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

But the point was, she did not inherit - her husband did.

Her husband could not inherit anything, that's impossible. He was crowned only because he was married to her but his wife was the one who inherited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing suggests that Alyn Velaryon's dragonfire scars have any magic in them, and I take that as 'proof' that the Iron Throne is not magical, either.



I imagine that if the Vale, the Riverlands, or the West did ever have a Queen Regnant, it would have been mentioned.



The Lannister princess did legally inherit, but the lords called a council and gave the crown to her Andal Prince Consort, Joffrey Lydden. That was a ploy to prevent a female monarch as well as a move to appease the Andal lords.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing suggests that Alyn Velaryon's dragonfire scars have any magic in them, and I take that as 'proof' that the Iron Throne is not magical, either.

I imagine that if the Vale, the Riverlands, or the West did ever have a Queen Regnant, it would have been mentioned.

The Lannister princess did legally inherit, but the lords called a council and gave the crown to her Andal Prince Consort, Joffrey Lydden. That was a ploy to prevent a female monarch as well as a move to appease the Andal lords.

Well, we do know that there is something called blood magic. Many people's blood were on that swords that contributed to the IT. There is also no small amount of kingsblood on the IT. VS requires dragonfire and blood sacrifice. The IT apparently does not rust. I strongly suspect that the IT might have a magical nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what? Rhaenyra was a perfectly decent person before her in-laws tried to steal her inheritance, resulting in the death of several of her children and an extremely stressful time for Rhaenyra. She ends up being paranoid but, well, they really were after her.

That doesn't really justify turning downtown King's Landing into an inferno or shrugging it off.

Not sure when Rhaenyra (or the Blacks) 'killed thousands of smallfolk'. She became overly protective of her sons and forbid Joffrey to ride his dragon only because, well, they all got themselves killed while riding a dragon.

Her bad decisions only harmed herself/her close environment rather than the general public.

The whole business with the King's Landing riots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't really justify turning downtown King's Landing into an inferno or shrugging it off.

The whole business with the King's Landing riots.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the mob and the crazy prophet started it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra could have unleashed her dragons and burned KL to the ground. She did not. The rioters rioted, and got themselves killed. That was not her fault.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that if the Vale, the Riverlands, or the West did ever have a Queen Regnant, it would have been mentioned.

There is no need to mention them if their deeds were unimportant.

The Lannister princess did legally inherit, but the lords called a council and gave the crown to her Andal Prince Consort, Joffrey Lydden. That was a ploy to prevent a female monarch as well as a move to appease the Andal lords.

That is besides the point. And the point is that she was the one who inherited, long before Targaryen invasion, thus it has nothing to do with them. She may have not been an actual monarch in the end but the law of succession clearly worked here in terms of inheritance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't really justify turning downtown King's Landing into an inferno or shrugging it off.

I never said it did, though I don't remember burning KL? But if you are going to argue that Rhaenyra shouldn't be the Qeen because she's a horrible person it's hardly fair or reasonable to use things she only did as a result of not becoming one and extensive mental trauma as evidence. You should be looking Rheanyra as she was when Viserys died and there's no evidence she's a horrible person or would have been a bad ruler at all.

Aerys used to cut himself a lot and Joffrey cut himself too. The IT was forged by dragonfire. There is magic in this series. Visenya was a sorceress.

There's no evidence the throne is in any way magical, even if there is magic in the series. Aerys was half-mad, of course he shouldn't be allowed close to sharp objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was interesting how the Iron Throne consistently rejected Rhaenyra in The Princess and the Queen and she was nicknamed "Maegor Teats" or whatever it was by the smallfolk.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was interesting how the Iron Throne consistently rejected Rhaenyra in The Princess and the Queen and she was nicknamed "Maegor Teats" or whatever it was by the smallfolk.

I imagine that's more likely because she was a despot than because she was a woman, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dofs,



Yandel obviously does not consider the Reach Queen Regnant he mentions important, as he does not even give us her name. Yet he mentioned her. Why should he not also mention a Riverlands Queen, an Arryn, Durrandon, or Lannister Queen?



Nothing suggests that the Andals as a whole really thought a daughter should inherit if there were no sons... At least not on the royal level.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra was the heir, there was even a council saying she was the heir in the end. There is nothing to do with Andal law of succession if they changed it in the council. Lords of all the parts of Westeros had a voice and voted. She was chosen, end of the story. Aegon II was being a usurper at that moment.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacks! The Kings word overpowers all. Rhaenyra was named heir, and so she should have been. & Targaryens are awesome, btw. Each house has its good blood & bad blood, so you can't say all the Targaryens are scum because of a few bad apples...However I adore the Targs so, I'm quite biased* Fire&BloodForever :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sympathies for both sides and am also disgusted by the actions taken by both sides in the Dance, but I would side with the Greens as I believe the dance would have been prevented if Aegon had been named heir.



Ignoring all the questions surrounding the nature of the characters on the opposing sides and the validity of Rhaenyra's children I think what people should focus on is the political environment in westeros at the time. (the other issues definitely helped to increase the contention between the two parties and make it a bloodier war but they were not the root cause of the conflict).



The royal succession laws in Westeros might be a shitty system (that men take precedence over women) but when you have the precedents of a Great Council where 20 lords to one declaring for a male claimant over the female as well as the past successions of Jahaerys and VIserys (Baelon too although he never made it to king) overriding female claims, you have to see which way the political current is going and that naming Rhaenyra as heir would just lead to civil war. Opposed to this the only arguments in favour of Rhaenyra is Viserys naming her heir ... one man vs the vast majority of the kingdom!!! So what if he's king how thick can you be to think that naming your daughter as heir when she's six (prior to the birth of any sons) having lords swear to her is going to be enough to go against the customs of six kingdoms and both Andal and First Men tradition. Sure it wouls suck for Rhaenyra if she lost the right to be princess of dragonstone when her brother was born ... but she was ten, she'd get over it. Marry her to Aegon if your so set on her becoming Queen. It just wasn't worth all the death and violence that followed.



People who say that Alicent, Otto or Cole are to blame for the war are completely ignoring the climate in westeros. Even if they hadn't encouraged Aegon, someone else would have or just used him as a figurehead to rebel when Rhaenyra did something unpopular. The crux of the matter for deciding between the two for me is people would fight for Aegon if Rhaenyra was named heir but no one would fight for Rhaenyra if the opposite was true.



I really don't think Rhaenyra, Alicent, Otto or Daemon are truly to blame for the war (though they all helped to aggravate the problem to stunningly horrific lengths), Visery's passive aggressiveness set them on a collision course and at the time of his death civil war could not be prevented.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who say that Alicent, Otto or Cole are to blame for the war are completely ignoring the climate in westeros. Even if they hadn't encouraged Aegon, someone else would have or just used him as a figurehead to rebel when Rhaenyra did something unpopular. The crux of the matter for deciding between the two for me is people would fight for Aegon if Rhaenyra was named heir but no one would fight for Rhaenyra if the opposite was true.

:agree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the topic in hand, I'm skewed towards the blacks. They have much more sympatetic characters such as Jacaerys, Lucerys, Baela, Adam, Rhaenys,... while on the green side only Daeron and Helaena are relatable. And also because I hate Aemond Targaryen passionately.

People who say that Alicent, Otto or Cole are to blame for the war are completely ignoring the climate in westeros. Even if they hadn't encouraged Aegon, someone else would have or just used him as a figurehead to rebel when Rhaenyra did something unpopular. The crux of the matter for deciding between the two for me is people would fight for Aegon if Rhaenyra was named heir but no one would fight for Rhaenyra if the opposite was true.

I'm not convinced about this. At least Daemon and the Velaryons would have fought for Rhaenyra's rights, doubtless.

The "climate of Westeros" was not that one sided. Many people fought for the blacks, and defended their cause to the death. The war wasn't (only) a matter of laws and succession, but of two factions (blacks and greens) that rivalled for power. Arguments could be found (within the law) for Rhaenyra to inherit (Westeros had experience with ruling ladies such as Jeyne Arryn, Aegon was only half-Targaryen, and there had been no precedent of a Targaryen monarch that wasn't Valyrian on both sides,...) Certainly, there wasn't a widespread demand across Westeros to replace Rhaenyra while her father was alive.

Could Viserys have disminished the risk of conflict by consolidating Aegon as the heir? Certainly. But he could have done the same consolidating Rhaenyra. He only had to install a maester of laws not obsessed with maintaining Andal law, and name her daughter as the Hand after Lord Strong's death. Sending his son Daeron to squire for Daemon instead of the Hightowers would have helped too. If the blacks had controlled the power and had crowned Rhaenyra just after Viserys death, it's very doubtful that the greens would have dared to rebel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sympathies for both sides and am also disgusted by the actions taken by both sides in the Dance, but I would side with the Greens as I believe the dance would have been prevented if Aegon had been named heir.

The thing is, all Aegon had to do was say, "No."

Share this post


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

×