How could Corlys Velaryon dispute Viserys' right to rule?

[Jaak]

On 15.7.2016 at 11:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is a lot of speculation with no textual evidence. The only explanation for the Otto-Daemon enmity we are given is the Alicent-Daemon affair. More importantly, it is odd that Daemon and Otto should become enemies at all because they (and Viserys) actually were allies in 101 AC at the Great Council when most of the lords favored Prince Viserys. Daemon is a somewhat reckless and cruel guy and he and Otto may have had very different personalities but they were still in the same camp, backing Viserys over Laenor. It is quite strange that this should change shorty after Viserys I took the throne.

You should also reread the accounts on Otto's personality and his (non-existing) popularity among his peers. The man became overly proud as Hand and made himself a lot of enemies.

Look at the timing.

Daemon was 16 when packed off to his Bronze Bitch in the Vale. He was briefly back at Great Council, age 20 - then to Small Council, age 22.

In a few years after getting his first job at Small Council, he botched two jobs and is performance on his third was dubious. While Otto was his boss and had to clean up his messes.

A few weeks at Great Council may not have been enough to reveal Daemon´s issues if Daemon and Otto had a common interest to pursue - but a few years of trying to get jobs done together might have given enough occasion for quarrels and insults to leave a lasting bitterness.

It is possible that Otto´s personality was problematic, too. But Otto managed to hold down one job (Hand) for 8 years while Daemon lost three in as many years. And when Daemon had his own job without Otto interfering - King of Narrow Seas - he botched that, too.

[Valens]

4 hours ago, YOVMO said:

Omg ! I suck!!!!!! So sorry

Thats alright. Just need to do your homework a bit better.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Jaak said:

Look at the timing.

Daemon was 16 when packed off to his Bronze Bitch in the Vale. He was briefly back at Great Council, age 20 - then to Small Council, age 22.

Daemon didn't return for the Great Council to KL, though. That one was at Harrenhal, and we have no idea where he was raising his sellswords. Could have been in the Vale.

9 hours ago, Jaak said:

In a few years after getting his first job at Small Council, he botched two jobs and is performance on his third was dubious. While Otto was his boss and had to clean up his messes.

King Viserys I, his brother, was his boss. We have no reason to assume the Hand directly interfered with Daemon's duties and tasks on the Small Council, nor do we have any reason that he actually cleaned up any messes.

9 hours ago, Jaak said:

A few weeks at Great Council may not have been enough to reveal Daemon´s issues if Daemon and Otto had a common interest to pursue - but a few years of trying to get jobs done together might have given enough occasion for quarrels and insults to leave a lasting bitterness.

Well, Otto might quickly have decided that Daemon wasn't a great administrator and stuff but that is one thing - actually trying to get him fired and then scheming to withhold the Crown from him by convincing Viserys I to name Rhaenyra is quite a another thing. One should assume that Otto actually had a very good reason to do so not just a small clashes. I mean, he was truly interfering with the internal affairs of the royal family there.

9 hours ago, Jaak said:

It is possible that Otto´s personality was problematic, too. But Otto managed to hold down one job (Hand) for 8 years while Daemon lost three in as many years. And when Daemon had his own job without Otto interfering - King of Narrow Seas - he botched that, too.

I do not doubt that Otto Hightower was a capable man in his way, but that is not really the issue. Daemon was much younger than he was and an impatient hothead at this age. It is not surprising that he wasn't a good Master of Coin or Master of Law. Whether Daemon sucked as King of the Narrow Sea or whether he eventually just lost interest in that kingdom or lacked the resources to establish a strong rule there is completely unclear.

But then, the man was still both restless and more fickle than in later years at this point in time. During the Dance he is at first very cold and calculating, something that he clearly isn't in his earlier years.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-07-23 at 0:51 AM, Lord Varys said:

Well, if we don't believe any rumors then Visenya didn't kill Aenys I, Aegon the Unworthy didn't poison his own father, Laenor Velaryon was the father of Addam and Alyn of Hall as well as his legal sons, and Rhaenyra Targaryen never had an affair with either Criston Cole, Daemon Targaryen (in her youth), or Harwin Strong.

Because, you know, all of that are just rumors, too. There is no proof one way or another.

And you have no good reason aside from 'Hey, I want to believe this' to come to Alicent's defense. That isn't enough.

Not sure what you are getting at there. Daemon and Otto may have never liked each other very much but they had no reason to become enemies as early as 103-105 AC when Prince Daemon was still seen as the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne. Unless, of course, something happened that Otto Hightower couldn't forgive. Like Daemon fucking and discarding his beloved daughter.

Otto only grew haughty and arrogant later on during his first stint as Hand. In 103-105 AC he had just been serving in the office for a few years.

You have to reread TRP or at least recheck the time line. Daemon and Otto became enemies as early as 103-104 AC when Daemon was serving on the Small Council. He also didn't marry quickly into House Velaryon. That happened about a decade later and was only made possible by the sudden death of Daemon's wife, Rhea Royce. It had nothing to do with the topic at hand, not to mention that Corlys and Daemon had become allies during that whole Stepstones business.

Daemon also had no need for Otto Hightower as an ally back in 103-105 AC. He was the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne of Westeros. Why would he have to be on good terms with his brother's Hand? He already had everything he wanted, anyway. Should Viserys I die without a son then King Daemon I Targaryen would inevitably rise to the Iron Throne.

If you want to call Aegon III a king who was happy on his throne and with his life then continue. Nothing Daemon did had any positive effects for his children, and neither did the folly Alicent and Otto did. It cost all of them their lives and resulted in the weakening of the royal dynasty as well as House Hightower.

And every king names an heir. The Conqueror named an heir, Aenys I named an heir, Maegor named an heir, Jaehaerys I named three heirs, Viserys I named an heir, Rhaenyra named an heir, Aegon II named an heir, Aegon III named an heir, Aegon IV named an heir, Daeron II named two heirs, Aerys I named three heirs, Aegon V named two heirs, Jaehaerys II named an heir, Aerys II named two heirs.

If you want to talk about a fantasy series in which kings don't name heirs then you have to pick another fantasy series.

Well, but Otto Hightower had no legal basis to incarcerate all those people he did incarcerate, right? Just being friends or allegedly friends with the Princess of Dragonstone isn't a crime in this society.

And there is no hint that anybody (especially not Aegon II who had been forced to make those 'terms') in the Green camp truly wanted peace. What about the letters Otto sent to the Triarchy (inviting a foreign power to attack the Seven Kingdoms which is treason) and to Dalton Greyjoy and others? Do you think they prepared for war because they wanted to make peace? That doesn't seem to be likely.

Vice versa, we don't know whether Rhaenyra made offers of her own that were then rejected by Aegon II. After all, you do remember that TPatQ was heavily abridged, right?

If you wait until you can rebel with impunity (or believe you can) you are a hypocrite in my book. Especially if you think a king is not allowed to change the succession at all - as you think people believed (without any basis in the text).

And you base this on what? Your own personal opinion isn't enough. That is about as important in the matter as my declaration that Lyanna Stark had the best hairstyle ever during the tourney at Harrenhal. Prove me wrong on that one or challenge my inner image of Lyanna Stark's perfect hair. You can't. But I can't convince you either unless you are willing to just take my word for it.

That isn't really true. Just look at all those Reach lords who rose to defend Rhaenyra's claim without ever being directly approached by her. Or those Riverlords who rallied to Prince Daemon as soon as he had taken Harrenhal.

The thing about the Dance is that only very few people followed their liege lords in all this. It was much more often a personal issue.

True, the great lords needed some offers but I daresay that Borros Baratheon was in a rather precarious position. Aemond Targaryen arrived there first, and he was the rider of Vhagar. You cannot possibly not receive the rider of Vhagar or dismiss his offer, especially if he asks for the hand of one of your daughters. I think Borros' maester tricked the illiterate fool into believing that Rhaenyra's letter was written in a manner it clearly wasn't (if it had been written this way then Cregan Stark would have received a similar letter and would have been equally displeased) causing him to threw Lucerys Velaryon out of his hall.

Another rumor you just dismiss out of hand. Viserys I died at a very opportune moment for Greens and at a very bad moment for the Blacks. And somehow the Greens were able to completely control the court and the flow of information thereafter. That doesn't indicate that he died a natural death.

As to why Otto and Alicent didn't have made any alliances before:

Perhaps because that would have been treason? It is easy to assume that the entire Small Council aside from Lyman Beesbury was in Otto's camp but that doesn't have to be the case. It is one thing to go against the Hand and the Queen Dowager when the king is dead and quite another to plot against the king and the Princess of Dragonstone when the king is still alive and well, no?

It is entirely possible that even people like Tyland Lannister, Ironrod Wylde, and Larys Strong weren't fully on board with Otto's coup until that fateful Small Council session. And if they weren't yet on board then the Lords of Westeros surely could have been, either. Talking to people who could then have talked to the king or Rhaenyra would have been very dangerous indeed at that point.

And especially the unwillingness of the Reach to support Aegon II demonstrates that the Greens didn't exactly first check the strength of their position down there. Quite the contrary, in fact.

I don't say that I don't believe any rumors, only that I don't believe in them until proven otherwise because that's what they are, rumors and not facts or things that are known. But then again I am not construction elaborate narratives based on rumors.

Also I am well aware of the timeline, but my points not about timeline but about priorities, motivations and goals for characters. And there its very clear that power is Daemon's great goal in life and most everything he does comes from the drive for this goal. That Daemon was, to be blunt, to stupid to think that a macho-hero like himself needed friends or allies is understandable to a degree and in that light it makes sense that Daemon would have been uninterested in an alliance with House Hightower.

And while I wouldn't put it above Daemon to use and discard women according to some fancy I doubt there's much truth to it, as Daemon would have been rubbing his "conquest" in everyone's face seven days a week.

I didn't say that Aegon III was happy but being at the top and holding the Iron Throne for the next one and half century or so is a pretty good deal, as opposed to being murdered. So yes, those poor, poor Targaryens kings who suffered so horrible in the top of society did get a shitload of goodies from Daemon's treachery. Although to be frank no one should be suprised that a man like Daemon ended up betraying Rhaenyra as well.

And I am pretty good talking about this series where one can name an heir, but where birth order and gender is the real deciding factor in who inherits what.

He was Hand of the King so if we get that king's can't do what they want, then I agree that he can't horribly murder them without or after sham trials but the question of imprisonment seems to be a bit open, although I lean towards the act of not being allowed. If we however think, like I believe that you have argued for time and again, that the king's and therefor Hand's power is unlimited then I would say that he can imprison whowever he wants.

The fact that terms were sent to Rhaenyra is proof enough for a desire for peace. If no one had wanted peace with Rhaenyra, then those terms would not have been sent, simple as that. Furthermore The Triarchy was not asked to attack the Seven Kingdoms, they were asked with attacking rebels to the Iron Throne, big difference. And preparing for war when war seems likely is using your intelligence at minimum. To quote George Washington

Quote

To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.

If Rhaenyra could see that overwhelming forces were arrayed against her than she would most likely have realized the futility of war and accepted the terms given by the king. If you think that another will go to war with you, you are perfectly reasonable to make preparations for said war, regardless if you want peace or not.

As for Rhaenyra making terms of her own its possible, but untill I can read that she did I will think that she didn't.

In terms of if a rebellion is wrong or right, hypocrisy and all that I will think we've got to agree to disagree. I don't think its hypocrisy but I know we'll not reach common ground on this.

As for independence of the lords I am afraid that you are greviously wrong here. There are exactly two regions where hear of divided loyalties; the Riverlands and the Reach. In the Riverlands there seems to have been only marginal support for the Greens after the shenanings to block off Grover Tully from making his will known to support the Greens,and then pro-Black Tullys took command, and in the Reach the Tyrells seems to basically have been marginalized in this period. So a history of lack of respect for the Great House and a lack of Great House leadership seems to have been at the core of this. In the North, West, Stormlands and Vale we hear of no such divisions but the Houses loyally follow their Lords Paramount to war. As such most people did follow their lieges with only the Reach being seriously divided.

I agree about Borros being in a bad situation and that its entirely possible that he was tricked by his maester, but then again if we look at Winterfell the situation is that if Cregan throws Lucerys out on his ass, Lucerys has a dragon and as such can bring all manner of pain to the North with no Green dragon there to face him.

To me it indicates that the Greens had put some thought into the possible confrontation with the Blacks, as anyone with a brain would have been able to see in the distance.

The point I was trying to make is that if Viserys died due to some elaborate scheme by the Greens, I find it unlikely that they would have a minute plan for taking control over the court and the capital, but not given a thought on who might confrontation with Rhaenyra. One could have thought that might have been sending out messanges almost at once to win over lords to their side, and not just starting to check which ones might support them.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I don't say that I don't believe any rumors, only that I don't believe in them until proven otherwise because that's what they are, rumors and not facts or things that are known. But then again I am not construction elaborate narratives based on rumors.

I don't build any elaborative narratives, either. I just don't see any good reason not to believe the rumors about Alicent and Daemon. I'm more skeptical about the rumors involving Alicent and the Old King but then - what right would Alicent Hightower have had to reject the advances of the king had he confused her with Alysanne in his senility? I can easily see her being forced to have sex with him because she was in no position to refuse him. We are talking about Jaehaerys I Targaryen here, not some person you can refuse easily.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Also I am well aware of the timeline, but my points not about timeline but about priorities, motivations and goals for characters. And there its very clear that power is Daemon's great goal in life and most everything he does comes from the drive for this goal. That Daemon was, to be blunt, to stupid to think that a macho-hero like himself needed friends or allies is understandable to a degree and in that light it makes sense that Daemon would have been uninterested in an alliance with House Hightower.

I'm not sure on what you base this macho-hero thing. There is no great list of Daemon's conquests being given nor do we have a good reason to believe he had many affairs. Mysaria is mentioned as his permanent mistress once he became Lord Commander of the City Watch, after all.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And while I wouldn't put it above Daemon to use and discard women according to some fancy I doubt there's much truth to it, as Daemon would have been rubbing his "conquest" in everyone's face seven days a week.

Indeed. But it seems to be the case that somebody or he himself made it clearly he had Alicent first. And we also have to keep in mind that Viserys seems to have had an affair with Alicent, too, before he married her. There is clearly a pattern to be seen there. Viserys was married to Aemma, had an affair with Alicent, Aemma died, and Alicent married Viserys. Daemon was married to Rhea Royce, Alicent had an affair with him, and hoped that Rhea would died of be set aside so that she could marry Daemon.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I didn't say that Aegon III was happy but being at the top and holding the Iron Throne for the next one and half century or so is a pretty good deal, as opposed to being murdered. So yes, those poor, poor Targaryens kings who suffered so horrible in the top of society did get a shitload of goodies from Daemon's treachery. Although to be frank no one should be suprised that a man like Daemon ended up betraying Rhaenyra as well.

I'm not sure what you know about depression as a sickness but it is very bad form to claim a person suffering from it was happy because he was sitting on throne. Not everybody wants to sit on a throne, and depressive people don't enjoy life regardless how much they should from your healthy point of view.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And I am pretty good talking about this series where one can name an heir, but where birth order and gender is the real deciding factor in who inherits what.

But it isn't. The testaments and wills and wishes or kings and lords are as important as the abstract birth order. King Robb disinherited his own sister, Sansa Lannister, and seems to have legitimized Jon Snow to name him his heir, King Stannis considered disinheriting his own daughter, Princess Shireen in favor of his younger brother Renly, Rohanne Webber's succession to Coldmoat was conditional and rightfully so, Tywin Lannister never acknowledged and named Tyrion Lannister his heir, the succession to Rosby is unclear after the death of Lord Gyles because the Iron Throne didn't recognize his ward as his heir, and so on. Even in Dorne Princess Arianne believes that her father, Prince Doran, can disinherit her in favor of her younger brother, Prince Quentyn.

It is pretty obvious that the wishes and will and decrees of kings and lords are usually followed in this society. If this wasn't the case then nobody would ever name any heirs and nothing would ever change.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

He was Hand of the King so if we get that king's can't do what they want, then I agree that he can't horribly murder them without or after sham trials but the question of imprisonment seems to be a bit open, although I lean towards the act of not being allowed. If we however think, like I believe that you have argued for time and again, that the king's and therefor Hand's power is unlimited then I would say that he can imprison whowever he wants.

You are not making sense here. Viserys I was Otto's king. And Viserys I had settled the succession. So Otto Hightower speaking with the King's Voice daring to discuss the succession again after his king's death is treason, plan and simple. As the king's servant you cannot act against the king's will if he already has made a decision on it. Or do you think Ned had the authority to cancel the Tourney of the Hand or the assassination of Daenerys Targaryen after his king had commanded it?

People knew Viserys I's view on the succession. Thus Otto and Alicent were betraying their king not those people pointing out that fact.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The fact that terms were sent to Rhaenyra is proof enough for a desire for peace. If no one had wanted peace with Rhaenyra, then those terms would not have been sent, simple as that. Furthermore The Triarchy was not asked to attack the Seven Kingdoms, they were asked with attacking rebels to the Iron Throne, big difference. And preparing for war when war seems likely is using your intelligence at minimum. To quote George Washington

Dragonstone and Driftmark are part of the Seven Kingdoms. Thus the Triarchy, a foreign power, attacked the Seven Kingdoms.

You are also aware of the fact that you can deceive your enemy in war, claiming you want peace while actually preparing for war, right? That was what both sides were doing this early in the war. Neither was prepared to give up and if Rhaenyra had send her sons to court they would have been killed, as would she and Daemon had they ever shown up there.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

If Rhaenyra could see that overwhelming forces were arrayed against her than she would most likely have realized the futility of war and accepted the terms given by the king. If you think that another will go to war with you, you are perfectly reasonable to make preparations for said war, regardless if you want peace or not.

That makes no sense, either. Stannis has overwhelming odds against him yet he presses on. And Rhaenyra had much more dragons than Aegon II. They could have conquered Westeros all over again the Conqueror's way.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

As for Rhaenyra making terms of her own its possible, but untill I can read that she did I will think that she didn't.

We know she later on gave terms, do we not?

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

As for independence of the lords I am afraid that you are greviously wrong here. There are exactly two regions where hear of divided loyalties; the Riverlands and the Reach.

That's the way it looks at first glance. But Gyldayn tells us that neighbors were fighting neighbors in the war. Unless that is just stupid talk we have to believe that no region was completely for one claimant or another. There might have been Greens in the North and Blacks in the West although in those regions (and the Vale) it is clear that the majority of the lords sticked to one side. 

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

In the Riverlands there seems to have been only marginal support for the Greens after the shenanings to block off Grover Tully from making his will known to support the Greens,and then pro-Black Tullys took command, and in the Reach the Tyrells seems to basically have been marginalized in this period. So a history of lack of respect for the Great House and a lack of Great House leadership seems to have been at the core of this. In the North, West, Stormlands and Vale we hear of no such divisions but the Houses loyally follow their Lords Paramount to war. As such most people did follow their lieges with only the Reach being seriously divided.

In the Riverlands the Tullys kept out of the war for most of the time like the Tyrells did. But the Riverlords themselves declared for Rhaenyra in their majority, defeated the few Greens there and were then later supported by the Tullys once Lord Elmo took over. Borros Baratheon brought some army to KL but we have no idea whether he had all the Stormlords with him or not. The same actually goes for Jason Lannister's host and Cregan Stark's host, too. Even for the armies Lady Jeyne Arryn sent.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree about Borros being in a bad situation and that its entirely possible that he was tricked by his maester, but then again if we look at Winterfell the situation is that if Cregan throws Lucerys out on his ass, Lucerys has a dragon and as such can bring all manner of pain to the North with no Green dragon there to face him.

You are talking about Jacaerys, of course, and I think you overestimate the size of his dragon Vermax. It wasn't as small as Drogon right now, presumably, but not that much larger, either, so I very much doubt that such a dragon would have been a great threat to the North. Especially considering that you do know that neither Jace nor Luke had been given permission by their royal mother to actually engage anyone in combat.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

To me it indicates that the Greens had put some thought into the possible confrontation with the Blacks, as anyone with a brain would have been able to see in the distance.

Or they were too afraid that their treason would be uncovered and thus remained silent. You do recall that Viserys I had once dismissed Ser Otto already for pushing him about the succession. If the king had learned that his father-in-law plotted against his daughter and heir he might not have just dismissed him. He might have executed him.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The point I was trying to make is that if Viserys died due to some elaborate scheme by the Greens, I find it unlikely that they would have a minute plan for taking control over the court and the capital, but not given a thought on who might confrontation with Rhaenyra. One could have thought that might have been sending out messanges almost at once to win over lords to their side, and not just starting to check which ones might support them.

They were killing and imprisoning their enemies at court as soon as Viserys died, and they also send their letters to known and likely allies. That they also meant then and there lists of people who were likely to support or oppose them is no surprise. The Realm is pretty big, after all.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-07-25 at 2:47 PM, Lord Varys said:

I don't build any elaborative narratives, either. I just don't see any good reason not to believe the rumors about Alicent and Daemon. I'm more skeptical about the rumors involving Alicent and the Old King but then - what right would Alicent Hightower have had to reject the advances of the king had he confused her with Alysanne in his senility? I can easily see her being forced to have sex with him because she was in no position to refuse him. We are talking about Jaehaerys I Targaryen here, not some person you can refuse easily.

Yes, you do. You build them all the time and now at the latest you build one of Alicent sleeping with three Targaryens, including a dying old king, to claim power and only brave Daemon saw her for the "fuck doll" she apparently was and throw her out after he was done with her. But then the vile woman didn't learn her place in the world and slithered inside Viserys bed and caused all kind of troubles to the Targaryens. I'll make a note and try to tell you when you make another elaborate narrative again.

Quote

I'm not sure on what you base this macho-hero thing. There is no great list of Daemon's conquests being given nor do we have a good reason to believe he had many affairs. Mysaria is mentioned as his permanent mistress once he became Lord Commander of the City Watch, after all.

No, I admit that I gave in to ranting based on stuff. Forgive me.

Quote

Indeed. But it seems to be the case that somebody or he himself made it clearly he had Alicent first. And we also have to keep in mind that Viserys seems to have had an affair with Alicent, too, before he married her. There is clearly a pattern to be seen there. Viserys was married to Aemma, had an affair with Alicent, Aemma died, and Alicent married Viserys. Daemon was married to Rhea Royce, Alicent had an affair with him, and hoped that Rhea would died of be set aside so that she could marry Daemon.

Another, although lesser, narrative. We don't know that Daemon and Alicent had any affairs to start with and only that Daemon despised his Royce wife, and I don't recall that Viserys had an affair with Alicent before he married her either. As far as I know its enitrely possible for people to feel affection for others based on personality and not jump straight into a bed in order to keep an affection going, although that scenario can take place as well.

Quote

I'm not sure what you know about depression as a sickness but it is very bad form to claim a person suffering from it was happy because he was sitting on throne. Not everybody wants to sit on a throne, and depressive people don't enjoy life regardless how much they should from your healthy point of view.

I know less about depression than a professional but more than someone who has never come into contact with it. Also that he was sitting on the throne and had less other issues to deal with, like how to earn money for the next meal, and that his children grew up at the social and economical top shows that it did pay off a great deal, in particular if we look at the fates of Alicent's children and grandchildren who were all dead when Aegon III had his depression. Depression is bad but dead is worse, in particular since his descendents were not either dead or unborn, and few of them had depression to my knowledge.

Quote

But it isn't. The testaments and wills and wishes or kings and lords are as important as the abstract birth order. King Robb disinherited his own sister, Sansa Lannister, and seems to have legitimized Jon Snow to name him his heir, King Stannis considered disinheriting his own daughter, Princess Shireen in favor of his younger brother Renly, Rohanne Webber's succession to Coldmoat was conditional and rightfully so, Tywin Lannister never acknowledged and named Tyrion Lannister his heir, the succession to Rosby is unclear after the death of Lord Gyles because the Iron Throne didn't recognize his ward as his heir, and so on. Even in Dorne Princess Arianne believes that her father, Prince Doran, can disinherit her in favor of her younger brother, Prince Quentyn.

I am aware of this but if you recall I have also earlier said that I accept that a ruler can name his heir, in the absence of a son, outside of the more equal Dorne, but if there are sons around to inheirt they will inherit as can be seen with Lord Tarly being unable to just disinherit Samwell.

Also Tywin is a special case given his immense authority which makes even Eddard Stark assume that Jaime will get the Rock after Tywin's death, Kingsguard or not.

Quote

It is pretty obvious that the wishes and will and decrees of kings and lords are usually followed in this society. If this wasn't the case then nobody would ever name any heirs and nothing would ever change.

They are usually respected yes, but the more important thing is to strenghten the heir so that others can play various cards on him and make it harder to usurp him.

Quote

You are not making sense here. Viserys I was Otto's king. And Viserys I had settled the succession. So Otto Hightower speaking with the King's Voice daring to discuss the succession again after his king's death is treason, plan and simple. As the king's servant you cannot act against the king's will if he already has made a decision on it. Or do you think Ned had the authority to cancel the Tourney of the Hand or the assassination of Daenerys Targaryen after his king had commanded it?

For the first thing sons inherit when there are sons, and only in the lack of sons is it possible to name other heirs. Secondly I am not McCarthy so I don't see a difference in opinion as being evidence of treason. At the end of the line if push came to shovel, no I don't think that Eddard could overrule Robert, but if he told the small council that they would not hold the tourney or carry out the assassination then I imagine the small council would wait for a word from Robert before moving on to far. The Hand is powerful and if you're the Hand, odds are that you have the king's ear.

Quote

People knew Viserys I's view on the succession. Thus Otto and Alicent were betraying their king not those people pointing out that fact.

Viserys had sons, they were before Rhaenyra in succession, Ott and Alicent understood that and fought for their children's rights. I can't stop you from calling that treason but to me its clear that Viserys betrayed his sons long before anyone else turned on him.

Quote

Dragonstone and Driftmark are part of the Seven Kingdoms. Thus the Triarchy, a foreign power, attacked the Seven Kingdoms.

Dragonstone and Driftmark was occupied by rebels and the crown brought in allies to help them put down the rebellion. As such the Triarchy never did harm to the Seven Kingdoms but killed a bunch of rebels for the benefit of the king.

Quote

You are also aware of the fact that you can deceive your enemy in war, claiming you want peace while actually preparing for war, right? That was what both sides were doing this early in the war. Neither was prepared to give up and if Rhaenyra had send her sons to court they would have been killed, as would she and Daemon had they ever shown up there.

I am well aware but we don't know for sure what were truth and not. Odds are that at least the Greens, and I would like to imagine also Rhaenyra, would have prefered to solve it without violence but that all came crashing down. Also I doubt that Aegon would have killed Rhaenyra's children at first sight given that he didn't do so on Dragonstone and only threatened to kill his hostage when there was no alternative left to him to halt the rebels. Most likely they would have been wards like Theon is to Eddard, but hardly killed outright.

Quote

That makes no sense, either. Stannis has overwhelming odds against him yet he presses on. And Rhaenyra had much more dragons than Aegon II. They could have conquered Westeros all over again the Conqueror's way.

For one thing, Stannis isn't the normal crop of Westerosi lords and the fact that Rhaenyra didn't conquer Westeros all over the Conqueror's way despite having the most experienced military leaders on her side in Daemon tells me that she probably couldn't have done it.

Quote

We know she later on gave terms, do we not?

I only know that she agreed to give terms after her brothers were defeated in the field. So essentially giving terms after the war is done, which naturally does not help to find a peaceful resolution before the war.

Quote

That's the way it looks at first glance. But Gyldayn tells us that neighbors were fighting neighbors in the war. Unless that is just stupid talk we have to believe that no region was completely for one claimant or another. There might have been Greens in the North and Blacks in the West although in those regions (and the Vale) it is clear that the majority of the lords sticked to one side. 

Well the Reach fought itself and the regions fought each other, so its of course possible that there were local lords going against their lieges but they would have been rather irrelevant in their contributions.

Quote

In the Riverlands the Tullys kept out of the war for most of the time like the Tyrells did. But the Riverlords themselves declared for Rhaenyra in their majority, defeated the few Greens there and were then later supported by the Tullys once Lord Elmo took over. Borros Baratheon brought some army to KL but we have no idea whether he had all the Stormlords with him or not. The same actually goes for Jason Lannister's host and Cregan Stark's host, too. Even for the armies Lady Jeyne Arryn sent.

Could well be but I have some serious doubts as to if these dissident lords would have been of any meaningful strenght.

Quote

You are talking about Jacaerys, of course, and I think you overestimate the size of his dragon Vermax. It wasn't as small as Drogon right now, presumably, but not that much larger, either, so I very much doubt that such a dragon would have been a great threat to the North. Especially considering that you do know that neither Jace nor Luke had been given permission by their royal mother to actually engage anyone in combat.

Yes, I probably got them mixed up. But while its true that they had not been given permission, Lord Stark wouldn't have known that and if the North had declared for Aegon, then the Blacks could well have sent a preventive dragon strike to make life difficult for the Northmen and ensue they would  be even more delayed. The threat was always there for the isolated North.

Quote

Or they were too afraid that their treason would be uncovered and thus remained silent. You do recall that Viserys I had once dismissed Ser Otto already for pushing him about the succession. If the king had learned that his father-in-law plotted against his daughter and heir he might not have just dismissed him. He might have executed him.

Could well be, we know that Viserys didn't hesistate to kill or harm people who didn't sing the song he wanted to hear.

Quote

They were killing and imprisoning their enemies at court as soon as Viserys died, and they also send their letters to known and likely allies. That they also meant then and there lists of people who were likely to support or oppose them is no surprise. The Realm is pretty big, after all.

Taking out your enemies before they can take out you makes perfect sense to me. But one would have imagine that the preferences of the Great Lords would at least not have been secret to the people if they had actually be planning a coup. As it was now they needed to look it up.

[Lord Varys]

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Yes, you do. You build them all the time and now at the latest you build one of Alicent sleeping with three Targaryens, including a dying old king, to claim power and only brave Daemon saw her for the "fuck doll" she apparently was and throw her out after he was done with her. But then the vile woman didn't learn her place in the world and slithered inside Viserys bed and caused all kind of troubles to the Targaryens. I'll make a note and try to tell you when you make another elaborate narrative again.

I've given a speculative explanation why I think the historians telling us those stories about Alicent might be correct. It fits the story. The rumor that Prince Daemon merely taught his niece how to sexually pleasure men to help her seduce Ser Criston Cole makes a lot less sense considering that Daemon had any reason to win Rhaenyra's love himself, deflower her, and then persuade his royal brother to grant him her hand.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Another, although lesser, narrative. We don't know that Daemon and Alicent had any affairs to start with and only that Daemon despised his Royce wife, and I don't recall that Viserys had an affair with Alicent before he married her either. As far as I know its enitrely possible for people to feel affection for others based on personality and not jump straight into a bed in order to keep an affection going, although that scenario can take place as well.

Time for you to reread stuff. I give you the relevant quotes below:

Quote

In his last years, King Jaehaerys named Ser Otto Hightower as his Hand, and Ser Otto brought his family to King’s Landing with him. Among them was young Alicent—a clever girl of fifteen years, who became Jaehaerys’s companion in his age. She read to him, fetched his meals, and even helped to bathe and dress him. It is said that, at times, the king thought her to be one of his own daughters. Unkinder rumors claimed that she was his lover.

That was from TWoIaF, about the reign of Jaehaerys I. It is presented as rumor. I don't think a very good rumor, possibly merely born out of speculation about the closeness between young Alicent and the Old King. And who knows, perhaps she even jerked him off once in awhile. That is hardly unheard of in the whole nursing of old men department - and actually rather likely considering that senile or not the man was still the king.

The next quotes are from TRP covering events that aren't repeated in TWoIaF (while the rumor about Alicent and Jaehaerys I isn't mentioned in TRP).

Quote

Gyldayn about Ser Otto shortly after Viserys' ascension to the Iron Throne:

Meanwhile, the tedium of rule was left largely to the king’s small council and his Hand. Ser Otto Hightower had continued in that office, serving the grandson as he had the father; an able man, all agreed, though many found him proud, brusque, and haughty. The longer he served, the more imperious Ser Otto became, it was said, and many great lords and princes came to resent his manner and envy him his access to the Iron Throne.

 

Quote

About the rumor involving Alicent and Daemon:

Though the origins of their enmity are much disputed, all men agree that Ser Otto Hightower, the King’s Hand, took a great mislike to the king’s brother. (The king’s fool Mushroom asserts that the quarrel began when Prince Daemon deflowered Ser Otto’s young daughter Alicent, the future queen, but this scurrilous tale is unsupported by any other source). It was Ser Otto who had convinced Viserys to remove Prince Daemon as master of coin, and then as master of laws—actions he soon came to regret. As commander of the City Watch, with two thousand men under his command, Daemon waxed more powerful than ever.

The source is Mushroom, but considering his inside knowledge as the king's fool this whole thing gives us a believable story of the origin of the enmity between Daemon and Otto.

Quote

Viserys I Targaryen was not the strongest-willed of kings, it must be said; always amiable and anxious to please, he relied greatly on the counsel of the men around him and did as they bid more oft than not. In this instance, however, His Grace had his own notion, and no amount of argument would sway him from his course. He would marry again, yes … but not to a twelve-year-old girl, and not for reasons of state. Another woman had caught his eye. He announced his intention to wed Lady Alicent of House Hightower, the clever and lovely eighteen-year-old daughter of the King’s Hand, the girl who had read to King Jaehaerys as he lay dying.
The Hightowers of Oldtown were an ancient and noble family, of impeccable lineage; there could be no possible objection to the king’s choice of bride. Even so, there were those who murmured that the Hand had risen above himself, that he had brought his daughter to court with this in mind. A few cast doubt on Lady Alicent’s virtue, suggesting she had given her maidenhead to Prince Daemon and later welcomed King Viserys into her bed as well, even before Queen Aemma’s death.

Not presented as cold hard fact, but still there. Viserys and Alicent would have ensured later on that their affair would not find its way into any official documents.

Quote

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

I know less about depression than a professional but more than someone who has never come into contact with it. Also that he was sitting on the throne and had less other issues to deal with, like how to earn money for the next meal, and that his children grew up at the social and economical top shows that it did pay off a great deal, in particular if we look at the fates of Alicent's children and grandchildren who were all dead when Aegon III had his depression. Depression is bad but dead is worse, in particular since his descendents were not either dead or unborn, and few of them had depression to my knowledge.

Death is inevitable and not necessarily bad. A long life full of misery might be worse than a short life full of joy and happiness. Prince Aemond and Prince Daeron certainly had a better life than Aegon III.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

I am aware of this but if you recall I have also earlier said that I accept that a ruler can name his heir, in the absence of a son, outside of the more equal Dorne, but if there are sons around to inheirt they will inherit as can be seen with Lord Tarly being unable to just disinherit Samwell.

Tarly felt he wasn't able to disinherit Samwell because Sam didn't give him any reason to do so. Meaning that he had given him a reason he could have done so. Not to mention that Randyll wasn't in the position to make this whole thing rock-tight even if he disinherited Samwell. Sam could have challenged his father's will first with Lord Tyrell and then the King. But if the king makes a decision there is no way to challenge his decision.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Also Tywin is a special case given his immense authority which makes even Eddard Stark assume that Jaime will get the Rock after Tywin's death, Kingsguard or not.

Tywin isn't a special case. And Ned does not explicitly expect Jaime to inherit Casterly Rock. He just talks about the position of Warden. Implicitly one should expect that Ned believed Jaime should inherit both considering that Ned thought Lord Robert should have inherited both the Vale and the title of Warden but that whole thing is just a mistake.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

They are usually respected yes, but the more important thing is to strenghten the heir so that others can play various cards on him and make it harder to usurp him.

Well, Rhaenyra had everything but the Handship to secure her own succession. She was Princess of Dragonstone for 24 years by the time her father died.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

For the first thing sons inherit when there are sons, and only in the lack of sons is it possible to name other heirs. Secondly I am not McCarthy so I don't see a difference in opinion as being evidence of treason. At the end of the line if push came to shovel, no I don't think that Eddard could overrule Robert, but if he told the small council that they would not hold the tourney or carry out the assassination then I imagine the small council would wait for a word from Robert before moving on to far. The Hand is powerful and if you're the Hand, odds are that you have the king's ear.

So what? You can't go to the council and tell them a lie about the king changing his mind when he didn't. That's treason, plain and simple. You might get away with it if the council never double-checks with the king or the whole thing is just a trivial detail the king never thinks of or mentions again. But it is still treason.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Viserys had sons, they were before Rhaenyra in succession, Otto and Alicent understood that and fought for their children's rights. I can't stop you from calling that treason but to me its clear that Viserys betrayed his sons long before anyone else turned on him.

Viserys didn't betray his sons. He named his daughter heir and then stuck with it. Rhaenyra wasn't named heiress presumptive until such a time as a son was born to the king, she was named the Heir Apparent for any possible circumstance. Thus the birth of Aegon, Aemon, and Daeron didn't change anything. If it was as you claim it was then Aegon would have become the new heir and Prince of Dragonstone on the day of his birth - which he did not.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Dragonstone and Driftmark was occupied by rebels and the crown brought in allies to help them put down the rebellion. As such the Triarchy never did harm to the Seven Kingdoms but killed a bunch of rebels for the benefit of the king.

But Otto Hightower wrote his letters at a time in which the Greens still wanted to make peace with Rhaenyra. Aegon's peace offer included granting Rhaenyra and her eldest son Dragonstone and its lands. Thus Otto was either showing that this whole peace offer was a ruse to buy time or he was actually betraying his own king by not telling him about his negotiations with the Triarchy.

Not to mention his other negotiations with Lord Dalton Greyjoy involving the Ironborn attacking Rhaenyra on Dragonstone.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

I am well aware but we don't know for sure what were truth and not. Odds are that at least the Greens, and I would like to imagine also Rhaenyra, would have prefered to solve it without violence but that all came crashing down. Also I doubt that Aegon would have killed Rhaenyra's children at first sight given that he didn't do so on Dragonstone and only threatened to kill his hostage when there was no alternative left to him to halt the rebels. Most likely they would have been wards like Theon is to Eddard, but hardly killed outright.

Aegon II demanded that Rhaenyra send her younger children to court as pages and squires (i.e. hostages). If the plan was to rid themselves of the bitch in time they would have killed those hostages as soon as they could (i.e. when they felt strong enough to attack Dragonstone and Driftmark).

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

For one thing, Stannis isn't the normal crop of Westerosi lords and the fact that Rhaenyra didn't conquer Westeros all over the Conqueror's way despite having the most experienced military leaders on her side in Daemon tells me that she probably couldn't have done it.

Well, she sort of did that. And if there had been some sort of peace at first she could have waited until Vhagar had grown too old to be of much use and Syrax, Caraxes, Vermax, Arrax, Tyraxes, Moondancer, and Stormcloud had grown much bigger. Then this whole thing would have been over rather quickly.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

I only know that she agreed to give terms after her brothers were defeated in the field. So essentially giving terms after the war is done, which naturally does not help to find a peaceful resolution before the war.

Her brothers weren't her only enemies. She intended to offer terms to the Baratheons and Lannisters. And we don't know what terms she was willing to offer early on.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Well the Reach fought itself and the regions fought each other, so its of course possible that there were local lords going against their lieges but they would have been rather irrelevant in their contributions.

There is still a lot in the Dance we have no clue about. We are talking about a narrative stretching over 80,000 words against the 34,000 version in TPaTQ plus the much shorter condensed version Ran and Linda gave us in TWoIaF.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Could well be but I have some serious doubts as to if these dissident lords would have been of any meaningful strenght.

They might have been. We know from Ran that Lady Jeyne sent 10,000 Valemen to support Rhaenyra yet there is no mentioning where the hell they fought or what happened to them. We can reasonably assume that they weren't with Rhaenyra in the capital when the riots began. If they were, things would have ended much differently.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Yes, I probably got them mixed up. But while its true that they had not been given permission, Lord Stark wouldn't have known that and if the North had declared for Aegon, then the Blacks could well have sent a preventive dragon strike to make life difficult for the Northmen and ensue they would  be even more delayed. The threat was always there for the isolated North.

Jace and Vermax could easily have been seized and/or killed by Lord Stark. Just as Borros could have seized either Aemond or Lucerys or both. Once a dragonrider is separated from his dragon it is not that difficult to overwhelm him (e.g. the whole Daemon-Nettles affair). Borros might have even been able to slay Vhagar while she was chained in his castle.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Could well be, we know that Viserys didn't hesistate to kill or harm people who didn't sing the song he wanted to hear.

Viserys only cut out some tongues. He never killed anybody for stuff like that.

On 3.8.2016 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Taking out your enemies before they can take out you makes perfect sense to me. But one would have imagine that the preferences of the Great Lords would at least not have been secret to the people if they had actually be planning a coup. As it was now they needed to look it up.

It may make sense but it is still treason if you have no right to do it. There is also no indication that the preferences of the great lords really mattered to the Hightowers. They wanted to crown Aegon II so that's what they did. They didn't give all that much thought on whether the rabble supported them in that or not. Not to mention that it sort of weird that you would assume that the Tyrells, Starks, Baratheons etc. would have given the succession much thought. Rhaenyra was the heir, that was clear.

[Jaak]

On 25.7.2016 at 3:47 PM, Lord Varys said:

But it isn't. The testaments and wills and wishes or kings and lords are as important as the abstract birth order. King Robb disinherited his own sister, Sansa Lannister, and seems to have legitimized Jon Snow to name him his heir, King Stannis considered disinheriting his own daughter, Princess Shireen in favor of his younger brother Renly, Rohanne Webber's succession to Coldmoat was conditional and rightfully so, Tywin Lannister never acknowledged and named Tyrion Lannister his heir, the succession to Rosby is unclear after the death of Lord Gyles because the Iron Throne didn't recognize his ward as his heir, and so on. Even in Dorne Princess Arianne believes that her father, Prince Doran, can disinherit her in favor of her younger brother, Prince Quentyn.

It is pretty obvious that the wishes and will and decrees of kings and lords are usually followed in this society. If this wasn't the case then nobody would ever name any heirs and nothing would ever change.

It´s not clear that they are "usually" followed. Arianne suspects her father is plotting to disinherit her by proposing unimportant matches to her, and on her part is plotting for important matches like Renly or Willas - she believes that if she succeeded in marrying an influential groom, she could inherit by virtue of her rights in face of formal disinheritance by Doran, by launching a civil war against her father´s appointed heir, with support of her husband´s armies. Tywin never actually declared Tyrion disinherited. Shireen was short of champions as a girl, and an ugly girl at that. In case of Rohanne Webber, the Webber cousin had a family alliance to Lord Rowan, who otherwise might have invalidated the will. Etc. The threat of a will of a lord or king being overruled by appeal to a higher authority, or to arms, is present and feared.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

It´s not clear that they are "usually" followed.

I'd contest that.

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

Arianne suspects her father is plotting to disinherit her by proposing unimportant matches to her, and on her part is plotting for important matches like Renly or Willas - she believes that if she succeeded in marrying an influential groom, she could inherit by virtue of her rights in face of formal disinheritance by Doran, by launching a civil war against her father´s appointed heir, with support of her husband´s armies.

Arianne suspects something like that, however your phrasing is problematic by using the word 'plotting' for Doran's alleged actions. Doran Martell is the Prince of Dorne, effectively a nearly sovereign monarch in his own right. He cannot possibly plot against his own daughter. He may make plans for her future and the like but while he is alive none of his children or siblings own anything.

But the important point there is that Arianne Martell never thinks that Prince Doran is doing stuff he could not possibly do. The customs and laws of Dorne favor her succession but she never states or thinks that those laws and customs cannot be changed by the Ruling Prince of Dorne, right? That in itself is confirmation that Arianne thinks her father can, in fact, name Quentyn his heir. She could then try to challenge that either upon her father's death or while he was still alive but that doesn't mean she is going to be successful.

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

Tywin never actually declared Tyrion disinherited.

I didn't say he did. I said that Tywin Lannister never publicly acknowledged and named Tyrion Lannister heir to Casterly Rock. That is a difference. However, effectively Tyrion never was heir to Casterly Rock while his father lived. He is never styled or even treated as such. In private Tywin made it clear in ASoS that Tyrion was disinherited and would never succeed to Casterly Rock. We are right there when that happens in Tyrion's first chapter in ASoS.

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

Shireen was short of champions as a girl, and an ugly girl at that.

That is irrelevant. If girls come before uncles then Stannis should not have had the power to pick an heir from his (male) relations. Yet he offered to name Renly his heir instead of Shireen in ACoK. The ugliness of a person (boy or girl) has nothing to do with his or her legal rights of inheritance, by the way.

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

In case of Rohanne Webber, the Webber cousin had a family alliance to Lord Rowan, who otherwise might have invalidated the will. Etc.

I know that. But if Lord Webber had had no right to disinherit his own daughter in his last will (or set certain criteria under which conditions she might inherit permanently) then Lord Rowan could not have possibly ruled on the will the way he did. If a lord had no right to pick and heir from his relations/descendants then a will doing so would have been dismissed by the liege lord of Coldmoat.

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

The threat of a will of a lord or king being overruled by appeal to a higher authority, or to arms, is present and feared.

A threat of arms can challenge anything, basically, but that is not the point. The point is that lords and monarchs can pick and name heirs from among their relations both in their wills and during their lifetimes.

And the way lords and monarchs treat their chosen heirs in comparison to those relations/descendants they don't want to inherit to their holdings also shapes the chances of those (effectively) disinherited fellows to ever claim their 'birthright'. We can be reasonably sure that nobody in the West would have been risen for 'Lord Tyrion' had Tywin died while Robert or Joffrey had still been kings. Tywin treated Tyrion like shit in front of others for his entire life, and everybody in the West and in the Lannister family knew that Tywin did not want Tyrion to inherit the Rock. Especially Kevan knew that. Cersei - then the Queen Regnant - and Joffrey also knew that and would never have decided to support Tyrion's claim to Casterly Rock. If Jaime had refused to leave the Kingsguard and become Lord of Casterly Rock both Cersei/Robert and Cersei/Joffrey would have awarded Casterly Rock to Cersei to strengthen the power of the royal family and resolve the financial situation of the Crown.

[Jaak]

On 9.8.2016 at 0:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'd contest that.

Arianne suspects something like that, however your phrasing is problematic by using the word 'plotting' for Doran's alleged actions. Doran Martell is the Prince of Dorne, effectively a nearly sovereign monarch in his own right. He cannot possibly plot against his own daughter.

 But we do not hear whether he´s an absolute monarch. He could be plotting against his own constitution.

On 9.8.2016 at 0:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

He may make plans for her future and the like but while he is alive none of his children or siblings own anything.

But the important point there is that Arianne Martell never thinks that Prince Doran is doing stuff he could not possibly do. The customs and laws of Dorne favor her succession but she never states or thinks that those laws and customs cannot be changed by the Ruling Prince of Dorne, right?

But she does not address the legality of Doran´s activities at all, either way. She believes Doran has the practical ability to disinherit her, but this is not inconsistent with Doran´s actions being illegal/unconstitutional.

On 9.8.2016 at 0:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

That is irrelevant. If girls come before uncles then Stannis should not have had the power to pick an heir from his (male) relations. Yet he offered to name Renly his heir instead of Shireen in ACoK. The ugliness of a person (boy or girl) has nothing to do with his or her legal rights of inheritance, by the way.

 Nothing to do with her legal rights, but something to do with the practical ability to disinherit her. If Shireen were, e. g., married to an influential husband like Willas or Trystane, disinheriting her in favour of Renly would have been more of a threat of rebellion.

On 9.8.2016 at 0:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

I know that. But if Lord Webber had had no right to disinherit his own daughter in his last will (or set certain criteria under which conditions she might inherit permanently) then Lord Rowan could not have possibly ruled on the will the way he did. If a lord had no right to pick and heir from his relations/descendants then a will doing so would have been dismissed by the liege lord of Coldmoat.

But if a lord had a complete right to pick an heir then Lord Rowan could not have overruled Webber´s will even if his sister weren´t married to Wendell.

On 9.8.2016 at 0:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

And the way lords and monarchs treat their chosen heirs in comparison to those relations/descendants they don't want to inherit to their holdings also shapes the chances of those (effectively) disinherited fellows to ever claim their 'birthright'. We can be reasonably sure that nobody in the West would have been risen for 'Lord Tyrion' had Tywin died while Robert or Joffrey had still been kings. Tywin treated Tyrion like shit in front of others for his entire life, and everybody in the West and in the Lannister family knew that Tywin did not want Tyrion to inherit the Rock. Especially Kevan knew that. Cersei - then the Queen Regnant - and Joffrey also knew that and would never have decided to support Tyrion's claim to Casterly Rock. If Jaime had refused to leave the Kingsguard and become Lord of Casterly Rock both Cersei/Robert and Cersei/Joffrey would have awarded Casterly Rock to Cersei to strengthen the power of the royal family and resolve the financial situation of the Crown.

And Tywin did not specify who his heir was - Kevan or Cersei. He spoke to Kevan unfavourably against Cersei. Yet Kevan acknowledged Cersei as the Lady.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Jaak said:

 But we do not hear whether he´s an absolute monarch. He could be plotting against his own constitution.

Since you don't know what Arianne thought he did it is difficult to invent stuff like a Dornish constitution.

6 hours ago, Jaak said:

But she does not address the legality of Doran´s activities at all, either way. She believes Doran has the practical ability to disinherit her, but this is not inconsistent with Doran´s actions being illegal/unconstitutional.

Neither is it necessary to assume that Doran would have done something illegal. If there was a constitution or some other legally binding thing with real teeth Doran would technically have to kill Arianne to ensure Quentyn's succession or prevent a civil war upon his death. But Arianne doesn't fear anything like that, either, and that is a good enough reason for me to assume she thought her father had some leeway in choosing his heir.

6 hours ago, Jaak said:

 Nothing to do with her legal rights, but something to do with the practical ability to disinherit her. If Shireen were, e. g., married to an influential husband like Willas or Trystane, disinheriting her in favour of Renly would have been more of a threat of rebellion.

In such a scenario Stannis would never have offered Renly to be his heir anyway because Shireen's husband and his house would have been on his side in the struggle. But he would have still been of the opinion that he as king could name his own heir. He certainly would have disinherited Shireen had her husband and his family betrayed him. Not to mention that the Realm at large would always prefer a male heir to a female heir, so the threat of rebellion isn't that great.

6 hours ago, Jaak said:

But if a lord had a complete right to pick an heir then Lord Rowan could not have overruled Webber´s will even if his sister weren´t married to Wendell.

He didn't overrule the will, he confirmed it. The point that wills can be challenged by people and ruled upon by lieges and the Crown is a separate issue.

6 hours ago, Jaak said:

And Tywin did not specify who his heir was - Kevan or Cersei. He spoke to Kevan unfavourably against Cersei. Yet Kevan acknowledged Cersei as the Lady.

Cersei was Tywin's legal heir at the time of his death. And she was the Queen Regent at that point. Nobody could have challenged her claim to Casterly Rock. But Tywin's chosen heir was Jaime, not Kevan or Cersei.