Jump to content

House of the Dragon Flood Gates Open


Recommended Posts

Jaehaerys's traditionalism is a very stark aspect of the account of his reign in F&B, and explains a number of the places where he failed with his family -- and specifically, with his daughters. That he's sexist, despite also having a strong and collaborative relationship with Alysanne, is a genuine flaw in a king otherwise presented as exceptionally good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

I'm not sure about what you're saying regarding comparing apples to apples. If you're saying that the Alys Karstark argument (or the Hornwoods/Whents) doesn't apply to the Iron Throne succession laws, I disagree.

I thought I explained myself earlier but maybe I should give an example to make it more clear: if small house inheritance custom is your most sophisticated revolver ever to exist, than the royal house inheritance custom, in this particular instance the Targs, are the atomic bomb (which I think also is perfect since they do have the dragons as WMDs :P).

We will definitely disagree on the customs and traditions/ inheritance laws re: small house vs royal one, which you call “mechanisms of the land and title inheritance” because the stakes are incredibly different, and as you probably know by now from reading the J & Ally chapeters from F&B (awesome to see peeps rereading it btw!), the Targaryens do not see themselves quite that bound by the traditions or laws of the land, whatever those may be.

I also cannot honestly remember if I read an actual text of an inheritance law in Westeros in TWOIAF or F&B, only about traditions and customs that rule the inheritance process, but I don’t deny there is one as it is often mentioned that they exist. Feel free to post the text if you found one, so we can all take a look and see on what we are truly debating here rather than the interpretation of some hearsay from an unreliable master :D.

I’m not here on this topic to be right to be honest, I’m here to discuss it and see what I forgot. I always just assumed these were not actually codified into laws.

14 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

I agree with a Lord Varys saying this is not a revolutionary concept.

I did understand to which portion you agreed from Lord Varys' concept. The example itself that you gave was the issue.

 

15 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Rhaenys lost the vote at the Great Council but the fact she was even considered as a possible heir shows that women can inherit, and it's perfectly legitimate for them to inherit.

Theoretically it may seem like that. practically not. As you probably read:

Quote

The laws of Westeros (…) they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory. A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

For IT and going by Martin's above quote: to me it seems that a female possible heir only has a "claim", unlike a male. She does not automatically inherit, because the "law" according the Martin is vague, and if we go by tradition so far all we have is male kings. Also all male relations are free to contest it and looking at the Great Coucil they do. I'm not sure how accurate it is to say the females are a legitimate heir. The dude to was not Jaehaerys son had a "claim" as well, and I doubt anyone thought he was a legitimate heir.

Anyway, I seem to agree with Col Green and he has spoken on the matter more eloquently than I ever could so I end my wall of text here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

You can't ignore it, because that is a huge part of the cultural context in which all of these characters exist.

That's also true for our middle ages, no? The Targaryens didn't look to how the Starks or Lannisters or Arryns used to do things to order their own affairs - they and their subjects looked how earlier Targaryen kings and the Lords of Dragonstone did things.

For the succession in the various noble houses the histories certainly may have been important (although less so after Jaehaerys I unified the laws) but not for the Iron Throne.

4 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

If GRRM wants us to understand Westeros as having had female monarchs, he has to give evidence of them. When you write multiple elaborate histories and come up with exactly one female monarch in 8000 years, you're saying something.

Sure enough ... although the fact that a Sunderland with a brother set herself up as queen during the Conquest kind of hints at the fact that there were regions in the pre-Conquest Seven Kingdoms were female rule was not anathema.

When we discuss Rhaenys and Rhaenyra's investiture as Heir Apparent in 105 AC then we don't really talk female monarchs but more blood claims through the female line. Rhaenys basically defends the rights of her unborn son(s) in 92 AC and later champions her son's cause, not her own. And while Rhaenyra's installation as Heir Apparent could result in her becoming monarch one day ... it could just as well mean that the throne is going to pass from Viserys I directly to a grandson through Rhaenyra.

The idea that a king would have to treat a quarrelsome, unstable, and unpopular brother as his presumptive heir rather than a child of his body is just very much unnatural in this context.

We see it in the novels that girls and women are treated and seen as heirs in the absence of men - Shireen, Myrcella, 'Arya', Sansa, etc. all are seen as eligible to inherit - both as rulings ladies and as ruling queens.

4 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

It wasn't "her grandfather's whim", her grandfather's opinions were a manifestation of the glass ceiling, i.e., an ideology that women are second class citizens and not suited to sitting the throne.

I don't think we should view it in that way. Jaehaerys made an emotional and popular choice when naming Baelon his heir after he return from avenging his elder brother. This was a decision for Baelon, not a decision against Rhaenys. And it was a decision only forced on him because of Aemon's untimely death. If Aemon had lived, Rhaenys would have succeeded him.

In context, I don't think Rhaenys' sex played the biggest role there - Jaehaerys apparently also considered Vaegon as his heir in 101 AC, indicating he wanted a son to succeed him, not a grandchild (regardless whether male or female). You can compare that to the Great Council choosing Aegon V over Maegor or Aerys II's decision for Viserys rather than Aegon. A grandchild is usually younger and may be less experienced at statecraft, not as well-known or popular among the lords and people, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ran said:

Jaehaerys's traditionalism is a very stark aspect of the account of his reign in F&B, and explains a number of the places where he failed with his family -- and specifically, with his daughters. That he's sexist, despite also having a strong and collaborative relationship with Alysanne, is a genuine flaw in a king otherwise presented as exceptionally good.

I really don't think you have him view him like that. He certainly preferred his sons to his daughters, but we don't know if he actually opposed the idea that Rhaenys should succeed a King Aemon. The guy wasn't particularly progressive but I think the fact that he apparently had considered Vaegon as his heir in 101 AC implies that he just felt 'the normal order of things' was that a man is followed by his son, not a daughter or a grandchild. He wanted things to go in that fashion.

And while he certainly had less ability to understand or empathize with his daughters (although Alysanne is clearly the one to be blamed for Viserra's fate), he also seemed to have never been able to understand Vaegon. I guess we should take away there that his ability to accept or deal with what he viewed as 'unnormal', 'queer' or 'easily fitting into well-known categories' wasn't exactly well-developed.

Alyssa behaving like a boy and training in the yard, etc. didn't irritate him at all, apparently.

Towards Alysanne he behaved like an elder brother, desiring to protect her (he apparently considered the idea that Alysanne might ride into war on Silverwing ridiculous - both when he told Rhaena that he and she would have to deal with the Braavosi, and when he mocked his wife's desire to force the Lyseni to give up Saera) but he didn't have the same attitude towards Rhaena. And, one imagines, also not towards his mother. We don't know what happened between them in that private conversation, but Jaehaerys must have known he owed his throne to his mother. In more than one fashion.

Perhaps that was a little bit too much for his ego - especially since his and Alysanne's childhood in captivity and on the run likely formed him into a character who was very reluctant to allow others to control his fate - but I don't think the only possible interpretation there is that Jaehaerys basically insulted and humiliated his mother behind closed doors before forcing her to return to Lord Rogar.

Rather it may have been an awkward and unpleasant reunion, with Alyssa being done as a political figure because Rogar's betrayal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree there’s no hard and fast rule against female inheritance, even though a male is the preferred option.

No Targaryen or Baratheon after Rhaenyra can deny her legitimacy as a ruler, without denying their own, as she is their common ancestor.

Stannis calling her a traitor is especially stupid, given that he treats Shireen as his heir.  Now, I expect Stannis would expect her to be married to a capable man, who would do a lot of the ruling, but she is the heir to the Seven Kingdoms, in his eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Ran said:

Jaehaerys's traditionalism is a very stark aspect of the account of his reign in F&B, and explains a number of the places where he failed with his family -- and specifically, with his daughters. That he's sexist, despite also having a strong and collaborative relationship with Alysanne, is a genuine flaw in a king otherwise presented as exceptionally good.

Yeah, and I think this shows that Viserys was a genuine progressive in this respect. I’ve seen people try to write him off as just “avoiding conflict,” but that clearly wasn’t the case—by the end of his reign, he had his wife, four children, and most of his small council and kingsguard in favor of him changing the succession, and he still refused. Plus he also prepared Rhaenyra for rule, bringing her to council meetings, taking her on progresses, etc., none of which we hear about Jaehaerys doing with his own daughters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

One thing George acknowledged in the Hollywood Reporter article is that for all the talk of grey characters, GOT did have clear-cut heroes from the beginning. He swears that isn’t the case here.

On the other hand, some people have complained that all the Dance-era characters are so unlikable that it's impossible to root for any of them. So I think the best thing HotD can do is to find some sort of middle ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I tend to agree there’s no hard and fast rule against female inheritance, even though a male is the preferred option.

No Targaryen or Baratheon after Rhaenyra can deny her legitimacy as a ruler, without denying their own, as she is their common ancestor.

Stannis calling her a traitor is especially stupid, given that he treats Shireen as his heir.  Now, I expect Stannis would expect her to be married to a capable man, who would do a lot of the ruling, but she is the heir to the Seven Kingdoms, in his eyes.

While it is kind of silly of Stannis to do it, if you think about what makes and defines kingship - which, in the end, is that they are properly crowned and anointed - then Aegon II has the upper hand. He was crowned and anointed first and he killed Rhaenyra.

If you take a more complex view of the matter, it seems clear that crowning Aegon II king was treason ... but after it was done it wasn't really treason to acknowledge and accept Aegon's kingship. He was properly crowned and anointed, after all. Even Cregan Stark acknowledges as much.

21 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Yeah, and I think this shows that Viserys was a genuine progressive in this respect. I’ve seen people try to write him off as just “avoiding conflict,” but that clearly wasn’t the case—by the end of his reign, he had his wife, four children, and most of his small council and kingsguard in favor of him changing the succession, and he still refused. Plus he also prepared Rhaenyra for rule, bringing her to council meetings, taking her on progresses, etc., none of which we hear about Jaehaerys doing with his own daughters.

Jaehaerys did have three sons, two of which were ideally suited to rule. Viserys had to be pushed to make Rhaenyra his heir ... it wasn't something he was keen to do, but, sure, after he had done it he decided to stick to it no matter what.

It seems clear to me that Viserys would have never named or treated Rhaenyra as his heir had any of his sons by Aemma lived. When Aemma was pregnant with Baelon Rhaenyra was just a kind spare heir ... a possible alternative to Daemon should he die without heirs of his own. Since she was their only child she had to shoulder some of the responsibities that come with being a member of the royal family.

With Jaehaerys I think George kind of dropped the ball by not really fleshing out Aemon and Jocelyn - Jocelyn was the king's sister and the future queen, so we should imagine that as Jaehaerys prepared Aemon to rule, Alysanne prepared Jocelyn to follow in her footsteps. Unfortunately, we have no idea how close Jaehaerys was to his half-siblings, but in context one would imagine that Jocelyn was more in the center of Jaehaerys' attention than his younger daughters ... since the dynasty would be continued by Aemon-Jocelyn and Baelon-Alyssa. The other children were just spares.

And, of course, as Rhaenys grew older she should have also been more important than Alysanne's youngest daughters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

While it is kind of silly of Stannis to do it, if you think about what makes and defines kingship - which, in the end, is that they are properly crowned and anointed - then Aegon II has the upper hand. He was crowned and anointed first and he killed Rhaenyra.

If you take a more complex view of the matter, it seems clear that crowning Aegon II king was treason ... but after it was done it wasn't really treason to acknowledge and accept Aegon's kingship. He was properly crowned and anointed, after all. Even Cregan Stark acknowledges as much.

Jaehaerys did have three sons, two of which were ideally suited to rule. Viserys had to be pushed to make Rhaenyra his heir ... it wasn't something he was keen to do, but, sure, after he had done it he decided to stick to it no matter what.

It seems clear to me that Viserys would have never named or treated Rhaenyra as his heir had any of his sons by Aemma lived. When Aemma was pregnant with Baelon Rhaenyra was just a kind spare heir ... a possible alternative to Daemon should he die without heirs of his own. Since she was their only child she had to shoulder some of the responsibities that come with being a member of the royal family.

With Jaehaerys I think George kind of dropped the ball by not really fleshing out Aemon and Jocelyn - Jocelyn was the king's sister and the future queen, so we should imagine that as Jaehaerys prepared Aemon to rule, Alysanne prepared Jocelyn to follow in her footsteps. Unfortunately, we have no idea how close Jaehaerys was to his half-siblings, but in context one would imagine that Jocelyn was more in the center of Jaehaerys' attention than his younger daughters ... since the dynasty would be continued by Aemon-Jocelyn and Baelon-Alyssa. The other children were just spares.

And, of course, as Rhaenys grew older she should have also been more important than Alysanne's youngest daughters.

The way I see it, Aegon II’s bloodline was extinguished.  Rhaenyra’s bloodline inherited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The way I see it, Aegon II’s bloodline was extinguished.  Rhaenyra’s bloodline inherited.

That is true.

Dynastically it was an utter victory for the Blacks, thanks to the final 'intervention' of Unwin Peake.

I think in context it is wrong to frame this as man vs. woman but simply as one branch of the family against another. Especially since at the end of the wars the Blacks are the ones who support a male pretender while the Greens insist that the heir of Aegon II is Princess Jaehaera.

I don't think a victorious Rhaenyra would have changed the society all that much. Perhaps not at all. She was a special case and she had only sons. Rhaenyra's sons Aegon and Viserys didn't think that their claim going through their mother meant that they had any special obligations to their own daughters ... I doubt that would have been different if Rhaenyra had ruled for ten or twenty years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That's also true for our middle ages, no? The Targaryens didn't look to how the Starks or Lannisters or Arryns used to do things to order their own affairs - they and their subjects looked how earlier Targaryen kings and the Lords of Dragonstone did things.

For the succession in the various noble houses the histories certainly may have been important (although less so after Jaehaerys I unified the laws) but not for the Iron Throne.

It is important because laws and people's thoughts are shaped by the societies they come from, and Westeros has had essentially one female monarch in 8000 years. That tells you about their attitudes and expectations.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that a king would have to treat a quarrelsome, unstable, and unpopular brother as his presumptive heir rather than a child of his body is just very much unnatural in this context.

And yet that is what GRRM wrote, so you have to take what that says about Westerosi society seriously.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think we should view it in that way. Jaehaerys made an emotional and popular choice when naming Baelon his heir after he return from avenging his elder brother. This was a decision for Baelon, not a decision against Rhaenys. And it was a decision only forced on him because of Aemon's untimely death. If Aemon had lived, Rhaenys would have succeeded him.

In context, I don't think Rhaenys' sex played the biggest role there - Jaehaerys apparently also considered Vaegon as his heir in 101 AC, indicating he wanted a son to succeed him, not a grandchild (regardless whether male or female). You can compare that to the Great Council choosing Aegon V over Maegor or Aerys II's decision for Viserys rather than Aegon. A grandchild is usually younger and may be less experienced at statecraft, not as well-known or popular among the lords and people, etc.

GRRM seeds Jaehaerys' dislike of the idea of women ruling throughout his portions of Fire & Blood. It's one of the themes of that section. It was about Rhaenys' gender (Alysanne is certainly in a better position than anyone else to assess this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I liked the first teaser better than the new trailer. Part of my problem is that I never really cared much for dragons. To me, they’re just ugly flying lizards. They’ve always taken a back seat to the rest of the story. 

I’ve said this before, but I can only imagine how confused show-only people are by the trailer, especially considering how similar Daemon and Aemond look (they even have the same wig).

The showrunners are reeeally going to have to walk a fine line here if they’re going to frame this conflict as Alicent vs. Rhaenyra. I could easily see it turning into a “battle of the bitches” with both of them going crazy by the end (Alicent already looks crazy). As it is, I’m re-listening to the FnB audiobook right now, and it’s amazing how much of a slog the story becomes after Rhaenyra takes KL. It’s a lot of misery porn. 

Looking at the reactions to the trailer, it’s getting a lot of views but also plenty of negative comments (the complaints are split mostly between S8 and wokeness lol). I want to feel optimistic, but instead I’m mostly just apprehensive. I’m not convinced that everything will be fine and dandy just because D&D aren’t around, especially concerning women.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think I liked the first teaser better than the new trailer. Part of my problem is that I never really cared much for dragons. To me, they’re just ugly flying lizards. They’ve always taken a back seat to the rest of the story. 

I’ve said this before, but I can only imagine how confused show-only people are by the trailer, especially considering how similar Daemon and Aemond look (they even have the same wig).

The showrunners are reeeally going to have to walk a fine line here if they’re going to frame this conflict as Alicent vs. Rhaenyra. I could easily see it turning into a “battle of the bitches” with both of them going crazy by the end (Alicent already looks crazy). As it is, I’m re-listening to the FnB audiobook right now, and it’s amazing how much of a slog the story becomes after Rhaenyra takes KL. It’s a lot of misery porn. 

Looking at the reactions to the trailer, it’s getting a lot of views but also plenty of negative comments (the complaints are split mostly between S8 and wokeness lol). I want to feel optimistic, but instead I’m mostly just apprehensive. I’m not convinced that everything will be fine and dandy just because D&D aren’t around, especially concerning women.

 

D & D would give us a scene where Daemon was telling Alicent to play with Rhaenyra’s arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Jaehaerys's traditionalism is a very stark aspect of the account of his reign in F&B, and explains a number of the places where he failed with his family -- and specifically, with his daughters. That he's sexist, despite also having a strong and collaborative relationship with Alysanne, is a genuine flaw in a king otherwise presented as exceptionally good.

My take on Jaehaerys is that he's a very interesting case of a King viewed as wise and popular that mostly succeeded on the grounds of playing it safe. Enforcing the laws of primogeniture that he did was the path of least resistance for all of the nobility in Westeros to agree with him. It was something his family loathed but was codifying into law what was already precedent.

He's an interesting contrast to Aegon V AKA Egg in that Aegon V wanted to make wise decisions that were genuinely just and noble rather than expedient as well as popular, which resulted in all manner of disasters.

However, I'm not 100% behind Rhaenyra's fury over this because the entire system is bullshit to begin with. Arguing over which sex, man or woman, gets to rule because of their bloodline is already ridiculous so quibbling over fairness is pointless.

But I do think we can all agree this disaster is primarily on Viserys.

Re: Stannis

The more Martin wrote about Stannis, the more I've long since come to the conclusion that Davos utterly misread the man on every single level. Stannis is, in fact, a massive hypocrite and about as "lawful" as those fundamentalists who insist Jesus is behind their every action no matter how contradictory they are. Which is ironic given Stannis is an apostate to his own faith.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

It is important because laws and people's thoughts are shaped by the societies they come from, and Westeros has had essentially one female monarch in 8000 years. That tells you about their attitudes and expectations.

That is stretching things to a rather weird setting. Nobody in Westeros actually knows the history of the continent ... nor do we know that there was only one ruling queen there. We hear all that talk that a daughter usually comes before an uncle. That would mean that in quite a few of many kingdoms the history of Westeros saw there were female monarchs.

But again - this history is irrelevant since the very concept of hereditary monarchy includes the premise that if certain conditions are met there will be a female monarch. We see those again right now in the books where Shireen is going to be proclaimed queen should Stannis truly be presumed dead by his followers ... just as Myrcella is going to succeed Tommen if he were to die.

5 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

And yet that is what GRRM wrote, so you have to take what that says about Westerosi society seriously.

George wrote it so that the council of Viserys I pushed him to name Rhaenyra his heir to ensure that Daemon could not possibly succeed him. These people had no problems with the idea of a ruling queen if said queen were to be installed to prevent a monstrous monarch.

5 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

GRRM seeds Jaehaerys' dislike of the idea of women ruling throughout his portions of Fire & Blood. It's one of the themes of that section. It was about Rhaenys' gender (Alysanne is certainly in a better position than anyone else to assess this).

I think that's a wrong reading. Jaehaerys made a decision for Baelon, not against Rhaenys. He was better suited than she was. Jaehaerys didn't really believe in primogeniture, apparently, but in being succeeded by a son.

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

My take on Jaehaerys is that he's a very interesting case of a King viewed as wise and popular that mostly succeeded on the grounds of playing it safe. Enforcing the laws of primogeniture that he did was the path of least resistance for all of the nobility in Westeros to agree with him. It was something his family loathed but was codifying into law what was already precedent.

Jaehaerys didn't enforce 'the laws of primogeniture'. He made a hasty decision in 92 AC against primogeniture (primogeniture would have favored Rhaenys), and it bit him in the ass when Rhaenys and Corlys gave him a great-grandson because it meant there would be rivals to Baelon and his descendants.

In 101 AC he threw primogeniture down the toilet completely when he apparently asked Vaegon, his freak son with the winning personality and the manly interests, to become his new heir. And when the guy didn't want the job he washed his hands off the mess and had the lords decide the matter.

The decision for Viserys kind weakens primogeniture as a legal principle ... it follows both in the footsteps of Maegor's successful usurpation and Jaehaerys' own rise to the throne. Which were both popular choices backed by steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody in Westeros actually knows the history of the continent ... nor do we know that there was only one ruling queen there. We hear all that talk that a daughter usually comes before an uncle. That would mean that in quite a few of many kingdoms the history of Westeros saw there were female monarchs.

Plenty of people know the history of the continent.

GRRM has given us reams of information on the history of Westeros. There is only one unnamed ruling queen, and this is of a piece with the dearth of female heads of paramount houses. If the author wants us to think that other kingdoms had queens, there should be actual mentions of this.

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But again - this history is irrelevant since the very concept of hereditary monarchy includes the premise that if certain conditions are met there will be a female monarch.

No it doesn't. Again, this is completely ahistorical. Many monarchies did not allow women to succeed under any circumstances.

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I think that's a wrong reading. Jaehaerys made a decision for Baelon, not against Rhaenys. He was better suited than she was. Jaehaerys didn't really believe in primogeniture, apparently, but in being succeeded by a son.

No, it's not a wrong reading. Again, the issue of a potential female ruler is something that is threaded throughout the chapters covering Jaehaerys' reign, and it's very clear at every step that he doesn't like the idea.

 

Edited by Colonel Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Male line primogeniture then. Which is usually how it's interpreted historically.

Male line primogeniture also goes down the toilet when Jaehaerys turns to Vaegon rather than to immediately settle on Baelon's eldest son, Prince Viserys. And handing the entire question of the succession to the lords and promising them that the king would name their choice his heir turned this whole thing not into a question of law or tradition or precedent ... but literally into a popularity contest.

Of course - legal prattle and arguments were given and exchanged at the Great Council. But in the end it bottled down to a vote, like at a Kingsmoot or the choosing of a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. The lords there could have just as well chosen Jaehaerys' fake bastard son, one of Saera's bastards, or the guy who with 'strong blood ties' to Gaemon the Glorious through the female line.

We won't deny that the legal arguments about primogentiure and proximity played a certain role there, possibly influencing a good chunk of the lords present. But they would have been equally influenced by Viserys' winning personality (and also his tendency to follow the influence of the men around him which should allow many a lord milk the king for money, honors, offices, and titles), his age and experience (he was a man grown with a wife and child of his own who rode Balerion in his youth). Contrast all that with Laenor's young age and the necessity of a regency government and it might become clear why so many lords voted for Viserys.

As it happens ... exclusive male primogeniture is neither a law nor a principle supported by most precedents. Else the legal principle of 'a daughter comes before an uncle' would be completely unknown in Westeros.

It just so happened that up until 101 AC no forceful daughter could be put before her uncle. But there was only one such incident there ... Aerea vs. Jaehaerys, and that was convoluted by the fact that Maegor was usurper and Aerea's father Aegon not really counted as a king, so Aerea is, in the end, the granddaughter of King Aenys while Jaehaerys is his only surviving son.

What can be taken away about the succession issue from FaB basically is that there is no clear line of succession, that the only thing that's clear is that the firstborn son is usually the heir. Or whoever is formally named heir by the king. If anointed heirs like Aemon or Baelon die prematurely there is no automatism. The king doesn't immediately name 'the next in line' heir because there is no clear line of succession.

And that's not just the case for the throne but also with lordships - think about Corlys' succession after the death of both his children. Nearly ten years later there is no formally acknowledged heir of Driftmark despite the fact that Corlys has grandchildren from both his children.

We also have no idea who is the heir to Storm's End prior to the birth of Lord Royce. Is it one of Borros' daughters? Or some uncle or cousin?

In the main series Casterly Rock is the best example for this mess. Jaime technically is no longer heir to Casterly Rock ... but Tywin still treats him in this way and never named or acknowledged Tyrion as his heir. Hell, it is even quite clear that Tyrion doesn't think Tywin will ever give the lordship to Tyrion which implies he can, technically, withhold it from him, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Plenty of people know the history of the continent.

Well, they don't if they have just read Yandel. Because thousands of years of history are not properly dealt with a dozen names or so from each of the Seven Kingdom (and almost none from the older kingdoms).

I'm not saying there were armies of female monarchs in those kingdoms, but there must have been ruling queens in some of the older kingdoms or else the legal setup makes no sense.

But that certainly isn't something I can prove.

22 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

No it doesn't. Again, this is completely ahistorical. Many monarchies did not allow women to succeed under any circumstances.

All hereditary monarchies have to include the caveat 'but what when the only claimants are women/men through the female line?' The kingdom won't go away, and usurpation or revolution aside they would have then to deal with a female ruler or a ruler through the female line.

I'm sure you know about the various succession wars in European history - quite a few started because a king died childless and his closest relations were to be found in other royal houses who were related to the unfortunate monarch through the female line.

That's not just the story of the Hundred Years' War.

22 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

No, it's not a wrong reading. Again, the issue of a potential female ruler is something that is threaded throughout the chapters covering Jaehaerys' reign, and it's very clear at every step that he doesn't like the idea.

I really don't see that. Jaehaerys wants his sons to succeed him. That doesn't mean he has inherent problems with female rule. He just prefers men as rulers. And since he has sons that's not an issue.

Alysanne clearly would have liked them to introduce equal primogeniture like they have in Dorne. That's why she wants Daenerys, their eldest surviving child, to be the heir while she yet lives. But after Daenerys is dead Alysanne doesn't argue that, say, a younger daughter should come before an elder brother, right?

She also shows that tendency when Rhaenys is born and she welcomes her as 'our future queen' ... but since Aemon never produces a son nor a younger daughter his only heir is and remains Rhaenys. If Aemon had ruled, Alysanne's assessment there would have been correct despite the fact that they never introduced equal primogeniture

Just as Jaehaerys would have been followed by a daughter if Alysanne had only given birth to daughters.

I agree that Jaehaerys certainly could have also chosen Rhaenys as his heir in 92 AC. And he likely should have. But going with a child - be it male or female - of your own rather than a grandchild if the chosen heir died prematurely was actually not uncommon in the middle ages. The best English example would be King John prevailing over Arthur of Brittany.

One can also focus on the sexism there ... but I don't think it is a given that Jaehaerys would have made a different choice if Rhaenys had been a Rhaegar and male. After all, it seems he wanted his third son Vaegon as his heir in 101 AC rather than Viserys - and that's more telling, I think, than the Rhaenys incident since Vaegon's only positive feature there was him being the king's son.

Edited by Lord Varys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...