Blacks or Greens?

[kingDaemonI]

On 7/1/2021 at 7:33 PM, Wunjō said:

I disagree. If Viserys and Aegon and legitimate children, then they are the heirs, whether or not their step-brothers are bastards. Also you have to consider that when Viserys I heard an allegation of bastardy he dealt with it swiftly, so I doubt the accused bastardy meant anything in terms of succession. Its like Tommen or Marcella now. Sure they might be Bastards, but the nobles still listen to them and treat them like royalty. 

Sure but Rhaenyra literally made Jace, not aegon the younger, as prince of dragonstone.  That is treason. 

[The hairy bear]

23 hours ago, kingDaemonI said:

Sure but Rhaenyra literally made Jace, not aegon the younger, as prince of dragonstone.  That is treason. 

Even if anyone could prove that Jace is not a trueborn son, one of the privileges of a king (or a queen) is the right to legitimize bastards.

 

[BlackLightning]

On 9/6/2022 at 1:36 PM, kingDaemonI said:

With agnatic primogeniture (nieces over uncles), it goes Aemon-Rhaenys-Laenor-Laena-Baela. 

Technically, it would be Aemon-Rhaenys-Laenor-Jacaerys-Lucerys-Joffrey-Laena-Baela-Rhaena

Even if Rhaenyra's Velaryon sons were bastards, then they would be legitimized as trueborn in any case. Viserys basically did as much.

On 9/6/2022 at 1:55 PM, kingDaemonI said:

That is treason. 

Would it really be treason though?

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

@The hairy bear @BlackLightning

According to Gyldayn, it would most definitely be treason. From "Heirs of the Dragon": "Rhaenyra would have none of that, but insisted that Prince Aemond should be questioned “sharply” until he revealed where he had heard her sons called “Strongs.” To so name them, of course, was tantamount to saying they were bastards, with no rights of succession … and that she herself was guilty of high treason."

Furthermore, legitimizing them after ascending the throne would be a huge mistake. It would humiliate the Velaryons and lend credence to the Greens' claim that Rhaenyra is unfit to rule on account of her wantonness. Not to mention even in Dorne bastards have no rights of succession so far as we know.

[Vaegon the dragonless]

11 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

@The hairy bear @BlackLightning

According to Gyldayn, it would most definitely be treason. From "Heirs of the Dragon": "Rhaenyra would have none of that, but insisted that Prince Aemond should be questioned “sharply” until he revealed where he had heard her sons called “Strongs.” To so name them, of course, was tantamount to saying they were bastards, with no rights of succession … and that she herself was guilty of high treason."

Furthermore, legitimizing them after ascending the throne would be a huge mistake. It would humiliate the Velaryons and lend credence to the Greens' claim that Rhaenyra is unfit to rule on account of her wantonness. Not to mention even in Dorne bastards have no rights of succession so far as we know.

The main problem is that even if to everyone Rhaenyra's 3 eldest are bastard, well both the King (and grandfather) and her husband declared them true born. And they have Dragons to back it up. So in the eyes of the law they are true born sons of Laenor and Rhaenyra.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

5 hours ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

The main problem is that even if to everyone Rhaenyra's 3 eldest are bastard, well both the King (and grandfather) and her husband declared them true born. And they have Dragons to back it up. So in the eyes of the law they are true born sons of Laenor and Rhaenyra.

Reminds me of Varys' riddle about the nature of power.

[BlackLightning]

Essentially, Harwin Strong is a surrogate/sperm donor long before surrogates and sperm donors were a thing.

 

I wonder if Laenor has a micro-penis or some other condition that prevents him from getting an erection and/or ejaculating. Maybe an infertile hermaphrodite. I don't know, because even if he were gay, he'd be able to get an erection and produce ejaculate...even if someone needs to manually put Laenor's ejaculate inside Rhaenyra.

[Vaegon the dragonless]

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Essentially, Harwin Strong is a surrogate/sperm donor long before surrogates and sperm donors were a thing.

 

I wonder if Laenor has a micro-penis or some other condition that prevents him from getting an erection and/or ejaculating. Maybe an infertile hermaphrodite. I don't know, because even if he were gay, he'd be able to get an erection and produce ejaculate...even if someone needs to manually put Laenor's ejaculate inside Rhaenyra.

I agree with the first part but I just think that Laenor and Rhaenyra just ended agreeing that they would be married in the eyes of the realm but that they could each have their own love life seperated. With the understanding that any child of Rhaenyra would be declared a son of Laenor, and Laenor "could not possibly be gay" because he had kids. They just lucked out that all the kids looked like their dad.

[BlackLightning]

Even so, there's a good chance that Rhaenyra's kids are, in fact, the biological kids of Laenor.

The Velaryon boys are not pureblooded Valyrians. They have Baratheon ("the seed is strong") and Arryn genes and the Velaryons are nowhere near as incestuous as the Targaryens so the Velaryons probably had been intermingling with other noble bloodlines from the Stormlands, the Crownlands and the Vale for decades, if not centuries.

Out of the five trueborn Stark kids from the main series, only one of them resembles their father. The other four only resemble their mother. It's enough of an issue to make someone as confident, well-read and unimpeachable as Catelyn Stark is deeply insecure.

 

[Curled Finger]

On 5/14/2021 at 3:44 PM, Jaenara Belarys said:

Which contender would you support in the Dance? Aegon or Rhaenyra? Black or Green? Personally, I support Rhaenyra for the reasons of:

1. She has the better claim, with Targaryen blood on both sides

2. Viserys I declared her as his heir

3. Aegon is a hot tempered, fat little fool. He's a drunkard, a glutton and he cheats on his wife, big time. He's also a complete and utter idiot

 

What do you guys think? Black or Green? 

How many sons and lovers of fighting age do I have?

[Stenkarazine]

As a modern audience, I am sympathetic with Rhaenyra's cause. In-universe, I strongly favour the Greens:

1/ By all the laws and customs of Westeros and the Targaryens, Aegon II is the rightful king. Viserys' folly or weakness does not erase that. As said elsewhere, if Viserys wanted to make sure Rhaenyra would not be contested, he should never have remarried (and he should have "withdrawn" his brother for good measure).

2/ Aemond killing his bastard nephew in the spur of the moment does not equate plotting the cold-blooded murder of an infant in front of his mother, nor is the latter proportionate retribution for the former. I am astonished that many people do not see that.

3/ Hiding the news of the death of the king is not that big of a deal. Sure, it is a bit shady, but it does not make the Greens bad guys per se. They know Aegon's ascension will be contested by Rhaenyra, so they try their best to present her with a fait accompli. This actually lessens the chances of a civil war, since the opposing party has less time to exploit uncertainty. 

4/ The Blacks are supported by some of the most loathsome savages to ever befoul the Seven Kingdoms: Ironborn and Northerners. Uncouth and opportunistic brutes prone to secession, as the War of the Five Kings would later confirm.

5/ In contrast, the Greens gather support amongst the most civilized and brilliant regions of the Realm: the Reach and the West (basically the equivalent of High Medieval France and England).

6/ Daeron the Daring is a most noble prince. One could only dream of what would have happened if he had survived the Second Tumbleton. There is an alternate history waiting to be written here.

7/ Aegon II is not really a tyrant. Most of his questionable decisions or his hate can be ascribed to the grievous wounds he suffered, not once but twice. And there remains the fact that he didn't kill his last rival (future Aegon III), even though he had every occasion to do it, and this would have nipped the last Black challenge in the bud (prince Viserys being thought dead or disappeared). Some here say that he didn't off young Aegon only because he was dissuaded by others. Indeed, but the capital fact is that he listened, while it would have been so easy to make him "disappear" à la Princes in the tower. The fact that he didn't means he can be that bad an human being.

 

 

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

5 hours ago, Stenkarazine said:

As a modern audience, I am sympathetic with Rhaenyra's cause. In-universe, I strongly favour the Greens.

This is my general understanding as well.

[Ring3r]

On 5/14/2021 at 5:44 PM, Jaenara Belarys said:

Which contender would you support in the Dance? Aegon or Rhaenyra? Black or Green? Personally, I support Rhaenyra for the reasons of:

1. She has the better claim, with Targaryen blood on both sides

2. Viserys I declared her as his heir

3. Aegon is a hot tempered, fat little fool. He's a drunkard, a glutton and he cheats on his wife, big time. He's also a complete and utter idiot

 

What do you guys think? Black or Green? 

 

Honestly, I don't think there's a real answer to this, hence the civil war.

Both sides screwed up a whole bunch of stuff.  Dreamers apparently manifest in the Black bloodline, but the Green bloodline has a better claim, yadda yadda.

If magic and prophecy were not a thing, then Rhaenys, Corlys, and their children should have gone on to rule.  But magic and prophecy are real on Planetos.  So...yeah.  What kind of decision is that?  If you do things fairly, the world dies.  If you go with something that will eventually develop into saving the world....you have to morally compromise yourself.

GRRM is a sadist!  lol

***EDIT***

That said....if I were an observer, with no knowledge of what's to come, or the importance of prophecy.....Greens.  Rhaenys' family should not have been passed over to begin with.

[The hairy bear]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:48 PM, Stenkarazine said:

1/ By all the laws and customs of Westeros and the Targaryens, Aegon II is the rightful king.

That's debatable. Jaehaerys, not only once but twice, had been allowed to choose his heir disregarding "the laws and customs" and going by personal preference.

Viserys was too naive, that's true, but if his immediate family and his small council had respected his wishes, the succession would have gone as planned and no lord in Westeros would have had any say on the matter.

 

On 9/27/2022 at 4:48 PM, Stenkarazine said:

2/ Aemond killing his bastard nephew in the spur of the moment does not equate plotting the cold-blooded murder of an infant in front of his mother, nor is the latter proportionate retribution for the former. I am astonished that many people do not see that.

"Spur of the moment"?! Not even close. Luce was completely non-confrontational, suposed no threat, and had already left when Aemond decided that he wanted to kill him. Then he left Storm's End's hall, went for Vhagar, mounted her and proceeded to go after Luce. All this should take many minutes. More than enought to qualify as a murder.

I don't think any one has ever argued that Blood and Cheese's actions are even worse. But it remains a fact that the greens were the firsts to spoil blood (not only Luke's, but Lord Beesbury's too).

On 9/27/2022 at 4:48 PM, Stenkarazine said:

3/ Hiding the news of the death of the king is not that big of a deal. Sure, it is a bit shady, but it does not make the Greens bad guys per se.

What makes them the bad guys is what they do during this time: seizing all their oponents at court (that is the people who they thing that would honor the late king's will) to execute them.

On 9/27/2022 at 4:48 PM, Stenkarazine said:

4/ The Blacks are supported by some of the most loathsome savages to ever befoul the Seven Kingdoms: Ironborn and Northerners. Uncouth and opportunistic brutes prone to secession, as the War of the Five Kings would later confirm.

I fail to see why being prone to secede against a foreign invader is a bad thing, but anyway, blaming them as "oportunistic" in the context of the Dance of Dragons makes no sense. The greens are the ones that conspired in secrecy to get the throne. The greens are the ones who wanted to involve the Greyjoys in the War by bribing them with a position in the Council.

On 9/27/2022 at 4:48 PM, Stenkarazine said:

5/ In contrast, the Greens gather support amongst the most civilized and brilliant regions of the Realm: the Reach and the West (basically the equivalent of High Medieval France and England).

The Reach does not side with the greens. The Tyrells declare neturality, and the rest of the houses are split (I'd say that there are more black than green houses from the Reach)

On 9/27/2022 at 4:48 PM, Stenkarazine said:

6/ Daeron the Daring is a most noble prince. One could only dream of what would have happened if he had survived the Second Tumbleton.

Daeron is nothing more than a young teen enshrined by propaganda. None of her actions indicate that he could have been a great monarch, and in fact, the lack of courage at confronting Hugh and Ulf indicates the opposite.

On 9/27/2022 at 4:48 PM, Stenkarazine said:

7/ Aegon II is not really a tyrant. Most of his questionable decisions or his hate can be ascribed to the grievous wounds he suffered, not once but twice. And there remains the fact that he didn't kill his last rival (future Aegon III), even though he had every occasion to do it, and this would have nipped the last Black challenge in the bud (prince Viserys being thought dead or disappeared). Some here say that he didn't off young Aegon only because he was dissuaded by others. Indeed, but the capital fact is that he listened

He was poisoned precisely because he was about to murder Aegon III.

 

 

[Arthur Peres]

10 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Viserys was too naive, that's true, but if his immediate family and his small council had respected his wishes, the succession would have gone as planned and no lord in Westeros would have had any say on the matter.

 

You're being generous with the guy, he raised several psychos, ignored all the signs and ideas that could lead to peace, gave dragons to all sides, ignored the fact that the children were mangling each other in the courtyard, played with the sucession line on a whim, refused to adress any problem and pretty much pushed the war himself.

Robert becomes a paragon of a king compared to him, even Aegon IV could be argued as a better one... at very least he did not gave Daemon a dragon.

No one respected Viserys wishes cause they are not worthy of such. He also ignored everything everyone told him. He is the biggest responsible for the dance.

[hnv]

It's an ambiguous matter as firstly GRRM did not create any clear constitutional or legal theory for Westeros. If the laws of succession are statutory than Viserys' decree is null as the king is under no man but the gods and law. If it is a mere convention and the king has the power to alter the laws there (as it seems that he does in regards to legitimizing bastards or adjudicating succession of lordships) then I'd find his decree binding and support the blacks.

But tbf if I were a minor lord I'd just swerve the entire matter and take no side. It's not like the rise of either line has any real upshot for me, and minor territorial gains for the risk of ending your house is too risky 

[Alester Florent]

Viserys is never going to be uncontroversial but I'm inclined to be generous to the guy.

As hnv says, there is no real legal or constitutional framework in Westeros at the royal level. From all appearances the legal system is remarkably underdeveloped, having barely evolved past a system of customary law enforced by local lords with relatively little real regard for precedent or any concept of statute. There seems to be a very vague idea of a common law at least in the criminal sphere but even this is very arbitrarily applied. There is no legislative body that we're aware of outside the small council, which, since it's also the executive, means that there is no real generative power for new laws beyond what the king determines.

By all appearances, then, the king's word is law, and the highest law at that. The king can make new laws at will, abolish ancient laws as he sees fit, and release individuals from lifelong oaths by decree. There may be some exceptions for religious law, but that argument seems to have been settled decisively in favour of the monarchy under Maegor and Jaehaerys.

Set against this, the royal succession law is all but nonexistent. The succession from Aenys to Maegor to Jaehaerys was all over the place, leaving virtually nothing in the way of precedent. Things are sufficiently uncertain that Jaehaerys's decision to appoint Baelon his heir over Rhaenys is controversial, and deciding between Laenor and Viserys requires a Great Council. The key test is not "what the law says" (because there is no universally agreed law) or even "what the king says" (otherwise Jaehaerys would not have been king) but what the realm will bear. This is why Jaehaerys called a Great Council to determine his own succession, and this is why Viserys made the lords of the realm swear oaths to Rhaenyra.

Moreover, once he named Rhaenyra his heir, far from vacillating, Viserys's policy was forged with an iron consistency. Perhaps he only appointed Rhaenyra heir to spite Daemon, but having made that decision (presumably having given up on having a son) he never publicly wavered despite a lot of pressure from inside his household.

Rhaenyra's succession would have been a done deal, too, if it hadn't been for the Green coup. Had Rhaenyra simply been crowned queen as Viserys intended, we can safely assume that the North, the Vale, the Iron Islands and the Riverlands would have accepted this without argument, and the Stormlands probably would have too. Whether the Hightowers and Lannisters would have rebelled is a big what-if, but it seems much less likely in conditions where they don't have a crowned king to justify their position. The Dance happened not because of Viserys, but principally because his most trusted friends plotted to ignore his wishes and undermine his legacy.

Really, it's difficult to see what more Viserys could have done to avert the crisis short of caving to the Green demands to name Aegon as heir. And perhaps that's what some think should have happened... but Aegon would have been a shit king anyway and Viserys knew that. Perhaps if Aegon had shown some interest in anything other than gambling and whoring, had made some kind of an effort to be worthy of the position his mother's family wanted for him, the argument to supplant Rhaenyra (who has been trained for the role and has experience of rule on Dragonstone) might have had some legs even if to do so would destroy Viserys's relationships with Rhaenyra and Daemon. But he didn't and he gave Viserys no reason to change his mind.

Maybe we can criticise Viserys for not doing better at raising Aegon, but far more of the blame for Aegon's fecklessness falls on the Greens to my mind, not only because the way Westerosi child-raising works more of the responsibility falls on the mother's side, but also because Viserys never intended Aegon as heir, while the Greens did. They expended all this energy manoeuvring to install their candidate without bothering to ensure that their candidate was actually any good.

 

That's Viserys out of the way so looking at the actual factions, I'm a Black at heart, even if by the end of the war I'm more inclined to say a plague on both their houses. The Greens are not without merit nor are all their members wholly unsympathetic; likewise, there are terrible villains on both sides and the high command of neither faction covers itself in glory, morally speaking. But my view has always been that the Greens started the war, knowing full well what they were doing, whereas the Blacks had it largely forced upon them, and while some wars can be justified I don't think the Green cause was worth fighting for.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Adelstein said:

Viserys is never going to be uncontroversial but I'm inclined to be generous to the guy.

Agree, for all his faults, Viserys made his succesion clear.

Those who walked over his corpse to steal the throne, killed their kin and any dissenters are at fault for the war.

If they had done what he wanted, war would have been averted but alas.

[BlackLightning]

On 9/27/2022 at 9:48 AM, Stenkarazine said:

As a modern audience, I am sympathetic with Rhaenyra's cause. In-universe, I strongly favour the Greens...

 

If this is the case, then why did most of the realm rise in support of Rhaenyra?

And why did Rhaenyra's side win the war?

[Lord Varys]

When George finally wrote the history of the Dance he apparently changed some of the earlier concepts he may have intended to play with there.

The whole 'hallowed Andal laws and traditions' is all but gone. The precedents that count are those of the Targaryen succession, not what the Targaryen subjects think their rulers should do.

It seems he may have originally intended that Criston Cole play a bigger role as 'a defender of Andal tradition'. But it makes sense why this was all but dropped in favor of struggle within the royal family since there is really no good reason to assume that House Targaryen would ever submit to 'Andal laws and traditions'. They are foreign invaders and conquerors with a very strong superiority complex - and they broke the most powerful Andal institution earlier when they forced the Faith into submission.

By the time of Viserys I the only institution/political body powerful enough to challenge the whims and wishes of the king - whose reign is truly absolute institutionally - would be House Targaryen itself.

And that's what George went with. The way he set things up Otto Hightower or Criston Cole as the Hand/Lord Commander could not have possibly crowned their own king. They needed the support of the royal family - of Alicent Hightower, the Queen. And, of course, also that of her dragonriding royal children.

It also makes little sense to have a very stable or clear set of rules governing the royal succession when Viserys I was only the fifth king on the Iron Throne. Only the succession from Aegon I to Aenys was peaceful succession where an eldest son followed his royal father. Maegor usurped the throne, and Jaehaerys I only became king in a civil war scenario where Maegor had killed his elder brothers. If Aegon the Uncrowned had prevailed or died later, his daughters (or sons, if he had any) may have succeeded him. His younger brother Viserys would have also come before Jaehaerys.

Jaehaerys I's eldest son Aemon was the Heir Apparent for most of his life ... but when he died early, the situation became unclear again. There was no precedent for such a scenario, just as there was no precedent what to do after Maegor's successful usurpation.

The only thing that ruled Targaryen succession throughout the first century was raw power. Raw power allowed Aegon to conquer the Seven Kingdom, raw power allowed Maegor to steal the throne, and raw power made Jaehaerys I Maegor's successor.