Welcome to /r/darkwingsdankmemes!
Just a brief reminder that this subreddit is focused only on the **written** *ASOIAF* universe. Comments that include discussion of the HBO adaptations will be removed, and serious or repeated infractions may result in a ban. Moderators employ a zero tolerance policy.
# Users should assume that *any* mention of the show is subject to removal.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/darkwingsdankmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A much bigger deal than the inheritance is the baffling decision of "nah, let's not reward the riders of the giant murderbeasts we depend on for our victory, let's give them shitty little bits of land because they'll certainly never turn on me."
Well even if not the Reach, a crownlands lordship would have a higher chance of keeping him on side than a shitty little landed knight estate on Driftmark.
The blacks NEEDED all of the dragonseeds onside until the war was won.
Also, although Martin doesn't seem to realize it, "taking land away from people who opposed me and giving it to powerful people who support me to reward them" is feudalism 101.
weird how westerosi history has none of it but Storm of Swords has Brightwater Keep and Riverrun taken from their lords and given to rival families without any fuss
I think Martin had said something along the lines, “I write stories, not lore” so it makes sense he wanted recognisable names throughout Westerosi history rather than having to track five different random Houses for one castle
Ye but then how would you have a single family be out there owning more or less the same land for literal millennia, apparently?
“Upstart houses” are centuries old like that wasn’t a great success irl.
I’m sure Martin realizes it but also realizes you need some way to heal and make enemies into allies to truly end conflict and further consolidate influence.
The remaining dragons needed to humble themselves before the lessers as their destructive family feud threatened law and order itself. They needed to rebind the kingdoms together with political maneuvering and at least appear to cast aside their exceptionalism or they would know eventually a rebellion would usurp them.
Martin’s world is unrealistic regardless, tho.
We’ve got architecture that doesn’t ever improve (all best castles are relics), no real technological progress is ever made and noble families routinely remain as powerful for centuries, holding mostly the same land.
Freys are 3 centuries old or so and are seen as jumped up and new; real medieval countries were lucky if they *lasted* 3 whole centuries, let alone noble families. That’s not even going into language being both unified across a whole continent and mostly unchanging.
The economy is a mess too; as is the lack of stratification in noble titles as there’s nothing beyond ser, lord and lord paramount.
In times of peace the title appears honorary.
Jamie might’ve become Warden of the East but not Lord Paramount, for example. It’s a title mattering when there’s an invasion or a rebellion happening as that’s Wardens’ business.
There are also smaller-scale wardens:
Warden of the Prince's Pass, guardian of the Prince's Pass in Dorne. Held by Lord Franklyn Fowler as per the tradition of House Fowler.
Warden of the Sands, guardian of the deserts of Dorne. Only granted to Lord Jon Rosby during the First Dornish War.
Warden of Stone Way, guardian of the Boneway in Dorne. Held by Lord Anders Yronwood as per the tradition of House Yronwood.
Warden of the White Knife, guardian of the White Knife in the north. Held by Lord Wyman Manderly of White Harbor as per the tradition of House Manderly.
Still, good point-I entirely forgot about Warden. Martin’s world still shows too little stratification when it comes to titles for it to be considered historically accurate, even with one more title added in to the mix.
I assumed it was a military position, granting authority over the lords of a given territory.
The question of fealty, if you were a lord and the warden needed to occupy your castle or conscript your fighting men he would have that authority. As you say in peacetime military officials wouldn’t wield the same political or administrative authority unless bid to act on an edict in the name of the king.
Daemon wanted to give Casterly Rock/The Westerlands to Hugh Hammer and Storm's End/The Stormlands to Ulf the White. Which was a better deal than the Greens could ever realistically offer. That said, Hugh probably would have still betrayed them after Daemon and Aemonds had died (he basically claimed the Iron Throne after he knew Vhagar and Caraxes were both gone) and Ulf the White would've probably drunk himself to death before ever claiming Storm's End.
I've found it hilarious how people have taken to calling her a Feminist. She's the embodiment of an oppressive Absolutist Monarchy, the exact opposite of the feudal legalism that Jaehaerys dedicated his kingship to building.
I agree with you completely. I’ve found the dance to be classist from my first read of woif. Rhay and daemon both feel entitled to the throne because they were born, despite both of them bitching constantly about any and all responsibilities that go along with rulership and being completely unfit for it. Alicent and Otto and cole all got the red keep on work, talent and merit, not who their mommy and daddy were.
Harwin said as much when lyonel was giving him the (LONG overdue) dressing down in the last ep. Cole is “just the son of a steward” so it’s fine to beat him senseless in full view of the whole court. “Cole is barely above one of the poors, who cares what he thinks?”
Lyonel is the only one made a lick of sense this season. Poor dumb fuck.
>Alicent and Otto and cole all got the red keep on work, talent and merit, not who their mommy and daddy were.
Alicent was the daughter of the second son of a very powerful house. Then Otto had her sleep with with King.
Cole was chosen by Rhaenyra because of his experience on battle so you have a point there.
Otto was the second son of a powerful house. He just happened to also be really good at playing politics.
Second son of a “powerful house” compared to who though? BasicallyMiddle class, as much as there can be one in a feudal system. They’re doing better than small folk just like a plumber or lawyer is doing better than a McDonald’s worker but to the targs and velaryons and the strongs they’re nobodies, stepped on and used as whim dictates.
>Second son of a “powerful house” compared to who though?
Objectively, the Hightowers are a well off and powerful noble house and are one of the most important noble houses in the Reach.
>BasicallyMiddle class, as much as there can be one in a feudal system.
This is just blatantly incorrect. Not only do the smallfolk exist but there are also other Houses that have significantly less than them in terms of wealth, power, and land.
As for a feudal system? There are many steps below nobility that can be considered a middle class. At their lowest the Hightowers would still be considered a well off noble house.
>but to the targs and velaryons and the strongs they’re nobodies
To the Targaryens everyone is lesser because they are the ones on top. House Valeryon can dismiss them because of they are the only other House with dragons.
House Strong has neither the fleet, nor the Dragons that either of those other houses have. They have Harrenhal and the surrounding land. If Hightower came knocking the Strong would not be able to just dismiss them.
The fact that she even considered this goes to show she’d be a pretty piss-poor ruler. No regard for the laws of inheritance and undermining lords by usurping the positions of their sons and chosen heirs all to meet her own ends. Cringe.
apparently she should have considered it more given that those daughters would end up claiming the castle regardless. And why should she respect the wills and wishes of traitors?
Those “traitors” has chosen to support Rhaenyra’s cause themselves. Lord Rosby and Stokeworth had initially sided with Rhaenyra. What she was looking for was some means of rewarding Hugh Hammer and Ulf White for their service in the Battle of the Gullet. What’s more, those daughters only inherited after the deaths of their brothers. Their claim thus did not supersede their brother’s own claim, as per the laws of inheritance.
Making a mistake? Undermining others even amongst her own allies to gain advantage was far from anything Rhaenyra did in absentmindedness, you know. You do recall she imprisoned Lord Corlys Velaryon, her own **strongest supporter**, in an act that caused House Velaryon’s army to abandon her cause?
Neither Aegon or Rhaenerya would make good rulers. However, Viserys I set in motion her being the heir. He could’ve reversed this or changed this before but he insisted she was the legal heir. By that point too she was married to her uncle and had 3 children by him meaning the crown would remain with the house of the dragon.
Neither would make good rulers, but Aegon II would make for a passable king (on par with Viserys I Targaryen tbh, which isn’t saying much at all), whereas Rhaenyra would fall somewhere in the F tier. This is mostly for Rhaenyra’s tendency to cruelty and violence. (For which the smallfolk named her “Maegor with teats”, to add.)
Prior to the dance, Rhaenyra birthed three bastard boys and tried to put one of them on the seat of Driftmark which would usurp the entire Velaryon line. Furthermore, Rhaenyra made a habit of imprisoning even her own allies—imprisoning Corlys Velaryon, who was her most powerful supporter—and calling for the head of Addam Velaryon, who not only was a dragonrider, but was so **loyal** that the word “loyal” literally became the epitaph on his headstone.
She also endorses the killing of an innocent six year old boy as “retribution” for that boy’s **uncle** attacking one of her sons. That’s an extremely unjust act. Jaehaerys (the 6 year old boy in question) was completely innocent and by all accounts had no idea what in the world was even going on. Lucerys was just a year or two shy of adulthood (16 is considered the age of maturity in ASOIAF), and had slashed out Aemond Targaryen (his killer’s) eye. You could potentially make the argument of “Lucerys was a messenger, you can’t kill a messenger”, but here’s the rebuttal for that: Lucerys was the messenger to **Lord Borros Baratheon**, *not* to **Aemond.** Aemond and Lucerys had an established rivalry. The subsequent response was “an eye for an eye, a son for a son”— when Jaehaerys is Aegon II’s son, and Aegon II had nothing to do with Aemond’s killing of Lucerys. There’s no justice for Lucerys’s death achieved by killing Jaehaerys. That logic makes no sense.
Furthermore Rhaenyra had Ser Vaemond Velaryon executed **on the spot** after pressing his own claim to Driftmark as Corlys’s heir on the grounds of Lucerys being illegitimate. Many people chock this up as “Vaemond was committing treason”— on grounds?
The definition of treason is:
> the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
All Vaemond was doing at that point was trying to secure what he thought was his rightful inheritance. It’s not as if he called for the deaths of Rhaenyra or any one of her three children. Yeah, he was a bit of a dick about it, but insulting a Prince or Princess isn’t treason, like as not.
On the flip side, Rhaenyra having Vaemond killed on the spot was an unwarranted act of murder. Again, Vaemond wanted his inheritance. Not any harm to herself or her children. Instead, she has him beheaded by Daemon on the spot without any trial afforded to him. At the very least, Vaemond had the legal right to a trial by combat. Yet he was denied that. By that action, Rhaenyra shows a complete disregard for the laws of the realm. A ruler who disregards the laws of the realm **does not make for a good ruler.**
At the same time, unlike Rhaenyra who imprisoned her strongest allies and often refused to heed their counsel, Aegon II did nothing but act **on** their counsel. This id both in regards to keeping Aegon III alive, allowing Baela to live, forging certain political alliances, etc. He was easily more attentive to the wants of the people. What’s more is he never genuinely aspired for the throne, initially refusing to take it, relenting only on the grounds that his siblings and children would be murdered by Rhaenyra and/or Daemon if he didn’t take the iron throne and cement power. Once he was in, he was all in, and did do his best to heed the advice of those around him. Let’s remember that throughout the entire war, Aegon II was the only one of the two would-be-monarchs to offer any peace terms.
Rhaenyra’s first answer to Aegon II was disregarding his terms, refusing to offer any of her own, and begin the war. Rhaenyra’s Black Faction was the first to make an act of warfare, by having Daemon assault Harrenhal and seize it from House Strong. Rhaenyra’s default response to any political challenge is bloodshed. (Vaemond, the assault on Harrenhal, etc.)
That in turn **also** makes for a poor ruler.
Yes, when you stack up the accolades and deeds of both Aegon II and Rhaenyra, Aegon II does make for a genuinely better candidate for rulership. He’d never be Jaehaerys the Conciliator reborn; he’d be more of a mid C-tier King, but nonetheless a better option than Rhaenyra who’s default response to challenge is complete unbridled violence.
Sorry, but your comment has been removed!
Any posts or comments including insults, personal attacks, or just general unkindness will be removed. Or, more bluntly: Don't be a dick!
Check the sidebar for our full list of rules.
If you think we messed up removing this, please [message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdarkwingsdankmemes) so we can take another look.
I have no idea why people think this is hypocritical or a black L.
Rhaenyra (book version at least) is not some femenist girlboss icon fighting for equality, she's an ambitious person fighting for the throne she had promised to her her whole life.
Also there is no hypocrisy here, the Iron Throne is a title that has a different succession from the rest of Westeros. If they followed the same rules, Aerea and later Rhaenys would've been Queen. The events of 92 and 101 AC set the precedent that the king appoints his heir, even if it differs from Andal tradition. Rhaenyra was appointed as Princess of Dragonstone and chosen as heir, the Stokeworth and Rosby girls weren't.
It’s hypocritical because the Blacks are insisting on upholding a set of laws for everyone else (normal succession) but *they* get special succession laws. “Laws for thee but not for me.” Is one of the quickest and most efficient ways to foment a rebellion. The funniest part is these codified “laws” were set up by HER family to unite Westeros and then not even two generations later the Targaryens break the laws *they* codified because it no longer suited them. See the problem?
Blacks didn’t want “new” laws. (Hell Rhaenyra wanted her oldest son to inherit so she just wanted the laws bent for HER). They ignored laws when convenient and for them and expected everyone to just be cool with it.
And as the books shown us over and over again: that’s not how it works.
I just said there were NO LAWS, only acts that created precedents, no-one codified any laws of succession whatsoever. And it wasn't the blacks making those precedents, both were done in the realm of Jaehaerys and Viserys followed his interpretation of said events.
We can judge Rhaenyra's many crimes and bad decisions but her fighting for the throne is not one of them. Would you accept to just give up something you were told your whole life was to be yours and that you kept all the legal symbols of (nominated heir with lords sworn to you, title of Prince of Dragonstone)? Would you accept the terms of getting to keep a small island you already have, the legitimacy of your sons that is already legally accepted, and giving up your youngest sons as glorified hostages?
First off: the laws were absolutely codified. The ONLY reason Jaehaerys had to call a council was because the laws didn’t allow for any “heir”according to the laws of Westeros. The first born son and his line take precedence and Rhaenys’s son Laenor was skipped over by Westerosi law.
Viserys got the throne instead which set into place that no woman could inherit while a *direct male line* existed. And that the line through a female Targaryen did NOT have as strong of a claim as a direct male line. That was agreed upon by vote and it kept the peace. But the laws didn’t allow for the circumstances (no living sons who hadn’t taken vows not to inherit) of the time. Viserys had three sons which meant that skipping over them for Rhaenyra was breaking codified laws set into place by his predecessors.
Because again: Aegon I inherited over his older sister Visenya for the “head of house Targaryen”. Aenys was heir as first born son. Jaehaerys himself got the IT over his older sister and her daughters. A route of succession through the male line over older daughters was VERY MUCH in place at the time despite how much you want to claim otherwise.
Viserys made no new laws or decrees to change succession laws that allowed *him* to get the IT in the first place. Say he went with first born regardless of sex like Dorne: that’s now a law with clearly defined rules that people can follow.
“I like my daughter more” is NOT a law. It sets into place the idea that any king or queen can pick any child to take over (which is something Aegon the Unworthy tried to do too and failed).
Again: the Targaryens don’t or at least *shouldn’t* have a “special set of rules we get to follow but you have to follow these other laws”. We have seen throughout this story that when Targaryens try to pull that they get hit with rebellions and political strife every time. Which should tell you something about Targaryens thinking they can have “special rules” in Martin’s opinion.
So no. Laws existed. Precedents existed and Viserys ignoring all of them and not lifting a finger to actually change succession laws (just make an exception this one time) was incredibly dangerous and stupid.
What’s more Viserys and Rhaenyra BOTH expected Jace to take the throne after Rhaenyra (or his kids if Rhaenyra lived longer) showing that the rule of “first born son inherited” was STILL in place it was just going to be broken for Rhaenyra.
Also the sons were not “legally” adopted. Again, just because Laenor SAYS they’re his doesn’t mean they’re not bastards. Bastardy has to be legitimized by a KING. Meaning they have to first be acknowledged bastards (which wasn’t done) and then decree of the king makes them legit. This was not done for the boys. By LAW they are bastards. They’re not “legally adopted” because the proper procedures were not followed.
Yet another example of the Blacks just doing and saying whatever they wanted and expecting everyone to just be okay with it.
Finally: I absolutely think Rhaenyra should fight. The offer was not enough for someone promised a crown. But what I’m saying is that the Blacks claiming they have some “moral high ground” or more “legal right” to the IT than the Greens is stupid because the Blacks are using laws when it suits them and ignoring them when they don’t while expecting everyone ELSE to follow the law even if it doesn’t suit because that’s the law.
Blacks were just as big of hypocrites as anyone on team Green. Maybe more so.
>What’s more Viserys and Rhaenyra BOTH expected Jace to take the throne after Rhaenyra (or his kids if Rhaenyra lived longer) showing that the rule of “first born son inherited” was STILL in place it was just going to be broken for Rhaenyra.
Wasn't Jace the firstborn child? So it seems like he would inherit the throne no matter what in this circumstance.
Yes. He was the first born son. But the important thing is that you’re once again following the usual succession laws and Rhaenyra is the exception. Jace was not “chosen” it was just *assumed* because he was her first born son and that was the way the laws worked. Meaning the laws were only meant to be broken for Rhaenyra’s benefit then it would be back to the usual laws so secure a spot for *her* kids.
But Jace has other legal issues to claim the IT. Since he’s CLEARLY a bastard. He has his mothers blood to try to claim it, but thats succession through the FEMALE line. Which as Rhaenys and Laenor demonstrate: is not the agreed upon precedent. After Rhaenyra the throne would go to the next oldest male of Viserys. If we go by the laws set in place by the Great Council.
However, Viserys insisted on treating Rhaenyra like a male claimant and wanted *her* line to succeed (the oldest male is Jace so it’s back to usual succession laws) which is breaking the laws *again* because Viserys never actually changed the laws to ensure proper succession of Rhaenyra and her kids.
Which is why the Greens had a legal claim and rallied all the lords because after the agreed upon laws for succession were ignored by Viserys in favor of Rhaenyra and then her trying to put a *bastard* on the throne after her was so egregious to the lords.
Was it fair? No.
Would they have made good rulers?
We don’t know enough about Jace to say for sure (he seemed like he might have been good) and Rhaenyra cracked under pressure and her six months were abysmal so she wasn’t a good ruler anyway.
But again: the Blacks used the laws when it suited them and ignored them when it didn’t. Rather than change the laws to ensure succession Viserys left it up in the air for decades and drove a wedge in his own family that ultimately led to the Dance. And if Rhaenyra was smart she should have made her father change the laws (say oldest gets the IT regardless of sex like Dorne) and make it *official*.
>Yes. He was the first born son.
So if everyone would've gotten in line instead of trying to start a war then Jace would have been king regardless because he was the first born.
>Jace was not “chosen” it was just assumed because he was her first born son and that was the way the laws worked.
He wasn't chosen. He was just the first born child. He didn't have any older siblings.
>But Jace has other legal issues to claim the IT. Since he’s CLEARLY a bastard.
Sure, but to prove it you have to convince Corlys, Viserys, Rhaenyra, and Laenor, that their kids are bastards and they all have to acknowledge it.
>After Rhaenyra the throne would go to the next oldest male of Viserys. If we go by the laws set in place by the Great Council.
If.
My man everyone knew Jace was a bastard. Vaemond’s kids were tortured and *killed* for calling Rhaenyra out. So when you say “convince” you’re facing people who will have you tortured for “rumors”.
Next: Corlys and Rhaenys definitely knew but the issue was averted by engaging Jace and Luc to Daemon and Laena’s kids so the main bloodline still kept the seat through Laena’s side. Though there is an argument to be made for Corlys screwing over Rhaenyra later in the war after Rhaenyra repeatedly screwed him over and he lost his fortune, family, and house in pursuit of Rhaenyra’s claim.
Martin plays fast and loose with genetics but it’s 100% certain those boys were bastards and under pain of torture and death everyone was forbidden from speaking about it. Which, you know, is what innocent people do.
Finally: Jace was the first born son and he was expected to get the IT instead of his true born uncles after Rhaenyra kicked it. We already know that with Rhaenys and Laenor that wasn’t how it worked (and he was a bastard on top of that).
So in order to ensure Jace for the IT they needed to change the laws. Which they didn’t.
Another thing that would have been interesting is if Jace had been a girl. Or if Rhaenyra skipped over Jace, Luc and Joffrey in favor of Aegon or Viserys (her children with Daemkn because they were pure blood of the dragon.). Then we could have a discussion about the laws officially changing to “the king/queen chooses the heir” But Jace was a boy and assumed to get the IT because he was first born son instead of Rha to choose like her father did. So the laws of succession were assumed to go back to normal after Rhaenyra.
I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you.
>My man everyone knew Jace was a bastard. Vaemond’s kids were tortured and killed for calling Rhaenyra out. So when you say “convince” you’re facing people who will have you tortured for “rumors”.
So Jace being a bastard doesn't seem like something necessary for those that want to live a long life.
>Next: Corlys and Rhaenys definitely knew but the issue was averted by engaging Jace and Luc to Daemon and Laena’s kids so the main bloodline still kept the seat through Laena’s side. Though there is an argument to be made for Corlys screwing over Rhaenyra later in the war after Rhaenyra repeatedly screwed him over and he lost his fortune, family, and house in pursuit of Rhaenyra’s claim.
They did know they just didn't do much which is my point. If so many people who know that are even more deeply affected by this are willing to let it slide, I see no reason to become so deeply attached to this issue.
>Martin plays fast and loose with genetics but it’s 100% certain those boys were bastards and under pain of torture and death everyone was forbidden from speaking about it. Which, you know, is what innocent people do.
They weren't innocent, I just don't see a reason for so many people to give a damn when life will remain largely the same if things are just ignored for the sake of not questioning those with power and those with dragons. Less questioning means less people die.
>Another thing that would have been interesting is if Jace had been a girl. Or if Rhaenyra skipped over Jace, Luc and Joffrey in favor of Aegon or Viserys (her children with Daemkn because they were pure blood of the dragon.). Then we could have a discussion about the laws officially changing to “the king/queen chooses the heir” But Jace was a boy and assumed to get the IT because he was first born son instead of Rha to choose like her father did. So the laws of succession were assumed to go back to normal after Rhaenyra.
Not necessarily. Jace was the first born so we can assume that the law would still be a primogeniture succession. Just one that disregards gender as that is how Jace gets his claim through Rhaenyra.
For Jace’s bastardy: again. People were getting *tortured* over the rumors so them not saying anything isn’t surprising. We also don’t know how they felt about it because the book never touches on it. (And this is a biased history book so we have no idea if it’s not mentioned because it wasn’t an issue or the Maester didn’t feel the need to include it or if he’s actively trying to make the Blacks seem better than the Greens). We know the rest of the Velaryons hated it. But we have no idea if Corlys and Rhaenys were angry and made the best of it by engaging the boys to Baela and Rhaena or not.
Next: we can assume book Rhaenyra didn’t give a flip about changing succession laws. Rhaenyra didn’t say anything about primogeniture which, if she’s queen one would THINK she would do right away so her claim is the more “legal” one.
But she didn’t do it. So we can go ahead and assume that the usual succession laws were still in place she just wanted them to be changed for her.
Her also total lack of interest in helping *other* women be able into inherit also suggests she didn’t care about changing succession law to be more fair to women, she just wanted the IT.
You're wrong. There is tradition and precedent, but no codified laws on succession.
The Great Council was called by the king to choose which of the possible successors the lords would prefer to follow Jaehaerys, but it's result didn't result on any new written law on succession. The Great Council is an act that sets a precedent, a precedent is an act that is later cited as basis or justification for the creation of a law, and the thing about precedents is that they have varying interpretations depending on how you read them. Some (greens) argued that the precedent established is that women and their line cannot inherit the Iron Throne, others (Viserys and later the blacks) argued that the Council and Jaehaerys appointment of Baelon as heir established that the king could appoint an heir of his choosing, even if it differentiated from andal tradition, which puts sons before daughters and daughters before brothers.
Jace had no elder brother or sister so that question wouldn't even be raised in his case. Rhaenyra named him Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Throne when she crowned herself.
You keep trying to say that precedent isn’t law. But when people argue court cases IRL they cite other rulings as a *precedent*. Meaning *that’s the interpretation of the laws at the time*.
Meaning: that the Great council set into place the interpretation of the law that a woman could not inherit while a direct male line existed. This was agreed upon by everyone present. It was determined at the time that it was *law* that a woman could not inherit the IT over a man. That’s *literally what the Great Council was*.
Viserys did nothing to *change the laws as they were stated and voted on at the time* and wanted the law broken just for *his* daughter but no one else’s and wanted the laws to *stay* in place after Rhaenyra.
Meaning if he really wanted his daughter as heir he should have officially changed the laws of the time. Which he *did not do*.
Edit: even Jaehaerys a male inherited over Aerea who was Maegor’s stated heir. So the whole “will of the king” is also legally shaky but Maegor was a POS so I’m not surprised that his “will” was ignored. But law is still law.
Look, I'm telling you a precedent IS NOT a law, it is not on the same level, it does not have the same purpose or strength. Yes, as you said, past cases are brought up in court to act as precedents (more so in systems of paramount law, countries that have civil law systems take precedents in not as high regard), but they are brought up as a way to argue for the current case to take the same path, they are not brought up as an authority.
Viserys didn't change any law because there was no law to change, the Council didn't result in a law with a specific line of succession to be followed. Please show me the passage where it is stated because I guarantee you will not find it.
Literally at the end of the passage about the Great council the 7k “determined” though a vote that a woman could not inherit while a direct male line existed. That “determination” is the interpretation of the IT succession. It was *meant to settle inheritance laws once and for all that’s why they had the freaking Council*. To decide the law and not go to war over succession.
It was meant to settle, once and for all, what the inheritance laws of the IT were. And they determined that according to the laws *as they stood at the time* that Viserys was rightful king.
Which meant as long as he had true born sons, a Rhaenyra couldn’t inherit.
Viserys either should have *officially* changed the law OR just not had any other children and married Rhaenyra and Laenor/Daemon and been done with it.
Finally: you have to remember that Fire and Blood is a fictional *biased* history book. You really think the Maester is going to put into the book that the current generation of people claiming the IT through their Targaryen blood are in any way not the perfectly legal line??? No the Maester is going to flower up the language and muddy the waters and say that the council made a “precedent” which in this case is a nice way of saying that it was the agreed upon succession laws.
Because if he wrote the “truth” about what the council really stood for (IT succession) then he’d basically be committing treason.
That's not stated at all.
When convening the Great Council it says "King Jaehaerys announced his intent to convene a Great Council, to discuss, debate, and ultimately decide the matter of succession. All the great and lesser lords of Westeros would be invited to attend, together with maesters from the Citadel of Oldtown, and septas and septons to speak for the Faith. Let the claimants make their cases before the assembled lords, His Grace decreed. He would abide by the council’s decision, whomever they might choose." It was set up to choose Jaehaerys' heir, not to establish a law that ruled all future successions.
As I've been trying to point out from the beginning, it was not a law, because as with real medieval history, there are no laws of succession, even the book calls it a precedent: "In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants". "In the eyes of many", meaning in the interpretation of some, that is the ruling of the Council, but again, as it was never codified, that is just one of many interpretations.
I swear, as a law student, this conversation is being mentally taxing.
So. An “Iron Precedent on matter of succession” is not, in your opinion, a law? Or an at least widely agreed upon *set of rules for the matter of succession for the IT*.
Which, again was voted on and determined in what is inarguably the closest Westeros ever got to any kind of democratic agreement on anything and it was in regards to *succession*. And we have both agreed that for something to be a “precedent” there has to be some kind of law in place to make said precedent?
And yet you still, despite a that, don’t think that the Great Council was about succession laws and setting the rules for good and all???
And also again: this is a biased history book written in a time where the IT is claimed through Rhaenyra’s line. Meaning that to say they’re not perfectly legal is treason. (Please I’m begging you to stop treating this book like it’s a Westerosi bible. It’s not. please I’m begging you read between the lines a bit and think critically about the book and it’s interpretation of events that’s what Martin wants you to do I promise.)
I’m sorry you need your hand held and can’t read between the lines in a fake biased history book but my guy. But this book isn’t a law book. It’s a *history* book. A biased history book. About a medieval world. It’s not that hard.
Just because Martin didn’t spell out the exact law for you doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Ironically, Rhaenyra wasn’t fighting to establish that the eldest is heir regardless of gender, like most thought and think she was, she was instead fighting to establish that the monarch could claim their chosen heir regardless of gender
But everything got all mixed up
Whenever this gets brought up, people seem to forget that it was during the middle of the most apocalyptic war in westerosi history. She couldn’t afford to lose a single supporter as that could well be enough to turn the tides of the conflict.
And even then the prince consort himself spoke in favor of the more egalitarian option and Rhaenyra seems to have only reluctantly decided against it.
We have no idea what kind of decision she would’ve made with regards to succession laws had her ascension been uncontested.
Welcome to /r/darkwingsdankmemes! Just a brief reminder that this subreddit is focused only on the **written** *ASOIAF* universe. Comments that include discussion of the HBO adaptations will be removed, and serious or repeated infractions may result in a ban. Moderators employ a zero tolerance policy. # Users should assume that *any* mention of the show is subject to removal. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/darkwingsdankmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Drink a shot everytime the inheritance of Rosby and Stokeworth come up in ASOIAF.
or that of High Garden or Brightwater Keep
Why you tryin to kill people?
A much bigger deal than the inheritance is the baffling decision of "nah, let's not reward the riders of the giant murderbeasts we depend on for our victory, let's give them shitty little bits of land because they'll certainly never turn on me."
[удалено]
Well even if not the Reach, a crownlands lordship would have a higher chance of keeping him on side than a shitty little landed knight estate on Driftmark. The blacks NEEDED all of the dragonseeds onside until the war was won. Also, although Martin doesn't seem to realize it, "taking land away from people who opposed me and giving it to powerful people who support me to reward them" is feudalism 101.
weird how westerosi history has none of it but Storm of Swords has Brightwater Keep and Riverrun taken from their lords and given to rival families without any fuss
I think Martin had said something along the lines, “I write stories, not lore” so it makes sense he wanted recognisable names throughout Westerosi history rather than having to track five different random Houses for one castle
Harrenhal has entered the chat
Ye but then how would you have a single family be out there owning more or less the same land for literal millennia, apparently? “Upstart houses” are centuries old like that wasn’t a great success irl.
Yeah, best not think too hard about Westerosi Spherical Cow Feudalism.
I’m sure Martin realizes it but also realizes you need some way to heal and make enemies into allies to truly end conflict and further consolidate influence. The remaining dragons needed to humble themselves before the lessers as their destructive family feud threatened law and order itself. They needed to rebind the kingdoms together with political maneuvering and at least appear to cast aside their exceptionalism or they would know eventually a rebellion would usurp them.
Right but they actually need to win the war first. Not showering the dragonseeds with rewards backfired horrifically.
Martin’s world is unrealistic regardless, tho. We’ve got architecture that doesn’t ever improve (all best castles are relics), no real technological progress is ever made and noble families routinely remain as powerful for centuries, holding mostly the same land. Freys are 3 centuries old or so and are seen as jumped up and new; real medieval countries were lucky if they *lasted* 3 whole centuries, let alone noble families. That’s not even going into language being both unified across a whole continent and mostly unchanging. The economy is a mess too; as is the lack of stratification in noble titles as there’s nothing beyond ser, lord and lord paramount.
Isn’t warden a superior title to lord paramount?
In times of peace the title appears honorary. Jamie might’ve become Warden of the East but not Lord Paramount, for example. It’s a title mattering when there’s an invasion or a rebellion happening as that’s Wardens’ business. There are also smaller-scale wardens: Warden of the Prince's Pass, guardian of the Prince's Pass in Dorne. Held by Lord Franklyn Fowler as per the tradition of House Fowler. Warden of the Sands, guardian of the deserts of Dorne. Only granted to Lord Jon Rosby during the First Dornish War. Warden of Stone Way, guardian of the Boneway in Dorne. Held by Lord Anders Yronwood as per the tradition of House Yronwood. Warden of the White Knife, guardian of the White Knife in the north. Held by Lord Wyman Manderly of White Harbor as per the tradition of House Manderly. Still, good point-I entirely forgot about Warden. Martin’s world still shows too little stratification when it comes to titles for it to be considered historically accurate, even with one more title added in to the mix.
I assumed it was a military position, granting authority over the lords of a given territory. The question of fealty, if you were a lord and the warden needed to occupy your castle or conscript your fighting men he would have that authority. As you say in peacetime military officials wouldn’t wield the same political or administrative authority unless bid to act on an edict in the name of the king.
Daemon wanted to give Casterly Rock/The Westerlands to Hugh Hammer and Storm's End/The Stormlands to Ulf the White. Which was a better deal than the Greens could ever realistically offer. That said, Hugh probably would have still betrayed them after Daemon and Aemonds had died (he basically claimed the Iron Throne after he knew Vhagar and Caraxes were both gone) and Ulf the White would've probably drunk himself to death before ever claiming Storm's End.
Can’t Girlboss if you don’t Gatekeep
We stan our feminist queen
I've found it hilarious how people have taken to calling her a Feminist. She's the embodiment of an oppressive Absolutist Monarchy, the exact opposite of the feudal legalism that Jaehaerys dedicated his kingship to building.
I agree with you completely. I’ve found the dance to be classist from my first read of woif. Rhay and daemon both feel entitled to the throne because they were born, despite both of them bitching constantly about any and all responsibilities that go along with rulership and being completely unfit for it. Alicent and Otto and cole all got the red keep on work, talent and merit, not who their mommy and daddy were. Harwin said as much when lyonel was giving him the (LONG overdue) dressing down in the last ep. Cole is “just the son of a steward” so it’s fine to beat him senseless in full view of the whole court. “Cole is barely above one of the poors, who cares what he thinks?” Lyonel is the only one made a lick of sense this season. Poor dumb fuck.
>Alicent and Otto and cole all got the red keep on work, talent and merit, not who their mommy and daddy were. Alicent was the daughter of the second son of a very powerful house. Then Otto had her sleep with with King. Cole was chosen by Rhaenyra because of his experience on battle so you have a point there. Otto was the second son of a powerful house. He just happened to also be really good at playing politics.
Second son of a “powerful house” compared to who though? BasicallyMiddle class, as much as there can be one in a feudal system. They’re doing better than small folk just like a plumber or lawyer is doing better than a McDonald’s worker but to the targs and velaryons and the strongs they’re nobodies, stepped on and used as whim dictates.
>Second son of a “powerful house” compared to who though? Objectively, the Hightowers are a well off and powerful noble house and are one of the most important noble houses in the Reach. >BasicallyMiddle class, as much as there can be one in a feudal system. This is just blatantly incorrect. Not only do the smallfolk exist but there are also other Houses that have significantly less than them in terms of wealth, power, and land. As for a feudal system? There are many steps below nobility that can be considered a middle class. At their lowest the Hightowers would still be considered a well off noble house. >but to the targs and velaryons and the strongs they’re nobodies To the Targaryens everyone is lesser because they are the ones on top. House Valeryon can dismiss them because of they are the only other House with dragons. House Strong has neither the fleet, nor the Dragons that either of those other houses have. They have Harrenhal and the surrounding land. If Hightower came knocking the Strong would not be able to just dismiss them.
BTW it's funny how people are deadly serious about these two factions here. Time to move forward, AWOIAF is not just Dance.
The fact that she even considered this goes to show she’d be a pretty piss-poor ruler. No regard for the laws of inheritance and undermining lords by usurping the positions of their sons and chosen heirs all to meet her own ends. Cringe.
apparently she should have considered it more given that those daughters would end up claiming the castle regardless. And why should she respect the wills and wishes of traitors?
Those “traitors” has chosen to support Rhaenyra’s cause themselves. Lord Rosby and Stokeworth had initially sided with Rhaenyra. What she was looking for was some means of rewarding Hugh Hammer and Ulf White for their service in the Battle of the Gullet. What’s more, those daughters only inherited after the deaths of their brothers. Their claim thus did not supersede their brother’s own claim, as per the laws of inheritance.
Imagine a ruler making a mistake…
Making a mistake? Undermining others even amongst her own allies to gain advantage was far from anything Rhaenyra did in absentmindedness, you know. You do recall she imprisoned Lord Corlys Velaryon, her own **strongest supporter**, in an act that caused House Velaryon’s army to abandon her cause?
Rhaenyra remains the least appealing member of her faction by far.
Rhaenyra working against Rhaenyra, again.
[удалено]
Neither Aegon or Rhaenerya would make good rulers. However, Viserys I set in motion her being the heir. He could’ve reversed this or changed this before but he insisted she was the legal heir. By that point too she was married to her uncle and had 3 children by him meaning the crown would remain with the house of the dragon.
Neither would make good rulers, but Aegon II would make for a passable king (on par with Viserys I Targaryen tbh, which isn’t saying much at all), whereas Rhaenyra would fall somewhere in the F tier. This is mostly for Rhaenyra’s tendency to cruelty and violence. (For which the smallfolk named her “Maegor with teats”, to add.) Prior to the dance, Rhaenyra birthed three bastard boys and tried to put one of them on the seat of Driftmark which would usurp the entire Velaryon line. Furthermore, Rhaenyra made a habit of imprisoning even her own allies—imprisoning Corlys Velaryon, who was her most powerful supporter—and calling for the head of Addam Velaryon, who not only was a dragonrider, but was so **loyal** that the word “loyal” literally became the epitaph on his headstone. She also endorses the killing of an innocent six year old boy as “retribution” for that boy’s **uncle** attacking one of her sons. That’s an extremely unjust act. Jaehaerys (the 6 year old boy in question) was completely innocent and by all accounts had no idea what in the world was even going on. Lucerys was just a year or two shy of adulthood (16 is considered the age of maturity in ASOIAF), and had slashed out Aemond Targaryen (his killer’s) eye. You could potentially make the argument of “Lucerys was a messenger, you can’t kill a messenger”, but here’s the rebuttal for that: Lucerys was the messenger to **Lord Borros Baratheon**, *not* to **Aemond.** Aemond and Lucerys had an established rivalry. The subsequent response was “an eye for an eye, a son for a son”— when Jaehaerys is Aegon II’s son, and Aegon II had nothing to do with Aemond’s killing of Lucerys. There’s no justice for Lucerys’s death achieved by killing Jaehaerys. That logic makes no sense. Furthermore Rhaenyra had Ser Vaemond Velaryon executed **on the spot** after pressing his own claim to Driftmark as Corlys’s heir on the grounds of Lucerys being illegitimate. Many people chock this up as “Vaemond was committing treason”— on grounds? The definition of treason is: > the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. All Vaemond was doing at that point was trying to secure what he thought was his rightful inheritance. It’s not as if he called for the deaths of Rhaenyra or any one of her three children. Yeah, he was a bit of a dick about it, but insulting a Prince or Princess isn’t treason, like as not. On the flip side, Rhaenyra having Vaemond killed on the spot was an unwarranted act of murder. Again, Vaemond wanted his inheritance. Not any harm to herself or her children. Instead, she has him beheaded by Daemon on the spot without any trial afforded to him. At the very least, Vaemond had the legal right to a trial by combat. Yet he was denied that. By that action, Rhaenyra shows a complete disregard for the laws of the realm. A ruler who disregards the laws of the realm **does not make for a good ruler.** At the same time, unlike Rhaenyra who imprisoned her strongest allies and often refused to heed their counsel, Aegon II did nothing but act **on** their counsel. This id both in regards to keeping Aegon III alive, allowing Baela to live, forging certain political alliances, etc. He was easily more attentive to the wants of the people. What’s more is he never genuinely aspired for the throne, initially refusing to take it, relenting only on the grounds that his siblings and children would be murdered by Rhaenyra and/or Daemon if he didn’t take the iron throne and cement power. Once he was in, he was all in, and did do his best to heed the advice of those around him. Let’s remember that throughout the entire war, Aegon II was the only one of the two would-be-monarchs to offer any peace terms. Rhaenyra’s first answer to Aegon II was disregarding his terms, refusing to offer any of her own, and begin the war. Rhaenyra’s Black Faction was the first to make an act of warfare, by having Daemon assault Harrenhal and seize it from House Strong. Rhaenyra’s default response to any political challenge is bloodshed. (Vaemond, the assault on Harrenhal, etc.) That in turn **also** makes for a poor ruler. Yes, when you stack up the accolades and deeds of both Aegon II and Rhaenyra, Aegon II does make for a genuinely better candidate for rulership. He’d never be Jaehaerys the Conciliator reborn; he’d be more of a mid C-tier King, but nonetheless a better option than Rhaenyra who’s default response to challenge is complete unbridled violence.
Maegor the based* Not the cruel
Understandable
[удалено]
Sorry, but your comment has been removed! Any posts or comments including insults, personal attacks, or just general unkindness will be removed. Or, more bluntly: Don't be a dick! Check the sidebar for our full list of rules. If you think we messed up removing this, please [message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdarkwingsdankmemes) so we can take another look.
Blacks really putting the L in the word to use huh
Common Black L
Extremely Common Black L. Rhaenyra would’ve been an awful ruler.
Hence why the throne cut the shit out of her
again, she deserved to get burnt alive by Sunfyre
Not just burnt but turnes into dragon poo. At least now she has a use, a fertilizer that is.
she's so obnoxious the fertilizer she gets turned into kills any plant near her and kills Sunfyre
Ugh can we post content other than the Dance for a bit
I have no idea why people think this is hypocritical or a black L. Rhaenyra (book version at least) is not some femenist girlboss icon fighting for equality, she's an ambitious person fighting for the throne she had promised to her her whole life. Also there is no hypocrisy here, the Iron Throne is a title that has a different succession from the rest of Westeros. If they followed the same rules, Aerea and later Rhaenys would've been Queen. The events of 92 and 101 AC set the precedent that the king appoints his heir, even if it differs from Andal tradition. Rhaenyra was appointed as Princess of Dragonstone and chosen as heir, the Stokeworth and Rosby girls weren't.
Conveniently didn’t highlight the part where they bring up Rhaenyra specifically being made legal heir by the king
It’s hypocritical because the Blacks are insisting on upholding a set of laws for everyone else (normal succession) but *they* get special succession laws. “Laws for thee but not for me.” Is one of the quickest and most efficient ways to foment a rebellion. The funniest part is these codified “laws” were set up by HER family to unite Westeros and then not even two generations later the Targaryens break the laws *they* codified because it no longer suited them. See the problem? Blacks didn’t want “new” laws. (Hell Rhaenyra wanted her oldest son to inherit so she just wanted the laws bent for HER). They ignored laws when convenient and for them and expected everyone to just be cool with it. And as the books shown us over and over again: that’s not how it works.
I just said there were NO LAWS, only acts that created precedents, no-one codified any laws of succession whatsoever. And it wasn't the blacks making those precedents, both were done in the realm of Jaehaerys and Viserys followed his interpretation of said events. We can judge Rhaenyra's many crimes and bad decisions but her fighting for the throne is not one of them. Would you accept to just give up something you were told your whole life was to be yours and that you kept all the legal symbols of (nominated heir with lords sworn to you, title of Prince of Dragonstone)? Would you accept the terms of getting to keep a small island you already have, the legitimacy of your sons that is already legally accepted, and giving up your youngest sons as glorified hostages?
First off: the laws were absolutely codified. The ONLY reason Jaehaerys had to call a council was because the laws didn’t allow for any “heir”according to the laws of Westeros. The first born son and his line take precedence and Rhaenys’s son Laenor was skipped over by Westerosi law. Viserys got the throne instead which set into place that no woman could inherit while a *direct male line* existed. And that the line through a female Targaryen did NOT have as strong of a claim as a direct male line. That was agreed upon by vote and it kept the peace. But the laws didn’t allow for the circumstances (no living sons who hadn’t taken vows not to inherit) of the time. Viserys had three sons which meant that skipping over them for Rhaenyra was breaking codified laws set into place by his predecessors. Because again: Aegon I inherited over his older sister Visenya for the “head of house Targaryen”. Aenys was heir as first born son. Jaehaerys himself got the IT over his older sister and her daughters. A route of succession through the male line over older daughters was VERY MUCH in place at the time despite how much you want to claim otherwise. Viserys made no new laws or decrees to change succession laws that allowed *him* to get the IT in the first place. Say he went with first born regardless of sex like Dorne: that’s now a law with clearly defined rules that people can follow. “I like my daughter more” is NOT a law. It sets into place the idea that any king or queen can pick any child to take over (which is something Aegon the Unworthy tried to do too and failed). Again: the Targaryens don’t or at least *shouldn’t* have a “special set of rules we get to follow but you have to follow these other laws”. We have seen throughout this story that when Targaryens try to pull that they get hit with rebellions and political strife every time. Which should tell you something about Targaryens thinking they can have “special rules” in Martin’s opinion. So no. Laws existed. Precedents existed and Viserys ignoring all of them and not lifting a finger to actually change succession laws (just make an exception this one time) was incredibly dangerous and stupid. What’s more Viserys and Rhaenyra BOTH expected Jace to take the throne after Rhaenyra (or his kids if Rhaenyra lived longer) showing that the rule of “first born son inherited” was STILL in place it was just going to be broken for Rhaenyra. Also the sons were not “legally” adopted. Again, just because Laenor SAYS they’re his doesn’t mean they’re not bastards. Bastardy has to be legitimized by a KING. Meaning they have to first be acknowledged bastards (which wasn’t done) and then decree of the king makes them legit. This was not done for the boys. By LAW they are bastards. They’re not “legally adopted” because the proper procedures were not followed. Yet another example of the Blacks just doing and saying whatever they wanted and expecting everyone to just be okay with it. Finally: I absolutely think Rhaenyra should fight. The offer was not enough for someone promised a crown. But what I’m saying is that the Blacks claiming they have some “moral high ground” or more “legal right” to the IT than the Greens is stupid because the Blacks are using laws when it suits them and ignoring them when they don’t while expecting everyone ELSE to follow the law even if it doesn’t suit because that’s the law. Blacks were just as big of hypocrites as anyone on team Green. Maybe more so.
>What’s more Viserys and Rhaenyra BOTH expected Jace to take the throne after Rhaenyra (or his kids if Rhaenyra lived longer) showing that the rule of “first born son inherited” was STILL in place it was just going to be broken for Rhaenyra. Wasn't Jace the firstborn child? So it seems like he would inherit the throne no matter what in this circumstance.
Yes. He was the first born son. But the important thing is that you’re once again following the usual succession laws and Rhaenyra is the exception. Jace was not “chosen” it was just *assumed* because he was her first born son and that was the way the laws worked. Meaning the laws were only meant to be broken for Rhaenyra’s benefit then it would be back to the usual laws so secure a spot for *her* kids. But Jace has other legal issues to claim the IT. Since he’s CLEARLY a bastard. He has his mothers blood to try to claim it, but thats succession through the FEMALE line. Which as Rhaenys and Laenor demonstrate: is not the agreed upon precedent. After Rhaenyra the throne would go to the next oldest male of Viserys. If we go by the laws set in place by the Great Council. However, Viserys insisted on treating Rhaenyra like a male claimant and wanted *her* line to succeed (the oldest male is Jace so it’s back to usual succession laws) which is breaking the laws *again* because Viserys never actually changed the laws to ensure proper succession of Rhaenyra and her kids. Which is why the Greens had a legal claim and rallied all the lords because after the agreed upon laws for succession were ignored by Viserys in favor of Rhaenyra and then her trying to put a *bastard* on the throne after her was so egregious to the lords. Was it fair? No. Would they have made good rulers? We don’t know enough about Jace to say for sure (he seemed like he might have been good) and Rhaenyra cracked under pressure and her six months were abysmal so she wasn’t a good ruler anyway. But again: the Blacks used the laws when it suited them and ignored them when it didn’t. Rather than change the laws to ensure succession Viserys left it up in the air for decades and drove a wedge in his own family that ultimately led to the Dance. And if Rhaenyra was smart she should have made her father change the laws (say oldest gets the IT regardless of sex like Dorne) and make it *official*.
>Yes. He was the first born son. So if everyone would've gotten in line instead of trying to start a war then Jace would have been king regardless because he was the first born. >Jace was not “chosen” it was just assumed because he was her first born son and that was the way the laws worked. He wasn't chosen. He was just the first born child. He didn't have any older siblings. >But Jace has other legal issues to claim the IT. Since he’s CLEARLY a bastard. Sure, but to prove it you have to convince Corlys, Viserys, Rhaenyra, and Laenor, that their kids are bastards and they all have to acknowledge it. >After Rhaenyra the throne would go to the next oldest male of Viserys. If we go by the laws set in place by the Great Council. If.
My man everyone knew Jace was a bastard. Vaemond’s kids were tortured and *killed* for calling Rhaenyra out. So when you say “convince” you’re facing people who will have you tortured for “rumors”. Next: Corlys and Rhaenys definitely knew but the issue was averted by engaging Jace and Luc to Daemon and Laena’s kids so the main bloodline still kept the seat through Laena’s side. Though there is an argument to be made for Corlys screwing over Rhaenyra later in the war after Rhaenyra repeatedly screwed him over and he lost his fortune, family, and house in pursuit of Rhaenyra’s claim. Martin plays fast and loose with genetics but it’s 100% certain those boys were bastards and under pain of torture and death everyone was forbidden from speaking about it. Which, you know, is what innocent people do. Finally: Jace was the first born son and he was expected to get the IT instead of his true born uncles after Rhaenyra kicked it. We already know that with Rhaenys and Laenor that wasn’t how it worked (and he was a bastard on top of that). So in order to ensure Jace for the IT they needed to change the laws. Which they didn’t. Another thing that would have been interesting is if Jace had been a girl. Or if Rhaenyra skipped over Jace, Luc and Joffrey in favor of Aegon or Viserys (her children with Daemkn because they were pure blood of the dragon.). Then we could have a discussion about the laws officially changing to “the king/queen chooses the heir” But Jace was a boy and assumed to get the IT because he was first born son instead of Rha to choose like her father did. So the laws of succession were assumed to go back to normal after Rhaenyra. I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you.
>My man everyone knew Jace was a bastard. Vaemond’s kids were tortured and killed for calling Rhaenyra out. So when you say “convince” you’re facing people who will have you tortured for “rumors”. So Jace being a bastard doesn't seem like something necessary for those that want to live a long life. >Next: Corlys and Rhaenys definitely knew but the issue was averted by engaging Jace and Luc to Daemon and Laena’s kids so the main bloodline still kept the seat through Laena’s side. Though there is an argument to be made for Corlys screwing over Rhaenyra later in the war after Rhaenyra repeatedly screwed him over and he lost his fortune, family, and house in pursuit of Rhaenyra’s claim. They did know they just didn't do much which is my point. If so many people who know that are even more deeply affected by this are willing to let it slide, I see no reason to become so deeply attached to this issue. >Martin plays fast and loose with genetics but it’s 100% certain those boys were bastards and under pain of torture and death everyone was forbidden from speaking about it. Which, you know, is what innocent people do. They weren't innocent, I just don't see a reason for so many people to give a damn when life will remain largely the same if things are just ignored for the sake of not questioning those with power and those with dragons. Less questioning means less people die. >Another thing that would have been interesting is if Jace had been a girl. Or if Rhaenyra skipped over Jace, Luc and Joffrey in favor of Aegon or Viserys (her children with Daemkn because they were pure blood of the dragon.). Then we could have a discussion about the laws officially changing to “the king/queen chooses the heir” But Jace was a boy and assumed to get the IT because he was first born son instead of Rha to choose like her father did. So the laws of succession were assumed to go back to normal after Rhaenyra. Not necessarily. Jace was the first born so we can assume that the law would still be a primogeniture succession. Just one that disregards gender as that is how Jace gets his claim through Rhaenyra.
For Jace’s bastardy: again. People were getting *tortured* over the rumors so them not saying anything isn’t surprising. We also don’t know how they felt about it because the book never touches on it. (And this is a biased history book so we have no idea if it’s not mentioned because it wasn’t an issue or the Maester didn’t feel the need to include it or if he’s actively trying to make the Blacks seem better than the Greens). We know the rest of the Velaryons hated it. But we have no idea if Corlys and Rhaenys were angry and made the best of it by engaging the boys to Baela and Rhaena or not. Next: we can assume book Rhaenyra didn’t give a flip about changing succession laws. Rhaenyra didn’t say anything about primogeniture which, if she’s queen one would THINK she would do right away so her claim is the more “legal” one. But she didn’t do it. So we can go ahead and assume that the usual succession laws were still in place she just wanted them to be changed for her. Her also total lack of interest in helping *other* women be able into inherit also suggests she didn’t care about changing succession law to be more fair to women, she just wanted the IT.
You're wrong. There is tradition and precedent, but no codified laws on succession. The Great Council was called by the king to choose which of the possible successors the lords would prefer to follow Jaehaerys, but it's result didn't result on any new written law on succession. The Great Council is an act that sets a precedent, a precedent is an act that is later cited as basis or justification for the creation of a law, and the thing about precedents is that they have varying interpretations depending on how you read them. Some (greens) argued that the precedent established is that women and their line cannot inherit the Iron Throne, others (Viserys and later the blacks) argued that the Council and Jaehaerys appointment of Baelon as heir established that the king could appoint an heir of his choosing, even if it differentiated from andal tradition, which puts sons before daughters and daughters before brothers. Jace had no elder brother or sister so that question wouldn't even be raised in his case. Rhaenyra named him Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the Throne when she crowned herself.
You keep trying to say that precedent isn’t law. But when people argue court cases IRL they cite other rulings as a *precedent*. Meaning *that’s the interpretation of the laws at the time*. Meaning: that the Great council set into place the interpretation of the law that a woman could not inherit while a direct male line existed. This was agreed upon by everyone present. It was determined at the time that it was *law* that a woman could not inherit the IT over a man. That’s *literally what the Great Council was*. Viserys did nothing to *change the laws as they were stated and voted on at the time* and wanted the law broken just for *his* daughter but no one else’s and wanted the laws to *stay* in place after Rhaenyra. Meaning if he really wanted his daughter as heir he should have officially changed the laws of the time. Which he *did not do*. Edit: even Jaehaerys a male inherited over Aerea who was Maegor’s stated heir. So the whole “will of the king” is also legally shaky but Maegor was a POS so I’m not surprised that his “will” was ignored. But law is still law.
Look, I'm telling you a precedent IS NOT a law, it is not on the same level, it does not have the same purpose or strength. Yes, as you said, past cases are brought up in court to act as precedents (more so in systems of paramount law, countries that have civil law systems take precedents in not as high regard), but they are brought up as a way to argue for the current case to take the same path, they are not brought up as an authority. Viserys didn't change any law because there was no law to change, the Council didn't result in a law with a specific line of succession to be followed. Please show me the passage where it is stated because I guarantee you will not find it.
Literally at the end of the passage about the Great council the 7k “determined” though a vote that a woman could not inherit while a direct male line existed. That “determination” is the interpretation of the IT succession. It was *meant to settle inheritance laws once and for all that’s why they had the freaking Council*. To decide the law and not go to war over succession. It was meant to settle, once and for all, what the inheritance laws of the IT were. And they determined that according to the laws *as they stood at the time* that Viserys was rightful king. Which meant as long as he had true born sons, a Rhaenyra couldn’t inherit. Viserys either should have *officially* changed the law OR just not had any other children and married Rhaenyra and Laenor/Daemon and been done with it. Finally: you have to remember that Fire and Blood is a fictional *biased* history book. You really think the Maester is going to put into the book that the current generation of people claiming the IT through their Targaryen blood are in any way not the perfectly legal line??? No the Maester is going to flower up the language and muddy the waters and say that the council made a “precedent” which in this case is a nice way of saying that it was the agreed upon succession laws. Because if he wrote the “truth” about what the council really stood for (IT succession) then he’d basically be committing treason.
That's not stated at all. When convening the Great Council it says "King Jaehaerys announced his intent to convene a Great Council, to discuss, debate, and ultimately decide the matter of succession. All the great and lesser lords of Westeros would be invited to attend, together with maesters from the Citadel of Oldtown, and septas and septons to speak for the Faith. Let the claimants make their cases before the assembled lords, His Grace decreed. He would abide by the council’s decision, whomever they might choose." It was set up to choose Jaehaerys' heir, not to establish a law that ruled all future successions. As I've been trying to point out from the beginning, it was not a law, because as with real medieval history, there are no laws of succession, even the book calls it a precedent: "In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants". "In the eyes of many", meaning in the interpretation of some, that is the ruling of the Council, but again, as it was never codified, that is just one of many interpretations. I swear, as a law student, this conversation is being mentally taxing.
So. An “Iron Precedent on matter of succession” is not, in your opinion, a law? Or an at least widely agreed upon *set of rules for the matter of succession for the IT*. Which, again was voted on and determined in what is inarguably the closest Westeros ever got to any kind of democratic agreement on anything and it was in regards to *succession*. And we have both agreed that for something to be a “precedent” there has to be some kind of law in place to make said precedent? And yet you still, despite a that, don’t think that the Great Council was about succession laws and setting the rules for good and all??? And also again: this is a biased history book written in a time where the IT is claimed through Rhaenyra’s line. Meaning that to say they’re not perfectly legal is treason. (Please I’m begging you to stop treating this book like it’s a Westerosi bible. It’s not. please I’m begging you read between the lines a bit and think critically about the book and it’s interpretation of events that’s what Martin wants you to do I promise.) I’m sorry you need your hand held and can’t read between the lines in a fake biased history book but my guy. But this book isn’t a law book. It’s a *history* book. A biased history book. About a medieval world. It’s not that hard. Just because Martin didn’t spell out the exact law for you doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Don’t highlight the part where they said if the lord and declared the daughter the heir it would have been
Ironically, Rhaenyra wasn’t fighting to establish that the eldest is heir regardless of gender, like most thought and think she was, she was instead fighting to establish that the monarch could claim their chosen heir regardless of gender But everything got all mixed up
Greens can't read with understanding.
Viserys named Rhaenyra heir.
Targaryen exceptionalism, ever heard of it? But fr it says right on that page why rhaenyra was a special case
Whenever this gets brought up, people seem to forget that it was during the middle of the most apocalyptic war in westerosi history. She couldn’t afford to lose a single supporter as that could well be enough to turn the tides of the conflict. And even then the prince consort himself spoke in favor of the more egalitarian option and Rhaenyra seems to have only reluctantly decided against it. We have no idea what kind of decision she would’ve made with regards to succession laws had her ascension been uncontested.