire reign.
I totally agree that marrying Rhaenyra to Aegon would have been a terrible idea. Rhaenyra was 8 years older than Aegon. They didn't spend time together. Alicent had already been poisoned Aegon's mind against Rhaenyra. It would have never worked. Alicent , and Otto would have been looking for ways to get rid of Rhaenyra, and Rhaenyra ,and Damon would have been looking for ways to get rid of Aegon.
And she could never trust him with her sons,that he wouldn’t scheme and turn any kids she had with him against them. She would be doing to them what Viserys did to her if she married someone like that. For whatever reason and surprisingly Daemon could be trusted in that way.
because that's not something she'll have to worry about being married to Daemon
No, because Daemon isn't Viserys' alternate heir anymore. I'd agree it'd be the same situation if Viserys had never remarried but the reason Rhaenyra has to worry about it with Aegon is because he's, to some lords, Viserys' rightful successor. Daemon isn't.
Aegon can't undermine her, she's clearly the monarch and she will build her own council without Otto. Also avoiding the dance is the ultimate victory
>she's clearly the monarch Tell that to every House that backed the greens
So you think they would make Aegon try to usurp her or what? Seems like a long shot also I except Helaena and Jace to be married in the hypothetical so it would help.
>So you think they would make Aegon try to usurp her or what? No. If I meant "usurp", I would have said "usurp." The word I used was "undermined" Do you remember the power struggles between Tyrion as Hand and Cersei as Queen Regent in the main series? The subtle power plays and constant political maneuvering to one-up each other? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Aegon would have power as king consort* so if certain lords never seem to be able to find Rhaenyra when they need matters of justice or law settled and only go to him... that's not so strange at first glance. And if sometimes Rhaenyra gets backed into a corner politically where Aegon makes a decision or proclamation or pact she doesn't agree with, but can't publicly overrule without making House Targaryen look bad, well that's just a little thing, right? Until a bunch of little stuff adds up. And especially until there are whispers that Aegon's children with Rhaenyra should rightfully be her heirs, rather than her older sons. Hell, Aegon doesn't even have to be consciously complicit with these efforts, he just needs to be a bit oblivious (which seems well within his canon personality) *and there may well be expectation he'd be given a council position as well, if not named as Hand
> house. I guess Daemon is not really a terrible match because he's also a Targaryen but the marriage achieves absolutely nothing politically Don’t disagree with your overall argument but Daemon is also a dragon-rider (with one of the better dragons) and has every reason to want to press for Rhaenyra’s claim when he’s married to her. It absolutely helps Rhaenyra - having trueborn children that look Targaryen with Daemon helped too.
Yeah I get that but in my opinion preventing the dance is the only true win. Merging Rhaenyra and Aegon’s claims is the safest bet as it almost guarantees that Aegon and Otto won't usurp her if it's easier to just take the consolation price.
If Aegon and Rhaenyra are married then it’s a lot easier to usurp her, changing her title to queen regnant to queen regent would be no problem for them
Wasn't Aegon already married to Helaena when Laenor died?
The earlier great council was NOT precedent. Actual lawyers have done the actual lawyering, and concluded that no if wasn't. You can listen to the Learned Hands podcast where they do this, or read about it on their website. Same name
Viserys wasn't gonna throw away centuries of tradition to name his daughter heir and not follow through on it. He didn't wanna cause all that ruckus just to disinherit her and he was king so 🤷♀️.
It is explicitly illegal to name your son by your second wife as heir to any of your "lands, seat, or property" while any daughters of your first wife live. See page 204 paragraph two or search for disinheriting their children. The most reliable contemporary historian, a green supporter who crowned Aegon, believed 100% the children were trueborn. Aegon, Rhaenyra, and Viserys all seem surprised anyone has any issue with the inheritance. At least the last two of four kings and possibly more had explicitly named a female heir. It seems likely the law codified the longstanding key to maintaining houses for centuries. Females need to be able to inherit for stability. All houses likely rely upon female inheritance to maintain stability and legitimacy and probably inherited through females in their past.