Jon's Queen Consort

Jaehaerys I was a usurper.

148 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, velo-knight said:

I was responding to the line, "Uh, no. He jumped over one person. Dany wasn't born yet." I don't see how you can accept Dany as a person who's being usurped without accepting Rhaella.

It's not about surnames. The King is dead, as are his heir Rhaegar, and his Rhaegar's heirs. His next heirs are his other children and their lines. After that, you go up one level, does the previous king Jaehaerys II have any other heirs? He has a daughter, Rhaella. Rhaella Targaryen is unquestionably closer to the current throne of Westeros ca. 283 AC than her aunt Rhaelle Targaryen or her heirs. She "wins" by either proximity of blood or seniority of line.

Finally, agnatic succession usually discounts not just female claimants, but female lineages. I am not convinced that a male claimant from a significantly junior female line is superior to a female claimant from a senior line.

I'm arguing about the beginning of his reign, not the end. By bringing up 100 AC I illustrated that a grand council was no less a new idea then - before it actually happened - than early in his reign. Again, the issue here is whether Aerea and Rhalla's lines are superior claimants to Jaehaerys, and I mentioned that the only way we know of to conclusively settle the issue without obliterating them or intermarrying completely is a great council. It was argued that the great council had not been invented when Jaehaerys came to power; I'm arguing that's irrelevant. A rhetorical flourish which obviously did not communicate the desired sentiment.

I don't think anyone's arguing that a sister comes before a brother, but primogeniture - the normal, though not universal - basis for succession does hold that a daughter comes before her uncle. Again, while not ruling in their own right, these women transcended traditional gender roles with impunity, and demonstrated clearly that in a society ruled by dragonriders, male physicality is fairly meaningless. One would expect that it would be more socially acceptable to support women's claims early in the Targaryen reign, close to these women and before any council precedent had been established to weaken women's standing.

I think a key here is that while succession to the Iron Throne has steadily become more agnatic over time, Jaehaerys had no way of knowing that when he took power. If his cousins had legitimate issue, it was in his clear political interest to weaken the claims of women relative to men.

And because the nature of the Kingdom shifts very differently for the Anarchy and the Dance, with the pre-Dance Targaryens being a cross between medieval monarchs and the god-kings of Egypt or Rome. I recognize the similarity at issue, but I think they worked sort of in the opposite way: instead of being the first, semi-successful display of partial-cognatic inheritance that was tragically before it's time, I see the Dance as the last, desperate gasp of the relatively equitable role of male and female dragonlords when Viserys tried to force the realm to accept a de facto fully-cognatic system in reversal of the very precedent that made him king*.

Between the devastation caused by the dragons and the total loss of their draconic trump card, the Targaryens basically had to accept a more traditional role for women. This reversal was so quick that, even though Daemon Blackfyre used many different spurious arguments to justify his rebellion, he rarely mentions that his lineage is senior to Daeron II - because a female lineage is basically useless for inheritance to the Iron Throne.

Robert's rebellion actually seems to be an interesting reversal: even though he won his war with his hammer, he was high in the Targaryen succession in the female line and used that to justify seizing the throne. So there is now recent precedent for female successors being eligible to the Iron Throne, something Dany will likely solidify.

  Reveal hidden contents

It's telling that Stannis, a man who names Rhaenyra a traitor, tells his men to crown Shireen in the event of his death.

*I mean, the UK only officially became fully cognatic and not male-preference cognatic what, this decade?

I think there's a little defensiveness here, so I'd like to clear up a few things on my part. I don't have anything against Jaehaerys and he's pretty much everyone's favorite Targ king, but I do think the possibility of female lines that might have a superior claim to his was a potential driver of his thinking, and might have shaped the succession crisis surrounding him and his heirs.

I'm not really. Because she wasn't born, she wasn't usurped. But Dany would otherwise have been in line as the daughter of the immediately previous king. Rhaella does not have that status, being only the wife of the previous king, and daughter of the next king back. 

I stated that rather poorly. The question was whether ALL trueborn females come after ALL trueborn male claimants regardless of technical proximity to the current reigning line. If all the women go to the back of the line after all the men, then the Baratheons would be next in line after Viserys, and then the Targaryen women would be after them.

You may be right about that. It doesn't help that GRRM likes to keep things murky on the subject of succession. Though I wouldn't call Rhaelle's line significantly junior. It's pretty well agreed that were all Targaryens wiped out, the Baratheon claim would come next. The Martell claim however would definitely merit being called significantly junior...in fact, it's so distant it may not even rate that status.

Ah. Gotcha.

Exactly. I find it interesting that not one of the early Targaryen women pressed a claim when they were at the point in history when they would have had the greatest chance of success. Rhaena herself could have easily taken Blackfyre and her daughters and claimed the throne in Aerea's name, but she doesn't. I think that speaks volumes about the claim of usurpation.

Very well stated.

Again an excellent point. Westeros may well be ruled by a Queen Regnant in less time than it took England to accomplish the same thing. Fiction can be a truly wonderful thing. 

Spoiler

I don't actually see anything odd in that. Shireen is the last living trueborn Baratheon, whereas Rhaenyra had a living brother. I disagree with Stannis in calling Rhaenyra a usurper but I can still see his logic here.

No, not at all. Just an insistence on viewing this kind of thing through the appropriate historical and cultural lenses. This conversation wouldn't have even come up in Westeros at the time. It is entirely a product of 21st century ideas. Looking at ASOIAF through modern values and standards is an exercise in futility. Though the conversations we have in doing so can be great fun. :D

On a lark I looked up all the English princesses between William I and Mary I who were passed over for younger male heirs. They missed out on at least 10 queens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure that it is. I'd say what's clear to every thinking man in Westeros is that a father wishes his (eldest) son to succeed him. That's about it. That's what a 'normal man' thinks every other 'normal man' wants for himself. It is the ideal. But there certainly are cases where reality doesn't allow that to happen, say, because your eldest son is a lackwit, a drunkard, a cripple, or a fool, or because your eldest son predeceases you. Something that certainly isn't going to be a rare occasion in a world like Westeros.

The way things turned in the history of the Targaryen kings actually show a strong sign that proximity is usually favored over primogeniture if a king's chosen heir (usually his eldest son) dies prematurely and the king has to pick a new heir.

We have Jaehaerys I over Aerea/Rhalla, Baelon over Rhaenys, Viserys I over Laenor, Aegon V, over Vaella and Maegor, and Viserys III over Aegon.

That is a very strong pattern. The only counter examples to that are Valarr over Aerys and (possibly) Aelor over Maekar, but Aerys I is a special case considering that he was considered to be very ill-suited to be a king and had no children of his own body.

Those are very convincing examples, thank you. The only flaw I can see is Tyrion's quote to Aegon in ADWD, (Tyrion VI)

Quote

Now, how do you suppose this queen will react when you turn up with your begging bowl in hand and say, 'Good morrow to you, Auntie. I am your nephew, Aegon, returned from the dead. I've been hiding on a poleboat all my life, but now I've washed the blue dye from my hair and I'd like a dragon, please … and oh, did I mention, my claim to the Iron Throne is stronger than your own?

It's clear to me that Tyrion believes an educated princeling (and an exile queen) would know that the law of the land was supposed to be primogeniture. Still, as you point out, the Iron Throne often behaves by proximity and in favor of strong male adults over less imposing individuals with stronger claims.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The best explanation for this obviously is that more often than not a grandchild or great-grandchild is likely to be very young and inexperienced when the king dies, whereas a younger son (or grandson) of the king might much better suited to take the Crown.

After all, your son, even if it is a younger son, is usually still closer to the heart of a man than a grandson or great-grandson who might have been raised in a different household by people the king didn't trust as much as his own.

That's a good point, we do see a clear example of this with Aerys II - Rhaegar - Aegon vs Viserys. Are there any other examples you know of?

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Viserys III was a crowned king, too. And he was the son of the last Targaryen king that was violently deposed. Aerea and Rhalla weren't playing in the same league, especially in light of the fact that the Realm seemed to have almost universally declared for Jaehaerys I. Maegor was abandoned by all his followers and nobody seems to have considered the daughters of Prince Aegon viable rival claimants.

 I think it's clear the text supports your view more than mine / the OP. I'm just not sure why that's the case, and it feels like it might be an oversight to me given the extremely powerful women that were around at the time.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that's not what happens when the Great Council talks about stuff. The Great Council of 101 AC just laid the opinions of the lords in the royal succession in front of the king, and the king then reached a decision with the opinion of the lords in mind. He followed their advice considering that Prince Viserys would have clearly been his choice as well, considering that he had previously named Viserys' father Baelon his heir, which sort of entailed that Baelon's eldest son Viserys would eventually follow King Baelon I on the Iron Throne.

An entire line is never disinherited. We see this quite strongly with the Velaryon claim still being a thing when the second marriage of Viserys I and the marriage of Princess Rhaenyra are discussed. There is a reason why people suggest both Laena and Laenor as spouses to Viserys and Rhaenyra. And if the Baelon's branch died out the Iron Throne certainly would have gone to Aemon's branch, just as Maegor or Vaella's descendants would have had another shot at the Iron Throne if the descendants of Aegon V had all died.

I think this is a matter of emphasis. We both agree that the council has placed Maegor's line behind all of Aegon V's - and crucially, there's no evidence that Maegor and his family disputed this after the council. In the case of the Queen-Who-Never-Was, she was much more powerful, but that's the inevitable consequence of being an adult dragonrider instead of a madman's son, named for the most hated king to sit the Iron Throne.

Disinherited is maybe too strong a word for it, but my point remains that Jaehaerys never had even the moderate protection of a Great Council decision formally placing Rhalla and Aerea's claims below his. I guess the Great Councils to decide his own succession can be implied to have done this, but that doesn't really argue against the idea that his male preference might have served his political interests to weaken rival lines.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You also have to keep in mind that the kings controlled the access to the dragons and the dragon eggs in those days. Any obscure Targaryen descendant Jaehaerys I disliked could easily enough have been refused to get access to the dynasty's main source of power and prestige. That in and of itself would make such claims very weak, even if they were based on a reasonably good legal foundation.

I can't deny that. Would that risk being seen as tyrannical?

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, since nothing indicates there was a marriage between a descendant of Aerea/Rhalla and one of Jaehaerys I's children or grandchildren those people (if they existed) were apparently not considered to be a threat. Corlys Velaryon may be descended from either Aerea or Rhalla but that's a tough case; it is more likely that Rhaena Targaryen entered into a third marriage after Maegor's death, possibly marrying Corlys' father. What happened to the little girls is still unclear.

The Dance is pretty much the result of historical accidents. Nobody could foresee that Aemma wouldn't give Viserys I a healthy son, and while the Great Council greatly strengthened the position of Viserys I in comparison to Laenor Velaryon it also weakened his position considering that Viserys I only had a daughter who was now seen by many ineligible to inherit the throne under any circumstances. And Daemon sucked as a heir in the eyes of many.

Yes, but after siring a son Viserys was pretty much asking for problems by sticking to a fully cognatic system. It's worth noting how different this is from the actual Anarchy: a woman as the only child of the monarch at all, failing to make good on her claim but succeeding to peacefully make her son the heir (and in the process creating a precdent female-line inheritance that countries like France would never get), you get a sense that the arc of history bent a very different way with the Dance.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If people had been less obsessed with Viserys I's succession so shortly after his ascension everything would have worked out fine. Aemma would have died, Viserys I would have remarried, and everybody (besides Daemon) would have rejoiced at the birth of Prince Aegon, the Golden Boy of the Realm. Then we wouldn't have had a civil war between Aegon and Rhaenyra but most likely between either some Velaryon branch and Aegon II, or between Aegon II and Daemon (who may have gone on to marry Laena and Rhaenyra as he does in our timeline, eventually challenging Aegon II on the grounds that he was unfit for the throne or that his children by Laena were of the elder Targaryen line, etc.).

Eh, another way to look at it is that Viserys was too inflexible to change his mind when the facts on the ground changed, and Rhaenyra was too preoccupied with other issues to ask that Viserys take additional steps to secure her inheritance.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The problem wasn't Jaehaerys I. It was the fact that there were too many Targaryen descendants (and dragons) around.

The concept of the Great Council already existed. Aenys I planned to call one to discuss how to deal with the rebels. But we don't know whether his idea of a Great Council was the same as the idea of Jaehaerys I in 101 AC. However, a Great Council is clearly no authority on dealing with the succession. Two were call to talk about it because settling the succession peacefully was a pressing issue, but the Great Council of 136 AC apparently only dealt with appointing new regents for Aegon III.

Power of the royal women quickly eroded, it seems. Rhaenys and Visenya were co-rulers of Aegon, sitting the Iron Throne in his stead and deciding matters of state in the king's name when he was absent. They clearly were on the same level as Aegon himself, with the advisers (the Hand included) on a lower level.

Alyssa Velaryon may have had a similar position at Aenys' side considering that her husband wasn't exactly the most determined of men. Yet we don't yet no whether she was a dragonrider (I think that's not unlikely) nor was she born with that magical Targaryen name or a direct descendant of the Conqueror. That would weakened her position somewhat. Still we can be reasonably sure that she was Maegor the Cruel's fiercest enemy, and the most powerful person in the Realm during the early years of Jaehaerys I's reign. As Queen Regent she might even have sat the Iron Throne.

Queen Alysanne was also very powerful but during Jaehaerys I's reign the office of the Hand seems to have grown really powerful. Who wielded more power at court, Septon Barth or the Good Queen? That's a very interesting question. Alysanne could also still have sat on the Iron Throne, but she may have been the last Targaryen queen to do so. Aemma and Alicent clearly didn't do anything of that sort, and most likely none of the queens to come.

This is really interesting, and I'm glad you brought it up. I wish there was more clarity on why women's political power declined during the dragonlord period of the Iron Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

Those are very convincing examples, thank you. The only flaw I can see is Tyrion's quote to Aegon in ADWD, (Tyrion VI)

It's clear to me that Tyrion believes an educated princeling (and an exile queen) would know that the law of the land was supposed to be primogeniture. Still, as you point out, the Iron Throne often behaves by proximity and in favor of strong male adults over less imposing individuals with stronger claims.

Well, we have to see that quote in context. Tyrion wants to push Aegon into a certain direction and he massages his ego by pointing out that he has the better claim. And while proximity has some strong precedents in its favor when there are multiple male claimants contesting with each other, the important factor here is that Daenerys is a woman. If Aegon was the real deal, and if the majority of the Targaryen loyalists in Westeros believe that he was actually Rhaegar's son then his claim could easily be considered to be better than Daenerys' claim. Simply because he was male.

And we actually have no reason to believe that Tyrion knows about Aerys II's decision to name Viserys his heir rather than Aegon. And even if he did - he might not have known that Viserys III had recognized Dany as his heir, making her the Princess of Dragonstone, or he might be of the opinion that Viserys III would have favored Aegon had he known he was still alive. That's going to be the argument of Aegon's supporters. They will say King Viserys III would have named Aegon his heir had he known he was still alive. He would never have seen Dany as his heir had he known that there were other male Targaryens around.

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

That's a good point, we do see a clear example of this with Aerys II - Rhaegar - Aegon vs Viserys. Are there any other examples you know of?

One could cite Aenys Blackfyre, the fifth son of Daemon Blackfyre, who thought his claim was better than the claim of his nephew Daemon III despite the fact that the man was the eldest son of his late elder brother Haegon. Now, that's perhaps not as important a case considering that the Blackfyres were never kings. But they saw themselves as such. Renly would be another case. He basically thought being the younger brother of a king was as good a claim as being the son of a king.

And historically we see that two brothers were among the early Arryn kings (but we don't know whether the elder brother had any heirs of his own body). It is also quite possible that Brandon Ice Eyes wasn't exactly Edrick Snowbeards great-grandson from his eldest son but simply one of many great-grandsons (the one who put other rival claimants down). Garth X Gardener had only daughters one of which married Lord Peake and the other Lord Manderly, and both of them didn't care about primogeniture all that much when they decided that their wife should succeed the demented king.

Garth VII was also succeeded by a great-grandson who may or may not have been a descendant of the oldest son.

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

 I think it's clear the text supports your view more than mine / the OP. I'm just not sure why that's the case, and it feels like it might be an oversight to me given the extremely powerful women that were around at the time.

Well, I'd really like to know what happened to those twin girls. We just don't know. There could have been some conflict over their roles in later years, perhaps after the death of Princess Rhaena (we don't know what happened to her, either).

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

I think this is a matter of emphasis. We both agree that the council has placed Maegor's line behind all of Aegon V's - and crucially, there's no evidence that Maegor and his family disputed this after the council. In the case of the Queen-Who-Never-Was, she was much more powerful, but that's the inevitable consequence of being an adult dragonrider instead of a madman's son, named for the most hated king to sit the Iron Throne.

Sure, but we have also no idea whether Maegor's mother Daenora was still around during the Great Council or how long Maegor himself lived nor whether he had children of his own. When Maegor succumbed to some illness during the long winter in, say, 235 AC then this problem would have resolved itself quickly enough.

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

Disinherited is maybe too strong a word for it, but my point remains that Jaehaerys never had even the moderate protection of a Great Council decision formally placing Rhalla and Aerea's claims below his. I guess the Great Councils to decide his own succession can be implied to have done this, but that doesn't really argue against the idea that his male preference might have served his political interests to weaken rival lines.

I think it actually more likely that Jaehaerys I favored a male line succession because he knew his lords favored that as well, and he feared that a woman might not be able to continue his peaceful reign. He witnessed a very violent rebellion against his father and uncle in his childhood, and those memories might have influenced his decisions there. He intended for the peace he created to survive his death, and he may have thought that Rhaenys would have faced more opposition eventually than his son Baelon the Brave.

And he may have very well been true on that account.

That the original plan was for Rhaenys to eventually succeed her father Aemon had he lived and ruled as Aemon I is pretty obvious. Her being a dragonrider and married to Corlys Velaryon is more than enough evidence for that. That only changed when the loss of Prince Aemon weakened the dynasty.

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

I can't deny that. Would that risk being seen as tyrannical?

No, because we actually have no reason to believe that Targaryen daughters who married outside the (extended) family where allowed to give dragons/dragon eggs to their children. I doubt that was the case. The Targaryen-Velaryon marriages are clearly special cases.

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

Yes, but after siring a son Viserys was pretty much asking for problems by sticking to a fully cognatic system. It's worth noting how different this is from the actual Anarchy: a woman as the only child of the monarch at all, failing to make good on her claim but succeeding to peacefully make her son the heir (and in the process creating a precdent female-line inheritance that countries like France would never get), you get a sense that the arc of history bent a very different way with the Dance.

Viserys I's succession wouldn't have been problematic at all had he not made Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent with such a lavish ceremony this early in his reign. That set the tone, and made it very difficult to change anything later on, especially since Rhaenyra was then also married to Laenor Velaryon (who had a very strong claim in his own right). Lords had sworn oaths to defend Rhaenyra's rights and apparently her installation as heir was not contingent on Viserys I having no sons. If it had been Aegon's birth in itself had made him the new heir, there would have been no need to change the succession by decree.

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

Eh, another way to look at it is that Viserys was too inflexible to change his mind when the facts on the ground changed, and Rhaenyra was too preoccupied with other issues to ask that Viserys take additional steps to secure her inheritance.

Rhaenyra's inheritance was technically rock solid. The problem was that reappointed Ser Otto as Hand instead of Rhaenyra or Daemon. That way he could have ensured a quick and peaceful transition of power.

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

This is really interesting, and I'm glad you brought it up. I wish there was more clarity on why women's political power declined during the dragonlord period of the Iron Throne.

I guess Septon Barth would have played a big role in that. His success clearly marked the rise of the office of the Hand until it became effectively (under ineffective kings, at least) a sort of vice-king office. That could only work if the power of the queen consort diminished at the same time. However, technically the incestuous marriages of the Targaryens always entail the potential of royal wives having more power than 'outsider queens'. They intimately know their families from birth, including their royal brother-husbands, and can use that to their advantage. As it happens there weren't many charismatic Targaryen queens in the second or third centuries. Naerys clearly wasn't a powerful queen, and Queen Rhaella was effectively forced by Aerys II to be some little housewife. About Queen Shaera we know too little. But among the non-Targaryen queens Mariah Martell and Betha Blackwood seem to have been pretty powerful, possibly on the same level as Cersei Lannister, perhaps even more powerful than she was. But that would all have been indirect power. Power through access to the king, or by influencing the king's advisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That isn't the case because Prince Aegon never was king. And the grandchildren or a king do not necessarily come before the (younger) son of a king.

 

While I do agree with you that Jaehaerys didn't usurp, traditionally is not the most direct line of succession even if the heir has died? I only ask because I honestly don't know but after Edward III died in England, he was succeeded by his grandson as his heir the Black Prince had died before him, even though he had three other sons. Is there a precedent in Westeros for this happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

While I do agree with you that Jaehaerys didn't usurp, traditionally is not the most direct line of succession even if the heir has died? I only ask because I honestly don't know but after Edward III died in England, he was succeeded by his grandson as his heir the Black Prince had died before him, even though he had three other sons. Is there a precedent in Westeros for this happening?

 

Under primogeniture, that's the case. Primogeniture isn't the only consideration in succession, however, and there are also other metrics, like proximity of blood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

While I do agree with you that Jaehaerys didn't usurp, traditionally is not the most direct line of succession even if the heir has died? I only ask because I honestly don't know but after Edward III died in England, he was succeeded by his grandson as his heir the Black Prince had died before him, even though he had three other sons. Is there a precedent in Westeros for this happening?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert's claim is always making too much smoke on folks minds...

Is his targ blood important? Yes

Is it the most important factor? No

Is it a bonus more than anything else? Yes 

Jon used robert's targ blood to ease the loyalists pardoned and doubting lords, if they STILL refuse to bend the knee or do so to Viserys, Robert would still sit his arse on the IT... Heck he would even relish more battles... He had a claim, the same aegon i did, with a bit more legitimacy to boost 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, that isn't the case. George once gave us some SSM that stated this but TWoIaF made it clear that the actual history of Westeros is much more complex. The Dance is seen as another precedent against female inheritance and inheritance through the female line, after the Great Council of 101 AC, and Jaehaerys I's decision in 92 AC. But it did not mark the introduction of some new law forever barring females or males through the female from inheriting the throne. That would have been difficult to do in light of the fact that Aegon III was actually Rhaenyra's son.

When Baelor the Blessed died without issue there were people championing the cause of Princess Daena and her sisters. Not many and the throne passed to Viserys II. But the people ensuring Viserys II's rise to the throne did not claim that the girls had no claim at all, just that there were too many precedents against them inheriting. That trend continued when Maekar was named Prince of Dragonstone instead of Aelora or Daenora but there was no written law that a no female could ever take the Iron Throne.

But even if it did, what meaning could such a law have if there was a king whose only heirs were females? Would the throne then remain empty?

Some people held the view that the first Great Council set an iron precedent against both female inheritance and inheritance through the female line but that opinion wasn't shared by all as the support for Rhaenyra during the reign of Viserys I and the subsequent Dance proves.

Now, what happens if House Targaryen itself dies out in the male line (as it effectively did when Viserys III died without issue) isn't clear. Queen Rhaella is closer to the Iron Throne by far than Steffon's sons are. She could make a claim, and one actually assumes that the sister-wife of the previous king would have a much stronger claim than some second cousin through the female line. Rhaella could offer herself in marriage to some powerful lord - say, Tywin - and then they could rule the Realm together. That would work fine in peaceful times.

Actually that remained the case, once again you are only reading what you want to hear, i did not say the did not have a claim i said that it came after al male Targaryens. I also said if you would have bottered to read it, that if there where no more male Targaryens the trone would pass to the female Targaryen most closely related to the last king. This not actually reading what people say is the reason you get coments like the one from @Free Northman Reborn

And the WoIaF only confirms that after the Dance women where placed behind men the reasin given for setting aside the claims of Aegon III daughters was the precedents of the great council of 101 and the dance of dragons (see quote below). That means there has to be a precedent from the dance to cite, that would be the fact that Aegon III was probably made king by The Sea Snake on the grounds of being a Targaryen in male line via his father prince Daemon, something he probably did to placate the remaining Greens in the peacetalks he initiated that ended the war before Cregan Stark arrived.

So no GRRM did not change this at all.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Viserys II

Though both of the sons of King Aegon III were dead, his three daughters yet survived, and there were some amongst the smallfolk—and even some lords—who felt that the Iron Throne should by rights now pass to Princess Daena. They were few, however; a decade of isolation in the Maidenvault had left Daena and her sisters without powerful allies, and memories of the woes that had befallen the realm when last a woman sat the Iron Throne were still fresh. Daena the Defiant was seen by many lords as being wild and unmanageable besides...and wanton as well, for a year earlier she had given birth to a bastard son she named Daemon, whose sire she steadfastly refused to name.
The precedents of the Great Council of 101 and the Dance of the Dragons were therefore cited, and the claims of Baelor's sisters were set aside. Instead the crown passed to his uncle, the King's Hand, Prince Viserys.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Actually that remained the case, once again you are only reading what you want to hear, i did not say the did not have a claim i said that it came after al male Targaryens.

No, the women were already behind the men long before the Dance. That was the case, at least in the minds of many, since the Great Council. And possibly even since Jaehaerys I had named Baelon his heir in 92 AC. The Dance was interpreted also as such a precedent against female inheritance. Or rather, most likely, that women could not possibly rule as 'Maegor with teats' had proved.

32 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I also said if you would have bottered to read it, that if there where no more male Targaryens the trone would pass to the female Targaryen most closely related to the last king.

We actually don't know that. It could very well be that the daughter of a king would still have a better claim than a second cousin of a king through the a male Targaryen line. The name is important, sure, but one really wonders whether the granddaughter of King Valarr I (had he ruled) would have come only after Egg's grandsons who very well might have all been half peasants in such a setting.

This kind of thing was never tested because there were always close male kin around when a king had no heirs of his own body/only sisters.

If the daughter of a king was married to a powerful lord and effectively recognized by her royal father and the court as heir presumptive to the Iron Throne then she most likely would succeed said father without much difficulty despite the fact there were also some distant male line cousins around.

32 minutes ago, direpupy said:

And the WoIaF only confirms that after the Dance women where placed behind men the reasin given for setting aside the claims of Aegon III daughters was the precedents of the great council of 101 and the dance of dragons (see quote below). That means there has to be a precedent from the dance to cite, that would be the fact that Aegon III was probably made king by The Sea Snake on the grounds of being a Targaryen in male line via his father prince Daemon, something he probably did to placate the remaining Greens in the peacetalks he initiated that ended the war before Cregan Stark arrived.

According to Ran, that's not what happened. Aegon II himself betrothed Aegon the Younger to his daughter Jaehaera and named them both joined heirs. He did this because he needed the support of the Velaryon fleet and Corlys Velaryon forced him to do that in exchange for his support (Aegon II actually wanted to execute after his restoration to the Iron Throne and Alicent remained opposed to this decision of her son).

Both Daemon and Rhaenyra were mortal enemies of Aegon II and his brood, Daemon possibly even more so than Rhaenyra herself. The idea that a legal claim could be transferred through his blood but not Rhaenyra's makes little sense. We know that Aegon II specifically declared Rhaenyra had not been a queen but he most certainly would also have attainted Prince Daemon and all his children early on during the war as soon as he failed to recognize him as his king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

1)No, the women were already behind the men long before the Dance. That was the case, at least in the minds of many, since the Great Council. And possibly even since Jaehaerys I had named Baelon his heir in 92 AC. The Dance was interpreted also as such a precedent against female inheritance. Or rather, most likely, that women could not possibly rule as 'Maegor with teats' had proved.

2)We actually don't know that. It could very well be that the daughter of a king would still have a better claim than a second cousin of a king through the a male Targaryen line. The name is important, sure, but one really wonders whether the granddaughter of King Valarr I (had he ruled) would have come only after Egg's grandsons who very well might have all been half peasants in such a setting.

3)This kind of thing was never tested because there were always close male kin around when a king had no heirs of his own body/only sisters.

4)If the daughter of a king was married to a powerful lord and effectively recognized by her royal father and the court as heir presumptive to the Iron Throne then she most likely would succeed said father without much difficulty despite the fact there were also some distant male line cousins around.

5)According to Ran, that's not what happened. Aegon II himself betrothed Aegon the Younger to his daughter Jaehaera and named them both joined heirs. He did this because he needed the support of the Velaryon fleet and Corlys Velaryon forced him to do that in exchange for his support (Aegon II actually wanted to execute after his restoration to the Iron Throne and Alicent remained opposed to this decision of her son).

6)Both Daemon and Rhaenyra were mortal enemies of Aegon II and his brood, Daemon possibly even more so than Rhaenyra herself. The idea that a legal claim could be transferred through his blood but not Rhaenyra's makes little sense. We know that Aegon II specifically declared Rhaenyra had not been a queen but he most certainly would also have attainted Prince Daemon and all his children early on during the war as soon as he failed to recognize him as his king.

1)If they where behind the men before the dance then Viserys could not have declared his daughter his heir or would at least have met serieus opposition to this the fact that he did not makes it it clear that this is a false assumption on your part.

2)In the situation you describe they would most likely call a great council and then it would have up to that great council to either afirm the rule or declare the Targaryen male to far away in proximity, this does not however change the rule it only adds a addendum to it.

3) Agreed it was never tested but does that mean the rule did not exist? No it does not.

4) Depends on who the distant cousin and his direct family are married to if there in-laws a powerfull you have a second Dance.

5) I was not talking about what Aegon II did i was talking about what Corlys did after his dead to placate the Greens to get them to agree to peace.

6) Sure he probably did, but he undid this when he recognized Aegon the Younger as his heir like you yourself mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

1)If they where behind the men before the dance then Viserys could not have declared his daughter his heir or would at least have met serieus opposition to this the fact that he did not makes it it clear that this is a false assumption on your part.

No those are actually Martin's own words in TWoIaF. Check the sidebar where the Great Council setting an 'iron precedent' against female inheritance and inheritance through the female line is discussed.

Viserys I did meet opposition when he decreed that Rhaenyra would be his heir and made her Princess of Dragonstone. But he was also the absolute ruler of the Seven Kingdoms. He could do whatever the hell he liked. Precedents do not bind kings. Kings make precedents. They can stick to precedents as to not overly confuse their subjects and go against established rules but they don't have to.

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

2)In the situation you describe they would most likely call a great council and then it would have up to that great council to either afirm the rule or declare the Targaryen male to far away in proximity, this does not however change the rule it only adds a addendum to it.

A Great Council is called by the king or the Hand/his Small Council, not because you or anybody else wishes that these people would call one. Jaehaerys I called the first Great Council to discuss his succession because he felt he had to to ensure a peaceful succession. Him just declaring Prince Viserys his heir most likely wouldn't have stopped Corlys and Rhaenys from trying to seat Laenor on the Iron Throne after his death. But after it became clear that a vast majority of the lords were supporting Viserys' claims the Velaryons realized that theirs was a lost cause. At least at that point.

The other two Great Councils are both called by the Hand/regent (Grand Maester Munkun and Lord Rivers) acting in the (late) king's stead. The Hand of the King continues to rule in the late king's name until a new king is crowned (that's what Bloodraven does in 233 AC).

It would depend whether the powerful people at court would want to call a Great Council or not. If the husband of the daughter of the king claiming the throne for herself would serve as that king's Hand there wouldn't be a Great Council. There would most likely not even be a discussion about the succession.

Sure, we could also imagine that a king who only has daughters has very bad relations with those daughters and instead favors some distant cousin as his heir. But to secure the succession of such a person he would have to name him heir during his lifetime, making him the Prince of Dragonstone, and so on. The idea that the court or the lords of the Realm would actually research the Targaryen family tree and then visit some landed knight in the middle of nowhere whose name happens to be Targaryen because his great-grandfather was the younger son of some king is not a very likely scenario. Such people have to brought out of the dirt and into the royal family to get a shot at the throne.

The only scenario such an idea would make sense if the (extended) royal family died in some freak accident. Then the resulting power vacuum could result into the court actually go looking for some new heirs.

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

3) Agreed it was never tested but does that mean the rule did not exist? No it does not.

It does, because if such a rule existed then the quote you gave in your last post would have read quite differently. It would have stated something along those lines: 'After the Dance of the Dragons Aegon II (and possibly even the Great Council of 136 AC) stipulated that no woman of royal descent could ever sit the Iron Throne under any circumstances unless there are no other male scions of royal blood alive. This includes even very distant cousins either through the male of female line.'

Instead we have the people of Westeros actually considering the claims of Baelor's sister after his death. That wouldn't have been done if things had been as easy. Prince Viserys would then have been Baelor's natural heir and nobody would have even considered the girls heirs to the Iron Throne.

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

4) Depends on who the distant cousin and his direct family are married to if there in-laws a powerfull you have a second Dance.

That certainly is a possibility. But then, distant royal cousins are likely to have less prestigious marriages than royal children. And with the Targaryen incest customs those cousins might actually be married to their sisters or other close kin, making it difficult for them to secure marriages with powerful people. But it certainly isn't out of the question.

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

5) I was not talking about what Aegon II did i was talking about what Corlys did after his dead to placate the Greens to get them to agree to peace.

He offered them favorable peace terms. The Blacks had effectively won the war anyway. If the Greens had not accepted them the war would have continued and Cregan Stark most likely would have sacked Oldtown and Lannisport (again), possibly even attainting the Lannisters, Baratheons, and Hightowers.

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

6) Sure he probably did, but he undid this when he recognized Aegon the Younger as his heir like you yourself mention.

We don't know anything about that. But there is no reason for him to undo this because, you know, he hated them. Aegon the Younger could take the Iron Throne and rule by virtue of his (lackwit) wife, Aegon II's daughter. They were joined heirs, after all. He didn't have to acknowledge any blood claim of Aegon the Younger.

But Aegon II's view hardly matter there since the man was soon thereafter killed by his own people. In light of the military success of the Blacks the fact that Aegon III was the son of Rhaenyra would hardly have been seen as a problem. The Blacks had all been fighting for her, not Prince Daemon. And while the it stuck that Rhaenyra had been unfit to rule because of her female sex this doesn't mean that the people thought ignored the fact that Aegon III was Viserys I's grandson through her. 

The idea that claims cannot pass through women to other men is an extremist view. We see that this argument is later actually use to defend and support Robert Baratheon's claim to the Iron Throne. It was convenient to use such an argument against Laenor Velaryon, but if the same argument can be used to support Robert's claim it isn't a very strong argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

1)No those are actually Martin's own words in TWoIaF. Check the sidebar where the Great Council setting an 'iron precedent' against female inheritance and inheritance through the female line is discussed.

2)Viserys I did meet opposition when he decreed that Rhaenyra would be his heir and made her Princess of Dragonstone. But he was also the absolute ruler of the Seven Kingdoms. He could do whatever the hell he liked. Precedents do not bind kings. Kings make precedents. They can stick to precedents as to not overly confuse their subjects and go against established rules but they don't have to.

3)A Great Council is called by the king or the Hand/his Small Council, not because you or anybody else wishes that these people would call one. Jaehaerys I called the first Great Council to discuss his succession because he felt he had to to ensure a peaceful succession. Him just declaring Prince Viserys his heir most likely wouldn't have stopped Corlys and Rhaenys from trying to seat Laenor on the Iron Throne after his death. But after it became clear that a vast majority of the lords were supporting Viserys' claims the Velaryons realized that theirs was a lost cause. At least at that point.

The other two Great Councils are both called by the Hand/regent (Grand Maester Munkun and Lord Rivers) acting in the (late) king's stead. The Hand of the King continues to rule in the late king's name until a new king is crowned (that's what Bloodraven does in 233 AC).

It would depend whether the powerful people at court would want to call a Great Council or not. If the husband of the daughter of the king claiming the throne for herself would serve as that king's Hand there wouldn't be a Great Council. There would most likely not even be a discussion about the succession.

Sure, we could also imagine that a king who only has daughters has very bad relations with those daughters and instead favors some distant cousin as his heir. But to secure the succession of such a person he would have to name him heir during his lifetime, making him the Prince of Dragonstone, and so on. The idea that the court or the lords of the Realm would actually research the Targaryen family tree and then visit some landed knight in the middle of nowhere whose name happens to be Targaryen because his great-grandfather was the younger son of some king is not a very likely scenario. Such people have to brought out of the dirt and into the royal family to get a shot at the throne.

The only scenario such an idea would make sense if the (extended) royal family died in some freak accident. Then the resulting power vacuum could result into the court actually go looking for some new heirs.

4)It does, because if such a rule existed then the quote you gave in your last post would have read quite differently. It would have stated something along those lines: 'After the Dance of the Dragons Aegon II (and possibly even the Great Council of 136 AC) stipulated that no woman of royal descent could ever sit the Iron Throne under any circumstances unless there are no other male scions of royal blood alive. This includes even very distant cousins either through the male of female line.'

Instead we have the people of Westeros actually considering the claims of Baelor's sister after his death. That wouldn't have been done if things had been as easy. Prince Viserys would then have been Baelor's natural heir and nobody would have even considered the girls heirs to the Iron Throne.

5)That certainly is a possibility. But then, distant royal cousins are likely to have less prestigious marriages than royal children. And with the Targaryen incest customs those cousins might actually be married to their sisters or other close kin, making it difficult for them to secure marriages with powerful people. But it certainly isn't out of the question.

6)He offered them favorable peace terms. The Blacks had effectively won the war anyway. If the Greens had not accepted them the war would have continued and Cregan Stark most likely would have sacked Oldtown and Lannisport (again), possibly even attainting the Lannisters, Baratheons, and Hightowers.

7)We don't know anything about that. But there is no reason for him to undo this because, you know, he hated them. Aegon the Younger could take the Iron Throne and rule by virtue of his (lackwit) wife, Aegon II's daughter. They were joined heirs, after all. He didn't have to acknowledge any blood claim of Aegon the Younger.

8)But Aegon II's view hardly matter there since the man was soon thereafter killed by his own people. In light of the military success of the Blacks the fact that Aegon III was the son of Rhaenyra would hardly have been seen as a problem. The Blacks had all been fighting for her, not Prince Daemon. And while the it stuck that Rhaenyra had been unfit to rule because of her female sex this doesn't mean that the people thought ignored the fact that Aegon III was Viserys I's grandson through her. 

9)The idea that claims cannot pass through women to other men is an extremist view. We see that this argument is later actually use to defend and support Robert Baratheon's claim to the Iron Throne. It was convenient to use such an argument against Laenor Velaryon, but if the same argument can be used to support Robert's claim it isn't a very strong argument.

1) No it says in "the minds of many it set a iron precendent" so that is the personnel thought of a number of people who are not even nessecarily the mayority.

2) He did not meet any opposition untill Aegon II was born despite there being a male targaryen around before that.

3) Hence the words "most likely" that means that there are other possibility's again read before you comment. And in they event that the Hand sides with the daughter you still have to take into account that the distant cousin might not agree and rebel, which in turn depends on what kind of support he could gather off course, So it could go smootly to the daughter butt that is not a certainty.

4) This is just you desperatly trying to twist the text to wat you want it to be, it clearly states that Aegon III daughters where past over because of the precendents of the great council of 101 and the dance of dragons, so that requers a precedent that places them after there uncle.

5) Now this is why despite your stubbornes i do like your posts and comments a lot, thats a good point on the incesteues marriages making it difficult.

6) And what could be more favoreble then what they had been fighting for the throne passing trough the male line.

7) That is a fair point i will consede that to you, but would like to point out that after his dead nothing would stop Corlys from recognizing such a bloodclaim.

8) Again a fair point, but as i said in order to claim a precedent from the dance ther first has to be a precendent, and because of that it does not seem Aegon III was put on the throne as the heir of Rhaenyra.

9) Even Robert himself and later Renly thought it a flimsy excuse only meant to satisfy septons and measters who studied such things, Robert conquert his throne with his warhammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

1) No it says in "the minds of many it set a iron precendent" so that is the personnel thought of a number of people who are not even nessecarily the mayority.

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.

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.

22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

2) He did not meet any opposition untill Aegon II was born despite there being a male targaryen around before that.

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.

22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

3) Hence the words "most likely" that means that there are other possibility's again read before you comment. And in they event that the Hand sides with the daughter you still have to take into account that the distant cousin might not agree and rebel, which in turn depends on what kind of support he could gather off course, So it could go smootly to the daughter butt that is not a certainty.

Rebellions are always possible, nobody doubts that.

22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

4) This is just you desperatly trying to twist the text to wat you want it to be, it clearly states that Aegon III daughters where past over because of the precendents of the great council of 101 and the dance of dragons, so that requers a precedent that places them after there uncle.

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.

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.

22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

6) And what could be more favoreble then what they had been fighting for the throne passing trough the male line.

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.

22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

7) That is a fair point i will consede that to you, but would like to point out that after his dead nothing would stop Corlys from recognizing such a bloodclaim.

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.

22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

8) Again a fair point, but as i said in order to claim a precedent from the dance ther first has to be a precendent, and because of that it does not seem Aegon III was put on the throne as the heir of Rhaenyra.

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.

22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

9) Even Robert himself and later Renly thought it a flimsy excuse only meant to satisfy septons and measters who studied such things, Robert conquert his throne with his warhammer.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/1/2017 at 6:05 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

As to the idea that Jaehaerys himself was a usurper, is thought-provoking on the surface, but ultimately worthy of dismissal. The royalty of Westeros can most closely be associated with that of medieval England,

If William the Conqueror had conquered England with winged reptiles you would had been correct. However to use real words to prove your point about what happened in a fantasy world is kind of pointless since the very existence of this world proves you wrong.

So again, under First men and Andals a daughter comes after a son but before a brother. Hence by definition and since as people claim, the Targs have followed the law of the Seven Aegon’s daughters come before Aegon’s younger brother. Hence when Jaehaerys took the Crown he usurped his nieces Throne.

On 15/1/2017 at 2:11 AM, Adam Yozza said:

Although, would it really matter if he was a usurper? He was the best King Westeros has ever seen 

That is debatable.

On 15/1/2017 at 3:11 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

My assessment of Lord Varys's positions on almost every topic is that it ultimately supports a scenario which sees Daenerys as the legitimate heir to the Targeryen dynasty. In other words, of course he will argue against a scenario which supports Rhaegar's son as the obvious legitimate heir to the Throne, as it deligitimizes Daenerys's position.

We all have our biases. Nothing wrong with it. We are entitled to them.

Agree that is why ignoring some posts is really handy.

 

 

For everyone; This is a thread about Jaehaerys usurping his nieces' Throne, not about what happened after the Dance. Stay on topic.

Edited by Jon's Queen Consort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If William the Conqueror had conquered England with winged reptiles you would had been correct. However to use real words to prove your point about what happened in a fantasy world is kind of pointless since the very existence of this world proves you wrong.

<snip

For everyone; This is a thread about Jaehaerys usurping his nieces' Throne, not about what happened after the Dance. Stay on topic.

No, it doesn't. Even fantasy has a level of reality to it--especially GRRM's fantasy--and real life English history is a major inspiration for the series. Dismissing historical precedents out of hand would be counter-productive to discussions like this one. There is no way to have a meaningful discussion about succession in any realm (real or fictional) without considering the societal, cultural, and historical elements that go into it.

The Dance is important to the discussion, because prior to Rhaenyra no woman had claimed the throne...including Aerea and Rhalla. Though I agree that what happened after is less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

No, it doesn't. Even fantasy has a level of reality to it--especially GRRM's fantasy--and real life English history is a major inspiration for the series. Dismissing historical precedents out of hand would be counter-productive to discussions like this one. There is no way to have a meaningful discussion about succession in any realm (real or fictional) without considering the societal, cultural, and historical elements that go into it.

No I don't agree at all. Imnsho to say that because something worked in real word it worked in the some way in a land where polygamy and incest was legal and a King’s biggest power was his winged reptile is as I said before, silly. To draw similarities between economical policies, strategy and so on maybe but to say that because something worked that way in real world that should work the same in ASOIAF, no.

8 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The Dance is important to the discussion, because prior to Rhaenyra no woman had claimed the throne...including Aerea and Rhalla. Though I agree that what happened after is less so.

Aerea and Rhalla hadn't claimed the throne because Jaehaerys stole it from them. That is the whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

No I don't agree at all. Imnsho to say that because something worked in real word it worked in the some way in a land where polygamy and incest was legal and a King’s biggest power was his winged reptile is as I said before, silly. To draw similarities between economical policies, strategy and so on maybe but to say that because something worked that way in real world that should work the same in ASOIAF, no.

 

Aerea and Rhalla hadn't claimed the throne because Jaehaerys stole it from them. That is the whole point.

To say that things might perhaps work the same way in a fictional land inspired heavily by a real one, as they did in the real one, is not remotely silly. The addition of dragons, polygamy (which by the way did and does exist in the real world), and incest (also exists in the real world, the Borgias were inspiration for the Lannisters), do not change the basic tenets of realism needed to make the story believable. Look up GRRM's own words on the subject. 

Okay, let's discount all real world examples. They were meant as supporting evidence anyway, not indisputable proof.

You seem to have missed every single time someone has pointed out in this thread that there is no precedent within the story itself. No queens regnant in Westeros during FM or Andal eras, no kings or queens at all in Valyria, and certainly no queens regnant in united Westeros, despite several women with the power to claim the throne for themselves had they wanted it. The Dornish do allow a woman to rule, but no one else does, and nobody at the time was following any Dornish customs or procedures except for the Dornish themselves.

Aerea and Rhalla were 5-7 year old children whose own mother aided Jaehaerys' claim. She stole Blackfyre from Maegor and took it to Jaehaerys. Rhaena had a dragon, was the firstborn child of Aenys I and wife of Prince Aegon, was of legal age, and was the mother of Prince Aegon's only children. She could have claimed the throne for one of her daughters, but she didn't. Would you care to address this? 

The definition of usurping a throne is to do so by illegal means or the use of force. There were no laws that delineated proper succession to the throne, no laws saying that a woman could rule, and no precedent in Westeros for a woman, let alone a 7 year old girl, to rule...therefore no laws were broken. Jaehaerys did not take an army and march against anyone. Therefore there was no use of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

No I don't agree at all. Imnsho to say that because something worked in real word it worked in the some way in a land where polygamy and incest was legal and a King’s biggest power was his winged reptile is as I said before, silly. To draw similarities between economical policies, strategy and so on maybe but to say that because something worked that way in real world that should work the same in ASOIAF, no.

 

Aerea and Rhalla hadn't claimed the throne because Jaehaerys stole it from them. That is the whole point.

To say that things might perhaps work the same way in a fictional land inspired heavily by a real one, as they did in the real one, is not remotely silly. The addition of dragons, polygamy (which by the way did and does exist in the real world), and incest (also exists in the real world, the Borgias were inspiration for the Lannisters), do not change the basic tenets of realism needed to make the story believable. Look up GRRM's own words on the subject. 

Okay, let's discount all real world examples. They were meant as supporting evidence anyway, not indisputable proof.

You seem to have missed every single time someone has pointed out in this thread that there is no precedent within the story itself. No queens regnant in Westeros during FM or Andal eras, no kings or queens at all in Valyria, and certainly no queens regnant in united Westeros, despite several women with the power to claim the throne for themselves had they wanted it. The Dornish do allow a woman to rule, but no one else does, and nobody at the time was following any Dornish customs or procedures except for the Dornish themselves.

Aerea and Rhalla were 5-7 year old children whose own mother aided Jaehaerys' claim. She stole Blackfyre from Maegor and took it to Jaehaerys. Rhaena had a dragon, was the firstborn child of Aenys I and wife of Prince Aegon, was of legal age, and was the mother of Prince Aegon's only children. She could have claimed the throne for one of her daughters, but she didn't. Would you care to address this? 

The definition of usurping a throne is to do so by illegal means or the use of force. There were no laws that delineated proper succession to the throne, no laws saying that a woman could rule, and no precedent in Westeros for a woman, let alone a 7 year old girl, to rule...therefore no laws were broken. Jaehaerys did not take an army and march against anyone. Therefore there was no use of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

To say that things might perhaps work the same way in a fictional land inspired heavily by a real one, as they did in the real one, is not remotely silly. The addition of dragons, polygamy (which by the way did and does exist in the real world), and incest (also exists in the real world, the Borgias were inspiration for the Lannisters), do not change the basic tenets of realism needed to make the story believable. Look up GRRM's own words on the subject. 

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.

17 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Aerea and Rhalla were 5-7 year old children whose own mother aided Jaehaerys' claim. She stole Blackfyre from Maegor and took it to Jaehaerys. Rhaena had a dragon, was the firstborn child of Aenys I and wife of Prince Aegon, was of legal age, and was the mother of Prince Aegon's only children. She could have claimed the throne for one of her daughters, but she didn't. Would you care to address this? 

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.

17 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The definition of usurping a throne is to do so by illegal means or the use of force. There were no laws that delineated proper succession to the throne, no laws saying that a woman could rule, and no precedent in Westeros for a woman, let alone a 7 year old girl, to rule...therefore no laws were broken. Jaehaerys did not take an army and march against anyone. Therefore there was no use of force.

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.

Edited by Jon's Queen Consort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

So again, under First men and Andals a daughter comes after a son but before a brother. Hence by definition and since as people claim, the Targs have followed the law of the Seven Aegon’s daughters come before Aegon’s younger brother. Hence when Jaehaerys took the Crown he usurped his nieces Throne.

That is nonsense because no law of either the First Men nor the Andals stipulates anything of this sort. We know that a son comes before a daughter, and that in the days of King Tommen some maesters and women believed that daughters come before uncles. But that opinion certainly is open to debate.

Even if this weren't the case nobody has ever said that some 'law of the Seven' (what do you even mean by that) did apply to the Targaryens. They also practiced incest and polygamy in the days when the Faith still had teeth.

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

For everyone; This is a thread about Jaehaerys usurping his nieces' Throne, not about what happened after the Dance. Stay on topic.

Any argument that this is the case can be dismissed by pointing out that Viserys I actually did what @velo-knight I think it was suggested could cast doubt on the legitimacy of his own claim to the Iron Throne:

The Great Council backed Viserys' claim to the Iron Throne by dismissing Laenor Velaryon's claim with the argument that primogeniture doesn't matter if you are only descended from the king through the female line. Yet after he had been king for only two years he decided to name his only daughter his heir in a lavish ceremony, completely ignoring the Great Council which made him king in the first place. Thus was the power of his kingship that he could do this. And it got even worse in 107 AC when he also ignored the birth of his son Aegon, sticking with Rhaenyra as his chosen heir. If the power of the king hadn't been pretty much absolute at this point this kind of weirdo behavior certainly could have led to the quick deposition of the man.

If a man who rather formidable opponents in Rhaenys and Corlys could do this then the idea that Jaehaerys I sitting on the Iron Throne for 44 years could damage his own claim by preferring Baelon over Rhaenys doesn't make much sense.

A usurpation also entails that you steal the throne from the rightful king or his heir. But with Maegor himself being an usurper him naming Aerea his heir is more or less worth as much as some Blackfyre decree drafted in exile. Nothing.

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

That is debatable.

It isn't, actually, because the historians reaching the conclusion that Jaehaerys I and the Good Queen were the best rulers the Seven Kingdoms ever had simply have more information than we do.

17 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

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.

That is just crap. We have no idea whether Aerea and Rhalla even survived Maegor's reign. They could have been killed before Jaehaerys I, Alyssa, and Rhaena even reached the capital. We all hope Rhaena fled with her little girls but perhaps they were already dead by that point, or she couldn't take them with her.

The idea that Jaehaerys I ever had control of the children makes no sense whatsoever. Tyanna found them and brought them to court, and Rhaena then agreed to marry Maegor. After Maegor had disinherited Jaehaerys (suggesting that he had been his heir prior to that legal act) he named Aerea his new heir. But that was in 47 AC. We don't know how long the girl lived.

17 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

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.

Are you even discussing things here? According to the Faith polygamy and incest are forbidden, too. Maegor and Aegon didn't care about that, either. And neither the First Men nor the Andals ever had a Queen Regnant outside the Reach. Does this truly indicate to you that five of the Seven Kingdom usually wanted a daughter to be their Queen Regnant when an uncle or cousin was around to take her place? I don't think so.

Perhaps you can name some Andal or First Men queens of the Seven Kingdoms aside from Marla Sunderland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.