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

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.

The king is dead. Long live the King!

What the previous king wanted is of no matter once they're dead. (case in point: Robert)

They we're not usurpers because the order of succession was already settled in the Great Council ruling of AC101. That's like the supreme court making a ruling today. After that precedent is set, in the following cases the example case is cited and a ruling made according to that. Rhaenyra was the one trying to steal her brother's crown, just like Stannis says in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The king is dead. Long live the King!

What the previous king wanted is of no matter once they're dead. (case in point: Robert)

They we're not usurpers because there order of succession was already settled in the Great Council ruling of AC101. That's like the supreme court making a ruling today. After that precedent is set, all the lower courts just cite the example case and make rulings according to that.

Hear, hear.

I think Aegon II had the right of it.

I'm quite glad Rhaenyra's elder sons didn't survive to taint the line of succession with their bastard blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The king is dead. Long live the King!

What the previous king wanted is of no matter once they're dead. (case in point: Robert)

They we're not usurpers because the order of succession was already settled in the Great Council ruling of AC101. That's like the supreme court making a ruling today. After that precedent is set, in the following cases the example case is cited and a ruling made according to that. Rhaenyra was the one trying to steal her brother's crown, just like Stannis says in the books.

The King appoints his heir. Telling the person who's been his heir, and acknowledged as such, for 20 years that she's a usurper, is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The King appoints his heir. Telling the person who's been his heir, and acknowledged as such, for 20 years that she's a usurper, is absurd.

That is not necessarily the case: the line of succession exists precisely to avoid a competition for royal favour between the King's sons, and soon enough, fratricide and civil war. To give another example, suppose Aegon the Unworthy had disinherited Daeron and both wiped away the taint of bastardy and proclaimed Daemon Blackfyre his heir would that be valid?

The tension is really between the notion of the King's word being law (i.e. absolute monarchy) and the monarchy as part of a social contract or unwritten constitution. The role that institutions like the Great Council or Andal custom plays is not undefined and open to many different interpretations which give rise to conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alicent was a piece of shit. It was her fault the dance happened in the first place. Aegon didn't even want to declare until after she prompted him to do so.

Blacks all the way. Rhaenyra, Daemon, Rhaenys, Corlys, etc.

The Greens had nobody cool.

You're not even going to concede them Daeron or Jon Roxton? Hell I'd put Hobart Hightower above Daemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite glad Rhaenyra's elder sons didn't survive to taint the line of succession with their bastard blood.

Seriously so what if they were bastards their claim came from Rhaenyra.

Anyways I'm glad Aegon II and his bloodline did not sit the throne in the end he and his lost cause every one died and at the end it was Rhaenyra's son and blood that sat the iron throne as it should be that's what happens to upsurpers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not even going to concede them Daeron or Jon Roxton? Hell I'd put Hobart Hightower above Daemon

Daeron was alright.

No one can touch Daemon's cool factor imo. The guy lived a fascinating life. Not to mention he had the coolest death GRRM has written to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not necessarily the case: the line of succession exists precisely to avoid a competition for royal favour between the King's sons, and soon enough, fratricide and civil war. To give another example, suppose Aegon the Unworthy had disinherited Daeron and both wiped away the taint of bastardy and proclaimed Daemon Blackfyre his heir would that be valid?

The tension is really between the notion of the King's word being law (i.e. absolute monarchy) and the monarchy as part of a social contract or unwritten constitution. The role that institutions like the Great Council or Andal custom plays is not undefined and open to many different interpretations which give rise to conflict.

If Aegon had legitimised Daemon and designated him his heir since before Daeron was born, I don't think Daeron would have grounds for complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously so what if they were bastards their claim came from Rhaenyra.

Anyways I'm glad Aegon II and his bloodline did not sit the throne in the end he and his lost cause every one died and at the end it was Rhaenyra's son and blood that sat the iron throne as it should be that's what happens to upsurpers.

The usurper was Rhaenyra in my opinion and she got her just desserts when the dragon chomped her down. Good riddance to her.

That is not necessarily the case: the line of succession exists precisely to avoid a competition for royal favour between the King's sons, and soon enough, fratricide and civil war. To give another example, suppose Aegon the Unworthy had disinherited Daeron and both wiped away the taint of bastardy and proclaimed Daemon Blackfyre his heir would that be valid?

Agree - the King appointing his heir is just ridiculous. The line of succession should be clear and follow a defined set of rules.

Viserys really didn't need to marry again and confuse the succession issue by fathering legitimate sons but maintaining that his daughter was heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The usurper was Rhaenyra in my opinion and she got her just desserts when the dragon chomped her down. Good riddance to her.

Agree - the King appointing his heir is just ridiculous. The line of succession should be clear and follow a defined set of rules.

Viserys really didn't need to marry again and confuse the succession issue by fathering legitimate sons but maintaining that his daughter was heir.

The succession was clear - until Alicent made her power-grab.

Rhaenyra was Princess of Dragonstone. Aegon was not Prince of Dragonstone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra's children were born in wedlock. They were legitimate. Rhaenyra was Princess of Dragonstone, and had any right to entertain as many lovers and paramours she wanted to take (just as any Crown Prince could). I really don't see the problem there.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While neither side of this fight was what you could call virtuous, I lean more towards the Blacks.



Viserys named his daughter as his heir and that should have been that. His wife was well aware of his wishes in this regard, but chose to place her own desire for power and standing above peace for the realm.



As for the situation regarding Rhaenyra's children being bastards and how it could change things for Cersei's children - it wouldn't change anything. Yes, Rhaenyra's boys may have been bastards, but at least they had Targaryen blood in them. Cersei's kids don't have a single drop of Baratheon blood and therefore, no claim to the throne.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not necessarily the case: the line of succession exists precisely to avoid a competition for royal favour between the King's sons, and soon enough, fratricide and civil war. To give another example, suppose Aegon the Unworthy had disinherited Daeron and both wiped away the taint of bastardy and proclaimed Daemon Blackfyre his heir would that be valid?

The tension is really between the notion of the King's word being law (i.e. absolute monarchy) and the monarchy as part of a social contract or unwritten constitution. The role that institutions like the Great Council or Andal custom plays is not undefined and open to many different interpretations which give rise to conflict.

This. People saying Viserys had every right to nominate Rhaenyra as his heir are not understanding Westeros is not XVII century France. The power of the King is NOT absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra's children were born in wedlock. They were legitimate. Rhaenyra was Princess of Dragonstone, and had any right to entertain as many lovers and paramours she wanted to take (just as any Crown Prince could). I really don't see the problem there.

The difference is when a man fathers bastards it's clear that they are bastards because they're born to a woman other than his wife. When a woman takes a lover it makes the paternity of her children unclear and can destroy the family line (as we get with Cersei's children who aren't true Baratheons).

Granted in Rhaenyra's case her children's claim is through her but they are still bastards that she's passing off as her husband's children. That alone is a despicable act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daeron was alright.

No one can touch Daemon's cool factor imo. The guy lived a fascinating life. Not to mention he had the coolest death GRRM has written to date.

I hate the Daemon hate(?). The guy was ubercool, a mfbadass, something many seem to have a problem with. He hated his first wife? I'm sure many other men think the same about their wives but they just keep it quiet. And at the end, he backed up Rhaenerys' right and her children, even though those were not his :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. People saying Viserys had every right to nominate Rhaenyra as his heir are not understanding Westeros is not XVII century France. The power of the King is NOT absolute.

In particular those who think the King's power is absolute have to accept that Robert's rebellion was illegitimate and unlawful. They also have to accept that Prince Rhaegar could have called a Great Council and had the Lords of Westeros agree to depose Aerys II and it would make no difference: Aerys would still be King. If Aerys had burned King's Landing down to the ground, he would still validly be King of Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The historical precedent that Viserys was working with established that he had the right to name his own heir. That is how he became king in the first place. Note that the Great Council did not name Viserys the heir, Jaehaerys did. He did so in accordance with the Great Council, but he named Viserys the Prince of Dragonstone.



The idea that Rhaenyra would've been the proper heir if she had no brothers means one of two things, if you follow that logic further. 1) Viserys was a usurper, as Rhaenys should've been the proper heir before him, as she had no brothers and her father was older than Viserys's father or 2) The king has a right to name his heir. If you hold that Viserys was the proper heir ahead of Rhaenys because he was male, then that means that Rhaenyra would not have been the proper heir even in the absence of brothers.



Rhaenyra being the valid, legal heir also does not require the King's power to be absolute. This decision was not contested by the lords of the realm when it was made. They agreed to Rhaenyra being heir. Many of them still agreed that she was the proper heir even when Aegon II usurped her. They also won, although Rhaenyra did not live to see it.



The idea that Rhaenyra is like Cersei because her children were likely illegitimate doesn't hold up either, I don't think. It seems pretty likely to me that Laenor was well aware of the fact that his sons weren't his sons biologically. Him not being aware would seem to necessitate that he had absolutely no idea how human reproduction worked. I'd say that Rhaenyra and Laenor almost certainly had some sort of arrangement. If Laenor didn't care if his children weren't his biologically, I don't see why anyone else should care. Even if Luke had ended up inheriting Driftmark, he was betrothed to his cousin Rhaena, so their children still would've been part Velaryon. So who cares.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="The Red Widow of Coldmoat" post="6538

The idea that Rhaenyra is like Cersei because her children were likely illegitimate doesn't hold up either, I don't think. It seems pretty likely to me that Laenor was well aware of the fact that his sons weren't his sons biologically. Him not being aware would seem to necessitate that he had absolutely no idea how human reproduction worked. I'd say that Rhaenyra and Laenor almost certainly had some sort of arrangement. If Laenor didn't care if his children weren't his biologically, I don't see why anyone else should care. Even if Luke had ended up inheriting Driftmark, he was betrothed to his cousin Rhaena, so their children still would've been part Velaryon. So who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Laenor acknowledged them as his children, and nothing suggests that he was forced or tricked into doing this. If he was unwilling (or incapable) to consummate the marriage, both he and Rhaenyra needed a sperm donor for their children. Enter Ser Harwin. As long as the people involved (Rhaenyra, Laenor, Harwin) are okay with arrangement, no one else has the right to interfere. It would essentially be the same thing if Laenor had been sterile, just as Aegon I apparently was (Aenys is another 'bastard born in wedlock', and Maegor possibly a child created/conceived through magical means). A dynasty needs help in such a situation.



The only thing that's different there is that Rhaenyra is a woman and not a man. She is an ideal position there - again, as the Crown Princess she can take lovers and paramours, and conceive children with them (or not), and all of them will legally be fathered by her consort as long as does not object.



That is totally different with Cersei. A Queen Consort is essentially nothing but breeding mare. She has to deliver the king legitimate children. If she makes the king a cuckold without his leave, she has to suffer the consequences. But in Rhaenyra's case Laenor was the breeding mare, and he either did not want or could not do what was required of him, which is why Rhaenyra was completely in the right to do what she did (or rather Laenor and she and every right to solve the problem the way they did).



Rhaenyra was the Crown Princess and the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. Besides inheriting the Iron Throne, she also had to ensure to continue her line, it was expected of her.



TRP pretty much confirms that Viserys I did not only know what was going but approved of it. He loved his grandsons by Laenor/Harwin, and found no fault in them. They were no bastards, even if they were (and we have really no way to prove the truth, since we don't know for a certainty if Laenor ever slept with Rhaenyra or not).


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the Daemon hate(?). The guy was ubercool, a mfbadass, something many seem to have a problem with. He hated his first wife? I'm sure many other men think the same about their wives but they just keep it quiet. And at the end, he backed up Rhaenerys' right and her children, even though those were not his :dunno:

You're preaching to the choir my friend. ☺

Share this post


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

×