Fates of Targaryen queens and mothers

[The hairy bear]

Agreed. It depends on whether you believe that kings have absolute power, or that precedents become law. We've had very similar situations in RL (in the English Anarchy, or in the spanish Carlist wars)

It's the same situatuion with the Great Council of 101. The lords were deciding specically that Viserys had a better claim than Rhaenys or Laenor just that time, or they were sentencing that a male claimant always came before a female or a male through female line?

[Jaak]

Agreed. It depends on whether you believe that kings have absolute power, or that precedents become law. We've had very similar situations in RL (in the English Anarchy, or in the spanish Carlist wars)

You have other options. You might argue that precedents express what law always was.

About these oaths... Late Lord Frey answers to Catelyn reminding him about his vows to Tully by recalling that he swore something to King, too.

Eddard Stark accuses Kingslayer of being an oathbreaker in front of Robert.

Should Robert have reminded Eddard that he also was an oathbreaker, just as much as Jaime? For Lord Robert Baratheon was adult (18 or so) Lord of Storm´s End by the time he rebelled... had he sworn anything to Aerys as King´s bannerman, and was he any less an oathbreaker than Jaime?

[SeanF]

That would depend on whether you believe that a king has the right to ignore tradition/custom and change the law at will. It's not that an easy answet

Everyone admits that Viserys wanted Rhaenyra to inherit. But keep in mind that if sisters went ahead of brothers in the succession, then Viserys himself wouldn't be king. It's a complicated situation when you dismiss the precedent that put you in the thronein the first place...

In the absence of a Parliament that can pass a statute setting out who is to succeed to the Iron Throne, then the succession passes as decreed by the King in consultation with the principal lords of the Kingdom. Rhaenyra had received the homage of the majority of lords as far back as 105.

If Viserys had nominated Aegon as his successor, and the principal lords had agreed, then I think there would be weak grounds for Rhaenyra to claim the Throne, even if Viserys had changed his mind on his deathbed and nominated her.

However, let's assume that Alicent Hightowar and Aegon really believe that the succession of Rhaenyra is unlawful. The correct course of action would surely have been to summon a Great Council at which both Aegon and Rhaenyra could put forward their claims. Simply seizing the Throne was a violation of law and custom.

[Jaak]

In the absence of a Parliament that can pass a statute setting out who is to succeed to the Iron Throne, then the succession passes as decreed by the King in consultation with the principal lords of the Kingdom.

Jaeharys did NOT consult principal lords to make Baelon his heir in 92. Perhaps his family or small council, but he did not take the advice of Alysanne.

Rhaenyra had received the homage of the majority of lords as far back as 105.

No, we hear "hundreds of lords and landed knights". Since Reach and Westerlands combined fielded 600 lords at Field of Fire, the grand total of lords in the realm counting those who did not show up at Field of Fire (like Hightowers), Stormlands, Riverlands, Vale, Crownlands, Iron Islands and North surely exceeds 1000, possibly 2000.

However, let's assume that Alicent Hightowar and Aegon really believe that the succession of Rhaenyra is unlawful. The correct course of action would surely have been to summon a Great Council at which both Aegon and Rhaenyra could put forward their claims. Simply seizing the Throne was a violation of law and custom.

Jaehaerys I did not call a Great Council in 48. He simply proclaimed a rebellion, and for himself, not Aerea.

[SeanF]

1. Jaeharys did NOT consult principal lords to make Baelon his heir in 92. Perhaps his family or small council, but he did not take the advice of Alysanne.

2. No, we hear "hundreds of lords and landed knights". Since Reach and Westerlands combined fielded 600 lords at Field of Fire, the grand total of lords in the realm counting those who did not show up at Field of Fire (like Hightowers), Stormlands, Riverlands, Vale, Crownlands, Iron Islands and North surely exceeds 1000, possibly 2000.

3. Jaehaerys I did not call a Great Council in 48. He simply proclaimed a rebellion, and for himself, not Aerea.

1. Then this drives home that Viserys may appoint his successor.

2. We can't know how many "hundreds" mean precisely, but it seems to have been pretty well understood that Rhaenyra would inherit.

3. Jaehaerys was rebelling against a mad tyrant. Aegon and Alicent did not have that excuse.

[KingBlackfyre]

But he can't there is an accepted succession order in the culture of westeros the eldest son inherits no exceptions going against that invites civil war if the eldest son has an ounce of ambition the dance is purely viserys fault the right move would have been to marry aegon to rhaeynra no matter the problems the fact that viserys couldn't imagine people going against him shows that he was a fool.

[The hairy bear]

SeanF,

As we were saying, that's part of a wider discussion: Has a king the right to ignore succesion precedents or not? In RL, king Henry declared his daughter Matilda his heir, but still today she is considered a claimant and not a rightful queen.

I don't agree that in Westeros the power of the king is absolute and without restrictions. Taking a look back at the only example of feudal oath that we have in the books (the Reeds at Winerfell), it says:

"To Winterfell we pledge the faith of Greywater.Hearth and heart and harvest we yield up to you, my lord. Our swords and spears and arrows are yours to command. Grant mercy to our weak, help to our helpless, and justice to all, and we shall never fail you."

It's not an unconditional submission. It's conditoned. If you do that and that, then we obey you. If a king is not "just" and goes against uses and customs, then I'm no longer obligated to follow.

It's under that light that I consider that Eddard is justified when blaming Jaime. He and Robert could rebel after the mad king had broken his side of the "feudal contract". Once he had executed their kin in mock trials and asked for their heads, they were no longer obligated to obey. Meanwhile, Aerys had not broken his "contract" with the kingsguard (or at least that's what Eddard thought).

However, let's assume that Alicent Hightowar and Aegon really believe that the succession of Rhaenyra is unlawful. The correct course of action would surely have been to summon a Great Council at which both Aegon and Rhaenyra could put forward their claims. Simply seizing the Throne was a violation of law and custom.

I agree that the right course of action (if you want to secure legitimacy, of course) would have been to summon a Great Council. I even think that this would have benefited them in the long run, since he greens had wider support and it would have made useless the black's main asset in the war: the dragons.

[complexphoenix]

Jaehaerys at least had a leg to stand on, when choosing to make Baelon his heir, since he himself had become king over the claim of his nieces, the daughters of his brother Aegon. Making male-only primogeniture the principle of succession to the Iron Throne was a reasonable and defensible move.

Viserys, on the other hand, had no justification whatsoever and no precedent of any kind for keeping Rhaenyra as his heir after a trueborn son had been born to him. Why should anyone be surprised that there was a civil war, since he created a situation in which two claimants both had a leg to stand on in asserting their claim? Anyone insisting that Rhaenyra obviously had the better claim is confusing their own opinion of what the law should be for what it actually was - which is to say, murky and highly dependent on the various lords' various opinions. Viserys should have recognized this and didn't.

Really, think about this for a minute.

Pros of declaring Rhaenyra heir:

-Please the Arryns

Pros of declaring Aegon heir:

-No possible dispute in the succession

-Please the Hightowers

-Keep succession rules regular, helping to prevent future disputes

Really, this should have been a no brainer. But Viserys apparently had no brains.

[Lord Varys]

Viserys was not all that stupid. The harm was already done with the lords swearing obeisance to Rhaenyra. If Viserys had changed his will and died much earlier, many of the Lords who swore to uphold Rhaenyra's claim and rights would have caused a civil war.

[Jaak]

I agree that the right course of action (if you want to secure legitimacy, of course) would have been to summon a Great Council. I even think that this would have benefited them in the long run, since he greens had wider support and it would have made useless the black's main asset in the war: the dragons.

Would Aegon I have been elected in Great Council?

[The hairy bear]

Would Aegon I have been elected in Great Council?

Aegon I the Conqueror? Surely not: he won the throne by Conquest.

If you meant Aegon II, then I tend the belive that yes, he would have been elected. As said before, the blacks had the dragons to compensate their smaller numbers, but in a Council the dragons would not be of help. Two other big assets of the blacks, the Velaryon fleet and the fiersomeness the Northmen, would also be useless. And with no pillaging to do, the Greyjoys would stay netural.

Meanwhile, most of the voters would be Andal old men, the Faith seems to support the greens, and Larys Strong could be there providing rumours about the paternity of Rhaenyra's children.

[Jaak]

Aegon I the Conqueror? Surely not: he won the throne by Conquest.

If you meant Aegon II, then I tend the belive that yes, he would have been elected. As said before, the blacks had the dragons to compensate their smaller numbers, but in a Council the dragons would not be of help. Two other big assets of the blacks, the Velaryon fleet and the fiersomeness the Northmen, would also be useless. And with no pillaging to do, the Greyjoys would stay netural.

No. My point is that Aegon I would have been laughed out of Great Council - and conquered Westeros anyway.

Velaryon fleet was in no way neutralized by Great Council, and neither were dragons. During the 101 council, there were rumours that Corlys was gathering fleets, and true or not, Daemon took them seriously enough to gather armies.

Velaryon fleet would be less important if a Great Council were held in an inland location... but this does not apply to dragons. Holding a Great Council would make it easier to win in face of the Great Council decision, because the presence of lords in one place would make it easier to kill and capture them there, rather than hunt them down running around countryside they know around hundreds of castles all around Westeros.

[Lord Varys]

THB,

actually, I guess Rhaenyra's chances at a Great Council would not have been much better than one would think. Essentially half the Lords of the Realm declared for her, from essentially all the regions, and there must have been a reason why Otto/Alicent went with the coup instead of another Great Council.

If vassals and neighbors dared defy their lawful liege lords in war, there is little reason to doubt that the lords on the council would also have spoken in favor of Rhaenyra.

And pretty much everyone would have been aware of the number of dragons Rhaenyra controlled and would control in the future...

Alicent later tries to convince Rhaenyra to call a Great Council, but that's just talk and an attempt keep the upper hand. Aegon was already crowned by then, and so the Great Council would actually have to decide whether that coronation was lawful, and I don't think they would have forced him to abdicate.

[The hairy bear]

Jaak,

Aegon I had more chances of wining the Throne militarly than politcally. I just think the situation is reversed in Aegon II's case.

Varys,

I agree that Daemon and Rhaenyra would not have accepted the decision of the Council if Aegon II was elected, and it would have been war anyway. But probably this way he would have had far less support.

Of course, we have the benefit of hindshight. I think the greens opted for a coup because they believed that they could win the war rapidly: if Greyjoy had accepted their offer and lord Tully's sons hadn't defied him, that could have been the case.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Jaehaerys at least had a leg to stand on, when choosing to make Baelon his heir, since he himself had become king over the claim of his nieces, the daughters of his brother Aegon. Making male-only primogeniture the principle of succession to the Iron Throne was a reasonable and defensible move.

Viserys, on the other hand, had no justification whatsoever and no precedent of any kind for keeping Rhaenyra as his heir after a trueborn son had been born to him. Why should anyone be surprised that there was a civil war, since he created a situation in which two claimants both had a leg to stand on in asserting their claim? Anyone insisting that Rhaenyra obviously had the better claim is confusing their own opinion of what the law should be for what it actually was - which is to say, murky and highly dependent on the various lords' various opinions. Viserys should have recognized this and didn't.

Really, think about this for a minute.

Pros of declaring Rhaenyra heir:

-Please the Arryns

Pros of declaring Aegon heir:

-No possible dispute in the succession

-Please the Hightowers

-Keep succession rules regular, helping to prevent future disputes

Really, this should have been a no brainer. But Viserys apparently had no brains.

This. People saying that Aegon II had no legal claim or Rhaenyra was the undisputed heir by law or some other non-sense are letting their own bias talking.

[Anath]

This. People saying that Aegon II had no legal claim or Rhaenyra was the undisputed heir by law or some other non-sense are letting their own bias talking.

Rhaenyra was the undisputed heir by law and much other non non-sense. Viserys' wishes were specifically tailored for her well before Viserys married Alicent and after Aemma's death, which basically meant that Viserys considered his daughter his heir above any potential sons he might have from another queen, luckier in motherhood than his first one.

Mind you, he didn't proclaim Rhaenyra his heir over Aemma's son, he only did so after the baby died and Aemma followed. Methinks that for all his love or whatever for Alicent, he simply didn't consider her worthy to be the mother of his heir, even if she later gave him a son, when Aemma's daughter was alive. Perhaps Aemma's Targaryen blood was the reason? Targaryens were quite proud of being the blood of the dragon.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Rhaenyra was the undisputed heir by law and much other non non-sense. Viserys' wishes were specifically tailored for her well before Viserys married Alicent and after Aemma's death, which basically meant that Viserys considered his daughter his heir above any potential sons he might have from another queen, luckier in motherhood than his first one.

Except of course you're doing exactly like Viserys and ignoring every historical precedent that came before him, as well as the discussion of whether the King has the authority to change those laws. Read the posts above me that discuss it in more detail.

[Anath]

Except of course you're doing exactly like Viserys and ignoring every historical precedent that came before him, as well as the discussion of whether the King has the authority to change those laws. Read the posts above me that discuss it in more detail.

What makes you think I haven't read them? That I don't see them as convincing enough?

Jaehaerys announced his heir, Alysanne disagreed (why, one might wonder, if precedents were so set in stone?), he did it anyway. The precedent? The king chose his heir.

The Great Council backed Viserys when the king was no longer in full control of his faculties. The precedent? Their support mattered. Viserys ensured it for Rhaenyra, adding it to the weight of his own expressed wishes.

Of course I am doing what Viserys did. In the absence of the real crisis, the king chose his heir. That's what historical precedents showed. Interesting that no one thought to tell Viserys that he really shouldn't make his daughter his heir but marry in haste and father male heirs. They all accepted his wishes, showing that the king's wish was the law.

[Wmarshal]

Jaehaerys at least had a leg to stand on, when choosing to make Baelon his heir, since he himself had become king over the claim of his nieces, the daughters of his brother Aegon. Making male-only primogeniture the principle of succession to the Iron Throne was a reasonable and defensible move.

Viserys, on the other hand, had no justification whatsoever and no precedent of any kind for keeping Rhaenyra as his heir after a trueborn son had been born to him. Why should anyone be surprised that there was a civil war, since he created a situation in which two claimants both had a leg to stand on in asserting their claim? Anyone insisting that Rhaenyra obviously had the better claim is confusing their own opinion of what the law should be for what it actually was - which is to say, murky and highly dependent on the various lords' various opinions. Viserys should have recognized this and didn't.

Really, think about this for a minute.

Pros of declaring Rhaenyra heir:

-Please the Arryns

Pros of declaring Aegon heir:

-No possible dispute in the succession

-Please the Hightowers

-Keep succession rules regular, helping to prevent future disputes

Really, this should have been a no brainer. But Viserys apparently had no brains.

:bowdown:

[Wmarshal]

What makes you think I haven't read them? That I don't see them as convincing enough?

Jaehaerys announced his heir, Alysanne disagreed (why, one might wonder, if precedents were so set in stone?), he did it anyway. The precedent? The king chose his heir.

The Great Council backed Viserys when the king was no longer in full control of his faculties. The precedent? Their support mattered. Viserys ensured it for Rhaenyra, adding it to the weight of his own expressed wishes.

Of course I am doing what Viserys did. In the absence of the real crisis, the king chose his heir. That's what historical precedents showed. Interesting that no one thought to tell Viserys that he really shouldn't make his daughter his heir but marry in haste and father male heirs. They all accepted his wishes, showing that the king's wish was the law.

And this was well expected and had precedent.

Save he didn't, Rhaenyra was never chosen in a GC.