Rhaenyra: Traitor or legitimate heir?

[Traverys]

31 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

King Viserys I chose Rhaenyra as his heir when he had no other children, but he stuck with that choice even after Aegon and other sons were born to him, and for twenty plus years of Aegon's life King Viserys never replaced Rhaenyra as heir chosen heir and successor.

I believe The Princess and the Queen mentions somewhere that the sons of the men that swore to protect Rhaenyra's succession didn't feel they were compelled to keep their father's oaths. To me it was a fairly compelling argument, though not one I personally agree with. Viserys was in failing health, I suppose. I just see the coup as a fairly predictable outcome. If Otto wasn't his Hand perhaps a wise councilor would have advised Viserys I to have his daughter come and serve as regeant... but we know that was not part of Otto's ambitions.

 

[Bael's Bastard]

2 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

But the fact that the Dance of the Dragond happened proves that it isn't so. If is was indeed as simple as that, everybody would just accept Rhaenyra and no war would happen. The mere fact that there were enough lords to support the other side indicates that it's more complicate, and that both sides had claim to legitimacy.

Also telling is the fact that both sides needed to make deals with the lords in order to gain their support, or appeal to their own aligned interests. "I am the rightful" was not enough for neither of them.

Cole and the Hightowers made the Dance happen by hiding the death of Viserys, murdering, and usurping the throne before anyone knew. Once they had placed Aegon on the throne lords made their choices, and I am sure for the most part that had to do with who lords thought it was in their best interest to support, rather than who was the rightful ruler according to their view of proper succession. I don't think they ever would have just spontaneously risen up against Rhaenyra to put Aegon on the throne had Cole and the Hightowers not established the fact on the ground of Aegon on the Iron Throne before anyone knew King Viserys I was dead.

We saw a somewhat similar situation when Maegor murdered and usurped his way to the throne despite his nephew Aegon unquestionably being the chosen heir of Aenys. It took Aegon a year or two to be able to muster enough men to make a run at Maegor, and even the great houses that were considering joining Aegon's cause did not dare join him unless he could prove he could prevail. Other than the Faith Militant, most of the realm seems to have either supported or not openly opposed Maegor. They never would have risen up to put Maegor on the throne over Aegon, but with the fact established, they did what they thought was in their best interest.

[The Fattest Leech]

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

This is actually one of the few sources of contention that I have with regards to how George writes women. Both Rhaenyra and Cersei, the two women to have come closest to ruling over Westeros without having to do so through their husbands, are written as incompetent tyrants. Clearly, we're supposed to root for Daenerys to be the one "true" queen who will rule the realm successfully, but I don't find Dany to be a particularly likable or engrossing female character. She has a massive fanbase, but despite her good intentions, I don't find her to be a preferable alternative to Stannis or Robb or even Doran. As others on this site have mentioned in the past, she reads more like a fantasy dream girl than a viable ruler. So despite George's many attempts to illustrate how women are as capable as men, when it comes to the most coveted seat in Westeros--the Iron Throne--the women have all been woefully lackluster. 

In terms of Rhaenyra, however, she clearly was the rightful heir to the throne. Even Maegor had named his step-daughter/niece, Aerea, as his heir ahead of Aenys' sons, so the concept of having a a women possibly sit the Iron Throne was never totally out of the question. Viserys required his family and lords to proclaim Rhaenyra the heir-apparent while he was still alive, and they complied. Crowing Aegon after Viserys' death was treason.

There is something to be said about Viserys' decision to marry Rhaenyra to Laenor, however. Laenor was clearly not interested in women, and while one could make the argument that given the circumstances of this world, the lack of attraction between the couple hardly mattered, there must have been other ways Viserys could have strengthened the bonds between the two houses. For one, houses Targaryen and Velaryon had already intermarried several times, and if Viserys really wanted to secure Rhaenyra's claim, he should have betrothed her to a member of a different powerful house--a Tyrell or a Lannister, for instance. 

Now time for a really unpopular opinion: Jaehaerys the Conciliator majorly contributed to Westeros' inequality towards women. As modern readers, we are bound to view the Great Council as an example of democracy and, therefore, evidence of Jaehaerys' genius. As his wife, Alysanne, reminded everyone, however, it also basically stood as a proclamation that women could and should be robbed of their birthright in favor of an uncle or cousin. (Hell, Rhaenys wasn't even given an opportunity to put forth her own claim; that was through her son, Laenor). I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the "hero" houses of the series (Stark, Baratheon, Blackwood, Manderly) supported Rhaenys/Laenor's claim instead of Viserys'. There's a message there. 

Very nicely said, Bard. This sums up my thoughts as well, only better than I could have phrased them

32 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

~snipped a little~

The Princess and the Queen is one of my favorite stories to listen to and read.  It is a devastating tale of greed and waste.   That ugly throne could not have been worth losing all the dragons and dragon riders, not to mention people from all over the realm.  Such is the folly of war.  

 

Took the words from my mouth. And you can't help but see this starting to play out in the current story as well. Sad, really.

[Lion of the West]

10 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

This is actually one of the few sources of contention that I have with regards to how George writes women. Both Rhaenyra and Cersei, the two women to have come closest to ruling over Westeros without having to do so through their husbands, are written as incompetent tyrants. Clearly, we're supposed to root for Daenerys to be the one "true" queen who will rule the realm successfully, but I don't find Dany to be a particularly likable or engrossing female character. She has a massive fanbase, but despite her good intentions, I don't find her to be a preferable alternative to Stannis or Robb or even Doran. As others on this site have mentioned in the past, she reads more like a fantasy dream girl than a viable ruler. So despite George's many attempts to illustrate how women are as capable as men, when it comes to the most coveted seat in Westeros--the Iron Throne--the women have all been woefully lackluster. 

In terms of Rhaenyra, however, she clearly was the rightful heir to the throne. Even Maegor had named his step-daughter/niece, Aerea, as his heir ahead of Aenys' sons, so the concept of having a a women possibly sit the Iron Throne was never totally out of the question. Viserys required his family and lords to proclaim Rhaenyra the heir-apparent while he was still alive, and they complied. Crowing Aegon after Viserys' death was treason.

There is something to be said about Viserys' decision to marry Rhaenyra to Laenor, however. Laenor was clearly not interested in women, and while one could make the argument that given the circumstances of this world, the lack of attraction between the couple hardly mattered, there must have been other ways Viserys could have strengthened the bonds between the two houses. For one, houses Targaryen and Velaryon had already intermarried several times, and if Viserys really wanted to secure Rhaenyra's claim, he should have betrothed her to a member of a different powerful house--a Tyrell or a Lannister, for instance. 

Now time for a really unpopular opinion: Jaehaerys the Conciliator majorly contributed to Westeros' inequality towards women. As modern readers, we are bound to view the Great Council as an example of democracy and, therefore, evidence of Jaehaerys' genius. As his wife, Alysanne, reminded everyone, however, it also basically stood as a proclamation that women could and should be robbed of their birthright in favor of an uncle or cousin. (Hell, Rhaenys wasn't even given an opportunity to put forth her own claim; that was through her son, Laenor). I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the "hero" houses of the series (Stark, Baratheon, Blackwood, Manderly) supported Rhaenys/Laenor's claim instead of Viserys'. There's a message there. 

I agree very much with this.  GRRM can be a very active, rather than neutral, writer when it comes to his characters and plots in the backstory to the setting, although still very open minded and more neutral than most fantasy writers.

[King Ned Stark]

Whether Rhaenyra was a usurper or legitimate heir I guess largely depends on who you ask, and as the OP points out, history is written by the winners.  It seems to kind of fold back into Varys’s riddle; is someone legitimate or a usurper, whose claim is better, and why?

It makes for good world building and excellent back story, but anymore I tend to believe Martin adds a lot of these things for a higher purpose within the narrative; especially historical tidbits like the Dance of Dragons and the Great Council of 101.  

Martin seems to be keen on setting precedents for future reveals, more and more I think it will have implications on Jon and Dany; and possibly had great influence on Rhaegar and may help explain why he did exactly what he did.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

51 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Cole and the Hightowers made the Dance happen by hiding the death of Viserys, murdering, and usurping the throne before anyone knew. Once they had placed Aegon on the throne lords made their choices, and I am sure for the most part that had to do with who lords thought it was in their best interest to support, rather than who was the rightful ruler according to their view of proper succession. I don't think they ever would have just spontaneously risen up against Rhaenyra to put Aegon on the throne had Cole and the Hightowers not established the fact on the ground of Aegon on the Iron Throne before anyone knew King Viserys I was dead.

We saw a somewhat similar situation when Maegor murdered and usurped his way to the throne despite his nephew Aegon unquestionably being the chosen heir of Aenys. It took Aegon a year or two to be able to muster enough men to make a run at Maegor, and even the great houses that were considering joining Aegon's cause did not dare join him unless he could prove he could prevail. Other than the Faith Militant, most of the realm seems to have either supported or not openly opposed Maegor. They never would have risen up to put Maegor on the throne over Aegon, but with the fact established, they did what they thought was in their best interest.

Hm, and do you think they could pull it off (it: gathering anyone's support after) if they didn't have any claim to legitimacy?

The point is, what is the source of legitimacy for a ruler? In modern times we say it derives "from the people", in the series' sort of society as described it derives from the lords of the realm and institutions such as the faith (people being a mostly latent wildcard). Given by their stance, it is quite apparent that the issue was fairly divisive.

(Maegor's case is not the same. Fear was the primary motivator there.)

[Adam Yozza]

4 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

But the fact that the Dance of the Dragond happened proves that it isn't so. If is was indeed as simple as that, everybody would just accept Rhaenyra and no war would happen. The mere fact that there were enough lords to support the other side indicates that it's more complicate, and that both sides had claim to legitimacy.

Also telling is the fact that both sides needed to make deals with the lords in order to gain their support, or appeal to their own aligned interests. "I am the rightful" was not enough for neither of them.

I'm talking about how it should work in that society not how it did. On paper, Viserys is King and can name whoever the hell he wants as his heir. He named Rhaenyra. So Rhaenyra was without a doubt the legitimate heir. The Dance of Dragons and the fact that Aegon had support doesn't disprove that.

What the Dance's existence does prove is that enough Lords didn't like Viserys' choice and disliked it enough to go against his will.

Also, IIRC, no deals were made with the Vale which, as far as I'm aware, entirely supported Rhaenyra completely by choice. The Lords of the Crownlands, Riverlands, Westerlands and Reach also weren't negotiated with. Each of them chose their side on their own. Rhaenyra only negotiated with the distant and isolationist North and Iron Islands, who wouldn't have gotten involved with either side without incentives. In contrast, the Green's had to offer a marriage to win the Baratheon's, the LP's who should have been first to pick a side given their proximity and close ties to the family.

"I am the rightful" is rarely enough for any ruler. Aegon was clearly the rightful ruler but didn't have a whole lot of support against Maegor when he rose up. In Robert's Rebellion, the Tully's were bought and the Martell's were blackmailed to their respective sides. "I am the rightful" won Aerys the a few Stormlords, a few Riverlords and a few Valemen but didn't win him the West, the Iron Islands, the Frey's, Royce's, Mallister's or any of the North. In the Wo5K, the Reach supported whoever married Margaery not whoever was rightful, the West followed Joffrey because he was Tywin's grandson not because he was rightful, the Stormlords followed their LP, the Crownlands split and the North, Riverlands and Iron Islands all declared independence. The Vale and Dorne's nominal support for Joffrey was not because they believed he was the rightful ruler but because they made deals. The only time "I am rightful" was actually enough seems to be the Blackfyre rebellions.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

14 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I'm talking about how it should work in that society not how it did. On paper, Viserys is King and can name whoever the hell he wants as his heir. He named Rhaenyra. So Rhaenyra was without a doubt the legitimate heir. The Dance of Dragons and the fact that Aegon had support doesn't disprove that.

What the Dance's existence does prove is that enough Lords didn't like Viserys' choice and disliked it enough to go against his will.

Sorry, but IMO the bolded actually de facto negates the position that a king can name whoever he wants. It seems they only can if their decision is liked by a critical number of lords. But I think we'll be going in circles with this...

 

Also, I don't think there is an "on parer" argument that can be made here, since there they don't have written laws that stand above all. Custom, tradition and precedence can be fickle things when different aspects of them come to conflict with each other.

[The hairy bear]

 

On 20/12/2017 at 7:38 AM, The Bard of Banefort said:

This is actually one of the few sources of contention that I have with regards to how George writes women. Both Rhaenyra and Cersei, the two women to have come closest to ruling over Westeros without having to do so through their husbands, are written as incompetent tyrants. Clearly, we're supposed to root for Daenerys to be the one "true" queen who will rule the realm successfully, but I don't find Dany to be a particularly likable or engrossing female character. She has a massive fanbase, but despite her good intentions, I don't find her to be a preferable alternative to Stannis or Robb or even Doran. As others on this site have mentioned in the past, she reads more like a fantasy dream girl than a viable ruler. So despite George's many attempts to illustrate how women are as capable as men, when it comes to the most coveted seat in Westeros--the Iron Throne--the women have all been woefully lackluster.

I don't think that Rhaenyra was portrayed as a particularly evil or incompetent. She was just the average Targeryen, and perhaps even better than most (at least, clearly better than the lazy and apathetic Aegon II). She proved to be more competent, cunning, and daring than most, and her faults were no greater than the ones from the previous male kings. She is not perfect, of course, but neither was any of the previous rulers. Her ones only came more to the surface because she had the fierce opposition of half the realm.

I don't think that George's point is that women are unstable rulers. The point is that a women's rule has more chances to be contested than men's, and therefore, likelier to be more unstable.

[And I can't see how you can put in Stannis name as someone whose rule would be preferable to anyones. I certainly would prefer to be ruled by Dany or Rhaenyra than him. Burning loyal men alive for religious divergences? Mutilate the smuggler who saves your live for a minor offense? Murder your nephew for  political gain? Abandon your brother without after the Hand's sudden death without even warning him of your suspicions?]

On 20/12/2017 at 7:38 AM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Now time for a really unpopular opinion: Jaehaerys the Conciliator majorly contributed to Westeros' inequality towards women. As modern readers, we are bound to view the Great Council as an example of democracy and, therefore, evidence of Jaehaerys' genius. As his wife, Alysanne, reminded everyone, however, it also basically stood as a proclamation that women could and should be robbed of their birthright in favor of an uncle or cousin.

That's the problem with democracy. The results are not necessarily the most fair or even the most convenient. If we put to vote the idea of gender equality in many countries, we'd lost.

In any case, Jaehaerys prime interests probably weren't fairness or tradition. He wanted to consolidate power and perpetuate his dynasty. The best option was obviously the young male with the biggest badass dragon, not a woman that they obviously didn't like. And the Grand Council was a neat idea, since the lords got to believe their opinion mattered, while in truth they were only choosing among Targaryens.

 

On 20/12/2017 at 0:49 PM, Adam Yozza said:

The Great Council's; both of them; set a precedent but King's don't have to follow precedent. (...) If Viserys says Rhaenyra was the rightful heir then she was. It's as simple as that.

It's far from being that simple. It's important to remember that a king is only the king because of a precedent. Viserys was king because his ancestors were, and because of Great Council decided so.

Even more important. His vassals accept him as king because of a precedent. If the king discards precedents, his vassals can start doing the same.

Depending on their actual power, a king can toy with precedents. But if you bring things too far, you risk losing everything.

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

2 hours ago, Traverys said:

On Rhaenyra's part, I think her moving to Dragonstone made sense on paper (the heir was always Prince of Dragonstone)... but the Queen wasn't secretive in her desire to see her son(s) sitting on the throne. Leaving King's Landing was a huge faux pas, in my opinion. I would argue that the outcome was fairly predictable. She could have at least moved back when her father was clearly in ill health towards the end of his life.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Ottoman sultan Suleyman The Magnificient sent his older son to rule Amasya and his younger sons to rule the cities which were located closer to Constantinople than Amasya. So Summerhall was great idea to remove younger son from capital.

[Bael's Bastard]

41 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Hm, and do you think they could pull it off (it: gathering anyone's support after) if they didn't have any claim to legitimacy?

The point is, what is the source of legitimacy for a ruler? In modern times we say it derives "from the people", in the series' sort of society as described it derives from the lords of the realm and institutions such as the faith (people being a mostly latent wildcard). Given by their stance, it is quite apparent that the issue was fairly divisive.

(Maegor's case is not the same. Fear was the primary motivator there.)

Aegon was the eldest son of Viserys I, so he was always going to have the potential to be used against Rhaenyra, whether it was immediately, or five, ten, or fifteen years down the line. But that doesn't negate Viserys I's, or any Targaryen king's, right to choose their own heir. And we see the dynamics of that in the fact that Otto supported Rhaenyra when Daemon was her only competition to succeed Viserys, but then spearheaded the usurpation of the Iron Throne from Rhaenyra after she had married Daemon and given him two Targaryen sons.

[Bael's Bastard]

27 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

And the Grand Council was a neat idea, since the lords got to believe their opinion mattered, while in truth they were only choosing among Targaryens.

Totally, and they ultimately just ended up choosing the son of the deceased son Jaehaerys had previously chosen as his heir. He easily could have chosen Viserys as his own heir, but for whatever reason left it up to the lords to make what must have been the obvious choice of the options.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Aegon was the eldest son of Viserys I, so he was always going to have the potential to be used against Rhaenyra, whether it was immediately, or five, ten, or fifteen years down the line. But that doesn't negate Viserys I's, or any Targaryen king's, right to choose their own heir. And we see the dynamics of that in the fact that Otto supported Rhaenyra when Daemon was her only competition to succeed Viserys, but then spearheaded the usurpation of the Iron Throne from Rhaenyra after she had married Daemon and given him two Targaryen sons.

And I have the right to make a will, but those of vested interest have also the right to contest it and potentially win their claim. Court of law missing, what you get in that analogy is appeal to arms.

On a different note, personally I agree with the sentiment that Daemon anywhere near a throne is no good news. I don't care about the main protagonists of the Dance, though I find Rhaenyra (on her own) preferable than strawman Aegon, but adding Daemon into the equation, well, I can't blame anyone who wouldn't want him there.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Another interesting thing about Rhaenyra is that, despite how combustible her and Daemon were, both of their sons--Aegon and Viserys--grew up to be very dutiful and down-to-Earth. I suppose that's what happens when you watch your mother be fed to a dragon, but just take a look at their crowns: both wore simple gold bans, and Egg, who grew up among the smallfolk and was devoted to helping the people, decided to take the same crown when he was declared king. In addition to this, Jace also sounds like he was turning out to be a pretty good kid. So while I'm not really a big fan of Rhaenyra as a person, she clearly must have been doing something right when it came to raising her children. 

[Adam Yozza]

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Another interesting thing about Rhaenyra is that, despite how combustible her and Daemon were, both of their sons--Aegon and Viserys--grew up to be very dutiful and down-to-Earth. I suppose that's what happens when you watch your mother be fed to a dragon, but just take a look at their crowns: both wore simple gold bans, and Egg, who grew up among the smallfolk and was devoted to helping the people, decided to take the same crown when he was declared king. In addition to this, Jace also sounds like he was turning out to be a pretty good kid. So while I'm not really a big fan of Rhaenyra as a person, she clearly must have been doing something right when it came to raising her children. 

Honestly the only time I recall evidence of 'Maegor with Teats' is after she'd already taken Kings Landing, by which point three of her children (four in her mind) were dead and she'd been betrayed by Hugh and Ulf. Prior to that she seemed fairly competent, cunning and level headed. Personally I think the 'Maegor with Teats' persona was a result of her mind just snapping under grief and stress.

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

There is something to be said about Viserys' decision to marry Rhaenyra to Laenor, however. Laenor was clearly not interested in women, and while one could make the argument that given the circumstances of this world, the lack of attraction between the couple hardly mattered, there must have been other ways Viserys could have strengthened the bonds between the two houses. For one, houses Targaryen and Velaryon had already intermarried several times, and if Viserys really wanted to secure Rhaenyra's claim, he should have betrothed her to a member of a different powerful house--a Tyrell or a Lannister, for instance. 

Laenor was a pretty good choice as Rhaenyra's consort precisely because he was who he was. He was the king who should have been, Viserys' grand rival in 101 AC. By uniting those claims and seating Laenor at Rhaenyra's side her position was strengthened and not weakened. The Velaryons were the most powerful house in the Realm at that time.

Giving Rhaenyra a consort lacking royal blood would have weakened her position.

10 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

As a shell of his former self in his last years, Jaehaerys I chose to invest the lords of the realm with the power to choose his heir and successor in the Great Council. He did not invest them with the power to choose or dispute any other Targaryen king's chosen heir. Rhaenyra was Viserys I's chosen heir.

Oh, he could have named Viserys his heir all by himself. The point of the Great Council was to prevent a succession war, to settle the succession peacefully. It was pretty plain to see that there was a danger that Jaehaerys' grandchildren would rip the Realm apart so he did everything he could to dissuade them to pursue the idea to decide the issue with fire and blood.

Quote

So while I have no doubt that there were lords who unflinchingly saw or wished to push the Great Council as an iron precedent, we see that even the head of Rhaenyra's opposition didn't see it that way years earlier. And we see that Rhaenyra actually received a lot more support as chosen heir of King Viserys I than Laenor is rumored to have received as a mere candidate in the Great Council.

Grover Tully, Jasper Wylde, and perhaps even some of the Dragonstonians who betrayed Rhaenyra in the end may have believed that kind of stuff. But the real issues were the split within the royal family. If Otto and Alicent hadn't crowned Aegon II nothing would have happened.

14 hours ago, SeanF said:

If the Hightowers had believed that the law was on their side, they would have called a Great Council to debate the succession, following Viserys' death, rather than launching a coup, and murdering Lord Beesbury.  Their behaviour demonstrates that they knew that their case was weak.

That is an important point. It is not only evident that Aegon II's coronation was a coup but also a coup that was only arranged after the king's convenient death. There was a small cabal in place already - Alicent, Otto, Cole - but as things stand the Small Council actually had to be persuaded and recruited. Wylde, Lannister, and Strong may have been favorable towards the idea of crowned Aegon II but they were not on board with the plan from the start.

With everybody knowing the king's wishes - and that Otto Hightower had been the architect of the decision to make Rhaenyra the heir - the chances that people would have turned against Rhaenyra. She and Daemon would have had the floor, reminding the lords of the Realm of the vow they or their fathers swore to her, and showing off the combined might of her dragons.

Once Aegon II had been crowned king things were different. A Great Council called now would have to depose a crowned and anointed king if they were wanted to make Rhaenyra queen. That's a different thing entirely.

10 hours ago, Traverys said:

Interesting. I actually ascribe to the idea the Hightowers are part of an anti-Targaryen/magic/dragon conspiracy. I just don't really know how all the puzzle pieces fit together in the case of the Dance of the Dragons. But perhaps the Queen was acting on more than just greed, but intentionally pitting the Targaryens against each other.

That doesn't make any sense. Otto and Alicent wanted to become Targaryens, and Alicent's children all were Targaryens. It makes no sense whatsoever that they would turn against their own descendants. At least not intentionally. Otto and Alicent even arranged the incestuous marriage between Aegon and Helaena, making the Hightower-Targaryens as Targaryen as they could possibly be. This was part of the setup to make it clear that Aegon the Elder was as much a Targaryen as Rhaenyra and Daemon, never mind the fact that he wasn't Targaryen on both sides of the family tree (unlike Rhaenyra).

10 hours ago, Traverys said:

I believe The Princess and the Queen mentions somewhere that the sons of the men that swore to protect Rhaenyra's succession didn't feel they were compelled to keep their father's oaths. To me it was a fairly compelling argument, though not one I personally agree with. Viserys was in failing health, I suppose. I just see the coup as a fairly predictable outcome. If Otto wasn't his Hand perhaps a wise councilor would have advised Viserys I to have his daughter come and serve as regeant... but we know that was not part of Otto's ambitions.

That is actually a cheap cop-out, and everybody knows it. A son is usually honor-bound to fulfill the promises of his father. I mean, take Walder Frey. He swore to support Robb in his war. Are we to believe Stevron Frey and his sons and grandsons were not bound by that vow? Could they renegotiate their allegiance after the old man's death? Or take Robb's new subjects in the North and the Riverlands. Are the sons of those men not bound by the vows of their fathers?

With Tyland Lannister it seems the man may have been motivated more by personal ambition (the Greens were favoring him) and resentment because Viserys I and Rhaenyra had rejected both him and his brother Jason as consorts for Rhaenyra.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

It's far from being that simple. It's important to remember that a king is only the king because of a precedent. Viserys was king because his ancestors were, and because of Great Council decided so.

Viserys I became king because his royal grandfather named him Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone. He also asked the opinion of his lords in a Great Council, but they did not make Viserys the heir. The king did. After they had advised Jaehaerys I on the matter. The advice of the lords wasn't binding or anything.

And when you are the king, you are the king. You are above anyone else. You may have become king this or that way, but once you receive your crown and are anointed with the seven oils, and take possession of the Conqueror's Iron Throne and the sword of kings, etc. you are no longer a mortal man like your subjects, princes included.

When you rule on a matter you do it with the same authority as any other king did in the past. And if you feel you should do something different you can do that. The succession of Jaehaerys I isn't the succession of Viserys I.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Even more important. His vassals accept him as king because of a precedent. If the king discards precedents, his vassals can start doing the same.

That isn't really the case. The Great Council of 101 AC didn't choose a king. It discussed the royal succession while the king was still alive. Visery didn't become king in 101 AC, he became king in 103 AC, when he was crowned and anointed king. That's what made him king, not some lords and maesters discussing the succession.

We see how this goes with Maegor. It is pretty clear the man was a usurper. Aenys I's true and rightful heir was his eldest son and heir, Prince Aegon. Yet Aegon died a pretender while Maegor was crowned and anointed king.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Depending on their actual power, a king can toy with precedents. But if you bring things too far, you risk losing everything.

There are two separate issues here - whether a king can legally do act X and whether act X actually stands/survives the death of the king.

An act not surviving the king for long - like the decree that made Rhaenyra the heir or Aegon V many reforms - doesn't mean the king couldn't do that legally. Just that he failed/didn't have success in the end.

8 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Aegon was the eldest son of Viserys I, so he was always going to have the potential to be used against Rhaenyra, whether it was immediately, or five, ten, or fifteen years down the line. But that doesn't negate Viserys I's, or any Targaryen king's, right to choose their own heir. And we see the dynamics of that in the fact that Otto supported Rhaenyra when Daemon was her only competition to succeed Viserys, but then spearheaded the usurpation of the Iron Throne from Rhaenyra after she had married Daemon and given him two Targaryen sons.

It is made pretty clear in TPatQ that the main issue especially the Hightowers had with Queen Rhaenyra was Daemon at her side.

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Another interesting thing about Rhaenyra is that, despite how combustible her and Daemon were, both of their sons--Aegon and Viserys--grew up to be very dutiful and down-to-Earth. I suppose that's what happens when you watch your mother be fed to a dragon, but just take a look at their crowns: both wore simple gold bans, and Egg, who grew up among the smallfolk and was devoted to helping the people, decided to take the same crown when he was declared king. In addition to this, Jace also sounds like he was turning out to be a pretty good kid. So while I'm not really a big fan of Rhaenyra as a person, she clearly must have been doing something right when it came to raising her children. 

I wouldn't credit either Rhaenyra or Daemon with any of that. Rhaenyra clearly was a loving mother but Aegon III and Viserys II didn't exactly turn out all that well. Aegon III became a deeply depressed and detached person (although a pretty decent king) thanks to the Dance, and Viserys II didn't exactly spend all that much time with his parents. Aegon III clearly loved his mother, staying at her side until the very end.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Honestly the only time I recall evidence of 'Maegor with Teats' is after she'd already taken Kings Landing, by which point three of her children (four in her mind) were dead and she'd been betrayed by Hugh and Ulf. Prior to that she seemed fairly competent, cunning and level headed. Personally I think the 'Maegor with Teats' persona was a result of her mind just snapping under grief and stress.

That is just a reference to her executing a lot of people. She may have overreacted there. But she was fighting a war and she had to deal with a lot of actual traitors. Killing people seldom makes you popular but it is necessary in this kind of setting.

People have compared Rhaenyra to Catelyn in her death. But Rhaenyra appears to be perfectly sane and in control of herself when she finally faces death. She gets a very clean exit, facing death without fear. Catelyn clearly went mad after seeing Robb being butchered.

If you compare Rhaenyra to Aegon II, he was treated much worse by the author, both with all the injuries and the manner of his death. Rhaenyra's men died for her. Aegon's men killed him.

But Rhaenyra seems to have had a mad episode when she gave command to arrest Addam and Corlys Velaryon, and to kill Nettles. Her refusal to defend the dragons during the riots was also a huge blunder. It could be that the news about Daemon's death dealt her a major blow in that night. And I really like the idea that her grief and hatred of Syrax after Joffrey's was the cause of Syrax not flying away and effectively killing herself.

But afterwards - on the road and later on when she decided to return to Dragonstone - she was completely in control again.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

Rhaenyra was the rightful heir because her father the king chose her.  The king is the law.  That is really all that need be said.  The Hightowers are the traitors for attempting to break the Will of the king. 

 

[The Bard of Banefort]

16 hours ago, Traverys said:

I'm with you on his representation of female rulers, and his "answer" (i.e., Daenerys) not really being a woman that stands out as exemplary.

 

Ironically, I think Asha is probably the potential female ruler that George has written as the most competent, but even that pertains specifically to the Iron Islands, not Westeros at large. (And as I mentioned in your thread on how well-written female characters are in ASOIAF, the relative nonexistence of Ironborn women outside of Asha and her mother is problematic in its own right). She's also given less of an arc than most of the other female POV characters in the series. 

The two other potential rulers in this case are Arianne and Sansa. Arianne leaves much to be desired, both politically and intellectually, and although I love Sansa, having her become a queen almost seems cruel at this point, since it's clearly far from what she actually wants. If Margaery or Val were POV characters, that could shift the scales in terms of portraying female leaders who are both good at what they do and who seem to want to lead in the first place. Unfortunately, they're both relegated to background characters. 

[Traverys]

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Ironically, I think Asha is probably the potential female ruler that George has written as the most competent, but even that pertains specifically to the Iron Islands, not Westeros at large. (And as I mentioned in your thread on how well-written female characters are in ASOIAF, the relative nonexistence of Ironborn women outside of Asha and her mother is problematic in its own right). She's also given less of an arc than most of the other female POV characters in the series. 

I really enjoyed that thread... I have a long, long response I was making to a lot of posts that I never finished. It was fantastic to hear all the varying opinions and new perspectives.

But I agree, I really enjoy the Kraken's Daughter as a character. While I don't think women need to aspire to traditionally "masculine" traits in order to be an exemplary ruler, I think a ruler of any gender in Westeros needs a developed competence in warfare. Diplomacy only seems likely to take place when there is no perceived weakness militarily. Asha seems to be the true answer to this conundrum as far as female characters are concerned.

I was really impressed by Asha's presentation in the Kingsmoot... but I'll concede that if I was a man raised in Ironborn culture (and wasn't Lord Harlaw) I probably wouldn't understand the vision of the future she had for her people... But still, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth as a reader. I love a character that is essentially an empowered woman, I hope (I know, I know... GRRM has basically told us to abandon hope) that her arc eventually extends and evolves into the way it could (and probably should) have back at the Kingsmoot. She'd be the real "strong, female ruler" we've been searching for in these novels, even if she's only the ruler of the Iron Islands.

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The two other potential rulers in this case are Arianne and Sansa. Arianne leaves much to be desired, both politically and intellectually, and although I love Sansa, having her become a queen almost seems cruel at this point, since it's clearly far from what she actually wants. If Margaery or Val were POV characters, that could shift the scales in terms of portraying female leaders who are both good at what they do and who seem to want to lead in the first place. Unfortunately, they're both relegated to background characters.

As much as I want to like Arianne, she also suffers from the Daenerys voyeuristic narration regarding her body. I mean, we all know about her magic nipples. While there seems to a be a certain degree of newly developed maturity in her TWoW chapters, to me, it would seem like a huge leap for her to suddenly become politically savvy enough to be successful in the current political environment.

Val would make such a good POV perspective, actually. It doesn't hurt she has a fairly large fanbase. Wildling women in general could make for interesting POVs...

It's my worst fear that we'll never really get to know Margaery Tyrell... She comes across to me as one of the savviest courtier players in the series. The complete opposite of early Sansa! Though, to be fair, Margaery had the proper training while Sansa was tossed in blind. I do enjoy Sansa chapters, and also agree that it would be a bit cruel for her to end up on the throne she has so desperately tried to escape. I was a whimsical child once upon a time, and that kind of thinking collapsed around me at a very young age when real life situations collapsed it. I'll always have a special place in my heart and mind for early (and, of course, later) Sansa because of that.