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

The Blacks.

On a personal level, whatever Rhaenyra's flaws, Aegon II was an utter slimeball and buffoon, and merely a puppet of his mother.

The Greens made much of the precedent set by Jaehaerys I...the king immediately before the king who just died. This was not much of a precedent.

Particularly in "The Rogue Prince", we see just how much Viserys *repeatedly* had lords in his own lifetime directly swear that Rhaenyra was his real heir. Maybe he should have done something more to "formally" alter the inheritance law, as a standing principle. But it was clear *for twenty years* that he wanted Rhaenyra to succeed him.

All of the Greens are oathbreakers, I mean specifically broke oaths taken to Viserys I (if not by themselves than by their predecessors).

It was amazing to actually read through TPATQ and find out just how much Aegon II's successors tried to rewrite history after the war -- Rhaenyra was queen for just as long as Aegon II was (half a year - given that Aegon II spent a full year either unconscious, bedridden, or in hiding, he sat the Iron Throne just as long as she did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're preaching to the choir my friend. ☺

Blood and Cheese and his molesting Rhaenyra as a girl predisposed me against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blood and Cheese and his molesting Rhaenyra as a girl predisposed me against him.

Same here. Personally, I don't care for anyone during the DotD. I like Corlys Velaryon well enough, and of course Cregan Stark.

Oh, also Forrest Frey :leaving:

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:





Yeah, he's only a murderer of little children, what's not to like?








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.





:agree:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he's only a murderer of little children, what's not to like?

You act like people don't like characters like Sandor, Jaime, or Theon.

Being an awesome character makes people forgive a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You act like people don't like characters like Sandor, Jaime, or Theon.

Being an awesome character makes people forgive a lot.

Well, the poster was saying she doesn't understand why people hate a man that does stuff like Daemon did.

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.

wait, what? Aegon I was sterile, Maegor was born by magical means and Aenys is a bastard born in wedlock? Are you making a rhetorical point or did I fall asleep while reading the World book?

The point that has been about the consent of the lords of the realm to naming Rhaenrya is a sound one, and as this is "fake history" in fact it is replete with ironies: Aegon II's only remaining heir is his daughter, and Aegon III's daughter ends up disinherited by her uncle. Rhaenyra's children inherit the Iron Throne, but Aegon II wins the principle for which he fought. GRRM is giving us his implicit theory of history: it's all opportunism in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, the whole Viserys-Daena thing was caused by a mistake George made when publishing THK. Baelor Breakspear was way too old to allow Viserys to be the fourth son of Aegon III, as he was originally envisioned. So that's a non-intentional irony.



Aenys/Maegor:



TWoIaF hints at the fact that Aenys was not fathered by Aegon but rather by one of the mummers, singers, and dancers Rhaenys surrounded herself with (rumors that only died when Aenys became a dragonrider - but we know that this is no proof for a legitimate birth). From 'The Sons of the Dragon' we also know a little bit more about Maegor's conception in 11 AC. Rhaenys' death was a heavy blow for young Aenys, who already he development issues (he started to crawl again at the age of three). Aegon feared the boy might die (and that only changed some time later, when Aenys finally bonded with Quicksilver). The court fears that the King will lose his heir, and the Lords are already suggesting replacements for Rhaenys, as it seems to be consensus that Visenya is barren. Suddenly Visenya announces that she is pregnant and is also quite convinced that she will give birth to a male child.



The overall strange thing is that Aegon I did father only one child on each of his sister-wives, and this only late during his marriages despite the fact that we know/have reason to assume that he shared the bed of his queens regularly, Rhaenys' much more than Visenya, but still... Even more importantly, both sons are born rather late (in 7 AC Aegon and Rhaenys are 35/36, and in 12 AC Visenya is already past forty). If Aegon had no troubles fathering children both Rhaenys and Visenya should have given birth to many sons and daughters, especially since the Targaryens would have been more than aware that they needed an heir to consolidate and continue their rule. Sharra Arryn's suggestion that Aegon name her son Ronnel his heir is also a pretty big hint, suggesting that people already may have considered it odd that the Lord of Dragonstone had no child by his sister-wives even before the Conquest.



It seems to me that in 11 AC Visenya decided to give Aegon an heir through some sort of magical ritual. I don't think Maegor is an artificial creature or something like that, rather that Visenya used magic to ensure that Aegon could impregnate her with his bad semen. This could also be the explanation for both, Maegor's deranged character as well as his incapability to father (healthy) children of his own. Magic comes for a price, after all...



Aenys most likely is indeed not Aegon's son, but that does not really matter...



Sure, the whole Maegor thing is mostly speculation, but it is fun, but the lateness of Aenys' birth strongly suggests that he may really be not Aegon's son. Aenys was born in 7 AC, in the midst of the First Dornish War, and you don't need to be all that smart to assume that the three Targaryen siblings finally realized that Aegon needed an heir fast, or they may lose everything. Rhaenys would not have 'betrayed' or 'tricked' Aegon, but picked a sperm donor with Valyrian features/blond hair to ensure that Aenys looked like a proper son of the Conqueror.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides are quite awful. I also don't understand why people would like Rhaenyra and Daemon. Both are awful human beings. But regarding of who was right - well, everybody was right. From one hand Rhaenyra was Viserys' rightful heir according to the king. On the other hand, Viserys surely was delusional if he thought he could name his heir whoever he wanted. The law of succession is the law and once the king dies, the law of succession kicks in, not previous king's wishes. So purely from perspective of the customs of Westeros, Aegon II was then the true heir. In the end, it depends entirely on the opinion and it basically what happened in Dance of Dragons as well. Half of Westeros though Viserys's wish was the law, half of it thought that the actual law should be followed. In the end, I am probably more sympathetic towards the second option - I think the actual law that everyone lives by should be followed even by kings as well. Viserys shouldn't have had other legitimate children, if he wanted Rhaenyra to be his heir.


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.

HA! As a political scientist, that one was a doozy. The court's power is derived from the executive, and the executive often takes unilateral action contradictory to court precedent. Moreover, the court itself frequently overturns precedent once clear public opinion shifts are identified. As others have noted, Viserys thoroughly established Rhaenyra as his rightful heir for twenty years. Stabilizing such a norm would have the full effect of law in the current American political context, let alone an analog for feudal law.

Anywho, quite apparently I'm on team blacks. Those that aren't are racist.

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.

The Great Council does not triumph over the oaths of fealty the ENTIRE REALM gave her.

If there were objections to be made, they had twenty years to make them.

They did not.

But yes, even if the children were bastards, there's the possibility they're not and there was never any formal proceeding to name them bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Great Council does not triumph over the oaths of fealty the ENTIRE REALM gave her.

If there were objections to be made, they had twenty years to make them.

They did not.

But yes, even if the children were bastards, there's the possibility they're not and there was never any formal proceeding to name them bastards.

A lot of the lords who swore those oaths were dead by the time the succession happened. Are their heirs bound by the oaths?

If I was a lord my inclination would be that Aegon is the natural heir as the eldest legitimate son of the King, and that's who I'm going to bend the knee to..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the lords who swore those oaths were dead by the time the succession happened. Are their heirs bound by the oaths?

..

In principle yes. The heir to a vassal should consider himself bound by the vassal's oath to his overlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides are quite awful. I also don't understand why people would like Rhaenyra and Daemon. Both are awful human beings. But regarding of who was right - well, everybody was right. From one hand Rhaenyra was Viserys' rightful heir according to the king. On the other hand, Viserys surely was delusional if he thought he could name his heir whoever he wanted. The law of succession is the law and once the king dies, the law of succession kicks in, not previous king's wishes. So purely from perspective of the customs of Westeros, Aegon II was then the true heir. In the end, it depends entirely on the opinion and it basically what happened in Dance of Dragons as well. Half of Westeros though Viserys's wish was the law, half of it thought that the actual law should be followed. In the end, I am probably more sympathetic towards the second option - I think the actual law that everyone lives by should be followed even by kings as well. Viserys shouldn't have had other legitimate children, if he wanted Rhaenyra to be his heir.

Yes, exactly. I'm more inclined toward the Greens too for this very reason. I still think that Viserys could have tried to change the law by gathering support from lords and stating his reasons to do so. He was very irresponsible in putting his parental favouritism ahead of estability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason Lannister and Ormund Hightower may not have sworn an oath of obeisance to Rhaenyra, but they most certainly swore an oath to Viserys I when they themselves rose to their lordships. Surely such an oath included upholding all the decrees of the King. And they most certainly honored and accepted Rhaenyra as Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. Everything else would have been open rebellion against the king.



Rhaenyra was the unquestioned heir of Viserys. Aegon II only rose to the throne through a coup. I doubt there would have been a rebellion if the Blacks had been in charge of KL when Viserys died.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason Lannister and Ormund Hightower may not have sworn an oath of obeisance to Rhaenyra, but they most certainly swore an oath to Viserys I when they themselves rose to their lordships. Surely such an oath included upholding all the decrees of the King. And they most certainly honored and accepted Rhaenyra as Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. Everything else would have been open rebellion against the king.

Rhaenyra was the unquestioned heir of Viserys. Aegon II only rose to the throne through a coup. I doubt there would have been a rebellion if the Blacks had been in charge of KL when Viserys died.

But in their oaths as Lords are they not also supposed to uphold the law? The Law was clear and Viserys never formally changed it - he tried to make an exception just for his daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What law are you talking about? No codified law existed, just precedents and 'custom'. We are talking medieval monarchy here, the king's word was essentially law, not some dusty book (which essentially did not exist, anyway).



Viserys I did also not 'try anything'. He did change the succession by making Rhaenyra his heir. Again, the king's word is law.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What law are you talking about? No codified law existed, just precedents and 'custom'. We are talking medieval monarchy here, the king's word was essentially law, not some dusty book (which essentially did not exist, anyway).

Viserys I did also not 'try anything'. He did change the succession by making Rhaenyra his heir. Again, the king's word is law.

The precedent most nobles were used to was that the son succeeds the father. In my view, once Viserys died then Aegon became the rightful King whatever the whims and wishes of Viserys regarding Rhaenyra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, the whole Viserys-Daena thing was caused by a mistake George made when publishing THK. Baelor Breakspear was way too old to allow Viserys to be the fourth son of Aegon III, as he was originally envisioned. So that's a non-intentional irony.

Aenys/Maegor:

TWoIaF hints at the fact that Aenys was not fathered by Aegon but rather by one of the mummers, singers, and dancers Rhaenys surrounded herself with (rumors that only died when Aenys became a dragonrider - but we know that this is no proof for a legitimate birth). From 'The Sons of the Dragon' we also know a little bit more about Maegor's conception in 11 AC. Rhaenys' death was a heavy blow for young Aenys, who already he development issues (he started to crawl again at the age of three). Aegon feared the boy might die (and that only changed some time later, when Aenys finally bonded with Quicksilver). The court fears that the King will lose his heir, and the Lords are already suggesting replacements for Rhaenys, as it seems to be consensus that Visenya is barren. Suddenly Visenya announces that she is pregnant and is also quite convinced that she will give birth to a male child.

The overall strange thing is that Aegon I did father only one child on each of his sister-wives, and this only late during his marriages despite the fact that we know/have reason to assume that he shared the bed of his queens regularly, Rhaenys' much more than Visenya, but still... Even more importantly, both sons are born rather late (in 7 AC Aegon and Rhaenys are 35/36, and in 12 AC Visenya is already past forty). If Aegon had no troubles fathering children both Rhaenys and Visenya should have given birth to many sons and daughters, especially since the Targaryens would have been more than aware that they needed an heir to consolidate and continue their rule. Sharra Arryn's suggestion that Aegon name her son Ronnel his heir is also a pretty big hint, suggesting that people already may have considered it odd that the Lord of Dragonstone had no child by his sister-wives even before the Conquest.

It seems to me that in 11 AC Visenya decided to give Aegon an heir through some sort of magical ritual. I don't think Maegor is an artificial creature or something like that, rather that Visenya used magic to ensure that Aegon could impregnate her with his bad semen. This could also be the explanation for both, Maegor's deranged character as well as his incapability to father (healthy) children of his own. Magic comes for a price, after all...

Aenys most likely is indeed not Aegon's son, but that does not really matter...

Sure, the whole Maegor thing is mostly speculation, but it is fun, but the lateness of Aenys' birth strongly suggests that he may really be not Aegon's son. Aenys was born in 7 AC, in the midst of the First Dornish War, and you don't need to be all that smart to assume that the three Targaryen siblings finally realized that Aegon needed an heir fast, or they may lose everything. Rhaenys would not have 'betrayed' or 'tricked' Aegon, but picked a sperm donor with Valyrian features/blond hair to ensure that Aenys looked like a proper son of the Conqueror.

I actually reckon that there's some truth to Tyanna of the Tower being responsible for at least part of Maegor's 'inability' to produce a healthy heir. Whether by poisoning his brides, as claimed, or by giving them moon tea at their request or by sorcery.

Share this post


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

×