The Commentator Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 King Aerys could have disinherited Prince Rhaegar easily. I would like to think he did just that and will search the literature for clues leading to it. If he did, that meant Rhaegar and Aegon, and whoever else he might have been whelped from that line have lost their inheritance to the throne, in legal terms. Legality won't determine succession. Military might will. However, for the sake of discussion, I think it would be interesting if King Aerys inherited Rhaegar and someone has proof of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curled Finger Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Aerys was certainly paranoid and vicious enough to do just that. But I think at least Jamie would have known if it had happened, being the one guy who had to hang around Aerys for the entire rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple-eyes Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 After rhaegar died , Aerys already skipped aegon and named viserys as heir.so technically line of rhaegar is already disinherited . Crown went to line of viserys.That also Including jon snow( if he is a legit son as some people wished and believed ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 King Aerys can disinherit anyone he wants but it don't mean anything less there's some crime for Rhaegar to be attainted by. As it is, Rhaegar and then Aegon, were Aerys heirs in that order, followed by Rhaenys and then Viserys, followed by Daenerys. Just because Aerys tried to do like Aegon the Unworthy and organize a civil war after his death don't mean that what he tried to plant in some people's minds would have been correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Guy Garlan Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 King Aerys can disinherit anyone he wants but it don't mean anything less there's some crime for Rhaegar to be attainted by. As it is, Rhaegar and then Aegon, were Aerys heirs in that order, followed by Rhaenys and then Viserys, followed by Daenerys. Just because Aerys tried to do like Aegon the Unworthy and organize a civil war after his death don't mean that what he tried to plant in some people's minds would have been correct.Absolutely, but as long as people are aware of it, that's an argument Aegon's enemies can use against him. And wars are built on arguments, however weak or strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Absolutely, but as long as people are aware of it, that's an argument Aegon's enemies can use against him. And wars are built on arguments, however weak or strong. Then it seems we are in an agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shierak Qiya Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Sure. If Robb's will can stand after his death why not the king of the seven kingdoms' himself. Both face the same issues. Namely, proof and the means to enforce it. Varys would know if such a will existed and surely burned it to ash. He wants Aegon on that throne. The one that gets the most support is the one that can hand out the biggest incentives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joluoto2 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Aerys not disinheriting Rhaegar when he hear about the Rhaegar/ Lyanna situation proves that he wasn't just mad, he was also not smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 After rhaegar died , Aerys already skipped aegon and named viserys as heir.so technically line of rhaegar is already disinherited . Crown went to line of viserys.That also Including jon snow( if he is a legit son as some people wished and believed )That Viserys was named heir over Aegon does not necessarily mean that Rhaegar's entire line was disinherited. But Aerys does appear to have named Viserys his heir, and Viserys in turn named Daenerys his heir, making Daenerys' claim quite a strong one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 King Aerys could have disinherited Prince Rhaegar easily. I would like to think he did just that and will search the literature for clues leading to it. If he did, that meant Rhaegar and Aegon, and whoever else he might have been whelped from that line have lost their inheritance to the throne, in legal terms. Legality won't determine succession. Military might will. However, for the sake of discussion, I think it would be interesting if King Aerys inherited Rhaegar and someone has proof of it. You know, the title of your thread promises heap more than you deliver...Food for thought: the last known and undisputed interaction between those two was when Aerys entrusted the royal army, and hence the future of the Targaryen monarchy, to Rhaegar. Not exactly a "you are no son of mine" moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaynsa Starne Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 After rhaegar died , Aerys already skipped aegon and named viserys as heir.so technically line of rhaegar is already disinherited . Crown went to line of viserys.That also Including jon snow( if he is a legit son as some people wished and believed )Disinherited, or pushed back in the line of succession? I seriously don't know anything about how this would work, but given that neither Viserys nor Dany are currently on Westerosi soil, wouldn't that make Aegon's claim the most compelling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyrhex Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Disinherited, or pushed back in the line of succession? I seriously don't know anything about how this would work, but given that neither Viserys nor Dany are currently on Westerosi soil, wouldn't that make Aegon's claim the most compelling? Does'nt matter. Any child of Rhaegar and any child of Aerys can still be used against the Baratheon or "Baratheon" rule. The moment Robert was crowned and accepted oaths of fealty from all of Westeros, the Targ claim was voided by right of conquest, the same as Stark, Lannister, Arryn etc are no longer kings and have been reaffiremd in thier possessions. The same as pretty much any lord's house used to be that of a petty king. Robert I's conquest was as absolute as that of Aegon I's. Tywin still feared baby Aegon could be used by former loyalists as a figurehead, and so even if both Dany and Aegon are in Westeros at the same time, the legality does not matter here. Dany would have had a stronger claim if Aegon was pushed back, but only were they not Targs, and with the self-imposed rule that the head of the family should be a male, distance from the main line making no difference. Viserys would have had more of a legal claim to be head of the Targ family, but he is dead, which gives that title back to Aegon for the name. The legal claim is entirely what a Targ loyalist makes it up to be, considering that it's legality is literally "rules are only valid when they benefit us". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtree Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Dany would have had a stronger claim if Aegon was pushed back, but only were they not Targs, and with the self-imposed rule that the head of the family should be a male, distance from the main line making no difference. A bit of correction, it should be male and descendant of a male Targs. Descendant of female doesn't count which was why Laenor Velaryon's claim was rejected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 A bit of correction, it should be male and descendant of a male Targs. Descendant of female doesn't count which was why Laenor Velaryon's claim was rejectedBut they were still considered, they just chose another option. I don't think there is anything to actually say that female Targ descendants don't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtree Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 " But for many lords of the realm, what mattered most was that the male line take precedence over the female line— "But they were still considered, they just chose another option. I meant doesn't count that much especially after GC 101,a council of 100% man, what a surprising result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilish Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Aerys not disinheriting Rhaegar when he hear about the Rhaegar/ Lyanna situation proves that he wasn't just mad, he was also not smart.For the millionth time, It was Rhaegar to cause the rebellion but Aerys's rampage which caused the death of Rickard and Brandon followed by his order to have Ned's and Robert's B heads too. If Aerys disinherited Rhaegar when he was still leading an army than Rhaegar could have in theory sealed some sort of deal with the more reasonable of rebels (Ned and Jon) and marched against his own father. I wont be surprised if the Lannisters and the Martells would have followed him after that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joluoto2 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Rhaegar wasn't leading an army when Brandon came shouting. At that point Aerys had the golden opportunity to disinherit Rhaegar for his crimes. He didn't take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 He could had disinherited him of course he could. My question would be how could someone make it happen. I mean let's say that he told it who will say that to the others and how he can support what he is saying? And even if the Targ supporters follow that Viserys is dead and the only male left is from disinherited Rhaegar. So it would be either follow the order if birth no matter what Aerys might had told or the end of Targ dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple-eyes Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 That Viserys was named heir over Aegon does not necessarily mean that Rhaegar's entire line was disinherited. But Aerys does appear to have named Viserys his heir, and Viserys in turn named Daenerys his heir, making Daenerys' claim quite a strong one.he named viserys, this clearly means crown moves to the house of viserys. So whole line of rhaegar was indeed disinherited. (Unless viserys or later dany renamed aegon or jon) Kind of like maedhros surrendered crown to fingolfin, then the whole line of feanor was dispossessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Aerys didn't seem to disinherit Rhaegar by the time of the latter's death, but there is a chance that he proclaimed him a traitor at an earlier point (explaining why the hell Rhaegar and Lyanna were not at court) but he certainly could have.In fact, there seem to be regulations how to do disinherit your children since Randyll Tarly frankly tells Samwell that he didn't give him any reason to disinherit him (which is why he feels he has to force him to join the NW). We don't know what you have to do to be disinherited but disobedience to your father and or plotting against him/committing treason certainly should be among the reason why such a thing could be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.