Why did Maekar, the 4th son, receive a landed title while Aerys and Aerion didn't have seats?

[StarksInTheNorth]

It seems odd that the 4th-born son would have a seat and official title, one that seems like it could be passed on, while his two elder brothers did not. Maybe because Prince Aerys was bookish and Prince Rhaegel mad, meek, and sickly, but I feel like Rhaegel would have taken offense? Has this ever been explained or do I need to wait until Fire and Blood Vol. 2?

[Megorova]

I think that Maekar was given that seat as a reward for his deeds in span of the First Blackfyre Rebellion:

"During the First Blackfyre Rebellion in 196 AC, Maekar served as one of the Targaryen commanders. It was his shield wall that held against the "mad" attack of his uncle, Ser Aegor Rivers (called Bittersteel) in the Battle of the Redgrass Field.^[1] While his brother Baelor Breakspear attacked the rebel army from the rear with a host of stormlords and Dornishmen, Maekar rallied what remained of Lord Donnel Arryn's vanguard and made an unyielding anvil against which the rebels were hammered and destroyed, and the battle was won.^[13] Later, a song about "the hammer and the anvil" was made about the battle, with Baelor as the hammer and Maekar the anvil.^[1]

Nevertheless, Maekar felt unappreciated. The victory was more attributed to his brother and the errors of Daemon Blackfyre, than to his efforts.^[1]In other things he also stood in the shadow of his brothers, wounding his pride.^[3]"

So maybe that's why his father, Daeron II, gave to Maekar that title - the Prince of Summerhall.

[Thedog]

Maekar getting Summer Hall made the most sense.
 

It never really made sense to me that younger Targaryen princes never any titles at all. Frankly it seemed like the most unbelievable thing about the history of Westeros.
 

Lords were always rebelling. Why wouldn’t the lands stripped from these lords (and land was stripped from them, see Lord Peake) be given to a Targaryen prince? Why wasn’t a Targaryen given Dunstonbury and Whitegrove during the Blackfyre rebellions?  

[SilverGhost]

On 5/10/2022 at 5:08 PM, Thedog said:

Lords were always rebelling. Why wouldn’t the lands stripped from these lords (and land was stripped from them, see Lord Peake) be given to a Targaryen prince? Why wasn’t a Targaryen given Dunstonbury and Whitegrove during the Blackfyre rebellions?  

Potentially because those castles are in the Reach and would involve a Prince of the blood bending the knee to a Lord Paramount. Summerhall in the Stormlands seems to have been specifically built as the Targaryen summer seat and thus would have been Crown controlled from its construction, while Dunstonbury and Whitegrove were castles whose Lords had always been sworn to Highgarden. Given that the Reach was home to several Houses which supported the Blackfyres, it might have been considered prudent to keep the taxes and levies from Dunstonbury and Whitegrove directed towards Highgarden - it keeps any royals from bending the knee to the Tyrells, keeps the lands and incomes under Tyrell to avoid giving them offense.  The Tyrells give those lands to nobles loyal to them, strengthening their power, and remain loyal to the Crown.   

Concerning Maekar, well it certainly could have been awarded for valor during the First Blackfyre Rebellion. Or maybe as a fourth son Maekar was considered far enough down the line of succession it was decided to give him a seat of his own, he had a decent sized family and there were enough males above him to make Lord of Dragonstone if one or two died. So give him some territory to rule instead of brooding over slights in King's Landing, especially in the aftermath of one rebellion. Or it could have been pragmatic - King Daeron trusted him and understood that the Dornish Marches were a hotbed of Blackfyre support and animosity towards Dorne. Thus if anyone got uppity Prince Maekar was in a good position to stop things before they got out of hand, after all while he wasn't his brother Baelor Maekar was highly competent and well respected - the kind of Prince whose presence in the Marches could keep the peace.   

 

[Thedog]

19 minutes ago, SilverGhost said:

Potentially because those castles are in the Reach and would involve a Prince of the blood bending the knee to a Lord Paramount. Summerhall in the Stormlands seems to have been specifically built as the Targaryen summer seat and thus would have been Crown controlled from its construction, while Dunstonbury and Whitegrove were castles whose Lords had always been sworn to Highgarden. Given that the Reach was home to several Houses which supported the Blackfyres, it might have been considered prudent to keep the taxes and levies from Dunstonbury and Whitegrove directed towards Highgarden - it keeps any royals from bending the knee to the Tyrells, keeps the lands and incomes under Tyrell to avoid giving them offense.  The Tyrells give those lands to nobles loyal to them, strengthening their power, and remain loyal to the Crown.   

Concerning Maekar, well it certainly could have been awarded for valor during the First Blackfyre Rebellion. Or maybe as a fourth son Maekar was considered far enough down the line of succession it was decided to give him a seat of his own, he had a decent sized family and there were enough males above him to make Lord of Dragonstone if one or two died. So give him some territory to rule instead of brooding over slights in King's Landing, especially in the aftermath of one rebellion. Or it could have been pragmatic - King Daeron trusted him and understood that the Dornish Marches were a hotbed of Blackfyre support and animosity towards Dorne. Thus if anyone got uppity Prince Maekar was in a good position to stop things before they got out of hand, after all while he wasn't his brother Baelor Maekar was highly competent and well respected - the kind of Prince whose presence in the Marches could keep the peace.   

 

That would make sense that no Targaryen would want to kneel to a Tyrell (they were stewards until The Conquest, after all!). But why not give them land in Crownlands? 
 

Prince Daemon became a problem for his brother precisely because he had no land. He had to hire mercenaries and go conquer the Stepstones. If he had land to rule over he would have been kept out of Court and stayed with his wife (a Royce) rather than making a nuisance of himself in King’s Landing or starting private wars. Daemon tried to claim Runestone after his wife died, and abandoned his kingship, so obviously he would have preferred to be an Arryn vassal rather than be landless/a king of some remote islands. 

[SilverGhost]

2 minutes ago, Thedog said:

That would make sense that no Targaryen would want to kneel to a Tyrell (they were stewards until The Conquest, after all!). But why not give them land in Crownlands? 
 

*Shrug* 

There could be a lot of reasons we just don't know about yet because GRRM hasn't gotten around to writing about the Blackfyre Rebellions in detail. As for times before that - well for the most part Princes were involved in governance or acting as military commanders/advisors and there weren't enough boys who really required lands. Even the Old King and his Good Queen only had three boys survive their youth - two were meant to rule together, Aemon as King with Baelon as his Hand - and Vaegon, who might have been given lands, wasn't interested in anything but books and instead sent to the Citadel. It wasn't until around the Dance that the royal family had enough male children for giving some lands to really become a thing again. Of course only two of the ten boys in that generation survived the war so the point became moot again. 

As for Daemon, he might have been the example for Daeron giving Maekar lands to keep him busy, Daeron was bright and probably the type to learn from history. 

[Thedog]

22 minutes ago, SilverGhost said:

*Shrug* 

There could be a lot of reasons we just don't know about yet because GRRM hasn't gotten around to writing about the Blackfyre Rebellions in detail. As for times before that - well for the most part Princes were involved in governance or acting as military commanders/advisors and there weren't enough boys who really required lands. Even the Old King and his Good Queen only had three boys survive their youth - two were meant to rule together, Aemon as King with Baelon as his Hand - and Vaegon, who might have been given lands, wasn't interested in anything but books and instead sent to the Citadel. It wasn't until around the Dance that the royal family had enough male children for giving some lands to really become a thing again. Of course only two of the ten boys in that generation survived the war so the point became moot again. 

As for Daemon, he might have been the example for Daeron giving Maekar lands to keep him busy, Daeron was bright and probably the type to learn from history. 

Everything you say is true. Except that it’s just kind of a plot that extends to families besides the Targaryens. Take the Lannisters, we know they stripped lands from the Raynes and Tarbecks. That land went to someone.  Tytos had multiple sons reach adulthood. Nevertheless, Ser Kevan acknowledged that he was landless as an adult despite his brother giving him money and responsibility. Now he had sons, but nothing to pass onto them. Carry that forward a few generations and you have Lannister hedge knights. Which no Lannister would want. Why not give Ser Kevan the Reynes’ lands? He had the ability and was liked by his brother/father, and the Lannisters now have extra land that needed a loyal vassal to manage.
 

The only times any lord did this sensible step was Robert with Dragonstone after the rebellion, and Aegon with Stormsend   Lords seem to give lands in a manner that creates plot points for the story rather than who makes the most sense. 
 

compare this to medieval Europe. English and French monarchs were constantly making younger sons dukes and even bought lands to make this happen. Why? Well an unlanded prince has nothing to lose of his older brother dies in a hunting accident (See William II’s death). 

[Lord Varys]

On 5/10/2022 at 11:08 PM, Thedog said:

Maekar getting Summer Hall made the most sense.
 

It never really made sense to me that younger Targaryen princes never any titles at all. Frankly it seemed like the most unbelievable thing about the history of Westeros.

Well, it isn't actually the case. Maegor became 'the Prince of Dragonstone' which, although never officially announced, sort of indicated that Aegon and Visenya intended to give the island and the citadel to the younger son and his family, had he ever fathered one.

Later on, the widowed Queen Rhaena Targaryen basically gets two lordships of her own. First Dragonstone and then, after she leaves the place, effectively Harrenhal, which she first rules jointly with Maegor Towers and then all by herself. If Aerea hadn't predeceased Rhaena the island and the citadel may have passed to her and subsequently to whatever children she may have had.

That Jaehaerys I doesn't create a specific title to his younger son Baelon prior to Aemon's death is kind of an oversight and somewhat strange. Baelon and Alyssa married and her sons of their own, they couldn't possibly be dependent on the good will of the king or a princely allowance forever. In turn, Baelon should also have made precautions that his sons get lordships of their own while he wasn't yet the Heir Apparent. Then he would have expected Viserys to succeed him one day, but that still left Daemon.

Daemon they kind of made Lord of Runestone with his marriage there, but it didn't work out.

Later on, with Viserys I's many sons and grandsons things get even more confusing. Rhaenyra would have wanted titles and lordships for her younger sons by Laenor, and Daemon would have wanted advancement for his sons by Rhaenyra.

I think there is a good chance that Aegon III is going to create a specific lordship for his brother Viserys. Once Aegon III has five children, nobody is going to expect that Viserys and his descendants are going to inherit the Iron Throne, so something would have to be done to ensure they are not dependent on Aegon III's sons and grandsons.

I expect that Aegon III might name Viserys Prince of Dragonstone, turning it into a hereditary lordship. Then it could become the seat of the Heir Apparent yet again when Viserys himself becomes the (presumptive) heir of King Baelor.

1 hour ago, SilverGhost said:

Potentially because those castles are in the Reach and would involve a Prince of the blood bending the knee to a Lord Paramount. Summerhall in the Stormlands seems to have been specifically built as the Targaryen summer seat and thus would have been Crown controlled from its construction, while Dunstonbury and Whitegrove were castles whose Lords had always been sworn to Highgarden. Given that the Reach was home to several Houses which supported the Blackfyres, it might have been considered prudent to keep the taxes and levies from Dunstonbury and Whitegrove directed towards Highgarden - it keeps any royals from bending the knee to the Tyrells, keeps the lands and incomes under Tyrell to avoid giving them offense.  The Tyrells give those lands to nobles loyal to them, strengthening their power, and remain loyal to the Crown.

That doesn't strike me as particularly like, since both Rhaena and subsequently Daemon were kind of subject to the rule of the Tullys and the Arryns, respectively (although Daemon as husband of Rhea Royce was technically not even a lord).

There was clearly no issue with the idea of a Targaryen prince bending the knee to a lord.

Summerhall began as another royal seat - just as Dragonstone was another royal seat - and as such it would have been subject to one. After Daeron II formally granted it to Maekar he could have turned into a proper lordship ... but I expect it remained a seat which was only beholden to the Iron Throne. I also don't think it controlled large lands, although Daeron II may have taken considerable land from whatever Blackfyre loyalists there were in the surrounding area, turning it into a proper lordship when he gave it to Maekar (which likely happened after 196 AC).

It wouldn't surprise me, for instance, if it turned out that the lands and castle/keep of the Stricklands, for instance, was in the domain that was controlled by Summerhall until the castle was destroyed. If this were the case, then Strickland might actually visit the place with Aegon and Connington in TWoW.

[Thedog]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it isn't actually the case. Maegor became 'the Prince of Dragonstone' which, although never officially announced, sort of indicated that Aegon and Visenya intended to give the island and the citadel to the younger son and his family, had he ever fathered one.

Later on, the widowed QueenRhaena Targaryen basically gets two lordships of her own. First Dragonstone and then, after she leaves the place, effectively Harrenhal, which she first rules jointly with Maegor Towers and then all by herself. If Aerea hadn't predeceased Rhaena the island and the citadel may have passed to her and subsequently to whatever children she may have had.

That Jaehaerys I doesn't create a specific title to his younger son Baelon prior to Aemon's death is kind of an oversight and somewhat strange. Baelon and Alyssa married and her sons of their own, they couldn't possibly be dependent on the good will of the king or a princely allowance forever. In turn, Baelon should also have made precautions that his sons get lordships of their own while he wasn't yet the Heir Apparent. Then he would have expected Viserys to succeed him one day, but that still left Daemon.

Daemon they kind of made Lord of Runestone with his marriage there, but it didn't work out.

Later on, with Viserys I's many sons and grandsons things get even more confusing. Rhaenyra would have wanted titles and lordships for her younger sons by Laenor, and Daemon would have wanted advancement for his sons by Rhaenyra.

I think there is a good chance that Aegon III is going to create a specific lordship for his brother Viserys. Once Aegon III has five children, nobody is going to expect that Viserys and his descendants are going to inherit the Iron Throne, so something would have to be done to ensure they are not dependent on Aegon III's sons and grandsons.

I expect that Aegon III might name Viserys Prince of Dragonstone, turning it into a hereditary lordship. Then it could become the seat of the Heir Apparent yet again when Viserys himself becomes the (presumptive) heir of King Baelor.

 

With the exception of Maelor, non of those Targaryens ever really received hereditary titles. 
 

Daemon didn’t receive Runstone. He married the heir, and we know that in Westeros there is no such thing as jure uxoris. Women can inherit titles only if a lord has no true born male heirs, but if a woman does inherit, she holds the title in her own right. At the very least this is the law of the Vale, since Lady Arryan ruled in her own right, and imprisoned uncles and cousins as necessary. Accordingly, when Lady Royce was person who held  the title and her husband would technically be a consort. If Prince Daemon had any legitimate claim to Runestone (and he tried to press a claim), he would not have let same go so easily. 
 

Rhaena got Dragonstone, but that was mostly to nullify any claim she had to the throne (and at that time the law Of Female succession for the throne wasn’t yet clear). She clearly didn’t have it as a title to be passed onto her daughters as it was later given to her nephews. To the extent that she actually had title of Harrenhal (rather than as Lord Towers’ guest) it was clear that the title would revert to the crown on her death since that that point she had no heirs eligible to inherit and she wasn’t having more kids. 
 

Viserys I created no titles for his sons by his Hightower wife and they were clearly of an age to hold titles. While he wanted his daughter to inherit, he would have known that his sons weren’t going to be given titles by their half-sister. This makes no sense, since Rhaenyra would clearly leave them destitute and Daemon was already without title or income, so you would have at least four Targaryen princes (the three Green Princes plus Daemon) all with strong claims (arguably stronger titles than the Queen Viserys wanted) sitting around kings landing with nothing to do but plot. Even someone as clueless as Viserys would have had to see that problem.

 

[SilverGhost]

2 hours ago, Thedog said:

Everything you say is true. Except that it’s just kind of a plot that extends to families besides the Targaryens. Take the Lannisters, we know they stripped lands from the Raynes and Tarbecks. That land went to someone.  Tytos had multiple sons reach adulthood. Nevertheless, Ser Kevan acknowledged that he was landless as an adult despite his brother giving him money and responsibility. Now he had sons, but nothing to pass onto them. Carry that forward a few generations and you have Lannister hedge knights. Which no Lannister would want. Why not give Ser Kevan the Reynes’ lands? He had the ability and was liked by his brother/father, and the Lannisters now have extra land that needed a loyal vassal to manage.
 

The only times any lord did this sensible step was Robert with Dragonstone after the rebellion, and Aegon with Stormsend   Lords seem to give lands in a manner that creates plot points for the story rather than who makes the most sense. 
 

compare this to medieval Europe. English and French monarchs were constantly making younger sons dukes and even bought lands to make this happen. Why? Well an unlanded prince has nothing to lose of his older brother dies in a hunting accident (See William II’s death). 

I doubt that there would have been Lannister hedge knights. The best example of a large family taking care of their own would be the Tyrells, where several cousins and uncles and the like are sworn to the House or serve in important positions like Seneschal or Commander of the Oldtown Guard. With regards to Kevan I think Tywin wanted to keep him close because he was Tywin's most trusted councilor. Tywin gave him money and eventually his son a Lordship because he wanted Kevan nearby. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it isn't actually the case. Maegor became 'the Prince of Dragonstone' which, although never officially announced, sort of indicated that Aegon and Visenya intended to give the island and the citadel to the younger son and his family, had he ever fathered one.

Later on, the widowed Queen Rhaena Targaryen basically gets two lordships of her own. First Dragonstone and then, after she leaves the place, effectively Harrenhal, which she first rules jointly with Maegor Towers and then all by herself. If Aerea hadn't predeceased Rhaena the island and the citadel may have passed to her and subsequently to whatever children she may have had.

That Jaehaerys I doesn't create a specific title to his younger son Baelon prior to Aemon's death is kind of an oversight and somewhat strange. Baelon and Alyssa married and her sons of their own, they couldn't possibly be dependent on the good will of the king or a princely allowance forever. In turn, Baelon should also have made precautions that his sons get lordships of their own while he wasn't yet the Heir Apparent. Then he would have expected Viserys to succeed him one day, but that still left Daemon.

Daemon they kind of made Lord of Runestone with his marriage there, but it didn't work out.

Later on, with Viserys I's many sons and grandsons things get even more confusing. Rhaenyra would have wanted titles and lordships for her younger sons by Laenor, and Daemon would have wanted advancement for his sons by Rhaenyra.

I think there is a good chance that Aegon III is going to create a specific lordship for his brother Viserys. Once Aegon III has five children, nobody is going to expect that Viserys and his descendants are going to inherit the Iron Throne, so something would have to be done to ensure they are not dependent on Aegon III's sons and grandsons.

I expect that Aegon III might name Viserys Prince of Dragonstone, turning it into a hereditary lordship. Then it could become the seat of the Heir Apparent yet again when Viserys himself becomes the (presumptive) heir of King Baelor.

That doesn't strike me as particularly like, since both Rhaena and subsequently Daemon were kind of subject to the rule of the Tullys and the Arryns, respectively (although Daemon as husband of Rhea Royce was technically not even a lord).

There was clearly no issue with the idea of a Targaryen prince bending the knee to a lord.

 With the first Rhaena living in Harrenhal I think it was a case of everyone leaving well enough alone. She never left, never entertained guests and upon her death the seat returned to the Crown. While Harrenhal was ruled by Riverrun it was, until maybe the Whents, taken and granted directly by the Crown. With Dragonstone, well it's Dragonstone. The ruler of Dragonstone only bends the knee to the Iron Throne. For Daemon he was married to the Lady of Runestone and thus the official knee bending was done by his wife. He was also the only male Targaryen to marry a ruling Lady.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Summerhall began as another royal seat - just as Dragonstone was another royal seat - and as such it would have been subject to one. After Daeron II formally granted it to Maekar he could have turned into a proper lordship ... but I expect it remained a seat which was only beholden to the Iron Throne. I also don't think it controlled large lands, although Daeron II may have taken considerable land from whatever Blackfyre loyalists there were in the surrounding area, turning it into a proper lordship when he gave it to Maekar (which likely happened after 196 AC).

 

Yep. As I said Maekar is good candidate for a Lordship in a potentially troublesome location in the aftermath of 196AC. 

 

15 minutes ago, Thedog said:

Viserys I created no titles for his sons by his Hightower wife and they were clearly of an age to hold titles. While he wanted his daughter to inherit, he would have known that his sons weren’t going to be given titles by their half-sister. This makes no sense, since Rhaenyra would clearly leave them destitute and Daemon was already without title or income, so you would have at least four Targaryen princes (the three Green Princes plus Daemon) all with strong claims (arguably stronger titles than the Queen Viserys wanted) sitting around kings landing with nothing to do but plot. Even someone as clueless as Viserys would have had to see that problem.

 

Yeah in the end we're all just guessing on what characters were thinking based on our interpretations of how they were written. Harder for the historical characters because we never have POV chapters to get a foothold inside of their heads.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Thedog said:

With the exception of Maelor, non of those Targaryens ever really received hereditary titles. 
 

I guess you mean Maekar there, no?

2 hours ago, Thedog said:

Daemon didn’t receive Runstone. He married the heir, and we know that in Westeros there is no such thing as jure uxoris. Women can inherit titles only if a lord has no true born male heirs, but if a woman does inherit, she holds the title in her own right. At the very least this is the law of the Vale, since Lady Arryan ruled in her own right, and imprisoned uncles and cousins as necessary. Accordingly, when Lady Royce was person who held  the title and her husband would technically be a consort. If Prince Daemon had any legitimate claim to Runestone (and he tried to press a claim), he would not have let same go so easily.

While that is technically correct, we can assume that Daemon could have effectively become Lord of Runestone, if not in name. If the marriage had worked out Daemon would have been the lord husband of his dear wife, and she would have been obliged to obey her. He could not call himself Lord of Runestone without her permission, etc. but he still could have run the shots. We see this, for instance, with Lady Webber having to choose her husbands with care ... and with the fact that Jeyne Arryn had the good sense to never marry.

Rhea's personality as well as the unfortunate fact that a woman also happened to be Lady Arryn made something like that impossible.

It is true that it seems as if de iure you cannot rule 'by right of your wife' but de facto this actually seems to be happening. Just think of Bronn calling himself 'Lord Stokeworth' these days. Or think about the sons of Lord Cregan who ended up marrying their nieces - it seems those matches were arranged so they could rule by the right of their wives. Ditto with Jeyne Poole and Ramsay Bolton who styles himself Lord of Winterfell because 'Arya' is the Lady of Winterfell. And we can also expect that Sigorn expects to become the Lord of Karhold rather than merely remaining Alys' consort. Even Daenerys' Hizdahr used his marriage to style himself king.

In that context it is rather odd that Daemon Targaryen never wore a crown nor styled himself king (consort).

2 hours ago, Thedog said:

Rhaena got Dragonstone, but that was mostly to nullify any claim she had to the throne (and at that time the law Of Female succession for the throne wasn’t yet clear). She clearly didn’t have it as a title to be passed onto her daughters as it was later given to her nephews. To the extent that she actually had title of Harrenhal (rather than as Lord Towers’ guest) it was clear that the title would revert to the crown on her death since that that point she had no heirs eligible to inherit and she wasn’t having more kids.

No, it wasn't about her claim to the throne but her claim to Dragonstone as she made clear when she demand it for herself. Jaehaerys didn't grant it to her as an independent kingdom, but it was her lordship held in the name of the king until she gave it back. And since it was hers it would have also passed to Aerea (or any other child Rhaena may have had by Androw Farman) if she hadn't died.

Jaehaerys could only give Dragonstone to Aemon and then Baelon and then Viserys because Rhaena had given it back.

Rhaena was never 'Lord Towers' guest'. Jaehaerys gave her part of the castle and Towers had to accept that. From that point on he was only the Lord of Harrenhal at Queen Rhaena's discrestion. She sat there right in his castle with Dreamfyre prowling around. And when he died the entire castle went to her. Of course, she had no heirs but Jaehaerys and Alysanne (and Septa Rhaella, who likely couldn't inherit a lordship) so this wasn't an issue. But between Maegor Towers' death and Rhaena's own she was the Lady of Harrenhal.

Vice versa, if talk about Harrenhal, we are likely also going to count Aemond's bastard son by Alys Rivers as the Lord of Harrenhal from the time of his birth until he died. The castle was not empty between the Dance and the rise of the Lothstons.

It might turn out that Aegon III never formally named Alys' son the Lord of Harrenhal, but effectively the boy is the Lord of Harrenhal at the end of FaB.

2 hours ago, Thedog said:

Viserys I created no titles for his sons by his Hightower wife and they were clearly of an age to hold titles. While he wanted his daughter to inherit, he would have known that his sons weren’t going to be given titles by their half-sister. This makes no sense, since Rhaenyra would clearly leave them destitute and Daemon was already without title or income, so you would have at least four Targaryen princes (the three Green Princes plus Daemon) all with strong claims (arguably stronger titles than the Queen Viserys wanted) sitting around kings landing with nothing to do but plot. Even someone as clueless as Viserys would have had to see that problem.

It is not just them, but also the five sons of Rhaenyra herself, and the two sons of Aegon the Elder. The family is pretty big in 129 AC and nobody made preparations for any of them. Almost as if the author knew they would all die and it wouldn't matter...

2 hours ago, SilverGhost said:

With the first Rhaena living in Harrenhal I think it was a case of everyone leaving well enough alone. She never left, never entertained guests and upon her death the seat returned to the Crown. While Harrenhal was ruled by Riverrun it was, until maybe the Whents, taken and granted directly by the Crown. With Dragonstone, well it's Dragonstone. The ruler of Dragonstone only bends the knee to the Iron Throne. For Daemon he was married to the Lady of Runestone and thus the official knee bending was done by his wife. He was also the only male Targaryen to marry a ruling Lady.

Certainly, Queen Rhaena most likely rarely interacted with the Tullys during her time at Harrenhal. But folks did pay her visits, so there would have been interactions. Now, Rhaena was also a dowager queen (twice over, if you count Aegon the Uncrowed as a king), so she would have outranked the Tullys in any case. She wouldn't have bent the knee to them, rather they to her.

And, frankly, it might be that this was also the case for princes of the blood who were the sons or brothers of kings. Now, with the grandsons and great-grandsons it may have been different. If we imagine, say, Daemon's grandsons as Lords of Runestone they may have only been, say, Lord X Targaryen of Runestone, no longer princes. And they may have been expected to bend their knee to both the Iron Throne and the Eyrie since they would have clearly been 'lesser Targaryens' at that point.

But it never came to anything like that. Although even if it did - the Targaryen marriage policies could always absorb such cousins back into the main line to a degree. If, say, the sister of a Runestone Targaryen became the queen because she married her royal cousin the Runestone Targaryens might suddenly be very prominent and influential again.

[SilverGhost]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But it never came to anything like that. Although even if it did - the Targaryen marriage policies could always absorbed such cousins back into the main line to a degree. If, say, the sister of a Runestone Targaryen became the queen because she married her royal cousin the Runestone Targaryens might suddenly be very prominent and influential again.

They certainly did have a habit of marrying the offspring of Targaryen Princess to Lord marriages in the next generation. 

[GOTSeriesfan]

Summerhall had become a royal residence and because Maekar's father cherished it, so did he and Maekar's children died before their reign could last long and due to their family madness