Do you support the Greens or Blacks? Why?

[Winterfell is Burning]

Because little Fredo Targaryen wasn't his father's choice. Rhaenyra WAS!

As I said: Tyrion wasn't Tywin's choice either, and I haven't heard anyone saying he doesn't have any right to be Lord of Casterly Rock (before he killed Tywin at least).

I didn't know Tywin was a king.

That's irrelevant to the case. If Tywin has to follow laws and precedent, the King has to follow them too. If he doesn't, then what Aerys did with the Starks was perfectly legal and justified.

That's just silly. Rhaenyra wasn't "some random" this or that. She was his first born. It's not like there's no precedent for it either, it's the way succession works in Dorne.

And in Leng only women can inherit (apparently). And in Braavos the ruler is elected. And Beyond the Wall it doesn't matter who your father was, you have to win it by force. Those precedents are as valid as Dorne in the 7K succession, specially considering Dorne wasn't a part of the Seven Kingdoms at that time.

[Red Tiger]

That's irrelevant to the case. If Tywin has to follow laws and precedent, the King has to follow them too. If he doesn't, then what Aerys did with the Starks was perfectly legal and justified.

No, it's irrelevant to you, there is a difference.

It's not like this was the only time an heir to the throne was chosen for a reason other than being the first son. Viserys I became king, while Laenor had just as strong a case.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

That's irrelevant to the case. If Tywin has to follow laws and precedent, the King has to follow them too. If he doesn't, then what Aerys did with the Starks was perfectly legal and justified.

And if Tywin was a Targ or Viserys a Lannister you might be right.

[Nictarion]

As I said: Tyrion wasn't Tywin's choice either, and I haven't heard anyone saying he doesn't have any right to be Lord of Casterly Rock (before he killed Tywin at least).

That's irrelevant to the case. If Tywin has to follow laws and precedent, the King has to follow them too. If he doesn't, then what Aerys did with the Starks was perfectly legal and justified.

And in Leng only women can inherit (apparently). And in Braavos the ruler is elected. And Beyond the Wall it doesn't matter who your father was, you have to win it by force. Those precedents are as valid as Dorne in the 7K succession, specially considering Dorne wasn't a part of the Seven Kingdoms at that time.

It's not like the Targs didn't do as they pleased in the past. Incest, polygamy, etc.

And at least half the kingdom believed Rhaenyra to be the true heir. So obviously it wasn't unthinkable to them.

[SeanF]

Tywin also said that Tyrion wasn't his heir. Should Tyrion simply bow to Cersei because his daddy said so?

Tywin seems to have been clear that Tyrion would not have inherited Casterly Rock.

[SeanF]

As I said: Tyrion wasn't Tywin's choice either, and I haven't heard anyone saying he doesn't have any right to be Lord of Casterly Rock (before he killed Tywin at least).

That's irrelevant to the case. If Tywin has to follow laws and precedent, the King has to follow them too. If he doesn't, then what Aerys did with the Starks was perfectly legal and justified.

And in Leng only women can inherit (apparently). And in Braavos the ruler is elected. And Beyond the Wall it doesn't matter who your father was, you have to win it by force. Those precedents are as valid as Dorne in the 7K succession, specially considering Dorne wasn't a part of the Seven Kingdoms at that time.

In terms of appointing an heir, the King's word is law. There is no law of succession that says the Iron Throne must always pass to a son. There is Andal custom in most of Westeros, but this does not bind Targaryens anymore than the Andal prohibition of incest.

[Red Tiger]

"Like their dragons, the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men."

[Jaak]

If their legitimacy doesn't matter because the claim comes from their mother then all King's bastards should also have claims because the claim to the throne comes from their father.

Trystane and Gaemon did make their claims.

[Dofs]

No, it's irrelevant to you, there is a difference.

It's not like this was the only time an heir to the throne was chosen for a reason other than being the first son. Viserys I became king, while Laenor had just as strong a case.

No, that is not irrelevant or else there would be no Dance of Dragon. There is a reason why Randyll Tarly had to send Sam to the Wall instead of just naming Dickon his heir. There is a reason why Stannis considers Rhaenyra an usurper. Not for everyone King's word is the law. Aerys II showed that quite spectacularly.

[Nictarion]

Roberts rebellion was not over Aerys "breaking the law". No one rebelled when he executed the Starks.

It was when he called for Robert's and Ned's heads Jon Arryn called his banners.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

No, that is not irrelevant or else there would be no Dance of Dragon. There is a reason why Randyll Tarly had to send Sam to the Wall instead of just naming Dickon his heir. There is a reason why Stannis considers Rhaenyra an usurper. Not for everyone King's word is the law. Aerys II showed that quite spectacularly.

Yet again; Randyl is not a Targ and Viserys was not a Tarly.

As Red Tiger said;

"Like their dragons, the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men."

It has been proved from the text that the Targs never really cared about the law. They typically broke the law and some times they had to pay for this. But normally they broke the law and no one gave a second f@@@k or maybe they did and they didn't said anything.

[VVSINGOFTHECROSS]

Personally would have supported the blacks. Rhaenyra, was her father's appointed heir, the lords of the realm had acknowledged her as such.

Really claiming Aegon II as the rightful king is just bollocks, Andal law it is shown does not apply to the iron throne, for if it had, Rhaenys would have been named Jaehaerys no problem. That she and her children were bypassed twice, because of the king's will shows, that at least until after the dance, the Ruling Targaryen King could chose who succeeded him.

the Greens merely came up with flimsy excuses to make a power play.

[SeanF]

No, that is not irrelevant or else there would be no Dance of Dragon. There is a reason why Randyll Tarly had to send Sam to the Wall instead of just naming Dickon his heir. There is a reason why Stannis considers Rhaenyra an usurper. Not for everyone King's word is the law. Aerys II showed that quite spectacularly.

Bear in mind, Stannis is speaking 170 years later. He may never have read any detailed history of the Dance of the Dragons. 170 years on, in the popular imagination, Rhaenyra was a usurper.

Archmaester Gyldayn's account is clear, however, that Rhaenyra was the King's heir for over 20 years. You can't usurp a Throne that you're the heir to.

[Dofs]

Yet again; Randyl is not a Targ and Viserys was not a Tarly.

As Red Tiger said;

It has been proved from the text that the Targs never really cared about the law. They typically broke the law and some times they had to pay for this. But normally they broke the law and no one gave a second f@@@k or maybe they did and they didn't said anything.

And what? Are you saying that because Targs didn't care about the law, everyone else is supposed to follow them in this? Flawless logic :rolleyes: Targs could do it because they had dragons. Well, too bad for Rhaenyra that Aegon, on whose side was the law also had dragons. Like it was said before, if Aegon II was named a heir straight away, nobody would have crowned Rhaenyra and Dance of Dragons would not have happened. And there is a reason why.

[Maid So Fair]

And what? Are you saying that because Targs didn't care about the law, everyone else is supposed to follow them in this? Flawless logic :rolleyes: Targs could do it because they had dragons. Well, too bad for Rhaenyra that Aegon, on whose side was the law also had dragons. Like it was said before, if Aegon II was named a heir straight away, nobody would have crowned Rhaenyra and Dance of Dragons would not have happened. And there is a reason why.

But ruling the kingdom is not the same as normal inheritance (though, arguably, with the LP it gets close) - you are choosing a person to have enormous amount of responsibility and there will always be considerations besides who the customary heir should be. It's not just Targs being Targs. Things like clarity (Viserys made it very clear who he wanted to be his successor) and actually being groomed for the office like Rheanyra was all her life matter a huge amount. That's why we see unsuitable candidates (for one reason or another) being bypassed. Viserys's devcision wasn't random or arbitrary and he had good reasons for choosing Rhaenyra like the fact that she had Targaryen blood on both sides and has been raised as his heir since she was a little girl, with an education and experience to go along with that. It's also pretty silly because Rhaenyra was a dragon rider perfectly capable of leading troops in battle and no one seemed to object when Rhaenys and Visenya ruled the realm, or when Good Queen Alysanne held massive influence at the court. It's not like they're not used to women in charge.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

And what? Are you saying that because Targs didn't care about the law, everyone else is supposed to follow them in this? Flawless logic :rolleyes: Targs could do it because they had dragons. Well, too bad for Rhaenyra that Aegon, on whose side was the law also had dragons. Like it was said before, if Aegon II was named a heir straight away, nobody would have crowned Rhaenyra and Dance of Dragons would not have happened. And there is a reason why.

Supposed to follow them? No. They did followed them even if they liked it or not? Yes. Or you missed the part where incest was a deadly sin and was illegal by the law both of men and Gods and the Targs keep practised it even after the death of the dragons and no one even if they hadn't practised incest themselves, said anything about it? The point is that the Targs followed no law but their own law and of course this sometimes had some results.

[Lord Varys]

When discussing the claims of women, Stannis 'Women are weird' Baratheon should not be cited.

As to disowning/passing over stuff. This happens all the time. The Great Council of 101 passed over Laenor, despite the fact that he was of the senior branch and male, the Great Council of 233 dismissed Maegor's claim - who was of the elder (male) branch through his father and mother, and had purer Targaryen blood -, and Aegon V effectively disinherited his eldest son, Prince Duncan, in favor of Jaehaerys.

Neither of those guys had to go to the Wall as far as we know (in Laenor's and Duncan's case we know it for a certainty).

[DavosBolton]

I wanted to support the Greens because I thought Criston Cole the Kingmaker would be an interesting character to read about. But the guy is so 2 dimensional and his actions are glanced over.

[CosimaistheHottest]

When discussing the claims of women, Stannis 'Women are weird' Baratheon should not be cited.

As to disowning/passing over stuff. This happens all the time. The Great Council of 101 passed over Laenor, despite the fact that he was of the senior branch and male, the Great Council of 233 dismissed Maegor's claim - who was of the elder (male) branch through his father and mother, and had purer Targaryen blood -, and Aegon V effectively disinherited his eldest son, Prince Duncan, in favor of Jaehaerys.

Neither of those guys had to go to the Wall as far as we know (in Laenor's and Duncan's case we know it for a certainty).

And didnt Aerion Brightflames son get disinherited for Aemon and Aegon.

[Jaak]

Yet again; Randyl is not a Targ and Viserys was not a Tarly.

As Red Tiger said;

It has been proved from the text that the Targs never really cared about the law. They typically broke the law and some times they had to pay for this. But normally they broke the law and no one gave a second f@@@k or maybe they did and they didn't said anything.

It´s not just that the King was above the laws. The Kings quite expressly had, and reserved for themselves, the right to legitimate bastards. If Roose Bolton has no trueborn son, but wants to legitimate a bastard, then he has to ask King, whether King on the Iron Throne, or Winter King, and if the King refuses or cannot be bothered or is never asked then Ramsay won´t inherit. If Daemon or Rhaegaer wants his bastard to be Targaryen and own a dragon egg, then he has to ask the present king. If the King wants a bastard to inherit, then he is asking... himself.

So yes. That difference is not between Targaryen and non-Targaryen, but between King and subject.

By virtue of Aegon IV-s legitimation of all his bastards, do they go ahead of the trueborn offspring of Elaena?