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

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). Again, the king's word is law.

We are told that while Aegon I left each Kingdom its own laws and tried to try the cases of each Kingdom according to its laws, hauling around six maesters to advice him on that, Jaehaerys I somehow imposed uniform laws... meaning he must have altered the laws of all kingdoms. How did he get the laws applied throughout the seven kingdoms? Not like Henry II of England did (equipping his Master of Laws with a team of professional judges like these six maesters, possibly sending them on assize circuits, and emasculating the lords and county courts of their jurisdictions) - the only other practical way would have been to issue some dusty book and have it copied in numbers, so each lord would be able to consult a copy, rather than appeal to King´s Landing and Master of Laws.

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.

You are as delusional as Viserys was. In feudal society a king's word is not absolute. A king cannot do whatever he wants in 7 Kingdoms because his armies belong to his lords. And a king must be very careful to not piss off his lords. And for many lords a thousand year unwritten law > king's wishes and I can't say that they are wrong in this.

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.

/thread

Seriously, Alicent is my least favorite character in the entire WOIAF. Alicent, her father, and the knight Rhaenyra jilted... it's all their fault.

The only thing the Blacks did that pissed me off was the entire Blood and Cheese affair. I have a love/hate relationship with Daemon. Interesting character, terrible man, fabulous prince...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They accepted Viserys' wishes. No one rebelled why he was alive. I say they were all liars and traitors. And pretty much everyone got what he deserved.



Viserys I also was the most powerful king of the Targaryen dynasty. If any king's word was law, it would have been. Jaehaerys I laid the groundwork for that, and Viserys reaped the benefits. The Targaryen dynasty pretty much owned Westeros throughout his reign. He could even rule all the members of his quarrelsome family. No one dared to defy him openly.



As to the unification of the laws:



This did obviously not apply to the succession of the Iron Throne, as the whole Iron Throne thing was established by the Conquest and then slowly evolved over time. If there had been a law everyone was bound to there would have been no issue upon the death of Prince Aemon and Baelon.



Jaehaerys unified the various laws of the seven kingdoms that regulated the lives and customs of the various peoples. But it is clear that the law of succession for the Iron Throne remained always vague.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They accepted Viserys' wishes. No one rebelled why he was alive. I say they were all liars and traitors. And pretty much everyone got what he deserved.

I say Rhaenyra, Daemon and the "Velaryon" boys were the traitors and they fully deserved their deaths. Aegon II was their rightful King and they rebelled against his rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the person installed and recognized as the rightful heir to the throne not be the rightful heir? Especially if everyone recognizes her as such and does not rebel during the 24 years she is named Princess of Dragonstone and Heiress Apparent to the Iron Throne?



Or do you think the likes of Otto Hightower, Tyland Lannister, Ironrod, etc. refused to honor and style Rhaenyra as Princess of Dragonstone and Heiress Apparent while her father was still alive?



Tyland may not have sworn the oath in 105 AC, but from the very moment he first did not offer any resistance when anyone in his presence styled Rhaenyra 'the Princess of Dragonstone' he effectively accepted Viserys' wishes in the matter of succession.



You cannot suddenly publicly change your view on such a matter and not be considered a traitor.



And Rhaenyra, her sons, Daemon, and the Velaryons cannot be traitors in any of this, as neither of them had the authority to change or object to Viserys' will. The King chose to make Rhaenyra his heir, not she herself, her uncle-husband, or her three elder sons.



The claim that a King on the Iron Throne has to name and recognize his eldest trueborn son his heir is nowhere supported by any textual evidence I'm aware of. And as far as we know no one in Viserys' administration said to him outright 'Your Grace cannot do this! The law you yourself are bound by forbids it!' which in itself suggests that no such law existed.



From Aegon I to Viserys I (and continuing from there) most Targaryen kings named their heirs themselves.



- Aegon I named Prince Aenys, his eldest son.



- Aenys I named his eldest son, Prince Aegon.



- Maegor usurped the Iron Throne, and named his grand-niece, Princess Aerea, while disinheriting Aenys' children Jaehaerys and Alysanne.



- Jaehaerys I named Princes Aemon, Baelon, and Viserys his heirs (Jaehaerys I named Viserys Prince of Dragonstone, not the Great Council, suggesting that Jaehaerys was not legally bound to respect the decision of the council).



- Viserys I named Princess Rhaenyra his heir.



Nothing suggests that the Lords are asked or have a say in deciding who has the best claim to the Iron Throne if the king himself has already made a decision.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This did obviously not apply to the succession of the Iron Throne, as the whole Iron Throne thing was established by the Conquest and then slowly evolved over time. If there had been a law everyone was bound to there would have been no issue upon the death of Prince Aemon and Baelon.

Jaehaerys unified the various laws of the seven kingdoms that regulated the lives and customs of the various peoples. But it is clear that the law of succession for the Iron Throne remained always vague.

And possibly other laws of succession.

For example, say that the generally applicable law of succession in Jaehaerys´ Code lists some principles, and then simply says: if in doubt, appeal to the paramount lord and his judgement stands. This can work for lords - they have paramounts - but not kings, because they don´t have paramounts. So its applicability to Iron Throne is unclear.

Hell, the law of England about the throne of England is vague, and Elizabeth II is plainly an usurper. For the English law of primogeniture goes: eldest son first BUT all daughters are equal. Baronies are inherited undivided to eldest son, but divided between coheiresses of their issue. Baronies go into abeyance when divided. The office of Lord Chamberlain is rotated between descendants of coheiresses.

How about Crown?

Yes, Mary Tewdur, Elizabeth and Anne inherited the throne each undivided. But Mary and Elizabeth each inherited throne alone by express terms of Henry VIII-s will. And Queen Anne by express terms of Bill of Rights... and from William, not her sister Mary. Mary of Williamandmary was never lone queen nor ruler.

Simply speaking, NO English parliament has ever got around to expressly legislating for the general case of a king dying intestate with more than one daughter, and no statute has altered the common law primogeniture requiring equal sharing between coheiresses. By law, Margaret was, and her only son David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley is, entitled to inherit half of England, and Elizabeth II and her heirs and assigns are plainly usurpers of that half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about that English stuff, but then, the British don't even have a constitution as far as I know...



Yeah, Jaehaerys I would have unified the the succession laws of all the kingdoms the Targaryens ruled, including the succession of the former royal seats. I assume that the 'a daughter comes before an uncle' rule was implemented in the North (and possibly other Andal kingdoms) only at that point, possibly due to Alysanne pushing for it.



The only Andal Queen Regnant we know of was a Gardener, and we also know that there was no Queen Regnant in the North.



And yes, we know that, if a succession/last will is challenged, the liege lord/king is the one who investigates the thing and decides the matter. But in the case of the Iron Throne there is no legal authority who could decide the matter, which means that even if there was a codified law of succession for the Iron Throne, it would still come down to who has the most support/wins the war of succession...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say Rhaenyra, Daemon and the "Velaryon" boys were the traitors and they fully deserved their deaths. Aegon II was their rightful King and they rebelled against his rule.

Please explain this. Viserys I not only declared Rhaenyra his heir and reaffirmed it, he made the LPs swear oaths to recognize her.

The Hightowers were wrong, totally wrong, and completely wrong to depose her. If they had the right of it, why didn't they declare for Aegon II openly?

Instead, they were sneaky and underhanded, and it's why karma returned the crown to Rhaenyra's line, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I oversaw the Tyanna/Maegor thing a little bit further down:



Thinking about Tyanna's miraculous healing of Maegor after the Trial of Seven, my guess is that Tyanna may actually have used magic to help Maegor to father any children on his multiple wives. A hint in that direction could be the fact that Maegor did only father children rather late during his marriage, suggesting that something was really wrong with him, rather than with Ceryse or Alys.



The idea that Tyanna did actually poison/murder the unborn children is just a claim. My guess is that is what she was charged with by Maegor, and eventually confessed to after being tortured.



I'd say that both Aegon I and Maegor were naturally sterile, and were only capable of fathering children due to magic. Aegon/Visenya conceived only a mildly deranged 'natural monstrosity' whereas Maegor's children were not even viable half-dragon, half human monstrosities.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, Aegon was not sterile. I think it's more likely that his wives didn't want to have children. Considering Rhaenys had other lovers, she probably took moontea often. And he didn't sleep with Visenya enough to actually have children. Also, they were conquering a whole continent: not much time for having babies. Getting one of them pregnant meant lose an important part of your leaders for around one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the person installed and recognized as the rightful heir to the throne not be the rightful heir? Especially if everyone recognizes her as such and does not rebel during the 24 years she is named Princess of Dragonstone and Heiress Apparent to the Iron Throne?

Ask Stannis Baratheon - If any one knows the intricacies of the laws of westeros, its him. And he clearly states that Rhaenyra was the traitor.

It has always been so. I am not... I am not a cruel man, Ser Davos. You know me. Have known me long. This is not my decree. It has always been so, since Aegon’s day and before. Daemon Blackfyre, the brothers Toyne, the Vulture King, Grand Maester Hareth... traitors have always paid with their lives... even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more, yet she died a traitor’s death for trying to usurp her brother’s crown. It is law. Law, Davos. Not cruelty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Blacks. They were in the right but I would have instinctively supported them anyway even if the the two claims were even because they were led by a woman.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain this. Viserys I not only declared Rhaenyra his heir and reaffirmed it, he made the LPs swear oaths to recognize her.

The Hightowers were wrong, totally wrong, and completely wrong to depose her. If they had the right of it, why didn't they declare for Aegon II openly?

Instead, they were sneaky and underhanded, and it's why karma returned the crown to Rhaenyra's line, anyway.

A son comes before a daughter. That's how succession works as most of Westeros understands it.

Viserys had no right to name Rhaenyra his heir against that precedent. That's why he kept having to enforce it via oath. The natural inclination of many would be to support a legitimate son ahead of his daughter.

Alicent had to be sneaky and underhanded in order to crown the rightful King because Viserys had thrown the issue into so much confusion by naming Rhaenyra his heir.

It would have been foolish to declare against Viserys while he was still alive. Hightower tried to broach the succession with him numerous times but he still insisted on his daughter ahead of his son. This was a disaster waiting to happen.

Ask Stannis Baratheon - If any one knows the intricacies of the laws of westeros, its him. And he clearly states that Rhaenyra was the traitor.

Exactly. If a complete stickler for the law as Stannis Baratheon believes Rhaenyra was a traitor, then she's a traitor.

Also, the whole idea the King can appoint his heir is disasterous. What if Baelor had decided to appoint some Septon as his heir?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's outright impossible that Visenya and Rhaenys did not want to have any children, nor would it make any sense that Aegon would not want to have any heirs. The whole dynastic purpose of Visenya and Rhaenys was to continue the Targaryen line.



We know that Visenya did go to great length to push Maegor's claim against Aenys, suggesting that she was not exactly pissed off by the fact that she eventually became a mother and had a son. And her whole ambition would have been fulfilled if she had been the first sister-wife giving Aegon a son.



Not to mention that Aegon and his sisters were apparently already married before the Conquest, during a time in which Aegon would have been sexually much more active than in his later years, and Rhaenys not yet a queen who could herself surround her with many handsome courtiers.



Barty,



not sure why the hell citing Stannis 'Women are weird Baratheon should qualify as proof in this matter. Stannis is clearly biased against women inheriting (or doing) anything.


We don't have any reason to believe that Stannis has assessed all the precedents for succession, nor has it anywhere hinted that he is an expert historian on the Dance of the Dragons. If you try to make him an expert/authority you really have to show that he is rather than merely claiming without providing any evidence.



Not to mention that we can't really be sure that George had already imagined the 'Viserys made Rhaenyra his heir' scenario when he wrote ASoS. That's not all that likely, if my knowledge of the whole conception suffice (originally Rhaenyra was supposed to be a year older than Aegon, and nothing suggested they were supposed to be half-siblings).



Paxter Goldwyne,



there was one precedent in favor of Rhaenyra's installation as Princess of Dragonstone - Aerea Targaryen. Not to mention that Rhaenyra was installed as heir when Viserys did not yet have any sons, and thus this thing was perfectly legal. Viserys also did continuous 'enforce it via oath'. There was one oath of obeisance when Rhaenyra was made Princess of Dragonstone, and Viserys did not yet have any sons at this point. Later on all the Realm - even those lords and knights who did not show up for the oath in 105 AC - recognized Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and Princess of Dragonstone.



If Viserys I had actually 'broken the law/done something he could not possibly do' the proper way to counter this for the Lords and knights of the Realm would have been to not recognize Rhaenyra Targaryen as Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and Princess of Dragonstone, and rise in rebellion against this false king and his false heir. Nothing of this sort happened, which essentially makes all the people supporting Aegon's claim traitors and hypocrites. Especially those who were close to court and the king, as they would have interacted with Viserys and Rhaenyra on a number of occasions, styling and honoring her as Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne.



But that aside, once Rhaenyra had been sworn in as Princess of Dragonstone, Viserys I could not possibly alter the succession in favor of Aegon, as all the lords who had sworn the oath of obeisance may have felt bound by it, eventually raising in rebellion against him or Aegon. If a king names an heir, and has half the Realm swear to upheld and defend her rights, he should either stick to her or be prepare to kill her, as only such a drastic action could ensure that no one would declare for her upon his death.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A son comes before a daughter. That's how succession works as most of Westeros understands it.

Viserys had no right to name Rhaenyra his heir against that precedent. That's why he kept having to enforce it via oath. The natural inclination of many would be to support a legitimate son ahead of his daughter.

Nymeria named her Martell daughter over her younger Dayne son, and got that to stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask Stannis Baratheon - If any one knows the intricacies of the laws of westeros, its him. And he clearly states that Rhaenyra was the traitor.

Or maybe he didn't get the full history. I think Stannis is full of shit with this quote, the king decides who his heir is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A son comes before a daughter. That's how succession works as most of Westeros understands it.

Viserys had no right to name Rhaenyra his heir against that precedent. That's why he kept having to enforce it via oath. The natural inclination of many would be to support a legitimate son ahead of his daughter.

Alicent had to be sneaky and underhanded in order to crown the rightful King because Viserys had thrown the issue into so much confusion by naming Rhaenyra his heir.

It would have been foolish to declare against Viserys while he was still alive. Hightower tried to broach the succession with him numerous times but he still insisted on his daughter ahead of his son. This was a disaster waiting to happen.

Eh, the way the Hightowers went about crowning Aegon was totally indefensible. They had a decade and more to encourage Viserys to change the succession. Instead they decided to be sneaky, underhanded, and wrong. Their actions sparked the Dance.

I disliked Alicent after reading TPatQ but post-TWOIAF, she is officially my least favorite character in the entire series, prequels, and supplementary material. Wasn't she the Old King's mistress "nursemaid" after Alysanne died? She was like a worse Margaery Tyrell, grasping for power and doing anything she could to keep it.

Share this post


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

×