Fates of Targaryen queens and mothers

[complexphoenix]

@Jaak

Alicent Hightower KNEW Rhaenyra was Viserys I's chosen heir before her marriage because the lords of the Seven Kingdom had sworn acknowledging Rhaenyra as her father's heir before Viserys I's remarriage. However, Alicent Hightower clearly expected that her son would succeed Viserys I instead of Rhaenyra. How could Alicent's sons inherit over Rhaenyra if Rhaenyra was not set aside or killed without heirs of her own?

Whatever Otto and Alicent Hightower may have thought of the oaths sworn to Rhaenyra, Rhaenyra clearly thought she would not be displaced by her father's remarriage and Viserys I, in this case, agreed with her. Just because Otto Hightower seemed to have pushed Viserys I into following Andal law and Otto and Alicent Hightower seems to have expected Viserys I to have followed Andal law did not mean Viserys I did follow Andal law when he chose Rhaenyra as his heir. Rather, he was following his grandfather's practice of choosing his own heir.

How did Viserys I play his father in law for a fool and his second wife for a whore? If anything, Otto Hightower played himself for a fool and Alicent Hightower played herself for a whore.

It was never said that Viserys I was chosen over Rhaenys 20 to 1. It was only said that the Great Council supported the male claimant over the female claimant twenty to one. In any case, your comparison is IRRELEVANT. The Great Council may have chosen a male candidate but when war came, Rhaenyra, the FEMALE, still had the support of three Lords Paramount while her brother only had the support of two. Therefore, lords of Westeros would support a FEMALE over a MALE.

Rhaenyra was declared heir at a time when Viserys had no living sons. Why on earth WOULDN'T Alicent expect her eldest son to displace Rhaenyra, given that there was no precedent for a daughter coming before a son anyplace other than Dorne? Viserys was a complete aberration, in not recognizing his eldest trueborn son as heir even though Aegon had done nothing to disqualify himself from kingship. Alicent's expectations were in no way presumptuous or unfounded.

Rhaenyra vs. Aegon wasn't about female vs. male as such, it was about the customary order of succession vs. the king's stated will. The Lords Paramount disagreed about which should take precedence, hence the Dance. The blame originates with Viserys, who was too stupid to foresee what should have been obvious.

[Lord Varys]

If a king names and installs an heir in a great ceremony where lots and lots of people swear an oath to that heir this is going to be important. Sure, Viserys could have tried to change it, but he did not want to.

A king is not bound by any law, nor by the precedents set by his predecessors or some lords discussing a completely other matter in a great debate. He can choose to follow such precedents, but he does not have to.

Rhaenyra was also not the first precedent of a female Heir Apparent, as Maegor I installed his grand-niece Aerea Targaryen as his heir. We don't know that story in detail yet, but it is clear that Viserys I was not the first Targaryen king to choose a female heir.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Rhaenyra was declared heir at a time when Viserys had no living sons. Why on earth WOULDN'T Alicent expect her eldest son to displace Rhaenyra, given that there was no precedent for a daughter coming before a son anyplace other than Dorne? Viserys was a complete aberration, in not recognizing his eldest trueborn son as heir even though Aegon had done nothing to disqualify himself from kingship. Alicent's expectations were in no way presumptuous or unfounded.

Rhaenyra vs. Aegon wasn't about female vs. male as such, it was about the customary order of succession vs. the king's stated will. The Lords Paramount disagreed about which should take precedence, hence the Dance. The blame originates with Viserys, who was too stupid to foresee what should have been obvious.

Clearly she expected it, but after years of Viserys stating that it wasn't going to happen, after years of Viserys stating that he did not want Aegon to inherit, but Rhaenyra, it should have been rather clear to her.

Viserys clearly made a few mistakes... Had he fired Otto as his Hand, and replaced those members of his small council who were close to Alicent, Alicent would have had a lesser position. Had he made the lords of Westeros swear to Rhaenyra again (when she came of age, for example, or when his health started to fail), these lords would have had lesser ground to stand on. Had Viserys kept Rhaenyra more in King's Landing, instead of ordering her to remain mostly on Dragonstone, Rhaenyra's position in KL would have been stronger..

These are all things that Viserys had done, previously... His only mistake was believing that doing it once would be good enough, to have it still hold as much ground in 129AC as it had more than a decade before.

[complexphoenix]

If a king names and installs an heir in a great ceremony where lots and lots of people swear an oath to that heir this is going to be important. Sure, Viserys could have tried to change it, but he did not want to.

A king is not bound by any law, nor by the precedents set by his predecessors or some lords discussing a completely other matter in a great debate. He can choose to follow such precedents, but he does not have to.

Rhaenyra was also not the first precedent of a female Heir Apparent, as Maegor I installed his grand-niece Aerea Targaryen as his heir. We don't know that story in detail yet, but it is clear that Viserys I was not the first Targaryen king to choose a female heir.

In a society with no court system, the law is what people with swords think it is. Sometimes a king can get away with overturning customary law, sometimes he can't - and anyone with half a brain who understood the feudal system, recognized that there was no reason to believe Rhaenyra would be a better ruler than Aegon, and knew how many powerful friends Alicent had should have been able to recognize which type of situation this one was.

Maegor had no son, so recognizing his brother's eldest son's daughter was only reasonable - they were the rightful heirs under standard male-preference primogeniture. Whether there was precedent for a female heir isn't the issue. The issue is whether there was precedent for favoring a daughter as heir over a son - and there was none. Zip. Zilch. Nada. If all Viserys' sons by Alicent had been batshit crazy he would have had a good reason to put them aside for Rhaenyra, but they weren't. The only reason to favor Rhaenyra was simple personal favoritism, and that is no way to rule a country.

[complexphoenix]

Clearly she expected it, but after years of Viserys stating that it wasn't going to happen, after years of Viserys stating that he did not want Aegon to inherit, but Rhaenyra, it should have been rather clear to her.

Viserys clearly made a few mistakes... Had he fired Otto as his Hand, and replaced those members of his small council who were close to Alicent, Alicent would have had a lesser position. Had he made the lords of Westeros swear to Rhaenyra again (when she came of age, for example, or when his health started to fail), these lords would have had lesser ground to stand on. Had Viserys kept Rhaenyra more in King's Landing, instead of ordering her to remain mostly on Dragonstone, Rhaenyra's position in KL would have been stronger..

These are all things that Viserys had done, previously... His only mistake was believing that doing it once would be good enough, to have it still hold as much ground in 129AC as it had more than a decade before.

Certainly there was a lot Viserys could have done to strengthen Rhaenyra's position over the Greens, but that doesn't change the fact that he had no good reason for continuing to consider Rhaenyra as his heir once he had a trueborn son. There is always risk of conflict when you ignore or confuse customary succession law, so it should only be done if the lawful heir has done something to earn it (like Duncan the Small) or shown themselves unfit to rule (if, say, Maekar decided to disown Aerion, he'd be entirely right to do so and would have plenty of support). But Viserys favored Rhaenyra for no good reason that I can see, which was completely irresponsible.

[Lord Varys]

Actually, it is stated that Aerea became heir because Jaehaerys was attainted, so people seemed to believe that his claim was better than that of Aegon's young daughters.

We should also not give all that much credit to the successful Green coup. They were not ruling KL at the time of Viserys' death. Both factions had people at court, but the Greens got away with it because they were fortunate enough to control the information (most likely because Alicent murdered Viserys).

In TWoIaF we learn that many Lords of the Crownlands were originally Black loyalists - not only the Darklyns and Stauntons, but also Lords Rosby and Stokeworth (who were executed by Rhaenyra when she took the city). This - as well as the edited stuff from TPatQ about Otto throwing a lot of people into cells - suggests that Rhaenyra and Daemon enjoyed quite a lot of support at court despite the fact that they were not there.

The gender thing is not of overall importance in this question. A lot of people followed Rhaenyra despite the fact that she should, for all intense and purposes, not inherit. The Lords did not care about tradition all that much. There may have been a small minority (Ironrod), but the backbone of the Green movement was nothing but Hightower ambition. And they would have tried a coup even if Rhaenyra had been male because, well, giving birth to a bunch of younger sons to the king does not really matter insofar as dynastic power is concerned.

I've said it earlier, a Great Council in 129 AC may have been unable to reach a decision/may have not been able to gather enough votes in favor of Aegon II - and this most certainly was the reason why Alicent/Otto decided to go for a coup. A lot of lords considered Rhaenyra to be the rightful heir, and much more would have been afraid of Rhaenyra's dragons.

[RumHam]

In a society with no court system, the law is what people with swords think it is. Sometimes a king can get away with overturning customary law, sometimes he can't

I agree with Lord Varys that the king can do whatever he wants, legally. Sure he might risk rebellion, but the laws are not there to bind him. His word is the law. Practically speaking a high Lord can do whatever he wants on his lands with only the risk of someone complaining to the king.

[Jaak]

I agree with Lord Varys that the king can do whatever he wants, legally. Sure he might risk rebellion, but the laws are not there to bind him. His word is the law. Practically speaking a high Lord can do whatever he wants on his lands with only the risk of someone complaining to the king.

Is the Iron Throne committed to backing up high lords no matter what?

Was there a serious risk of some Tarbeck or Reyne escaping or not being there when Tarbeck Hall and Castamere were destroyed, complaining to Iron Throne and having Tywin convicted and executed for rebellion, murder and war crimes? Or, vice versa, if Red Lion had succeeded in defeating Tywin in battle, did Tywin have a serious recourse to getting Iron Throne to mobilize armies to suppress Reynes?

[The hairy bear]

I agree with Lord Varys that the king can do whatever he wants, legally. Sure he might risk rebellion, but the laws are not there to bind him. His word is the law. Practically speaking a high Lord can do whatever he wants on his lands with only the risk of someone complaining to the king.

Real life history is full of instances where a king attempts to go against customary practices and is unable to.

In Westeros, too, that seems that the king's power is not absolute: apparently Daeron I couldn't just revoke his father's degree legitimizing the bastards, or Egg couldn't just annul his son's engagement to the Laughing Storm's daughter. Lord Stark tried to look for precedents to invalidate Jaehaery's order granting the new gift to the Watch (demonstrating that he thought a good precedent may overturn the decision). Among the high lords, Lord Tywin couldn't disinherit Tyrion because "he coulnd't prove he was not his son"

We have examples too of a king changing the law according to his law (the First Night comes to mind). My point is that they don't always succeed, and not everyone agrees that they have the right to do so.

[SeanF]

Is the Iron Throne committed to backing up high lords no matter what?

Was there a serious risk of some Tarbeck or Reyne escaping or not being there when Tarbeck Hall and Castamere were destroyed, complaining to Iron Throne and having Tywin convicted and executed for rebellion, murder and war crimes? Or, vice versa, if Red Lion had succeeded in defeating Tywin in battle, did Tywin have a serious recourse to getting Iron Throne to mobilize armies to suppress Reynes?

In the case of the former, yes, if the King took against Tywin, or decided he'd behaved unjustly. The Hundred Years War was sparked off by the King of France hearing appeals from vassals of the Duke of Acquitaine. However, Aerys approved of Tywin's actions.

In the case of the latter, the answer is yes. Royal armies were sent three times to help Tytos Lannister.

[Lord Varys]

THB,

the Starks looked for precedents to make points with the king why he should not do what he was trying to do. Regardless of whether he found precedents he did what he wanted to do.

Daeron II could have revoked his father's decree, or tried to find ways to circumvent it - say, by taking away their lands and refusing them the incomes Aegon had granted (some of) them. It is sort of ambiguous whether he could not or did not want to do it. I'd go with he could have done it legally - after all, what one king does another can undo - but he did not want to do because he felt it would cause a lot of problems, especially in those early months/years when Aegon's cronies were still in power everywhere in the capital and elsewhere.

Whether laws are obeyed set by either lords or kings is an entirely different matter. But especially the Targaryen kings with dragons were effectively absolute monarchs as their subjects simply did not have the means to oppose them if they truly wanted to do something.

[Anath]

Rhaenyra was declared heir at a time when Viserys had no living sons. Why on earth WOULDN'T Alicent expect her eldest son to displace Rhaenyra, given that there was no precedent for a daughter coming before a son anyplace other than Dorne? Viserys was a complete aberration, in not recognizing his eldest trueborn son as heir even though Aegon had done nothing to disqualify himself from kingship. Alicent's expectations were in no way presumptuous or unfounded.

Because there was no precedent of a daughter being honoured in a way that made her the absolute heir in the period between her mother's death and her father's remarriage? Rhaenyra wasn't just a daughter who might inherit or not, depending on whether a son would follow, she was the heir Viserys clearly wanted. Alicent's expectations were presumptuous and unfounded all the way. She married a man who had clearly shown that he wanted not merely a daughter but this daughter of his to follow him.

I expect she was a little bit rankled that Viserys wanted Aemma's son to follow him over Rhaenyra but not Alicent's. Anyway, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[Jaak]

Whether laws are obeyed set by either lords or kings is an entirely different matter. But especially the Targaryen kings with dragons were effectively absolute monarchs as their subjects simply did not have the means to oppose them if they truly wanted to do something.

Subjects did not. But Viserys was a dragonless king. Would Viserys and the whole 20:1 majority of Great Council have availed against, e. g. Caraxes and Vhagar allying in rebellion? How about, Daemon marrying Laena in 105 when Viserys refused to do so, and deploying the rest of the dragons of the world against the 8 year old Rhaenyra on her Syrax?

[Lord Varys]

We simply don't know who else was a dragonrider at this point. Was Prince Aegon still alive, and was he a dragonrider? What about Viserys' mother, Princess Alyssa? She most certainly was a dragonrider. And what about Queen Aemma?

Not to mention the fact that Viserys could have become a powerful dragonrider by claiming either Vermithor or Silverwing if he wanted to. We don't know who was riding Dreamfyre at that point, nor do we know when (and how) Laena claimed Vhagar. TWoIaF mentions that Laenor was already a dragonrider in 101 AC, but whether Laena already had Vhagar was not mentioned at that point. It does not seem likely to me as the Velaryons should have gotten a lot more support if they had effectively controlled three dragons - one of them Vhagar - at that point.

My point there was that the Targaryen dynasty - i.e. essentially the king - controlled the dragons and the dragonriders, whether or not he himself was a dragonrider. And whatever the king wanted he got because the subjects knew he could send dragons against them.

[Jaak]

We simply don't know who else was a dragonrider at this point. Was Prince Aegon still alive, and was he a dragonrider? What about Viserys' mother, Princess Alyssa? She most certainly was a dragonrider. And what about Queen Aemma?

They pretty certainly were not, none of them. Who were their dragons?

Not to mention the fact that Viserys could have become a powerful dragonrider by claiming either Vermithor or Silverwing if he wanted to.

Not if they already were parked on Dragonstone, being as assumed in rebellion under Daemon and Corlys.

We don't know who was riding Dreamfyre at that point, nor do we know when (and how) Laena claimed Vhagar. TWoIaF mentions that Laenor was already a dragonrider in 101 AC, but whether Laena already had Vhagar was not mentioned at that point.

Yes. She had Vhagar by 106. By which time Aemma was dead.

My point there was that the Targaryen dynasty - i.e. essentially the king - controlled the dragons and the dragonriders, whether or not he himself was a dragonrider. And whatever the king wanted he got because the subjects knew he could send dragons against them.

Aegon II, although a king and dragonrider, did not control the dragons and the dragonriders. Neither did Maegor control Aegon, or Jaehaerys, nor did he control Rhaena all time.

[RumHam]

Is the Iron Throne committed to backing up high lords no matter what?

Was there a serious risk of some Tarbeck or Reyne escaping or not being there when Tarbeck Hall and Castamere were destroyed, complaining to Iron Throne and having Tywin convicted and executed for rebellion, murder and war crimes? Or, vice versa, if Red Lion had succeeded in defeating Tywin in battle, did Tywin have a serious recourse to getting Iron Throne to mobilize armies to suppress Reynes?

I don't really know what would happen in these hypothetical. I doubt very much any action would be taken against Tywin, as the Reynes and Castameres had broken their feudal vows. My point was just that in each region the Lord Paramount is second only to the king, and thus can get away with a lot if they want to.

Real life history is full of instances where a king attempts to go against customary practices and is unable to.

In Westeros, too, that seems that the king's power is not absolute: apparently Daeron I couldn't just revoke his father's degree legitimizing the bastards, or Egg couldn't just annul his son's engagement to the Laughing Storm's daughter. Lord Stark tried to look for precedents to invalidate Jaehaery's order granting the new gift to the Watch (demonstrating that he thought a good precedent may overturn the decision). Among the high lords, Lord Tywin couldn't disinherit Tyrion because "he coulnd't prove he was not his son"

We have examples too of a king changing the law according to his law (the First Night comes to mind). My point is that they don't always succeed, and not everyone agrees that they have the right to do so.

Kings do have to be careful going against custom sometimes to avoid rebellion. Rebellion is really the only check on their power. When the king, (or sometimes his Hand or queen) can just make any laws they please and undo what their predecessors have done then they are effectively above the law. Looking at the situation the with Aerys II you seen an example of a relatively weak and unpopular king doing whatever he wants and nobody can stop him short of rebellion.

Whether laws are obeyed set by either lords or kings is an entirely different matter. But especially the Targaryen kings with dragons were effectively absolute monarchs as their subjects simply did not have the means to oppose them if they truly wanted to do something.

The dragons don't really effect the legal situation, the king is still controlling the laws. The loss of the dragons just makes rebellion an actual threat.

[Lord Varys]

Jaak,

we just don't know anything about the dragons the children of Jaehaerys rode. This does not mean that they did not have any, nor does it mean that those dragons all survived the reign of Viserys I. You know that TRP has been cut down.

In 106 Daemon would have Caraxes and, possibly, Meleys against Viserys. Laena was a 12-year-old girl, she would not have been an effective warrior dragonrider if Jace, Luke, and Baela are any indication.

My point was that the king as the head of the dynasty controls the dragonrider while there is not a war or struggle for succession. Under those circumstances the king obviously does not control the dragons and the dragonriders, but under all other circumstances he effectively does.

But your scenario of a rebellion in 106 is pretty unlikely. A war for succession in 101/103 would have been much more likely if there had not been a Great Council, and in such a scenario Viserys would have had the chance to pick either Silverwing or Vermithor.

[Jaak]

In 106 Daemon would have Caraxes and, possibly, Meleys against Viserys. Laena was a 12-year-old girl, she would not have been an effective warrior dragonrider if Jace, Luke, and Baela are any indication.

Jacaerys on Vermax was effective against the fleet, even before the other four showed up. So was Daeron the Daring on Tessarion.

Jace, Luke and Baela all rode young dragons. Vhagar repeatedly took children as riders... but it itself was neither small nor inexperienced in fighting. We do not see how old Vhagar with 12 year old Laena or 10 year old Aemond would have fought against an adult rider on a young dragon.

But in 106, Viserys did NOT command an adult dragonrider. Rhaenyra was a rider... 9 year old, and more importantly on her own named little Syrax. She would have been outmatched even by 13 year old Laenor on his young Seasmoke, let alone Laena on her huge Vhagar, or Rhaenys on Meleys or Daemon on Caraxes, again let alone all four combined.