Jump to content

Archived

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

teemo

Do you support the Greens or Blacks? Why?

Recommended Posts

even if Rhaenery's children were bastards, they still carried Targaryen blood. The claim of Cersei's children, otoh, come from being Robert's children, and they had not even a little bit of Baratheon's blood. Not the same case.

Blood does not matter. Legitimacy does. Jon might have Stark blood but he has no claim to WF. These bastards were never even acknowledged as bastards, much less legitimized as true Targaryens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra definitely has parallels with Cersei. The supposed cruelty of her reign in King's Landing is an excellent parallel in addition to having bastard children. She also alienated pretty much all of her allies, just like Cersei.



I would definitely support the Greens, no doubt. They had the right of it in accordance with the previous decisions of The Great Council. The civil war was a disaster for the Targaryens but Rhaenyra's rule would have been a long term disaster for the realm as a whole.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for House Lannister and since Lannister is Green so would I be.



And I also think that laws, tradition and customs are set frames within which a monarch must move. The king or queen does not have absolute power to do as they wish without regard to what the law and traditions say.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blood does not matter. Legitimacy does. Jon might have Stark blood but he has no claim to WF. These bastards were never even acknowledged as bastards, much less legitimized as true Targaryens.

But Rhaenyra could have legitimized them easily the crown was Rhaenyra's even if her children was bastards so what they would still be the children of the legitimate Targaryen Queen.

It was a unjustified war Viserys had a right to name Rhaenyra Queen feck the great counsel decision they had no weight in on Viserys' decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Rhaenyra could have legitimized them easily the crown was Rhaenyra's even if her children was bastards so what they would still be the children of the legitimate Targaryen Queen.

It was a unjustified war Viserys had a right to name Rhaenyra Queen feck the great counsel decision they had no weight in on Viserys' decision.

She never even acknowledged them as bastards, how can she legitimize them? She was passing of bastards as legitimate. There is a clear distinction.

Things like custom and tradition are millenia old in westeros and not even the King can break them without consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even Daeron the Daring?? He seemed like a good guy.

And in what universe are Rhaenyra and Daemon cool and not power mad assholes?

GRRM'S. He liked them enough to write 2 stories about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She never even acknowledged them as bastards, how can she legitimize them? She was passing of bastards as legitimate. There is a clear distinction.

Things like custom and tradition are millenia old in westeros and not even the King can break them without consequences.

But so what if they were bastards they would still be the children of the ligitamate Targ, what does it matter if they were bastards their claim would come from Rhaenyra?

But why should he have consequences to for naming his oldest child his heir? Just because she's a woman? Woman can be heirs also granted under different circumstances and Dorne is different but he named Rhaenyra his heir and everybody seemed fine with it until Aliscent and hers decided to steal the throne from Rhaenyra.

When Viserys named Rhaenyra his heir where was the Great Counsel than to remind him about tradition etc.. as far as we know the realm excepted Rhaenyra as heir until the plots of the Aliscent her father, Aegon II and Criston Cole took root.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But so what if they were bastards they would still be the children of the ligitamate Targ, what does it matter if they were bastards their claim would come from Rhaenyra?

But why should he have consequences to for naming his oldest child his heir? Just because she's a woman? Woman can be heirs also granted under different circumstances and Dorne is different but he named Rhaenyra his heir and everybody seemed fine with it until Aliscent and hers decided to steal the throne from Rhaenyra.

When Viserys named Rhaenyra his heir where was the Great Counsel than to remind him about tradition etc.. as far as we know the realm excepted Rhaenyra as heir until the plots of the Aliscent her father, Aegon II and Criston Cole took root.

The matter is that they were born out of wedlock. By your logic Robert's bastards have a claim to the throne as well since they derive their claim from Robert and not their mother. But we see that this is not the case - By all laws Stannis is the heir and not Gendry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greens all the way. A daughter does not come before a son.



If Viserys had really wanted Rhaenyra to succeed he should have convened a council and changed Targaryen succession to Dornish style absolute primogeniture where the eldest child inherits regardless of gender.



Doesn't sound like Rhaenyra would have been a great Queen anyway. Better off as dragon food.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Blacks. Rhaenyra was the rightfull heir since Viserys declared her his heir. Aegon II is just a Usurper. Alicent had to let Viserys rot for a few days just to get her scheme to work. Viserys should have seen this coming though. He did make some poor decisions regarding the greens. He shouldn't have made Otto hand, ....


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Viserys had really wanted Rhaenyra to succeed he should have convened a council and changed Targaryen succession to Dornish style absolute primogeniture where the eldest child inherits regardless of gender.

Would this have even changed anything?

Aliscent and her father wanted their blood on the throne regardless of some change of law, Viserys proclaimed Rhaenyra his heir for years the realm knew where he stood so did his family there was no one talking about Andal law than they accepted his decision.

With or without Viserys overturning the great counsel Aliscent would have still wanted her son/blood on that ugly chair, the Greens started that war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Blacks had the rightful claim, I think.

We have seen that the king (and, to a certain extent, the Lords, or at least the Great Lords) have the right to choose their own heir, if the default if not acceptable for some reason.
Viserys' therefore could name Rhaenyra his heir, if he so wished to.

Something I vaguely remember is that the Lords of Westeros had sworn oaths to Viserys to ensure that Rhaenyra succeeded him- with that being one of the reasons why the Starks and their vassals rose for Rhaenyra, for example.

In terms of the King overturning customs- again, we have an equally old custom (if not possibly an older custom, as there are hints here and there that the Great Houses such as Stark. Lannister, and Gardener seem to have once been more clan like than their current form) stating that the King has the right to choose his heir.

In terms of the possible (and it is only possible) bastardy of Rhaenyra's children- we have other excerpts I believe that state that Viserys seems to have known about it, and accepted it. As we have seen elsewhere, bastards can inherit. And it does not matter if they are bastards- the official line is that they are not, and their claim comes from their mother anyway. In that case, I can only see it being Rhaenyra's throne being stolen.

Also, I do think that there is double standard going on here- Rhaenyra is being stated to be a Mad Queen (with little real evidence) and an almost certainly bad ruler, while Aegon II, who we have actual evidence of being a bad ruler, is allowed off...because he is male? And if we are going to make claims against someone's character because they (possibly) sired bastards, Aegon pretty much certainly fathered several bastards.

To be honest, considering the trauma that Rhaenyra had to be suffering from, I rather think that she did relatively well in her half year reign. Were they mistakes? Yes. Was Aegon worse? Without argument, to my mind.

And finally, if we are going for the consent of the ruled method (which was valid in the medieval era, only really applying to the upper nobility however) then the Starks, Tullys, Arryns, and Greyjoys all declared for Rhaenyra. The Lannisters and Baratheons for Aegon. The Tyrells stayed neutral. So out of the seven great houses at the time, four supported the Blacks, two the Greens, and one did not declare for either side. Seems like a majority consensus to me.

So, the Blacks for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems unnatural for a King to want his daughter to succeed when he has a son.



Also Rhaenyra's eldest sons were Velaryons not Targaryens - would that not mean the end of House Targaryen as the ruling house if one of them had succeeded their mother? I don't know how Viserys could have stomached that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra is the Queen of Westeros.

Her children weren't bastards, they were only accused of being so and the King declared they were not. But those contemptible little Velayron ****s were too stupid to realize that was the end of things.

Really, the heart of Rhaenyra's story is a bunch of petty Littlefinger types looked for any possible reason to steal her birthright and they undermined her at every turn.

What scum.

It just seems unnatural for a King to want his daughter to succeed when he has a son.

Also Rhaenyra's eldest sons were Velaryons not Targaryens - would that not mean the end of House Targaryen as the ruling house if one of them had succeeded their mother? I don't know how Viserys could have stomached that.

Why in the world is it unnatural?

Balon wanted it to happen.

Rhaenyra was the apple of her Daddy's eye and was for decades before his son was born. As for her sons being Velaryons, only if she didn't take the Targaryen name. As we see with Harry the Heir, he would have been adopted into the Arryns rather than remain his house,

Blood does not matter. Legitimacy does. Jon might have Stark blood but he has no claim to WF. These bastards were never even acknowledged as bastards, much less legitimized as true Targaryens.

That's the thing, though.

They're not bastards because they were never acknowledged as bastards.

House Velaryon tried to make the claim and they were shut down by the King. Their own (adoptive father didn't call an issue with them and the King backs them up.

All Alicent has is the ACCUSATION they're bastards.

Besides, the whole idea a female inheritance can be affected by bastardry is ludicrous. It's not like they're not Rhaenyra's children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why in the world is it unnatural?

Balon wanted it to happen.

Rhaenyra was the apple of her Daddy's eye and was for decades before his son was born. As for her sons being Velaryons, only if she didn't take the Targaryen name. As we see with Harry the Heir, he would have been adopted into the Arryns rather than remain his house,

I mean unnatural in the context of Westeros where sons succeed fathers as the general rule.

If Eddard Stark had wanted Sansa to be heir to Winterfell instead of Robb how many people would go along with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean unnatural in the context of Westeros where sons succeed fathers as the general rule.

If Eddard Stark had wanted Sansa to be heir to Winterfell instead of Robb how many people would go along with that?

I understand its queer in Westeros culture but was just pointing out individuals can have different views on the subject. The thing is, we KNOW it tears the realm apart but he made a lot of effort to try and make a smooth transition for his daughter. He set up things all in advance for her to take the throne and it was all in place for her to inherit.

Except, Alicent stabbed her in the back.

I can't support anyone who actually hides her husband's decaying corpse to try to secure her position.

I will say, though, it's interesting to think her father may have held Alicent's children in contempt. They're clearly not as important to him as Rhaenyra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quod principi placet legis habet vigorem.

The will of King Viserys was that his oldest child, Rhaenyra, should succeed him. No one was dispossessed in favour of Rhaenyra, nor was this a last-minute whim. She was his heir for over 20 years. Thus, Alicent and her supporters were usurpers. Aegon had no legitimate expectation that he would inherit ahead of Rhaenyra (to be fair, he had to be pushed by his mother into making his bid).

Alicent was fortunate not to be hanged when Kings Landing fell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quod principi placet legis habet vigorem.

The will of King Viserys was that his oldest child, Rhaenyra, should succeed him. No one was dispossessed in favour of Rhaenyra, nor was this a last-minute whim. She was his heir for over 20 years. Thus, Alicent and her supporters were usurpers. Aegon had no legitimate expectation that he would inherit ahead of Rhaenyra (to be fair, he had to be pushed by his mother into making his bid).

Alicent was fortunate not to be hanged when Kings Landing fell.

I would have liked her perspective on how things all turned out.

Sadly, Westeros historians aren't interested in the perspective of women it seems.

Even when it's two Dangerous Women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×