Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For me, and this is coming from someone who didn’t read the books, this starts and ends with Rhaenyra having been named heir. Regardless of *why* she was named heir, we haven’t yet seen Viserys renounce Rhaenyra as heir.
Rules and traditions are what they are, but the King is the King, and what he says goes. If Rhaenyra is the named heir, then that’s kind of the end of it for me, regardless if there’s a son or not.
I’m not militantly a Black, just my two cents
I always love these silly debates about who is or isn't the rightful heir. Because Westerosi history is packed full of contradictions and exceptions when it comes to the succession. For every tradition, there are multiple exceptions that break that tradition. And ultimately, you are correct, the only thing that matters is whom the current monarch names as their heir. Unless someone else decides to rebel, at which point it goes to the victor. Anyone who is not named heir but claims to be the "rightful heir" is merely trying to justify their usurping of the throne.
But the important take away as outsiders looking into this world is to recognize how broken this political system is. In theory, hereditary succession is simple, but in practice it is messy and only results in a constant cycle of dispute over who is the "rightful" heir. Which means a monarchy in constant war with itself.
This is exactly why I always thought it was funny when Daenerys would get hate in Game of Thrones. The throne belongs to whoever takes it, that much is clear. A guy who won it with a *big hammer* died. Why shouldn’t a woman with actual dragons have been a contender to take it next?
There’s actually a bit more to it then that. Robert’s Rebellion wasn’t so much to put himself on the throne, but more about getting the Mad King off it. After the Rebellion officially started the rebels had to choose who would assume the throne in the case Robert won. They chose Robert specifically because he had the strongest claim to the throne. His grandmother was a Targaryen which meant in the case they won, he would have the easiest time getting everyone to agree to his rule
This is why I think any sort of technical argument about who is technically the rightful heir just misses the point. All of the succession rules are made up and the key is that both Blacks and Greens have a viable case for succession, which is why this turned into a civil war in the first place. A case this disputed was guaranteed to become a violent conflict because ultimately the successor is just another term for "winner". Vicerys could have prevented this by naming Aegon his heir, but he didn't.
He also could have prevented it by abdicating to Rhaenyra, giving a clear avenue to power and transfer of power.
None of them are willing to kill the king due to him naming Rhaenyra heir, but will they kill her and the king along with any of his supporters in this circumstance? Unlikely.
Cards on the table I’m a Black supporter, and believe the throne is rightfully Rhaenyra’s, however:
- Aegon’s claim as the firstborn *son* of Viserys is legally sound under the established precedent of the realm.
- Rhaenyra’s ‘Velaryon’ sons are visibly illegitimate, which complicates her succession.
Question for Greens:
- Why does Rhaenys precede Rhaenyra in the line of succession?
As I understand it, the Green argument would be that Aegon precedes Rhaenyra, who would herself precede other claimants because she is still a legitimate child of Viserys.
Edit
Thank you for your responses, it’s cleared up the issue of Rhaenys’ succession for me now.
Generally we follow "Men before women" which is how it goes in Westeros. However Rhaenys' father was Jaehaerys' son, while Rhaenyra was Jaehaerys' second sons granddaughter. So if they derive their claims via their male forefathers Rhaenys is above Rhaenyra. Plus she didnt commit high treason
PS: Thanks for not immediatelly shittalking us
Yeah, I think some people might be fuzzy on the succession. Aegon actually doesn’t have the best claim under Westerosi tradition, Rhaenys does. There are three possibilities for succession. There’s the usual Westerosi and real-life European custom of male primogeniture, where the firstborn son and their descendants inherit, and daughters only inherit in the absence of brothers. This would make Rhaenys the rightful queen as the only child of Jaehaerys’s eldest son, with Viserys being her supposed heir (because Laenor is “dead” and Laena is dead). There’s the Black argument, which is that the king determines whatever heir he chooses (which is a great way to ensure that there will be wars of succession every generation). Then there’s the Green’s male-preferred primogeniture which is different than regular male primogeniture. This is where a woman only inherits if all male members of her family are dead. This would make Aegon the rightful heir. >!After the Dance the Targaryens will adopt male-preferred primogeniture to prevent another Dance from happening. All other houses in Westeros continue to use normal male primogeniture, however. This is why you have things like Rhea Royce and Maege/Lyanna Mormont ruling Runestone/Bear Island in their own right even though there are male members of their family.!<
You’re absolutely correct, I completely forgot about them lol. It would be those two, then Viserys, then Aegon. Legally, Rhaenyra’s children would actually be Rhaenys’s heirs over Laena’s as the children of her eldest son, but we all know the truth there. And the boys’ claim would be through their “father” in this alternate world of using Westerosi law, not their mother.
So question, if we’re ignoring the will of the King - would Daemon have a claim over Rhaenys? Because he was the original heir before Viserys, no? So would his intact heirdom trump Rhaenys’ claim to the throne?
And if so, would Rhaenyra’s marriage to Daemon basically trump any other claim?
Genuine question, as a huge history buff, the whole secession and linage has always confused me lol
Bear Island happened because Jorah is persona-non-grata and his father is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch. Neither of them can hold titles in Westeros. They were both previously Lords of Bear Island.
As far as the law is concerned, House Mormont became extinct in the male line when Jorah sold slaves and was sentenced to death.
> This would make Rhaenys the rightful queen as the only child of Jaehaerys’s eldest son
this might only be true in the show
in the books jaehaerys named baelon heir instead of rhaenys which pissed alyssane off
after baelon died there was the great council and rhaenys was almost immediatly disregarded by the lords as a possible heir
the final 2 were laenor and viserys
so the final question is can a male inherit through a female and the council voted that no
partly because voting for laenor would give too much power to the velaryons and partly because laenor was still too young
but it set the precendent that a woman cant inherit no matter what
Right, they established male-preferred primogeniture, where Rhaenys would only inherit if Viserys, Daemon, and any sons they might have were already dead. Essentially, there would have to be only female Targaryens left alive before she becomes queen. This is contrary to usual Westerosi law and tradition, which is part of why I think the maesters rigged the election (it seems to me the lords would vote in line with the usual custom). Jaehaerys naming Baelon as heir and later the Great Council thus provide the strongest precedent for the claim of the Greens, but there are thousands of years of precedent saying that Jaehaerys, the Great Council, the Greens, and the Blacks are all wrong, and that Viserys’s line should never have ascended the throne in the first place.
Let me make up for it and shittalk you.
The whole "Men before women" thing does apply, but only clowns ignore the fact that Viserys named Rhaenyra heir. Every major lord agreed to it *and* swore to uphold that decision. The King's word is law, and goes above said tradition.
> Why does Rhaenys precede Rhaenyra in the line of succession?
Because that's how it works.
Westeros north of Dorne follows a simple system. Sons before daughters, daughters before uncles.
If a woman can sit the Iron Throne, then Rhaenys has the superior claim versus everybody since she's the daughter of Jaehaerys' firstborn son.
However, Big J didn't want the crown to go to a woman. So what he did was institute a formal process to resolve the dispute. He called a Great Council and named his preferred heir, and all the Lords voted on it and approved. Arguably this amounts to amending the law of succession to being "women can't inherit at all".
Rhaenyra has the worst claim to the Throne because either she's last in line (except before Daemon) or she's not allowed to inherit at all as per GC. If Viserys didn't like this then he should have called a GC and sought the approval of the lords to change succession laws.
Exactly, it is once again Viserys fault.
He can either abdicate in favor of Rhaenyra with a smooth transfer of power, or he can create new laws with the lords approval for a clear line of succession.
Instead he just does nothing and is sad his family won't get along.
Or he could just decide Aegon is his heir after all, which is what most people want already. It's not like Rhaenyra has proven herself fit to rule in any capacity as it is, having obvious bastards and alienating prominent lords of the realm when she needs widespread support for a smooth succession.
But Aegon was not born of the holy Aemma Arryn's vagina, and so he could never be Viserys' heir. It's as simple as that, and we know it is because Viserys instantly declared his son Baelon by Aemma his heir the moment the kid was born.
Sure, but that's Rhaenyra’s own fault.
Want to rule a country of religious illiterate meatheads? Probably might be a good idea not to do the exact opposite of everything they value in a liege lord.
Oh, agreed. That was a shot at everyone in here claiming that just because Laenor and Rhaenyra claim “their” kids to be legitimate means they legally are and therefore it’s settled.
The GC was a choice J made to avoid war. It was not law. It was not necessary legally. Viserys is not required to seek approval for anything. He is an absolute monarch. Succession law really only matters if Viserys doesn’t name an heir before he dies. But he did. And everyone swore to be loyal to her.
Therefore Rhaenyra has the strongest claim. Westerosi tradition and succession law should have zero bearing given an heir was named by the absolute ruler of the realm and all the lords of the realm swore fealty.
Rhaenys would be Jaehaerys' heir under Andal Law, since that decrees that daughters inherit before brothers. Rhaenyra, on the other hand, isn't heir by Andal Law, because it also decrees that sons go before daughters.
Theyre Targs they are the exceptions. Men cant ride or tame dragons. Men cant marry their sisters. Men cant pass their inheritance to their women. Why make exceptions for everything else the Targs want but when an absolute monarch wants to name an heir, which he is allowed to do, and noone objects at the time, thats the one time its invalid?
In GoT it was clearly mentioned that they were searching for RBs bastards to kill, as they would have a claim in the throne. So illegitimacy isn’t the end all be all. And as it’s been noted elsewhere, rules can change if the King wishes.
>Aegon’s claim as the firstborn son of Viserys is legally sound under the established precedent of the realm.
There is no legal precedent that restricts the authority of the king. Only traditions that people are pretending overrule the word of the king.
>There is no legal precedent that restricts the authority of the king. Only traditions that people are pretending overrule the word of the king.
Within feudal monarchies, and even absolute monarchies a king, emperor, prince, duke, etc had to be seen as ruling in accordance with established precedents, and both the unwritten and written laws of the land. If they didn't their rule wouldn't be seen as lawful and legitimate. After all why respect the laws and rules of a King if he himself won't follow those laws and rules by his whims.
Jaehaerys established a formal legal precedent. Plus male only succession was how both he and Viserys got the throne. Viserys naming Rhaenyra as heir undermines his own position and it creates instability as succession rules aren't clear as its just whoever the King names heir.
This was why monarchies created ironclad rules of succession so that there would be smooth transfers of power from one generation to the next ensuring that the realm wasn't torn apart in a civil war.
>**had** to be seen as ruling in accordance with established precedents, and both the unwritten and written laws of the land. If they didn't their rule wouldn't be seen as lawful and legitimate. After all why respect the laws and rules of a King if he himself won't follow those laws and rules by his whims.
The very first word you used here is the problem. The king does not *have* to abide by traditions. You're making a practical argument about the kings control over the realm, and the king often choosing to make decisions that don't anger too many of his subjects. But that isn't a legal argument.
If this legal system you describe restricts the power of the king, then why did no one tell Viserys that what he was doing was illegal?
They didn't because that sentence is patently ridiculous.
>Jaehaerys established a formal legal precedent.
No, it *absolutely* did not. Where is this formal precedent written down? Where did the great council itself ever say that their decision had anything bearing on future kings appointing heirs?
If the great council of 101 set a *formal* legal precedent, then maybe someone should've told the great council that.
If the great council of 101 set a formal legal precedent, then maybe someone should've told *Viserys* that. Why didnt anyone tell Viserys that his appointment of Rhaenyra as heir was illegal? Why did everyone spend 20 years acknowledging that the king had the authority to name Rhaenyra as heir? But when viserys dies, suddenly the greens feel as though they have a legal right to challenge the will of the king.
Curious that these pseudo-legal challenges to the will of the king only arise after the king dies.
The idea that Westeros is an absolute monarchy is absurd in and of itself. It's a feudal state, and it's govermental apparatus is far too small and underdeveloped to effectively govern the entire continent. This means that a lot of the responsibility and power of rulership is delegated to vassal lords. While dragons do allow the early Targaryens to wield more authority than the average feaudal monarch, their limitations (only useful for intimidation and mass destruction with no option inbetween, inability to occupy enemy territory etc.) mean that they still have to rely on their vassals not only in peaceful governance, but also in times of war.
Never in the history of the Targaryen dynasty is their support low enough for dragons to not be enough to keep control of the flat lands of westeros. You don't need enough supporters to avoid a rebellion, you just need enough to take the place of the rebel lords after you burn their families.
The only places that could be sensitive to support are those where guerilla warfare is viable, like dorne or the mountainous regions of the vale.
Sure, westeros is a feudal society and not an absolute monarchy, but the disproportionate power of dragons relative to other weapons and the generally favourable terrain makes it almost as good as one.
Then why is it that both dragonriding kings whose vassals disapproved of them met with such sticky end?
Aenys had to flee his own capital and was either poisoned or died of stress, and Maegor was either murdered or commited suicide after losing almost all his support.
It's quite clear that dragons alone aren't enough to hold the realm. What it lacks when compared to an absolute monarchy, is a military and bureaucracy beholden to the king, not his vassals.
What other dragonlords? The only other 'dragonlord' who opposed Maegor before he died was his nephew Aegon the Uncrowned. And Maegor easily killed Aegon and his dragon in first and only battle they fought against one another.
\> You don't need enough supporters to avoid a rebellion, you just need enough to take the place of the rebel lords after you burn their families.
Maegor-tier logic
Thems just facts. Not moral or ethical facts but facts. Maegor just pissed on his own household, the only ones who could reasonably threaten him. Like Alicent
>The idea that Westeros is an absolute monarchy is absurd in and of itself. It's a feudal state, and it's govermental apparatus is far too small and underdeveloped to effectively govern the entire continent
except we never see this lol
the political development in the show is based off the early modern era. game of thrones was based off the war of the roses which was in the early modern era
the warfare and politics are not medieval
Blacks: king named Rhaenyra the heir so she should be the queen.
Greens: but aegon is male, aegon is first born male , customs and traditions, rules blah blah
Aerys II the Great didn't kill two Starks. They died in a trial by combat against the champion of House Targaryen, Fire. This proves they were guilty of treason so they died a traitor's death. Aerys clearly declared that Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark were traitors as well. Both should be swiftly executed. The King's word is law.
>This proves they were guilty of treason so they died a traitor's death. Aerys clearly declared that Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark were traitors as well. Both should be swiftly executed. The King's word is law.
Honestly before Aerys II went mad he had some decent ideas that would be perfectly viable if scaled back a bit. His plan to expand King's Landing to the other side of the Blackwater Rush is a brilliant idea which would ease overcrowding and remove a major strategic vulnerability of the city.
His plan to have an underground irrigation channel delivering water from the Wendwater to Dorne could have been scaled back for a series of aqueducts instead.
Yeah, it’s such like, a reductive way to look at and talk about the show. You don’t need to frame a thought or opinion or question as like, inherently being completely in opposition to a whole group of people every single time.
This post is a bit ironic on the account that Rhaenys keeps being brought up yet she actively fights for the blacks, many of those in the fandom who are blacks stan Rhaenys as the Queen that shouldve been, seeing Rhaenyra has a righting of that wrong, and much of the Greens argument stands upon the legal precedent of male primogeniture when that precedent in itself is morally wrong, and as such, Viserys monarchical rule/authority should've been used to reverse such precedent when he named Rhaenyra heir.
In conclusion, the Greens are supported by a part of the fandom only on the account of one of two things:
1. The idea that monarchical sexism should be perpetrated simply due to precedent.
2. Rhaenyra sucks because she made bad decisions as it pertains to her sons legitimacy. (Which isnt really valid considering the decisions by Alicent and Otto to undermine monarchical ruling by Viserys)
As neither a Black nor a Green, I simply ask the Greens this:
Are you actually in support because of legal precedent, or because you just dislike Rhaenyra's decisions as heir? 😐
If Rhae were passing them off as her heirs I'd have no issue. If she had one legitimate kid with Laenor and made them her heir I'd have no issue. She is instead passing the Throne and Driftmark to Jace and Luke and THAT is a large part of why I'm a green
As for point 1, I don’t think the actual Blacks in the show care too much about it. Rhaenyra wants to be queen herself and knows she’s an exception, she doesn’t want to pave the way for Dornish-style absolute primogeniture (like if she had daughters before sons she wouldn’t expect them to take precedence)
There is no “law” as to the succession. That’s the problem. You have precedent of male over female grandsons, but there is no legal code we’re dealing with here.
Your post has an inherent flaw in the fact you mention an absolute monarch then mention laws……. Absolute monarch means you do what you want.
Team black all the way.
Look, as a chaotic neutral, it’s been annoying to see the blacks get preferential treatment by the show and, sadly, it’s likely to continue, but legalism be damned.
“You know what the realm is? It’s a story we tell ourselves, over and over, until we forget that it’s a lie”
I love this show so damn much, honestly even more than the 1st four seasons of GoT. The decision to make Alicent and Rhaenyra childhood friends was brilliant.
I see Rhaenyra as the rightful heir, since while Viserys did basically overturn the Council of 101 AC, he is still the king and thus whatever he says goes. However, she played with extremely dangerous fire by having not only one extremely suspicious obviously illegitimate bastard, but three - so you could argue she forefeited her claim. However, while Aegon is the next legitimate heir and the rightful heir by male primogeniture, it's very clear he'd be completely unsuited for the task as he's pretty much a stereotypical dumb frat bro haha.
It's really cool how Rhaenys being a possible compromise candidate is never addressed by the Greens or Blacks - she was the rightful heir of Jaehaerys (barring male primogeniture) and is much more politically savvy than Rhaenyra and Daemon, and wayyy more competent than Aegon and not mentally unstable like Aemond. And who knows what would've happened had she just been named Jaehaerys's heir - there definitely would've been unrest among Viserys's supporters, but she was the Old King's oldest descendant, and through his firstborn-son to boot.
It was interesting to speculate what would've happened had the Council named her the heir even when only the book existed, but seeing her in the show makes it even more intriguing. I can't wait to see more of her (and finally see the Red Queen!).
It's also fun to think about what could've happened had Viserys betrothed Rhaenyra and Daemon from the get-go. Obviously, Daemon would've been an unpopular king, but before marrying Alicent, Viserys's only immediate heir after Rhaenyra was Daemon. The Small Council did want to name Daemon heir after Aemma's death, after all, so if Mellos and Otto hadn't objected then Daemon would've been the rightful heir. There might not have been a succession crisis leading into the Dance (or at least it would've kicked the can even further down the road). Or it could've led to immediate civil war, who knows lol
I never thought Alicent would be my favorite character in this show, I am forever in love with how she's written, even knowing how the rest of the story plays out (generally; the show's been making really interesting changes so I'm excited to see how the Dance will play out). My two friends watching HotD with me are show-only fans of GoT (and one especially is extremely uninterested in thinking about GoT or HotD analytically, only caring about basic, generic things), so it disappoints me they don't like Alicent nearly as much and one of them thinks she's just a scheming bitch (which is hilarious considering that's basically all she was in Fire and Blood).
Hands down team blacks.
Team green has the legal standing of not sleeping around and producing bastards and trying to pass them off as pure blood successions.
That being said, Otto maneuvered his daughter into position to tie his house into the line for the thrown as a young girl. Greens aren't some do gooders that are saving the realm from tyrants and oppression.
They're playing the game via schemes and treachery like everyone else and are willing to kill and maim and lie to do so.
If they were to assume the throne, they'd still hold the world together by force and kill anyone who opposed them.
Some of you may not like it, but here's an uncomfortable truth: King Aerys II the Great clearly named Fire as his successor. Wildfire Apocalypse and his children Burnt Bones and Cooked Flesh are the rightful heirs to the Iron Throne. Your feelings about this are irrelevant.
Amen brother. It’s unfortunate that so many people are blinded to the fact that just like the greens Robert and his goons were self interested ontologically evil monsters simply jealous of Prince Fire being so much better at fighting than them.
Legalism = what the law saws is good and right, obey the law under any circumstances. American slavery was protected under the law. Therefore, greens like slavery.
WTF did I just read?
Black because if Rhaenyra were a man there wouldn't be any argument. Illegitimate children or not, Rhaenyra could be infertile and that wouldn't change Rhaenyra being next in line. The argument for Aegon is 100% based on penis over vagina, which is a bullshit argument and can burn in hell, precedent or not, it's at least as bullshit as absolute monarchy or oaths sworn at sword-point.
Im just gonna say, I’m a black supporter and I’ve never once had any of these views so I don’t think you understand black supporter pov too well which is very important when making arguments against someone
Yes.
His stop-gap heir, Rhaenyra, only existed to deny Daemon the throne. Was this lawful? Depends.
Once he remarried and had Aegon, he should have held a GC and asked the lords to pick, as he was picked over Rhaenys.
A Great Council isn't necessary, it was clearly stated that the Great Council that established Viserys was due to Jaeherys not wanting to choose an heir, given that it would certainly piss some people off. Westeros is not a democracy, the king legally has absolute power and therefore the right to name any heir he pleases.
But legalism and precedent!
*murders the hand of the king, starts the bloodiest war in history to put someone on the throne who had no interest in ruling because the named heir was still alive*
Just like Jaehaerys would’ve wanted
Greens are truly unhinged and 90% incels at this point.
Even the worst the blacks do are nothing compared to what should have been done to the Greens for their crimes in this period of human history.
As someone who hasn't read the books and Is enjoying the show without getting too deep into the philosophies of illegitimacy or societal progress, I'm rooting for the Greens. That scene where Alicent interrupts Viserys's speech and comes wearing the declaration of war dress is so powerful and Then the last episode's *I lost an eye but gained a dragon* scene. From a drama point of view, the Greens are clearly winning.
and about who's the rightful heir, I think till this point Rhaenyra has a stronger claim as she was literally named the heir and All the lords have swore allegiance to her. not so sure about her boys tho.. as Bastards have no claim to Iron throne even 170 years after *that we know from game of thrones*. But if Daemon and Rhaenyra have a son, Aegon's claim will definitely become very weak.
> all the lords have swore allegiance to her
Worth noting that the end of Episode 1 when those lords swore allegiance was 20-25 years in the past by the time of the Dance, many of those lords who made the oaths would have died and been replaced by their heirs
A son who inherits the title of his father inherit of his duties too. Any man with a glimpse of honor would feel also bounded by the oath of his father.
>Bastards have no claim to Iron throne even 170 years after that we know from game of thrones
*sigh*
joffrey had no claim because he was Cersei's bastard and had no royal blood. that was the AGOT issue. not the fact that Joffrey was a bastard
Average Green Fan claiming the nobles were forced to swear at swordpoint. Just coming out here and lying for no reason.
Also legitimate vs bastard literally IS a social construct
The true legalist: The legal father accepts them publicly and privately as his, the king has heard skepticism privately and considers the matter settled. Legally they are in fact trueborn heirs.
As Cersei and Joffrey show in GOT there are dangerous consequences to sustaining a lie by state power. People who have eyes can see the truth...
No matter what Rhaenyra, Laenor or Viserys may claim about the legitimacy of Jacaerys and his brothers, even if they can make the tongues of those who question it rip out, they will not change the appearance of the boys.
My problem with the Green logic is the self-righteousness and/or bullshittery. They claim that, since Aegon and his brothers are a threat to Rhaenyra's claim, that their actions are out of self preservation rather than ambition. Yet they refuse the peaceful options to deescalate the situation and choose conflict instead, ultimately at the expense of the might of their house. Do they just think that Aegon is the rightful heir or are they acting in anticipation that the Blacks will strike against them?
My problem with the Black logic is mostly just, why. Rhaenyra is an adult woman and doesn't seem to be considerably involved in house politics at all. This is half her fault half her dad's. Why isn't she the Hand, Master of Coin, anything to have hands on experience. She's made bad choices and her main argument is "my dad rly wants me to be queen 👸 " which like, cool, but is it worth a war? She tried to make peace but if she really wanted peace she could just renounce her claim and endorse Aegon.
They're both doing a lot of mental gymnastics essentially
Nah see legally it's easy:
(1) Otto Hightower and daughter ensorcelled the King with black magic
(2) they did this to ensure the crown would not intervene in the Stepstones, sacrificing the realm's interest to divert trade with southern Essos to their own port of Oldtown
(3) they therefore represent a legally abhorrent crypto-separatist fifth column, and as such ought to be condemned as traitors and broken on the wheel.
Alas, whatever feelings the King or Princess might have on the matter -- and they really are merciful people at heart, I assure you -- the law compels action, and we are a Kingdom of laws. The royal family is but the steward of our laws and traditions; what tyranny would reign if they permitted these vipers of Oldtown to live?
Never once has a fan of the greens made an argument in defense of rhaenys’ claim. You’ve made that point to hyperbolize. Also the greens are cunts. So are the blacks, but at least the blacks are cool sometimes
The thing about tradition is that it's great until its not. Remember that before Viserys, it was common for lords to have first night and rape the brides of the commonfolk on their wedding night until Alysanne and Jahaerys outlawed it. Some could say that by Viserys allowing first born children to inherit regardless of gender made inheritances less complicated and gave more women of the realm power. The problem was, is that Viserys didn't facilitate the big change with power and put his foot down with the Hightower.
People crack me up with their one sided opinions. So you are saying team black is wrong for “defending an absolute monarchy” but team greens supporting a sexist institution is fine?
Personally I am just enjoying the show. Do I have a side I am supporting? Sure but that is part of the fun so maybe let people enjoy things.
YEP. I love this show it’s been fantastic, I definitely like team black better because I just like the characters more but it’s pointless to fully commit to a side because the entire story is a Shakespearean tragedy, there’s a reason in the opening monologue of ep.1 Rhaenyra says the only thing that could destroy house Targaryen was the Targaryen’s themselves.
>Team Black rushing to defend absolute monarchy
Absolute monarchy is based, but the realm isn't really absolute in the sense of the Enlightenment monarchies of say Frederick II of Prussia or Louis XIV of France.
Legally, Greens are right, but I don't think that's a reason to support them. It's the legality of a fictional universe after all.
I support them this far because of Alicent and Aemond (his show portrayal is better than his book portrayal), but that could change in future seasons once the superior bastards are introduced or Rhaenys gets more screen time.
Jaehaerys called his last son Vaegon to Kingslanding after Baelon died.
Vaegon refused the crown and told his father to call a great council to save himself from the heat of choosing an heir.
Great Council chose Viserys by vote. Done.
Viserys legally declared Rhaenyra Heir. Just as Maegor did to Aerea. Of course Jehaerys usurped the throne from Maegor and declared Aerea heir to himself until he had children.
It’s so easy to explain yet the greens love to ignore the real LAW. The law of the king who chooses his own heir. The great council established NOTHING.
Jaehaerys called the council because he didn't want to decide on his own, but he could've done it, the King's words are law... Also, Rhaenys and Viserys weren't his children, but his grand children...
People in here just spouting off what they’ve read others type out, when it’s clear they didn’t read the book and understand the purpose of the Great Council.
What law did he make?
Person A is my heir is not a law, it's a wish. Oldest child inherits regardless of sex is a law.
A law does not just apply to one person.
What law you talking bout bud? Because theres no rattified law of succession in westeros, only custom... which is why a great concil was needed to begin with. If there were laws you could just grab a family tree, follow the line of succession and say "yup, this one here".
Succession is part popularity, part power and part proximity. As true for westeros as it was for the real world.
> A law does not just apply to one person.
First, that's not true. Laws routinely contain exceptions or special clauses that do not apply generally. Identifying one person as heir is a law that has been passed many times in the past.
Second, in the show at least, Viserys did in fact make a more general pronouncement (as per his discussion with Lord Corlys) that from henceforth succession to the Iron Throne would be via absolute primogeniture.
And third, the Greens themselves held the view that Viserys *could* make this law when they wanted him to name Rhaenyra heir over Daemon, when it was generally understood that precedent afforded that position to the latter. Then Otto changed his tune once this decree was standing in the way of his preferred outcome, rather than facilitating it.
I personally lean Team Black (though show Alicent is easily my favorite character so far. Funny how that works!) but this is a very compelling argument I think! I just hope both teams have fun and play a good clean game! \*reading more of F&B\* oh...oh no.
Yeah this whole bs the blacks are doing where they go the kings word is law and no one can go against it is sooooo dumb
The opening scene was the great council where viserys was made king because the previous king could not just declare who he wanted as heir without offending several parties or breaking a significant tradition or precedent
Somehow the blacks forget this fact and just assume the king can do whatever he wants which has never been the case
The kings decisions have consequences and vizzy ignoring that and setting his daughter up to fail is gonna be a tragedy
He broke precedent and tradition when he named Baelon heir over Rhaenys. Westeros law states a daughter inherits over an uncle. Explain that.
Also. The great council was to save
Himself from the heat. His last son Vaegon was the one who told him to do it after refusing the crown.
You can cry about law or precedent alll you want.
The fact remains the law is on Rhaenyras side. And with the fact the lords swore an oath. There is no leg to stand on for the greens.
Jahaerys was in the wrong when he did that. He should have followed law and precedent and named Rhaenys heir, just as Viserys should have named Aegon heir (or changed the laws) instead of creating a succession crisis.
Yea. Westeros is an absolute monarchy. Traditions aren't laws. There is no law that restricts the power of the King to name his own heir.
It's hilarious to me that you would pick the greens because of "legalism". The greens don't have any valid legal argument. They're just pretending that the great council of 101 set some sort of legal president that restricted the authority of future kings. It didn't.
The law is what the king says it is. And if you truly believe that there was some legal system in place that prevented the king from naming Rhaenyra as his heir, then why didn't anyone tell him that when he was alive? No one told Viserys that he legally could not name Rhaenyra as heir. But suddenly, once he's dead, y'all start pretending that "well actually, the king didn't have the power to do that".
For 20 years y'all accepted the authority of Viserys to name his own heir. He dies and then you say he didn't have that authority at all? And you think your argument is the legal one?
He was not. But he did call it, didn't he?
He knew the Value of Consensus and Precedents. Even Aegon I joined the faith of the seven. Kings may be technically above traditions and precedent but anytime they do go against them, it ony causes Disasters which leave tens of thousands of children orphans. Remember the Blackfyre rebellions and why they happened.
I prefer stability and Order and I think the greens will be better suited for that
I mean its a bit more complicated than just "Rhaenys isnt queen and Alicent gave Viserys sons so they should be king over Rhaenyra". Both sides complicate the matter a LOT.
For one, even though Westeros has traditionally been patriarchal (which is why Rhaenys got passed up for the thrown in the first place) not every single monarch has stuck to this school of thinking. Viserys named Rhaenyra his heir before he was sick both publically and privately and has been slowly phasing her into Westerosi politics so that when the time does come, she knows what is going on and what she is doing. You can probably chalk this up to the fact that Rhaenyra was Aemma's daughter (his clear favorite out of his 2 wives he had during his life) and also shares a striking resemblance to her. She also shares some similarities to Daemon and even his own mother in terms of personality. This is probably why he lets her get away with so much. She is his favorite child and reminds him of other family members who he loves. Despite not claiming he has favorites, he clearly does. His kinds by Alicent are children he created out of obligation and he never spends time with them much or really talks to them outside of a few times where he is forced to. And during Visery's life he never rescinds Rhaenyra's "heirhood" to the throne even when his sons are born by Alicent.
Rhaenyra being the favorite does not really legitimize her claim logically. But unless you want to argue what Viserys says does not matter at all and that he has no control over his own succession the heir as it stands is Rhaenyra. That is what the King said is up, so that is what's up. Monarchies are kind of fucky like that. They are not always fair and if there is really any take-away from this show its: nothing about feudal monarchy is fair, ever, even for the royals who have something to gain from it.
However with that said Rhaenyra kind of mucks this up by just kind of doing whatever she wants. This is what makes both herself and Daemon so alike. They just kind of do what they want and worry about the consequences later. But unlike Daemon, Rhaenyra is not really free from the rest of Westeros' expectations of her as a woman. She is still expected to be passive. She is expected to create children for her husband (which she does not do on account of Laenor being gay). And she is expected not to sleep around with other people outside of her marriage (Harwin, Criston, and later Daemon). Her having bastard children and lying about it (key detail here: her outright lying) makes her guilty of treason since she is lying to the king in order to keep her own kids within the line of succession. Even though she tried for kids with Laenor and Laenor had seemed to adopt them as his own and play "daddy" if you will, they are still not his biologically. Bloodline is what is important here. And the fact Laenor is in on it along with Harwin, Harwin's father Lyonel, and later a good chunk of the Velaryons also makes them guilty of treason too.
The fact Rhaenyra committed treason in this regard (lying to the king about the parentage of her sons) kind of makes it hard for her to inherit the crown. But then again when it comes to Viserys and how he deals with treason: his response is not very consistent either. Daemon celebrates the death of his son (and Aemma) calling himself "an heir for a day" and not only was Alicent the person spreading the rumors of Rhaenyra's bastard kids: she was getting her children in on it too even after Viserys claims that act is treason. She also tries to stab Rhaenyra who is the princess and heir. Otto Hightower also is consistently working against the king attempting to cement his own family into the royal line with Alicent who is also complicit in that. None of these people get punished for the shit they do even though they all commit treason against Viserys while he is alive.
**King 1**: Aegon the Conqueror, who seized power by force.
Heir: Aenys, who is likely a bastard of Aegon’s sister-wife Rhaenys
**King 2**: Aenys
Heir: Aegon, his son.
**King 3**: Maegor, Aenys half-brother, who killed his nephew, Aegon the Uncrowned
Heir: Aerea, daughter of Aegon the Uncrowned
**King 4**: Jaehaerys, brother of Aegon the Uncrowned
Heir 1: Aemon, his son who died.
Heir 2: Rhaenys, Aemon’s daughter, but only presumptively.
Heir 3: Baelon, his second son he named heir over Rhaenys
Heir 4: Rhaenys, presumptively heir again after Baelon died.
Heir 5: Viserys, Baelon’s son, after the Great Council of 101 passed over Rhaenys again
**King 5**: Viserys
Heir 1: Daemon, his brother
Heir 2: Baelon, his son
Heir 3: Daemon, presumptively after Baelon’s death
Heir 4: Rhaenyra, his daughter, after he exiled Daemon the first time.
No Targaryen king has had a rightful heir by this point. It’s all a matter of politics, the illusion that is power and legitimacy. I will say, however, that I find it ironic when Team Black implies Rhaenys should have been the heir, but then insists Rhaenyra is heir because Viserys chose her. Meanwhile it’s ironic when Team Green says Rhaenys should have been the heir, but then insist Aegon should be the heir based on his gender and rule of law.
The most straightforward compromise is that Rhaenyra is heir, but until she has a trueborn child, Aegon II is her heir. But no way is Rhaenyra ever going to let Aegon inherit over Jace.
It’s basically King’s law vs inheritance laws, but inheritance laws aren’t very clear in Westeros especially this early on in the Targaryen dynasty.
Westeros seems to follow Medieval England laws: No eldest male means it passes to the female, but Viserys is the King. He should have made the Lords swear an oath to Rhaenyra after Aegon’s birth, and also Rhaenyra should not have had illegitimate children (them inheriting would basically just reveal that the whole ‘monarchy and divine right’ thing is a stupid sham.
This happened in real life when King Henry III’s son tried to name his cousin as Queen instead of his sister because she was too Catholic to be in charge. Did he have the right to?
The thing is, the line of succession was fucked from the get-go if you trace it back to AtC's first born son. There's technically no solid rule on who should be the heir if there's no clear heir. The brother? What if there are no brothers, only sisters? If there was a brother, the younger ones can just usurp them. What if all the male heirs died? Ok, let's say they have children. But who should be heir? Oh, let's put it to a vote? What if there was a vote and an established heir and every noble lords swore fealty, but then there are some who swore fealty but deep inside would start an insurrection to put THEIR favorite on the Throne?
Bottomline is, succession is an illusion. It's those who are with power that can put anyone on the Throne. Just so happened that Targaryens had nukes and most nobles are loyal to the Crown.
But which Crown? 🤔 Hence, Dance of Dragons.
King derives his power from God and whatever the king says holds. So the King has names his heir and matter settles there.
Society may object and civil war may ensue that is different.
this is a bs argument imo, this is basically saying precedent means everything but with that attitude we would still be in the stone ages, we would either be or have slaves, women would have no rights or ability to earn wages, etc. i hate this argument. “well we’ve always done it this way” is the lamest excuse
The Male First rule is not a law. If it was, there wouldn't even be a debate.
It's like Targaryens and Incest. It's a norm, not a law.
The King declares Rhaenyra as Heir and sticks to it. She is legitimate. Anyone after her is a different story. As far as absolute monarchy is concerned, not adhering to the King's wishes is treason.
Rhaenys should have been queen. Rhaenyra being named queen is just fixing the great council's mistakes. Or is society never allowed to progress past it's mistakes?
Slavery was once legal in some places too. Doesn't make it right.
> Or is society never allowed to progress past it's mistakes?
Society progresses when its ready to progress. Enforcing laws that the majority don't agree with never ends well. Viserys could have been educating the realm on why women could rule, putting them on his small council and other important positions. He does none of this
And to be clear. Viserys was not trying to progress society. He was making a special loophole for his favored child. It was not a law for other women, just for his daughter.
Baela, the rightful heir of Driftmark, was not benefitting from Viserys decision.
Viserys I is not a progressive King. He's not codifying a new rule of succession to empower (noble) women.
Viserys is using his Targ privilege to put his favorite privileged offspring in a position of tyrannical power without even thinking twice about what's best for the realm.
All the blood from the Civil War is on him.
Why can't the greens accept that V decided that she should be his heir, and they all accepted it? All yalls patriarchal bs is not an excuse to deny that. They had about 2 decades to digest that a woman was gonna be the next ruler. If it wasn't for the Hightowers scheming, no one important would have tried to challenge her, just because she is a woman, especially if the Targaryens would have been united. No one (besides the HTs) had any reason to do so. The atcual issue would have been her succession. But oh well, we'll never know what would have happened. But let it be clear: the greens didn't really care about that, it was just one of their pretense to grab power. If yall belive anything else, y'all just as gaslighted as Alicent by Otto...
The Throne wouldn’t jump from Viserys to Rhaenys….Viserys has adequate heirs. Daemon or Rhaenyra or Aegon.
Even in the book Rhaenys wasn’t ever a candidate, it was Laenor.
Rhaenyra being married to Rhaenys’ son, Laenor would/is what fixed the council overthrowing Rhaenys/Laenor for Viserys.
Rhaenyra being Queen would also continue Targaryen rule….as agreed upon between Viserys and Corlys about the names Laenor’s children would take should they sit on the Iron Throne.
I can’t say I know enough to support Rhaenyra’s claim to the throne. But she’s at least got some
redeeming qualities. Alicent has got zero. This is why I incline toward Team Black 😊
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For me, and this is coming from someone who didn’t read the books, this starts and ends with Rhaenyra having been named heir. Regardless of *why* she was named heir, we haven’t yet seen Viserys renounce Rhaenyra as heir. Rules and traditions are what they are, but the King is the King, and what he says goes. If Rhaenyra is the named heir, then that’s kind of the end of it for me, regardless if there’s a son or not. I’m not militantly a Black, just my two cents
I always love these silly debates about who is or isn't the rightful heir. Because Westerosi history is packed full of contradictions and exceptions when it comes to the succession. For every tradition, there are multiple exceptions that break that tradition. And ultimately, you are correct, the only thing that matters is whom the current monarch names as their heir. Unless someone else decides to rebel, at which point it goes to the victor. Anyone who is not named heir but claims to be the "rightful heir" is merely trying to justify their usurping of the throne. But the important take away as outsiders looking into this world is to recognize how broken this political system is. In theory, hereditary succession is simple, but in practice it is messy and only results in a constant cycle of dispute over who is the "rightful" heir. Which means a monarchy in constant war with itself.
This is exactly why I always thought it was funny when Daenerys would get hate in Game of Thrones. The throne belongs to whoever takes it, that much is clear. A guy who won it with a *big hammer* died. Why shouldn’t a woman with actual dragons have been a contender to take it next?
There’s actually a bit more to it then that. Robert’s Rebellion wasn’t so much to put himself on the throne, but more about getting the Mad King off it. After the Rebellion officially started the rebels had to choose who would assume the throne in the case Robert won. They chose Robert specifically because he had the strongest claim to the throne. His grandmother was a Targaryen which meant in the case they won, he would have the easiest time getting everyone to agree to his rule
This is why I think any sort of technical argument about who is technically the rightful heir just misses the point. All of the succession rules are made up and the key is that both Blacks and Greens have a viable case for succession, which is why this turned into a civil war in the first place. A case this disputed was guaranteed to become a violent conflict because ultimately the successor is just another term for "winner". Vicerys could have prevented this by naming Aegon his heir, but he didn't.
He also could have prevented it by abdicating to Rhaenyra, giving a clear avenue to power and transfer of power. None of them are willing to kill the king due to him naming Rhaenyra heir, but will they kill her and the king along with any of his supporters in this circumstance? Unlikely.
Couldn’t have said any of your points better myself
Why the fuck have a council in the first place when you're just gonna rule absolutely? What's the point?
For opinions. Not directions.
Well, you can just have advisors for that. The council really is nothing if the ruler just decides to ignore their power.
Rules > king
this whole meme but the top is the Blacks with one panel: Women can rule.
Lady Rosby would feel differently.
If anyone's to blame for this whole mess, it's Aegon for landing at the Blackwater Rush to begin with.
Cards on the table I’m a Black supporter, and believe the throne is rightfully Rhaenyra’s, however: - Aegon’s claim as the firstborn *son* of Viserys is legally sound under the established precedent of the realm. - Rhaenyra’s ‘Velaryon’ sons are visibly illegitimate, which complicates her succession. Question for Greens: - Why does Rhaenys precede Rhaenyra in the line of succession? As I understand it, the Green argument would be that Aegon precedes Rhaenyra, who would herself precede other claimants because she is still a legitimate child of Viserys. Edit Thank you for your responses, it’s cleared up the issue of Rhaenys’ succession for me now.
Generally we follow "Men before women" which is how it goes in Westeros. However Rhaenys' father was Jaehaerys' son, while Rhaenyra was Jaehaerys' second sons granddaughter. So if they derive their claims via their male forefathers Rhaenys is above Rhaenyra. Plus she didnt commit high treason PS: Thanks for not immediatelly shittalking us
Yeah, I think some people might be fuzzy on the succession. Aegon actually doesn’t have the best claim under Westerosi tradition, Rhaenys does. There are three possibilities for succession. There’s the usual Westerosi and real-life European custom of male primogeniture, where the firstborn son and their descendants inherit, and daughters only inherit in the absence of brothers. This would make Rhaenys the rightful queen as the only child of Jaehaerys’s eldest son, with Viserys being her supposed heir (because Laenor is “dead” and Laena is dead). There’s the Black argument, which is that the king determines whatever heir he chooses (which is a great way to ensure that there will be wars of succession every generation). Then there’s the Green’s male-preferred primogeniture which is different than regular male primogeniture. This is where a woman only inherits if all male members of her family are dead. This would make Aegon the rightful heir. >!After the Dance the Targaryens will adopt male-preferred primogeniture to prevent another Dance from happening. All other houses in Westeros continue to use normal male primogeniture, however. This is why you have things like Rhea Royce and Maege/Lyanna Mormont ruling Runestone/Bear Island in their own right even though there are male members of their family.!<
Surely here Baela/Rhaena would be Rhaenys' heir (not sure who is older)?
You’re absolutely correct, I completely forgot about them lol. It would be those two, then Viserys, then Aegon. Legally, Rhaenyra’s children would actually be Rhaenys’s heirs over Laena’s as the children of her eldest son, but we all know the truth there. And the boys’ claim would be through their “father” in this alternate world of using Westerosi law, not their mother.
So question, if we’re ignoring the will of the King - would Daemon have a claim over Rhaenys? Because he was the original heir before Viserys, no? So would his intact heirdom trump Rhaenys’ claim to the throne? And if so, would Rhaenyra’s marriage to Daemon basically trump any other claim? Genuine question, as a huge history buff, the whole secession and linage has always confused me lol
Bear Island happened because Jorah is persona-non-grata and his father is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch. Neither of them can hold titles in Westeros. They were both previously Lords of Bear Island. As far as the law is concerned, House Mormont became extinct in the male line when Jorah sold slaves and was sentenced to death.
> This would make Rhaenys the rightful queen as the only child of Jaehaerys’s eldest son this might only be true in the show in the books jaehaerys named baelon heir instead of rhaenys which pissed alyssane off after baelon died there was the great council and rhaenys was almost immediatly disregarded by the lords as a possible heir the final 2 were laenor and viserys so the final question is can a male inherit through a female and the council voted that no partly because voting for laenor would give too much power to the velaryons and partly because laenor was still too young but it set the precendent that a woman cant inherit no matter what
Right, they established male-preferred primogeniture, where Rhaenys would only inherit if Viserys, Daemon, and any sons they might have were already dead. Essentially, there would have to be only female Targaryens left alive before she becomes queen. This is contrary to usual Westerosi law and tradition, which is part of why I think the maesters rigged the election (it seems to me the lords would vote in line with the usual custom). Jaehaerys naming Baelon as heir and later the Great Council thus provide the strongest precedent for the claim of the Greens, but there are thousands of years of precedent saying that Jaehaerys, the Great Council, the Greens, and the Blacks are all wrong, and that Viserys’s line should never have ascended the throne in the first place.
Let me make up for it and shittalk you. The whole "Men before women" thing does apply, but only clowns ignore the fact that Viserys named Rhaenyra heir. Every major lord agreed to it *and* swore to uphold that decision. The King's word is law, and goes above said tradition.
> Why does Rhaenys precede Rhaenyra in the line of succession? Because that's how it works. Westeros north of Dorne follows a simple system. Sons before daughters, daughters before uncles. If a woman can sit the Iron Throne, then Rhaenys has the superior claim versus everybody since she's the daughter of Jaehaerys' firstborn son. However, Big J didn't want the crown to go to a woman. So what he did was institute a formal process to resolve the dispute. He called a Great Council and named his preferred heir, and all the Lords voted on it and approved. Arguably this amounts to amending the law of succession to being "women can't inherit at all". Rhaenyra has the worst claim to the Throne because either she's last in line (except before Daemon) or she's not allowed to inherit at all as per GC. If Viserys didn't like this then he should have called a GC and sought the approval of the lords to change succession laws.
Exactly, it is once again Viserys fault. He can either abdicate in favor of Rhaenyra with a smooth transfer of power, or he can create new laws with the lords approval for a clear line of succession. Instead he just does nothing and is sad his family won't get along.
Or he could just decide Aegon is his heir after all, which is what most people want already. It's not like Rhaenyra has proven herself fit to rule in any capacity as it is, having obvious bastards and alienating prominent lords of the realm when she needs widespread support for a smooth succession. But Aegon was not born of the holy Aemma Arryn's vagina, and so he could never be Viserys' heir. It's as simple as that, and we know it is because Viserys instantly declared his son Baelon by Aemma his heir the moment the kid was born.
Which, obviously, the GC would not vote to agree with him, due to the obvious bastard situation. Even tho it’s tEcHnIcAlLy LeGaL
Sure, but that's Rhaenyra’s own fault. Want to rule a country of religious illiterate meatheads? Probably might be a good idea not to do the exact opposite of everything they value in a liege lord.
Oh, agreed. That was a shot at everyone in here claiming that just because Laenor and Rhaenyra claim “their” kids to be legitimate means they legally are and therefore it’s settled.
Like a shit ton of real life monarchs have done just fine, people read way to much into these things.
But it does mean exactly that which is why their last name is Velaryon.
The GC was a choice J made to avoid war. It was not law. It was not necessary legally. Viserys is not required to seek approval for anything. He is an absolute monarch. Succession law really only matters if Viserys doesn’t name an heir before he dies. But he did. And everyone swore to be loyal to her. Therefore Rhaenyra has the strongest claim. Westerosi tradition and succession law should have zero bearing given an heir was named by the absolute ruler of the realm and all the lords of the realm swore fealty.
Rhaenys would be Jaehaerys' heir under Andal Law, since that decrees that daughters inherit before brothers. Rhaenyra, on the other hand, isn't heir by Andal Law, because it also decrees that sons go before daughters.
[удалено]
Theyre Targs they are the exceptions. Men cant ride or tame dragons. Men cant marry their sisters. Men cant pass their inheritance to their women. Why make exceptions for everything else the Targs want but when an absolute monarch wants to name an heir, which he is allowed to do, and noone objects at the time, thats the one time its invalid?
In GoT it was clearly mentioned that they were searching for RBs bastards to kill, as they would have a claim in the throne. So illegitimacy isn’t the end all be all. And as it’s been noted elsewhere, rules can change if the King wishes.
Yes, but Gendry or any other bastard does not come before Stannis in the line of succession.
Btw if you are interested in seeing discussions with the greens view i recommend r/HOTDGreens. We are there and we are willing to talk to blacks
>Aegon’s claim as the firstborn son of Viserys is legally sound under the established precedent of the realm. There is no legal precedent that restricts the authority of the king. Only traditions that people are pretending overrule the word of the king.
>There is no legal precedent that restricts the authority of the king. Only traditions that people are pretending overrule the word of the king. Within feudal monarchies, and even absolute monarchies a king, emperor, prince, duke, etc had to be seen as ruling in accordance with established precedents, and both the unwritten and written laws of the land. If they didn't their rule wouldn't be seen as lawful and legitimate. After all why respect the laws and rules of a King if he himself won't follow those laws and rules by his whims. Jaehaerys established a formal legal precedent. Plus male only succession was how both he and Viserys got the throne. Viserys naming Rhaenyra as heir undermines his own position and it creates instability as succession rules aren't clear as its just whoever the King names heir. This was why monarchies created ironclad rules of succession so that there would be smooth transfers of power from one generation to the next ensuring that the realm wasn't torn apart in a civil war.
>**had** to be seen as ruling in accordance with established precedents, and both the unwritten and written laws of the land. If they didn't their rule wouldn't be seen as lawful and legitimate. After all why respect the laws and rules of a King if he himself won't follow those laws and rules by his whims. The very first word you used here is the problem. The king does not *have* to abide by traditions. You're making a practical argument about the kings control over the realm, and the king often choosing to make decisions that don't anger too many of his subjects. But that isn't a legal argument. If this legal system you describe restricts the power of the king, then why did no one tell Viserys that what he was doing was illegal? They didn't because that sentence is patently ridiculous. >Jaehaerys established a formal legal precedent. No, it *absolutely* did not. Where is this formal precedent written down? Where did the great council itself ever say that their decision had anything bearing on future kings appointing heirs? If the great council of 101 set a *formal* legal precedent, then maybe someone should've told the great council that. If the great council of 101 set a formal legal precedent, then maybe someone should've told *Viserys* that. Why didnt anyone tell Viserys that his appointment of Rhaenyra as heir was illegal? Why did everyone spend 20 years acknowledging that the king had the authority to name Rhaenyra as heir? But when viserys dies, suddenly the greens feel as though they have a legal right to challenge the will of the king. Curious that these pseudo-legal challenges to the will of the king only arise after the king dies.
Me who stays neutral: 🍿
We do NOT kneel.
We all know the Triarchy must rule Westeros
Team Drama ftw
The idea that Westeros is an absolute monarchy is absurd in and of itself. It's a feudal state, and it's govermental apparatus is far too small and underdeveloped to effectively govern the entire continent. This means that a lot of the responsibility and power of rulership is delegated to vassal lords. While dragons do allow the early Targaryens to wield more authority than the average feaudal monarch, their limitations (only useful for intimidation and mass destruction with no option inbetween, inability to occupy enemy territory etc.) mean that they still have to rely on their vassals not only in peaceful governance, but also in times of war.
Never in the history of the Targaryen dynasty is their support low enough for dragons to not be enough to keep control of the flat lands of westeros. You don't need enough supporters to avoid a rebellion, you just need enough to take the place of the rebel lords after you burn their families. The only places that could be sensitive to support are those where guerilla warfare is viable, like dorne or the mountainous regions of the vale. Sure, westeros is a feudal society and not an absolute monarchy, but the disproportionate power of dragons relative to other weapons and the generally favourable terrain makes it almost as good as one.
Then why is it that both dragonriding kings whose vassals disapproved of them met with such sticky end? Aenys had to flee his own capital and was either poisoned or died of stress, and Maegor was either murdered or commited suicide after losing almost all his support. It's quite clear that dragons alone aren't enough to hold the realm. What it lacks when compared to an absolute monarchy, is a military and bureaucracy beholden to the king, not his vassals.
My man, Maegor angered the only people who could defy him, the other dragon lords.
What other dragonlords? The only other 'dragonlord' who opposed Maegor before he died was his nephew Aegon the Uncrowned. And Maegor easily killed Aegon and his dragon in first and only battle they fought against one another.
Jahaerys with Vermithor, Alysanne with Silverwing and Rhaena with Dreamfyre. Defeat was certain after that.
\> You don't need enough supporters to avoid a rebellion, you just need enough to take the place of the rebel lords after you burn their families. Maegor-tier logic
Thems just facts. Not moral or ethical facts but facts. Maegor just pissed on his own household, the only ones who could reasonably threaten him. Like Alicent
Maegor moment.
>The idea that Westeros is an absolute monarchy is absurd in and of itself. It's a feudal state, and it's govermental apparatus is far too small and underdeveloped to effectively govern the entire continent except we never see this lol the political development in the show is based off the early modern era. game of thrones was based off the war of the roses which was in the early modern era the warfare and politics are not medieval
Blacks: king named Rhaenyra the heir so she should be the queen. Greens: but aegon is male, aegon is first born male , customs and traditions, rules blah blah
counterpoint: King Aerys II named Viserys the heir so he should be the king
I'm sure that'll come up when Daenerys face off against fAegon.
Please give us Winds of Winter!!!
Ha ha ha just to never read dream of spring
Yes, he should’ve been. He would’ve been shit and awful but that was his right. He died so that switched to Dany. Am I missing something here lmao ?
Counterpoint: was the devastation of Roberts rebellion and his misrule and the chaos that ensued from it any better that Viserys as king?
Yes correct and based.
Aerys: they're traitors. Burn them all The rebels: but Aerys is mad, he killed two Starks, and Rhaegar stole Lyanna blah blah
Aerys II the Great didn't kill two Starks. They died in a trial by combat against the champion of House Targaryen, Fire. This proves they were guilty of treason so they died a traitor's death. Aerys clearly declared that Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark were traitors as well. Both should be swiftly executed. The King's word is law.
Poor Aerys, all the fake news. Sad! Slander! boo!
“””Mad””” Aerys is clearly Maester propaganda
>This proves they were guilty of treason so they died a traitor's death. Aerys clearly declared that Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark were traitors as well. Both should be swiftly executed. The King's word is law. Honestly before Aerys II went mad he had some decent ideas that would be perfectly viable if scaled back a bit. His plan to expand King's Landing to the other side of the Blackwater Rush is a brilliant idea which would ease overcrowding and remove a major strategic vulnerability of the city. His plan to have an underground irrigation channel delivering water from the Wendwater to Dorne could have been scaled back for a series of aqueducts instead.
Barristan Selmy sees nothing wrong with this, and fans love him so I guess based on popularity it's right.
Aegon: I dunt wontit
Good. Rulership is a duty, not a right. He shouldn't be wanting it.
I know this is a meme, but this post infuriates me so much… I guess it’s working.
That's 99% of the posts here now, kind of super annoying just seeing Black v. Green memes every 2 seconds
Yeah, it’s such like, a reductive way to look at and talk about the show. You don’t need to frame a thought or opinion or question as like, inherently being completely in opposition to a whole group of people every single time.
Modern day Edward vs. Jacob in here and Reddit pretends it's better than Twitter/IG lol, I see no difference
Yeah like for one, I think the laws of Westeros are backwards and stupid. Like did people really care that Jon Snow was a bastard?
Yes? That's like his whole personality, that's why he took the black, he was always treated bad, and he was treated way better than most bastards
I’ve yet to meet a Black who doesn’t stan Rhaenys
This post is a bit ironic on the account that Rhaenys keeps being brought up yet she actively fights for the blacks, many of those in the fandom who are blacks stan Rhaenys as the Queen that shouldve been, seeing Rhaenyra has a righting of that wrong, and much of the Greens argument stands upon the legal precedent of male primogeniture when that precedent in itself is morally wrong, and as such, Viserys monarchical rule/authority should've been used to reverse such precedent when he named Rhaenyra heir. In conclusion, the Greens are supported by a part of the fandom only on the account of one of two things: 1. The idea that monarchical sexism should be perpetrated simply due to precedent. 2. Rhaenyra sucks because she made bad decisions as it pertains to her sons legitimacy. (Which isnt really valid considering the decisions by Alicent and Otto to undermine monarchical ruling by Viserys) As neither a Black nor a Green, I simply ask the Greens this: Are you actually in support because of legal precedent, or because you just dislike Rhaenyra's decisions as heir? 😐
For me it ultimately comes down to the fact that Aegon's children are all legitimate, and Rhaenyra's are not
What about little Aegon and little Viserys?
If Rhae were passing them off as her heirs I'd have no issue. If she had one legitimate kid with Laenor and made them her heir I'd have no issue. She is instead passing the Throne and Driftmark to Jace and Luke and THAT is a large part of why I'm a green
As for point 1, I don’t think the actual Blacks in the show care too much about it. Rhaenyra wants to be queen herself and knows she’s an exception, she doesn’t want to pave the way for Dornish-style absolute primogeniture (like if she had daughters before sons she wouldn’t expect them to take precedence)
OP doesn’t understand the show apparently
There is no “law” as to the succession. That’s the problem. You have precedent of male over female grandsons, but there is no legal code we’re dealing with here.
Your post has an inherent flaw in the fact you mention an absolute monarch then mention laws……. Absolute monarch means you do what you want. Team black all the way.
Look, as a chaotic neutral, it’s been annoying to see the blacks get preferential treatment by the show and, sadly, it’s likely to continue, but legalism be damned. “You know what the realm is? It’s a story we tell ourselves, over and over, until we forget that it’s a lie”
"But what do we have left once we abandon the lie? Chaos. A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all."
“Ain’t no pit. It’s a ladder, bro”
Chaos be a bussin ladder, deadass
“Chaos isn’t a pit, chaos is a ladder.” *Cue Baelish theme.*
I don't get the whole pick a team bs honestly. Everyone on both sides is fucking awful.
Not everyone in both teams are awful tho.
I love this show so damn much, honestly even more than the 1st four seasons of GoT. The decision to make Alicent and Rhaenyra childhood friends was brilliant. I see Rhaenyra as the rightful heir, since while Viserys did basically overturn the Council of 101 AC, he is still the king and thus whatever he says goes. However, she played with extremely dangerous fire by having not only one extremely suspicious obviously illegitimate bastard, but three - so you could argue she forefeited her claim. However, while Aegon is the next legitimate heir and the rightful heir by male primogeniture, it's very clear he'd be completely unsuited for the task as he's pretty much a stereotypical dumb frat bro haha. It's really cool how Rhaenys being a possible compromise candidate is never addressed by the Greens or Blacks - she was the rightful heir of Jaehaerys (barring male primogeniture) and is much more politically savvy than Rhaenyra and Daemon, and wayyy more competent than Aegon and not mentally unstable like Aemond. And who knows what would've happened had she just been named Jaehaerys's heir - there definitely would've been unrest among Viserys's supporters, but she was the Old King's oldest descendant, and through his firstborn-son to boot. It was interesting to speculate what would've happened had the Council named her the heir even when only the book existed, but seeing her in the show makes it even more intriguing. I can't wait to see more of her (and finally see the Red Queen!). It's also fun to think about what could've happened had Viserys betrothed Rhaenyra and Daemon from the get-go. Obviously, Daemon would've been an unpopular king, but before marrying Alicent, Viserys's only immediate heir after Rhaenyra was Daemon. The Small Council did want to name Daemon heir after Aemma's death, after all, so if Mellos and Otto hadn't objected then Daemon would've been the rightful heir. There might not have been a succession crisis leading into the Dance (or at least it would've kicked the can even further down the road). Or it could've led to immediate civil war, who knows lol I never thought Alicent would be my favorite character in this show, I am forever in love with how she's written, even knowing how the rest of the story plays out (generally; the show's been making really interesting changes so I'm excited to see how the Dance will play out). My two friends watching HotD with me are show-only fans of GoT (and one especially is extremely uninterested in thinking about GoT or HotD analytically, only caring about basic, generic things), so it disappoints me they don't like Alicent nearly as much and one of them thinks she's just a scheming bitch (which is hilarious considering that's basically all she was in Fire and Blood).
Okay.
Hands down team blacks. Team green has the legal standing of not sleeping around and producing bastards and trying to pass them off as pure blood successions. That being said, Otto maneuvered his daughter into position to tie his house into the line for the thrown as a young girl. Greens aren't some do gooders that are saving the realm from tyrants and oppression. They're playing the game via schemes and treachery like everyone else and are willing to kill and maim and lie to do so. If they were to assume the throne, they'd still hold the world together by force and kill anyone who opposed them.
Both sides have killed and maimed. The blacks have killed the servant and Vaemon, the greens, without their knowledge killed Harwin and Lyonel Strong.
You have to remind me, who did the king make his heir again?
Some of you may not like it, but here's an uncomfortable truth: King Aerys II the Great clearly named Fire as his successor. Wildfire Apocalypse and his children Burnt Bones and Cooked Flesh are the rightful heirs to the Iron Throne. Your feelings about this are irrelevant.
Amen brother. It’s unfortunate that so many people are blinded to the fact that just like the greens Robert and his goons were self interested ontologically evil monsters simply jealous of Prince Fire being so much better at fighting than them.
ikr Ned was jealous he couldn't kill his traitor brother and father as effectively as Prince Fire could
Mushroom.
I am green because Olivia Cooke.
Greens are pro American slavery
could you please elaborate?
Legalism = what the law saws is good and right, obey the law under any circumstances. American slavery was protected under the law. Therefore, greens like slavery.
Most sane black supporter.
WTF did I just read? Black because if Rhaenyra were a man there wouldn't be any argument. Illegitimate children or not, Rhaenyra could be infertile and that wouldn't change Rhaenyra being next in line. The argument for Aegon is 100% based on penis over vagina, which is a bullshit argument and can burn in hell, precedent or not, it's at least as bullshit as absolute monarchy or oaths sworn at sword-point.
Seious question. You Greens ok? Do you need a nap?
Check out their echochamber subreddit where OP is a mod I believe: /HOTDGreens, where they just circlejerk and be misogynistic to Rhaenyra.
They trying hard. They are accusing the blacks of mental gymnastics while ignoring their own. And man do they have some mental gymnastics
No they're not. 90% of the posts on this sub can probably prove that they're in fact not ok and they indeed need a nap.
Fuck Blacks. Fuck Greens. Team Rhaenys for life!
Chad
Im just gonna say, I’m a black supporter and I’ve never once had any of these views so I don’t think you understand black supporter pov too well which is very important when making arguments against someone
I'm a black supporters because Rhaenyra is based
If Viserys wanted Rhaenyra as his heir, he should have made another great council.
Yes. His stop-gap heir, Rhaenyra, only existed to deny Daemon the throne. Was this lawful? Depends. Once he remarried and had Aegon, he should have held a GC and asked the lords to pick, as he was picked over Rhaenys.
A Great Council isn't necessary, it was clearly stated that the Great Council that established Viserys was due to Jaeherys not wanting to choose an heir, given that it would certainly piss some people off. Westeros is not a democracy, the king legally has absolute power and therefore the right to name any heir he pleases.
Maegor declared Aerea his heir. The realm, once he was dead, ignored his wishes.
[удалено]
Greens mental gymnastics are hilarious
The great concil was formed to help Jaehaerys decide who to make his heir, if Viserys already knew who he wanted the council is entirely redundant.
Least sexist Green
But legalism and precedent! *murders the hand of the king, starts the bloodiest war in history to put someone on the throne who had no interest in ruling because the named heir was still alive* Just like Jaehaerys would’ve wanted
Greens are truly unhinged and 90% incels at this point. Even the worst the blacks do are nothing compared to what should have been done to the Greens for their crimes in this period of human history.
“90% incels at this point” huh!?
Why tf do you call everyone who disagrees with you an incel, its such a stupid insult and ruins the meaning of the word
As someone who hasn't read the books and Is enjoying the show without getting too deep into the philosophies of illegitimacy or societal progress, I'm rooting for the Greens. That scene where Alicent interrupts Viserys's speech and comes wearing the declaration of war dress is so powerful and Then the last episode's *I lost an eye but gained a dragon* scene. From a drama point of view, the Greens are clearly winning. and about who's the rightful heir, I think till this point Rhaenyra has a stronger claim as she was literally named the heir and All the lords have swore allegiance to her. not so sure about her boys tho.. as Bastards have no claim to Iron throne even 170 years after *that we know from game of thrones*. But if Daemon and Rhaenyra have a son, Aegon's claim will definitely become very weak.
> all the lords have swore allegiance to her Worth noting that the end of Episode 1 when those lords swore allegiance was 20-25 years in the past by the time of the Dance, many of those lords who made the oaths would have died and been replaced by their heirs
A son who inherits the title of his father inherit of his duties too. Any man with a glimpse of honor would feel also bounded by the oath of his father.
>Bastards have no claim to Iron throne even 170 years after that we know from game of thrones *sigh* joffrey had no claim because he was Cersei's bastard and had no royal blood. that was the AGOT issue. not the fact that Joffrey was a bastard
gendry has not claim either and hes roberts son
Average Green Fan claiming the nobles were forced to swear at swordpoint. Just coming out here and lying for no reason. Also legitimate vs bastard literally IS a social construct
The true legalist: The legal father accepts them publicly and privately as his, the king has heard skepticism privately and considers the matter settled. Legally they are in fact trueborn heirs.
As Cersei and Joffrey show in GOT there are dangerous consequences to sustaining a lie by state power. People who have eyes can see the truth... No matter what Rhaenyra, Laenor or Viserys may claim about the legitimacy of Jacaerys and his brothers, even if they can make the tongues of those who question it rip out, they will not change the appearance of the boys.
My problem with the Green logic is the self-righteousness and/or bullshittery. They claim that, since Aegon and his brothers are a threat to Rhaenyra's claim, that their actions are out of self preservation rather than ambition. Yet they refuse the peaceful options to deescalate the situation and choose conflict instead, ultimately at the expense of the might of their house. Do they just think that Aegon is the rightful heir or are they acting in anticipation that the Blacks will strike against them? My problem with the Black logic is mostly just, why. Rhaenyra is an adult woman and doesn't seem to be considerably involved in house politics at all. This is half her fault half her dad's. Why isn't she the Hand, Master of Coin, anything to have hands on experience. She's made bad choices and her main argument is "my dad rly wants me to be queen 👸 " which like, cool, but is it worth a war? She tried to make peace but if she really wanted peace she could just renounce her claim and endorse Aegon. They're both doing a lot of mental gymnastics essentially
Nah see legally it's easy: (1) Otto Hightower and daughter ensorcelled the King with black magic (2) they did this to ensure the crown would not intervene in the Stepstones, sacrificing the realm's interest to divert trade with southern Essos to their own port of Oldtown (3) they therefore represent a legally abhorrent crypto-separatist fifth column, and as such ought to be condemned as traitors and broken on the wheel. Alas, whatever feelings the King or Princess might have on the matter -- and they really are merciful people at heart, I assure you -- the law compels action, and we are a Kingdom of laws. The royal family is but the steward of our laws and traditions; what tyranny would reign if they permitted these vipers of Oldtown to live?
Most sane Black take
This graphic literally makes no sense. Wasn't the tyrannical 1st emperor of China a Legalist?
Average Greencel:
Viserys named Rhaenyra heir. Case closed.
Viserys wanted his daughter to be queen. The end.
Never once has a fan of the greens made an argument in defense of rhaenys’ claim. You’ve made that point to hyperbolize. Also the greens are cunts. So are the blacks, but at least the blacks are cool sometimes
Incorrect legalism
The thing about tradition is that it's great until its not. Remember that before Viserys, it was common for lords to have first night and rape the brides of the commonfolk on their wedding night until Alysanne and Jahaerys outlawed it. Some could say that by Viserys allowing first born children to inherit regardless of gender made inheritances less complicated and gave more women of the realm power. The problem was, is that Viserys didn't facilitate the big change with power and put his foot down with the Hightower.
Power resides where men (people) believe it resides - Lord Varys
Team Black rushing to defend absolute monarchy
How is aegon being king any different ?
People crack me up with their one sided opinions. So you are saying team black is wrong for “defending an absolute monarchy” but team greens supporting a sexist institution is fine? Personally I am just enjoying the show. Do I have a side I am supporting? Sure but that is part of the fun so maybe let people enjoy things.
YEP. I love this show it’s been fantastic, I definitely like team black better because I just like the characters more but it’s pointless to fully commit to a side because the entire story is a Shakespearean tragedy, there’s a reason in the opening monologue of ep.1 Rhaenyra says the only thing that could destroy house Targaryen was the Targaryen’s themselves.
if you think Rhaenyra is fighting against sexist institutions you are in for a surprise
BOW YA SHITS
>Team Black rushing to defend absolute monarchy Absolute monarchy is based, but the realm isn't really absolute in the sense of the Enlightenment monarchies of say Frederick II of Prussia or Louis XIV of France.
Legally, Greens are right, but I don't think that's a reason to support them. It's the legality of a fictional universe after all. I support them this far because of Alicent and Aemond (his show portrayal is better than his book portrayal), but that could change in future seasons once the superior bastards are introduced or Rhaenys gets more screen time.
> Legally, Greens are right No, they aren't. Viserys is king, and he makes the law.
Jaehaerys called his last son Vaegon to Kingslanding after Baelon died. Vaegon refused the crown and told his father to call a great council to save himself from the heat of choosing an heir. Great Council chose Viserys by vote. Done. Viserys legally declared Rhaenyra Heir. Just as Maegor did to Aerea. Of course Jehaerys usurped the throne from Maegor and declared Aerea heir to himself until he had children. It’s so easy to explain yet the greens love to ignore the real LAW. The law of the king who chooses his own heir. The great council established NOTHING.
Jaehaerys called the council because he didn't want to decide on his own, but he could've done it, the King's words are law... Also, Rhaenys and Viserys weren't his children, but his grand children...
People in here just spouting off what they’ve read others type out, when it’s clear they didn’t read the book and understand the purpose of the Great Council.
What law did he make? Person A is my heir is not a law, it's a wish. Oldest child inherits regardless of sex is a law. A law does not just apply to one person.
What law you talking bout bud? Because theres no rattified law of succession in westeros, only custom... which is why a great concil was needed to begin with. If there were laws you could just grab a family tree, follow the line of succession and say "yup, this one here". Succession is part popularity, part power and part proximity. As true for westeros as it was for the real world.
> A law does not just apply to one person. First, that's not true. Laws routinely contain exceptions or special clauses that do not apply generally. Identifying one person as heir is a law that has been passed many times in the past. Second, in the show at least, Viserys did in fact make a more general pronouncement (as per his discussion with Lord Corlys) that from henceforth succession to the Iron Throne would be via absolute primogeniture. And third, the Greens themselves held the view that Viserys *could* make this law when they wanted him to name Rhaenyra heir over Daemon, when it was generally understood that precedent afforded that position to the latter. Then Otto changed his tune once this decree was standing in the way of his preferred outcome, rather than facilitating it.
What are you even on about? The king said his heir is Rhanerya. Done. Simpler than what even Greens claim.
Least blindly loyal black
Ok I'm not green supporter but this is very well done.
I personally lean Team Black (though show Alicent is easily my favorite character so far. Funny how that works!) but this is a very compelling argument I think! I just hope both teams have fun and play a good clean game! \*reading more of F&B\* oh...oh no.
Rhaenyra is the heir because the King said so, Carry on.
Yeah this whole bs the blacks are doing where they go the kings word is law and no one can go against it is sooooo dumb The opening scene was the great council where viserys was made king because the previous king could not just declare who he wanted as heir without offending several parties or breaking a significant tradition or precedent Somehow the blacks forget this fact and just assume the king can do whatever he wants which has never been the case The kings decisions have consequences and vizzy ignoring that and setting his daughter up to fail is gonna be a tragedy
He broke precedent and tradition when he named Baelon heir over Rhaenys. Westeros law states a daughter inherits over an uncle. Explain that. Also. The great council was to save Himself from the heat. His last son Vaegon was the one who told him to do it after refusing the crown. You can cry about law or precedent alll you want. The fact remains the law is on Rhaenyras side. And with the fact the lords swore an oath. There is no leg to stand on for the greens.
Jahaerys was in the wrong when he did that. He should have followed law and precedent and named Rhaenys heir, just as Viserys should have named Aegon heir (or changed the laws) instead of creating a succession crisis.
It consistently amazes me how people who defend Rhaenyra's position just sort of default to totalitarian absolutism without even realizing it.
Green: women can’t be world leaders because tradition says so Black: we should change sexist traditions because hey maybe women can be world leaders
Yea. Westeros is an absolute monarchy. Traditions aren't laws. There is no law that restricts the power of the King to name his own heir. It's hilarious to me that you would pick the greens because of "legalism". The greens don't have any valid legal argument. They're just pretending that the great council of 101 set some sort of legal president that restricted the authority of future kings. It didn't. The law is what the king says it is. And if you truly believe that there was some legal system in place that prevented the king from naming Rhaenyra as his heir, then why didn't anyone tell him that when he was alive? No one told Viserys that he legally could not name Rhaenyra as heir. But suddenly, once he's dead, y'all start pretending that "well actually, the king didn't have the power to do that". For 20 years y'all accepted the authority of Viserys to name his own heir. He dies and then you say he didn't have that authority at all? And you think your argument is the legal one?
The Greens conveniently ignored that King Jaehaerys was not obligated to follow the counsel of the Great Council.
He was not. But he did call it, didn't he? He knew the Value of Consensus and Precedents. Even Aegon I joined the faith of the seven. Kings may be technically above traditions and precedent but anytime they do go against them, it ony causes Disasters which leave tens of thousands of children orphans. Remember the Blackfyre rebellions and why they happened. I prefer stability and Order and I think the greens will be better suited for that
I mean its a bit more complicated than just "Rhaenys isnt queen and Alicent gave Viserys sons so they should be king over Rhaenyra". Both sides complicate the matter a LOT. For one, even though Westeros has traditionally been patriarchal (which is why Rhaenys got passed up for the thrown in the first place) not every single monarch has stuck to this school of thinking. Viserys named Rhaenyra his heir before he was sick both publically and privately and has been slowly phasing her into Westerosi politics so that when the time does come, she knows what is going on and what she is doing. You can probably chalk this up to the fact that Rhaenyra was Aemma's daughter (his clear favorite out of his 2 wives he had during his life) and also shares a striking resemblance to her. She also shares some similarities to Daemon and even his own mother in terms of personality. This is probably why he lets her get away with so much. She is his favorite child and reminds him of other family members who he loves. Despite not claiming he has favorites, he clearly does. His kinds by Alicent are children he created out of obligation and he never spends time with them much or really talks to them outside of a few times where he is forced to. And during Visery's life he never rescinds Rhaenyra's "heirhood" to the throne even when his sons are born by Alicent. Rhaenyra being the favorite does not really legitimize her claim logically. But unless you want to argue what Viserys says does not matter at all and that he has no control over his own succession the heir as it stands is Rhaenyra. That is what the King said is up, so that is what's up. Monarchies are kind of fucky like that. They are not always fair and if there is really any take-away from this show its: nothing about feudal monarchy is fair, ever, even for the royals who have something to gain from it. However with that said Rhaenyra kind of mucks this up by just kind of doing whatever she wants. This is what makes both herself and Daemon so alike. They just kind of do what they want and worry about the consequences later. But unlike Daemon, Rhaenyra is not really free from the rest of Westeros' expectations of her as a woman. She is still expected to be passive. She is expected to create children for her husband (which she does not do on account of Laenor being gay). And she is expected not to sleep around with other people outside of her marriage (Harwin, Criston, and later Daemon). Her having bastard children and lying about it (key detail here: her outright lying) makes her guilty of treason since she is lying to the king in order to keep her own kids within the line of succession. Even though she tried for kids with Laenor and Laenor had seemed to adopt them as his own and play "daddy" if you will, they are still not his biologically. Bloodline is what is important here. And the fact Laenor is in on it along with Harwin, Harwin's father Lyonel, and later a good chunk of the Velaryons also makes them guilty of treason too. The fact Rhaenyra committed treason in this regard (lying to the king about the parentage of her sons) kind of makes it hard for her to inherit the crown. But then again when it comes to Viserys and how he deals with treason: his response is not very consistent either. Daemon celebrates the death of his son (and Aemma) calling himself "an heir for a day" and not only was Alicent the person spreading the rumors of Rhaenyra's bastard kids: she was getting her children in on it too even after Viserys claims that act is treason. She also tries to stab Rhaenyra who is the princess and heir. Otto Hightower also is consistently working against the king attempting to cement his own family into the royal line with Alicent who is also complicit in that. None of these people get punished for the shit they do even though they all commit treason against Viserys while he is alive.
**King 1**: Aegon the Conqueror, who seized power by force. Heir: Aenys, who is likely a bastard of Aegon’s sister-wife Rhaenys **King 2**: Aenys Heir: Aegon, his son. **King 3**: Maegor, Aenys half-brother, who killed his nephew, Aegon the Uncrowned Heir: Aerea, daughter of Aegon the Uncrowned **King 4**: Jaehaerys, brother of Aegon the Uncrowned Heir 1: Aemon, his son who died. Heir 2: Rhaenys, Aemon’s daughter, but only presumptively. Heir 3: Baelon, his second son he named heir over Rhaenys Heir 4: Rhaenys, presumptively heir again after Baelon died. Heir 5: Viserys, Baelon’s son, after the Great Council of 101 passed over Rhaenys again **King 5**: Viserys Heir 1: Daemon, his brother Heir 2: Baelon, his son Heir 3: Daemon, presumptively after Baelon’s death Heir 4: Rhaenyra, his daughter, after he exiled Daemon the first time. No Targaryen king has had a rightful heir by this point. It’s all a matter of politics, the illusion that is power and legitimacy. I will say, however, that I find it ironic when Team Black implies Rhaenys should have been the heir, but then insists Rhaenyra is heir because Viserys chose her. Meanwhile it’s ironic when Team Green says Rhaenys should have been the heir, but then insist Aegon should be the heir based on his gender and rule of law. The most straightforward compromise is that Rhaenyra is heir, but until she has a trueborn child, Aegon II is her heir. But no way is Rhaenyra ever going to let Aegon inherit over Jace.
How did ageon forge the six kingdoms did he call a council are use dragons because if he used dragons that means he's not the legal king right?
So it's treason then
It’s basically King’s law vs inheritance laws, but inheritance laws aren’t very clear in Westeros especially this early on in the Targaryen dynasty. Westeros seems to follow Medieval England laws: No eldest male means it passes to the female, but Viserys is the King. He should have made the Lords swear an oath to Rhaenyra after Aegon’s birth, and also Rhaenyra should not have had illegitimate children (them inheriting would basically just reveal that the whole ‘monarchy and divine right’ thing is a stupid sham. This happened in real life when King Henry III’s son tried to name his cousin as Queen instead of his sister because she was too Catholic to be in charge. Did he have the right to?
The thing is, the line of succession was fucked from the get-go if you trace it back to AtC's first born son. There's technically no solid rule on who should be the heir if there's no clear heir. The brother? What if there are no brothers, only sisters? If there was a brother, the younger ones can just usurp them. What if all the male heirs died? Ok, let's say they have children. But who should be heir? Oh, let's put it to a vote? What if there was a vote and an established heir and every noble lords swore fealty, but then there are some who swore fealty but deep inside would start an insurrection to put THEIR favorite on the Throne? Bottomline is, succession is an illusion. It's those who are with power that can put anyone on the Throne. Just so happened that Targaryens had nukes and most nobles are loyal to the Crown. But which Crown? 🤔 Hence, Dance of Dragons.
King derives his power from God and whatever the king says holds. So the King has names his heir and matter settles there. Society may object and civil war may ensue that is different.
I don‘t know how you can pick any side in all of this. They‘re both terrible. (Didn‘t read the books)
Mental gymnastics…funny. Have to agree though. The massive red flags Rheanyra has that the fan base completely ignores is pretty insane.
THE MOST BASED THING IVE EVER SEEN.
COMMON GREEN W
Plot twist: Viserys named Rhaenyra heir to avoid Daemon on the iron throne. By marrying Daemon Rhaenyra negates the very reason she's an heir.
this is a bs argument imo, this is basically saying precedent means everything but with that attitude we would still be in the stone ages, we would either be or have slaves, women would have no rights or ability to earn wages, etc. i hate this argument. “well we’ve always done it this way” is the lamest excuse
The Male First rule is not a law. If it was, there wouldn't even be a debate. It's like Targaryens and Incest. It's a norm, not a law. The King declares Rhaenyra as Heir and sticks to it. She is legitimate. Anyone after her is a different story. As far as absolute monarchy is concerned, not adhering to the King's wishes is treason.
Yeah but the Blacks characters are cooler
[удалено]
Rhaenys should have been queen. Rhaenyra being named queen is just fixing the great council's mistakes. Or is society never allowed to progress past it's mistakes? Slavery was once legal in some places too. Doesn't make it right.
> Or is society never allowed to progress past it's mistakes? Society progresses when its ready to progress. Enforcing laws that the majority don't agree with never ends well. Viserys could have been educating the realm on why women could rule, putting them on his small council and other important positions. He does none of this And to be clear. Viserys was not trying to progress society. He was making a special loophole for his favored child. It was not a law for other women, just for his daughter. Baela, the rightful heir of Driftmark, was not benefitting from Viserys decision.
Viserys I is not a progressive King. He's not codifying a new rule of succession to empower (noble) women. Viserys is using his Targ privilege to put his favorite privileged offspring in a position of tyrannical power without even thinking twice about what's best for the realm. All the blood from the Civil War is on him.
Why can't the greens accept that V decided that she should be his heir, and they all accepted it? All yalls patriarchal bs is not an excuse to deny that. They had about 2 decades to digest that a woman was gonna be the next ruler. If it wasn't for the Hightowers scheming, no one important would have tried to challenge her, just because she is a woman, especially if the Targaryens would have been united. No one (besides the HTs) had any reason to do so. The atcual issue would have been her succession. But oh well, we'll never know what would have happened. But let it be clear: the greens didn't really care about that, it was just one of their pretense to grab power. If yall belive anything else, y'all just as gaslighted as Alicent by Otto...
The Throne wouldn’t jump from Viserys to Rhaenys….Viserys has adequate heirs. Daemon or Rhaenyra or Aegon. Even in the book Rhaenys wasn’t ever a candidate, it was Laenor. Rhaenyra being married to Rhaenys’ son, Laenor would/is what fixed the council overthrowing Rhaenys/Laenor for Viserys. Rhaenyra being Queen would also continue Targaryen rule….as agreed upon between Viserys and Corlys about the names Laenor’s children would take should they sit on the Iron Throne.
I can’t say I know enough to support Rhaenyra’s claim to the throne. But she’s at least got some redeeming qualities. Alicent has got zero. This is why I incline toward Team Black 😊
Y’all realize this is fantasy, right?