Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

The place to talk about the books and the TV show. Beware of spoilers!

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by Jimolopolas » Wed Feb 26, 2014 04:42

Werther wrote:Westeros don't have a loi salique, women can inherit but they come after their brothers (same situation in medieval england).

PS: i am also a qualified historian specialising in Medieval History (in France, where we can work on sources by the way :P ). But that don't help us for Martin universe :)


Westeros does not follow loi salique inheritance but the Targaryen dynasty does, a highly modified one at that. The Targaryens have practiced this form of succession after the Dance of Dragons. Now as said in canon "House Targaryen has practiced a highly modified version of agnatic primogeniture, placing female claimants in the line of succession behind all possible male ones, even collateral relations." This line means that females are placed behind all other claimants, even those who are not members of House Targaryen. Yes they can inherit, but over three centuries House Targaryen has bred into many other familes, who in-which have bred into others. An example of Targaryen succession law in-place:

"After the death of King Baelor the crown passed to his uncle Viserys II instead of his sisters. If the crown practiced Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture when King Baelor died his eldest sister and also wife, Daena the Defiant, would of inherited the throne."

LancelotLoire wrote:Can you show the exact spot where it says that "Only males can inherit".


Here are some links to several pages on 'A Wiki of Ice and Fire':

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Se ... ms#Culture
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Laws_%26_Justice
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Da ... he_Dragons

Now I do accept that I made a mistake in saying that Males can only inherit, I accept this mistake and withdraw it. What is meant by that statement is that woman are extremely unlikely to inherit, due to collateral relations being put further in-line than females, so all males in Westeros with descent from Aegon the Conqueror would need to be dead before a female can inherit.

Now on the subject of claims. It does not matter if say Viserys the Beggar King had no support nor armies, he still had a claim to the throne. He, along with any descendants he might have, will always have claims to the throne due to their blood relation. Now, Robert Baratheon had a claim to the throne, and he was placed fourth in the line of succession I made in my previous post. Claims are basically a (in a way) legal right to the throne. Say, if Tywin Lannister took the throne he would have acquired it in a non-legal way, but Robert acquired it by pressing his claim.

PS. The only reason i stated my qualifications is so i didn't receive any comments stating: "Go do your research" or some such. I meant no disrespect by it, and i apologise if I made any.
Jimolopolas
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:54

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by LancelotLoire » Wed Feb 26, 2014 09:44

To be fair the only difference between a historic enthusiast and a qualified historian is only an over priced piece of paper. So you did sound a bit arrogant.

And no canon source says that the Targaryens practice Agnatic primogeniture. And by this I mean that it doesn't specifically say Agnatic primogeniture. Nor do I recall it mentioning anywhere in the books that a "collateral relation" would have a higher place than a female.

From what I take it to be is it's a heavily modified Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture similar to the English (But not very)

Kings First son, followed by all of his sons, King's second sons, followed by his sons.. The king's brothers and their male children. The kings uncles and their male children. After that it would drop to the females starting with the daughters of his sons before his own (I would assume). There just really isn't enough information on this to show where females are exactly in the succession from what I read.
User avatar
LancelotLoire
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 16:32

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by Jimolopolas » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:22

I agree that there is no canon source that clearly states that the Targaryens followed a Agnatic Primogeniture system of inheritance, but it is heavily implied in the series and other canon history and lore (As I have already provided an example with the case of Baelor I and Viserys II). Now the concern of the "collateral relation", yes I agree with your statement of their being no mention of this in the series. I purely used the information stored on Westeros.org and A Wiki of Ice and Fire, which are highly supported by George R.R. Martin, and the "collateral relation" issue being stated by Mr. Martin in some of his statements (I can provide these if you wish).

PS. The English system of inheritance was highly modified even to the point where the first son was overlooked (William Rufus for example). And I believe Mr. Martin based the Westerosi/Andal/High Valyrian custom on French feudalism rather than that of the English. (I believe due to the French inheritance issue being more structured and stable).
Jimolopolas
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:54

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by LancelotLoire » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:44

In the case of William II I don't think that one can really accurately be used as his only surviving elder brother was rebellion happy. Not to mention that William was treating both the duchy of Normandy and the english throne as two seperate and unique entities rather than as one. Also in that case, William was technically a French noblemen so they were using the French system of inheritance as well.

The Andals are a bit all over the place really. The Reach is definitely a very French feel to it while the Stormlands and the Vale have very Germanic feelings towards them both.

I do concede that the targaryen's giving the heir dragonstone is somewhat reminisce of the French co-crowning their heirs as kings though.
User avatar
LancelotLoire
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 16:32

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by rjtsaigal » Wed Feb 26, 2014 20:25

I do concede that the targaryen's giving the heir dragonstone is somewhat reminisce of the French co-crowning their heirs as kings though.
Not necessarily. An argument can be made for it being similar to the British system as the British heir was always given Wales.
A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
rjtsaigal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 19:30

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by LancelotLoire » Wed Feb 26, 2014 22:49

The heir actually isn't really granted the territory of Wales at all. A quick look up though and they are actually given the duchy of Cornwall which is more similar to Dragonstone being given. However I'm not sure that we can call it the British system as the royal house during the time period that it came into practice was basically a French one.
User avatar
LancelotLoire
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 16:32

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by Syn » Thu Feb 27, 2014 19:14

LancelotLoire wrote:The heir actually isn't really granted the territory of Wales at all. A quick look up though and they are actually given the duchy of Cornwall which is more similar to Dragonstone being given. However I'm not sure that we can call it the British system as the royal house during the time period that it came into practice was basically a French one.

The heir to the British throne is known as the "Prince of Wales"...the Duke of Cornwall is a secondary title, I suppose.

I don't think they're actually given any land these days though, are they? Just meaningless titles. I'm not British, so I don't know for sure.
User avatar
Syn
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:49

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by EDAP » Thu Feb 27, 2014 19:25

Syn wrote:
LancelotLoire wrote:The heir actually isn't really granted the territory of Wales at all. A quick look up though and they are actually given the duchy of Cornwall which is more similar to Dragonstone being given. However I'm not sure that we can call it the British system as the royal house during the time period that it came into practice was basically a French one.

The heir to the British throne is known as the "Prince of Wales"...the Duke of Cornwall is a secondary title, I suppose.

I don't think they're actually given any land these days though, are they? Just meaningless titles. I'm not British, so I don't know for sure.

Charlie is indeed called the Prince of Wales, but his primary land holding is indeed the Duchy of Cornwall (both of this are kind of actually run by his son William due to Charles age, and William's popularity), which he does actually own (the Welsh might get a bit annoyed if he was their direct ruler / lord). Large parts of the Duchy of Cornwall are actually rented out to people on a lease (for instance the Scilly Isles), so not all of it is in Crown Hands, but it definitely is a title with lands associated with it, not just a meaningless name.
Here is a link to my personal list of FAQs. Please check there to see if it answers you question. The specific details aren't up to date, and I probably won't update it for a while, but the general ideas are unchanged.
EDAP
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 15:15

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by LancelotLoire » Thu Feb 27, 2014 22:39

Going with a modern time period is a bit difficult to mention, as the sovereign doesn't really have the same amount of power as they used to. But still no Prince of Wales has ever really held dominion over Wales.In the case of Charles though he does gain income from Cornwall which according to wiki in 2003 was 9 million pounds...
User avatar
LancelotLoire
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 16:32

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by SuperTechmarine » Sat Mar 01, 2014 17:00

Aegon VI Targaryen wrote:Aegon Targaryen is Aegon VI Targaryen, son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Elia Martell, and is the rightful King of Westeros.

That's what I very firmly believe, and will stick to, until GRRM says otherwise.

Same here. The Blackfyre relies too much on supposition and conjecture for my taste. Hell most "evidence" can be used against it.

Example: The Black Dragon sign could symbolize the Golden Company. Start off supporting a Blackfyre, go to exile in Essos, then come back supporting a Targaryen.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
User avatar
SuperTechmarine
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 16:57

Re: Aegon Targaryen(Spoilers)

PostPosted by Asphyxate » Sun Mar 23, 2014 21:17

I'm inclined to believe Aegon is the real deal. It seems to me that Connington should have noticed if he wasn't. I'm pretty unsure here though to be honest. There is the place where Connington mentions the purple of his eyes are a brighter shade then Rhaegars, but again, that doesn't have to mean anything either. It could even be argued for a resemblance since he thinks of Rhaegar when Aegon says he likes his castle. (Page 944-945 adwd) It's also clearly stated by Tyrion on page 212 that he is very handsome aswell. I've seen some ppl say that he isn't but then you just haven't done your reading. Tyrion thinks "He might well be a Targaryen after all" when Aegon rages after losing in cyvasse but seems to be doubtful still.

Regarding Septa Lemore I'm sure she is highborn. She is written as "Lady Lemore" in one of Jon Conningtons last chapters. I've found that GRRM generally gives us these small clues in the text before revealimg characters. Aegon is also described as "Prince" before he's actually identified. I don't believe she is Ashara however since she had purple eyes. Her eyecolor is never described afaik but it would seem to me that's something Tyrion would have remarked upon.
Asphyxate
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 17:18

Previous

Return to Story and Lore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests