Jaehaerys I was a usurper.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

24 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I do and I agree that there are similarities. What I disagree with is with saying that because something happened in real word that has to happen it a fantasy world.

From all we know he and his allies were keeping the girls captives and that is why their mothers helped him.  Much like how Elizabeth Woodville had supported Henry VII.

Yet the Targs seemed to have accepted the Seven and according the seven a daughter comes before a brother. But after all its not like Jaehaerys had a problem of taking things that belonged to others as history proves.

I didn't say it "has to" happen that way. I said it's the far more likely case given the author's words about realism in fantasy storytelling.

That's quite a leap of logic. It's far more likely that Maegor had the girls under lock and key, in which case Rhaena risked their deaths to support her brother. No mother would risk her child's life when that child was the rightful heir, just so she could support a usurper.

The Seven are a religion. They don't dictate succession laws. If the Targs had really accepted the Seven, Rhaena and Aegon wouldn't have been married, nor would Jaehaerys and Alysanne.

Oh really? What did Jaehaerys take that didn't belong to him? 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

26 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

That's quite a leap of logic. It's far more likely that Maegor had the girls under lock and key, in which case Rhaena risked their deaths to support her brother. No mother would risk her child's life when that child was the rightful heir, just so she could support a usurper.

She had already married Maegor who was an usurper and by what you said could had the girls captive. So she did had supported an usurper while her children were in danger and they were the heirs.

26 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The Seven are a religion. They don't dictate succession laws. If the Targs had really accepted the Seven, Rhaena and Aegon wouldn't have been married, nor would Jaehaerys and Alysanne.

You are right but still if the Targs were able to do whatever they wanted he would had named whoever he wanted as his heir without a council. Which means that what was the law of succession in the rest of Westeros was applying to the Targs at some degree something that even Alysanne supported. Or the laws only mattered when it came to his blood?

26 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Oh really? What did Jaehaerys take that didn't belong to him? 

The Starks' land.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

She had already married Maegor who was an usurper and by what you said could had the girls captive. So she did had supported an usurper while her children we

You are right but still if the Targs were able to do whatever they wanted he would had named whoever he wanted as his heir without a council. Which means that what was the law of succession in the rest of Westeros was applying to the Targa at some degree something that even Alysanne supported.

 

The Starks' land.

She did not willingly enter that marriage. Being forced to wed a man does not mean you support him. 

You're not allowing for the difference between what someone "can" do and what someone "will" do. Maegor exemplified the "I can, so I will" mentality perfectly. He had no morals and no qualms about using and abusing his power to the utmost. Jaehaerys was not Maegor. Jaehaerys could have named whoever he wanted as heir, but he was too decent to do so in the face of opposition such as he faced from his own wife whose ideas he valued and respected. He had standards and was not willing to just leave the question of succession up to himself, thus he called the Great Council to allow the lords of the realm a say in who would be their next king. 

That's just the thing...there was no law of succession in Westeros. There was tradition...a tradition which put all male claimants above all female claimants. 

Alysanne supported the claim of one particular granddaughter of hers, which she did at the age of 56. She did not at any point advocate for system-wide change to the traditions in place. There is no mention of her having a mindset favoring equality in her youth, and there is no mention of her expressing any problem with Jaehaerys' being crowned king. If she had objected, she probably wouldn't have married him two years later.

Funny you should mention the New Gift, because it was Alysanne's idea. She was the one who convinced Jaehaerys to go along with it. Like it or not, that was entirely ethical by the standards of their culture. All lands held by feudal lords are held by them at the pleasure of their liege. The Stark land belonged primarily to the crown, and then to the Starks. When Torrhen Stark bent the knee to Aegon I, the Starks gave up the right to absolute power over the North, including over their own land.

[Wrl6199]

4 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

She did not willingly enter that marriage. Being forced to wed a man does not mean you support him. 

You're not allowing for the difference between what someone "can" do and what someone "will" do. Maegor exemplified the "I can, so I will" mentality perfectly. He had no morals and no qualms about using and abusing his power to the utmost. Jaehaerys was not Maegor. Jaehaerys could have named whoever he wanted as heir, but he was too decent to do so in the face of opposition such as he faced from his own wife whose ideas he valued and respected. He had standards and was not willing to just leave the question of succession up to himself, thus he called the Great Council to allow the lords of the realm a say in who would be their next king. 

That's just the thing...there was no law of succession in Westeros. There was tradition...a tradition which put all male claimants above all female claimants. 

Alysanne supported the claim of one particular granddaughter of hers, which she did at the age of 56. She did not at any point advocate for system-wide change to the traditions in place. There is no mention of her having a mindset favoring equality in her youth, and there is no mention of her expressing any problem with Jaehaerys' being crowned king. If she had objected, she probably wouldn't have married him two years later.

Funny you should mention the New Gift, because it was Alysanne's idea. She was the one who convinced Jaehaerys to go along with it. Like it or not, that was entirely ethical by the standards of their culture. All lands held by feudal lords are held by them at the pleasure of their liege. The Stark land belonged primarily to the crown, and then to the Starks. When Torrhen Stark bent the knee to Aegon I, the Starks gave up the right to absolute power over the North, including over their own land.

Thais true.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

18 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

She did not willingly enter that marriage. Being forced to wed a man does not mean you support him. 

And what I am saying is that she was forced to support Jaehaerys. 

18 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You're not allowing for the difference between what someone "can" do and what someone "will" do. Maegor exemplified the "I can, so I will" mentality perfectly. He had no morals and no qualms about using and abusing his power to the utmost. Jaehaerys was not Maegor. Jaehaerys could have named whoever he wanted as heir, but he was too decent to do so in the face of opposition such as he faced from his own wife whose ideas he valued and respected. He had standards and was not willing to just leave the question of succession up to himself, thus he called the Great Council to allow the lords of the realm a say in who would be their next king. 

He was decent, how funny especially thinking how he treated his children, when it came to his descendants. How hypocritical.

18 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

That's just the thing...there was no law of succession in Westeros. There was tradition...a tradition which put all male claimants above all female claimants. 

That doesn't sound right as for example in Alys Karstark's case seems. Maybe there isn't a law in modern sense but the guest right isn't a law either so who cares about Red Wedding since it isn't a law.

18 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Alysanne supported the claim of one particular granddaughter of hers, which she did at the age of 56. She did not at any point advocate for system-wide change to the traditions in place. There is no mention of her having a mindset favoring equality in her youth, and there is no mention of her expressing any problem with Jaehaerys' being crowned king. If she had objected, she probably wouldn't have married him two years later.

The fact that she was hypocritical in her whole life doesn't change the fact that she did thought that a heir's daughter do have the right to the Throne. If Rhaenys didn't had any right then there was no reason for a council.

18 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Funny you should mention the New Gift, because it was Alysanne's idea. She was the one who convinced Jaehaerys to go along with it. Like it or not, that was entirely ethical by the standards of their culture. All lands held by feudal lords are held by them at the pleasure of their liege. The Stark land belonged primarily to the crown, and then to the Starks. When Torrhen Stark bent the knee to Aegon I, the Starks gave up the right to absolute power over the North, including over their own land.

So what he did, had forced the Starks and took their lands while the Starks had no freedom to say otherwise, like what Rhaenys had done when she made Torrhen's daughter to marry the Arryn Lord. How is that any different with dictaroship? In anycase for a King who claims to be wise and just it just proves how hypocritical he was and how he had took what he wanted, either that was a crown or some land. He took the land because he was the *king* he took the crown because he was the own who was supported by for example his mother, a woman who prefered to take a sword than to even try to give a proper burial to her son, let alone to save him.

[direpupy]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

1)Sure, that's my view as well. But the people holding this position were opposing Viserys I's decision to name Rhaenyra his heir. The heir presumptive was Daemon until such a time as the king had a legitimate son. Daughters, the sons of daughters, and other women and males through the female line could no longer inherit.

2)Many prominent people at Viserys I's court who loathed the idea of King Daemon I supported their king in his desire to name Rhaenyra Heir Apparent, Otto Hightower foremost among them. But there were people opposing this idea.

3)Nope. You have to reread TRP to get the full picture. Prior to Daemon's 'heir of a day' comment Viserys I himself seemed to be not entirely opposed to the idea that Daemon could succeed him nor did he yet insist on Rhaenyra as his heir.

4)Rebellions are always possible, nobody doubts that.

5)The problem is more fundamental. Prior to TWoIaF we all did not go all that much with a precedent-based law system. Some king does something this way, this then becomes a precedent if kings later stick to it so that it even might become a custom. Say, the first king establishing that beheading is a the usual punishment for this or that crime.

In regards to the succession precedents just mean that things could or should be done this way. This is no binding alternative. The SSM we had about women no longer being considered heirs after the Dance/being at the very end of the line of succession suggested a much more binding law, say, an Act of Succession which might technically even bind kings.

But nothing of that sort happened.

6)In addition, precedents are open to interpretation. Prince Duncan gave up his claim to the Iron Throne because of his morganatic marriage. That certainly could be used as a precedent for a king deciding to disinherit a son who married a woman he considered to be unfit to be a queen (or for basically any other reason he could come up with - the king would have the last word on the interpretation of those precedents). And when Aerys II chose Viserys rather than Aegon as his heir he could also have cited both the First and the Third Great Council as precedents for proximity over primogeniture.

7)There weren't that many people, apparently, who fought for Aegon II for that reason. And in the end the only heir Aegon II was left with was a lackwit daughter. Those people actually caring for his bloodline - like Alicent - would have wanted her on the Iron Throne rather than any descendants of Daemon's or Rhaenyra's.

8)For Corlys (and Cregan Stark) it wouldn't have been a problem to also recognize Aegon III's claim to the Iron Throne through Rhaenyra. And I'm pretty sure both of them did.

9)The precedent set by the Dance is ill defined. What exactly was that precedent? My guess is that it refers to Rhaenyra's death during the war and the fact that Aegon II defeated her. But that says nothing about the claims of her children.

10)No, he did not. He killed Rhaegar with his warhammer but that was about it. Robert was chosen by the rebel leaders as their pretender to the Iron Throne because the man had a claim. If he hadn't had a claim nobody among the rebels would have considered him worthy of a crown, certainly not a crown that would allow him to rule over all the Seven Kingdoms. In such a scenario they would have chosen another Targaryen cousin from amongst their ranks if such a person had existed or, even more likely, they would have set themselves as the regents of a pliable you King Aegon VI or Viserys III.

1) Agreed then

2) Again agreed

3) I have read it multiple times, him not being apposed to his brother possibly succeding him does not change the fact that when he disided that Rhaenyra would be his heir he met almost no opposition but that changed when he got a son. Nor does it change the fact that most of the reason he met no opposition had to do with people thinking Daemon as king would be a disaster.

4) Once more agreed then.

5) I agree that they original ssm did suggest a law and that it was only latter desided that it would only be a precedent, but i think you are underestimating the importance of precedents which in medieval times where sometimes more important then the actuall law, and to many simple people (like smallfolk) would actually be considered the law even if technically it is not a law.

That said i do think we are better off with a precedent because it leaves more wrigle room and that is how it would have been, historicaly things where usually not set in stone in the middle ages.

6) Most certainly this is the kind of wrigle room i mean.

7) For the people who care about his bloodline no they would not have cared, but i disagree that there would not have been people fighting by his side to ensure male line wins out over female, many a Lord or heir to a Lord would have a older sister and for these Rhaenyra being set over her brother could create problems for there own position. So i am convinced that a lot of the Greens support would come from those men who could see there own position in danger.

8) Perhaps privatly, but doing so openly would have meant leaving open the rift with the remaining Green Lords, which would have been politicly ill advised.

9) I can agree with this in part whe do not have all the information on this period yet unfortunatly do to the cut parts from the content, if i remember corectly they cut almost 10000 words from the final text of TWOIAF. So the exact nature of the precedent is like you said ill defined.

10)Yes his decent of his Targaryen grandmother was used as a pretext, but even Robert himself says its a pretext. Robert's claim came behind that of both Aery's and Rhaegar's children and hell even that of queen Rhaella. His claim was that he decended of a female Targaryen so all male Targaryens would come before him (Aegon, Viserys) and when there are no male Targaryens anymore you look to the female line closest to the last king that is Queen Rhaella or Rhaenys depending on if you favor Proximity or Primogeniture and after Dany is born her claim comes before Robert's as wel. So he did very much jump over them in succesion by virtue of his warhammer for it was the rebellion that made him king not his (very weak) claim.

[direpupy]

As to Jaehaerys being a usurper i don't really think its a simple question most of the precedents for Targaryen succesion were set by or after him, and the argument that the Targaryens exepted Andal law as there own when it came to succesion is a pretty weak argument. I mean in the books we actually get tot hear wat people thought of the Targaryens and acountability to anyone but themselves and other Targaryens:

Like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

Without any set precedent of there own, how they handeld succesion before the precedents set by the council of 101 and the Dance of Dragons is pretty much however the hell they wanted, i don't think there where rules of succesion for the Iron Throne at that time.

[theblackdragonI]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Richard I was followed by his youngest brother John, though, passing over his nephew Arthur. And back in the days of the early Norman kings things were even more convoluted amongst the sons of William the Conqueror.

In the late middle ages the succession from father to son became fixed, but that is, of course, always dependent on there being sons. The Capetian kings of France had a lot of luck with that as did the Plantagenet kings of England until Richard II and the later Wars of the Roses.

By time of the accession of Richard II things primogeniture had become the dominant succession law in England, presumably becoming ingrained in the land's custom after the minority governments of both Henry III and Edward III himself.

But proximity still was an important issue when you had to look for the heir of an empty throne among the more distant relations. In Westeros it is clear that the question whether a younger son or a grandson/great-grandson should take precedence hasn't been settled yet in favor of primogeniture. And it likely never will because there are already quite a few precedent against strict primogeniture as well as the common sense fact that a king should first and foremost be a good ruler, and such a person is preferably already a grown-up when he takes the throne. 

Things might have been more controversial if Aegon and Rhaena had had a son. But they didn't, and as I've outlined above the claims of royal daughters weren't considered to be as good as those of sons even back in the dragon days.

Aenys I's sons had a better claim than Prince Maegor, on that everybody agreed. But Aenys I's daughters were more controversial. Some thought they, too, should come before Maegor, others thought Maegor should come before them.

With the coming Targaryen succession struggle in the main series proximity definitely favors Daenerys, since she is the daughter of the last Targaryen king who sat the Iron Throne as well as the sister and chosen heir of the last Targaryen king in exile. Prince Aegon (or Jon Snow) are merely the (alleged) sons of a Targaryen prince who died a long time ago. Since they would only be Aerys' grandsons they are much farther away from royal power than Daenerys is. That is not unimportant. Steffon Baratheon being the son of a Targaryen princess and the grandson of Aegon V was also much closer to the Iron Throne than his sons Robert, Stannis, and Renly are. That's inevitable.

Thanks for this reply, cleared a lot of muddled thoughts about succession up, cheers!

[Lady Blizzardborn]

19 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

And what I am saying is that she was forced to support Jaehaerys. 

He was decent, how funny especially thinking how he treated his children, when it came to his descendants. How hypocritical.

That doesn't sound right as for example in Alys Karstark's case seems. Maybe there isn't a law in modern sense but the guest right isn't a law either so who cares about Red Wedding since it isn't a law.

The fact that she was hypocritical in her whole life doesn't change the fact that she did thought that a heir's daughter do have the right to the Throne. If Rhaenys didn't had any right then there was no reason for a council.

So what he did, had forced the Starks and took their lands while the Starks had no freedom to say otherwise, like what Rhaenys had done when she made Torrhen's daughter to marry the Arryn Lord. How is that any different with dictaroship?

In anycase for a King who claims to be wise and just it just proves how hypocritical he was and how he had took what he wanted, either that was a crown or some land. He took the land because he was the *king* he took the crown because he was the own who was supported by for example his mother, a woman who prefered to take a sword than to even try to give a proper burial to her son, let alone to save him.

You are saying that with absolutely nothing to support it. All of the known facts, and likely circumstances, are against your argument.

Go read about Jaehaerys. Seriously. Because you seem to have him mixed up with someone else. He didn't mistreat his children. He wasn't hypocritical, and he was--objectively (yes, objectively) speaking--one of the best kings Westeros ever had. His actions with regard to the succession are entirely consistent with the tradition and culture of the times. The only way he broke tradition was in calling a Great Council, which was one of the wisest and least selfish things he did. You have singled out one grandchild and claimed he was unfair to all of them, without having any proof that he was unfair even to the one you've singled out. By calling the Great Council he ensured that his own personal opinion would not be the deciding factor. That eliminates personal unfairness. 

Alys Karstark lives more than 200 years later. You have to deal with the reality of the time, not the reality of 200+ years later.

Try there wasn't a law in any sense, ancient or modern. The Red Wedding violated cultural tradition. A male heir coming before a female heir did not. 

She's not hypocritical. She changed her thinking. That happens as people grow and mature. But you're trying to equate Alysanne thinking a 27 year old woman should be considered for the throne with the insane idea that a 7 year old girl had an absolute right to the throne. 

People thinking someone might have a right to something does not give them a right to it. Jaehaerys was willing to allow the rulers of the land to come together and decide who DID have the right to take the throne after him. 

Did you miss the fact that feudal kings WERE dictators?  Political marriages were the norm, and high nobles did not marry without the consent of the crown.  You're trying again to apply 21st century ideas and standards to a medieval story. That never works.

You are also acting as if Jaehaerys took the land for himself, which he didn't. Or that he did it on some crazy whim of his, also false.

Jaehaerys did not call himself "the wise." People later assigned the byname. Just as they said he was wise. What alternate descriptor would you apply to a man who got the Blackwoods and Brackens to stop fighting for 50 years? One who gave Westeros their longest and most prosperous period of years?

You don't have a clue what he wanted. Neither do any of the rest of us. We have the historical record, not the workings of the minds and hearts of these characters. For some reason you've decided to dislike Jaehaerys I. Fine. That's your decision. Just don't be surprised that people find it incomprehensible.

You really don't understand anything about the time setting, do you? You're also mixing up your characters. Rhaena, who took the sword and gave it to Jaehaerys, was mother to Aerea and Rhalla. Alyssa Velaryon, was mother to Rhaena, Aegon, Viserys, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne. Viserys was killed in nine days. Alyssa would likely not have even learned of his torture until after he was dead. If she had gone back for Viserys' body, she would have been killed, imprisoned, or tortured herself. Targaryens do not bury their dead, besides which with Maegor the Cruel on the throne, no one had time to worry about the dead. 

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, direpupy said:

3) I have read it multiple times, him not being apposed to his brother possibly succeding him does not change the fact that when he disided that Rhaenyra would be his heir he met almost no opposition but that changed when he got a son. Nor does it change the fact that most of the reason he met no opposition had to do with people thinking Daemon as king would be a disaster.

I was thinking about that 'a daughter is a daughter but a brother is a brother' line (quoting from memory) he used before the death of his son when pushed by Otto and other about Daemon and the succession. He liked Rhaenyra very much but he was not yet ready to disinherit Daemon who, again, was seen by many as the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne due to the Great Council.

7 minutes ago, direpupy said:

5) I agree that they original ssm did suggest a law and that it was only latter desided that it would only be a precedent, but i think you are underestimating the importance of precedents which in medieval times where sometimes more important then the actuall law, and to many simple people (like smallfolk) would actually be considered the law even if technically it is not a law.

In legal terms you are surely right but each succession would have to be interpreted as a precedent because each succession was an individual event. Just look at the Targaryen succession. In the first century there is only one succession from father to son Aegon > Aenys. We have only one precedent for that. The other succession are brother > half-brother instead of son followed by uncle > nephew and grandfather > son of the second son.

People could demand or wish that the Targaryens follow the traditions of the Andals or the First Men but they were not bound by that. Primogeniture had to be established as a guiding principle ruling the succession of the Targaryen throne before it could be considered custom. If Aenys I had wanted Maegor to follow him certainly could have decreed such a thing. Just as the Conqueror could have made Visenya or Maegor his heir instead of Aenys.

7 minutes ago, direpupy said:

That said i do think we are better off with a precedent because it leaves more wrigle room and that is how it would have been, historicaly things where usually not set in stone in the middle ages.

I don't think the smallfolk did care all that much about the royal succession. What little we know of them suggests that they were in favor of Rhaenyra's and Daena's succession, though.

7 minutes ago, direpupy said:

7) For the people who care about his bloodline no they would not have cared, but i disagree that there would not have been people fighting by his side to ensure male line wins out over female, many a Lord or heir to a Lord would have a older sister and for these Rhaenyra being set over her brother could create problems for there own position. So i am convinced that a lot of the Greens support would come from those men who could see there own position in danger.

For the people taking sides based on principle it would have been the 'women shouldn't rule' thing, yes, but that should have been over with after Rhaenyra got fed to Sunfyre. Then they could actually sort of acknowledge her claim and allow it to transfer through her to Aegon III because he was male, unlike Aegon II's only surviving heiress Jaehaera.

I agree that part of Rhaenyra's problem was that she actually had younger brothers and that her father actually effectively tried to introduce Dornish law to the Seven Kingdoms. That was a little bit much. But then, half the Realm or more were fine with Rhaenyra's succession. It was a small cabal at court who staged a coup and thus began a war. Had Rhaenyra been Hand when her father had died there would either have been no war at all or only a minor rebellion that would have been quickly crushed.

7 minutes ago, direpupy said:

8) Perhaps privatly, but doing so openly would have meant leaving open the rift with the remaining Green Lords, which would have been politicly ill advised.

I don't think that would have been a problem. Again, Rhaenyra was dead at that time and Jaehaera was the girl, not Aegon III.

7 minutes ago, direpupy said:

9) I can agree with this in part whe do not have all the information on this period yet unfortunatly do to the cut parts from the content, if i remember corectly they cut almost 10000 words from the final text of TWOIAF. So the exact nature of the precedent is like you said ill defined.

The full account on the Dance has 80,000 words I think. We got 34,000 words in TPatQ and a very condensed account focusing mainly on the events cut from TPatQ but we are still missing a lot. But I doubt the Dance as a legal precedent is discussed in detail therein.

That would have been done later, possibly during the Regency. In fact, according to Ran the Regency Council actually discussed the royal succession at one point after the Dance, before they knew that Prince Viserys was still alive. That would have been rather interesting considering that Aegon III was the last male Targaryen. His heirs would have been through the female line. One assumes the immediate heirs were Baela Targaryen and Alyn Velaryon, followed by Rhaena Targaryen and her husband.

That wouldn't have exactly strengthened this whole 'males only' approach the Great Council and the Dance tried push. But there weren't any other heirs left. And somebody would have to sit the Iron Throne.

7 minutes ago, direpupy said:

10)Yes his decent of his Targaryen grandmother was used as a pretext, but even Robert himself says its a pretext. Robert's claim came behind that of both Aery's and Rhaegar's children and hell even that of queen Rhaella. His claim was that he decended of a female Targaryen so all male Targaryens would come before him (Aegon, Viserys) and when there are no male Targaryens anymore you look to the female line closest to the last king that is Queen Rhaella or Rhaenys depending on if you favor Proximity or Primogeniture and after Dany is born her claim comes before Robert's as wel. So he did very much jump over them in succesion by virtue of his warhammer for it was the rebellion that made him king not his (very weak) claim.

It isn't the warhammer, though. The warhammer stands for Robert winning the throne because he killed Rhaegar. Robert got the throne because he successfully rebelled against Aerys II. That was certainly the deciding factor, not his legal claim. But the legal claim decided that Robert (and not some other dude/nobody) would be their pretender. They could also have just toppled Aerys II as a tyrant to then crown Viserys III or Aegon VI.

40 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Without any set precedent of there own, how they handeld succesion before the precedents set by the council of 101 and the Dance of Dragons is pretty much however the hell they wanted, i don't think there where rules of succesion for the Iron Throne at that time.

They would have had only the precedents set by their own kind. Aegon the Conqueror set a precedent for an incestuous polygamy, a precedent Aenys I referred to (among many others in the history of the Targaryens on Dragonstone and in Valyria, of course) when he married Aegon to Rhaena as well as Maegor (when he took his second wife).

The Great Council of 101 AC certainly would have set a more important precedents considering that it included many lords of the Realm in the deliberations but Viserys I choosing Rhaenyra as his heir dealt a blow to that. And any later Targaryen king could actually ignore the Dance and refer to Viserys I's decision for Rhaenyra as a precedent that a king can pick an heir/do whatever the hell he wants. Whether that would be wise a decision is another matter.

Maegor himself sort of set a precedent for a king naming a woman (Aerea) his heir, too. A king could also invoke that precedent, although invoking anything Maegor did would also not necessarily be all that wise (although Robb tried to underline the nobility of House Westerling by mentioned that another Jeyne had been a wife of Maegor the Cruel).

[direpupy]

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I was thinking about that 'a daughter is a daughter but a brother is a brother' line (quoting from memory) he used before the death of his son when pushed by Otto and other about Daemon and the succession. He liked Rhaenyra very much but he was not yet ready to disinherit Daemon who, again, was seen by many as the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne due to the Great Council.

In legal terms you are surely right but each succession would have to be interpreted as a precedent because each succession was an individual event. Just look at the Targaryen succession. In the first century there is only one succession from father to son Aegon > Aenys. We have only one precedent for that. The other succession are brother > half-brother instead of son followed by uncle > nephew and grandfather > son of the second son.

People could demand or wish that the Targaryens follow the traditions of the Andals or the First Men but they were not bound by that. Primogeniture had to be established as a guiding principle ruling the succession of the Targaryen throne before it could be considered custom. If Aenys I had wanted Maegor to follow him certainly could have decreed such a thing. Just as the Conqueror could have made Visenya or Maegor his heir instead of Aenys.

I don't think the smallfolk did care all that much about the royal succession. What little we know of them suggests that they were in favor of Rhaenyra's and Daena's succession, though.

For the people taking sides based on principle it would have been the 'women shouldn't rule' thing, yes, but that should have been over with after Rhaenyra got fed to Sunfyre. Then they could actually sort of acknowledge her claim and allow it to transfer through her to Aegon III because he was male, unlike Aegon II's only surviving heiress Jaehaera.

I agree that part of Rhaenyra's problem was that she actually had younger brothers and that her father actually effectively tried to introduce Dornish law to the Seven Kingdoms. That was a little bit much. But then, half the Realm or more were fine with Rhaenyra's succession. It was a small cabal at court who staged a coup and thus began a war. Had Rhaenyra been Hand when her father had died there would either have been no war at all or only a minor rebellion that would have been quickly crushed.

I don't think that would have been a problem. Again, Rhaenyra was dead at that time and Jaehaera was the girl, not Aegon III.

The full account on the Dance has 80,000 words I think. We got 34,000 words in TPatQ and a very condensed account focusing mainly on the events cut from TPatQ but we are still missing a lot. But I doubt the Dance as a legal precedent is discussed in detail therein.

That would have been done later, possibly during the Regency. In fact, according to Ran the Regency Council actually discussed the royal succession at one point after the Dance, before they knew that Prince Viserys was still alive. That would have been rather interesting considering that Aegon III was the last male Targaryen. His heirs would have been through the female line. One assumes the immediate heirs were Baela Targaryen and Alyn Velaryon, followed by Rhaena Targaryen and her husband.

That wouldn't have exactly strengthened this whole 'males only' approach the Great Council and the Dance tried push. But there weren't any other heirs left. And somebody would have to sit the Iron Throne.

It isn't the warhammer, though. The warhammer stands for Robert winning the throne because he killed Rhaegar. Robert got the throne because he successfully rebelled against Aerys II. That was certainly the deciding factor, not his legal claim. But the legal claim decided that Robert (and not some other dude/nobody) would be their pretender. They could also have just toppled Aerys II as a tyrant to then crown Viserys III or Aegon VI.

They would have had only the precedents set by their own kind. Aegon the Conqueror set a precedent for an incestuous polygamy, a precedent Aenys I referred to (among many others in the history of the Targaryens on Dragonstone and in Valyria, of course) when he married Aegon to Rhaena as well as Maegor (when he took his second wife).

The Great Council of 101 AC certainly would have set a more important precedents considering that it included many lords of the Realm in the deliberations but Viserys I choosing Rhaenyra as his heir dealt a blow to that. And any later Targaryen king could actually ignore the Dance and refer to Viserys I's decision for Rhaenyra as a precedent that a king can pick an heir/do whatever the hell he wants. Whether that would be wise a decision is another matter.

Maegor himself sort of set a precedent for a king naming a woman (Aerea) his heir, too. A king could also invoke that precedent, although invoking anything Maegor did would also not necessarily be all that wise (although Robb tried to underline the nobility of House Westerling by mentioned that another Jeyne had been a wife of Maegor the Cruel).

You know what i think we have actually found common ground here, i find little in your comments this time that i can not agree with or have mayor issue's with.

Just a small nitpick in that i named the smalfolk as a example off people who might think that precedent is the same as law not they only ones, and yes they would have cared but there opinion would not have mattered so therfore after a quik thought they would have turned there attention to things that are more important to them, like the harvest.

And that i do still believe that Aegon III was not crowned  because of his claim trough his mother, but honestly that is a personal opinion based on my interpertation of the books so i may very well be wrong. I do hope we get more info on this subject some day so light may be shed on they issue.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You are saying that with absolutely nothing to support it. All of the known facts, and likely circumstances, are against your argument.

The heirs of the heir suddenly disappear and we know nothing about them while their mother ended up supporting their enemy. You are right it doesn’t sound like the Princes in the Tower.

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Go read about Jaehaerys.

I love this one; If you don't agree with me you don't know how to read.

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

He didn't mistreat his children.

If he didn't his daughter wouldn't had prefered a life as a smallfolk than being forced to enter the Faith with no future.

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

He wasn't hypocritical, and he was--objectively (yes, objectively) speaking--one of the best kings Westeros ever had.

Not true. He was a good King for his supporters and not for everyone. 

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

His actions with regard to the succession are entirely consistent with the tradition and culture of the times. The only way he broke tradition was in calling a Great Council, which was one of the wisest and least selfish things he did. You have singled out one grandchild and claimed he was unfair to all of them, without having any proof that he was unfair even to the one you've singled out. By calling the Great Council he ensured that his own personal opinion would not be the deciding factor. That eliminates personal unfairness. 

 

The point is that he remembered that there was a female heir when it came to his blood and forgot that there was a female heir from Aegon's blood. He was "wise" and "least selfish" for his children and not for the rest of Westeros.

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Alys Karstark lives more than 200 years later. You have to deal with the reality of the time, not the reality of 200+ years later.

Try there wasn't a law in any sense, ancient or modern. The Red Wedding violated cultural tradition. A male heir coming before a female heir did not. 

Do you have any proof that either in First men or the Andals culture or tradition or whatever, the daughters were not before the brothers at the line of the succession?

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

She's not hypocritical. She changed her thinking. That happens as people grow and mature. But you're trying to equate Alysanne thinking a 27 year old woman should be considered for the throne with the insane idea that a 7 year old girl had an absolute right to the throne. 

Again she cared about the women when it came to her brood and didn't gave a damn about the others. If she did and she was as wise as you believe then she and her husband should had given up the crown to the rightful heir.

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

People thinking someone might have a right to something does not give them a right to it. Jaehaerys was willing to allow the rulers of the land to come together and decide who DID have the right to take the throne after him. 

And he by thinking that Rhaenys did had a claim proves that a daughter does come before a brother.

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Did you miss the fact that feudal kings WERE dictators?  Political marriages were the norm, and high nobles did not marry without the consent of the crown.  You're trying again to apply 21st century ideas and standards to a medieval story. That never works.

There difference between political marriages and forced marriages.

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Just don't be surprised that people find it incomprehensible.

Who ever said that I care about what people believe about my beliefs?

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You really don't understand anything about the time setting, do you?

No I am expecting for others to teach me.

17 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You really don't understand anything about the time setting, do you? You're also mixing up your characters. Rhaena, who took the sword and gave it to Jaehaerys, was mother to Aerea and Rhalla. Alyssa Velaryon, was mother to Rhaena, Aegon, Viserys, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne. Viserys was killed in nine days. Alyssa would likely not have even learned of his torture until after he was dead. If she had gone back for Viserys' body, she would have been killed, imprisoned, or tortured herself. Targaryens do not bury their dead, besides which with Maegor the Cruel on the throne, no one had time to worry about the dead. 

The point is that Alyssa only wanted power and that was easier by being the Regent than being the grandmother of the Queen, that is one of the main reasons why she cared more about supporting Jaehaeys over Rhaena's daughters.

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, direpupy said:

Just a small nitpick in that i named the smalfolk as a example off people who might think that precedent is the same as law not they only ones, and yes they would have cared but there opinion would not have mattered so therfore after a quik thought they would have turned there attention to things that are more important to them, like the harvest.

Sure, but whatever it is worth it seems as if the smallfolk was actually less biased against women ruling over them than the male lords of Westeros (who attended the Great Council) were. There were common people crying Rhaenyra's name after Aegon II's coup, and Daena and her sisters also got support from among the smallfolk. And Queen Rhaenys and the Good Queen were also very popular among the smallfolk as far as we know.

15 hours ago, direpupy said:

And that i do still believe that Aegon III was not crowned  because of his claim trough his mother, but honestly that is a personal opinion based on my interpertation of the books so i may very well be wrong. I do hope we get more info on this subject some day so light may be shed on they issue.

I'm not sure that can be your interpretation based on the books because the books never discuss that issue. Aegon III is identified as Rhaenyra's son in the appendix of AGoT, suggesting that his descent from her was an (or even the) important factor in him inheriting the throne. The name of his father, Prince Daemon, has yet to be mentioned in a book of the main series.

The idea that Aegon III descent from Jaehaerys I through the male line (Baelon and Daemon) was a deciding factor makes sort of sense in light of the outdated SSM on the rules after the Dance, but what little we know of the ascension of Aegon III makes it less likely.

We have to keep in mind that Corlys and whoever else worked with him actually murdered Aegon II to crown Aegon III because the war was lost and the enemy at the gates (sort of like Tywin turned on Aerys and Jaime killed him). Defeat seemed certain, so the evil king had to go. The idea that there were still Greens left in powerful positions who would actually demand that Aegon III's claim be interpreted in a special way excluding the claim he would have inherited from Rhaenyra doesn't sound very convincing to me, especially in light of the fact that he actually married Jaehaera around the time or after his coronation (which all seems to have happened before Lord Cregan's arrival in the city).

The initiative to murder Aegon II would have originated with the Blacks, most likely. Corlys may have accepted Aegon II's pardon and entered his service but he most likely was never completely on board with the guy. His wife died fighting him, and his bastard son Addam, too, not to mention that his granddaughter Baela who also nearly died trying to kill him. He seems to have stuck with Aegon II for the time being to save the life of Aegon the Younger and his legacy, as well his own and that of his house (Baela would also have been a hostage in Aegon II's custody until he and Corlys reached that deal they made). But after the war turned a final time against the Greens on the Kingsroad Corlys and others at court (I also suspect Lord Mooton who only turned against Rhaenyra because of that whole Nettles affair - after Rhaenyra's death - and especially due the manner in which she died - he could easily enough have decided to switch back to the Blacks, even more so after the Kingsroad) would have decided that crippled glutton had to go (either to the Wall or to the grave) to be replaced by Rhaenyra's son.

And those Black in the field - the Lads as well as Lord Cregan - did explicitly continue the fight in Rhaenyra's name or the name of Aegon III. For the Aegon II seems to have been no king at all but Rhaenyra had been succeeded after her death by Aegon III.

@Lady Blizzardborn

I don't think discussing with @Jon's Queen Consort is any fun. I've even trouble making sense of her posts. There is clearly no intention there to actually interpret the source material we have rationally.

[direpupy]

On 17-1-2017 at 4:23 PM, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but whatever it is worth it seems as if the smallfolk was actually less biased against women ruling over them than the male lords of Westeros (who attended the Great Council) were. There were common people crying Rhaenyra's name after Aegon II's coup, and Daena and her sisters also got support from among the smallfolk. And Queen Rhaenys and the Good Queen were also very popular among the smallfolk as far as we know.

I'm not sure that can be your interpretation based on the books because the books never discuss that issue. Aegon III is identified as Rhaenyra's son in the appendix of AGoT, suggesting that his descent from her was an (or even the) important factor in him inheriting the throne. The name of his father, Prince Daemon, has yet to be mentioned in a book of the main series.

The idea that Aegon III descent from Jaehaerys I through the male line (Baelon and Daemon) was a deciding factor makes sort of sense in light of the outdated SSM on the rules after the Dance, but what little we know of the ascension of Aegon III makes it less likely.

We have to keep in mind that Corlys and whoever else worked with him actually murdered Aegon II to crown Aegon III because the war was lost and the enemy at the gates (sort of like Tywin turned on Aerys and Jaime killed him). Defeat seemed certain, so the evil king had to go. The idea that there were still Greens left in powerful positions who would actually demand that Aegon III's claim be interpreted in a special way excluding the claim he would have inherited from Rhaenyra doesn't sound very convincing to me, especially in light of the fact that he actually married Jaehaera around the time or after his coronation (which all seems to have happened before Lord Cregan's arrival in the city).

The initiative to murder Aegon II would have originated with the Blacks, most likely. Corlys may have accepted Aegon II's pardon and entered his service but he most likely was never completely on board with the guy. His wife died fighting him, and his bastard son Addam, too, not to mention that his granddaughter Baela who also nearly died trying to kill him. He seems to have stuck with Aegon II for the time being to save the life of Aegon the Younger and his legacy, as well his own and that of his house (Baela would also have been a hostage in Aegon II's custody until he and Corlys reached that deal they made). But after the war turned a final time against the Greens on the Kingsroad Corlys and others at court (I also suspect Lord Mooton who only turned against Rhaenyra because of that whole Nettles affair - after Rhaenyra's death - and especially due the manner in which she died - he could easily enough have decided to switch back to the Blacks, even more so after the Kingsroad) would have decided that crippled glutton had to go (either to the Wall or to the grave) to be replaced by Rhaenyra's son.

And those Black in the field - the Lads as well as Lord Cregan - did explicitly continue the fight in Rhaenyra's name or the name of Aegon III. For the Aegon II seems to have been no king at all but Rhaenyra had been succeeded after her death by Aegon III.

@Lady Blizzardborn

I don't think discussing with @Jon's Queen Consort is any fun. I've even trouble making sense of her posts. There is clearly no intention there to actually interpret the source material we have rationally.

That just means there was no concensus under the smallfolk just like there was no concensus under the lords.

Based of off Dangerous women and The Rogue Prince combined with TWOIAF i very base my opinions on the books.

PS, the appendices are notorieusly unreliable i actually remember a Q&A event some years back where a fan asked GRRM why this was the case, since in some some cases it even contradicted the books. His answer was that he did not write the appendices his editors did.

This is why i always fall of my chair laughing when somebody try's to claim some petty lord or knight is important because he is on the list of "principal bannerman" in the appendices.

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, direpupy said:

That just means there was no concensus under the smallfolk just like there was no concensus under the lords.

Sure, but the commoners we meet aren't necessarily as opposed to female rule as the lords. Targaryen women are a pretty important topic in that inn in White Harbor, after all.

10 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Based of off Dangerous women and The Rogue Prince combined with TWOIAF i very base my opinions on the books.

But the idea that Aegon III was derived from his father only, with the claim of his mother not even considered, is never even mentioned in any book.

[direpupy]

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but the commoners we meet aren't necessarily as opposed to female rule as the lords. Targaryen women are a pretty important topic in that inn in White Harbor, after all.

But the idea that Aegon III was derived from his father only, with the claim of his mother not even considered, is never even mentioned in any book.

No not necesarily but again that just means there is no concensus, and in the inn in White Harbor they talk about dany yes but only because of the rumors of dragons so i do not see the relevance to Targaryen sucsesion.

If you read the books carefully the hints on consesions made in the peace offer Corlys made are there to see, but again this is my opinion based on my interpertation of the books.

[Lord Varys]

49 minutes ago, direpupy said:

If you read the books carefully the hints on consesions made in the peace offer Corlys made are there to see, but again this is my opinion based on my interpertation of the books.

But nothing suggests that those concessions had to do with the strength of the claim of Aegon the Younger or the question whether his claim to the throne came through his mother, his father, or both. In fact, Aegon II might have acknowledged Aegon the Younger's claim through Rhaenyra when he yielded to Corlys' demands, betrothed the boy to Jaehaera, and named them joint heirs.

Corlys' concession could just as well have been the promise of a general amnesty, the promise of peace, and the promise that nobody would try to take Oldtown, Storm's End, or Casterly Rock/Lannisport from its lords, not to mention that nobody would try to punish anybody for atrocities committed during the war.

The Blacks clearly had the upper hand in the end. The whole Regency Council thing only was created after Cregan Stark had resigned as Hand. If he had wanted he could have kept the power his army gave him, remaining the Hand and becoming the sole Lord Regent of Aegon III.

But the Blacks clearly lost that advantage when Cregan resigned and marched the majority of his army back home.

[direpupy]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But nothing suggests that those concessions had to do with the strength of the claim of Aegon the Younger or the question whether his claim to the throne came through his mother, his father, or both. In fact, Aegon II might have acknowledged Aegon the Younger's claim through Rhaenyra when he yielded to Corlys' demands, betrothed the boy to Jaehaera, and named them joint heirs.

Corlys' concession could just as well have been the promise of a general amnesty, the promise of peace, and the promise that nobody would try to take Oldtown, Storm's End, or Casterly Rock/Lannisport from its lords, not to mention that nobody would try to punish anybody for atrocities committed during the war.

The Blacks clearly had the upper hand in the end. The whole Regency Council thing only was created after Cregan Stark had resigned as Hand. If he had wanted he could have kept the power his army gave him, remaining the Hand and becoming the sole Lord Regent of Aegon III.

But the Blacks clearly lost that advantage when Cregan resigned and marched the majority of his army back home.

Corlys gave his peace terms before Cregan came because he did not want Cregan to continue the war, he gave heavy consesions in order to do this, so Cregan and his army where if anything a reason to give more consesions not less. And the upper hand of the Blacks was not that apparent at the time of the peace talks, because at the time they did not know the men who Aegon II had sent to get sellswords in Essos would fail to do so.

So neither Corlys nor anybody else among the Blacks knew at the time they had the clear upper hand , and Corly's his terms as he offered them to the Greens would have reflected that.

[direpupy]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But nothing suggests that those concessions had to do with the strength of the claim of Aegon the Younger or the question whether his claim to the throne came through his mother, his father, or both. In fact, Aegon II might have acknowledged Aegon the Younger's claim through Rhaenyra when he yielded to Corlys' demands, betrothed the boy to Jaehaera, and named them joint heirs.

 

As to the first part of your post Aegon II regognizing Aegon III his claim through his father but not his mother would actually have made his own claim stronger. He was after all claiming a man should come before a women even if the former king had appointed that women his heir. So i hartely disagree with you here.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

It has become really boring. Please stay on topic. This topic isn't about how Aegon the Usurper was more or less forced to name Aegon III his heir and how in the end Aegon III won, it's about Jaehaerys usurping his nieces' Throne. Please stay on topic.