Jump to content

Green or black? (POLL)


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

With all we know?? It would be a very tough decision.  Viserys named Rhaenyra his heir, so I want to support her....But her first 3 heirs are bastards, and it's obvious.  We see where bastard heirs get in Westeros... So, it'd be tough.

The thing is though, if she's queen and sitting the IT they're still her children and they still had Targ blood. It's not like when Robert was king and the heirs weren't his and they didn't have any Baratheon blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greens, if only for the sake of consistency. Ignoring precedent the way Viserys did is just going to result in more and more succession crises in the future, as the will of a dead king will only hold so much weight.  It's better for the succession to be considered something that works mechanically (the precedent established by Viserys's own accession could be interpreted as something like Salic law, which can be applied very mechanically), and which no individual king can mess with. A king might add a new rule to the existing ones when an unprecedented situation comes up, but he should not be able to violate existing rules or arbitrarily appoint a successor. This might result in some bad kings (such as Aegon II himself), but it will help avoid disastrous civil wars once the mechanism becomes established after a few generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanna say Rhaenyra as she was the rightful heir, but her three eldest "Velaryon" sons were bastards, and with the way things are with these "Bastard Kings" in the current timeline...Well Criston Cole put it best when he said "Seven save this realm if we seat a bastard on the Iron Throne"

 

#GoGreens    #IMyselfSworeNoSuchOath

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, rmanoj said:

Greens, if only for the sake of consistency. Ignoring precedent the way Viserys did is just going to result in more and more succession crises in the future, as the will of a dead king will only hold so much weight.  It's better for the succession to be considered something that works mechanically (the precedent established by Viserys's own accession could be interpreted as something like Salic law, which can be applied very mechanically), and which no individual king can mess with. A king might add a new rule to the existing ones when an unprecedented situation comes up, but he should not be able to violate existing rules or arbitrarily appoint a successor. This might result in some bad kings (such as Aegon II himself), but it will help avoid disastrous civil wars once the mechanism becomes established after a few generations.

Well, the Dance wasn't the succession war in Westeros. Daemon Blackfyre began another rebellion which had massive effects, and then came Robert Baratheon. Not to mention that there was apparently the threat of another Dance after Maekar's death.

Rhaenyra winning the war or just ascending without a war wouldn't have confused the succession all that much, nor would it have necessarily changed the rules. Rhaenyra had only sons, so one of them would have ruled, and whether Jacaerys would then have favored his son or his daughter is completely open question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sir Matthis Light said:

I wanna say Rhaenyra as she was the rightful heir, but her three eldest "Velaryon" sons were bastards, and with the way things are with these "Bastard Kings" in the current timeline...Well Criston Cole put it best when he said "Seven save this realm if we seat a bastard on the Iron Throne"

 

#GoGreens    #IMyselfSworeNoSuchOath

What's wrong with having a bastard that comes from Rhaenyra's bloodline sitting the throne? 

And the current bastards sitting the throne and Rhaenyra's are absolutely different situations. Joffery was a bastard that did not come from the current Royal bloodline plus he was a sadistic little shit that needed killing. 

Cersei's bastards have no right to the throne because they are not king Robert's. Rhaenyra's sons be bastards do have a claim because they come directly from the ruling line which is Rhaenyra's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

What's wrong with having a bastard that comes from Rhaenyra's bloodline sitting the throne? 

And the current bastards sitting the throne and Rhaenyra's are absolutely different situations. Joffery was a bastard that did not come from the current Royal bloodline plus he was a sadistic little shit that needed killing. 

Cersei's bastards have no right to the throne because they are not king Robert's. Rhaenyra's sons be bastards do have a claim because they come directly from the ruling line which is Rhaenyra's. 

True there's really nothing wrong with her(Rhaenyras) bastards mentally or physically, heck they were even Dragonriders, but based on the history of bastard vying for the IT, or sitting upon it, seems to spell disaster for the realm.

And I really don't need to point out the burning of the Riverlands, to the 1st and 2nd battles of Tumbleton, Death of many great knights and lords during all the Blackfyre Rebellions, to the present day burning(again) in the Riverlands during the War of the Five Kings.

No matter what it is, a bastard sitting or trying to sit the IT spells horror

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...