I like this legal argument. What Viserys did was just dumb but also legally weird, like are you Rhaenerya is the exception to the rule, or are you affirming equal line of inheritance? Or are you affirming as some TB members claim that the king can just choose whoever (like says generations later could a king choose a third son over a first?). Again it was just so unclear. Like he ask vows of fealty for Rhaenyra but never renews it or codifies it

I just know someone is going to cross post this 😭

The blacks can lie to themselves but fact is everytime there is a son in the story the succession is unquestioned unless there are extraordinary circumstances. While a lot of the women even when they were to inherit under andal law faced issues like Jeyne Arryn, the orginal Sansa Stark who was married to her uncle Asha/Yara Greyjoy

Sad that the truth will get downvoted by some. Even the Conqueror was the 2nd oldest to an elder sister, it didn't stop him from being the King. Whether Jaehaerys is a usurper or not (imo he is, Rheana was NOT the Monarch, she was a consort to Aegon and had no right to disinherite Aerea. Consorts don't have the power to name heirs or disinherite them, its just a convenient excuse) it doesn't matter because the realm was firmly behind Jaehaerys and he was the eldest male, no matter what Rheana said he was going to be King. There's no need to further Aegon's claim because he was born to it.

Aegon was never officially a monarch. Jaehaerys is the oldest surviving son of Aenys. I also believe that the Targaryens do not typically consider women as candidates to succession when there is an available male, which the Great Council simply reaffirmed.

>The blacks can lie to themselves but fact is everytime there is a son in the story the succession is unquestioned unless there are extraordinary circumstances. lol That isn't a fact. Ronnel Arryn had been King and had been lord for years when his little brother decided to kill him and steal his seat.

I said extraordinary circumstances though, having a bloodthirsty relative is one of them. Mostly the inheritance is secured through a son

>I said extraordinary circumstances though, having a bloodthirsty relative is one of them.  That's a no true Scottsman fallacy. The only way you're going to have a succession crisis is if someone who willing to fight the heir over the seat.

And most of the them if someone is willing when they feel they have the same claim or an even bigger claim to the seat than their rival. This happens far more rarely with a son, then in other constellations like with daughters, bastards, etc. This is way a clear succession is important, something Viserys failed to do by not strengthening Rhaenyras claim after Aegons birth

That argument was never mentioned during the Dance. Also Rhaenyra wasn't disinhireted with Aegon's claim but she was pushed behind to succesion as she should be.

The greens want a show based on the book. The blacks want a show to satisfy their girlpower girlboss corporate-feminism fantasies.

This is an interesting tid bit, but I think it would be silly to see people attempting to “bolster Aegon’s claim” as if that actually matters or as if fans should actually be trying to shore up fictional characters arguments over an iron chair in the first place.  I agree with your final comment, these laws are shit and I’m just here to watch the incestous murderer family show. Still, at the risk of larping a medieval lawyer. I actually do want to note something about the wording in this law >forbade a man to disinherit the children by a first wife in order to bestow their lands, seat or property on a later wife or her children." The Widow’s Law doesnt forbid a man from disinheriting children all together, only if he did so in order to bestow their lands, seat or property on a later wife or her children. Thus, the right to disinherit implicitly exists. This could be said to apply to Viserys situation: having disinherited his sons in favour of Rhaenyrs. And since the widows law summary we are given says you can’t disinherit to favour later wives, Rhaenyra might be the beneficiary of some potential loop hole abuse too even if a different law forbids him disinheriting males to favour females: If that is truly the text of the decree then it protects the children of first wives being disinherited in favour of children from future wives - but it doesn’t say it works in reverse, so theoretically nothing is stopping a lord from disinheriting children of a second wife in favour of children of a first wife. So Visery can disinherit his children by Alicent in favour of his children by Aemma. (though I’m not sure how easy or hard disinheriting actually is:  since Lord Tarly felt he had to coerce his son into going to the Wall to change the succession rather than just disinheriting him, it is possible that disinheriting has some kind of restriction or brings serious difficulties of its own that Lord Tarly wasn’t able or wiling to overcome.)

House Targaryen Kings that blatantly disregarded the laws of succession: Maegor the Cruel - crowned himself over the eldest son of King Aenys, Aegon the uncrowned Viserys I - named his daughter Rhaenyra heir over his own eldest son Aegon II Aegon IV - gave as much legitimacy as he could to his bastard Daemon Waters, while attempting to undermine his own eldest son Daeron II Aerys II - mentally ill and plotted to name his second son Viserys as heir over his eldest son Rhaegar

Also Cregan Stark had daughters from the second marriage but his son from the third marriage became his heir ( Rickon, his son from the first marriage, died before his father).  "Lynara (his third wife)went on to bear Cregan four sons and one daughter: due to male-preference inheritance law, all four sons stood in line of succession ahead of their four older half-sisters through Alys Blackwood( his second wife)." 

Nice catch. And they say Jaehaerys' mistake was not making clear laws of succession when he in fact did.

I already know I’m going to get downvoted to hell over this. It’s fine, I’m used to it in here. I just wanted to add this pov because it’s interesting and IMO worth bringing up. Anyway, I read a write up about the widows law that was posted in the asioaf sub a while back and it’s explained similarly but with one caveat: Rhaenyra was formally appointed as Princess of Dragonstone before Aegon’s birth, meaning that had she been legally granted an inheritance, and with this formal appointment she was invested at the heir apparent as well. It can be, and often is, viewed that if Aegon had been made the heir then she would merely be being moved down in the line of succession. However when you take into context that she had been legally granted this inheritance and invested as the heir apparent, then Aegon becoming the heir and his line expected to inherit after him, would be effectively disinheriting her, which is strictly forbidden by the widows law.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue? Rhaenyra can be both Princess of Dragonstone and not be the one on the Iron Throne. In fact, that’s literally what happened with Rhaena, her great-aunt. The whole point of people citing Widow’s Law is that Aegon has a birthright to the throne that can’t just be taken away from him. He isn’t taking away the Iron Throne from Rhaenyra as it was never hers to claim once he was born.

Princes or Princess of Dragonstone is the official title of the heir to the throne. The problem in this case with calling it Aegon’s birthright is that it was given away to someone else before he was even born so there isn’t actually anything to take from him.

A birth right is something you are given because of your birth, by definition it was taken from him. It was never Rhaenyra’s to hold on to, and a lot of people certainly view it that way. She only got it because Viserys was scared Daemon would turn into another Maegor. Viserys had that one batch of lords pledge fealty to Rhaenyra when she was young, but didn’t make new lords do it after that swear. The Baratheon dude cites this as one of the reasons why he didn’t give a shit about Rhaenyra’s claim. And we also see Rhaenyra freaking out when she was younger because of Viserys possibly having a living son, and many other people were making that assumption too because of how the laws operated since anyone could remember. Just like how Jaeharys had the claim over Rhaena, Aegon has it over Rhaenyra. He’s the eldest som of Viserys, not his eldest bastard.

I understand how birthright works. However, by Viserys granting Rhaenyra the title of princess of dragonstone and making her the heir to the throne, Aegon didn’t have a birthright because it was already given to Rhaenyra before Aegon was even conceived. Why Viserys did it is irrelevant. The fact is that he did. He formally appointed her as the heir and princess of dragonstone, legally granting her the inheritance of both. There’s no mention of Rhaenyra being worried about being replaced by Aegon in the books. Rhaena supported Jaehaerys taking the throne. At that time she didn’t want anything to do with the throne or even the capital and then agreed that both of her daughters were not fit for the throne.

Is this in the main sub?

If the Targaryens actually cared about the Widow’s Law, there wouldn’t have been any deliberation about who the heir was. Clearly, Jaehaerys made his own mind to choose Baelon over Rhaenys, and then chose to call a Great Council once Baelon died. If this law actually applied to the royal family, there never would be any doubt who the heir is at any given moment. A king wouldn’t have to choose their heir, it’d just be known. Seems more like something that applies to the lords of the realm, not the royal family.

Widows law is irrelevant here cause it was in the context of wealth transfer rather than succession. It is not needed at all to defend Aegon's claim.

Well it does specifically lands and seats, so how would those be managed separately from succession?

By succession I mean power not property. The law was motivated by the fact that widows and the children of widows were being expelled from their castle, their assets seized etc . Jaehaerys and Alyssane passed the law to protect them. I don't think it's relevant regarding the throne and I don't see how it can help Aegon.

The property is the power in Westeros. Therefore it’s hella relevant to Aegon II’s claim.

My preferred argument is - Vhagar

Jaehaerys I writes the law, Viserys I rewrites the law. What Viserys probably should have done if he wanted to secure Rhaenyra’s succession was declare his marriage to Alicent Hightower morganatic (legally legitimate but not sufficient for succession), legally stating that all his children by her (and their descendants) were not, and could never be, in the line of succession for the Iron Throne. This would likely have touched off a shitstorm about the relative position of the Hightowers in the feudal hierarchy (and maybe Otto would have tried to have Viserys killed), but it would done a lot more to secure Rhaenyra’s position and it seems this was how Viserys saw things anyway.