Jump to content

Fates of Targaryen queens and mothers


Jaak

Recommended Posts

There is a law in westeros the heir is always the eldest born son there is a reason why Randall had to send Sam rather to name dickon heir. Viserys was going against millennia of tradition to name rhaeynra heir ( even in modern times the uk only changed this rule a year ago). Aegon should have been king per the laws and traditions of westeros to go against that without the full support of your lords ie a grand council invites instability which happened in the dance.

No, that's not law. That's the customary succession rules. Kings have the power to abrogate those (unlike lords, which is why Randyl sent Sam to the Wall). Viserys didn't need to call a Great Council; he demanded, and received, oaths from much of the realm on the matter, and by the precedent set by King Jaehaerys he had the right to name his own successor.

Now, might it have been good politically for him to do that? Maybe. But that's political, it has nothing to do with the lawfulness of what Alicent and co. did (do you think they would have stopped had a Great Council been held?). Moreover, "The Rogue Prince" explicitly shows that Ser Otto and the Hightowers were very vehement that the Great Council did not constitute a binding precedent of any kind, when they urged Viserys to name Rhaenyra heir over Daemon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Helaena's death was a suicide. Not only was she clearly very depressed and not at all sane, there was no motive for murder that I can see. She was not a threat to Rhaenyra, being clearly behind her in the line of succession however you look at it, and too broken to engage in any political machinations.



Jaehaera, on the other hand, was obviously murdered. I have never in my life heard of a 10 year old committing suicide, never. A bit of Google searching reveals that suicide rates for children under 14 are extremely low. Put bluntly, prepubescent children don't kill themselves. They just don't.



And there was a man with obvious means, motive, and opportunity, in the person of Unwin Peake. So I'm about as sure as I can be that he arranged for Jaehaera to die in the same manner as her mother, calculated to look like suicide. Kudos to Baela and Rhaena for finding Aegon a new bride.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not law. That's the customary succession rules. Kings have the power to abrogate those (unlike lords, which is why Randyl sent Sam to the Wall). Viserys didn't need to call a Great Council; he demanded, and received, oaths from much of the realm on the matter, and by the precedent set by King Jaehaerys he had the right to name his own successor.

Now, might it have been good politically for him to do that? Maybe. But that's political, it has nothing to do with the lawfulness of what Alicent and co. did (do you think they would have stopped had a Great Council been held?). Moreover, "The Rogue Prince" explicitly shows that Ser Otto and the Hightowers were very vehement that the Great Council did not constitute a binding precedent of any kind, when they urged Viserys to name Rhaenyra heir over Daemon.

In a feudal society "customary rules" and "law" are pretty close to being the same thing. Consistency in succession rules is important, as it's the only thing that prevents civil war every time a lord dies. I, personally, pin 95% of the blame for the Dance on Viserys, I really do, because there was no compelling reason for him to favor Rhaenyra over Aegon. Given the risks, breaking customary succession rules should ONLY be done if the lawful heir is clearly unfit to rule. Aegon wasn't the best prince ever, but neither had he ever done anything to earn disinheritance. And there was nothing especially great about Rhaenyra either. Viserys acted out of simple petty favoritism, and the Seven Kingdoms bled.

When the heir question was Rhaenyra vs Daemon, it could be framed as a question of male-preference vs male-only primogeniture, both of which had precedent. But once Aegon had been born, he should have been heir, unless Viserys wanted to adopt Dornish law, for which there was no precedent anyplace north of the Red Mountains. Maintaining her as heir after he had a legitimate son was sheer madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a feudal society "customary rules" and "law" are pretty close to being the same thing. Consistency in succession rules is important, as it's the only thing that prevents civil war every time a lord dies. I, personally, pin 95% of the blame for the Dance on Viserys, I really do, because there was no compelling reason for him to favor Rhaenyra over Aegon. Given the risks, breaking customary succession rules should ONLY be done if the lawful heir is clearly unfit to rule. Aegon wasn't the best prince ever, but neither had he ever done anything to earn disinheritance. And there was nothing especially great about Rhaenyra either. Viserys acted out of simple petty favoritism, and the Seven Kingdoms bled.

When the heir question was Rhaenyra vs Daemon, it could be framed as a question of male-preference vs male-only primogeniture, both of which had precedent. But once Aegon had been born, he should have been heir, unless Viserys wanted to adopt Dornish law, for which there was no precedent anyplace north of the Red Mountains. Maintaining her as heir after he had a legitimate son was sheer madness.

Exactly consistency is key if not literally every single succession will provoke a civil war between siblings, in every house outside of dorne the oldest male child inherits no question and that's what should have happened if Viserys wanted to avoid war, Aegon was always going to press for his rights ( the only reason Rhaenys and laenor didn't was because literally almost no lords supported their claims

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Helaena's death was a suicide. Not only was she clearly very depressed and not at all sane, there was no motive for murder that I can see. She was not a threat to Rhaenyra, being clearly behind her in the line of succession however you look at it, and too broken to engage in any political machinations.

And Rhaenyra no longer trusted dragonseeds, this being after Two Betrayers and Addam had fled. Before that, Blacks had the motive to kill Helaena - free Dreamfyre to be tamed by another dragonseed. After the treacheries, that motive was no longer applicable.

But consider again the two other options no one offered. Accident in an attempt to climb out of the window, or lean out of window to look. Any objections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see where this 'Rhaenyra was a bad ruler' thing comes from. She made some self-destructive choices that eventually cost her a son (not mounting Syrax herself and attacking the rioters storming the Dragonpit), the throne (leaving KL), and her life (returning to Dragonstone). But that's about it. Punishing traitors is not a bad decision in itself during a war, nor can you not raise the taxes if you don't have any money.



The people criticizing Viserys I for naming Rhaenyra his heir should also keep in mind that there was, effectively, no turning back after the formal installation of Rhaenyra as Princess of Dragonstone in 105 AC. Viserys I had effectively everybody alive in the Realm swear allegiance to her and to defend their rights. Some people would have taken that vow seriously, even if Viserys had later changed the succession in favor or Aegon, effectively causing a situation in which Rhaenyra's supporters may have staged a coup.



In that regard we should also remember that it was Ser Otto and his cronies who pushed Viserys to name Rhaenyra in the first place. He effectively made her Princess of Dragonstone and heiress to the Iron Throne. Without his insistence, Viserys may have never done such a thing, especially not if he had already had the notion to remarry after Aemma's death.



Viserys later upheld his decision because he loved Rhaenyra and wanted her to succeed him. I really cannot see any fault in that.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see where this 'Rhaenyra was a bad ruler' thing comes from. She made some self-destructive choices that eventually cost her a son (not mounting Syrax herself and attacking the rioters storming the Dragonpit), the throne (leaving KL), and her life (returning to Dragonstone). But that's about it. Punishing traitors is not a bad decision in itself during a war, nor can you not raise the taxes if you don't have any money.

She was seeing traitors everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were traitors everywhere.

And the dragonseeds thing was really something her court pushed her towards, she did not really come up with that.

She was cruel enough that KL called her with Maegor with Teats, her paranoia cost her her biggest supporter ( and supplier of the majority of her armies), Chief General and many lords, plus listening to her lords and trying to arrest the dragonseeds was stupidity plain and simple if nothing for the fact that they have dragons themselves. She had the victory in her grasp if she just offered generous terms to the lannisters and baratheons there would have been no issue at all. Her rule was a series of poor decisions that ended just another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see where this 'Rhaenyra was a bad ruler' thing comes from. She made some self-destructive choices that eventually cost her a son (not mounting Syrax herself and attacking the rioters storming the Dragonpit), the throne (leaving KL), and her life (returning to Dragonstone). But that's about it. Punishing traitors is not a bad decision in itself during a war, nor can you not raise the taxes if you don't have any money.

The people criticizing Viserys I for naming Rhaenyra his heir should also keep in mind that there was, effectively, no turning back after the formal installation of Rhaenyra as Princess of Dragonstone in 105 AC. Viserys I had effectively everybody alive in the Realm swear allegiance to her and to defend their rights. Some people would have taken that vow seriously, even if Viserys had later changed the succession in favor or Aegon, effectively causing a situation in which Rhaenyra's supporters may have staged a coup.

In that regard we should also remember that it was Ser Otto and his cronies who pushed Viserys to name Rhaenyra in the first place. He effectively made her Princess of Dragonstone and heiress to the Iron Throne. Without his insistence, Viserys may have never done such a thing, especially not if he had already had the notion to remarry after Aemma's death.

Viserys later upheld his decision because he loved Rhaenyra and wanted her to succeed him. I really cannot see any fault in that.

He was undecisive. It was obvious that shit would happen sooner or later, Westeros is highly sexist and morally static, he needed a large powerbase to establish Rhaenyra's claim, since a male son would cause trouble.

Marrying Allicent didn't help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the smallfolk calls you 'Maegor with teats' does not mean you are (as cruel as) Maegor. They are stupid and uneducated. With the knowledge we have this could just be a moniker as well deserved as 'twisted little monkey-demon'. Or whatever the hell the septons were preaching about Bloodraven.

If you look neutral on this, Nettles/Daemon did betray Rhaenyra, and another treason of the calibre of the Two Betrayers would have cost the Blacks everything, it is really as simple as that.

And in the end, Rhaenyra's actions led Ser Addam Velaryon to effectively neutralize all of the remaining Green dragons in the field, eventually making way for the rise of Aegon III. That may have not happened if he had stayed in KL. Perhaps Seasmoke would have killed along with the other dragons during the Storming of the Dragonpit?

Also, the idea that Otto/Alicent would have not staged a coup if Rhaenyra had been male is a stretch in my opinion. They wanted their blood on the Iron Throne. Aemma's child had to go, it did not really whether what sex he/she had.

I'm also not sure how Rhaenyra would have profited from offering terms to Storm's End/Casterly Rock. From what we know they were not backing/adding strength to the Hightower army threatening Rhaenyra's rule, nor had they anything to do with Aemond's harrassing the Riverlands. I don't see Lord Ormund/Daeron backing down if suddenly the Lannisters/Baratheons did declare for Rhaenyra...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the smallfolk calls you 'Maegor with teats' does not mean you are (as cruel as) Maegor. They are stupid and uneducated. With the knowledge we have this could just be a moniker as well deserved as 'twisted little monkey-demon'. Or whatever the hell the septons were preaching about Bloodraven.

If you look neutral on this, Nettles/Daemon did betray Rhaenyra, and another treason of the calibre of the Two Betrayers would have cost the Blacks everything, it is really as simple as that.

And in the end, Rhaenyra's actions led Ser Addam Velaryon to effectively neutralize all of the remaining Green dragons in the field, eventually making way for the rise of Aegon III. That may have not happened if he had stayed in KL. Perhaps Seasmoke would have killed along with the other dragons during the Storming of the Dragonpit?

Also, the idea that Otto/Alicent would have not staged a coup if Rhaenyra had been male is a stretch in my opinion. They wanted their blood on the Iron Throne. Aemma's child had to go, it did not really whether what sex he/she had.

I'm also not sure how Rhaenyra would have profited from offering terms to Storm's End/Casterly Rock. From what we know they were not backing/adding strength to the Hightower army threatening Rhaenyra's rule, nor had they anything to do with Aemond's harrassing the Riverlands. I don't see Lord Ormund/Daeron backing down if suddenly the Lannisters/Baratheons did declare for Rhaenyra...

You can't give rhaenyra credit for Addams actions she tried to have him arrested and killed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the smallfolk calls you 'Maegor with teats' does not mean you are (as cruel as) Maegor. They are stupid and uneducated. With the knowledge we have this could just be a moniker as well deserved as 'twisted little monkey-demon'. Or whatever the hell the septons were preaching about Bloodraven.

If you look neutral on this, Nettles/Daemon did betray Rhaenyra, and another treason of the calibre of the Two Betrayers would have cost the Blacks everything, it is really as simple as that.

And in the end, Rhaenyra's actions led Ser Addam Velaryon to effectively neutralize all of the remaining Green dragons in the field, eventually making way for the rise of Aegon III. That may have not happened if he had stayed in KL. Perhaps Seasmoke would have killed along with the other dragons during the Storming of the Dragonpit?

Also, the idea that Otto/Alicent would have not staged a coup if Rhaenyra had been male is a stretch in my opinion. They wanted their blood on the Iron Throne. Aemma's child had to go, it did not really whether what sex he/she had.

I'm also not sure how Rhaenyra would have profited from offering terms to Storm's End/Casterly Rock. From what we know they were not backing/adding strength to

the Hightower army threatening Rhaenyra's rule, nor had they anything to do with Aemond's harrassing the Riverlands. I don't see Lord Ormund/Daeron backing down if suddenly the Lannisters/Baratheons did declare for Rhaenyra...

Nettles and Daemon were having an affair, but there's no reason to believe Nettles wasn't loyal to the Blacks. Addam Velaryon was loyal, but Rhaenyra was convinced he was a traitor. The entire Velaryon family had to switch sides, simply to survive. Ser Tyland Lannister was a well-regarded statesman, who was blinded, castrated, and had his tongue cut out. Heads were going up on spikes all over King's Landing. Rhaenyra had lost the plot at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Tyland Lannister was a well-regarded statesman, who was blinded, castrated, and had his tongue cut out.

He was not a "well-regarded statesman". He was one of the arch-traitors, who had stolen the royal treasury and was refusing to divulge where it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was not a "well-regarded statesman". He was one of the arch-traitors, who had stolen the royal treasury and was refusing to divulge where it was.

He was also respected twin brother of a high lord and master of coin. To be tortured like that is just not done even to traitors look at tywin as ruthless as they come but has the good sense to treat high borne captives well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was also respected twin brother of a high lord and master of coin. To be tortured like that is just not done even to traitors look at tywin as ruthless as they come but has the good sense to treat high borne captives well.

Most highborn captives have no particular value in and of themselves. They're purely hostages. Tyland had extremely valuable information that the Blacks had no other obvious means of obtaining. Moreover, Tyland was a traitor rather than purely an enemy; he would otherwise just have been executed with the rest of Aegon II's small council.

I don't for a second think Tywin would refrain from torturing someone who had stolen his money and wouldn't tell him where it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most highborn captives have no particular value in and of themselves. They're purely hostages. Tyland had extremely valuable information that the Blacks had no other obvious means of obtaining. Moreover, Tyland was a traitor rather than purely an enemy; he would otherwise just have been executed with the rest of Aegon II's small council.

I don't for a second think Tywin would refrain from torturing someone who had stolen his money and wouldn't tell him where it was.

Cutting someone's Tongue out is a strange way to get them to divulge information. This was just sadism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutting someone's Tongue out is a strange way to get them to divulge information.

He can write.

I agree that, at a certain point, it was unlikely to produce any results, but that's generally true of judicial torture and it never stopped people in the Middle Ages from using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...