#succession in westeros

[horizon-verizon]

Alicent provided House Targaryen with four healthy dragonriding Targaryens when the Targaryen bloodline was most vulnerable. In return, the least the Targaryens could do is allow her son to ascend the throne to allow House Hightower to have more power in exchange for them helping to create four healthy Targaryens. It’s really weird how Viserys referred to Aegon as Otto’s blood and Rhaenyra as his own blood when Aegon is also his child and therefore his blood.

The Hightowers behaved like any other family married into the royal family would, so I don’t get why they’re so hated. If Viserys didn’t want the Hightowers gaining more influence then he shouldn’t have married Alicent in the first place. It was stupid of him to expect one of the most powerful noble houses in Westeros to accept Targaryens of their blood just being spares instead of kings.

Disclaimer:

The parts about explaining feudalism is supposed to recontextualize how the hierarchy is not itself based on a good ethics system or fair/good morals, not to justify said hierarchy.

The system (unjustly) does not enforces nor expects the King to be equally sociopolitically or emotionally accountable to his Queen Consort.

................................................

A)

You make the mistake of thinking that in a feudal society/Westerosi/Andal culture, the King and his house are obligated to do anything for the Queen Consort except to:

not publicly humiliate her (and "humiliate" can look different according to the thing done) -- with Aegon IV, it was an exceptional situation since he targeted Naerys and Aemon simultaneously out of jealousy. As long as the King doesn't disinherit her children (if they are OLDER than his mistress' kids AND those mistress' kids ARE NOT legitimized) he is, by custom, not seen to be doing anything wrong

not deny her access to the appropriate clothing, shelter befitting her station, and food

take care of any child she brings forth

In feudal societies, the Queen Consort’s “job” is to provide heirs and like everyone else in the kingdom, she has to obey her husband’s orders. She is subject to him, she has no privileges or rights over him. 

The King/Monarch is always the legal/official/customary authority over literally everyone else. This is not a democracy nor an oligarchy. 

Therefore, it is actually Alicent who customarily should obey Viserys’ commands and declarations. That is her place in this hierarchy.

You may think this is unfair, but:

Alicent was definitely a victim of her father & Viserys, but she blames the wrong person for it (Rhaenyra) bc the answer is to totally buy into the sexist and authoritarian ideals against female sexuale and other sorts of autonomy--as Alicent fails into & chooses to perpetuate.

That is feudalism (the economic-socio-political system) AND absolute monarchy (the form of government). Again, she's fallen, then chooses, to sincerely buy into this system partially bc she has no choice but she also is much too inflexible to reflect on how she's essentially hurting herself and those around her or performing a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. That was the entire point! Alicen tis not unique, too, in how the patriarchal feudal system uses her up! Rhaenyra, Rhaenys, etc, too!

@rhaenyragendereuphoria states it quite simply HERE:

Feudalism is a system of servitude based on giving up your freedom in exchange of protection by a higher lord. It binds serfs to their lords, and lords to other lords all the way to the king. Yes, the whole “Protector of the Realm” is propaganda, but it’s what they believe the job of the king to be. They will give it to the strongest who can protect them from foreign invasions: and it’s hard to think of stronger than “family that literally owns dragons”. This fandom has feudal mentality completely upside down, thinking they loathe their subjugation because subjugation is an affront to freedom. Feudalism IS subjugation. What they loathe is to submit to a weakling. They despise (and hunt, and murder) the Free Folk, calling them “wildlings”, because they’d rather be free than be bound by feudal oaths of subjugation. Feudalism is the rule of “might makes right”. At its roots, it’s a military hierarchy of warlords who bind each others with feeble and fickle treaties until one of them decides to break them and attempt to conquer the others, and either wins or fails.

And in this POST:

However, no one is given rights in these societies, not even men - not the way we would define rights. Their idea of “right” is just as arbitrary as their idea of “freedom”. They are societies based on privileges, and privileges are always revocable, unlike rights.

Alicent has no independent “rights” apart from what I already listed above. At all. Especially since she isn't blood-related to Viserys. Rhaenyra has a birthright, but only once Viserys bestows it upon her. 

Alysanne was a Queen Consort, not a Queen Regnant. Visenya & Rhaenys had more law-changing power than Alysanne did while being Consorts and not Regnant Queens, but Aegon’s word was final and he was the Monarch.

And all these women were the sisters of the then-Kings as well as their wives. You’d think that they would have more say, but no. They were obey their husband-kings' final words by Andal/feudal/monarchial custom and law.

There is no contract where it says that Viserys owes Alicent or the Hightowers -- all of them his subjects -- anything except military protection. This is feudalist absolute monarchy as GRRM sets it up and models after the common set up of real life feudal monarchies.

B)

You:

Alicent provided House Targaryen with four healthy dragonriding Targaryens when the Targaryen bloodline was most vulnerable.

Already addressed what a Consort’s repeated purpose is. 

a.

And when was this dynasty “most vulnerable”? By all accounts, Viserys’ court and reign was prosperous and peaceful (expect with the Stepstones and towards the end of his reign with Rhaenyra, Alicent, and their kids of course -- but the Stepstones war didn’t affect the actual subjects [peasant or nobles] of Westeros too much to make huge differences in and the stuff with his personal family happened insularly):

Many consider the reign of King Viserys I to represent the apex of Targaryen power in Westeros. Beyond a doubt, there were more lords and princes claiming the blood of the dragon than at any period before or since. Though the Targaryens had continued their traditional practice of marrying brother to sister, uncle to niece, and cousin to cousin wherever possible, there had also been important matches outside the royal family, the fruit of which would play important roles in the war to come. There were more dragons than ever before as well, and several of the she-dragons were regularly producing clutches of eggs.

[...]

The reign of the Young King, as the commons called him upon his ascent, was peaceful and prosperous. His Grace’s open-handedness was legendary, and the Red Keep became a place of song and splendor. King Viserys and Queen Aemma hosted many a feast and tourney, and lavished gold, offices, and honors on their favorites.

(“A Question of Succession”)

b.

If you mean Viserys having a girl as his only scion, I must remind you that:

the Targs had dragons (more dragons than ever and Aegon I/Visenya/Rhaenys, conquered Westeros with only 3)

there were no mentioned, burgeoning signs of rebellion against Rhaenyra until Alicent and Otto started to make waves (post by @theblackqveen)

While this is in the text:

Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty.

After Viserys makes it clear that he won’t change his mind, it gets more settled, and again, we hear absolutely no mention of any real attempt to prepare against Rhaenyra except from the greens.

I wrote a 2 posts on HotD Alicent and Book!Alicent’s foolishness and narcissism.

c.

THIS is what GRRM says about laws of succession:

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases… but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars.

[...]

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

Still, if Alicent really is all about just following the rules and being “good”, the she would follow her husband’s order and not antagonize or contradict Rhaenyra. Because part of her Westerosi/Andal customs is that the King/Monarch is paramount and their word is law.

She hypocritically doesn’t follow the law to such a particualr "degree" or whatever that she ends up going against the authoritarian regime's ideals of King's rule and all that for her own stake...mostly unconciously.

So really, she’s about power and misogyny, since she chooses to still make her rapist son King and reap the rewards from his ascendance (who’d follow along for her and her house’s interests more than Rhaenyra would). In the show, she goes after Rhaenyra for presumably sleeping with a man not her husband....while she gives up her feet to fulfill Larys' sexual titillation in exchange for information. So Rhaenyra's sleeping with another man in a consensual setting is wrong, but somehow Alicent allowing herself to be used (she is Queen Consort, she can definitely order Larys around) and silencing one of her son's victims is okay? Both of these things that support sexual abuse? In the book, she turns against Rhaenyra when Rhaenyra is 10, and we can see the implication that they began to actually fight ever since then, so Alicent antagonizes a 10 year old. At the tourney where Daemon comes back in the book, there were Essosi people who witnessed the tension between the two.

And why does she do all that? Because she wants to empower herself, her son, and disempower Rhaenyra. At the same time, Alicent fosters an environment where this is justified.

This is why she is hated. Book!her tries to use Rhaenyra having extramarital sex as pretext for deposing her, yet she is the one going against the King’s word when it is obvious he doesn’t give three shits.

@theroguewyrm answers this ASK where the asker breaks down more of Alicent’s hypocrisy:

[...] Alicent as she has constantly held Rhaenyra accountable for having illegitimate relations with men but when it comes to her she can do it as she cloaks it under the hood of duty. The hypocrisy was also shown when Alicent tolerates every single sexual crime committed by her son in the premises of the Red Keep and outside. If it is benefitting her then she’ll permit them, she’ll stay quiet, but will simultaneously use Rhaenyra’s affair with Harwin to vilify her.

C)

You: 

It’s really weird how Viserys referred to Aegon as Otto’s blood and Rhaenyra as his own blood when Aegon is also his child and therefore his blood.

That’s because he distrusts Otto and knows Otto wants his grandkids/these green boys to inherit the throne. Otto went so far as to continue to demand/suggest Viserys change the order of succession several times until Viserys dismissed him:

The amity between Her Grace and her stepdaughter had proved short- lived, for both Rhaenyra and Alicent aspired to be the first lady of the realm...and though the queen had given the king not one but two male heirs, Viserys had done nothing to change the order of succession. The Princess of Dragonstone remained his acknowledged heir, with half the lords of Westeros sworn to defend her rights.

[...]

The matter had been decided, so far as King Viserys was concerned; it was not an issue His Grace cared to revisit. Still, questions persisted, not the least from Queen Alicent herself. Loudest amongst her supporters was her father, Ser Otto Hightower, Hand of the King. Pushed too far on the matter, in 109 AC Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong. “This Hand will not hector me,” His Grace proclaimed.

(“A Question of Succession”)

Viserys was being a bad dad here, I agree. Otto was also stupid as fuck for this. Both him and Alicent. And when it comes to feudalism, the personal and the political are one and the same often. Viserys never learned, I think, to separate himself from kingship because the position and society doesn’t allow for this metaphysical existence, or for it to be practiced seriously and without consequences.

And these are the details of Rhaenyra’s naming-as-heir:

Disregarding the precedents set by King Jaehaerys in 92 and the Great Council in 101, Viserys declared his daughter, Rhaenyra, to be his rightful heir, and named her Princess of Dragonstone. In a lavish ceremony at King’s Landing, hundreds of lords did obeisance to the Realm’s Delight as she sat at her father’s feet at the base of the Iron Throne, swearing to honor and defend her right of succession.

(“A Question of Succession”)

Now from a more pragmatic standpoint, these lords already gave their oaths to Rhaenyra. To go back on it, while maybe welcome to some lords, would also diminish Viserys’ monarchial word’s value because of how huge the chnages are, and how he seems (publicly) to value oaths in general. 

While Tyland Lannister says that he never took oaths, oaths are still very seriously taken and regarded generally in this society (or like to think of themselves as doing so).

Viserys was a bad dad. Doesn't make what Alicent did excusable.

D)

a.

You:

The Hightowers behaved like any other family married into the royal family would, so I don’t get why they’re so hated.

We’re talking about the greens, here, not the Hightowers. Two, though related, separate entities for now.

The greens (Alicent, Otto, Aegon, Aemond, Daeron [Helaena is not a real player]) are hated because they are misogynists turned up 11, with an over-inflated sense of their own male privilege. It causes them to maim, rape, cause genocide, attempt assassination against Rhaenyra, even disregard and turn against each other. And at last, make a 10 year old watch as his mother is eaten alive by a dragon. 

Even with universal misogyny, I doubt that most other noblemen/individuals would be as murderous, stupid and audacious as these specific people.

BTW, you slipped. Aegon, Ameond, Helaena, and Daeron and the kids from Aegon/Helaena are all Targs. Not Hightowers.

b.

You:

If Viserys didn’t want the Hightowers gaining more influence then he shouldn’t have married Alicent in the first place. It was stupid of him to expect one of the most powerful noble houses in Westeros to accept Targaryens of their blood just being spares instead of kings.  

Here’s the text:

Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty. Grand Maester Runciter was the first to urge His Grace to remarry, even suggesting a suitable choice: the Lady Laena Velaryon, who had just turned twelve.

(“A Question of Succession”)

We understand through this and through real life feudal politics that a king/Monarch was expected to have as many kids as possible so that in the event one or some die, the others could take their place.

The moment that Otto allowed Alicent to marry Viserys after Rhaenyra had been heir for 2 years, all of Alicent’s kids would have been “spares”. This would be true if Rhaenyra was male. 

Alicent and Otto both signed up for this.

However, Rhaenyra is female, so Otto got greedy. It is only the thought that Viserys would automatically change heirs that Otto even contemplated it would be an easy thing to have Alicent’s kids as Viserys’ heirs because he thought Viserys would pass her over.

Take a look at the sociopolitical patterns. This is always the deal for second wives/Queen Consorts. If the monarch had kids from a first marriage , those kids are always before the ones in the second because they came first/are older.

Viserys makes Rhaenyra continue to be his heir and treats her like he would his male heir in that her siblings remain the “spares” they would be if she were male. thereby putting into practice equal primogentiure.

Otto has been with Viserys as his hand for years.....why did he not anticipate something like this?

[mejcinta]

Daemon stans new coping mechanisms " daemon wouldnt have killed his brother family 🥺"

This fandom is unable of understanding that characters can have ambitions and will choose themselves and the families they've made over their other relatives any day.

Daemon could 100% betray Viserys' family (he literally did that to Rhaenyra and Aegon).

Aegon would 100% choose his children over Aemond any day.

And Aemond would 100% choose his son with Alys ( a bastard) over his niece and nephews.

It's not rocket science.

[horizon-verizon]

I don’t know how, but my response to nightswatchrebel’s question in the reblogs is not here.

So this was my answer:

A “bastard” is understood a person born to parents who weren’t married to each other, yes? If Jon Snow’s parents weren’t married, he is a bastard/illegitimate. He is not supposed to be able to inherit lands, etc.

In both the canon lore/Fire and Blood (since F&B is telling the canon events even if told by many biased sources) Rhaenyra is not married to Harwin Strong, and her first 3 kids are most definitely Harwin’s biological kids, not Laenor’s.

ANSWER:

So yeah, her kids would be considered bastards by many in the Faith and many people of Westeros since her and Harwin never married. Because they either/both think that bastardry and illegitimacy is an inherent fact or they want to use Rhaenyra’s gender and extramarital sex for their own political gain.

But bastardry is a legal existence, not a biological one though (see below about “But because:”)

And yes, Aemond/Alicent saying they are bastards should be treated as speaking treason because they’d be going against the king’s word AND calling the heir treasonous AND denying the then-affirmed status of the heirs of the heir.

That’s the point of Rhaenyra using treason against them in episode 7/the canon scene of Aemond getting his eye put out. Rhaenyra heard Alicent say that Lucerys should get his eye taken for “justice” and Rhaenyra responded by declaring that Aemond heard this treasonous talk of bastards (because Rhaenyra would then be accused of lying to the king…which she didn’t, Viserys knows but he can’t let others know he knows) from somewhere. Knowing that treason trumps even a prince losing an eye, Rhaenyra does this to protect her son.

In Westeros a king/monarch is the only one who can legitimize someone illegitimate and they must do it through a royal decree (Corlys has to request Rhaenyra to legitimize his “grandsons” so they can officially/unobstructed-ly inherit Driftmark after he dies), then Viserys I accepting the boys – many argue – is him legitimizing and acknowledging them and making them his daughter’s heirs/his heirs.

But this is regarding men fathering bastards. Not women. Why? Because women aren’t allowed to be as free to have bastards and are punished for it, for not staying faithful to their spouse. Her kid is an indication of her “looseness” and “betrayal” (while a man birthing any sort of child is “not a big deal”, even though he is the one supposed to leave behind house inheritances). The rules regard the event that man fathers a bastard because only men are openly allowed to be a bastard’s parent because men are the ones with the custom/legal power over women.

Others would argue that it doesn’t count because Viserys didn’t openly legitimize them. That Viserys is just “acknowledging” them and not “legitimizing” them since he didn’t ever make a recognized royal decree that acknowledged that rhaenyra birthed children not her husbands, that they were ever bastards in the first place:

At any point, the biological father of a bastard may acknowledge him and bring him formally into his house. […] An acknowledged bastard might even be considered to inherit a seat when no direct heirs can be found.

Acknowledging is when the father (because he is head of house and has the male privilege) to take in, literally, a child he sired. Women don’t get to do this, even though a child by a woman is inherently the same as a child by a man.

It is a game, bastardry, of admitting what you choose and can admit or reveal depending on circumstance.

But because:

A) How can you truly expose bastardry when it is not an inborn thing and testable? It then becomes a thing of rumors, acceptance and believability, not truth.

B) Viserys, the king and head of house/grandfather, says  they are to inherit (and has kept shit under wraps), they get to inherit. The boys would absolutely, unequivocally have to be exposed as not Laenor’s kids for Alicent to officially get any “legitimate” way to prevent their inheriting the throne.

C) Succession at any level (royal and noble) is contradictory:

The bastard-born have few rights under law and custom. When it comes to rights of inheritance, there are no clear cut laws.

A bastard may inherit if the father has no other trueborn children nor any other direct heirs to follow him. For example, in 299 AC, following the deaths of Lord Halys Hornwood and his trueborn son, Daryn, Halys’s natural son Larence Snow is considered as a potential heir by House Hornwoods overlords, House Stark. However, in order to inherit or be installed as an heir, the bastard-born child will first have to be legitimized by a royal decree.

I support every devastation coming for the green's. They think their blood is superior, let it spread let us all bask in its glory.

People who stupidly claim rhaenyra should declare her sons as illegitimate then legitimise them are either dumb or don't realise they're watching a show set in middle ages. A man eg-corlys in the same story, can do that for a woman to do that would mean execution for her children and herself, viserys did a lot of things wrong but ignoring his daughter's kids parentage was the right thing.

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

in asoiaf, what is the order of succession for nobles and for the throne (as i’ve read they are different)?

They are indeed different. In most of Westeros, they use traditional Andal succession, known in our world as male-preference primogeniture. This puts women at the back of the line, so to speak, but does not exclude them. A lord's eldest son inherits, even if he has older daughters, followed by the remainder of his sons by age, and then his daughters, and then would move up to the previous generations with his brothers and then his sisters. "A daughter comes before an uncle," as they say. For example, with the Starks, Ned's succession is Robb-Bran-Rickon-Sansa-Arya. (Benjen is excluded for being a man of the Night's Watch; Jon is excluded by being a bastard and a man of the Night's Watch. But of course there's complications.) This succession also includes the heirs of the heirs, so for example Hoster Tully's succession is Edmure-Catelyn-Robb-Bran-Rickon-Sansa-Arya-Lysa-Robert-Brynden.

Note there are exceptions to this, even after King Jaehaerys I Targaryen codified the laws across Westeros. Sometimes these exceptions appear to be cultural. For example, somehow House Stark has never had a ruling lady in all its reported 8000 years of existence, and the time we know they should have, Cregan Stark's eldest (and late lamented) son Rickon's eldest daughter Sansa was (forcefully?) married to Cregan's eldest son from his third marriage, her half-uncle Jonnel, who became the lord instead. Another example - after Balon Greyjoy dies, a maester insists that "By rights the Seastone Chair belongs to Theon, or Asha if the prince is dead. That is the law", and Aeron Greyjoy dismisses it contemptuously as "green land law", and thinks the Iron Islands will never follow a woman.

Sometimes these exceptions appear to be just plain misogyny - like when Big and Little Walder Frey discuss the succession of the Twins, they don't count the women in the line. Mind you the Walders are children and may not know true details; but time will tell if Edwyn's daughter Walda will inherit or if her uncle Black Walder will seize the Twins. (Probably the latter.) Of course little Walda also has the problem of being a child heiress, but child heiresses have become ruling ladies before -- like Jeyne Arryn, whose inheritance was contested multiple times by her male cousins -- or like Cerelle Lannister, who inherited at the age of 3 and ruled for a year before dying suddenly and her uncle Gerold became lord. Um. It's hard out there for a girl. 😭

And in Dorne, they use a different form of succession entirely -- Rhoynar tradition, what we call absolute primogeniture. Much simpler, there the eldest child inherits regardless of sex. So Doran's heirs are Arianne-Quentyn-Trystane-{Elia}-{Rhaenys}-{Aegon}-Oberyn. Of course, Dorne has its own exceptions: per GRRM, a few houses in the mountains, least affected by the Rhoynar, may sometimes follow Andal tradition instead, which is likely the reason why Cletus Yronwood was considered the heir instead of his older sister Ynys. (Mind you, Cletus is dead now, and Anders Yronwood only has daughters left, so sucks to be a man compared to Criston Cole, doesn't it?) And Arianne was worried that Doran was going to have Quentyn inherit instead of her, but she didn't know that Doran was actually planning to make her queen of Westeros, which would take her out of the Sunspear succession (in the same way that Myriah Martell married Daeron II Targaryen and her younger brother Maron became Prince of Dorne).

Now. The Targaryen succession to the throne is a different matter. For them, they've had the competing issues of tradition, king's choice, sexist lords voting sexism, even more tradition, and politics. (Sooo much politics.) Putting the rest of this behind a cut because it was already a long post but it got longer:

From the start, as far as we know the pre-Conquest Targaryens in Westeros used traditional Andal succession. (It's unknown how succession was handled in Valyria, or if there was a difference between the dragonrider families and any others.) There is a brief mention that Aenar the Exile's grandchildren, Aegon and Elaena, ruled together, but every other Lord of Dragonstone was indeed a lord, and hardly any daughters are even referred to. By the time we get to the Conquest trio, we know that Visenya was the eldest child, and yet her younger brother Aegon was Lord of Dragonstone. And later, Aegon was the king, with his sister-wives as his queens (though unlike later queens, they sat the Iron Throne and handled day-to-day governance of the realm).

The first time we see an issue with this succession tradition was when King Aenys died and his half-brother Maegor usurped (and later killed) Aenys's eldest son Aegon. By Andal tradition, Aegon and his sister-wife Rhaena's eldest daughter Aerea should have succeeded after Maegor died (he considered her his heir until he had children of his own), but instead Aegon's younger brother Jaehaerys became king. Political issues there: Jaehaerys actually successfully contested Maegor's rule, he was a strong teen boy with a sword and a dragon where Aerea was a girl of six who'd been in hiding most of her life, her mother Rhaena had been forcefully married to Maegor and had few supporters, Aerea had been named heir by Maegor specifically to cut out Jaehaerys, etc. Though note Aerea was considered Jaehaerys's heir... until he had children of his own. And as for Rhaena (Aenys's eldest child), she never actually vied for the throne after Maegor's death, but later in her life she bitterly told Jaehaerys "you have my throne, content yourself with that."

As for Jaehaerys and his children, from the start there were problems, when Queen Alysanne expected their eldest child Daenerys to be queen one day (why Alysanne expected the throne to follow absolute primogeniture at this point is unknown), and Jae was like, sure, our second child Aemon will be king and she'll be his wife! But Daenerys died as a child, and as for Aemon, he died too, albeit as a father of a grown daughter with a child of her own on the way. And there you have Jae sexism part 2, instead of naming Rhaenys as his heir, he instead named his second living son, Baelon, as his heir. So here's the precedent where the throne deliberately denied Andal succession tradition, and instead went with king's choice.

Then 9 years after Aemon's death, Baelon also died, and Jaehaerys held the Great Council of 101 AC, for all the lords of Westeros to decide between all of Jaehaerys's potential heirs. In the end, the final choice was between Aemon's daughter Rhaenys's son Laenor (Rhaenys herself was also in competition, though her claim was dismissed early) and Baelon's son Viserys. By a large percentage, the lords chose Viserys. According to maesters,

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.

This female-exclusive tradition is known in our world as agnatic primogeniture, or Salic law. However, this "iron precedent" was not that iron even from the beginning. Viserys and his wife Aemma only had one living child, Rhaenyra, so Viserys's brother Daemon was considered his heir until a son was born. And, well, if you've seen the first episode of HOTD you know what happened, because of Daemon's fuckup Viserys deliberately dismissed him, "disregarding the precedents set by [...] the Great Council in 101", but used the precedent of king's choice to name Rhaenyra as his heir and make all the lord of Westeros vow to obey that decision. Again, you've seen what happened next -- Viserys then remarried and had sons, whose grandfather used the Andal tradition to try to make Viserys name as heirs, but he refused to bypass Rhaenyra. In the end, though, when the Green Council formed after Viserys's death,

Ser Tyland pointed out that many of the lords who had sworn to defend the succession of Princess Rhaenyra were long dead. “It has been twenty-four years,” he said. “I myself swore no such oath. I was a child at the time.” Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92, then discoursed at length about Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters, and the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter.

So the law cited to name Aegon II king was one king's choice vs another king's choice, as well as Andal tradition and the "iron precedent" of the Great Council. And thus we got the Dance of the Dragons, Rhaenyra vs Aegon II.

But what about afterwards? What does Fire & Blood say about Aegon III, how did the maesters decide he inherited, through Aegon II (as his only living male relative), as Daemon's son, or as Rhaenyra's son? Well, it doesn't actually explain this point! The moment Aegon II died, Corlys Velaryon's men were freeing Aegon the Younger from his hostage prison, and then when the late Rhaenyra's (finally) winning army showed up at the gates of King's Landing, we just have Corlys saying, "The king is dead, long live the king." No maester commentary on the precedent at all, much to the frustration of backseat lawyers and historians in the fandom, who keep arguing one way or the other, or the various fandom teams, who keep arguing which side actually won.* 😅

*The answer is nobody. Nobody won.

And note that because Aegon III had no known living male relatives at the time (his brother Viserys was missing and presumed dead), his half-sisters Baela and Rhaena were considered his heirs, again despite this supposed "iron precedent". Leading to one of my favorite quotes from F&B:

Yet it was Grand Maester Munkun who put an end to the debate when he said, “My lords, it makes no matter. They are both girls. Have we learned so little from the slaughter? We must abide by primogeniture, as the Great Council ruled in 101. The male claim comes before the female.” Yet when Ser Tyland said, “And who is this male claimant, my lord? We seem to have killed them all,” Munkun had no answer but to say he would research the issue.

Though Aegon III's council and regents really wanted Baela to have a proper son, and when she rejected their (fat old guy) intended husband and instead eloped with a legitimized bastard, they wasted no time getting her sister Rhaena married to someone suitable, though she actually chose her husband, an older knight she'd become friends with in the Vale. And then Unwin Peake killed off Aegon II's daughter Jaehaera in order to marry Aegon III to his own daughter, and Baela and Rhaena did an end run with a new wife for their brother, a very young girl he didn't touch for 10 years... Of course, all this plotting came to nothing when Viserys did show up alive, so the lords could be satisfied with no need for an icky girl queen, the very idea.

The next time we see any competing issues of precedent for the succession to the throne was after Aegon III's second son, Baelor the Blessed, died without any children. By rights, per Andal tradition, his successor should have been his sister (and ex-wife) Daena. However, because Baelor had imprisoned Daena and her sisters in the Maidenvault for 10 years, they had few supporters, complicated by the fact that Daena had also recently had a bastard and refused to name the father. And of course, the Dance was still on everyone's mind as it had ended only 40 years before. So,

The precedents of the Great Council of 101 and the Dance of the Dragons were therefore cited, and the claims of Baelor's sisters were set aside. Instead the crown passed to his uncle, the King's Hand, Prince Viserys.

And Viserys II was followed by his son Aegon IV and so on. After this point, we do not have any real questions about gender and succession for a while. (Though some wonder, when Daemon Blackfyre vied for the throne, if he ever cited his mother Daena's stolen claim, in addition to being the unstated choice of his father Aegon IV. Also Aerys I named his niece Aelora as his heir after her brother-husband Aelor died, but she also died before Aerys did.) By the time of the Great Council of 233 AC, the claim of Vaella, only child of Maekar's eldest son Daeron, was dismissed immediately, though note she was also considered "simple", and Maekar's fourth son came to the throne as Aegon V.

And then in 283 AC, Robert Baratheon took the throne from the Targaryens. While many believe he took the throne by conquest (killing King Aerys II Targaryen's heir Rhaegar, while Aerys was killed by Jaime Lannister), maesters cite the fact that Robert was the grandson of Rhaelle Targaryen, daughter of Aegon V! So where is that "iron precedent" now, with Robert as the descendant of a Targaryen woman? And Robert's brother Stannis considers his daughter Shireen to be his heir, and people in Westeros in general consider Robert's daughter Myrcella to be his heir (after her brothers Joffrey and Tommen). Not to mention the fact that (claimant king in exile) Viserys considered Dany his heir, naming her Princess of Dragonstone.

So. Theoretically by the time of the main books, this "no women allowed ever" precedent for royal succession is still out there. In practice, however, the throne currently either follows Andal tradition of sons before daughters (but yes, including daughters), or the "whoever has the larger army" tradition of old. And that will be what truly decides the question of Aegon (or Jon) vs Daenerys, whether Rhaegar's line was disinherited by Aerys II or whether any maesters pop up to say "but iron precedent!" or what. Fire and blood, as always.

[thehauntingofharrenhouse]

no one has tried harder to be just ken than corlys velaryon. unfortunately westeros isn't ready for barbie

[sunderwight]

Thinking about the absolute shitshow that is the Iron Throne and succession on this sunny ash-cloud filled morning.

So as I understand it, there are a lot of different potential inheritance structures for the Iron Throne to be passed down via, because the Targaryens can draw precedents from any of their subjects (Andal, First Men, Ironborn, etc) with varying degrees of viability, plus also Old Valyrian practices, and however they were actually conducting themselves on Dragonstone for the hundred or so years between the Doom and the Conquest. Right? But I think the relevant ones for HOTD are:

Primogeniture, Male Preference vs Absolute Male Preference vs Absolute Primogeniture, Heir Designation, Elective Succession, and Right of Conquest.

Primogeniture is the inheritance model where the eldest child inherits everything. Inheritance isn't divided between potential heirs upon the death of their parent, it's winner takes all. Or rather, eldest son does. This looks to be how most of Westeros operates by default, and how inheritance works according to Andal law. The eldest son (or daughter if there are no sons) gets the title and all the other properties held by his predecessor unless he's been disinherited, and then other successors are determined in a similar order along the family tree (i.e. your next eldest brother would be your heir if you didn't have any kids, then sisters, then first cousins, and so on). But this also applies to heirs themselves, meaning, if you are Jaehaerys I and your son Aemon is your heir, and Aemon's only child and daughter Rhaenys is his heir, then if Aemon dies, Rhaenys gets everything that belonged to Aemon, including Aemon's position as your heir. Which is why Rhaenys would have been the first ruling queen of Westeros, had Andal custom in fact been followed.

Then, male preference and absolute male preference are systems that determine how much sexism is in play when it comes to selecting viable heirs. Absolute male preference means that only men may inherit, and only through their male relatives. Male preference means that sons get preferential treatment, but in absence of them, daughters can inherit (and also that sons can inherit through their female relatives, if applicable). Most of Andal tradition falls under male preference, where an eldest daughter will not inherit before her younger brothers, but it's not absolute because a daughter with no brothers will inherit before her uncles or male cousins. Absolute primogeniture is, on the other hand, when the eldest child is heir regardless of gender. I think this is what Viserys was gunning for, since his negotiations with Corlys and Rhaenys for Laenor and Rhaenyra's children indicated that he expected Rhaenyra's eldest child to inherit the Iron Throne one day, with no stipulation on gender. This would also seem to be the system that Dorne uses.

Heir designation, on the other hand, is when the ruler has the right to personally select their heir from all viable candidates (typically, their children or perhaps grandchildren, or sometimes siblings or even more distant relations). Heir designation doesn't seem to be standard for Andal culture or even what we see of the First Men (hence things like Samwell Tarly being disinherited via the Wall rather than his father just naming his younger brother Dickon as heir over him), but could have been practiced by the Valyrians, and it is this possible precedent of Valyrian tradition which Jaehaerys uses (I think?) to declare his younger son Baelon (Viserys and Daemon's dad) as his heir over his granddaughter Rhaenys, before Baelon's death inspired Jaehaerys to call for the Council of 101 to decide the succession instead.

Which is where elective succession unexpectedly comes into things. I think the only Iron Throne vassal we see practicing such a thing are the Iron Islands, with their kingsmoot? But the Iron Islands are not generally popular or often emulated elsewhere in Westeros, of course, so in this case Old Jae's probably still taking his cues more from Essos or potentially also Old Valyria? The Council of 101 may or may not have been rigged, but at least by appearances, it allowed the lords of Westeros to elect their next leader from a limited pool of candidates (Rhaenys or Viserys).

The final succession structure relevant to HOTD, of course, is the Right of Conquest. Right of Conquest is when the realm will legally grant you the ownership of something if you have seized it via some kind of military might (usually with some stipulation that you have not only taken it, but held onto it for at least X length of time). In Westeros, the Right of Conquest was how Aegon I and his wives used their dragons to establish the Iron Throne, and as a rule it can pretty much overthrow all the other precedents (as it did for the conquerors). But I'm pretty sure this is also why the succession feud after Viserys' death is pretty much guaranteed to become a fight, and it's a major contributing factor to there being so many goddamn civil wars in Westeros. Can't beat your brother's claim? Well, try beating his ass instead!

So... basically, we have a giant, inconsistent mess that has been muddying the waters of the Iron Throne's succession pretty much from the beginning. The Iron Throne follows mostly Andal law and customs, except when the king doesn't want to, and then maybe it follows Valyrian customs or Essosi customs that might be Valyrian or some custom from some other group of subjects or the king just goes "I do what I want" and reminds everyone else (inadvertently, in the case of Viserys) that there is a legal Whoever Punches Hardest Wins clause baked into the system.

Which makes it nigh-on impossible to claim that such-and-such a candidate in HOTD (or even ASOIAF) is being robbed of their rightful inheritance, doesn't it? Whether it's Rhaenyra being the designated heir or Aegon being the eldest son, not just because it's all claptrap anyway, but because there is no stable precedent for who actually has the rightful inheritance even when you're trying to play ball with the existing systems. After Aegon I's death the throne passed to his eldest son, Aenys, but the throne then went to Aenys' brother Maegor instead of his kids. But ultimately Maegor was wildly unpopular and died childless, and so everyone decided that was an outlier and the throne reverted back to Aenys' line, and went to Aenys' son Jaehaerys. Which means there's no firm or stable ground to fall back on before Jaehaerys' own sexist farce of a succession, or the absolute hash Viserys subsequently made of the matter either. Andal law and custom would normally favor Aegon over Rhaenyra, that's true, but those same laws and customs would have also favored Rhaenys over Viserys, and the throne's predominantly Andal vassals voted against that. Which might seem to endorse heir designation, since that was how Jaehaerys selected Baelon and through Baelon, Viserys, as his own successors, but then again the Council was called on the premise that heir designation was insufficient, so perhaps an elective system should actually be in play? But Viserys doubled-down on heir designation and/or absolute primogeniture instead, without even really clarifying which he meant the throne to go by. If he actually filed paperwork beyond the sworn oaths (which he didn't even renew after Aegon's birth or in the decades after), it didn't survive to make into the historical record.

And of course, everything can be upended at any time by a sufficient show of force. Which is not only viable in terms of forcing the issue, but also legally valid, and thus less liable to prompt rebellions and strong rejections from the general populace.

Ultimately we know that the Iron Throne settles on absolute male preference and primogeniture, but all the characters trying to apply this standard to the Dance era are doing so in retroactive judgment.

[horizon-verizon]

*EDIT*

Westeros does not have an absolute monarchy and none of the Targs were absolute monarchs like the Louis and Sun Kings of France in the 18th century, as a reblogger pointed out. Therefore, please consider all notes about the Targs or Viserys being "absolute monarchs". At the same time, The lords' rights to their family's properties are partially determined by the king, in the existence of legitimization, which can only happen if is the monarch doing it. Lords can only acknowledge bastards, not legitimize them, in Westeros. The king/monarch can legally strip lands, titles, privileges, etc from anyone they choose. Westeros is not a constitutional monarchy, either. And the word of the feudal or absolute monarch still is FINAL--both of these types have the monarch give the final authority.

We can make a different argument for what the monarch can do practically. I'd argue (and I do to the same correcting reblogger) that the Targs were heading more and more towards an absolute monarchy with the power they were able to accrue by Jaehaerys I end. The king's word had accrued, itself, a lot more weight, since the dragons existed and the settling within Westerosi lords' minds of Targaryen overrule.

The word of a lord (head of house and territory)/a king even before the Targs landed to conquer (Barrow Kings, Kings of Winter, etc.), even with the competing claimants and forces supporting those claimants fought each other, the word of a lord/king has weight. After all, there were wills like the one from Rohanne Webber drawn up that decided her movements after her father already died. We have a case of two seemingly contradictory things being true at once.

*END OF EDIT*

Disclaimers:

I may sound like I'm just repeating your thoughts about Jaehaerys being a misogynist douchebag (which I agree), except I argue that, specifically, that Jaehaerys had much more ability than you say here. The nuance here is that Jaehaerys' manipulation, motivation, and inspiration for all this goes far deeper than what was said here, that there are subtler details and implications missing, thus the argument itself doesn't take certain things into perspective. That is to say that there are things I agree with, but the way those things are argued, we end up with a major problem anyway.

Because HotD does not even properly show how the hypocrisy of Westeros, it's royal court, and the greens' behaviors land themselves into trouble, this reblog will use actual canon and not rely on what's shown on TV. Therefore, 90% (arbitrary number to connote " heavy majority") that is being said here is from Fire and Blood, the official wiki, the actual book of ASoIaF, as well as quotes from GRRM himself.

A) Westerosi Law on Succession and Primogeniture actually Is Less Solid than You Think, Especially When It Comes to the Monarchy

You said this:

First, Westerosi laws of inheritance say that a woman cannot inherit if she has a trueborn brother. This has always been the case. Remember that as of right now Dorne is NOT a part of the Seven Kingdoms, so the Seven Kingdoms unanimous in its institution of male-based primogeniture. There is literally no region under Viserys's domain where a woman is allowed to inherit if she has any trueborn brothers. You'll never find any instances of a woman being made heir when she has surviving trueborn brothers. When we see women in power, like Jeyne Arryn or even Sansa Stark, it's always because they either have no brothers or their brother is occupied with another title.

Excerpt from an Actual Quote from GRRM about Westerosi succession (LINK):

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

And this is from the ASoIaF wiki (not the fan-made one):

Male-preference primogeniture is customary, but not binding, for most nobles. A man's eldest son is his heir, followed by his second son, then his third son, and so on. In theory, the youngest son is followed in the line of succession by the eldest daughter, after whom come her sisters in birth order. A man’s daughter inherits before her father’s brother. However, a lord also has the option of naming one of his younger sons heir, passing over his elder children, or to name the child of another as his heir. When there is no clear heir, claims can be presented to the King. The only exception is Dorne. There, no distinction is made between sons and daughters. Instead, children inherit in order of birth regardless of gender, as per Rhoynish custom. In the case of an inheriting female, her last name will be passed on to her children, instead of the name of her husband. When a ruling lord dies and leaves no clear heir, his widow might lay claim upon his lands and rule until her own death (e.g., Lady Donella Hornwood and Lady Barbrey Dustin), and in such a case, might name an heir by herself.

If it's not "binding" then it's not really a "law". At all. It is more custom, it is action, it is will, it is choice. What is "binding" is an absolute monarch's word. *EDIT* Not an absolute monarch, but even in a feudal monarchy, the king's word is final...or there would be no kings...AND NO POINT OF BEING ONE!*END OF EDIT*

We get many examples through Daenerys (the first one who died of the Shivers who Alysanne argued with Jaehaerys over), the considerations of Aerea herself, Queen Dowager Rhaena being seriously considered even by non Targ council members after Maegor dies, and the very fact that the Great Council happened at all.

When you see such frequent uncertainty and dissension over the royal succession, it behooves us to realize that it is not that males-being-heirs is solid law, but that it is the preference that adapts to the circumstances and resultant benefits from a deviance from the precedent/cultural preference.

I said it once before that all this conflict about succession even in the general Westerosi society (I'm placing emphasis on Westeros because I will distinguish it from Targ/Valyrian later) is more based on the will/determination of the participants than on actual "law".

Aegon I was born after Visenya. He became the Lord of Dragonstone, however in order to gain that privilege and position, he had to marry her in Targ custom. Besides Visenya' frequent interactions with Aegon (how the Kingsguard came to be) and her active power on court, generally, we have much evidence to believe that female Valyrian dragonlords had much more freedoms and authority than Andal-descent/FM-descent/Westerosi noble women do. Not the exact same as men, but enough where if on family were to, say, conquer another land, it is logical to expect a female head and authority figure alongside the male. Because it both safeguards and expands your options better when it's not made into a gender divide.

Again, Alysanne argued with Jaehaerys over Daenerys being made Queen Regnant over Aemon:

Jaehaerys loved all three children fiercely, but from the moment Aemon was born, the king began to speak of him as his heir, to Queen Alysanne’s displeasure. “Daenerys is older,” she would remind His Grace. “She is first in line; she should be queen.” The king would never disagree, except to say, “She shall be queen, when she and Aemon marry. They will rule together, just as we have.” But Benifer could see that the king’s words did not entirely please the queen, as he noted in his letters.

(Jaehaerys and Alysanne -- Their Triumphs and Tragedies)

Which means that there was a precedent in Valyrian/Targ custom where the older girl could inherit, or that it was much more flexible compared to Westerosi customs on such. (Go two paragraphs down for what I say about Jaehaerys, will, and how that affects succession, which is actually not about law).

With Jaehaerys never disagreeing with Alysanne that Daenerys is first and avoiding it by saying that she will be a Queen when she marries Aemon, we see that Jaehaerys makes the conscious decision to keep the succession male-centered.

You said this:

Second, the Great Council of 101 set the precedent that even if a woman is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, she should be passed over for a male. Rhaenys was Jaehaerys's heir according to Westerosi laws of inheritance as the only child of his previous heir, so she was even backed by the actual law and precedent. And the threat of war was dangerous enough that it forced the literal King of Westeros to concede matters of his personal inheritance and violate precedent just to pass over a woman. That's how sexist they are!!! They literally broke the law so that they could be MORE sexist!!

Jaehaerys I continues to keep the royal succession male-centered by allowing the Great Council to occur because he is not stupid and knows that the male option will be chosen by the male noble "voters". This actually diminishes the value of an absolute monarchy/King's word by allowing subjects to openly make opinions on who should rule them. With such a thing happening, it actually weakened the significance of the monarch's word being law, as such is in an absolute monarchy. *EDIT* Again, not an absolute monarchy, but it still stands that this allowed too much power--if your goal is accumulating more power for the ruling family then the other lords. *END OF EDIT* Plus, it got Viserys I to become the heir/King, which wasn't good for him or people around him because of his mismanagement and mis-adjudication of several events: addressing how Aemond, his eye; marrying Alicent at all and involving the Hightowers when he knows Otto, bringing Otto back despite acknowledging in the past that Otto just wants to go against his decision to get Rhaenyra to be Queen Regnant, etc.

Jaehaerys was not one to bow completely to tradition when his mind was set to its opposing option. Case in point, him marrying Alysanne, going aganst his own mother and stepfather despite the latter being his regent, and creating the Doctrine of Exceptionalism, and sending out elocuters to persuade large swatches of the populace (noble and common) to not care about Targ/Valyrian sibling marriage despite the long and bloody history of Valyrian traditions and Targ rulers warring with the Faith over this and polygamy (Aenys I, Aegon the Uncrowned-Rhaena, and Maegor). So again, Jaehaerys made the conscious choice to not make the female claim equal to the male claim despite him, by history and precedent, going against precedent and Andal custom.

Therefore, it is actually custom/cultural preference. Moreover, male primogeniture actually comes from Andal custom, not Valyrian or Targ.

B) Dangers of Some Text Reading

So it is not "crazy" at all that Viserys kept with Rhaenyra as his heir, nor that he ignores the precedent that made him king. This might be a "radical" idea, but it is only "crazy" if you think authority in general and authority in Westeros should stay male-centered as a basic principle of life or just the "better" one, that convince and the conventional social order must be prioritized, followed to the letter.

She was older, she actually was with him in meetings by his own order so she definitely learned some things about ruling from that experience....since she was 8. And she rules Dragonstone on her own authority as it's "Lady"/ Princess ever since she moved there after her wedding to Laenor when she was 17. She married Daemon when she was 23, so she ruled Dragonstone alone for at least 6 years. And the only people who had something to complain about her rule were those who felt that she wouldn't give them what they thought they deserve (Alfred Broome), those who were just greedy for power (the Tangletongues), and those who take after traditional Andal sexism where a man should inherit or have power over women in general. So we have strong evidence and an argument for how Rhaenyra already would rule well or well enough as any other male ruler or male head of house.

And just as GRRM says above in my excerpt, precedent are always changed or contradicted. Just as Jaehaerys, Visenya, and Maegor all did.

And Viserys didn't need any precedent to back him up, just his own word. (Just as Jaehaerys didn't need precedent for his own marriage except the Valyrian one.) Which, again, in an absolute monarchy, is Law. *EDIT* Even with this world not being an absolute monarchy, lords fought each other and sometimes even ignore precedents all the time: Tywin Lannister named Jaime, a Kingsguard knight, as his heir even though Kinguards swear to never hold property, marry, etc. Viserys is not that special in his doings.*END OF EDIT*

It's Alicent and her decision to actively go against Rhaenyra that provides the heft of both her own and Rhaenyra's fall.

In my wiki quote above, there is a line where it says that the successions of ordinary lords and noble house are given to the King/ruler to decide when all other attempts at decision has failed. The ruler also has the right and power to make bastards legitimate. Only their word is true law. Yes it can be if ores after they dies, but the greens' reason for Aegon the Elder to be king is is based on already-contradicted male privilege (contradicted through the house's own history: Visenya, Rhaenys, Rhaena, Alysanne, Aerea and Rhaelle, etc.) and already contradicted Westerosi custom with the sibling marriage. The Targaryens as a dynasty itself is arguably a "contradiction" or at least has many opposing customs to the Westerosi ones, and Jaehaerys decided to assimilate into Westerosi cultures more than to press forward with Valyrian ones, which brought about consequences for the whole entire dynasty since women -- not only in his own house but in most Westerosi houses -- have women abused, raped, forcibly married by other men to solidify there own sense of superiority and actual political power/claims (Jeyne Poole, Naerys, Rhaelle, the Stark niece's married to their half uncles, Cersei Lannisters, Lysa Tully, Daenerys Stormborn, etc). Would that Targs have lost all their dragons if Rhaenys had been made Queen Regnant/heir? I doubt it, since there was more than enough room to put down Rebellion's at the time. Daemon, though determined, really only had a band of men behind him compared to what Rhaenys had: Corlys and his ships, her better reputation, etc. If Jaehaerys really pressed for it, he could have put off Daemon and used Corlys, but he didn't. It was not at all a Maegor situation, where there were many lords who actively supported Maegor and mocked Aegon the Uncrowned.

C) The Widow's Law

You say:

Third, Widow's Law specifically stipulates that it is not meant to be used to allow a woman to inherit over her trueborn brother. I know a lot of people think this law can actually be used to support Rhaenyra, but I think this ignores the context of the time. Remember, even though Alysanne wrote the law, Jaehaerys is the one who implemented it and is the only one who had the final say in its wording. And, as mentioned above, Jaehaerys straight up does not have the power to allow women to inherit, even when the law is backing him up. He's also a super misogynist and has proven unwilling to listen to Alysanne on feminist matters. So I'm not sure why people think he'd have the desire or the power to instate a law that says a daughter from a first marriage gets to inherit over a son from a second marriage. The lords would never allow something like that, because most of them use and discard their wives for the sole purpose of gaining male heirs and I guarantee there would be a moral panic about women getting too much power the same way there eventually was with Rhaenys and Rhaenyra. And not just the lords, but Jaehaerys would never allow something like that: They're all grade A misogynists, remember? That's why Widow's Law specifically placates the lords by assuring them that their precious eldest son can still inherit before even introducing the new law. Because Jaehaerys knew he wouldn't be supported if he said that women could inherit when they have trueborn brothers, so he made sure everyone knew he wasn't trying to do that.

Excerpt from the wiki page for the Widow's Law:

To rectify these ills, in 52 AC King Jaehaerys implemented the Widow's Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or daughter, where there was no son) to inherit, but requiring said heirs to maintain surviving widows in the same conditions they enjoyed before their husband's death. A lord's widow, be she a second, third or fourth wife, could no longer be driven from his castle, nor deprived of her servants, clothing, and income. The same law also forbade a man to disinherit the children by a first wife in order to bestow their lands, seat or property on a later wife or her children.

It is not just that the eldest son/daughter's (w/o living brothers) claims are made stronger and primary through this law. Jaehaerys also diminished the authority of the ruling lord/head of house by restricting their ability/options of heirs. This is an instance where he has actively diminished other lords' power and authority by his own will and for his own ends. In order to encourage lords and male heirs to support him and willingly follow his laws even if they disliked their stepmother, he took Alysanne's suggestions and made use of them by including that clause of "eldest son" when he really just could have ruled that every second/third/etc. wife had to be taken care of. This was an act of force, still, because he made a condition of their own coming-to-power.

That is shows only one way Jaehaerys absolutely had general power and room to allow a woman to inherit, but not the will.

As through the quotes I gave, with special attention to how: nobles went to the King when they wanted matters of succession in their to be finally settled (ruler's word is the final word, as you just say right now in the quote above); how the King/ruler can, at all, be the only one to legitimize any bastard and include them in the stronger claimants for a seat of authority; the fact that there was at all consideration for female ruler's but they were passed over....as you mention with Rhaenys, who is just one of the Targ women who were passed over for man by men; AND his trying to avoid Alysanne's pressing for Daenerys which beliefs that there was room for choice and Jaehaerys' active, unpressured choice to disallow female inheritance being equal to a man's. There was no sign of a rebellion against Daenerys possibly being named heir, that was all on Jaehaerys.

Every time Jaehaerys made a decision about the succession, he was always in power and the ability to choose differently. While you do say that he was sexist and actively chose against female succession as much as he could, this idea that his hands were tied and he had to bow to the rules of Westerosi law is inaccurate.

It's more like he felt that he had to because from the very beginning (when he was 14-15) his own authority was doubted, contested and compared to Maegor/Aenys and was always on a run of self-preservation through conciliation to the customs that would, under superficial review -- because no one in-universe other than royals, their council members, and maesters would either think or say much about royal succession and its history, Valyrian history, personal histories, how they both affected the mindsets of current leaders, and read between all those lines -- and he was always under pressure to "prove" his fitness for power, as you yourself pointed out with him using the Widow's Law to placate the lords.

That because his uncle Maegor actively put his life in danger while going against the social order by taking the throne from the heir, Aegon, that Jaehaerys, from a young age, seemed to have thought that assimilating/giving people semblances of what they want in "less-pressing" matters like polygamy and second-wife widow and how he mixed the hat of Vermithor and complimenting Rogar to subdue Rogar, to express his own will. (Meanwhile, he castigated Rhaena, his older sister, for threatening Franklyn Farman for insulting her and kicking her out, both so that he himself can show that he is on the side of male authority AND because he sincerely believed that Rhaena was endangering his own hold and legitimacy of rule by openly "disrespecting" the lord).

But by the time he was much older and has ruled for years, implemented other laws and actually built a more solid and positive reputation for himself, he only took great risks when he felt it benefited himself. Therefore, yes, he did have more choice here than is let on.

He decided that not making too many waves (apart from the Doctrine) the ruled-social order was the road to peace (once again, I must bring up that Jaehaerys still willfully picked and chose what customs to follow). We see it in how he handled Saera, Viserra, and Daella. (Yes, Alysanne had a huge hasn't in how her kids turned out. Doesn't mean that Jaehaerys was not the bigger factor...since he is the king. Again, even you say, in the same quote, that Jaehaerys was the final power behind any and all laws made, including those Alysanne inspired. That, along with how he structures his family, his plans for the stolen dragon eggs Elissa took, etc all show he had the power and capability...just not the will for the succession going towards women.)

So again, you've made a contradiction with how you say he has final say, but somehow he can't rule that women could rule and that he doesn't actually have the ability to pass over Andal customs' influence on Targ succession, even Westerosi succession?

He decided from the tender, tender age of before-16 that assimilation/and conciliation to Andal-descent subjects in matters of male-domination was the way to strengthen the Targ Dynasty.

Which as we saw, did not work. At all.

It only served to strengthen the notion that female rulers were unnecessary, inviting of danger, or even evil so that women, across Westeros, were disinherited and abused and used. As I admittedly already noted. But this leads into how Daenerys Stormborn (huh, the first born Jaehaerys rejected as an aheir....has a namesake who slowly and surely is consolidating power for herself alone andis also a main source/symbol of active, compassionate leadership in theme with the ASoIaF narrative? Can't be a coincidence) is a woman who would begin a remodelling of all of that.

And I say "remodel" because Daenerys is far more radical than Rhaenyra, who could have more conciliatory than Dany in her rule, having had the life she had and the behavior/choices she already made in canon.

D) Bastardry and the true State of Rebellion against Rhaenyra Before the Dance

You said:

TLDR: Viserys really did Rhaenyra dirty. He made and kept her his heir out of guilt about Aemma, not out of love for Rhaenyra. And he did this knowing that it violated every single precedent or law relating to inheritance out there, and knowing that previous kings weren't able to uphold their female heirs, even when they had a stronger claim than Rhaenyra would have, because the lords threatened to start a war over it. And that's not even getting into how he completely failed to teach her about politics and did nothing to prepare her to become Queen.

This is also part of why people say it's not just about Rhaenyra's bastards. I fully agree that having them weakened her claim even further, but what you need to understand is that Rhaenyra was doomed from the start. She was doomed by the misogynistic laws, and by the misogynistic precedent, and by the misogynistic lords who never tried to hide that they'd start a war if a woman inherited the throne. And Viserys put that burden on her anyways, and put her and her children's lives in genuine danger, all so he could feel better about his decision to butcher his wife.

There is actually, no point whatsoever in the show nor the book where we see or hear of any specific lords planning or amazing armies or attempts to rebel against Rhaenyra. Like at all. That would absolutely l, would have been mentioned in the book, but it's not. The only ones who actually did all that was Alicent and the greens. Borros' Baratheon certainly didn't do anything until Aegon was crowned, the two camps started to prepare for war, and sent their kids to negotiate with him.

While there was the note of people wanting Viserys to remarry and had the hope of him getting a male heir:

Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty.

And this quote:

Viserys had done nothing to change the order of succession. The Princess of Dragonstone remained his acknowledged heir, with half the lords of Westeros sworn to defend her rights. Those who asked, “What of the ruling of the Great Council of 101?” found their words falling on deaf ears. The matter had been decided, so far as King Viserys was concerned; it was not an issue His Grace cared to revisit.

Still, questions persisted, not the least from Queen Alicent herself. Loudest amongst her supporters was her father, Ser Otto Hightower, Hand of the King. Pushed too far on the matter, in 109 AC Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong. “This Hand will not hector me,” His Grace proclaimed.

and the fact that there was a party/faction at all for Alicent, these are not rebellions and these are not lords who are "threatening to start a war over it". These are examples of people who talk and cry over it but do absolutely nothing but perform. Stay consistent, and they are no threat. Give no one a platform to actually rebel (as Borros did) and they are not active threats.... Which is why we have a separate Show!Alicent who is going around saying she has no support.

And, no it is not Rhaenyra having illegitimate children (who are not illegitimate) that weakened her claim or right to power. It is Alicent's constant attacks and final making Aegon the Elder King in her absence from court. @the-king-andthe-lionheart 's words HERE about royal affairs with a queen, princess, and even noble ladies having affairs and lovers and illegitimate children (or kids ruled as legitimate though some people felt they weren't).

And no, many, many team green and even team black fans argue that Rhaenyra's having bastards, as they claim, lowered both her with as a human being and as an authority figure. It is actually a primary argument that's repeatedly made across blogs and posts on Twitter, Reddit, and here on Tumblr.

Viserys certainly did not support his daughter well with him inviting Otto back to court, marrying Alicent of all people, marrying her to a gay man so that her kids would always be questioned, etc. That doesn't mean he was the principal reason why she was deposed. That honor goes to the actual deposers: the greens and Alicent. I will even say that Jaehaerys' succession polices and actions have set his descendents up for failure, if we really want to go there.

After all, he was the one who had enabled Viserys to sit on the throne when he had all the room to just make Rhaenys heir.

In All...

It is very dangerous for us to believe that:

Jaehaerys didn't have the power he definitely did while also thinking that he had all the power

Viserys naming Rhaenyra his heir and being consistent with it, since there a reinforcement in the sense that Jaehaerys is not responsible for the Dance and that Rhaenyra is both unfit and was totally vulnerable to Viserys' misrule and "doomed" from that start without mentioning the greens' fault and ambition and societal being tha actual cause of her fall

Rhaenyra herself didn't try or succeed in performing necessary and justified resistances against his misrule and mismanagement of several situations (Driftmark claim, Vhagar incident, marrying Daemon, being separate from him and ruling Dragonstone on her own while raising her kids away from his court, etc.)

Rhaenyra didn't understand politics, as if she is intellectually inept

Rhaenyra was always a bad ruler and never actually learned to rule (she sat at council since before she turned 10 AND she ruled Dragonatone for years before ever marrying Daemon, as I mentioned in my post already)

laws in Westeros about succession were solid and uncontested even when there were male candidates when girls' trueborn, immediate male family all died or don't exist

that Rhaenyra having extramarital sex/children out of wedlock is the main reason or reason we should focus on and emphasize as the reason as to how she loses power

there were active plans or actions taken to rebel against Rhaenyra before the greens ever did

All of this just returns us to the feeling and belief that the blacks were the wrong party, that Rhaenyra was an evil person who experienced no provocation while reducing her humanity and making us believe that her tyranny was all because she was a weak person and ruler, totally unprepared to rule because her dad was also ineffective. When it's nothing of the sort.

I believe that all of this is why people who say they are team black and then argue all of this aren't believed that they are team black. Because such arguments really undermined the idea that Rhaenyra was fit for ruling Westeros and that the Dance somehow has little influences from the past and the future in ASoIaF. When I'd say that this event is a huge turning point for Westeros and House Targaryen...for the worse.

So honestly, if the show failed to convey all of this to its audience so spectacularly, then can we really refer to HotD as true canon, worthy of thinking as material and a perspective that actually portrayed the issues canon expressed to us? A story that any of us should consider as telling truths, even straight up facts when it doesn't even sufficiently bring into context Jaehaerys' motivations? That any of us should even respect it as a narration, since it doesn't even respect the original themes/facts/history of the story told?

I mean, the show doesn't really get into why Daemon would have a starting weird relationship with his daughter Rhaena, and many fans think that it's because he completely blows her off for not having a dragon. Why? Because the show didn't bother to show how Daemon's house/dragonriding pride and ideas about love and family develop, nor does it actually address properly how Daemon absolutely would have known that a Targ can and often did claim a dragon in their preteens, teen, and even adulthood. So the audience is left with one strong impression that Daemon hates or thought less of Rhaena. If the intention was to make us see Daemon as having trouble with Rhaena's low confidence in herself and not just her not having a dragon, they did a really poor job of actually showing that through an actual interaction between the two. Of we try to think of one scene, there isn't! Just Daemon hugging them in a deleted scene and him looking at them or talking of the in later scenes...nothing more at all addressing Rhaena and dragons and being a dragonrider to support one idea over the other, actually seemingly to buoy the "Daemon hates Rhaena" more because of said lack.

Whether due to really bad and careless, cash-grabbing writing or sincere belief from the writers/showrunners themselves, such a thing where Daemon actually thought less of his daughter because of her not having a dragon is just false and impossible.

So again...how worthy of an adaptation is HotD when it doesn't even get these important and simple lore aspects correct nor portray them to show the correct depth of a character? Which is why this reblog was not about HotD but the canon. Inadvertently and simultaneously, I also wrote how this show -- with the way it's been written -- is very green-leaning, convincing us that Rhaenyra is somehow totally at fault for her downfall.

All the Laws Viserys Violated by Making Rhaenyra His Heir

Hi hi! I'm in the midst of writing a post about Otto's motivations throughout HotD and the portion about why Otto was so sure Alicent's sons would end up as heir when he pushed her to marry Viserys got wayyy too long so I'm just going to write it here.

I cannot emphasize enough how crazy it was that Viserys kept Rhaenyra as his heir. He has literally no law or precedent to back him up; every single possible precedent actually works against him. Full disclaimer, I genuinely think Rhae would make a good queen and support her over Aegon, but I don't think Viserys made her heir for the right reasons and I think because of the following he was setting her up for failure.

First, Westerosi laws of inheritance say that a woman cannot inherit if she has a trueborn brother. This has always been the case. Remember that as of right now Dorne is NOT a part of the Seven Kingdoms, so the Seven Kingdoms unanimous in its institution of male-based primogeniture. There is literally no region under Viserys's domain where a woman is allowed to inherit if she has any trueborn brothers. You'll never find any instances of a woman being made heir when she has surviving trueborn brothers. When we see women in power, like Jeyne Arryn or even Sansa Stark, it's always because they either have no brothers or their brother is occupied with another title.

Second, the Great Council of 101 set the precedent that even if a woman is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, she should be passed over for a male. Rhaenys was Jaehaerys's heir according to Westerosi laws of inheritance as the only child of his previous heir, so she was even backed by the actual law and precedent. And the threat of war was dangerous enough that it forced the literal King of Westeros to concede matters of his personal inheritance and violate precedent just to pass over a woman. That's how sexist they are!!! They literally broke the law so that they could be MORE sexist!!

Third, Widow's Law specifically stipulates that it is not meant to be used to allow a woman to inherit over her trueborn brother. I know a lot of people think this law can actually be used to support Rhaenyra, but I think this ignores the context of the time. Remember, even though Alysanne wrote the law, Jaehaerys is the one who implemented it and is the only one who had the final say in its wording. And, as mentioned above, Jaehaerys straight up does not have the power to allow women to inherit, even when the law is backing him up. He's also a super misogynist and has proven unwilling to listen to Alysanne on feminist matters. So I'm not sure why people think he'd have the desire or the power to instate a law that says a daughter from a first marriage gets to inherit over a son from a second marriage. The lords would never allow something like that, because most of them use and discard their wives for the sole purpose of gaining male heirs and I guarantee there would be a moral panic about women getting too much power the same way there eventually was with Rhaenys and Rhaenyra. And not just the lords, but Jaehaerys would never allow something like that: They're all grade A misogynists, remember? That's why Widow's Law specifically placates the lords by assuring them that their precious eldest son can still inherit before even introducing the new law. Because Jaehaerys knew he wouldn't be supported if he said that women could inherit when they have trueborn brothers, so he made sure everyone knew he wasn't trying to do that.

So Viserys has 0 laws and precedents backing his decision, and 3 laws and precedents that his decision outright violates. And he keeps Rhaenyra as his heir anyways, out of guilt to Aemma. This is why I think Otto was genuinely flabbergasted by Viserys's decision; because he demonstrates remarkable awareness of the misogyny in Westeros and is fully aware that this WILL incite rebellion. He says it himself: It doesn't matter to the lords of Westeros how good or kind Rhaenyra is. They've demonstrated, time and time again, that they will not allow a woman to inherit a title, including the Iron Throne, if there are ANY trueborn male relatives available--AND that they have the power to force the King to let them decide his inheritance!

TLDR: Viserys really did Rhaenyra dirty. He made and kept her his heir out of guilt about Aemma, not out of love for Rhaenyra. And he did this knowing that it violated every single precedent or law relating to inheritance out there, and knowing that previous kings weren't able to uphold their female heirs, even when they had a stronger claim than Rhaenyra would have, because the lords threatened to start a war over it. And that's not even getting into how he completely failed to teach her about politics and did nothing to prepare her to become Queen.

This is also part of why people say it's not just about Rhaenyra's bastards. I fully agree that having them weakened her claim even further, but what you need to understand is that Rhaenyra was doomed from the start. She was doomed by the misogynistic laws, and by the misogynistic precedent, and by the misogynistic lords who never tried to hide that they'd start a war if a woman inherited the throne. And Viserys put that burden on her anyways, and put her and her children's lives in genuine danger, all so he could feel better about his decision to butcher his wife.

[kazz-brekker]

i feel like everyone on here saying that even if rhaenyra peacefully took the throne daemon would definitely cause a civil war to make sure one of his sons succeeds her are forgetting that (a) daemon's eldest daughter was going to be queen of westeros one day and his grandchild through her would be heir to the throne (b) daemon is like 15 years older than rhaenyra so barring her death in childbirth or some unexpected accident she would probably outlive him anyway

[feydrautha]

Game recognises game

[amatres]

i do find it interesting that by westeros's usual right of succession, rhaenyra did technically have the strongest claim as heir while still a single child over daemon, but because of how her own father became king and the precedent set by it and how jaehaerys came into kingship over rhaena, it wouldn't have happened smoothly.

and also like, the fact it didn't even occur to viserys to let rhaenyra be his heir even just temporarily and have her raised with the knowledge of political state and the likes, or at least not to enforce her to study it regardless of the fact she may not be interested. like, had things gone how he expected them to go, she would have a younger brother close in age to her whom she would likely marry, and she would still be queen and need to execute queenly duties beyond having children.

even if he didnt expect her to marry this theoretical younger brother, she would likely marry a high ranking noble and have to tend to their estate. and yet? he didn't even consider to do it and he has his wife continuously pregnant in hopes of more children, an heir and spare at the least, all while turning a blind eye to his daughter and her education. but of course how could he expect her to, or let her, run anything when his own rule was based on denying another woman claim to a throne many who followed the normal law of succession would assume would be the more rightful candidate

but theres also the fact technically neither of them were true direct heirs, which is why there was so much debate in the first place. just like how for example, a woman leads the eyrie during rhaenyra's reign because she was all that was left of the direct line, and once she passed it went to the second branch nearby. by that logic, daemon would have never been viserys's heir in the first place, as rhaenyra as his kid would already have claim over him for succession, and yet everyone including viserys himself treated daemon as his heir for years, not his child. all because that was the precedent they set up to get viserys on that throne to begin with

there is no conclusion to this, i was just writing my stream of consciousness bc i thought of aemma and how viserys kept trying to have more children, and never prepared rhaenyra for anything. like, by the time she is reaching teenage years and you still no other children i think that's the point you change tactics and do your best to prepare the one child you have even on the supposed off chance you are unable to have any other healthy children, which did happen. and yet still. i do think it's tied to how his own claim came from denying a woman her's, and that his grandfather before him was the same, and i just want to know what his reasoning for all of this was

[horizon-verizon]

I want to shoot myself in the head every time I see someone say: The Blacks / Rhaenyra have as much responsibility in the birth of the conflict / the war, as the Greens. Or that: Rhaenyra has also done bad things to have power. This is all fundamentally wrong.

The Greens began to foment treachery as soon as Aegon II was born, when Rhaenyra was to be 10 years old. What had she done "wrong" in that time to merit being plotted against her? Or what had the other members of his family done to make the Greens want to usurp the designated heiress? The answer is nothing. The only reasons were greed for power = putting their blood on the throne, and misogyny against Rhaenyra.

Even in the series, it is very clear. Otto literally says in episode 3 that Aegon II must be king, that Rhaenyra could be the reincarnation of Jaehaerys himself, that all that matters is that she is a WOMAN. He's already hatching a coup, while Rhaenyra has literally done nothing "wrong". Truth be told, she still doesn't do anything "wrong" in the rest of the series. Because, no, the fact that she has children out of wedlock is not a valid reason for her usurpation. We know that Rhaenyra could have had legitimate children but that wouldn't have stopped the Greens from acting. It's just another excuse for them, as simple as that. Because misogyny.

Also, Rhaenyra (to get back to the book) basically did nothing but defend her birthright when the Greens usurped it. What's wrong? On the contrary, it is completely legitimate. Yes, she became a tyrant later on, but it's forgotten that it was the war and the resulting trauma that made her that way. Also, Rhaenyra ruled Dragonstone for about 16 years and no one compared her to a tyrant at the time, which suggests she could have been a perfectly proper queen without the Greens getting involved. Literally, Rhaenyra had done nothing wrong before this goddamn war that completely tore her apart as a person.

A war that has once again been started / provoked by the Greens, because they have fomented a usurpation and usurped the rightful heiress. From the moment the Greens began a plot, war was all but inevitable if they achieved their goal, as it was inevitable that the Blacks would retaliate. They are responsible for this war, it is a fact.

Yes, Viserys didn't help, but he's not to blame for the Greens' power greed in the first place.

The fact is, the Greens attacked the FIRST, then fought hard, until it led to the fucking war in question. In this scenario, how does Rhaenyra have a real share of responsibility in the birth of the conflict / war? Or even Blacks more generally?

I cannot stress enough that the word of the sovereign IS THE LAW. Putting a son on the throne is a precedent NOT A LAW. Viserys decreed that Rhaenyra was his heiress, her word is law and going against it, especially after taking an oath is simply committing high treason, which the Greens did without issue.

Literally, as soon as Viserys had a son, they started to foment betrayal, for no other reason than greed for power and misogyny. It's easy to understand, yet it looks like it's too complicated for some, who seek excuse after excuse to justify the Greens, especially with the bullshit I quoted at the beginning of the message.

Supporting the Greens is simply supporting the camp of misogynists, blood purists, traitors, oath breakers, rapists, murderers (Daemon didn't kill Rhea Royce in the book and there's no evidence neither did he kill Laenor or Harwin in the latter. His biggest crime remains Blood and Cheese, again, a response to Aemond's murder of Lucerys, which is no accident in the book. Although Daemon killed Rhea Royce in the series, it has nothing to do with the usurpation committed by the Greens), rapists, mass murderers, (at least if Aemond's actions are respected in the rest of the series...) etc.

Also, why would Rhaenyra have to be a "revolutionary feminist" according to some, to deserve this fucking throne exactly? Seriously, when I argue that the Greens attacked first, with power greed and misogyny as their primary motives, and are therefore by extensions the antagonists/villains of the story, this bullshit of "but Rhaenyra n 'isn't a feminist who will revolutionize Westeros' is almost systematically released as a response, as if it were a real argument? We do not care ? That's just not the point of what they're saying. Again, there's this completely dumb notion that since Rhaenyra is a woman, then she must earn her inheritance. She has to prove that she will be better than the others, and not just be a ruler who will keep the kingdom possibly stable, etc. This argument is simply another mani manifestation of the misogyny of some fans. The problem being that we have no idea how Rhaenyra's reign would have actually been, simply because she wasn't herself when she got the throne, and she was getting worse and worse because of of all that she had taken in the face and what she continued to take. We don't have the means to know if she could have improved certain things for women, if she would have simply kept the kingdom stable and prosperous, or if she would have been a bad queen anyway. Although I seriously doubt it for the last point, because Rhaenyra was still educated for her future role as sovereign, and she once again took good care of Dragonstone for about 16 years. Rhaenyra would therefore surely have been (I repeat myself) a correct queen if the Greens had not gotten involved. But this delusion of being a "revolutionary feminist" has nothing to do with it.

I'm sick of people who think they're smarter than everyone else by decreeing that both sides are on the same level of horror committed (especially when the Greens have done worse than the Blacks, even during the war), or responsibility for what happened.

Sorry for the long message, and Happy New Year, belated!

*EDIT (5/31/24): Doylistically: Rhaenyra suffers from really bad sexist writing on GRRM's, not just the maesters', part and it undermines his own point.* And no, she doesn't need to be necessarily "moral" like Dany to be a deserving ruler.

The point of her story was to highlight how no matter how good or evil or morally ambiguous a person you are, if you are female, you are subject to losing a power men are just granted. Or usurped. And this is inherently wrong. Rhaenyra chose to go to war rather than give up. This is valuable. Visenya was not thinking "for the realm" or for the benefit of smallfolk or outside of her family, yet she as so many fans bc she was not passive or restricted by "madness". She has less sexist writing.

Watsonianly

Do not apologize for delivering facts, anon. This is now one of my favorite posts. You have encapsulated the ideas and counterarguments necessary. Thank you. And Happy New Year to, you too!

The "neutral" arguers are really people who don't know how GRRM provides critical of misogyny and bastardy (even though we have Jon Snow...illiteracy caused by misogyny, oh my god) and don't care, only here to get thrills and chills OR people who are just misogynist looking for validation.

(Again, he still undermines himself with how he wrote Rhaenyra, I'm speaking to his intent here that people missed but he himself made it so easy for them to miss bc he did it!)

As anon states, Book!Alicent protested against Rhaenyra keeping her position as heir as soon as she gave birth to Aegon, which was when Rhaenyra was 10. A mere year after she married Viserys and allowed Rhaenyra to call her "mother".

Some noblewomen of the medieval era in Europe, though definitely interested in the rights of women or the ideology that makes women pseudo-subalterns were still not out there in the trenches, being modern day activists, for lords to make way for female leaders. Examples: Eleanor of Acquitane, Heloise d'Argenteuil, Catherine of Siena, Christine de Pizan. They were in a minority, though. Because feudalism and Islamic/Church doctrine.

Women resisted against patriarchal pressures and some won and took power for themselves: Catherine the Great, Elizabeth the I are just a few. Is this action/event/story not feminist in of itself since it makes a woman rest on supreme seats of power? Even though these women were not what we’d call feminist activists, trying to make other own leaders? 

Their actions set precedents, created examples, showed how it was possible for a woman to lead and lead well or not horribly. That means something.

This idea that Rhaenyra must make herself worthy in the other lords' eyes because they do not trust her gender is due to their misogyny, not her gender. Unlike what happened with Jaehaerys I, who had to prove he wasn't weak or hesitant like Aenys I--allowing the space for Maegor I to come in and take power--Jaehaerys I wasn't doubted for his gender but for how he will act. The same is not true for Rhaenyra.

Also, it mimics how PoCs must "prove" themselves trustworthy in other aspects of modern life because their race or ethnicity or even nationality is questioned by the dominant power. In professional spaces, etc.

More about Jaehaerys, and this maybe controversial, but I find that people praise him too much for being a smarter politician and manipulating the populace into buying the Doctrine of Exceptionalism because he improved--or attempting to improve--some infrastructures in King's Landing. People forget or ignore that he was very inspired to do all of this to strengthen his own validity as king after Maegor and Aenys.

People also conveniently forget that:

he had to be convinced to abolish the right of first night

was very reluctant in naming his firstborn daughter as heir (Daenerys)

encouraged or didn’t try to bring up the possibility of not having any more kids with Alysanne, who kept getting pregnant several times and had her troubles despite the fact that his own mother died laboring for a child

didn't give the throne to Rhaenys and allowed more doubt to be made on a female ruler by allowing all these reasons to not have her ascend (uncertainty of gender of the child she carried, her own age, etc.)

and allowing a council where subjects are allowed to decide who should rule as if this weren't an absolute monarchy in the first place

So now the lords may have felt that they had more right to protest a king just because they may not like him, and Viserys' pseudo-people pleasing certainly didn't help things.

Jaehaerys was not altruistic nor good to those close to him or to women, even his own wife. He, like most rulers, wished to consolidate his own power and adapted his tactics to a time when he had to differentiate himself from the past ruler's and thus he inadvertently set up more problems than he intended.

Finally, I must remind people that medieval and later royal and noble women had affairs and sometimes illegitimate kids just as men did, and sometimes it was known to the court and others but allowed or kept hush-hush. Often it was when a political rival had something to gain that a women would be accused (Sex With The Queen by Eleanor Herman), provided by @the-king-andthe-lionheart. I talk more about why Viserys defends Rhaenyra HERE, and the post goes into bastards and aristocracy further down.

*EDIT* (8/21/23):

THIS is a great post by @mononijikayu about medieval queens, female rulers, the history of how women in leadership positions were made and seen as threats to the very structure of social "order", and contextualizing Rhaenyra thru Empress Matilda. I didn't even know about Matilda's husband being comparable to Rhaneyra's Daemon! PLZ READ!!!!

Excerpt:

just as much, along with these fictitious portrayals, more lies are depicted. these women are considered vixens that cause havoc to men by shifting them into desires and danger. through the written word, we see how women are cast in roles of villains in men’s lives. it is because by their conclusive thoughts, women are the only creatures that are able to turn ‘good honorable men’ into despicable creatures who do shameful, deplorable acts for the sake of women’s pleasures.  it is within this narrative that ancient chroniclers declare that women were in fact the doom of men. if they were not able to control the dangers posed by the wiles of women, then the foundations of the mighty society they had built would be up in flames.  [...] as i mentioned, these factors of community are written down and preserved. and with that, the example of the ancients were the foundations by which medieval society built itself. the same concepts continued to cause the same issue within society and that was the exclusion of women from participating in the bigger picture of community and state, much so with governing states in their own right—without judgment or disapproval. 

[sheisbeautyweareworldass]

“both sides are wrong” no. both sides made mistakes and committed atrocities because it was a war, but claiming that the two sides were fighting for wrong things is lining up with one of them

one is fighting for the birthright of the eldest child and named heir, the other is fighting for the eldest son’s claim under the excuse that no woman should inherit anything. how is that “both sides are wrong” ?????

[sansa286]

The Complexities of Vaemond Velaryon's Claim and the Succession of Driftmark

I was re-watching HotD S1E8 - "Lord of the Tides" and was reminded of just how complex the issue with the succession for Driftmark is.

SPOILERS: House of the Dragon, Fire & Blood, A Song of Ice & Fire books and Game of Thrones.

Before we begin: hats off Vaemond's actor, Wil Johnson. He did incredible as Vaemond, I hung onto every word he said. I could feel just how pissed off he was. Round o' applause for such an excellent actor!

Disclaimer: I'm neither strictly Team Black or Team Green. There are characters I like/find interesting on both sides. I also want to make it clear, that although I point out how Vaemond is right about some stuff, I personally don't really care about the circumstances surrounding Luke's birth as both Laenor and Corlys claimed him.

Let's get into this...

We know that Corlys has been mortally wounded during battle in the stepstones, which has resulted in a fever. He may not survive, so Vaemond believes now is the perfect time to make a case for him to inherit Driftmark, and not his *official* nephew Lucerys. He knows he'll have the backing of the Greens, as they have been looking for a window into knocking Rhaenyra out of the line of succession in favor of Aegon. It's a very "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance. No one actually cares about one another, it's about one-upping a common foe together.

The argument being made by Vaemond and others, is essentially that Luke shouldn't inherit Driftmark because:

He is a bastard.

He is still very young (14).

He hasn't been raised on Driftmark.

I am quickly going to address the last two points:

1.) Luke's age doesn't matter. Children take their inheritance at crazy young ages all the time in-universe. Aegon III took the throne at 10. They rely on advisors, or regents (like Lysa Arryn being Lady Regent of the Vale until Robin comes of age), but they're still entitled to their inheritance. Fully disinheriting someone based on age is rather ludicrous.

2.) As Lord Beesbury pointed out, a person's abilities doesn't alter their entitlement to their inheritance unless it's something very serious or the current ruler decides against them for [insert reason here.] If abilities meant anything in terms of Westerosi succession then they sure as hell wouldn't be trying to put Aegon of all people on the throne. Obviously Rhaenyra could have done better by sending Luke as a ward to Driftmark under Rhaenys, but again, that doesn't matter enough to disinherit someone.

Now due to the taboo of accusing Rhaenyra of being unfaithful to Laenor, he can't outright say the first point, but it is still very much being said, and he and makes it apparent when he uses terminology like "Velaryon blood", and talk of "bloodlines." Vaemond insinuating that he is a better fit for Driftmark over Luke due to his Velaryon blood, is essentially pointing out that Luke has none.

In Westeros the simplest order of succession goes Lord --->Firstborn son--->Firstborn grandson and so on, following a direct line of descendants. We'll come back to this in a moment though, because it's not as simple as many would think.

After Corlys, the next Lord of the Tides was supposed to be Laenor, but due to his "death" it flows to Luke. While Luke was born out of wedlock, he has not been disowned as such and carries the Velaryon name through Laenor, his official father.

But the thing is, Vaemond is technically right. By laws of succession, due to Luke being a bastard, he shouldn't be the heir to Driftmark. And he by all accounts, is speaking the truth here.

But guess what? That also wouldn't make Vaemond the heir to Driftmark either!

Vaemond only gets Driftmark if Corlys has no other living grandchildren. If Luke were publicly outed as a bastard and stripped of all his titles and inheritance, they would not automatically go to Vaemond, but Baela and Rhaena. The law of succession always follows the line of the direct descendants of the eldest living male heir. Vaemond is not a direct descendant of Corlys, but their father, who has passed. Corlys is the current Lord of the Tides. Had Laenor passed away before Laena with no children on his own, then Driftmark would have went to Laena. With Laenor gone, and Luke disinherited, the claim then goes from Corly's grandson to granddaughter. That is how primogeniture works in Westeros and also why Rhaenys was even considered for the Iron Throne in the first place, as she was the sole living heir of King Jaehaerys and Queen Alysanne's firstborn son, Aemon.

Males are favored, but not absolute. Sons and grandsons come before daughters and granddaughters. But all come before an uncle or aunt. The only time an uncle or another male relative takes precedent, is if his lord-brother or father declares him heir (Jahaerys with Baelon), or he usurps it (there are a few examples of this happening in the ASOIAF books, and even one during this period with Lady Jeyne Arryn, who should make an appearance in S2.)

The argument could go that because they're women they can pass on the Verlaryon blood, but not the Velaryon name. Somewhat true, however easily corrected, as there have been several examples of lords taking on their mother's surname when they're the heirs to a land or region (See: Maege Mormont.) Likewise, Baela or Rhaena could take their mother's surname, and their children can opt into taking the Velaryon name as well, and that would actually be expected.

So, Vaemond is right, but he is mostly wrong. And he is trying to rob his very own nieces, those of legit Velaryon blood, from their birthright.

This is why Vaemond is far from just someone concerned with his own house being snuffed out. He is playing the game of thrones, like everyone else. He just lost early-on.

When Rhaenys announces that she has agreed to wed Baela and Rhaena to Jace and Luke, that should've been enough to satisfy his supposed concerns: that house Velaryon would die out in both blood and name. Don't get me wrong, I do think Vaemond is legitimately concerned, that is apparent in his passion; but he also has his own agenda. The marriage of Luke and Rhaena would mean that the next heir to Driftmark would have the Velaryon name passed down through Luke, and Velaryon blood passed down through Rhaena. House Velaryon would be far from ending.

I know people (rightfully) harp on Rhaenyra for backing her son's claim to Driftmark over Baela and Rhaena. That is wrong, but at least she did insure that they would have power. Rhaena being Lady of Driftmark means that she will reside over the birthland of her mother (and given how Luke has been raised, I'm going to assume co-leader as well.) Baela marrying Jace means she will be queen one day, which will make her the second-most powerful person in the Seven Kingdoms by rank (and given her personality in the book, as well as the bits and pieces we get in the show and deleted scenes: also in practice.) As far as we know, Vaemond had no plans to give his nieces anything; he has his own wife, children and grandchildren at this point.

If Vaemond's only true concern was the survival of his house, then the arrangement for Luke and Rhaena, in theory, should be perfect to him. But what does he do? He doubles-down, makes a spectacle of himself and it costs him his life. Brutally, might I add. Even if Daemon didn't kill him, Vaemond would've left King's Landing tongue-less.

But, it didn't even have to resort to that. Daemon aside, let's just say that he still wants Driftmark for himself, there were smarter ways to react. I honestly think he should've just been more politically practical, and took a page out of Otto's book.

Otto took a big L in this episode. This court meeting was supposed to be the beginning of the end for Rhaenyra as heir. His plan was to get Vaemond to press the claim of Driftmark, with Otto sitting the Iron Throne in-lieu of Viserys, he would of course side with Vaemond no matter how good of a reasoning Rhaenyra made. Luke would be publicly outed as a bastard, which would then delegitimize Jace, and then Rhaenyra herself. Then bam, Aegon II is made heir.

But his plans are foiled when Viserys makes his surprise entrance. You can see the look on he and Alicent's face. They know they're screwed and Plan A is down the toilet. But they don't run around calling Rhaenyra a "whore" and rant to Viserys about how he has robbed Aegon. They sit back, observe and roll with the punches, because Otto is that person that always has a Plan B (as we see in the following episode.)

If Vaemond wasn't so wrapped up in his own ambitions, then he would've heard of the match, fake smiled at it, and then met with the Greens afterwards to plot another way on how he could get Driftmark. Hell, he could've even bargained with Rhaenyra for him to be made Master of Ships on the Small Council in the event of his brother's passing. But he doesn't, and the chips fell where they did.

Overall Vaemond is a tragic character, because he struggles with second-son syndrome similar to how Daemon and Aemond do. He does clearly care for his family, but wishes to find his own footing within it and is envious of his older brother for having the most power. I truly think he would have been fascinating to see if he would've become a political player for the Greens or Team Black, or did something all on his own. But alas, he wasn't that kind of character. Vaemond is similar to Ned Stark in the way that they both forget how to play the game and it ends up costing them greatly.

[lemonhemlock]

https://twitter.com/Targ_Nation/status/1611158240359759872?t=bfo77HLITj21KBLCUKx6fA&s=19

Seeing all those likes took years off my life

i don't even know where to begin............

"centrist bs" - the concept of left and right doesn't exist in a medieval setting ...................

where was this energy when cersei was committing abuses left and right and placing her bastard children on the throne? why didn't "the modern audience" "almost unanimously stand by the side of the woman being usurped of her throne" back then? 😵

but this isn't even about one side being more wrong than the other or both sides being awful or war being horrible as a rule or the smallfolk always paying with their lives and livelihoods when the high lords play their game of thrones

that entire tweet is predicated on not grasping the basic principles of the polity they are operating within 😫 you cannot define usurpation based on absolute primogeniture when that society relies on male primogeniture for inheritance, in that context it literally means the opposite

words don't somehow gain whatever meaning you want based on what you think is fair, same how laws don't materialize into existence just because you say so. any kind of law is a social construct, doesn't exist outside the confines of society and requires a certain kind of framework in order to be accepted & enforced. if proposed laws are not accepted by the majority and cannot be enforced, they only exist on the astral plane

there aren't even any proper institutions in westeros. literally the only ones i can identify are the crown and the small council, which serves as a kind of proto-government. there's no parliament, there's no proper justice system, no magna charta. the only courts that seem to operate are Faith-based courts and your liege lord's judgment. medieval-style legal systems and law enforcement are headache-inducing as a rule anyway, but feudal monarchies generally involve constant negotiations and power leverages between kings and their vassals

a more apt characterization of the Dance would be what exactly and how much can the targaryens get away with now that they've decided to impose themselves as rulers of a unified westeros. so far, they had to accept the religion of the land (aegon the conqueror was anointed by the high septon) and were forced to renounce polygamy. they got to keep practicing incest as a result of jaehaerys' successful doctrine of exceptionalism. see? negotiation. now the question remains - are they going to respect succession laws like a normal person (i.e. Andal Law) or are they going to resort to this ridiculous circus every time a targaryen monarch dies? because at the point of the dance, there had hardly been a straightforward transition of power since the conquest

for the internal coherence of this fictional world to be maintained, the nobles should be pushing Andal inheritance rights like crazy, because their own succession is decided on the basis of that and they would be directly interested in not fucking it up for themselves or their descendants by having weird precedents set by the royal family. a lot of these lords, if not most, have bastard siblings/children of their own, as well as elder sisters/daughters. it doesn't make sense for them to threaten their own stability for the sake of rhaenyra of all people, who isn't even good at her job and has done absolutely nothing to endear herself to them. what could they possibly gain by supporting her?

the question of the monarch imposing a law is much more believable in a centralized state, which westeros most definitely is not. imposing laws can also be done via force, of course, as long as """the state""" retains the monopoly on violence. the targaryens' v effective military superiority has so far been conferred by dragons. but rhaenyra's side isn't the only one that has dragons anymore. the opposing faction, i.e. the side who'd perpetuate Andal law, also has them now, as it happens. ergo war.

this situation is absolutely not similar in any way to today's democracies where laws are voted by parliament and the rest of the country have no choice but to abide by them or else the police come knocking on your door and hand you over to the our modern justice system, where your punishment is set by objective specialists & not decided by crazy stunts like trial by ordeal or the whims of your liege lord

tldr: there is no incentive for westerosi nobility to break andal succession law for rhaenyra, since it would be legal self-sabotage by setting a precedent that could come to bite those very same people in the a*se. rhaenyra is NOT an only child - by having trueborn brothers, the only way she can ascend is by breaking the laws & customs of the land. ergo disgruntled lords will inevitably flock to alicent's sons to form covert alliances & subversive power centres that, in time, will erupt in open rebellions. real-world historical examples attest to this happening with or without the consent of their respective figureheads (eg. lady jane grey) - i.e. it doesn't matter if aegon/aemond/daeron play happy families or not. in turn, the only way rhaenyra can prevent this is by executing her brothers/their male descendants. the greens don't want to die => the only way of achieving security for them is by claiming the throne.

alternatively, rhaenyra's life is not in danger as long as she bends the knee, as no-one in-universe would take her claim seriously with 3 living brothers. rhaenys also bent the knee to viserys after losing an election and is still alive. i'll say it again: it is not in the lords' best interest to support rhaenyra in the first place. if we are to go by any logic - what would they gain, should they flock to her? they would destabilize the line of succession for themselves for a (pretty terrible) queen, a reviled king consort and a bastard heir. but, as far as advantages and favours are concerned, what would they be, specifically? in order to outweigh the above-mentioned disadvantages?

you should all blame viserys for getting remarried and fathering sons, because had rhaenyra remained an only child or had only sisters, none of this would be happening & she would have become the first ruling queen of westeros

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

While the pre-Aegon I targs receive almost no focus in any published material, how do you think it may have changed in precedent at the Great Councils if there was a ruling Lady of Dragonstone in the ancestry? When I first read F&B, I almost thought there would be a retcon with the Valyrians to be Salic / Agnatic and that would factor into the precedent of the great council of 101. There’s also a pro-daemon argument for agnatic seniority up to Daemon that I would’ve loved to have GRRM explore

Oh, but there was a ruling lady of Dragonstone:

Gaemon Targaryen, brother and husband to Daenys the Dreamer, followed Aenar the Exile as Lord of Dragonstone, and became known as Gaemon the Glorious. Gaemon's son Aegon and his daughter Elaena ruled together after his death. After them the lordship passed to their son Maegon, his brother Aerys, and Aerys's sons, Aelyx, Baelon, and Daemion. The last of the three brothers was Daemion, whose son Aerion then succeeded to Dragonstone.

And we know that Elaena was a Lady in her own right and not just her husband's, because Aerys and Daemion and Aerion had wives, but they aren't spoken of as "ruling together". Therefore Aegon and Elaena's situation must have been with her on the same level as him. But alas, that didn't seem to help much with later succession arguments.

I suppose there might be an agnatic seniority argument, but I can also see that they specifically factored in female heirs and "a daughter before an uncle" of male-preference primogeniture:

As the glad tidings of Rhaena’s birth spread across the land, the realm rejoiced…save, perhaps, for Queen Visenya. Prince Aenys was the unquestioned heir to the Iron Throne, all agreed, but now an issue arose as to whether Prince Maegor remained second in the line of succession, or should be considered to have fallen to third behind the newborn princess. [...] The boy, named Aegon after his grandsire, was born to Lady Alyssa and fathered by Prince Aenys. [...] While many still debated whether Prince Maegor or his niece, Rhaena, should have precedence in the order of succession, it seemed beyond question that Aegon would follow his father, Aenys, just as Aenys would follow Aegon.

BTW, if you're interested, you can see an essay by an actual lawyer stating that the precedent of the Great Council of 101 was no legal precedent at all.

But anyway, you're not the only one who wishes F&B had gone into far greater detail about various legal and social decisions of the Targaryens. @goodqueenaly has gone into it at length, in particular about the politics of matchmaking, and the lack of it in F&B...

[stumbling-towards-the-light]

Historically speaking, families that practiced incest, at least to a larger degree than other cultures, also gave women more rights. The reason the Habsburgs married niece-to-uncle all the time was because their inheritance customs dictated that property and titles could pass through the eldest daughter's line to her eldest son. So, in order to keep their empire in the hands of the Habsburgs instead of the French or the English, they married their daughters to Habsburg cousins. The one time this rule was not followed, it sparked a civil war where the Habsburgs were ousted from the Spanish throne because the Spanish king had not married his Habsburg daughter to another Habsburg. Ditto for the Egyptian dynasties where women generally had a larger say in political/cultural/domestic life than their European counterparts. Cleopatra was not the only female Pharoah to kick ass. All of this to say, the Valyrian Freehold and the Targaryens, by extension, most likely gave their women some stake in property rights and/or inheritance policies. Why else would it be traditional for Aegon to marry his oldest sister if custom dictated he only had to marry one? Why else would it even be a debate for Laenor to inherit the Iron Throne through his mother?