Speculation on the succession war during Maegor's reign

[Lord Varys]

Since we only get very broad strokes on that I'm wondering how you guys imagine the pieces fit together. We know that

- Prince Aegon challenged his uncle in 43 AC and fell during the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye. His army was surrounded, and Aegon and his dragon Quicksilver were killed.

- Before that Aegon and his sister-wife Rhaena enjoyed the hospitality of Lord Lannister - who refused to back Aegon during his campaign against Maegor. But some of his bannermen supported Aegon anyway - among them Jeyne Westerling's first husband, Lord Alyn Tarbeck. Rhaena somehow eluded capture and fled with her twin daughters to Fair Isle until she was found by Tyanna and had to marry Maegor in 47 AC.

- Alyssa Velaryon and her two younger children escaped from Dragonstone after Visenya's death in 44 AC. Prince Viserys is killed in return. Prince Jaehaerys only seems to put forth his claim to the throne publicly in 48 AC.

- In 47 AC, Elinor Costayne's husband, Ser Theo Bolling, is accused of conspiring against Maegor with Alyssa and is subsequently killed. Elinor is summoned to wed Maegor after seven days of mourning.

Questions are:

- How Aegon claimed his father's dragon Quicksilver. He would have been Aenys' dragon until his death, and most likely with the king on Dragonstone whilst Aegon and Rhaena were besieged in Crakehall Castle and later refugees within Casterly Rock. Did Aegon travel to Dragonstone at one point, or did the dragon come to him - 'feeling his need'? Was the dragon brought to Aegon by another dragonrider (Rhaena, Viserys, Alyssa) like Daemon later brought the riderless Vhagar across the Narrow Sea? Did Aegon have a dragon prior to mounting Quicksilver - and if so, was that dragon killed at Crakehall Castle?

- Was Dreamfyre already Rhaena's dragon at that time - and if so, was she with her in the West and later on Fair Isle (I doubt that the Farmans could have hid a dragon on their island)? If not, was her dragon killed at Crakehall Castle? If not, was it killed by Maegor to weaken Aegon's cause? When exactly did Rhaena mount Dreamfyre - only after she married Maegor in 47 AC - who perhaps felt the need he had to have another dragonrider to replace Visenya?

- How is it that Alyssa and her children - Viserys, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne - don't pay the price for Aegon's attempt to claim the Iron Throne in 43 AC? Weren't they hostages at that point?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Personal opinion: Early House Targaryen did not adhere to Andal law, instead having the oldest male member of the House inherit. Aegon and his family accepted that at first and supported Maegor.

Therefore, them acquiring dragons wasn't a problem.

Only after the trouble with the Faith and several battles made Aegon an attempt for the throne, against Targaryen law, choosing the Faith over family. But it was a personal attempt and his siblings were not held responsible. Maegor named Rhaena's daughter his heir after all.

Whether Alyssa murdered Visenya (her slipping away just after the death is conspicious) or Maegor just presumed that, I don't know. But up until that point in time she was no hostage, nor was Viserys.

[Lord Varys]

Hm. But that is not supported by our sources. Aegon and Rhaena were refugees at CR with Lord Lannister who invoked guest right and refused to hand them over to Maegor. Aegon was also Aenys' chosen and acknowledged heir while Maegor was in exile when his brother died, and considered to come in the succession after Viserys and Jaehaerys (and to some people even after Rhaena and Alysanne).

George actually called this whole thing a war of succession after he finished 'The Sons of the Dragon' reading last year and said a few words about what was to follow after Aenys' death.

I don't think Visenya was murdered as she was pretty old when she died. It is more likely that Alyssa and her children were only captured during/after the war against Prince Aegon. Perhaps they had joined him? We know that Visenya left Dragonstone on Vhagar's back mere hours after Aenys' death, and I imagine Alyssa knew what was coming and did not linger on Dragonstone to await Visenya and Maegor's return from Pentos. She certainly wouldn't have gone to the Faith controlled KL, though. Grand Maester Gawen - who was on Dragonstone upon Maegor's return - spoke up against Maegor's claim, and was lost his head to Blackfyre for it.

Alyssa Velaryon seems to have been a very strong personality - we know she mocked her brother-in-law's courage back in Aegon's day when Maegor refused to mount a dragon of his own.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

It is supported by TWoIaF. Don't know too much about the Sons of the Dragon though.

Anyway. based purely TWoIaF, nobody from the Royal Family spoke against Visenya/Maegor for a year. A year where Maegor fought a Trial by Seven and three major battles against the Faith (and sort of against House Hightower). Seems to me that Aegon was a bit like Robb Stark, pressured into a position he himself didn't want at first by his followers.

Maegor is so suspiciously forgiving, he even made Aegon's daughter his heir. Maegor the Cruel! And treated his "rivals" damn honorable. Two times in a row, only the third one got ugly. And even afterwards he was so damn merciful, taking the fourth in stride and only going for blood on number five.

That simply does not fit with an usurper.

Whether Visenya was murdered or not hardly matters. The perception Maegor had of it does. The problem there is that Alyssa had so much power on Dragonstone. Far more than any hostage would ever have. Leaving with an entire family including small children and stealing Dark Sister? Nothing a hostage could arrange. She was treated like a respected and at least somewhat trusted family member.

If Maegor suspected an attempted coup, murdering Visenya and him, interrogating Viserys made sense. He'd be the one to murder Maegor after all.

And even afterwards, Maegor didn't press the issue, leaving Alyssa and her family in peace for four years.

Personally, I truly suspect that the entire issue was the postponed culture clash from Aegon's conquest, the first time old Targaryen laws represented by Visenya/Maegor and the Faith/some Lords clashed, with the latter prepping up Aenys' issue according to Andal law.

And of course twisting the facts after they won.

[Alester Florent]

I'm inclined to agree with Bright Blue Eyes on pretty much all of the above. I think in the early Targaryen period the laws were much less clear-cut than they later became, and moreover rather less so than it has been in the interests of maesters and historians to make out, and above all less consistent with current Westerosi laws than might be supposed. This applies both in the case of Maegor as successor to Aenys and the whole succession crisis during and after Jaehaerys's reign and on through the Dance.

I think it's almost certain that Aegon did not have a dragon before Quicksilver. It's mentioned in ASoIaF somewhere that there's no record of anyone ever having flown more than one dragon, and there are a couple of instances in the World book to support that: Maegor had his eye on Balerion but didn't claim an "interim" dragon before Aegon's death; Viserys never rode a dragon throughout his whole reign after Balerion died, even though more dragons were alive at that time (and several unclaimed) than at any other; Aegon III also never flew after his dragon was killed. On the one occasion we know of that someone did try to ride a second dragon (Prince Joffrey Velaryon on Syrax) he was thrown and killed almost immediately.

[Lord Varys]

Well, I'm sorry but this is not supported by the text. Prince Aegon was Aenys' named and recognized heir, both throughout the reign of the Conqueror as well as during Aenys' short reign. This isn't questioned by anyone. Maegor certainly had a claim to the throne of his father - but it was a much weaker claim than the claim of all of Aenys' children.

There is no textual evidence that Prince Aegon was forced into claiming the throne against Maegor - or encouraged to do this by his family or the people surrounding him. The very idea makes no sense as Aegon and Rhaena were refugees at Casterly Rock during the first year of Maegor's reign - and Lord Lannister did not, in fact, support Aegon's claim. How on earth would Aegon be forced or persuaded to challenge Maegor if his own host was sceptical about the whole enterprise?

Alyssa and her younger children aren't mentioned throughout Maegor's first year as king. We don't know what they did, but it is clear that Maegor had other things to fight than his own family at first. Aenys had effectively lost everything but Dragonstone, and thus Maegor first went back to KL, won his Trial of Seven, spent a month in a coma, eradicated the Faith Militant in the capital, and won his first two big battles against the Faith Militant. That would have taken quite some time (i.e. possibly the remaining months of the year 42 AC).

Aegon and Rhaena were not on Dragonstone when their father died, and couldn't intervene when Maegor took Aegon's crown and throne. But later on Aegon made his move, gathered an army, and died.

Maegor marrying Rhaena and naming Aerea his heir isn't a sign that he was forgiving. It is a sign of desperation - Maegor only married Rhaena in 47 AC, and we don't know when exactly he named Aerea his heir (that may have been later still, in 48 AC shortly before his own downfall). Maegor had no children or heirs of his own blood, and he had something to do to counter/invalidate Jaehaerys' claim who was out there and challenging his claim. He could not possibly accept Jaehaerys as his heir if the boy wanted to be king in his stead. Thus Rhaena's daughter by Rhaena - from the elder branch of House Targaryen - was his only way to try to neutralize Jaehaerys' claim while he had yet no children of his own. I imagine Maegor would have most certainly killed Aerea and Rhalla as soon as he had a living son or daughter on any of his wives. And perhaps he did, anyway? We don't know what happened to the girls, anyway. One hopes that Rhaena took them with her when she fled with Blackfyre on Dreamfyre, but this is not confirmed.

Yandel tells us that Maegor didn't care much about Visenya's death. Nor is Viserys questioned about his role in her murder or his role in Visenya's murder but because his mother escaped from Dragonstone. If she hadn't been a prisoner/hostage she could have gone where she wanted to, no? It is also explicitly mentioned that Alyssa Velaryon could flee in the aftermath of the chaos on Dragonstone that was caused by Visenya's death. I imagine that Visenya was very much in control of things on the island, and her sudden death thus caused uncertainty and chaos. Alyssa and her children may not have been kept in the dungeons but may have been rather confined to a luxury tower cell - all that needed to happen was that she had still some secret friends among the people serving on Dragonstone, and they let her out. Or her guards disappeared during the chaos and she simply could leave her cell and go wherever she wanted to go. We have to keep in mind that this woman was Queen of Westeros for five years, and before that she was married to the Heir Apparent of Aegon the Conqueror for fifteen years - she would have known how to command.

Nothing suggests that Maegor left Alyssa in peace for four years thereafter. He may have not known where she went (most likely to Storm's End), or he may not have been able to find or attack her where she hid because he lacked the strength to do that by the time he found out where she was. Alyssa clearly did stuff before she proclaimed King Jaehaerys I in 48 AC, as this Theo Bolling guy was accused of conspiring with her to seat Jaehaerys on the Iron Throne before Maegor's marriage to the black brides in 47 AC. Unless this was a completely made-up accusation Maegor must have had some inclination about what Alyssa was doing.

There is also no hint that the Faith Militant/the pious lords rebelling against Maegor were necessarily allied with Alyssa or her children against Maegor. Jaehaerys I eventually became a sort of figurehead against Maegor but Prince Aegon clearly wasn't. He and Rhaena were besieged at Crakehall Castle by the Faith Militant who rose up against Aenys and his heirs while Maegor was in exile, and who apparently tried to overthrow the whole Targaryen dynasty because of their incestuous and polygamous ways (and most likely also because of their unnatural relationship to dragons). The Faith Militant did later not fight at Aegon's side, and it seems as it's remnants did also not fight at the side of Jaehaerys - or only some fractions of it. The beginning of Yandel's account on the reign of Jaehaerys I suggests that Maegor, the wrath of the High Septon, and the ambitions of the lords had nearly ripped the Realm apart - that could be a hint that there were quite some people who were still dreaming the old dream of independence. Had Jaehaerys been killed/not existed the Targaryen dynasty would have died with Maegor, and his successor would have been either the High Septon - taking charge of the Realm as spiritual and worldly leader - or the Realm would have disintegrated into independent warring kingdoms again.

The succession wasn't clearer or more unclear back then. The only thing that was established is that females cannot/should not rule. But even that wasn't an issue that wasn't raised again and again even after the Dance (for instance, in 171 and 233 AC). In fact, the general rules for succession became more unclear than clearer with the years as there are multiple precedents for pretty much anything the longer the Targaryen dynasty rules.

As to dragons:

I once also thought that Dany tries to say in ADwD that you can only ride one dragon in your life. If your dragon predeceases you, you remain dragonless for the remainder of your life (while dragons can, of course, have another rider after the present rider dies). But that does seem to be wrong. George said on his NAB that Viserys decided to not choose a dragon after Balerion's death when I asked him - prior to the publication of TRP - where Viserys' dragon was during the Dance. Rhaenyra also believes that she can have new dragons if additional eggs would hatch on Dragonstone - meaning that there is no reason to believe that you cannot choose another dragon after your previous dragon died. Maegor would not have chosen a hatchling because he wanted to mount Balerion after his father's death - yet had he had a dragon when his father died he would have to kill it before he could claim Balerion and I think he did not want to do that (or he thought he may have grown too fond of his dragon by then to actually go through with that thing).

Maegor's day and age is actually a good time in which some dragons may have died. In 'The Sons of the Dragon' we learned that six young dragons hatched on Dragonstone during the reign of the Conqueror on Dragonstone - one of which would have been Quicksilver, the others are unaccounted for. Later on two additional dragons hatched when Aenys named Maegor his Hand, and the sons of the dragon begin ruling together in the end of 37 AC.

TWoIaF claims that Vermithor was the oldest living dragon after Balerion and Vhagar - following the death of Quicksilver in 43 AC. But this only makes sense if Rhaena's dragon Dreamfyre was younger than Vermithor, and thus not given and mounted by her in her childhood. Rhaena was born in 23 AC, and thus eleven years older than Jaehaerys. If Aenys and other Targaryen princes are an example then Targaryen children are given dragons usually at a very early age (or the eggs they are given usually hatch when they are still very young). It is thus very unlikely that Rhaena - the eldest child of Aenys and Alyssa wasn't given a dragon if there were plenty of dragons available - consequently, if she had a dragon, he would have been older than Vermithor. Her brother Prince Aegon, Aenys' oldest son and heir, would thus most likely also have been given a dragon - a dragon that either did not live long enough or was later killed before Aegon claimed his father's dragon Quicksilver. It would make sense to assume that Aegon and Rhaena - who were sent on a royal progress by their father after their wedding in 41 AC - took their dragons with them to show off the power and glory of House Targaryen to the people (just as Aegon I used to do). On that progress they were eventually attacked and besieged by the Faith Militant in Crakehall Castle - an event during which they could easily have been separated from their dragons, who would then have been killed by the raging mob.

Dreamfyre would then have been a younger dragon Rhaena only claimed after she had become Maegor's queen - while Vermithor and Silverwing were Jaehaerys' and Alysanne's hatchlings which they took with them when they fled Dragonstone with their mother. Or Vermithor may have originally have been Viserys' dragon taken by Alyssa with her from Dragonstone only to be claimed by Jaehaerys after Viserys' death.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Where is all that information from? Sons of the Dragon? Because it definitely isn't in TWoIaF.

[Lord Varys]

Aegon is called Aenys 'son and heir' two times on page 53. The fact that Aegon was also considered Aenys' heir during the reign of the Conqueror is from 'The Sons of the Dragons'. In fact, Visenya's suggestion to marry infant Rhaena to Maegor comes from the fact that by that time there is confusion whether Rhaena or Maegor come next after Aenya, and Visenya wants to settle that in favour of Maegor by marrying them to each other. But nothing comes of that due to the High Septon's protest, and then Aenys and Alyssa soon have Aegon, who becomes Aenys' heir and second in line to the Iron Throne.

Page 57 states that Alyssa 'slipped away' from Dragonstone during the confusion there in the wake of Visenya's death and that Viserys suffered for 'her flight'. Nothing about a murder plot - and the words 'slipped away' and 'flight' suggest that Alyssa was a hostage or prisoner.

The 'ambitions or rebellious lords', the fury of the High Septon, and Maegor's cruelty [during Maegor's reign] are mentioned on page 60.

Lord Lyman Lannister harbouring Aegon and Rhaena as guests under his roof after Maegor's ascension is mentioned on page 198 as well as on the unabridged Westerlands section on George's site.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That's all from Maester Yandel writing 250 years of biased history afterwards.

Page 57, Alyssa has to have a lot of influence to arrange that - no hostage or prisoner can arrange something like taking an entire family and a Valyrian blade with them.

The problem with the unabridged Westerlands section (and probably Sons of the Dragon) is that it got a major rework for the published version. It's not reliable.

Anyway, that section is all about the Faith and ambitious/rebellious Lords pushing against Maegor, not about Aenys' offspring pushing for themselves.

[Alester Florent]

Given that Vermithor is "almost one hundred years old" at the time of the Dance it's a fairly safe bet he was hatched during the reign of Aegon I, and Aenys's reign at the latest. Other dragons of a similar vintage worth looking at are Meleys, Silverwing and Caraxes, of those that we know about, unless the age of any of them are mentioned elsewhere.

[Lion of the West]

Questions are:

- How Aegon claimed his father's dragon Quicksilver. He would have been Aenys' dragon until his death, and most likely with the king on Dragonstone whilst Aegon and Rhaena were besieged in Crakehall Castle and later refugees within Casterly Rock. Did Aegon travel to Dragonstone at one point, or did the dragon come to him - 'feeling his need'? Was the dragon brought to Aegon by another dragonrider (Rhaena, Viserys, Alyssa) like Daemon later brought the riderless Vhagar across the Narrow Sea? Did Aegon have a dragon prior to mounting Quicksilver - and if so, was that dragon killed at Crakehall Castle?

- Was Dreamfyre already Rhaena's dragon at that time - and if so, was she with her in the West and later on Fair Isle (I doubt that the Farmans could have hid a dragon on their island)? If not, was her dragon killed at Crakehall Castle? If not, was it killed by Maegor to weaken Aegon's cause? When exactly did Rhaena mount Dreamfyre - only after she married Maegor in 47 AC - who perhaps felt the need he had to have another dragonrider to replace Visenya?

- How is it that Alyssa and her children - Viserys, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne - don't pay the price for Aegon's attempt to claim the Iron Throne in 43 AC? Weren't they hostages at that point?

For the first question I could see several ways. One way is that perhaps that just like Sunfyre found Aegon II so to maybe there was some form of bond between Quicksilver and Prince Aegon that drew the dragon to the prince. For while Aegon would not have ridden Quicksilver I think its at least possible that they would have some weak bond that made the dragon come to Aegon. Or perhaps Aegon came to Dragonstone to claim a semi-wild dragon as a mark of legitimacy as the eldest son of Aenys? But I do agree in that Aegon's aquisition of a dragon of his own is an empty stretch that allows for different opinions.

I think that its entirely possible that Rhaena didn't get Dreamfyre until she married Maegor. It would, just as pointed out, be hard to explain how she would have gotten the dragon before that.

I think it had more to do with Maegor not having his own heirs, as noted by Lord Varys if I recall, and so needed them to keep the image of the Targaryens as staying in power, not to mention that Maegor would possibly have balked at kinslaying at that time. And maybe he thought that he could perhaps win them over with an open hand?

In regards to if Maegor was a usurper or not its fairly clear to me that if the Targaryens have adopted Andal ways in all things but their names and the incest, and if I recall the Conqueror wanted to Andalize his descendents regarding that as well with a possible exception to the names, then it would seem mightily queer to me that they would keep something as fundamental as succession laws from Valyria. I could think that they could have some form of idea regarding how to solve a situation when there's no son of the king/lord to inherit which differented them from other parts of Westeros, but something as radical as to bypass Aenys' children entirely? I would need to see some very strong evidence to agree with that.

Note that I could see Maegor and Visenya trying to argue on the basis on Valyrian succession laws but I don't think that it had been actual policy for the last decades by that time.

[Lord Varys]

Yeah, well, perhaps Maester Yandel and his sources actually invented the first century of the Targaryen reign completely? If you just consider his words biased without any evidence then we have nothing to discuss. With that line of reasoning I could claim historians invented the first century of the Targaryen reign along with all the people mentioned therein - after all, the POVs making references to history in the main series would have their knowledge about the past from historians like Yandel, too, so their words could not be cited as evidence to support the existence of Aegon the Conqueror as history describes him.

I have given speculation how Alyssa as a (former) hostage/prisoner could have done what she did after Visenya's death. There was confusion and a power vacuum on Dragonstone and Alyssa took charge and found people who obeyed and helped her. That's all it took. No idea how it should be difficult to take Dark Sister, either - it may have been in Visenya's chambers, and if Alyssa could go to see her body she could have taken it then. Why would Alyssa feel the need to leave Dragonstone if she had not been prisoner there?

Actually, 'The Sons of the Dragon' wasn't reworked all that much for TWoIaF. I heard that, and I've read TWoIaF - the single difference there is that George apparently changed the back story on the Prince of Dragonstone - in 'The Sons of the Dragon' Maegor was always 'the Prince on Dragonstone' because he was raised there by Visenya while Aenys - Aegon's heir - was allowed to accompany his father on his royal progresses (which Maegor was not) - while Aenys is also Prince of Dragonstone prior to Aegon's death in TWoIaF. Ran has stated that this was no mistake in TWoIaF.

The Westerlands section received more rewriting, that is true, but not on the Aegon-Rhaena-Lyman-Lannister thing. That is still in TWoIaF, and I've given you the page in question.

LionoftheWest,

Valyrian succession seems to about as 'Andalish' as that of the First Men. We have no Lady of Dragonstone ruling Dragonstone prior to the Conquest - only Targaryen lords, and co-ruling couples (Gaemon & Daenys and Aegon & Elaena). 'The Sons of the Dragon' makes it clear that Aenys' line was considered to come before Maegor and his descendants throughout the reigns of both Aegon I and Aenys I. There was no confusion or uncertainty about that.

Whether the customs on Dragonstone before the Conquest and after the Doom also reflect the customs of the Freehold is another matter. But we don't know anything about that. Considering that the Freehold wasn't a feudal society it is actually possible that all children got a share of their parents wealth, holdings, and land, while being sort of subject to the will of some head of family/house - who would not necessarily have been the most senior male member of the family. But that is just speculation.

[Lion of the West]

LionoftheWest,

Valyrian succession seems to about as 'Andalish' as that of the First Men. We have no Lady of Dragonstone ruling Dragonstone prior to the Conquest - only Targaryen lords, and co-ruling couples (Gaemon & Daenys and Aegon & Elaena). 'The Sons of the Dragon' makes it clear that Aenys' line was considered to come before Maegor and his descendants throughout the reigns of both Aegon I and Aenys I. There was no confusion or uncertainty about that.

Whether the customs on Dragonstone before the Conquest and after the Doom also reflect the customs of the Freehold is another matter. But we don't know anything about that. Considering that the Freehold wasn't a feudal society it is actually possible that all children got a share of their parents wealth, holdings, and land, while being sort of subject to the will of some head of family/house - who would not necessarily have been the most senior male member of the family. But that is just speculation.

Forgive me for asking, but are your arguing against me? I can't tell...

[Lord Varys]

Nope. Not at all. Just trying to clarify stuff and give my thoughts on the matter. You know my take on the Andal Law thing, but nothing suggests that Valyrian succession custom as practised by the Targaryens on Dragonstone prior to the Conquest differed remarkably from the succession customs predominating in Westeros (that is those in the Andal and First Men kingdoms). Dragonstone did clearly not pass to the eldest child or else Visenya and not Aegon would have become Lord of Dragonstone after Lord Aerion's death.

In that sense, it makes little sense to presuppose or assume there was big dichotomy between Valyrian succession custom and Westerosi custom, and that the Targaryens only gradually accepted or adopted Westerosi succession custom for themselves.

[Alester Florent]

Can I just clarify what is this "Sons of the Dragon" thing and where can I find it? I hear it cited a lot but it doesn't seem to be a thing that's available. Is it canonical?

On this point:

but something as radical as to bypass Aenys' children entirely?

Although there's not a lot of IC basis for it this idea is not as outlandish as it might seem. Primogeniture is just one succession system and was by no means universal; that by the modern era it was the most prevalent surviving system doesn't mean that all kingdoms have worked by that system and many didn't. Seniority was used in historical Poland, Bohemia and a number of others, as well as various other kingdoms, and is still in force in modern Saudi Arabia. The king would be succeeded by his brother in preference to his son, and when you ran out of brothers you went to the next generation.

It's a way of avoiding the problems that come with child kings, as you have a better chance of the king being a grown man and experienced administrator and commander. It has problems of its own, of course.

Thinking about historical parallels for a second I'm reminded of John of England. The succession system in England was not entirely clear at this point: before 1066 the throne had passed by seniority not by primogeniture, and thereafter the seniority/primogeniture question had never been seriously tested (in fact one eldest son had already been passed over by the Conqueror himself) and indeed the first time a king was unequivocally succeeded by a son while he had living brothers remaining was 1327. There had also been the Anarchy which had not really cleared anything up in terms of succession systems.

When Richard was king, his heir was not entirely clear: John was the heir by seniority (and his father's favourite) but by primogeniture it was his nephew Arthur. Richard himself had seemed to favour John or Arthur at different times. John was supported by the bulk of the English and Norman nobility and was crowned; initial claims that Arthur should be king came to nothing. Some years later Arthur rose again in open rebellion and was captured and imprisoned, later presumably being killed.

John has of course become one of England's most vilified kings, although some revisionists have at times queried his reputation and wondered whether he was really all bad.

It's not hard to see the similarities to Maegor, with Aegon and Viserys in composite matching Arthur. Given GRRM's predeliction for historical inspiration it would not surprise me at all to discover it was this episode which inspired Maegor's reign.

As with the succession dispute leading to the Dance, I really doubt that the law was at the time quite as clear as it later became and is now assumed. It may well be that Aenys treated both Aegon and Maegor as his heir apparent at different times during his reign and that it was this that caused the confusion. I also wonder whether seniority succession is really unheard of in Westeros. It would certainly help to explain the Starks' predeliction for packing younger brothers off to the Wall or to their own castle, to rule them out of contention for the crown of winter and competition with their sons. We know very little about how any of the pre-Conquest kingdoms functioned.

[Lion of the West]

Nope. Not at all. Just trying to clarify stuff and give my thoughts on the matter. You know my take on the Andal Law thing, but nothing suggests that Valyrian succession custom as practised by the Targaryens on Dragonstone prior to the Conquest differed remarkably from the succession customs predominating in Westeros (that is those in the Andal and First Men kingdoms). Dragonstone did clearly not pass to the eldest child or else Visenya and not Aegon would have become Lord of Dragonstone after Lord Aerion's death.

In that sense, it makes little sense to presuppose or assume there was big dichotomy between Valyrian succession custom and Westerosi custom, and that the Targaryens only gradually accepted or adopted Westerosi succession custom for themselves.

Alright, the issue with Valyrian contra Andal/Westerosi succession laws/customs is wheter its and argument for who is the heir to who. If they are all the same of course then it don't really matter as they'll point to the same direction.

Although there's not a lot of IC basis for it this idea is not as outlandish as it might seem. Primogeniture is just one succession system and was by no means universal; that by the modern era it was the most prevalent surviving system doesn't mean that all kingdoms have worked by that system and many didn't. Seniority was used in historical Poland, Bohemia and a number of others, as well as various other kingdoms, and is still in force in modern Saudi Arabia. The king would be succeeded by his brother in preference to his son, and when you ran out of brothers you went to the next generation.

It's a way of avoiding the problems that come with child kings, as you have a better chance of the king being a grown man and experienced administrator and commander. It has problems of its own, of course.

Thinking about historical parallels for a second I'm reminded of John of England. The succession system in England was not entirely clear at this point: before 1066 the throne had passed by seniority not by primogeniture, and thereafter the seniority/primogeniture question had never been seriously tested (in fact one eldest son had already been passed over by the Conqueror himself) and indeed the first time a king was unequivocally succeeded by a son while he had living brothers remaining was 1327. There had also been the Anarchy which had not really cleared anything up in terms of succession systems.

When Richard was king, his heir was not entirely clear: John was the heir by seniority (and his father's favourite) but by primogeniture it was his nephew Arthur. Richard himself had seemed to favour John or Arthur at different times. John was supported by the bulk of the English and Norman nobility and was crowned; initial claims that Arthur should be king came to nothing. Some years later Arthur rose again in open rebellion and was captured and imprisoned, later presumably being killed.

John has of course become one of England's most vilified kings, although some revisionists have at times queried his reputation and wondered whether he was really all bad.

It's not hard to see the similarities to Maegor, with Aegon and Viserys in composite matching Arthur. Given GRRM's predeliction for historical inspiration it would not surprise me at all to discover it was this episode which inspired Maegor's reign.

As with the succession dispute leading to the Dance, I really doubt that the law was at the time quite as clear as it later became and is now assumed. It may well be that Aenys treated both Aegon and Maegor as his heir apparent at different times during his reign and that it was this that caused the confusion. I also wonder whether seniority succession is really unheard of in Westeros. It would certainly help to explain the Starks' predeliction for packing younger brothers off to the Wall or to their own castle, to rule them out of contention for the crown of winter and competition with their sons. We know very little about how any of the pre-Conquest kingdoms functioned.

For the first part, forgive me but I should have been clearer. I meant that for and in Westeros it seemed like a very radical thing to side-step a king's children entirely in regards to the heir. I cannot claim to know much of succession matters outside of Western and Northern Europe, and even there I'm a bit sketchy now and then, but I thank you for the examples presented.

The only thing that I can comment on is regarding Willhelm the Conqueror. Wasn't it so that his firstborn inherited Normandy, the continental heartland of the dynasty, while the secondborn got England? Or am I totally mistaken here?

While we don't have many details regarding how succession works for different kingdoms I think that the predominance of sons coming after fathers gives a hint in regards to how it was supposed, in theory, to be done.

[Lord Varys]

'The Sons of the Dragon' is a part of the (hopefully eventually) forthcoming Targaryen history 'Fire and Blood' by Archmaester Gyldayn. It depicts the lives and reigns of both Aenys I and Maegor I and was partially read by George on two conventions (I was present when he last year read from it during World Con). This account forms the basis of Ran and Linda's abridged/condensed version of the histories of Aenys and Maegor found in TWoIaF.

You can find multiple rather thorough reports on the reading by Arataniello, myself, and others somewhere here on the board.

The only thing in which 'The Sons of the Dragon' is apparently not canon any more is the story about Maegor being Prince of Dragonstone all his life - TWoIaF calls Aenys Prince of Dragonstone before he ascends the throne, and Ran has confirmed that this was no mistake on his and Linda's part.

As to the succession:

The Targaryen practised primogeniture not seniority right at the beginning. Maegor is never considered to be Aegon's heir. He always comes after Aenys, and later all of Aenys' children - for some only the three sons, for others the two daughters as well - come after Maegor.

But the concept of seniority is not entirely unknown in Westeros - especially not in Andal culture, as Artys Arryn is followed by two of his sons. Only the fourth King of Mountain and Vale is one of Artys' grandsons. However, we do not know whether the first of Artys' sons succeeding him actually did have any grandsons, so this is difficult to determine. However, it is quite clear that the concept of seniority wasn't unknown - in fact, Jaehaerys naming Baelon - his second surviving son - his heir instead of his granddaughter Rhaenys proves as much. And when the Laenor and Viserys are discussed Yandel even gives us the principles represented by those two claimants - primogeniture (Laenor) and proximity (Viserys). Proximity won back then, and did again win later on the Great Council in 233 when Aegon V was chosen, and also, in a sense, when Prince Duncan was forced to abdicate.

Considering that the lords of the Realm and the maesters would have had a big say in all the legal argumentation cited during both Great Councils - although this does not mean that the legal arguments actually influenced many voters (gifts, threats, fear, favours, etc. should have been just as important) - we should go with the assumption that primogeniture wasn't the only legal custom the Andals and First Men knew.

But back to Maegor:

Maegor is historically a successful usurper and thus not named by history as such. Just as history most likely will acknowledge Robert Baratheon as true king simply because he won a war, sat the Iron Throne thereafter, put down a rebellion against his rule, and died as king. Viserys III Targaryen, on the other hand, never sat the Iron Throne. And neither did Aenys' sons Aegon and Viserys. However, Joffrey and Tommen Baratheon may be considered to be false kings after their deaths if the revelation/confirmation of their bastard heritage plays a crucial role in Tommen's downfall.

Maegor also has the advantage of being the Targaryen king who retook Westeros from the Faith Militant (and possibly other rebels). Aenys had effectively lost the whole conquest, and was either unwilling or incapable of striking back with dragonfire. Maegor also won a Trial of Seven during which the Realm itself was at stake - a powerful victory that should effectively have settled the question who the rightful king was for a lot of (pious) people. Although Prince Aegon could always state that since he wasn't there to challenge his uncle's claim during that trial the trial wasn't valid (as it was done in the history of the Ironborn Kingsmoots). Maegor also rode the biggest dragon - who happened to be his father's dragon before him - and wielded Blackfyre, the Conqueror's sword.

But legally, Maegor wasn't in the right. Visenya and he staged a coup of sorts, and the modus operandi does not differ much from Alicent/Otto Hightower's coup to crown Aegon II.

- While Aegon and Rhaena/Rhaenyra are/is incapacitated, Visenya and Maegor/Otto and Alicent act and make a king.

- The last will/wishes of the late king Aenys/Viserys are ignored.

George could have changed stuff easily if he had the Conqueror make a law of succession stipulating that his grandsons by either son would come only after both his sons were dead, but he didn't do such a thing.

[Alester Florent]

'The Sons of the Dragon' is a part of the (hopefully eventually) forthcoming Targaryen history 'Fire and Blood' by Archmaester Gyldayn. It depicts the lives and reigns of both Aenys I and Maegor I and was partially read by George on two conventions (I was present when he last year read from it during World Con). This account forms the basis of Ran and Linda's abridged/condensed version of the histories of Aenys and Maegor found in TWoIaF.

You can find multiple rather thorough reports on the reading by Arataniello, myself, and others somewhere here on the board.

The only thing in which 'The Sons of the Dragon' is apparently not canon any more is the story about Maegor being Prince of Dragonstone all his life - TWoIaF calls Aenys Prince of Dragonstone before he ascends the throne, and Ran has confirmed that this was no mistake on his and Linda's part.

As to the succession:

The Targaryen practised primogeniture not seniority right at the beginning. Maegor is never considered to be Aegon's heir. He always comes after Aenys, and later all of Aenys' children - for some only the three sons, for others the two daughters as well - come after Maegor.

On the first point, is it not interesting then that Maegor, and not Aegon, was Prince of Dragonstone during Aenys's reign (before his exile)?

By seniority or primogeniture, Aenys was Aegon I's heir, as he was the elder son and Aegon had no younger brothers. It's the succession to Aenys where it would make a difference. As you mention there was dispute over how the succession operated: some people thought succession should be cognatic, others agnatic. This also raises questions over what the Andal succession system that the Targaryens supposedly adopted actually was (and has relevance for the Dance of Dragons too), as it seems it wasn't entirely clear even at the time.

The only thing that I can comment on is regarding Willhelm the Conqueror. Wasn't it so that his firstborn inherited Normandy, the continental heartland of the dynasty, while the secondborn got England? Or am I totally mistaken here?

William divided his inheritance, yes, but that in itself was completely at odds with the way the succession had previously worked in England and indeed the way the succession operated in contemporary France; it seems to have followed Norman practices since the Mediterranean territories ended up divided similarly, so it can be seen as the Normans maintaining their own succession system after arriving in England (a parallel to the Targaryens in Westeros?).

[Lord Varys]

Adelstein,

well, Yandel states that Aenys named his son and heir, Prince Aegon, Prince of Dragonstone in Maegor's place, suggesting that Aegon already was Aenys' heir when he also became Prince of Dragonstone - suggesting that the whole thing about the Heir Apparent also being Prince of Dragonstone was only developing at that time. In fact, the now non-canon story about Maegor as Prince of Dragonstone for his whole life stated that Maegor was styled as such because he and Visenya spend most of their time there - it wasn't so much an honorific, it seems, but a nickname for the unseen prince (while Aenys, as Aegon's heir, accompanied him everywhere).

It may be that George only later decided to make Dragonstone Aegon's favourite place. TWoIaF states that he usually spent half a year on the island, and the other half on royal progresses and in KL, and when he had grown old he fully retreated to Dragonstone and left Visenya in KL to oversee the construction of the Red Keep. If that's the case, then Aegon and not Visenya would have spent most time on Dragonstone (as Visenya would most likely have sat on the Iron Throne in Aegon's absence), and thus Aenys would have presumably received that title. I imagine Aenys later gave Dragonstone to Maegor as his seat upon his coronation, so that he and his line - should he ever have issue - could live there. Similar to Robert making Stannis Lord of Dragonstone upon his ascension. Aenys was remarkably generous to Maegor upon his ascension. He gave Blackfyre to him, and later named him his Hand after Lord Alyn Stokeworth had died in the fight against Harren the Red - since Maegor distinguished himself when he ended the rebellion in the Vale. Thus it would make sense to have Maegor as the Prince of Dragonstone on the island while Aenys' branch - the royal branch - would have the Red Keep as their new seat. Later, when Maegor was exiled, there was no need for him to keep Dragonstone and Aenys may have decided to give it to Aegon and Rhaena so that they could live and raise their children part-time there until such time as Aegon sat the Iron Throne. Aenys was only 34 at that time, and certainly did not think he would die in the next year.

As to the Normans:

Well, my knowledge about English history is not very good - especially not about the times when they were essentially some backwater island at the fringes of the known world and civilization - yet I seem to recall that the early Norman kings weren't particularly interested in their English holdings. They happened to be the rulers of this island, too, but the main interest in the early days were in France. Richard the Lionheart supposedly never set a foot on the island (or is that just a legend?). Thus it would be no surprise if William giving England not to his eldest son wasn't necessarily a statement that he didn't like that son all that much - although that could be, I don't know anything about that - but rather a statement that England was of secondary concern to the house.

[Alester Florent]

I think to an extent on the Maegor succession issue we need a bit more information before we can make a judgment. The books do tend to point towards the "Aegon as the legitimate heir" answer, but since it's written from an IC perspective and is inherently unreliable it will probably remain open to question unless/until something more concrete comes out.

For my part I think the principal reason I'm keen on the "grey area" hypothesis is that I think the apparently traditional narrative of Maegor as an unequivocal usurper is boring and unimaginative on the part of whoever wrote it. I was rather disappointed in the completely one-note portrayal of a number of the Targ kings in AWoIaF and am keen to salvage something if possible. History is after all rarely black and white but if the story as presented is true then it's about as black as it gets.

On England: This isn't really the case for such a discussion, but the idea that England was a backwater before the Norman conquest is highly questionable and possibly down to the cultural penetration of initially the Francophonic nobility and later the Whiggish tendency to treat it as the effective start of history, despite the achievements of pre-Conquest kings like Athelstan, Edmund, Edgar and Cnut. In fact England was one of the better-assembled kingdoms of its day - small, certainly, but much more administratively stable and better-organised than a number of other kingdoms that were larger on paper. An argument can be made that by the time of William II's accession he was actually the most powerful king, personally, in western Europe. France might have been bigger, but northern France was backwards and poor and the king controlled only a small area around Paris, compared with the great lords of the west and south; meanwhile Germany was being ripped apart by the Pope, and Scandinavia was riven with civil wars.

In any case the point is to do with the English succession and foreign holdings, whether older or more recently acquired, are not themselves relevant to that. Leaving aside the role of acclamation in the succession, the heir apparent to William the Conqueror as king of England should have been his eldest son, Robert, regardless of any other holdings that Robert might have had. But instead Robert was cut out of the English succession in favour of his younger brother (and in turn, his younger brother). There is no reason that Normandy and England couldn't have been held by the same individual (after all, William I did it himself) and the two titles were pretty speedily reunited by Henry I; thereafter every king of England was also Duke of Normandy until the title was renounced (although it's still used at times even by the present Queen, with respect to the Channel Islands).