Aegon III should have abdicated (or been removed from power)

[Floki of the Ironborn]

As soon as Viserys showed up, it would have been clear that he was the far better candidate to be king. Aegon III is basically a brooding vegetable who occasionally acts out. He might not be the worst Targaryen king ever but he clearly didn’t want the responsibilities of kingship nor deal with his issues, which made him antisocial and inefficient. Plus his sons turned out to be awful as well. One waged a pointless and costly war and the other was a religious zealot who locked his sisters up in a vault. The Seven Kingdoms needed a powerful ruler who could push reform through, like Viserys eventually did. Imagine if he’d been able to do that for all the time wasted on Aegon, Daeron, and Baelor. 
 

If Aegon had had any self awareness, he’d have abdicated and let his brother take the crown instead. He would have still had to wait, but he would have actually been preparing to rule instead of moping around.

In fact, if Viserys had been a bit smarter, he’d have let Aegon throw himself off the Red Keep during the secret siege before pointing out the inaccuracies of Lord Rowan’s “confession”

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

I’ll not deny the Viserys II was a better ruler, but Aegon wasn’t bad at all. He was one of the better Targaryen Kings.

1. Daeron II

2. Jaeharys I + Alysanne

3. Viserys II

4. Aegon V

5. Jaeharys II

6. Aegon I

7. Aegon III

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

Plus if he abdicated then his sons would’ve gotten the thrones quicker. Perhaps Daeron I would’ve survived the war if it started earlier.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

1 minute ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

Plus if he abdicated then his sons would’ve gotten the thrones quicker. Perhaps Daeron I would’ve survived the war if it started earlier.

I’m saying he should have abdicated before his sons were even born.

[1000th Lord Commander]

Aegon III had moments of trying to impose his rule under the regents, but was shouted down by Unwin Peake. Until he came into his own rule, a lot of the issues of the Regency can easily be attributed to others trying to control him, which isn't uncommon for a boy king.

There are a few issues with what you propose. The first is that the Targs are suffering a lack of heirs in the first place. When Viserys is in Lys, there's no other heir to the throne, and it would still leave the Targs with no other heirs except the king.

The second is what happens to Aegon afterwards? Whatever he does short of suicide will leave him open for people to use him as a puppet whenever someone takes umbrage with what Viserys is doing on the throne.

The third is that it would extend the regency longer. There's been 6? years of instability due to the Regency, and the realm needs a King who can rule.

The last point I need to make is that in the only part of his personal reign we see, he acts boldly and decisively. He walks into the council session, kicks Manderly out of his chair, dismisses the Regents, and the Hand. Orders the end to his progress, the food to the hungry.

You may be right in the end, but I think we have to wait for Blood and Fire to know for sure.

 

[Floki of the Ironborn]

12 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

There are a few issues with what you propose. The first is that the Targs are suffering a lack of heirs in the first place. When Viserys is in Lys, there's no other heir to the throne, and it would still leave the Targs with no other heirs except the king.

Hence why I specified that it would have to happen after Viserys returned. 
 

12 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

The second is what happens to Aegon afterwards? Whatever he does short of suicide 

Frankly, I do think that would be his best option. Even in a world without therapy or understanding of mental health, he clearly doesn’t have any joy in living. Not that I would blame him, I’d have done the same in his shoes. I suppose he could go join the Nights Watch but he’d have the same issues there. But he was clearly not fit to rule.

12 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

The third is that it would extend the regency longer. There's been 6? years of instability due to the Regency, and the realm needs a King who can rule.

Assuming that things go the way I suggested (Aegon throws himself off the keep during the secret siege before Viserys points out the bs confession) then Viserys would have had Torrhen Manderly as his Regent for the next few years. And Torrhen was a capable man who could be trusted. 
 

12 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

The last point I need to make is that in the only part of his personal reign we see, he acts boldly and decisively. He walks into the council session, kicks Manderly out of his chair, dismisses the Regents, and the Hand. Orders the end to his progress, the food to the hungry.

I’ll grant you the food to the hungry order, but he also treats Manderly in a truly horrid way which turns him into a bitter enemy. After all he did to help his family during the civil war and then trying to give Aegon a chance to get out of his miserable self-loathing, that’s how Aegon treats him? That’s not bold and decisive, that’s an emotional teenager lashing out. Aegon might have had good intentions but intentions don’t mean anything if he can’t implement positive change. And given that he’s known as the Broken King, I doubt he’ll be successful. And his sons turn out even worse, which makes sense since they clearly didn’t have a great father figure. Viserys was the one holding things together while those three screwed things up. He should have been king from the start.

[Lord Varys]

Sounds like a stupid idea. It would destabilize the monarchy even more, prolong the Regency era until Viserys II came of age, and give the Realm a queen which doesn't even bother to learn the Common Tongue and keeps her own foreign gods.

Also, of course, Viserys apparently played a most crucial role during his brother's reign - and the reigns of his sons. So far there is no reason to believe Viserys would have ruled differently had he been king instead of Aegon III. Especially insofar as Aegon's policies were concerned - because we can assume that Aegon III made them all in close concert with his brother.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

I don't think it really matters, as both of them are on the same team.

[James Arryn]

Abdication is seen as a systemic breakdown, it’s a lose-lose scenario which entertains philosophical discussions about the nature of hereditary rule that hereditary rulers generally want to avoid at all costs. It almost always costs far more than it gains, at least from the ruling family’s perspective. 

[James Steller]

You're deliberately overlooking Aegon's positive traits. You speak like he was entirely apathetic and selfish, but we've seen time and again that he is neither of those things. Aegon sat at countless bedsides and listened to the sick, holding their hands as they recovered or died. That is not the action of the person you're describing. And you're underplaying the fact that Aegon cancelled an upcoming feast and distributed the food among the poor of King's Landing instead.

We don't know why he failed to implement serious changes. We don't know how hard he fought. We've gotten some brief descriptions, but we also have glimmers of a man who isn't always paralyzed by depression. He had to put up with multiple pretenders, the last remaining dragons, and who knows what else. You might as well hate Aegon V for not doing enough as well. Both those kings wanted to make things better for the people, but they had to deal with their own nobles. I won't judge Aegon III if he's smart enough to see that he can't trust his noblemen, that's the crux of his arc, dealing with power-hungry and ruthless men all his life. He's seen the worst of humanity, and he wants to make a change for the better. That's admirable as hell, and makes him a better man than even Jaehaerys was, frankly. 

[sifth]

Aengon III, seemed like a decent enough king. Not the best, but far from the worst. I don't recall the guy ever doing anything particularly evil, during his time in power.