Would it have been possible to avoid the Dance of the Dragons?

[R2D]

5 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

No, I'm saying that because he was Aegon III, Aegon II was recognised as a true king, but Rhaenyra was not. It seems that even the blacks kind that accepted Aegon II legitimacy after he was dead to prevent more bloodshed

Hey you're right. No one calls her Rhaenyra I Targaryen...

But Stannis is still a misogynist.

[Eltharion21]

7 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

You're right. It's just Stannis.

The way Stannis feels about Rhaenyra is just both an illustration of his close-minded bitterness and a reason why no one likes him.

There is also another layer of vicious irony that I just love. Because Stannis has sickly Shireen as an heir.

He is actually really fair in his judgment of her:

Quote

Daemon Blackfyre, the brothers Toyne, the Vulture King, Grand Maester Hareth... traitors have always paid with their lives... even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more, yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown.

Great Council of 101 Ac decision is paramount, which was confirmed after the end of dance. 

[The Hoare]

6 hours ago, R2D said:

Hey you're right. No one calls her Rhaenyra I Targaryen...

But Stannis is still a misogynist.

It's a medieval setting, everyone is a misogynist.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, James Steller said:

Stannis, I would hope, is not a complete misogynist, though sadly that’s a strong possibility, much as I like him otherwise. For what it’s worth, he clearly has issues with his own feelings, especially after watching his parents die. He is rigid, disciplined, headstrong. He’s taken an opposite stance as his brother, whom inspires so much envy and a history of being bullied. In the story, he is stiffly courteous at best, downright bigoted at worst, even when women are playing a crucial role in his cause. He dislikes excess and pleasure because he sees what that does for his brother. Hence why he wants to get rid of prostitution (not to mention he wanted to give Littlefinger a punch in his wallet with a move like that). All the same, the truth is there; Stannis has profound problems with women and actively tries to undermine them when attempting to rob them of their livelihood. He only tolerates Melisandre at first because she is useful to him, then things get to the point where he becomes enthralled by her. From one extreme to the other.

Stannis never talks about women as such, but every women who meet who has to interact with him (aside from Mel) tells us that he cannot stand being around women for some reason. Not just Asha and Alysane, but also Sybelle Glover. The idea that Stannis would ever be comfortable with the notion that a woman could rule over him as a monarch is very unlikely in this setting.

Hence, the idea that a woman trying claim a throne that should have gone to her brother under other circumstances isn't something Stannis would view as positive.

And this also extends to his relationship with Shireen, his only heir. Viserys I was grooming Rhaenyra to rule since before he had formally anointed her Heir Apparent, whereas Stannis' daughter is right now 10-11 years old, and has never been included in Stannis court or councils on Dragonstone, nor in his war councils at the Wall. He did nothing to prepare her to rule in her own right after his death, neither as a woman grown nor as a minor if he were to die in battle.

Which is a completely irresponsible on his part ... but fitting with the idea that he doesn't really want a woman to succeed him, even his daughter, although he sticks with her as his heir while there is no son because he has no other choice since he murdered his own brother.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, The Hoare said:

No, I'm saying that because he was Aegon III, Aegon II was recognised as a true king, but Rhaenyra was not. It seems that even the blacks kind that accepted Aegon II legitimacy after he was dead to prevent more bloodshed

Things go the way they went with Maegor. The guy who sat on the throne in the end - and who also first crowned himself - is seen as the actual king, even if the monarchs following him have closer ties to Rhaenyra/Aegon the Uncrowned than to Maegor/Aegon II.

But who was 'the rightful monarch' is just a technicality there, anyway. Rhaenyra's faction won the war, and her son succeeded her and Aegon II.

Although I find and have laid out in detail before that George dropped the ball there, especially since he did not include the passage about Aegon II formally decreeing that Rhaenyra 'never was a queen' from FaB, since unlike Daemon Blackfyre or Aegon the Uncrowned Rhaenyra Targaryen was the anointed heir of her father, his chosen successor who actually sat the Iron Throne for some time and ruled the Realm as queen regnant after formally deposing Aegon II.

In that sense, a proper kings list should go like that:

103-129 AC: Viserys I (dead of natural causes)

129-130 AC: Aegon II (deposed)

130 AC: Rhaenyra I (deposed and killed)

131 AC: Aegon II (restored and murdered)

131-157 AC: Aegon III (dead of natural causes)

After all, historians count legitimate monarchs by virtue of the legitimacy and power they gain during their campaigns - pretenders and antikings, etc. are counted as such on the basis that they never truly ruled. But Rhaenyra did rule for a short time, wielding all the power - or perhaps even more power - than Aegon II did during his reign.

In that sense George should have either not allowed Rhaenyra to sit the Iron Throne if he wanted her to be seen as a mere pretender (like Aegon the Uncrowned or Daemon Blackfyre) by later historians.

The idea that Aegon III and Viserys II and their descendants would go by their evil uncle's view of their mother also makes no sense. They would honor her memory and restore her reputation and do everything to tarnish Aegon II's - which they easily could since the man, like Maegor, didn't leave any living offspring. After all, Aegon III and Viserys II and all the Targaryens after them owe their thrones to Rhaenyra. If she hadn't fought for her throne, if Alicent's bloodline hadn't been extinguished, if Aegon III's elder brothers hadn't been killed in the fighting, Aegon III and Viserys II would have never gotten close to the throne.

[BlackLightning]

7 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

He is actually really fair in his judgment of her:

Great Council of 101 Ac decision is paramount, which was confirmed after the end of dance. 

He was not fair in his judgment of her.

If he was fair, he would realize that Jaehaerys I established a law that the children of the second wife shall not displace the children of the first wife. The children of the first wife come before the children of the second wife in the line of inheritance.

If Stannis was also fair (and remotely reasonable), he would also realize that Viserys I publicly made it known that Rhaenyra was his heir and made lords and knights from all over the realm pay her homage as the future Lady of the Seven Kingdoms while he was still alive.

Stannis feels that he is a king and that a king's decree is law. Well, the decrees of Viserys and Jaehaerys are what they are: laws.

[The Hoare]

32 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

If he was fair, he would realize that Jaehaerys I established a law that the children of the second wife shall not displace the children of the first wife. The children of the first wife come before the children of the second wife in the line of inheritance.

A son from the second wife does not displace the son of the first wife, but the son of a second wife clearly displace the daughter of a first wife.

38 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

If Stannis was also fair (and remotely reasonable), he would also realize that Viserys I publicly made it known that Rhaenyra was his heir and made lords and knights from all over the realm pay her homage as the future Lady of the Seven Kingdoms while he was still alive.

This was before Aegon II was born. He actively refused to clear things when asked about it, which makes me think that he preferred Aegon as heir, but didn't wanted to make Rhaenyra angry

[BlackLightning]

2 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

A son from the second wife does not displace the son of the first wife, but the son of a second wife clearly displace the daughter of a first wife.

Even when the king makes it widely known that the daughter of his first wife is his heir?

4 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

This was before Aegon II was born. He actively refused to clear things when asked about it, which makes me think that he preferred Aegon as heir, but didn't wanted to make Rhaenyra angry

He didn't actively refuse to clear things up about it. Rhaenrya was still his heir and he never swayed from that.

Rhaenyra was politically active whereas Aegon II was not. Aegon II also didn't really care to be king or an enemy of Rhaenyra; he was cajoled into it first by Alicent and Otto and then by Daemon's attack on his children.

[Loose Bolt]

46 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

If he was fair, he would realize that Jaehaerys I established a law that the children of the second wife shall not displace the children of the first wife. The children of the first wife come before the children of the second wife in the line of inheritance.

We do not know if that law outlived J I. Or any king ruling after him could have unmade that law. For instance Otto Hightower would have great motivation to advise Viserys I doing exactly that.

[Eltharion21]

18 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

He was not fair in his judgment of her.

If he was fair, he would realize that Jaehaerys I established a law that the children of the second wife shall not displace the children of the first wife. The children of the first wife come before the children of the second wife in the line of inheritance.

If Stannis was also fair (and remotely reasonable), he would also realize that Viserys I publicly made it known that Rhaenyra was his heir and made lords and knights from all over the realm pay her homage as the future Lady of the Seven Kingdoms while he was still alive.

Stannis feels that he is a king and that a king's decree is law. Well, the decrees of Viserys and Jaehaerys are what they are: laws.

Jaehaerys I  also ceded his authority for all ( Everyone) Lords of Westeros to come in Harenall amd vote on succession, which they did in overwhelming majority for Viserys as son of Baelon ( second son of Jaehaerys). From that any smart ruler would extrapolate laws which would enable more secure succession in future.

Rhaenyra would keep Dragonstone in deal offered by Aegon II, so it isn't true that her whole inheritance would be taken.

Rhaenyra also tried to pass her bastard children as heirs of the Iron Throne which is high treason.

Viserys made Rhaenyra his heir specifically so that Daemon Targaryen wouldn't take the throne, since he was heir presumptive before Otto Hightower suggested Rhaenyra. They ultimately married without king's consent.

Viserys  I also made Lords swear allegiance to his daughter once , 23 years before the war started, some lords didn't swear the oath like Tyland Lannister and some weren't even born like Cregan Stark. When each side had to ask for allegiance  with dragonriders it makes oath swearing moot. 

Kings should be subject to limitations of justice, reason or sanity, when Old King and entire realm choose on a way which Viserys I became king , who is he to change it without as strong consensus, especially since he himself doesn't uphold his own decisions.

[frenin]

27 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Jaehaerys I  also ceded his authority for all ( Everyone) Lords of Westeros to come in Harenall amd vote on succession, which they did in overwhelming majority for Viserys as son of Baelon ( second son of Jaehaerys). From that any smart ruler would extrapolate laws which would enable more secure succession in future.

No child should get the throne??

 

28 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Rhaenyra would keep Dragonstone in deal offered by Aegon II, so it isn't true that her whole inheritance would be taken.

Her whole inheritance would be taken from her, as in the Throne would be taken from her, and Drafonstone is subservient of the throne.

 

29 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Rhaenyra also tried to pass her bastard children as heirs of the Iron Throne which is high treason.

Is high treason having bastards,apparently, once she was queen, she could whatever.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Viserys made Rhaenyra his heir specifically so that Daemon Targaryen wouldn't take the throne, since he was heir presumptive before Otto Hightower suggested Rhaenyra. They ultimately married without king's consent.

And how gets Daemon the throne exactly?? Was Daemon going to rule??

 

 

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Viserys  I also made Lords swear allegiance to his daughter once , 23 years before the war started, some lords didn't swear the oath like Tyland Lannister and some weren't even born like Cregan Stark. When each side had to ask for allegiance  with dragonriders it makes oath swearing moot. 

True.

 

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Kings should be subject to limitations of justice, reason or sanity, when Old King and entire realm choose on a way which Viserys I became king , who is he to change it without as strong consensus, especially since he himself doesn't uphold his own decisions.

They lawfully aren't, so this point is moot, Jaeharys wasn't subjected to any limitation and he himself fixed his succession how he saw fit, Baelon anyone??, why should Viserys??

What consensus did Jaeharys have when he issued his decrees?? Or Baelor?? Or Aegon??

The only limitaion is army diplomacy and as long as one party has hige dragons and the other doesn't makes it moot.

[Eltharion21]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

No child should get the throne??

I said smart.

Quote

In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants.

 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Her whole inheritance would be taken from her, as in the Throne would be taken from her, and Drafonstone is subservient of the throne.

Quote

The terms offered by the king were generous, Munkun declares in his True Telling. If the princess would acknowledge him as king and make obeisance before the Iron Throne, Aegon II would confirm her in her possession of Dragonstone, and allow the island and castle to pass to her son Jacaerys upon her death. Her second son, Lucerys, would be recognized as the rightful heir to Driftmark, and the lands and holdings of House Velaryon; her boys by Prince Daemon, Aegon the Younger and Viserys, would be given places of honor at court, the former as the king’s squire, the latter as his cupbearer. Pardons would be granted to those lords and knights who had conspired treasonously with her against their true king.

Her brother had true claim to the throne, terms were generous.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Is high treason having bastards,apparently, once she was queen, she could whatever.

Tell that to other rulers that wanted to do whatever. Sic semper tyrannis.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

And how gets Daemon the throne exactly?? Was Daemon going to rule??

Yes he was King to Rhaenyra as  six-month-Queen, same as King Robert and Queen Cersei, they gain with their title, certain gravitas, and access to leverages of power. He gave councilors to Rhaenyra like Mysaria and Largent, gave advice's of letting loose Red Kraken and betrayers on the realm, and ordered kinslaying of little children and torment of their mother without any repercussions by his superiors, if he had them at the time. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

They lawfully aren't, so this point is moot, Jaeharys wasn't subjected to any limitation and he himself fixed his succession how he saw fit, Baelon anyone??, why should Viserys??

What consensus did Jaeharys have when he issued his decrees?? Or Baelor?? Or Aegon??

The only limitaion is army diplomacy and as long as one party has hige dragons and the other doesn't makes it moot.

Jaehaerys by summoning Great Council and giving all lords in land a say about succession, in fact created great opportunity for secure succession and prevention of disputes. What are achievements like Declarations of Independence, Constitution or Magna Carta if not political documents that represent advancement in liberties made by consensus of wielders of power or representatives of ruling classes.

King's aren't gods, if they gain power through their military might, dragons or political power alone and not supported also from laws and traditions, they should beware for it is a fickle thing and would easily bring disintegration of realm ( look at Rome).

In this case both sides had dragons and armies and eventually ruined Targaryen Dynasty, which never really recovered.

 

Viserys  didn't curb Daemon's influence who did what he wanted, he exiled him for seducing his under-age daughter and heir yet he went to Driftmark and married Laena Velaryon, breaking the exile supported by Seasnake. Various people stopping his rising in position had suspicious deaths. Rhea Royce, Lyonel and Harwin Strong, betrothed of Leana Velaryon, Laenor Velaryon, which was never investigated.

Other side of family was sensibly in fear of what would happen when Viserys I would die and lord fleabottom as Rhaenyra's consort would be in high position in realm. Dislike between branches, doubtful parentage of Rhaenyra's heirs would make easy for anyone to exploit discord and eliminate Hightower branch one by one if they submitted under any pretense.

[frenin]

5 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

I said smart.

You say smart but the word you're looking for is convenient. 

A smart person could tell that Viserys being from the male line wasn't the only reason he was chosen and that many is not a synonymous for most or majority.

 

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Her brother had true claim to the throne, terms were generous.

Ofc her brother had a true claim ot the throne, Renly  also had a true claim to the throne, there were others who had better claims than him. Aegon had at least three people with better claims than him.

The terms were shitty, not only Rhaenrya loses her throne and is only granted Dragonstone but two of her sons are to be sent to King's Landing as hostages. 

Just because someone, with no bias at all, calls the terms "generous" doesn't mean they really are.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Tell that to other rulers that wanted to do whatever. Sic semper tyrannis.

Aegon did, Jaeharys did, Viserys did, Baelor did... Do you know what absolutism stands for right??

I don't know why you argue that point, you're advocant of the continuity of the status quo.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

I said smart.

Queen Cersei didn't rule while King Robert was around, she was free to give counsel to her husband but her husband was free to ignore her as he pleased.

And Rhaenyra ignored Daemon, she didn't destroy the Baratheons and the Lannisters as Daemon chose, she didn't pardon the bastards as Daemon said, in fact she heeded to Corlys counsel more often than not. The only time Daemon was actually listened was when it came to war... Which can't really be a surprise when Daemon was Rhaenyra's chief General.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Jaehaerys by summoning Great Council and giving all lords in land a say about succession, in fact created great opportunity for secure succession and prevention of disputes. What are achievements like Declarations of Independence, Constitution or Magna Carta if not political documents that represent advancement in liberties made by consensus of wielders of power or representatives of ruling classes.

They are actually gatherings in which is discussed the political course and there are signed papers over it. 

You know what the Declarations of Independence, Constitutions and Provisions of Oxfords are not?? They aren't simply a vague idea some people had about things should be.

For the Gazillion time Jaeharys didn't summon a Great Council to create a new succesion law. He summoned a Great Council just to pick his heir.

 

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

King's aren't gods, if they gain power through their military might, dragons or political power alone and not supported also from laws and traditions, they should beware for it is a fickle thing and would easily bring disintegration of realm ( look at Rome).

Jaeharys was one of Westeros's best kings and he believed himself a god and ruled as an absolutist... As did the rest.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Viserys  didn't curb Daemon's influence who did what he wanted, he exiled him for seducing his under-age daughter and heir yet he went to Driftmark and married Laena Velaryon, breaking the exile supported by Seasnake. Various people stopping his rising in position had suspicious deaths. Rhea Royce, Lyonel and Harwin Strong, betrothed of Leana Velaryon, Laenor Velaryon, which was never investigated.

Viserys never intended to curb his influence...

 

26 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Other side of family was sensibly in fear of what would happen when Viserys I would die and lord fleabottom as Rhaenyra's consort would be in high position in realm. Dislike between branches, doubtful parentage of Rhaenyra's heirs would make easy for anyone to exploit discord and eliminate Hightower branch one by one if they submitted under any pretense.

No, only Otto was afraid and he was more afraid of losing his position  than anything else.

[Lord Varys]

On 7/28/2020 at 5:42 PM, The Hoare said:

A son from the second wife does not displace the son of the first wife, but the son of a second wife clearly displace the daughter of a first wife.

If that were the case then Aegon the Elder would have been the heir of Viserys I from the moment of his birth and the wishes of the king on the matter of his own succession wouldn't matter at all ... which wasn't the case. Rhaenyra was made Heir Apparent in 105 AC and sticking to her as the heir was in line with Jaehaerys I's Widow's Law. She was installed as heir and couldn't be replaced as such in favor of a child from a second wife.

Back during the reign of Jaehaerys I Prince Aemon wasn't the Heir Apparent from the moment of his birth in 55 AC, but only from 62 AC on when the king formally named him Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Iron Throne.

On 7/28/2020 at 5:42 PM, The Hoare said:

This was before Aegon II was born. He actively refused to clear things when asked about it, which makes me think that he preferred Aegon as heir, but didn't wanted to make Rhaenyra angry

Nope, he refused to change the succession because he wanted Rhaenyra to follow him. Nothing indicates he ever wasted a thought on Alicent's children. He even doubted that Aemond could become a dragonrider.