Jump to content

Targaryen Morality


Damsel in Distress

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lady Maester said:

it's fitting I suppose (since this is asoiaf) that characters who appear good have their flaws. With the targs, the incest thing is far from moral, especially once they realized it was making future kings potentially insane. And was it really moral to say "comply with our rule, or die by fire?" I'm not so sure. Sure Aegon unified westeros, but he did it through force. And I'm sure horrific things were happening there, perhaps the targs alleviated the fighting between regions, for a time. But their system of government is harmful to the commoners, it eventually leaves them behind. If the targs were that wonderful and kind, they would have implemented a democracy, instead of a monarchy. Perhaps that will be Daenerys' legacy. 

It was certainly less harmful than before the conquest when there was always a Kingdom in war with another, imagine what terrible atrocities would have been committed especially since their was no high king that could bring perpetrators to justice like how Ned Stark acting in stead of the king ordered Tywin Lannister to come to court and answer for the crimes of his bannerman Gregor Clegane and then dispatching forces to bring Cleagane to justice after he started slaughtering and butchering smallfolk in the riverlands. These kind of instances/incidents are what makes the system of the Targaryens better for the smallfolk.

Why would they implement democracy after having conquered the kingdoms with fire and blood at a terrible cost even for them( death of Rhaenys)? I'm not sure the peope even knew what democaracy was. The Targaryens conquered Westeros because they wanted to be the only kings, the most powerful/important  house not because they wanted to make the life of the smallfolk better. I'm not even sure if democracy would work at that time in Westeros. Something similar happened in the real world when Simon de Montfort attempted to introduce a crude sort of democratic system in midieval England and it obviously didn't work, the time wasn't right, it's too early for that and too out of the world.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expecting the Targaryens to have introduced democracy is asking way too much of any of the characters in this story. The vast majority of the characters (even the ones you consider unambiguously good) would laugh at the notion of commoners having a say in their leader. They all firmly believe in the concept of Kings and Queens and the nobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

It was certainly less harmful than before the conquest when there was always a Kingdom in war with another, imagine what terrible atrocities would have been committed especially since their was no high king that could bring perpetrators to justice like how Ned Stark acting in stead of the king ordered Tywin Lannister to come to court and answer for the crimes of his bannerman Gregor Clegane and then dispatching forces to bring Cleagane to justice after he started slaughtering and butchering smallfolk in the riverlands. These kind of instances/incidents are what makes the system of the Targaryens better for the smallfolk.

Why would they implement democracy after having conquered the kingdoms with fire and blood at a terrible cost even for them( death of Rhaenys)? I'm not sure the peope even knew what democaracy was. The Targaryens conquered Westeros because they wanted to be the only kings, the most powerful/important  house not because they wanted to make the life of the smallfolk better. I'm not even sure if democracy would work at that time in Westeros. A similar happened in the real world when Simon de Montfort attempted to introduce a crude sort of democratic system in midieval England and it obviously didn't work, the time wasn't right, it's too early for that and too out of the world.

 

Why not eventually implement it? why did the next targ kings continue with the monarchy, even after seeing what happens when a king is terrible? the Targs had a thirst for power. It's why they inbred, it's why they continued to crown their own sons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Expecting the Targaryens to have introduced democracy is asking way too much of any of the characters in this story. The vast majority of the characters (even the ones you consider unambiguously good) would laugh at the notion of commoners having a say in their leader. They all firmly believe in the concept of Kings and Queens and the nobility.

hence why they aren't the best people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lady Maester said:

hence why they aren't the best people. 

Everyone in the story is a product of their fictional time. We can't expect them to hold ridiculously modern views when entire concepts will be alien to them. Robb, Ned, Dany, Tyrion, Edmure, etc. etc. all have the same views on nobility. I don't think that that makes them instantly bad people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Everyone in the story is a product of their fictional time. We can't expect them to hold ridiculously modern views when entire concepts will be alien to them. Robb, Ned, Dany, Tyrion, Edmure, etc. etc. all have the same views on nobility. I don't think that that makes them instantly bad people.

But some of those people you mentioned care about the common folk. I see what you're saying, but wouldn't a good king at least think about it? do smalls things to work towards it in the future? I guess what I'm getting at is this.. the targs knew that a handful of their predecessors would be bat shit crazy. Why continue that reign for centuries? I guess there was the Aegon who didn't want his kids to marry each other, but isn't he the only one who mentions it? And one of his sons married his daughter anyway. The others went out of their way to marry relations. maybe democracy is a stretch, but why not find a way to stem the flow of crazy?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3.7.2017 at 1:12 AM, Intel XEON said:

It is true that many professional girls in Lys are descended from Valyrian ancestors.  I also recall on another thread topic where you mentioned that the later Targaryens have had significant dilutions of their blood.  Too many ingredients in the gene pool.

If you are obsessed with that kind of thing and think in categories of 'purity of blood' then the blood of Aegon the Conqueror and his sister-wives certainly was 'more Valyrian' or 'purer' than the blood of Aegon V's children and grandchildren. Back around the Conquest the Targaryens didn't have Arryn, Martell, Dayne, or Blackwood ancestors - not to mention the ancestors all those people had.

But then, we have no idea how much 'foreign blood' entered the Targaryen lineage during the days on Dragonstone or back in Valyria. One assumes that sibling and cousin marriages prevailed, but there is no reason to believe that occasionally another dragonlord family married into the Targaryen line, or even a lesser Valyrian family of no or only distant dragonlord ancestry. And once in a while even a political marriage with a complete outsider might have happened. We know that a Yi Tish emperor married a female dragonlord, suggesting that an elite Valyrian dragonlord (much more powerful than the Targaryens ever were) might also have taken a Yi Tish princess to wife. This could have happened on a lesser level and involving Targaryens with Ghiscari, Sarnori, Qartheen, Rhoynish, or even Andalish nobility and royalty.

On 3.7.2017 at 1:12 AM, Intel XEON said:

There may be working girls in Lys who have purer of blood than the later Targaryens.  But none can trace their family line directly back to a Dragonlord.  What I am getting at is that Daenerys Targaryen can actually make a claim that she is the heir to the lands that were part of the Valyrian Freehold.  Westeros is a small fish in a really big ocean.

That is certainly true. Daenerys is the last legitimate scion of the last dragonlord family, nobody doubts that. She has the looks, the name, the prestige, and the dragons. The average Lysene or Volantene nobleman may have the looks and the name, but certainly not the prestige or the dragons. And those slaves have none of all that.

On 3.7.2017 at 1:12 AM, Intel XEON said:

So back to the op.  The Targaryens gave up slavery before Aegon and sisters conquered Westeros.  I believe it was a moral decision on their part.  I am biased towards them of course because I like Dany.  I am in agreement with the Op on why the Targs gave up the making of Valyrian Steel.  It probably involved a sinister human sacrifice.  The Targs are individuals just like any other family.  But it seems obvious to me that they could have done whatever they wanted with their dragons but for the most part, the greater majority of them practiced reasonable restraint. 

We don't know why they ended slavery on their island. It may be interesting to explore this once Dany finally comes to Westeros. At one point she should actually look back on her own family and the slavery the Targaryens practiced both on Dragonstone (for a time) and back in Valyria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lady Maester said:

But some of those people you mentioned care about the common folk. I see what you're saying, but wouldn't a good king at least think about it? do smalls things to work towards it in the future? I guess what I'm getting at is this.. the targs knew that a handful of their predecessors would be bat shit crazy. Why continue that reign for centuries? I guess there was the Aegon who didn't want his kids to marry each other, but isn't he the only one who mentions it? And one of his sons married his daughter anyway. The others went out of their way to marry relations. maybe democracy is a stretch, but why not find a way to stem the flow of crazy?? 

Maybe some of them thought about it. The thing is, creating these kind of changes would always be a gradual thing if you want to avoid serious pushback. Aegon and his sisters first had to ensure that the idea of a unified Westeros would stick before any notions of huge reform could ever happen. The Targs then almost lost the throne, weakening their position severely. Then Jaeherys' reign proved long and prosperous and that probably fixed the idea of a united Westeros into most lords' minds. During that period, the Targs introduced some reforms (banning of the First Night) and, had they not lost all their dragons, future benevolent rulers may have been able to reform even more. The dragons were the thing that would allow them to force through unpopular changes. And they would need to be forced.

Good lords and kings do indeed care about their common folk, but it's very much a caring that regards the common folk as lesser beings who need protecting, rather than equals. And, honestly, Westeros doesn't have the technology to even carry out a democracy. It's far too grand for someone to go to every village, hamlet and town collecting votes, especially when the majority of the common folk will know nothing about the candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WSmith84 said:

Maybe some of them thought about it. The thing is, creating these kind of changes would always be a gradual thing if you want to avoid serious pushback. Aegon and his sisters first had to ensure that the idea of a unified Westeros would stick before any notions of huge reform could ever happen. The Targs then almost lost the throne, weakening their position severely. Then Jaeherys' reign proved long and prosperous and that probably fixed the idea of a united Westeros into most lords' minds. During that period, the Targs introduced some reforms (banning of the First Night) and, had they not lost all their dragons, future benevolent rulers may have been able to reform even more. The dragons were the thing that would allow them to force through unpopular changes. And they would need to be forced.

Good lords and kings do indeed care about their common folk, but it's very much a caring that regards the common folk as lesser beings who need protecting, rather than equals. And, honestly, Westeros doesn't have the technology to even carry out a democracy. It's far too grand for someone to go to every village, hamlet and town collecting votes, especially when the majority of the common folk will know nothing about the candidates.

You are right I suppose. The Targs did some good things. the incest just throws me off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lady Maester said:

You are right I suppose. The Targs did some good things. the incest just throws me off. 

Well, I'm not a big fan of the Targs personally. I feel like they should have achieved a bit more than they did during their reign, and the incest doesn't endear them to me either. But I don't think that they were all that different from their peers, just slightly higher up, and they did achieve some things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lady Maester said:

 The others went out of their way to marry relations. maybe democracy is a stretch, but why not find a way to stem the flow of crazy?? 

There's a way to lessen the effects of crazy Targaryens eventually taking the throne, and I hope dany implements it when she finally takes the throne, the way is that strong laws should be enacted that any Targaryen found to be insane will be barred forever from becoming king and if he wasn't mad initially (a la Aerys II) and became mad later, he must also swiftly be removed from power. If Dany doesn't do something similar it will be the ruin of House Targaryen, all it would take is for another future crazy Targaryen monarch that will commit atrocities and unite the realm in rebellion against him, basically RR 2.0

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you are obsessed with that kind of thing and think in categories of 'purity of blood' then the blood of Aegon the Conqueror and his sister-wives certainly was 'more Valyrian' or 'purer' than the blood of Aegon V's children and grandchildren. Back around the Conquest the Targaryens didn't have Arryn, Martell, Dayne, or Blackwood ancestors - not to mention the ancestors all those people had.

Aegon I might have purer valyrian blood than current Targaryens but the important thing is they also still have the special magical blood, it hasn't disappeared, I don't care whether their blood has been diluted by outside marriages or to how much extent it's been diluted as long as they still retain the magical dragonlord blood, that's all that matters, that's why the Targaryens are different from other Essos valyrians, that's what makes them unique.

8 hours ago, Lady Maester said:

You are right I suppose. The Targs did some good things. the incest just throws me off. 

The incest was necessary, without it the Targaryens would have been goners long ago, without it they couldn't ride dragons.

7 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Well, I'm not a big fan of the Targs personally. I feel like they should have achieved a bit more than they did during their reign, and the incest doesn't endear them to me either. But I don't think that they were all that different from their peers, just slightly higher up, and they did achieve some things.

Might I ask what more things you think the Targaryens should have achieved?

They united the seven kingdoms thereby curtailing the constant state of anarchy that Westeros was in, they abolished the lords right to the first night, built roads thar connected the realm and made it easier for travel and trade, punished rebel lords who went out of the kings peace, Aegon V created reforms designed to make the life of the smallfolk better, installed a higher authority to which every lord no matter how powerful was answerable to, provided the north with food during particularly harsh winters et cetera 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

There's a way to lessen the effects of crazy Targaryens eventually taking the throne, and I hope dany implements it when she finally takes the throne, the way is that strong laws should be enacted that any Targaryen found to be insane will be barred forever from becoming king and if he wasn't mad initially (a la Aerys II) and became mad later, he must also swiftly be removed from power. If Dany doesn't do something similar it will be the ruin of House Targaryen, all it would take is for another future crazy Targaryen monarch that will commit atrocities and unite the realm in rebellion against him, basically RR 2.0

This here I can see will very well be easily abused. If this becomes law, then the lords can very easily simply say that the current king, whom they dislike, is mad and should be overthrown. With enough bribery, it may just happen.

This also allows greedy younger brothers to simply claim that their older brother the king is mad, get enough strong allies and thusly overthrow his brother and put himself on the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Might I ask what more things you think the Targaryens should have achieved?

They united the seven kingdoms thereby curtailing the constant state of anarchy that Westeros was in, they abolished the lords right to the first night, built roads thar connected the realm and made it easier for travel and trade, punished rebel lords who went out of the kings peace, Aegon V created reforms designed to make the life of the smallfolk better, installed a higher authority to which every lord no matter how powerful was answerable to, provided the north with food during particularly harsh winters et cetera 

Well, they might have done the things that Egg later did (and his descendants undid) a tad sooner, while they had dragons to enforce the changes. They might have actually been able to make them stick this way. They could have actually written down some more laws so that the law was clearer. Maybe done something to stem the steady loss of NW members. Just small things, really. I think the Targs did OK.

8 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

There's a way to lessen the effects of crazy Targaryens eventually taking the throne, and I hope dany implements it when she finally takes the throne, the way is that strong laws should be enacted that any Targaryen found to be insane will be barred forever from becoming king and if he wasn't mad initially (a la Aerys II) and became mad later, he must also swiftly be removed from power. If Dany doesn't do something similar it will be the ruin of House Targaryen, all it would take is for another future crazy Targaryen monarch that will commit atrocities and unite the realm in rebellion against him, basically RR 2.0

While I agree with the concept, how would it be enforced? Who decides if the King/Queen is insane and needs replacing? And if the future mad monarch is a dragonrider, who is going to make them stand down? I wouldn't want to be the man who has to try and make Maegor the Cruel abdicate, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Well, they might have done the things that Egg later did (and his descendants undid) a tad sooner, while they had dragons to enforce the changes. They might have actually been able to make them stick this way. They could have actually written down some more laws so that the law was clearer. Maybe done something to stem the steady loss of NW members. Just small things, really. I think the Targs did OK.

While I agree with the concept, how would it be enforced? Who decides if the King/Queen is insane and needs replacing? And if the future mad monarch is a dragonrider, who is going to make them stand down? I wouldn't want to be the man who has to try and make Maegor the Cruel abdicate, for example.

And what happens when the heir is/seems to be perfectly normal and reasonable and all that, and the madness only becomes obvious later on, after he's been crowned? 

It's a bit of an absurd idea, really, and it wouldn't guarantee anything. It would only work to eliminate from the line of succession those individuals who are quite clearly mad well before they're in a position to ascend the IT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no precedent to depose a mad king but there is a precedent for a Regency in case of an incapacitated king (Aegon II, with Aemond serving as Prince Regent in his stead).

Something like that could have invoked in the case of Aerys II.

And there are more than a few precedents for rebellions against tyrannical kings in the past, a very important precedent would be the High Septon himself denouncing Aenys I as a pretender and a tyrant.

There is also a precedent for cutting a prince out of the succession because of the madness of his father (little Prince Maegor, Aerion's son, during the Great Council of 233 AC).

But we have the concept of a sacrosanct crowned and anointed Kings on the Iron Throne in Westeros, which makes a king essentially inviolable. This is seen both in Aegon III and Tommen who, as monarchs, can't be physically chastised (despite the fact that they are children). Not to mention both Ned's and Cregan's disgust at the foul and treasonous murder of an anointed king, never mind that those kings were their mortal enemies.

We can say that the legal basis is there to restrict the factual power of a king - by a forced regency, say, with the king confined to his apartments - but there the basis for the actual deposition of a king isn't there. A king lives and dies a king. He cannot be unmade against his will. Even a king taking the black would still be a king up there. Not a ruling king, of course, but still a king.

But overall, it is quite clear that the power that comes with being king makes this all moot. The king is an absolute ruler in this world. There are no legal institutions limiting his power, no authorities you could turn to investigate the king's sanity or ability to govern. A regency comes only into place if there is an actual power vacuum. Meaning a king who simply can no longer exert his power because he can no longer speak, move, or is so mad he is unable to utter a coherent sentence. The kingdom has to be govern so the people in charge at court will find a solution. But they have no legal way to install a regency against the will of the king if the king still can express his wishes in some fashion.

In that sense a mildly mad king like Aerys II - who was paranoid and cruel but still pretty coherent most of the time - would be very difficult to get rid of while he still has the support of a majority at court and in the Realm. Kings who lack both are quickly to fall in any case, never mind their mental state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have the largely unexplored option of grand councils. One was convened to choose a (Targ) monarch in Bloodraven's time. Implying that such a council can choose a king, rather than defaulting to the next closest kin without question.

But most importantly, Rhaegar said that he meant to call a grand council. It is 100% implicit that he was going to unseat or otherwise take effective power away from his father. 

Both of which undermine the idea of a kingship as sacrosanct as Lord Varys just stated. Maybe like 75% as sacrosanct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

We do have the largely unexplored option of grand councils. One was convened to choose a (Targ) monarch in Bloodraven's time. Implying that such a council can choose a king, rather than defaulting to the next closest kin without question.

But most importantly, Rhaegar said that he meant to call a grand council. It is 100% implicit that he was going to unseat or otherwise take effective power away from his father. 

Both of which undermine the idea of a kingship as sacrosanct as Lord Varys just stated. Maybe like 75% as sacrosanct. 

A Great Council has of yet never deposed a king. It would be a completely new matter. And there is the obvious problem that a Great Council is usually called by the king himself (as the Great Council of 101 AC was) or by the Hand speaking with the (late) king's voice (this was the case for the Great Council of 136 AC which was called by Grand Maester Munkun, then the last remaining regent and the Hand of Aegon III, to appoint new regents, and the Great Council of 233 AC which was called and presided over by Lord Bloodraven, the Hand of the late King Maekar).

Prince Rhaegar had no right to convene a Great Council without the permission of the king. Even the Hand could not do this unless the king was either dead or incapacitated (in the sense that he was unable to make his will known or participate in his own government).

It is quite clear that Rhaegar wanted to use the tourney to convene some sort of informal Great Council. He would have had the opportunity to speak with many great lords of the Realm and explore what they thought about the madness of his father and what course of action on his part they would support or oppose. Rhaegar apparently had no interest in killing his father and thus ideas of his to install himself as Prince Regent in the name of his father without harming the person of the old man would have depended on how a majority of the lords saw King Aerys II at this time. If they felt Rhaegar was presuming too much with such an action he could not continue because if, say, the Reach or the Riverlands or the Vale rose in rebellion against Rhaegar in the name of Aerys II he would soon be toppled and his restored mad father might retaliate.

In regards to a Great Council choosing a king - this happened only once, and this was a rather special occasion. The king died suddenly in a battle before having named a clear heir after the death of his second son in the previous years. It was also obviously convened with the permission of the claimants involved (and their guardians). Prince Aegon and the mothers/guardians of Princess Vaella and Prince Maegor were apparently willing to overcome their animosity and settle the question of the succession peacefully instead of staging a coup or beginning a war (unlike the situation after the death of Viserys I when the Greens staged a coup or after the death of Robert Baratheon when we have both coups and counter-coups - Ned and Cersei - and various rebellions).

If the succession is unclear - or thought to be unclear - there is the chance to settle it peacefully and amicable via a Great Council (or even a smaller venue like a Small Council discussion as was done after the death of Baelor I) but this is not a legal obligation. It depends on the goodwill of the people involved. Otto and Alicent Hightower had no interest to convene a Great Council after the death of Viserys I just as Renly and Stannis Baratheon had no intention to call such a council when they were fighting over the succession of Robert.

But the idea to have the same venue to actually amicable or peacefully declare that a king should be deposed appears to be unthinkable at this point. It never happened and all the people doing that have sworn vows to obey the king and did him homage more than once.

There is some sort of individual right of rebellion against an unjust king but there is no hint that, say, Aerys II or Aegon IV treating this or that lord unjustly by their own individual standards gives another lord the right to take up arms against that king while he is still treating him just and fairly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no precedent to depose a mad king but there is a precedent for a Regency in case of an incapacitated king (Aegon II, with Aemond serving as Prince Regent in his stead).

Something like that could have invoked in the case of Aerys II.

And there are more than a few precedents for rebellions against tyrannical kings in the past, a very important precedent would be the High Septon himself denouncing Aenys I as a pretender and a tyrant.

There is also a precedent for cutting a prince out of the succession because of the madness of his father (little Prince Maegor, Aerion's son, during the Great Council of 233 AC).

But we have the concept of a sacrosanct crowned and anointed Kings on the Iron Throne in Westeros, which makes a king essentially inviolable. This is seen both in Aegon III and Tommen who, as monarchs, can't be physically chastised (despite the fact that they are children). Not to mention both Ned's and Cregan's disgust at the foul and treasonous murder of an anointed king, never mind that those kings were their mortal enemies.

We can say that the legal basis is there to restrict the factual power of a king - by a forced regency, say, with the king confined to his apartments - but there the basis for the actual deposition of a king isn't there. A king lives and dies a king. He cannot be unmade against his will. Even a king taking the black would still be a king up there. Not a ruling king, of course, but still a king.

But overall, it is quite clear that the power that comes with being king makes this all moot. The king is an absolute ruler in this world. There are no legal institutions limiting his power, no authorities you could turn to investigate the king's sanity or ability to govern. A regency comes only into place if there is an actual power vacuum. Meaning a king who simply can no longer exert his power because he can no longer speak, move, or is so mad he is unable to utter a coherent sentence. The kingdom has to be govern so the people in charge at court will find a solution. But they have no legal way to install a regency against the will of the king if the king still can express his wishes in some fashion.

In that sense a mildly mad king like Aerys II - who was paranoid and cruel but still pretty coherent most of the time - would be very difficult to get rid of while he still has the support of a majority at court and in the Realm. Kings who lack both are quickly to fall in any case, never mind their mental state.

We also need to remember that the nobility benefits from that same protection that the king enjoys.  It would be hypocrite for a nobleman in Westeros to criticize this system because they too are the beneficiary.  For example, no one can really remove Brandon Stark from Winterfell except for the monarch on the iron throne.  Brandon's vassals and the commoners will just have to suffer him until his lordship is over.  It may be a good thing for them that he choked to death in KL before he could assume the lordship.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully deposing a king at a grand council seems to be unprecedented, yeah. I suspect that Rhaegar was planning to set up a regency where Aerys would live out his days comfortably with no real power, and Rhaegar would rule as Regent until he succeeded to the crown after his father's death. Would have been nice. 

But it does highlight the one crucial aspect of kingship: one is only king as long one's subjects call one 'king.' The grand council seems to be basically a forum where consensus is reached on who the lords are willing to obey. It also looks like (near) unanimous consent is pretty crucial here, as slim majorities manifest instead on the battlefield.

Westeros kingship seems to be modeled after England in the late Middle Ages, but without the history of the Magna Carta, which would set out the role of a grand council. But it's way more centralised than the monarchy in France, which had no real power over its dukes for many centuries. It's tough to try and have it both ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

We also need to remember that the nobility benefits from that same protection that the king enjoys.  It would be hypocrite for a nobleman in Westeros to criticize this system because they too are the beneficiary.  For example, no one can really remove Brandon Stark from Winterfell except for the monarch on the iron throne.  Brandon's vassals and the commoners will just have to suffer him until his lordship is over.  It may be a good thing for them that he choked to death in KL before he could assume the lordship.  

That is true, too. And it is not just that but the almost blasphemous aspect of a son stealing the crown of his father in the Aerys-Rhaegar situation that makes this a very unlikely precedent. We have a lot of squabbles between (half-)siblings in cousins in the royal and noble families of Westeros but no precedent for a son stealing the crown of his father. That goes against the very roots of the patriarchal structure of the society. A father essentially owns his son and family until the day he dies, not just on the royal or noble level but, presumably, also among the commoners.

Any lord supporting a self-proclaimed 'King Rhaegar' against King Aerys II would set a very bad precedent for his own sons. And that's something they would not want to do. If the king's son can overthrow the king then a lord's son can do the same thing to his father, too. And that would endanger the entire system.

15 minutes ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

Fully deposing a king at a grand council seems to be unprecedented, yeah. I suspect that Rhaegar was planning to set up a regency where Aerys would live out his days comfortably with no real power, and Rhaegar would rule as Regent until he succeeded to the crown after his father's death. Would have been nice. 

The possibilities discussed by Yandel in TWoIaF are a regency or a forced abdication. The latter would have been much more extreme, the former theoretically possible but both could only have worked if Rhaegar had had enough support and the ability to convince his father to accept any of that. They could not have set up a regency against the will of the king.

Rhaegar's (naive) idea most likely was to get enough support for his plan on the informal Great Council and then confront his father with that, pushing him into accepting that this was the right way. There must have been moments when Aerys II himself realized what had happened to him and that he was no longer the man he once was.

15 minutes ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

But it does highlight the one crucial aspect of kingship: one is only king as long one's subjects call one 'king.' The grand council seems to be basically a forum where consensus is reached on who the lords are willing to obey. It also looks like (near) unanimous consent is pretty crucial here, as slim majorities manifest instead on the battlefield.

Again, Great Councils aren't formal institutions to elect a king. The succession of Jaehaerys I was garbled because the man did not lose only one but two (widely) accepted heirs, and there was considerable confusion which line of his grandchildren should inherit the throne. That Great Council was a mean to resolve that question peacefully. And it worked because it was done while the king was still alive and because the king accepted the results of the council and actually named Prince Viserys his heir and made him Prince of Dragonstone. He could have refused to do that. It was still his call to name an heir.

The situation after Maekar's death is somewhat different because there was apparently no clear heir named by the late king and a lot of animosity between Prince Aegon and his faction and, presumably, the followers and supporters of the late Prince Aerion who championed the cause of little Prince Maegor (whether Aerion's widow Princess Daenora played an important role we don't yet know).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...