[Spoilers] Episode 106 Discussion

[EggBlue]

41 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

By the way, from what I have seen Helaena hasn't been particularly well-liked so far. Many are saying that she's a strange weirdo.

the only reason I can think of is that she was overshadowed by the other kids . they'll need more time to show she is as sweet as she is weird .. which unfortunately they don't have. 

[RumHam]

8 hours ago, Stenkarazine said:

Are the laws of Westeros codified somewhere ? Barring a few exceptions (Maegor's laws etc.), no

Sure they are. From Fire and Blood:

Quote

In the quiet of the Red Keep’s library, the king began work on what was to be one of the most significant of his achievements. With the able assistance of Septon Barth, Grand Maester Benifer, Lord Albin Massey, and Queen Alysanne—a foursome His Grace dubbed “my even smaller council”—Jaehaerys set out to codify, organize, and reform all the kingdom’s laws.

 

[The Bard of Banefort]

23 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Sure they are. From Fire and Blood:

 

I believe Viserys II also continued this task during his reign.

[Colonel Green]

10 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

That is probably the biggest argument that George R.R. Martin failed in his depiction there. Because I believe he was trying to do a critique of the Iraq War.

All the important issues in Slaver’s Bay, most obviously Daenerys dealing with the practical difficulties of trying to abolish slavery, predate the Iraq War by several years.

[Lord Varys]

Lots of laws are codified - but that just means that they have been written down and collected in a very big book - or multiple books.

It means you know what laws exist and what you should adhere to when doing justice.

But there is neither an Act nor a Law of Succession for the Iron Throne. There you have only precedent. No king ever created a binding law of succession which stipulated a clear line of succession.

Instead, all Westeros has for the royal succession are the precedents set by crowned kings and by the kings naming and acknowledging heirs.

[RumHam]

I mean the King's word is also law, no? So the idea of a law restraining what a king can do doesn't really make sense. But I'd bet non-royal succession laws are in there.

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Instead, all Westeros has for the royal succession are the precedents set by crowned kings and by the kings naming and acknowledging heirs.

In my opinion the king naming his heir outweighs precedent by quite a lot. It seems that way with all the threats to disinherit Rhaegar and Daeron II

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The one argument I hate is that the Ironborn parallel the Confederacy/KKK. The South was fertile, prosperous, and had equal representation in federal government. The Iron Islands are impoverished, barren wastelands that the crown completely ignored and granted no political influence (not a single Ironborn council member) or aid even after centuries of loyalty. They have good reason to hate the rest of Westeros.

I have not heard that argument.  I agree, the Iron Islands have nothing in common with the Confeseracy.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I have not heard that argument.  I agree, the Iron Islands have nothing in common with the Confeseracy.

They're actually quite good as an example of Post-Confederacy life as they're pursuing a nostalgia-driven self-destructive romanticized view of the past that inhibits their economic as well as cultural growth.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

I mean the King's word is also law, no? So the idea of a law restraining what a king can do doesn't really make sense. But I'd bet non-royal succession laws are in there.

Historically, kings did feel kind of bound by earlier Laws and Acts of Succession (a very good example is the sudden stop of female Tsars in the wake of the issue of a proper law of succession). It was a tendency, although hardly anything truly binding as the Anarchy shows - Matilda was the heir, but Stephen usurped the throne, Henry VIII did rule on his succession, establishin a line of succession among his children (Edward-Mary-Elizabeth) but King Edward VI tried to rule on his own succession again, naming Jane Grey his heir.

Mostly the royal succession worked like the way it does in Westeros, too. A guy has a son or a brother and makes it known that this son or brother is his heir (some time) before he dies. Who would be the heir and successor if the chosen and anointed heir was to die prematurely was always in the air. People would have speculated and prepared for that eventuality ... but it was rarely something that was as set in stone as, say, the modern British succession. If William were to bite the dust before Charles III we know who would be next in line. Nobody would have to make a decision between Harry and George. It is already made.

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

In my opinion the king naming his heir outweighs precedent by quite a lot. It seems that way with all the threats to disinherit Rhaegar and Daeron II

I meant that crowned kings provide the ultimate precedent in their person. Aenys realized his father's decision to make his eldest son his heir and successor. Maegor established a precedent for usurpation by successfully stealing the throne.

But, yes, legally, the only thing limiting the power of the king in Westeros are natural laws, common sense, and his own imagination (and the latter really is Viserys' problem). Especially in relation to the succession. Nobody can forbid him to name any heir he wants. And depending how smart he goes about it - and how much power and time to make his will clear to his subjects - he could install a most unusual heir.

The success of Joffrey Arryn in the Vale shows how much power a simple testament can wield when supported by a significant number of powerful people.

Rhaenyra's succession would have gone very smoothly and without problem if Otto Hightower hadn't been recalled. Alicent wouldn't have been able to stop it if there hadn't been a Hand opposing the ascension of Rhaenyra.

Edit, kinda offtopic:

@C.T. Phipps, I started watching the Cyberpunk animé you mentioned somewhere earlier. Enjoy it very much so far - thanks for the mention! (Never played the game so far, but I worked on the German edition of the worldbook/guide thingy they have - so I know the world-building and I like it very much.)

Edited October 1, 2022 by Lord Varys

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

In western countries, maybe. But in countries like Japan, for example, there is still a huge debate over primogeniture. Under the current laws, the Japanese emperor's only daughter isn't allowed to inherit, so the throne will pass to his brother and then the brother's son.

Also, Spain has a male preference system, where a female can inherit the throne only if there is no male heir.

Yeah neither of these have anything to do with Martin's world.  You're talking about ceremonial heads of state.  It's trivial.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

purposes of containment

That's always been the point. And the slaveocracy wasn't having it.  Which is always the point.  From the gitgo they started the shooting.  Which is also the point.  And now I go away because this isn't the place to reshoot from the gitgo the war of the rebellion.  And West Virginia didn't have a slave black population, which is no argument about the slaveocracy and Lincoln -- and what WV is now ....

[The Bard of Banefort]

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

They're actually quite good as an example of Post-Confederacy life as they're pursuing a nostalgia-driven self-destructive romanticized view of the past that inhibits their economic as well as cultural growth.

I was going to type out a really long response, but I think my original post already explained why I think the two are very different. The South had plenty of political and economic incentives to reform, the Iron Islands had none. The crown completely failed in their duties there.

[C.T. Phipps]

18 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I was going to type out a really long response, but I think my original post already explained why I think the two are very different. The South had plenty of political and economic incentives to reform, the Iron Islands had none. The crown completely failed in their duties there.

I mean, speaking as a Southener, the South didn't.

 

[HOTDfresher]

My 2 cents on the issue of legitimacy of Rhaenyra- Harwin kids:

Records & documentation matters & are the ultimate evidence. Marriages have contracts, especially, royal ones. Births are registered. Laenor Valeyron claims the kids as his own legally. His Valeyron family also claims them as their own. Viserys the King himself accepts them as his legitimate grandsons. So it doesn't matter whether they are not Laenor's kids. 

My interpretation of Viserys saying the consequences of such accusations will be dire when Allicent is accusing that Rhaenyra's kids are not Laenor's is that the consequences for the accusers will be dire, not Rhaenyra & her kids. Laenor, Rhaneyra & if called for even Harwin are not going to claim that the kids are of Harwin however non-Targaryen they may look. No one is going to admit to it. 

I think the one so-called "evidence " of looks is infinitely trumped by the evidence of both Jacareys & Lucerys being dragon-riders. This is conclusive gene that is present & essential for the Targaryens & both Rhaenyra & Laenor are dragon riders. 

So if the Greens, especially, Allicent actually legally try to disinherit Rhaenyra's kids then they will be the one who will be found to be committing treason in order to make her own son the heir. Hence they never legally try this route & only ever perpetuate rumours about it. 

 

Actually I am astounded that the Hightowers didn't seem to have a clause in the marriage contract with Viserys that if Allicent births a son, then , he should be named as heir. This is something that should have been clarified in the marriage contract just like Viserys & Corlys were negotiating about the heir taking the name Targaryen instead of Valeyron. Otto's assumptions about Viserys decisions were essentially wrong & came to bite him in the ass.

Edited October 1, 2022 by HOTDfresher
Edit

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

Just for giggles.

Anyone else hoping Aegon the second starts behaving like a Royal macaron? Just completely foppish and obsessively polishing his “scepter”, at, above, or beside, unsuspecting people?  like maybe the coin toss on this king got flipped, fumbled, and landed in something sticky. 
 

[C.T. Phipps]

1 hour ago, HOTDfresher said:

Actually I am astounded that the Hightowers didn't seem to have a clause in the marriage contract with Viserys that if Allicent births a son, then , he should be named as heir. This is something that should have been clarified in the marriage contract just like Viserys & Corlys were negotiating about the heir taking the name Targaryen instead of Valeyron. Otto's assumptions about Viserys decisions were essentially wrong & came to bite him in the ass.

Part of what I like about Otto's betrayal is that while Alicent is the more Cersei-like, he's the definition of "You're not as smart as you think you are."

1. The scene on Dragonstone where he wasn't prepared for Daemon just to flat out murder him (and subsequent events show he was prepared to do so).

2. Otto seemingly never imagined Viserys would love his daughter more than a son because it's against the patriarchy's values.

One of the Youtube reviewers I watch, Pilar, actually was surprised in the 21st century that he would pass over a son.

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

23 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The scene on Dragonstone where he wasn't prepared for Daemon just to flat out murder him

Daemon: “This egg? You want this egg? Ok. Just take it. Come on it’s right here. Just cross the line.

Daemon quickly stands in front of sign that reads -Trespasser’s will be violated.-Poacher’s lose a hand-

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, HOTDfresher said:

My 2 cents on the issue of legitimacy of Rhaenyra- Harwin kids:

Records & documentation matters & are the ultimate evidence. Marriages have contracts, especially, royal ones. Births are registered. Laenor Valeyron claims the kids as his own legally. His Valeyron family also claims them as their own. Viserys the King himself accepts them as his legitimate grandsons. So it doesn't matter whether they are not Laenor's kids. 

My interpretation of Viserys saying the consequences of such accusations will be dire when Allicent is accusing that Rhaenyra's kids are not Laenor's is that the consequences for the accusers will be dire, not Rhaenyra & her kids. Laenor, Rhaneyra & if called for even Harwin are not going to claim that the kids are of Harwin however non-Targaryen they may look. No one is going to admit to it. 

I think the one so-called "evidence " of looks is infinitely trumped by the evidence of both Jacareys & Lucerys being dragon-riders. This is conclusive gene that is present & essential for the Targaryens & both Rhaenyra & Laenor are dragon riders. 

So if the Greens, especially, Allicent actually legally try to disinherit Rhaenyra's kids then they will be the one who will be found to be committing treason in order to make her own son the heir. Hence they never legally try this route & only ever perpetuate rumours about it. 

 

Actually I am astounded that the Hightowers didn't seem to have a clause in the marriage contract with Viserys that if Allicent births a son, then , he should be named as heir. This is something that should have been clarified in the marriage contract just like Viserys & Corlys were negotiating about the heir taking the name Targaryen instead of Valeyron. Otto's assumptions about Viserys decisions were essentially wrong & came to bite him in the ass.

Marriage negotiations would presumably have foundered, had they insisted upon that clause.

Alicent made war inevitable, by insisting that Rhaenyra’s children were illegitimate.

[HOTDfresher]

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Part of what I like about Otto's betrayal is that while Alicent is the more Cersei-like, he's the definition of "You're not as smart as you think you are."

1. The scene on Dragonstone where he wasn't prepared for Daemon just to flat out murder him (and subsequent events show he was prepared to do so).

2. Otto seemingly never imagined Viserys would love his daughter more than a son because it's against the patriarchy's values.

One of the Youtube reviewers I watch, Pilar, actually was surprised in the 21st century that he would pass over a son.

Otto is definitely a case of "you are not as smart as you think you are". Especially his perception that he can manipulate Viserys into doing what he wants. Viserys allows Otto to do what Otto wants as long as it aligns with his own wishes. 

Viserys loves Daemon but he knows he wouldn't be suitable as a ruler. So he doesn't officially name him his heir even before Aemma's death. He is still hoping to have a son. After Aemma's death, Daemon's suitability is not changed but Otto opens the option of Rhaenyra being Otto's heir. I believe even without the heir for a day incident, Viserys still would have named Rhaenyra his heir. Otto made it easier for Viserys. 

Viserys 2nd marriage- It seems to me that though Viserys didn't know that he was being manipulated by Otto-Allicent during a emotionally low phase, Viserys considered Allicent a better option than Laena because of her age as well as because he didn't want House Valeyron to gain an even more powerful position politically. There was a bit of a rivalry ongoing between these 2 houses. 

We saw how Viserys dealt with Otto when he reported about Rhaenyra- Daemon. I think Otto was thinking that like Jahaerys , Viserys too would place much importance on his daughters virtue & disinherit Rhaenyra. Otto already had overplayed his hand in epi 3 about Aegon II being the rightful heir over Rhaenyra. He really shouldn't have made this play. 

After all the episodes it is clear to me that Viserys loves Rhaenyra above everyone else. His turbulent relationship with Daemon became the most fractured after Daemon damaged Rhaenyra's reputation. Yes he & Rhaenyra had clashes for a while during epi 3-4, but those were because of the fallout of his marriage to Allicent & otherwise typical teenage rebellion phase of Rhaenyra. By epi 5 , they were back on the same page. And we see in epi 6, that after 10 years their relationship is still loving. 

 

[HOTDfresher]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Marriage negotiations would presumably have foundered, had they insisted upon that clause.

Alicent made war inevitable, by insisting that Rhaenyra’s children were illegitimate.

Yes. If the Hightowers had insisted the negotiation for the male child from Allicent being named as heir, their scheme would have been exposed before the marriage itself. 

Allicent's jealousy of Rhaenyra is tragic. She projects her own insecurities & possible evil intentions on Rhaenyra & uses that assumptions to be on the offense. Rhaenyra herself has not given her any reason to believe that she would harm her kids.