Do you support the Greens or Blacks? Why?

[Red Tiger]

His father's wishes fucked him over what is arguable his.

That 'arguable' is the problem here. I blame the Targs for this bullshit because of how inconsistent they were with the laws and their successions. Yeah, Aegon was Aenys heir you're right, but keep in mind that Aenys was a very weak-willed ruler who pretty much just did what he was told, most other Targs were way more willful and inconsiderate of what others considered ironclad rules.

[Nucky Thompson]

Tell that to all of the other Kings who were Prince of Dragonstone first (i.e. almost all of them)

Sure, Princes of Dragonstone, all - not Princesses. What I meant is not that it should always go as a Tywin-style near coup d'etat, but still, the mainstream rules of inheritance provided the framework - the male line inherites and that is that. The Targaryens created their own problems with disregarding the procedure and making a recipe for disaster. What Viserys did was to bend the logic of the process to his will and name Rhaenyra heir-apparent, thus the calling oneself a queen example.

Tell that to all of the other Kings who were Prince of Dragonstone first (i.e. almost all of them)

Complete nonsense. There are all sorts of cases of family names passing through the female line. The World Book specifically outlines a case where the Lannister name passed through the female line when they were still Kings of the Rock. Rhaenyra's sons could've just as easily taken the Targaryen name upon taking the throne. As far as Baratheon/Durrandon goes, there were political considerations there, such as wanting to formally get rid of the old ruling house, while still wanting to preserve a sense of continuity (so the name changes, but the arms and words remain)

Yeah, there are - but when it comes to that, as in the Arryn case - the Targaryens had a male line, hence the civil war.

[Jaak]

What I meant is not that it should always go as a Tywin-style near coup d'etat, but still, the mainstream rules of inheritance provided the framework - the male line inherites and that is that. The Targaryens created their own problems with disregarding the procedure and making a recipe for disaster.

Tywin created problems with his lack of public recognition of Tyrion as heir, too. And Lannisters were ordinary Andal lords, not exceptional as Kings or as Valyrians.

[Aemond's Eye]

After passing the option to close the rift by marrying Laena personally. And he was very lucky to have Rhaenys and Corlys back grandchildren who were not, after all, theirs.

...

Allegedly. There's nothing in the texts that states that Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor actually resembled Harwin Strong, nor is it certain that the "Strong" jibes by Alicent's sons to provoke their nephews, and essentially sully Rhaenyra's reputation.

Even if we accept that Jace, Luke and Joff are definitely not Laenor's - and I don't - then it's possible that Corlys and Rhaenys didn't believe such rumours. It's possible they knew but accepted with the understanding that Daemon & Laena's daughters would be married to Jace and Luke, effectively ensuring that the future King and future Lord of Driftmark both had Targaryen and Velaryon blood anyway.

I don't think we can say for certainty that the boys weren't Laenor's and that Rhaenyra was "lucky".

[Lord Varys]

Jaak,

as I've said earlier, Corlys/Rhaenys may have been very aware of their son's notions, and the fact that he may have been (or was) unwilling to bed a woman. If that was the case, then the Rhaenyra-Laenor was actually a lucky accident for them, as the legitimacy of the children of King Laenor - should he have won in 101 - would have caused much bigger problems for the Crown and Driftmark than the heritage of the children of the Prince Consort (who were undoubtedly the children of the Princess of Dragonstone, their mother).

Corlys made a lot of voyages. It is entirely possible that he married Rhaenys in the 80s before his last great journey, and only fathered children in the early 90s. But even if that was not the case, if Rhaenys and Corlys had been long betrothed in 92 AC, I very much doubt that the Velaryons and Rhaenys/Jocelyn were willing to dissolve that betrothal in favor of the Viserys-Rhaenys match.

93 AC is also unconfirmed as a date for the Viserys-Aemma marriage - all we have is this 'Viserys and Aemma had been married for a decade' when Viserys ascended the Iron Throne in 103 AC. This does not have exactly a decade.

I imagine Jaehaerys chose Baelon the Brave as his heir because the man was very popular (indicated by the name), and also loved by Jaehaerys himself. That, in addition to the fact that the Lords would have preferred a male heir over a female may have been the deciding factor.

[VVSINGOFTHECROSS]

@LordVarys

What you say makes a lot of sense.

Still not sure why so many are trying to shoot it down.

I wonder how many problems would have been avoided had Aemon survived his father.

[Red Tiger]

I always thought Jahaerys chose Baelon over Rhaenys because he thought having a female heir would be one reform too much. He already had made so many changes.

[Wmarshal]

I always thought Jahaerys chose Baelon over Rhaenys because he thought having a female heir would be one reform too much. He already had made so many changes.

I just it had something to do it weakened his own claim be it he said screw you to Andal Law by taking the throne by zero precedent. Honestly there is so much weird things about the succession at this point, any one who married a Targ has a claim.

[Red Tiger]

I just it had something to do it weakened his own claim be it he said screw you to Andal Law by taking the throne by zero precedent. Honestly there is so much weird things about the succession at this point, any one who married a Targ has a claim.

I still believe that Jaehaerys not choosing Rhaenys as his heir was his one and only mistake as a ruler. Alysanne seemed pretty adamant that the girl would have made a fine ruler.

[Lord Varys]

That in itself makes little sense. Aemon had only one child, Rhaenys, as far as we know, and thus Aemon's heir - would he have become king - would have undoubtedly been Rhaenys, at least as long as he did not remarry.

Jaehaerys over Aerea is not yet an issue at this point, I think, as Jaehaerys/Aenys' party was effectively rebelling against Maegor the Usurper, and Alyssa and her supporter gravitated around Jaehaerys, Aenys' only surviving son, rather than around Aerea, who was first hiding with Rhaena, and then became effectively Maegor's hostage and heir.

Jaehaerys I only rose to the Iron Throne due to the civil war he and his supporters fought against Maegor. Without that the throne may very well have gone to Aerea - either through Maegor, who explicitly named her heir, or after Aegon's death, should he have beaten Maegor and succeeded to the Iron Throne.

Confirming Rhaenys as Jaehaerys' heir would have been no controversial decision in itself, I think, especially not if this 'a daughter comes before an uncle' thing was actually predominant in Andal culture (which I actually doubt, as there were pretty much no Queen Regnants in any of the Andal kingdoms besides the Reach).

We simply don't enough about this whole thing. Perhaps there were long standing tensions between Aemon and Baelon because Alyssa - their elder sister - had been married to Baelon instead of Aemon, and Alyssa was pissed that she/her line did not get the Iron Throne?

The Second Quarrel clearly shows that this was a problematic decision, and I'm pretty sure not only Alysanne and the Velaryons were pissed about this... I imagine Jaehaerys - being always a ruler looking for consensus - felt that a Queen Regnant would have been too much at this point - or rather complicate things for the whole Realm. It is clear that Jaehaerys was trying to extent peace and prosperity for his people for decades to come.

Things only get really problematic when Jaehaerys lived another decade and outlived Baelon as well as Aemon. Had Jaehaerys named Rhaenys in 92, he could have groomed her to rule for another decade, making her effectively a very good ruler, and she and Corlys would have had a two heirs of their own by then.

[Jaak]

I imagine Jaehaerys chose Baelon the Brave as his heir because the man was very popular (indicated by the name), and also loved by Jaehaerys himself. That, in addition to the fact that the Lords would have preferred a male heir over a female may have been the deciding factor.

Does that "brave" also bean Baelon would have been brave enough to rebel against his elder brother the King Aemon for making his only daughter his heiress? Was not making Baelon the heir in 92 going to mean war anyway?

(Daemon collected sellswords in 101... but in 92, he was 11. Viserys rode Balerion... but at 15, was he aggressive enough to try rebelling against Aemon, Alysanne and Rhaenys?)

[The Dragon Demands]

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.

...a "law" established only by the whim of the king immediately preceding Viserys I? There was no constitutional convention. Fundamentally, how much of a "custom" is a principle set only fifty years before, during ONE succession?

"Viserys thought his wish was law"....well, so did Jaehaerys I, what's your point?

[The Dragon Demands]

Fundamentally, Rhaenyra remains a controversial figure even to her ardent supporters. But does anyone really "support" Aegon II, or are they just "against Rhaenyra"? It would have been a pity if Daeron the Daring was the heir, as he was an honorable and decent person.

Oh there are some who say that Aegon II is the legal thing to do, or even the pragmatic choice (given that even if Rhaenyra was crowned instead, the Greens DRASTICALLY outnumbered the Blacks and controlled the wealthier kingdoms).

But is there any real "pro-Aegon II sentiment"?

The nicest thing you can say about the guy is that he wasn't a total coward, but rode out to battle on his dragon Sunfyre at Rook's Rest (more than can be said for Aegon IV). Everything else...

[The Dragon Demands]

We really need Green and Black sigils to put in our forum signatures. Someone needs to update the Velaryon heraldry because it is used in Rhaenyra's heraldry -- but the wiki's current version is teal, when it is actually sea-green.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Because those were his father's wishes.

So what? He has dragons (a smaller number, but he has the biggest on his side) and the precedent.

No matter how much Rhaenyra supporters want to push, she was not Viserys' undisputed heir, because there's a lot of precedent against her both in the Iron Throne and in the other parts of the Seven Kingdoms.

Really, that was never stated, Aenys heir was never created as Rhaenyra was, Aegon was just his first born son, Jaeherys pretty much just said he was king even though his brother had living daughters. The Targ succession is a huge mess, one way or another, Viserys didn't help.

Another precedent putting the male before the female- over this one, even Daemon has a better claim than Rhaenyra. Again, Rhaenyra's claim was nowhere near being undisputed.

Fundamentally, Rhaenyra remains a controversial figure even to her ardent supporters. But does anyone really "support" Aegon II, or are they just "against Rhaenyra"? It would have been a pity if Daeron the Daring was the heir, as he was an honorable and decent person.

Oh there are some who say that Aegon II is the legal thing to do, or even the pragmatic choice (given that even if Rhaenyra was crowned instead, the Greens DRASTICALLY outnumbered the Blacks and controlled the wealthier kingdoms).

But is there any real "pro-Aegon II sentiment"?

The nicest thing you can say about the guy is that he wasn't a total coward, but rode out to battle on his dragon Sunfyre at Rook's Rest (more than can be said for Aegon IV). Everything else...

I'm against Rhaenyra and (the King-in-all-but-name) Daemon AND Aegon II. All were horrible people. I just think Aegon II had the better claim, but everyone on both sides was scum.

[Barty]

Fundamentally, Rhaenyra remains a controversial figure even to her ardent supporters. But does anyone really "support" Aegon II, or are they just "against Rhaenyra"? It would have been a pity if Daeron the Daring was the heir, as he was an honorable and decent person.

Oh there are some who say that Aegon II is the legal thing to do, or even the pragmatic choice (given that even if Rhaenyra was crowned instead, the Greens DRASTICALLY outnumbered the Blacks and controlled the wealthier kingdoms).

But is there any real "pro-Aegon II sentiment"?

The nicest thing you can say about the guy is that he wasn't a total coward, but rode out to battle on his dragon Sunfyre at Rook's Rest (more than can be said for Aegon IV). Everything else...

Well he also seemed to handle the pressure of being King and the tragic deaths of his child/family a lot better than Rhaenyra did (that is to say he did not go batshit crazy)

[Jaak]

No matter how much Rhaenyra supporters want to push, she was not Viserys' undisputed heir, because there's a lot of precedent against her both in the Iron Throne and in the other parts of the Seven Kingdoms.

Another precedent putting the male before the female- over this one, even Daemon has a better claim than Rhaenyra. Again, Rhaenyra's claim was nowhere near being undisputed.

Which he duly pointed out. And which was what provoked ser Otto to support swearing oaths to Rhaenyra.

[the conquering bastard 25]

For me, the key difference is he later held a Great Council to confirm the succession. And also, interpretation works both ways. Sure, people could interpret it as the King picks his heir but others could interpret Jaehaerys decision to choose his younger son ahead of his niece as being a precedent for a male Targaryen coming ahead of a female in the succession.

Yet the reverse works just as well.

There are those that can claim that Viserys was setting a new prescedent going back to the first council in 101 where Rhaenys the queen who never was was passed over as the eldest granchild from the eldest male line ie Aenys I.

Viserys I would be setting the presedent that male or female a)the king names the heir with the lords swearing oaths of loyalty which is what Viserys I did. B) hes also confirming what has been done since Aegon I and its the king whom names his heir and its not based upon birthplace.

If the kings word upon whom is heir didn't matter then Rhaegar had nothing to worry about when the Aerys II lickspittles were scheming to have Rhaegar disinherited and place Viserys his younger brother as heir. Right. Because the king has no say in the matter

There would have been no need to call a council after maekars death the law was clear or the precedent was there Vaella was the heir, oh wait no its not because a man comes before a girl.So Maegor was and should have been king. Right?

[the conquering bastard 25]

Except neither side actually won. Unless you have an odd definition of victory. If the Blacks won, why was Rhaenyra never recorded as Queen? I somehow doubt that either Aegon III or Viserys II viewed her as the usurper who was unfit to rule.

TPATQ also has Septon Eustace claim that Aegon II originally rejected the throne - but everything else suggests he coveted it. My point? There's intentional ambiguities that are left as such where the reader has to read between the lines and make up their own mind. Given that I doubt Aegon II was honourable and accepted that Rhaenyra was the true heir, I don't think he actually said that. By the same token, I don't think the Iron Throne magically rejects those unfit to rule. Did Rhaenyra cut herself? Sure. Given her mental and physical state at that point I don't doubt it. It's easy to cut yourself on a throne of swords. But it wasn't because the throne rejected her.

Claiming the throne rejected her justifies Aegon II's usurping, and the decision to always place the males before the females.

Thank you!!!!!!!! It was political propaganda to help ensure the male line comes first.just like not recording her as queen as that would lend credence that a females standing to rule in their own right is okay. As I'm sure her own sons and grandsons never changed matters or texts just further proves that in order to justify disinheriting females in favor of the male claim, she could never be formally written as queen.

There are ways of discrediting a claimant and further a political ideal more effectively and efficiency than brute force and a subtle political hand was at play here.

[Lord Varys]

Jaak,

I did not mean that Baelon/Viserys/Daemon would necessarily rebel against Rhaenys, had she been declared heiress and succeeded to the Iron Throne in, say, 94 AC or so. Although it may be the case that Baelon would not have been all that happy with that decision.

I think it is more likely that Jaehaerys feared that her ascension would cause problems for her reign and the whole dynasty with the Faith, various Lords, etc. If Rhaenys would not be generally accepted as Queen Regnant, she would have had problems to focus all her strength to continue the peace-and-plenty reign of Jaehaerys I.

Jaehaerys is not called 'the Conciliator' for nothing. His policy seems to have been always to create the broadest consensus to prevent disunity and strife, and thus we should assume that Baelon had simply more supporters at court and among the Lords than Rhaenys (and he may also have been Jaehaerys' favorite son - we really don't know anything about their relationship). And we should also consider Septon Barth's role in all that - as a septon he most likely was not in favor of gender equality.

But as I've said, I imagine if Jaehaerys had known that he would outlive Baelon, too, he would have chosen Rhaenys and groomed her to rule in his last decade. Had Rhaenys been Princess of Dragonstone for 11 years, the succession would have gone smoothly, I imagine.