Jump to content
lunasmeow

Valyria, A Gender Equal Society?

Recommended Posts

There is something I considered that in my discussions with others I think went overlooked, possibly because most people aren't historians or archaeologists and so don't think in the way they do.

Valyria had no word to distinguish between "Prince" and "Princess" in High Valyrian. This is why the whole "Prince that was Promised" prophecy was so surprising. When we were later told that it could be either male or female, allowing it to be Dany as well, everyone was so excited that they forgot what that inherently means.

Historians can tell a lot about a society from its more subtle nuances - language being one of the most telling. If you have multiple ways of saying the same thing, then you were likely a society that required multiple ways of speech, possibly for talking to those of higher and lower status, or maybe between family vs strangers vs work enviornments... of course there are other things that come into consideration too, even we have "Hey", "Hello", "Hi" and "Good [time of day here]" so it isn't exactly that simple, but the methodology is the point.

The issue here is simple, having no means of saying "Prince" vs "Princess" implies that there is no need to differentiate between the two. That you only have a word for "Heir". Now, this doesn't inherently mean that you're gender equal - if you can only have one gender as the heir, you might only make one word. We have a word for "Princess" even in male dominated societies, because we valued princesses, even if they couldn't inherit. Valyria, it could be argued, was male dominated, and didn't value the females, even the ones who were the children of their rulers, so they only had the one word. That would be a fair assessment, if there wasn't more to it.

Thing is, that's not the case. They had only one word, but it could be used for both genders. This implies something very different. It implies that it just didn't matter if you were a male or a female - the heir was the heir, gender be damned. This is further exemplified in Volantis - a place that prides itself on its Valyrian history - which allows female Triarchs. They rarely actually have them, either because they rarely run for the position, or maybe they rarely win even if they do run, or perhaps both or some other reason, but they do have them. (See Trianna for evidence.)

This tells me that Valyria, may have been the second (the Empire of the Dawn did it first, according to the whole myth of the Amethyst Empress and whether you buy into the whole Valyria was a part of the EotD theory in which case they were there as part of the first and just carried it on, but that's if you buy that) gender equal society in Westeros.

This makes sense, because dragons are a hell of an equalizer. Your gender doesn't matter, when you've got a big scary ass dragon willing to burn any who oppose you.

Edited by lunasmeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lunasmeow said:

Thing is, that's not the case. They had only one word, but it could be used for both genders. This implies something very different. It implies that it just didn't matter if you were a male or a female - the heir was the heir, gender be damned. This is further exemplified in Volantis - a place that prides itself on its Valyrian history - which allows female Triarchs. They rarely actually have them, either because they rarely run for the position, or maybe they rarely win even if they do run, or perhaps both or some other reason, but they do have them. (See Trianna for evidence.)

 

Yet Aegon was the Lord of Dragonstone not Visenya, i agree that Valyria is more egalitarian than Westeros but there is still a gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lunasmeow said:

There is something I considered that in my discussions with others I think went overlooked, possibly because most people aren't historians or archaeologists and so don't think in the way they do.

Valyria had no word to distinguish between "Prince" and "Princess" in High Valyrian. This is why the whole "Prince that was Promised" prophecy was so surprising. When we were later told that it could be either male or female, allowing it to be Dany as well, everyone was so excited that they forgot what that inherently means.

Historians can tell a lot about a society from its more subtle nuances - language being one of the most telling. If you have multiple ways of saying the same thing, then you were likely a society that required multiple ways of speech, possibly for talking to those of higher and lower status, or maybe between family vs strangers vs work enviornments... of course there are other things that come into consideration too, even we have "Hey", "Hello", "Hi" and "Good [time of day here]" so it isn't exactly that simple, but the methodology is the point.

The issue here is simple, having no means of saying "Prince" vs "Princess" implies that there is no need to differentiate between the two. That you only have a word for "Heir". Now, this doesn't inherently mean that you're gender equal - if you can only have one gender as the heir, you might only make one word. We have a word for "Princess" even in male dominated societies, because we valued princesses, even if they couldn't inherit. Valyria, it could be argued, was male dominated, and didn't value the females, even the ones who were the children of their rulers, so they only had the one word. That would be a fair assessment, if there wasn't more to it.

Thing is, that's not the case. They had only one word, but it could be used for both genders. This implies something very different. It implies that it just didn't matter if you were a male or a female - the heir was the heir, gender be damned. This is further exemplified in Volantis - a place that prides itself on its Valyrian history - which allows female Triarchs. They rarely actually have them, either because they rarely run for the position, or maybe they rarely win even if they do run, or perhaps both or some other reason, but they do have them. (See Trianna for evidence.)

This tells me that Valyria, may have been the second (the Empire of the Dawn did it first, according to the whole myth of the Amethyst Empress and whether you buy into the whole Valyria was a part of the EotD theory in which case they were there as part of the first and just carried it on, but that's if you buy that) gender equal society in Westeros.

This makes sense, because dragons are a hell of an equalizer. Your gender doesn't matter, when you've got a big scary ass dragon willing to burn any who oppose you.

There are information about Valyria that we are not aware of.  But what we know supports the idea of gender equality.  What really elevates status in Valyria is the ability to bond with and ride dragons.  A female who can and did "birth" dragons from petrified eggs would be very special indeed and thus elevated to a very high status. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenin said:

Yet Aegon was the Lord of Dragonstone not Visenya, i agree that Valyria is more egalitarian than Westeros but there is still a gap.

True, but we also know that Aegon and his family "took on" Westerosi traditions in order to be more "acceptable" as rulers by them. They took on the religion, they made Heraldry for their house, (something Valyrians didn't do) and so taking on male dominant succession also seems like a rather "simple" concession, particularly when they married brother to sister anyway so it's not like one had to worry about not being king or queen.

Notice that they kept that particular tradition... I wouldn't be surprised if, like many other bits of "history" the Maesters write, that part about Aegon having been the "lord" of Dragonstone wasn't false too - Aegon married Visenya "out of duty" they say, Rhaenys "out of love". Perhaps he did so because it was necessary to seem like he was the "heir" to the family? Or perhaps becasue the biggest and most powerful dragon, Balerion, bonded to him, not to Visenya... so marrying her and thus keeping him from threatening her position was mandatory.

There's lots of possible reasons for both to be a thing. The maesters making shit up (as we know they do in canon a lot) is only one of them.

Edited by lunasmeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lunasmeow said:

Valyria had no word to distinguish between "Prince" and "Princess" in High Valyrian. This is why the whole "Prince that was Promised" prophecy was so surprising. 

I love it when fan theories become “fact” on this site.  Sorry, or HBO none sense.

Edited by Frey family reunion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rhoynar did not ride dragons. We hear of Rhoynar water witches - but we don´t hear of the water witches actually deployed against Targaryens,, nor do we hear of Aryanne´s thoughts about her applying water witchcraft in ways Doran and Oberyn cound not and needed her to.

Yet the Dornish openly hold Dornish law - and Targaryens don´t. They don´t even stick to Andal law - by Andal law, Aenys´ heir should be Aerea, not Jaehaerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lunasmeow said:

True, but we also know that Aegon and his family "took on" Westerosi traditions in order to be more "acceptable" as rulers by them. They took on the religion, they made Heraldry for their house, (something Valyrians didn't do) and so taking on male dominant succession also seems like a rather "simple" concession, particularly when they married brother to sister anyway so it's not like one had to worry about not being king or queen.

Notice that they kept that particular tradition... I wouldn't be surprised if, like many other bits of "history" the Maesters write, that part about Aegon having been the "lord" of Dragonstone wasn't false too - Aegon married Visenya "out of duty" they say, Rhaenys "out of love". Perhaps he did so because it was necessary to seem like he was the "heir" to the family? Or perhaps becasue the biggest and most powerful dragon, Balerion, bonded to him, not to Visenya... so marrying her and thus keeping him from threatening her position was mandatory.

There's lots of possible reasons for both to be a thing. The maesters making shit up (as we know they do in canon a lot) is only one of them.

Not only Aegon was the Lord of Dragonstone, we know that after the Doom, only one couple of Targ ruled Dragonstone,  the rest of the time it was always ruled by a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lunasmeow said:

True, but we also know that Aegon and his family "took on" Westerosi traditions in order to be more "acceptable" as rulers by them. They took on the religion, they made Heraldry for their house, (something Valyrians didn't do) and so taking on male dominant succession also seems like a rather "simple" concession, particularly when they married brother to sister anyway so it's not like one had to worry about not being king or queen.

It is quite clear that the Targaryens on Dragonstone didn't do more than paying lip service to the Seven. They continued their incest thing and Aegon I even took two wives.

We have only male Lords of Dragonstone from Aenar to Aegon I and we do know that three of those were married to sisters (Gaemon-Daenys, Aegon-Elaena, and Aegon I and his sister-wives) - this doesn't make it very likely that the Targaryens and the Valyrian dragonlords before them thought that women were equal to men.

There were cases of shared rule - Aegon and his sister-wife Elaena apparently ruled together, as did the Conqueror and his sister-wives, but there were no cases where a woman ruled and her brother-husband only shared in her rule.

Back in Valyria itself there wouldn't have been feudal nonsense and lordships passing to just one child, etc. They would have proterties they could split up among their children, they might be able to create more modern legal constructs like holdings and the like, meaning that (noble-)women were much better off than they were in Westeros (FaB gives us detail on Lysene inheritance with the Rogares - Lysandro's properties are split up among his legitimate and illegitimate children; Valyrian customs could have been similar).

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I love it when fan theories become “fact” on this site.  Sorry, or HBO none sense.

Actually, Aemon implies that the Valyrian word from which the translation 'prince' in the prophecy about the promised prince is derived is 'dragon'. The dragonlords, much less the Targaryens, are never referred to as 'princes' back in Valyria. Dragons can be male and female, meaning if the prophecy had been talking about 'dragons' (meaning 'people of dragonlord blood' by 'dragons') then the whole gender-blind thing makes sense in the original texts, just as it makes sense that the males reading and translating the prophecies would have started to talk about 'a prince' when the Targaryens had become a royal dynasty - the child would have to be both male and of legitimate birth. Anything else was unthinkable.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Yet the Dornish openly hold Dornish law - and Targaryens don´t. They don´t even stick to Andal law - by Andal law, Aenys´ heir should be Aerea, not Jaehaerys.

There is no Andal law as such. There were the Seven Kingdoms before the Conquest, and the five Andal kingdoms all had their own laws. There is only one Andal kingdom which ever had a queen regnant - the Reach - all the others did never suffer a female monarch, never mind the scenario.

And considering that Aegon the Conqueror actually confirmed the laws and customs of all the kingdoms he conquered and continued to do justice on the basis of those laws and customs it is quite clear that the succession of the Iron Throne was as much a new and distinct legal sphere as, say, a murder trial and sentence in the Reach and the North would have been a different legal matter, following the established legal practices in those kingdoms.

Nobody ever cites Andal law or the precedents set by the Lannister, Arryn, Gardener, Durrandon, etc. kings of old when discussing Targaryen succession - instead the precedents of the Targaryens on Dragonstone are discussed. Aegon ruling Dragonstone instead of Visenya is a powerful precedent against gender-blind primogeniture.

Aerea and Rhaella may have been next in line if Aegon the Uncrowned had ever ruled as king ... but he was never crowned and he never ruled as king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 Nobody ever cites Andal law or the precedents set by the Lannister, Arryn, Gardener, Durrandon, etc. kings of old when discussing Targaryen succession - instead the precedents of the Targaryens on Dragonstone are discussed. Aegon ruling Dragonstone instead of Visenya is a powerful precedent against gender-blind primogeniture.

 

Is it?? The only one who ever cites Aegon ruling Dragonstone and not Visenya is Glydan while trying to make Jaeharys less of a sexist the small council allegedly argued that Baelon was a competent ruler, adult, with two heirs while Rhaenys might or might not have a boy, you know how much that reeks when Glydan conveniently forgets about Aerea and her sister and starts talking about the order of birth and Rhaena, when that wasn't the topic.

Glydan builts for himself and Jaeharys a very well made straw man to avoid the obvopis, buy a straw man nontheless.

 

Quote

 Aerea and Rhaella may have been next in line if Aegon the Uncrowned had ever ruled as king ... but he was never crowned and he never ruled as king.

 

But his line still comes before his siblings in the succesion, for all the talk about Viserys making the Dance inevitable, no one talks about how Jaeharys succesion decrees made a conflict with the Velaryons inevitable.

 

Quote

There is no Andal law as such. There were the Seven Kingdoms before the Conquest, and the five Andal kingdoms all had their own laws. There is only one Andal kingdom which ever had a queen regnant - the Reach - all the others did never suffer a female monarch, never mind the scenario.

 And considering that Aegon the Conqueror actually confirmed the laws and customs of all the kingdoms he conquered and continued to do justice on the basis of those laws and customs it is quite clear that the succession of the Iron Throne was as much a new and distinct legal sphere as, say, a murder trial and sentence in the Reach and the North would have been a different legal matter, following the established legal practices in those kingdoms.

No?? The only regions we know don't follow the Andal laws are Dorne and the Iron Islands and the only House outside those regions who we know follow some exctrict salic law are the Starks.

Rohanne Webber, Cerelle Lannister, Jeyne Arryn, Alys Karstark and co had made clear that Son>Daughter>everyone else,in fact that's the reason with the conflict between Baelon and Rhanys in the first place.

It's completely true howeer the IT didn't have a succesion law and depends of Daenora is or isn't Aerys' heir, there might not be a succesion law to this current day, so the IT might still follow Andal traditions.

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenin said:

Is it?? The only one who ever cites Aegon ruling Dragonstone and not Visenya is Glydan while trying to make Jaeharys less of a sexist the small council allegedly argued that Baelon was a competent ruler, adult, with two heirs while Rhaenys might or might not have a boy, you know how much that reeks when Glydan conveniently forgets about Aerea and her sister and starts talking about the order of birth and Rhaena, when that wasn't the topic.

That is actually due to the fact that George wrote HotD long before he wrote Aerea's little story in the later chapters of FaB.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Glydan builts for himself and Jaeharys a very well made straw man to avoid the obvopis, buy a straw man nontheless.

There is no reason to assume that Gyldayn is on any side here.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

But his line still comes before his siblings in the succesion, for all the talk about Viserys making the Dance inevitable, no one talks about how Jaeharys succesion decrees made a conflict with the Velaryons inevitable.

No, that is not the case. If it were the case then Jaehaerys I wouldn't have had much of a choice when he named Baelon his heir. If law and Andal tradition demanded that the elder line take precedence, regardless whether male or female, then people would have supported Rhaenys against Baelon just as later most of the Realm would have sided with Laenor - rather than dismiss his claim almost unanimously.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

No?? The only regions we know don't follow the Andal laws are Dorne and the Iron Islands and the only House outside those regions who we know follow some exctrict salic law are the Starks.

There are no Andals laws as such, there are only the laws of the Westerlands, the Reach, the Vale, etc. And some such regions - the Three Sisters, for instance -, while being Andals, had no problem if an elder sister ruled as queen in instead of a younger brother (Marla Sunderland was proclaimed during the Conquest).

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Rohanne Webber, Cerelle Lannister, Jeyne Arryn, Alys Karstark and co had made clear that Son>Daughter>everyone else,in fact that's the reason with the conflict between Baelon and Rhanys in the first place.

That is all after Jaehaerys I unified the laws - and it seems that after the unification of the laws the daughters of a lord came before a brother or some other male relation if there was no son. But this was clearly not the case on the royal level - neither before the Conquest nor thereafter. Again, the Reach aside, none of the First Men or Andal kingdoms ever had a ruling queen.

And it is not the same if a king's daughter follows her father on the throne - as would have been the case with Aerea if her father had ruled and never fathered any sons on Rhaena - and if a king's eldest son predeceases him and he has to choose between a grandson or granddaughter and a younger son. Here the younger sons usually have a much better chance to be chosen than th grandchildren. This started with Jaehaerys I (although that was a civil war situation) and continued with Baelon over Rhaenys, Viserys I over Laenor, Aegon V over Vaella and Maegor, and eventually even Viserys III over Aegon.

Without a law of succession there is only preliminary line of succession - the king names an heir apparent or acknowledges a presumptive heir, but who is going to succeed the king if the heir apparent/acknowledged heir predeceases the king is going to be decided if and when that happens - not before.

During the reign of the Conqueror it is clear that Prince Aenys is the heir apparent, and Maegor second in line until Aenys has children of his own - then those children are considered, especially the male children, to come before Maegor in the line of succession. But Prince Aegon is only named heir apparent after Aenys I ascended the Iron Throne. If Aenys had predeceased the Conqueror then Aegon I would have been forced to name a new, which would have likely been a choice between (mostly) Aenys' eldest son Aegon and Maegor.

We see a similar thing much later with Aerys I - he has no children of his own, but he does acknowledge a succession of heirs and names them all Prince or Princess of Dragonstone - Rhaegel, Aelor, Aelora, and eventually Maekar.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

It's completely true howeer the IT didn't have a succesion law and depends of Daenora is or isn't Aerys' heir, there might not be a succesion law to this current day, so the IT might still follow Andal traditions.

The succession of the Iron Throne isn't ruled by law, it is shaped by precedent. There is a tendency to cite other precedents, but they are not binding. In the end the king names his heir. And even lords can do that - Lord Webber named Rohanne his heiress in his last will and added caveats to the succession, just as Jeyne Arryn named an obscure heir in her own last will who eventually succeeded to the Eyrie, etc. Robb also rules on his own succession, Stannis intends to rule on his (by naming Renly his heir rather than Shireen), Aegon IV and Aerys II thought about disinheriting/passing over their eldest sons, meaning that this kind of thing is neither unthinkable nor unheard of, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, Aemon implies that the Valyrian word from which the translation 'prince' in the prophecy about the promised prince is derived is 'dragon'. The dragonlords, much less the Targaryens, are never referred to as 'princes' back in Valyria. Dragons can be male and female, meaning if the prophecy had been talking about 'dragons' (meaning 'people of dragonlord blood' by 'dragons')

And where is it written that the prince that was promised prophecy was translated from Valyrian?

eta and why would a Valyrian messiah be referred to as a promised prince?

Let me suggest instead that you look to a culture who’s highest sovereign was a prince.

Edited by Frey family reunion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

And where is it written that the prince that was promised prophecy was translated from Valyrian?

eta and why would a Valyrian messiah be referred to as a promised prince?

Well, that's implied by the whole dragon talk and the fact that the promised prince prophecy seems to refer to a Targaryen (at least in their mind) when other savior prophecies do not necessarily make that prerequiste. It is definitely clear that the prophecy both Aemon and Marwyn know is very old and not written in the Common Tongue.

He would not be referenced as such - but since Aemon makes it clear that prophecy or prophecies he knows were translated it seems pretty likely 'the promised prince' was how the Targaryens colloquially referred to the savior figure from one of their ancient prophecies. They believed it was one of their line, and being as obsessed with trueborn children, etc. as the rest of patriarchal Westeros they thought this person had to be both male and a child born in wedlock.

How it is that the Targaryens believe the prophecy refers to a guy from their bloodline (prior to the Ghost's additional prophecy) rather than some other dragonlord bloodline is, at this point, completely unclear. It might be that the prophecy sort of identifies the Targaryens, possibly by talking about the last dragonlords after the destruction of Valyria or something along those lines, but that's all just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

How it is that the Targaryens believe the prophecy refers to a guy from their bloodline (prior to the Ghost's additional prophecy) rather than some other dragonlord bloodline is, at this point, completely unclear. 

You first have to remember that at the time we first hear about the prophecy, the Targaryens’ bloodlines weren’t just the bloodlines of dragon lords.  Notably we don’t hear anything about the Prince that was Promised prophecy in the timeline covered in Fire and Blood.  

It’s very possible that the Targaryens first adopted/appropriated the prophecy from a culture that fairly recently was introduced into the family tree of the Targaryens.

When we first hear of the Targaryens interest in the prophecy is during the time of Aegon V.  And a previous Targaryen king was Aegon’s uncle, King Aerys I, who was supposed to be very interested in prophecies as well.

So instead of assuming that the Targaryens are only interested in their paternal heritage, we must also consider the possibility that the Targaryens have an interest in their maternal bloodlines as well.  And King Aerys’ mother was Dornish, while King Aegon’s maternal grandmother was Dornish and his mother was a Dayne as well.

In fact it was fairly well established that there was a big Dornish influence in the Red Keep starting with King Daeron’s rule.

Quote

“You can know a man by his friends, Egg.  Daeron surrounded himself with maesters, septons and singers.  Always there were women whispering in his ear, and his court was full of Dornishmen.  How not, when he had taken a Dornishwoman into his bed and sold his own sweet sister to the Prince of Dorne, though it was Daemon that she loved?

Quote

Dissatisfaction at these concessions was one of the seeds from which the first Blackfyre Rebellion sprang, as was the belief that Dorne held too much influence over the king - for Daeron II brought many Dornishmen to his court, some of whom were granted offices of note.

So we really can’t discount the Dornish culture that was introduced into House Targaryen.  And the fact that a Dornish woman raised three future kings of House Targaryen, and presumably had a great deal of influence over her grandchildren as well.

The Prince that was Promised appears to be a type of messianic figure.  Presumably the culture from which this messiah is to come from, will give the promised messiah the title of their highest sovereign.  For example Jesus was referred to as the King of Kings.  The highest sovereign of Israel being a king.

And usually messianic beliefs come from a culture/society that is being oppressed.  It’s surely not unusual for a society being oppressed to keep hope alive by promising a sovereign will come in the future to make things right.

Now let’s look at when the Prince that was promised prophecy may have first come about:

Quote

The language misled us all for a thousand years.

So now, let’s go back a thousand years to see if we can find an oppressed culture who’s highest sovereign was a Prince.

Quote

The series of conflicts reached a bloody climax a thousand years ago in the Second Spice War, when three Valyrian dragon lords joined with their kin and cousins in Volantis to overwhelm, sack and destroy Sarhoy, the great Rhoynar port city upon the Summer Sea.  The warriors of Sarhoy were slaughtered savagely, their children carried off into slavery, and their proud pink city put to the torch.  Afterwards the Volantenes sowed the smoking ruins with salt so that Sarhoy might never rise again.

So the Rhoynar culture was destroyed amidst smoke and salt a thousand years ago.  So it would make sense that the promised messiah for the Rhoynars would be a Prince (their highest sovereign) who would arise from smoke and salt.

Now it appears that both Rhaegar and Aemon have already conflated the messianic prophecies of two different cultures.  The culture that gave birth to the Prince that was Promised, and the Asshai prophecy of Azor Ahai.  It wouldn’t surprise me that they might have conflated another culture’s belief:  The Dragon, and specifically the Dragon with Three Heads.  This last being undoubtably a Valyrian belief.

But it wouldn’t surprise me at all that the Targaryens would believe that not only that their family was destined to give birth to The Dragon, but they would also be the ones who would fulfill their maternal culture’s prophecy.  A prophecy which may have originated from the smoking ruins of the Rhoynish people, and carried with them to Dorne.

It also might be the reason that a Targaryen obsessed with the Prince that Was Promised prophecy, Rhaegar,  may have come to believe that a child from a Dornish mother might be the one who would fulfill the prophecy.  Aegon VI a Prince from both sides of his family.

Edited by Frey family reunion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is actually due to the fact that George wrote HotD long before he wrote Aerea's little story in the later chapters of FaB.

Quote

But even then, and Aerea is fairly to introduce in HotD, only Glydan ever talks about that Aegon Lord and Visenya not nonsnse,

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to assume that Gyldayn is on any side here.

Quote

His constantly ass licking to Jaeharys tells otherwise just as him  actually making a unrequitedd straw man. And since when maesters have been in favour of gender equality?? Every time they could they have proved being mysoginists and racists.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that is not the case. If it were the case then Jaehaerys I wouldn't have had much of a choice when he named Baelon his heir. If law and Andal tradition demanded that the elder line take precedence, regardless whether male or female, then people would have supported Rhaenys against Baelon just as later most of the Realm would have sided with Laenor - rather than dismiss his claim almost unanimously.

Quote

Unlikely, since the Lords are not only fairly mysoginists who would of course take the most mysoginists road if that road don't bite them in the ass, that and the fact that Baelon was far more known and beloved than his niece, we see that again with the GC, although many lords were there to make sure the female line couldn't rule and wanted that decision to become an iron precedent, that precedent seemed only to rule in the Throne matters, no noble ever tried to use said precedent against their respective female ruling ladies/heirs. 

If the Lords felt like the succesion matters would not reach them, they'd act as their conscience tell them to.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are no Andals laws as such, there are only the laws of the Westerlands, the Reach, the Vale, etc. And some such regions - the Three Sisters, for instance -, while being Andals, had no problem if an elder sister ruled as queen in instead of a younger brother (Marla Sunderland was proclaimed during the Conquest).

Quote

There are, i don't think it's a concidence the South follows the same succesion laws and we still have to see a greenland southerner going rogue, the Three Sisters have historically follow their own way and we don't know what took them to declare Marla their Queen,

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is all after Jaehaerys I unified the laws - and it seems that after the unification of the laws the daughters of a lord came before a brother or some other male relation if there was no son. But this was clearly not the case on the royal level - neither before the Conquest nor thereafter. Again, the Reach aside, none of the First Men or Andal kingdoms ever had a ruling queen.

 

And yet we're specifically told that Aerea might have better claim that Jaeharys.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 And it is not the same if a king's daughter follows her father on the throne - as would have been the case with Aerea if her father had ruled and never fathered any sons on Rhaena - and if a king's eldest son predeceases him and he has to choose between a grandson or granddaughter and a younger son. Here the younger sons usually have a much better chance to be chosen than th grandchildren. This started with Jaehaerys I (although that was a civil war situation) and continued with Baelon over Rhaenys, Viserys I over Laenor, Aegon V over Vaella and Maegor, and eventually even Viserys III over Aegon.

 

 

Unless there are special cases the answer is always obvious and all tihs cases are specials.

Jaeharys was made King by Rogar and specifically after Rhaena gave up her and her daughters claim, even if later would bitch about that.

Baelon was specifically chose because Jaeharys was a sexist, had Rhaenys being Rhaeno, Jaeharus would not have any doubt about the succesion, nor would the Lords.

Viserys already told above.

Maegor was passed over because Aerion and Vaella was a mentally unstable child.

Viserys is perhaps the only one you might have a point but even in there, Aerys wanted to make Viserys his heir for a long time.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Without a law of succession there is only preliminary line of succession - the king names an heir apparent or acknowledges a presumptive heir, but who is going to succeed the king if the heir apparent/acknowledged heir predeceases the king is going to be decided if and when that happens - not before.

 

Only if the King actually mess the succesion or if by some reasons, the heirs available, can't be chosen, if not people just go for the rule.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 During the reign of the Conqueror it is clear that Prince Aenys is the heir apparent, and Maegor second in line until Aenys has children of his own - then those children are considered, especially the male children, to come before Maegor in the line of succession. But Prince Aegon is only named heir apparent after Aenys I ascended the Iron Throne. If Aenys had predeceased the Conqueror then Aegon I would have been forced to name a new, which would have likely been a choice between (mostly) Aenys' eldest son Aegon and Maegor.

 

Aegon was seen as heir presumptive by everyone if the Conqueror didn't have make a choice, Aegon would've got it by default.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 We see a similar thing much later with Aerys I - he has no children of his own, but he does acknowledge a succession of heirs and names them all Prince or Princess of Dragonstone - Rhaegel, Aelor, Aelora, and eventually Maekar.

Quote

In a setting where most people see a succesion war between Maekar and Bloodraven, acknowledging heirs would be vital to settle whatever dispute it might come after.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The succession of the Iron Throne isn't ruled by law, it is shaped by precedent. There is a tendency to cite other precedents, but they are not binding. In the end the king names his heir. And even lords can do that - Lord Webber named Rohanne his heiress in his last will and added caveats to the succession, just as Jeyne Arryn named an obscure heir in her own last will who eventually succeeded to the Eyrie, etc. Robb also rules on his own succession, Stannis intends to rule on his (by naming Renly his heir rather than Shireen), Aegon IV and Aerys II thought about disinheriting/passing over their eldest sons, meaning that this kind of thing is neither unthinkable nor unheard of, etc.

Agreed but the klast it's not because there is no law but the Kings can rule over those laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we see echoes of this within Volantis as it’s more about prestige than it is about anything else. 
 

while we can’t know for sure what their society was like, I believe the caste seemed to place Dragon riders with great land holdings at the top. As we know the Targaryens were a “ruling House” but nowhere near the top. 
 

so if anything it might have been somewhere along the lines of-

-A male dragon rider is above a female if they both have land holdings. 
 

-a female dragon rider would be above a male land holder who is not associated with dragon riding. 
 

but this is all guess work since really all we know is that there was something like 30ish ruling Houses and that they were practiced religious “tolerance”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, frenin said:

But even then, and Aerea is fairly to introduce in HotD, only Glydan ever talks about that Aegon Lord and Visenya not nonsnse,

I actually know the textual history here. HotD was written first, long before George flashed out the regency of Jaehaerys I or told us Aerea's story. He should have discussed those events in HotD, too, especially since Rogar's attempt to depose Jaehaerys I and crown either Aerea or Rhaella could have been an argument supporting the position of Rhaenys and Laenor.

It would have come up at that point - and Gyldayn is writing history, not propaganda.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

His constantly ass licking to Jaeharys tells otherwise just as him  actually making a unrequitedd straw man. And since when maesters have been in favour of gender equality?? Every time they could they have proved being mysoginists and racists.

Gyldayn always refers to Rhaenyra as 'queen' after he coronation, he doesn't condemns her as a traitor and the history he tells makes look Aegon II, Aemond, and Alicent look all much than Rhaenyra (not to mention the fact that many of her allies are portrayed as pretty good people).

And I'd also say that Jaehaerys I is not portrayed as a favorably as Queen Alysanne in FaB, just as Gyldayn doesn't really condemn Alysanne for her intention to first make Daenerys and then Rhaenys the first queen regnant of Westeros.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Unlikely, since the Lords are not only fairly mysoginists who would of course take the most mysoginists road if that road don't bite them in the ass, that and the fact that Baelon was far more known and beloved than his niece, we see that again with the GC, although many lords were there to make sure the female line couldn't rule and wanted that decision to become an iron precedent, that precedent seemed only to rule in the Throne matters, no noble ever tried to use said precedent against their respective female ruling ladies/heirs. 

Man, if 'Andal tradition' in five of the Seven Kingdoms demanded that a daughter come before an uncle, then there would have been a considerable opposition to Jaehaerys I's decision to pass over Rhaenys - and Laenor Velaryon (or even Rhaenys herself) would have been chosen by the Great Council later on. If the laws and traditions of the Seven Kingdoms were rock solid on this issue, then nobody would have opposed the rise of a woman to the throne. Especially not one with as good a claim as Rhaenys.

I'm not saying that this 'a daughter comes before an uncle' thing was not prevalent in some of the Andal kingdoms on a lordly level - it must be for there to be Andal kingdoms where ruling ladies were a thing - but it was clearly nothing that was accepted in all the Seven Kingdoms before the Conquest to the same degree on the royal level. Else all the Seven Kingdoms would have multiple ruling queens.

But one assumes that the unification of the laws reinforced that legal guideline throughout the Seven Kingdoms, to the point that it is even pretty strong in the North (Alys Karstark) and even the Iron Islands (Asha).

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

If the Lords felt like the succesion matters would not reach them, they'd act as their conscience tell them to.

It clearly didn't reach them all that much, considering there were ruling ladies even during the time of the Great Council - Jeyne Arryn being the most prominent of them.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

There are, i don't think it's a concidence the South follows the same succesion laws and we still have to see a greenland southerner going rogue, the Three Sisters have historically follow their own way and we don't know what took them to declare Marla their Queen,

Again, there were not the same succession laws in 'the south' before the Conquest because there were multiple kingdoms there (and we are told that there were even legal differences between different regions of the various kingdoms due to their own history and such) - and after the unification of the laws they all follow the same laws.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

And yet we're specifically told that Aerea might have better claim that Jaeharys.

Sure, because some people actually do think that the daughter of a king should come before his brother. The tricky part with Aerea and Rhaella is their father wasn't a proper king - and their mother and grandmother and family all favored Jaehaerys I.

The fact it is not clear whether Maegor comes before or after Rhaena and Alysanne in the line of succession during the reign of both the Conqueror and Aenys makes it clear that the succession laws of the Seven Kingdoms were not clear on the matter. If all the succession laws of all the Andal kingdoms (plus the North) dictated that a daughter comes before an uncle then it would have been clear that Maegor comes not only after Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaerys but also after Rhaena and Alysanne - but that was not the case. Some believed Maegor came after his nieces, others believed they came after him.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Unless there are special cases the answer is always obvious and all tihs cases are specials.

All cases are special cases.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Jaeharys was made King by Rogar and specifically after Rhaena gave up her and her daughters claim, even if later would bitch about that.

That is what is said, but it also seems to be the case that Jaehaerys I was proclaimed king (i.e. became a pretender) before Queen Rhaena had actually left Maegor - and while the latter was still alive, so it was technically decided who would succeed Maegor before they actually toppled him. Afterwards Rhaena - who actually supported her brother while her uncle-husband was still alive - agreed that her baby brother would make a better king than her daughters and also made it clear she didn't want to play a part at court - or claim the Iron Throne herself.

This wasn't legal discussion who should be king after Maegor just had a heart attack. They put forth Jaehaerys I as their pretender because he had the best chances to actually topple Maegor and unite the Realm behind him.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Baelon was specifically chose because Jaeharys was a sexist, had Rhaenys being Rhaeno, Jaeharus would not have any doubt about the succesion, nor would the Lords.

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, Jaehaerys I apparently wasn't keen to put a woman on the throne, but I actually think he had the desire - like many men do - to see a son succeed him, not some grandchild or great-grandchild. If you build something you build it for your children - passing over the generation of your children would be odd. Jaehaerys I turned to Baelon because he really liked that man, as much or more as he had loved Aemon. And after Baelon died he did not turn to either Viserys or Rhaenys or Laenor first but to his third son, Archmaester Vaegon. It seems that he would have made him king rather than any of his grandchildren if Vaegon had not declined the offer (there is no hard proof for the latter, but it seems likely to me - there was literally no reason to draw Vaegon into the whole succession issue at all if he didn't want to offer him the crown).

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Maegor was passed over because Aerion and Vaella was a mentally unstable child.

But that's the thing - if the lords thought their own Andal laws and custom were dictating that the elder line takes precedence, etc. then it is very odd that anyone would care about Vaella's mental state or Maegor's father - there would be law and custom and the correct heir would be chosen. There wouldn't even be much of a debate.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Only if the King actually mess the succesion or if by some reasons, the heirs available, can't be chosen, if not people just go for the rule.

Even with 'the rule' heirs do need to be acknowledged and anointed. There are special ceremonies for this for the Targaryens that develop overtime (the heir apparent is formally named and then usually also named Prince(ss) of Dragonstone). Prior to that he or she is not officially acknowledged as heir (and that took rather long, for instance, for Jaehaerys I's heir Aemon, who wasn't formally named heir apparent (much less Prince of Dragonstone) shortly after his birth.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Aegon was seen as heir presumptive by everyone if the Conqueror didn't have make a choice, Aegon would've got it by default.

Aegon was seen as second in line after Aenys, because people expected Aenys to survive his father, rule as king, and anoint his own successor. If Aenys had predeceased his father Aegon I would have been forced to make the a similar choice as Jaehaerys I after Aemon's death. And depending when that happened this could have been a rather interesting decision. Visenya was still alive and sitting at Aegon's side, Maegor was the king's own son, not his grandson, and if Aegon had been only, say, 3-5 or so when Aenys died then this could have been a very difficult situation for Aegon. Visenya and Maegor would have pushed him to name Maegor his heir, and Aegon himself may have agreed with them, if only for the fact that his Conquest might be undone of his successor would be a child who could not possibly rule in his own right for more than a decade.

Real world politics figure into such things, too.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

In a setting where most people see a succesion war between Maekar and Bloodraven, acknowledging heirs would be vital to settle whatever dispute it might come after.

A single hedge knight with no connections to court is not 'most people' - and a single hedge knights belief in 212 AC is not the same as the same man's belief a couple of years down the road. The fact that Bloodraven continued to serve Maekar as Hand confirms that Kyle the Cat's beliefs were utter nonsense.

Any king has to rule on his succession to make things clear. If you don't then you get quickly factions behind the various claimants.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Agreed but the klast it's not because there is no law but the Kings can rule over those laws.

There is no succession law for the Iron Throne - meaning the only person ruling on that is, in the end, the king himself (unless there is a Great Council called after the king is dead) The first Great Council did not name the successor of Jaehaerys I - he decided to follow the decision to council he had call to settle the decision. But he was not legally bound to obey the decision of the council. The king named Viserys Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and Prince of Dragonstone, not the lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DanaKz said:

Ugh... Valyrians could have multiple wives. That doesn't scream "gender equality" to me.

Some of those sorcerer princes did. No idea how many of those there were. And one imagines that many of the secondary wives were not exactly sisters, cousins and the like, but non-Valyrian foreigners, etc. The main reason I'd assume Valyrians would have wanted more than one wife would be that they were not exactly in those obligatory incestuous unions.

But, sure, polygamy is a strong sign that women are not equal - which is also the main reason why the wildling culture is as shitty as it is. There (powerful) men also can have as many women as they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But, sure, polygamy is a strong sign that women are not equal

Well, it could be, if we had as many cases of women w/ more than one husband. 

But the Rhoynish culture is the closest we get to gender equality in universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, it could be, if we had as many cases of women w/ more than one husband. 

We have no example of a woman having more than one husband in Westerosi culture.

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

But the Rhoynish culture is the closest we get to gender equality in universe. 

Sure, they don't seem to have privileged only highborn women, but had gender equality on all levels of the society.

Valyria seems to have been more gender equal than Rome which it is based on, if we take the society of Volantis (where female landowners can elect and be elected triarchs and we know there were female triarchs in the past) as a society closely resembling Valyria insofar as elections and stuff is concerned (which is a stretch, since Valyria apparently wasn't governed by triarchs) but which is the only thing we have at this point.

Also, Lysene inheritance laws also had holdings being split up among children, male and female alike. One assumes this, too, was the case in Valyria, meaning male and female citizens were much more equal than the people of Westeros - although not as equal as the Rhoynar.

In fact, it seems that the Free Cities are - slavery aside, of course - a more equal society than Westeros (Dorne aside, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×