Do you support the Greens or Blacks? Why?

[teemo]

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.

Yah, I hate Aemond too. He reminds me of an adult Joffrey. Poor Helaena though....

[TheKingoftheSevenKingdoms]

The Blacks, but only because Viserys did appoint Rhaenyra as his rightful heir and their side has more characters that I am sympathetic and I can relate too.

The Greens had people I hate with a passion: Aegon II, Borros Baratheon, Aemond Targaryen, Alicent Hightower, Otto Hightower, Criston Cole, Ulf the White. On the Blacks, I actually disliked Rhaenyra and to a lesser extent, Daemon. I really like Jacaerys, Lucerys, Joffrey, Rhaena, Baela, Corlys, Rhaenys, Roderick Dustin, Cregan Stark, Elmo Tully, Aegon III, Viserys II, Alyn Velaryon.

[Dimples]

The Blacks, but only because Viserys did appoint Rhaenyra as his rightful heir and their side has more characters that I am sympathetic and I can relate too.

The Greens had people I hate with a passion: Aegon II, Borros Baratheon, Aemond Targaryen, Alicent Hightower, Otto Hightower, Criston Cole, Ulf the White. On the Blacks, I actually disliked Rhaenyra and to a lesser extent, Daemon. I really like Jacaerys, Lucerys, Joffrey, Rhaena, Baela, Corlys, Rhaenys, Roderick Dustin, Cregan Stark, Elmo Tully, Aegon III, Viserys II, Alyn Velaryon.

How can you not choose the Blacks when they have this guy?

Also, don't forget Forrest, the only likeable Frey.

[Barrick Eddon]

I would supported the blacks , if only Cregan Stark killed the rest of the living Targs and razed KL to the ground :lol:

[Red Tiger]

How can you not choose the Blacks when they have this guy?

Also, don't forget Forrest, the only likeable Frey.

And the blacks had the Blackwoods, one of the most awesome houses in Westeros.

[Good King Daemon]

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

Aemon said no to the great council too but still felt the need to go to the wall.

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

She wouldn't have had any rights if she wasn't named heir though. Daemon might still rebel for her (and himself) but he'd have no real pretext and if Corly's didn't fight for Rhaenys or Laenor I doubt he'd fight for Rhaenyra if she was replaced as the princess of dragonstone.

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.

I think the Princess and the Queen shows that a lot have the later support for Rhaenyra had more to do with Jacaerys and his charisma and skills as a negotiator than Rhaenyra's claim. He and his dragon would also have reminded those lords that there was an able male heir waiting in the wings.

As to Jeyne Arryn she does not seem to have had any brothers which makes her and rhaenyra's situation very different. Also I'd argue that the previous results of the great council (20:1 in favour of the male claimant) shows the demand was there for Aegon but perhaps not for lords openly telling the King on the throne (who commands dragons) that he is wrong.

Also a new master of laws would only be another voice at court preaching to the choir in rhaenyra's ears. He would have very little influence to the lords outside the court, especially when his word was going against what had been their custom for thousands of years.

[Lord Varys]

From the very moment Rhaenyra was installed as Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent, and half the Lords of the Realm (or more, we really don't know who exactly showed up for that event) had sworn oaths to her, she would have had a power base which she could have used to stage her own coup/rebellion after her father's death, even if Viserys had changed the succession in favor of Aegon.

Not sure about Jace's charisma or the size of his dragon. He surely had some leadership skills as he was groomed to succeed Rhaenyra, but Jeyne Arryn was very likely to join Rhaenyra anyway, and Cregan Stark's support seems to have come because Jace offered him very good terms (the Pact of Ice and Fire, a Targaryen-Stark marriage).

Jace's success in the North should be compared to Stannis' success with the mountain clans - he was a royal prince and dragonrider who actually bothered to seek out the marginalized and sidelined Northerners and Sistermen. That alone could have been enough. Showing them that he valued them would have motivated them to prove their valor, especially since the Greens apparently did not send any envoys north.

[Winterfell is Burning]

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

Rhaenyra could also say no.

And of course Aegon was not the only son of Viserys, and had children of his own.

And Aemon said no, and was a Maester, but still felt he had to go to the Wall.

[Nictarion]

Rhaenyra could also say no.

Why the hell should she have?

She was the chosen heir, and raised since birth to rule.

[Paxter Goldwyne]

Why the hell should she have?

She was the chosen heir, and raised since birth to rule.

Why should Aegon say no? He's the eldest son and by tradition and precedent of most succession laws he's the rightful King, whatever his father's wishes may have been.

[Jaak]

Also I'd argue that the previous results of the great council (20:1 in favour of the male claimant) shows the demand was there for Aegon but perhaps not for lords openly telling the King on the throne (who commands dragons) that he is wrong.

Were the Lords at Great Council of 101 voting 20:1 to support "the male" Viserys over (also male) Laenor, or were they voting 20:1 against telling Jaehaerys that his decision back in 92 was wrong?

If Jaehaerys had died first and left King Baelon on the throne, would there have been a Great Council, or would Baelon have simply appointed Viserys as Prince of Dragonstone as a matter of course?

[Red Tiger]

Why should Aegon say no? He's the eldest son and by tradition and precedent of most succession laws he's the rightful King, whatever his father's wishes may have been.

Cause his dad said 'Your sister is my heir, not you', plus he was never groomed to rule. His dad's wishes should have mattered to him.

[Lord Varys]

If your father the king says 'You are not my heir', then you can cite tradition and stuff as long as you want, it is not going to change your father's decree.

[Paxter Goldwyne]

If your father the king says 'You are not my heir', then you can cite tradition and stuff as long as you want, it is not going to change your father's decree.

Which is why when your father is dead you can take matters into your own hands and fight for your rights.

[The Wolves]

Which is why when your father is dead you can take matters into your own hands and fight for your rights.

And when you fight that fight you and your whole line brothers, sister, and children are all extinct and you loose and your sister's line continues to hold the throne because she's the rightful heir and karma is a straight bitch than you have learned a lesson.

[Paxter Goldwyne]

And when you fight that fight you and your whole line brothers, sister, and children are all extinct and you loose and your sister's line continues to hold the throne because she's the rightful heir and karma is a straight bitch than you have learned a lesson.

At least you'll have taken down your usurping sister and her bastard children with her. And does karma really exist in Westeros?

Not everyone has to support Rhaenyra you know.

[Aemond's Eye]

Given that Aegon himself fathered at least two bastards (that we know about), I somewhat doubt that he cared about taking down Rhaenyra's alleged bastard sons because they were bastards, and more because they all came before him in the line of succession that was effectively decreed by Viserys I choosing Rhaenyra as his heir. Daemon's sons did too. (That's why the "Aegon only took the throne to prevent Rhaenyra murdering his family" line of thought doesn't hold up - Aegon and Aemond were always hostile towards Laenor's sons, and the only real reason is because they came first in the line of succession.)

Incidentally, Rhaenyra did not usurp. It's one thing not to support her claim, but you're not a usurper when you're the designated heir. She's only seen as a usurper if you strictly follow Andal laws, which the Targaryens did not. And neither do we.

[Paxter Goldwyne]

Given that Aegon himself fathered two bastards I somewhat doubt that he cared about taking down Rhaenyra's alleged bastard sons because they were bastards, and more because they all cake before him in the line of succession that was effectively decreed by Viserys I choosing Rhaenyra as his heir. Daemon's sons did too. (That's why the "Aegon only took the throne to prevent Rhaenyra murdering his family" line of thought doesn't hold up - Aegon and Aemond were always hostile towards Laenor's sons, and the only real reason is because they came first in the line of succession.)

Incidentally, Rhaenyra did not usurp. It's one thing not to support her claim, but you're not a usurper when you're there designated heir. She's only seen as a usurper if you strictly follow Andal laws, which the Targaryens did not. And neither do we.

His bastards don't matter because they're not in the line of succession. She's passing her sons off as legitimate.

She is a usurper in my eyes and always will be for trying to take her brother's rightful crown. I'm with Stannis on that one.

[Aemond's Eye]

His bastards don't matter because they're not in the line of succession. She's passing her sons off as legitimate.

She is a usurper in my eyes and always will be for trying to take her brother's rightful crown. I'm with Stannis on that one.

Her being a usurper in your eyes doesn't make her so. Stannis also supported his brother when he was a usurper. Much as I like The Mannis, his opinion is not absolute - especially not if we don't acknowledge a King's decree as absolute.

And Aegon's bastards do matter. The Greens argued that Rhaenyra & Daemon would turn the Red Keep into a brothel; Aegon already kept paramours there. They argued that Laenor's sons were bastards; Viserys I and Corlys had accepted them, so that should have been enough for Aegon and his mother. Besides, they didn't argue that Aegon The Younger should be Rhaenyra's heir - they wanted it for Aegon The Usurper. The alleged illegitimacy of Laenor's sons was one of the excuses given - it was not the reason Aegon II was crowned.

[Paxter Goldwyne]

Her being a usurper in your eyes doesn't make her so.

And Aegon's bastards do matter. The Greens argued that Rhaenyra & Daemon would turn the Red Keep into a brothel; Aegon already kept paramours there. They argued that Laenor's sons were bastards; Viserys I and Corlys had accepted them, so that should have been enough for Aegon and his mother. Besides, they didn't argue that Aegon The Younger should be Rhaenyra's heir - they wanted it for Aegon The Usurper. The alleged illegitimacy of Laenor's sons was one of the excuses given - it was not the reason Aegon II was crowned.

And Aegon being a usurper in your eyes doesn't make him so.

Viserys was injured by the throne when he punished those who accused Rhaenyra's sons of being bastards. The same throne which sliced up Rhaenyra when she usurped it.

It doesn't matter if a King has paramours as the children are clearly bastards as they are not born to his wife. If a woman takes paramours (even with her husband's consent) then it throws the paternity of the children into doubt.