Jump to content

Myrish Lace

Members
  • Content count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Myrish Lace

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Such assumption would make Jaehaerys a dirty rebel, a traitor and a usurper - and I don't think that's how he is presented to us or how he is meant to be presented to us. Basically, we hit inherent contradiction in Maegor's status once again. On one hand, he is a usurper, is called as such in the book and by Jaehaerys himself. Fighting against a usurper is perfectly kosher and legal. On the other hand, he is still accepted as King. Jaehaerys punishes Maegor's guards for deserting a King. Fighting against King is treason. By leaving Maegor as Schrödiger's King, Jaehaerys created an ambiguity in the matter. Theoretically, Jaehaerys could say - Maegor was a dirty usurper who temporarily occupied Iron Throne. Cut him out of the rolls, re-issue all of his useful decrees in Jaehaerys' name, render everything else illegal, problem solved. That's essentially what was done with Rhaenyra after the war - worked like a charm. Well, that's another clash of interpretations between Crown and nobility. Now this one is less violent - the Crown simply can't do anything about First Night - but the results are quite similar. Nobility enforces its vision of the issue. That's kinda the problem with issuing any laws or decrees without having a single traveling judge in the realm. There is this bizarre void between King and nobility in Westeros. In Middle Ages there were all sorts of people representing the King in various regions; monarchies that failed to maintain such presence usually disappeared rather quickly, replaced by more structured rivals. In Westeros the King is often left in some suspended state instead - he is kinda there, but he has no reach to force people to pay taxes (that's my favorite part of F&B - Master of Coin hastily institutes new taxes and nobody outside KL gives a shit and just ignore him), obey his laws (see Dunk and Egg) and generally stop acting like asshats (older Egg). Weren't we talking about hypothetical Great Council and influence of vow of 105? Because Elmo did not care about the vow and was perfectly content to sit home. Yes, he ended up joining Rhaenyra when Black dragon landed at his home, but I don't think this wartime decision can be carried over into hypothetical Great Council. After all, if there is a Great Council, the concern about being burned by dragons is probably much less pressing, so there goes Elmo's motivation to join the Blacks. No, the movers and shakers in the Reach were defeated by movers and shakers in the Riverlands, and neither side cared about the vow. Green Reachers' motives were never explored in detail; but George did provide explanation for Elmo who led Black Riverlords - see above. But the Greens did take control of the Reach. I know, the Greens actually winning something in F&B, shocking. Rowan got chased north, his submission was "enforced", so were the Grimms, Costayne got shanked, Tarly and Beesbury got captured... Green army of the Reach was like a sword of Damocles throughout the entire war, always hanging above Black court's heads. It took Robb what - two months to muster a good army and start hitting people? Daemon's objections cling hollow since we know for a fact he is wrong. The excuse is just ridiculous. Cregan spent two years on the fence. Robb wanted to fight for his dad, so he gathered an army on time. Cregan didn't want to fight for Rhaenyra, so he sat with his thumbs up his bum. It's that simple. It did? Which ones? Because the only thing I remember about her participation are her increasingly hilarious excuses answering Rhaenyra's increasingly desperate bids for help. Grover was indeed Green. Elmo on the other hand... “I would sooner the rest of us did not die with him,” declared Ser Elmo Tully, his grandson. Riverrun had no defense against dragonfire, he pointed out to his own sons, and both sides in this fight rode dragons. And so whilst Lord Grover thundered and fulminated from his deathbed, Riverrun barred its gates, manned its walls, and held its silence. Elmo had no shits to give about either side. Elmo was looking out for number one. When he joined the Black side, he did not do so out of commitment to Black cause, but rather more practical concerns: Most notably of all, House Tully had joined the war. Seasmoke’s descent upon Riverrun had at last persuaded that reluctant warrior, Ser Elmo Tully, to call his banners for the queen, in defiance of the wishes of his bedridden grandsire, Lord Grover. “A dragon in one’s courtyard does wonders to resolve one’s doubts,” Ser Elmo is reported to have said.
  2. Rebellion is a way to force rebels' views on legal matter upon the Iron throne. The rebels cast down Maegor's regime and replaced Maegor's chosen heir with a candidate more preferable to them. And what's good for a goose is good the gander. If Jaehaerys could gain the throne by bypassing previous King's chosen female heir and disregarding King's decision to disinherit him... then why should anyone be overly concerned with Viserys' eerily similar proclamations? He didn't even disinherit Aegon. Had Jaehaerys clearly eliminated Maegor from the royal lists, abandoned/re-checked all of Maegor's decrees under his own authority, the answer would be clear. But since Maegor is Schrödiger's King, whose status is neither here nor there... That's demonstrably not true. Jaehaerys did nothing to reverse Maegor's land grants, so clearly he inherited more that just the laws against Faith Militant. Yes. As your quotes helpfully demonstrate, most people don't give a damn. There is a handful of minor irrelevant figures here and there, but that's it. The movers and shakers of the Dance don't care about vows of 105. First, Rhaenyra did not win by a landslide in the Reach, more to the opposite actually. If we count major Houses - the direct vassals of Tyrells - the Greens mustered ten (Hightowers, Peakes, Redwynes, Roxtons, Norcrosses, Ambroses, Leygoods, Risleys, Gracefords and Fossoways). The Blacks got six (Rowans, Tarlys, Merryweathers, Grimms, Footlys and Caswells) plus a few lesser Houses. vassals of vassals (Hightower vassals, I believe). Nobody got a landslide in the Reach, but Aegon II had a comfortable advantage. As for Westeros at large, there is no evidence Rhaenyra had the upper hand in support due to the vow of 105. As I have mentioned earlier, most people didn't care, even amongst the Blacks. Cregan was like - "Gib or GTFO". And then he just sent a token force and sat out the rest of the war until it was decided. Jeyne Arryn was more concerned with her own position - and then joined late Lord Stark on the sidelines. Dalton wanted to pillage and rape. Even Elmo Tully who rallied the Blacks in the Riverlands said "A dragon in one's courtyard does wonder to resolve one's doubts" and was perfectly content to sit in the Riverrun until said dragon landed in his yard. It seems to me a hypothetical Great Council would end up the same way 101's Council did. Even Rhaenyra was astute enough to realize that, saying “We both know how this council would rule".
  3. Because Maegor specifically tried to disinherit Jaeharys and appoint Aerea as his heir instead. Which didn't work (even though Maegor was acknowledged as King by later Targaryerns) - creating a precedent that King's extravangant wishes on succession can indeed be disregarded. In practice it was yet another case of favoring male claimant over female one even though "normal" Andal tradition would favor Aegon's daughter (Aerea) over brother (Jaehaerys). That's the problem Maegor and Jaehaerys created. On one hand, Maegor was accepted as King, his decisions stood unless specifically repealed by his successors (like lands grants). On the other hand, Jaehaerys called Maegor usurper and in effect rebelled against him. So people rebelling against Maegor (due to Jaehaerys' unwillingness to completely cut ties with previous regime) ended up in a curious situation. They were rebelling against the King (which is treason and illegal) but also against the usurper (which is not treason and can not be illegal). This schizophrenic approach created an unnecessary ambiguity - something that should have been avoided given how Maegor made landmark decisions in vital business of royal succession. The first statement can not be derived from the second one because in general people don't seem to give a shit about 105 one way or another. If you follow decision-making process of key Houses during the Dance, they are more concerned about what the law says, which claimant they are closer to and what the claimant offers to them personally. Viserys could have just hosted a big tourney instead, 105 did nothing to actually secure Rhaenyra as potential heir.
  4. I don't think Rhaenyra's faction promoted primogeniture - merely King's right to appoint his heir without consideration of custom/law/precedent: But the Queen’s Hand argued against this, for both girls had younger brothers. Rhaenyra’s own claim to the Iron Throne was a special case, the Sea Snake insisted; her father had named her as his heir. Actually, Widow's Law (although never invoked during the Dance) would support Aegon II, not Rhaenyra. The problem is, most people in fandom just tear one sentence out and completely disregard the rest. As a result, we get an Ems telegram of sorts - by cutting out important bits, people dramatically change its meaning. Here is all that we know of Widow's Law: To rectify these ills, King Jaehaerys in 52 AC promulgated the Widow’s Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or eldest daughter, where there was no son) to inherit, but requiring said heirs to maintain surviving widows in the same condition they had enjoyed before their husband’s death. A lord’s widow, be she a second, third, or later wife, could no longer be driven from his castle, nor deprived of her servants, clothing, and income. The same law, however, also forbade men from disinheriting their children by a first wife in order to bestow their lands, seat, or property upon a later wife or her own children. So the Widow's Law is as Andal as you can get - as long as there is a son (or sons), the eldest son inherits ahead of any daughters. That's literally the first thing about it. The rest of it is ancillary and regulates relationships within Andal succession paradigm. Well, male-preference inheritance did not arise in 101 AC - it was a confirmation of firm bias in succession. Pre-Conquest Targaryens favored men over women in succession (younger Aegon > elder Visenya), Aegon the Uncrowned inherited after his father over his elder sister (yes, he didn't have a coronation for plot reasons, but whatever). Then Maegor murdered Aegon and tried to name a female heir ahead of male one, but the whole realm went "NOPE" and that one fell through. Then Jaehaerys marginalized female/female-line heirs with Council's help. Maegor opened a huge can of worms. After his death nobility created a precedent of disregarding the King's wishes on succession. Jaeharys's right to the throne was based on male preference - otherwise, Jaehaerys would be a usurper (and Viserys too). Another issue is an extremely vague wording of vow in 105 AC. "swearing to honor and defend her right of succession" - it's basically meaningless. How does Rhaenyra's right relate to other claimants? Are those lords sworn to defend her right to be her father's heir - or merely to defend her right to be in the succession? I mean Aemond and Daeron had a right to the throne too - just less than Aegon II. It is entirely possible to acknowledge Rhaenyra's right of succession without accepting her as the first person in the list of heirs. It's such a Viserys I thing to do. Let's create a huge lavish ceremony. Let's drag the lords from all over the realm. And let's render it all meaningless because proper speech writing is for losers.
  5. Myrish Lace

    Rules of inheritance

    No, it is you who are confused on the matter - Joffrey quite clearly disinherits a bunch of people in the books. Forty-seven lesser lordlings and six hundred nineteen knights had lost their lives beneath the fiery heart of Stannis and his Lord of Light, along with several thousand common men-at-arms. Traitors all, their heirs were disinherited, their lands and castles granted to those who had proved more loyal. Hence my point stands. "Disinheriting" is a very specific thing in ASOIAF, it happens only by explicit decree ejecting the heir from succession. Thus your idea that a "person who has once been named or recognized as heir only be replaced by a child from another wife is disinherited" doesn't hold up. One can not be disinherited by being merely moved in the order of succession in ASOIAF. You continue to insist upon this point, yet Widow's Law makes no provisions for such claims.
  6. Myrish Lace

    Rules of inheritance

    We are discussing a law that makes no mention of either naming or installing heirs, opting for a rigid system of automatic male-preference inheritance instead. Have you not read a word I've written? George uses "disinherit" as a very specific way, as an explicit ejection of an heir from the line of succession. Aegon was not disinherited by Viserys' decree; had Viserys changed the succession in favor of Aegon II, Rhaenyra would not have been disinherited either. Unless Viserys I specifically decrees "Rhaenyra/Aegon II are hereby disinherited", neither of them is disinherited. What you are referring to is not disinheriting (at least as George uses the word) - it's reshuffling of inheritance order by law/decree. The former favors Aegon II, since he is the eldest son. The latter is not even an option under Widow's law. Under the Widow's Law - yes he has to accept her as his heir. If the lord has only daughters, the eldest one is his heir. It's not a matter of preference or choice, the law commands that in absence of sons the eldest daughter is the heir, period. That's precisely what Widow's law commands. The eldest son is the heir, no ifs or buts. The eldest son inherits, the eldest daughter is the next in line after her brothers. And this would not constitute "disinheriting" the daughter that was previously the heiress, since "disinheriting" would require a decree that ejects her from the line of succession altogether. I'm not sure what undermines your argument more - George's edits of Dance sections for Fire&Blood, with extra material and cuts. Or maybe your attempt to somehow derive Rhaenyra's right to the throne from the law that literally has "reaffirming the right of the eldest son to inherit" in it.
  7. Myrish Lace

    Rules of inheritance

    No, it does not. First, the law states the opposite in no uncertain terms; there is no proviso for several marriages or allowances for designating anyone as heir ahead of the eldest son for that matter. Second, you confuse being disinherited (which is referred to in the law) and being naturally moved down in the line of succession. In all available texts, word "disinherited" is used in a very specific set of circumstances, when a person in question is explicitly and purposefully removed from the line of succession via official decision. There is but a handful of cases when people are actually disinherited. Heirs to traitors are disinherited by Joffrey('s government). Maegor disinherited Jaehaerys via a decree (or at least attempted to). No disinherited person is ever disinherited by implication, that's not how it works in ASOIAF. This is the reason why Widow's Law, if ever applied to Rhaenyra/Aegon II situation, supports Aegon II. Neither Rhaenyra nor Aegon II was disinherited - aka had their rights explicitly annulled via vow/abdication/verdict. If you apply Widow's Law, then after Aegon II's birth, Rhaenyra was not disinherited - she was simply moved to the end of the line, since the law clearly places sons ahead of daughters. Just like Catelyn was not disinherited by Edmure's birth - merely moved down the line. This is also the reason why no person in-universe tries to justify Rhaenyra's claim via Widow's Law.
  8. Myrish Lace

    Rules of inheritance

    Widow's law is quite clear on this: To rectify these ills, King Jaehaerys in 52 AC promulgated the Widow’s Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or eldest daughter, where there was no son) to inherit... So it's the (eldest) son, irregardless whether it was first, second or tenth marriage he was born to.
  9. Myrish Lace

    An entire royal line wiped out in one battle?

    Eh, no. Field of Fire happened after conquest of Stormlands, Riverlands, Crownlands and abortive Vale invasion. The fact that dragons fly and burn men, forests and castles was blatantly obvious. The purpose of cavalry charge is to smash into the enemy with a bunch of horsemen. Dragons fly. Horses do not fly. Ergo charging dragons with cavalry is physically impossible. Mern and Loren were silly men.
  10. Myrish Lace

    An entire royal line wiped out in one battle?

    Trying to charge a flying dragon with cavalry (which can't fly) is ridiculously foolish. Mern (as well as many of his colleagues) was a silly man.
  11. Myrish Lace

    Who was the Biggest Villain of the Dance?

    I dunno, between forbidden bodyguard romance with implications of treason, attempt to pass three bastard sons for legal heirs, a bunch of self-sabotaging decisions and violent reprisals against the very people she needed the most... there is a bunch of parallels big and small. GRRM wasn't subtle about it Eh, Cersei makes similar complaints and it rings hollow in both cases. Complicated legalities aside, Rhaenyra (and Cersei) march to their doom precisely because they are stupid, vile and incapable. Their poor qualities as people and as rulers catch up with them long before the whole "she was a woman" stick can. To illustrate the point, let's take Lords Paramount and the whole Borros Baratheon debacle. There are seven LPs in all of Westeros. Yet it doesn't occur to Rhaenyra to keep in touch with Borros (who also happens to be her relative). There is no mention of Borros meeting any of Black leaders before. He is stranger. And in a feat of baffling arrogance they just presume to have his loyalty. There isn't even a bone for Borros - no dragon to stand with him, no royal ward, no marriage, zilch. Jeyen Arryn got a dragonrider; Tully was swayed by a dragonrider arriving in Riverlands; Stark got promises of marriage; Greyjoy got opportunity to murder, enslave, rape and steal. No wonder Borros dropped her like a hot potato. It wasn't about Rhaenyra's gender; her offer was just insulting. But wait, there is more! Mere 12 pages before Lucerys' death (and three pages before his departure from Dragonstone) Rhaenyra is visited by Aegon II's envoy, Grand Maester Orwyle. Rhaenyra has Orwyle assaulted and robbed. Yet it doesn't occur to her or any of her advisers that - after such blatant disregard for envoy status - the safety of her own envoys might be in question. Mistreating a defenseless old man must have felt really awesome for Rhaenyra to risk her own sons' lives for it. Madness. Madness and stupidity. Rhaenyra wanted a 10-year-old tortured and had Vaemond brutally murdered for saying the obvious long before the Dance. It's pretty clear to me that Rhaenyra was no less violent and malicious than Cersei.
  12. Myrish Lace

    Who was the Biggest Villain of the Dance?

    Viserys I had his vicious moments, but he wasn't much of a villain, just astoundingly incompetent. Little exposition to her vile acts? She demands to have her 10-year-old brother tortured for saying the obvious, has Vaemond murdered in defiance of her father's decree and gives Dalton carte-blanche to murder, rob, enslave and rape like the Ironborn of old. And let's not even get started on her decisions in KL. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of Rhaenyra's vile acts in the narrative. She is Cersei 0.5; every time she appears, she either does something vile, something stupid or something vile & stupid.
  13. Myrish Lace

    The Official Count of Kings

    Discredited Maegor ruled Westeros as a sole monarch for a decade, leaving a corresponding amount of decisions - land grants, titles, allocation etc. Rhaenyra's only decision that carried over was Alyn's legitimization - and even that one had to be confirmed/re-issued by Aegon III's regency council. At certain point overturning many years of legislation and decision-making becomes too much of a hassle.
  14. Myrish Lace

    The Official Count of Kings

    The count is determined by consensus among the nobility. It was easier for nobility to accept Maegor as King and move on. Maegor the Cruel was a usurper, yes, but he spent almost a decade ruling - conferring titles and lands. If Maegor was no King, Harrenhall, lands in the Reach and probably a few more things would have to be re-distributed. Jaehaerys didn't want rock the boat, given how many of his benefactors were former Maegor supporters. Rhaenyra discredited herself with paranoia and brutality. Her remaining backers - the Late Lord Stark and Late Lady Arryn, fresh out of jail Corlys Velaryon - were not too keen on promoting her rights. Aegon III, being closest male relative to Aegon II, was a natural successor in accordance to Great Council's decision. He also had neither power nor will to reverse post-war settlement, Daeron was half-Velaryon, Baelor didn't care. And once Viserys II seized the throne ahead of his niece, any attempt to recognize Rhaenyra's rights would undermine his (and his successors') right to rule. Same goes for Robert, Joffrey, Stannis and others - whoever is going to be palatable to the nobility is going to land in the list. I suspect Robert will remain - otherwise a decade of legislation and decision-making will go out of the window and it's not something even potential Targaryens would like to see. Too much hassle, to many opportunities for stirring shit up.
  15. Myrish Lace

    Cregan Stark: the fool wolf

    Riverlands were burned out by Aemond and Black Riverlords. The winter of 130-135 AC is noted as long and brutal. Agriculture would not resume until the end of it, meaning total dependence on reserves - the very same reserves that would be gathered in burned out towns and villages. A Northern husband would be just another mouth to eat dwindling supplies, a heavy burden in the middle of harsh winter. So yeah, either a knife or a fork - depending on exact amount of remaining supplies in given area.
×