Jaehaerys I was a usurper.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Prince Aegon, not his older sister wife Rhaena, was Aenys's heir. 

No one said that daughter comes before son.

3 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

There is no textual basis to suggest Jaehaerys or any of his supporters threatened or harmed Rhaena or her daughters, especially with both Rhaena and her mother supporting Jaehaerys against Maegor, who actually did murder children of Aenys.

Only common logic. What was better for Rhaena? Being a nobody or a Regent? Same with Alyssa. Being a grandmother or a Regent?

6 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Your last line is no support for your position. You brought up Andal and First Men inheritence laws, and yet have provided no examples of women inheriting thrones of Andal or First Men kingdoms in their own right prior to the Targs.

The inheritage custom or law still applied to lords and ladies even without a crown.

7 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

For whatever reason, late in her life Alysanne quarreled with Jaehaerys over his skipping over Rhaenys for Baelon. Perhaps Jaehaerys grief at her loss even contributed to Rhaenys's inclusion in the GC.

Not for whatever reason, Alysanne did it because Jaehaerys skipped over the heir's heir for the son of his younger son it's pretty clear and not up to guessing.

12 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

To project Alysanne's opinion back in time to mean Rhaena and her daughters were by any existing standard the true heirs and Jaehaerys usurped them has no basis in the text.

It only proves that even under Jaehaerys women were in the line of succession. If his granddaughter was in the line of succession why Aegon's daughters were not?

[direpupy]

17 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

She's not ever going to change her mind.

I am with you on this, she just really wants Queen Regnants to be a thing and for that to happen Jaehaerys needs to be a usurper even if al evidence points to that not being the case.

@Lord Varys @Bael's Bastard It does not matter how many times you argue with here you are not going to convince here because she does not want to discus she want to be told that she is right. I have given up on trying and suggest you do the same, lets move on to something more productive.

[Lord Varys]

@direpupy

Yeah, you are right.

@Jon's Queen Consort

A last piece of advice: If you just want to reiterate the same stuff phrased slightly differently (or essentially the same) you should get yourself a blog. In a discussion board you actually discuss things. That means you have to be willing to change your mind if somebody points out that you made a mistake or if you encounter a better argument. If you don't do that then there is no point in discussing stuff with you. And that's not true for me, @Lady Blizzardborn, @Bael's Bastard, or @direpupy but essentially for every person you talk to.  

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

@Jon's Queen Consort

A last piece of advice: If you just want to reiterate the same stuff phrased slightly differently (or essentially the same) you should get yourself a blog. In a discussion board you actually discuss things. That means you have to be willing to change your mind if somebody points out that you made a mistake or if you encounter a better argument. If you don't do that then there is no point in discussing stuff with you. And that's not true for me, @Lady Blizzardborn, @Bael's Bastard, or @direpupy but essentially for every person you talk to.  

Good for you. I will not change my mind because that is what other people think or believe and I don't really care who likes it or not.

[Jaak]

On 22.1.2017 at 1:25 PM, Lord Varys said:

As far as we know there is no story behind those. We know that they all were Lords of Dragonstone, presumably after each other, suggesting that none of them had a (living) son to succeed them.

And we don´t know if Targaryens had disinherited nieces before.

Had Valyria ever been ruled by a woman?

[Lord Varys]

32 minutes ago, Jaak said:

And we don´t know if Targaryens had disinherited nieces before.

Sure, but then - Maegon, Aelyx, and Baelon could have had sons as well as daughters, sons who survived their fathers. The Targaryens could thus have also have passed over/ignored the claims of sons back on Dragonstone.

32 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Had Valyria ever been ruled by a woman?

Valyria was never ruled by a single person, apparently (only by a single family, sometimes), so we can exclude that possibility. But we know there were female dragonlords, and thus it is reasonably that they could also be elected into office just as women in Volantis can be elected triarchs.

[Drogonthedread]

As others have said he was no usurper..

All this is because he was named a good king and how dare he takes lands away from precious starks...how can a targ do that and called good right??..I would like to see how much you support when the same situation comes to dany ..

[1000th Lord Commander]

An odd post to have garnered so much attention, I think.

Yes, we could make a rather long and convoluted arguement that he did usurp his niece's position. After all, she was the named heir.

More likely is the arguement that since Maegor was the usurper, Jaehaerys taking the throne is more simply a restoration of the throne to the rightful heir - Jaehaerys, as his father's eldest surviving son.

Given that from all accounts, Rhaena supported her brother on the throne rather than trying to take power for her daughters, it's really a moot issue.

Jaehaerys was the one who institued the Westeros form of succession, rather than sticking to the Valyrian way. I always felt that he did this to be more in line with the people he ruled rather than trying to defend his own succession

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Drogonthedread said:

All this is because he was named a good king and how dare he takes lands away from precious starks...how can a targ do that and called good right??..I would like to see how much you support when the same situation comes to dany ..

Well, the Starks actually shared Jaehaerys I's view on the succession back in the days of Cregan Stark. The daughters of Cregan's eldest son Rickon Stark didn't get Winterfell. It passed a younger son instead.

40 minutes ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

Yes, we could make a rather long and convoluted arguement that he did usurp his niece's position. After all, she was the named heir.

But we also don't think Viserys I usurped Laenor's throne or that Baelon would have stolen Rhaenys' throne had he become king in Viserys' stead. And nobody makes a fuzz about Princess Vaella and Prince Maegor losing the throne to that evil usurper Aegon V. If there was a fixed law of succession then there would never have been a debate nor the need for a Great Council to discuss the succession. They would just have stuck to the rules and severely punished the few dissenters that dared challenge the custom.

40 minutes ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

Given that from all accounts, Rhaena supported her brother on the throne rather than trying to take power for her daughters, it's really a moot issue.

Thinking about that - we could even assume that Rhaena speaking in the name of her minor daughters gave up their legal claims to the Iron Throne in favor of Jaehaerys. As Prince Duncan later proved you can do that kind of thing and while the girls were not yet sixteen their mother and other family would have spoken for them.

40 minutes ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

Jaehaerys was the one who institued the Westeros form of succession, rather than sticking to the Valyrian way. I always felt that he did this to be more in line with the people he ruled rather than trying to defend his own succession

That is also an important point. Prior to Jaehaerys I the Targaryen kings themselves essentially picked their heirs. Aegon chose his eldest son as people would expect him to, and Aenys I chose his eldest son as well but the throne was then stolen by Maegor.

Jaehaerys I was the one who unified the laws of the Seven Kingdoms. One assumes he realized that there never had been a Queen Regnant outside of the Reach when he was doing this. The best reason as to why he chose his son Baelon over his granddaughter Rhaenys most likely was the simple fact that he knew that the majority of his lords did not like the idea of being ruled by a woman. And he wanted his peaceful and successful reign to continue, expecting that it would be done better under a capable son than a capable (yet perhaps rather hotheaded) woman. He would have remembered the challenges and rebellions his own father faced during his short reign, and while the Faith Militant was gone there were still a lot of ambitious lords around.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

9 hours ago, Drogonthedread said:

As others have said he was no usurper..

All this is because he was named a good king and how dare he takes lands away from precious starks...how can a targ do that and called good right??..I would like to see how much you support when the same situation comes to dany ..

Utter  Someone's family have nothing to do with being good or not. 

4 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

More likely is the arguement that since Maegor was the usurper, Jaehaerys taking the throne is more simply a restoration of the throne to the rightful heir - Jaehaerys, as his father's eldest surviving son.

Yes Maegor maybe was an usurper and had named Aerea his heir Rhalla was still alive and she was still Aegon's heir.

4 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

Given that from all accounts, Rhaena supported her brother on the throne rather than trying to take power for her daughters, it's really a moot issue.

Who made those accounts? Because according of the accounts we have in the woiaf Elia killed her children. Its more likely that Rhaena was forced to support Jaehaerys, like what happened with Elizabeth Woodville,  and become a nobody than support her daughter and being the Regent.

4 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

Jaehaerys was the one who institued the Westeros form of succession, 

What?

4 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

rather than sticking to the Valyrian way.

You mean the realm to be ruled by forty families?

4 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

I always felt that he did this to be more in line with the people he ruled rather than trying to defend his own succession

How?

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

@Jon's Queen Consort - Besides Rhaena clearly choosing to support Jaehaerys in 48AC over Aerea & Rhalla, part-wise to protect* them, I wonder if she was actually conspiring rebellion the year before:

Elinor was the youngest of the Black Brides, but though she was nine-and-ten at her marriage, she had already given her husband, Ser Theo Bolling, three children. Ser Theo was arrested by knights of the Kingsguard, accused of conspiring with Queen Alyssa to place her son, Prince Jaehaerys, on the throne, and was then executed—all on the same day ...

When Prince Aegon was killed by Maegor in the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye, Rhaena took refuge on Fair Isle under the protection of Lord Farman, who hid her and her twin daughters. Tyanna found the twin girls, however, and Rhaena was then forced to wed Maegor ...

Tall and slender, Lady Jeyne had been wed to Lord Alyn Tarbeck, who died with the rebels at the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye. Having given him a posthumous son, her fecundity was proven and she was being courted by the son of the Lord of Casterly Rock when the king sent for her. (The World of Ice & Fire, Maegor I)

*It's like Alyssa tragically having to risk & then not claim Viserys; to seize her only chance to protect Jaehaerys & Alysanne & then continue such, respectively. Rhaena had already seen Maegor kill Jeyne & Tyanna one way or another, & he'd previously killed Alys & likely Ceryse, so she seized an opportunity before she (& her girls) would also eventually die, flying away on Dreamfyre (also taking Blackfyre to further Jaehaerys' legitimacy) with Aerea & Rhalla seemingly escorted by the two KG abandoning Maegor, during the escape (I'm guessing onto one of Daemon's ships). Frankly, the twins were far safer at the secure power base of Storm's End with the rest of the family, then with Rhaena fucking around like Aegon 1.5 (he obviously pushed his claim with battle far too early - could've successfully beaten Maegor had he waited until after Visenya died) trying to rally support for them that just wasn't there.

I think all of this may be related ... It seems to me like Tyanna found (& gained "custody" of) the twins separate from their mother & they were used as hostages to force Rhaena to marry Maegor. Had she been found & seized with her girls, Maegor could've just force-married Rhaena without needing them as hostages to do so. Whilst "vows made at sword point are not valid" according to some, the unfortunate truth is whether literally or metaphorically, there are a number of marriages in ASoIaF-proper where they were valid although there wasn't true consent: Sansa & Tyrion, Donella & Ramsay, Jeyne & Ramsay, etc. Those who hold the power, force the "legality".

I'm inclined to believe, admittedly rather against the norm of Maegor & Tyanna, that Theo actually was conspiring with Alyssa to have Jaehaerys replace Maegor as king through rebellion & it wasn't some trumped up charge. By 46AC, when Maegor returned to KL from campaign with the skulls of 2k Faith Militant (that may or may not have comprised of innocent smallfolk instead to boost the quota), the realm was gradually starting to turn against him (I don't imagine the slaughtering of the Red Keep craftsmen the year before did him any good either). House Bolling are a cadet branch of the Durrandons or the Baratheons (more likely the latter) through a bastard line, & more likely than not to have been loyal to Storm's End.

What if Rhaena left the twins on Fair Isle in Farman's care, to fly Dreamfyre to say Storm's End to conspire with Alyssa (& reunite with her family of course after more than 5 years!) & Bolling in starting an open rebellion for Jaehaerys?

Obviously she had to balance protecting her daughters, but the tides were definitely turning against Maegor by this stage (I think Daemon was complicit in not only the escape of 48AC, but perhaps also 44AC, & so playing Maegor) & there was certainly enough potential for Rhaena to seek revenge over Aegon (even if not for him, but what Maegor had put her through by killing him). It makes a lot of sense for Rhaena to seek her family out & to want to start a coup, imo. After all, the longer Maegor is around, he is still a great threat to all of them - if they can successfully rebel against him however, the danger is gone.

Rhaena had been on Fair Isle for 3-4 years, so she presumably felt she could trust Lord Farman, perhaps even as their temporary sole guardian if she were away. If I'm right, it could be that say she was wrong & Farman sold her girls out, but there's another who I think was more likely ...

Lord Lyman Lannister had only extended guest right & not military support to Aegon & Rhaena (& the twins after their birth), & then as soon as Aegon got himself killed, he promptly ended such & cast the Targaryens out of the Rock (which could help to explain why it, or the Westerlands, weren't attacked by Maegor when Lyman had initially refused to turn them over in 42AC). And I get the impression that he swiftly turned over Jeyne Westerling even though she was seemingly within the Rock itself & perhaps soon to be married to his son. And then when Alyssa put forward Jaehaerys claim, the Lannisters seemingly only declared for him after the Velaryons did (who were only able to openly after Rhaena & the twins were safe, after the Baratheons & perhaps the Tullys already had) & it's not even explicit that Lyman was still lord then (or that it wasn't a Tytos-Tywin situation where his son commandeered his authority).

If anyone in the Westerlands outside of Fair Isle knew that Aerea & Rhalla were in hiding there, the Lord of Casterly Rock would be up there. I wonder if after handing over his o/w potentially soon daughter-in-law & vassal under his protection, that Lyman didn't also sell out Rhaena. Even for the early protection of Rhaena, etc & declaration for Jaehaerys, House Lannister wasn't prominent at all with the royal family until the GC of 101 - Lyman shutting out Rhaena & the twins would help to explain that, & if he did sell them out, certainly would. There would've been some form of escort of the Crown &/or the Rock to take Jeyne to KL - not that hard to jump over to Fair Isle & take the girls too, particularly if Maegor himself had come on Balerion. Whether through someone like Lyman or a snitch in Storm's End or not, Tyanna "the Raven" could & did find out about Bolling (& Rhaena) colluding with Alyssa.

Once Bolling is say back at his keep with Elinor or perhaps even in KL itself if he was say a Baratheon agent there, the KG swoops (& perhaps Maegor if the former - tried & executed same day as captured, after all) & he's dead with Elinor now widowed for the king. Meanwhile, Storm's End receives a raven (if Tyanna knew where Alyssa fled to soon after the escape, presumably how she received news of Viserys to claim him) that Maegor has Aerea & Rhalla hostage & Rhaena has to come marry him. So of course, she would have to go & submit to such.

There could be any number of scenarios that could explain Rhaena not being with Aerea & Rhalla when they were captured by/for Tyanna (of course assuming I'm right that she actually wasn't), but there's nothing else I'm aware of that hints at such an alternative.

That being said, I think by far (even factoring in whatever the First Quarrel was about) Jaehaerys' worst decision was passing over Rhaenys for Baelon, when "the Queen Who Never Always Was" had a far stronger position to inherit than Aerea or Rhalla (for better or worse) ever did. Also, that Rhaenys was a far better ruler than Baelon, Viserys, Rhaenyra, or Daemon ever were. There may have always been a Dance coming (because Daemon existed), but it wouldn't have been anywhere near as devastating for the dynasty or the realm had Rhaenys sat the Iron Throne. Viserys was an utter joke who buried his head in the sand about the separate, & mutual, follies of his daughter & brother; & of course the scheming & manipulation by so many in his court.

[Colonel Green]

7 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

That being said, I think by far (even factoring in whatever the First Quarrel was about) Jaehaerys' worst decision was passing over Rhaenys for Baelon, when "the Queen Who Never Always Was" had a far stronger position to inherit than Aerea or Rhalla (for better or worse) ever did. Also, that Rhaenys was a far better ruler than Baelon, Viserys, Rhaenyra, or Daemon ever were. 

Based on what?  We don't really know much about Rhaenys, other than that she was considered a formidable warrior (though, oddly, she's never mentioned as having fought in any wars).  Baelon served as Hand of the King, and apparently performed ably in the task, even if for only a short time.

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

I think all of this may be related ... It seems to me like Tyanna found (& gained "custody" of) the twins separate from their mother & they were used as hostages to force Rhaena to marry Maegor. Had she been found & seized with her girls, Maegor could've just force-married Rhaena without needing them as hostages to do so. Whilst "vows made at sword point are not valid" according to some, the unfortunate truth is whether literally or metaphorically, there are a number of marriages in ASoIaF-proper where they were valid although there wasn't true consent: Sansa & Tyrion, Donella & Ramsay, Jeyne & Ramsay, etc. Those who hold the power, force the "legality".

That seems to be what happened. Tyanna got to Aerea and Rhalla, not Rhaena directly.

The validity of Maegor's marriages is a joke, though. Polygamy isn't legal in Westeros and aside from being forced into the marriage the black brides all could say that Maegor was still legally married to Tyanna when they wed him. It is one thing to wed one woman against her will but three at a time...?

13 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

I'm inclined to believe, admittedly rather against the norm of Maegor & Tyanna, that Theo actually was conspiring with Alyssa to have Jaehaerys replace Maegor as king through rebellion & it wasn't some trumped up charge. By 46AC, when Maegor returned to KL from campaign with the skulls of 2k Faith Militant (that may or may not have comprised of innocent smallfolk instead to boost the quota), the realm was gradually starting to turn against him (I don't imagine the slaughtering of the Red Keep craftsmen the year before did him any good either). House Bolling are a cadet branch of the Durrandons or the Baratheons (more likely the latter) through a bastard line, & more likely than not to have been loyal to Storm's End.

What if Rhaena left the twins on Fair Isle in Farman's care, to fly Dreamfyre to say Storm's End to conspire with Alyssa (& reunite with her family of course after more than 5 years!) & Bolling in starting an open rebellion for Jaehaerys?

The problem with speculation like this is that we have no idea whether Alyssa, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne spend all the time since their escape from Dragonstone at Storm's End. That castle is rather close to King's Landing and one assumes that Maegor might have come to look for them there, especially if the Bolling thing would have hinted at Baratheon involvement in the conspiracy.

And the idea that Rhaena had Dreamfyre with her on Fair Isle is also a huge stretch. If she had a dragon back then why wasn't she with Aegon at the Gods Eye? Why didn't she join the fight against Maegor? But the more important question is how the hell would she have been able to hide a dragon on Fair Isle? Those beasts are pretty conspicuous.

13 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Obviously she had to balance protecting her daughters, but the tides were definitely turning against Maegor by this stage (I think Daemon was complicit in not only the escape of 48AC, but perhaps also 44AC, & so playing Maegor) & there was certainly enough potential for Rhaena to seek revenge over Aegon (even if not for him, but what Maegor had put her through by killing him). It makes a lot of sense for Rhaena to seek her family out & to want to start a coup, imo. After all, the longer Maegor is around, he is still a great threat to all of them - if they can successfully rebel against him however, the danger is gone.

On the current evidence we have no reason to believe that Rhaena was involved in whatever conspiracies and plots there were against Maegor before she was found by Tyanna.

13 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Rhaena had been on Fair Isle for 3-4 years, so she presumably felt she could trust Lord Farman, perhaps even as their temporary sole guardian if she were away. If I'm right, it could be that say she was wrong & Farman sold her girls out, but there's another who I think was more likely ...

Lord Lyman Lannister had only extended guest right & not military support to Aegon & Rhaena (& the twins after their birth), & then as soon as Aegon got himself killed, he promptly ended such & cast the Targaryens out of the Rock (which could help to explain why it, or the Westerlands, weren't attacked by Maegor when Lyman had initially refused to turn them over in 42AC). And I get the impression that he swiftly turned over Jeyne Westerling even though she was seemingly within the Rock itself & perhaps soon to be married to his son. And then when Alyssa put forward Jaehaerys claim, the Lannisters seemingly only declared for him after the Velaryons did (who were only able to openly after Rhaena & the twins were safe, after the Baratheons & perhaps the Tullys already had) & it's not even explicit that Lyman was still lord then (or that it wasn't a Tytos-Tywin situation where his son commandeered his authority).

If anyone in the Westerlands outside of Fair Isle knew that Aerea & Rhalla were in hiding there, the Lord of Casterly Rock would be up there. I wonder if after handing over his o/w potentially soon daughter-in-law & vassal under his protection, that Lyman didn't also sell out Rhaena. Even for the early protection of Rhaena, etc & declaration for Jaehaerys, House Lannister wasn't prominent at all with the royal family until the GC of 101 - Lyman shutting out Rhaena & the twins would help to explain that, & if he did sell them out, certainly would. There would've been some form of escort of the Crown &/or the Rock to take Jeyne to KL - not that hard to jump over to Fair Isle & take the girls too, particularly if Maegor himself had come on Balerion. Whether through someone like Lyman or a snitch in Storm's End or not, Tyanna "the Raven" could & did find out about Bolling (& Rhaena) colluding with Alyssa.

Actually, we have no reason to believe that Jeyne Westerling ever lived at the Rock. The fact that Lyman's heir was courting her doesn't mean that courting would have to be done at Casterly Rock. She could just as well have lived with her Tarbeck in-laws or with her father's family at the Crag.

Also, we have no reason to believe that Tyanna (who was both a sorceress and a very capable Mistress of Whisperers) needed the help of the likes of Lord Lyman or Lord Farman to locate Rhaena and/or her twins.

13 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Once Bolling is say back at his keep with Elinor or perhaps even in KL itself if he was say a Baratheon agent there, the KG swoops (& perhaps Maegor if the former - tried & executed same day as captured, after all) & he's dead with Elinor now widowed for the king. Meanwhile, Storm's End receives a raven (if Tyanna knew where Alyssa fled to soon after the escape, presumably how she received news of Viserys to claim him) that Maegor has Aerea & Rhalla hostage & Rhaena has to come marry him. So of course, she would have to go & submit to such.

That also doesn't make a lot of sense. There wouldn't have been any need to torture and kill Prince Viserys and let his corpse rot for all the world to see if Maegor and Tyanna had had any clue where Alyssa and her surviving children were. If they had know or suspected that they were at Storm's End Maegor would have taken Balerion to Storm's End and there would neither be a Baratheon house nor a Storm's End in the series were are reading.

The Alyssa-Bolling conspiracy looks like something that happened shortly before Maegor married the black brides. It would have had nothing to do with Alyssa's escape which happened years before.

13 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

That being said, I think by far (even factoring in whatever the First Quarrel was about) Jaehaerys' worst decision was passing over Rhaenys for Baelon, when "the Queen Who Never Always Was" had a far stronger position to inherit than Aerea or Rhalla (for better or worse) ever did. Also, that Rhaenys was a far better ruler than Baelon, Viserys, Rhaenyra, or Daemon ever were. There may have always been a Dance coming (because Daemon existed), but it wouldn't have been anywhere near as devastating for the dynasty or the realm had Rhaenys sat the Iron Throne. Viserys was an utter joke who buried his head in the sand about the separate, & mutual, follies of his daughter & brother; & of course the scheming & manipulation by so many in his court.

Just as @Colonel Green has said, we have no idea how good a queen Rhaenys would have been, nor whether she was all that much qualified for such a position. The few tidbits about her rash and fiery character in TWoIaF when Mushroom's theory about Addam and Alyn of Hull is discussed suggested that even Corlys Velaryon might have been afraid what she would do to him and his bastards if she ever found out that he might have had some. That is not necessarily a character trait you look for in a monarch.

I honestly doubt that Rhaenys would have been a better ruler than Baelon. Jaehaerys I chose that man for a reason, a reason that might have had more to do with the personality of his second son and the personality of his granddaughter than their gender.

Whether Viserys I was better than Rhaenys is difficult to say, either, however we can be reasonably sure that the succession of Rhaenys/Laenor would have sucked even more than Viserys I's considering that Laenor Velaryon would never have been the father of his children regardless whom he married (most likely Laena if Rhaenys had become queen), and while Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor were unquestionably hers Laenor's heirs would have never been his seed.

[Jaak]

On 24.1.2017 at 0:03 AM, Lord Varys said:

Valyria was never ruled by a single person, apparently (only by a single family, sometimes), so we can exclude that possibility.

We don´t hear that claim. We do hear of "archons" elected.

Volantis is traditionally ruled by triarchs. Tyrosh, by archons - one at a time. An Archon of Valyria may have been a single person head of state.

So has Valyria ever elected a female Archon of Valyria?

Also, how about family leadership/property ownership? There is no court in Westeros where anyone could bring a lawsuit to inherit Iron Throne... but before Doom, Targaryens were Valyrian citizens. Were Valyrian laws applicable for inheritance of Targaryen lands (the ones which Aenar the Exile sold, in Lands of Long Summer) and of dragons, in a way enabling a Targaryen to sue another for inheritance in Valyrian court?

[Lord Varys]

29 minutes ago, Jaak said:

We don´t hear that claim. We do hear of "archons" elected.

No, we learn that Valyria had a collective government which consisted of the dragonlord families and possibly some other factions like those sorcerer princes. We also learn that at times there were archons elected to help with the government but those weren't official heads of government. Other archons were sent as overseers to colonies. Those also did not rule Valyria but rather other cities in the name of the Freehold.

29 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Volantis is traditionally ruled by triarchs. Tyrosh, by archons - one at a time. An Archon of Valyria may have been a single person head of state.

He wasn't.

29 minutes ago, Jaak said:

So has Valyria ever elected a female Archon of Valyria?

Could be. But such a person wouldn't have been a head of state because to our knowledge there was no head of state.

29 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Also, how about family leadership/property ownership? There is no court in Westeros where anyone could bring a lawsuit to inherit Iron Throne... but before Doom, Targaryens were Valyrian citizens. Were Valyrian laws applicable for inheritance of Targaryen lands (the ones which Aenar the Exile sold, in Lands of Long Summer) and of dragons, in a way enabling a Targaryen to sue another for inheritance in Valyrian court?

Considering that the Valyrians were a very intricate society such courts could have existed. There is no reason to believe Valyria had a primitive system of inheritance laws based on a feudal society (which Valyria never was). Could be that the dragonlords had a nominal or informal head of family but it is actually very likely that any legitimate child of a dragonlord (or a land owner) was entitled to inherit at least a portion of the wealth/land of his/her parents.

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, we learn that Valyria had a collective government which consisted of the dragonlord families and possibly some other factions like those sorcerer princes.

Pentos and Lorath have both Magisters and Princes.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering that the Valyrians were a very intricate society such courts could have existed. There is no reason to believe Valyria had a primitive system of inheritance laws based on a feudal society (which Valyria never was). Could be that the dragonlords had a nominal or informal head of family but it is actually very likely that any legitimate child of a dragonlord (or a land owner) was entitled to inherit at least a portion of the wealth/land of his/her parents.

Plus, the wilfulness of dragons throws a monkey wrench into property rights of humans.

We are told that approaching an old dragon is dangerous even for a Targaryen child... yet in addition to Aemon, both Laena and Helaena are attested as having tamed big old dragons before age 12, and unspecified ages. Who allowed Laena near Vhagar, or Helaena near Dreamfyre?

Have Targaryens actually lost children attempting to tame unattached dragons?

Under Valyrian law, could a dragon be stolen? If a Velaryon or a Baratheon or a lowborn dragonseed like Hugh the Hammer attempted to tame a dragon of a dead Targaryen in Valyria, could Targaryens sue an illegitimate/unrelated claimant in a Valyrian court for theft, or was it the position of Valyrian law that dragons owned themselves, and a dragonseed of unknown ancestry was, by virtue of the decision of the dragon to accept him/her, its legitimate rider and as such a founder of a new dragonlord family?

[Lord Varys]

52 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Pentos and Lorath have both Magisters and Princes.

Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh also have magisters, but that doesn't mean Valyria did. And Pentos only has one prince, the Prince of Pentos. Those sorcerer princes of Valyria clearly aren't the heads of government/state either, just people with fancy titles who probably were pretty important.

52 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Plus, the wilfulness of dragons throws a monkey wrench into property rights of humans.

There were a lot of dragonlords in Valyria, though. Enough for them to have their own courts where they could be judged by their own peers.

52 minutes ago, Jaak said:

We are told that approaching an old dragon is dangerous even for a Targaryen child... yet in addition to Aemon, both Laena and Helaena are attested as having tamed big old dragons before age 12, and unspecified ages. Who allowed Laena near Vhagar, or Helaena near Dreamfyre?

We have no idea. But one guesses that they had access to those dragons, making it likely Dreamfyre's previous rider resided at KL whole Vhagar's rider might have been connected to Dragonstone or Driftmark.

52 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Have Targaryens actually lost children attempting to tame unattached dragons?

I don't think they did. Could be they lost some back before the Conquest but there is no evidence that a Targaryen child was killed by a dragon it tried to claim since the Conquest.

52 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Under Valyrian law, could a dragon be stolen? If a Velaryon or a Baratheon or a lowborn dragonseed like Hugh the Hammer attempted to tame a dragon of a dead Targaryen in Valyria, could Targaryens sue an illegitimate/unrelated claimant in a Valyrian court for theft, or was it the position of Valyrian law that dragons owned themselves, and a dragonseed of unknown ancestry was, by virtue of the decision of the dragon to accept him/her, its legitimate rider and as such a founder of a new dragonlord family?

No idea. But I guess one dragon wasn't exactly all that valuable a property. Not for the really powerful dragonlords. And while it was unclaimed it might not have been property at all, even if it was kept on the lands/in the house of some dragonlord.

Some lowlife dragonseed type of person claiming a dragon due to the fact that she or he had some dragonlord ancestor would most likely still remain a lowlife. Dragonlords also owned and had wealth and power. A dragonrider without any land would easily enough have been as influential and important as some sellsword or hedge knight in Westeros.

But I'm not sure that you could actually steal some unclaimed dragon unless you were not bound to that dragon's bloodline through your ancestry. And if that was the case you would most likely not be a thief in any possible scenario.

[Jaak]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh also have magisters, but that doesn't mean Valyria did. And Pentos only has one prince, the Prince of Pentos. Those sorcerer princes of Valyria clearly aren't the heads of government/state either, just people with fancy titles who probably were pretty important.

True. But of the three most common ways of limiting the powers of executive - colleagues of equal status, separate council and limited term - the description of archons of Valyria expressly mentions only limited term.

The wording mentions "archons chosen", but is not specific whether plural applies to multiple archons serving as colleagues simultaneously, or archons chosen over time for their respective terms one at a time.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no idea. But one guesses that they had access to those dragons, making it likely Dreamfyre's previous rider resided at KL whole Vhagar's rider might have been connected to Dragonstone or Driftmark.

Or Vhagar was retired to Dragonstone, like Silverwing and Vermithor.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No idea. But I guess one dragon wasn't exactly all that valuable a property. Not for the really powerful dragonlords. And while it was unclaimed it might not have been property at all, even if it was kept on the lands/in the house of some dragonlord.

Some lowlife dragonseed type of person claiming a dragon due to the fact that she or he had some dragonlord ancestor would most likely still remain a lowlife. Dragonlords also owned and had wealth and power. A dragonrider without any land would easily enough have been as influential and important as some sellsword or hedge knight in Westeros.

 At Field of Fire, Reach and West fielded 5000 knights between them - landed knights, household knights (noble or base), hedge knights. Supposing that 1000 knights were left behind as castle garrisons, that´s 6000 knights fit for service - 4000 in Reach, 2000 in West. Adding 2000 as average for each of the other five Kingdoms - in case of North, knight-equivalents - that´s 16 000 knights of all Westeros. So 20 000 sounds like a plausible order of magnitude.

Valyria fielded 300 dragons at Rhoyne. Some may have been left behind at Valyria, and there may have been population growth in the last six centuries - yet there is nothing implausible about there never having been a thousand dragons in total.

Being one in 1000, even if a lowly one for these 1000, is more important than being one in 20 000.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But I'm not sure that you could actually steal some unclaimed dragon unless you were not bound to that dragon's bloodline through your ancestry. And if that was the case you would most likely not be a thief in any possible scenario.

Does a dragon have a legal right to manumit a slave by choosing to carry the slave in question?

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, Jaak said:

True. But of the three most common ways of limiting the powers of executive - colleagues of equal status, separate council and limited term - the description of archons of Valyria expressly mentions only limited term.

The wording mentions "archons chosen", but is not specific whether plural applies to multiple archons serving as colleagues simultaneously, or archons chosen over time for their respective terms one at a time.

Oh, even if there were multiple archons chosen at one point to limit the power of each individual archon - as it is with the triarchs of Volantis or the Roman consuls - we would still have no clue whether those archons were important or even prominent offices in the Valyrian government.

20 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Or Vhagar was retired to Dragonstone, like Silverwing and Vermithor.

Still, then it would be odd that Prince Baelon would allow Laena Velaryon to hang out there and try to claim Vhagar. He was the Prince of Dragonstone since 92 AC, and may have resided on the island until he became Hand.

If Aemon or Corlys' mother had ridden Vhagar prior to Laena then it makes some sense that Rhaenys might have taken Vhagar with her to Driftmark upon her father's death.

20 minutes ago, Jaak said:

 At Field of Fire, Reach and West fielded 5000 knights between them - landed knights, household knights (noble or base), hedge knights. Supposing that 1000 knights were left behind as castle garrisons, that´s 6000 knights fit for service - 4000 in Reach, 2000 in West. Adding 2000 as average for each of the other five Kingdoms - in case of North, knight-equivalents - that´s 16 000 knights of all Westeros. So 20 000 sounds like a plausible order of magnitude.

Valyria fielded 300 dragons at Rhoyne. Some may have been left behind at Valyria, and there may have been population growth in the last six centuries - yet there is nothing implausible about there never having been a thousand dragons in total.

We don't have enough information to speculate on the absolute number of dragons the Valyrians had, especially not at the peak of their power.

[Jaak]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Still, then it would be odd that Prince Baelon would allow Laena Velaryon to hang out there and try to claim Vhagar. He was the Prince of Dragonstone since 92 AC, and may have resided on the island until he became Hand.

The youngest dragonrider attested was Rhaenyra, age 7. Age which Laena reached in 100. She was attested as rider of Vhagar in 105.