Succession stuff - primogeniture vs. proximity

[Lord Varys]

Yandel gives us two competing legal principles in his account on the Great Council of 101 AC. Primogeniture, he said, favored Laenor Velaryon, but proximity supported Prince Viserys.

Does anybody know what 'proximity' means in that context?

My idea is that proximity refers to the degree of kinship between the monarch/lord and the heir. Prince Viserys was Jaehaerys I grandson through the male while Laenor Velaryon was his great-grandson through the elder female line.

If that's the difference proximity refers to then we actually have a legal principle that stands in opposition to the dominant primogeniture principle, a principle that (mostly) enters the game when a monarch or lord has to choose an heir among either his grandchildren or great-grandchildren and his younger sons/daughters.

And proximity usually seems to be winning if you have to choose between a king's younger sons/children and his grandchildren or even great-grandchildren.

In that light Jaehaerys I's decision for Baelon instead of Rhaenys, his support of Viserys, and the decision of the Great Council of 233 AC for Aegon V as well as Aerys II's decision for Prince Viserys would make more sense.

The same would go for a lot of the succession of ancient kings whose (elder) sons and grandsons were all dead (e.g. the rise of Brandon Ice-Eyes, a great-grandson Edrick Snowbeard, or the succession wars in the last years of Garth X Gardener). There is no reason to believe that in such scenarios the elder line won the day. Garth X would have an eldest daughter, too, but the Manderlys and Peakes didn't care - perhaps neither of them had married the eldest daughter, anyway.

Any thoughts on this stuff?

[rmanoj]

I think it's pretty much what you're saying - Proximity of blood (Wikipedia)

I don't see how this applies to the example of Brandon Ice-Eyes though, unless you think his claim won out over that of a great-great-grandson of Edrick Snowbeard (this is, of course, possible, but we have no reason to think that it actually happened).  That would be an example of the principle of proximity of blood prevailing. 

I suppose it could also have happened with the succession of Garth X. The eldest daughter might have predeceased her father. Any children she left would come after their aunts (the wives of the lords Peake and Manderly) in the line of succession. Again, there is no positive evidence that this did happen. 

EDIT: Also, going by proximity of blood, Rhaenys's claim should have been superior to her son's, and she should have been the main alternative to Viserys at the Great Council of 101 AC. Unless it was already accepted that women were disqualified. 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, rmanoj said:

I think it's pretty much what you're saying - Proximity of blood (Wikipedia)

I don't see how this applies to the example of Brandon Ice-Eyes though, unless you think his claim won out over that of a great-great-grandson of Edrick Snowbeard (this is, of course, possible, but we have no reason to think that it actually happened).  That would be an example of the principle of proximity of blood prevailing. 

I suppose it could also have happened with the succession of Garth X. The eldest daughter might have predeceased her father. Any children she left would come after their aunts (the wives of the lords Peake and Manderly) in the line of succession. Again, there is no positive evidence that this did happen. 

EDIT: Also, going by proximity of blood, Rhaenys's claim should have been superior to her son's, and she should have been the main alternative to Viserys at the Great Council of 101 AC. Unless it was already accepted that women were disqualified. 

Oh, yeah, you are right that Brandon Ice-Eyes may not have won the crown due to proximity. There seems to have been an open succession quarrel at this point, due to the fact that there were too many heirs. Edrick lived so long that he may have outlived all his children, and perhaps some of his grandchildren, too. My point was more that proximity usually enters the equation when there are heirs left who are not favored by primogeniture but have the advantage of proximity and age over an heir who is favored by primogeniture.

Another important factor usually is the age gap between the heirs. Laenor Velaryon, Prince Maegor, and Prince Aegon were all considerably younger than Viserys I, Aegon V, and Viserys III, respectively. In that sense there is actually a good chance that Brandon Ice-Eyes was Edrick's great-grandson through a cadet branch, stood in opposition to an infant great-great-grandson of Edrick's through the eldest line, or had to put down some of his uncles, granduncles, or cousins through the elder line to take Winterfell.

The fact that he prevailed doesn't mean he had the best claim (regardless whether you cite primogeniture or proximity).

The interesting thing with Garth X is that his daughters must have been pretty old and perhaps already dead by the time the struggle broke out. I mean, Garth X lived into his late nineties, and one assumes that his daughters would have been in their seventies when they died. The Reach had at least one Ruling Queen, so technically a woman could inherit there, but if neither Peake nor Manderly were married to the eldest daughter who Garth X had anointed as his heiress, presumably, things would have been difficult. Especially if he had never chosen an heir among her children or grandchildren.

Peake and Manderly may have tried to secure Highgarden for either their son(s) or grandson(s) by their Gardener wives, not necessarily for themselves. Technically they would have to have been in they sixties as well if we assume they each married a younger daughter of Garth X.

As to the Great Council of 101 AC:

Ran has told us that the Velaryon faction really all united behind Laenor's claim, and did not separately push Rhaenys' own claim again. TPatQ indicates that the claims of Rhaenys, Laenor, and Laena were discussed at Harrenhal, and this may have been the case, but apparently only insofar as they were connected to Laenor's. Rhaenys' claim would have been on the table explicitly because Laenor's claim went through her, and she would have been his main champion aside from Corlys Velaryon himself. It seems as if the Old King choosing Baelon instead of Rhaenys dealt a pretty devastating blow to female inheritance in general. Rhaenys and Corlys policy apparently was 'Fine, grandfather, you have rejected me because I'm but a woman, but now I've given you a great-grandson. You will not push him aside the same way so easily!'

And we have to keep in mind that in such cases in which primogeniture won the day in the old Seven Kingdoms most likely was if the daughter of a king pushed the claim of her son after her father's death rather than taking the throne for herself. This must have happened multiple times in all the kingdoms. The scenario that male issue from female branches was always passed over is simply implausible because we would have to believe that all the kings always had some spare heirs at hands from cadet branches of the male line - something that's quite unlikely in societies in which it is the domain and duty of men to fight and die in wars, tourneys, hunts, and other manly occupations.

In that sense Princess Rhaenys apparently tried the Matilda-Henry III approach (giving up her own claim in favor of her son) at the Great Council, and failed.

And the strict interpretation of the decision of the Great Council - that neither a woman nor a man through the female line - can ever sit the Iron Throne put the Crown and the Realm itself in a very precarious position. If this was really how things should be then the Iron Throne would have to remain vacant, and the Realm would have to descend into chaos and fracture if House Targaryen ever died out in the male line. Any grandsons, nephews, cousins of a king through the female line could then never ascend the Iron Throne. That is a very impractical and stupid interpretation. If a daughter was the only heir left alive (say, because there was a succession 3-4 kings who didn't have any siblings or only a sister who they married) then she would most certainly inherit the throne, and if that last king had only a daughter who predeceased him but left him a strong and healthy grandson then this guy would inherit.

This is a matter of practicality. Rhaenys and her line were only ousted back in 92 and 101 AC because there were male (line) alternatives left. In a scenario in which there are no male (line) members of the royal family alive the throne must go to the woman by default.

While I'm pretty sure most of Baelon's and Viserys' supporters were motivated by their misogyny I'm not so sure that was the case with Jaehaerys I (although Alysanne seem to have interpreted it this way). Jaehaerys I may have feared that the Realm and Rhaenys and her (then unborn) children might find themselves in another civil war caused by another Maegor - just as Jaehaerys and his siblings were. While there is a pretty good chance that Prince Baelon - who seems to have been a great guy - would have accepted his father's decision to name Rhaenys his heir, Baelon's own sons (especially Prince Daemon) may have been not so lenient, eventually causing a rebellion or succession war after Jaehaerys I and Baelon had died. Or by the time Rhaenys herself died handing the throne to her son. A Queen Regnant would have always been perceived as weaker as a man, and thus be considered an invitation for unrest and rebellion (which could then be exploited by the rival claimants to the throne).

As things stand the succession could actually have been more stable if Queen Rhaenys I had ruled, since Viserys' only child Rhaenyra could then have been married to Prince Laenor, and the widowed Prince Viserys to Princess Laena, reuniting the two branches again. But it is difficult to foresee the future. One can easily imagine that Jaehaerys I himself actually would have preferred Rhaenys as his heir in 101 AC if he had not previously spurned her in 92 AC, antagonizing her and her family in the process and setting a precedent against female inheritance. From a dynastic point of view Rhaenys and Corlys were the safer bet. They had two healthy heirs, while Prince Viserys only a had a female heir, Rhaenyra, at that point, with the quarrelsome Daemon was his closest male kin. At that point it would have been easy to name Rhaenys the heir, and arrange a betrothal between Laenor and Rhaenyra to include Baelon's line in the whole thing - but everyone was apparently antagonized enough that only a Great Council could hope to prevent a war of succession.

[lojzelote]

I must say I find the system of inheritance in which males through female line can inherit, but females themselves are banned, to be inherently flawed and impractical. It’s asking for a civil war later down the line, sooner or later.

 

Imagine a scenario where the only Aerys‘ child to outlive the cradle is Princess Shaena. She’s not berothed to anyone; at first because Aerys hopes she’ll marry her younger brother, later because Aerys is being Aerys and therefore finds all the lords of the Realm unworthy of rulling the Realm through his daughter one day. Maybe he still hopes for a son. Then he has an accident and dies.

There’s a Great Council. The choice comes between Shaena and Robert Baratheon. Let’s say Robert is already married or at least berothed to Lyanna Stark, and therefore he’s unable (or unwilling) to marry Shaena and unite their claims. Let’s say Robert wins, although perhaps only barely.

Or let’s say that the Great Council doesn’t take place at all, because in this universe women are automatically disqualified without any further reasoning.

Shaena doesn’t become Queen Regnant, but she’s still exceptional marriage material since she gets a sizeble dowry, ethereal Valyrian looks, the prestige of being the last „true“ Targaryen princess, … and a theoretical claim to the Iron Throne for all her male descendants. Shaena marries very well. Say, one of Lord Hightowers sons, or perhaps Tywins gets his wish and Jaime is released from his Kingsguard vows. Tywin makes him marry Shaena, who soon bears him a son and heir (and then another and another…).

Meanwhile King Robert grows disillusioned with his Queen and kingship itself.Slowly but surely he becomes the lazy, shitty ruler we know from the books. Lords and common people alike grow dissatisfied with the state of affairs.

Then one day something happens. Let’s say Robert deflowers a very highborn maiden, or elsewise offends a powerful lord. Shaena’s husband or father-in-law has felt the growing discontent among the lords, and so he seizes the opportunity to proclaim that his (grand)son happens to have a better claim to the throne anyway. After all, he’s the grandson of the last Targaryen king, while Robert happens to be only a great-grandson to another. (There's your proximity, I guess.)

BOOM! Another war has come to the Seven Kingdoms.

It doesn’t matter who wins; it’s unnecessary blooshed which could have been avoided had other rules been in place.

 

 

Another thing, I will never undestand why Jaehaerys I the Great Statesman didn’t see the obvious and didn’t arrange the match between Rhaenys and Viserys. Even if he feared that female ruler would be a too controversial matter, since women are believed to be weak-minded and ruled by their husbands, Rhaenys‘ husband would have been the next guy with the best claim to the throne anyway. Well, maybe Baelon the Brave would still live at the time, but since Viserys is his firstborn son and heir, I don’t think he would argue Jaehaerys‘ decision all that much.

 

I see only two possibilities as to which don’t make Jaeharys look like a complete idiot:

1, Rhaenys had been berothed to Corlys as a very young girl before it became apparent her father won’t sire a male heir. Later Jaehaerys found it too risky to break a marriage contract concerning one of his most powerful lords.

2, Rhaenys had originally had at least one brother (though there is none on the published family tree), but he had unexpectedly died, leaving her as Aemon’s only child. Again, she had been already berothed or married to Corlys, so little could have been done to unite Aemon’s line with Baelon’s.

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

I must say I find the system of inheritance in which males through female line can inherit, but females themselves are banned, to be inherently flawed and impractical. It’s asking for a civil war later down the line, sooner or later.

Another thing, I will never undestand why Jaehaerys I the Great Statesman didn’t see the obvious and didn’t arrange the match between Rhaenys and Viserys. Even if he feared that female ruler would be a too controversial matter, since women are believed to be weak-minded and ruled by their husbands, Rhaenys‘ husband would have been the next guy with the best claim to the throne anyway. Well, maybe Baelon the Brave would still live at the time, but since Viserys is his firstborn son and heir, I don’t think he would argue Jaehaerys‘ decision all that much.

I see only two possibilities as to which don’t make Jaeharys look like a complete idiot:

1, Rhaenys had been berothed to Corlys as a very young girl before it became apparent her father won’t sire a male heir. Later Jaehaerys found it too risky to break a marriage contract concerning one of his most powerful lords.

2, Rhaenys had originally had at least one brother (though there is none on the published family tree), but he had unexpectedly died, leaving her as Aemon’s only child. Again, she had been already berothed or married to Corlys, so little could have been done to unite Aemon’s line with Baelon’s.

 

1. The inheritance system: That usually is the take on the whole thing in medieval settings. Either women or the female line cannot inherit at all, or the claim only 'passes through' the woman, and her son can then take the throne. A lot of the fuzz about the 'superior claim' of the House of York was made about the fact that Richard of York was descended from Edward III's second son through the female line (and through the male line from Edward III's fourth son). Not to mention the fact that the Tudor claim to the English throne also only went through the female line.

The paradox in the 'rigid interpretation' of the Great Council (no women and no male of the female line can inherit) is that this is completely impractical and unrealistic even in the setting the Great Council found itself in 101 AC. Prince Viserys only had a daughter - had Rhaenyra remained his only child he might still have gotten many grandsons from her who then all would have been barred from the succession in this interpretation.

Viserys I had his brother Prince Daemon as a potential heir (and in the first years of his reign it is quite obvious that Daemon favors the 'rigid interpretation' of the succession, fancying himself Viserys' heir presumptive by default) - and perhaps also his second brother, Prince Aegon, who might have lived into Viserys' reign without being mentioned in TRP - but the idea that a king would actually want to turn to his brothers, nephews or cousins of various degree (if existent) to look for an heir if he has no sons rather than to child or grandson of his own body is ridiculous.

Sure, Viserys I could have sort twisted this whole thing around to fit his plans by marrying his daughter to his brother, but if Daemon's marriage to Rhea Royce had been happy and blessed with children this wouldn't have been possible. Not to mention that this arrangement would still not have resolved the question who Viserys I's true heir was - Daemon, the default heir presumptive, or Viserys' grandson, the child of Rhaenyra and Daemon? The king would have to settle that question one way or the other anyway.

But we see that the rigid interpretation of the Great Council of 101 AC has been off the table for quite some time. Robert's legal claim is only through the female line, and as far as we know Aegon III also ascended the Iron Throne as Rhaenyra's son, not necessarily 

2. Rhaenys and Viserys: The best take on that is really that Corlys and Rhaenys had not only been betrothed to each other but were already married in 92 AC. In fact, we know from George that Laena Velaryon was a year older than Laenor (who was seven years old in 101 AC, which means he was born in 94 AC), suggesting that she was born in 93 AC. Considering that we don't know the birth date of Laena nor the exact date of Prince Aemon's death, it is entirely possible that Rhaenys was already pregnant with Laena when her father suddenly died (easily imaginable if Aemon died in the second half of 92 AC rather than early that year).

But even if Rhaenys hadn't been pregnant it is pretty obvious that the best way to avoid a succession crisis and keep everybody happy would have been to marry Rhaenys to Viserys, and name them joint heirs, passing over Prince Baelon (or decree that Baelon was the heir but Viserys and Rhaenys would rule as co-rulers after him). Corlys Velaryon was rich and influential at this point, but as far as we know he had no good claim to the Iron Throne himself. At least not such a good claim as to threaten either Rhaenys or Viserys on his own. Therefore I think Jaehaerys I would have gotten away with dissolving a betrothal between Rhaenys and Corlys.

But since that didn't happened we have to assume that Rhaenys was already married to Corlys at this point, and was unwilling to annul her marriage to him. Humiliating the Velaryons in such a way could have caused lasting trouble, especially since we don't know who the hell was riding Vhagar at this point. She eventually passed to Laena, but who was riding her before that? If it was Prince Aemon then the dragon was riderless and harmless at this point - but if the dragon actually belonged to Corlys' unknown mother (from whom she could passed to Laena) who might have been still alive at this point, then things might have been different.

Vice versa, we have reason to believe that Prince Viserys only married Aemma Arryn in 93 AC (TRP states that Viserys had been married to Aemma for a decade when he took the throne in 103 AC). This could very well have been a reaction on the side of Baelon's faction in the wake of the succession crisis in 92 AC. With Alysanne taking Rhaenys' side, and the Velaryons and Baratheons supporting Rhaenys' claim, Baelon and Jaehaerys I might have felt to ensure that Baelon's heir would have a bride with Targaryen blood which also brought him the loyalty of another great house to strengthen his position. Aemma Arryn was only elven years old in 93 AC, so this most likely was a hastily arranged and consummated match, not something that had been arranged years ago.

In fact, considering that Jaehaerys I had a lot of younger daughters one really wonders why Viserys never had been betrothed to one of his aunts (say, Maegelle, Saera, or even Gael) they should have been closer in age to him than to Baelon, Aemon, or Alyssa. But in a potential dynastic struggle a full Targaryen bride wouldn't have given Viserys any outside support. Aemma Arryn brought him the Vale.

The Great Council only prevented a succession war because it became clear that, when actual 'legal arguments' (and, no doubt, a lot of bribes) were exchanged, the lords were inclined to favor a male claimant over a female claimant or a boy. But as the outbreak of the Dance shows Rhaenyra's gender and bad position in the beginning of the war didn't cost her any followers. If a war is declared, people have to choose sides, and if it is clear that one pretender (Rhaenys or Laenor) can count on the Velaryons and the Baratheons/Stormlords, then many other lords might be inclined to join with the pretender who already has a secure power base rather than trying to suck up to the self-contained pure-incest faction.

The idea of Rhaenys having had siblings is intriguing but with the published family tree not mentioning any this is difficult to justify. We know that the family tree isn't complete, but Rhaenys having had a younger sister would also have been interesting. But there is no real reason for that because Prince Aemon was expected to inherit, not his daughter, and besides - people might have expected Lady Jocelyn to produce a son (if she was still alive in 92 AC) or him to remarry once he had taken the throne.

If King Aemon I had ruled he would have settled the succession and considering the Rhaenys-Corlys match it seems quite clear to me that he had no trouble with his daughter ruling after him.

[lojzelote]

 

 

Oh, I'm familiar with the concept from history, but IMHO there are better ways to go about it. The Joffrey Lydden solution, for example. The actual heiress is effectively reduced to a consort, while her husband does the ruling. Once the husband dies, the couple's son takes his place.

That's very neat in comparison to a situation where the heiress(es) is (are) wholly disinherited and the inheritance passes to a nearest male relative... only for the former heiress(es) to birth sons who've got arguably a much better claim then the current ruler. That's just messy, with many loose ends in the form of the heiresses' (potential) male descendants.

 

Anyway, from what I remember from lessons on my country's history, we had a strange hybrid system where first only males through male line inherited and once the ruling House died out on the sword side, the nobiity chose the next king from among the husbands of the last king's female relatives (daughters, sisters, even his re-married widow). The transfer of power from dynasty to dynasty went usually relatively smoothly IIRC.

[Lion of the West]

The idea that proximity to the monarch is the proximity as its understood in Westeros makes sense given the examples given. But it also seems to me that the Great Council of AL 233 should be discounted in regards to the primogenture vs proximity given that there wasn't really a choice between grown candidates like there was in earlier Great Councils. Sure you could possibly count Aemon but I find that his resignation essentially meant that Aegon V was the only one really running a campaign. Frankly the lords of Westeros can take many other things into consideration as well, like if a king will serve their interests or not, and thus do not always go with voting for the candidate that would have the best legal claim.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The idea that proximity to the monarch is the proximity as its understood in Westeros makes sense given the examples given. But it also seems to me that the Great Council of AL 233 should be discounted in regards to the primogenture vs proximity given that there wasn't really a choice between grown candidates like there was in earlier Great Councils. Sure you could possibly count Aemon but I find that his resignation essentially meant that Aegon V was the only one really running a campaign. Frankly the lords of Westeros can take many other things into consideration as well, like if a king will serve their interests or not, and thus do not always go with voting for the candidate that would have the best legal claim.

There were only two Great Councils in which the succession ever came up. The first Great Council of 101 AC, and then the third Great Council (to our knowledge) of 233 AC. The second Great Council was in 136 AC and had a completely different purpose - to appoint new regents for the young Aegon III.

There was no Great Council in 92 AC. Jaehaerys I considered the potential heirs on his own and then made a choice, most likely in concordance with his Hand, Septon Barth, and the other members of the Small Council (the Queen Alysanne excluded, although she may not have had a formal seat on the Small Council).

Primogeniture vs. proximity were also the principles at odds in 233 AC, that much is obvious. We know that the Great Council wasn't just called by Bloodraven because Maekar I had named no heir, we know that multiple factions vied for the throne, and that a second Dance threatened. This must mean by default that there was powerful cabal/clique of influential lords/courtier who were willing to crown Prince Maegor, Aerion's only son, who had the right of primogeniture on his side. The mother of Princess Daenora (herself Maegor's mother) was Alys Arryn, Prince Rhaegel's wife. This could indicate that Lord Jasper Arryn, Jon Arryn's father, actually was willing to go to war to seat his grandson on the Iron Throne. Especially if it turned out that the Arryns or some Vale lords were, for whatever reason, among Egg's enemies.

Perhaps there was even such a cabal willing to support Princess Vaella. We don't know. A lackwit Queen Regnant would have been a great puppet for a gang of scrupulous courtiers, not to mention that Vaella's mother was Kiera of Tyrosh, indicating that foreign powers also may have a vested interest in controlling the Iron Throne at this point.

The fact that the claims of Maegor and Vaella were dismissed quickly by the Great Council doesn't necessarily contradict this. A Great Council seems to be a huge assembly of lords, and popular opinion might not exactly represent the views of a small elitist clique at court.

Egg stood as a son of the late king against two of his grandchildren. That is primogeniture vs. proximity, and proximity won the day just as it did back in 101 AC. Considering the precedents of 92 AC and 101 AC it was even more likely that the son rather than the grandchild would win the day because that's what happened in all similar circumstances. In addition, Maegor and Vaella were even worse claimants than Laenor due to their state of mind and age. The opposition against Egg had reasons that had nothing to do with the strength of his claim but with his personality.

Maester Aemon never came as a claimant to the Great Council. He most likely was just there (because he had been the maester serving Prince Daeron on Dragonstone), and he was drawn into the whole thing as a last attempt to prevent the rise of Aegon V. Maegor and Vaella fell through, Aenys Blackfyre had been executed, so the only claimant left was Aegon V. And in the Aemon-Egg thing primogeniture was actually ignored - proximity-wise Aemon and Egg were equally close to Maekar, but Aemon was the elder and passed over due to his unwillingness to recant his vows.

The same would later happen with Prince Duncan who also was unwilling to let go of his morganatic marriage. In that sense Aerys II's decision for Viserys III (whose claim was supported by proximity) isn't a surprise at all. If you have to choose between a young grandchild and a son you usually choose the son.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

On 22.3.2016 at 3:14 PM, lojzelote said:

I must say I find the system of inheritance in which males through female line can inherit, but females themselves are banned, to be inherently flawed and impractical. It’s asking for a civil war later down the line, sooner or later.

 

 

Another thing, I will never undestand why Jaehaerys I the Great Statesman didn’t see the obvious and didn’t arrange the match between Rhaenys and Viserys. Even if he feared that female ruler would be a too controversial matter, since women are believed to be weak-minded and ruled by their husbands, Rhaenys‘ husband would have been the next guy with the best claim to the throne anyway. Well, maybe Baelon the Brave would still live at the time, but since Viserys is his firstborn son and heir, I don’t think he would argue Jaehaerys‘ decision all that much.

Indeed. That system is madness. But of course, it was never planned that way. It's the pain of a precedent-based justice system, with one precedent piling upon the other, each of them intended to deal with a specific situation (and political favors exchanged), resulting in that mess.

 

Personally, I consider Jaehaerys to be an idiot indeed.  Just one with the good luck to profit from Maegor eradicating all open issues before Jaehaerys was crowned and him leaving his own mess to be resolved in the Dance of Dragons after he himself was safely dead.

Seriously, Jaehaerys has no specific achievements to his name. He's very similar to the Tywin/Aerys combination two centuries later.

[Lord Varys]

21 hours ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Personally, I consider Jaehaerys to be an idiot indeed.  Just one with the good luck to profit from Maegor eradicating all open issues before Jaehaerys was crowned and him leaving his own mess to be resolved in the Dance of Dragons after he himself was safely dead.

Seriously, Jaehaerys has no specific achievements to his name. He's very similar to the Tywin/Aerys combination two centuries later.

Well, without having access to the original sources you cannot really call Jaehaerys I a bad king or even an idiot. If the guy is praised as one of the greatest king (perhaps even the greatest king) of the Targaryen reign then we have to accept as long as we can't get any direct sources putting the consensus of the historians into question.

That would be as if you declared Napoleon wasn't a great general without ever actually assessing the historical sources about the man and his deeds.

Jaehaerys I also had nothing to do with the Dance. The Great Council of 101 AC actually prevented a succession war, and while it also caused new uncertainties it were accidents of history (Viserys I having no living son by Aemma, for example) as well as all the people involved in the Dance to make it happen.

The fact remains that Corlys Velaryon and Princess Rhaenys might have been very pissed about how Jaehaerys I and the Great Council treated her and her children's claims in 92 and 101 AC but they never rebelled against Jaehaerys I or Viserys I. Jaehaerys I was able to settle his own succession peacefully whereas his grandchildren and great-grandchildren could not. That's their mistake, not Jaehaerys'.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Right up until the World book, I agreed with you. But no more. Because now we actually have several examples of his policies, and each of them was disastrous in the long run.

The New Gift ruined the Watch, as the Starks predicted, and Jaehaerys risked a lot and burned a lot of favors to achieve that.

Furthermore, he threw the established inheritance laws into disarray and basically declared the IT "free for all Dragonlords". He avoided a civil war about that once - but the second time we got the Dance.

[Lord Varys]

14 hours ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Right up until the World book, I agreed with you. But no more. Because now we actually have several examples of his policies, and each of them was disastrous in the long run.

The New Gift ruined the Watch, as the Starks predicted, and Jaehaerys risked a lot and burned a lot of favors to achieve that.

Furthermore, he threw the established inheritance laws into disarray and basically declared the IT "free for all Dragonlords". He avoided a civil war about that once - but the second time we got the Dance.

Well, to prove that Jaehaerys I sucked in regards to the New Gift is difficult. Would the Starks have been able to defend those lands any better? I don't think so. It is not as if the Umbers and clansmen are capable of defending their own smallfolk and lands right now from wildling raids. Jaehaerys and Alysanne were apparently the only monarchs who ever made any real effort to help the NW in the last three centuries. No one else did. And whatever little the Starks did to help them clearly wasn't enough. 

Not sure if Jaehaerys I burned a lot favors for that. He just told the Starks that he wanted them to give that land to the NW and they had no choice but to comply. There is no hint that Jaehaerys I was in any way dependent on the goodwill of the Starks.

Jaehaerys I also didn't make any great mistakes regarding the succession. He prevented a succession war, after all, and it was not his fault that he survived his two eldest sons. Not to mention that he didn't exactly rise to the throne conventionally himself. He had to win a civil war of his own, and was thus most likely very aware how things could turn out if something went wrong.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 21-3-2016 at 7:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

Yandel gives us two competing legal principles in his account on the Great Council of 101 AC. Primogeniture, he said, favored Laenor Velaryon, but proximity supported Prince Viserys.

Does anybody know what 'proximity' means in that context?

My idea is that proximity refers to the degree of kinship between the monarch/lord and the heir. Prince Viserys was Jaehaerys I grandson through the male while Laenor Velaryon was his great-grandson through the elder female line.

If that's the difference proximity refers to then we actually have a legal principle that stands in opposition to the dominant primogeniture principle, a principle that (mostly) enters the game when a monarch or lord has to choose an heir among either his grandchildren or great-grandchildren and his younger sons/daughters.

And proximity usually seems to be winning if you have to choose between a king's younger sons/children and his grandchildren or even great-grandchildren.

In that light Jaehaerys I's decision for Baelon instead of Rhaenys, his support of Viserys, and the decision of the Great Council of 233 AC for Aegon V as well as Aerys II's decision for Prince Viserys would make more sense.

The same would go for a lot of the succession of ancient kings whose (elder) sons and grandsons were all dead (e.g. the rise of Brandon Ice-Eyes, a great-grandson Edrick Snowbeard, or the succession wars in the last years of Garth X Gardener). There is no reason to believe that in such scenarios the elder line won the day. Garth X would have an eldest daughter, too, but the Manderlys and Peakes didn't care - perhaps neither of them had married the eldest daughter, anyway.

Any thoughts on this stuff?

I don't think Aerys's decision to name Viserys heir over Aegon depended all that much on the proximity/promogeniture issue. Aerys mistrusted the Dornish, believing they had betrayed Rhaegar. He had already taken Aegon as his hostage. To name your half-dornish hostage as your heir, while believing that his relatives have betrayed you, would absolutely not be a logical decision. With Aegon as his heir, the Dornish would have every reason to betray Aerys, as it would mean Aegon's ascent, (and, thus, a regency which the Martells could usurp). 

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

I don't think Aerys's decision to name Viserys heir over Aegon depended all that much on the proximity/promogeniture issue. Aerys mistrusted the Dornish, believing they had betrayed Rhaegar. He had already taken Aegon as his hostage. To name your half-dornish hostage as your heir, while believing that his relatives have betrayed you, would absolutely not be a logical decision. With Aegon as his heir, the Dornish would have every reason to betray Aerys, as it would mean Aegon's ascent, (and, thus, a regency which the Martells could usurp). 

Yeah, of course, but the point is that proximity favored Viserys over Aegon, and Aerys II could cite or refer to the earlier precedents (technically Jaehaerys I vs. Aerea/Rhalla, Baelon vs. Rhaenys, Viserys I vs. Laenor, and Aegon V vs. Vaella/Maegor). His actual motives might have to do more with his suspicion/mistrust of the Dornish but the amounts of precedents in the past made his decision much less controversial then it would have been if an uncle had never come before a grandson in the history of the Targaryen reign.