Prince Baelon Targaryen meets Jocelyn Baratheon after the death of his brother Aemon in 92 AC

“He performed his duty admirably; though less scholarly than Septon Barth, the prince proved a good judge of men, and surrounded himself with loyal subordinates and counselors. The realm would be well ruled when Baelon Targaryen sat the Iron Throne, lords and common folk agreed.”

Vhagar's story is so tragic when you think about how she went from being bonded to a woman of historically unparalleled power who, for all her flaws, never stooped to weaponizing the misogynistic concept of legitimacy, to a man who's implied to be the embodiment of positive masculinity, to a girl who took to the skies after escaping a child marriage and then lived to forge a loving bond and powerful alliance with the woman who would have finally restored Targaryen women to full power, only to die bonded to a man who was the anti-thesis to all of that.

I know that Daemon killing Aemond with the other symbol of Visenya, and the fact that Daemon is compared to Visenya, is so often just seen as House Targaryen "cannibalizing" itself with the usual disregard for which parts were cannibalizing what and why, but it's so hard not to see it as an angry Visenya cursing Aemond, and everything he represents, from beyond the grave.

Alysanne just meant to go on a quiet ride with Silverwing but her four (4) older children tagged along

commissions

I just saw team green fans arguing that if Baelon, father of Daemon and Viserys, lived he would have hated Rhaenerya and sent her to the silent sisters for having bastards. Stating he would have supported Aegon and the Hightowers.

I might just have to take a break from reddit or the whole internet, because this level of stupidity is making my brain hurt.

Some of you asked for proof, here they are:

The fact they didn't even know Vhagar was Baelon's mount is killing me.

All the Laws Viserys Violated by Making Rhaenyra His Heir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimers:

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

You said this:

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

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

If it's not "binding" then it's not really a "law". At all. It is more custom, it is action, it is will, it is choice. What is "binding" is a absolute monarch's word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said this:

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

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

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

B) Dangers of Some Text Reading

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

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

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

And Viserys didn't need any precedent to back him up, just his own word. (Just as Jaehaerys didn't need precedent for his own marriage except the Valyrian one.) Which, again, in an absolute monarchy, is Law. It's Alicent and her decision to actively go against Rhaenyra that provides the heft of both her own and Rhaenyra's fall.

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

C) The Widow's Law

You say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said:

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

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

And this quote:

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

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

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

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

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

In All...

It is very dangerous for us to believe that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Westeros does not really have a codified system of laws, especially when it comes to succession, and it's weird to see fans speak as though it does.

Westeros is not a constitutional monarchy. The king's word is law. He has the right to make any law he pleases, to overturn any law he pleases. Westeros arguable subscribes to the divine right of kings - Targaryens were seen as closer to gods then men, and thus ruled with the approval of the gods.

The king cannot violate the law. All of the king's actions are legal, because he is the king. Those who go against the king are the ones violating the law, regardless of the king's actions.

And no, none of this changes because Westeros is a feudal society. Feudalism is a way of organizing resources. It's a hierarchy that still puts the king at the very top. The lords of great houses have authority over other lords in their region, who have authority over the lords below them, and so on. But the king has authority over all of them.

The legitimacy of the lords comes from the king, not the other way around. The king can legally strip lands, titles, privileges, etc from anyone he chooses. Similarly, the lords can legally do as they please to their subjects - so long as they do not violate the king's wishes.

This is why rebellions and wars are so prevelant in Westeros - the rulers are above the law so the only way to seek justice for their wrongdoings is through war. But again, those who go against their ruler (king or lord) are the ones committing a crime. Once the former ruler is deposed, it is no longer a crime because the new ruler's word becomes law.

What the king is practically able to do is only limited by how much power he has. The Greens undermined the king's authority by fracturing the House, reducing the king's power, and opening the door for rebellion.

Had their not been a movement from within the House to prevent Rhaenyra from taking the throne, other lords may have been disgruntled but would have fallen in line. Because the crown had the authority, the approval of the gods, and the firepower to back up their rule.

As far as the Great Council goes - the decision was not about absolute primogeniture vs agnatic-cognatic. It was proximity of blood. Rhaenys was not the candidate up for the throne, her son Laenor was.

Primogeniture can get a little complicated, especially when the king has a lot of kids and lives a very long time. The eldest son is the heir, his children are his heirs. But if the eldest son dies, do his children come before the other children of the king?

With Jaehaerys, the answer is repeatedly no. After Aemon's death, Baelon became the heir. This is less female vs male and more child vs grandchild.

After Baelon's death, the situation became infinitely more complicated. It's ludicrously simplistic to suggest this decision was just "women can't inherit".

There's a lot of elements to consider about the Great Council, outside of gender. Laenor was 7 at the time, Viserys was an adult. Viserys was the son of the last heir, Laenor was the grandson of a former heir. Viserys was the grandson of the king, Laenor was the great-grandson.

But let's pretend Rhaenys was an option. If the current heir and last child of the king dies, do we continue on with his children or do we track backwards to a former heir's kids?

Neither Rhaenys' nor Viserys' fathers were ever kings. But Viserys' father was the last heir, not Rhaenys'. Baelon was closer to becoming king than Aemon, who died 11 years before the king.

It's unfortunate that the complexities of this situation are disregarded by fans. Though not surprising given how much HOTD simplified it. The Great Council wasn't needed to prevent Jaehaerys from taking a stance about females inheriting, it was to sort out the giant mess created by Jaehaerys outliving all his kids. Because of all the complexities involved, it's not the decisive hammer against female inheritance fans (or characters) portray it as.

The Great Council's stance is that succession looks like this:

When someone in the line dies, the succession is shifted. When the king dies, #2 becomes #1 and all heirs are adjusted to fit the model - normal, logical, we see this happen all the time. But when #2 dies, the heirs are also adjusted to fit the model.

Using an example from ASOIAF, this is the precedent the Great Council sets for Targaryen succession:

The king's heirs come before his heir's heirs. In practice, this is rarely an issue worth thinking about - it's assumed the Crown Prince will someday take the throne, and therefore that his children will follow him. But if the heir dies before the king, his children do not take priority over the king's.

And who was named heir after Rhaegar died on the Trident? Viserys.

Something important to note was that Jaehaerys becoming king in the first place was also an assertion of proximity of blood. As Aegon the Uncrowned never ruled, Jaehaerys was the eldest living child of the last legitimate king.

The Great Council decision simply upheld the precedent that put Jaehaerys before Aerea.

Now, this isn't to say that sexism didn't play a role in these decisions. But there was a great deal more at play here than simply "women can't rule", so it's really not that clear how "wrong" Viserys was for naming Rhaenyra over his younger sons.

As for the Great Council specifically:

And what happened after Aemond died, concerning the succession:

I don't disagree that the Council and the private king's council both considered things apart from gender. But gender was one of the things that immediately disqualified Rhaenys and her daughter from the Council, we know that the text also states that Jaehaerys was "passing over Rhaenys and her (possibly) unborn son" for Baelon.

In other words, yes those other factors existed to determine who gets the crown....but the heftiest consideration was gender.

To another reblogger, I said that the "male-preference primogeniture" (not male-only/agnatic primogeniture) doesn't go straight even in Targ/Westeosi royal succession, because in history, the Targ succession was the least following of the Andal succession practices...Maegor reigned after violently usurping his nephew/Aenys' son, Aegon the Uncrowned, and then named his niece Aerea his heir in the event he himself never gets a bio child by any of his wives and to restrengthen his position. Aenys passed over Rhaena for his younger son Aegon (the Uncrowned) and then "combined" the claims specifically to avoid ruffled feathers and avoid other questions of succession pertaining to gender and birth order. And Jaehaerys was able to have the throne both because:

These are the circumstances that allowed Jaehaerys to become king in the first place, and they had a lot to do with gender. Who are the ones who create and affirm succession customs through actions? Those involved and monarchs--Jaehaerys specifically did what he could to diminish Rhaena's powers and semblances of claims after the war, with his only granting her Dragonstone if she acknowledged him as the king (and where does that come from? her being the oldest of the Aenys-Alyssa brood AND having had a child that Maegor himself declared his heir..and whom Jaehaerys would also).

"Primogeniture can get a little complicated, especially when the king has a lot of kids and lives a very long time. The eldest son is the heir, and his children are his heirs. But if the eldest son dies, do his children come before the other children of the king? With Jaehaerys, the answer is repeatedly no. After Aemon's death, Baelon became the heir. This is less female vs male and more child vs grandchild."

As you said, yeah it can get complicated. But, in Westeros and with the Targs specifically, why? How does an heir get determined? The decisions of the persons involved can be and often are made from what they think is the more practical choice.

And the GC was filled with, you guessed it, more male lords than ladies who have enjoyed male-exclusive powers (and I mean by authority, cultural expectation, etc) for centuries. The decision of the Council was left to them....can we expect such characters to choose a female, even if she were older with a brood of male kids? In the council itself, it specifically states how the same lords saw that the "male line" should supersede the "female line", for even though Rhaenys had a son, she herself was female.

Jaehaerys, even with him calling the council, repeatedly showed favor and acted towards male-only primogeniture. He avoided the question of his daughter, Daenerys, being his heir and just said that they would marry her to their first son...Even by calling the Council, he knew that the lords would choose the male...because that is the tradition and what got him secure in his throne from the beginning.

There's a pattern here, and it leans towards gender, particularly with Jaehaerys. Who presided over the whole of Westerosi/Targ interests and the sociopolitical landscape of such after he ascended. Inevitably also setting up what would happen during and after his late rule.

"But let's pretend Rhaenys was an option. If the current heir and last child of the king dies, do we continue on with his children or do we track backwards to a former heir's kids?"

Why wasn't Rhaenys an option? Yeah, she was younger. So was Jaehaerys when he came to power, and Rhaena was much older--again, the firstborn and "closest of blood" to both Maegor and Aenys AND her brother's husband...yet he was seen as the better option and became king. And after he reigned, more and more of his decisions came across and were assured as the "good" ones.

"Neither Rhaenys' nor Viserys' fathers were ever kings. But Viserys' father was the last heir, not Rhaenys'. Baelon was closer to becoming king than Aemon, who died 11 years before the king."

Baelon, again, became the heir because Jaehaerys-the Andal councilmen all already preferred a male heir as well as seeing Baelon's existing popularity. I doubt, though, that Jaehaerys would have gone with Rhaenys even without their popularity. So Baelon was already "ahead" because Jaehaerys wanted him there and took action to do so despite Rhaenys' clear claim.

Real quick, Daeron (Aegon III's son) was younger than Viserys II, yet he and his siblings came to power before their uncle. In the aftereffects of the Dance/Targ struggles to define and stick to orders of succession.

As for Viserys being named heir before Aegon, rhaegar's son, after Rhaegar's death, this is true. However, this happens after all the male primogeniture gets more of its strength and legitimacy than it ever did before BECAUSE, after the Dance, the councilmen around Aegon III pointedly cite the Dance and Baela's character (as they interpreted it) as reasons against a female heir. And after Viserys II himself comes to power and skips over Daena as heir, the precedents for male-only primogeniture become even stronger. This led to only male Targ kings until Aelora, and even then she was the only available one before her suicide and the appearance of Aegon V.

I don't think, going by the language towards Baela, even with the question of succession here "remained unsettled".

Primogeniture was not just out of his/Targ hands. Some things are very complicated, and primogeniture is...why so, though? How so? Because people made choices against the gender of an heir until it was no longer convenient. If gender wasn't considered first (which, come on), it was never far behind.

Once again...the point of the Dance and how the Jaehaerys I/GC got us to that point where the girl's claim for the rone became (and wasn't always automatically, as you imply in your arguments denying or ignoring history) more an arguable thing on a sociopolitical level in this story that GRRM made/in Westeros. Which is the point of my argument. And the Dance.

*BTW* the same reblogger I mentioned corrected me that Westeos is a feudal and not totally an absolute monarchy. I still argue for how, in Westeros and not the real world alone, how this is iffy.

Baelon & Alyssa with their boys taking a family trip on Meleys 🥺❤

Alyssa and Baelon Targaryen, dragon riders of Meleys and Vhagar respectively. Parents of King Viserys I and Prince Daemon 💔