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

[Lord of Oldstones]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Not when childbirth is the biggest killer for Targ women. Her mother and both her grandmothers died from birth complications likely exarbated by early conception. 

Even dynastically it would be better for her to wait.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

We have the quote from Jace, of course, at the start of the war: "they call us Strongs... but only Targaryens ride dragons". 

[Lord Varys]

40 minutes ago, Lord of Oldstones said:

Not when childbirth is the biggest killer for Targ women. Her mother and both her grandmothers died from birth complications likely exarbated by early conception. 

Even dynastically it would be better for her to wait.

Not that long. That would be extreme. They already waited quite some time with her only being betrothed and marrying around 16.

17 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

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.

Most people actually seem to overlook that Viserys I and his government faced a very different challenge in 105 AC than they did when Alicent's children were growing up.

Up until a lasting bond with the Velaryons is formed with the Rhaenyra-Laenor match Rhaenys/Corlys and their children form a potential rival power bloc in alliance with Daemon. The possibility of rebellion is on the table. It doesn't happen because Daemon and Corlys don't want to rebel ... but they controlled most of the dragons alive between them, with Viserys I's only dragonrider defender being his little daughter.

Overtime, that danger could only be reduced if Viserys I himself had a growing family of dragonriders to counter a potential Velaryon threat.

For that alone he needed to remarry.

And the Greens only become a really important/powerful faction as Alicent's children grow up and Vhagar passes from Laena Velaryon to Aemond Targaryen. Ditto, the whole thing only becomes a Black vs. Greens scenario after the Velaryons become part of Rhaenyra's faction with Daemon's daughters being betrothed to Rhaenyra's sons and Rhaenyra taking Daemon as her second husband.

If Laena had lived longer, and if she and Daemon had had sons rather or in addition to daughters, Rhaenyra's succession might have been challenged by Daemon and his son by Laena, and there could have been a succession war where Alicent's children stood with their half-sister against the Daemon's faction. If only Laenor had died it is conceivable that Rhaenyra would have taken Aegon the Elder or Aemond as her second husband to form a power bloc strong enough to keep Daemon and his son(s) in line.

This thing could have played out quite differently.

17 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

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.

I think that is something they couldn't really do. Aegon the Elder wasn't the heir, and his father, King Viserys I, would have noticed it if Otto and Alicent had tried to groom the boy to be his successor. Old Viserys I gets apathetic and sickly and leaves the government more and more to Otto and Alicent ... but that only happens in the later 120s. Before that, he would have noticed it if his wife and father-in-law had actively tried to prepare for the role of king. And he would have stopped that.

More importantly, there is actually very little Otto and Alicent could do to prepare for the role of king. The king is the one keeping his heir close, training him for his role. If Alicent had taken Aegon along with her when she did queenly stuff in public, say, it wouldn't have had the same effect. Ditto with him spending time with Otto when he was doing Hand stuff.

Instead, it seems all Alicent's sons got was the proper education for second and third sons, that would be training at arms, training at serving their elder siblings who would one day be their liege lord/monarch, not so much a preparation for the ruling job itself.

We don't know much about the training of Aemon and Baelon - and less about that of Viserys and Daemon - but while Baelon always competed with his elder brother in a friendly fashion, it is equally clear that he was also taught that his elder brother would be king one day and all he could hope to do was to help him rule as Hand.

In that sense I'd say that Aegon II is what he is and couldn't have been (all that) different since his upbringing could never have been that of a proper Heir Apparent.

17 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

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.

That is something that could be prevented by arranging betrothals among Rhaenyra's and Aegon's children and grandchildren. Don't marry Jaehaerys and Jaehaera to each other, but Jaehaera to Aegon the Younger or Viserys, Maelor to Rhaenyra's Visenya (if she had lived), and Jaehaerys to a daughter of Jace and Baela.

21 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

We have the quote from Jace, of course, at the start of the war: "they call us Strongs... but only Targaryens ride dragons". 

Yes, but that is the specific context of the burgeoning succession war. If Rhaenyra had succeeded to the throne peacefully, and Jace had succeeded her in turn, he might have been very happy with his Velaryon name and identity. Even more so if Laenor had lived a long and happy life, serving Rhaenyra as prince consort, and later being a close advisor to King Jacaerys, outliving Rhaenyra.

That said - I did say that Jace's case is a bit different from Laenor's as his claim goes through his mother who happens to have younger half-brothers, meaning him being the eldest child of the eldest daughter and child of Viserys I Targaryen is what makes his claim strong, so they certainly would want to emphasize this. Aegon and his younger brothers are strong contenders for the throne in principle.

Laenor is the eldest son of the only child of the eldest son of Jaehaerys I which is a slightly different scenario. Also, he is the son of the richest man and most famous explorer of Westeros, something he might also want to honor, emphasize, and celebrate. As man with Targaryen looks and a dragonrider from early age he has all the Targaryen qualities ... he doesn't necessarily need the name.

Jacaerys Velaryon doesn't look like his father nor his mother. He has a stronger reason to stress the fact that he is a Targaryen by birth, his mother's son, than Laenor would. They are both dragonriders, but only Laenor 'looks the part'. 

[SaffronLady]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They would tell the world how they are to be called, and the world would obey.

With the potential challenge coming from other dragonriders being the exception.

[Lord Varys]

34 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

With the potential challenge coming from other dragonriders being the exception.

Well, even they wouldn't have any issues with the names they took, especially if Laenor Velaryon stuck with the Velaryon name.

And that Targaryen descendants don't have all that much of a 'Targaryen name fetish' - unlike certain people in the fandom - we can easily deduce from Daemon Waters going with the rather silly name of 'Blackfyre' rather than Targaryen. That is especially odd as he had two Targaryen parents and would thus have every right to go with his actual family name.

[Alester Florent]

On 12/28/2023 at 8:53 AM, Farstrider said:

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. 

Why?

That's not how monarchy generally works. Abdications happen, but voluntarily only when the monarch is exhausted and/or incapable. None of Viserys's predecessors abdicated for any reason, and I can't think of any examples from any of the pre-Targ kingdoms either. He died relatively suddenly, having been acting the jolly grandpa only a few hours before. And he was only 52 when he died, relatively young for a Targ to die of natural causes at least at that point in history. He could easily have lived another ten years or more, like his grandparents, or Aegon and Visenya.

The point at which people might legitimately have feared for his life was not long before he died, when he got the fever after the injury to his hand. But he seemed to be recovering well from that, at least outwardly, so still no reason to step down.

Note that this contrasts with the depiction in the show, where Viserys had obviously been seriously ill for a number of years prior to his death, with a chronic condition dating back decades; the show's Viserys also at least appears older than the book Viserys, as Paddy Considine was in his late 40s when he played the part and only really aged up, while in the books Viserys inherited the throne in his mid-20s and was still only 29 when he married Alicent. In the show, Daemon's protestation that the Greens have murdered Viserys seems ridiculous given that he was clearly hanging on by a thread when he last saw him; in the book, it's much more plausible (though still almost certainly untrue).

Edited December 29, 2023 by Alester Florent

[SaffronLady]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, even they wouldn't have any issues with the names they took, especially if Laenor Velaryon stuck with the Velaryon name.

Possibly. The name a king takes is sometimes the result of rather unexpected circumstances, though using it as an indicator of which power bloc the king associates himself with is possible from time to time. In the case a King Jacaerys Velaryon really happens, his opponents would be more likely to back a Targ than another member of the House of the Seahorse, if possible.

[frenin]

On 12/28/2023 at 6:01 PM, James Steller said:

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.

Likely enough to not roll the dice.

 

On 12/28/2023 at 6:01 PM, James Steller said:

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?

Well, dunno but every faction did agree on that he would be bad news on the throne.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

im not gonna read this becauae HE DID name her his heir. Period. It happened. It’s like if I said, “let’s to est dinner.” Then ate some chocolates and people were like, “You aren’t even serious about eating dinner,” even as I was leaving the house to go to dinner in front of them, which they could see with their own eyes. Yes, eating chocolates may complicate my appetite (line of succession) but it doesn’t change that I am going to eat dinner either way. 

[Alester Florent]

4 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

im not gonna read this becauae HE DID name her his heir. Period. It happened. It’s like if I said, “let’s to est dinner.” Then ate some chocolates and people were like, “You aren’t even serious about eating dinner,” even as I was leaving the house to go to dinner in front of them, which they could see with their own eyes. Yes, eating chocolates may complicate my appetite (line of succession) but it doesn’t change that I am going to eat dinner either way. 

This was my thought earlier too. In Viserys's mind, Rhaenyra is his heir, end of story. That there are some people who might try to persuade him to change his mind is irrelevant: people might try to persuade him to change any old law to favour them, but unless he does, the law's the law. His later children are spares, irrespective of sex, and they have no more right to supplant Rhaenyra as heir than any younger sibling.

[SaffronLady]

I know Westeros is a far cry from actual medieval politics, but Viserys' inheritance setup was woefully unstable. You don't make an unorthodox decision of heir ... and leave yourself in control of her greatest rival claimant's faction while your heir is away beyond the capital. It doesn't matter what should be done, it matters that as king for twenty years Viserys should have been able to take sibling rivalry and courtly ambitions into account when deciding if his will could and would be executed.

On a side note, the Chinese developed a super elaborate system of power checks and balances to ensure stability of succession. It was really inspiring to read about what succession struggles kept in check by a powerful bureaucracy looks like, and rather unfortunately affirms my belief Westeros does not have a powerful bureaucracy.

[Alester Florent]

2 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Westeros does not have a powerful bureaucracy.

FTFY

[SaffronLady]

16 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

FTFY

Giving how Petyr Baelish, Lord of a couple of hamlets and seaside rocks, rose via non-warfare means to become one of the most powerful men in the 7 kingdoms, Westeros has a bureaucracy, more or less. It's just not powerful enough to execute royal last wills when rival claimants rise to challenge the heir apparent.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 12/28/2023 at 1:34 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Rather pessimistic if that were true.  There are good people like Lord Beesbury and many more who put loyalty above raising their station.  Yes It is undeniable that the house of the Dragons have differences between them.  It was her father who put the thoughts in her head. 

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.

 

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Rather pessimistic if that were true.  There are good people like Lord Beesbury and many more who put loyalty above raising their station.  Yes It is undeniable that the house of the Dragons have differences between them.  It was her father who put the thoughts in her head. 

We don't really know to what degree Alicent's ambitions were prompted by Otto. The factionalism at court (Blacks vs. Greens) wasn't his doing as he left KL before those factions developed.

Alicent as a person shares the bulk of the blame that she didn't get along with her stepdaughter as Rhaenyra was yet very young when she married her father. She could have won her love and devotion if she had tried. That they started to hate each other is not because Rhaenyra was a natural asshole but rather because Alicent didn't want them to get along (no indication Rhaenyra ever bullied Alicent in the book - but for Alicent we have a number of toxic remarks recorded, e.g. the comment about her not being safe from Criston Cole, the comments about the looks of her children, etc.).

However, them not getting along isn't the same as one faction staging a coup. Daemon and Viserys I had their bad times, too, yet Daemon never rebelled nor did he try to depose his brother. But staging a coup goes not down to family affiliations outside the royal family but to ambition within the royal family. Alicent and Otto wanted to keep their status as queen and Hand, wanted to rule through/with their blood rather than be dependent on Rhaenyra's good will. They were not, in the end, acting on behalf of House Hightower. Rather they pushed Lord Ormund to support them, Lord Ormund didn't use them to increase the influence of House Hightower.

[Daena the Defiant]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:36 PM, Lord Varys said:

[...]

Most people actually seem to overlook that Viserys I and his government faced a very different challenge in 105 AC than they did when Alicent's children were growing up.

[...]

This was an excellent post. I thank you.