#aegon v targryen

[moonlitgleek]

Why is the 'iron' precedent of no girls on the IT thrown around by fandom but not no small nephews before grown uncles? Maegor kills Aegon but his still a king, Egg takes the IT over baby Maegor, why isn't this precedent howled about?

Because that’s literally the legal situation presented to us by the text through both Yandel and Gyldayn. The precedents of Jaehaerys’ accession, Baelon’s heirship, and the decision of the Great Council of 101 are cited so many times before, during and after the Dance of the Dragon that it is expressly clear that they became a main tenent of the legality of succession to the Iron Throne and thus should be treated as such. Comparatively, Aegon V’s kingship as decided by the Great Council of 233 receives little fanfare in the text, zero mention of any supporting precedents, and no indication that it was viewed as something that changed the laws of inheritance.

But why did one became a main legal principle within-universe but not the other? There are a few contributing factors.

1. Misogyny and the patriarchal attitude towards ruling ladies. Ruling ladies do exist in Westeros but the attitude towards them is blatantly unfriendly. They often have to contend with male relatives trying to usurp their rightful inheritance and struggle to assert their authority as rulers in a society that carries the belief they are unfit for that male-dominated role. That is if their birthright isn’t flat-out taken by a male relative, as in the case of Serena and Sansa Stark, or the unnamed Lannister daughter of Gerold III Lannister whose Lydden husband succeeded her father. In such a society, seizing on something that prevents the possibility of a ruling queen falls right in line with how the patriarchal attitude that challenges, pushes against and sometimes actively rejects female rulership. It was always going to be regarded differently than a situation that decides between two men. Westeros follows male-preference primogeniture but there is a decidedly notable tendency (and willingness) to exclude girls altogether from that, as was most glaringly argued by Grand Maester Munken in the aftermath of the Dance (which was largely used as a confirmation of the downside of ruling queens. Gotta love the patriarchy, right? That came up again in the discussion of Daena the Defiant’s claim after Baelor’s death, where the the Dance was specifically invoked and Daena’s character was used to undermine her political claim). But no one was ever going to argue to revoke primogeniture and make it that uncles inherit before nephews as a rule, especially not when that would have put the lords’ own seats in danger.

2. Political legacy. The identity of who made the precedent matters. Whose accession are the lords more prone to use as a governing principle, the tyrannical Maegor whose reign was marked by death, torture and bloodshed and who was rejected as a monarch by almost everyone in the realm, or the conciliatory Jaehaerys I and the popular Baelon the Brave? Yes, Maegor was included in the roll of kings but literally no one was trying to argue that he was not a usurper or that his example should be followed. Jaehaerys I certainly persisted in calling his uncle so throughout his reign, and considering how broadly hated Maegor became as a political figure, that was a rather popular sentiment. No one in their right mind would ever attempt to use Maegor of all people to support a legal precedent, especially not when everything about his reign was a lesson in “don’t ever do that”.

3. Time and recurrence. Jaehaerys’ accession over Aerea, Baelon’s heirship over Rhaenys and Viserys’ confirmation over Laenor all happened over the span of little over 50 years, lending itself to a clear and consistent pattern that’s been affirmed by the political action of an extremely popular king and reaffirmed by a majority vote from the lords of the realm. A power struggle between a male and a female claimant followed in the Dance of the Dragons which was largely treated as proof that women should not sit the throne (and which witnessed a confirmation of the principle of the Great Council of 101 in Rhaenyra’s exclusion from the roll of monarchs, probably as a part of war-ending efforts). Another succession debate arose after Baelor the Blessed’s death that saw another confirmation in passing over the claim of Daena the Defiant in favor of her uncle Viserys II.

In the face of that, there is a gap of nearly 200 years between Maegor forcibly seizing the throne from his nephew Prince Aegon and the Great Council deciding on Aegon V over his nephew Prince Maegor, a gap that witnessed the regular legal principle of sons succeeding before uncles that’s been in effect for thousands of years maintained and observed everywhere in Westeros.

4. History. Maegor Targaryen’s attempt to circumvent the principle that a man’s sons came first in inheritance sparked a war. Viserys I’s attempt to circumvent the principle that a man’s sons came first in inheritance also sparked a war. That only reinforces the inherent protectiveness of the “sons first” part of male-preference primogeniture that gave many of the lords their seats. It also provides something to point at to prove the perils of trying to subvert that as a governing principle. Aegon V may not fit that but he was also confirmed to the throne by the will of his vassals, so the principle his kingship was based on was not that uncles succeed before sons, but that a Great Council could make an exception (which is probably what Rhaegar Targaryen banked on in his plans to overthrown his father).

That’s why the decision of the Great Council of 233 seems to have been largely treated as an exception to deal with a current issue rather than the foundation of a rule, as opposed to the iron precedent of the Great Council of 101. Of course, that iron precedent was technically overturned anyway by Robert Baratheon’s acclamation since a legal argument for his kingship comes from his descent from Rhaelle Targaryen.