From what we can glean from Westerosi laws daughters can inherit if there are no sons available. Therein lies the problem, if Viserys is so insistent on having Rhaenyra inherit the throne, then why did he bother remarrying? Why risk undermining your female heir by taking another wife and risking the chance of having sons to challenge her claim? You only remarry if you're not satisfied with your heirs and want other options. This is why I never understood why people claim Viserys was a good father. All his life he undermined Rhaenyra's chances of obtaining the throne and fucked everybody in his family with his indicisiveness.
They say he is a good pops, because of how he dotes and spoils Rhaenyra. While more or less ignoring his other children. I also think Considine’s incredible acting skills help with that narrative.
Because they're down to just 3 members, Daemon Is deeply unpopular with the Lords and won't have children with his wife, Rhaenyra could maybe be supplanted as Heir and lose their dynasty to the velaryons if Daemon and Viserys himself don't survive long enough to assure Rhaenyra's own power. He really doesn't want to overturn Jahaerys decisions either like reinstating Saera
Yeah and then he went and basically ignored Allicent and their children while spoiling Rhaenyra and favouring her out of guilt for Aemma, which anyone could've seen would foster resentment. Viserys CHOOSE to have more children not because he wanted more heirs, but simply because he couldn't keep it in his pants and still wanted a son, screwing Rhaenyra over in the process and fathering four new children who didn't ask to be born.
@@HillsAliveYTI think it was guilt for his wife that led him to do it because even his daughter pointed out she was a none factor when Ammea was pregnant
Personally, I think Rhaenyra’s chances would have been far better if Viserys had remained unmarried, and took an active role in preparing Rhaenyra to rule, as opposed to keeping her as a cupbearer and excluding her from politics, throughout HotD, Viserys disregards her repeatedly when she’s give her own political opinion, and even gets angry at her when she flies off to retrieve the dragon egg that Daemon stole. By keeping her in the dark when it comes to politics, Viserys has all but assured that Rhaenyra’s reign will be unstable. Although I’m not a fan of Otto Hightower, he’s 110% correct in that Rhaenyra’s claim would also be threatened as soon as Aegon was born.
Viserys chose Rhaenyra as his heir but not because she was intelligent, brave and good dragon rider or anything that makes a Targaryen ruler. He was guilty after her mother's death and didn't want his brother to succeed him either. As you mentioned in various situations even after she was named heir, she was ignored and didn't receive a proper training.yes the system wasn't fair in many ways but if Viserys's true intention was to Change the rules of succession, he should've done better.
The minute Viserys had remarried AND Rhaenyra showed her Strong kids it becomes increasingly clear that she would’ve eventually had to kill her siblings and Aegon’s kids even if she didn’t want to. Even if she ascended the Throne peacefully, none of the Lords would back Jace especially when there are seven LEGITIMATE claims eventually starting a Dance of the Dragons. I think Daemon does genuinely care about his step-sons but when it comes down to it he would definitely put his sons on the Throne.
I always found the line in Fire & Blood interesting where the maester basically says that Rhaenyra's claim puts the lords of the realm in danger as they themselves have older sisters, aunts, ect. I hope the show has a scene illustrating that. Even irl what the king did was used by his nobility as blueprint for their own actions. When Henry VIII cast Katherine of Aragon aside, other noblemen tried to do the same in favour of their mistresses. It'd be funny if an older sister of a lord in Westeros would just walk into his hall and be like: "Hello, little brother. Move aside, I'm the true heir. Oh, and those are my children, your future lords/ladies. Now get out of the chair & bow."😂
I think had Viserys not remarried and had 3 sons after Rhaenyra then the Westerosi lords would have basically no choice but to accept Rhaenyra as queen, after all without the Greens existing as a faction they have no other choice because the Targaryens have all the dragons. I guess Daemon could be a potential issue but it didn't really seem like the lords liked Daemon enough to ever make him king, maybe they would support him over Rhaenyra anyway just because they don't want a woman ruling as queen, she could avoid that by marrying him though, but securing the Velaryons' support might be more important.
@abczzc651 Daemon is a too wild. Even Otto prefered Rhaenyra over Daemon before Alicient married. I think Daemon has such a bad reputation that even a woman has more support than him.
I feel like what would help her a lot, in that sort of scenario, would be marrying Laenor because then at least it takes out another contender and also would strengthen her claim via their children especially if they had sons. Daemon, however, is married to the firstborn of the Velaryons but because he only has daughters with Laena, that could result in the lords choosing Rhaenyra simply because it would go through her to a son while with Daemon it would go from a man to a daughter and basically create the same crisis again. But if Rhaenyra still had bastards in this scenario, that may weaken her claim and Daemon would have the boost of being the one with true-born children. However I think if the lords had to choose, they'd go with Rhaenyra in the scenario since they don't trust Daemon at all while Rhaenyra is still young and can be influenced compared to Daemon who only does what he wants.
@@lilchaos9212 i always saw Laena being in the power position in their relationship. She had the biggest dragon, she had the richest father, her brother was married to the kings daughter. Laena would never betray Rhaenyra. Because she would betray her brother and her family. I believe that Daemon had not much to offer. And therefore i doubt that he would ever convince Laena to support him over Rhaenyra. And without Laena's dragon or the support of her father it is going to be almost impossible for Daemon to be the heir.
Had Rhaenrya been like Margaery Tyrell and done whatever it took to get a trueborn heir and a spare by Laenor, and insisted upon being made Hand by Viserys while being a loving sister to her half brothers from moment one, she could have averted a Dance of the Dragons in her time.
Done whatever it took? And say he could not perform or was infertile? What was she to do then? In the original draft, Rhaenyra’s kids were trueborn and she still lost. Do you think Alicent would let Rhaenyra get close to her kids and convince them not to challenge her claim? Viserys himself knew Alicent wanted her bloodline on the throne.
Uhhh no, Rhaenyra's 'Strong' kids in the books are also accused of being bastards because they have brown hair/eyes, aka look nothing like Targs/Velaryons. That's... the whole point. It's not as obvious as in the show (black guy/white woman having 3 pure white babies in a row? yyyyeah no) but its still heavily implied they are indeed bastards. And anyway they absolutely could have found a way. GoT even sets this precedent. Gay or not you'd find a way even if it meant having boyfie in the room to help lol. But Rhaenyra, as before, expected everything to work out appropros of nothing and just didn't bother to worry about it.
Daemon and the Hightowers still exist, and when you actually look at the history of the Targaryen dynasty, succession disputes are ridiculously common. A major civil war would have eventually occurred, even if she succeeded without issue. Somehow.
This always like is what conflicts me. I wanna be like "yeah girlboss" but the girl in question is not just a good candidate because no one prepared her for the role and she didn't exactly work to strengthen her position. This is generally how I feel about fans of the "girlboss" mentality like with Daenerys and sometimes Cersei: where their dismissiveness and aloofness to others is seen as "strength" when it's actually undermining their own position. It's cool for the moment but there's very real long term relations damaged.
After the nearly a hundred years of Targaryen rule and three or four wars using dragons in Westeros, it’s no wonder everyone was sick of them. “Oh of course your majesty, your bright blue winged thermonuclear weapon is so magnificent, us maesters are in awe of its beauty” “Of course your majesty, your desire to bang your sister/niece in front of the entire realm is totally fine, even though it’s one of the most heinous acts against the gods, I’m sure they’ll make an exception.” “Of course you can call my banners to die in the sand my lord, it’s not as if my line was kings before this and the only reason I suffer you rubbing my houses disgrace in my face is the fact that you can and will incinerate my wife and children, you are rightful king.” You don’t need a conspiracy when interests align perfectly. The larger green faction often seems less interested about Targaryen succession and more about wresting control away from the Valryrians.
The green faction are as Valyrian as Rhaenyra or Daemon, and there is never even a hint in the books or series that they want to eliminate the dragons. They have a great bond with their 6 dragons and King Aegon II more than any other, there has never been such a strong connection between rider and dragon as the one Aegon II and Sunfire had.
That’s the thing that Daenerys didn’t get. Aegon I conquered those kingdoms that all have different races and cultures and are very different from one another. Some people wanted seven individual kingdoms at some point. People were not just afraid of The Mad King and done with him and yes there were wars between kingdoms before Aegon I ruled, but people got tired of Targaryen entitlement and Valyrian supremacy. The Targaryens caused so much chaos many times in their 300 year reign. The best Targaryen monarchs were the ones who tried to assimilate into Andal culture or marry into other houses or respect them. People were tired of the incest and the disrespect to the Faith who really dominates most of Westeros with small exceptions.
Rhaenyra, along with any lady for that matter. Would be fighting a constant uphill battle for their position as the truly ruler of Westeros. And in Rhaenyra’s case, it doesn’t help that her father never really properly trained or prepared as heir to the throne. So a lot of folks, both nobles and commoners most likely see a lot nepotism when it comes to her, it also doesn’t help that she is a women, which makes her battle twice as difficult. But unfortunately for, Rhaenyra she will prove some of her doubters and haters correct with her turbulent rule of King's Landing.
Agreed. I would’ve rooted for Rhaenrya but she kept constantly making really dumb decisions that would undermine her in the long run and she never tried making allies, only relying on promises that were made before her brothers existed.
It’s not just about the mistakes. One must also acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them. Sansa got her crown by doing that. Cersei, Danaerys, and Rhaenyra could never do that.
I agree that it would be a constant battle to have the lords accept her as Queen Regnant. Real life history has shown the difficulties woman who inherited thrones as Queen Regnants had and lots of them did not have good lives and were still at the mercy of the men around them in a way a King would not be. Of course it was possible for a Queen Regnant to gain the respect and support of their nobles as history as shown with female rulers like Elizabeth the First of England, Christina of Sweden, Isabella of Castile, or Catherine the Great of Russia. But there are just as many examples of female rulers who did not gain that support or respect as shown with Queens like Mary of Scotland, Zabel of Armenia, or Urraca or Leon and Castile as Mary was forced to abdicate by her nobles in favor of her son and Zabel was forced to marry the son of one of her nobles and then ran away to a convent to two years, and Urraca of Leon and Castile who is considered to be the first reigining Queen of medieval Europe and yet was forcibly married against her will to King Alfonso of Aragon and Navarre who was known to view women worse than most men of that time. I will acknowledge that there is another source that states that Urraca's father before his death arranged that marriage but either way she was married to man who did not respect her and was documented to publicly shame her and even beat her in public. Basically the life of a Queen Regnant could go either way in a patriarchal society where men didn't like taking orders from a woman.
I can think of only two scenarios in which she could. One is that if only her faction had dragons and her husband was seen more positively and would be seen as someone more people wanted to be be the "true ruler" behind her as "figurehead". On the other hand, I recently watched a video by Kevin Pendragon about how Viserys should have abdicated for Rhaenyra. Personally, I think that an in-between option is more reasonable. Co-rule. In England, women gained the approval of the people to rule because the only options left in that royal family were three women. In Egypt, they had generations of co-rulers who were married (and siblings, much like the Targaryens) or parents and kids. If she had really been ruling beside him, she might have pulled it off. Either way, it would have taken proper schmoozing, politics, endearing herself to others, children who's parentage isn't easily questioned, and wise outside-the-family marriages for it to work. Unfortunately, Viserys had zero political skills (likely at least partially because he wasnt predicted to be an heir any time soon until the previous king was ancient and likely unable to teach him much) and any of Rhaenyra's potential was killed off by a lack of proper training for it (her father wasn't capable of teaching much, and those that were good rulers didn't think she'd actually be the heir for long).
Yeah Kevin made the right call there in that if Rhaenyra were fully established as queen long before Viserys died then it would make the crisis much less of a crisis, although if he did it after Rhaenyra married Daemon then it would probably have just kicked the can down the road because he was the actual catalyst for the succession crisis in the first place.
Maybe, but she has sooooo many clouds over here. Daemon and Laena’s children look Valyrian, Daemon and Rhaenyra’s children look Valyrian, but her first 3 sons are so clearly bastards. She would have probably had to put her brothers to the sword if she was ever Queen because there will always be questions about her children and those that will flock to her brothers for opportunities
LOL which is why I never understand the argument that the Greens should have just fallen in line behind her, you don’t have to like them to recognize that they were in mortal danger because of this succession clusterfuck.
I think after Rhanyra kill her brother Daemond will kill her step-bastad sons, anyone believe Daemond permit that her two legitimacy sons Rhaenyra will not be kings?????
No, she wouldn't. But, being married Daemon when she's crowned it's funny that people think Jace would be King. He absolutely would not. Especially if Jace does break his betrothal to Daemon's special child, Baela. If leaks are true, he all but calls Jace a bastard, to his face, because of Baela. I think fans are too wrapped up in their "romance" to understand that Daemon would never put those boys over his own children. He'd definitely fight for Aegon to be King.
In a scenario with Strong rumors, Daemon as Rhaenyra's consort and Daemon-Otto antagonism, Alicent's sons and Aemond riding the biggest dragon... yeah, I think war is pretty inevitable (either that, or all the dragon riders on one side are assassinated all at once could perhaps prevent war?) But in a different scenario, where Viserys didn't remarry, and Daemon and the Velaryons either married Rhaenyra, or at least remained on friendly terms with her and didn't contest her ascension, then I think she would've been able to take the throne pretty uncontroversially - its a lot easier to take the throne when you have dragons, and none of your opponents do) We kinda see the elements Rhaenyra is up against in isolation, in other chunks of Targs history: Cersei is up against rumors of her kids' illegitimacy, and while its enough to start a messy civil war, its clear from Tommen's time on the throne that enough lords are fine ignoring the rumors when Joffrey/Tommen's faction is triumphant, so on its own, I don't think this is enough to start a war. Aenys-Maegor antagonism doesn't lead to war (directly, at least), yet the rivalries between Aegon IV's children does, so that's a mixed bag. Maegor rides a much larger dragon than Aegon 1.5, which allows him to win his civil war, and probably gives him enough confidence that he'll win for him to attempt to usurp his eldest nephew. Having a stepmother is definitely a recipe for sabotage in asoiaf, for instance when Visenya totally definitely doesn't poison her nephew/stepson Aenys so that her own son Maegor can take the throne. (Viserys' father Baelon seems to have recognized this, and that's why he never remarried after Alyssa died, instead forcing his sons into terrible marriages to shore up his claim with alliances?)
@@hi-ls6lt maybe? we're not in either character's head, so its hard so say? Regardless of whether it was true, it would have suited Jaehaerys tremendously to spin the narrative that Baelon and Alyssa were perfect for each other, and deeply in love, to shore up his "we Targaryens are allowed to do incest" position. We know he did the same thing for his relationship with Alysanne; in reality, Jaehaerys and Alysanne hated each other by the end of their marriage and spent years not talking to each other, and yet in Westeros they're still thought of as the ideal of romance thanks to the narrative Jaehaerys spun, trying to get the realm to accept his incest-marriage.
WOO! Always excited to see my girl upload haha! BUT here's my take: In the dog-eat-dog world of Westeros, Rhaenyra Targaryen would be facing an uphill battle from day one. With a kingdom full of lords and ladies just itching for a chance to usurp her, she'd have to go full Tywin Lannister on them-no messing around. We're talking "Rains of Castamere" levels of brutality here. Squashing rebellions? She'd need to do it so brutally that bards would write fear-inducing songs about it for generations to come. As much as it goes against my own principles, Soft rule just wouldn't cut it; she'd need to put her dragons to use, roasting a few rebellious lords to make an example out of them. Her dragons would NEED to be instruments of terror to keep the realm in check.
Well, she seems to have some awareness of that as well, what with marrying Daemon and killing fake Laenor, it’s just odd that she goes to those extremes but then in so many ways does little else to shore up her prospects.
Interesting points about Jayne Arryn. Of course, if the Targaryen's had all bonded together the way Viserys wanted they'd have been too strong to rebel against with any hope of success. Of course having the heir legally be whoever the ruler nominates does seem to lead to instability like in eighteenth century Russia.
The problem in 18th century russia wasn't necessarily that the successor was whoever the current monarch nominates or that women held the throne I think it had more to do with most 18th century russian monarchs being westernizers who did things like encourage freemasonry(not popular with the ☦️ church and russia at the time being very religious) and speak foreign languages(mostly french) instead of russian
Yeah he managed to be a flop king and didn't even bother to pass his flop knowledge on to any of his flop children. It's a miracle the dynasty even survived.
@@akeelyaqub2538 Half the trident at the beginning, half the dominion at the beginning, the whole of the north and the whole of the Vale of Arryn. In total there are like 3 kingdoms if you put them together and there are 7 kingdoms. She received the support of an important part but not the majority.
@@akeelyaqub2538 For the same reason that decades later, 3 and a half kingdoms rebelled against the excellent king that was Daeron II the good. They looked with dismay at a kingdom that was no longer at war and strangely at the renown that the battle brought as well as the abundant rewards that came with victory. Men who live in times of peace are forgotten and those who gain renown in wars are remembered forever.
I don't think its impossible but still Hard. Westerosi culture is pretty anti-progressive as a whole .And the exceedingly slow development of Westereos technologically & structurally, I think, does mirror this set cultural structure metaphorically & at the same time is partly a result of it To succeed in opposing or compromising certain built in traditions & norms and to succeed in the political ladder of Westereos ,one has to manouver very carefully or camouflage neatly into the societal/ political structure of the country. One has to blend in & participate in the system in order to beat the system.That's why Rhaenyra & Lady Arryn face a lot with challenges on their uphill battle with either opponents trying to weaken their claims or usurp it. And like you said leaders trying to ignore the set traditions and norms of the culture while enforce new standards is a dangerous play. A lot of characters in both the books and show face tough consequences for compromising the set traditions. We see Robb Stark compromise Political Duty and get crushed for it.And ironically at the same we're seeing the conquences that came about the red wedding(tho partly Fantastical) with Walder spitting on established tradition & also commiting a long term political assassination with the same And this anti-progessive & traditionalist nature of the society, would be perfectly mirrored in the books, with Daenerys's return to Westereos & with the reception she gets once she tries to enforce her ideals of governance hierarchical & societal structure that are contrary to the westerosi traditions. Once Dany sets foot on Westereos, she is going to be met with the rude shock of the conniving & harsh politics of Westereos...(that is if Tyrion or Selmy don't educate her anyway on the dos and donts).I do firmly believe that she may face betrayals, assasination attempts, political or even falling victim (through the loss of a very close ally ) to a 2nd red wedding. This would greatly play part in completely turning her to the dark side.We already see the downward slope in Dany's leadership , political manouvers and governance in Mereen . Her attempt at trying to rule Westereos should be the final coffin to it. Dany is just the perfect candidate for exploration of this societal theme in Westereos. Her motives, actions & politics juxtaposes and contrasts that of Westereosi culture. She mandatorily enforces her ideals into the numerous Essosi city states she visits without much care or consideration of the customs and way of living of the people in the city she conquers.Ofc part of the Essosi cities she conquers are traditionalist but part of the reason she easily ruled Mereen was because the politics wasn't as complicated as that of Westereos and the Essosi states weren't as unified. Dany is in some sense politically astute and doesn't greatly understand the nuances in societal structure or governance. She doesn't even seem like she cares to in the books. In Contrast Westereosi require to tread carefully and cleverly , understand the politics uphold traditions in order to make the climb.
Yeah that’s an interesting point too, because women are definitely excluded but women who don’t conform to gendered expectations actually have an even harder time. Obviously even the most powerful women don’t become as powerful as the most powerful men, but people like Cat or the Tyrell women have an easier time wielding power by fulfilling gender expectations.
Question about Aemon and Baelon: we're told that the brothers were great friends, and that any rivalry between them was harmless and very amicable. And yet we're also told that the seeds of the Dance were sown at that time. So... if everyone saw the iceberg coming, and Aemon and Baelon were happy working together to prevent it, why weren't Rhaenys and Viserys married? It would be such an obvious move to bind these two factions together, and would probably have prevented the Dance. Was the Dance obvious in retrospect, but not apparent before the marriage or Rhaenys and Corlys? Did Rhaenys assume that Aemon would outlive Jaehaerys, and pave the way for her ascension to the throne, and Baelon and his descendants would never contest it? Since prior to the death of Aemon, neither Viserys nor Daemon had claimed a dragon, so they and their future children weren't seen as serious rivals to Aemon and his descendants (considering that both their parents were dragonriders, how was no one concerned that they would eventually claim dragons???) Was Corlys just soooo powerful that he had to be appeased with the best possible Targaryen princess? We're told that Rhaenys herself was the driving force behind the Rhaenys-Corlys marriage - did she make the political calculation that wealthier Corlys with his massive fleet was a better match than lame dragonless Viserys (Corlys was older than Rhaenys' parents - if I was her, I would NOT be super eager to marry him, no matter how awesome he was.) Was this chunk of F&B, like so many other parts, just a little sloppy and plot-holey?
The Seasnake was the Bill Gates of his time and Vizzy D was such a soft boy that he even refused to ride a dragon more than once. He was such a non-factor. That is why the result of the Great Council was so strange that it almost seen rigged.
Prince Aemon Targaryen was 2 years older than Lord Corlys Velaryon and in the book it is never said that it was during that time when Princes Aemon and Baelon lived that the seeds of the dance were sown. That was the invention of some TH-camrs and the seeds were planted during the reign of Viserys I when Aemon and Baelon had already been dead for years.
@@davidduran6163 I think you've got your birth dates mixed up - Aemon was born in 55, 2 years after Corlys (born in 53). Not that it matters much - the point remains the same - Corlys was about a generation older than Rhaenys. Why is she lobbying her grandfather to let her marry that guy? And F&B literally does say that the seeds of the Dance were sown when Aemon and Baelon were alive. Opening paragraph of Chapter 12, Heirs of the Dragon: "The *seeds of war* are oft planted during times of peace. So has it been in Westeros. The bloody struggle for the Iron Throne known as the Dance of the Dragons, fought from 129-131 AC, had its roots half a century earlier, during the longest and most peaceful reign that any of the Conqueror’s descendants ever enjoyed, that of Jaehaerys I Targaryen, the Conciliator." Aemon died in 92, 40ish years before the Dance; Baelon died in 101, 30ish years before the Dance. The marriage of Rhaenys to Corlys - which perhaps could've prevented the Dance if she'd married Viserys instead - happened in 90. So 50ish years before the Dance correlated roughly with the adulthood of Aemon: when he and Jocelyn produce Rhaenys and zero other kids, and when the family would start groom-shopping for Rhaenys. For context, this chunk of F&B essentially says Jaehaerys had too many kids, therefore succession became muddled, therefore the Dance. I don't think the causation is super strong there, but that is the position of 'official' history in Westeros... I guess you could say that Rhaenyra and Aegon's factions couldn't be reconciled with a marriage because Rhaenyra's marriage alliances were already 'used up' with Daemon and the Velaryons? Or the inconsistent and contradictory rationales that kings used to name their heirs - starting with Jaehaerys - led to a succession crisis? But that's not really how I would characterize the Dance.
Will Rt have a problem with people accepting her as ruler absolutely but it’s hard to feel sorry for a character that constantly shoots herself in the foot.
@@HillsAliveYT Rt creates her own drama along with Daemon they are their own worst enemies.....The Greens barely need too lift a finger to cause problems for the blacks lol
Hopefully it doesn't seem naive and all, but... although Rhaenyra's gender was always going to be a factor (and a mark against her at that), it was not always doomed to be the deciding factor! I think GRRM takes care to show that the Law and customs are just stories people tell themselves and each other; a lack of precedent is an argument, not a mandate. The political operators of Westeros (Otto and his lord brother; the Velaryons, the Lannisters and other lords, the Maesters, et al) will back whoever it is in their vested interest to back. If Rhaenyra created or maintained a status quo where it was in their interest to crown her, she would have been crowned. I think the fact that they backed Rhaenyra to be heir when Daemon was the only alternative is the proof of that! Poor girl should have just pulled a Ramsey and poisoned the Aegon Babe asap if she wanted the submission of the lords. Rhaenyra's best argument for herself on the throne was holding Daemon behind her as the threat should she be removed. My thoughts go right to Elizabeth I in our world and the complex religious factors which led to her reign. And Religion was about money primarily, and money is about power. Power backs power!
Basically "if Rhaenyra had done literally anything but what she did" which was a) have 3 bastards before any trueborn children and b) isolate herself entirely from the court she could have convinced to take her side. She has no political accumen. If she did, she probably WOULD have had no problem sitting the throne. But yeah, you can't insult the entire court by insisting your obvious bastards aren't bastards, run away to escape scrutiny, and then expect soft power and support from other noble houses to just... fall into your lap. You can blame Viserys for not preparing her but ultimately Rhaenyra made every possible misstep in the eyes the court/the public.
Sorry for the constant Star Wars comparisons. If Rhaenyra wants to rule Westeros, she's got to pull a Sith Emperor and be so insanely powerful that no one dares to challenge her. She and her crew have to be an unstoppable force, literally and figuratively. But here's where it gets tricky: going this route basically says "might is right," which sets a TERRIBLE precedent. Just like the Sith Empire, that makes her rule kinda volatile. You're opening the door for some other badass to come along and start the whole power struggle all over again. It'll be a never-ending cycle of "who's the toughest," and that could spell chaos for Westeros. BUT considering the longest reigning sith lived over 1,000 years unchallenged, it IS possible
I don’t believe misogyny undid Rhaenyra’s ascension nor the possibility of leal deference from her lords. She undermined her status with major controversies; by c*ck0lding her noble consort, 1st husband & remarrying her infamous uncle after widowhood. These were intolerable affronts to the huge feudal aristocracy, the Targaryens ruled.
At the Harrenhal council of 101, 10,000 lords attended and in that vote King Viserys won by a difference of 20 to 1 for the mere fact of being male because he did not joust, he did not fight, he never set foot in the citadel and he was not a politician either. intelligent, not to mention that his dragon had died. Without the throne he was a nobody that Rhaenys would have sent to the wall to avoid problems and the fact that the queen who never was, being rejected by 9800 of 10,000 lords was the only thing that prevented Viserys' uselessness and incompetence from ending up on the wall and Daemon's greedy head with the executioner. If they rejected Rhaenys of course he would have rejected or fought Rhaenyra.
idk, I'm skeptical of the council of 101. As with the elections of Euron, Jon Snow, elections in Braavos and Volantis, there seems to be a lot of shenanigans going on... I don't think we can take the vote tallies from 101 at face value? These votes aren't like real-world modern-day elections with decent infrastructure to support easy, fair and secure voting (and even in the modern day, we've got issues with demagoguery, misinformation, etc. skewing the vote), they're more like ancient/medieval elections, which could get REALLY messy.
@@Mj_Jetson It's THE MIDDLE AGES where jousting was everything, fighting was everything, being a soldier was everything, hard work was the main source of resources that kept society afloat. The woman did not do any of that and that is why she was held in a very low concept, your rhetoric seems directed at the current world and that is the problem of black fandom because they judge a medieval world with current values and from there they start from an error.
@@davidduran6163 Im not disputing that the lords of asoiaf would be hostile to women. I'm just saying that I don't think we can take to vote tallies from 101 at face value as an accurate depiction of Rhaenys' support. At the kingsmoot, Victarion and Asha split the vote, meanwhile Euron promises the moon and sways everyone with a magic horn. At the Wall, there's outside pressure from Stannis and Tywin, vote splitting, voting in absentia and a probably-mind-controlling raven. In Braavos, there's subtle assassinations. In Volantis, elections are basically bought. It would be really, really weird if 101 is the only election in asoiaf not to face these issues, and indeed there are hints of them in the text: Potential vote-splitting between Rhaenys and Laenor in the early rounds so that Rhaenys appears to have less support than she actually does, and ultimately 7-year-old Laenor is pitted against adult Viserys. Lannister (and probably Tyrell) both support Viserys and both bring large entourages - presumably their knights and Daemon's sellswords can threaten people into voting with them? Its unclear who gets a vote (greater lords of course, and presumably lesser lords, but what about landed knights? Clansmen from the north? Do members of the Tyrell/Lannister entourages' each get a vote? What about voting in absentia?) Some lords didn't arrive in time to vote - presumably those who were farthest away, in the north (of the northerners mentioned, 100% of them support the Velaryons.) Its clear that no one knows quite what to expect, so the rules could fluctuate in a way that benefitted 1 candidate over another (were some lords told not to bring bodyguards and others not? Were some lords told they could vote in absentia but then the rules were changed at the last minute? Were they allowed to bring dragons or no?) I mean, it would be really really weird if 95% of lords wanted a male candidate, then 30 years later, Westeros splits roughly 50/50 between Aegon and Rhaenyra. Its hard to tally the numbers so that Rhaenys gets only 5% of the vote when she seems to have the support of most of the Stormlands, North and Valyrian Houses?
@davidduran6163 spit that fire, you Green Slut. I love to see a fellow Green teach these blacks who judge the show from a modern perspective. Nobody wishes to follow a woman when she can't fight or lead men.
Rhaenys was not even a candidate in the book but her son Laenor Who would the people prefer; a child under the influence of his parents till he came of age, or a grown man with a wife and child?
Honestly, everyone here is already giving great points so... all I'll say is that the mistakes came over time, step by step (or I guess, decision to decision). It all piled up with mistake after mistake, so many chances to either discipline her, prepare her, or set her aside for Aegon. Say what anyone will about Otto, he gave Viserys (and others) numerous reasons and explanations as to why the current line of Succession didn't bode well for the future.
The thing is that law is based on prescedent, and even if Rhaenyra had no siblings, the presedent still wasn't in her favor. Jaehaerys became king because his older brothers both died, but his eldest left two living children, but they were both daughters. By Andal Law, Aerea should have inherited the throne before Jaehaerys, but she was passed over. A generation later, the eldest son of Jaehaerys had only one child, Princess Rhaenys. After Aemon died, Jaehaerys declared Baelon, his second son, as his heir rather than Rhaenys. By prescedent, Rhaenyra still wouldn't have any legs to stand on, even if the Green Children didn't exist. The prescedent says that the crown passes over her and goes to Daemon.
Westeros had no formal inheritance law when Jaehaerys took the throne, but he spent many years establishing the first unified legal code for the Seven Kingdoms. The first inheritance law was one of "Good Queen Alysane's Laws," specifically the Widows Law of 52 AC. In addition to requiring that heirs maintain their widowed stepmothers in the manner to which they were accustomed, this law affirms male preference primogeniture, where daughters inherit after sons but before their father's brothers. It also explicitly forbids any man from disinheriting any child of his first wife in favor of a child of a subsequent wife. There is a very strong case that Viserys would have been violating this law if he allowed a son of Alicent to inherit before a daughter of Aemma. Before 52 AC different regions previously followed different customs, sometimes favoring daughters, sometimes uncles, or cousins, and sometimes even letting bastards inherit before legitimate sons who were too young to rule without a regent.
@@magister343 You seem to be forgetting that Alicent's children are also Viserys's children. Aemma has nothing to do with it. Rhaenyra's claim comes from her being the King's daughter, and the King's daughter comes after the King's sons in the line of succession. That's just how Andal law works, so even if the Iron throne went by those rules, Rhaenyra would still be behind Aegon. Also, the Widow's Law doesn't say that all children of the first wife come before all children of the second. If the first wife only had daughter, the sons of the second take presedence. If anything, it actually favors the Greens, because it says you can't disinherit the rightful heir to the throne for the children of your favorite wife, which is exactly what Viserys did when he made Rhaenyra his heir over Aegon.
Rhaenyra didn't make her case any better either. Insulting a lot of lords, not spending the time or effort to build up alliances. Most of All marrying Daemon who made a lot of enemies. Mistreating the peasants. Which came back to bite her.
Right I’m always reminded of the scene where she’s rather dismissive towards her suitors during her marriage tour. She even mocks one of them for their old age, and even inadvertently causes the death of another. And then there’s the scene of insulting one of the court ladies during Visery’s hunting trip. Although, it’s pretty entertaining, it’s definitely unwise, and a terrible political move, to mock and insult your own allies especially if you want them to fight for you as their queen.
Lady Jeyne Arryn's case is very different from Rhaenyra's. Well, Mrs. del Valle does not have legitimate siblings (not even illegitimate), she only had cousins and in Westeros you can name a daughter before a brother or nephew but never before even a legitimate son. I will mention that Jeyne Arryn violated the laws of succession in a much less severe way than Viserys and even so she caused a terrible civil war in the Vale (which was saved from the dance but not from Jeyne's terrible decision) because she shouldered a distant cousin Joffrey Arryn above Arnold Arryn, his first cousin (he was at enmity with his cousin) and this decision to appoint whoever you want is what really causes wars, since Eldrich, Arnold's son, was executed (another reason why the ignored heirs have no choice but to fight for what is theirs and the probable fate of Aegon II if he does not claim the throne) but Arnold escaped and gained the support of the houses Royce, Templeton, Coldwater, Tolleto, Dutton, The Fingers and the three sisters. His cousin Joffrey, for his part, had the Cobrays, Redfords, Hunters and Craynes. The worst thing was that a cousin with much less right named Isembard Arryn had a great fortune and gained the support of the Graftons of Gullport. That is the problem of appointing whoever they want over others, since these others can make their claims and even people without any rights can take advantage of the chaos and complain. I have no doubt that Viserys and Jeyne Arryn were to blame for these wars.
Yeah, and that's what I actually found interesting about the Jeyne Arryn case, her inheritance seems like it should have been a lock, so the fact that Ser Arnold thought he could actually make a play for the Vale AND the fact that F&B's "historians" assumed that Jeyne was worried about her inheritance being called into question makes it look like it's REAL tough for women to inherit something and actually keep it on their own.
This video was great! Definitely agree with all of it. I also think lady Jeyne Arryn was so hated by her relatives not just because of her gender but also sexuality. She was rumored to be gay (and well known to have her lover lady Jessamyn Redfort at her side). And with that mixed with her obviously never marrying or having children, made some of her detractors in the Vale push for Ser Arnold to usurp her.
Rhaenyra had the most Targaryen royal ancestry compared to Alicent Hightower's children. Thus she has the better claim to the throne blood-wise. If Viserys actually prepared her to rule and married Rhaenyra to Aegon (after Laenor's "accident") then Rhaenyra would be the ideal candidate for the throne. Rhaenyra made a lot of missteps that made her an unwanted ruler. She had bastard sons to succeed after her, she was married to her uncle Daemon who everyone hated, and she wasn't properly trained to be a monarch by the likes of Otto Hightower. If she made better political moves there would never be a Dance of the Dragons and she'd be sitting on the iron throne with Aemon as consort, Otto Hightower as Hand, her bastard sons engaged to Daemon's daughters.
I think that if Rhaenyra was a bit more like Visenya and had chosen Veagar as her dragon very few would contest her claim. If she went fighting wars with the other men and showed the people that she was willing to fight for the kingdom people would prefer her over the lazy Aegon. So i think it could be done if Rhaenyra was not such a bad PR disaster.
You cannot blame her for that if anything blame jaehareys he made all Targaryen women into breeders and not warriors like they use to be like visenya and rhaenys this is where jaehareys sexism showed. They weren’t allowed to battle it was only the males who went to war on their dragons.
Great vid. It's been a while since you posted TVD content, but you should talk about the humanity switch, I always thought it was an interesting element, often my favourite storylines.
I never understood why Rhaenyra and Viserys never got Aegon, Aemond and Daeron to publicly back Rhaenyra and swear not to bring claims against her. Not that it would fix the problem, she would always be fighting an uphill battle, but it seems like an easy step that would make it more difficult for any of them to usurp her.
Agreed. Its maybe possible that in the book, Viserys didn't know how deep the divisions were in his family? When he makes Rhaenyra and Alicent publicly praise each other, he alone believes the sincerity of their words. (but then again, he doesn't make Rhaenyra his Hand after Lyonel Strong dies, because he doesn't want to bring Rhaenyra's sons to court where they'll quarrel with Alicent's sons?) Or maybe, Viserys figured that there was tension between him and Rhaenys, yet that never lead to war, so it would be the same for Rhaenyra and Aegon?
Westeros would never be able to accept Rhaenyra short of her using her dragon to just end every possible opposition and showing herself to be ruthlessly bloody against her enemies. If she makes everyone fear her from the onset and she’s the only one with the real power, then they’d have to accept her. But it wouldn’t have made her rule any stable or secure. Frankly Viserys made sure Rhaenyra would never be able to be accepted the moment he remarried and had sons. If he hadn’t done that, Rhaenyra may not have any real viable opposition to threaten her position.
I wonder if, in ASOIAF, Martin is setting up a scenario in which a woman will rule Westeros. The Battle of Agincourt had a lasting negative impact on the French during the Hundred Years Wars because of who died in the battle, in some cases lords and all their male heirs. This caused some instability among the French. So, keeping that in mind and going back to ASOIAF, after the civil wars, and Dany's invasion, and the Night King, how many men from powerful noble families are going to be left alive? Probably not many. If Sansa, Margeary, Myrcela and Ariana Martell survive to the end, that could place at least four out of seven the great houses of Westeros under the leadership of women. Possibly five if events lead to Sansa being the heir to Riverrun.
So, I've commented similar things on different videos about this topic.... As far as im aware, the Andal inheritance custom (so the majority of Westeros after the Andal invasion) was that of Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture, which prefers males, but allows women to inherit over "lesser" male lines, and the Great Council of 101 messed all of that up. By Andal custom, Rhaenys would have been the rightful heir to Jaehaerys, since she was the only surviving child of his eldest male heir, which would take precedence over Baelon's children. I may not be wording this correctly, but you basically said the same thing in regards to Jane Arryn during the video. People always mention the "iron precedent" established at the Council of 101, but the only "precedent" it really set was that the current ruler gets to choose their Heir. There was no "succession crisis" for the Iron Throne until Jaehaerys decided there was, and the only reason that Rhaenys was passed over as heir at all, was because Jaehaerys (was clearly very misogynistic, but if we're strictly talking about "traditional" Westerosi inheritance customs) DECIDED to hold the Great Council to choose the Heir... just like Viserys DECIDED to name Rhaenyra as his heir, and didnt change that after having sons. Now obviously, Rhaenyra wouldn't have been the rightful heir if "traditional" inheritance customs had been followed in lieu of the Great Council, but neither would Aegon. In my opinion, the Great Council threw everything out of whack, in terms of succession law, all over the continent. I think that if "traditional" Inheritance customs had been followed, and the Lords of Westeros hadn't been called upon to vote, they'd be a lot more accepting of female rulers in general, like the custom dictated for thousands if years prior. There probably would have been considerably more pushback, since the Heir to the Iron Throne is the ruler of the entire continent, but I digress. However, since the Great Council happened, many legitimate female rulers of regions (as dictated by millenia of custom) likely started to experience more challenges from male relatives, because it gave many the notion that males ALWAYS come before females... But then there were people (like me and potentially Jane Arryn) who rhought it mwant you could choose your heir, because as far as I know, nothing was ever actually clarified from that whole ordeal. I mean, there was plenty of "Targaryen Exceptionalism" in regards to other things, so maybe instead if folkowing typical inheritance customs in favor of ONLY male Heirs or being able to CHOOSE your designated Heir, wouldn't have been that difficult to establish... Idk how that would work exactly, and I'm just spit-balling, because my point is that many Lords of the Realm (then likely many Ladies in retaliation) took advantage of the Great Council to suit their own inheritance agendas (Edited slightly for coherence 😂)
The line "There was no 'succession crisis' for the iron throne until Jaehaerys decided there was," sums it all up. These crises are made and weaved into importance in the realm!! They are so rarely natural, there is always some ambitious little pot stirrer who decides to use pride and tradition and stupid shit like that to cause trouble and puff up the feathers of otherwise ambivalent lords. Great fucking response, hit all the marks.
@@loveagoodqueef thanks! I mean, there just wasn't! I guarantee that the majority of Westeros would've absolutely just expected that Rhaenys was going to take over after Jaehaerys, then Laenor after her, just like the rest of the continent..... Until they were given the opportunity to change things in their favor. I'm absolutely sure there would've been tons of people who would want to elevate Laenor to the reigning Monarch as soon as possible, but that's to be expected. I don't agree with the system (because obviously sex and gender shouldn't matter at all when it comes to inheritance), but that's what Westeros did for thousands of years, and I firmly believe the Great Council threw it all into chaos
@@J_Mock92 You can hardly be more wrong. Jaeharys I himself had an older brother named Aegon and he in turn had a daughter named Aera, so according to your logic she should have been crowned and not Jaeharys or any of his descendants including Rhaenys. Long before the council of 101, Rhaenys had already been ignored in favor of Baelon and this of Baelon before Rhaenys is the same of Jaeharys before Aera. King Jaeharys I was not a misogynist, he was consistent with the laws that made him king and he understood that so that his reign was not questioned he had to apply those laws forever. The kingdom was peaceful for 55 years and was the best king of Westeros. If all you see is the misogyny of your imagination, it is because you did not study the literary character.
@@davidduran6163 umm Aerea dies and her sister Rhaella was a Septa. Neither of them had any heirs and Rhaena had no other children, so the crown would've gone to Jaehaerys regardless. I didn't say that "all I see is misogyny ," and if that's all you got from what I said, then you clearly missed my point and dont have a very complex understanding of these things. Do some research.
@@J_Mock92 No, that was all you said in that very long paragraph and considering that there was no such right for Princess Aera above her uncle Jaeharys, I don't know what that right is that Rhaenys has. In life Aera did not have that "right" you refer to and if that is the case Rhaenys even less so. In Rhaenyra's case, neither Visenya nor Rhaena had the so-called "right" you refer to. So whatever rights both princesses had is really made up and not something I didn't understand. That's all you say and that shows that you didn't study the issue.
Viserys made a terrible mistake in naming Rhaenyra as heir as noble as the intention was. The Wise King Jaeharys already demonstrated what the realm would accept in Viserys' own ascension. Naming Rhaneyra over Daemon wouldn't have been as dangerous to the claims of ALL OTHER LORDS of the realm if he simply had no more children. Viserys made a lot of mistakes. But this was by far the greatest. Not only that, in a perfect world where the Greens dont start a coup, and the realm just rolls over and accepts Rhaenyra as queen, she has 2 bastard sons and 2 true born sons. So there is no guarantee a war would not break out in the next generation between Jacerys and Aegon III.
One thing that I would like to mention is that Rhaenys was married to Corlys patrilinearly, meaning, her children would have their father's surname, Velaryon. What would this mean for the realm? She already had a male child with a Velaryon surname. Would he become king before a Targaryen heir?
Rhaenys definitely expected her children by Corlys to be in line for the throne. F&B quotes her as saying “You would rob my son of his birthright,” about unborn Laena, and Laenor is later put forward as a candidate in 101. There are a few examples in asoiaf of matrilineal surnames, and of changing names... long before the Conquest, Joffrey Lydden changes his name to Lannister when he and his Lannister wife become rulers of the Rock, and their descendants kept the name Lannister. When Lord Hornwood and his son die fighting for Robb, its suggested that his nephew "take the name Hornwood" and become heir. My question is, since Rhaenys expected to become queen and Corlys was lord of Driftmark, what did she expect would happens with the kids??? One gets the Iron Throne, one gets Driftmark? What happens if they only had 1 kid?
@HillsAliveYT as simple as it sounds, I am not so sure it would've gone the same way for Rhaenys as it did for Rhaenyra. First off, when Rhaenyra married Laenor, they agreed to name their first child a Targaryen before they married. Secondly, does Corlys soubds like the type of man who wouldn't take the opportunity to have a "Velaryon" as the king of Westeros, instead of a "Targaryen" if it literally presented itself as a technicality? I don't think so. In truth, I don’t think for a moment that Corlys has a second intentions which do not involve ruling the Seven Kingdoms as hand of the queen on Rhaenys' stead. I would also like to point out that we have multiple examples in Westerosi history that houses with a only a female heir married patrilinearly become extinct as a result. Take House Durrandon who became Baratheon after Orys married Argella, or House Darry which was then replaced with Lannister of Darry more recently.
Otto was right and made sure that he would be, I don’t think Rhaenyra could have outmaneuvered him either way, but she really became crippled by the fact that arguably the best politician in the country was working in Aegon’s favor for 20 years while she largely did nothing besides nerfing her own prospects.
The law is 100% on Rhaenyra's side. Different regions had their own customs, but those were all overturned by the legal reforms of Jaehaerys and Good King Alyssane. The Widows Law of 52 AC is the first inheritance law that ever applied to all of the Seven Kingdoms. That Law of clearly forbids any man from disinheriting a child of his first marriage in favor of any child of a subsequent marriage.
The fact is ever since Aenys died, the question of female succession to the Iron Throne has been an issue. His eldest child was his daughter Rhaena but the realm recognised his son Aegon as heir, Aenys then married them both in order to unite their claims but this marriage led to the faith militant uprising which lasted through to the end of Maegor’s reign. After Maegor died, the succession was once again muddled as Rhaena’s claim still existed but now it was more complicated by the fact that Rhaena had two daughters with her brother, who also had strong claims. In the end, the lords of the realm ignored all female claimants and crowned Jaehearys instead. This set a precedent that would later be used as a blueprint in the Great Council of 101 in which once again the claims of Rhaenys and her children were set aside in favour of Viserys. This formally made into law what had been the unspoken rule for several decades now. In light of all this, it should be clear that the only way for Rhaenyra to succeed is for her father to have no legitimate sons but once Aegon was born it was game over for her. Those are the rules. Are the rules unfair? It could be argued that they are, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t still the rules that the realm had long consented to be governed by.
As unfair as the system in Westeros is, Rhaenyra also did basicly everything to weaken her own claim so opposition to her being Queen is actually quite well founded. Also while it is definetly more difficult for women to gain power in Westeros it does seem to be possible shown by people such as Olenna Tyrell (this is of course over 100 years later) who also seem to be respected by the Men in power.
While I like the Blacks a bit more, the problem Rhaenyra has is her unearned arrogance despite her incompetence and smugness towards others. She doesn’t teach her children Valyrian, doesn’t push them to be great with the sword and or with the pen, selects smaller dragons for them to ride while she didn’t choose Vermithor or Vhagar, screws her bodyguard and not Daemon or someone who looks like Laenor (though honestly, her children could probably pass as Baratheon looking like their supposed ancestor because Rhaenys) , let alone not marrying Jason Lannister. Had she been a better mother and sister than her father was a father/brother to her , her siblings and Daemon and not been so arrogant? There wouldn’t be a Dance since her brothers wouldn’t be swayed by Otto if they were loyal to her. Heck? If she disciplined her children for bullying Aemond for being dragonless before it went out of hand, and didn’t see it as her against her friend’s family? She could’ve gotten Alicent to unite their families into a single political unit. To expand on Jason? He’s a bit arrogant and high on his horse so to speak, but so is the young woman he wanted to marry. He might need to be humbled a bit if he were to be molded into a king consort and vice versa, but it would’ve been a perfect contingency against the Greens in the long run where Rhaenyra’s line gains Casterly Rock’s finances, which is as strong as any dragon. And then by marrying those children with the Greens and other Velaryons, it would’ve created a strong three way alliance that could last for centuries with intermarriage. Maybe even gaining dynastic alliances with the North and Dorne in the process.
I feel like if Rhaenyra had legitimate sons she would have had a better chance of keeping the throne. But putting bastards in the line of succession in front of her true born siblings that had a greater claim would have been a hard pill to swallow. Even if Ageon and the hightowers accepted her as the rightful Queen
Rhaenyra absolutely could have been queen if the treacherous greens hadn't declared Aegon king in a coup. They caused this war. Just them. Lords may have complained about it a bit, but we'd be right back to a Aegon the Conqueror situation where everyone would swiftly remember (or be reminded) that those who don't serve will burn. Fire and Blood. No one can stand up to dragons and they knew it. So they would've swallowed their pride and accepted it, and it would've become easier with each passing year to accept it once it had just become a normal part of life. The first precedent in favor is that women HAVE sat the iron throne before. Saying that women can't rule is just silly, based entirely on precedent. Two of the first Three asses to grace the Iron Throne itself were female: Visenya and Rhaenys. They sat the throne and ruled in Aegon's absence, even creating entirely new laws on their own. Laws which, by the way, still exist in modern Westerosi society as they were never overturned. While Aegon was touring around the realm trying to bring folks together, his sisters ruled, particularly Visenya. So anyone saying "women can't sit the throne" are wrong. 2 of the first 3 asses to sit on the throne were indeed female. And while they may not have officially ruled in their own right, they still sat the throne and wielded absolute power. The second precedent is that of Queen Regents. Queens have served as regents who ruled in the name of either their son or incapacitated husband in the past as well. And once again, a woman wielded absolute power, and the kingdom didn't spontaneously combust. This happened both in the royal family as well as countless times in the noble houses. The third precedent is the noble houses themselves allow women to rule them if there are no sons of the current ruling lords. This happens all the time. Even in the main series the Stokeworth estate was passing to a woman, which Bronn planned to kill so that it would pass to a different woman. Lords do this all the time. If it's good enough for the high lords of Westeros, why would it not be good enough for the throne? And the final precedent in favor of a woman ruler is basically just Dorne. They already let the eldest inherit, regardless of male or female. It should be noted that the ruling family was established by a ruling princess, Nymeria, and that while Dorne was the only kingdom that didn't submit, it was ruled by a princess. So honestly there is WAAAAAY more in favor of a ruling queen than against it based on numerous precedents. The fact there has never been an independently ruling queen before doesn't seem like it should matter compared to the other independently ruling women combined with the women who ruled with the authority of some man they were related to. The one and only argument against a queen is the fact they are required to pump out babies and having babies is incredibly dangerous and could kill you at any time, causing another succession, which sometimes causes problems. That's literally it. The one and only thing.
I think phrasing “would Westeros accept her” is a bit more complicated, considering more than half of the realm fought for her during the Dance. It’s mostly the Andal Houses which stand against her.
I think it was pretty sneaky of JT to call for a great council to decide succession. We see with Gerald Lannister (Tywin’s grandfather) that his niece took precedence over him even though she was a child. She was the ruler of Casterly Rock by rights because her father’s line’s claim was superior. Why did JT then make Baelon heir? In a spur of the moment/as a reward for avenging Aemon?
I think Jaehaerys was actually pretty sexist too, I mean Alysanne seemingly pushed pretty hard for women to not be treated like garbage and he seemed to push back in nearly equal measure.
Jaeharys himself had an older brother named Aegon and he left a daughter named Aera but even so Jaeharys was king before her. Naming Rhaenys was denying her son Baelon what he was not denied and it would be like saying that Aera was the legitimate queen all along and he was a usurper. If you are chosen by male primogeture you have to spend the rest of your life being consistent with the reasons why you are king, Jaeharys I the conciliator understood this and left his heir peace. On the other hand, Viserys I did not understand it and we already know the result.
@@HillsAliveYT King Jaeharys I refused to name Viserys his heir and allowed Rhaenys to present her claim to the council of Harrenhal in the year 101. He was not a sexist and in fact is considered by many to be the greatest king to ever sit. the iron throne.
@@davidduran6163there are people that argued that Aera and her mother were more legitimate due to age and the fact the descend from the king. It's just easier to rally support around a young man than it is a young widow. You could say that Aemon's line was the one that was cheated considering he was the first son. Regardless of anyone else his claim should've passed down to his descendants. And you can't tell me that the council of all male lords was going to pick a woman to inherent and that Jaehaerys didn't/couldn't predict the outcome.
Just a note: what if to eliminate the succession issues, Jaehaerys I married off together Vis and Rhaenys? How would Rhaenys have be as a condort queen?
That was never really an option. Rhaenys married Coryls 2 years before her father Prince Aemon (who was then the undisputed heir apparent) died. She was pregnant with her first child when Jaehaerys decided to pass her over to make Prince Baelon his heir instead. I don't think Westeros would have accepted Polyandry, and I don't think trying to annul the marriage between a pregnant princess and the wealthiest man in the world (against both of their wishes) would work well either. (Divorce does not exist in Westeros. In the faith of the Seven, local councils can annul marriages that are unconsummated but only the High Septon can annul any consummated union. Children from annulled marriages would retroactively be made bastards, with no rights of inheritance unless the King legitimizes them. Several kings failed to convince High Septons to annul their own marriages to women from houses much less influential than the Velaryons. In the customs of the Old Gods, an unconsummated marriage is automatically annulled if either partner remarries before a Heart Tree and then consummating that union, but no consummated union can ever be annulled. The only ways to leave a consummated union are by dying or by joining the Nightswatch.) Viserys married Aemma Arryn the year after Aemon died, 8 years before Prince Baelon died. Rhaenrya was 4 years old when Baelon died and the Council of 101 was called to decide on the new heir.
The only woman. specifically Targaryen who would’ve been able to become the ruling queen and hold that position for awhile would’ve been Visenya. (Being a badass warrior with Vhagar would do it) I think Westeros would accept the right woman so long as there’s no clear alternatives. In the great council Jaehaerys held it wasn’t really between Rhaenys and Viserys but Laenor and Viserys. Rhaenys would’ve without question made the better monarch but Viserys and Daemon were still out there which would fundamentally undermine not only her claim but people’s perception of who should be the monarch. And the fact Daemon would’ve pressed his claim. I think had things played out a little differently in the dance Rhaenyra would’ve been able to become an actual remembered ruling queen. Namely the storming of the dragon pit. And her disastrous economics that caused it. (Which was a brilliant move by the greens) even with losing Daemon (who takes Aemond with him) . The dragon seeds eventually sort themselves out along with Daeron. Which just leaves a maimed Aegon II and a maimed sunfyre. Dany I think will find a harder time than Rhaenyra solely down the politics and the fact that Faegon will get there first.
King Jaehaerys overlooked Rhaenys because he likely knew Corlys would be pulling the strings with his ambition to further empower his house and there's a conspiracy that the maesters influenced their lords to pick Viserys because he didn't have a dragon and would be perceived as weak/easier to influence than an ambitious man like Corlys next to Rhaenys on the throne.
I still don't understand why GRRM would have the biggest man vs. woman succession war be between trueborn siblings. Especially since he made several other scenarios that would have made more sense in Westerosi culture with several of the same characters who were involved in the Dance: 1. Rhaenys (only child of the older brother) vs. Baelon (younger brother) 2. Rhaenys (only child of the older brother) vs. Viserys (oldest son of the younger brother) 3. Rhaenyra (only child) vs. Daemon (brother) If he was going to write a brother vs. sister succession conflict, it would have been more believable if the brother was illegitimate, similarly to Daeron ii Targaryen (only surviving legitimate son) vs. Daemon i Blackfyre (legitimized bastard who their king father favored)
I'm guessing it was because of Myrcella and Tommen - in his original plan, GRRM was planning on having a civil war between the siblings (probably with the dissatisfied Dornish trying to prop Myrcella up and spread Dornish Law), and wanted it to parallel a historical event, thus came up with the Dance. In the AGoT appendix, Rhaenyra and Aegon are born only 1 year apart, with no talk of half-siblings, just like Myrcella and Tommen. Then grrm scrapped his 5-year-gap plan between book 3 and 4, and figured that a civil war between a 9 and 10 year old wouldn't be very compelling, so he changed the story to be about Dany and Aegon, and retconned the Dance of Dragons to match that conflict a little better? The whole thing is a mess of retcons and rushed manuscripts...
What always seems to be left out in conversations about of Westeros would accept Rhaenyra is who supported her at the start of the Dance. The whole of the North and the Vale as well as most houses in the Reach, Riverlands and Crownlands support her. Just looking at the houses of Westeros she is far and away more popular than the Greens, and even after her death people continue to fight and die to put her son on the throne. It seems clear to me that she was accepted by most of Westeros except for those plotting against her because of their familial relation to Aegon. If there had been another great council it seems likely that Rhaenyra would have won.
She was the legal heir not only due to her father's decree and the oaths he made the lord swear, but also due to the Widows Law of 52 AC which explicitly forbids any man from disinheriting a child of his first wife in favor of a child of a second wife. That is the first inheritance law that ever applied to the whole of the Seven Kingdoms.
I don't know I'm inclined to believe that Queen cersei's reign is not going to be as easily accepted in the books as it was in the show, and probably also be aided by the fact that just about half the realm is already totally alienated from the throne either an open revolt or has recently been crushed. And everyone left is basically circling the wagons around the flailing Lannister regime in the wake of invasion from barbarians and devil worshippers, not to mention the fact that the ruling dynasty is extinct in the queen mother is the only connection left. I think Rhaenyras problem is that the dynasty and westeros is just in too strong of a position to accept her
For the sake of argument let us imagine a scenario where Rhaenyra assumes the throne after either decisively crushing the greens in the upcoming Dance of the Dragons with most of her forces (especially the dragons) in tact or better yet the war is avoided because she was able to bring the greens over to her side (for example Alicent agreed to Rhaenyra's marriage proposal and Otto conveniently died before Viserys). Just for fun let us imagine that all of Rhaenyra's short comings as a politician and leader are smoothed out and her virtues are built upon to the point she could make Aegon I and Jaehaerys I look like two cavemen swinging cudgels around by comparison. Even in this hypothetical, Rhaenyra would still face many challenges to holding onto her position as ruling Queen of Westeros. While I doubt many lords would be in a rush to raise an army in open revolt against her due to her dragons, though a few particularly stupid ones might try. I think many would try to sabotage her rule in other ways such as by trying to ignore her edicts, trying to doge paying their taxes, not putting in enough effort to keeping the peace, joining plots to covertly overthrow or assassinate her, and so forth. It would not surprise me if rumors started spreading that Rhaenyra was not truly Viserys' daughter but a bastard born of an affair between her mother and a stable boy or some other nonsense. Any kind of natural disaster such as a flood, drought, famine, and so forth would likely be considered by many to be a sign that the gods themselves condemn her rule. The reason for this is simple. Aside from Dorne which is not even a part of the realm yet, Westeros is a deeply misogynistic society and culture. This means that for a very large portion of the populace, noble and commoner alike, the idea of a woman sitting the iron throne and acting a ruling queen in her own right is completely at odds with their view of the natural order of things. Even if she was the best ruler in history, a lot of people simply would never be able to get over their discomfort of how her rule would run against their fundamental belief of how the world is supposed to operate. And keep in mind, everything I just laid would realistically happen with an unrealistically amazing and brilliant Rhaenyra. While the real Rhaenyra has some good qualities, there is no denying she is a deeply flawed individual with serious weaknesses that would have worked against her even if she had been born a man. While I would not call it "impossible" for a woman to ascend the throne and manage to hold onto it, it would still be extremely difficult and I suspect she would need to be ready to spill a lot of blood to make it happen.
Yea they would if she didn’t have bastards and lie about or if viserys never had more children completely undermining his heir their has been queens in Westeros before the Targaryens
I would love a video on the parallels between Dany and Drogo's relationship being "consensual r@pe" and Rhaenyra and Cole's relationship essentially being the same as he had little choice of refusal in that situation.
Under the right circumstances, I think so. It would come down to what her brothers end up doing. If Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron agree to her rule, and maybe sign something for formal abdication, then at that point, there's nothing really standing in her way. Truthfully this was Viserys' fuckshow. He didn't HAVE to remarry. If he wanted Rhaenyra to be queen so bad, then he shouldn't have constantly threw her under the bus. While it is sad, her reaction to Aegon in episode 3 is understandable and anyone in her situation would've thought the same. People try to make it seem like the Hightowers were especially nefarious, but they were just simply at the right place at the right time and schemed accordingly. Regardless of who Viserys married, rather they were a Velaryon or from another house, him siring more heirs put would put Rhaenyra's claim in danger.
To me it always complicated yes there can be woman lords if there are no sons left but Westeros isn’t ready for a queen seeing how Cersei and Daenerys in tv shows turns out not for a while,Rhaenyra she could done more to earn favors of the lords to show she is worthy but that just wishful thinking to me.
Rhaenyra makes me mad like no other character from this world just because of how many chances she had to consolidate her claim and win the throne without anyone objecting. She has no one to blame but herself.
I think rather or not the realm would accept Rhaenyra is a matter of perspective. All the houses accepted and vowed to support her claim bc there was no other choice. But I like to think that many houses supported her during the war bc they wanted to support change of females inheriting and ruling. While others most likely only supported her bc of the vows their fathers made decades before. And making a vow and keeping your word to said vow was a very big thing back then. 🤷♀️ but who can know for sure
Whilst Viserys always upheld Nyra's claim, if he had a brain he would've done these things also: a) don't remarry, b) remarry, but to a woman who can't have children. c) remarry a woman who can have children, but don't have children with her. d) remarry and have children, but have your sons make vows that prevent them from inheriting. If they're scholarly, send them to the citadel. If they're good fighters, have them become kingsguards, if they're charasmatic promise them to the faith, and if they're none of those send them to the wall. If he couldn't/wouldn't do any of those, the least he could have done was when he realised he was closer to death again he could have had all of the lords come to kings landing again and swear allegiance to Rhaenyra, explicitly stating that they would not support Aegon, Aemond or Daeron's claim. This wouldn't stop all the lords from their betrayal, but would at least send a clear message and prevent the Green's from being able to claim that Viserys changed his mind. Edit: Also DON'T GIVE YOUR OTHER CHILDREN DRAGONS!!! Instead state that only heirs and their spouses are allowed to claim dragons or give anyone else permission to claim them. This means that even if worse came to worse, Rhaenyra can simply remind the greens that she has dragons and they don't, and that if they tried to fight her then they would be killed easily.
i think it really depends - the small folk LOVED helaena so i think if it were a situation where everyone overwhelming loved the woman. most ppl hate rhaenyra tho
The nobles, maybe. More lords supported Rhaenyra over Aegon II. But the people, no. Their riot and assault on the Dragonpit destroyed her regime, and they were adamant about having a male heir for the throne.
Sadly no. In the end it doesn’t matter who Viserys named his heir. Power goes to those who seize it. The only reason that Viserys got the throne peacefully was because the supporters of Rhaenys were few, at the Great council of 101. So they saw that 90% of the realm would be against them if they started a war over Viserys getting the crown.
Usually a great Queen could stand on her own if the King is horrible and is a reminder that the Crown is still worth the respect it deserves. George RR Martin claims that he took a lot of inspiration from real world history, and quite frankly real world medieval politics were more complicated compared to Westeros politics. Misogyny was a very common thing in those days however when it came to the power of the crowns it usually depends on how good both the King and Queen govern the Realm, and most often than not the Queens often did most of the work for the Realm compared to their husbands. Westeros as a society is extremely struggling to evolve when it comes to its social views on women, and one would believe that in the eight thousands years of history Westeros would have had great Queens to make some good role models, but knowing how extremely misogynistic their society is they probably rewrote the history books to fit their world views.
If the lords didn't want to risk Rheny's passing the iron thorne to her daughter, why not make Leanor crown prince? Wouldn't that nake more sense than making the son of the younger brother king?
Viserys was a bad parent to his sons and daughter with Alicent but people rarely acknowledge how bad of a parent he is to Rhaenyra While Rhaenyra was named heir because 1) Viserys had no other babies so it would normal for the eldest daughter to inherit as at the time he had no other kids and 2) we all think King Daemon is a dangerous idea but ultimately I think he named her heir and never swayed in that to alleviate his guilt of Aemma’s death. He must feel if Aemma’s blood rules the realm than he’s made up for what he had done to her throughout her life and his involvement in her death. If Baelon survived he’d be heir, if Aegon came from a Aemma he’d be heir. 2) Viserys undermines Rhaenyra’s claim by having male heirs. He had the lords swear fealty but it’s not enough. Some of those lords were dead by the time Rhaenyra was to ascend. Those lords didn’t name their daughters as heirs. He jeopardizes her claim by having sons as in Westerosi tradition male line goes first. 3) Enabling Rhaenyra’s bad behavior and leaving her unprepared. Despite her sitting in occasionally on council meetings in the beginning, he did very little to teach Rhaenyra about how to run the realm. Then again he knew very little of ruling as well as his indecisiveness and tendency to people please or ignore problems made the council and Otto rule for him. He didn’t prepare her to rule. He didn’t give her opportunities like diplomacy missions or something to show the realm how good of a Queen she could be. He even enables and our rights denies or ignores her bad behavior most of the time. He allowed her to insult nobles. He allowed her to sire obviously illegitimate children which completely destabilizes her claim.
The answer is No, at least long term. She's married to Daemon who will be hand of the king essentially and everyone hates Daemon and did not want him with power or the throne, and has 3 bastard children, one will be heir after her. This will not go well with the realm, bastard having the throne is not ok. Daemon would murder the strong boys most likely anyway, and then people won't want Daemons blood on the throne. If Aegon and Co are around, then the problem is the lords could easily back them with far better claim and no bastards. And if she dies, it may be that the lords overthrow her son or call for a great council since a bastard is not ok and Aegon is the eldest male descendant and son of the king, and his sons are all trueborn with dragons. So it may go Rhaenys like with none wanting Jace as king.
She could rule but did she have to be so boneheaded about it. She was so bone headed that good lord why would anyone trust her with the ruling of the realm. I would like to add if you could do a breakdown of the 4 queen regnants in Westerosi that would be awesome. It’s very interesting to see how Rhaenyra, Cersei, Danaerys, and Sansa all rose to power. 3 of them were violently deposed whilst the other one had the support of her lords over her brother/cousin and ended up with a crown at the end.
I hate that HBO turned the Dance of Dragons into a "feminism vs patriarchy" story because what GRRM wrote is much more than that and has little to do with gender inequality. Rhaenyra had A LOT OF supporters, when she takes Kings Landing people cheer for her, but Rhaenyra fails at being a RULER, people only start hating Rhaenyra because of her cruel decisions agaisnt the smallfolk (taxes, executing people in brutal ways), not because she is a woman. Both Aegon II and Rhaenyra end up in history as equally hated and controversial figures, if the realm would hate the idea of a queen than Rhaenyra would be seen as the only evil one in the war, that is not the case.
It’s ironic it. Of Leanor became king he would have no trueborn children. If he married Leana she would have been in the same boat as Rhaenyra. Either way Leanor would have screwed everybody
This reminds me of Matilda and Elizabeth I. Matilda was a bad candidate for queen and she set back female rulership for centuries after Elizabeth there was no dispute about women as rulers. Rhaenyra is based on Matilda while the westrosi lords might accept a female ruler they wont acecpt an awful one like her
Opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said it shouldn’t be passed because it wouldn’t be respected; e.g. white people couldn’t be made to respect minorities, men couldn’t be made to see women as capable equals. Discrimination hasn’t disappeared by any means, but things are far better than decades ago. It’s important to avoid underestimating the impact of top-down, legal models for cultural change. Taking a fatalistic attitude toward inequality only strengthens its perpetuation.
Very well, there is at least 1200 years of difference between the date you mention and the era in which Game of Thrones does inspire. You also ignore the important aspect that in one of those times there are endless private armies and in the other there are not. Although what you say is moving, it is based on an error because it applies the logic of a different era to a medieval era. This law has no relation to monarchical succession and that is why male primogeniture continued to apply. I'm sorry, but you are making a mistake, which is judging an era according to the parameters of a very different era.
@@kimberlywebster6057 That comment makes little sense. But I will answer the little sense it makes and that is that in fact what they saw at that time was men ruling most of the time and that is why they thought that was how it should be. I don't know what the people of that time would see that according to you would make them magically change their minds and if you believe that the thing is as simple as that it would be implemented and everyone would submissively see it to begin equality, I inform you that in that period of time nor would it have achieved implementation. Well, it would have been rejected and if necessary fought. You are judging a medieval question under modern parameters and that is why you are wrong.
People would have accepted her if she had married a Lannister instead of daemon and killed every grown male counterparts of her and married her sons to green female lines.
There are basically two paths where Rhaenyra could have been accepted by Westeros as the reigning monarch: a) Viserys names her as his heir, never marries again, never has any other child, and makes sure that she establishes herself as a wise, competent political player on her own right with many alliances and flawless personal reputation. b) Viserys names her as his heir, announces his abdication, lets the Great Council confirm it and name the trusted advisers who would guide her and rule in her name until she comes of age. This option is not without its risks, but its theoretically viable. As others have mentioned, in Westeros women can and do inherit when there are no male heirs. The lords and people wouldn't be too happy about it, but she's a Targ dragonlord, which would work in her favour even though it'd still take a lot of political maneuvering. However, Viserys killed all her chances to have a stable rule when he decided to produce more male heirs, and Rhaenyra herself then buried them by marrying Daemon, who was politically unacceptable to pretty much everybody. The Strong bastards then made it even worse.
I admit feminist wasnt in her best interest. But if they would have just let her rule just like her father wanted. History would see her as the first woman monarch. Than that would open doors for more female in the world of westoros. You can compare this with our own history. With ladies like Elizabeth 1. And the iron lady. Too bad Alicent seems to be against that.
My opinion - Daemon should’ve been named heir and married to either Alicent or Rheanera. Daemon would’ve been an effective king and would’ve squashed the scheming slugs like Otto Hightower
From what we can glean from Westerosi laws daughters can inherit if there are no sons available. Therein lies the problem, if Viserys is so insistent on having Rhaenyra inherit the throne, then why did he bother remarrying? Why risk undermining your female heir by taking another wife and risking the chance of having sons to challenge her claim? You only remarry if you're not satisfied with your heirs and want other options. This is why I never understood why people claim Viserys was a good father. All his life he undermined Rhaenyra's chances of obtaining the throne and fucked everybody in his family with his indicisiveness.
I think the reasoning is that he wanted to make sure the Targaryen bloodline would go on? But you can't have it both ways bro.
They say he is a good pops, because of how he dotes and spoils Rhaenyra. While more or less ignoring his other children. I also think Considine’s incredible acting skills help with that narrative.
Because they're down to just 3 members, Daemon Is deeply unpopular with the Lords and won't have children with his wife, Rhaenyra could maybe be supplanted as Heir and lose their dynasty to the velaryons if Daemon and Viserys himself don't survive long enough to assure Rhaenyra's own power. He really doesn't want to overturn Jahaerys decisions either like reinstating Saera
Yeah and then he went and basically ignored Allicent and their children while spoiling Rhaenyra and favouring her out of guilt for Aemma, which anyone could've seen would foster resentment. Viserys CHOOSE to have more children not because he wanted more heirs, but simply because he couldn't keep it in his pants and still wanted a son, screwing Rhaenyra over in the process and fathering four new children who didn't ask to be born.
@@HillsAliveYTI think it was guilt for his wife that led him to do it because even his daughter pointed out she was a none factor when Ammea was pregnant
Personally, I think Rhaenyra’s chances would have been far better if Viserys had remained unmarried, and took an active role in preparing Rhaenyra to rule, as opposed to keeping her as a cupbearer and excluding her from politics, throughout HotD, Viserys disregards her repeatedly when she’s give her own political opinion, and even gets angry at her when she flies off to retrieve the dragon egg that Daemon stole. By keeping her in the dark when it comes to politics, Viserys has all but assured that Rhaenyra’s reign will be unstable. Although I’m not a fan of Otto Hightower, he’s 110% correct in that Rhaenyra’s claim would also be threatened as soon as Aegon was born.
Yep and it's similarly depicted in the book as well.
Viserys chose Rhaenyra as his heir but not because she was intelligent, brave and good dragon rider or anything that makes a Targaryen ruler. He was guilty after her mother's death and didn't want his brother to succeed him either.
As you mentioned in various situations even after she was named heir, she was ignored and didn't receive a proper training.yes the system wasn't fair in many ways but if Viserys's true intention was to Change the rules of succession, he should've done better.
totally agree, would still be difficult because of daemon but it would have been better
The minute Viserys had remarried AND Rhaenyra showed her Strong kids it becomes increasingly clear that she would’ve eventually had to kill her siblings and Aegon’s kids even if she didn’t want to. Even if she ascended the Throne peacefully, none of the Lords would back Jace especially when there are seven LEGITIMATE claims eventually starting a Dance of the Dragons. I think Daemon does genuinely care about his step-sons but when it comes down to it he would definitely put his sons on the Throne.
I always found the line in Fire & Blood interesting where the maester basically says that Rhaenyra's claim puts the lords of the realm in danger as they themselves have older sisters, aunts, ect. I hope the show has a scene illustrating that. Even irl what the king did was used by his nobility as blueprint for their own actions. When Henry VIII cast Katherine of Aragon aside, other noblemen tried to do the same in favour of their mistresses. It'd be funny if an older sister of a lord in Westeros would just walk into his hall and be like: "Hello, little brother. Move aside, I'm the true heir. Oh, and those are my children, your future lords/ladies. Now get out of the chair & bow."😂
I think had Viserys not remarried and had 3 sons after Rhaenyra then the Westerosi lords would have basically no choice but to accept Rhaenyra as queen, after all without the Greens existing as a faction they have no other choice because the Targaryens have all the dragons. I guess Daemon could be a potential issue but it didn't really seem like the lords liked Daemon enough to ever make him king, maybe they would support him over Rhaenyra anyway just because they don't want a woman ruling as queen, she could avoid that by marrying him though, but securing the Velaryons' support might be more important.
I think Laenor would be her biggest opponent in the case. But a marriage allience would solve that.
@abczzc651 Daemon is no match for the entire fleet of the Seasnake or Laena's Veagar.
@abczzc651 Daemon is a too wild. Even Otto prefered Rhaenyra over Daemon before Alicient married. I think Daemon has such a bad reputation that even a woman has more support than him.
I feel like what would help her a lot, in that sort of scenario, would be marrying Laenor because then at least it takes out another contender and also would strengthen her claim via their children especially if they had sons. Daemon, however, is married to the firstborn of the Velaryons but because he only has daughters with Laena, that could result in the lords choosing Rhaenyra simply because it would go through her to a son while with Daemon it would go from a man to a daughter and basically create the same crisis again. But if Rhaenyra still had bastards in this scenario, that may weaken her claim and Daemon would have the boost of being the one with true-born children. However I think if the lords had to choose, they'd go with Rhaenyra in the scenario since they don't trust Daemon at all while Rhaenyra is still young and can be influenced compared to Daemon who only does what he wants.
@@lilchaos9212 i always saw Laena being in the power position in their relationship. She had the biggest dragon, she had the richest father, her brother was married to the kings daughter. Laena would never betray Rhaenyra. Because she would betray her brother and her family. I believe that Daemon had not much to offer. And therefore i doubt that he would ever convince Laena to support him over Rhaenyra. And without Laena's dragon or the support of her father it is going to be almost impossible for Daemon to be the heir.
Had Rhaenrya been like Margaery Tyrell and done whatever it took to get a trueborn heir and a spare by Laenor, and insisted upon being made Hand by Viserys while being a loving sister to her half brothers from moment one, she could have averted a Dance of the Dragons in her time.
Done whatever it took? And say he could not perform or was infertile? What was she to do then? In the original draft, Rhaenyra’s kids were trueborn and she still lost. Do you think Alicent would let Rhaenyra get close to her kids and convince them not to challenge her claim? Viserys himself knew Alicent wanted her bloodline on the throne.
Uhhh no, Rhaenyra's 'Strong' kids in the books are also accused of being bastards because they have brown hair/eyes, aka look nothing like Targs/Velaryons. That's... the whole point. It's not as obvious as in the show (black guy/white woman having 3 pure white babies in a row? yyyyeah no) but its still heavily implied they are indeed bastards.
And anyway they absolutely could have found a way. GoT even sets this precedent. Gay or not you'd find a way even if it meant having boyfie in the room to help lol. But Rhaenyra, as before, expected everything to work out appropros of nothing and just didn't bother to worry about it.
Daemon and the Hightowers still exist, and when you actually look at the history of the Targaryen dynasty, succession disputes are ridiculously common. A major civil war would have eventually occurred, even if she succeeded without issue. Somehow.
This always like is what conflicts me. I wanna be like "yeah girlboss" but the girl in question is not just a good candidate because no one prepared her for the role and she didn't exactly work to strengthen her position. This is generally how I feel about fans of the "girlboss" mentality like with Daenerys and sometimes Cersei: where their dismissiveness and aloofness to others is seen as "strength" when it's actually undermining their own position. It's cool for the moment but there's very real long term relations damaged.
Well, I would say Sansa provides us with a "yeah girlboss"
Ain't nobody girlbossing Cersei. Lol
@@rohan.shieldmaiden35 Sansa actually did the work though.
Oh yes, good point @@jjh2456
@@jjh2456 book sansa is getting there, show sansa absolutely not
After the nearly a hundred years of Targaryen rule and three or four wars using dragons in Westeros, it’s no wonder everyone was sick of them.
“Oh of course your majesty, your bright blue winged thermonuclear weapon is so magnificent, us maesters are in awe of its beauty”
“Of course your majesty, your desire to bang your sister/niece in front of the entire realm is totally fine, even though it’s one of the most heinous acts against the gods, I’m sure they’ll make an exception.”
“Of course you can call my banners to die in the sand my lord, it’s not as if my line was kings before this and the only reason I suffer you rubbing my houses disgrace in my face is the fact that you can and will incinerate my wife and children, you are rightful king.”
You don’t need a conspiracy when interests align perfectly. The larger green faction often seems less interested about Targaryen succession and more about wresting control away from the Valryrians.
I'm pretty sure when dragons of Targaryens died, many people exhaled with relief.
@@TheGoodLuc and when they returned they were like “not this again.”
The green faction are as Valyrian as Rhaenyra or Daemon, and there is never even a hint in the books or series that they want to eliminate the dragons. They have a great bond with their 6 dragons and King Aegon II more than any other, there has never been such a strong connection between rider and dragon as the one Aegon II and Sunfire had.
That’s the thing that Daenerys didn’t get. Aegon I conquered those kingdoms that all have different races and cultures and are very different from one another.
Some people wanted seven individual kingdoms at some point. People were not just afraid of The Mad King and done with him and yes there were wars between kingdoms before Aegon I ruled, but people got tired of Targaryen entitlement and Valyrian supremacy. The Targaryens caused so much chaos many times in their 300 year reign. The best Targaryen monarchs were the ones who tried to assimilate into Andal culture or marry into other houses or respect them. People were tired of the incest and the disrespect to the Faith who really dominates most of Westeros with small exceptions.
Rhaenyra, along with any lady for that matter. Would be fighting a constant uphill battle for their position as the truly ruler of Westeros. And in Rhaenyra’s case, it doesn’t help that her father never really properly trained or prepared as heir to the throne. So a lot of folks, both nobles and commoners most likely see a lot nepotism when it comes to her, it also doesn’t help that she is a women, which makes her battle twice as difficult. But unfortunately for, Rhaenyra she will prove some of her doubters and haters correct with her turbulent rule of King's Landing.
Agreed. I would’ve rooted for Rhaenrya but she kept constantly making really dumb decisions that would undermine her in the long run and she never tried making allies, only relying on promises that were made before her brothers existed.
It’s not just about the mistakes. One must also acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them. Sansa got her crown by doing that. Cersei, Danaerys, and Rhaenyra could never do that.
@@jjh2456 Very well said
I agree that it would be a constant battle to have the lords accept her as Queen Regnant. Real life history has shown the difficulties woman who inherited thrones as Queen Regnants had and lots of them did not have good lives and were still at the mercy of the men around them in a way a King would not be. Of course it was possible for a Queen Regnant to gain the respect and support of their nobles as history as shown with female rulers like Elizabeth the First of England, Christina of Sweden, Isabella of Castile, or Catherine the Great of Russia. But there are just as many examples of female rulers who did not gain that support or respect as shown with Queens like Mary of Scotland, Zabel of Armenia, or Urraca or Leon and Castile as Mary was forced to abdicate by her nobles in favor of her son and Zabel was forced to marry the son of one of her nobles and then ran away to a convent to two years, and Urraca of Leon and Castile who is considered to be the first reigining Queen of medieval Europe and yet was forcibly married against her will to King Alfonso of Aragon and Navarre who was known to view women worse than most men of that time. I will acknowledge that there is another source that states that Urraca's father before his death arranged that marriage but either way she was married to man who did not respect her and was documented to publicly shame her and even beat her in public.
Basically the life of a Queen Regnant could go either way in a patriarchal society where men didn't like taking orders from a woman.
I can think of only two scenarios in which she could. One is that if only her faction had dragons and her husband was seen more positively and would be seen as someone more people wanted to be be the "true ruler" behind her as "figurehead".
On the other hand, I recently watched a video by Kevin Pendragon about how Viserys should have abdicated for Rhaenyra. Personally, I think that an in-between option is more reasonable. Co-rule. In England, women gained the approval of the people to rule because the only options left in that royal family were three women. In Egypt, they had generations of co-rulers who were married (and siblings, much like the Targaryens) or parents and kids. If she had really been ruling beside him, she might have pulled it off.
Either way, it would have taken proper schmoozing, politics, endearing herself to others, children who's parentage isn't easily questioned, and wise outside-the-family marriages for it to work. Unfortunately, Viserys had zero political skills (likely at least partially because he wasnt predicted to be an heir any time soon until the previous king was ancient and likely unable to teach him much) and any of Rhaenyra's potential was killed off by a lack of proper training for it (her father wasn't capable of teaching much, and those that were good rulers didn't think she'd actually be the heir for long).
Yeah Kevin made the right call there in that if Rhaenyra were fully established as queen long before Viserys died then it would make the crisis much less of a crisis, although if he did it after Rhaenyra married Daemon then it would probably have just kicked the can down the road because he was the actual catalyst for the succession crisis in the first place.
Maybe, but she has sooooo many clouds over here. Daemon and Laena’s children look Valyrian, Daemon and Rhaenyra’s children look Valyrian, but her first 3 sons are so clearly bastards. She would have probably had to put her brothers to the sword if she was ever Queen because there will always be questions about her children and those that will flock to her brothers for opportunities
LOL which is why I never understand the argument that the Greens should have just fallen in line behind her, you don’t have to like them to recognize that they were in mortal danger because of this succession clusterfuck.
I think after Rhanyra kill her brother Daemond will kill her step-bastad sons, anyone believe Daemond permit that her two legitimacy sons Rhaenyra will not be kings?????
No, she wouldn't. But, being married Daemon when she's crowned it's funny that people think Jace would be King. He absolutely would not. Especially if Jace does break his betrothal to Daemon's special child, Baela. If leaks are true, he all but calls Jace a bastard, to his face, because of Baela.
I think fans are too wrapped up in their "romance" to understand that Daemon would never put those boys over his own children. He'd definitely fight for Aegon to be King.
I'm a simple man, I see my fellow Green supporter upload a video and I immediately press like before starting the video.
LOL bless, and your username is fab.
She's not a Green supporter, both sides were seriously messed up.
She's a common sense and decency supporter
@@gerardjagroo nah, she definitely leans more to the 💚💚💚
@gerardjagroo I do agree it's really logically impossible to fully support either side.
In a scenario with Strong rumors, Daemon as Rhaenyra's consort and Daemon-Otto antagonism, Alicent's sons and Aemond riding the biggest dragon... yeah, I think war is pretty inevitable (either that, or all the dragon riders on one side are assassinated all at once could perhaps prevent war?) But in a different scenario, where Viserys didn't remarry, and Daemon and the Velaryons either married Rhaenyra, or at least remained on friendly terms with her and didn't contest her ascension, then I think she would've been able to take the throne pretty uncontroversially - its a lot easier to take the throne when you have dragons, and none of your opponents do)
We kinda see the elements Rhaenyra is up against in isolation, in other chunks of Targs history:
Cersei is up against rumors of her kids' illegitimacy, and while its enough to start a messy civil war, its clear from Tommen's time on the throne that enough lords are fine ignoring the rumors when Joffrey/Tommen's faction is triumphant, so on its own, I don't think this is enough to start a war.
Aenys-Maegor antagonism doesn't lead to war (directly, at least), yet the rivalries between Aegon IV's children does, so that's a mixed bag.
Maegor rides a much larger dragon than Aegon 1.5, which allows him to win his civil war, and probably gives him enough confidence that he'll win for him to attempt to usurp his eldest nephew.
Having a stepmother is definitely a recipe for sabotage in asoiaf, for instance when Visenya totally definitely doesn't poison her nephew/stepson Aenys so that her own son Maegor can take the throne. (Viserys' father Baelon seems to have recognized this, and that's why he never remarried after Alyssa died, instead forcing his sons into terrible marriages to shore up his claim with alliances?)
I thought Baelon never remarried after Alyssa for the same reason as Tywin, because of love.
@@hi-ls6lt maybe? we're not in either character's head, so its hard so say? Regardless of whether it was true, it would have suited Jaehaerys tremendously to spin the narrative that Baelon and Alyssa were perfect for each other, and deeply in love, to shore up his "we Targaryens are allowed to do incest" position. We know he did the same thing for his relationship with Alysanne; in reality, Jaehaerys and Alysanne hated each other by the end of their marriage and spent years not talking to each other, and yet in Westeros they're still thought of as the ideal of romance thanks to the narrative Jaehaerys spun, trying to get the realm to accept his incest-marriage.
WOO! Always excited to see my girl upload haha! BUT here's my take:
In the dog-eat-dog world of Westeros, Rhaenyra Targaryen would be facing an uphill battle from day one. With a kingdom full of lords and ladies just itching for a chance to usurp her, she'd have to go full Tywin Lannister on them-no messing around. We're talking "Rains of Castamere" levels of brutality here. Squashing rebellions? She'd need to do it so brutally that bards would write fear-inducing songs about it for generations to come. As much as it goes against my own principles, Soft rule just wouldn't cut it; she'd need to put her dragons to use, roasting a few rebellious lords to make an example out of them. Her dragons would NEED to be instruments of terror to keep the realm in check.
I see your point. She would have to set a vicious tone to her rule to get some respect.
Well, she seems to have some awareness of that as well, what with marrying Daemon and killing fake Laenor, it’s just odd that she goes to those extremes but then in so many ways does little else to shore up her prospects.
Interesting points about Jayne Arryn. Of course, if the Targaryen's had all bonded together the way Viserys wanted they'd have been too strong to rebel against with any hope of success. Of course having the heir legally be whoever the ruler nominates does seem to lead to instability like in eighteenth century Russia.
The problem in 18th century russia wasn't necessarily that the successor was whoever the current monarch nominates or that women held the throne I think it had more to do with most 18th century russian monarchs being westernizers who did things like encourage freemasonry(not popular with the ☦️ church and russia at the time being very religious) and speak foreign languages(mostly french) instead of russian
Well... If Viserys truly prepared her in a true and proper way, maybe.
As she's now, highly unlikely.
Yeah he managed to be a flop king and didn't even bother to pass his flop knowledge on to any of his flop children. It's a miracle the dynasty even survived.
A preparation that seems even less successful than Rhaenys's and yet they rejected it. In that aspect of Rhaenyra there is no need to talk.
Why did the majority of westeros side with her during the dance then?
@@akeelyaqub2538 Half the trident at the beginning, half the dominion at the beginning, the whole of the north and the whole of the Vale of Arryn. In total there are like 3 kingdoms if you put them together and there are 7 kingdoms. She received the support of an important part but not the majority.
@@akeelyaqub2538 For the same reason that decades later, 3 and a half kingdoms rebelled against the excellent king that was Daeron II the good. They looked with dismay at a kingdom that was no longer at war and strangely at the renown that the battle brought as well as the abundant rewards that came with victory. Men who live in times of peace are forgotten and those who gain renown in wars are remembered forever.
I don't think its impossible but still Hard. Westerosi culture is pretty anti-progressive as a whole .And the exceedingly slow development of Westereos technologically & structurally, I think, does mirror this set cultural structure metaphorically & at the same time is partly a result of it
To succeed in opposing or compromising certain built in traditions & norms and to succeed in the political ladder of Westereos ,one has to manouver very carefully or camouflage neatly into the societal/ political structure of the country. One has to blend in & participate in the system in order to beat the system.That's why Rhaenyra & Lady Arryn face a lot with challenges on their uphill battle with either opponents trying to weaken their claims or usurp it.
And like you said leaders trying to ignore the set traditions and norms of the culture while enforce new standards is a dangerous play. A lot of characters in both the books and show face tough consequences for compromising the set traditions. We see Robb Stark compromise Political Duty and get crushed for it.And ironically at the same we're seeing the conquences that came about the red wedding(tho partly Fantastical) with Walder spitting on established tradition & also commiting a long term political assassination with the same
And this anti-progessive & traditionalist nature of the society, would be perfectly mirrored in the books, with Daenerys's return to Westereos & with the reception she gets once she tries to enforce her ideals of governance hierarchical & societal structure that are contrary to the westerosi traditions. Once Dany sets foot on Westereos, she is going to be met with the rude shock of the conniving & harsh politics of Westereos...(that is if Tyrion or Selmy don't educate her anyway on the dos and donts).I do firmly believe that she may face betrayals, assasination attempts, political or even falling victim (through the loss of a very close ally ) to a 2nd red wedding. This would greatly play part in completely turning her to the dark side.We already see the downward slope in Dany's leadership , political manouvers and governance in Mereen . Her attempt at trying to rule Westereos should be the final coffin to it. Dany is just the perfect candidate for exploration of this societal theme in Westereos. Her motives, actions & politics juxtaposes and contrasts that of Westereosi culture. She mandatorily enforces her ideals into the numerous Essosi city states she visits without much care or consideration of the customs and way of living of the people in the city she conquers.Ofc part of the Essosi cities she conquers are traditionalist but part of the reason she easily ruled Mereen was because the politics wasn't as complicated as that of Westereos and the Essosi states weren't as unified. Dany is in some sense politically astute and doesn't greatly understand the nuances in societal structure or governance. She doesn't even seem like she cares to in the books. In Contrast Westereosi require to tread carefully and cleverly , understand the politics uphold traditions in order to make the climb.
Yeah that’s an interesting point too, because women are definitely excluded but women who don’t conform to gendered expectations actually have an even harder time. Obviously even the most powerful women don’t become as powerful as the most powerful men, but people like Cat or the Tyrell women have an easier time wielding power by fulfilling gender expectations.
I would love your thoughts then on Sansa’s ascension to QitN.
Question about Aemon and Baelon: we're told that the brothers were great friends, and that any rivalry between them was harmless and very amicable. And yet we're also told that the seeds of the Dance were sown at that time. So... if everyone saw the iceberg coming, and Aemon and Baelon were happy working together to prevent it, why weren't Rhaenys and Viserys married? It would be such an obvious move to bind these two factions together, and would probably have prevented the Dance.
Was the Dance obvious in retrospect, but not apparent before the marriage or Rhaenys and Corlys? Did Rhaenys assume that Aemon would outlive Jaehaerys, and pave the way for her ascension to the throne, and Baelon and his descendants would never contest it? Since prior to the death of Aemon, neither Viserys nor Daemon had claimed a dragon, so they and their future children weren't seen as serious rivals to Aemon and his descendants (considering that both their parents were dragonriders, how was no one concerned that they would eventually claim dragons???) Was Corlys just soooo powerful that he had to be appeased with the best possible Targaryen princess? We're told that Rhaenys herself was the driving force behind the Rhaenys-Corlys marriage - did she make the political calculation that wealthier Corlys with his massive fleet was a better match than lame dragonless Viserys (Corlys was older than Rhaenys' parents - if I was her, I would NOT be super eager to marry him, no matter how awesome he was.) Was this chunk of F&B, like so many other parts, just a little sloppy and plot-holey?
The Seasnake was the Bill Gates of his time and Vizzy D was such a soft boy that he even refused to ride a dragon more than once. He was such a non-factor. That is why the result of the Great Council was so strange that it almost seen rigged.
Prince Aemon Targaryen was 2 years older than Lord Corlys Velaryon and in the book it is never said that it was during that time when Princes Aemon and Baelon lived that the seeds of the dance were sown. That was the invention of some TH-camrs and the seeds were planted during the reign of Viserys I when Aemon and Baelon had already been dead for years.
@@davidduran6163 I think you've got your birth dates mixed up - Aemon was born in 55, 2 years after Corlys (born in 53). Not that it matters much - the point remains the same - Corlys was about a generation older than Rhaenys. Why is she lobbying her grandfather to let her marry that guy?
And F&B literally does say that the seeds of the Dance were sown when Aemon and Baelon were alive. Opening paragraph of Chapter 12, Heirs of the Dragon:
"The *seeds of war* are oft planted during times of peace. So has it been in Westeros. The bloody struggle for the Iron Throne known as the Dance of the Dragons, fought from 129-131 AC, had its roots half a century earlier, during the longest and most peaceful reign that any of the Conqueror’s descendants ever enjoyed, that of Jaehaerys I Targaryen, the Conciliator."
Aemon died in 92, 40ish years before the Dance; Baelon died in 101, 30ish years before the Dance. The marriage of Rhaenys to Corlys - which perhaps could've prevented the Dance if she'd married Viserys instead - happened in 90. So 50ish years before the Dance correlated roughly with the adulthood of Aemon: when he and Jocelyn produce Rhaenys and zero other kids, and when the family would start groom-shopping for Rhaenys.
For context, this chunk of F&B essentially says Jaehaerys had too many kids, therefore succession became muddled, therefore the Dance. I don't think the causation is super strong there, but that is the position of 'official' history in Westeros... I guess you could say that Rhaenyra and Aegon's factions couldn't be reconciled with a marriage because Rhaenyra's marriage alliances were already 'used up' with Daemon and the Velaryons? Or the inconsistent and contradictory rationales that kings used to name their heirs - starting with Jaehaerys - led to a succession crisis? But that's not really how I would characterize the Dance.
Will Rt have a problem with people accepting her as ruler absolutely but it’s hard to feel sorry for a character that constantly shoots herself in the foot.
She does not make her goals easier to achieve for sure.
@@HillsAliveYT Rt creates her own drama along with Daemon they are their own worst enemies.....The Greens barely need too lift a finger to cause problems for the blacks lol
Hopefully it doesn't seem naive and all, but... although Rhaenyra's gender was always going to be a factor (and a mark against her at that), it was not always doomed to be the deciding factor! I think GRRM takes care to show that the Law and customs are just stories people tell themselves and each other; a lack of precedent is an argument, not a mandate. The political operators of Westeros (Otto and his lord brother; the Velaryons, the Lannisters and other lords, the Maesters, et al) will back whoever it is in their vested interest to back. If Rhaenyra created or maintained a status quo where it was in their interest to crown her, she would have been crowned. I think the fact that they backed Rhaenyra to be heir when Daemon was the only alternative is the proof of that!
Poor girl should have just pulled a Ramsey and poisoned the Aegon Babe asap if she wanted the submission of the lords. Rhaenyra's best argument for herself on the throne was holding Daemon behind her as the threat should she be removed.
My thoughts go right to Elizabeth I in our world and the complex religious factors which led to her reign. And Religion was about money primarily, and money is about power. Power backs power!
Basically "if Rhaenyra had done literally anything but what she did" which was a) have 3 bastards before any trueborn children and b) isolate herself entirely from the court she could have convinced to take her side. She has no political accumen. If she did, she probably WOULD have had no problem sitting the throne. But yeah, you can't insult the entire court by insisting your obvious bastards aren't bastards, run away to escape scrutiny, and then expect soft power and support from other noble houses to just... fall into your lap. You can blame Viserys for not preparing her but ultimately Rhaenyra made every possible misstep in the eyes the court/the public.
Sorry for the constant Star Wars comparisons. If Rhaenyra wants to rule Westeros, she's got to pull a Sith Emperor and be so insanely powerful that no one dares to challenge her. She and her crew have to be an unstoppable force, literally and figuratively. But here's where it gets tricky: going this route basically says "might is right," which sets a TERRIBLE precedent. Just like the Sith Empire, that makes her rule kinda volatile. You're opening the door for some other badass to come along and start the whole power struggle all over again. It'll be a never-ending cycle of "who's the toughest," and that could spell chaos for Westeros. BUT considering the longest reigning sith lived over 1,000 years unchallenged, it IS possible
I don’t believe misogyny undid Rhaenyra’s ascension nor the possibility of leal deference from her lords. She undermined her status with major controversies; by c*ck0lding her noble consort, 1st husband & remarrying her infamous uncle after widowhood. These were intolerable affronts to the huge feudal aristocracy, the Targaryens ruled.
At the Harrenhal council of 101, 10,000 lords attended and in that vote King Viserys won by a difference of 20 to 1 for the mere fact of being male because he did not joust, he did not fight, he never set foot in the citadel and he was not a politician either. intelligent, not to mention that his dragon had died. Without the throne he was a nobody that Rhaenys would have sent to the wall to avoid problems and the fact that the queen who never was, being rejected by 9800 of 10,000 lords was the only thing that prevented Viserys' uselessness and incompetence from ending up on the wall and Daemon's greedy head with the executioner. If they rejected Rhaenys of course he would have rejected or fought Rhaenyra.
idk, I'm skeptical of the council of 101. As with the elections of Euron, Jon Snow, elections in Braavos and Volantis, there seems to be a lot of shenanigans going on... I don't think we can take the vote tallies from 101 at face value? These votes aren't like real-world modern-day elections with decent infrastructure to support easy, fair and secure voting (and even in the modern day, we've got issues with demagoguery, misinformation, etc. skewing the vote), they're more like ancient/medieval elections, which could get REALLY messy.
@@Mj_Jetson It's THE MIDDLE AGES where jousting was everything, fighting was everything, being a soldier was everything, hard work was the main source of resources that kept society afloat. The woman did not do any of that and that is why she was held in a very low concept, your rhetoric seems directed at the current world and that is the problem of black fandom because they judge a medieval world with current values and from there they start from an error.
@@davidduran6163 Im not disputing that the lords of asoiaf would be hostile to women. I'm just saying that I don't think we can take to vote tallies from 101 at face value as an accurate depiction of Rhaenys' support.
At the kingsmoot, Victarion and Asha split the vote, meanwhile Euron promises the moon and sways everyone with a magic horn. At the Wall, there's outside pressure from Stannis and Tywin, vote splitting, voting in absentia and a probably-mind-controlling raven. In Braavos, there's subtle assassinations. In Volantis, elections are basically bought. It would be really, really weird if 101 is the only election in asoiaf not to face these issues, and indeed there are hints of them in the text:
Potential vote-splitting between Rhaenys and Laenor in the early rounds so that Rhaenys appears to have less support than she actually does, and ultimately 7-year-old Laenor is pitted against adult Viserys. Lannister (and probably Tyrell) both support Viserys and both bring large entourages - presumably their knights and Daemon's sellswords can threaten people into voting with them? Its unclear who gets a vote (greater lords of course, and presumably lesser lords, but what about landed knights? Clansmen from the north? Do members of the Tyrell/Lannister entourages' each get a vote? What about voting in absentia?) Some lords didn't arrive in time to vote - presumably those who were farthest away, in the north (of the northerners mentioned, 100% of them support the Velaryons.) Its clear that no one knows quite what to expect, so the rules could fluctuate in a way that benefitted 1 candidate over another (were some lords told not to bring bodyguards and others not? Were some lords told they could vote in absentia but then the rules were changed at the last minute? Were they allowed to bring dragons or no?)
I mean, it would be really really weird if 95% of lords wanted a male candidate, then 30 years later, Westeros splits roughly 50/50 between Aegon and Rhaenyra. Its hard to tally the numbers so that Rhaenys gets only 5% of the vote when she seems to have the support of most of the Stormlands, North and Valyrian Houses?
@davidduran6163 spit that fire, you Green Slut. I love to see a fellow Green teach these blacks who judge the show from a modern perspective. Nobody wishes to follow a woman when she can't fight or lead men.
Rhaenys was not even a candidate in the book but her son Laenor
Who would the people prefer; a child under the influence of his parents till he came of age, or a grown man with a wife and child?
One of the few channels where i will like the video before watching it fully.
Honestly, everyone here is already giving great points so... all I'll say is that the mistakes came over time, step by step (or I guess, decision to decision). It all piled up with mistake after mistake, so many chances to either discipline her, prepare her, or set her aside for Aegon.
Say what anyone will about Otto, he gave Viserys (and others) numerous reasons and explanations as to why the current line of Succession didn't bode well for the future.
The thing is that law is based on prescedent, and even if Rhaenyra had no siblings, the presedent still wasn't in her favor. Jaehaerys became king because his older brothers both died, but his eldest left two living children, but they were both daughters. By Andal Law, Aerea should have inherited the throne before Jaehaerys, but she was passed over. A generation later, the eldest son of Jaehaerys had only one child, Princess Rhaenys. After Aemon died, Jaehaerys declared Baelon, his second son, as his heir rather than Rhaenys. By prescedent, Rhaenyra still wouldn't have any legs to stand on, even if the Green Children didn't exist. The prescedent says that the crown passes over her and goes to Daemon.
Westeros had no formal inheritance law when Jaehaerys took the throne, but he spent many years establishing the first unified legal code for the Seven Kingdoms. The first inheritance law was one of "Good Queen Alysane's Laws," specifically the Widows Law of 52 AC. In addition to requiring that heirs maintain their widowed stepmothers in the manner to which they were accustomed, this law affirms male preference primogeniture, where daughters inherit after sons but before their father's brothers. It also explicitly forbids any man from disinheriting any child of his first wife in favor of a child of a subsequent wife. There is a very strong case that Viserys would have been violating this law if he allowed a son of Alicent to inherit before a daughter of Aemma.
Before 52 AC different regions previously followed different customs, sometimes favoring daughters, sometimes uncles, or cousins, and sometimes even letting bastards inherit before legitimate sons who were too young to rule without a regent.
@@magister343 You seem to be forgetting that Alicent's children are also Viserys's children. Aemma has nothing to do with it. Rhaenyra's claim comes from her being the King's daughter, and the King's daughter comes after the King's sons in the line of succession. That's just how Andal law works, so even if the Iron throne went by those rules, Rhaenyra would still be behind Aegon.
Also, the Widow's Law doesn't say that all children of the first wife come before all children of the second. If the first wife only had daughter, the sons of the second take presedence. If anything, it actually favors the Greens, because it says you can't disinherit the rightful heir to the throne for the children of your favorite wife, which is exactly what Viserys did when he made Rhaenyra his heir over Aegon.
Rhaenyra didn't make her case any better either. Insulting a lot of lords, not spending the time or effort to build up alliances. Most of All marrying Daemon who made a lot of enemies. Mistreating the peasants. Which came back to bite her.
Right I’m always reminded of the scene where she’s rather dismissive towards her suitors during her marriage tour. She even mocks one of them for their old age, and even inadvertently causes the death of another. And then there’s the scene of insulting one of the court ladies during Visery’s hunting trip. Although, it’s pretty entertaining, it’s definitely unwise, and a terrible political move, to mock and insult your own allies especially if you want them to fight for you as their queen.
@@princenadroj9766 she made one terrible choice after another.
Lady Jeyne Arryn's case is very different from Rhaenyra's. Well, Mrs. del Valle does not have legitimate siblings (not even illegitimate), she only had cousins and in Westeros you can name a daughter before a brother or nephew but never before even a legitimate son. I will mention that Jeyne Arryn violated the laws of succession in a much less severe way than Viserys and even so she caused a terrible civil war in the Vale (which was saved from the dance but not from Jeyne's terrible decision) because she shouldered a distant cousin Joffrey Arryn above Arnold Arryn, his first cousin (he was at enmity with his cousin) and this decision to appoint whoever you want is what really causes wars, since Eldrich, Arnold's son, was executed (another reason why the ignored heirs have no choice but to fight for what is theirs and the probable fate of Aegon II if he does not claim the throne) but Arnold escaped and gained the support of the houses Royce, Templeton, Coldwater, Tolleto, Dutton, The Fingers and the three sisters. His cousin Joffrey, for his part, had the Cobrays, Redfords, Hunters and Craynes. The worst thing was that a cousin with much less right named Isembard Arryn had a great fortune and gained the support of the Graftons of Gullport. That is the problem of appointing whoever they want over others, since these others can make their claims and even people without any rights can take advantage of the chaos and complain. I have no doubt that Viserys and Jeyne Arryn were to blame for these wars.
Yeah, and that's what I actually found interesting about the Jeyne Arryn case, her inheritance seems like it should have been a lock, so the fact that Ser Arnold thought he could actually make a play for the Vale AND the fact that F&B's "historians" assumed that Jeyne was worried about her inheritance being called into question makes it look like it's REAL tough for women to inherit something and actually keep it on their own.
I'm a full black supporter & Dany stan but her videos are so well made I just have to listen
Oo, how i love your contextual analyses ❤
This video was great! Definitely agree with all of it. I also think lady Jeyne Arryn was so hated by her relatives not just because of her gender but also sexuality. She was rumored to be gay (and well known to have her lover lady Jessamyn Redfort at her side). And with that mixed with her obviously never marrying or having children, made some of her detractors in the Vale push for Ser Arnold to usurp her.
Rhaenyra had the most Targaryen royal ancestry compared to Alicent Hightower's children. Thus she has the better claim to the throne blood-wise. If Viserys actually prepared her to rule and married Rhaenyra to Aegon (after Laenor's "accident") then Rhaenyra would be the ideal candidate for the throne.
Rhaenyra made a lot of missteps that made her an unwanted ruler. She had bastard sons to succeed after her, she was married to her uncle Daemon who everyone hated, and she wasn't properly trained to be a monarch by the likes of Otto Hightower. If she made better political moves there would never be a Dance of the Dragons and she'd be sitting on the iron throne with Aemon as consort, Otto Hightower as Hand, her bastard sons engaged to Daemon's daughters.
Probably. Half the realm already did, and I doubt without the intense meddling of Otto the other half would have as well.
I think that if Rhaenyra was a bit more like Visenya and had chosen Veagar as her dragon very few would contest her claim. If she went fighting wars with the other men and showed the people that she was willing to fight for the kingdom people would prefer her over the lazy Aegon. So i think it could be done if Rhaenyra was not such a bad PR disaster.
LOL and when you can’t out-PR Aegon you know you are fucking up.
@@HillsAliveYT iknow her attitude and choices in consorts and baby daddy were a speed run on how to ruin your reputation.
@@HillsAliveYTfacts he didn’t even want it 😂
@@abby5533 she should just had married him. But Rhaenyra could never maintained her virginity until he matured.
You cannot blame her for that if anything blame jaehareys he made all Targaryen women into breeders and not warriors like they use to be like visenya and rhaenys this is where jaehareys sexism showed. They weren’t allowed to battle it was only the males who went to war on their dragons.
I enjoy your video essays. Thank you 😊
Great vid. It's been a while since you posted TVD content, but you should talk about the humanity switch, I always thought it was an interesting element, often my favourite storylines.
i think she could have been a pretty decent monarch, if she had two cents of self awareness.
I never understood why Rhaenyra and Viserys never got Aegon, Aemond and Daeron to publicly back Rhaenyra and swear not to bring claims against her. Not that it would fix the problem, she would always be fighting an uphill battle, but it seems like an easy step that would make it more difficult for any of them to usurp her.
And by any of them I mean Aemond. That menace would absolutely have tried to usurp her eventually, even if the Dance never happened.
Agreed. Its maybe possible that in the book, Viserys didn't know how deep the divisions were in his family? When he makes Rhaenyra and Alicent publicly praise each other, he alone believes the sincerity of their words. (but then again, he doesn't make Rhaenyra his Hand after Lyonel Strong dies, because he doesn't want to bring Rhaenyra's sons to court where they'll quarrel with Alicent's sons?) Or maybe, Viserys figured that there was tension between him and Rhaenys, yet that never lead to war, so it would be the same for Rhaenyra and Aegon?
Westeros would never be able to accept Rhaenyra short of her using her dragon to just end every possible opposition and showing herself to be ruthlessly bloody against her enemies. If she makes everyone fear her from the onset and she’s the only one with the real power, then they’d have to accept her. But it wouldn’t have made her rule any stable or secure. Frankly Viserys made sure Rhaenyra would never be able to be accepted the moment he remarried and had sons. If he hadn’t done that, Rhaenyra may not have any real viable opposition to threaten her position.
I wonder if, in ASOIAF, Martin is setting up a scenario in which a woman will rule Westeros.
The Battle of Agincourt had a lasting negative impact on the French during the Hundred Years Wars because of who died in the battle, in some cases lords and all their male heirs. This caused some instability among the French.
So, keeping that in mind and going back to ASOIAF, after the civil wars, and Dany's invasion, and the Night King, how many men from powerful noble families are going to be left alive? Probably not many. If Sansa, Margeary, Myrcela and Ariana Martell survive to the end, that could place at least four out of seven the great houses of Westeros under the leadership of women. Possibly five if events lead to Sansa being the heir to Riverrun.
So, I've commented similar things on different videos about this topic.... As far as im aware, the Andal inheritance custom (so the majority of Westeros after the Andal invasion) was that of Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture, which prefers males, but allows women to inherit over "lesser" male lines, and the Great Council of 101 messed all of that up. By Andal custom, Rhaenys would have been the rightful heir to Jaehaerys, since she was the only surviving child of his eldest male heir, which would take precedence over Baelon's children. I may not be wording this correctly, but you basically said the same thing in regards to Jane Arryn during the video. People always mention the "iron precedent" established at the Council of 101, but the only "precedent" it really set was that the current ruler gets to choose their Heir. There was no "succession crisis" for the Iron Throne until Jaehaerys decided there was, and the only reason that Rhaenys was passed over as heir at all, was because Jaehaerys (was clearly very misogynistic, but if we're strictly talking about "traditional" Westerosi inheritance customs) DECIDED to hold the Great Council to choose the Heir... just like Viserys DECIDED to name Rhaenyra as his heir, and didnt change that after having sons. Now obviously, Rhaenyra wouldn't have been the rightful heir if "traditional" inheritance customs had been followed in lieu of the Great Council, but neither would Aegon. In my opinion, the Great Council threw everything out of whack, in terms of succession law, all over the continent. I think that if "traditional" Inheritance customs had been followed, and the Lords of Westeros hadn't been called upon to vote, they'd be a lot more accepting of female rulers in general, like the custom dictated for thousands if years prior. There probably would have been considerably more pushback, since the Heir to the Iron Throne is the ruler of the entire continent, but I digress. However, since the Great Council happened, many legitimate female rulers of regions (as dictated by millenia of custom) likely started to experience more challenges from male relatives, because it gave many the notion that males ALWAYS come before females... But then there were people (like me and potentially Jane Arryn) who rhought it mwant you could choose your heir, because as far as I know, nothing was ever actually clarified from that whole ordeal. I mean, there was plenty of "Targaryen Exceptionalism" in regards to other things, so maybe instead if folkowing typical inheritance customs in favor of ONLY male Heirs or being able to CHOOSE your designated Heir, wouldn't have been that difficult to establish... Idk how that would work exactly, and I'm just spit-balling, because my point is that many Lords of the Realm (then likely many Ladies in retaliation) took advantage of the Great Council to suit their own inheritance agendas
(Edited slightly for coherence 😂)
The line "There was no 'succession crisis' for the iron throne until Jaehaerys decided there was," sums it all up. These crises are made and weaved into importance in the realm!! They are so rarely natural, there is always some ambitious little pot stirrer who decides to use pride and tradition and stupid shit like that to cause trouble and puff up the feathers of otherwise ambivalent lords. Great fucking response, hit all the marks.
@@loveagoodqueef thanks! I mean, there just wasn't! I guarantee that the majority of Westeros would've absolutely just expected that Rhaenys was going to take over after Jaehaerys, then Laenor after her, just like the rest of the continent..... Until they were given the opportunity to change things in their favor. I'm absolutely sure there would've been tons of people who would want to elevate Laenor to the reigning Monarch as soon as possible, but that's to be expected. I don't agree with the system (because obviously sex and gender shouldn't matter at all when it comes to inheritance), but that's what Westeros did for thousands of years, and I firmly believe the Great Council threw it all into chaos
@@J_Mock92 You can hardly be more wrong. Jaeharys I himself had an older brother named Aegon and he in turn had a daughter named Aera, so according to your logic she should have been crowned and not Jaeharys or any of his descendants including Rhaenys. Long before the council of 101, Rhaenys had already been ignored in favor of Baelon and this of Baelon before Rhaenys is the same of Jaeharys before Aera. King Jaeharys I was not a misogynist, he was consistent with the laws that made him king and he understood that so that his reign was not questioned he had to apply those laws forever. The kingdom was peaceful for 55 years and was the best king of Westeros. If all you see is the misogyny of your imagination, it is because you did not study the literary character.
@@davidduran6163 umm Aerea dies and her sister Rhaella was a Septa. Neither of them had any heirs and Rhaena had no other children, so the crown would've gone to Jaehaerys regardless. I didn't say that "all I see is misogyny ," and if that's all you got from what I said, then you clearly missed my point and dont have a very complex understanding of these things. Do some research.
@@J_Mock92 No, that was all you said in that very long paragraph and considering that there was no such right for Princess Aera above her uncle Jaeharys, I don't know what that right is that Rhaenys has. In life Aera did not have that "right" you refer to and if that is the case Rhaenys even less so. In Rhaenyra's case, neither Visenya nor Rhaena had the so-called "right" you refer to. So whatever rights both princesses had is really made up and not something I didn't understand. That's all you say and that shows that you didn't study the issue.
So glad to find this channel ❤
It wouldn't matter if she were jaehaerys himself born again, Rhaenyra is a woman.
- Otto Hightower
Viserys made a terrible mistake in naming Rhaenyra as heir as noble as the intention was. The Wise King Jaeharys already demonstrated what the realm would accept in Viserys' own ascension. Naming Rhaneyra over Daemon wouldn't have been as dangerous to the claims of ALL OTHER LORDS of the realm if he simply had no more children. Viserys made a lot of mistakes. But this was by far the greatest.
Not only that, in a perfect world where the Greens dont start a coup, and the realm just rolls over and accepts Rhaenyra as queen, she has 2 bastard sons and 2 true born sons. So there is no guarantee a war would not break out in the next generation between Jacerys and Aegon III.
One thing that I would like to mention is that Rhaenys was married to Corlys patrilinearly, meaning, her children would have their father's surname, Velaryon. What would this mean for the realm? She already had a male child with a Velaryon surname. Would he become king before a Targaryen heir?
Well I would guess that they would just do a name change like Viserys and Corlys agreed to when Rhaenyra married Laenor.
Rhaenys definitely expected her children by Corlys to be in line for the throne. F&B quotes her as saying “You would rob my son of his birthright,” about unborn Laena, and Laenor is later put forward as a candidate in 101. There are a few examples in asoiaf of matrilineal surnames, and of changing names... long before the Conquest, Joffrey Lydden changes his name to Lannister when he and his Lannister wife become rulers of the Rock, and their descendants kept the name Lannister. When Lord Hornwood and his son die fighting for Robb, its suggested that his nephew "take the name Hornwood" and become heir.
My question is, since Rhaenys expected to become queen and Corlys was lord of Driftmark, what did she expect would happens with the kids??? One gets the Iron Throne, one gets Driftmark? What happens if they only had 1 kid?
@HillsAliveYT as simple as it sounds, I am not so sure it would've gone the same way for Rhaenys as it did for Rhaenyra. First off, when Rhaenyra married Laenor, they agreed to name their first child a Targaryen before they married. Secondly, does Corlys soubds like the type of man who wouldn't take the opportunity to have a "Velaryon" as the king of Westeros, instead of a "Targaryen" if it literally presented itself as a technicality? I don't think so. In truth, I don’t think for a moment that Corlys has a second intentions which do not involve ruling the Seven Kingdoms as hand of the queen on Rhaenys' stead. I would also like to point out that we have multiple examples in Westerosi history that houses with a only a female heir married patrilinearly become extinct as a result. Take House Durrandon who became Baratheon after Orys married Argella, or House Darry which was then replaced with Lannister of Darry more recently.
Otto was right. Rhaenyra was done the moment Aegon was born. And if something happened to Aegon, Aemond was there.
Otto was right and made sure that he would be, I don’t think Rhaenyra could have outmaneuvered him either way, but she really became crippled by the fact that arguably the best politician in the country was working in Aegon’s favor for 20 years while she largely did nothing besides nerfing her own prospects.
Also Daeron! Everyone forgot about Daeron 🙁
😅 And let's not forget that aegon has a son. Boss move for naming Jaeharys after a well liked king.
The law is 100% on Rhaenyra's side. Different regions had their own customs, but those were all overturned by the legal reforms of Jaehaerys and Good King Alyssane. The Widows Law of 52 AC is the first inheritance law that ever applied to all of the Seven Kingdoms. That Law of clearly forbids any man from disinheriting a child of his first marriage in favor of any child of a subsequent marriage.
@@magister343 yeah, im pretty sure that applied to SONS
The fact is ever since Aenys died, the question of female succession to the Iron Throne has been an issue. His eldest child was his daughter Rhaena but the realm recognised his son Aegon as heir, Aenys then married them both in order to unite their claims but this marriage led to the faith militant uprising which lasted through to the end of Maegor’s reign. After Maegor died, the succession was once again muddled as Rhaena’s claim still existed but now it was more complicated by the fact that Rhaena had two daughters with her brother, who also had strong claims. In the end, the lords of the realm ignored all female claimants and crowned Jaehearys instead. This set a precedent that would later be used as a blueprint in the Great Council of 101 in which once again the claims of Rhaenys and her children were set aside in favour of Viserys. This formally made into law what had been the unspoken rule for several decades now. In light of all this, it should be clear that the only way for Rhaenyra to succeed is for her father to have no legitimate sons but once Aegon was born it was game over for her. Those are the rules. Are the rules unfair? It could be argued that they are, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t still the rules that the realm had long consented to be governed by.
what i love about grrms books? It doesnt sugar coat medieval feudalism. It sucks on so many levels.
As unfair as the system in Westeros is, Rhaenyra also did basicly everything to weaken her own claim so opposition to her being Queen is actually quite well founded. Also while it is definetly more difficult for women to gain power in Westeros it does seem to be possible shown by people such as Olenna Tyrell (this is of course over 100 years later) who also seem to be respected by the Men in power.
Real question is: Does Westeros really deserve such an incompetent ruler just cuz her dad said so?
While I like the Blacks a bit more, the problem Rhaenyra has is her unearned arrogance despite her incompetence and smugness towards others. She doesn’t teach her children Valyrian, doesn’t push them to be great with the sword and or with the pen, selects smaller dragons for them to ride while she didn’t choose Vermithor or Vhagar, screws her bodyguard and not Daemon or someone who looks like Laenor (though honestly, her children could probably pass as Baratheon looking like their supposed ancestor because Rhaenys) , let alone not marrying Jason Lannister.
Had she been a better mother and sister than her father was a father/brother to her , her siblings and Daemon and not been so arrogant? There wouldn’t be a Dance since her brothers wouldn’t be swayed by Otto if they were loyal to her. Heck? If she disciplined her children for bullying Aemond for being dragonless before it went out of hand, and didn’t see it as her against her friend’s family? She could’ve gotten Alicent to unite their families into a single political unit.
To expand on Jason? He’s a bit arrogant and high on his horse so to speak, but so is the young woman he wanted to marry. He might need to be humbled a bit if he were to be molded into a king consort and vice versa, but it would’ve been a perfect contingency against the Greens in the long run where Rhaenyra’s line gains Casterly Rock’s finances, which is as strong as any dragon. And then by marrying those children with the Greens and other Velaryons, it would’ve created a strong three way alliance that could last for centuries with intermarriage. Maybe even gaining dynastic alliances with the North and Dorne in the process.
I feel like if Rhaenyra had legitimate sons she would have had a better chance of keeping the throne. But putting bastards in the line of succession in front of her true born siblings that had a greater claim would have been a hard pill to swallow. Even if Ageon and the hightowers accepted her as the rightful Queen
Rhaenyra absolutely could have been queen if the treacherous greens hadn't declared Aegon king in a coup. They caused this war. Just them.
Lords may have complained about it a bit, but we'd be right back to a Aegon the Conqueror situation where everyone would swiftly remember (or be reminded) that those who don't serve will burn. Fire and Blood. No one can stand up to dragons and they knew it. So they would've swallowed their pride and accepted it, and it would've become easier with each passing year to accept it once it had just become a normal part of life.
The first precedent in favor is that women HAVE sat the iron throne before. Saying that women can't rule is just silly, based entirely on precedent. Two of the first Three asses to grace the Iron Throne itself were female: Visenya and Rhaenys. They sat the throne and ruled in Aegon's absence, even creating entirely new laws on their own. Laws which, by the way, still exist in modern Westerosi society as they were never overturned. While Aegon was touring around the realm trying to bring folks together, his sisters ruled, particularly Visenya. So anyone saying "women can't sit the throne" are wrong. 2 of the first 3 asses to sit on the throne were indeed female. And while they may not have officially ruled in their own right, they still sat the throne and wielded absolute power.
The second precedent is that of Queen Regents. Queens have served as regents who ruled in the name of either their son or incapacitated husband in the past as well. And once again, a woman wielded absolute power, and the kingdom didn't spontaneously combust. This happened both in the royal family as well as countless times in the noble houses.
The third precedent is the noble houses themselves allow women to rule them if there are no sons of the current ruling lords. This happens all the time. Even in the main series the Stokeworth estate was passing to a woman, which Bronn planned to kill so that it would pass to a different woman. Lords do this all the time. If it's good enough for the high lords of Westeros, why would it not be good enough for the throne?
And the final precedent in favor of a woman ruler is basically just Dorne. They already let the eldest inherit, regardless of male or female. It should be noted that the ruling family was established by a ruling princess, Nymeria, and that while Dorne was the only kingdom that didn't submit, it was ruled by a princess.
So honestly there is WAAAAAY more in favor of a ruling queen than against it based on numerous precedents. The fact there has never been an independently ruling queen before doesn't seem like it should matter compared to the other independently ruling women combined with the women who ruled with the authority of some man they were related to.
The one and only argument against a queen is the fact they are required to pump out babies and having babies is incredibly dangerous and could kill you at any time, causing another succession, which sometimes causes problems. That's literally it. The one and only thing.
I think phrasing “would Westeros accept her” is a bit more complicated, considering more than half of the realm fought for her during the Dance. It’s mostly the Andal Houses which stand against her.
I think it was pretty sneaky of JT to call for a great council to decide succession. We see with Gerald Lannister (Tywin’s grandfather) that his niece took precedence over him even though she was a child. She was the ruler of Casterly Rock by rights because her father’s line’s claim was superior. Why did JT then make Baelon heir? In a spur of the moment/as a reward for avenging Aemon?
I think Jaehaerys was actually pretty sexist too, I mean Alysanne seemingly pushed pretty hard for women to not be treated like garbage and he seemed to push back in nearly equal measure.
@@HillsAliveYT Jaehaerys I was very sexist. He was just nice about it 😂😂
Jaeharys himself had an older brother named Aegon and he left a daughter named Aera but even so Jaeharys was king before her. Naming Rhaenys was denying her son Baelon what he was not denied and it would be like saying that Aera was the legitimate queen all along and he was a usurper. If you are chosen by male primogeture you have to spend the rest of your life being consistent with the reasons why you are king, Jaeharys I the conciliator understood this and left his heir peace. On the other hand, Viserys I did not understand it and we already know the result.
@@HillsAliveYT King Jaeharys I refused to name Viserys his heir and allowed Rhaenys to present her claim to the council of Harrenhal in the year 101. He was not a sexist and in fact is considered by many to be the greatest king to ever sit. the iron throne.
@@davidduran6163there are people that argued that Aera and her mother were more legitimate due to age and the fact the descend from the king. It's just easier to rally support around a young man than it is a young widow. You could say that Aemon's line was the one that was cheated considering he was the first son. Regardless of anyone else his claim should've passed down to his descendants. And you can't tell me that the council of all male lords was going to pick a woman to inherent and that Jaehaerys didn't/couldn't predict the outcome.
Haven’t seen the video yet But didn’t Rhaenyra have more High Lords on her side in the war then Aegon
Just a note: what if to eliminate the succession issues, Jaehaerys I married off together Vis and Rhaenys? How would Rhaenys have be as a condort queen?
That was never really an option.
Rhaenys married Coryls 2 years before her father Prince Aemon (who was then the undisputed heir apparent) died. She was pregnant with her first child when Jaehaerys decided to pass her over to make Prince Baelon his heir instead.
I don't think Westeros would have accepted Polyandry, and I don't think trying to annul the marriage between a pregnant princess and the wealthiest man in the world (against both of their wishes) would work well either.
(Divorce does not exist in Westeros. In the faith of the Seven, local councils can annul marriages that are unconsummated but only the High Septon can annul any consummated union. Children from annulled marriages would retroactively be made bastards, with no rights of inheritance unless the King legitimizes them. Several kings failed to convince High Septons to annul their own marriages to women from houses much less influential than the Velaryons. In the customs of the Old Gods, an unconsummated marriage is automatically annulled if either partner remarries before a Heart Tree and then consummating that union, but no consummated union can ever be annulled. The only ways to leave a consummated union are by dying or by joining the Nightswatch.)
Viserys married Aemma Arryn the year after Aemon died, 8 years before Prince Baelon died. Rhaenrya was 4 years old when Baelon died and the Council of 101 was called to decide on the new heir.
The only woman. specifically Targaryen who would’ve been able to become the ruling queen and hold that position for awhile would’ve been Visenya. (Being a badass warrior with Vhagar would do it)
I think Westeros would accept the right woman so long as there’s no clear alternatives. In the great council Jaehaerys held it wasn’t really between Rhaenys and Viserys but Laenor and Viserys.
Rhaenys would’ve without question made the better monarch but Viserys and Daemon were still out there which would fundamentally undermine not only her claim but people’s perception of who should be the monarch. And the fact Daemon would’ve pressed his claim.
I think had things played out a little differently in the dance Rhaenyra would’ve been able to become an actual remembered ruling queen. Namely the storming of the dragon pit. And her disastrous economics that caused it. (Which was a brilliant move by the greens) even with losing Daemon (who takes Aemond with him) . The dragon seeds eventually sort themselves out along with Daeron. Which just leaves a maimed Aegon II and a maimed sunfyre.
Dany I think will find a harder time than Rhaenyra solely down the politics and the fact that Faegon will get there first.
King Jaehaerys overlooked Rhaenys because he likely knew Corlys would be pulling the strings with his ambition to further empower his house and there's a conspiracy that the maesters influenced their lords to pick Viserys because he didn't have a dragon and would be perceived as weak/easier to influence than an ambitious man like Corlys next to Rhaenys on the throne.
I still don't understand why GRRM would have the biggest man vs. woman succession war be between trueborn siblings. Especially since he made several other scenarios that would have made more sense in Westerosi culture with several of the same characters who were involved in the Dance:
1. Rhaenys (only child of the older brother) vs. Baelon (younger brother)
2. Rhaenys (only child of the older brother) vs. Viserys (oldest son of the younger brother)
3. Rhaenyra (only child) vs. Daemon (brother)
If he was going to write a brother vs. sister succession conflict, it would have been more believable if the brother was illegitimate, similarly to Daeron ii Targaryen (only surviving legitimate son) vs. Daemon i Blackfyre (legitimized bastard who their king father favored)
I'm guessing it was because of Myrcella and Tommen - in his original plan, GRRM was planning on having a civil war between the siblings (probably with the dissatisfied Dornish trying to prop Myrcella up and spread Dornish Law), and wanted it to parallel a historical event, thus came up with the Dance. In the AGoT appendix, Rhaenyra and Aegon are born only 1 year apart, with no talk of half-siblings, just like Myrcella and Tommen. Then grrm scrapped his 5-year-gap plan between book 3 and 4, and figured that a civil war between a 9 and 10 year old wouldn't be very compelling, so he changed the story to be about Dany and Aegon, and retconned the Dance of Dragons to match that conflict a little better? The whole thing is a mess of retcons and rushed manuscripts...
😅The lords swore to support Rhaenyra BEFORE Viserys had sons.
What always seems to be left out in conversations about of Westeros would accept Rhaenyra is who supported her at the start of the Dance. The whole of the North and the Vale as well as most houses in the Reach, Riverlands and Crownlands support her. Just looking at the houses of Westeros she is far and away more popular than the Greens, and even after her death people continue to fight and die to put her son on the throne. It seems clear to me that she was accepted by most of Westeros except for those plotting against her because of their familial relation to Aegon. If there had been another great council it seems likely that Rhaenyra would have won.
She was the legal heir not only due to her father's decree and the oaths he made the lord swear, but also due to the Widows Law of 52 AC which explicitly forbids any man from disinheriting a child of his first wife in favor of a child of a second wife. That is the first inheritance law that ever applied to the whole of the Seven Kingdoms.
@@magister343the law is about male sucsetion
I don't know I'm inclined to believe that Queen cersei's reign is not going to be as easily accepted in the books as it was in the show, and probably also be aided by the fact that just about half the realm is already totally alienated from the throne either an open revolt or has recently been crushed. And everyone left is basically circling the wagons around the flailing Lannister regime in the wake of invasion from barbarians and devil worshippers, not to mention the fact that the ruling dynasty is extinct in the queen mother is the only connection left. I think Rhaenyras problem is that the dynasty and westeros is just in too strong of a position to accept her
For the sake of argument let us imagine a scenario where Rhaenyra assumes the throne after either decisively crushing the greens in the upcoming Dance of the Dragons with most of her forces (especially the dragons) in tact or better yet the war is avoided because she was able to bring the greens over to her side (for example Alicent agreed to Rhaenyra's marriage proposal and Otto conveniently died before Viserys). Just for fun let us imagine that all of Rhaenyra's short comings as a politician and leader are smoothed out and her virtues are built upon to the point she could make Aegon I and Jaehaerys I look like two cavemen swinging cudgels around by comparison.
Even in this hypothetical, Rhaenyra would still face many challenges to holding onto her position as ruling Queen of Westeros. While I doubt many lords would be in a rush to raise an army in open revolt against her due to her dragons, though a few particularly stupid ones might try. I think many would try to sabotage her rule in other ways such as by trying to ignore her edicts, trying to doge paying their taxes, not putting in enough effort to keeping the peace, joining plots to covertly overthrow or assassinate her, and so forth. It would not surprise me if rumors started spreading that Rhaenyra was not truly Viserys' daughter but a bastard born of an affair between her mother and a stable boy or some other nonsense. Any kind of natural disaster such as a flood, drought, famine, and so forth would likely be considered by many to be a sign that the gods themselves condemn her rule.
The reason for this is simple. Aside from Dorne which is not even a part of the realm yet, Westeros is a deeply misogynistic society and culture. This means that for a very large portion of the populace, noble and commoner alike, the idea of a woman sitting the iron throne and acting a ruling queen in her own right is completely at odds with their view of the natural order of things. Even if she was the best ruler in history, a lot of people simply would never be able to get over their discomfort of how her rule would run against their fundamental belief of how the world is supposed to operate.
And keep in mind, everything I just laid would realistically happen with an unrealistically amazing and brilliant Rhaenyra. While the real Rhaenyra has some good qualities, there is no denying she is a deeply flawed individual with serious weaknesses that would have worked against her even if she had been born a man. While I would not call it "impossible" for a woman to ascend the throne and manage to hold onto it, it would still be extremely difficult and I suspect she would need to be ready to spill a lot of blood to make it happen.
Yea they would if she didn’t have bastards and lie about or if viserys never had more children completely undermining his heir their has been queens in Westeros before the Targaryens
Yeessss🎉🎉🎉 we're back to smearing team Black! Lets goo!!😅😅
Haha no but really, cool topic!
Amazing Take! ❤
I would love a video on the parallels between Dany and Drogo's relationship being "consensual r@pe" and Rhaenyra and Cole's relationship essentially being the same as he had little choice of refusal in that situation.
Under the right circumstances, I think so. It would come down to what her brothers end up doing. If Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron agree to her rule, and maybe sign something for formal abdication, then at that point, there's nothing really standing in her way.
Truthfully this was Viserys' fuckshow. He didn't HAVE to remarry. If he wanted Rhaenyra to be queen so bad, then he shouldn't have constantly threw her under the bus. While it is sad, her reaction to Aegon in episode 3 is understandable and anyone in her situation would've thought the same. People try to make it seem like the Hightowers were especially nefarious, but they were just simply at the right place at the right time and schemed accordingly. Regardless of who Viserys married, rather they were a Velaryon or from another house, him siring more heirs put would put Rhaenyra's claim in danger.
To me it always complicated yes there can be woman lords if there are no sons left but Westeros isn’t ready for a queen seeing how Cersei and Daenerys in tv shows turns out not for a while,Rhaenyra she could done more to earn favors of the lords to show she is worthy but that just wishful thinking to me.
Rhaenyra makes me mad like no other character from this world just because of how many chances she had to consolidate her claim and win the throne without anyone objecting. She has no one to blame but herself.
I think rather or not the realm would accept Rhaenyra is a matter of perspective. All the houses accepted and vowed to support her claim bc there was no other choice. But I like to think that many houses supported her during the war bc they wanted to support change of females inheriting and ruling. While others most likely only supported her bc of the vows their fathers made decades before. And making a vow and keeping your word to said vow was a very big thing back then. 🤷♀️ but who can know for sure
By the way, i would LOVE to see Jaehaerys I's reaction to Vis's reign and the dance of the dragons
Without the dragons of the greens? Yup 👍🏻
Whilst Viserys always upheld Nyra's claim, if he had a brain he would've done these things also: a) don't remarry, b) remarry, but to a woman who can't have children. c) remarry a woman who can have children, but don't have children with her. d) remarry and have children, but have your sons make vows that prevent them from inheriting. If they're scholarly, send them to the citadel. If they're good fighters, have them become kingsguards, if they're charasmatic promise them to the faith, and if they're none of those send them to the wall.
If he couldn't/wouldn't do any of those, the least he could have done was when he realised he was closer to death again he could have had all of the lords come to kings landing again and swear allegiance to Rhaenyra, explicitly stating that they would not support Aegon, Aemond or Daeron's claim. This wouldn't stop all the lords from their betrayal, but would at least send a clear message and prevent the Green's from being able to claim that Viserys changed his mind.
Edit: Also DON'T GIVE YOUR OTHER CHILDREN DRAGONS!!! Instead state that only heirs and their spouses are allowed to claim dragons or give anyone else permission to claim them. This means that even if worse came to worse, Rhaenyra can simply remind the greens that she has dragons and they don't, and that if they tried to fight her then they would be killed easily.
i think it really depends - the small folk LOVED helaena so i think if it were a situation where everyone overwhelming loved the woman. most ppl hate rhaenyra tho
She was beloved before taxing the city.
The nobles, maybe. More lords supported Rhaenyra over Aegon II. But the people, no. Their riot and assault on the Dragonpit destroyed her regime, and they were adamant about having a male heir for the throne.
Sadly no. In the end it doesn’t matter who Viserys named his heir. Power goes to those who seize it.
The only reason that Viserys got the throne peacefully was because the supporters of Rhaenys were few, at the Great council of 101. So they saw that 90% of the realm would be against them if they started a war over Viserys getting the crown.
Usually a great Queen could stand on her own if the King is horrible and is a reminder that the Crown is still worth the respect it deserves. George RR Martin claims that he took a lot of inspiration from real world history, and quite frankly real world medieval politics were more complicated compared to Westeros politics. Misogyny was a very common thing in those days however when it came to the power of the crowns it usually depends on how good both the King and Queen govern the Realm, and most often than not the Queens often did most of the work for the Realm compared to their husbands. Westeros as a society is extremely struggling to evolve when it comes to its social views on women, and one would believe that in the eight thousands years of history Westeros would have had great Queens to make some good role models, but knowing how extremely misogynistic their society is they probably rewrote the history books to fit their world views.
If the lords didn't want to risk Rheny's passing the iron thorne to her daughter, why not make Leanor crown prince? Wouldn't that nake more sense than making the son of the younger brother king?
Viserys was a bad parent to his sons and daughter with Alicent but people rarely acknowledge how bad of a parent he is to Rhaenyra
While Rhaenyra was named heir because 1) Viserys had no other babies so it would normal for the eldest daughter to inherit as at the time he had no other kids and 2) we all think King Daemon is a dangerous idea but ultimately I think he named her heir and never swayed in that to alleviate his guilt of Aemma’s death. He must feel if Aemma’s blood rules the realm than he’s made up for what he had done to her throughout her life and his involvement in her death. If Baelon survived he’d be heir, if Aegon came from a Aemma he’d be heir.
2) Viserys undermines Rhaenyra’s claim by having male heirs. He had the lords swear fealty but it’s not enough. Some of those lords were dead by the time Rhaenyra was to ascend. Those lords didn’t name their daughters as heirs. He jeopardizes her claim by having sons as in Westerosi tradition male line goes first.
3) Enabling Rhaenyra’s bad behavior and leaving her unprepared. Despite her sitting in occasionally on council meetings in the beginning, he did very little to teach Rhaenyra about how to run the realm. Then again he knew very little of ruling as well as his indecisiveness and tendency to people please or ignore problems made the council and Otto rule for him. He didn’t prepare her to rule. He didn’t give her opportunities like diplomacy missions or something to show the realm how good of a Queen she could be. He even enables and our rights denies or ignores her bad behavior most of the time. He allowed her to insult nobles. He allowed her to sire obviously illegitimate children which completely destabilizes her claim.
The answer is No, at least long term.
She's married to Daemon who will be hand of the king essentially and everyone hates Daemon and did not want him with power or the throne, and has 3 bastard children, one will be heir after her.
This will not go well with the realm, bastard having the throne is not ok.
Daemon would murder the strong boys most likely anyway, and then people won't want Daemons blood on the throne.
If Aegon and Co are around, then the problem is the lords could easily back them with far better claim and no bastards.
And if she dies, it may be that the lords overthrow her son or call for a great council since a bastard is not ok and Aegon is the eldest male descendant and son of the king, and his sons are all trueborn with dragons.
So it may go Rhaenys like with none wanting Jace as king.
She could rule but did she have to be so boneheaded about it. She was so bone headed that good lord why would anyone trust her with the ruling of the realm.
I would like to add if you could do a breakdown of the 4 queen regnants in Westerosi that would be awesome. It’s very interesting to see how Rhaenyra, Cersei, Danaerys, and Sansa all rose to power. 3 of them were violently deposed whilst the other one had the support of her lords over her brother/cousin and ended up with a crown at the end.
I hate that HBO turned the Dance of Dragons into a "feminism vs patriarchy" story because what GRRM wrote is much more than that and has little to do with gender inequality. Rhaenyra had A LOT OF supporters, when she takes Kings Landing people cheer for her, but Rhaenyra fails at being a RULER, people only start hating Rhaenyra because of her cruel decisions agaisnt the smallfolk (taxes, executing people in brutal ways), not because she is a woman. Both Aegon II and Rhaenyra end up in history as equally hated and controversial figures, if the realm would hate the idea of a queen than Rhaenyra would be seen as the only evil one in the war, that is not the case.
It’s ironic it. Of Leanor became king he would have no trueborn children. If he married Leana she would have been in the same boat as Rhaenyra. Either way Leanor would have screwed everybody
No because her first born sons are not Targaryans.
She has by her own actions, tripped herself up.
Their mother is.
Her sons being bastards are irrelevant. Plenty of male heirs have bastards and still is accepted as heir and go on to rule.
This reminds me of Matilda and Elizabeth I. Matilda was a bad candidate for queen and she set back female rulership for centuries after Elizabeth there was no dispute about women as rulers. Rhaenyra is based on Matilda while the westrosi lords might accept a female ruler they wont acecpt an awful one like her
It wouldn't matter if she were jaehaerys himself born again, Rhaenyra is a woman.
- Otto Hightower
In case you forget 😅
Short answer is no.
Long answer is not realy.
Opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said it shouldn’t be passed because it wouldn’t be respected; e.g. white people couldn’t be made to respect minorities, men couldn’t be made to see women as capable equals. Discrimination hasn’t disappeared by any means, but things are far better than decades ago. It’s important to avoid underestimating the impact of top-down, legal models for cultural change. Taking a fatalistic attitude toward inequality only strengthens its perpetuation.
Very well, there is at least 1200 years of difference between the date you mention and the era in which Game of Thrones does inspire. You also ignore the important aspect that in one of those times there are endless private armies and in the other there are not. Although what you say is moving, it is based on an error because it applies the logic of a different era to a medieval era. This law has no relation to monarchical succession and that is why male primogeniture continued to apply. I'm sorry, but you are making a mistake, which is judging an era according to the parameters of a very different era.
@@davidduran6163Humans are influenced by the behavior they see. That fact is not limited to certain cultures or time periods.
@@kimberlywebster6057 That comment makes little sense. But I will answer the little sense it makes and that is that in fact what they saw at that time was men ruling most of the time and that is why they thought that was how it should be. I don't know what the people of that time would see that according to you would make them magically change their minds and if you believe that the thing is as simple as that it would be implemented and everyone would submissively see it to begin equality, I inform you that in that period of time nor would it have achieved implementation. Well, it would have been rejected and if necessary fought. You are judging a medieval question under modern parameters and that is why you are wrong.
She dug her own grave.
People would have accepted her if she had married a Lannister instead of daemon and killed every grown male counterparts of her and married her sons to green female lines.
There are basically two paths where Rhaenyra could have been accepted by Westeros as the reigning monarch:
a) Viserys names her as his heir, never marries again, never has any other child, and makes sure that she establishes herself as a wise, competent political player on her own right with many alliances and flawless personal reputation.
b) Viserys names her as his heir, announces his abdication, lets the Great Council confirm it and name the trusted advisers who would guide her and rule in her name until she comes of age. This option is not without its risks, but its theoretically viable.
As others have mentioned, in Westeros women can and do inherit when there are no male heirs. The lords and people wouldn't be too happy about it, but she's a Targ dragonlord, which would work in her favour even though it'd still take a lot of political maneuvering. However, Viserys killed all her chances to have a stable rule when he decided to produce more male heirs, and Rhaenyra herself then buried them by marrying Daemon, who was politically unacceptable to pretty much everybody. The Strong bastards then made it even worse.
The premise is like asking women if they accept weak men as their spouses?" Doubtful.
Any female taking the throne would be the end of Targaryen kings… just a fact which is why it’s only in emergencies….
I admit feminist wasnt in her best interest. But if they would have just let her rule just like her father wanted. History would see her as the first woman monarch. Than that would open doors for more female in the world of westoros. You can compare this with our own history. With ladies like Elizabeth 1. And the iron lady. Too bad Alicent seems to be against that.
Westeros isn’t a democracy the kings word holds sway it’s an absolute monarchy
Westeros is not absolut monarchy it is a feudal monarchy
My opinion - Daemon should’ve been named heir and married to either Alicent or Rheanera. Daemon would’ve been an effective king and would’ve squashed the scheming slugs like Otto Hightower
She had dragons lol.
Not for long, which was her fault.
I love all the green but not Amond
It would have if Rhaenyra had not produced 3 illegitimate sons