If Viserys was serious about naming Rhaenyra his heir, he wouldn't have had more kids

[Canon Claude]

The problems began when Viserys chose to beget more children. Aegon's birth signified a problem with the line of succession. Having Rhaenyra be his only child would have forced the hand of every lord in the Seven Kingdoms. It would have avoided the Dance, and it would have forced the Seven Kingdoms to adopt progressive Dornish customs on lines of succession.

[Mad King Bolton]

never underestimate the power of a powerful old guy and an attractive young woman to go along with other power hungry members of an entourage.  nasty business.

[Lord Varys]

HotD addresses that issue rather succinctly - when Rhaenyra is declared Heir Apparent in 105 AC, House Targaryen is down to Viserys, his daughter, and childless and quarrelsome uncle Daemon. If they were to die without (more) issue, the throne would go to the Velaryon cadet branch.

Rhaenyra could easily die before marriage or in childbirth - which would create instability and potentially chaos. The prospect of a 'King Daemon' - either as a pretender or as Viserys I's sole remaining heir - is very troublesome to crucial members of the Small Council, after all.

For all those reasons King Viserys I needs more spares to ensure the survival of the dynasty. That is why he remarries. And if the family had gotten along then there wouldn't have been a succession war. It may have been easier to challenge Rhaenyra's succession because she was a woman, but to do it you need the motivation to do so.

Had their children had been of different sex, things may have gone very differently, as Aegon the Elder could have easily married Rhaenyra's eldest daughter had Jace been female. Or Rhaenyra could have taken Aegon himself as a second husband had they liked each other more.

[frenin]

7 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

The problems began when Viserys chose to beget more children. Aegon's birth signified a problem with the line of succession. Having Rhaenyra be his only child would have forced the hand of every lord in the Seven Kingdoms. It would have avoided the Dance, and it would have forced the Seven Kingdoms to adopt progressive Dornish customs on lines of succession.

What is she dies?

[Farstrider]

Viserys could have done better and done right by his successor.  Step down and give the kingdom to Rhaenyra.  It's what I would have done. 

[SaffronLady]

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

What is she dies?

Then we get King Daemon Targaryen. And oh boy, that would be even more of a ruckus than Maegor, even if he doesn't become as cruel.

[frenin]

4 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Then we get King Daemon Targaryen. And oh boy, that would be even more of a ruckus than Maegor, even if he doesn't become as cruel.

Hence the need to have more children besides Rhaenyra.

[Lord of Oldstones]

9 year difference isnt big deal in asoiaf world with weird marriages all around. He was simply naive and stupid not to marry his eldest chidren together.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Lord of Oldstones

[James Steller]

8 hours ago, frenin said:

What is she dies?

To be fair, how likely was she to die? It’s not like she’s fighting battles or pulling stupid stunts like drunk horse racing on cobblestone streets.

Also, even if Rhaenyra did inexplicably die, what exactly was Daemon going to do that was worse than Maegor? Aegon II is a vindictive perverted drunk who spends his time hanging out in the sordid alleys of Flea Bottom. Was he that much better than the prospective King Daemon?

[James Steller]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If they were to die without (more) issue, the throne would go to the Velaryon cadet branch.

 

So? Why is that so bad? Rhaenys would have been a decent queen.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, James Steller said:

So? Why is that so bad? Rhaenys would have been a decent queen.

It's realistically the end of "House Targaryen", which would presumably bother him.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

19 hours ago, Mad King Bolton said:

never underestimate the power of a powerful old guy and an attractive young woman to go along with other power hungry members of an entourage.  nasty business.

Just an older man who slept with a young wife and got her pregnant.  He underestimated the Hightowers' ambition or he would have been more deliberate in bed. 

[James Steller]

33 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

It's realistically the end of "House Targaryen", which would presumably bother him.

No it wouldn’t. Laenor and Laena would take the Targaryen name.

[KingMaekarWasHere]

20 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

The problems began when Viserys chose to beget more children. Aegon's birth signified a problem with the line of succession. Having Rhaenyra be his only child would have forced the hand of every lord in the Seven Kingdoms. It would have avoided the Dance, and it would have forced the Seven Kingdoms to adopt progressive Dornish customs on lines of succession.

Yes I agree...Viserys I was no doubt not very good at planning for the future. Put him up there with Aegon IV and Aerys II. 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Lord of Oldstones said:

9 year difference isnt big deal in asoiaf world with weird marriages all around. He was simply naive and stupid not to marry his eldest chidren together.

That would have been a pretty big gamble. Such a marriage could only be consummated when Aegon was 12-13, one imagines, meaning we talk about Rhaenyra being 22-23 by the time of her first (possible) pregnancy. Who is to say she would even live that long? And what would be the point to postpone the conception of royal grandchildren for almost ten years?

Stability means the Heir Apparent himself/herself produces more potential heirs so the succession is rock tight even if tragedy strikes repeatedly - like it did during the reign of the Old King.

3 hours ago, James Steller said:

So? Why is that so bad? Rhaenys would have been a decent queen.

But Rhaenys and her children are literally the end of the rope. There would be nobody left after Laenor and Laena. In 105 AC Laena and Laenor are also still children, only a couple of years older than Rhaenyra. That wouldn't do. Also, with the whole Great Council thing it would have been a very shaky situation to see the throne revert back to a line that had been twice passed over now.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

It's realistically the end of "House Targaryen", which would presumably bother him.

Don't think that was an issue, but simply that King Viserys I needed (and wanted) heirs of his own that weren't the children of brother Daemon or cousin Rhaenys. Which is completely normal in a dynastic setting. Robert also doesn't decide to not father children because he has two younger brothers who could do the job for him.

1 hour ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Just an older man who slept with a young wife and got her pregnant.  He underestimated the Hightowers' ambition or he would have been more deliberate in bed. 

Hightower ambition there is not necessarily worse or more extreme than the ambition of any other house in their position. It is the fact that the people in question - the royal family - didn't get along, not so much the fact that people were ambitious.

Any noblewoman in Alicent's position would have tried to advance her children, and her ability to do it was actually pretty limited as she was but a Hightower from a lesser branch of the family. Had Viserys I remarried to Laena Velaryon or, say, a widowed Princess Rhaenys they would have been equally or even more ambitious for their sons. Ditto if he had chosen the daughter or sister of a great lord.

1 hour ago, James Steller said:

No it wouldn’t. Laenor and Laena would take the Targaryen name.

That is not confirmed - but it is irrelevant, anyway, as neither would be the child or descendant or even nephew of King Viserys I Targaryen.

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, James Steller said:

No it wouldn’t. Laenor and Laena would take the Targaryen name.

Will they? The name change is Viserys' deal with Corlys regarding Rhaenyra and Laenor's children, why would that still be the case if it was Rhaenys who took the throne?

[SaffronLady]

Personally, though, House Velaryon of King's Landing, Dragonstone and Driftmark doesn't sound quite bad.

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, KingMaekarWasHere said:

Yes I agree...Viserys I was no doubt not very good at planning for the future. Put him up there with Aegon IV and Aerys II. 

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that he did a pretty good job at planning for the future, but there wasn't a lot he could do to stop his wife and his most trusted friends and household members actively ignoring his clearly-expressed wishes when he died.

If Otto and Alicent had accepted Rhaenyra's claim to the Iron Throne and supported her both during Viserys's life and upon his death, there might have been some provincial grumbling but the realm at large would have swallowed it, given how long they had to get used to the idea. Rather, the realm at large seemed happy enough to accept Rhaenyra as heir apparent over Daemon on grounds of apparent merit. Indeed, if they had actively encouraged their sons to support Rhaenyra's claim rather than foster resentment towards her, house Targaryen would have been stronger than ever during her resulting reign. It would probably have also helped if Rhaenyra had been on the spot when Viserys died, rather than hanging out on Dragonstone, possession being nine-tenths and all that.

Other than simple male-preference prejudice, there was no particularly good reason why Aegon should be preferred over Rhaenyra. If the realm at large was really dedicated to the principle of agnatic primogeniture above all else, then Daemon's party should have been much larger and more influential than it was. But most lords (including, perhaps especially, Otto!) seemed perfectly happy to accept Rhaenyra as heir apparent in place of Daemon apparently on grounds of merit and character, something that was later ignored when it came to promoting Aegon's claim. In terms of experience and character, Rhaenyra was far superior to Aegon at every stage of their respective lives, and indeed Aegon turned out to be one of the worst kings Westeros ever had. Now, there might be an argument that this was down to how they were raised, but again I think that has to fall on Otto and Alicent as much as anything. If they were indeed angling for Aegon to inherit, they should have educated him properly in statecraft to make sure he was actually capable of doing the job, and perhaps winning support on merit rather than just sex. Otto certainly knew enough about statesmanship to do so even if Viserys wasn't going to do it himself.

There is a potential problem of Aegon's branch becoming the figurehead for rebellion in a similar way to the Blackfyres... but again, that comes down largely to character and parental influence. There might be ambitious lords whispering in Aegon's ear (or Jaehaerys's, when he comes of age) that they are the rightful heir, but it's up to them whether they listen. Aegon et al needn't have been Daemon Blackfyres to Rhaenyra's Daeron; they could have been a Bloodraven, or a Dragonknight, or a Maekar, putting their weight behind Rhaenyra's rule for the good of the dynasty. Imagine if Alicent's kids had supported Rhaenyra the way Daeron and Aemond supported Aegon. Even a performance along the lines of a Maegor or Daemon (Targaryen), a somewhat discontented loose cannon who is nevertheless willing and able to act as the Throne's enforcer when it matters, would have been sufficient. Instead, Alicent's children became the only trueborn Targaryens in Westerosi history to raise arms against their elder sibling's claim.

Viserys wasn't entirely blameless, but in my view at least, the succession crisis came about largely despite him, rather than because of him.

[SeanF]

There was nothing wrong with having spare children.  The problem is the Hightowers were shits.

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Will they? The name change is Viserys' deal with Corlys regarding Rhaenyra and Laenor's children, why would that still be the case if it was Rhaenys who took the throne?

That is only in the show. It certainly does make sense, but if such a deal was made in the book in 113 AC or when Corlys and Rhaenys married back in 90 AC we don't know.

Rhaenyra was the Heir Apparent when she married Laenor, so there the name of the dynasty might have been an issue then ... when Rhaenys married Corlys her father Aemon was still alive and Heir Apparent and could technically still produce sons (either with Jocelyn or with a hypothetical second wife).

In the end, though, the only person deciding how a King Laenor or a King Jacaerys would be called are those kings themselves. They would tell the world how they are to be called, and the world would obey.

My guess is that Laenor was quite comfortable with growing up as a Velaryon, so I'm not sure he would want to change his name upon taking the throne. With Jacaerys it is a bit different as his claim to the throne would go through his mother who had three younger Targaryen half-brothers. So in his case it might be more important to stress the Targaryen bloodline, unlike in Laenor's case since his mother was the only scion of Aemon's elder branch.