The New Gift and the decline of the Night's Watch: Lord Ellard and Lord Eddard

[Barty]

It certainly is odd that this supposedly wise King refused to listen to the counsel of the Starks when it came to their own lands. The Starks were certainly wronged here - they support the Watch the most and when the king decides that the watch needs more then its still the Starks who have to pay up??

I'm sensing that the tensions between the Starks and Targaryens go back a long time before Aerys.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

The general sense we get of the Night's Watch in the books is that its current state is to do with your average Westerosi (even in the North) no longer taking the concept of the Others seriously. Which isn't really surprising, since it's been several thousand years, but it's kind of implausible that this decline occurred only over basically the last 300 years, which seems to be the case (particularly as the unified government of the Seven Kingdoms, even if it didn't focus much on the Watch, could scarcely have cared less about it than the governments of the six rival kingdoms prior to the Conquest). everyone follows the law in the North; so what? It's still a huge step, and now the Boltons have to hide their behaviour rather than practise it openly (and the Umbers, if you believe Roose). Jaehaerys had nothing to do with the Dance of the Dragons. The gift wasn't an "abuse of power".

I'm thinking that in that time, the men that would have had the Nights Watch as an option are becoming sell swords where they can get them some money and they have the chance of a family?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The dance starters w/ Viserys I marrying Allicent High tower and breeding a succession crisis. And the Blackfyre rebellions stem from a succession crisis that's squarely the fault of Aegon IV a generation after Jaehaerys. Indeed Jaehaerys dealt rather well with generating to many heirs in his long reign.

The whole mess up started when Jaehaerys decided that the Andal law wasn't good enough for them and passed over the Queen who never was for Baelon.

That said, no monarch (real or asoif) has ever really been "great". I think one thing the series demonstrates well of how terrible family rule is. But, in 55 years of rule, the most heinous crimes are one instance of extraregultory taking, a tacit endorsement of salic succession, and a spottily enforced edict, you have to say that on balance (and certainly by comparison) that Jaehaerys was a good king.

I disagree.Imnsho he was a meh king who in long term created more mess than good.

[Colonel Green]

The whole mess up started when Jaehaerys decided that the Andal law wasn't good enough for them and passed over the Queen who never was for Baelon.

That wasn't the start of it. As GRRM himself says, rulers trying to pick their successors as they see fit, rather than in accordance with any totally coherent law, is an old custom. Moreover, most of the Seven Kingdoms did not want a female ruler over a male one (and you can see that in many of the histories of the individual kingdoms; note how the North has never had a ruling lady, again per GRRM, which can only be the result of daughters being passed over, as we can see happened with the heirs of Cregan Stark as well).

The Starks were certainly wronged here - they support the Watch the most and when the king decides that the watch needs more then its still the Starks who have to pay up??

Because their lands are where the Wall is. That should be rather obvious. Cutting off a piece of the Dornish desert isn't going to be particularly useful.

As I said before in his own castle his law had no power.

Who are you talking about here?

And clearly abolishing the right of First Night made a huge difference, otherwise its abolition wouldn't have been a big deal. It's hardly surprising that in the remote corners of the kingdoms, especially, it's harder to enforce.

Forcing someone to give up his property is abuse of power enough said. The lands belonged to house Stark and he chose to steal their lands.

Ignoring, of course, that governments do this regularly for civic purposes. Again, "eminent domain".

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I have always said it. The targaryen rule seams to had been very bad for the north.

[H0X0]

The whole mess up started when Jaehaerys decided that the Andal law wasn't good enough for them and passed over the Queen who never was for Baelon.

I disagree.Imnsho he was a meh king who in long term created more mess than good.

Don't get it. How does selecting Rhaenys fix the fundamental problem that pimogenetur leads to succession crises?

Not to start counterfactuals (does that term even apply for a fictional history? Counterfictional?) It's not clear that Rhaenys' selection stops the dance. When Laenor eventually dies without (legitimate) issue, you still have several rival claimants... with dragons.

[Veltigar]

I always thought the Lord Stark of the time gladly gave his lands away and afterwards boasted about it with Jaeherys. It's good to know that Jaeherys wasn't infallible and that even he could err.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

That wasn't the start of it. As GRRM himself says, rulers trying to pick their successors as they see fit, rather than in accordance with any totally coherent law, is an old custom. Moreover, most of the Seven Kingdoms did not want a female ruler over a male one (and you can see that in many of the histories of the individual kingdoms; note how the North has never had a ruling lady, again per GRRM, which can only be the result of daughters being passed over, as we can see happened with the heirs of Cregan Stark as well).

What exactly made Viserys I better to rule than Rhaenys?

Who are you talking about here?

And clearly abolishing the right of First Night made a huge difference, otherwise its abolition wouldn't have been a big deal. It's hardly surprising that in the remote corners of the kingdoms, especially, it's harder to enforce.

Jaehaerys. The fist night law wasn't abolished not even on Dragonstone. But since the Targs broke the law who cares right?

Ignoring, of course, that governments do this regularly for civic purposes. Again, "eminent domain".

Not ignoring. The Targs claimed that they had Wardens to rule their own lands. Once they stole Starks' lands they prove to me that they were what I always thought that they were tyrants.

Don't get it. How does selecting Rhaenys fix the fundamental problem that pimogenetur leads to succession crises?

Because there would be a precedent. Once the Queen would had been crowned because she was the rightful heir females could had been crowned to the future too.

Not to start counterfactuals (does that term even apply for a fictional history? Counterfictional?) It's not clear that Rhaenys' selection stops the dance. When Laenor eventually dies without (legitimate) issue, you still have several rival claimants... with dragons.

First things first; there is no real evidence that Rhaenyra's children were not Laenor's after all they had an Arryn Greatgrandfather. Even if someone claims that they were there would had Laena's daughters as their consorts. So no problem there. And at the end of the day even if they were bastards they were acknowledged by Laenor as his.

[Barty]

Because their lands are where the Wall is. That should be rather obvious. Cutting off a piece of the Dornish desert isn't going to be particularly useful.

Land is not the NW's need - its gold. And any Lord in the Kingdom can send gold to the wall.

[HexMachina]

Land is not the NW's need - its gold. And any Lord in the Kingdom can send gold to the wall.

And yet, they didn't. But Alysanne did.

Also, about the Rhaenys thing. I am a Rhaenys fan as much as the next person. I think she would have been a great Queen. However, I can see the arguments for passing over her. Jaehaerys had to consider more than just who he wanted to follow him. Now, it may be that he preferred the male over the female anyway, I dont know. But regardless, he has to think - whoever I choose as my heir must command obedoence from the Lords of the realm. His father (Aenys) was a weak monarch, and Jaehaerys saw the cost of that. Its very possible that Rhaenys would have faced resistance or even rebellion if she ascended the Throne, because many Lord would see a woman as weak and take advantage. Jaehaerys would have had to consider these things. Also, he did kind of work in a fair way, as he received a majority vote in favour of the male line over the female line. Its not as though he was the sole decision-maker here.

But again, I say this as a Rhaenys fan. Long live the Queen-who-never-was! :commie:

And btw DQC, Rhaena probably would have been crowned if Aegon III was killed, I agree. Viserys was thought dead at this point, and Baela was likely a hostage of Aegon II too given that she was also on Dragonstone and fought Aegon. I doubt he would abandon such a valuable hostage when he left.

[H0X0]

...

Because there would be a precedent. Once the Queen would had been crowned because she was the rightful heir females could had been crowned to the future too.

...

The precedent your trying to establish here (primogeniture regardless of sex, a position that was only ever advocated by Viserys I) would have favored Bealor's heirs. Rhaenyrs' claim is derived from Aemon, the third child. If we take your precedent, the claim through Alyssa (second child) would be stronger.

That's not the point though. The fact that primogeniture is basically a lawless process means that succession crises are inevitable. This has been the case for every inherited title of any consequence throughout history.

The fact that Jaehaerys solved his crisis bloodlessly is to his credit and all the more that he tried to do so with a legal process that gained consensus from ruled. If you want to say it was flawed because it set set the president of salic succession (and only tacitly so), I'll agree to that. But it was an attempt to put law on a basically lawless process (Jaehaerys was certainly a law-giver). Something Viserys I never did. He simply decreed that his succession would go as he said, despite perceived precedent and without gaining support of his vassals.

[Barty]

And yet, they didn't. But Alysanne did.

The point was that the King refused to listen to the Starks and made them give up their land as a way for the NW to earn more rather than give a portion of his own incomes to the NW every year - which makes more sense. Giving the watch land (and thereby the responsibilities to govern that land and defend it) at a time when they are in decline makes no sense to me.

[LinsarellaSand]

The point was that the King refused to listen to the Starks and made them give up their land as a way for the NW to earn more rather than give a portion of his own incomes to the NW every year - which makes more sense. Giving the watch land (and thereby the responsibilities to govern that land and defend it) at a time when they are in decline makes no sense to me.

In TWOIAF, it says the Watch was thankful to Alysanne for the jewels she gave them and,"her role in winning them the New Gift that bolstered their flagging strength".

It seems to me that the idea behind it was to help them because of that very decline - to bolster that flagging strength. Sort of a, "teach a man to fish" kind of idea. The strategy just didn't happen to work out.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

If Jaeharys was so good he would have implemented the laws of succession of his Kingdoms for his own family, and recognised Rhaenys as his heir once Aemon died. Instead he simply decreed that she would be skipped for no apparent reason.

Couldn't he simply have given the watch a yearly income from the Iron Throne? That probably would have been better than pissing off one of his major lords and taking their property.

I am rather surprised that the Lords of the seven kingdoms picked Viserys, it gives the impression that they would prefer their own brothers/nephews to come first in the line of succession in their houses if they only had daughters.

[Liz Stark-Targaryen]

But don't most LPs choose sons over daughters?

I keep hearing this in relations to the Starks. That Sansa could only inherit Winterfell if Bran and Rickon are both dead. Who will end up as lord, lady, king, or queen of Winterfell remains up for debate, though.

I have always said it. The targaryen rule seams to had been very bad for the north.

Targaryens ruin everything. This is true.

But fire and ice can't really coexist.

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

But don't most LPs choose sons over daughters?

I keep hearing this in relations to the Starks. That Sansa could only inherit Winterfell if Bran and Rickon are both dead. Who will end up as lord, lady, king, or queen of Winterfell remains up for debate, though.

So-called "Andal law" favors sons over daughters, yes, but not brothers over daughters. People are discussing Jaehaerys passing over Rhaenys (his first son Aemon's daughter) with Baelon (his second son)

Regarding the fact that the Great Council chose Viserys as heir, it should also probably be noted that the two primary candidates were not Viserys and Rhaenys but, in fact, Viserys and Laenor (Rhaenys's son). So it seems the lords at the time were not particularly interested in being ruled by a queen, period.

Jaehaerys himself was likely made king in defiance of "Andal law". His older brother Aegon had twin daughters. We don't know what happened to them, but we know that Maegor named one of them, Aerea, his heir (and it's also noted that when Maegor did that, he disinherited Jaehaerys implying that Jaehaerys would have normally been his heir). Maegor himself taking the throne was also an usurpation by standard succession.

When Viserys I named Rhaenyra as his heir, that was also against the laws of succession that are standard in the realm. Using only the standard succession laws, where sons come before daughters, Aegon II would be the rightful claimant.

Ultimately, it seems rather clear that lords and, yes kings, have a right to declare their own heir.

Should Jaehaerys have named Rhaenys his heir rather than Baelon? Yeah, sure, I think so. Is Jaehaerys naming Baelon his heir rather than Rhaenys some unique flaw on the part of Jaehaerys or House Targaryen? Hahaha, no. If the "proper" laws of succession were so important, Viserys never would've been so overwhelmingly supported at the Great Council with Rhaenys's claim being dismissed without much consideration at all.

[HexMachina]

If Jaeharys was so good he would have implemented the laws of succession of his Kingdoms for his own family, and recognised Rhaenys as his heir once Aemon died. Instead he simply decreed that she would be skipped for no apparent reason.

Couldn't he simply have given the watch a yearly income from the Iron Throne? That probably would have been better than pissing off one of his major lords and taking their property.

I am rather surprised that the Lords of the seven kingdoms picked Viserys, it gives the impression that they would prefer their own brothers/nephews to come first in the line of succession in their houses if they only had daughters.

And this is precisely why Jaehaerys picked a male. As I said already, I love Rhaenys as much as the next person, but I doubt Jaehaerys' decision was just "because lulz"

[Xanrn]

The Starks should have annex the Lands of the Night Watch when Aegon invaded.

Then tell Jaerys to send him 2nd sons to settle the Castles.

North would have been much stronger with the Northerns holding the Wall and Fighting the Wildlings.

All you need is The Nights watch as "Rangers" and "Maestors"

Its case of triage being ignored and a wounnd animal to stagger on and make the Realm weaker.

[Hrafntýr]

I'm not saying it is solely responsible, since it's clear that the NW had experienced significant decline since Aegon's day, but Jaehaerys' plan does seem emblematic of and possibly contributed to the shift in perception of the NW, which I think may be related to its decline. There seems to be the suggestion that the NW in earlier days had at least some prestige or honor associated with it; we know of the Shieldhall and that there used to be knights on the Wall (Yandel refers to the "black knights of the Wall" of bygone days). One could imagine, perhaps, say the third son of a minor lord heading off to the Wall, perhaps taking retainers from his land to accompany him, because it was seen as honorable to defend the realm. But to go off to the Wall to be land managers? To expect to be turning your gaze south directing peasants rather than joining a military order? Why not just stay home?

I know there are lots of factors likely responsible for the decline of the NW (though I don't think it's the absence of Others, who had been gone for a long time, by all accounts). For example, it's really hard to imagine the impact for the various seven kingdoms of there being an Iron Throne. After all, before Aegon the NW was the only institution that involved all the regions of Westeros, but now the attention of lords is directed toward playing the game of thrones.

To be sure, the NW needed real, tangible resources, but it also needed a PR boost, something to make it again an honorable option. Maybe Jaehaerys even thought that this move might be such a boost, but of course folks in the south were to be preoccupied with other matters in the years to come.

[Baela of Pentos]

And this is precisely why Jaehaerys picked a male. As I said already, I love Rhaenys as much as the next person, but I doubt Jaehaerys' decision was just "because lulz"

:agree:

The process of Great council and such is to let the lords great and small pick who they'd rather have to rule over them. It helps with the stability of the realm.