Rheanyra I?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

what happens to Aegons son tho he still had the youngest one and unless I missed it in the world book I can t figure out why he didn't become king

Maelor was torn apart by a mob and didn't survive the war.

[Wmarshal]

Maelor was torn apart by a mob and didn't survive the war.

By god, to be a child in Westeros is a horror.

[JonathanTheBold]

Maelor was torn apart by a mob and didn't survive the war.

when? was it in the world book?

[walkingWITHcersei]

when? was it in the world book?

Yep... Killed by a mob of peasants... Feels like one of those stories we only got a small piece of. There must be more to it but that's what the book said.

[Bael's Bastard]

No, not really. Rhaenyra was made heir by her father, which was the actual precedent earlier set by Jahaerys: the king chooses who is to succeed him.

Not really. Jaehaerys passed over his eldest surviving child (Alyssa) seemingly twice (for Aemon then Baelon), and passed over Aemon's eldest child (Rhaenys) after he died (for Baelon), then the Great Council eliminated Rhaenys and her eldest Laena for contention in their own right, pitting Rhaenyra's son Laenor against Baelon's son Viserys, and IIRC Viserys defeated Laenor by an overwhelming margin (something like nine to one?). Viserys certainly chose Rhaenyra as his heir before he had any other children (specifically sons), and maintained that unril his death even after he had sons, but there was zero precedent for a female ruler of Westeros after the conquest, and especially with an adult son in Aegon (II) it is easy to see why Viserys' choice of heir was not unanimously supported after his death. Rhaenyra could have been the precedent that changed things, but she wasn't. Aegon II succeeded his father Viserys I, and Aegon III succeeded his mother's half-brother Aegon II.

[AtomixIGN]

The history is written by the Maesters, not the victors.

[SeanF]

By god, to be a child in Westeros is a horror.

It's a gruesome fact that in Westeros, noble children and women are viewed as legitimate targets.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

when? was it in the world book?

Yes.

[Barty]

Aegon III's claim comes from being Aegon II's nephew, not his mother's son.

If Aegon II had died without kids, and he had gotten a brother marrying some random lady, and those two people have sired Aegon III and then died, and no war had happened, Young Aegon still would be Aegon II's heir if no other Targaryen is around.

:agree:

[Maid So Fair]

Aegon II won the Dance by all accounts, even though he died not long after Rhaenyra did, and supporters of Aegon the younger were still fighting for him. Aegon III succeeded his uncle as the King, not his mother, and so was accepted by all the lords. When Cregan's Stark Hour of the wolf was taking the place, he was punishing people responsible for the death of a KIng.

Not really, he died with his last supporters defeated in the field and the Blacks victorious. He died when there were still people actively fighting to supplant him by the Younger Aegon as Rheanyra's son and the only reason he probably wasn't killed or w/e by them was because his own staff poisoned him first. Cregan Stark was a Black and he chiefly seemed annoyed that he missed a chance to defeat the usurper honourably.

Aegon III's claim comes from being Aegon II's nephew, not his mother's son.

If Aegon II had died without kids, and he had gotten a brother marrying some random lady, and those two people have sired Aegon III and then died, and no war had happened, Young Aegon still would be Aegon II's heir if no other Targaryen is around.

I understand that this was the reasoning they used and that's he's the Targ with the best claim no matter how you slice it, but the question is why. He's a King either way, and his supporters have defeated anyone who would still oppose that decision. Why not just say he's his mother's heir, especially after all that Aegon The Elder put him through?

There's a good reason for Viserys II, at least. If he named had her mother the rightful queen, then he should have renounced the kingship and crown his niece Daena.

This is actually a very good point - I have forgotten about Deana. But then again, this didn't become an issue until some considerable time and three Kings later and there were other reasons why Deana was rejected.

The only reason I can think of is Aegon III being too young and his regents having other concerns, and then when he came of age it's possible he just didn't want to rock the boat too much. Yet, given the impact all this had on him, you would think this would weight pretty heavy on his mind.

Come to think of it, perhaps this was the crux of the Sea Snake's peace offering?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I'm guessing that Rhaenyra's title wasn't granted to her after her death because it had been decided that all female claimants would go behind the male ones. Stating that, and then immediately after that Rhaenyra had been Rhaenyra I, would be kind of strange.

[OmnomnomPomelo]

Aegon II. "The Elder" won the dance and was the king for a short time, Rheanyra lost the dance so she wasn't a real queen.

If I remember well Aegon's spine got broken when he landed on Dragonstone, so he couldn't make more children, thus Aegon "The Younger" married "The Elder"'s daughter Jaehaera.

That's all.

[Barty]

I understand that this was the reasoning they used and that's he's the Targ with the best claim no matter how you slice it, but the question is why. He's a King either way, and his supporters have defeated anyone who would still oppose that decision. Why not just say he's his mother's heir, especially after all that Aegon The Elder put him through?

Why would he do that? His mother is dead - why anger all the Lords of the Great Council who decided that females cannot inherit the IT? Also it could be one of the terms of surrender of the remaining Greens (whats left of the Hightowers, Lannisters and Baratheons) - a way for them to preserve their honor in defeat. Why anger them needlessly and prolong the war?

[Annara Snow]

Not really. Jaehaerys passed over his eldest surviving child (Alyssa) seemingly twice (for Aemon then Baelon), and passed over Aemon's eldest child (Rhaenys) after he died (for Baelon), then the Great Council eliminated Rhaenys and her eldest Laena for contention in their own right, pitting Rhaenyra's son Laenor against Baelon's son Viserys, and IIRC Viserys defeated Laenor by an overwhelming margin (something like nine to one?). Viserys certainly chose Rhaenyra as his heir before he had any other children (specifically sons), and maintained that unril his death even after he had sons, but there was zero precedent for a female ruler of Westeros after the conquest, and especially with an adult son in Aegon (II) it is easy to see why Viserys' choice of heir was not unanimously supported after his death. Rhaenyra could have been the precedent that changed things, but she wasn't. Aegon II succeeded his father Viserys I, and Aegon III succeeded his mother's half-brother Aegon II.

So?

Jahaerys was able to pick his heir, repeatedly. The council was only called when the king could not do that anymore.

The council made a decision on one particular case between particular claimants, and never set a rule that sons should inherit over daughters or male family members should always inherit over females.

Viserys chose Rhaenyra as his heir, his decision was accepted. Later he had other children including sons but never went back on his decision and continued to treat Rhaenyra as his heir. A council was never called during his lifetime to question his decision. If there had been some previous rule about daughters not inheriting before sons, Viserys would not have kept on doing that. And lo and behold, nobody told him: "But Your Grace, there is no precedent for a female ruler after the Conquest!" (King's logical answer would have been: "And? Why should there be one?")

After his death, again there was no council called to question or overturn his decision. No, the truth of the matter was that the Greens simply usurped the throne, using Rhaenyra's absence. Calling a previous council decision on a different inheritance matter "a precedent" is obviously bullshit that the Greens used to justify their usurpation. If there was a precedent, it was that 1) the king chooses his heir among the possible claimants and his decision does not get overturned, and 2) if the king can't make the decision, the council makes the decision.

[Wmarshal]

I understand that this was the reasoning they used and that's he's the Targ with the best claim no matter how you slice it, but the question is why. He's a King either way, and his supporters have defeated anyone who would still oppose that decision. Why not just say he's his mother's heir, especially after all that Aegon The Elder put him through?

Well no he wasn't, the queen would have been Jaehaera for the greens if he gone that way, and if he completely ignored 101, the Velyrons and Hightowers by marriage into the granddaughters of Rhaenys had a better claim then them.

[Wmarshal]

So?

Jahaerys was able to pick his heir. The council was only called when he was too old and unable to choose his heir.

The council made a decision on one particular case between particular claimants, and never set a rule that sons should inherit over daughters or male family members should always inherit over females.

Viserys chose Rhaenyra as his heir, his decision was accepted. Later he had other children including sons but never went back on his decision and continued to treat Rhaenyra as his heir. A council was never called during his lifetime to question his decision. If there had been some previous rule about daughters not inheriting before sons, Viserys would not have kept on doing that.

After his death, again there was no council called to question or overturn his decision. No, the truth of the matter was that the Greens simply usurped the throne, using Rhaenyra's absence. Calling a previous council decision on a different inheritance matter "a precedent" is obviously bullshit that the Greens used to justify their usurpation. If there was a precedent, it was that 1) the king chooses his heir among the possible claimants and his decision does not get overturned, and 2) if the king can't make a decision or wants to leave it to the council, the council makes the decision.

And from that and the 101 a precednt no female can inherent was made.

If it was accepted them Aegon would have had no armies. There was Rhaenys, the daughters of Prince Aegon.

[Bironic]

what happens to Aegons son tho he still had the youngest one and unless I missed it in the world book I can t figure out why he didn't become king

Do you mean aegon II ? His sons died both in the war (Jaeherys first the blood& cheese murder, afterwards the attack at bitterbridge killed Maelor), his brothers died too.

So Aegon III became his heir, because he was the eldest male targaryen around.

After the death of Viserys I sons(Aegon II, Aemond, Daeron) and their sons (Jaeherys, Maelor), come the sons of Daemon: Aegon III, Viserys II.

[Maid So Fair]

Why would he do that? His mother is dead - why anger all the Lords of the Great Council who decided that females cannot inherit the IT? Also it could be one of the terms of surrender of the remaining Greens (whats left of the Hightowers, Lannisters and Baratheons) - a way for them to preserve their honor in defeat. Why anger them needlessly and prolong the war?

You mean the same Lords (or their descendants rather) who later swore fealty to Rheanyra at Viserys's behest? Hightowers, Lannisters and Baratheons have already been defeated in battle and had no one left to fight for, anyway. But, yes, favourable peace terms is the only explanation that makes sense.

Well no he wasn't, the queen would have been Jaehaera for the greens if he gone that way, and if he completely ignored 101, the Velyrons and Hightowers by marriage into the granddaughters of Rhaenys had a better claim then them.

That's not how medieval law works though - the King is the ultimate authority and gets the final say. The Grand Council was called to settle a particular issue at a particular time peacefully and in completely different circumstances. It does not automatically become the law, especially when overturned by the King and accepted by (a considerable number of) lords of the realm. There's no universally accepted succession law in Westeros when it comes to these questions.

The question isn't whether Viserys was the rightful King, because he clearly was, but rather which of his heirs was the rightful one. Their direct heirs would be Aegon and Jaehaera, respectively. Rheana/Baela could only be considered if Viserys left no issue.

[Wmarshal]

That's not how medieval law works though - the King is the ultimate authority and gets the final say. The Grand Council was called to settle a particular issue at a particular time peacefully and in completely different circumstances. It does not automatically become the law, especially when overturned by the King and accepted by (a considerable number of) lords of the realm. There's no universally accepted succession law in Westeros when it comes to these questions.

The question isn't whether Viserys was the rightful King, because he clearly was, but rather which of his heirs was the rightful one. Their direct heirs would be Aegon and Jaehaera, respectively. Rheana/Baela could only be considered if Viserys left no issue.

And if he his no claim or right, he gets booted. And then faced rebellion and war. It is not like the whole realm said yes to it.

And if he tore up the ruling that gave him a crown as well had Viserys younger and Aegon did that, Rhaenys granddaughters claim reborn. Aegon the Elder's heir was Aegon the Younger. Rhaena and Baela by right of Andal Law bore claim to the throne, greater then all the other Targaryens, breaking the precedent that gave them the crown the Bane and his brother welcomed rivals.

[Trickrs]

Aegon III's claim come from his father, not his mother.

His ascencion is basically a way to appease both the Greens and the Blacks and stop the carnage.