Lord Varys Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, direpupy said: Corlys gave his peace terms before Cregan came because he did not want Cregan to continue the war, he gave heavy consesions in order to do this, so Cregan and his army where if anything a reason to give more consesions not less. And the upper hand of the Blacks was not that apparent at the time of the peace talks, because at the time they did not know the men who Aegon II had sent to get sellswords in Essos would fail to do so. But the Lads were knocking at their doors, and they apparently had neither resources nor any other means to keep them out for long. Keep in mind that this was a huge city and the middle of winter already. And the people at court knew Lord Cregan was coming. That's why they felt they had to kill Aegon II to save their own skins (which didn't work as well as it could have) and why they felt they had to make peace before Cregan took matters out of their hands. With the Lads and the Northmen there the threat of those sellswords that may or may not be coming wouldn't have been felt as strongly as it was later when Cregan and the Lads effectively went back home, leaving only a small force behind. Cregan would never have allowed Tyland Lannister or any other major Greens in his government. 9 minutes ago, direpupy said: So neither Corlys nor anybody else among the Blacks knew at the time they had the clear upper hand , and Corly's his terms as he offered them to the Greens would have reflected that. I'm with you that he offered them favorable terms, but there is no reason to believe those terms had anything to do with the interpretation of the claim of Aegon III. It would have been terms that actually mattered to the Lannisters, Hightowers, and Baratheons. 10 minutes ago, direpupy said: As to the first part of your post Aegon II regognizing Aegon III his claim through his father but not his mother would actually have made his own claim stronger. He was after all claiming a man should come before a women even if the former king had appointed that women his heir. So i hartely disagree with you here. But Aegon II only had a female heir of his own body by the time of his own death. If he had been going back to the 'iron precedent interpretation' of the Great Council Aegon the Younger would have had a much better claim due to his descent from Jaehaerys I through the male line than Jaehaera did. But it is quite clear that Aegon II and Alicent saw Jaehaera and after the sons Aegon II might get from his Baratheon wife as his heirs, not the Rhaenyra's son by Daemon. Aegon II most likely intended to dispose of Aegon the Younger (and Corlys, if he didn't die of old age) as soon as he could afford to do so (i.e. after Borros had won on the Kingsroad or the sellswords arrived). 11 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: It has become really boring. Please stay on topic. This topic isn't about how Aegon the Usurper was more or less forced to name Aegon III his heir and how in the end Aegon III won, it's about Jaehaerys usurping his nieces' Throne. Please stay on topic. This question has already been answered. Jaehaerys I didn't usurped his nieces' throne. There - I answered it again. That's all we can say about this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: This question has already been answered. Jaehaerys I didn't usurped his nieces' throne. There - I answered it again. That's all we can say about this topic. Ok you have said your opinion. So there is no reason to continue derailing the thread by being off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Ok you have said your opinion. So there is no reason to continue derailing the thread by being off topic. I've answered the question. There is no reason to discuss this any further. Nobody in the books gives any indication that Jaehaerys I was a usurper. There would be such people if this idea had any merit. We cannot tell the people of Westeros what they should think. They tell us what we should think about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: I've answered the question. There is no reason to discuss this any further. Nobody in the books gives any indication that Jaehaerys I was a usurper. There would be such people if this idea had any merit. We cannot tell the people of Westeros what they should think. They tell us what we should think about them. Great! Since you think that you have nothing more to say there is no reason to continue derailing the thread by being off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quellon Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Be it so, but he was the best king Westeros could possibly get. I doubt Aegon could do any better, I sincerely doubt he'd even be as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Quellon said: Be it so, but he was the best king Westeros could possibly get. I doubt Aegon could do any better, I sincerely doubt he'd even be as good. He was a good King? Yes, though I believe that he wasn't as good as people believe. He was been remembered fondly? Yes, though history is kind to the winners. Was he the best King Westeros could get or better than Aegon? We have no idea and no way of knowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 When did women ever inherit and rule kingdoms as if kings in their own right? Can we get a full list of women who were essentially "king" of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Rock, Iron Islands, Reach, Storm Lands, or any other Westerosi kingdom other than post-Nymeria Dorne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said: When did women ever inherit and rule kingdoms as if kings in their own right? Can we get a full list of women who were essentially "king" of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Rock, Iron Islands, Reach, Storm Lands, or any other Westerosi kingdom other than post-Nymeria Dorne? Do we have a full list of men who were Kings of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Rock, Iron Islands, Reach, Storm Lands, or any other Westerosi kingdom other than post-Nymeria Dorne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaak Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 There was an obvious compromise possibility. Jaehaerys could have married Aerea rather than Alysanne. For whatever reason, this was not followed. Why? Could Rhaena, or some of the Aegon´s or Maegor´s supporters have hoped for this outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said: When did women ever inherit and rule kingdoms as if kings in their own right? Can we get a full list of women who were essentially "king" of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Rock, Iron Islands, Reach, Storm Lands, or any other Westerosi kingdom other than post-Nymeria Dorne? They didn't. George confirmed there were no Queen Regnants in the North, ever. We only know that there was at least one Queen Regnant in the Reach but the Reach isn't the Seven Kingdoms and the Gardeners aren't the Targaryens. There is no reason to assume that anybody in the Realm thought Aerea and Rhalla had a better legal claim to the Iron Throne than Jaehaerys I. In fact, the fact that Maegor disinherited Jaehaerys before he named Aerea his heir confirms that the boy had the better claim. 1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Do we have a full list of men who were Kings of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Rock, Iron Islands, Reach, Storm Lands, or any other Westerosi kingdom other than post-Nymeria Dorne? That is a silly question because we don't need such a list. We know there were a lot of such kings. But the only confirmed Queen Regnant comes from the Reach. There was no Queen Regnant from House Lannister, Arryn, Durrandon, or Stark. Since this is so there is no reason why anybody in Westeros should have expected there to be a Targaryen Queen Regnant, especially not a seven-year-old girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 I am asking for a list to see if there are any examples and if so how many. Because it seems to me the rightful succession you are suggesting Jaehaerys usurped had no precedent in most Westerosi kingdoms, and was probably not seriously considered. Putting aside Jaehaerys' own skipping of Rhaenys to select Baelor for a moment, when left up to the Great Council, they did not seriously consider Rhaenys in her own right, but only Laenor via her. Rhaenyra was the first woman to be seriously considered for the Targaryen throne, because Viserys named her his heir. And even in that case no small portion of the realm supported her younger brother Aegon against her, even after their houses had pledged to her in her youth that they would serve her as queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said: I am asking for a list to see if there are any examples and if so how many. Because it seems to me the rightful succession you are suggesting Jaehaerys usurped had no precedent in most Westerosi kingdoms, and was probably not considered. Yet again we do know that there were Queens and since we don't have a list about the males who have ruled there is no reason for a list. After all we do know that even without a precedence of a Queen Regnant of the united Westeros the simple fact that daughters came before brothers and that Rhaenys was even considered as a potential heir proves that a woman can be the Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 7 hours ago, Lord Varys said: But the Lads were knocking at their doors, and they apparently had neither resources nor any other means to keep them out for long. Keep in mind that this was a huge city and the middle of winter already. And the people at court knew Lord Cregan was coming. That's why they felt they had to kill Aegon II to save their own skins (which didn't work as well as it could have) and why they felt they had to make peace before Cregan took matters out of their hands. With the Lads and the Northmen there the threat of those sellswords that may or may not be coming wouldn't have been felt as strongly as it was later when Cregan and the Lads effectively went back home, leaving only a small force behind. Cregan would never have allowed Tyland Lannister or any other major Greens in his government. I'm with you that he offered them favorable terms, but there is no reason to believe those terms had anything to do with the interpretation of the claim of Aegon III. It would have been terms that actually mattered to the Lannisters, Hightowers, and Baratheons. But Aegon II only had a female heir of his own body by the time of his own death. If he had been going back to the 'iron precedent interpretation' of the Great Council Aegon the Younger would have had a much better claim due to his descent from Jaehaerys I through the male line than Jaehaera did. But it is quite clear that Aegon II and Alicent saw Jaehaera and after the sons Aegon II might get from his Baratheon wife as his heirs, not the Rhaenyra's son by Daemon. Aegon II most likely intended to dispose of Aegon the Younger (and Corlys, if he didn't die of old age) as soon as he could afford to do so (i.e. after Borros had won on the Kingsroad or the sellswords arrived). This question has already been answered. Jaehaerys I didn't usurped his nieces' throne. There - I answered it again. That's all we can say about this topic. Because people seem to want to return to an already aswered question on this tread i will keep it short. The hints are there that you did not see them does not mean they are not there. Also Aegon III temporarily having a better claim until Aegon II has more sons is a small price for the support of Corlys who's forces that had abandoned Rhaenyra would have returned, in light of which the treat of the lads was really not as great as most people seem to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, direpupy said: Because people seem to want to return to an already aswered question on this tread i will keep it short. The op wants to return to what is the effing topic and not someone might want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Yet again we do know that there were Queens and since we don't have a list about the males who have ruled there is no reason for a list. After all we do know that even without a precedence of a Queen Regnant of the united Westeros the simple fact that daughters came before brothers and that Rhaenys was even considered as a potential heir proves that a woman can be the Queen. Her being considered as heir when there where no queen regnants save 1 al of westeros history only means that people did not know if Targaryens where going to follow andal custom or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, direpupy said: Her being considered as heir when there where no queen regnants save 1 al of westeros history only means that people did not know if Targaryens where going to follow andal custom or not. Before the Targs was no united Westeros. So the only law or custom was the Andal and the First men law or custom of daughters coming before brothers and to quote myself since Rhaenys was even considered as a potential heir proves that a woman can be the Queen. Heck she even had the support of Alysanne and some lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: The op wants to return to what is the effing topic and not someone might want. Side questions happen with the amount of post you have you should know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, direpupy said: Side questions happen with the amount of post you have you should know that. There is a difference between side questions and deliberately going off topic when the op has already has told to stay on topic more than once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 14 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Before the Targs was no united Westeros. So the only law or custom was the Andal and the First men law or custom of daughters coming before brothers and to quote myself since Rhaenys was even considered as a potential heir proves that a woman can be the Queen. Heck she even had the support of Alysanne and some lords. Most of the seven kingdoms still had a similar cultural background, and it seems that there where no queen regnants so the only possibility for women to inherite seems to be the way it went with the Lannister succesion. In time, Lannister kings wed their children to Andals as well; indeed, when Gerold III died without male issues, a council crowned his only daughter's husband, Ser Joffery Lydden, who took the Lannister name and became the first Andal to rule the Rock. The targaryens simply chose not to go that way, and like you said with no united westeros before this they had every right to make there own succesion law/custom, so no he did not usurpe anyone. 10 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: There is a difference between side questions and deliberately going off topic when the op has already has told to stay on topic more than once. An OP is not the king of the tread or something, you can ask but we are under no obligation to listen to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 18 minutes ago, direpupy said: An OP is not the king of the tread or something, you can ask but we are under no obligation to listen to you. Actually the op dictates what is on topic and what isn't. If someone doesn't like the topic he or she can make his or her own thread. 18 minutes ago, direpupy said: The targaryens simply chose not to go that way, and like you said with no united westeros before this they had every right to make there own succesion law/custom, so no he did not usurpe anyone. The point is that they didn't. Jaehaerys chose to usurp Aegon's daughters but when it came to his brood he was considered his granddaughter as a potential heir. Hence he followed or at least considered to follow the custom when it came to his blood after taking his nieces’ Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.