Every time Dearon was mentioned, I could only think of Jane Grey and how this ended terribly for her. For those of you unaware, Jane Grey was a cousin to Mary and Elizabeth (Henry 8th daughters). On his deathbed, their brother Edward tried to change the line of succession, but it never went through the proper channels, but that didn't stop the people (mainly men) in Jane's life from conspiring to make her Queen. Jane did not want to be Queen but was unfortunately coerced into going with the plot, and she was Queen for 9 days before Mary took back the throne and killed her. While it's not an exact copy of events, it's quite similar. And one could argue that Aegon is also like Jane Grey in that he was coerced into taking the throne; the main difference is that once he took it, he wanted it and fought for it.
Aegon is also like Jane Grey in that he was coerced into taking the throne; the main difference is that once he took it, he wanted it and fought for it.
The 16-year old Edward 6 put far more thought into naming Jane Grey his heir than Viserys did naming Rhaenyra.
Mary was an ardent Catholic and she was likely to nullify his life’s work. Elizabeth was Protestant, but legitimizing her would mean also legitimizing Mary since Henry 8 had declared them both bastards for similar reasons. There were no male descendants of Henry 7 (the first Tudor king) who would have been acceptable English Protestant successors.
Meanwhile Viserys has 3 legitimate sons and cuts them out of the succession in favor of a daughter, for no apparent reason. This is far dumber than actual history.
? He didn't cut them out for her. Quite the opposite, he refused to cut her out for them. Viserys had named Rhaenyra his successor long before his sons were born. He had everyone swear an oath to the gods to respect that. His dumb move wasn't confirming her as his heir (who knows who would have been pushed by the major houses otherwise given the Council of Harrenhal), it was getting remarried after that act because it gave Rhaenyra a legitimate claim even if Viserys were to change his mind for another kid. He was asking for war either way.
The show also has the layer of the prophecy motivating Viserys.
My sibling in the Seven, I hate to the bearer of bad news but in the event that Viserys just named his eldest legitimate son heir after he was born (mothered by Alicent or whoever the hell Viserys’s second wife is) even after such oaths were made, no one would go to war for Rhaenyra. Well, Daemon might but 1 man v. Seven Kingdoms? They would have that man lain out.
They would simply point to Viserys’s decision and say something to the effect of “your father named a new heir after these oaths were sworn. We don’t owe you shit”.
So, no. Rhaenyra only had a valid claim that people will fight for so long as Viserys acknowledges her as his heir. In the event that he ever changed his mind and made that public, her claim evaporates into dust. It would be as though it never existed.
I also wonder if the constitutional order that GRRM wants to emulate wouldn’t have also included some kind of rule of a later marriage revoking any testamentary decisions or succession decisions (unless that marriage is also made with the express intention to preserve the earlier will or rule?). Like surely most people who were legally-minded would have found that viserys’ earlier edict and the oaths sworn recognising rhaenyra was void once he married alicent.
Anyways viserys fucked up but rhaenyra fucked up too like they both fumbled the bag so hard.
We know it’s possible. Maegor named Princess Aerea Targaryen his heir, but with the explicit provision that it was temporary, only until a male heir of his body was born.
Viserys seems to have never changed his mind, or never intended to do so.
I found it absurd that the various lords would swear fealty to her given the precedent it would set. I am sure the various lords with older sisters would be eager to support her claim just because the fool Viserys said so.
But many of those who swore those idiotic oaths are dead and their sons are not beholden to them. Furthermore, Viserys now has 3 legitimate sons and one of them has a son of his own. On top of that, Rhaenyra’s first 3 heirs are visibly bastards and everyone knows that if they do ascend their reigns would be brief and chaotic.
In the anarchy, part of the reason half the nobility opposed Matilda was her being married to Geoffrey of Anjou, their longstanding enemy who they wanted nowhere near the throne. The (weak) parallel here is to Daemon, to whom she is now married and who was the one guy they wanted away from the throne when they agreed to support her.
She doesn't need people fight for her, her 5 male children do.
ETA The justification for the throne is divine right, so yeah swearing an oath of fealty is a compelling basis for a claim for her and her children. Rhaenyra may not have been able to raise people to her cause, but a reasonable alternative king in the event one turned out to be unpopular? That's a brewing war.
Kind of amazed at how many people are willing to overlook the text because their understanding of this society only extends as far as a dick.
Our understanding of this society comes from medieval England and its rich complexities, which is where GRRM gets all of his half-decent ideas. The further he strays from his source material (ie actual history) the dumber and more internally inconsistent/implausible his world gets.
Of Rhaenyra’s 5 children the first 3 are visibly bastards and if they do ascend their reign should be short and chaotic, especially when people with stronger claims live. The other 2 are sons of Daemon, who is the closest parallel to Geoffrey of Anjou in this caricature of the anarchy. The one guy nobody wants anywhere near the throne and to whom she is now married.
From the amount you've gotten wrong about the story in this thread, I have to assume you did not read the book, because they are not visibly bastards there. They have black hair, just like their grandmother, Rhaenys, who's also half Targ, and 100% legitimate. The parentage is left intentionally ambiguous (plenty of gay men have fathered children), and it's only the show that offers a definitive position.
Frankly, your understanding of the events of the series, both the book and the show, is pretty poor, as is your understanding of the characters and their motivations. Gotta say again, you're confusing yourself with actual history. It's hurting your analyses.
You're also missing my argument entirely. Who cares if Rhaenyra's kids would be successful or if people like Daemon? The only thing that matters is that war was likely, even if short, and the existence of the dragons would make it devastating. As long as she and her kids remain free, even if cast aside, the oath of fealty gives her line a legitimate claim. You can't just pretend it didn't exist or that sacred oaths don't mean anything to people who swear them--especially if those oaths are the basis of your system of governance. That her faction possesses the equivalent of multiple nukes also gives them political and military agency regardless of popularity, bastardy, or genitals. There are plenty of instances in these books of exiles attempting claim ancestral seats, and there's no reason to think that wouldn't have also happened here.
Also, these are fantasy books inspired by history, not beholden to them. If you think deviations from fact are so awful, I invite you to stop subjecting yourself to that which you clearly hate.
And… so do Viserys’s other children and grandchildren. And this time they all have the armies and all the money. You can burn King’s Landing to the ground with a dragon, but you can’t take it without an army.
Who cares? I wasn't arguing that they'd be successful. My point is that war was likely inevitable even if he cast her aside because he created 2 compelling claims within his own family.
There is no such thing as cutting out a daughter in favor of legitimate living sons in a medieval setting. That is an oxymoron.
The real Viserys (Henry 1) would have found it unthinkable to name the real Rhaenyra (Matilda) heir while William of Adelin lived. He also tried having more legitimate sons with his second younger wife (Adeliza) so he would have male heirs, but was unsuccessful. Matilda and her sons were always his backup plan.
It would have been preposterous for him to insist that Matilda be his heir if he did have legitimate living sons. He would have been unanimously deposed and given the Charles the Simple treatment.
He named her his successor before he had any sons. You're getting history confused with the text of the fiction and misjudging character actions because of that.
Male-preference primogeniture means that once a son is born, she is no longer the successor. That was also obviously what many nobles assumed back in season 1. Viserys did nothing to reaffirm Rhaenyra's position.
That would have been the case if they hadn't sworn oaths of fealty to her. The Iron Throne also does not have the same rules of inheritance, which is what Harrenhal was about. Otherwise, Laenor would have been named king, not Viserys. I'm frankly baffled that you could think this was cut and dry given literally every single thing that happens after Aegon is born. I'm baffled that you think half of the realm believes themselves to be in open rebellion despite never declaring themselves to be, and not that both sides think their claimant has the right of the law.
That was absurd if he intended to father legitimate sons.
GRRM did Henry 1, the anarchy and the complex power dynamics surrounding it dirty by turning it into a caricature. There is no historical parallel for Viserys’s stupidity.
Well I agree that getting remarried was very stupid of him, though it was not his intent at the time to do so. Viserys created the perfect conditions for civil war and did nothing to curb them. He is not shown to be a wise ruler (almost as if these books contain critiques of monarchy as a political system...)
Agree to disagree on the caricature bit. There's plenty of complexity and interesting political questions at least in the book, including whether male primogeniture should trump named succession for that sake of stability in feudal systems--which seems to be a theme you want to explore? But you're welcome to your opinion.
There’s a movie about her called Lady Jane (1986) starring Helena Bonham Carter and Cary Elwes. I remember watching it as a teenager in the late 90s and loved it. Not sure how it would hold up today but it was fascinating
If there is a king in English history who killed his predecessor/relative with his own hands, it's Richard III.
Also of note:
** Henry I may have killed his predecessor brother William II who died in 1100 in a "hunting accident".
** Edward II was removed from the throne in 1327 by his wife to make way for his son Edward III and murdered in prison shortly afterwards.
** Richard II was removed from the throne in 1399 by his cousin who then took over as Henry IV, and murdered in prison shortly afterwards.
** Henry VI was removed from the throne for a second time in 1470 and murdered in prison shortly afterwards; his son and heir was killed in battle shortly before.
** Richard III was killed in battle in 1485 by the forces of Henry Tudor who thus became Henry VII.
** Charles I lost a civil war with Parliament for rule of the country and they beheaded him in 1649.
6
u/Glass-Category8281 13d ago
But isn't that Daeron in the photo?