A Man Reads Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I think the point is more that generally his reign and madness didn't affect much outside of his small sphere of direct influence in King's Landing pre rebellion. He only decided that after his heir was killed and he was likely to lose and being captured. No one denies he was mad, but his madness never affected his people, but many lords' pride. Oh come on. Aerys was king and mad as a hatter. That affected the entire seven kingdoms -- as poor leadership (such as alienating Tywin Lannister and provoking Robert's Rebellion) and political instability (Rhaegar's plots and the Stark/Arryn/Baratheon bloc) are bound to do. Do you honestly think the people would have fared the same had Aerys died at Duskendale and Rhaegar succeeded him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Oh come on. Aerys was king and mad as a hatter. That affected the entire seven kingdoms -- as poor leadership (such as alienating Tywin Lannister and provoking Robert's Rebellion) and political instability (Rhaegar's plots and the Stark/Arryn/Baratheon bloc) are bound to do. Do you honestly think the people would have fared the same had Aerys died at Duskendale and Rhaegar succeeded him? None of that affected the people. What affects the people is Lords going to war. Several times I've read the argument of Ned and Robert doing what it should have been done. Like, "what else where they supposed to do?". Well, what they did was saying "Oh, the King has asked for our heads! let's bring our armies and people who don't even know who the King is into this, because I'm mad and I've been insulted!". Before the Rebellion, Westeros was in relative normal peace with Aerys. Even after Tywin was gone, he changed Hands and still managed to leave money when Robert was crowned. Robert broke the Kingdom, not Aerys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy is not No One Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 i guess it depends. If tommen dies by poison or assisination, then his sister is his heir. If Tommen dies while the city is under seige and his mom goes with him, then i guess who ever was sacking the city would be king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy is not No One Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 None of that affected the people. What affects the people is Lords going to war. Several times I've read the argument of Ned and Robert doing what it should have been done. Like, "what else where they supposed to do?". Well, what they did was saying "Oh, the King has asked for our heads! let's bring our armies and people who don't even know who the King is into this, because I'm mad and I've been insulted!". Before the Rebellion, Westeros was in relative normal peace with Aerys. Even after Tywin was gone, he changed Hands and still managed to leave money when Robert was crowned. Robert broke the Kingdom, not Aerys. Thats not really fair though. So if someone kills your brother and father and calls for your head are you going to be like, aww shucks, I guess I'll go turn myself in. Hopefully my death will be quick and i won't get roasted in my armor... Or if you raised two boys and someone called for their heads for no reason other than spite, you'd betray those two boys and give them up to the king for slaughter? Its true that the common folk suffer when the lords play their game of thrones, but to say that life was good for peasants under the targ regime is wrong. Peasant life has and will always suck in westeros. Until they get a constitution that gives them some rights. Then life gets marginally better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Thats not really fair though. So if someone kills your brother and father and calls for your head are you going to be like, aww shucks, I guess I'll go turn myself in. Hopefully my death will be quick and i won't get roasted in my armor... Or if you raised two boys and someone called for their heads for no reason other than spite, you'd betray those two boys and give them up to the king for slaughter? Its true that the common folk suffer when the lords play their game of thrones, but to say that life was good for peasants under the targ regime is wrong. Peasant life has and will always suck in westeros. Until they get a constitution that gives them some rights. Then life gets marginally better. Well, what's the best for your people, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Man Reads Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 None of that affected the people. What affects the people is Lords going to war. The King will always affect the lords and the people together. Sure, the lords call the banners and lead the armies. But the people need the king's justice, pay the kings taxes, use the king's roads, and see their king on any coin that comes their way. The king is essential to the whole body politic. When the king is a nutter, that's going to affect absolutely everyone. Several times I've read the argument of Ned and Robert doing what it should have been done. Like, "what else where they supposed to do?". Well, what they did was saying "Oh, the King has asked for our heads! let's bring our armies and people who don't even know who the King is into this, because I'm mad and I've been insulted!". It was more than a question of honour. For one, Ned and Robert had not personally offended Aerys. Calling for their heads was akin to using wildfire to light a bedside candle. For another, there really was no other option for the rebels. When the king is weak, and the king forces three powerful houses into a hopeless position, that king invited a rebellion. He got one. He lost. Before the Rebellion, Westeros was in relative normal peace with Aerys. Even after Tywin was gone, he changed Hands and still managed to leave money when Robert was crowned. Robert broke the Kingdom, not Aerys. Westeros was in relative peace before the entire succession dispute arose. I disagree that the fault lies at the feet of any one king. This is another occasion to make the oft-cited comparison to the War of the Rose. Sure, it began with Aerys being deposed. But it involves Robert, Joffrey, Tommen, Stannis, Daenerys, and Aegon too. There may be others yet to come. That's part of the dynastic struggle that makes up the epic story of A Song of Ice and Fire. EDIT: messed up my quote boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy is not No One Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Well, what's the best for your people, then? democracy maybe? or at least some sort of judicial system or a constitution that guarantees some basic rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In A Coat of Gold Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Actually, Robert claiming the throne based on his Targ grandmother means that Aegon is the King. His cousin Tommen is 3rd in line behind Aegon and Danny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Char Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I've been thinking about this a lot lately during my re-read. I started to ponder the crockpot idea of Tywin wanting to remove Joff from the throne, but got stuck thinking that the Lannister line of succession isn't very secure after Tommen. I agree that when a male heir isn't clearly defined, the succession goes to whoever has the most power. Myrcella is the next obvious choice, but without marriage to Trystane, I seriously doubt she would be able to sit the throne without severe opposition. Depending on the manner of Tommen's death, whoever had the most power in KL at the time could persuade him to name someone else as heir. But even then, as we have seen, wills and last wishes can be ignored. I think with the support that the High Sparrow is gaining, he is a serious contender here. Either to try and grab supreme power for the church, or help place a person of his choosing into the throne to further his cause. There are just too many people thrown in to the mix with reasonable enough claims for the heir to be definite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHouseHB Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I think Cersei will burn Kings Landing down after her children die so there will not be a red keep or Iron Throne to sit on. So I think there will be people all over the kingdoms calling themselves kings sending Westeros into chaos. Perferct opportunity for the Others to come in when Westeros is in all out war. Then Jon Snow after finding out his heritage will unite the Kingdoms for the fight against the Others after the Others are defeated a great council will be held and Jon will be elected King after the Wall has no further use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Char Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I don't really agree with that ending, but Cersei burning KL certainly isn't farfetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemond's Eye Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 They'd have to find another non-attainted Baratheon-line claimant, or else hold another council to determine who would succeed her. The Lannisters, Tyrells and Florents would have no claim because they aren't Baratheons, they only married into the Baratheons. The Martells could plausibly make a claim based on being Targaryens, but then that defeats the purpose of the Baratheons being the royal house. However, the Martells might be the next-best relation to the Baratheons, too. You'd just have to examine the family tree.Well, the Baratheons claim comes from Rhaelle Targayen, so if the main line dies off and there's no clear successor, the Martells would be in with a shout as the issue of succession would then be to look at the claimants with blood ties to the Targaryens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blow My Horn Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Gerion Lannister will return and stake his claim to the IT once Tommen is killed by Sir Pounce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If Tommen dies without a son (he's 8 so that's inevitable) the throne passes to Myrcella, unless there's a law stating that only men can inherit then ironically Tommen's heir is Stannis :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fae Boleyn Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Only if the Baratheons stopped what the Targaryens started after the Dance of the Dragons which says that all male heirs(brothers, uncles, etc) come before female heirs. This is a form of agnatic primogeniture, which greatly favors males over females inheriting. Female lines are disinherited, so males typically always inherit before females, even collaterally related males (i.e. uncles/brothers over daughters). It's not entirely clear how male-driven the Targaryen succession was, since they never had to look very far for a suitable male heir. It's likely a female could inherit if they were the last descendant of the patrilineal lines (male derived lines). For example, a more distant male relation from a female line (e.g. king's sister's son) wouldn't inherit over a daughter of a king, but a male relation from a male line (e.g. king's brother's son) would. (credit to /u/feldman10) The Targaryens at first followed Andal succession, but started following this form of succession following the "Dance of the Dragons" when Rhaenyra and Aegon II (half-siblings) fought over their father's crown. http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/16mqp1/spoilers_all_complete_guide_to_westerosi/Actually, they never really followed Andal succession. Women were never outright banned before the Dance, but tradition, King Jaehaerys I, and a Great Council had already passed female heirs over.However, I can't see why the Baratheons would keep the same succession, especially when Robert prettied up his conquest (or Jon Arryn did) by citing descent from a female Targaryen.Though using that precedent, after Myrcella and possibly Shireen (Stannis is attainted but Shireen is a child, so her claim may still exist in theory), other houses with Targ blood through the female line could make a play. Even if the Baratheons kept Targ succession, though, Myrcella is Tommen's heir for the same reason Dany is the only certain heir to the Targaryen claim - desperate times, desperate measures, and there aren't any better options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose is Azor Ahai Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 It goes pretty much like this, I thinkTommenMyrcellaStannisShireen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Viserys Targaryen IV Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Myrcella would be Tommen's heir, and the first thing that Myrcella's Regent (Cersie) would do is officially name her heir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 It goes pretty much like this, I thinkTommenMyrcellaStannisShireenIf something happens to both Tommen and Myrcella (if Maggie's prophecy is corect then they'll die before Cersei) who'll get the throne? The Lannisters aren't going to give it to Stannis so it would be interesting to see what happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimJames Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Myrcella, then Stannis, then Sireen, then if she dies Edric Storm gets legitimized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemond's Eye Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Edric Storm wouldn't automatically be legitimized though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.