Rhaenerya I Targaryen vs. Aegon II Targaryen

[Lord Varys]

36 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Viserys had the lords of the realm vow fealty to Rhaenyra at 105, before Aegon II's birth. It's reasonable to say that there may be lords who honestly believe that a daughter comes before a brother, but a son comes before a daughter. And thus, they could defend their position of pledging fealty to Rhaneyra over Daemon in 105, but supporting Aegon II over Rhaenyra in 129.

That case certainly can be made. But the proper thing to do would still have been to severely push the king to change the succession in favor of Prince Aegon while he was alive, not to sit around quietly doing nothing. Everybody doing homage to Rhaenyra as the Princess of Dragonstone and the future Queen Regnant from 107-129 AC would have been a hypocrite and a traitor to both her and the world if he paid lip service to her rank but quietly though she should not inherit the throne.

36 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

And I don't believe that the greens "kept their mouths shut" at all. The fact that there were two named factions demonstrates that there was an open confrontation at court, each one trying to influence the king. There are many quotes suggesting that the matter was usually brought to Viserys ("Rhaenyra was his heir, and he did not wish to hear arguments otherwise"), and I'm convinced that the blacks periodically tried to convince Viserys to change his will.

There is no such talk to be heard from Otto and Alicent in the 120s, though. Those aggressive attempts to attempt a change of the succession if favor of Prince Aegon seem to have been early on. And we have to keep in mind that even Prince Aemond wasn't sure whether Aegon or Rhaenyra would be crowned after their father's death. He even asks who it is going to be in TPatQ. I agree that there were repeated attempts to change the succession but unless Viserys I was a complete moron Alicent and Otto must have convinced him that they would not truly try to steal Rhaenyra's throne and cause a civil war. Viserys would have been aware that they would have preferred Aegon as his heir but seems to have reached the conclusion that his father-in-law and wife would accept and respect his wishes regardless of their own preferences.

And we do know both factions really went out of their way to play the happy family when Viserys I was present in the later years. The best example for that is that ball they had where everybody was nice to each other while Viserys was around.

36 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

It certainly is. Perhaps some of Brandon Stark's companions where pages or young squires (Jeffory Mallister or Kyle Royce), or Eddard is thinking about the extermination of Houses Darklyn and Hollard.

The latter is actually a pretty good explanation.

[The hairy bear]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That case certainly can be made. But the proper thing to do would still have been to severely push the king to change the succession in favor of Prince Aegon while he was alive, not to sit around quietly doing nothing. Everybody doing homage to Rhaenyra as the Princess of Dragonstone and the future Queen Regnant from 107-129 AC would have been a hypocrite and a traitor to both her and the world if he paid lip service to her rank but quietly though she should not inherit the throne.

There is no such talk to be heard from Otto and Alicent in the 120s, though. Those aggressive attempts to attempt a change of the succession if favor of Prince Aegon seem to have been early on.

Well, Otto tried to be open and frank at the beginning. He openly pushed for Aegon II in front of the king, and he was removed from his post as Hand for that. I don't think it's fair to accuse of hypocrisy the people who kept silence, because the king clearly ordered that the matter could not be discussed. What could have the likes of Grover Tully and Ironrod Wylde when the king forbid them to bring up the matter?

That is, IMO, the greatest shortcoming of Viserys I as a king. He surrounded himself with flatterers who only told him what he wanted to say. He was living in a bubble, willingly isolated about what happened around. And by forbidding the debate in his presence, he only made the problem worse. He should have been the arbiter between the factions, but he choose to ignore them.

By the late 120s the greens had probably lost hope on convincing Viserys, and were already planning poison...

 

[BTW, I'm a Black supporter. I just think that Viserys was terribly wrong waving tradition away as if of no consequence.]

 

[Lord Varys]

24 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Well, Otto tried to be open and frank at the beginning. He openly pushed for Aegon II in front of the king, and he was removed from his post as Hand for that. I don't think it's fair to accuse of hypocrisy the people who kept silence, because the king clearly ordered that the matter could not be discussed. What could have the likes of Grover Tully and Ironrod Wylde when the king forbid them to bring up the matter?

Well, this whole thing is really messed up. Otto Hightower essentially made Rhaenyra the Princess of Dragonstone. He pushed for her to be publicly proclaimed the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne so that Prince Daemon's position as heir presumptive would be weakened. If they had just made Rhaenyra the informal heir to the throne 'until such a time as a son is born to the king' then things could have been easily corrected.

But once have the entire Realm recognize Rhaenyra as the next Queen Regnant and have the lords swear vows to her you have gone pretty far. I guess Viserys I could technically have unmade all that thereafter but the risk that Rhaenyra's followers would then later stage a coup against Aegon II is not that unlikely. There are people in Westeros who take their vows pretty seriously, after all.

I guess people could have made it clear to Viserys I that they did not approve of the way he treated his son. If half the Realm or more had referred to him as the true Prince of Dragonstone and our next king then Viserys most likely would have realized that he should reconsider his position. Or at least do something about this whole thing (hand Alicent's sons to the Faith, Citadel, or Night's Watch).

24 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

That is, IMO, the greatest shortcoming of Viserys I as a king. He surrounded himself with flatterers who only told him what he wanted to say. He was living in a bubble, willingly isolated about what happened around. And by forbidding the debate in his presence, he only made the problem worse. He should have been the arbiter between the factions, but he choose to ignore them.

I'm not so sure of that. The man did not like conflict among his family all friends all that much. Just look how many offenses and insults he forgave his own brother. He probably didn't really grasp that not everybody was as forgiving as he was. And in the end we see how ruthless he could be if anybody actually dared to defy his will in his presence. One assumes that Alicent, Otto, Cole, Wylde, and the others simply knew better.

It is pretty obvious, I think, that the only thing that brought Aegon II on the Iron Throne was the Hightower coup. Had Otto not been the Hand and had Alicent not had so many friends at court nobody of significance would have supported Aegon's cause. The man himself was neither charismatic nor a warrior. Perhaps Aemond could have had a shot on his own, considering that he rode the largest dragon alive, but he was still young and only the second son of the king.

24 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

By the late 120s the greens had probably lost hope on convincing Viserys, and were already planning poison...

Could very well be. However, I think the way the coup worked shows very much that Aegon II could only be crowned because Otto completely controlled the court after Viserys' death. Had the king died on any other circumstances or had the news traveled to Dragonstone immediately thereafter Rhaenyra would have been crowned even with Otto and Alicent and all their cronies in the city. She had a lot friends at court (all those people Otto imprisoned) and the entire Realm expected her to ascend the throne.

24 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

[BTW, I'm a Black supporter. I just think that Viserys was terribly wrong waving tradition away as if of no consequence.]

With hindsight this might be the case. But we have to keep in mind that Viserys I was the most powerful Targaryen king in history. He and his dragonriding forebears effectively could do whatever the hell they wanted. Changing the royal succession is a far less 'revolution' than breaking the power of the Faith, stripping it of its ancient privileges and rights, abolishing the First Night, restricting the power husbands have over their wives, and - most importantly - continuing the Valyrian incest marriages that were considered unanimously a vile sin and the children born from such unions abominations.

Who the hell the guy on the Iron Throne was was most likely of little consequence to the average (noble) guy. And they had to accept quite a few changes from the Targaryens since the Conquest. It was the split in the royal family itself that made this whole thing the Lords of the Realm dared to choose sides. If Aegon had had no power base of his own nobody would have rallied to him.

Viserys I certainly made the mistake to not put his daughter in a position from which she could easily ascend the throne after his death. And for that he is to blame. Had Rhaenyra been the Hand at the time of his death nothing would have happened.

Vice versa, the succession laws in Dorne would most likely never have changed had Princess Nymeria only had one daughter from Mors Martell but a bunch of sons from her second consort, in this hypothetical scenario a Yronwood prince who rose to prominence at her court later in life, doing everything in his power to defend the rights of his eldest son by her.

[SeanF]

The strongest argument against the Greens, IMHO, is that they launched a coup d'Etat, the moment that Viserys I died, and murdered Lord Beesbury.

They knew that their claim was weak, and would be opposed by a huge proportion of the nobility.  Otherwise, they would have sought to make their argument peacefully.  So, they resorted to violence straight away.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

The strongest argument against the Greens, IMHO, is that they launched a coup d'Etat, the moment that Viserys I died, and murdered Lord Beesbury.

They knew that their claim was weak, and would be opposed by a huge proportion of the nobility.  Otherwise, they would have sought to make their argument peacefully.  So, they resorted to violence straight away.

Yeah, that is the most obvious sign that Otto and Alicent did not, in fact, think their case was strong enough to win the day at another Great Council. The Realm knew that Rhaenyra was Viserys I's chosen and anointed heir. To offer the crown to Aegon they would have to go against the explicit will of their very popular peace-and-plenty king. And obviously they did not think that would work. Else they would have taken that road.

Alicent later urges Rhaenyra to call a Great Council once her cause seems lost. But at this time Aegon II had already been crowned and anointed. If the men of the Realm had to chose between a king and a queen they would, most likely, have chosen the king.

And we also see that their case is pretty weak at court despite the fact that Rhaenyra and Daemon are on Dragonstone. They do not only murder Lord Beesbury but also imprison many people at court, so many in fact that even the High Septon begins to inquire why the hell so many people have disappeared.

This clearly shows that they didn't had a very strong position at court. If Otto hadn't been Hand then the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

[Masha]

And the thing was Viserys refused to consider Alicent's children as his heirs above Rhaenara. He refused to make Aegon II his heir even as he grew to maturity and was adult who didn't need a regent anymore, he refused to even marry Rhaenara and Aegon so that Aegon would be a king-consort to Rhaenara's queen. 

So the moment Alicent and Otto launched their compaign they knew that they going express wishes of the King, against succession rules (made by the king) and approved and sworn for by ALL lords of Westeros including them. They were rebelling and usurping the throne and they knew it.

[Lion of the West]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that is the most obvious sign that Otto and Alicent did not, in fact, think their case was strong enough to win the day at another Great Council. The Realm knew that Rhaenyra was Viserys I's chosen and anointed heir. To offer the crown to Aegon they would have to go against the explicit will of their very popular peace-and-plenty king. And obviously they did not think that would work. Else they would have taken that road.

Alicent later urges Rhaenyra to call a Great Council once her cause seems lost. But at this time Aegon II had already been crowned and anointed. If the men of the Realm had to chose between a king and a queen they would, most likely, have chosen the king.

And we also see that their case is pretty weak at court despite the fact that Rhaenyra and Daemon are on Dragonstone. They do not only murder Lord Beesbury but also imprison many people at court, so many in fact that even the High Septon begins to inquire why the hell so many people have disappeared.

This clearly shows that they didn't had a very strong position at court. If Otto hadn't been Hand then the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

I think you contradict yourself here on the great council, Lord Varys. If a great council before Aegon was crowned would have ruled in Rhaenyra's favor why would a great council rule in his favor after he was crowned? The way I see it, a crown on Aegon's head means nothing since lots of lords were apparently ready to raise arms to remove said crown. The reason for the Greens to not invoke the great council was that they knew, or mayhaps thought, that that Daemon, Corlys or Rhaenyra would not wait for such a thing but pounce long before such a thing could be arrange, kill or imprison the king and his family and then force the facts on the ground on the realm.

24 minutes ago, Masha said:

And the thing was Viserys refused to consider Alicent's children as his heirs above Rhaenara. He refused to make Aegon II his heir even as he grew to maturity and was adult who didn't need a regent anymore, he refused to even marry Rhaenara and Aegon so that Aegon would be a king-consort to Rhaenara's queen. 

So the moment Alicent and Otto launched their compaign they knew that they going express wishes of the King, against succession rules (made by the king) and approved and sworn for by ALL lords of Westeros including them. They were rebelling and usurping the throne and they knew it.

Problem is that for the first thing even a king can't do damn well what he likes. Viserys could not change the succession any more than Aerys could legally change the way a trial by combat works. Secondly not all lords had sworn the oath, many had, but many had not and Viserys didn't care to renew the oath despite the fact that many who swore it had died and that the context for the oath had changed with the birht of Aegon II.

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I think you contradict yourself here on the great council, Lord Varys. If a great council before Aegon was crowned would have ruled in Rhaenyra's favor why would a great council rule in his favor after he was crowned? The way I see it, a crown on Aegon's head means nothing since lots of lords were apparently ready to raise arms to remove said crown. The reason for the Greens to not invoke the great council was that they knew, or mayhaps thought, that that Daemon, Corlys or Rhaenyra would not wait for such a thing but pounce long before such a thing could be arrange, kill or imprison the king and his family and then force the facts on the ground on the realm.

No, I don't contradict myself. The person and status of a crowned monarch in Westeros is sacrosanct. You cannot touch him or depose him. And Aegon II would have been crowned and already have fought and won (some) battles at the point of this hypothetical Great Council. It would have been a popularity contest not a discussion of claims. And Rhaenyra had no reason to take chances then just as the Greens didn't feel the need to take chances when they crowned Aegon II.

The Greens had the time and opportunity to call a Great Council while they were staging their coup. Ser Otto was writing a lot of letters - those could all have been invitations to a Great Council at KL. Rhaenyra was in no position to quickly travel to KL thanks to her pregnancy, and thus no immediate threat.

The ones killing and imprisoning people were the Greens. They killed Lord Lyman and imprisoned countless other important people at court.

18 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Problem is that for the first thing even a king can't do damn well what he likes. Viserys could not change the succession any more than Aerys could legally change the way a trial by combat works.

You have no textual evidence for this assertion. We don't know what a king can and cannot do. Perhaps there are things he cannot do but if so we don't know what those things are. The Targaryen kings conquered Westeros, dethroned kings, extinguished noble and royal lines, abolished the First Night, limited the rights of man to chastise his wife, and, most importantly, they took took away most/all of the ancient rights the Faith had when they outlawed the Faith Militant and forbid the Faith to conduct anymore trials.

If the Targaryen kings could do all that I see no reason to think they could not also decide who the hell is supposed to sit on their Iron Throne after their deaths. It is their throne, you know.

18 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Secondly not all lords had sworn the oath, many had, but many had not and Viserys didn't care to renew the oath despite the fact that many who swore it had died and that the context for the oath had changed with the birht of Aegon II.

That doesn't matter. Otto had sworn the oath, so he was bound by it. The context also didn't seem to change. Apparently Princess Rhaenyra wasn't named Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne 'until such a time as a trueborn son is born to the king' but instead was named his heir in general under any possible circumstances. If this hadn't been the case then Aegon the Elder would simply have become his father's heir apparent on the day of his birth or shortly after that. But he didn't.

The thing is, there were people who thought Aegon the Elder should be Viserys' heir. But he wasn't. People wanted that the king name him his heir, but he never did. And thus he wasn't his heir.

[Masha]

56 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Problem is that for the first thing even a king can't do damn well what he likes. Viserys could not change the succession any more than Aerys could legally change the way a trial by combat works. Secondly not all lords had sworn the oath, many had, but many had not and Viserys didn't care to renew the oath despite the fact that many who swore it had died and that the context for the oath had changed with the birht of Aegon II.

The great council was not a precedent in the court of law at the time.  Jahaerys called it because he couldn't decide and they were supposed to help him do so. Did it mean that he or other kings following him were absolutely required to follow great council's advice should they decide not to, absolutely not. Each king reserved the right to name his chosen successor among his children,. 

If Viserys was required to follow Great Council's advice he wouldn't even be able to name Rhaenara his successor in the first place instead of Daemon, whatever he or Otto wanted. But he did, and all lords swore an oath to uphold it without any counterargument.  So if Viserys can name Rhaenara his successor and not be forced to name his brother, and that considered to be lawful and proper, in spite of council precedent, why should it change with the birth of his son?

[Lord Varys]

41 minutes ago, Masha said:

The great council was not a precedent in the court of law at the time.  Jahaerys called it because he couldn't decide and they were supposed to help him do so. Did it mean that he or other kings following him were absolutely required to follow great council's advice should they decide not to, absolutely not. Each king reserved the right to name his chosen successor among his children.

It is actually even worse than that. The Great Council of 101 AC had no legal right to make its ruling binding to the king. The lords favored Viserys over Laenor but it was Jaehaerys I who thereafter chose to follow the decision of the Great Council and actually named Viserys Prince of Dragonstone. He was not obliged, bound, or forced to do so.

Granted, one assumes that a king calling a Great Council intends to follow the advice his lords give him on the matter that's to be discussed. But one can assume that Jaehaerys I wouldn't have named Tymond Lannister his heir even if the Lord of Casterly Rock had bribed all the lords present to vote for him. Vice versa, Lord Rivers most likely wouldn't have given the throne to Daemon III Blackfyre had the lords decided for him after the execution of Aenys Blackfyre.

The fact that a king usually also has to name and confirm his heir is apparent in this whole 'Prince of Dragonstone' tradition. That is a title the king grants to his heir, it is something that can be withheld and does not come to the eldest son of the king automatically.

41 minutes ago, Masha said:

If Viserys was required to follow Great Council's advice he wouldn't even be able to name Rhaenara his successor in the first place instead of Daemon, whatever he or Otto wanted. But he did, and all lords swore an oath to uphold it without any counterargument.  So if Viserys can name Rhaenara his successor and not be forced to name his brother, and that considered to be lawful and proper, in spite of council precedent, why should it change with the birth of his son?

Exactly. The strict interpretation of the Great Council of 101 AC is that females and males through the female line cannot take the Iron Throne of Westeros. Thus Rhaenyra wouldn't have a claim at all, and Viserys I couldn't have possibly named her his heir.

[Lrd Commander Midnight]

I feel like Rhaenyra "wins."

When Aemond(one eye)takes the army out of Kings Landing and torwards Harenhal, Dameon being the more experienced commander sees an oppertunity and moves to Kings Landing. Now Ageon is happy to take over Harenhal but Prince Dameon and Queen Rhaenyra take over the Iron throne with their dragons. King Viserys was very clear about his successor. His daughter. She had the throne, she ru's.

[Lrd Commander Midnight]

On July 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

It is actually even worse than that. The Great Council of 101 AC had no legal right to make its ruling binding to the king. The lords favored Viserys over Laenor but it was Jaehaerys I who thereafter chose to follow the decision of the Great Council and actually named Viserys Prince of Dragonstone. He was not obliged, bound, or forced to do so.

Granted, one assumes that a king calling a Great Council intends to follow the advice his lords give him on the matter that's to be discussed. But one can assume that Jaehaerys I wouldn't have named Tymond Lannister his heir even if the Lord of Casterly Rock had bribed all the lords present to vote for him. Vice versa, Lord Rivers most likely wouldn't have given the throne to Daemon III Blackfyre had the lords decided for him after the execution of Aenys Blackfyre.

The fact that a king usually also has to name and confirm his heir is apparent in this whole 'Prince of Dragonstone' tradition. That is a title the king grants to his heir, it is something that can be withheld and does not come to the eldest son of the king automatically.

Exactly. The strict interpretation of the Great Council of 101 AC is that females and males through the female line cannot take the Iron Throne of Westeros. Thus Rhaenyra wouldn't have a claim at all, and Viserys I couldn't have possibly named her his heir.

Kings can do as they like. They make the rules and they decide the what's true and false

[hitman47]

Why Aegon didnt married his sister ? There will be no war and still he would be king and she a queen

[purple-eyes]

Because GRRM wanted to save the "first targ queen" for Dany. 

That is why rhaenyra was strangely not recognized by her sons. 

If this is true history, then rhaenyra would be recognized as queen for sure. 

[Lion of the West]

2 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Because GRRM wanted to save the "first targ queen" for Dany. 

That is why rhaenyra was strangely not recognized by her sons. 

If this is true history, then rhaenyra would be recognized as queen for sure. 

Lots of things wouldn't happen if it was real history. Like The Stormlanders sitting out the war when their lord is known to be belligerant or that the Stormlanders would be defeated by a force which, if I recall, was a tenth of their strength. And so on.

But then again peiople can be pretty funny and make what seems to us to be strange choices and decisions, which looks perfectly reasonble and logical to them at that time.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-07-17 at 0:51 AM, Lrd Commander Midnight said:

Kings can do as they like. They make the rules and they decide the what's true and false

Not really. That's what tyrants believe but it isn't how it works.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Lots of things wouldn't happen if it was real history. Like The Stormlanders sitting out the war when their lord is known to be belligerant or that the Stormlanders would be defeated by a force which, if I recall, was a tenth of their strength. And so on.

Having the advantage in numbers doesn't mean you will win a battle. Real world military history proves that over and over again.

We actually don't know for sure that all the Stormlords stayed out of the war until Borros chose to bestir himself. But considering what he allowed Prince Aemond to do it was rather wise of him to stay out of the war as long as he could. He was rather close to Dragonstone and Rhaenyra could have paid Storm's End a visit not just with one big dragon but rather a number of them. Especially after the riderless dragons had been claimed.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not really. That's what tyrants believe but it isn't how it works.

Can you define the limits of the powers and rights of a king in Westeros? And also define what a tyrant is in Westeros? The only time the word is mentioned according to my memory is in 'The Sons of the Dragon' when the High Septon declares Aenys I a pretender and a tyrant.

Nobody calls Maegor the Cruel, Aegon the Unworthy or Aerys the Mad a tyrant, though. Nor was Viserys I ever considered a bad king or a tyrant during his lifetime.

Naming your own heir also isn't considered something that is above or beyond the king's powers or rights. This is implicitly proven by the fact that people considered it likely and perfectly legal that Aegon IV and Aerys II might disinherit their their eldest son and choose another heir among their descendants.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-08-02 at 0:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Having the advantage in numbers doesn't mean you will win a battle. Real world military history proves that over and over again.

We actually don't know for sure that all the Stormlords stayed out of the war until Borros chose to bestir himself. But considering what he allowed Prince Aemond to do it was rather wise of him to stay out of the war as long as he could. He was rather close to Dragonstone and Rhaenyra could have paid Storm's End a visit not just with one big dragon but rather a number of them. Especially after the riderless dragons had been claimed.

Can you define the limits of the powers and rights of a king in Westeros? And also define what a tyrant is in Westeros? The only time the word is mentioned according to my memory is in 'The Sons of the Dragon' when the High Septon declares Aenys I a pretender and a tyrant.

Nobody calls Maegor the Cruel, Aegon the Unworthy or Aerys the Mad a tyrant, though. Nor was Viserys I ever considered a bad king or a tyrant during his lifetime.

Naming your own heir also isn't considered something that is above or beyond the king's powers or rights. This is implicitly proven by the fact that people considered it likely and perfectly legal that Aegon IV and Aerys II might disinherit their their eldest son and choose another heir among their descendants.

Having and advantage in numbers does not always decide wars, I agree, but then the smaller force often have some form of advantage over the enemy to offset numbers like superior technology, more developed tactics, luck or something else. I have not seen any indication that the Riverlands fought with any revolutionary tactics or used more advanced technology than their enemies. Its close to never that a minor force defeats a larger force just ouf of the blue, to my knowledge of it.

Its true we don't know for certain, but we never hear of Borros being delayed by internal issues or that there are battles between Blacks and Greens of note in the Stormlands. So I'll wager that most of the Stormlands followed Borros.

The threat of dragons should of course not be forgotten but to me it seems like a better strategy to move out and take the war away from the Stormlands than to bunker down and wait for dragon attacks. But maybe Borros thought differently?

I can't provide an exact definition now but I do expect one to be able after GRRMarillion has come out and I've read it, since that should give us even more information about the various kings and rulers and how ruling in Westeros is done. But one thing I would say is the denial of a lord for a trial and the rights of Trial by Combat is one limit on the authority of a king, and other lord dealing when with a noble.

If you recall, which I will assume that you don't, that I have previously stated that I can agree with that in the absense of sons, a ruler can name an heir. But while there are sons, those sons will inherit in order of seniority.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

Having and advantage in numbers does not always decide wars, I agree, but then the smaller force often have some form of advantage over the enemy to offset numbers like superior technology, more developed tactics, luck or something else. I have not seen any indication that the Riverlands fought with any revolutionary tactics or used more advanced technology than their enemies. Its close to never that a minor force defeats a larger force just ouf of the blue, to my knowledge of it.

Well, Borros underestimated the abilities of the Lads, and apparently also didn't choose the battlefield on the Kingsroad. If the Riverlords had the high ground and the better overall position it is pretty clear how and why he lost. The man most likely was stupid enough to lead from the front. Borros might have been able to use his superior numbers to his advantage had he properly assessed the situation and worn the enemy down. Then it might have been a victory for him, although perhaps as costly a victory as the Fishfeed.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

Its true we don't know for certain, but we never hear of Borros being delayed by internal issues or that there are battles between Blacks and Greens of note in the Stormlands. So I'll wager that most of the Stormlands followed Borros.

It seems as if Borros had the bulk of the strength of the Stormlords under his command, but that doesn't mean that some Stormlords close to the Crownlands played a role in the fighting earlier in time. Some might even have declared for Rhaenyra after she had taken the capital, without actually doing anything besides that.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

The threat of dragons should of course not be forgotten but to me it seems like a better strategy to move out and take the war away from the Stormlands than to bunker down and wait for dragon attacks. But maybe Borros thought differently?

Well, my impression is that he wisely stayed out of the fighting speculating that Rhaenyra and Daemon would then focus exclusively on their true enemies at KL rather than on him. If he had sent Stormlanders to Aegon II at KL Rhaenyra might have decided to punish him for all that and prove a point by destroying Storm's End with dragonfire.

We can reasonably assume that Borros would have bestirred himself much earlier had the whole Lucerys incident never happened. Aemond might even have stayed until Borros had assembled his men to march to KL.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

I can't provide an exact definition now but I do expect one to be able after GRRMarillion has come out and I've read it, since that should give us even more information about the various kings and rulers and how ruling in Westeros is done. But one thing I would say is the denial of a lord for a trial and the rights of Trial by Combat is one limit on the authority of a king, and other lord dealing when with a noble.

Even that can be questioned. Remember how Lysa Arryn forbids Tyrion to call and wait for Jaime with the trial-by-combat in the Vale? That strongly suggests that even such 'fundamental rights' of a nobleman are open to ad hoc (re-)interpretation by the lord/king in charge.

Joff was even able to force people fight to the death over some trifle issues. Nobody seems to consider this tyranny, either, although one should seriously ask what the hell the legal basis for that was. You go to the king to settle a dispute. You don't go there to hear that you have to risk your own life and kill the other guy over an issue that is not necessarily worth it.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

If you recall, which I will assume that you don't, that I have previously stated that I can agree with that in the absense of sons, a ruler can name an heir. But while there are sons, those sons will inherit in order of seniority.

But all the eldest sons who are heirs of their fathers are also named and recognized as such by their lordly or royal fathers. It is not that a king or lord can name an heir, he always does name an heir. Robb is Ned's heir by right of primogeniture as well as by his father's choice (he raises him as his heir and makes it clear that he wants him to succeed him).

And it is implicitly acknowledged that both Aegon IV and Aerys II could have disinherited their eldest sons and named other heirs in their stead. Yandel would not mention stuff like that if kings weren't allowed to name their heirs or disinherit their children.

[SeanF]

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 8:58 PM, LionoftheWest said:

I think you contradict yourself here on the great council, Lord Varys. If a great council before Aegon was crowned would have ruled in Rhaenyra's favor why would a great council rule in his favor after he was crowned? The way I see it, a crown on Aegon's head means nothing since lots of lords were apparently ready to raise arms to remove said crown. The reason for the Greens to not invoke the great council was that they knew, or mayhaps thought, that that Daemon, Corlys or Rhaenyra would not wait for such a thing but pounce long before such a thing could be arrange, kill or imprison the king and his family and then force the facts on the ground on the realm.

Problem is that for the first thing even a king can't do damn well what he likes. Viserys could not change the succession any more than Aerys could legally change the way a trial by combat works. Secondly not all lords had sworn the oath, many had, but many had not and Viserys didn't care to renew the oath despite the fact that many who swore it had died and that the context for the oath had changed with the birht of Aegon II.

If you immediately resort to violence, without even attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution to a dispute, then, IMHO, you put yourself in the wrong.  The Greens put themselves in the wrong.

On the substance of the dispute, Rhaenyra had been Princess of Dragonstone for years.  Making her Princess of Dragonstone wasn't some last-minute eccentricity on the part of Viserys.  She was entitled to inherit.