Jump to content
Alyn Oakenfist

(Spoilers Fire&Blood) Legitimacy at the beginning of the Dance

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

They can... I live in a country like this...it only make things worse...

Is awful and no one is ever secured, because everything you take for certain goes out of the window without any warnings.

So why is  Viserys blamed for doing things Kings always do?? Jaeharys is a complete absolutist and people seem fine with it but really every King is an authroritarian, if not absolutist when they have the might to overcome their vassals, Rhoynar laws wer imposed on a whum too, people didn't choose it.

The laws of the land are just old laws that once were created on a whim, would you side the Boltons not obeying the banishment of the First night because Jaeharys changed laws of the land on a whim?? 

Share this post


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

So why is  Viserys blamed for doing things Kings always do?? Jaeharys is a complete absolutist and people seem fine with it but really every King is an authroritarian, if not absolutist when they have the might to overcome their vassals, Rhoynar laws wer imposed on a whum too, people didn't choose it.

 The laws of the land are just old laws that once were created on a whim, would you side the Boltons not obeying the banishment of the First night because Jaeharys changed laws of the land on a whim?? 

Viserys whims resulted in a dynastic sucession being messed up, and everybody with brains would saw the civil war coming from miles away. 

is one thing apoint a heir once the situation is not clear ( like it happened with Robb, lacking a sucessor), another is having a heir and siding him out, just because...

Without any security, and order, you will always end up in a chaos.

Share this post


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

Viserys whims resulted in a dynastic sucession being messed up, and everybody with brains would saw the civil war coming from miles away. 

 is one thing apoint a heir once the situation is not clear ( like it happened with Robb, lacking a sucessor), another is having a heir and siding him out, just because...

Without any security, and order, you will always end up in a chaos.

So did Jaeharys and we're told that the civil war seeds were planting on his reign not in Viserys,  the only way to foresee a civil war coming miles away would be if people actually thought the Greens could pull what they ended up pulling and i don't think no one with brains could see that, especially because it was mostly luck that none of the Blacks were there whe Viserys died, had Viserys died two weeks later, all of the Blacks and their dragons would be in KL so Viserys could greet his last grandaughter.

 

Robb did have a clear succesor,  everyone knew that, Robb knew it too and that's why he took steps to disown said succesor, including breaking a couple of vows in the making. Viserys too had a succesor, he named Rhaenrya heir apparent, which had settled any legal issue before even Alicent's sons were born.

 

There was security, there was order, blame those ho willingly break it, not the one who made things clear and was ignored in his deathbed.

Share this post


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

So did Jaeharys and we're told that the civil war seeds were planting on his reign not in Viserys,  the only way to foresee a civil war coming miles away would be if people actually thought the Greens could pull what they ended up pulling and i don't think no one with brains could see that, especially because it was mostly luck that none of the Blacks were there whe Viserys died, had Viserys died two weeks later, all of the Blacks and their dragons would be in KL so Viserys could greet his last grandaughter.

 

How can you blame Jaeharys for events that happened years after his death? do you have a quote of that?

The civil war was clear. Viserys knew that Otto and Daemom hated eachother, Otto asked for Viserys to name Aegon his her several times, Rhaenyra and his queen hated eachother and became leaders of factions on his court, his grandsons were fighting over dragons and maiming each other before having a two digit age...

The greens only followed the costume, "a son must come before a daughter", other than viserys you don't see anyone try to put themselfs against it, even when they are not happy with such heir. 

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

Robb did have a clear succesor,  everyone knew that, Robb knew it too and that's why he took steps to disown said succesor, including breaking a couple of vows in the making. Viserys too had a succesor, he named Rhaenrya heir apparent, which had settled any legal issue before even Alicent's sons were born.

 

Robb's heir Sansa was a hostage of a hostile power, much diferent situation than what Viserys had, and winterell was never ruled by a lady... Robb was not acting on his whims, he was trying to keep the kingdom trusted to him alive, much diferent than what Viserys was doing.

Aegon II being born after such decree just make things more confusing, as we are told several lords that swear to hold Rhaenyra as heir died before the sucession.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

There was security, there was order, blame those ho willingly break it, not the one who made things clear and was ignored in his deathbed.

Viserys ignored all the signs that apointed to a civil war. Just like Aegon IV carries the fault for the Blackfyres rebellions, Viserys should take the blame for the Dance.

Share this post


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

That is simply not the case. There were some precedents, yes, but those do not constitute binding law. Precedents can be ignored or overturned, just as a law of succession could be changed if there were one such for the Iron Throne (which there wasn't) - and remarkably easy at that in a world where all the legislative, executive, and judicial power lies with the king, and he has neither to consult or ask some sort of parliament or council of minister or justices for their input/advice/permission.

 

Other than Viserys trying to set aside Aegon, can you name other situation that a lord or a king removed his first born son from the sucession? this act has no precedent and was clear that it would result in chaos and civil war. 

Viserys not needing consult or asking for help, only make him seems irresponsable and incopetent as we know the result of his actions down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

How can you blame Jaeharys for events that happened years after his death? do you have a quote of that?

 

The seeds of war are oft planted during times of peace. So has it been in Westeros. The bloody struggle for the Iron Throne  known as the Dance of the Dragons, fought from 129–131 AC, had its roots half a century earlier, during the longest and most peaceful reign that any of the Conqueror’s descendants ever enjoyed, that of Jaehaerys I Targaryen, the Conciliator. HotD

 

11 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

 The civil war was clear. Viserys knew that Otto and Daemom hated eachother, Otto asked for Viserys to name Aegon his her several times, Rhaenyra and his queen hated eachother and became leaders of factions on his court, his grandsons were fighting over dragons and maiming each other before having a two digit age...

 

It's clear with hindsight in mind, Viserys knew that both factions disliked each other, nut there is a rather very big room between dislike and kinslaying, a big room that everyone takes for granted,

 

13 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

 The greens only followed the costume, "a son must come before a daughter", other than viserys you don't see anyone try to put themselfs against it, even when they are not happy with such heir. 

28 minutes ago, frenin said:

That doesn't mean they can't do it, that means they rather not doing it and you say it yourself, "custom", not eternal binding law, the First Night was also a custom and it was banished.

We see the Kings and Hand making and unmaking laws on whims every single time, from succesion to taxation and from taxation to "civil rights", i put the King's Peace and Alysanne's laws in that pocket.

 

17 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Robb's heir Sansa was a hostage of a hostile power, much diferent situation than what Viserys had, and winterell was never ruled by a lady... Robb was not acting on his whims, he was trying to keep the kingdom trusted to him alive, much diferent than what Viserys was doing.

 

He acted on a whim, the only reason Robb denied Sansa her birthright is for the same reason Stannis don't like Sansa either, because it'd go to Tyrion trough marriage and he wasn't having that.

Winterfell was never ruled by a lady but Robb's heirs were only girls,  Jon being bastard and a crow was a double no no to any aspirations.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

 Aegon II being born after such decree just make things more confusing, as we are told several lords that swear to hold Rhaenyra as heir died before the sucession.

35 minutes ago, frenin said:

It didn't make things confussing, people knew who the heir apparent was.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Viserys ignored all the signs that apointed to a civil war. Just like Aegon IV carries the fault for the Blackfyres rebellions, Viserys should take the blame for the Dance.

Aegon 4 is not to blame for that, people are responsible of their own actions, so unless Daemon was feeded the idea that he should be king by his father, the man did is not responsible for their moronics decisions.

Share this post


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

It's clear with hindsight in mind, Viserys knew that both factions disliked each other, nut there is a rather very big room between dislike and kinslaying, a big room that everyone takes for granted,

 

The kids were already trying to kill each other and literally taking the eyes out...Viserys was also told on his face that Rhaenyra kids were bastards by the greens, Otto and Daemon cleary hated each other and couldn't even be part of the small council at the same time.

Otto asked for Viserys to marry Aegon and Rhaenyra to make things more peacefull but Viserys rejected the idea, ignored the glaring conflict between the factions, and did not try to enforce the new lords to swear to Rhaenyra once the old ones were dead.

Viserys not only set up the civil war but he cut out all the hope to avoid it. 

8 minutes ago, frenin said:

The seeds of war are oft planted during times of peace. So has it been in Westeros. The bloody struggle for the Iron Throne  known as the Dance of the Dragons, fought from 129–131 AC, had its roots half a century earlier, during the longest and most peaceful reign that any of the Conqueror’s descendants ever enjoyed, that of Jaehaerys I Targaryen, the Conciliator. HotD

 

Thank you, but this quote talks about roots but does not name a single one. meanwhile we can name several actions of Viserys that set up the civil war.

 

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Aegon 4 is not to blame for that, people are responsible of their own actions, so unless Daemon was feeded the idea that he should be king by his father, the man did is not responsible for their moronics decisions.

 

He is to blame for the charges of Daeron being a bastard and for legitimating Daemon.

12 minutes ago, frenin said:

It didn't make things confussing, people knew who the heir apparent was.

 

It was very confusing, even among families like the Tullys we see lords taking diferent sides on the matter.

Share this post


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

He acted on a whim, the only reason Robb denied Sansa her birthright is for the same reason Stannis don't like Sansa either, because it'd go to Tyrion trough marriage and he wasn't having that.

Winterfell was never ruled by a lady but Robb's heirs were only girls,  Jon being bastard and a crow was a double no no to any aspirations.

 

No he acted based on necessity of his kingdom, not a whim.

 

 

Share this post


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

The kids were already trying to kill each other and literally taking the eyes out...Viserys was also told on his face that Rhaenyra kids were bastards by the greens, Otto and Daemon cleary hated each other and couldn't even be part of the small council at the same time.

Yes, kids. Do you thinkthe Velaryons would care much had they got the throne why would they?? Nor did they actually try to kill each other, Aegon  2 said the kids were bastards, Viserys put an end of it.

Probably Otto would be dismissed and Daemon wasn't part of Viserys0 council for  much anyway.

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Otto asked for Viserys to marry Aegon and Rhaenyra to make things more peacefull but Viserys rejected the idea, ignored the glaring conflict between the factions, and did not try to enforce the new lords to swear to Rhaenyra once the old ones were dead.

 

Making them marry not only would end up badly, it would alienate too the Velaryons, another powerful faction with dragons...

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

 Viserys not only set up the civil war but he cut out all the hope to avoid it. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Did he?? A coup is a coup-

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Thank you, but this quote talks about roots but does not name a single one. meanwhile we can name several actions of Viserys that set up the civil war.

 

He does name the roots, Jaeharys passing over Rhaenys and then the Coucil and apparently him passing over her and her children was the the start.

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

He is to blame for the charges of Daeron being a bastard and for legitimating Daemon.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Since we don't know if the man did accused him of bastardy or if Daeron was indeed a bastard, we don't have a clear picture of that era...

He didn't legitimized just Daemon, he did it with all his kids, whichis indeed a good action unless he did it just to mess around and for the laughs, which is also very likely.

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

It was very confusing, even among families like the Tullys we see lords taking diferent sides on the matter.

As confusing as the north and the Riverlands seceding and the Stormlands and the Reach crowning Renly-

 

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

No he acted based on necessity of his kingdom, not a whim.

 

He acted based on the thought of Tyrion holding his father's chamber.

Share this post


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

Other than Viserys trying to set aside Aegon, can you name other situation that a lord or a king removed his first born son from the sucession? this act has no precedent and was clear that it would result in chaos and civil war. 

Viserys not needing consult or asking for help, only make him seems irresponsable and incopetent as we know the result of his actions down the line.

Aegon the Elder was never removed from the succession - he just was never part of it. Nobody did Alicent's sons any harm since Rhaenyra was the Heir Apparent since before they were even born - not the presumptive heir, to be replaced by a half-brother should she ever have one, the Heir Apparent. And everybody knew that, Otto and Alicent Hightower include (with the former being one of the main architects to invest Rhaenyra as the Heir Apparent).

How little issue Westeros as a whole actually had with Rhaenyra succeeding her father can be seen by the amount of people - especially commoners - ending up supporting her claim against overwhelming odds. The Greens had all the power yet they were unable to convince half the Realm or more to join a woman who was essentially a dispossessed princess on some rock in the Narrow Sea. They could have all stayed neutral and told her she and her dragons should win her the throne. But they did not.

As for Viserys I being blamed for the Dance:

That's just nonsense. It is like blaming Robert for Stannis and Renly killing each other or both his brothers planning to murder Robert's wife, Queen Cersei, and her children. He foresaw neither of that, despite the fact that there must have been many subtle signs that neither Renly nor Stannis nor Cersei should be trusted with any power and that Renly and Stannis were completely undeserving and unsuited for the honor to become lords in their own right.

Viserys I was aware of the fact that his wife and father-in-law would have preferred it if Aegon was the king's heir - but him recalling Otto as Hand didn't mean he wanted Otto to steal Rhaenyra's throne and crown Aegon upon his own death. In fact, it meant that Viserys I believed that, despite what Otto and Alicent personally wished, they would accept the king's decision on the matter - like a good wife and subject would do.

He was also aware that there was tension between Rhaenyra/her sons and her half-brothers as well as between Daemon and Otto - but he clearly did not have any reason to believe they would start to kill each other as soon as he died. Instead, he likely believed that they would find a way to live together, the same way he found a way to live with Daemon (with whom he also had quite a few arguments without intending to kill him).

And we are told that they all did their best to keep the depth of their hatred from the king, pretending to be a real family when Viserys I was around.

And in fact, we do know that neither side in the Dance wanted things to escalate things to the degree they did when they started it. Alicent and Otto are horrified and aghast by what Aemond did at Storm's End. If that had not happened the war may have been less personal and less cruel.

Share this post


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

As for Viserys I being blamed for the Dance:

 That's just nonsense. It is like blaming Robert for Stannis and Renly killing each other or both his brothers planning to murder Robert's wife, Queen Cersei, and her children. He foresaw neither of that, despite the fact that there must have been many subtle signs that neither Renly nor Stannis nor Cersei should be trusted with any power and that Renly and Stannis were completely undeserving and unsuited for the honor to become lords in their own right.

Not a fair comparison.

Viserys was constantly adviced to go back oh his decree or to force another oath, or to marry the siblings and resolve the situation, he ignored it all. He ignored his hand and the richest man on the realm, set aside his first born son, and ignored the constant fight among the two faction occouring in front of his eyes...

Viserys is responsable for the dance.

But in the end Robert also carries part of the blame for the War of the Five Kings, he ignored his court, he named Eddard as hand but never followed any advice or decision that the former did, and constatly sided against him, Robert allowed corruption to spread, bankrupted his own kingdom and let the vile woman that he hated so much make key decision on his behalf. 

Share this post


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

Yes, kids. Do you thinkthe Velaryons would care much had they got the throne why would they?? Nor did they actually try to kill each other, Aegon  2 said the kids were bastards, Viserys put an end of it.

 Probably Otto would be dismissed and Daemon wasn't part of Viserys0 council for  much anyway.

If the kids are gauging each others eyes and fighting for dragons what you expect the adults that also hate each other to do?

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Making them marry not only would end up badly, it would alienate too the Velaryons, another powerful faction with dragons...

 

Fighting the Velaryons would be much easier than fighting the Hightowers with dragon riders of their own.

 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

As confusing as the north and the Riverlands seceding and the Stormlands and the Reach crowning Renly-

 

 So you're saying that Viserys was as good as king as Joffrey? I can agree with that...

2 hours ago, frenin said:

He does name the roots, Jaeharys passing over Rhaenys and then the Coucil and apparently him passing over her and her children was the the start.

 

Jaeharys set up a precedent, that wasn't nearly as controversial as the BS Viserys tried to pull out, and Jahearys decided this based on a great council, unlike Viserys that did it for shits and gigles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

If the kids are gauging each others eyes and fighting for dragons what you expect the adults that also hate each other to do?

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Not act like kids, that's too much i think.

 

6 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Fighting the Velaryons would be much easier than fighting the Hightowers with dragon riders of their own.

 

The Velaryons weren't only dragonlords too, they were the richest House of the Realm and were the de facto Royal fleet.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

 So you're saying that Viserys was as good as king as Joffrey? I can agree with that...

2 hours ago, frenin said:

No, I'm saying that those who secede from the crown and who crowned Renly perfectaly knew what they were doing was illegal, it didn't stop them.

No one was confused, every one acted on their own benefit and moral code, regardless of what the law said.

 

9 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Jaeharys set up a precedent, that wasn't nearly as controversial as the BS Viserys tried to pull out, and Jahearys decided this based on a great council, unlike Viserys that did it for shits and gigles...

It was more controversial actually and the reason why Jaeharys called the council was because he didn't control the succesion anymore and hoped that if the Realm chose one heir,  the other party would oblige.

So the Baelon thing is a precedent but the Rhaenrya thing is bs...

Share this post


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

It was more controversial actually and the reason why Jaeharys called the council was because he didn't control the succesion anymore and hoped that if the Realm chose one heir,  the other party would oblige.

 

And he avoided a major civil war after his death, wich made sucession clear, smooth and bloodless...

1 minute ago, frenin said:

 So the Baelon thing is a precedent but the Rhaenrya thing is bs...

Yep, never before or after it anyone tried to set aside his first born... Jaeharys made a precedent that was followed several times after him: Daena claims for example was ignored afterwards, no one ever tried to pull the BS Viserys made.

This is the diference between Precedent and BS

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Not act like kids, that's too much i think.

 

When you poke a hive you better expect bees and not honey... By all laws and costumes Aegon II had the better claim and trying to push him away would result in a mess, this is clear as a sunny day.

 

10 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Velaryons weren't only dragonlords too, they were the richest House of the Realm and were the de facto Royal fleet.

 

Aegon and his brothers were all Dragon riders, the Hightowers were always one of the richest families in the realm and the Redwynes also had a big fleet that sided with the Greens...

 

12 minutes ago, frenin said:

No, I'm saying that those who secede from the crown and who crowned Renly perfectaly knew what they were doing was illegal, it didn't stop them.

 No one was confused, every one acted on their own benefit and moral code, regardless of what the law said.

Neither lord that sided with Renly belived that his claim was right. Everybody knew that Renly couldn't be king before Stannis.

The issue with Aegon is diferent, he is the heir by all the costumes and laws, until that point. The precedent of Jahearys was in his favor, he is still renonized as the lawfull king of the period even in defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arthur Peres said:

Not a fair comparison.

Viserys was constantly adviced to go back oh his decree or to force another oath, or to marry the siblings and resolve the situation, he ignored it all. He ignored his hand and the richest man on the realm, set aside his first born son, and ignored the constant fight among the two faction occouring in front of his eyes...

Nah, that's you not looking on the facts. The Dance of the Dragons became only very likely in the constellation we get it after 120 AC, when it becomes clear that Daemon is now in team Rhaenyra for good and Alicent and her sons really start to loath Rhaenyra's sons on an altogether different level.

Otto and Alicent had hectored Viserys I about the succession back around when Alicent's sons were born and Alicent had been trying to marry Aegon to Rhaenyra back when Rhaenyra's spouse was picked when she came of age - but there is no indication that anything of that sort continued in the 120s. Considering how aggressive Viserys I reacted when people tried to breach that subject (as is evident when he dealt with the Velaryon cousins the way he did) Otto wouldn't have lasted a day as reappointed Hand had he tried to talk with the king about the succession again.

And there was no constant fighting. In fact, there was no fighting at all in the 120s between Alicent and Rhaenyra and their children lived apart. They rarely even met each other - and then they staged a show of friendship while the king was around.

There was also no one ever suggesting to Viserys I to force the lords to swear another vow to ensure Rhaenyra's succession. That's only in your head.

Marrying Rhaenyra to Aegon would have been a stupid decision. They were ten years apart, meaning Rhaenyra would have been in her twenties when they would have first thought about consummating the marriage. And it would have not resolved the Velaryon situation - which, before Laenor and Laena married Rhaenyra and Daemon, still had the potential to finally make a move to get one of their line on the Iron Throne.

Just now, Arthur Peres said:

Viserys is responsable for the dance.

The people responsible for the Dance are the people fighting it, not the guy who died before it even started. Nobody forced them to give in to their baser natures. And those starting the war were Alicent, Otto, Cole, and Aemond. Rhaenyra and her family only fought back - and for their property and lives.

How unprepared the Blacks were for the coup you can see in FaB - just as you also see there that apparently nobody on their side ever expected Otto and Alicent to crown another monarch or challenge Rhaenyra's ascension. Daemon and Rhaenyra were aware that Viserys I was ailing, even if they had not realized that he would die soon. If you expect trouble or a war of succession after your father's death you would prepare for that - but they did not. They had to search for allies after they learned of Viserys I's death. If they had expected a war of succession they would have been preparing for this - like Stannis prepared for his war after he left court after Jon Arryn's death.

It is quite clear that this was a monstrous betrayal of trust on part of the Greens.

Just now, Arthur Peres said:

But in the end Robert also carries part of the blame for the War of the Five Kings, he ignored his court, he named Eddard as hand but never followed any advice or decision that the former did, and constatly sided against him, Robert allowed corruption to spread, bankrupted his own kingdom and let the vile woman that he hated so much make key decision on his behalf. 

He did not set up things so they would explode - and neither did Viserys I. I'm sure he never had any inclination that Renly would turn out such a monstrous traitor as to try to claim the throne from himself, just as he likely never expected Stannis to steal Joffrey's throne.

But he should have known, no? Or rather - if Viserys I should have magically known that his family were to rip themselves apart then Robert certainly should also have known that.

Share this post


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

And he avoided a major civil war after his death, wich made sucession clear, smooth and bloodless...

Because none of the aggrieved parties  were Alicent's children, had they been, it wouldn't have been clear, smooth and  blood less.

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Yep, never before or after it anyone tried to set aside his first born... Jaeharys made a precedent that was followed several times after him: Daena claims for example was ignored afterwards, no one ever tried to pull the BS Viserys made.

This is the diference between Precedent and BS

As far as we know no one tried to use Viserys claim, so your understanding is that as long as it suits sexist views, is precedentes, if not is BS.

Aegon wasn't the firstborn, Rhaenrya was.

 

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

When you poke a hive you better expect bees and not honey... By all laws and costumes Aegon II had the better claim and trying to push him away would result in a mess, this is clear as a sunny day.

By all laws and  customs the first night  was almost sacred, should we give Roose the reason then??

The only thing that would cause a mess  is you know, usurpation.

 

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Aegon and his brothers were all Dragon riders, the Hightowers were always one of the richest families in the realm and the Redwynes also had a big fleet that sided with the Greens...

The Redwynes did absolutely nothing in the war.

 

 

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Neither lord that sided with Renly belived that his claim was right. Everybody knew that Renly couldn't be king before Stannis.

The issue with Aegon is diferent, he is the heir by all the costumes and laws, until that point. The precedent of Jahearys was in his favor, he is still renonized as the lawfull king of the period even in defeat.

There is no law and  custom is not right. The precedent  of Viserys was against him and  i don't understand the fallacy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 2:29 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Blacks: Primogeniture

Rhaenyra is the first child of Viserys Targaryen so that immediately gives her a very strong claim to the Throne. Not much to be said here. 

I don't think Rhaenyra's faction promoted primogeniture - merely King's right to appoint his heir without consideration of custom/law/precedent:

But the Queen’s Hand argued against this, for both girls had younger brothers. Rhaenyra’s own claim to the Iron Throne was a special case, the Sea Snake insisted; her father had named her as his heir.

On 11/2/2019 at 2:29 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Blacks: Widows Law 

An argument that is very often overlooked is that acording to the Widows Law the children of the first wife cannot be passed over their inheritance in favor of those of a second wife. It is questionable however if that law applies to the succesion of the Throne. 

Actually, Widow's Law (although never invoked during the Dance) would support Aegon II, not Rhaenyra. The problem is, most people in fandom just tear one sentence out and completely disregard the rest. As a result, we get an Ems telegram of sorts - by cutting out important bits, people dramatically change its meaning. Here is all that we know of Widow's Law:

To rectify these ills, King Jaehaerys in 52 AC promulgated the Widow’s Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or eldest daughter, where there was no son) to inherit, but requiring said heirs to maintain surviving widows in the same condition they had enjoyed before their husband’s death. A lord’s widow, be she a second, third, or later wife, could no longer be driven from his castle, nor deprived of her servants, clothing, and income. The same law, however, also forbade men from disinheriting their children by a first wife in order to bestow their lands, seat, or property upon a later wife or her own children.

So the Widow's Law is as Andal as you can get - as long as there is a son (or sons), the eldest son inherits ahead of any daughters. That's literally the first thing about it. The rest of it is ancillary and regulates relationships within Andal succession paradigm.

On 11/2/2019 at 2:29 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Did I miss anything?

Well, male-preference inheritance did not arise in 101 AC - it was a confirmation of firm bias in succession. Pre-Conquest Targaryens favored men over women in succession (younger Aegon > elder Visenya), Aegon the Uncrowned inherited after his father over his elder sister (yes, he didn't have a coronation for plot reasons, but whatever). Then Maegor murdered Aegon and tried to name a female heir ahead of male one, but the whole realm went "NOPE" and that one fell through. Then Jaehaerys marginalized female/female-line heirs with Council's help.

Maegor opened a huge can of worms. After his death nobility created a precedent of disregarding the King's wishes on succession. Jaeharys's right to the throne was based on male preference - otherwise, Jaehaerys would be a usurper (and Viserys too).

Another issue is an extremely vague wording of vow in 105 AC. "swearing to honor and defend her right of succession" - it's basically meaningless. How does Rhaenyra's right relate to other claimants? Are those lords sworn to defend her right to be her father's heir - or merely to defend her right to be in the succession? I mean Aemond and Daeron had a right to the throne too - just less than Aegon II. It is entirely possible to acknowledge Rhaenyra's right of succession without accepting her as the first person in the list of heirs.

It's such a Viserys I thing to do. Let's create a huge lavish ceremony. Let's drag the lords from all over the realm. And let's render it all meaningless because proper speech writing is for losers.

 

Edited by Myrish Lace

Share this post


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

Well, male-preference inheritance did not arise in 101 AC - it was a confirmation of firm bias in succession. Pre-Conquest Targaryens favored men over women in succession (younger Aegon > elder Visenya), Aegon the Uncrowned inherited after his father over his elder sister (yes, he didn't have a coronation for plot reasons, but whatever). Then Maegor murdered Aegon and tried to name a female heir ahead of male one, but the whole realm went "NOPE" and that one fell through. Then Jaehaerys marginalized female/female-line heirs with Council's help.

 

The Targs followed full Andal traditions by then and the Realm didn't rise because Maegor decided to name Aerea his presumptive heir, which i don't understand why it says disregarding Jaeharys, Aerea was Aegon's heir, presumptive heir is not heir apparent, Aerea was also named Jaeharys presumptive heir until Daenerys and Aemon were born.

 

2 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

 Maegor opened a huge can of worms. After his death nobility created a precedent of disregarding the King's wishes on succession. Jaeharys's right to the throne was based on male preference - otherwise, Jaehaerys would be a usurper (and Viserys too).

 

I didn't know rebellion was a legal precedent and yes,  if you consider Aerea the heir, Jaeharys is an usurper, but Aerea was a minor and her claims were disregarded by her own mother and legal guardian on the ground that Jaeharys was a better option as King instead of her child daughter, not on th grounds that she wasn't a male. 

 

2 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

Another issue is an extremely vague wording of vow in 105 AC. "swearing to honor and defend her right of succession" - it's basically meaningless. How does Rhaenyra's right relate to other claimants? Are those lords sworn to defend her right to be her father's heir - or merely to defend her right to be in the succession? I mean Aemond and Daeron had a right to the throne too - just less than Aegon II. It is entirely possible to acknowledge Rhaenyra's right of succession without accepting her as the first person in the list of heirs.

It's such a Viserys I thing to do. Let's create a huge lavish ceremony. Let's drag the lords from all over the realm. And let's render it all meaningless because proper speech writing is for losers.

Noone in universe ever doubt of the meaning of those vows or ever tried to use a loophole, so they understood that there was absolutely nothing vague there and they were swaering to defend their rights as heir apparent

Share this post


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

The Targs followed full Andal traditions by then and the Realm didn't rise because Maegor decided to name Aerea his presumptive heir, which i don't understand why it says disregarding Jaeharys

Because Maegor specifically tried to disinherit Jaeharys and appoint Aerea as his heir instead. Which didn't work (even though Maegor was acknowledged as King by later Targaryerns) - creating a precedent that King's extravangant wishes on succession can indeed be disregarded. In practice it was yet another case of favoring male claimant over female one even though "normal" Andal tradition would favor Aegon's daughter (Aerea) over brother (Jaehaerys).

32 minutes ago, frenin said:

I didn't know rebellion was a legal precedent and yes,  if you consider Aerea the heir, Jaeharys is an usurper,

That's the problem Maegor and Jaehaerys created. On one hand, Maegor was accepted as King, his decisions stood unless specifically repealed by his successors (like lands grants). On the other hand, Jaehaerys called Maegor usurper and in effect rebelled against him. So people rebelling against Maegor (due to Jaehaerys' unwillingness to completely cut ties with previous regime) ended up in a curious situation. They were rebelling against the King (which is treason and illegal) but also against the usurper (which is not treason and can not be illegal).

This schizophrenic approach created an unnecessary ambiguity - something that should have been avoided given how Maegor made landmark decisions in vital business of royal succession.

32 minutes ago, frenin said:

Noone in universe ever doubt of the meaning of those vows or ever tried to use a loophole, so they understood that there was absolutely nothing vague there and they were swaering to defend their rights as heir apparent 

The first statement can not be derived from the second one because in general people don't seem to give a shit about 105 one way or another.

If you follow decision-making process of key Houses during the Dance, they are more concerned about what the law says, which claimant they are closer to and what the claimant offers to them personally. Viserys could have just hosted a big tourney instead, 105 did nothing to actually secure Rhaenyra as potential heir.

 

 

Edited by Myrish Lace

Share this post


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

Because Maegor specifically tried to disinherit Jaeharys and appoint Aerea as his heir instead. Which didn't work (even though Maegor was acknowledged as King by later Targaryerns) - creating a precedent that King's extravangant wishes on succession can indeed be disregarded. In practice it was yet another case of favoring male claimant over female one even though "normal" Andal tradition would favor Aegon's daughter (Aerea) over brother (Jaehaerys).

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Tge Realm didn't back Jaeharys because they give a damn about his rights as succesor,  they backed Jaeharys because Maegor was a cruel tyrant and the precedent they created was Rebellion,  ofc that if you rebel and win you can disregard a King's extravagant wishes on succession or any matter.

Are you saying that rebellion is a legal way of limiting the King's power??

 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

That's the problem Maegor and Jaehaerys created. On one hand, Maegor was accepted as King, his decisions stood unless specifically repealed by his successors (like lands grants). On the other hand, Jaehaerys called Maegor usurper and in effect rebelled against him. So people rebelling against Maegor (due to Jaehaerys' unwillingness to completely cut ties with previous regime) ended up in a curious situation. They were rebelling against the King (which is treason and illegal) but also against the usurper (which is not treason and can not be illegal).

This schizophrenic approach created an unnecessary ambiguity - something that should have been avoided given how Maegor made landmark decisions in vital business of royal succession.

I don't think there is an ambiguity,  Jaeharys only keep those laws that directly benefitted him AKA Maegor's laws regarding the Faith, Maegor was annointed and crowned, he was King, regardless of the usurping thing and for 6 years Westeros effectively acknowledged him as such.

 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

The first statement can not be derived from the second one because in general people don't seem to give a shit about 105 one way or another.

Didn't they?? 

 

The discussion that followed lasted nigh unto dawn, Grand Maester Munkun tells us. Mushroom and Septon Eustace concur. In their accounts, only Lord Beesbury spoke on behalf of Princess Rhaenyra. The ancient master of coin, who had served King Viserys for the majority of his reign, and his grandfather, Jaehaerys the Old King, before him, reminded the council that Rhaenyra was older than her brothers and had more Targaryen blood, that the late king had chosen her as his successor, that he had repeatedly refused to alter the succession despite the pleadings of Queen Alicent and her greens, that hundreds of lords and landed knights had done obeisance to the princess in 105 AC, and sworn solemn oaths to defend her rights. (Grand Maester Orwyle’s account differs only in that he puts many of these arguments into his own mouth rather than Beesbury’s, but subsequent events suggest that was not so, as we shall see.)

 

“If we do this,” Grand Maester Orwyle cautioned the council, according to the True Telling, “it must surely lead to war. The princess will not meekly stand aside, and she has dragons.” “And friends,” Lord Beesbury declared. “Men of honor, who will not forget the vows they swore to her and her father. I am an old man, but not so old that I will sit here meekly whilst the likes of you plot to steal her crown.” And so saying, he rose to go.

 

Petyr Piper, the grizzled Lord of Pinkmaiden, spoke for many when he said, “I swore her my sword. I’m older now, but not so old that I’ve forgotten the words I said, and it happens I still have the sword.”

 

The fall of Harrenhal to Prince Daemon came as a great shock to His Grace, Munkun tells us. Until that moment, Aegon II had believed his half-sister’s cause to be hopeless. Harrenhal left His Grace feeling vulnerable for the first time. The subsequent defeats at the Burning Mill and Stone Hedge came as further blows, and made the king realize that his situation was more perilous than it had seemed. These fears deepened as ravens returned from the Reach, where the greens had believed themselves strongest. House Hightower and Oldtown were solidly behind King Aegon, and His Grace had the Arbor too…but elsewhere in the south, other lords were declaring for Rhaenyra, amongst them Lord Costayne of Three Towers, Lord Mullendore of Uplands, Lord Tarly of Horn Hill, Lord Rowan of Goldengrove, and Lord Grimm of Greyshield. Loudest amongst these traitors was Ser Alan Beesbury, Lord Lyman’s heir, who was demanding the release of his grandsire from the dungeon, where most believed the former master of coin to be confined. Faced with such a clamor from their own bannermen, the castellan, steward, and mother of the young Lord Tyrell of Highgarden, acting as regents for the boy, suddenly thought better of their support for King Aegon, and decided House Tyrell would take no part in this struggle. King Aegon began to drown his fears in strongwine, Septon Eustace tells us. Ser Otto sent word to his nephew, Lord Ormund Hightower, beseeching him to use the power of Oldtown to put down this rash of rebellions in the Reach.

 

Ser Criston wasted no time in proving his mettle. “It is not for you to plead for support from your lords, like a beggar pleading for alms,” he told Aegon. “You are the lawful king of Westeros, and those who deny it are traitors. It is past time they learned the price of treason.” First to pay that price were the captive lords languishing in the dungeons under the Red Keep, men who had once sworn to defend the rights of Princess Rhaenyra and still stubbornly refused to bend the knee to King Aegon. One by one they were dragged out into the castle ward, where the King’s Justice awaited them with his axe. Each man was given one final chance to swear fealty to His Grace; only Lord Butterwell, Lord Stokeworth, and Lord Rosby chose to do so. Lord Hayford, Lord Merryweather, Lord Harte, Lord Buckler, Lord Caswell, and Lady Fell valued their sworn word more than their lives, and were beheaded each in turn, along with eight landed knights and twoscore servants and retainers. Their heads were mounted on spikes above the city’s gates.

 

 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

If you follow decision-making process of key Houses during the Dance, they are more concerned about what the law says, which claimant they are closer to and what the claimant offers to them personally. Viserys could have just hosted a big tourney instead, 105 did nothing to actually secure Rhaenyra as potential heir.

 

Before the letter of the incest came out, Joffrey remained Robert's trueborn son, that didn't stop 5 Kingdoms from rebelling (North, Stormlands, Iron Islands, Reach, Riverlands) two of them crowning a usuper with all the letters,  didn't stop another from withdrawing from the fold (Vale) and the other literally didn't give a shit (Dorne). All of them knew Joffrey was Robert's trueborn son and heir apparent, no one gave a shit.

 

People ignoring laws and vows when it suits is a running theme in Westeros. But we do see that 105 did something to secure Rhaenrya as potential heir, without that not only Rhaenrya wouldn't have any claim but without that all those lords who actually followed her because of said vows would not have a reason to do so.

Had the decision gone to a Great Council and the Luke's and Jaeharys' deaths not happened, Rhaenrya had actually the upper hand in support, precisely because of Viserys support, even in the Reach, Rhaenrya won by a landslide and that tide only change because of Tessarion, why no Black ever sent a dragon to deal with Daeron is beyond me.

Edited by frenin

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

×