Robert's unlawful claim to the throne

[brightflame princess]

Hey there, this is my first post on this site, and I wanted to bring up something that I noticed. It doesn't really make much of a difference, but I wanted to acknowledge it anyways. Some of the info comes from a world of ice and fire, so I will add spoiler tags, but it's much more relevant to the asoiaf series, so I'm placing it under general asoiaf threads.

Spoiler

After rereading about king jaehaerys I and the great council of 101 in awoiaf, I have come to this realization: any Baratheon claim to the throne should be deemed unlawful, as their targaryen relative was a woman, princess rhaelle. Since the great council of 101 declared no woman may rule, nor may her children, it's interesting that the grandson of a targ princess was accepted. I know that it's not the first time (aegon III) and I know the people just wanted a sane king, but it is interesting that no one had an issue with this. 

However, if you really want to get technical, then all targ kings post aegon II are descended from a princess (rhaenyra) therefore none of them should have a rightful claim.. I guess the law should be more like "no woman may rule, nor her children, unless no other claimants are deemed suitable." Makes the whole dance of the dragons seem kinda pointless right?

Sorry if this thought isn't original. I looked and looked and I couldn't find anything about this.

Edit:

Spoiler

Asoiaf forums member Shireen Purratheon has enlightened me with this knowledge: Rhaenyra was married to Prince Daemon (rogue Prince) who became the rightful heir to the throne once viserys I male heirs died, and since the rogue Prince died (supposedly) during the dance, his son's are the next in line. Aegon III is the son of rhaenyra and daemon, therefore, no laws of succession were broken when he was crowned. Robert still technically broke the laws though. You can argue about his right by conquest, but the laws were put in place, and he broke them. I don't think it's ever going to matter, just wanted to put it out there.

 

[Sourjapes]

Well the only other option was a small child (Viserys was 8 or so I think) child rulers need a regent and that can lead to an unstable realm. Considering the realm had just emerged from a bloody war it seems most lords wanted peace. So Robert was the only real choice.

[MostlyMoody]

He took the throne by conquest. There were no legal teams of lawyers back then and the Targ supporters have lost the war.

[Puppy Stark]

Law doesn't make much difference when you have the support of the army who have just beaten the other guys out of the throne. The Targ descent was barely an excuse by then.

[PirateVergo]

Unlawful? The Targaryens were foreign invaders who conquered Westeros through fire and blood. 

Robert Baratheon took his goddamn hammer, murdered the crown prince and smashed the Targaryen reign as the last survivors were forced into exile.

He's as much of a legit ruler as Aegon the Conqueror was.

[Shireen Purratheon]

Ditto what Sourjapes said, Viserys was the only person with a male line claim to House Targaryen left. A lot of people talk about how Robert ascended via conquest, but it is definitely mentioned in the text that his claim was justified through Rhaelle, and that detail cannot be thrown out. This, in my opinion overturns the precedent you cited in your post. This could allow House Martell to hypothetically press a claim through the line of Daenerys Targaryen's marriage to Maron Martell.

I started a topic yesterday about the whole area of Targaryen succession. You might find it interesting.

If we allow claim to pass through the female line now, that means Shireen could be allowed to sit the Iron Throne.

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

Everyone knows why Robert is King. It has nothing or very little to do with his Targ blood. He won his throne by right of conquest.

[Puppy Stark]

I think it's been said more than once through the books that, though they used the Targaryen descent as an excuse, the thing was just that Robert wass too powerful not to be accepted as the new ruler. He had just won the war, aferall, and with the support of most of the major houses by then. That's the reason why even Renly decides to claim the throne once he's dead.

[Nami]

He won by conquest, his Targ relation was only used to calm down the nobles claiming he was usurping the throne. 

[Ruhail]

40 minutes ago, PirateVergo said:

Unlawful? The Targaryens were foreign invaders who conquered Westeros through fire and blood. 

Robert Baratheon took his goddamn hammer, murdered the crown prince and smashed the Targaryen reign as the last survivors were forced into exile.

He's as much of a legit ruler as Aegon the Conqueror was.

This. Plus Aerys bought most of it on himself.

[brightflame princess]

28 minutes ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Everyone knows why Robert is King. It has nothing or very little to do with his Targ blood. He won his throne by right of conquest.

52 minutes ago, Sourjapes said:

Well the only other option was a small child (Viserys was 8 or so I think) child rulers need a regent and that can lead to an unstable realm. Considering the realm had just emerged from a bloody war it seems most lords wanted peace. So Robert was the only real choice.

Right. The law is pretty much pointless in certain situations, like if you have a huge army backing you, or if a woman or her son were the only options. That's kind of what I was getting at. Especially if dany finally makes it to westeros, I'm sure it won't matter much when she unleashes her dragons. 

[GallowsKnight]

As everyone has said Robert's crowning was a matter of things both de facto and de jure. 

De facto was that Aerys and Rhaegar were dead. Viserys and Daenarys fleeing children. He held the capital, had the strongest forces in his coaition of Stark, Lannister, Tully and Arryn. He held power even if it wasn't his by law, it was his by fact.

To legimitise this ever so slightly (or de jure reasons). They referenced his Targaryan blood via his grandmother. If you squinted and considered Daenarys and Visery attainted, he was the next in line to throne. Even if it can't pass through a female line.

Another question is was the rebellion unlawful? All law is meant to derive through the King. But the Targaryans weren't absolute monarchs. They ruled a feudal system. Where while the person above benefits more, there is still an exchange of responsibilities. Most oaths (we see with Catelyn and Brienne) involve promising to treat your vassals fairly.

One could argue the social contract between Stark, Arryn, Baratheon and Tully were broken by certain actions Aerys took. Stark by unfairly trying and executing Brandon and Rickard, while seeking Ned's head. Baratheon for wanting Robert dead without reason or trial. Arryn for asking their lord to break guest right and for unfairly killing his nephew Elbert Arryn and his bannermen's family Kyle Royce. Tully for killing their prospective son-in-law and for killing his bannermen's family Geof Mallister.

Finally was Robert's reign unlawful? No the rebel houses, house Lannister and house Tyrell and Martell swore new oaths to a Baratheon regime. So they were now loyal to house Baratheon. Balon Greyjoy quite rightly pointed out he never swore loyalty to Robert, so while he was an enemy at war, he wasn't a traitor (which still shouldn't have stopped Robert from executing him if he was smart).

[DominusNovus]

Even if the throne doesn't pass through the female line by law, I think that Robert has a very strong chance of still being next in line to the throne, by blood.  I'm skimming over the dynastic history of the Targaryens, and, aside from the Blackfyres (if there are any left), there are no trueborn or legitimized nobles descended from Aegon I directly through the male line (aside from Viserys and Dany themselves, and the possible RLJ scenario).  That means you could conceivably go all the way back to the possible half-brother of Aegon I, Orys Baratheon.  From which there is an unbroken line straight to Robert.

If you wanted to.

[purple-eyes]

Robert's claim is as good as Aegon I.

Or even better, at least he had a bit of Targ blood.

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

Aegon III's claim came from his father, Prince Daemon (which says a bit about how Rhaenyra was viewed & really hurt the cause for another Queen to sit the IT, if Daemon singularly passed on the claim to their sons & descendants & not her too), who was Viserys I's heir (before he had his own surviving sons), as his next eldest brother; as per the precedent of Jaehaerys I in 48AC coming before his nieces, Princesses Aerea & Rhalla, although they were the rightful heirs by normal Andal inheritance (as compared to First Men-Andal royal dynasty; the precedent of Jaehaerys in 92AC choosing his second son to survive to adulthood, Prince Baelon, over Princess Rhaenys, the only child of his late eldest son, Prince Aemon, which the king partially chose to do to legally reduce the claims that his nieces & their descendants could possibly argue over his own line; & the precedent of the Great Council of 101 that Jaehaerys called following the death of Baelon during which the lords of the realm voted in favour of Baelon's eldest son, future Viserys I, as the Prince of Dragonstone & heir to the IT over Laenor, the only son & second child of Rhaenys & Lord Corlys Velaryon (who I think was the son of Jaehaerys' eldest sister, Princess (formerly Queen) Rhaena & the late Lord Daemon Velaryon's unnamed son; though besides the point, that further could've strengthened Laenor's claim in the female line).

The GC also further validated Jaehaerys' line over that of his nieces' as prior to the claims of Viserys & Laenor being disputed & voted on, nine lesser claimants were heard & dismissed, at least some presumably coming from the lines of Aerea, Rhalla &/or their mother, Rhaena. However, I think it's an unfortunately common misconception & falsehood that no female or female-line heirs can ever legitimately sit the IT:

Quote

In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants. (The World of Ice & Fire, Jaehaerys I)

Quote

According to Archmaester Gyldayn, in the eyes of many, the council of 101 AC established an iron precedent on matters of succession: that the Iron Throne could not pass to a woman, or to a male descendant of a woman. (Great Council wiki entry)

Quote

"He was a strongly opinionated and pedantic old fart, so remember that it's him speaking." (GRRM on Gyldayn, Sons of the Dragon reading)

So only "in the eyes of many", not all, a female or female-line descendant of the dynasty could not sit the IT. From a source who is biased at least to a degree ... That's not much of an iron precedent against such, imo. And there's just the simple case of what happens if there is no male male-line heir remaining to succeed? Do the remaining female &/or male female-line heirs have to fight a war of conquest against each other to claim the IT that way? Do they just sit back back & say "fuck it, was good while it lasted!" & the House's status as a royal dynasty ends? Does the realm end or is it a free-for-all of conquest between only male heads of other Houses, with no blood ties at all (however ancient) to the last royal House, to claim the IT?

No, given the precedents of males over females, the highest male female-line in the succession is the rightful heir & if there isn't one, then the highest female in the succession is then the rightful heir to sit the IT. Of course this may not necessarily be followed as one thing ASoIaF has taught us is that inheritance can be messy & GRRM himself has said:

Quote

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history ... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory. (The Hornwood Inheritance & the Whents, So Spake Martin "Correspondence With Fans", Nov 2, 1999)

But legally, that is how it should work, at the very least within/going by the Targaryen dynasty.

Now, on to Robert. As others have said, Robert took the IT by Conquest & his ancestry from grandmother, Princess Rhaelle, was more just a sweetener to further legitimise his ascent as the blood heir after Aerys & Rhaella's line. Besides things like having extra close heirs in Stannis & Renly over Jon Arryn, being a follower of the Seven over Ned, & a more "attractive" royal candidate as the most martial in the heavily militaristic Westerosi nobility; such ancestry also made him a "better" choice as the rebels' alternative king (which was finalised after the Battle of the Bells & presumably around the time of the Tully marriages).

Furthermore, Robert's Rebellion wasn't about rival claimants like the Dance & the same with vain opportunists (at least partially, I don't know how anybody could object to that) behind the Blackfyres, it was about overthrowing a tyrannical regime & dynasty:

• In overlooking his own present wife, Princess Elia Martell, at the tourney of Harrenhal in crowning Lyanna Stark, daughter of Lord Paramount of the North & Warden of the North Rickard, as the QoLaB; Rhaegar had effectively declared his romantic interest in her, though betrothed to Lord Paramount of the Stormlands Robert Baratheon, perhaps even intent to take her as a royal mistress. Hence Brandon's anger & Robert's eventual own (perhaps once he finally realised or was told of the connotations). It's bit of a no-no for a married man, even & especially the Prince of Dragonstone; particularly given the nobility of Elia & Lyanna (plus that of Robert & their betrothal, the next closest thing to them being married), from the families of some of his own future paramounts, & in-laws in the case of Elia's.
• Then Rhaegar goes & makes things even worse in "abducting" (mutual) Lyanna, completely following through with the QoLaB business & taking Lyanna for his "mistress" (likely married, especially for a prophecy baby - why I think part-wise why Prince Duncan married Jenny of Oldstones instead of just keeping her as his paramour, thinking trueborn union required). Again, that's just something you shouldn't do, even & especially as the Prince of Dragonstone, particularly pissing off three paramount Houses in the process. Yes, the Martells too, especially on top of the Harrenhal business (overlooking & shaming his wife), Rhaegar potentially dangerously impregnating Elia seemingly as soon as she finally wasn't bedridden for half a year, & the potential for Lyanna to have a royal bastard (caused a few problems in the past).
• Whilst Rhaegar was hiding away "raping" Lyanna, Aerys got his tyranny on too. Though all noble-born & from rather prominent Houses, especially Paramount heirs Brandon Stark & Ser Ronnel Arryn, imprisoning them for the nonce wasn't really so as they did call for Rhaegar's death (somewhat applicable, though should be have been by a trial & if he was found guilty, which they knew he was that, but that of course could be circumvented if an Arthur Dayne stood in for his prince in combat &/or on Aerys' whim) by their own hands (well Brandon anyway, but only squire Ethan Glover was obliged to be there with him, showing the inter-regional support that Brandon had from both the personal relationships Rickard had had him cultivate & against Rhaegar's actions). What was though was calling their fathers to KL answer the charges against their sons, arresting them & imprisoning them too (no valid reason for such, especially the Black Cells), murdering Rickard & Brandon through outrageous means of being burned alive & strangled respectively in an utter mockery of a holy trial by combat, having all but Ethan of Brandon's party & possibly all but Elbert's father (already long dead) murdered without a (fair) trial &/or in the same circumstances as the Starks, & finally ordering Jon Arryn to break guest right & send him the innocent heads of Ned & Robert (now both Lord Paramounts) which would perhaps also require to become a kinslayer (as their foster-father, which the two certain saw him as such, see Theon with "Bran & Rickon") & after Aerys had murdered one or two of his most prominent bannermen (either branch of House Royce & though decades before, his first wife had been a Royce) & his nephew & heir.
• Whilst Aerys was doing all this & the war begun to rage, Rhaegar continued to "rape" Lyanna & did sfa to try his father or the conflict. Whether he knew about Aerys' actions or not (likely did & even if he didn't, he did by the time that Ser Gerold Hightower found him/he returned to court), his absence can easily & rightly (due to him still committing his own crimes - no matter the, secret, mutuality with Lyanna, he's still with a daughter of a Paramount House whose betrothed to the head of another he shouldn't be, especially whilst this war that he helped start is going on) mean his approval of Aerys' crimes.
• And Aerys decided he was not quite done in stripping JonCon of his lands & titles & exiling him for doing almost everything he could legally (basically just what he didn't think of) & stopping short of emulating Westeros' worst war criminal for decades (if not centuries), Tywin Lannister. And yet weirdly Aerys wasn't demanding/negotiating for the Tyrells to bring their extra tens of thousands of war-changing troops directly to the loyalist cause - I suppose that singularly blinding suspicion of Rhaegar & uselessness of his sycophants really was that strong for him to do such to his son's friend (though in a way, JonCon was lucky he didn't burn) & allow the Tyrells to "waste" their resources on an outrageously over-manned siege. Speaking of blind suspicion of Rhaegar, Aerys then thought it was a good idea to tell the Martells & Dornish that he was keeping his good-daughter & her children with Rhaegar hostage for their "good behaviour", even though Robert was the true threat, not his son. No wonder Doran only sent 10k men with Lewyn instead say 25k, on top of Rhaegar's insults to Elia & their House. Then even after Rhaegar died, Aerys still held Elia & her children hostage & didn't allow them to flee to Dragonstone along with Queen Rhaella & Prince Viserys, planned to commit fiery genocide (as we know, only stopped by Jaime) & had Lord Chelsted thrown on the barbie when the Hand found out & tried to resign.

Though somewhat naive, Doran can't really be blamed (at least not heavily) for sending more troops when he couldn't really foresee Aerys outdoing even his own fucktardery, the Reach sending so few troops to the Trident (10k absolute tops I'd say, more like 5k - if it was more than the Martells it probably would've already been noted), the result of the Trident (Royalists with 5k more troops & especially Rhaegar off with the pixies so much in facing Robert in single combat) AND that Tywin would "join" the rebels whose commanders had thus far (besides arguably Hoster) had proving themselves the exact opposite of the king & crown prince, even outdoing his own personal record of being a war criminal & being completely ruled by his petty emotions & imagined slights.

Tbh, it's a surprise that so many people fought for the Targs outside of the Crownlands & Dorne (& even within), even if it was just rather nominally like the Reach under the Tyrells. Aerys & Rhaegar's crimes & actions showed that they thought it was fine to break numerous sacred Westerosi traditions & laws, utterly undermining the king-vassal feudalistic relationship in the process where any House, no matter how prestigious or not, was completely at the whim of royal tyranny. The mockery of the holy trial by combat likely attributed partially to Robert's support from the Faith at Stoney Sept too, another game-changer in the war.

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

5 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

Well the only other option was a small child (Viserys was 8 or so I think) child rulers need a regent and that can lead to an unstable realm. Considering the realm had just emerged from a bloody war it seems most lords wanted peace. So Robert was the only real choice.

Exactly. Besides the devastating after-effects of the Dance, raiding, effects of winter & the Winter Fever; Aegon III's regency was such a clusterfuck because of:

Spoiler

Unwin Peake's "ambition", scheming & murdering of Jaehaera (& I think possibly also Jeyne Arryn & Corwyn Cobray in revenge). Then the hassle caused by the Rogares & so much more against them & Prince Viserys, which I think some was also influenced/ordered by Peake.

Viserys III's would have even worse in Tywin Lannister & the rebels would also leave themselves open to possible retaliation by loyalists/opportunists, probably even before Viserys became king. Then there's still the Roberts, the Hosters & perhaps even the less vengeful/more pragmatic Jon Arryns pissed about the tyrannical Targs.

@Shireen Purratheon Agreed with all. On Shireen though, Stannis considered her his legitimate heir if/until he were to have a surviving son, perhaps suggests that the overall Baratheon dynasty may have (legally) practiced normal Andal inheritance had it come up. Certainly Cersei & the Lannisters would've pushed for Myrcella's claim over Stannis had Joffrey & Tommen died before 298 or had never been born. Stannis was only willing to make Renly his heir in front of Shireen if he bent the knee & pledged his support to his elder brother.

5 hours ago, Puppy Stark said:

That's the reason why even Renly decides to claim the throne once he's dead.

Renly did because he was an egotistical boy playing at war, stroking his dick, & who let himself be manipulated by the Tyrells. He knew about the twincest & yet did nothing about it - just intending to eventually push Marge in front of Robert once Stannis, Jon Arryn &/or Ned did his dirty work. He dismissed Cat's call for a Great Council because he knew it would reduce his chance of becoming the king & lied to her about knowing about the twincest because of such. He has a few redeeming characteristics sure, perhaps even to have been a half-decent king in a couple of areas (though not many), but still working within the feudal system, he was completely fucking it with his usurping. His "right by might" claim would've had the Seven Kingdoms riven by continual conflicts by others following his lead, both as royal & lordly claimants against their legal holders/heirs (any younger brother, cousin, uncle, or son too impatient for his father to die; could make their own such claim if they wanted) within a few generations & most like during his own reign. Stannis was willing to apply Targaryen succession, something never explicitly applied to the Baratheon dynasty (at least not Stannis'), instead of normal Andal inheritance in choosing him as his heir over Shireen (til a son was born to him, which we all know wasn't going to happen & nor would Stannis remarry whilst Selyse would likely stay alive & even if he did, it's likely that Renly could've had his own daughter to eventually marry to that son) if he bend the knee & lent his support to his elder brother.

@GallowsKnight This! As to your questions: absolutely not & (in terms of Robert as the rightful king) absolutely not - Aerys & Rhaegar's tyranny & crimes against their Lord Paramounts, vassals, the Faith, the smallfolk, & ancient traditions & laws; attainted & delegitimised themselves & their lines (unfortunately for them, plus Rhaella). Robert should have sentenced Balon AND his brothers to death, except Aeron only as a ship captain (under Vic?) & not a co-contributor on the level of his brothers (Vic as captain of the Iron Fleet & leading the burning of the Lannister fleet & Euron conspiring the idea for such & hindsight just because) instead to at least a lengthy confinement, allowing them to take the black if they asked to.

@DominusNovus Not only that, but some would argue that Robert should have been the Targ heir prior to the war before Rhaella & Rhaenys, if the male Targs died.

[purple-eyes]

actually i think tywin killed rhaenys for a reason: if rhaenys survived, probably robert will marry her to strengthen his claim. 

 

[GallowsKnight]

43 minutes ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

This! As to your questions: absolutely not & (in terms of Robert as the rightful king) absolutely not - Aerys & Rhaegar's tyranny & crimes against their Lord Paramounts, vassals, the Faith, the smallfolk, & ancient traditions & laws; attainted & delegitimised themselves & their lines (unfortunately for them, plus Rhaella).

Robert should have sentenced Balon AND his brothers to death, except Aeron only as a ship captain (under Vic?) & not a co-contributor on the level of his brothers (Vic as captain of the Iron Fleet & leading the burning of the Lannister fleet & Euron conspiring the idea for such & hindsight just because) instead to at least a lengthy confinement, allowing them to take the black if they asked t

Those were mostly rhetorical. But thanks for answering. I agree. 

I'd have hung all four brothers. Make whichever house bent the knee fastest and could hold the islands feasibly Lord-Paramount. Burnt whatever iron fleet remained. Then sent Asha and Theon to Winterfell. Where Theon would get a minor keep and Asha a minor Northern master as husband. 

So that the Greyjoys become petty northern vassals and never rise again.

Edit: I think offering Euron, Victarion and Aeron the Black (and making sure they get sent to different Castles) is a good idea. But hindsight tells me Euron would escape

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

32 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

actually i think tywin killed rhaenys for a reason: if rhaenys survived, probably robert will marry her to strengthen his claim.

He had her killed because he was ultimately ruled by his emotions & slights against him, real & imagined, which was a heavy influence on him being Westeros' worst war criminal in decades, if not, centuries (since Maegor?). He was pissed that Aerys looked over his precious (only so far as she was a marriage pawn anyway) Cersei for Rhaegar & that the unnamed ruling Princess of Dorne (Doran's mother) got her Elia for him instead, when Tywin had refused Elia or Oberyn for Jaime or Cersei years earlier. So, in Tywin's mind, Elia & her children with Rhaegar had to pay the price for that "slight" from the Dornish princess (who was already dead a couple of years at the time of the Sack). Aegon should've been sent to the Wall (or at the very least killed gently), Rhaenys to the Faith (to a septa motherhouse or the Silent Sisters, either would probably do) & Elia kept in comfortable confinement for a few years as a hostage against the Martells & to make sure she wasn't pregnant again from Rhaegar & could then be returned in good faith to the Dornish for their good behaviour.

I highly doubt that Robert would've married Rhaenys, Rhaegar's daughter. Besides, she was three & he would have to wait at least a decade before she could have children. Yes, he had nominal royal heirs in Stannis & Renly, but his rule would be far more secure & legitimate with his own kids ASAP; hence Tywin putting forward Cersei with Lyanna's death.

40 minutes ago, GallowsKnight said:

Those were mostly rhetorical. But thanks for answering. I agree. 

I'd have hung all four brothers. Make whichever house bent the knee fastest and could hold the islands feasibly Lord-Paramount. Burnt whatever iron fleet remained. Then sent Asha and Theon to Winterfell. Where Theon would get a minor keep and Asha a minor Northern master as husband. 

So that the Greyjoys become petty northern vassals and never rise again.

Edit: I think offering Euron, Victarion and Aeron the Black (and making sure they get sent to different Castles) is a good idea. But hindsight tells me Euron would escape

No worries, your response to the OP was far more succinct than mine, whilst basically saying the same thing! Yeah certainly fair enough, you don't think betroth Asha to Ser Harras Harlaw, install Rodrik the Reader as Regent &/or install Theon sometime after he came of age, perhaps with a mainland wife? And yes, I think that all three may have tried to escape, but certainly that Euron would've been the risk (I get the feeling he just fucked off somewhere after Lannisport & returned sometime after the war's end).

[GallowsKnight]

1 minute ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

No worries, your response to the OP was far more succinct than mine, whilst basically saying the same thing! Yeah certainly fair enough, you don't think betroth Asha to Ser Harras Harlaw, install Rodrik the Reader as Regent &/or install Theon sometime after he came of age, perhaps with a mainland wife? And yes, I think that all three may have tried to escape, but certainly that Euron would've been the risk (I get the feeling he just fucked off somewhere after Lannisport & returned sometime after the war's end).

I guess removed of the toxic influence of her father  Asha would be okay to marry Harlaw. She's not old enough at the time of the Rebellion but you could send her to the Harlaws if they do a good job. I think you need to remove the Greyjoys as punishment, but make Theon who is innocent a living reminder of both their fall and your mercy.

I think if you sent Aeron to the Shadow Tower, Euron to Castle Black (under most supervision away from both oceans) and Victarion to Eastwatch by the Sea (He may be dumb as an ox but he knows boats) it might be okay. But yeah Euron fucking off somewhere and coming back to try and claim the Iron Islands is a definite threat.