The Shakespearean Tragedy of Daenerys Targaryen

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, SeanF said:

Ser Jorah, who was with the Northern army, was present at the sack. He describes it in some detail.  I don’t think he ever says whether he or they participated.

I couldn't find anything definite on the subject on the wiki. I would think the bulk of the Northern army would be with Ned, who was pursuing the remnants of the loyalist army, not participating in the sack with the Lannister army as this was an action Ned almost certainly disapproved of.

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

As to the throne, nobody claims that Seven independent kingdoms were restored on Aerys II’s death (apart from the Greatjon, at the end of AGOT).   The throne passed to a man who had killed his cousin and rival, and whose ally had killed his rival’s children, but who based his claim on his descent from Aegon I.  The Baratheon claim is dependent upon the Targaryens being legitimate rulers of all Seven Kingdoms.

I agree with this. The point I thought I made (sorry if it was unclear) was that it is debatable whether Aegon I, the king from whom all successive Targaryen (and Baratheon) rulers derive their right to rule from, had a right to rule Westeros in the first place. If he didn't then do any of his successors?

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

As to Dany’s claim, it’s the only Targaryen claim that is not open to dispute.  No one claims she is not Aerys’ daughter by Rhaella.  Aegon is almost certainly not Rhaegar’s son, and if Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna’s, he’s either illegitimate or the product of bigamy.  By the time Dany returns to Westeros, there will be no legitimate Baratheons left, so their rival claim will have vanished.

Daenerys' status as daughter of Aerys is not in dispute. Her status of Queen of the Seven Kingdoms is however, because any children of Rhaegar's would inherit before her. I don't think 'Aegon' is real either but the people of Westeros may well do. In which case they would think Daenerys could not be queen based on the established 'rule' of the succession, as Rhaegar's 'son' would come before his sister. So Daenerys would have to prove him a fraud. With Jon it depends. Bigamy was not practiced by the Targaryens for ages but is it legally acceptable or not? If it is then Jon would still inherit ahead of Daenerys.

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

As to the rich woman, Daenerys herself never abandoned Kings Landing (she was not alive at the time and was raised in exile ) so that last point doesn’t really apply as a precedent.

House Targaryen as a whole abandoned Westeros. I think the example with the house and the woman was deliberately placed to make you wonder. Daenerys herself did not abandon King's Landing but the house her claim claim derives from from did.

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In any case, there’s no good solution to the problem of the rich woman and the slaves. Either the slaves are thrown out of the house, or the woman loses it.  She splits the difference by awarding her the jewels.  The house should be considered as compensation for servitude.

Were the prostitutes formerly slaves owned by the woman in question? If not I don't think it can be considered compensation for servitude as the woman didn't owe them anything with regards to their service because they did not serve her, unless you look at it as the rich Ghiscari elite as a whole having to pay all the former slaves for their work and the suffering they caused them, regardless of the personal specifics.

17 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Not that anyone in Westeros is seriously going to argue “hang on, in Grazdan vs Hargo, you ruled differently” if she rolls up with a large army.

Of course they won't, might makes right after all, but I still think it's important. If Daenerys goes against her own rulings for no reason then other than she feels entitled to then it's arbitrary and unjust.

[Oana_Mika]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I would disagree that The Iron Throne was stolen from her and Viserys (if indeed that is the stolen thing you are talking about), because I'm not sure that they ever owned it in the first place. There are a few issues to consider:

1. Daenerys' claim to Queenship of the Seven Kingdoms comes through being the daughter of King Aerys. So she cannot inherit until Rhaegar, all of his children, and Viserys are dead. If 'Aegon' and/or Jon are Rhaegar's legitimate children then Daenerys cannot legally be Queen of the Seven Kingdoms unless she marries one of them or they die.

2. Whether Viserys was king or not. Viserys cannot be king either until all of Rhaegar's legitimate children are dead. So the same that applies to Daenerys applies to him.

3. Ultimately all the rights of Targaryens with regard to the Throne derive from Aegon the Conqueror, but whether he himself had right is debatable

Daenerys’ claim to the Iron Throne

— Daenerys was Viserys’s heir and has the best claim to the Iron Throne.

(pretty obvious, but worthy remembering and talking about it again)

 

Right in her first chapter in A Game of Thrones, during the feast at Khal Drogo’s manse, Daenerys is introduced as Princess of Dragonstone :

Oil burned in black iron lanterns all along the walls. Beneath an arch of twining stone leaves, a eunuch sang their coming. “Viserys of the House Targaryen, the Third of his Name,” he called in a high, sweet voice, “King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm. His sister, Daenerys Stormborn, Princess of Dragonstone. His honorable host, Illyrio Mopatis, Magister of the Free City of Pentos.” — Daenerys I, A Game of Thrones.

As per Targaryen tradition, the heirs to the Iron Throne receive the title of Prince/Princess of Dragonstone. Many of Daenerys’ ancestors had this title, including her oldest brother Rhaegar Targaryen. Therefore, being introduced as Princess of Dragonstone speaks of Daenerys’ status as Viserys’ heir. It means that, after his death, she is rightfully the queen of the Seven Kingdoms and head of House Targaryen.

“Viserys is dead. I am his heir, the last blood of House Targaryen. Whatever was his is mine now.” — Daenerys X, A Game of Thrones.

 

To be fair, this is all very obvious. However, we Daenerys stans do have to repeat ourselves and speak the obvious over and over again, so that canon facts might enter into her antis’ heads.

“Birds flew and couriers raced to bear word of the victory at the Ruby Ford. When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King’s Landing with Rhaegar’s children as a hostage against Dorne.” — The Fall of the Dragons: The End, The World of Ice and Fire.

 

This quote from The World of Ice and Fire is very interesting, to say the least. It proves to us that Aerys II named Viserys his heir over Rhaegar’s children, Aegon and Rhaenys. Thus, even if Aegon/Young Griff is really Rhaegar’s son (which I doubt, but I will not expand on this here), Daenerys still has the better claim as Viserys’ heir, because Aerys II disinherited Rhaegar’s children. Again, no surprise here. It is just me reinforcing a canon fact.

 

 

 

— The “Right of Conquest”.

 

I have already seen the argument that, as Robert Baratheon overthrew the Targaryen dynasty and became king, Daenerys’ claim to the Iron Throne is not valid by the Right of Conquest. I begin now my argument stating that I disagree with this notion.

 

First of all, the Targaryens built the Iron Throne and ruled over a unified Westeros for about 300 years. This means that Daenerys’ ancestors had plenty of time to establish their dynasty and their control and legitimacy over the Iron Throne. That’s not the case with the newly-established Lannister-Baratheon regime (which is already facing a succession crisis).The legitimacy of the Lannister-Baratheon regime is still in check. That’s why Robert Baratheon is so wary of Viserys and of Daenerys’ marriage to Khal Drogo — they are still a threat to his reign, to the point he sends men to hunt the last Targaryens, to the point he wants to kill the 13 years old and pregnant Daenerys. Besides, Robert himself is aware that some people call him the Usurper.

The king shifted uncomfortably in his saddle. “Perhaps. There are ships to be had in the Free Cities, though. I tell you, Ned, I do not like this marriage. There are still those in the Seven Kingdoms who call me Usurper. Do you forget how many houses fought for Targaryen in the war? They bide their time for now, but give them half a chance, they will murder me in my bed, and my sons with me. If the beggar king crosses with a Dothraki horde at his back, the traitors will join him.” — Eddard II, A Game of Thrones

 

Robert and his brothers had a Targaryen grandmother, Rhaelle. This blood tie, despite of his hate for the Targaryens, gave him a claim to the Iron Throne and a degree of legitimacy.

 

Robert sat down again. “Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon.”
“You had the better claim, Your Grace.” — Eddard VII, A Game of Thrones.

↓

Renly shrugged. “Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?” He did not wait for an answer. “Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer.” He swept a hand across the campfires that burned from horizon to horizon. “Well, there is my claim, as good as Robert’s ever was. If your son supports me as his father supported Robert, he’ll not find me ungenerous. I will gladly confirm him in all his lands, titles, and honors. He can rule in Winterfell as he pleases. He can even go on calling himself King in the North if he likes, so long as he bends the knee and does me homage as his overlord. King is only a word, but fealty, loyalty, service … those I must have.” — Catelyn II, A Clash of Kings.

 

This begs the question: if even Robert Baratheon can derive legitimacy for the Iron Throne over his Targaryen ancestry, why cannot Daenerys, as the head of House Targaryen, do the same?

 

Not to mention Daenerys is sought out by men like Quentyn Martell and Euron Greyjoy because of her claim (of course her dragons are a bonus, but her Targaryen name also has weight). We have Doran Martell planning to avenge his sister Elia and her children by overthrowing the regime Lannister-Baratheon and crowning Viserys at first (then sending Quentyn to look for Daenerys). Not to mention there are still Targaryen loyalists in Westeros, as I will show in my next argument in a bit.

 

I would also to highlight the Starks and the North/Winterfell. By Right of Conquest, now the Boltons are the Wardens of the North. Yet Roose Bolton know his legitimacy is thin, and that he has to thread carefully. That’s the whole point of marrying a fake!Arya to Ramsay; they think Jeyne Poole is Arya Stark; thus giving the Boltons a more secure claim to the North. Even so, there are still Stark loyalists, men who despise the Boltons and literally want to bathe in their blood. Men that want to rescue Ned’s valiant little girl. Wyman Manderly send Davos to retrieve Rickon Stark from Skagos, as he considers the boy his true liege lord. This shows us that the Right of Conquest is not everything for a ruler and for a smooth reign; legitimacy and the loyalty of the subjects are key.

 

 

— Targaryen loyalists in Westeros

 

Through "A Song of Ice and Fire", there are quite a lot of instances in which GRRM showcases the existence of Targaryen loyalists, even after about 16 years of the end of Robert’s Rebellion. As aforementioned, Doran Martell and Dorne are an example of this. Jon Connington believes Young Griff is Rhaegar’s son, and is actively planning and acting to reconquer Westeros and crown him.Here I would like to highlight other characters and their perception of the Targaryens.

 

“Yet I must have some army,” Dany said. “The boy Joffrey will not give me the Iron Throne for asking politely.”

“When the day comes that you raise your banners, half of Westeros will be with you,” Whitebeard promised. “Your brother Rhaegar is still remembered, with great love.” — Daenerys II, A Storm of Swords.

↓

Two men were walking sentry, spears in hand. “I was taught that good men must fight evil in this world, and Renly’s death was evil beyond all doubt. Yet I was also taught that the gods make kings, not the swords of men. If Stannis is our rightful king—”

“He’s not. Robert was never the rightful king either, even Renly said as much. Jaime Lannister murdered the rightful king, after Robert killed his lawful heir on the Trident. Where were the gods then? The gods don’t care about men, no more than kings care about peasants.”

“A good king does care.” — Catelyn V, A Clash of Kings.

↓

“Lord Beric did us no hurt, though,“ her friend whispered. “And that red priest with him, he paid for all they took.”

“Paid? He took two of my chickens and gave me a bit of paper with a mark on it. Can I eat a bit of raggy old paper, I ask you? Will it give me eggs?” She looked about to see that no guards were near, and spat three times. “There’s for the Tullys and there’s for the Lannisters and there’s for the Starks.”

“It’s a sin and a shame,” an old man hissed. “When the old king was still alive, he’d not have stood for this.”

“King Robert?” Arya asked, forgetting herself.

“King Aerys, gods grace him,” the old man said, too loudly. A guard came sauntering over to shut them up. The old man lost both his teeth, and there was no more talk that night. — Arya VI, A Clash of Kings.

↓

“No dragon has ever had three heads except on shields and banners,” Armen the Acolyte said firmly. “That was a heraldic charge, no more. Furthermore, the Targaryens are all dead.”

“Not all,” said Alleras. “The Beggar King had a sister.”

“I thought her head was smashed against a wall,” said Roone.

“No,” said Alleras. “It was Prince Rhaegar’s young son Aegon whose head was dashed against the wall by the Lion of Lannister’s brave men. We speak of Rhaegar’s sister, born on Dragonstone before its fall. The one they called Daenerys.”

“The Stormborn. I recall her now.” Mollander lifted his tankard high, sloshing the cider that remained. “Here’s to her!” He gulped, slammed his empty tankard down, belched, and wiped his mouth with the back of his hand. “Where’s Rosey? Our rightful queen deserves another round of cider, wouldn’t you say?” — Prologue, A Feast for the Crows.

↓

“[…] elsewise, we bow only to our own lords, and the king. The true king, not Robert and his ilk.“ He spat. "There was Crabbs and Brunes and Boggses with Prince Rhaegar on the Trident, and in the Kingsguard too. A Hardy, a Cave, a Pyne, and three Crabbs, Clement and Rupert and Clarence the Short. Six foot tall, he was, but short compared to the real Ser Clarence. We’re all good dragon men, up Crackclaw way.” — Brienne IV, A Feast for the Crows.

↓

Piety and devotion. It was all he could do not to laugh. The walls had been bare on his first visit too. Tyrion had pointed out the squares of darker stone where tapestries had once hung. Ser Raymun could remove the hangings, but not the marks they’d left. Later, the Imp had slipped a handful of stags to one of Darry’s serving men for the key to the cellar where the missing tapestries were hidden. He showed them to Jaime by the light of a candle, grinning; woven portraits of all the Targaryen kings, from the first Aegon to the second Aenys. “If I tell Robert, mayhaps he’ll make me Lord of Darry,” the dwarf said, chortling. — Jaime IV, A Feast for the Crows.

 

It is also pretty telling how even Northmen, who raised their banners against Aerys II and the Targaryens, still consider the North “married” the Targaryens, as in the speech of Robb’s crowning as the King in the North:

Catelyn was thinking of her girls, wondering if she would ever see them again, when the Greatjon lurched to his feet.

“MY LORDS!” he shouted, his voice booming off the rafters. “Here is what I say to these two kings!” He spat. “Renly Baratheon is nothing to me, nor Stannis neither. Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong. The Others take the Lannisters too, I’ve had a bellyful of them.” He reached back over his shoulder and drew his immense two-handed greatsword. “Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!” He pointed at Robb with the blade. “There sits the only king I mean to bow my knee to, m'lords,” he thundered. “The King in the North!” — Catelyn XI, A Game of Thrones.

 

Clear as day, the Targaryens still have support in Westeros among highborn lords, like Doran Martell and Jon Connington, and even among the common folk. For a lot of Westerosis, the Targaryens — specifically Daenerys — are still the rightful and legitimate rulers.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

The fact that anoyne thinks Jon will simply be accepted as Rhaegar's son,

I don't think anyone will simply be accepted as anything. But the potential existence of Rhaegar's legitimate children means things won't just be smooth sailing for Daenerys either. It complicates things, for now she is no longer the last Targaryen, the sole member of the house. There may be someone who has a better claim. Daenerys does not need to accept this of course, but there will be some lords who have, so she will need to either prove Aegon fake or use violence.

[Oana_Mika]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think anyone will simply be accepted as anything. But the potential existence of Rhaegar's legitimate children means things won't just be smooth sailing for Daenerys either. It complicates things, for now she is no longer the last Targaryen, the sole member of the house. There may be someone who has a better claim. Daenerys does not need to accept this of course, but there will be some lords who have, so she will need to either prove Aegon fake or use violence.

The fact that even Young Griff with his Targaryen looks won't have an easy time being believed as Rhaegar's son, makes me believe that Jon with his Stark looks, with so few people who can corroborate his parentage will have an even hard work to make people believe so if Daenerys won't back him up. Also, Rhaegar was disinherited by Aerys II so all his heirs lost their claim.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, Oana_Mika said:

As per Targaryen tradition, the heirs to the Iron Throne receive the title of Prince/Princess of Dragonstone. Many of Daenerys’ ancestors had this title, including her oldest brother Rhaegar Targaryen. Therefore, being introduced as Princess of Dragonstone speaks of Daenerys’ status as Viserys’ heir. It means that, after his death, she is rightfully the queen of the Seven Kingdoms and head of House Targaryen.

The issue is that if Rhaegar had any surviving children they would inherit before Viserys so Viserys would not be king. If Viserys is not king then Daenerys does not become queen upon his death.

3 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

To be fair, this is all very obvious. However, we Daenerys stans do have to repeat ourselves and speak the obvious over and over again, so that canon facts might enter into her antis’ heads.

I disagree that it is very obvious, inheritance is a more complicated issue when you consider things such as the king's choice of heir vs heir by precedent, the role of religion, inheritance with regards to the Throne vs inheritance of other seats, where women inherit with regards to the throne etc. Also I am not anti-Daenerys. I am ambivalent towards her.

8 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

This quote from The World of Ice and Fire is very interesting, to say the least. It proves to us that Aerys II named Viserys his heir over Rhaegar’s children, Aegon and Rhaenys. Thus, even if Aegon/Young Griff is really Rhaegar’s son (which I doubt, but I will not expand on this here), Daenerys still has the better claim as Viserys’ heir, because Aerys II disinherited Rhaegar’s children. Again, no surprise here. It is just me reinforcing a canon fact.

This again links into one of the topics that means succession is not so clear cut. King's choice of heir vs heir by precedent. It is not just about what the king says, but what the Seven Kingdoms will accept as well. These factors are important to consider.

I am a little confused about your argument on the right of conquest. You say you don't think it is everything but the Targaryen right to rule derives from right of conquest. Or were you saying that the Targaryens have a right to rule because of their good governance?

The fact that the Targaryens still have supporters again goes to show that succession is not clear cut. Many people have differing opinions on who the rightful ruler is and why they are the rightful ruler.

[Craving Peaches]

11 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

The fact that even Young Griff with his Targaryens looks won't have an easy time being believed as Rhaegar's son

I think it's too early to say. So far we've not seen any lord's reaction to him.

11 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Also, Rhaegar was disinherited by Aerys II so all his heirs lost their claim.

I don't think it will be as simple as that. Most people don't like Aerys but regard Rhaegar fondly.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Craving Peaches

[Oana_Mika]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

This again links into one of the topics that means succession is not so clear cut. King's choice of heir vs heir by precedent. It is not just about what the king says, but what the Seven Kingdoms will accept as well. These factors are important to consider.

I just showed you that people will see Daenerys as the most obvious Targaryen heir, not Young Griff or Jon.

 

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I am a little confused about your argument on the right of conquest. You say you don't think it is everything but the Targaryen right to rule derives from right of conquest.

In the answer is explicitly told what I ment.

 

22 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

This means that Daenerys’ ancestors had plenty of time to establish their dynasty and their control and legitimacy over the Iron Throne. That’s not the case with the newly-established Lannister-Baratheon regime (which is already facing a succession crisis).The legitimacy of the Lannister-Baratheon regime is still in check. That’s why Robert Baratheon is so wary of Viserys and of Daenerys’ marriage to Khal Drogo — they are still a threat to his reign, to the point he sends men to hunt the last Targaryens, to the point he wants to kill the 13 years old and pregnant Daenerys. Besides, Robert himself is aware that some people call him the Usurper.

 

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

I just showed you that people will see Daenerys as the most obvious Targaryen heir, not Young Griff or Jon.

But that's not the same as seeing her as the rightful Targaryen heir. Many lords could chose to disregard Aerys disinheriting Rhaegar, holding that Rhaegar's son would inherit over his sister according to the law, and that the Mad King was well...mad, and shouldn't have disregarded the established line of succession.

2 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

In the answer is explicitly told what I ment.

So you're saying that the Targaryens have the right to rule because they established their dynasty over a period of time and that their legitimacy comes from this period of time?

Edited September 27, 2022 by Craving Peaches

[Oana_Mika]

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But that's not the same as seeing her as the rightful Targaryen heir. Many lords could chose to disregard Aerys disinheriting Rhaegar, holding that Rhaegar's son would inherit over his sister according to the law, and that the Mad King was well...mad, and shouldn't have disregarded the established line of succession.

Regardless what people may think Aerys should of shouldn't have done, he was the king at that time and only a king can name a heir or disinherit and he chose Viserys over Rhaegar

 

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

So you're saying that the Targaryens have the right to rule because they established their dynasty over a period of time and that their legitimacy comes from this period of time?

I'm saying that Targaryens have a right to the Irone Throne and to rule Westeros for the same reasons Starks have a claim to the North and Winterfell.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Oana_Mika said:

Regardless what people may think Aerys should of shouldn't have done, he was the king at that time and only a king can name a heir or disinherit and he chose Viserys over Rhaegar

But people may choose to support Rhaegar's son over Viserys' heir Daenerys. They may say that Aerys' decision was not in accordance with the law. The king's preferred heir versus the heir by law is a big issue.

3 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

I'm saying that Targaryens have a right to the Irone Throne and to rule Westeros for the same reasons Starks have a claim to the North and Winterfell.

So because they've been there a long time and ruled well?

[Oana_Mika]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

So because they've been there a long time and ruled well?

Because their family was the one who built the damn throne any claimant wants and who united Westeros, just as the Starks built their seat and conquered the North. So naturally, many will see a Targaryen as a rightful claimant to the throne and a Stark as a rightful ruler of Winterfell and the North.

[The Sleeper]

13 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Regardless what people may think Aerys should of shouldn't have done, he was the king at that time and only a king can name a heir or disinherit and he chose Viserys over Rhaegar

Did I miss something? When did Aerys disinherit Rhaegar? 

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Oana_Mika said:

Because their family was the one who built the damn throne any claimant wants and who united Westeros, just as the Starks built their seat and conquered the North. So naturally, many will see a Targaryen as a rightful claimant to the throne and a Stark as a rightful ruler of Winterfell and the North.

But they were only able to build the Throne through conquest. So their right still stems from the right of conquest.

[Oana_Mika]

1 minute ago, The Sleeper said:

Did I miss something? When did Aerys disinherit Rhaegar? 

“Birds flew and couriers raced to bear word of the victory at the Ruby Ford. When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King’s Landing with Rhaegar’s children as a hostage against Dorne.” — The Fall of the Dragons: The End, The World of Ice and Fire.

[Oana_Mika]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But they were only able to build the Throne through conquest. So their right still stems from the right of conquest.

Oh boy, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall....yes, they conquered Westeros but they established their dinasty, something that Robert did not do.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[The Sleeper]

6 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

“Birds flew and couriers raced to bear word of the victory at the Ruby Ford. When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King’s Landing with Rhaegar’s children as a hostage against Dorne.” — The Fall of the Dragons: The End, The World of Ice and Fire.

So, he never disinherited Rhaegar. 

Rhaegar's alleged children still have a better claim than Dany. 

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Oana_Mika said:

Oh boy, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall....yes, they conquered Westeros but they established their dinasty, something that Robert did not do.

That is what I was asking earlier. I asked if you thought it was because they established the dynasty. You quoted me in saying:

Quote

18 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

So you're saying that the Targaryens have the right to rule because they established their dynasty over a period of time and that their legitimacy comes from this period of time?

 

That is what I wanted to know. Thank you for clarifying.

[Oana_Mika]

1 minute ago, The Sleeper said:

So, he never disinherited Rhaegar. 

Rhaegar's alleged children still have a better claim than Dany. 

 

1 minute ago, The Sleeper said:

his younger son and new heir, Viserys

 

[Craving Peaches]

If Aerys only made Viserys his heir over Rhaegar's children but did not disinherit Rhaegar's children as well, then the argument could be made that Viserys' nephews would inherit over his sister, given the stance the Seven Kingdoms seem to have on woman inheriting it appears that Daenerys would not inherit unless she had no male relatives. Now this is arguably silly since she is a closer relative of the previous king but it is what the majority of lords decided to follow.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Craving Peaches

[The Sleeper]

11 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

 

 

I heard you the first time, no need to shout. 

Rhaegar died, he was never disinherited. The presumptive heir versus the chosen heir never goes uncontested. And at the time Dany was not yet born. It never became an issue, because Rhaegar's children and Aerys died at the same time and Viserys never inherited anything, but had Rhaenys and Aegon lived you can't automatically assume that Dany would have been Viserys' heir. Primogeniture favors them over Dany. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by The Sleeper