Targaryen Morality

[Jon Ice-Eyes]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Great Councils aren't formal institutions to elect a king.

Like I said, when I pointed to the fact that there's no Westerosi Magna Carta which would legally make such an institution. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

If the lords and lords paramount of the realm are more less unanimously agreeing to follow a new king, then that guy is the new king. 

You know what you call a guy who calls himself a king while no one obeys him? An idiot. Or a crazy person. 

In this hypothetical scenario, Aerys would probably be confined to a certain wing of the Red Keep. Which is better than most historical kings got when all their lords teamed up and replaced them. 

Who or what would make a guy a king if the entire realm doesn't listen to him? 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

Like I said, when I pointed to the fact that there's no Westerosi Magna Carta which would legally make such an institution. 

Yeah, but aside from that there is not even a precedent for the lords assembling and choosing a king on their own authority. That could have happened without a Magna Carta equivalent yet there is no precedent for that. The two Great Council's discussing the succession were both called (and presided over) by the King or the Hand.

4 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

If the lords and lords paramount of the realm are more less unanimously agreeing to follow a new king, then that guy is the new king. 

You know what you call a guy who calls himself a king while no one obeys him? An idiot. Or a crazy person. 

Sure, but that would then still be a coup or successful (and universal) rebellion. That is possible, of course. I was more talking about the legal ways to get rid of a (bad or mad) king. And it seems there is no legal way to do that.

4 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

In this hypothetical scenario, Aerys would probably be confined to a certain wing of the Red Keep. Which is better than most historical kings got when all their lords teamed up and replaced them. 

Who or what would make a guy a king if the entire realm doesn't listen to him? 

Sure, then it would most likely not work. But keep in mind that this is a feudal society with a hereditary monarchy at the top. People are accustomed to the idea that the son follows the father on all those levels. Also note that it was Rhaegar himself who grew concerned over his father's mental state but his council and courtiers did not - not even Tywin. And Rhaegar was a member of the royal family, the king's own son and heir. He was concerned both about the health of his father (and mother, at the side of that man) as well as the future of the kingdom he was supposed to inherit.

[Jon Ice-Eyes]

Yeah, all fair.

I get a little riled up when folks start claiming that the king is the king, no matter what. It just isn't accurate. Some Targ boosters like to go down that route. But we are being reasonable here so far.

I mean, it's a legitimate topic that gets very little attention. In this universe, Targs are legitimately superior to the other families. Which implies that they are the rightful rulers, like in an objective sense. That shit makes me deeply uncomfortable, because of the elitism it implies.

The topic of this thread hints at it: do the Targs, who are literally superior to other humans, deserve to be judged by different morals? The same question could theoretically apply to Starks, and/or Blackwoods, and/or any other family lines that have magical genes. Do they get to have different morals? My ethical sense totally recoils from the idea.

When I'm feeling crabby, I get annoyed at how The George isn't tackling these issues head-on. Although there is a case to be made that he is coming at it obliquely. Furthermore, it may be quite central to the climax of this epic; hopefully we've just been working up to it slowly and it will explode in our faces soon. 

For a good comparison, I go to Dune. The Atreides are a genetically superior line. So are the Harkonnen. (Let's leave aside all the weird gender stuff.) They show you the two ways you can go -- and the Targs go both ways --  crazy and tyrannical, or noble and dutiful. When the culmination of that genetic soup spits out the super-being, Paul Atreides, he comes down on the right side of the coin. But after his coronation as Emperor, he does brutalise quite a lot of people, supposedly for the good of humanity. And that breaks him: the horror of what he did (or what his soldiers did) haunts him, and the terror of how much further it will have to go is too much for him to bear. He can't do it. Even if it's the only way to save humanity from destroying itself. Even Leto II does really awful things. Which all hurt him, but are calculated to save the species. Successfully, in the end. 

What all that says to me is that these people who were just plain better than the rest of humanity, when it came down to it, chose to do the ethical thing... but only ethical in the end calculation. They were pretty much serving humanity before themselves, even if the story was set up that the service was a utilitarian calculation -- kill or oppress many so that all can survive.

I guess I come down where Paul did. He couldn't keep harming people regardless of the end; once he realised that, he saw that he could only be a hindrance to humanity, and so had to disappear. A superior being that is not actively serving the greatest good can only fuck things up. Just so for the Targs.

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

Yeah, all fair.

I get a little riled up when folks start claiming that the king is the king, no matter what. It just isn't accurate. Some Targ boosters like to go down that route. But we are being reasonable here so far.

The Targaryens are special in the sense that they are the first kings in Westeros who are sacrosanct anointed kings (crowned and anointed by the High Septons since Aegon the Conqueror with very few exceptions - like Aegon II), who created the Iron Throne and unified the Seven Kingdoms, and who once had dragons. They have more prestige than any other noble or former royal line thanks to that, and they are seen by all of the Seven Kingdoms as the rightful rulers of those kingdoms.

Nobody ever states or claims that the children or grandchildren of Aerys II lost their claim to the Iron Throne because of his madness and cruelty or because Robert Baratheon won that war. Not even Stannis does that.

In that sense the Targaryens are special. They are also special as the only family who has really very special magical blood. Although I'd not never say that makes them superior. It allows them to ride dragons, sure, but it apparently also greatly reduces their fertility and leads to eccentric behavior. In that sense having 'the blood of the dragon' is as much a taint or a curse than it is a blessing. Jaehaerys II is pretty much right on that whole thing.

8 minutes ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

I mean, it's a legitimate topic that gets very little attention. In this universe, Targs are legitimately superior to the other families. Which implies that they are the rightful rulers, like in an objective sense. That shit makes me deeply uncomfortable, because of the elitism it implies.

It is not much different from the elitism of the entire series, though. This is a series about aristocrats and kings who oppress, subdue, and exploit 90-95% of the population with impunity. Whether its the Targaryens, Starks, Lannisters, Arryns, Tully, Freys, Darklyns, or Baelishs do it is irrelevant.

We get bits and pieces showing us that Westeros is a very sick society. You can read certain chapters as George showing why feudal monarchies and aristocratic rule are hideous things, just as wars are.

But the series is structurally very, say, reactionary in the sense that it is a series about nobles and royal living in a feudal fantasy world. It is focusing on the lives, actions, problems, and desires of the ruling classes by mostly showing us the common people through their eyes.

And when we as readers discuss the legitimacy of bastards or the technicalities of feudal succession we are, in a sense, putting ourselves in the mindset of such people and pretend to live by (or care) about the rules of such a society. And that's pretty ugly if you ask me. But one forgets that from time to time.

8 minutes ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

The topic of this thread hints at it: do the Targs, who are literally superior to other humans, deserve to be judged by different morals? The same question could theoretically apply to Starks, and/or Blackwoods, and/or any other family lines that have magical genes. Do they get to have different morals? My ethical sense totally recoils from the idea.

Sure, although we have no reason to believe the Starks or Blackwoods are actually a magical bloodline in the same way as the Targaryens. Their blood is not as special. We only assume that the Stark children or Brynden Rivers inherited their skinchanger/greenseer abilities from their ancestors but it could just as well be, more or less, chance. After all, we do know that giants and Children of the Forest also can become skinchangers and greenseers. It might be potential that's prevalent in all bloodlines and sentient species all across Martinworld.

Bran learns that there are statistics on skinchanging and greenseeing but he isn't told that only special bloodlines bring forth such people.

8 minutes ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

For a good comparison, I go to Dune. The Atreides are a genetically superior line. So are the Harkonnen. (Let's leave aside all the weird gender stuff.) They show you the two ways you can go -- and the Targs go both ways --  crazy and tyrannical, or noble and dutiful. When the culmination of that genetic soup spits out the super-being, Paul Atreides, he comes down on the right side of the coin. But after his coronation as Emperor, he does brutalise quite a lot of people, supposedly for the good of humanity. And that breaks him: the horror of what he did (or what his soldiers did) haunts him, and the terror of how much further it will have to go is too much for him to bear. He can't do it. Even if it's the only way to save humanity from destroying itself. Even Leto II does really awful things. Which all hurt him, but are calculated to save the species. Successfully, in the end. 

What all that says to me is that these people who were just plain better than the rest of humanity, when it came down to it, chose to do the ethical thing... but only ethical in the end calculation. They were pretty much serving humanity before themselves, even if the story was set up that the service was a utilitarian calculation -- kill or oppress many so that all can survive.

I guess I come down where Paul did. He couldn't keep harming people regardless of the end; once he realised that, he saw that he could only be a hindrance to humanity, and so had to disappear. A superior being that is not actively serving the greatest good can only fuck things up. Just so for the Targs.

That comparison is interesting if you discuss people in ASoIaF - like Rhaegar, for example - making decisions based on dreams and prophecies. Paul and Leto have very precise visions and dreams of the future but it is still just visions. Who is to say that these people have the right to decide that humanity deserves to be saved? The individuals dying in such efforts 'to save mankind' don't care about for the reason why they have to die (or are killed). For them the important point is that they are killed.

And in our real world we would call people who act on such nefarious motivations narcissistic madmen (or used such rationales as 'explanations' or 'justifications' for atrocities they committed). This kind of problem is seldom addressed in fantasy novels. George seems to try to do it with the whole thing about prophecy not actually being all that reliable (and Herbert sort of did it, too).

[HallowedMarcus]

On 03/07/2017 at 8:23 PM, Yucef Menaerys said:

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.

    You meant the original 3 Aegon the Conqueror and his two sisters, right? Then you are correct. If you meant all Targaryen princes or rulers then you are wrong. There were Kings that forced laws to all Westeros, minus Dorne. Before each region had its own laws, Kings that ended the right of the first night so that the Lords couldn't use the beautiful women like meat and so on. There was at least one King that literally loved the smallfolk, to wit, Aegon V who gave laws, protections and many rights to them. Tywin Lannister, Hand of the King about 20 years little by little undid them,

[Yucef Menaerys]

On 04/07/2017 at 7:32 PM, 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.

 

On 05/07/2017 at 0:39 AM, kissdbyfire said:

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. 

I admit the concept has its flaws, but the important thing to highlight is that a person found to be insane before becoming king must be stopped, and how to deal with a king who became mad only after in his life and after being king? As to that I have no concrete solution but the best I can come up with is that the king should not be deposed but rather a regency should be set that would take power from the king, he's still king in the literal since but a figurehead is really all he is, that would eliminate the problem of having two kings or lords declaring for the former king etc since he's still the 'king'. 

I would also like to point out that it is very, very rare for Targaryen madness to afflict someone only later in his life, usually it happens from the onset and a person can be known to not be well from his childhood, if I'm not mistaken Aerys is the only case of a targaryen we have who was normal before but became mad later, most of the mad targaryens we see already exhibit their behaviour as kids. So it would be less likely that there would be a king in the future who will became mad only in the later stages of his life, that removes the whole problem of having to depose him or impose a regency on him.

And I would like to mention what what triggered Aerys madness was because of his captivity during the defiance of duskendale, before that he was just a normal person who wanted to do great things to the realm and be remembered as a wise king in the future. I'm saying all this to stress that it is very rare for targaryens to become mad only in the later stages of their lives. 

[Yucef Menaerys]

On 07/07/2017 at 3:01 AM, HallowedMarcus said:

    You meant the original 3 Aegon the Conqueror and his two sisters, right? Then you are correct. If you meant all Targaryen princes or rulers then you are wrong. There were Kings that forced laws to all Westeros, minus Dorne. Before each region had its own laws, Kings that ended the right of the first night so that the Lords couldn't use the beautiful women like meat and so on. There was at least one King that literally loved the smallfolk, to wit, Aegon V who gave laws, protections and many rights to them. Tywin Lannister, Hand of the King about 20 years little by little undid them,

I was speaking more in a general sense and in the context of the Targaryens at the time of the conquest not the later targaryens who became beneficiaries to what Aegon and his sisters achieved.

And those kings you mentioned would not have been able to do what they did were it not for Aegon and his conquest.

What you say is also not the entire truth, for example I don't think Aegon became king ONLY because he wanted to make the lives of the smallfolk better, that may just be part of the reason but surely not the the sole reason, he also wanted the power and prestige of being king.

[HallowedMarcus]

18 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

What you say is also not the entire truth, for example I don't think Aegon became king ONLY because he wanted to make the lives of the smallfolk better, that may just be part of the reason but surely not the the sole reason, he also wanted the power and prestige of being king.

    Of course, he also wanted to be King because of prestige and glory but mostly to make justice in Westeros to the smallfolk. Aegon V (egg) tried to use his sons and daughters marriages to the High Lords of Westeros to assure that his decree protecting the low born would be implemented. His sons, however, refused to marry their betrothals and it spared an even bigger resistance to his new laws that he became convinced that only if he had dragons could he make the Lords accept his new laws and that will of his to restore the Dragons led to the tragedy of the Summerhall were he died.

[WSmith84]

I'd like to see the evidence that Aegon the Conqueror conquered Westeros to help the smallfolk. I'm not saying he didn't, but I've always thought his motives were pretty ambiguous and not explicit at all. Thus I always concluded that he did it for the same reason most Westerosi Kings conquer new territories: power and prestige.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

I'd like to see the evidence that Aegon the Conqueror conquered Westeros to help the smallfolk. I'm not saying he didn't, but I've always thought his motives were pretty ambiguous and not explicit at all. Thus I always concluded that he did it for the same reason most Westerosi Kings conquer new territories: power and prestige.

We have no reason to believe this was a powerful reason for him conquer Westeros but the Conquest did better the situation of the smallfolk in a number of ways. War essentially became a thing of the past, the laws were unified, certain archaic laws were overturned, and many commoners found a better life (and some even grew wealth and rich) in the new capital of King's Landing.

We have no idea what motivated Aegon at all, but there are subtle hints that the ultimate cause of the Conquest may have been the prophecy of the promised prince. We have the three heads of the dragon reflected in the Targaryen banner, and Aegon doesn't appear to have been an overly power-hungry guy. He mostly had his sister-wives and advisers rule the Realm, taking a backseat whenever he could. And he also was a very private person, having only one close friend, Orys Baratheon, and one woman he loved, his sister Rhaenys. That was it.

As to barring madmen from inheriting the throne - that's something the king has to deal with. If a king has a madman for a son he certainly can bar him from the succession, and naming a younger son, a grandson, or even a nephew or cousin his new heir. 

In that sense, one really wonders what Aegon V and Jaehaerys II thought of young Prince Aerys. How obvious was his madness back in Aerys' mid-teens, and to what degree did they think would this affliction of him influence his ability to rule? Note that Aerys wasn't exactly prone to violence in his youth, he just was very selfish and not exactly the sharpest knife in a box. That in and of itself isn't enough to bar him from the succession. If you take such criteria you could also bar a prince who isn't a good fighter, not pious enough, sickly, etc. from the succession. But that's usually not done.

Prince Rhaegel - who seems to have been madder than either Aerys II or Aerion - wasn't barred from the succession. He was Prince of Dragonstone up until his death in 215 AC. They were aware that he was unlikely to rule effectively in his own right but they would have taken precautions for that, most likely, with Bloodraven continuing as Hand and Maekar and Rhaegel's son Aelor helping as well.

[The Commentator]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As to barring madmen from inheriting the throne - that's something the king has to deal with. If a king has a madman for a son he certainly can bar him from the succession, and naming a younger son, a grandson, or even a nephew or cousin his new heir. 

For any reason.  King Aerys II disinherited Rhaegar's children and made sure they would never inherit his throne.  He chose to pass the throne to Prince Viserys, who became King Viserys III at the monarch's death.

[kissdbyfire]

The main reason for Aerys to remove Rhaegar's children from the line of succession is because they were half Dornish. He was convinced Lewyn Martell had betrayed Rhaegar at the Trident, on top of never really liking the Dornish. He wouldn't even touch Rhaenys because she smelled Dornish. 

[Lord Varys]

36 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

For any reason.  King Aerys II disinherited Rhaegar's children and made sure they would never inherit his throne.  He chose to pass the throne to Prince Viserys, who became King Viserys III at the monarch's death.

A grandson is different from a son. Your eldest son usually is your default heir, and you raise and treat him as such from birth. But a grandson has no right to demand anything from you, especially not if you have other children.

[The Commentator]

31 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The main reason for Aerys to remove Rhaegar's children from the line of succession is because they were half Dornish. He was convinced Lewyn Martell had betrayed Rhaegar at the Trident, on top of never really liking the Dornish. He wouldn't even touch Rhaenys because she smelled Dornish. 

If we assume R+L=J, or even just R+L = somebody, Aerys would have done the same.  Disinherit the line.  He would never want the children of a Stark to have any claims on his throne.  

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

If we assume R+L=J, or even just R+L = somebody, Aerys would have done the same.  Disinherit the line.  He would never want the children of a Stark to have any claims on his throne.  

Any child of Rhaegar's and Lyanna's isn't even in the succession, regardless whether Rhaegar and Lyanna were married or not. The king didn't know of its existence. You are not part of the royal family if the king doesn't know about you.

You can see this very well with Addam and Alyn of Hull. If Corlys and Jacaerys Velaryon had not convinced Rhaenyra to legitimize them nothing would have happened. And if Corlys hadn't been willing to actually buy he story that the children are his son's seed (or his own, which seems to be the actual truth) and champion their cause than nothing would have come of that.

And something similar has to happen for Jon. It would be different if Aerys and the world had known he existed, as is the case with Aegon. Here it is clear who the Aegon we meet is supposed to be. But nobody knows that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a son. Why should anybody believe the story of Jon's true parentage?

[WSmith84]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no reason to believe this was a powerful reason for him conquer Westeros but the Conquest did better the situation of the smallfolk in a number of ways. War essentially became a thing of the past, the laws were unified, certain archaic laws were overturned, and many commoners found a better life (and some even grew wealth and rich) in the new capital of King's Landing.

We have no idea what motivated Aegon at all, but there are subtle hints that the ultimate cause of the Conquest may have been the prophecy of the promised prince. We have the three heads of the dragon reflected in the Targaryen banner, and Aegon doesn't appear to have been an overly power-hungry guy. He mostly had his sister-wives and advisers rule the Realm, taking a backseat whenever he could. And he also was a very private person, having only one close friend, Orys Baratheon, and one woman he loved, his sister Rhaenys. That was it.

As to barring madmen from inheriting the throne - that's something the king has to deal with. If a king has a madman for a son he certainly can bar him from the succession, and naming a younger son, a grandson, or even a nephew or cousin his new heir. 

In that sense, one really wonders what Aegon V and Jaehaerys II thought of young Prince Aerys. How obvious was his madness back in Aerys' mid-teens, and to what degree did they think would this affliction of him influence his ability to rule? Note that Aerys wasn't exactly prone to violence in his youth, he just was very selfish and not exactly the sharpest knife in a box. That in and of itself isn't enough to bar him from the succession. If you take such criteria you could also bar a prince who isn't a good fighter, not pious enough, sickly, etc. from the succession. But that's usually not done.

Prince Rhaegel - who seems to have been madder than either Aerys II or Aerion - wasn't barred from the succession. He was Prince of Dragonstone up until his death in 215 AC. They were aware that he was unlikely to rule effectively in his own right but they would have taken precautions for that, most likely, with Bloodraven continuing as Hand and Maekar and Rhaegel's son Aelor helping as well.

I was more wondering what institution (if any) a King could set up to remove mad Kings, and not simply bar them from inheriting. As you pointed out, Aerys II wouldn't have qualified for being disinherited when he was young. But could one set up something that could effectively remove a monarch from power without seriously weakening the position of King/Queen?

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

I was more wondering what institution (if any) a King could set up to remove mad Kings, and not simply bar them from inheriting. As you pointed out, Aerys II wouldn't have qualified for being disinherited when he was young. But could one set up something that could effectively remove a monarch from power without seriously weakening the position of King/Queen?

No, because that would essentially mean either a constitutional monarchy or something of that sort where there are stipulated guidelines how a king takes office, how much power he has, and under which conditions he can be forced to step down or abdicate. But that wouldn't be a medieval monarchy in any meaningful sense.

And very few actual constitutional monarchies actually have clauses that force kings to step down because of insanity. And where they are have such clauses they usually are only used when a king factually can no longer rule, not when his decision-making process might endanger himself, his family, or his subjects.

In fact, whenever monarchs like some Hapsburgs or King Ludwig II of Bavaris in the 19th century were removed from office the whole thing was more a coup by state officials and members of the royal family than something that was actually legal. Usually a monarch only loses his power when he is really no longer able to defend himself coherently. And there was always uncertainty and struggle over this. Just check how things were done during the times of the madness of George III.

And in addition there is the problem of a king basically being king for life in pretty much any system. That means an incapacitated king - regardless whether because of mental problems or other illnesses - remains king. You usually only have a regent or regency council governing the kingdom in his name. And that means the king can recover and be reinstated.

[WSmith84]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, because that would essentially mean either a constitutional monarchy or something of that sort where there are stipulated guidelines how a king takes office, how much power he has, and under which conditions he can be forced to step down or abdicate. But that wouldn't be a medieval monarchy in any meaningful sense.

And very few actual constitutional monarchies actually have clauses that force kings to step down because of insanity. And where they are have such clauses they usually are only used when a king factually can no longer rule, not when his decision-making process might endanger himself, his family, or his subjects.

In fact, whenever monarchs like some Hapsburgs or King Ludwig II of Bavaris in the 19th century were removed from office the whole thing was more a coup by state officials and members of the royal family than something that was actually legal. Usually a monarch only loses his power when he is really no longer able to defend himself coherently. And there was always uncertainty and struggle over this. Just check how things were done during the times of the madness of George III.

And in addition there is the problem of a king basically being king for life in pretty much any system. That means an incapacitated king - regardless whether because of mental problems or other illnesses - remains king. You usually only have a regent or regency council governing the kingdom in his name. And that means the king can recover and be reinstated.

Thanks. That (presumably) explains why Rhaegar took so long to do anything about his father once it became clear that he wasn't fit to rule.

[Targaryen Restoration]

4 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

I was more wondering what institution (if any) a King could set up to remove mad Kings, and not simply bar them from inheriting. As you pointed out, Aerys II wouldn't have qualified for being disinherited when he was young. But could one set up something that could effectively remove a monarch from power without seriously weakening the position of King/Queen?

I doubt the nobles would go for this.  After all, if a king can be removed so can every lord in the kingdom.  The power flows downwards from the ruler down to the nobles and on down to the common folk.  Right to rule in their world is not determined by competency otherwise a dick like Brandon would have been barred from inheriting.  Right to rule is simply a right because of birth and lineage.  Change that and every nobleman and noblewoman alive would face the threat of being removed from their positions of authority.  A threat to the king's authority is a threat to every lord's and lady's authority to command.

[WSmith84]

18 hours ago, Targaryen Restoration said:

I doubt the nobles would go for this.  After all, if a king can be removed so can every lord in the kingdom.  The power flows downwards from the ruler down to the nobles and on down to the common folk.  Right to rule in their world is not determined by competency otherwise a dick like Brandon would have been barred from inheriting.  Right to rule is simply a right because of birth and lineage.  Change that and every nobleman and noblewoman alive would face the threat of being removed from their positions of authority.  A threat to the king's authority is a threat to every lord's and lady's authority to command.

Yes, that was my thinking as well. The minute a King can be deposed legally, there's not much to stop it happening to a lord. Lord Varys' suggestion of removing mad heirs from the line of succession is theoretically sound, at least.