Daemon Blackfyre won the Battle of Redgrass Field

[Lord Varys]

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

You forget that its "lord" Peake, as lords seldom are idolized footsoldiers. At the least they are in command of their levies and I see no reason to think that Lord Gormon Peake was not a commander on the Blackfyre side.

That doesn't make him a commander or general of a Blackfyre army. There were two generals of Northern armies during the War of the Five Kings. One commanded by Robb Stark, the other by Roose Bolton. The other northern armies never were commanders and generals (until Roose sent Glover and Tallhart with a host against Duskendale).

We don't have any reason to believe Gormon Peake ever commanded an army during the Blackfyre Rebellion. Daemon Blackfyre commanded his army on the Redgrass Field, and Bittersteel took commands of the remains after his death.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

To me its pretty clear that Fireball had an army with him or do you think he did all the things he's mentioned as doing while going solo?

Sure, he was a commander/general during the campaign in the West. Peake was not as far as we know.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Could be, but odds are that those reserves would have been unable to turn the tide when the main host has failed.

With reserve I meant 'occupied elsewhere in the Realm' or 'raising men in the hopes to get in time to the Redgrass Field'. I don't think any Blackfyre men were held in reserve at the Redgrass Field.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

If the Lannisters had already declared for the Targaryens, or Daemon could draw on previous experience to tell that the Lannisters would side with House Targaryen, then attacking the West before they can unite with other loyalists further east makes perfect sense.

Antagonizing your enemies is something one just have to do during a war.

That doesn't make a lot of sense in light of the fact that we don't know anything about that war. We don't how many men from which lords Fireball led into the West, and why he did that. We don't even know what the point of that campaign was. Daeron II wasn't at Casterly Rock as far as we know, and the Iron Throne was in KL.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Rhaenyra rebelled against Aegon II as I recall. Saying that she didn't rebel is like saying that Robb Stark never rebelled against Joffrey or Balon never rebelled against Robert. Its rather clear that Robb and Balon were in rebellion against the crown and Joffrey and Robert held the crown during these two times.

Robb Stark never acknowledged Joffrey Baratheon as his king. From the point of view of Joffrey he was rebelling against him because he thought he was 'the king'. The point I'm trying to make here is that Joffrey-Robb and Rhaenyra-Aegon went at each other's throat whereas Daemon Blackfyre recognized Daeron II as his king for twelve years, doing homage to him, etc.

That is a clear difference and quite obviously treason. If the succession is contested things are different.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

If you recognize someone as king or not before you press for that person't throne still makes you a rebel when the holder of the title has the legitimiacy to succeed the former king. I don't really see the point here.

Then you have to look again. A king is made and accepted as such by his subjects. If he isn't then he isn't king outside of his own head.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Its rather clear that when Daemon rebelled, there was a faction supporting him as otherwise it would be hard for him to raise an army.

Not a faction at court of the same sort and power as the Blacks and the Greens. Daemon Blackfyre didn't seem to have had support amongst the Kingsguard or the Small Council, or other high ranking officials. Just a bunch of bastards and some disgruntled knights and lords.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I think that you underestimate how complex these things are, and a child was perfectly possible to serve as a figurehead for Rhaenyra's Blacks so no reason to think they wouldn't serve for Daemon's Blacks.

It is because Aegon the Younger wasn't exactly the main reason why the Blacks continued the fight. They feared Aegon II and wanted to kill him. They might even have continued the fight if Rhaenyra's line had been extinguished. Just as the Faith Militant needed no stupid Targaryen pretender as an alternative to Aenys or Maegor. They wanted to kill them all.

Aegon II was never called 'the Good'. Daeron II was. It would have been rather easy to make a peace with him.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

In regards to the lords I agree that many who fought for Daemon would have abandoned the Blackfyre cause after its loss at the Redgrass Field. Everyone wants to be on the winning side after all, and the first Daemon apparently had the best shot of all the Blackfyres.

Then we are in agreement there.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

For the first thing there is a difference between being willing to fight for someone and willing to die pointlessly for someone. A stand at Whitewalls had no chance in hell to succeed and would not have accomplished anything. And I really don't think that the common-born soldiers are generally at all as invested in the different dynastic disputes as their noble bosses are.

I was referring to the talk between the men-at-arms Dunk overheard long before the Whitewalls thing seemed to be hopeless. Those guys weren't looking forward to a war and they were Redgrass Field veterans.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

But I totally agree that there isn't a great continuation for the Blackfyre supporters but for each rebellion, people with current and fresh grievences will join one side or another, not because of what grievence was relevant to their grandparents some sixty years ago. An excellent example of this is Webber who fought the First Rebellion for the Reds but then descendents ended up with the Golden Company. My guess is that Rohanne's counsin who didn't get Coldmoat sided with the Blackfyres in an attempt to press that claim and then his descendent is currently fighting for Aegon in the Stormlands, and still wants to press a claim to Coldmoat and become a lord.

The Webber guy is with the Windblown, not the Golden Company. There is no reason to believe that this guy ever fought for the Blackfyres.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Could be that Bloodraven held lands, but I personally don't think he did. He don't seem the guy interesting in caring for any House other than Targaryen.

As Hand he could have gotten some. Or not. It doesn't matter.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Could be but in the lack of more info I am not ready to ascribe this scheme to Daemon just yet.

But there would have been some scheme. Could be that Daemon intended to announce to the Realm and his half-brother that he was a false king with no right to the throne and that he should abdicate in his favor, giving him terms and all. If he didn't meet his deadline he would then take up arms against him.

But that would have been a pretty stupid scheme, don't you think? Much easier to actually kill the old man and be done with it.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Maybe he could but why would the Black accept that? They were winning greatly and would probably have just waved such an offer aside and gone for total victory. Its a rather fact that no, and I repeat no, Green force any much success or staying power beyond the Green army in the Reach. When you score victory after victory, why settle for something but total victory? No need for a compromisse.

As far as we know the Lads only won after they had won on the Kingsroad. If Aegon II had offered favorable terms to them he could have prevented another battle, possibly even gathering enough strength to deal with the Stark army. It was foolish of him to not try to make a peace after he had retaken the Iron Throne.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I find it hilarious that you say that Aegon ran and hide like a coward. What should we then say of Rhaenyra who was driven out of her own capital by her own subjects and ran like hell to hide in Dragonstone?

Sure, she behaved like a coward as well. I never said she didn't. Or do you think there is any reason to think that a person running away from her subjects is a proper monarch? No, she lost her crown when she left the city just as much as Aegon did.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not really. Several times there have been the kings, or queens, who have had to rely back on custom and tradition for a legal situation. There's a distinct lack of the autocratic "I am king and therefor I can decide whatever I want regardless whatever I want!"

George has recently confirmed the Targaryens created an absolute monarchy.

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And I agree that the inheritance can be murky. But I have yet to find a single example that its murky at all when there are living sons of the ruler alive.

But there can be confusion as to who has the right to the throne, right? As in Daeron II and Daemon Blackfyre. There was no proof that Daeron II was actually not the son of Aegon IV so this was basically a younger bastard son against his trueborn elder brother. 

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree. And that's why I also think that regardless of how unsuited Daemon Blackfyre would have been as king, in a couple of generations people could well be singing his praises.

Or not. Since nobody sings the praises of Aenys I. If Daemon Blackfyre had reigned for forty years and become a successful ruler he would have been praised. If one of his sons had cut his throat ten years after the Redgrass Field he would have looked as an utter fool and failure.

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

George has recently confirmed the Targaryens created an absolute monarchy.

Very interesting. I will comment further on the whole post but if this is the case I would love to get a link as this would kind of make for a radical new understanding of Westeros for me.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Very interesting. I will comment further on the whole post but if this is the case I would love to get a link as this would kind of make for a radical new understanding of Westeros for me.

It was during the recent event in Mexico. @The Fattest Leech linked a video from the event in one of the last L+R=J threads and we even discussed the implications of this in that thread. The actual information on the whole doesn't come from the video but from a report from a person who attended some meeting with George and got the ask the question why there are no legal institutions limiting the power of the king.

It basically is because the Targaryens never intended there to be some legal counterweight to their absolute power when they build their monarchy in the dragon days. And it is sort of obvious that nothing limits the power of the king due to the fact that there is no formal assembly of the lords or even the great lords in existence whose permission the king needs in certain situations. Say, to raise new taxes or to declare war, or to make new laws. There are also no independent judges of any sort. Once the Faith also had the right to conduct trials but that's gone.

It is quite clear that lords who feel wronged or mistreated can either petition to the king, complain to him, or rebel against him. There is no Magna Carta, no Parliament, not even the right of certain high nobles to be always part of the king's councils or always play a crucial role in the government of the Realm.

[The Fattest Leech]

@Lord Varys I may still have that link if you need I tell. Just let me know. 

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It was during the recent event in Mexico. @The Fattest Leech linked a video from the event in one of the last L+R=J threads and we even discussed the implications of this in that thread. The actual information on the whole doesn't come from the video but from a report from a person who attended some meeting with George and got the ask the question why there are no legal institutions limiting the power of the king.

It basically is because the Targaryens never intended there to be some legal counterweight to their absolute power when they build their monarchy in the dragon days. And it is sort of obvious that nothing limits the power of the king due to the fact that there is no formal assembly of the lords or even the great lords in existence whose permission the king needs in certain situations. Say, to raise new taxes or to declare war, or to make new laws. There are also no independent judges of any sort. Once the Faith also had the right to conduct trials but that's gone.

It is quite clear that lords who feel wronged or mistreated can either petition to the king, complain to him, or rebel against him. There is no Magna Carta, no Parliament, not even the right of certain high nobles to be always part of the king's councils or always play a crucial role in the government of the Realm.

Well, it sounds like there isn't much to convince me then. If the link can be presented I will have a look but until then I'll maintain my normal position.

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Well, it sounds like there isn't much to convince me then. If the link can be presented I will have a look but until then I'll maintain my normal position.

Here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/5ggsle/grrms_visit_to_mexico_highlightsmy_experience

The relevant part:

Quote

At last I was able to ask him the question I had sent for the tombola. I have always been fascinated by how ASOIAF embodies the theories put forward by Acemoglu and Robinson about countries with extractive institutions (which hamper development). So my question was: Why do you think the political institutions in the Seven Kingdoms are so weak? His answer: the Kingdom was unified with dragons, so the Targaryen's flaw was to create an absolute monarchy highly dependent on them, with the small council not designed to be a real check and balance. So, without dragons it took a sneeze, a wildly incompetent and megalomaniac king, a love struck prince, a brutal civil war, a dissolute king that didn't really know what to do with the throne and then chaos. Interesting answer.

While we can certainly say absolute Targaryen power sort of eroded after the Dance and the death of the dragons it is also quite clear that a king like Aegon the Unworthy still could do whatever the hell he wanted to do (and actually did so, perhaps much more so than any other king, those with dragons included) despite the fact that he had no dragons and wasn't even an impressive/charismatic warrior-king.

George himself blames the early death of Jaehaerys II, the reign of Aerys the Mad, Rhaegar's actions, Robert's Rebellion, and Robert's reign for the erosion of the power of the Iron Throne.

[Lion of the West]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/5ggsle/grrms_visit_to_mexico_highlightsmy_experience

The relevant part:

While we can certainly say absolute Targaryen power sort of eroded after the Dance and the death of the dragons it is also quite clear that a king like Aegon the Unworthy still could do whatever the hell he wanted to do (and actually did so, perhaps much more so than any other king, those with dragons included) despite the fact that he had no dragons and wasn't even an impressive/charismatic warrior-king.

George himself blames the early death of Jaehaerys II, the reign of Aerys the Mad, Rhaegar's actions, Robert's Rebellion, and Robert's reign for the erosion of the power of the Iron Throne.

All interesting info I have to take in now. But it does appear that Targaryens would have been absolutistic kings...

[Samantha Stark]

While it resembles absolute monarchy, I really don't think the Targaryen dynasty could be easily classified as that. It's telling that even Aegon the unworthy stopped short of disinheriting Daeron. That would have pissed too many people off.

[Lost Melnibonean]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/5ggsle/grrms_visit_to_mexico_highlightsmy_experience

The relevant part:

While we can certainly say absolute Targaryen power sort of eroded after the Dance and the death of the dragons it is also quite clear that a king like Aegon the Unworthy still could do whatever the hell he wanted to do (and actually did so, perhaps much more so than any other king, those with dragons included) despite the fact that he had no dragons and wasn't even an impressive/charismatic warrior-king.

George himself blames the early death of Jaehaerys II, the reign of Aerys the Mad, Rhaegar's actions, Robert's Rebellion, and Robert's reign for the erosion of the power of the Iron Throne.

"A love struck prince?"

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, Samantha Stark said:

While it resembles absolute monarchy, I really don't think the Targaryen dynasty could be easily classified as that. It's telling that even Aegon the unworthy stopped short of disinheriting Daeron. That would have pissed too many people off.

You are correct in practical matters the king would have had to take the opinion of armed men into his account. But if GRRM says their power is theoretically absolute then I'm not sure what argument can be brought against that.

[Samantha Stark]

2 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

You are correct in practical matters the king would have had to take the opinion of armed men into his account. But if GRRM says their power is theoretically absolute then I'm not sure what argument can be brought against that.

Of course it's theoretically absolute. It has been before GRRM said as much. But there is still a thin red line that whoever sits on the Iron Throne simply cannot step over.

[Lion of the West]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

Of course it's theoretically absolute. It has been before GRRM said as much. But there is still a thin red line that whoever sits on the Iron Throne simply cannot step over.

It wasn't absolute the way I read the books with how kings didn't do whatever fancied them. Like how Robert just didn't name Tommen or someone other than Joffrey as his heir when he didn't want Joffrey to take the throne. But I agree that there is a red line the king can't step over without consequences.

[Samantha Stark]

1 minute ago, LionoftheWest said:

It wasn't absolute the way I read the books with how kings didn't do whatever fancied them. Like how Robert just didn't name Tommen or someone other than Joffrey as his heir when he didn't want Joffrey to take the throne. But I agree that there is a red line the king can't step over without consequences.

Robert could have done that. And it likely would have ended the same way it did in the original timeline for him and his supporters.

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, Samantha Stark said:

Robert could have done that. And it likely would have ended the same way it did in the original timeline for him and his supporters.

But he never even contemplates the possibility. He never says that he would have liked to make Tommen or Renly king, but only that he's stuck with Joffrey under Cersei's influence. And Robb claims that Renly can't be king before Stannis. And Eddard is very fixed on that Stannis is the rightful heir when Robert don't have any legitimite children. But right now, if the king can name whoever he fancies as his heir, then Robert, Eddard, Robb and so on, they are all ignorant idots who don't even know how the feudal system of Westeros, where they hold top positions, works. Are they really supposed to be so dumb? It just breaks me that either GRRM really screwed up or he populated the setting with characters who don't know the first thing about their own culture.

If you have an answer to this I am happy to hear because I'm kind of lost.

[Samantha Stark]

8 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

But he never even contemplates the possibility. He never says that he would have liked to make Tommen or Renly king, but only that he's stuck with Joffrey under Cersei's influence. And Robb claims that Renly can't be king before Stannis. And Eddard is very fixed on that Stannis is the rightful heir when Robert don't have any legitimite children. But right now, if the king can name whoever he fancies as his heir, then Robert, Eddard, Robb and so on, they are all ignorant idots who don't even know how the feudal system of Westeros, where they hold top positions, works. Are they really supposed to be so dumb? It just breaks me that either GRRM really screwed up or he populated the setting with characters who don't know the first thing about their own culture.

If you have an answer to this I am happy to hear because I'm kind of lost.

• Robert still believes Joffrey is his child despite the fact he is unhappy with him. Robert mirrors Aegon the unworthy alot, but I don't believe Robert is near as malicious and petty as Aegon, and certainly not petty enough to disinherit Joff just because he doesn't like him. There is also the fact Joff's grandfather has been funding Robert's entire reign. 
• Eddard is technically the most correct out of anybody and his entire plan was to have a bloodless coup that would have installed Stannis.
• Renly is basing his entire claim off the fact that 'might makes right' which is also very true. If Renly has the force of arms to take the throne and hold it, then that is as strong of a claim as any.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Samantha Stark said:

While it resembles absolute monarchy, I really don't think the Targaryen dynasty could be easily classified as that. It's telling that even Aegon the unworthy stopped short of disinheriting Daeron. That would have pissed too many people off.

That was a special case. Aegon IV wasn't the King of Dorne but Prince Daeron was married to a Dornish princess and on very good terms with the Prince of Dorne, his brother-in-law. Aegon would have risked another war with Dorne had he disinherited his son who also had supporters among many of his lords. He would have risked both a war with Dorne and a rebellion of some of his lords. But one of assumes Aegon was actually just biding his time, waiting for Daemon Blackfyre to grow somewhat older. Then he would have destroyed Daeron one way or another.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

It wasn't absolute the way I read the books with how kings didn't do whatever fancied them. Like how Robert just didn't name Tommen or someone other than Joffrey as his heir when he didn't want Joffrey to take the throne. But I agree that there is a red line the king can't step over without consequences.

You have to keep in mind that an absolute monarchy can also have issues with the succession. It basically means that the King and the Crown are the ultimate legal authority, not that some members of the royal family (or even the subjects) can't have other views on the matter. It just means that the king has the legal authority to do and decree whatever the hell he wants. And that was never in doubt for the Kings on the Iron Throne because there are no legal institutions limiting their power.

That is also the matter with the Dance. This is basically an internal Targaryen matter. The royal family is split up and the king has failed to make the succession of his chosen heir a rock-solid case. But everybody knew what his wishes and decrees said, and those going against those also knew what they were doing. This is very evident in Septon Eustace's tale of Prince Aegon refusing to take the throne less he look like a disobedient son who is not honoring the wishes and commands of his late royal father.

We actually see this best with that dreadful decree of Aegon IV's to legitimize all his children. He did that on his deathbed, so one would assume that it could have been suppressed by the people around him or quickly overturned by his successor, King Daeron II, but neither happened.

There is no reason to believe Robert ever wanted to name an heir that wasn't Joffrey. After all, it is common practice that the eldest son succeed his father. That's the custom, and Robert isn't exactly a revolutionary.

And he didn't give a shit about his kingdom and its future after he was gone. He once expresses doubts at the thought of Joff and Cersei ruling but those quickly go away and then no longer cares again, as usual. If he had wanted to he could actually have taken the upbringing and eduction of his son into his own hands, trying to make him into a man he could be proud of. Or a man who wouldn't be as stupid and cruel as Joff was. But he didn't care about that.

If he had wanted to he could also limited Lannister power at court. And, of course, he could also have named Tommen or Stannis or Renly his heir but he would have to make that explicit because, you know, the standard thing is that your eldest son succeeds you.

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And Robb claims that Renly can't be king before Stannis.

There is sort of default line of succession. If a lord or king doesn't have left a will and still has an eldest living son or younger brother then that guy will be his heir even if he hasn't explicitly said so. For instance, Aerys I never was Prince of Dragonstone or Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne but since Prince Valarr, Prince Matarys, and Daeron II all died within days, hours, or minutes of each other Prince Aerys suddenly became King Aerys I despite the fact that nobody was expecting this to happen.

And noble children are clearly raised to believe that a younger son has to follow the elder as well as that a woman is less worth than a man. Else the whole primogeniture thing wouldn't work.

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And Eddard is very fixed on that Stannis is the rightful heir when Robert don't have any legitimite children.

Sure, that would the default thing. If the king hasn't (for some reason) picked an unconventional heir then we go with the usual custom thing. Who is the next in line. If there is a (eldest) trueborn son we go with him. If there is no son, we go with a younger brother. We only don't do that if we have a vested interest - like the Tyrells - to seat another man on the throne (as in the Renly vs. Stannis thing).

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

But right now, if the king can name whoever he fancies as his heir, then Robert, Eddard, Robb and so on, they are all ignorant idots who don't even know how the feudal system of Westeros, where they hold top positions, works. Are they really supposed to be so dumb?

They are not dumb. Ned and Robb can't change the succession. Robert could have. But he didn't care to do so or else he would have done it.

And again, aside from Daemon Blackfyre's failed rebellion, there was never a younger son coming before an elder. There is no precedent for a king disinheriting a strong-willed elder son like Joffrey in favor of a little boy like Tommen. If Robert had truly wanted to do that he would have to to tell the Realm and get Cersei and the Lannisters on board with the whole thing. Hell, he would have to get Tommen on board with it as well, or else he would most likely have rejected the throne in favor of Joffrey upon his father's death to please his family.

But we know from both Aegon IV's and Aerys II's deliberations that a king's power to disinherit his heir is a real thing. Neither Aegon nor Aerys went through with it as far as we know but it seems they could have done so. They most likely would have been forced to physically destroy those sons to be sure that they would not try to rebel upon their deaths but it is quite clear that they could have disinherited them and named a new heir. Just as they most likely could arrest any of their subjects, including members of the royal family, without giving anybody a reason for their actions. Look how Aerys treated his sister-wife for most of his reign. Does anybody truly believe he couldn't have treated Rhaegar in the same fashion if he wanted to?

18 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

• Robert still believes Joffrey is his child despite the fact he is unhappy with him. Robert mirrors Aegon the unworthy alot, but I don't believe Robert is near as malicious and petty as Aegon, and certainly not petty enough to disinherit Joff just because he doesn't like him. There is also the fact Joff's grandfather has been funding Robert's entire reign. 

Indeed. Robert once named Joffrey his heir, most likely when the boy was born, and then stuck with that. It is very explicit in the will he dictates to Ned. He doesn't need to name an heir because he already has one. All he needs to do is to set up a Regency government for the four remaining years of Joffrey's minority. And that he does.

18 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

• Renly is basing his entire claim off the fact that 'might makes right' which is also very true. If Renly has the force of arms to take the throne and hold it, then that is as strong of a claim as any.

Renly also has a pretty good claim as Robert's youngest brother and a great-grandson of Aegon V. It is not as good as that of Stannis and that of Robert's children (if you believe they are Robert's) but it is still a powerful claim.

There is a reason why the Tyrells are backing Renly, and not Renly a King Mace. Might makes right only up to a point. The Tyrells control more swords than Renly does but Renly does have royal blood.

[Lion of the West]

4 hours ago, Samantha Stark said:

• Robert still believes Joffrey is his child despite the fact he is unhappy with him. Robert mirrors Aegon the unworthy alot, but I don't believe Robert is near as malicious and petty as Aegon, and certainly not petty enough to disinherit Joff just because he doesn't like him. There is also the fact Joff's grandfather has been funding Robert's entire reign. 
• Eddard is technically the most correct out of anybody and his entire plan was to have a bloodless coup that would have installed Stannis.
• Renly is basing his entire claim off the fact that 'might makes right' which is also very true. If Renly has the force of arms to take the throne and hold it, then that is as strong of a claim as any.

While good points, you do not really adress why Eddard felt that Stannis had a better claim than Renly or why Robb would say that Stannis comes before Renly if there isn't a line of succession.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have to keep in mind that an absolute monarchy can also have issues with the succession. It basically means that the King and the Crown are the ultimate legal authority, not that some members of the royal family (or even the subjects) can't have other views on the matter. It just means that the king has the legal authority to do and decree whatever the hell he wants. And that was never in doubt for the Kings on the Iron Throne because there are no legal institutions limiting their power.

Let's say its like this.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is also the matter with the Dance. This is basically an internal Targaryen matter. The royal family is split up and the king has failed to make the succession of his chosen heir a rock-solid case. But everybody knew what his wishes and decrees said, and those going against those also knew what they were doing. This is very evident in Septon Eustace's tale of Prince Aegon refusing to take the throne less he look like a disobedient son who is not honoring the wishes and commands of his late royal father.

Ok.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We actually see this best with that dreadful decree of Aegon IV's to legitimize all his children. He did that on his deathbed, so one would assume that it could have been suppressed by the people around him or quickly overturned by his successor, King Daeron II, but neither happened.

That's a point.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to believe Robert ever wanted to name an heir that wasn't Joffrey. After all, it is common practice that the eldest son succeed his father. That's the custom, and Robert isn't exactly a revolutionary.

I agree that he isn't. But then again the only really revolutionary king I can think of was Baelor the Blessed for even Aegon V was aghast that his child would marry a commoner.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And he didn't give a shit about his kingdom and its future after he was gone. He once expresses doubts at the thought of Joff and Cersei ruling but those quickly go away and then no longer cares again, as usual. If he had wanted to he could actually have taken the upbringing and eduction of his son into his own hands, trying to make him into a man he could be proud of. Or a man who wouldn't be as stupid and cruel as Joff was. But he didn't care about that.

I think that "didn't care" is the wrong word. "Couldn't handle" is more like it. We see that Robert is emotionally weak and can't really handle the stress of kingship and seems to give in to pressure and don't know how to fight opponents that he can't hit with his warhammer. I don't think that "not caring" was his problem but rather that he was clueless about what to do about the mess he was in. Thus seeing no way to deal with it, he tried to drown it out of his life with wine, prostitutes and entertainments.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If he had wanted to he could also limited Lannister power at court. And, of course, he could also have named Tommen or Stannis or Renly his heir but he would have to make that explicit because, you know, the standard thing is that your eldest son succeeds you.

The probem with this is of course that being king a decision to shut out a major House can have many butterfly effects down the road. Wielding power for real isn't like a in computer game but something very complex even with cooperative surroundings. Robert knew that he had many former Targaryens supporters calling him "Usurper", bad relations with his brothers and Targaryens across the sea, just like the Targaryens had the Blackfyres across the sea. Alienate a Great House like the Lannisters might feel good at the moment but could also lead to him only adding another enemy to his list. And I might remind you that the Lannisters had not really done anything to warrent a royal punishemnt in public understanding of royal justice. Tywin took King's Landing for Robert, Tywin was with Robert against the Greyjoys and Cersei gav Robert three little children. For Robert to just send them packing, and worse if Robert took a new Tyrell wife, he would really mark himself out as an asshole in the Aegon IV style.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is sort of default line of succession. If a lord or king doesn't have left a will and still has an eldest living son or younger brother then that guy will be his heir even if he hasn't explicitly said so. For instance, Aerys I never was Prince of Dragonstone or Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne but since Prince Valarr, Prince Matarys, and Daeron II all died within days, hours, or minutes of each other Prince Aerys suddenly became King Aerys I despite the fact that nobody was expecting this to happen.

I naturally agree with the line of succession as such.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And noble children are clearly raised to believe that a younger son has to follow the elder as well as that a woman is less worth than a man. Else the whole primogeniture thing wouldn't work.

I agree.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that would the default thing. If the king hasn't (for some reason) picked an unconventional heir then we go with the usual custom thing. Who is the next in line. If there is a (eldest) trueborn son we go with him. If there is no son, we go with a younger brother. We only don't do that if we have a vested interest - like the Tyrells - to seat another man on the throne (as in the Renly vs. Stannis thing).

Ok.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They are not dumb. Ned and Robb can't change the succession. Robert could have. But he didn't care to do so or else he would have done it.

I would very much like to believe that.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And again, aside from Daemon Blackfyre's failed rebellion, there was never a younger son coming before an elder. There is no precedent for a king disinheriting a strong-willed elder son like Joffrey in favor of a little boy like Tommen. If Robert had truly wanted to do that he would have to to tell the Realm and get Cersei and the Lannisters on board with the whole thing. Hell, he would have to get Tommen on board with it as well, or else he would most likely have rejected the throne in favor of Joffrey upon his father's death to please his family.

I thought you didn't take predecent very seriously and argued that a king can break it at will? As such if there's a predecent or not is fairly unimportant as its the king's will that rules the decision.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But we know from both Aegon IV's and Aerys II's deliberations that a king's power to disinherit his heir is a real thing. Neither Aegon nor Aerys went through with it as far as we know but it seems they could have done so. They most likely would have been forced to physically destroy those sons to be sure that they would not try to rebel upon their deaths but it is quite clear that they could have disinherited them and named a new heir. Just as they most likely could arrest any of their subjects, including members of the royal family, without giving anybody a reason for their actions. Look how Aerys treated his sister-wife for most of his reign. Does anybody truly believe he couldn't have treated Rhaegar in the same fashion if he wanted to?

No, if a king can appoint an heir it naturally follows that they can disinherit an heir as well.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Indeed. Robert once named Joffrey his heir, most likely when the boy was born, and then stuck with that. It is very explicit in the will he dictates to Ned. He doesn't need to name an heir because he already has one. All he needs to do is to set up a Regency government for the four remaining years of Joffrey's minority. And that he does.

Without my books at hand, I am pretty sure that Robert names Joffrey as his heir in the will but that Eddard forges it to be "my heir" instead.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly also has a pretty good claim as Robert's youngest brother and a great-grandson of Aegon V. It is not as good as that of Stannis and that of Robert's children (if you believe they are Robert's) but it is still a powerful claim.

I agree, and broke this part off needlessly to be honest.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is a reason why the Tyrells are backing Renly, and not Renly a King Mace. Might makes right only up to a point. The Tyrells control more swords than Renly does but Renly does have royal blood.

I agree with the importance of legitimacy for a claimant.

[Lord Varys]

45 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

While good points, you do not really adress why Eddard felt that Stannis had a better claim than Renly or why Robb would say that Stannis comes before Renly if there isn't a line of succession.

I'd not say there is a line of succession in the sense we know can give lines of succession for kingdoms consisting of hundreds or thousands of people.

What I think we can say is that people in Westeros believed an elder son should come before a younger son, and an elder brother before a younger. That's it. Whether a grandson comes before a younger son of a king is up to debate, and things should become even more complicated than that farther down the family tree.

45 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

That's a point.

I actually still wonder how this went through. The Unworthy seems to have been bed-ridden for quite some time before he died. And he did legitimize the bastards on his deathbed. Granted, his court was most likely the most corrupt court in Westerosi history but still some people must have seen the danger for the Realm in such an act. Not to mention the High Septon's thoughts on the matter. 

Most likely Aegon IV's last Hand (still Jon Hightower?) ensured that it publicly declared, and then Daeron II later decided to let it stand, intending to befriend those acknowledged half-siblings he know of rather than kill, banish, or imprison them all. But one imagines the Crown quietly ensured that all the many baseborn children of Aegon IV got no special treatment whatsoever. Else some of them would have risen to prominence.

45 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I think that "didn't care" is the wrong word. "Couldn't handle" is more like it. We see that Robert is emotionally weak and can't really handle the stress of kingship and seems to give in to pressure and don't know how to fight opponents that he can't hit with his warhammer. I don't think that "not caring" was his problem but rather that he was clueless about what to do about the mess he was in. Thus seeing no way to deal with it, he tried to drown it out of his life with wine, prostitutes and entertainments.

Yeah, it was basically all about Robert's character flaws. However, he doesn't give any impression that he actually liked his children very much or wanted to spend time with them. I mean, we could have seen him hang around with Tommen or Joffrey during the tourney or other occasions we meet him in Ned's chapters. But nothing of this sort happens, and we later learn that Robert never was close to his children.

45 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

The probem with this is of course that being king a decision to shut out a major House can have many butterfly effects down the road. Wielding power for real isn't like a in computer game but something very complex even with cooperative surroundings. Robert knew that he had many former Targaryens supporters calling him "Usurper", bad relations with his brothers and Targaryens across the sea, just like the Targaryens had the Blackfyres across the sea. Alienate a Great House like the Lannisters might feel good at the moment but could also lead to him only adding another enemy to his list. And I might remind you that the Lannisters had not really done anything to warrent a royal punishemnt in public understanding of royal justice. Tywin took King's Landing for Robert, Tywin was with Robert against the Greyjoys and Cersei gav Robert three little children. For Robert to just send them packing, and worse if Robert took a new Tyrell wife, he would really mark himself out as an asshole in the Aegon IV style.

Sure, the whole point of marrying Cersei was to make a powerful Lannister alliance. My point about shutting down Lannister influence was not about Robert setting Cersei aside and taking a new wife but rather not to allow Cersei to put her favorites into the Kingsguard, not allowing Cersei to make one of her sycophants (Sandor Clegane) Joff's sworn shield, and not take on those Lannister boys (one of which would effectively kill him) his squires. Not to mention not loaning a lot of money from the Lannisters.

If Robert truly thought Cersei had to much influence over Joffrey he should have limited the power she had at court. And he could have done. Instead he gave in to her demands even during 'Arya's trial'. That's really disgusting if he actually dislikes his wife.

45 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I naturally agree with the line of succession as such.

See above. I expect things wouldn't have been as clear as they were had Prince Valarr have left a young son. Was it then Daeron II's second son or Daeron II's great-grandson from his eldest son?

Daeron II did name Valarr Prince of Dragonstone after his father's death but that wasn't a given. He chose his grandson over his second son Aerys most likely because Aerys was ill-suited to be king. Had Valarr been a half-mad disappointment and Aerys another Baelor Breakspear he most likely would have chosen him.

45 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I would very much like to believe that.

We'll never know. But if Aerys II thought he could replace Rhaegar with Viserys, Robert certainly could also have done the same with Joff and Tommen.

45 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I thought you didn't take predecent very seriously and argued that a king can break it at will? As such if there's a predecent or not is fairly unimportant as its the king's will that rules the decision.

In the end, yes. But the scenario we are entertaining here is Robert deciding for some reason to disinherit Joffrey in favor of Tommen. He would have had a reason for that to justify it to himself. He knew that the eldest son should come first. If he came up with the idea on a whim he might just have given no reason but I find that rather hard to swallow. The fact that there was no such precedent could have dissuaded him. The best reason he might have given I can come up with would be to judge Joffrey's character as to bad to rule (like the Mad King was in the end) and thus deciding to bestow the crown on his younger brother.

One would also assume he would have tried to get his family and his wife on board with the whole thing. And if he really wanted to rid himself of Joffrey he would not just have disinherited him but also taken steps to ensure he would not be able to challenge the claim of his brother later on by giving him either to the Citadel or the Faith.

45 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Without my books at hand, I am pretty sure that Robert names Joffrey as his heir in the will but that Eddard forges it to be "my heir" instead.

He says 'my son Joffrey'. Ned forges it to be 'my heir'. Considering that Cersei actually rips that piece of paper apart later on it is quite clear that this wasn't the document that made Joffrey Baratheon Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. Everybody expected Joffrey to inherit. The court, the people at Winterfell (where Joff is introduced as the Crown Prince in Jon's first chapter, I think), and even Barristan Selmy (who later speaks of Joff as the young king before he has been crowned).

Considering that Heirs Apparent to the Iron Throne are named and confirmed by the kings in Westeros we can reasonably assumes that Robert did so at one day in the past, presumably shortly after Joff's birth. The Realm would have rejoiced at the birth of King Robert's heir in any scenario. His new dynasty needed heirs.

[Samantha Stark]

But there is a clearly defined line of succession if Joff and co and bastards. The Starks are just adhering to it.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Samantha Stark said:

But there is a clearly defined line of succession if Joff and co and bastards. The Starks are just adhering to it.

Well, Stannis should have a better claim than Renly. Due to him being the elder and all. But do Robert's brothers truly have to be his heirs? What about Viserys and Daenerys? If Robert was a usurper and left no heirs of his own body can then his brothers actually claim his throne for themselves?

This is all very tricky.

Renly bases his claim in part on the fact that he is Robert's younger brother but also on Robert's own boasting that he claimed his crown with mere strength. Renly has a blood claim as well as a lot of swords so he can try to bend the rules to suit his needs.