Jaehaerys I was a usurper.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Jaak said:

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

What is the point of that?

[Jaak]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

What is the point of that?

That Laena was not in any case particularly likely to have tamed Vhagar while Baelon was hanging out on Dragonstone and objecting to her presence.

Vhagar might even have been Baelon's dragon, retired to Dragonstone and tamed there by Laena. Or, yes, Vhagar may have been Aemon's, kept by his daughter for her future children.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Jaak said:

That Laena was not in any case particularly likely to have tamed Vhagar while Baelon was hanging out on Dragonstone and objecting to her presence.

Baelon was Prince of Dragonstone from 92-101 AC. Thereafter Viserys was Prince of Dragonstone from 101-103 AC. Afterwards there was no Prince of Dragonstone until Rhaenyra was named, but we know that the king decides who gets access to dragons or dragon eggs.

Neither Jaehaerys I nor Baelon nor Viserys had any interest offering Vhagar to Laenor's sister, nor is there any reason to assume they would have allowed her to pick an adult dragon. That is what makes it likely that Vhagar was, in fact, on Driftmark when Laena claimed her.

[Jaak]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 but we know that the king decides who gets access to dragons or dragon eggs.

Neither Jaehaerys I nor Baelon nor Viserys had any interest offering Vhagar to Laenor's sister, nor is there any reason to assume they would have allowed her to pick an adult dragon.

No one allowed Vhagar to Aemond, either.

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, Jaak said:

No one allowed Vhagar to Aemond, either.

But that was a special occasion with Viserys giving Aemond permission to take a dragon. For Laena there is no such thing confirmed.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Again off topic.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

To sum it up;

Aenys' heir was Prince Aegon and his heirs were his twin daughters Aerea and Rhalla. In Westeros even outside Dorne, a daughter comes before a brother in line of succession. After Maegor’s death the line of succession was returned to Aerys’ line which would mean that the rightful heir would have been the oldest of Aegon’s daughters. However Jaehaerys took the Throne. That way it seems like according to the Westerosi tradition he usurps the Throne and disqualify the female heirs. However many decades later when it comes to his brood he does consider the heir of his Prince of Dragonstone as the rightful heir. That proves how hypocritical he was, his female heir was good enough to be considered an heir but Aegon’s female heirs were not.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

To sum it up;

Aenys' heir was Prince Aegon and his heirs were his twin daughters Aerea and Rhalla. In Westeros even outside Dorne, a daughter comes before a brother in line of succession. After Maegor’s death the line of succession was returned to Aerys’ line which would mean that the rightful heir would have been the oldest of Aegon’s daughters. However Jaehaerys took the Throne. That way it seems like according to the Westerosi tradition he usurps the Throne and disqualify the female heirs. However many decades later when it comes to his brood he does consider the heir of his Prince of Dragonstone as the rightful heir. That proves how hypocritical he was, his female heir was good enough to be considered an heir but Aegon’s female heirs were not.

To sum it up, no this is your opininon and everybody else on this tread disagreed with you he was not a hypocrite or a usuper.

Everybody else came with evidence, you just with your opinion and desperate wish for queen regnants to be thing.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

To sum it up, no this is your opininon and everybody else on this tread disagreed with you he was not a hypocrite or a usuper.

Why I should care if people disagree with me? 

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Everybody else came with evidence, you just with your opinion and desperate wish for queen regnants to be thing.

Actually there was no proof, basically because there was no Targaryen female heir before Aerea or Rhalla while there was at least one Queen Regnant in Reach.

[direpupy]

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Why I should care if people disagree with me? 

Actually there was no proof, basically because there was no Targaryen female heir before Aerea or Rhalla while there was at least one Queen Regnant in Reach.

We have already been over this.

Evidence against you loads, just read back your own tread

Evidence for you none, again read back your own tread.

And you should not care if people disagree, but you should also not whine when people point out you are wrong.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Just now, direpupy said:

We have already been over this.

Evidence against you loads, just read back your own tread

Evidence for you none, again read back your own tread.

And you should not care if people disagree, but you should also not whine when people point out you are wrong.

You have not prove me wrong because there was no case of a Targaryen female heir being passed by a Targaryen male non heir before while we do have a case of a Queen Regnant. Jaehaerys usurping the Throne was the first time in Targaryen history when a male Targaryen who wasn't the heir had been taken the Throne before the Heir's daughter. But if you think that I am wrong prove it. When before Jaehaerys, Prince of Dragonstone's daughter claim was dismissed in favor for the Prince’s younger brother?

[direpupy]

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

You have not prove me wrong because there was no case of a Targaryen female heir being passed by a Targaryen male non heir before while we do have a case of a Queen Regnant. Jaehaerys usurping the Throne was the first time in Targaryen history when a male Targaryen who wasn't the heir had been taken the Throne before the Heir's daughter. But if you think that I am wrong prove it. When before Jaehaerys, Prince of Dragonstone's daughter claim was dismissed in favor for the Prince’s younger brother?

Read back the tread, the whole point was that without a established succesion custom among the Targaryen they could create a succesion as they saw fit. For a usurpation you need a established succesion custom that is then broken, and way back in this very tread it was proven that a Targaryen succesion custom did not exist at the time of Jaehearys.

And no andal custom does not count because the Targaryen are not andal.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, direpupy said:

Read back the tread, the whole point was that without a established succesion custom among the Targaryen they could create a succesion as they saw fit. For a usurpation you need a established succesion custom that is then broken, and way back in this very tread it was proven that a Targaryen succesion custom did not exist at the time of Jaehearys.

And no andal custom does not count because the Targaryen are not andal.

And yet it was Aegon the one who was named the Prince of Drangonstone and was recognized as the heir and not the Jaehaerys and there is no proof in the books that the Prince of Dragonstone was succeeded by his brother and not by his children. The Targs had adopted many Andal traditions customs, like the Faith, and there is no reason why we should dismiss that they didn’t follow their custom of succession too.

[direpupy]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

And yet it was Aegon the one who was named the Prince of Drangonstone and was recognized as the heir and not the Jaehaerys and there is no proof in the books that the Prince of Dragonstone was succeeded by his brother and not by his children. The Targs had adopted many Andal traditions customs, like the Faith, and there is no reason why we should dismiss that they didn’t follow their custom of succession too.

 

How about the fact that they did not follow andal custom at all in succesion, like ever.

Maegor is still counted among the Targaryen kings despite taking his brothers throne after his dead while his brother had three sons.

Jaehearys was put on the throne by his mother and his brothers wife despite his brother having children.

Jaehearys choose his own heir twice or rather once and confirmed the choose of the great council even do he did not have to.

Viserys flat out ignored andal custom when he refused to pass his throne to his trueborn son and wanted to give it to his daughter.

After the dead of Baelor the throne passed to his uncle and not to his sisters.

And don't even get me started on Aegon V.

Targaryen succesion has never ever even resembled andal custom.

How is that for proof?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

How about the fact that they did not follow andal custom at all in succesion, like ever.

Maegor is still counted among the Targaryen kings despite taking his brothers throne after his dead while his brother had three sons.

Jaehearys was put on the throne by his mother and his brothers wife despite his brother having children.

Jaehearys choose his own heir twice or rather once and confirmed the choose of the great council even do he did not have to.

Viserys flat out ignored andal custom when he refused to pass his throne to his trueborn son and wanted to give it to his daughter.

After the dead of Baelor the throne passed to his uncle and not to his sisters.

And don't even get me started on Aegon V.

Targaryen succesion has never ever even resembled andal custom.

How is that for proof?

So you have no proof that before Jaehaerys the Prince of Dragonstone was not succeeded by his daughters but by his younger brother. That is what I thought too.

[direpupy]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

So you have no proof that before Jaehaerys the Prince of Dragonstone was not succeeded by his daughters but by his younger brother. That is what I thought too.

 

And you have no proof that this did not happen, but every other peace of evidence suggest that you are wrong.

Its called deduction you should try it sometime.

[direpupy]

And then there is the fact that before the conquest there was never a ruling lady of Dragonstone, only ruling Lords.

So realy where is your evidence for your opinion?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

And you have no proof that this did not happen, but every other peace of evidence suggest that you are wrong.

Prove it then. You said that I was proved wrong, then prove it. When before Jaehaerys the Prince of Dragonstone was not succeeded by his daughter but by his younger brother?

1 minute ago, direpupy said:

And then there is the fact that before the conquest there was never a ruling lady of Dragonstone, only ruling Lords.

From the family tree we have the siblings were married and no one said that a daughter came before a son.

[direpupy]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Prove it then. You said that I was proved wrong, then prove it. When before Jaehaerys the Prince of Dragonstone was not succeeded by his daughter but by his younger brother?

 

 

From the family tree we have the siblings were married and no one said that a daughter came before a son.

I already told you read back the tread, i am not going to rehash they entire discussion with you.

You are entiteled to your opinion just don't pass it off as fact when you brought no evidence to the table, that is they iseu i had with your sumup.

If you want to believe he is a usurper go ahead, nobody is stopping you, least of al me.

As to the Targaryen dragonlords from before the conquest we actually have two examples of a brother succeding a brother.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

8 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I already told you read back the tread, i am not going to rehash they entire discussion with you.

I have and still there isn't an example of a Prince of Dragonstone being succeeded by his younger brother rather than his daughter before Jaehaerys.

8 minutes ago, direpupy said:

You are entiteled to your opinion just don't pass it off as fact when you brought no evidence to the table, that is they iseu i had with your sumup.

I have already proved it from the book; there is no proof in the books that a Prince of Dragonstone being succeeded by his younger brother rather than his daughter before Jaehaerys. It doesn't matter of you wish not to see it, it is still there.

8 minutes ago, direpupy said:

As to the Targaryen dragonlords from before the conquest we actually have two examples of a brother succeding a brother.

Maegon was succeeded by his brother Aerys but there is no proof that he had children. Likewise  Baelon was succeeded by his brother Daemion but there is no proof that he had children. No one said that a brother cannot succeed a childless brother, just that no brother can come before his brother’s children.