Why does history refer to Rhaenyra Targaryen as a "traitor" and "usurper"?

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 Borros Baratheon apparently had done pretty much nothing for most of the war. If he had continued doing nothing after the news from Dragonstone arrived Aegon II would never have regained the Iron Throne.

If he had done something only after news from Dragonstone arrived, it would not have been Moon of Three Kings. We specifically hear that Trystane was King on Red Keep for 2 weeks (and never, in these 2 weeks, achieved supremacy over either Gaemon or Shepherd).

The trip of Rhaenyra through Duskendale to Dragonstone took unspecified number but several days. Marching an army from Storm's End to King's Landing takes more than 2 weeks.

Borros may have taken King's Landing after he had got ravens from Dragonstone that Aegon II lived, but he must have been closer to King's Landing to Storm's End with an army.

[SeanF]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 8:21 PM, Emie said:

One of the things that always saddened me was that Rhaenyra could have been the first true female monarch of Westeros, but of course that never came to be. And also, I was always annoyed with how her brother and and step-mother and everyone in the greens called her a "traitor" even though they knew she was the rightful heir! But what also bothers me is that even in the present day series, people like Stannis Baratheon call her a "usurper" of her time, but again that makes no sense. King Viserys I officially made her his heir and he never had that changed. So why did these people call her these things when she was just fighting for what was rightfully hers? She was her father's heir! She was SUPPOSE to be the next ruler but people still treat her like a treasonous monster. The Greens were the real traitors and usurpers and I've always find it funny when Aegon II sentences her to death for being a traitor to him without realizing that was exactly what HE was doing! 

I don't know if Stannis' view is the general view, or just his own.  Arianne, for example, regards Rhaenyra as a role model (albeit, Dorne has equal primogeniture),

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Jaak said:

If he had done something only after news from Dragonstone arrived, it would not have been Moon of Three Kings. We specifically hear that Trystane was King on Red Keep for 2 weeks (and never, in these 2 weeks, achieved supremacy over either Gaemon or Shepherd).

The trip of Rhaenyra through Duskendale to Dragonstone took unspecified number but several days. Marching an army from Storm's End to King's Landing takes more than 2 weeks.

Borros may have taken King's Landing after he had got ravens from Dragonstone that Aegon II lived, but he must have been closer to King's Landing to Storm's End with an army.

No, that's not the case. The Moon of Three Kings is, presumably, the moon in which there were the kings Trystane Truefyre, Gaemon Palehair, and Aegon II. But there is no reason to believe that Trystane alone was king for a longer period of time until he was joined by little Gaemon or that Gaemon and Trystane fought for control for quite some time until Aegon II showed up.

The Moon of Three Kings is just the name for the moon in which there were three kings. Two kings could have been for two more months or an unspecified amount of time. George could be making a reference to the real world Year of the Three Kaisers (1888: Wilhelm I, Friedrich III, and Wilhelm II) or the two Years of Four Emperors in Roman history (69 and 193).

We do know that Aegon II remained on Dragonstone until after the death of Sunfyre which apparently happened about two moons after the death of Rhaenyra.

There is a chance that there was anarchy for some time in KL after Rhaenyra left but it is not very likely that it took Perkin the Flea two months or more to actually take possession of an abandoned Red Keep.

[Jaak]

The duration of Trystane's reign is specified as 2 weeks.

[GyantSpyder]

Because the Maesters are in the pocket of the Hightowers, and the Hightowers basically ran the Greens. So of course the history books hate Rhaenyra and distort everything she ever said or did. The obvious bias that the Maesters have against the Blacks (to the point that it's funny), despite their presumed neutrality as academics, is a big part of what "The Rogue Prince" is about (and where its title comes from).

Also, to dig a little deeper, Rhaenyra's family were prolific hatchers and riders of dragons, and when all was said and done in the Dance of the Dragons, her issue that remained were generally anti-dragon and contributed greatly to the death of the dragons and thus then eventual end of Targaryan hegemony in Westeros. It makes sense for the Hightowers, the Maesters and the Faith to favor this outcome - while it can be easy to forget that the Targaryans were foreign conquerors, once remembered, it shouldn't be hard to intuit that the old guard might want their power restored - or that they might see dragons as a threat to humanity in general, like nuclear weapons, and their diminishment as a generally good thing. And as such historical hit pieces on Rhaenyra are just a logical follow-on to the civil war that they also started to tear apart her house.

[Duranaparthur]

It just occurred to me that a lot of us are probably putting too much importance on both Rhaenyra' official designation as Crown Princess and the argument for male primogeniture used by Aegon II. Looking at the entries for the Houses on this wiki, I think there's strong evidence that the vast bulk of political will behind both cases was more opportunistic, and less traditional ro honor bound than some of us have been portraying it.

-Houses Arryn, Velaryon, and Hightower are arguably the main Houses rallying for both sides, and all three have very personal reasons for their support that almost certainly have more importance than their arguments about why they support the legitmiat ruler.

-Great Houses Stark, Baratheon, and Greyjoy all require some bargaining and deal-making to actually get involved, making it seem clear they weren't totally moved to support their sides via argument and honor.

-The Tullys and the Lannisters seem to be the only exceptionally powerful Lords moved to take sides based off what they believe is right form the get-go, though. The Tyrells don't even get involved.

It really does seem like what mattered to the bulk of Westeros's lords was nothing more than what they hoped to get out of the war. In which case their settlement of the war makes sense as being a quiet move to sweep the issues aside and move on.

[Lion of the West]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Daemon was never Crown Prince, ie Prince of Dragonstone.  Rhaenyra had been Crown Princess for 15 years, prior to her father's death.  That's the difference.

Does it matter? If the king can appoint his heir and can do whatever he wants he can appoint anyone he wants in whatever fashion he wants. Why would the length of time one has the king's favor be of any significance if one is the heir or not?

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I just spent a vacation reading quite a few books about various ancient and medieval dynasties. The bottom line is that until modern times very few royal dynasties had a fixed and clear succession, especially not if there was no son to inherit the throne.

You are just projecting stuff here. There is no hint that Aegon IV was 'daddy's favorite'. All we know is that the man gave Blackfyre to him and knighted him at the age of twelve. We have no indication that Aegon IV showed Daemon Waters any other favors throughout his lifetime. In fact, it is quite clear that Aegon IV wasn't close to the boy in any capacity because he only acknowledged him as his son when he gave him Blackfyre (unlike Aegor, Brynden, and Shiera whom he acknowledged when they were born).

In fact, Daemon Blackfyre may not actually have been the Unworthy's son. All we have is his word for it, and his word is worth nothing. We know Daena the Defiant died young at an unknown date. If she was already dead when Aegon acknowledged Daemon then he might have just as well have falsely acknowledged the boy because he intended to use him as a pawn against Daeron.

Rhaenyra on the other hand was showered with favors as a girl by both their parents and then formally named the Heir Apparent. There is a huge difference there.

Well, we know that kings designate and anoint their heirs by saying that they do. Giving Blackfyre to Daemon certainly showed everybody that he favored him but a king can grant favors to pretty much everybody. Aegon IV had named an heir already - Prince Daeron, who was made Prince of Dragonstone upon his father's ascension. He was never formally disinherited so the succession was clear.

If Aegon had never named Daeron his heir and had given Daemon Blackfyre one could see this as Aegon giving people a hint who should succeed him. But this is not the case.

I am very happy for your historical interest, which I also share. Do you have any titles to recommend from the summer's reading?

And while there are many different ways to inherit a throne, like you said, in the presence of sons of the ruler its is close to always the sons who will inherit after their father as far as Europe or at least Western Europe goes.

I am not projecting but stating what is frankly obvious to me. I can't seem to find the quote but I can give one of my eyes on that there's a comment that Daemon got along well with Aegon IV while Daeron had more or less split with his father by that point. Also recall that Daemon was raised at the Red Keep and trained by the Red Keep's master-of-arms, and that's a hint of Daemon's standing. But even if Aegon IV did give his favor for Daemon late, it was still Daemon who was favored by the king, claimed by the king as the king's son, while Daeron had drifted appart from the king. So in that regard Daemon was favored and given Blackfyre while Daeron was not favored and had pretty much become the focal point of opposition to the king.

That Aegon IV would attempt some shenaningans to exploit people for his own purposes seems to be in his character, yet we still don't know the details so while I like the theory of the Blackfyres as another set of victims for Aegon IV, we can't say more for certain at this point.

Its a difference in quantity but not in principle. If the principle is that the king can name his heir, what does it matter if the heir was named twenty years ago or if the heir was name the day before the king died? And why would a king be forced to obey some standard formula for how to designate an heir? Is there basis in the texts for a standard forumla for disinheriting and chosing and heir? If the king wants to designate an heir he can do it in whatever fashion he likes, he's the king and does what he wants, as I've heard over and over again. I naturally reject this line of thinking and claim that an heir can only be picked if there are no sons around because its only then that the succession is in question in the sexist society that is Westeros, and it must be done in a certain way a the king cannot do whatever he likes.

What if its intended to be both a rejection of Daeron and a choice of Daemon in the same act? Kings can do whatever they like some say, so why can't the Unworthy disinherit and pick a new heir in whatever way he fancies? Its not like it was in his nature to ensure an orderly rule.

[Lord Varys]

 

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I am very happy for your historical interest, which I also share. Do you have any titles to recommend from the summer's reading?

Well, unless you can read German most of the titles I read wouldn't be all that interesting for you. But I can recommend Toby Wilkinson's 'The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt'. Robin Lane Fox's biography of Alexander the Great also makes for a tantalizing read although the man might show his hero too much sympathy (the book was more or less the template for the Stone movie about Alexander).

But there are actually some books by German scholars I've read that have been translated into English. For instance, Aloys Winterling's biography of Emperor Caligula (simply named 'Caligula - A Biography') as well as Günther Hölbl's 'A History of the Ptolemaic Empire' (unfortunately the newer and much more in-depth study of the Ptolemies, Werner Huß's 'Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit' has not been translated).

I also listened to Alison Weir's history of Isabella of France (the wife of Edward II) in audiobook format but cannot recommend it. Far 

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And while there are many different ways to inherit a throne, like you said, in the presence of sons of the ruler its is close to always the sons who will inherit after their father as far as Europe or at least Western Europe goes.

The thing is, that the Pantagenet and Capetian dynasties of Western Europe were lucky to have sons as heirs to their fathers for centuries. During those days the succession became sort of fixed, but as soon as uncertainties arose things like the Hundred Years War or the Wars of the Roses occurred.

You only have sort of binding succession laws establishing clear lines of succession in the Early Modern Period. And even then coups continue to happen. Just think about Katherine the Great taking over Russia with no legal claim at all.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I am not projecting but stating what is frankly obvious to me. I can't seem to find the quote but I can give one of my eyes on that there's a comment that Daemon got along well with Aegon IV while Daeron had more or less split with his father by that point.

There is no quote of Aegon getting along well with Daemon, just that Aegon did not get along well with Daeron. But when Aegon IV took his throne he named and anointed Daeron as his heir and made him Prince of Dragonstone. Else Daeron would never have been Prince of Dragonstone in the first place.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Also recall that Daemon was raised at the Red Keep and trained by the Red Keep's master-of-arms, and that's a hint of Daemon's standing.

Nope, it isn't. Princess Daena was the daughter, sister, niece, and cousin of kings. We have every reason to believe she took no husband after Baelor the Blessed and subsequently lived and died in the Red Keep of King's Landing. Subsequently her son would have been trained at arms by the master-of-arms like any other highborn (bastard) son.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

But even if Aegon IV did give his favor for Daemon late, it was still Daemon who was favored by the king, claimed by the king as the king's son, while Daeron had drifted appart from the king. So in that regard Daemon was favored and given Blackfyre while Daeron was not favored and had pretty much become the focal point of opposition to the king.

Daeron had become a focal point of opposition but Daemon was just a boy when his father died and never the focal point/figurehead of Aegon IV's followers - a fact you continue to ignore. Daemon Blackfyre eventually became a pretender to the throne but that happened years after Daeron II had succeeded to the throne. Aegon IV was long dead by then.

More importantly, during the last two years of Aegon's reign after the king had given Blackfyre to Daemon and acknowledged the boy as his son nobody would have gathered around him be he a great warrior or not because he was still a bastard. And bastards usually don't inherit or have strong claims to anything while their are not legitimized - which Daemon only was on the deathbed of his father with all the other bastards of the king.

The idea that the king's party sort of saw Daemon was their champion makes little sense unless you think people were overcoming their prejudices against bastards. That is very unlikely. It would have taken time even after Aegon IV legitimized his brood. It seems that the years passing between Aegon's death and the Blackfyre Rebellion allowed the now legitimized Daemon to use his charisma to overcome the taint of his birth. But that wouldn't have happened overnight. 

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

That Aegon IV would attempt some shenaningans to exploit people for his own purposes seems to be in his character, yet we still don't know the details so while I like the theory of the Blackfyres as another set of victims for Aegon IV, we can't say more for certain at this point.

No, but the point is that we have even less credible evidence that Daemon Blackfyre is Aegon IV's son than we have evidence that Daeron II is Aegon's son. Daeron II was born in wedlock and Aegon IV personally never accused Queen Naerys openly of adultery while she and the Dragonknight yet lived. Not to mention that Daeron II was born very early in their marriage.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Its a difference in quantity but not in principle. If the principle is that the king can name his heir, what does it matter if the heir was named twenty years ago or if the heir was name the day before the king died?

It doesn't matter, of course. But then, the fact remains that Daemon Blackfyre was never named Aegon's heir.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And why would a king be forced to obey some standard formula for how to designate an heir? Is there basis in the texts for a standard forumla for disinheriting and chosing and heir? If the king wants to designate an heir he can do it in whatever fashion he likes, he's the king and does what he wants, as I've heard over and over again.

Come on now, the text nowhere states that giving Blackfyre to Daemon was Aegon naming Daemon Blackfyre his legal heir. People later construed something like that in hindsight after the boy was legitimized and the story of Daeron Falseborn had spread. 

Granted, the Blackfyre thing is a symbolic act open to interpretation as is, for instance, Lyanna's coronation at Harrenhal. What did Rhaegar intend to say/communicate to Lyanna and the assembled people by doing that? We don't know yet but various people interpreted it very differently indeed, perhaps even deliberately misconstruing the prince's intention in the process.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I naturally reject this line of thinking and claim that an heir can only be picked if there are no sons around because its only then that the succession is in question in the sexist society that is Westeros, and it must be done in a certain way a the king cannot do whatever he likes.

We know that Targaryen kings name and anoint their eldest sons as heirs by declaring them their heirs and making them Prince of Dragonstone. The idea that you can do this in a different fashion is far-fetched. Even Joffrey - who lacks the title of Prince of Dragonstone - was named the Heir Apparent of his father both in life (recognizable by the fact that the entire Realm refers to the fact that Joffrey will be the next king quite a few times) as well as in his last will when he refers to the fact that Joffrey is his anointed heir in a casual manner. He does not feel he has to make Joff his heir on his deathbed as king like Maekar would have been forced to do, lacking a clear heir since the death of Aerion Brightflame.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

What if its intended to be both a rejection of Daeron and a choice of Daemon in the same act? Kings can do whatever they like some say, so why can't the Unworthy disinherit and pick a new heir in whatever way he fancies? Its not like it was in his nature to ensure an orderly rule.

It could have been - but it wasn't! We know that because Yandel tells us that Daeron II was never disinherited throughout his life. Else he would never have become king. After all, just like Rhaenyra and Rhaegar he physically resided on Dragonstone (which means he was cut off from court) and whoever served as Aegon's Hand at the time of his death also ensured that the legitimization decree went through. Such a man most likely would also have crowned Daemon Blackfyre the new king if Aegon IV had disinherited Daeron and had named Daemon his new heir.

Instead, Daeron II was swiftly crowned after his father's death and met no visible/open resistance from Aegon's cronies at court after the king's death.

[SeanF]

15 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Does it matter? If the king can appoint his heir and can do whatever he wants he can appoint anyone he wants in whatever fashion he wants. Why would the length of time one has the king's favor be of any significance if one is the heir or not?

 

It doesn't matter for the purpose of this comparison.  Rhaenyra was heir to the Iron Throne, Daemon Blackfyre wasn't.  Daeron was Crown Prince, and Daemon was given a family heirloom.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It doesn't matter for the purpose of this comparison.  Rhaenyra was heir to the Iron Throne, Daemon Blackfyre wasn't.  Daeron was Crown Prince, and Daemon was given a family heirloom.

Exactly. I should stop investing so much time into obvious things. Hell, Aegon giving Blackfyre to Daemon made him as much his heir as Robert giving Dragonstone (the seat of the Targaryen Crown Princes) to Stannis and Storm's End (the ancestral home of House Baratheon) to Renly made them his heirs.

[Lion of the West]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Well, unless you can read German most of the titles I read wouldn't be all that interesting for you. But I can recommend Toby Wilkinson's 'The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt'. Robin Lane Fox's biography of Alexander the Great also makes for a tantalizing read although the man might show his hero too much sympathy (the book was more or less the template for the Stone movie about Alexander).

But there are actually some books by German scholars I've read that have been translated into English. For instance, Aloys Winterling's biography of Emperor Caligula (simply named 'Caligula - A Biography') as well as Günther Hölbl's 'A History of the Ptolemaic Empire' (unfortunately the newer and much more in-depth study of the Ptolemies, Werner Huß's 'Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit' has not been translated).

I also listened to Alison Weir's history of Isabella of France (the wife of Edward II) in audiobook format but cannot recommend it. Far 

Well, I did read Germany in school but I didn't manage to crack the grammer of it so I'm afraid my German at present is reduced to a few single words which I only one a very good day can stringer together into a semi-coherent phrase. Shame though, I would have loved to be able to speak and read more languages than my native one and English.

But thanks for the English titles. I will try to take a look at them and see what other reviews they've gained.

Quote

The thing is, that the Pantagenet and Capetian dynasties of Western Europe were lucky to have sons as heirs to their fathers for centuries. During those days the succession became sort of fixed, but as soon as uncertainties arose things like the Hundred Years War or the Wars of the Roses occurred.

I agree that issues arise in the lack of sons of the ruler, but given that all Targaryen civil wars have been conducted while the sitting king did have sons, I don't think that's really an argument in that the succession issues of those times were really complex. They were made out to be complex so that agendas could be push; the prime example being Blackfyre.

Quote

You only have sort of binding succession laws establishing clear lines of succession in the Early Modern Period. And even then coups continue to happen. Just think about Katherine the Great taking over Russia with no legal claim at all.

I agree. But to me that only proves that force could allow one to usurp power, not that it was somehow right or correct to usurp power.

Quote

There is no quote of Aegon getting along well with Daemon, just that Aegon did not get along well with Daeron. But when Aegon IV took his throne he named and anointed Daeron as his heir and made him Prince of Dragonstone. Else Daeron would never have been Prince of Dragonstone in the first place.

I think you are wrong but since I don't have any quote right not to post I won't push the issue.

Quote

Nope, it isn't. Princess Daena was the daughter, sister, niece, and cousin of kings. We have every reason to believe she took no husband after Baelor the Blessed and subsequently lived and died in the Red Keep of King's Landing. Subsequently her son would have been trained at arms by the master-of-arms like any other highborn (bastard) son.

Given Aegon IV's charitable nature I am a bit suprised as to why he did that other than possible as making some kind of statement by flaunting Daena's bastard before the court. Which of course would b totally in his nature. It does not however seem more normal for a bastard to be raised in the House of a parent than to be raised away from that House as to not flaunt the "crime".

Quote

Daeron had become a focal point of opposition but Daemon was just a boy when his father died and never the focal point/figurehead of Aegon IV's followers - a fact you continue to ignore. Daemon Blackfyre eventually became a pretender to the throne but that happened years after Daeron II had succeeded to the throne. Aegon IV was long dead by then.

I didn't mean that Daemon was politically active at that point nor do I think that Daemon per necessity attracted men who used to beo Aegon IV's supporters given how Daemon seems to have been a man of chivalry as opposed to his father. What I meant was that Daeron had pretty much falled out with his father while Daemon apparently had not, given he was given Blackfyre rather than say Bittersteel.

Quote

More importantly, during the last two years of Aegon's reign after the king had given Blackfyre to Daemon and acknowledged the boy as his son nobody would have gathered around him be he a great warrior or not because he was still a bastard. And bastards usually don't inherit or have strong claims to anything while their are not legitimized - which Daemon only was on the deathbed of his father with all the other bastards of the king.

I agree entirely.

Quote

The idea that the king's party sort of saw Daemon was their champion makes little sense unless you think people were overcoming their prejudices against bastards. That is very unlikely. It would have taken time even after Aegon IV legitimized his brood. It seems that the years passing between Aegon's death and the Blackfyre Rebellion allowed the now legitimized Daemon to use his charisma to overcome the taint of his birth. But that wouldn't have happened overnight. 

I didn't say that the king's party saw Daemon as some kind of champion. What I said was that while Daeron had fallen out with his father, Daemon was given honors like Blackfyre and being dubbed by the king himself.

Quote

No, but the point is that we have even less credible evidence that Daemon Blackfyre is Aegon IV's son than we have evidence that Daeron II is Aegon's son. Daeron II was born in wedlock and Aegon IV personally never accused Queen Naerys openly of adultery while she and the Dragonknight yet lived. Not to mention that Daeron II was born very early in their marriage.

I agree on the personal relations among Aegon IV and his siblings.

Quote

It doesn't matter, of course. But then, the fact remains that Daemon Blackfyre was never named Aegon's heir.

Unless being granted Blackfyre was an act of naming Daemon as his heir.

Quote

 

Come on now, the text nowhere states that giving Blackfyre to Daemon was Aegon naming Daemon Blackfyre his legal heir. People later construed something like that in hindsight after the boy was legitimized and the story of Daeron Falseborn had spread. 

Granted, the Blackfyre thing is a symbolic act open to interpretation as is, for instance, Lyanna's coronation at Harrenhal. What did Rhaegar intend to say/communicate to Lyanna and the assembled people by doing that? We don't know yet but various people interpreted it very differently indeed, perhaps even deliberately misconstruing the prince's intention in the process.

 

Problem is here that both sides Daemon is the heir and being granted Blackfyre means nothing are constructing things around a symbolic act after the fact. In the case of the Blacks they wanted to Daemon because they wanted to get rid of Daeron and the Dornish and Daemon was the most promesing candidate to lead a coup and so built on the gift of Blackfyre to construct the whole myth of the "King Who Bore The Sword". And as I recall, the only old Blackfyre supporter that mentions this in Eustace Osgrey seems to believe the image of Daemon as the chosen heir pretty much. And on the other hand, after Daeron took the throne and doubly so after the Blackfyres lost the war, it was a conscious move to say that being granted Blackfyre was not in anyway making Daemon the heir to the throne as the victorious side already had their favored king and undermining the justification that the Blackfyres made was crucial to ensure minimum support for further Blackfyre rebellions.

Quote

We know that Targaryen kings name and anoint their eldest sons as heirs by declaring them their heirs and making them Prince of Dragonstone. The idea that you can do this in a different fashion is far-fetched. Even Joffrey - who lacks the title of Prince of Dragonstone - was named the Heir Apparent of his father both in life (recognizable by the fact that the entire Realm refers to the fact that Joffrey will be the next king quite a few times) as well as in his last will when he refers to the fact that Joffrey is his anointed heir in a casual manner. He does not feel he has to make Joff his heir on his deathbed as king like Maekar would have been forced to do, lacking a clear heir since the death of Aerion Brightflame.

Why, if the king can do whatever he likes, must he it that way? Is it because its custom? Well, Viserys gets support from many for ignoring custom and claiming Rhaenyra was his heir when there were sons around, so in that part its ok with the king ignoring custom but in regards to naming heirs by granting the sword of kings to them, it was not binding to ignore custom? So why must the king do it in any specific way if he would for some reason wish to do it in another way? He's the king!

Quote

It could have been - but it wasn't! We know that because Yandel tells us that Daeron II was never disinherited throughout his life. Else he would never have become king. After all, just like Rhaenyra and Rhaegar he physically resided on Dragonstone (which means he was cut off from court) and whoever served as Aegon's Hand at the time of his death also ensured that the legitimization decree went through. Such a man most likely would also have crowned Daemon Blackfyre the new king if Aegon IV had disinherited Daeron and had named Daemon his new heir.

Yandel wrote the history after the Blackfyre Rebellion when the "good" and "bad" sides had already been determined and the issue was set. Why would he write something to undermine orderly succession in favor of a lost cause?

Quote

Instead, Daeron II was swiftly crowned after his father's death and met no visible/open resistance from Aegon's cronies at court after the king's death.

Didn't you claim in another thread that the court Aegon IV left behind him was infested with corruption and it took Daeron the better part of a year to clear the place out? Maybe people at that time didn't yet want Daemon, making people thought that Daeron would turn out in another way was given the crown and maybe, given that Daemon was by accounts turned slowly over more than a decade, he was himself not interested in taking the throne?

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

It doesn't matter for the purpose of this comparison.  Rhaenyra was heir to the Iron Throne, Daemon Blackfyre wasn't.  Daeron was Crown Prince, and Daemon was given a family heirloom.

Yes it does. It comes down as most of our discussions to the king's power and the nature of succession. If the king can pick his heir and do whatever he likes unbound by law, custom or anything else there is no, and I repeat no, reason to say or think that Aegon could not pick Daemon as his heir and unmake Daeron as his heir in whatever fashion he wanted, like giving Daemon the sword Blackfyre. Nor that he couldn't make Daemon ahead of Daeron if the fancy would strike him regardless if Daemon was a bastard at that time.

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

 

Yes it does. It comes down as most of our discussions to the king's power and the nature of succession. If the king can pick his heir and do whatever he likes unbound by law, custom or anything else there is no, and I repeat no, reason to say or think that Aegon could not pick Daemon as his heir and unmake Daeron as his heir in whatever fashion he wanted, like giving Daemon the sword Blackfyre. Nor that he couldn't make Daemon ahead of Daeron if the fancy would strike him regardless if Daemon was a bastard at that time.

Even if I were to accept for the sake of argument, that Aegon IV could make his illegitimate son (or for that matter, a random peasant) his heir, the fact is that Prince Daeron was not disinherited, so the question doesn't arise.  By analogy, if the Marquess of Salisbury were to give me one of his antique swords, it doesn't follow that I'd become the next Marquess of Salisbury.  The current Lord Cranborne would.

In the case of Rhaenyra, the only argument against her becoming Queen regnant is that on no account must a woman be allowed to rule. And, even if such a law were in place (and the examples of Queens Rhaenys and Visenya suggest that is not) there seems no reason to me why a King could not amend that law, in the same way that Parliament has just amended the Act of Succession to allow equal primogeniture in the United Kingdom.

 

 

[direpupy]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

 

In the case of Rhaenyra, the only argument against her becoming Queen regnant is that on no account must a woman be allowed to rule. And, even if such a law were in place (and the examples of Queens Rhaenys and Visenya suggest that is not) there seems no reason to me why a King could not amend that law, in the same way that Parliament has just amended the Act of Succession to allow equal primogeniture in the United Kingdom.

 

 

Rhaenys and Visenya Where not queen regnant's there power and authority always depended on there brother Aegon I so they did not rule in there own right. also they lived before the great council of 101 that established that women could not inherit the throne.

The Great council is basicaly the westeros counterpart of parliament, and i doubt that the Queen could tell parliament that she is changing a law.

And last but not least parliament has only just recently made this amendment, in modern times based on modern values, not in medieval times based on medieval values, so you are comparing apples to pears here.

[tugela]

The throne would have been passed to the highest ranking male heir, according to custom. Women were not entitled to inherit titles, so her attempt to take the throne by force was treason.

 

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree. But to me that only proves that force could allow one to usurp power, not that it was somehow right or correct to usurp power.

No, the point is that the legal situations (constitutions if you so will) included coups and the like in their legal reality just as countries still do to this day. Else the American constitution would be worth nothing because it was written by a bunch of traitors who deserved to be hanged. If a coup or a revolution is successful its laws and decrees are (eventually) accepted as legal and correct. People have to deal with reality, after all.

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Given Aegon IV's charitable nature I am a bit suprised as to why he did that other than possible as making some kind of statement by flaunting Daena's bastard before the court. Which of course would b totally in his nature. It does not however seem more normal for a bastard to be raised in the House of a parent than to be raised away from that House as to not flaunt the "crime".

I'm not sure what you are referring to there. Princess Daena and her son would have lived at court regardless what Aegon thought about that and the master-at-arms would have trained him the same way he most likely also trained the sons of the noblemen at court and the royal squires etc. We see how this goes with Ser Rodrik Cassel training not only Robb and Jon but also Theon and working with the royal princes and their entourage when Robert is guest at Winterfell.

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I didn't mean that Daemon was politically active at that point nor do I think that Daemon per necessity attracted men who used to beo Aegon IV's supporters given how Daemon seems to have been a man of chivalry as opposed to his father. What I meant was that Daeron had pretty much falled out with his father while Daemon apparently had not, given he was given Blackfyre rather than say Bittersteel.

Come on now, the idea that 9-10-year-old Aegor (who was raised Stonehedge at that time) would have gotten Blackfyre doesn't make any sense. Giving it to Daemon made sense because the man was a prodigy at swordplay but Aegor Rivers would have still been a child at the age of ten.

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree entirely. [...] Unless being granted Blackfyre was an act of naming Daemon as his heir.

Something is wrong there. Giving Daemon Blackfyre couldn't have meant naming him the heir if Daeron was still the heir and if Daemon Waters was still an unlegitimized bastard at that time. Perhaps it could have had more meaning if Daemon hadn't been merely the king's suddenly acknowledged natural son but Aegon's trueborn son by Naerys. But he wasn't. 

The whole Blackfyre thing was never actually seen as Aegon anointing Daemon as his heir but later became important as a symbolic act (sort of giving Daemon 'the blessing' of the king) when Daemon already was legitimized and had a following of his own. But it was not seen by anybody as a sign that Aegon IV had any intention to make Daemon his heir.

You see this with the talk of the Blackfyre partisans in the Dunk & Egg stories. They interpret something important into the Unworthy's actions but it wasn't clearly there - and even if it was, one has to wonder what the actions, words, and deeds of such a corrupt king should be worth in the eyes of men who try to do the right thing.

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Why, if the king can do whatever he likes, must he it that way? Is it because its custom? Well, Viserys gets support from many for ignoring custom and claiming Rhaenyra was his heir when there were sons around, so in that part its ok with the king ignoring custom but in regards to naming heirs by granting the sword of kings to them, it was not binding to ignore custom? So why must the king do it in any specific way if he would for some reason wish to do it in another way? He's the king!

It is not like that at all. Nobody ever said that a king can do whatever the hell he wants if he doesn't speak clearly. Viserys I spoke very clearly and made his intentions clear when he named Rhaenyra his heir. Aegon IV did nothing of this sort. If you want to name an heir you do so by naming an heir. You can also grant your titles, honors, swords, castles, and riches but you also have to name your heir your heir. Else you haven't done what you want to do.

Elizabeth II had to make Charles Prince of Wales. It wasn't enough to call him 'My beloved son' or hand him some dusty family heirloom.

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Yandel wrote the history after the Blackfyre Rebellion when the "good" and "bad" sides had already been determined and the issue was set. Why would he write something to undermine orderly succession in favor of a lost cause?

With such arguments you can twist pretty much anything. You shouldn't be reading history books if you believe people write all the time the view of the victor. Yandel writes his book during the Glorious Reign of Robert Baratheon. He has no reason whatsoever to paint the Targaryens in a great light and he presumably has access to quite a few sources. He could even be a fan boy of Daemon Blackfyre. As far as we and he know House Blackfyre was extinguished on the Stepstones forty years ago so people should now be able to tell each other tales and songs about gallant Daemon and his love for Daeron's sister all day long. It does not matter. Just as nobody today cares whether the forced abdication of Edward VIII was correct.

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Didn't you claim in another thread that the court Aegon IV left behind him was infested with corruption and it took Daeron the better part of a year to clear the place out? Maybe people at that time didn't yet want Daemon, making people thought that Daeron would turn out in another way was given the crown and maybe, given that Daemon was by accounts turned slowly over more than a decade, he was himself not interested in taking the throne?

That is why I talked about visible/open resistance. There might very well have been some secret resentment that Daeron II was now taking over but apparently the Hand and the councilmen weren't able or dared not to move against him. Aegon IV not naming Daemon Blackfyre and disinheriting Daeron might have had something to do with that.

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Yes it does. It comes down as most of our discussions to the king's power and the nature of succession. If the king can pick his heir and do whatever he likes unbound by law, custom or anything else there is no, and I repeat no, reason to say or think that Aegon could not pick Daemon as his heir and unmake Daeron as his heir in whatever fashion he wanted, like giving Daemon the sword Blackfyre. Nor that he couldn't make Daemon ahead of Daeron if the fancy would strike him regardless if Daemon was a bastard at that time.

Nobody ever said anything about the king being able to do what the hell he wanted. But he makes the laws, so he can change them. That also applies to the succession. Putting your daughter before your son isn't exactly the greatest revolution on earth. That would be something ridiculous like naming your horse your heir.

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Rhaenys and Visenya Where not queen regnant's there power and authority always depended on there brother Aegon I so they did not rule in there own right.

That is not clear. We know both Visenya and Rhaenys sat the Iron Throne, made laws, dispensed justice, and ruled the Realm in Aegon's absence. We don't know whether they did this all in Aegon's name or by their own authority. Keep in mind that the Conqueror and his sister-wives conquered the Seven Kingdoms. Their word would have been law and their subjects would have obeyed. There would have been no talk about the place of a woman or stuff of that sort. The Targaryens effectively did as they pleased.

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

also they lived before the great council of 101 that established that women could not inherit the throne.

Viserys I then established that women can inherit the throne. Besides, the Great Council only settled the succession of Jaehaerys I. Viserys I was a different case and a different man.

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

The Great council is basicaly the westeros counterpart of parliament, and i doubt that the Queen could tell parliament that she is changing a law.

And last but not least parliament has only just recently made this amendment, in modern times based on modern values, not in medieval times based on medieval values, so you are comparing apples to pears here.

No, the Great Council isn't Parliament. It is perhaps based on the very early forms of a parliament but unlike the English parliament a Great Council was nothing but the collective lords of the Realm advising the king on matters he laid before them. You have to keep in mind that the first Great Council was not only convened by the king but its vote for Viserys as Jaehaerys' heir had to be ratified by the king thereafter. The Great Council had no legal authority of its own independent of the king.

There were only three Great Councils in the entire history of the Targaryen reign and two of them discussed the succession, a topic the lords should actually care less about than, say, their own powers and privileges or the amount of taxes they have to pay.

If there had really a Parliament-like legal body in the Realm it would have assembled much more regularly and would have had much more authority.

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, direpupy said:

Rhaenys and Visenya Where not queen regnant's there power and authority always depended on there brother Aegon I so they did not rule in there own right. also they lived before the great council of 101 that established that women could not inherit the throne.

The Great council is basicaly the westeros counterpart of parliament, and i doubt that the Queen could tell parliament that she is changing a law.

And last but not least parliament has only just recently made this amendment, in modern times based on modern values, not in medieval times based on medieval values, so you are comparing apples to pears here.

Rhaenys' and Visenya's authority may have been less than Aegon's, but they were still ruling Queens, in the same way that the Roman and Byzantine Empires frequently had senior and junior Emperors.

In the eyes of the Greens, the Great Council established that a woman could not rule or transmit a claim.  In the eyes of the Blacks, the Great Council simply favoured one claimant (Viserys) over another (Laenor) on the ground that Viserys was the son of the recently deceased Crown Prince.

And a Great Council is not a Parliament.  It has only met three times in the history of Westeros. 

WRT the idea of a woman being a ruler, certainly ancient and medieval societies strongly preferred a man to be ruler, and the ideal was for a man to be succeeded by his son, but relatively few societies have maintained an absolute bar on a woman being a ruler.  A few (such as some Spanish states in the early years of the Reconquista) even practised equal inheritance. One of the big plot points of Maurice Druon's Les Rois Maudits is Robert of Artois' resentment at the fact that his Aunt inherited the County of Artois, following the death of his grandfather, rather than it passing to him, and this accurately represents the law of Artois in the Fourteenth century. 

A society in which a woman could just as easily be a dragonrider as a man is not one in which the idea of a Queen regnant should be outlandish.

Edit:  Assuming that a woman can be Queen regnant, I suppose the question then arises whether Prince Aegon should be preferred, as a son, over his older half-sister, as ruler.   Certainly, younger sons are usually preferred over older sisters according to Andal custom, but I have no idea whether that applies to children by second marriages, as opposed to children by the first.  And, the first wife, Lady Aemma Arryn, was of much higher birth than the second, Lady Alicent Hightower.  Lady Arryn was the daughter of a Lord Parmount, and grand-daughter of King Jaeherys I.  Lady Hightower was the daughter of the younger son of a Lord Paramount, with no royal blood that I know of.  A Targaryen King would not be acting capriciously, in favouring a successor who was Targaryen on both sides of her ancestry, rather than a successor who was not.

[direpupy]

On ‎21‎-‎9‎-‎2016 at 1:02 AM, Lord Varys said:

1)That is not clear. We know both Visenya and Rhaenys sat the Iron Throne, made laws, dispensed justice, and ruled the Realm in Aegon's absence. We don't know whether they did this all in Aegon's name or by their own authority. Keep in mind that the Conqueror and his sister-wives conquered the Seven Kingdoms. Their word would have been law and their subjects would have obeyed. There would have been no talk about the place of a woman or stuff of that sort. The Targaryens effectively did as they pleased.

2)Viserys I then established that women can inherit the throne. Besides, the Great Council only settled the succession of Jaehaerys I. Viserys I was a different case and a different man.

3)No, the Great Council isn't Parliament. It is perhaps based on the very early forms of a parliament but unlike the English parliament a Great Council was nothing but the collective lords of the Realm advising the king on matters he laid before them. You have to keep in mind that the first Great Council was not only convened by the king but its vote for Viserys as Jaehaerys' heir had to be ratified by the king thereafter. The Great Council had no legal authority of its own independent of the king.

4)There were only three Great Councils in the entire history of the Targaryen reign and two of them discussed the succession, a topic the lords should actually care less about than, say, their own powers and privileges or the amount of taxes they have to pay.

5)If there had really a Parliament-like legal body in the Realm it would have assembled much more regularly and would have had much more authority.

1)Actually the tWoIaF clealy says that Aegon would let them rule in his place clearly that means he had to empower them otherwise they would not rule in his place but by there own right. So you are wrong on this since wat you say contradicts wat whe know from tWoIaF.

2)Changing a law made by your ancestor and confirmed by the collective Lords of the realm is not something you can do on a wim, if a king had that kind of power Aegon V would not have had the trouble he had in implementing his changes. So i disagree with you that Viserys I had that kind of authority.

3) early parliament was the collective Lords of the realm so in that respect it is the equivelant of mediëval parliament, and early parliament was also advisery in nature but not following that advice was a dangereus proposal for any king. And technicaly even today the monarch has to ratify the decisions of parliament even if in these days that is only a formality.

4) in the middle ages calling of parliament (or rather the early equivelant of it) was only done when the king wanted to address a mayor problem, so they where not called for very often so in that respect there is no differens either.

5)No it would not, mediëval parliament like gatherings where hap-hazard in the middle ages but they still had power ignoring the mayority of your Lords is dangereus so kings rarely went against the decisions.

[Lord Varys]

57 minutes ago, direpupy said:

1)Actually the tWoIaF clealy says that Aegon would let them rule in his place clearly that means he had to empower them otherwise they would not rule in his place but by there own right. So you are wrong on this since wat you say contradicts wat whe know from tWoIaF.

There is no reason to assume that Aegon had to empower Visenya and Rhaenys in any way, or grant them authority. They co-conquered Westeros with him, and may very well have been the true powers behind him.

We have it confirmed that Queen Rhaenys sat the Iron Throne (suggesting that Visenya did this, too, in Aegon's absence, considering that she wielded even more power in later years, founding the Kingsguard). She made the Rule of Six and there is no hint whatsoever that the Conqueror was consulted about this or that he was mentioned in her decision. Thus it is entirely possible that Rhaenys and Visenya ruled in their own right without issuing laws and decrees in the name of King Aegon.

The Targaryen government was not exactly well-organized or structured in those early days. There was no Small Council, after all. The various offices who would eventually form the Small Council already existed but the authority of those men and the power of the various offices would have been decided by the king on a whim.

Cersei as Queen Consort and later Queen Regent can't even sit on the Iron Throne and by then the office of the Hand (most likely beginning in the reign of Jaehaerys I and continuing while Otto Hightower and Lyonel Strong were Hands) had amassed so much power that only the Hand spoke with the King's Voice and could sit the Iron Throne in his absence. But that was not so in the earlier days.

57 minutes ago, direpupy said:

2)Changing a law made by your ancestor and confirmed by the collective Lords of the realm is not something you can do on a wim, if a king had that kind of power Aegon V would not have had the trouble he had in implementing his changes. So i disagree with you that Viserys I had that kind of authority.

King Viserys I was the most powerful king to sit ever on the Iron Throne. He could do whatever the hell he wanted to, and he succeeded in that. People told him that he would go against the precedents of 92 AC and 101 AC (but not against the one set by Maegor I in 48 AC) but he ignored it, named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent, and the lords gathered at his throne and swore their vows to Rhaenyra.

That means he could do such a thing. In addition, you have to keep in mind that the Dance was basically the outgrowth of a coup staged by the Greens at court. Had Viserys I executed Otto Hightower in 128 AC and sent Alicent to the Silent Sisters there wouldn't have been coup nor a Dance thereafter. Perhaps some lords would have grumbled that they now had a Queen Regnant but the majority of Westeros had long grown accustomed to the idea that Rhaenyra would one day rule over them.

Aegon V had no dragons and ruled in a different time. Not to mention that he actually wanted to cull the powers of his lords in some ways whereas Viserys I just wanted to give his throne to his daughter. Those are different things. But if Aegon V had had as many dragons as Viserys I he wouldn't have faced as strong an opposition as he did.

57 minutes ago, direpupy said:

3) early parliament was the collective Lords of the realm so in that respect it is the equivelant of mediëval parliament, and early parliament was also advisery in nature but not following that advice was a dangereus proposal for any king. And technicaly even today the monarch has to ratify the decisions of parliament even if in these days that is only a formality.

As I've said, a Great Council might be based on the early forms of Parliament but there is no Magna Carta in Westeros nor any other indication that any body of assembled lords has any rights or authority on its own.

Ignoring the wishes of your most powerful subjects is always dangerous, but that isn't the issue here. It is also dangerous when there is no formal gathering of lords voicing their discontent. If too many powerful individuals don't like where you want to go you might be in trouble, too.

57 minutes ago, direpupy said:

4) in the middle ages calling of parliament (or rather the early equivelant of it) was only done when the king wanted to address a mayor problem, so they where not called for very often so in that respect there is no differens either.

There certainly is a difference because Parliament was not regularly dealing with the royal succession (and only in times when the power of the monarch had begun to wane, like when they invited the House of Hanover to take over). The English Parliaments actually occupied themselves with other more important questions like taxes, the limits of the power of the monarch, the rights of the lords, due process (especially in court) etc.

But in Westeros the only question the Crown laid before the lords in the Great Council was the royal succession, and that only to prevent a war. Both Jaehaerys I and Bloodraven feared a civil war should the succession not be settled in a broad consensus. And the Great Council of 136 AC most likely also was supposed to prevent another civil war by naming new regents for Aegon III.

57 minutes ago, direpupy said:

5)No it would not, mediëval parliament like gatherings where hap-hazard in the middle ages but they still had power ignoring the mayority of your Lords is dangereus so kings rarely went against the decisions.

As I've said, you don't need Parliament for that. And you should keep in mind that the first Great Council might actually just have been Jaehaerys I's way to ensure that his candidate, Prince Viserys the eldest son of his previous heir, Prince Baelon, can succeed unchallenged to the Iron Throne. There is no doubt that Jaehaerys I would have favored Viserys, and the fact that so many lords supported him might have to do more with Ser Otto buying their votes with Hightower and Lannister money than with their preference for Viserys. Not to mention that the candidate of the Old King would have been the candidate of the most lords anyway. Jaehaerys I would have been the most popular Targaryen king ever, especially at the end of his reign when basically everybody was happy.

And you have to keep in mind that the Great Council just decided one king's succession. Granted, the legal arguments used were against female inheritance but the legal arguments are secondary in such debates. They are means to an end, not the end, because we are in a medieval society were there isn't even the fiction of impartial/independent law but the law is very much and openly in the hands of the mighty.

In 101 AC Viserys should be made the heir. Thus he was. But a few years later Prince Daemon should be prevented to become the heir at all costs. Thus he was. Then it was convenient that a woman - Rhaenyra - be named heir in his place. And it was done.

The funny thing is that the Great Council actually created all the problems stressing the whole 'the female line can never inherit' thing. That made Daemon confident that he was now Viserys' heir presumptive whether the man or the Realm wanted that or not because he was the closest male relative of the king. Thus Viserys I had to make a grand ceremony and involve solemn vows sworn to Rhaenyra to make her his heir against the earlier precedents. Had he just named her his heir presumptive until a son was born to him Rhaenyra's position wouldn't have been strong enough against Daemon's claim.

But after the grand ceremony going back to a male claimant was pretty difficult, too. Viserys I would have to force all those lords who had sworn vows to Rhaenyra to disregard or reinterpret them now - because the vow they sworn clearly made her the heir, period. Not only the heir presumptive until the king had a son.

23 hours ago, SeanF said:

Assuming that a woman can be Queen regnant, I suppose the question then arises whether Prince Aegon should be preferred, as a son, over his older half-sister, as ruler.   Certainly, younger sons are usually preferred over older sisters according to Andal custom, but I have no idea whether that applies to children by second marriages, as opposed to children by the first.  And, the first wife, Lady Aemma Arryn, was of much higher birth than the second, Lady Alicent Hightower.  Lady Arryn was the daughter of a Lord Parmount, and grand-daughter of King Jaeherys I.  Lady Hightower was the daughter of the younger son of a Lord Paramount, with no royal blood that I know of.  A Targaryen King would not be acting capriciously, in favouring a successor who was Targaryen on both sides of her ancestry, rather than a successor who was not.

The Small Council actually debates all this upon the death of Viserys I. One of Lyman Beesbury's arguments in favor of Rhaenyra's claim is that she has more Targaryen blood than Alicent's children.

And, yeah, the fact that Alicent Hightower is merely the granddaughter of a Lord of Oldtown makes her not exactly a great match for a king. She certainly has the noble Hightower ancestry but not the standing and rank a future queen should actually have. Not to mention the reputation she acquired at court.

The fact that the incestuous marriage policy of the Targaryens survived as long as it did definitely means that it was important to stress the special status of the royal house and thus any mundane marriage could certainly have lessened the claims of the descendants from such a marriage.

It is certainly no coincidence that only the bastard of Aegon IV who was Targaryen on both sides could actually challenge Daeron II. And we also see that Queen Alicent very much understands this and tries to make up for her own lack of Targaryen blood by marrying Aegon to Helaena so that nothing appears to be wrong with her son who makes a point of following the family tradition.

[direpupy]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to assume that Aegon had to empower Visenya and Rhaenys in any way, or grant them authority. They co-conquered Westeros with him, and may very well have been the true powers behind him.

We have it confirmed that Queen Rhaenys sat the Iron Throne (suggesting that Visenya did this, too, in Aegon's absence, considering that she wielded even more power in later years, founding the Kingsguard). She made the Rule of Six and there is no hint whatsoever that the Conqueror was consulted about this or that he was mentioned in her decision. Thus it is entirely possible that Rhaenys and Visenya ruled in their own right without issuing laws and decrees in the name of King Aegon.

The Targaryen government was not exactly well-organized or structured in those early days. There was no Small Council, after all. The various offices who would eventually form the Small Council already existed but the authority of those men and the power of the various offices would have been decided by the king on a whim.

Cersei as Queen Consort and later Queen Regent can't even sit on the Iron Throne and by then the office of the Hand (most likely beginning in the reign of Jaehaerys I and continuing while Otto Hightower and Lyonel Strong were Hands) had amassed so much power that only the Hand spoke with the King's Voice and could sit the Iron Throne in his absence. But that was not so in the earlier days.

King Viserys I was the most powerful king to sit ever on the Iron Throne. He could do whatever the hell he wanted to, and he succeeded in that. People told him that he would go against the precedents of 92 AC and 101 AC (but not against the one set by Maegor I in 48 AC) but he ignored it, named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent, and the lords gathered at his throne and swore their vows to Rhaenyra.

That means he could do such a thing. In addition, you have to keep in mind that the Dance was basically the outgrowth of a coup staged by the Greens at court. Had Viserys I executed Otto Hightower in 128 AC and sent Alicent to the Silent Sisters there wouldn't have been coup nor a Dance thereafter. Perhaps some lords would have grumbled that they now had a Queen Regnant but the majority of Westeros had long grown accustomed to the idea that Rhaenyra would one day rule over them.

Aegon V had no dragons and ruled in a different time. Not to mention that he actually wanted to cull the powers of his lords in some ways whereas Viserys I just wanted to give his throne to his daughter. Those are different things. But if Aegon V had had as many dragons as Viserys I he wouldn't have faced as strong an opposition as he did.

As I've said, a Great Council might be based on the early forms of Parliament but there is no Magna Carta in Westeros nor any other indication that any body of assembled lords has any rights or authority on its own.

Ignoring the wishes of your most powerful subjects is always dangerous, but that isn't the issue here. It is also dangerous when there is no formal gathering of lords voicing their discontent. If too many powerful individuals don't like where you want to go you might be in trouble, too.

There certainly is a difference because Parliament was not regularly dealing with the royal succession (and only in times when the power of the monarch had begun to wane, like when they invited the House of Hanover to take over). The English Parliaments actually occupied themselves with other more important questions like taxes, the limits of the power of the monarch, the rights of the lords, due process (especially in court) etc.

But in Westeros the only question the Crown laid before the lords in the Great Council was the royal succession, and that only to prevent a war. Both Jaehaerys I and Bloodraven feared a civil war should the succession not be settled in a broad consensus. And the Great Council of 136 AC most likely also was supposed to prevent another civil war by naming new regents for Aegon III.

As I've said, you don't need Parliament for that. And you should keep in mind that the first Great Council might actually just have been Jaehaerys I's way to ensure that his candidate, Prince Viserys the eldest son of his previous heir, Prince Baelon, can succeed unchallenged to the Iron Throne. There is no doubt that Jaehaerys I would have favored Viserys, and the fact that so many lords supported him might have to do more with Ser Otto buying their votes with Hightower and Lannister money than with their preference for Viserys. Not to mention that the candidate of the Old King would have been the candidate of the most lords anyway. Jaehaerys I would have been the most popular Targaryen king ever, especially at the end of his reign when basically everybody was happy.

And you have to keep in mind that the Great Council just decided one king's succession. Granted, the legal arguments used were against female inheritance but the legal arguments are secondary in such debates. They are means to an end, not the end, because we are in a medieval society were there isn't even the fiction of impartial/independent law but the law is very much and openly in the hands of the mighty.

In 101 AC Viserys should be made the heir. Thus he was. But a few years later Prince Daemon should be prevented to become the heir at all costs. Thus he was. Then it was convenient that a woman - Rhaenyra - be named heir in his place. And it was done.

The funny thing is that the Great Council actually created all the problems stressing the whole 'the female line can never inherit' thing. That made Daemon confident that he was now Viserys' heir presumptive whether the man or the Realm wanted that or not because he was the closest male relative of the king. Thus Viserys I had to make a grand ceremony and involve solemn vows sworn to Rhaenyra to make her his heir against the earlier precedents. Had he just named her his heir presumptive until a son was born to him Rhaenyra's position wouldn't have been strong enough against Daemon's claim.

But after the grand ceremony going back to a male claimant was pretty difficult, too. Viserys I would have to force all those lords who had sworn vows to Rhaenyra to disregard or reinterpret them now - because the vow they sworn clearly made her the heir, period. Not only the heir presumptive until the king had a son.

The Small Council actually debates all this upon the death of Viserys I. One of Lyman Beesbury's arguments in favor of Rhaenyra's claim is that she has more Targaryen blood than Alicent's children.

And, yeah, the fact that Alicent Hightower is merely the granddaughter of a Lord of Oldtown makes her not exactly a great match for a king. She certainly has the noble Hightower ancestry but not the standing and rank a future queen should actually have. Not to mention the reputation she acquired at court.

The fact that the incestuous marriage policy of the Targaryens survived as long as it did definitely means that it was important to stress the special status of the royal house and thus any mundane marriage could certainly have lessened the claims of the descendants from such a marriage.

It is certainly no coincidence that only the bastard of Aegon IV who was Targaryen on both sides could actually challenge Daeron II. And we also see that Queen Alicent very much understands this and tries to make up for her own lack of Targaryen blood by marrying Aegon to Helaena so that nothing appears to be wrong with her son who makes a point of following the family tradition.

Honestly i don't think we are going to agree on this, i think you are wrong but i do respect your opinion. I just honestly think you are misinterperting certain things, like for instance Rhaenys and Visenya ruling in there own name, in the founding of the Kingsguard she actually had to cut his face to convince him to let her choose who she wanted in there so obvieusly she needed his consent or she would not have had to do that.

I do think you hit the mark on why Viserys stubbornly held to his daughter being his heir in defiance of andal custom in the part of your post i bolded, once appointed he simply did not want to go back on a desicion so publicly made and enforced by an oath.

But i don't think that discusing this further is going to help and its not furthering the discussion point of this tread, which was why rhaenyra is not considered Queen regnant but a usurper.

So lets just agree to disagree.

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I do think you hit the mark on why Viserys stubbornly held to his daughter being his heir in defiance of andal custom in the part of your post i bolded, once appointed he simply did not want to go back on a desicion so publicly made and enforced by an oath.

No, it is not just Viserys I it is also the lords involved who swore that oath. Yes, Viserys I would also look like a fool if he suddenly commanded his lords to ignore an oath they once swore and swear instead a new one, contradicting the first one - which they most likely would have been forced to do because Aegon the Elder would now have needed as grand a ceremony to make him the king's heir as Rhaenyra had gotten.

But even if the king had done so there was no reason to believe that a majority of the lords who had sworn to defend Rhaenyra's rights would not do so upon the king's death and challenge the claim of Aegon the Elder on those grounds.

In effect, the way Viserys I made Rhaenyra his heir made it all but impossible to change that whole thing. At least not without creating even more trouble.