Rheanyra I?

[Maid So Fair]

And if he his no claim or right, he gets booted. And then faced rebellion and war. It is not like the whole realm said yes to it.

And if he tore up the ruling that gave him a crown as well had Viserys younger and Aegon did that, Rhaenys granddaughters claim reborn. Aegon the Elder's heir was Aegon the Younger. Rhaena and Baela by right of Andal Law bore claim to the throne, greater then all the other Targaryens, breaking the precedent that gave them the crown the Bane and his brother welcomed rivals.

There's no one else with a better claim, no matter how you slice it, and his supporters have won in the field. I don't think there was any chance of him getting booted at this stage. He is still the same person, with the same ancestry, regardless of which of his parents he chooses to highlight. By declaring his Kingship as a continuation of Rheanyra's he does not lose his claim through Daemon.

Rhaenys's claim was already rejected by a Grand Council once (unlike Rheanyra's), and everyone has moved on since then. I don't think questioning Aegon II's ascension automatically means overturning all the other previous decisions. That's not even considering that the Velaryons and even Rhaenys herself were Rheanyra's chief supporters during the war and the Sea Snake, the only/main person left who might even entertain putting forward Rhaela/Baela, was one of Aegon III's chief allies.

[Lord Varys]

Aegon II most certainly did neither name nor recognize Aegon the Younger as his heir. We know that Aegon II intended to remarry - the eldest daughter of Borros Baratheon - and most likely hoped to father new sons. If he named an heir after his restoration - which is by no means certain - it would have been Jaehaera, not Aegon the Younger.

The very idea that Aegon would even contemplate the idea of seating the spawn of Rhaenyra and Daemon on the Iron Throne is ridiculous.

It is also wrong to assume that Aegon III coronation was a compromise between the Greens at the Black. The remaining Greens on Aegon's council considered the war effectively lost (or rather, KL was lost, about to be taken by the Riverlords, and eventually the Northmen under Lord Cregan), murdered their king, and crowned Aegon III in an effort to save their own asses.

We are at the end of a long war here, and the powers fighting hated each other to the core. Just as Cersei would never agree to hand the throne over to Stannis or Shireen should Tommen/Myrcella die, no anyone with a similar attitude (i.e. Aegon II) would never have considered such a possibility.

[Wmarshal]

There's no one else with a better claim, no matter how you slice it, and his supporters have won in the field. I don't think there was any chance of him getting booted at this stage. He is still the same person, with the same ancestry, regardless of which of his parents he chooses to highlight. By declaring his Kingship as a continuation of Rheanyra's he does not lose his claim through Daemon.

Rhaenys's claim was already rejected by a Grand Council once (unlike Rheanyra's), and everyone has moved on since then. I don't think questioning Aegon II's ascension automatically means overturning all the other previous decisions. That's not even considering that the Velaryons and even Rhaenys herself were Rheanyra's chief supporters during the war and the Sea Snake, the only/main person left who might even entertain putting forward Rhaela/Baela, was one of Aegon III's chief allies.

Save Jaeheara and Baela and Rhaena. It just means he ignores 101, meaning other claimants can as well.

It means you ignore the precedent meaning everyone else can. Because their lines were to unite. Why would Aegon or Viserys want to create foes that were friends? Aegon and Viserys used the precedent to ascend, you think ignoring it would go kind for them after that terrible war?

[Wmarshal]

Aegon II most certainly did neither name nor recognize Aegon the Younger as his heir. We know that Aegon II intended to remarry - the eldest daughter of Borros Baratheon - and most likely hoped to father new sons. If he named an heir after his restoration - which is by no means certain - it would have been Jaehaera, not Aegon the Younger.

The very idea that Aegon would even contemplate the idea of seating the spawn of Rhaenyra and Daemon on the Iron Throne is ridiculous.

It is also wrong to assume that Aegon III coronation was a compromise between the Greens at the Black. The remaining Greens on Aegon's council considered the war effectively lost (or rather, KL was lost, about to be taken by the Riverlords, and eventually the Northmen under Lord Cregan), murdered their king, and crowned Aegon III in an effort to save their own asses.

We are at the end of a long war here, and the powers fighting hated each other to the core. Just as Cersei would never agree to hand the throne over to Stannis or Shireen should Tommen/Myrcella die, no anyone with a similar attitude (i.e. Aegon II) would never have considered such a possibility.

And this really didn't stop Aegon from being heir. No one remembers queen Rhaenyra but a princess, the precedent cared on and gave Viserys his throne.

[SeanF]

Had I been Aegon III, I think I'd have proclaimed Aegon II a usurper, disinterred his body, and dumped it in a cesspit.

[HexMachina]

And from that and the 101 a precednt no female can inherent was made.

If it was accepted them Aegon would have had no armies. There was Rhaenys, the daughters of Prince Aegon.

The whole problem with a precedent is that it is easily set aside. No King has the power to bind the monarchs who follow him, as this implies they are somehow "superior". Hence why Egg's reforms were so easily set aside, because Jaehaerys and Aerys/Tywin were not bound by what he had said.

ETA: ^Agree with Sean F, I would have dumped Aegon II's remains in a cesspit if I was Aegon III.

[Maid So Fair]

Save Jaeheara and Baela and Rhaena. It just means he ignores 101, meaning other claimants can as well.

It means you ignore the precedent meaning everyone else can. Because their lines were to unite. Why would Aegon or Viserys want to create foes that were friends? Aegon and Viserys used the precedent to ascend, you think ignoring it would go kind for them after that terrible war?

Jaehyra's claim derives from Aegon the Elder. If he doesn't have a claim neither does she.

There's an argument to be made for Baela/Rheala but it is an extremely spurious one. No one, including their own father and other immediate family has supported their claim over Rheanyra's at any point. In fact, these are the people that have just fought a bloody war to uphold Rheanyra's and later Aegon the Younger's (rightful) claim and seat them on the IT. So if Aegon proclaims this is in fact what he is doing why would they suddenly throw a fit and do a 180 turn? If not them, who else? His friends are already supporting him and his enemies have been defeated.

[Wmarshal]

The whole problem with a precedent is that it is easily set aside. No King has the power to bind the monarchs who follow him, as this implies they are somehow "superior". Hence why Egg's reforms were so easily set aside, because Jaehaerys and Aerys/Tywin were not bound by what he had said.

ETA: ^Agree with Sean F, I would have dumped Aegon II's remains in a cesspit if I was Aegon III.

Yeah it can, and pushing it aside opens a can of worms for a monarch who needs the precedent.

[Wmarshal]

Jaehyra's claim derives from Aegon the Elder. If he doesn't have a claim neither does she.

There's an argument to be made for Baela/Rheala but it is an extremely spurious one. No one, including their own father and other immediate family has supported their claim over Rheanyra's at any point. In fact, these are the people that have just fought a bloody war to uphold Rheanyra's and later Aegon the Younger's (rightful) claim and seat them on the IT. So if Aegon proclaims this is in fact what he is doing why would they suddenly throw a fit and do a 180 turn? If not them, who else? His friends are already supporting him and his enemies have been defeated.

She does being a daughter of Aegon.

They would bare a claim their children and their children would bare a threat to his line and Viserys for good and long, following 101 made Aegon the one and only true king.

[Maid So Fair]

She does being a daughter of Aegon.

They would bare a claim their children and their children would bare a threat to his line and Viserys for good and long, following 101 made Aegon the one and only true king.

She has a claim in the sense that every Targ has some sort of a claim, however remote. But if Aegon wasn't the rightful King, her claim is very weak and would come after Aegon, Aegon's future children, Viserys, and Visery's future children before becoming an issue. The same goes for her children - and Aegon was in a position to marry her himself (as he did) or to one of his stronger supporters to discourage future shenanigans. But whether he follows the 'precedent' or not, Aegon undeniably has the strongest claim and is the one and true King.

Saying 101 established a precedent at the time is reaching IMHO. If there truly was a precedent then all the Lords who swore fealty to Rhaenyra at Viserys's behest were breaking the law - the fact they did so and that many later fought to uphold their oaths shows that there was far from universal consensus about 101 acting as a precedent in further succession matters rather than being a one-off solution to the matter at hand.

[Wmarshal]

She has a claim in the sense that every Targ has some sort of a claim, however remote. But if Aegon wasn't the rightful King, her claim is very weak and would come after Aegon, Aegon's future children, Viserys, and Visery's future children before becoming an issue. The same goes for her children - and Aegon was in a position to marry her himself (as he did) or to one of his stronger supporters to discourage future shenanigans. But whether he follows the 'precedent' or not, Aegon undeniably has the strongest claim and is the one and true King.

Saying 101 established a precedent at the time is reaching IMHO. If there truly was a precedent then all the Lords who swore fealty to Rhaenyra at Viserys's behest were breaking the law - the fact they did so and that many later fought to uphold their oaths shows that there was far from universal consensus about 101 acting as a precedent in further succession matters rather than being a one-off solution to the matter at hand.

Not really, she was the sol child of a king, as was daena. Jaehaera still had a claim, as well as Rhaena, Baela and all their children and descents, Aegon's claim under 101 has no challenge, compared to abondaning it his line bares challengers.

TO those who fully supported it, yeah, as we saw a war happened. It is a matter of what one lord wants to believe at the time, Aegon stand served him greater with 101. There is a reason Rhaeynra was remembered as no queen.

[Maid So Fair]

Not really, she was the sol child of a king, as was daena. Jaehaera still had a claim, as well as Rhaena, Baela and all their children and descents, Aegon's claim under 101 has no challenge, compared to abondaning it his line bares challengers.

TO those who fully supported it, yeah, as we saw a war happened. It is a matter of what one lord wants to believe at the time, Aegon stand served him greater with 101. There is a reason Rhaeynra was remembered as no queen.

If you were a Black, then Rheanyra, as Viserys's oldest child and chosen heir was the rightful Queen of Westeros and Aegon, as her oldest surviving child is therefore now the rightful King.

If you were a Green, you believe that Aegon's claim was stronger than Rheanyra's because he's a male and females cannot inherit. Since Jaehyra is also female, neither can she so the crown goes to the closest male heir, which is, again, Aegon.

No matter which side you support Jaehyra's claim cannot trump Aegon's. Baela/Rhaela's theoretically could, legally speaking, but no one has been pursuing that one for the last 30 years or so.

Either way, Aegon is the rightful King. Jaehyra's children might pose a problem, but it's unlikely they would garner significant levels of support as long as Aegon doesn't monumentality screw up or fail to produce heirs of his own. It's also a problem easily neutralised by marrying the girl off to someone unlikely to raise a claim against Aegon or, as indeed happened, betrothing her to Aegon in the first place.

[Lord Annaly]

Aegon III's claim come from his father, not his mother.

His ascencion is basically a way to appease both the Greens and the Blacks and stop the carnage.

Not really because even if Rhaenyra could not inherit due to being a female her children come before Uncle Daemon.

If the Dance had not happened and Aegon II had inherited as the eldest son and Aemond, Daeron, Jaeherys, Maelor all still died Aegon III is the next because he is the eldest son of Rhaenyra, daughter of Viserys I.

Daemon and his issue only come after Rhaenyra's male descendant line dies out.

Daemon's (& his line) claim only comes after all the descendants of his brother Viserys have died out.

But this is the singular beauty of the Targ intermarrying...it binds varying claims together.

[Trickrs]

Not really because even if Rhaenyra could not inherit due to being a female her children come before Uncle Daemon.

If the Dance had not happened and Aegon II had inherited as the eldest son and Aemond, Daeron, Jaeherys, Maelor all still died Aegon III is the next because he is the eldest son of Rhaenyra, daughter of Viserys I.

Daemon and his issue only come after Rhaenyra's male descendant line dies out.

Daemon's (& his line) claim only comes after all the descendants of his brother Viserys have died out.

But this is the singular beauty of the Targ intermarrying...it binds varying claims together.

Aegon II enacted "salic law" that is "no girls allowed".

By doing so Rhaenyra had no claim, so didn't her "Velaryon" brood, Aegon and Viserys had because of Daemon. If Jace was alive when Aegon II died, the greens wouldn't recognize him as heir, but Aegon the Younger.

[glamourweaver]

Aegon III's ascension specifically allowed for the compromise of excluding Rhaenyra from succession while still appeasing the Black-loyalists. He was Rhaenyra's eldest living son, but unlike the (so-called) "Strong-Bastards", he's a Targaryen by his father Prince Daemon as well. ASSUMING PRINCE MAELOR WAS DEAD BY THIS POINT (something I'm still a bit unclear on), Aegon III was the next male line heir, regardless of whether or not Rhaenyra's reign is acknowledged. So crowning him while excluding his mother was the best solution for peace.

It doesn't necessarily satisfy the absolute loyalists to Queen Alicent, who would hate the son of Rhaenyra and Daemon on principle, but considering how many House Hightower loyalists were dead at this point, I doubt they could muster much of a fuss. More importantly, unless Prince Maelor was still alive, there wasn't an alternative candidate the Green's could offer without betraying the strict loyalty to patrinlineal succession their support from outside House Hightower was based on.

"Marrying" Aegon III to Princess Jaehaera (both pre-pubescent at this point), further legitimized him as the Green legal-interpretation as well as Black legal-interpretation successor.


Also the only living member of Rhaenyra's old inner circle, who would serve in Aegon III's Regency, at this point would be Lord Corlys, who she had jailed after she turned against his bastard (grand?)son, Ser Addam. I very much doubt he had any love left for his former Good-daughter.


Sidenote 1: Interesting the precedent of strictly male-line succession AND always favoring male-heirs over female, would put Stannis and Danny on equally weak footing from a strictly legal perspective. Stannis can argue the law favors him over Danny as she's a woman till he's blue in the face - but her claim comes from the purely male line, while he has to invoke his grandmother to make his legal claim. Of course it's all bs anyway, since obviously might and political support is what actually determines succession.

I'm actually curious how Stannis justified Robert's rule to himself while Viscerys lived. I mean, I know WHY he justified it to himself, he makes that perfectly clear in conversation with Davos, but being the strict legalist he is, I'm curious HOW he rationalized it.

Sidenote 2: Do we know anything about what became of Queen Alicent? Or Prince Maelor? I haven't found reference to it, but I could just have missed it.

[glamourweaver]

Not really because even if Rhaenyra could not inherit due to being a female her children come before Uncle Daemon.

If the Dance had not happened and Aegon II had inherited as the eldest son and Aemond, Daeron, Jaeherys, Maelor all still died Aegon III is the next because he is the eldest son of Rhaenyra, daughter of Viserys I.

Daemon and his issue only come after Rhaenyra's male descendant line dies out.

Daemon's (& his line) claim only comes after all the descendants of his brother Viserys have died out.

But this is the singular beauty of the Targ intermarrying...it binds varying claims together.

As the Greens would recon it, the line of succession went like this before the Dance broke out...

- Viscerys I

- Aegon II (Viscerys' eldest son)

- Jaehaerys (Aegon II's eldest son)

- Maelor (Aegon II's younger son)

- Aemond (Viscerys' next eldest son)

- Daeron (Viscerys' youngest son)

- Daemon (Viscerys I's younger brother)

- Aegon III (Daemon's eldest son)

- Viscerys II (Daemon's younger son)

While Aegon III and Viscerys II are in the line of succession, their mother is not. It is only by virtue of their father Prince Daemon that they are in-line for the throne. Not only could Rhaenyra not inherit the throne herself, the line of succession didn't continue through her directly, and thus did not include the Jacaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey Velaryon - even if they were trueborn (which they probably weren't based on their physical description).

This does not appear to be the norm for lordly succession in the non-Dornish Kingdoms, where a daughter of a dead lord is favored before that lord's younger brother (though not before the younger sons of the dead lord). But the precedents set before the Dance to determine Old King Jaehaerys successor determined to adhere to a strict "no ladies, and no going through ladies" rule, at least as long as there were ANY trueborn male + male-line claimants.

The Blacks didn't necessarily favor a different system of succession, only that the decree of the king (and the resulting oaths of fealty) superceeded the default.

[Lord Annaly]

Sidenote 1: Interesting the precedent of strictly male-line succession AND always favoring male-heirs over female, would put Stannis and Danny on equally weak footing from a strictly legal perspective. Stannis can argue the law favors him over Danny as she's a woman till he's blue in the face - but her claim comes from the purely male line, while he has to invoke his grandmother to make his legal claim. Of course it's all bs anyway, since obviously might and political support is what actually determines succession.

Stannis' claim to kingship comes from Robert and not from his Targaryen blood.

Robert claimed the Throne by conquest...all though throughout the rebellion it would seem that the objective was the removal of the Targaryens and not their replacement with Robert.

On victory anyone of the main protagonists could have claimed, Ned, Jon Arryn, Tywin or Jaime but for political expediency they nominated the dragonseed Baratheon.

Even if the Baratheon's had no Targ blood Stannis gets the Throne via Robert and no-one else.

So Stannis and Dany are making their claims from two different stand points.

[glamourweaver]

Maelor was torn apart by a mob and didn't survive the war.

I think you are thinking of Joffrey (Rhaenyra's youngest by her first husband... or not) who died at the Dragon Pit. Maelor does appear to have died, but there's no reference to when or how.

[glamourweaver]

Stannis' claim to kingship comes from Robert and not from his Targaryen blood.

Robert claimed the Throne by conquest...all though throughout the rebellion it would seem that the objective was the removal of the Targaryens and not their replacement with Robert.

On victory anyone of the main protagonists could have claimed, Ned, Jon Arryn, Tywin or Jaime but for political expediency they nominated the dragonseed Baratheon.

Even if the Baratheon's had no Targ blood Stannis gets the Throne via Robert and no-one else.

So Stannis and Dany are making their claims from two different stand points.

Robert's Targaryen grandmother was absolutely invoked in his claim to the Throne. It's why he was the default claimant/figurehead/eventual-ruler of the Rebellion rather than John or Eddard (though obviously Ned not wanting it was a personal factor).

[glamourweaver]

No, not really. Rhaenyra was made heir by her father, which was the actual precedent earlier set by Jahaerys: the king chooses who is to succeed him.

That's what happened in 92 AC, but 101 AC was absolutely the Lords of Westeros choosing to favor male-line heirs.