Viserys knew how the lords would vote and he already favoured Rhaenyra and didn't care too much for his sons. No way he was gonna take that chance of a Great Council messing up his plans
3:45 . Given the fact that he himself became king over Aerea, categorically denied Alysanne whenever she spoke of one of their senior female descendants being queen, favored Baelon, and allegedly orchestrated a Viserys victory, it's pretty clear what he wanted. At the very least, it was creating a consistent picture of Targaryen succession. It almost goes without saying that the Great Council set a huge precedent, and while it's just precedent, it's also the only real established framework for the Targaryen succession at that point. His other intention was simple. The winner of the great council was the one with the most support and should thus be king. The real blunder was disinheriting Daemon. If Rhaenyra is heir because Daemon is disinherited, then would that not mean that Aegon, his sons, Aemond, and Daeron would also have to be disinherited? If you are trying to effectively disinherit an entire branch of the house, that should otherwise be first in line (The Greens), especially for no reason, then obviously, it will ignite something. THIS IS WHAT THE DANCE COMES DOWN TO. Look how Daemon reacted when he got disinherited. He almost started something too. How does Viserys justify breaking precedent and effectively disinheriting so many members for Rhaenyra? He doesn't. He never puts forward any real reason. It's truly completely arbitrary, a matter of liking and disliking family members. Even then, was Viserys really justified in disinheriting Daemon or was it just Otto's personal vendetta that stopped him from seeing the bigger picture? Surely he would have to be a full blown traitor or exhibited very dubious qualities/unfitness to rule, and his line would have to be attainted. Arguably none of those are actually true and we know he wasn't attainted because his son became king through him! Even if they were, if Aerys II did something like this to Rhaegar for example, Rhaegar would've probably still won (if it weren't for the rebellion) because he had more support and people could see that the disinheriting was for no reason. A good example of complete disiinheriting being justified is the Blackfyres after the first rebellion.
I think he intended to follow the Widows Law of 52 AC, the first of "Good Alyssane's Laws" issued by Jaehaerys, which was the first inheritance law that ever applied to all the Seven Kingdoms and a much clearer precedent than the Council of 101. (Different kingdoms and even different regions within kingdoms followed different traditions before 52 AC. Male preference primogeniture was most common, but there were some cases of eldest daughters inheriting before infant sons and of grown uncles or even bastard brothers inheriting before trueborn minor children. Things were mostly left up the local lords or their immediately lieges.) The Widows Law affirmed that the eldest son should generally be the heir, but it also strictly forbid any man from disinheriting a child of his first wife in order to allow a child of a subsequent wife to inherit. It did not say anything about disinheriting one heir in favor of another with the same mother, so Jaehaerys was not breaking the law when he chose Baelon over Rhaenys. I think Viserys quite reasonably interpreted this to mean that Aemma's infant son would inherit before Rhaenyra if he had lived, but that even as king he was powerless to disinherit Rhaenyra in favor of any son of Alicent. If Rhaenyra and her children died, then he could disinherit Aemon in favor of Amond or Daeron though. Note that the Widow's Law also required than an heir must continue to maintain any stepmother and stepchildren in the style to which they had grown accustomed unless and until the stepmother remarried someone else. That means Rhaenyra was supposed to keep the Dowager Queen Alicent and her children safe and living lives of luxury.
@@magister343 Viserys was lazy and too trusting though. His downfall was putting too much trust in Otto. If he felt strong enough for Rhaenyra to take the throne he should’ve passed laws protecting her ascension. Fire and Blood fails to mention his knowledge of laws and political savvy though so perhaps he did assume.
@@magister343 You are not entirely correct. The widows law does not change the fact that a son comes before a daughter. In case of remarriage a son of a second marriage still comes before a daughter of a first.
I think a lot of Viserys stubbornness on the issue was also his guilt of Aemma's death. He loved her deeply and his only living child with her was a headstrong girl that was not into tradition in a lot of ways. How better to protect her than to try to make her a ruler in her own right?
Also note that the oldest uniform inheritance law in Westeros was the Widows Law of 52 AC (different regions followed different norms before that), which explicitly states that no man may disinherit a child of his first wife in favor of a child of a subsequent wife. Jaehaerys was fine disinheriting his eldest son's line because he was giving the inheritance to another son of the same mother. The Great Council could easily be interpreted as saying that an heir once disinherited should remain disinherited or at least fall behind the heir of the names heir in the line of sucession.
Was definitely out of love and guilt for feeling like he killed his wife in order to have a male heir. I think the second part of that is also the fact that he didn't want any of Otto hightowers grandchildren to be heir because he felt played and saw that he was putting himself before the realm. Unfortunately because of that he let his children be completely influenced by their mother. To aegons credit in the book when he's denying the crown he says "what kind of brother steals his own sister's crown?"
I think Viserys did knew if he called great council Aegon would have been chosen, after all if a woman can become queen, what stops every older sister from becoming the lady instead of her younger brother inheriting? and to be honest Viserys had no succession crisis he made it, he remarried and had three sons naming Aegon the heir would have created no upset it would have been what was expected.
11:15 If he rejected the decision, that would pit the majority of lords against him. Furthermore, if Aegon won, it stands to reason that any rebellion in his favor would also win with the only caviat being dragon power. Same is true if Aegon would've won which is why the Dance happened. The Westerlands, Stormlands, King's Landing, Oldtown, and the dragons the Greens had theoretically could've been enough to win.
Another factor is that it could start to lead to a decline in the absolute power of the king, lords kept coming together to make these decisions it could lead to a maga carntha like event were the king starts to lose absolute power and authority. Something like this happened during the French revolution where when King Louie called a council to deal with the debt problem France was in and they used this oppunirity to make an effort to check his power and authority which led to him being beheaded. It is human nature to hold onto power and even good kings like Jaehaerys would probably avoid limiting his own power and the power of his decedents. Also politics aside, the Targaryen Kings were thinking about the Song of Ice and Fire and who should led against it so they were not making these decisions just based on who would be the best leader of Westeros but also for the Song of Ice and Fire why give the houses a chance to mess with that?
I also believe that it’s when people say that the King’s word is not law primarily it’s because all of his noble houses who are powerful enough to challenge him and his authority. The Hightowers challenged Viserys’s authority and Rhaenyra’s claim for so many years he did absolutely nothing which allowed them to grow in power they realize they could do nothing while he was alive so they waited for him to die and that is when they tried their luck. Now in the end, Westeros got what they wanted a male Monarch, but it was from a female not a male.
The King of Westeros wasn't really an absolute monarch to start with, he was a feudal monarch. It is impractical for a continent of that massive size to be governed effectively from the centre. Aegon the Conqueror when uniting the Seven Kingdoms deliberately designed a system where Lords Paramount were given much autonomy in governing their kingdoms and the lords paramount gave thier vassal lords autonomy in thier own fiefdoms. It was a decentralised system from the start, so the idea that the king was an absolute monarch like the Bourbon french kings is a poor comparison. If anything they were more like the Mergovingian and early Capetian kings
@@seth_fitzgeraldthe idea that the king's word is law is somewhat true but only to an extent, when the king shows a willingness to flout tradition, he will get pushback. This is not a Hightower thing, this is how the system in Westeros naturally is. As for the succession, the very fact that the lords of Westeros recognised her sons by Daemon as heir but never her sons by Harwin actually reinforces the male line of succession. Why? Because Daemon was a male Targaryen descended from a direct male line from the Conqueror, hence through Aegon III and Viserys II,the salic law is preserved. The Strong Boys however were Targaryen only in the female line hence even if they were Laenor's sons they would not have been recognised any more than he was at the Great Council.
Just to clarify what I meant, I completely agree with you in practice that is how government of Westeros worked. I might have used absolute monarchy incorrectly but I was refereeing to how there is no legal consequences for any of the kings decisions and in theory he can appoint and unappoint any lords at any level he wants. It would just be insanely impractical to do so. The normalization of a great council might led to some legal limits on the kings power which as fair as I know never formally existed for the seven kingdoms yet, with traditions and president being the force behind laws not real legal consequences.
As you pointed out and which I already knew was that Alicent suggesting to Rhaenyra a Great Council was her way of not achieving peace. It was more so to reaffirm Aegon’s claim as king and as his father‘s heir to the throne. As we all know, including the characters in fire and blood, they knew the council would vote in favor of the greens, which also means they would definitely give another reason for the war to continue and go on. The three issues in my opinion are ideology, the system of inheritance, and law vs tradition. Maegor and Jaehaerys named their heirs, Aerys disinherited Rhaegar thus he name Viserys as his heir. But also Jaehaerys disregarded the Andal Law of passing over his granddaughter and favor of his son, and when his son died, he didn’t even bother to name his granddaughter as his heir.
The most tragic part about a potential "Great Council" to settle the Dance of the Dragons... is that it was brought up DURING the conflict; Alicent said that lots of blood had already been spilled, and offered a few ideas for peace in Westeros. She offered to split Westeros in half, by giving Rhaenyra and her heirs the North East, and giving Aegon II the South West Rhaenyra denied it Alicent then mentioned that a Great Council should be called, to officially declare the wishes of the realm for who should rule it. Rhaenyra denied this as well Rhaenyra said that, if given the choice to chose, to make their own decision, then it would be obvious who the lords of the realm would chose. Case in point, Rhaenyra KNEW Westeros would rather have Aegon II be the ruling Monarch if left up to them, but... she just didn't care *Side Note* 5:56 Not entirely true. Maegor had Viserys and Jaehaerys essentially disinherited during his rule, and even named Aerea his heir just to try and make it seem he himself had a line of succession that would solidify the idea of him being the "true King", and having a named heir
Maybe?? He KNEW the vote wouldn't go his way. The same houses that choose him over Rhaenys are the same houses that would also choose Aegon over Rhaenyra
i genuinely think if Daemon did become king, he wouldn't be awful. Not good but not bad somewhere in the middle. I can't see him going full Maegor, and i think he would care more about his legacy than say Aegon iv
@@WorldOfWesteros I like that idea i do think with the right people beside him and queen it would help his reign. Now take it I don't think he be much at court or at least when it matters.
While the Great Council of 101AC had set a strong precedent it did not formally codify the law of succession and as such would be a contributing factor to the Dance of Dragons another thing that must be considered is that the customs of succession between the Andals and the Valyrians are drastically different from each other while the Andals favor make premoginiture the Valyrians are an enigma as we lack any records of the laws of succession in the Freehold and it is unlikely that there was a strong central figure before the Doom as none of the dragonlords prior had attempted to impose an absolute ruler before this or been able to Another thing to consider is that the Targaryen succession was not firmly established even after Aegon the conqueror's death as dowager queen Visenya asks who will rule after Aenys this implies that House Targaryen lack a clear rule of succession prior to Aegon's conquest By naming Rhaenyra his heir Viserys not only ignored a strong precedent but the ruling also undermines the succession of many of the great houses of Westeros During the Great Council House Velaryon had acquired two dragons at the same time House Targaryen had lost two of their dragonriders putting the crown in a precarious position House Velaryon not only had two dragonriders but command of the royal fleet making it imperative to keep them in the fold House Velaryon was one of a few cadet branches of House Targaryen by this point and the fact that they possess dragons means that they would play an integral part in the next significant conflict House Hightower was one of the key players in the early years of the Targaryen dynasty as the center of the faith of the Seven and the Citadel their power reached far throughout Westeros and had the potential to challenge the influence of House Targaryen outside of direct confrontation It cannot be understated how far their reach within Westeros is as many have speculated that they have a hand in the machinations of the Citadel By the reign of Viserys I Houses Velaryon and Hightower had achieved significant power and were bitter rivals at court yet the coup de grace was the marriage of Alicent Hightower to King Viserys and birth of four Targaryen princes who became dragonriders With three houses having dragonriders and bitter rivalries between them the stage was set for the most disastrous conflict in Westerosi history
In a medieval society law is an amalgamation of tradition, custom and precedence. Not even the King can discard societal normalities. Especially when that King is of a line of foreign invaders who have no real right to rule Westeros or its people and have not ruled for long.
For the watch ! The lord commander ! Here here for Brother Bittersteel!!! I think Viserys just wanted to avoid any conflict at all by any means .. Just my take on it anyway!! Thank you for your content mi’lord!!
its the line of the prophecy, not the male line that defines the order of succession. Aegon the conqueror likely believed that The Long Knight was going to occur in his own lifetime if not imminent at the time of his conquest. The purpose of his conquest was to unite Westeros against The Long Night, the kingship was secondary. Jahaerys, if his mind was still intact could have seen it as choosing for him who he would pass the prophecy onto. Thus to Viserys his choice in Rhaenyra as heir, as the most capable of his choice, was what really mattered, convention of succession for the other lords didn't. Aegon is a usurper, Rhaenyra is the true monarch.
The problem is that with male-prefference primogeniture Rhaenyra would've been heir regardless of her gender until a son was born to Viserys. It's the agnatic-primogeniture aspect of it all that excluded her from the succession. Also it is saod in the text that it was Proximity that favoured Viserys and Laenor was favoured by the concept of Primogeniture not necessairly the notion that Viserys was a descendant of Jaehaerys through the male line.
In a medieval society law is an amalgamation of tradition customs and precedence. If a King always has a first born son to succeed him it alleviates the need because the King has a first born son that is just how monarchy functions.
The fundamental error was naming Rhaenyra heir at the time he does. If he had not, Daemon would be heir until such time as Viserys has a son. The fear was not so much that Daemon would be a bad king, it is that Daemon would be a bad king for Otto. Viserys needed a good Hand with a better relationship with the Hand of the King. Viserys needed to find a good Hand who Daemon would defer to on most matters.
It’s simple, have Rhaenyra as Hand after Lyonel Strong, so she gains experience leading and ruling. Then have the Hightower faction of the family swear oaths to uphold Viserys’ wish in front of the court and declaring themselves oathbreakers should they contest their sister’s ascension. Starting with Aegon himself, and swearing for his sons Jaehaerys and Maelor, then Aemond, then Daeron. After all male Hightower faction have renounced their claim you go through council members, Kingsguard, and then lords sympathetic to the Hightowers. So this way you can say, “You would swear your fealty to an oathbreaker?”. It also requires Viserys to have a spine and stand up to his 2nd wife, at which point she may not be his second wife but his former wife. Make a display and have Rhaenyra feed her to Syrax. Since she isn’t kin to Rhaenyra that would prevent to taboo of Kinslaying.
That would not negate the fact Aegon is the first born son and true heir that is just how monarchy functions. They could just say they were forced to swear making it invalid.
That doesn’t make sense because king viserys could of just marrried Aegon to baela honestly Rhaenyra could of been set aside without too much of a fuss it’s setting aside aegon that proved to be difficult unfortunately
@ Depending on how the deliberations go. Corlys would either back Rhaenyra or his “grandson” Jacarys. But my point is, that Corlys would be enraged that another Great Council was even happening at all. He finally got his blood in line for the throne, just for the Greens to snatch it away. Colrys stood down after the Great council of 101, but that was because the odds were obviously not in his favor, if he took up arms over it. Viserys’ claim held a hefty majority after all. But this time around, the realm would likely be more evenly split.
@@Varrock45 I can see him wanting to back Jace. It’s a bit of a long shot but marrying Baela and Rhaena to one of greens could make to it to where whichever way it goes he’ll have his blood on throne. Very unlikely though.
The only way Viserys could’ve ensured peace & ascended Rhaenyra to the throne, both, would’ve been to abdicate years before his death & anoint her Regnant Queen. He could be her advisor & mentor in her early years. Daemon could serve as Hand. His sons & his wife would never lift a finger against Rhaenyra, had Viserys done this
@ That’s illogical. Aegon the Older wasn’t even the catalyst behind the Greens. You expect him to attack his own Father? Why? He was a shiftless party boy Prince. He wasn’t ambitious. Do you expect Queen-consort Alicent to order a war on her husband? Otto was NOT the heir of the Hightower family. Even if he wanted to usurp Viserys, he didn’t haven enough Reach support on his own, & many high lords were jealous of him during the peace before the dance
Depends when he called it who would win I feel. Call it when Aegon is 2? Daemon wins. Call it when Aegon is like 18? Aegon probably wins. Rhaenyra had no chance either time. As for it preventing a war, unlikely. Rhaenyra would feel slighted whoever won, odds are Hightowers would have revolted to prevent Daemon over Aegon, Rhaenyra and Daemon would have revolted if Aegon was crowned. Posting before watching the video
The Master's interpretation of the precedent of the Great Council is nonsense. It actually should have established that an heir once disinherited in favor of another chosen successor does not regain his/her inheritance or take priority over the heir of that chosen heir. It also needs to be noted that the first inheritance law that ever applied to all the 7 kingdoms was The Widows Law of 52 AC, which forbid any man from disinheriting a child of his first wife in order to give that inheritance to a child of a subsequent wife. It did not forbid disinheriting one child of his offspring in favor of another full sibling, so Jaehaerys was not breaking it when choosing Baelon over Aemon's daughter Rhaenys, but Viserys would have been violating this law had he chosen Alicent's son Aegon over Aemma's daughter Rhaenyra.
No, no. He violated the law by selecting Baelon over Rhaenys. The moment Aemon had a child the law of succession was established. Rhaenys having children cemented it even further. If not her, he should have gone straight to Laenor to stay somewhat within the law. The law of inheritance is eldest, with a male preference. Sometimes, the lords only have daughters or lose sons prematurely. Hence how some women became the heads of the houses. Like Jeyne Arryn, Rhea Royce, or Lady Mormont. Aerea Targaryen was actually Jaehaerys first heir until Aemon was born. (Also, there's a point someone made that Rhaena Targaryen actually should've gotten the throne after Maegor. And maybe that's one reason why he hijacked Rhaenys' rightful inheritance. Because people may have realized that he wasn't the legitimate heir this whole time.)
@@punkthatiscyber9091 The first inheritance law to every apply to all of his kingdoms was the Widows Law of 52 AC. It forbid disinheriting a child only in the circumstance that doing so gives the inheritance to a child of a later marriage, which implies than men had a right to disinherit their heirs in other situations.
@@magister343 Cool. That's not what I'm talking about. The typical law of inheritance I'm referring to is the Andal tradition that every kingdom (including The North and the Iron Islands) followed. Something practiced even before the Targaryens took over and the Widow's Law. "Andal tradition holds that the rights of a trueborn son come before those of a daughter. In most of the Seven Kingdoms, including the Iron Islands and the north, a man's daughter inherits before her father's brother. No distinction is made between sons and daughters in Dorne, however, where children inherit in order of birth regardless of gender, as per Rhoynish custom. In the case of an inheriting female, her last name will be passed on to her children, instead of the name of her husband." In other words, Westeros followed an eldest primogeniture with a male preference. So Baelon was Aemon's heir until Rhaenys was born. Then he fell behind her. And then fell behind Laenor and Laena. That's why it was a controversy that she was passed over. If Rhaenys was a man, and if he still passed over him... Then the controversy would've been HUGE.
The Targaryen Dynasty lived on. It lasted until Aerys the Mad, or even longer after the Baratheon-Lannister interregnum depending on how Denaerys's story plays out. Unless you agree with my headcanon that "Viserys II" was not a true Targaryen but a Lyseni imposter? In that case, the only true Targaryens left are the Blackfyres who can trace their inheritance through the female line to Aegon III's heir Daena the Defiant whose throne Viserys II usurped.
*nevermind the dynasty lasted another 150 years after these events. You can make the argument that despite the rest of his reign, Jaehaerys was the beginning of the end. His Great Council set a precedent that the laws of inheritance can be violated for personal preference. Aemon was his eldest son and declared heir. The moment he had a child the line of succession was established. Him bypassing both Rhaenys and Laenor, Aemon's child and grandchild, violates those laws. How do you think women like Rhea Royce became the heads of their houses? Had he let the laws play out as they should have, none of these events would have happened. Even bypassing Rhaenys and going for Laenor would have been better and at least more legal than allowing the lords to decide on his own successor.
@@punkthatiscyber9091 There was no law against disinheriting an heir, except for doing to so to let a child born from a subsequent wife to inherit over a child of one's first wife.
1:15 You mean like the narrative choices of race swaps, removal of characters, adding new characters that don't exist, feminist propaganda points in girlboss moments etc. Yeahhh, "narrative choices", sure.
The precedent of the Great Council is that the heirs of the king's last officially Named Heir take precedence over any heirs that the king himself had already publicly disinherited.
That's not the precedent at all, the precedent is that the male line take precedence over the female line. If it were true that the king's last named heir take precedence then explain how Jaehaerys became king when Maegor disinherited him in favour of Aerea?
@@truetory6231 There was no uniform law of inheritance until 52 AC when Jaehaerys passed the Widow's Law. It forbids any man from disinheriting a child of his first wife in order to let a subsequent wife inherit. Forbidding disinheritance in only that circumstance implies that the man keeps the right to disinherit a son of that son's heirs in favor of another son from the same mother.
@@magister343 even if there was no uniform law of inheritance, there were still inheritance customs. And the custom is that for lords, his sons took precedence in the succession by order of age, the problem is some lords played fast and loose with the customs and as such some of the disinherited complained to Alysanne who brought it to Jaehaerys attention, hence this law.
Viserys knew how the lords would vote and he already favoured Rhaenyra and didn't care too much for his sons. No way he was gonna take that chance of a Great Council messing up his plans
3:45 . Given the fact that he himself became king over Aerea, categorically denied Alysanne whenever she spoke of one of their senior female descendants being queen, favored Baelon, and allegedly orchestrated a Viserys victory, it's pretty clear what he wanted. At the very least, it was creating a consistent picture of Targaryen succession. It almost goes without saying that the Great Council set a huge precedent, and while it's just precedent, it's also the only real established framework for the Targaryen succession at that point. His other intention was simple. The winner of the great council was the one with the most support and should thus be king.
The real blunder was disinheriting Daemon. If Rhaenyra is heir because Daemon is disinherited, then would that not mean that Aegon, his sons, Aemond, and Daeron would also have to be disinherited? If you are trying to effectively disinherit an entire branch of the house, that should otherwise be first in line (The Greens), especially for no reason, then obviously, it will ignite something. THIS IS WHAT THE DANCE COMES DOWN TO. Look how Daemon reacted when he got disinherited. He almost started something too.
How does Viserys justify breaking precedent and effectively disinheriting so many members for Rhaenyra? He doesn't. He never puts forward any real reason. It's truly completely arbitrary, a matter of liking and disliking family members.
Even then, was Viserys really justified in disinheriting Daemon or was it just Otto's personal vendetta that stopped him from seeing the bigger picture? Surely he would have to be a full blown traitor or exhibited very dubious qualities/unfitness to rule, and his line would have to be attainted. Arguably none of those are actually true and we know he wasn't attainted because his son became king through him! Even if they were, if Aerys II did something like this to Rhaegar for example, Rhaegar would've probably still won (if it weren't for the rebellion) because he had more support and people could see that the disinheriting was for no reason. A good example of complete disiinheriting being justified is the Blackfyres after the first rebellion.
i think Viserys just thought people would take his word as law due to him being king and he didn't want to make a big problem out of it
I think he intended to follow the Widows Law of 52 AC, the first of "Good Alyssane's Laws" issued by Jaehaerys, which was the first inheritance law that ever applied to all the Seven Kingdoms and a much clearer precedent than the Council of 101.
(Different kingdoms and even different regions within kingdoms followed different traditions before 52 AC. Male preference primogeniture was most common, but there were some cases of eldest daughters inheriting before infant sons and of grown uncles or even bastard brothers inheriting before trueborn minor children. Things were mostly left up the local lords or their immediately lieges.)
The Widows Law affirmed that the eldest son should generally be the heir, but it also strictly forbid any man from disinheriting a child of his first wife in order to allow a child of a subsequent wife to inherit. It did not say anything about disinheriting one heir in favor of another with the same mother, so Jaehaerys was not breaking the law when he chose Baelon over Rhaenys.
I think Viserys quite reasonably interpreted this to mean that Aemma's infant son would inherit before Rhaenyra if he had lived, but that even as king he was powerless to disinherit Rhaenyra in favor of any son of Alicent. If Rhaenyra and her children died, then he could disinherit Aemon in favor of Amond or Daeron though.
Note that the Widow's Law also required than an heir must continue to maintain any stepmother and stepchildren in the style to which they had grown accustomed unless and until the stepmother remarried someone else. That means Rhaenyra was supposed to keep the Dowager Queen Alicent and her children safe and living lives of luxury.
@@magister343 Viserys was lazy and too trusting though. His downfall was putting too much trust in Otto. If he felt strong enough for Rhaenyra to take the throne he should’ve passed laws protecting her ascension. Fire and Blood fails to mention his knowledge of laws and political savvy though so perhaps he did assume.
Technically, as king, that's exactly how he should operate. What's the point of making people swear oaths if the precedent is to be an oath breaker?
George Lucas thought that too
@@magister343 You are not entirely correct. The widows law does not change the fact that a son comes before a daughter. In case of remarriage a son of a second marriage still comes before a daughter of a first.
I think a lot of Viserys stubbornness on the issue was also his guilt of Aemma's death. He loved her deeply and his only living child with her was a headstrong girl that was not into tradition in a lot of ways. How better to protect her than to try to make her a ruler in her own right?
Also note that the oldest uniform inheritance law in Westeros was the Widows Law of 52 AC (different regions followed different norms before that), which explicitly states that no man may disinherit a child of his first wife in favor of a child of a subsequent wife.
Jaehaerys was fine disinheriting his eldest son's line because he was giving the inheritance to another son of the same mother. The Great Council could easily be interpreted as saying that an heir once disinherited should remain disinherited or at least fall behind the heir of the names heir in the line of sucession.
Was definitely out of love and guilt for feeling like he killed his wife in order to have a male heir. I think the second part of that is also the fact that he didn't want any of Otto hightowers grandchildren to be heir because he felt played and saw that he was putting himself before the realm. Unfortunately because of that he let his children be completely influenced by their mother. To aegons credit in the book when he's denying the crown he says "what kind of brother steals his own sister's crown?"
I think Viserys did knew if he called great council Aegon would have been chosen, after all if a woman can become queen, what stops every older sister from becoming the lady instead of her younger brother inheriting? and to be honest Viserys had no succession crisis he made it, he remarried and had three sons naming Aegon the heir would have created no upset it would have been what was expected.
11:15 If he rejected the decision, that would pit the majority of lords against him. Furthermore, if Aegon won, it stands to reason that any rebellion in his favor would also win with the only caviat being dragon power. Same is true if Aegon would've won which is why the Dance happened. The Westerlands, Stormlands, King's Landing, Oldtown, and the dragons the Greens had theoretically could've been enough to win.
Another factor is that it could start to lead to a decline in the absolute power of the king, lords kept coming together to make these decisions it could lead to a maga carntha like event were the king starts to lose absolute power and authority. Something like this happened during the French revolution where when King Louie called a council to deal with the debt problem France was in and they used this oppunirity to make an effort to check his power and authority which led to him being beheaded. It is human nature to hold onto power and even good kings like Jaehaerys would probably avoid limiting his own power and the power of his decedents. Also politics aside, the Targaryen Kings were thinking about the Song of Ice and Fire and who should led against it so they were not making these decisions just based on who would be the best leader of Westeros but also for the Song of Ice and Fire why give the houses a chance to mess with that?
I also believe that it’s when people say that the King’s word is not law primarily it’s because all of his noble houses who are powerful enough to challenge him and his authority. The Hightowers challenged Viserys’s authority and Rhaenyra’s claim for so many years he did absolutely nothing which allowed them to grow in power they realize they could do nothing while he was alive so they waited for him to die and that is when they tried their luck. Now in the end, Westeros got what they wanted a male Monarch, but it was from a female not a male.
The King of Westeros wasn't really an absolute monarch to start with, he was a feudal monarch. It is impractical for a continent of that massive size to be governed effectively from the centre. Aegon the Conqueror when uniting the Seven Kingdoms deliberately designed a system where Lords Paramount were given much autonomy in governing their kingdoms and the lords paramount gave thier vassal lords autonomy in thier own fiefdoms. It was a decentralised system from the start, so the idea that the king was an absolute monarch like the Bourbon french kings is a poor comparison. If anything they were more like the Mergovingian and early Capetian kings
@@seth_fitzgeraldthe idea that the king's word is law is somewhat true but only to an extent, when the king shows a willingness to flout tradition, he will get pushback. This is not a Hightower thing, this is how the system in Westeros naturally is.
As for the succession, the very fact that the lords of Westeros recognised her sons by Daemon as heir but never her sons by Harwin actually reinforces the male line of succession. Why? Because Daemon was a male Targaryen descended from a direct male line from the Conqueror, hence through Aegon III and Viserys II,the salic law is preserved. The Strong Boys however were Targaryen only in the female line hence even if they were Laenor's sons they would not have been recognised any more than he was at the Great Council.
@@seth_fitzgeraldno Aegon III is king through the male line (Daemon)
Just to clarify what I meant, I completely agree with you in practice that is how government of Westeros worked. I might have used absolute monarchy incorrectly but I was refereeing to how there is no legal consequences for any of the kings decisions and in theory he can appoint and unappoint any lords at any level he wants. It would just be insanely impractical to do so. The normalization of a great council might led to some legal limits on the kings power which as fair as I know never formally existed for the seven kingdoms yet, with traditions and president being the force behind laws not real legal consequences.
As you pointed out and which I already knew was that Alicent suggesting to Rhaenyra a Great Council was her way of not achieving peace. It was more so to reaffirm Aegon’s claim as king and as his father‘s heir to the throne. As we all know, including the characters in fire and blood, they knew the council would vote in favor of the greens, which also means they would definitely give another reason for the war to continue and go on. The three issues in my opinion are ideology, the system of inheritance, and law vs tradition. Maegor and Jaehaerys named their heirs, Aerys disinherited Rhaegar thus he name Viserys as his heir. But also Jaehaerys disregarded the Andal Law of passing over his granddaughter and favor of his son, and when his son died, he didn’t even bother to name his granddaughter as his heir.
The most tragic part about a potential "Great Council" to settle the Dance of the Dragons... is that it was brought up DURING the conflict;
Alicent said that lots of blood had already been spilled, and offered a few ideas for peace in Westeros. She offered to split Westeros in half, by giving Rhaenyra and her heirs the North East, and giving Aegon II the South West
Rhaenyra denied it
Alicent then mentioned that a Great Council should be called, to officially declare the wishes of the realm for who should rule it.
Rhaenyra denied this as well
Rhaenyra said that, if given the choice to chose, to make their own decision, then it would be obvious who the lords of the realm would chose.
Case in point, Rhaenyra KNEW Westeros would rather have Aegon II be the ruling Monarch if left up to them, but... she just didn't care
*Side Note*
5:56 Not entirely true. Maegor had Viserys and Jaehaerys essentially disinherited during his rule, and even named Aerea his heir just to try and make it seem he himself had a line of succession that would solidify the idea of him being the "true King", and having a named heir
1st to take the Black for House Blackfyre 🗡
Maybe Vizzy T was worried the vote wouldn't go his way
“Beneath the gold, the Bittersteel!”
Brother I hope you are doing well!’
Maybe?? He KNEW the vote wouldn't go his way. The same houses that choose him over Rhaenys are the same houses that would also choose Aegon over Rhaenyra
If Daemon were to remain the uncontested heir, it could destabilize the realm. The realm? Or this council?
i genuinely think if Daemon did become king, he wouldn't be awful. Not good but not bad somewhere in the middle. I can't see him going full Maegor, and i think he would care more about his legacy than say Aegon iv
@@WorldOfWesteros I like that idea i do think with the right people beside him and queen it would help his reign. Now take it I don't think he be much at court or at least when it matters.
While the Great Council of 101AC had set a strong precedent it did not formally codify the law of succession and as such would be a contributing factor to the Dance of Dragons another thing that must be considered is that the customs of succession between the Andals and the Valyrians are drastically different from each other while the Andals favor make premoginiture the Valyrians are an enigma as we lack any records of the laws of succession in the Freehold and it is unlikely that there was a strong central figure before the Doom as none of the dragonlords prior had attempted to impose an absolute ruler before this or been able to
Another thing to consider is that the Targaryen succession was not firmly established even after Aegon the conqueror's death as dowager queen Visenya asks who will rule after Aenys this implies that House Targaryen lack a clear rule of succession prior to Aegon's conquest
By naming Rhaenyra his heir Viserys not only ignored a strong precedent but the ruling also undermines the succession of many of the great houses of Westeros
During the Great Council House Velaryon had acquired two dragons at the same time House Targaryen had lost two of their dragonriders putting the crown in a precarious position
House Velaryon not only had two dragonriders but command of the royal fleet making it imperative to keep them in the fold
House Velaryon was one of a few cadet branches of House Targaryen by this point and the fact that they possess dragons means that they would play an integral part in the next significant conflict
House Hightower was one of the key players in the early years of the Targaryen dynasty as the center of the faith of the Seven and the Citadel their power reached far throughout Westeros and had the potential to challenge the influence of House Targaryen outside of direct confrontation
It cannot be understated how far their reach within Westeros is as many have speculated that they have a hand in the machinations of the Citadel
By the reign of Viserys I Houses Velaryon and Hightower had achieved significant power and were bitter rivals at court yet the coup de grace was the marriage of Alicent Hightower to King Viserys and birth of four Targaryen princes who became dragonriders
With three houses having dragonriders and bitter rivalries between them the stage was set for the most disastrous conflict in Westerosi history
In a medieval society law is an amalgamation of tradition, custom and precedence. Not even the King can discard societal normalities. Especially when that King is of a line of foreign invaders who have no real right to rule Westeros or its people and have not ruled for long.
For the watch !
The lord commander !
Here here for Brother Bittersteel!!!
I think Viserys just wanted to avoid any conflict at all by any means ..
Just my take on it anyway!!
Thank you for your content mi’lord!!
Good to see you as always.I hope you're doing fantastic
Brothers!!!
@@aegorbittersteel2154 I am well!!! I hope the gods have been kind to you
@@lawrencereid2767 lord commander !! I already have the Ale & black beeer from The Riverlands 🍺🍺
@@jeffcordova9633 They have thank you for asking
its the line of the prophecy, not the male line that defines the order of succession. Aegon the conqueror likely believed that The Long Knight was going to occur in his own lifetime if not imminent at the time of his conquest. The purpose of his conquest was to unite Westeros against The Long Night, the kingship was secondary. Jahaerys, if his mind was still intact could have seen it as choosing for him who he would pass the prophecy onto. Thus to Viserys his choice in Rhaenyra as heir, as the most capable of his choice, was what really mattered, convention of succession for the other lords didn't. Aegon is a usurper, Rhaenyra is the true monarch.
Great video 🐉🖤
where did you get that background map from? I’d love to look over a map of westeros like that
The problem is that with male-prefference primogeniture Rhaenyra would've been heir regardless of her gender until a son was born to Viserys. It's the agnatic-primogeniture aspect of it all that excluded her from the succession. Also it is saod in the text that it was Proximity that favoured Viserys and Laenor was favoured by the concept of Primogeniture not necessairly the notion that Viserys was a descendant of Jaehaerys through the male line.
Keep in mind that at this point, there's only been one direct succession from father to son. Maegor mucked a lot up in that regard.
In a medieval society law is an amalgamation of tradition customs and precedence. If a King always has a first born son to succeed him it alleviates the need because the King has a first born son that is just how monarchy functions.
We'ren't these lords given the impression that that would uphold rhaenyra's claims as far as he would father a son.
Show Viserys: because he felt like he owed it to his wife who he still loved
Book Viserys: because he was incompetent
The fundamental error was naming Rhaenyra heir at the time he does. If he had not, Daemon would be heir until such time as Viserys has a son. The fear was not so much that Daemon would be a bad king, it is that Daemon would be a bad king for Otto. Viserys needed a good Hand with a better relationship with the Hand of the King. Viserys needed to find a good Hand who Daemon would defer to on most matters.
Otto was a great hand and Daemon is unhinged and unstable violent psychopath.
It’s simple, have Rhaenyra as Hand after Lyonel Strong, so she gains experience leading and ruling. Then have the Hightower faction of the family swear oaths to uphold Viserys’ wish in front of the court and declaring themselves oathbreakers should they contest their sister’s ascension. Starting with Aegon himself, and swearing for his sons Jaehaerys and Maelor, then Aemond, then Daeron. After all male Hightower faction have renounced their claim you go through council members, Kingsguard, and then lords sympathetic to the Hightowers. So this way you can say, “You would swear your fealty to an oathbreaker?”. It also requires Viserys to have a spine and stand up to his 2nd wife, at which point she may not be his second wife but his former wife. Make a display and have Rhaenyra feed her to Syrax. Since she isn’t kin to Rhaenyra that would prevent to taboo of Kinslaying.
That would not negate the fact Aegon is the first born son and true heir that is just how monarchy functions. They could just say they were forced to swear making it invalid.
The only issue I can see is Corlys Valaryon. His house has been passed over twice for the crown and three might be too many.
That doesn’t make sense because king viserys could of just marrried Aegon to baela honestly Rhaenyra could of been set aside without too much of a fuss it’s setting aside aegon that proved to be difficult unfortunately
Would he back rhaenyra though?
@ Depending on how the deliberations go. Corlys would either back Rhaenyra or his “grandson” Jacarys.
But my point is, that Corlys would be enraged that another Great Council was even happening at all. He finally got his blood in line for the throne, just for the Greens to snatch it away.
Colrys stood down after the Great council of 101, but that was because the odds were obviously not in his favor, if he took up arms over it. Viserys’ claim held a hefty majority after all. But this time around, the realm would likely be more evenly split.
@@Varrock45 I can see him wanting to back Jace. It’s a bit of a long shot but marrying Baela and Rhaena to one of greens could make to it to where whichever way it goes he’ll have his blood on throne. Very unlikely though.
@@Varrock45 then again idk if daemon would be down for that.
The only way Viserys could’ve ensured peace & ascended Rhaenyra to the throne, both, would’ve been to abdicate years before his death & anoint her Regnant Queen. He could be her advisor & mentor in her early years. Daemon could serve as Hand. His sons & his wife would never lift a finger against Rhaenyra, had Viserys done this
That would not make peace. It would only make the dance happen immediately.
@ That’s illogical. Aegon the Older wasn’t even the catalyst behind the Greens. You expect him to attack his own Father? Why? He was a shiftless party boy Prince. He wasn’t ambitious. Do you expect Queen-consort Alicent to order a war on her husband? Otto was NOT the heir of the Hightower family. Even if he wanted to usurp Viserys, he didn’t haven enough Reach support on his own, & many high lords were jealous of him during the peace before the dance
How do you turn the phrase “He was high as a kite for the rest of his life” into a 14 minute video.
Depends when he called it who would win I feel. Call it when Aegon is 2? Daemon wins. Call it when Aegon is like 18? Aegon probably wins. Rhaenyra had no chance either time. As for it preventing a war, unlikely. Rhaenyra would feel slighted whoever won, odds are Hightowers would have revolted to prevent Daemon over Aegon, Rhaenyra and Daemon would have revolted if Aegon was crowned.
Posting before watching the video
If they called for a great council, Daemon would be chosen, I doubt they'd chose Laenor, since his claim if through a woman, his mother.
“This is democracy manifest!”
Its because Viserys was an idiot and an awful King ..
The Master's interpretation of the precedent of the Great Council is nonsense. It actually should have established that an heir once disinherited in favor of another chosen successor does not regain his/her inheritance or take priority over the heir of that chosen heir.
It also needs to be noted that the first inheritance law that ever applied to all the 7 kingdoms was The Widows Law of 52 AC, which forbid any man from disinheriting a child of his first wife in order to give that inheritance to a child of a subsequent wife. It did not forbid disinheriting one child of his offspring in favor of another full sibling, so Jaehaerys was not breaking it when choosing Baelon over Aemon's daughter Rhaenys, but Viserys would have been violating this law had he chosen Alicent's son Aegon over Aemma's daughter Rhaenyra.
No, no. He violated the law by selecting Baelon over Rhaenys. The moment Aemon had a child the law of succession was established. Rhaenys having children cemented it even further. If not her, he should have gone straight to Laenor to stay somewhat within the law.
The law of inheritance is eldest, with a male preference. Sometimes, the lords only have daughters or lose sons prematurely. Hence how some women became the heads of the houses. Like Jeyne Arryn, Rhea Royce, or Lady Mormont. Aerea Targaryen was actually Jaehaerys first heir until Aemon was born. (Also, there's a point someone made that Rhaena Targaryen actually should've gotten the throne after Maegor. And maybe that's one reason why he hijacked Rhaenys' rightful inheritance. Because people may have realized that he wasn't the legitimate heir this whole time.)
@@punkthatiscyber9091 The first inheritance law to every apply to all of his kingdoms was the Widows Law of 52 AC. It forbid disinheriting a child only in the circumstance that doing so gives the inheritance to a child of a later marriage, which implies than men had a right to disinherit their heirs in other situations.
@@magister343 Cool. That's not what I'm talking about. The typical law of inheritance I'm referring to is the Andal tradition that every kingdom (including The North and the Iron Islands) followed. Something practiced even before the Targaryens took over and the Widow's Law.
"Andal tradition holds that the rights of a trueborn son come before those of a daughter. In most of the Seven Kingdoms, including the Iron Islands and the north, a man's daughter inherits before her father's brother. No distinction is made between sons and daughters in Dorne, however, where children inherit in order of birth regardless of gender, as per Rhoynish custom. In the case of an inheriting female, her last name will be passed on to her children, instead of the name of her husband."
In other words, Westeros followed an eldest primogeniture with a male preference. So Baelon was Aemon's heir until Rhaenys was born. Then he fell behind her. And then fell behind Laenor and Laena. That's why it was a controversy that she was passed over. If Rhaenys was a man, and if he still passed over him... Then the controversy would've been HUGE.
Such a weak king.. shame.
He single handedly ended the Targaryen dynasty
The Targaryen Dynasty lived on. It lasted until Aerys the Mad, or even longer after the Baratheon-Lannister interregnum depending on how Denaerys's story plays out.
Unless you agree with my headcanon that "Viserys II" was not a true Targaryen but a Lyseni imposter? In that case, the only true Targaryens left are the Blackfyres who can trace their inheritance through the female line to Aegon III's heir Daena the Defiant whose throne Viserys II usurped.
*nevermind the dynasty lasted another 150 years after these events.
You can make the argument that despite the rest of his reign, Jaehaerys was the beginning of the end.
His Great Council set a precedent that the laws of inheritance can be violated for personal preference. Aemon was his eldest son and declared heir. The moment he had a child the line of succession was established. Him bypassing both Rhaenys and Laenor, Aemon's child and grandchild, violates those laws. How do you think women like Rhea Royce became the heads of their houses?
Had he let the laws play out as they should have, none of these events would have happened. Even bypassing Rhaenys and going for Laenor would have been better and at least more legal than allowing the lords to decide on his own successor.
@@punkthatiscyber9091 There was no law against disinheriting an heir, except for doing to so to let a child born from a subsequent wife to inherit over a child of one's first wife.
1:15 You mean like the narrative choices of race swaps, removal of characters, adding new characters that don't exist, feminist propaganda points in girlboss moments etc. Yeahhh, "narrative choices", sure.
Using the council, lol you can't do that when both sides are this cuttroat by this point. The dance would happen sooner if he had done this.
For the same reason he didn’t marry aegon and rheanrya because he’s dumb
Rhaenyra and Aemon should be married to end that then set up marriage with corlys family
Because he was restarted. There saved some time.
The precedent of the Great Council is that the heirs of the king's last officially Named Heir take precedence over any heirs that the king himself had already publicly disinherited.
That's not the precedent at all, the precedent is that the male line take precedence over the female line. If it were true that the king's last named heir take precedence then explain how Jaehaerys became king when Maegor disinherited him in favour of Aerea?
@@truetory6231 There was no uniform law of inheritance until 52 AC when Jaehaerys passed the Widow's Law. It forbids any man from disinheriting a child of his first wife in order to let a subsequent wife inherit. Forbidding disinheritance in only that circumstance implies that the man keeps the right to disinherit a son of that son's heirs in favor of another son from the same mother.
@@magister343 even if there was no uniform law of inheritance, there were still inheritance customs. And the custom is that for lords, his sons took precedence in the succession by order of age, the problem is some lords played fast and loose with the customs and as such some of the disinherited complained to Alysanne who brought it to Jaehaerys attention, hence this law.
Jaehaerys was not the best king, only the king who hired the best propogandists.
The accomplishments of Jaehaerys were numerous whereas the accomplishments of Viserys were non-existent