Welcome to the dark side

from aljazeera:

baby boromir.

frickin’ baby boromir.

Aragorn: it can’t be him. he is a baby

daemon blackfyre's rebellion was not under the banner that he was the true heir to aegon iv, but the true heir to daena the defiant, and that she in turn was the true heir to baelor the blessed over her uncle viserys ii. none of aegon iv's other bastards ever tried for a throne because they had no possible claim to it above trueborn, elder daeron ii. none except daemon blackfyre, who had a valid claim through his mother's line and because the civil war two generations prior had left that particular question of whether a woman with a stronger claim under primogeniture can ever inherit unanswered.

(let it be noted that aegon iii technically inherited the throne through the uninterrupted male line of aegon-aenys-jaehaerys-baelon-daemon-aegon. the issue of succession between rhaenyra and aegon ii was never legally resolved - jaehaera might have pressed her own claim at any point in the future, hence the prepubescent marriage between aegon and jaehaera combining their lines)

similarly, renly dismisses robert's claim as being talk of "weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. no one but the maesters care about any of it. robert won the throne with his warhammer." he (naively) doesn't see the importance of the legal argument, but there was one - rhaelle baratheon was aegon v's elder sister, and a great council passed over her. robert had a valid claim. ned stark, jon arryn, and hoster tully - all equally part of the rebellion - did not, and made no arguments for the throne.

meanwhile, daenerys's claim is through viserys. she recognizes him as having been a king, and herself as the princess of dragonstone to succeed him in an uninterrupted targaryen dynasty. she is supported by ascensions such as second son baelon targaryen, and viserys i through him. daenerys has a valid legal claim to the throne. the arrival of (f)aegon does little to dispel that, because their arguments to the throne are both grounded in separate precedents following the death of rhaegar/aerys.

the baratheon's rebelled under aegon v when duncan broke his betrothal - under the argument that duncan had disinherited them of what they had been promised (a baratheon queen). they rebelled against the removal of a legal claim to the throne they expected to have, barring the death of either party.

daemon blackfyre's rebellion was not under the banner that he was the true heir to aegon iv, but the true heir to daena the defiant, and that she in turn was the true heir to baelor the blessed over her uncle viserys ii.

As per the information provided via The Sworn Sword, this is incorrect. Daemon Blackfyre never claimed that he was inheriting through Princess Daena. The fact that he sought to invalidate Daeron's legitimacy stands as clear evidence against that since Daemon would not have had to paint Daeron as a bastard if his claim was built on being a descendant of the true heiress, Daena. Plus, it's argued that Aegon IV passing the sword Blackfyre to Daemon over Daeron meant that Aegon recognized the former as his true heir, which clearly makes his rebellion as being built on framing himself as Aegon's heir over Daeron "the Falseborn".

This is the situation as presented to us in the Sworn Sword.

If Aegon the Unworthy had given his sword to his heir Daeron instead of his bastard Daemon, there might never have been a Blackfyre Rebellion

Why, lad? You ask me why? Because Daemon was the better man. The old king saw it, too. He gave the sword to Daemon. Blackfyre, the sword of Aegon the Conquerer, the blade that every Targaryen king had wielded since the Conquest . . . he put that sword in Daemon's hand the day he knighted him, a boy of twelve.

It was all about Aegon's choices, nothing about Daena.

Plus, Princess Daena was passed over by the decision of a Great Council and Daemon would have been crazy if he has tried to go against that in light of precedent, especially since his legitimization was by the royal decree of Aegon. If he tried to argue that Daena was supposed to be queen over Viserys II and his line, then he'd be arguing that Aegon IV didn't have the authority to legitimize him in the first place.

none of aegon iv's other bastards ever tried for a throne because they had no possible claim to it above trueborn, elder daeron ii.

The rest of Aegon IV's bastards didn't try to challenge Daeron because Daemon was in the best position to do so. Yes, the fact that he was Targaryen-blooded on both sides surely played a part, and those who might have supported Princess Daena's claim flocked to him, but as "the King Who Bore the Sword", as the child of two royals who was raised at court and noted for his military excellence, as the eldest of the Great Bastards, Daemon was the only one who truly could challenge Daeron. If any other Great Bastard tried to make a play for the throne, they'd be going against Daeron (and his line) and Daemon (and his line).

the civil war two generations prior had left that particular question of whether a woman with a stronger claim under primogeniture can ever inherit unanswered.

First of all, Rhaenyra did not have the stronger claim under primogeniture, since the Iron Throne and the rest of Westeros, except Dorne, do not employ equal primogeniture. Her claim derived from royal prerogative as Viserys I named her his heir, but the legal argument of primogeniture favored Aegon II.

Second, this was not left unanswered. As per TWOIAF, Viserys I being named Prince of Dragonstone meant that "[i]n the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendents." The Dance of the Dragons did nothing to joss that belief.

While the Dance ended with Aegon III inheriting through the male line, the wedding between Aegon and Jaehaera was to neatly tie off loose ends and satisfy both sides of the conflict. But Aegon II's edict to exclude Rhaenyra from the roll of kings was upheld and Aegon's ascension relied on his claim through his father, as he was the next male, male-line heir. That makes it that Aegon III was upheld as Aegon II's heir, not Rhaenyra.

Moreover, when the issue of succession rose during Aegon III's regency, this is how the discussion ended.

Yet it was Grand Maester Munkun who put an end to the debate when he said, “My lords, it makes no matter. They are both girls. Have we learned so little from the slaughter? We must abide by primogeniture, as the Great Council ruled in 101. The male claim comes before the female.”

Which is the notion that was later supported when the issue of who would sit the Iron Throne between Daena and Viserys II was raised. Here's the relevant part that discusses how the claim of Princess Daena was passed over.

there were some amongst the smallfolk—and even some lords—who felt that the Iron Throne should by rights now pass to Princess Daena. They were few, however; a decade of isolation in the Maidenvault had left Daena and her sisters without powerful allies, and memories of the woes that had befallen the realm when last a woman sat the Iron Throne were still fresh [...] The precedents of the Great Council of 101 and the Dance of the Dragons were therefore cited, and the claims of Baelor's sisters were set aside. Instead the crown passed to his uncle, the King's Hand, Prince Viserys.

This legal question has been answered.

[Renly] (naively) doesn't see the importance of the legal argument, but there was one - rhaelle baratheon was aegon v's elder sister, and a great council passed over her. robert had a valid claim.

A few things here:

1. Rhaelle Targaryen was Aegon V's youngest daughter, so her line had no valid claim against the line of her elder brother Jaehaerys, Aerys II's father. Her claim was never the subject of a Great Council debate because she had none with her elder brother alive, recognized as the Prince of Dragonstone and with male heirs of his own.

2. Robert Baratheon sat the throne mainly through acclamation as the rebels proclaimed him king. His claim through Rhaelle was used by the maesters post-fact to provide a legal continuity of sorts. It remains true, though, that this is the reason Ned put forward as to why Robert was the rebel leader who sat the throne. However, that doesn't mean that he had a valid claim against Aerys and his line in normal circumstances. It's only through the rebellion, which happened due to Aerys breaking the feudal contract and committing acts of tyranny, that Aerys and his line's right to rule was overturned.

3. This is not the subject of debate here but it is not that Renly doesn't see the importance of legal claims. He was making an illegal grab for the throne, knowing that he has no right to it with Stannis alive. Renly was trying to toss the legal argument out of the window so that he could justify his power grab and turn this into a matter of winning the throne by right of conquest.

meanwhile, daenerys's claim is through viserys. she recognizes him as having been a king, and herself as the princess of dragonstone to succeed him in an uninterrupted targaryen dynasty. she is supported by ascensions such as second son baelon targaryen, and viserys i through him. daenerys has a valid legal claim to the throne. the arrival of (f)aegon does little to dispel that, because their arguments to the throne are both grounded in separate precedents following the death of rhaegar/aery

I'm really sorry but this makes a few assumptions that are not supported by the narrative.

Yes, Daenerys' claim comes through the assumption of an uninterrupted Targ succession and invalidates Robert's Rebellion. So the succession goes Aerys II -> Viserys -> Daenerys. However,

1. If we go with Young Aegon's purported identity as Rhaegar's son, that does nuke Daenerys' claim because she can not come to the throne before the line of her eldest brother. The few times where something similar happened, the line of the eldest brother consisted of women (Aerea Targaryen and Rhaenys the Princess Who Never Was) who were passed over due to their gender. Excluding that, the one time where a male heir was passed over was when a Great Council picked Aegon V above the infant Maegor, son of Aerion Brightflame, and that happened through the will of the lords via a Great Council vote.

2. I'm not sure what the scenario of Baelon and Visery I has to do with this. Are you acting on the assumption that this scenario means that any younger sibling has a valid claim against the line of their older brother? Because this is not what happened. Baelon was named Prince of Dragonstone over his niece Rhaenys precisely because Rhaenys was a woman. The precedent Baelon's heirship and Viserys I's ascension set is that "regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants." That works against Daeneyrs, not in her favor.

3. So no, the matter between Daenerys and Young Aegon does not rely on separate precedents. The one thing that Daenerys' claim might rely on is the information that Aerys II named Viserys as Prince of Dragonstone after the Battle of the Trident, when Rhaegar's son Aegon was still alive, suggesting that Aerys had disinherited Rhaegar's line. But I don't expect this to end on a legal debate, especially since Daenerys will probably disbelieve that Young Aegon is Rhaegar's, what with the "mummer's dragon".

the baratheon's rebelled under aegon v when duncan broke his betrothal - under the argument that duncan had disinherited them of what they had been promised (a baratheon queen). they rebelled against the removal of a legal claim to the throne they expected to have, barring the death of either party.

I mean, it is understood that the Baratheons were furious that they lost their chance to have their daughter as a queen and their grandchildren as future kings, but... framing it as Duncan's disinheriting them and removing a legal claim is a reach. The Baratheons didn't inherently have a right to the throne for this to be presented as a legal argument. This was not a legal issue. A grave insult and a loss of a promised rank/privilege, but certainly not something that can be framed in those terms.

Regardless, I'm not sure what this part has to do with Daenerys' claim to the throne anyway. A Baratheon queen to Duncan the Small would not have had a legal claim to the throne, her future sons would. Whereas Daenerys is trying to claim the throne in her own right. The legal situation is completely different anyway.

this is where a lot of fandom #discourse loses touch. westeros is clearly a military aristocracy. but rebellions do not just spring out of nowhere. there is nearly always a legal basis for these uprisings, and the legality matters.

i doubt i'll be able to keep up an exhaustive back and forth on these points on which the two of us disagree, so i'm just going to outline a few points without making a comprehensive bulleted list

1. TWOIAF and F&B are both meant to be from biased perspectives (Yandel & Gyldayn respectively) and there have been discussions regarding the erasure of women's legacies and politicking in both narratives. we don't hear anything about daena at all following her giving birth to daemon, so either she did a personality 180, died offscreen, or she had an involvement in politics we aren't aware of.

given that there was another female claimant who chose not to pursue a throne and then later had some misgivings about it in rhaena (daughter of aenys), it isn't difficult to think daena might have has similar thoughts

2. primogeniture favors all sons over all daughters. does it automatically favor all brothers to a deceased monarch over all daughters of said monarch? this is the question i was posing in the case of daena the defiant vs. viserys ii

3. the choice of viserys i over rhaenys tqwnw in the great council was a shoddy piece of legal engineering that seems nice when written under a certain light at a specific time of day. aegon ii removing rhaenyra from the royal edict was a matter of political will, and the lack of reinstatement a result of a lack of political will to recognize an unpopular monarch. for reference, maegor had little legal claim under primogeniture, yet jaehaerys never removed his titles. there is a difference between "this legal argument was successful in this instance" and "this is a legal precedent that must be abided by."

3a. if renly and the rebellion's political engineering can be dismissed as little more than a post-hoc attempts to fit an eventuality into the existing legal paradigm, then extend that to other circumstances in which that applies. aegon iii becoming king over jaehaera and his elder sisters worked backwards from the evident truth that the eldest male targaryen alive was going to be placed on the throne. [if you are american, look at contemporary cases such as aschroft v. iqbal that work backwards to fit a point. medieval legality isn't immune to politicking, and we shouldn't act as if it is]

4. aegon v signed a contract with house baratheon to marry his heir to a woman of their house, and along with it likely several advantages/tax considerations/future considerations, because that is how marriage contracts work generally. the removal of all those rights constituted a broken contract, a removal of certain rights, and voila there was a rebellion.

5. lastly - i'm not sure what's confusing about the difference between dany and (f)aegon's claims but just to reiterate: when aemon died, baelon became prince of dragonstone under the idea that the second son comes before the daughter of the first, but when he pre-deceased jaehaerys, viserys i remained first in line for the throne despite being younger than rhaenys tqwnw. conversely, when baelor breakspear predeceased his father, his own son valarr targaryen became the prince of dragonstone over baelor's younger brothers. these are two separate precedents that mirror dany/aegon's claims, and on paper contradict each other. i know, i know, hand-wave-but-women, but let us generously assume that robert baratheon's intent to assassinate daenerys in fear that she would have a son was rooted in a founded belief that dany's son did indeed have a claim to the throne seeing as his own (post-hoc) claim was descended through a woman... and the legal argument makes itself.

this is not really a point but just philosophically: all legal claims are manufactured. their strength comes from precedent, popularity, and the political sense of the time. it is indeed ridiculous to assume that a "winning" political argument in one scenario will automatically be successful in another - just as unlikely as it is to think might can both take a throne and keep it without sufficient justification.

I will follow your example in condensing the points since this has grown into a long enough post.

1. I'm not arguing that Daena has accepted the dismissal of her claim since this is not what you were arguing in the first place (as I understood it at least). I'm arguing against the argument that Daemon presented to his supporters was that he was basing his royal claim on his mother rather than his father. All the evidence we have points to him explicitly framing himself as Aegon IV's heir. This has nothing to do with what Daena's stance on the matter or on her claim was, or with the biased accounts of Yandel/Gyldayn. Most of our information about the first Blackfyre rebellion actually comes from the mouth of Eustace Osgrey, a Blackfyre supporter, rather than from the recollection of a biased maester.

2. Re: the question about primogeniture favoring the brothers of a deceased monarch over the latter's daughters. That does become the way of the royal succession following the passing over of Princess Rhaenys, then her son Laenor, then the outcome of the Dance. By the time the question of the claim of Princess Daena vs Prince Viserys came up, these are the precedents that were used (and they were brought up against to pass over the claim of Vaella, the daughter of Prince Daeron the Drunken upon King Maekar's death).

While we only hear about how that went down through biased sources, the fact remains that Daena was passed over in favor of Viserys. And the iron precedent of the Great Council of 101 was repeatedly put into effect, altering the royal succession. These are the facts that the narrative present. And trust me, I've yelled about how the only source of information about a myriad of women comes through the lens of biased, misogynistic men, but that's the extent of the information we have for now, until we get more Dunk and Egg novellas.

3. I'm not gonna argue about the proper legal handling of how Viserys I was chosen or how Rhaenyra was excluded from the roll of kings. The thing is that I don't think if it's relevant if I believe that it was properly handled or not, when the narrative presents it as something that was accepted as precedent. You are correct about how Maegor was never removed from the roll of kings as well. However, again, it's the narrative that presents the situation with Rhanerya as something that set a precedent. As it does with how Viserys I's heirship was interpreted. I dislike the source of information as much as you do, but as I've said, considering that these political events did happen, the story is giving us these situations as accepted precedents within the narrative. I'm not the one making the difference between "this legal argument was successful in this instance" and "this is a legal precedent that must be abided by.", the narrative is.

4. A broken contract is a legal issue, correct, but my issue with the framing was that it was a legal claim thing. I was a little broad in saying that it's not a legal issue, I should have said that it's not an inheritance legal issue that it can be put down as Duncan disinheriting someone on the Baratheon side, since the person he would be disinheriting (i.e, a future child) did not exist. I don't think that it can be argued that Duncan removed the Baratheon's right to the throne via the broken betrothal because they did not have that right in the first place. It is an issue of a broken contract, which is vastly different.

daemon blackfyre's rebellion was not under the banner that he was the true heir to aegon iv, but the true heir to daena the defiant, and that she in turn was the true heir to baelor the blessed over her uncle viserys ii. none of aegon iv's other bastards ever tried for a throne because they had no possible claim to it above trueborn, elder daeron ii. none except daemon blackfyre, who had a valid claim through his mother's line and because the civil war two generations prior had left that particular question of whether a woman with a stronger claim under primogeniture can ever inherit unanswered.

(let it be noted that aegon iii technically inherited the throne through the uninterrupted male line of aegon-aenys-jaehaerys-baelon-daemon-aegon. the issue of succession between rhaenyra and aegon ii was never legally resolved - jaehaera might have pressed her own claim at any point in the future, hence the prepubescent marriage between aegon and jaehaera combining their lines)

similarly, renly dismisses robert's claim as being talk of "weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. no one but the maesters care about any of it. robert won the throne with his warhammer." he (naively) doesn't see the importance of the legal argument, but there was one - rhaelle baratheon was aegon v's elder sister, and a great council passed over her. robert had a valid claim. ned stark, jon arryn, and hoster tully - all equally part of the rebellion - did not, and made no arguments for the throne.

meanwhile, daenerys's claim is through viserys. she recognizes him as having been a king, and herself as the princess of dragonstone to succeed him in an uninterrupted targaryen dynasty. she is supported by ascensions such as second son baelon targaryen, and viserys i through him. daenerys has a valid legal claim to the throne. the arrival of (f)aegon does little to dispel that, because their arguments to the throne are both grounded in separate precedents following the death of rhaegar/aerys.

the baratheon's rebelled under aegon v when duncan broke his betrothal - under the argument that duncan had disinherited them of what they had been promised (a baratheon queen). they rebelled against the removal of a legal claim to the throne they expected to have, barring the death of either party.

daemon blackfyre's rebellion was not under the banner that he was the true heir to aegon iv, but the true heir to daena the defiant, and that she in turn was the true heir to baelor the blessed over her uncle viserys ii.

As per the information provided via The Sworn Sword, this is incorrect. Daemon Blackfyre never claimed that he was inheriting through Princess Daena. The fact that he sought to invalidate Daeron's legitimacy stands as clear evidence against that since Daemon would not have had to paint Daeron as a bastard if his claim was built on being a descendant of the true heiress, Daena. Plus, it's argued that Aegon IV passing the sword Blackfyre to Daemon over Daeron meant that Aegon recognized the former as his true heir, which clearly makes his rebellion as being built on framing himself as Aegon's heir over Daeron "the Falseborn".

This is the situation as presented to us in the Sworn Sword.

If Aegon the Unworthy had given his sword to his heir Daeron instead of his bastard Daemon, there might never have been a Blackfyre Rebellion

Why, lad? You ask me why? Because Daemon was the better man. The old king saw it, too. He gave the sword to Daemon. Blackfyre, the sword of Aegon the Conquerer, the blade that every Targaryen king had wielded since the Conquest . . . he put that sword in Daemon's hand the day he knighted him, a boy of twelve.

It was all about Aegon's choices, nothing about Daena.

Plus, Princess Daena was passed over by the decision of a Great Council and Daemon would have been crazy if he has tried to go against that in light of precedent, especially since his legitimization was by the royal decree of Aegon. If he tried to argue that Daena was supposed to be queen over Viserys II and his line, then he'd be arguing that Aegon IV didn't have the authority to legitimize him in the first place.

none of aegon iv's other bastards ever tried for a throne because they had no possible claim to it above trueborn, elder daeron ii.

The rest of Aegon IV's bastards didn't try to challenge Daeron because Daemon was in the best position to do so. Yes, the fact that he was Targaryen-blooded on both sides surely played a part, and those who might have supported Princess Daena's claim flocked to him, but as "the King Who Bore the Sword", as the child of two royals who was raised at court and noted for his military excellence, as the eldest of the Great Bastards, Daemon was the only one who truly could challenge Daeron. If any other Great Bastard tried to make a play for the throne, they'd be going against Daeron (and his line) and Daemon (and his line).

the civil war two generations prior had left that particular question of whether a woman with a stronger claim under primogeniture can ever inherit unanswered.

First of all, Rhaenyra did not have the stronger claim under primogeniture, since the Iron Throne and the rest of Westeros, except Dorne, do not employ equal primogeniture. Her claim derived from royal prerogative as Viserys I named her his heir, but the legal argument of primogeniture favored Aegon II.

Second, this was not left unanswered. As per TWOIAF, Viserys I being named Prince of Dragonstone meant that "[i]n the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendents." The Dance of the Dragons did nothing to joss that belief.

While the Dance ended with Aegon III inheriting through the male line, the wedding between Aegon and Jaehaera was to neatly tie off loose ends and satisfy both sides of the conflict. But Aegon II's edict to exclude Rhaenyra from the roll of kings was upheld and Aegon's ascension relied on his claim through his father, as he was the next male, male-line heir. That makes it that Aegon III was upheld as Aegon II's heir, not Rhaenyra.

Moreover, when the issue of succession rose during Aegon III's regency, this is how the discussion ended.

Yet it was Grand Maester Munkun who put an end to the debate when he said, “My lords, it makes no matter. They are both girls. Have we learned so little from the slaughter? We must abide by primogeniture, as the Great Council ruled in 101. The male claim comes before the female.”

Which is the notion that was later supported when the issue of who would sit the Iron Throne between Daena and Viserys II was raised. Here's the relevant part that discusses how the claim of Princess Daena was passed over.

there were some amongst the smallfolk—and even some lords—who felt that the Iron Throne should by rights now pass to Princess Daena. They were few, however; a decade of isolation in the Maidenvault had left Daena and her sisters without powerful allies, and memories of the woes that had befallen the realm when last a woman sat the Iron Throne were still fresh [...] The precedents of the Great Council of 101 and the Dance of the Dragons were therefore cited, and the claims of Baelor's sisters were set aside. Instead the crown passed to his uncle, the King's Hand, Prince Viserys.

This legal question has been answered.

[Renly] (naively) doesn't see the importance of the legal argument, but there was one - rhaelle baratheon was aegon v's elder sister, and a great council passed over her. robert had a valid claim.

A few things here:

1. Rhaelle Targaryen was Aegon V's youngest daughter, so her line had no valid claim against the line of her elder brother Jaehaerys, Aerys II's father. Her claim was never the subject of a Great Council debate because she had none with her elder brother alive, recognized as the Prince of Dragonstone and with male heirs of his own.

2. Robert Baratheon sat the throne mainly through acclamation as the rebels proclaimed him king. His claim through Rhaelle was used by the maesters post-fact to provide a legal continuity of sorts. It remains true, though, that this is the reason Ned put forward as to why Robert was the rebel leader who sat the throne. However, that doesn't mean that he had a valid claim against Aerys and his line in normal circumstances. It's only through the rebellion, which happened due to Aerys breaking the feudal contract and committing acts of tyranny, that Aerys and his line's right to rule was overturned.

3. This is not the subject of debate here but it is not that Renly doesn't see the importance of legal claims. He was making an illegal grab for the throne, knowing that he has no right to it with Stannis alive. Renly was trying to toss the legal argument out of the window so that he could justify his power grab and turn this into a matter of winning the throne by right of conquest.

meanwhile, daenerys's claim is through viserys. she recognizes him as having been a king, and herself as the princess of dragonstone to succeed him in an uninterrupted targaryen dynasty. she is supported by ascensions such as second son baelon targaryen, and viserys i through him. daenerys has a valid legal claim to the throne. the arrival of (f)aegon does little to dispel that, because their arguments to the throne are both grounded in separate precedents following the death of rhaegar/aery

I'm really sorry but this makes a few assumptions that are not supported by the narrative.

Yes, Daenerys' claim comes through the assumption of an uninterrupted Targ succession and invalidates Robert's Rebellion. So the succession goes Aerys II -> Viserys -> Daenerys. However,

1. If we go with Young Aegon's purported identity as Rhaegar's son, that does nuke Daenerys' claim because she can not come to the throne before the line of her eldest brother. The few times where something similar happened, the line of the eldest brother consisted of women (Aerea Targaryen and Rhaenys the Princess Who Never Was) who were passed over due to their gender. Excluding that, the one time where a male heir was passed over was when a Great Council picked Aegon V above the infant Maegor, son of Aerion Brightflame, and that happened through the will of the lords via a Great Council vote.

2. I'm not sure what the scenario of Baelon and Visery I has to do with this. Are you acting on the assumption that this scenario means that any younger sibling has a valid claim against the line of their older brother? Because this is not what happened. Baelon was named Prince of Dragonstone over his niece Rhaenys precisely because Rhaenys was a woman. The precedent Baelon's heirship and Viserys I's ascension set is that "regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants." That works against Daeneyrs, not in her favor.

3. So no, the matter between Daenerys and Young Aegon does not rely on separate precedents. The one thing that Daenerys' claim might rely on is the information that Aerys II named Viserys as Prince of Dragonstone after the Battle of the Trident, when Rhaegar's son Aegon was still alive, suggesting that Aerys had disinherited Rhaegar's line. But I don't expect this to end on a legal debate, especially since Daenerys will probably disbelieve that Young Aegon is Rhaegar's, what with the "mummer's dragon".

the baratheon's rebelled under aegon v when duncan broke his betrothal - under the argument that duncan had disinherited them of what they had been promised (a baratheon queen). they rebelled against the removal of a legal claim to the throne they expected to have, barring the death of either party.

I mean, it is understood that the Baratheons were furious that they lost their chance to have their daughter as a queen and their grandchildren as future kings, but... framing it as Duncan's disinheriting them and removing a legal claim is a reach. The Baratheons didn't inherently have a right to the throne for this to be presented as a legal argument. This was not a legal issue. A grave insult and a loss of a promised rank/privilege, but certainly not something that can be framed in those terms.

Regardless, I'm not sure what this part has to do with Daenerys' claim to the throne anyway. A Baratheon queen to Duncan the Small would not have had a legal claim to the throne, her future sons would. Whereas Daenerys is trying to claim the throne in her own right. The legal situation is completely different anyway.

this is where a lot of fandom #discourse loses touch. westeros is clearly a military aristocracy. but rebellions do not just spring out of nowhere. there is nearly always a legal basis for these uprisings, and the legality matters.

"Zionism is colonialism."

Sources

princessmlokhia tweet

It is not a neutral “conflict”. Palestinians don’t have:

an army

police officers littered around the streets fighting off attacking settlers

$3.8B funding from the US

bomb shelters

homes (hello they’re being evicted and bombed?)

immediate access to medical care (settlers are blocking ambulances and throwing grenades)

citizen acknowledgement from the government that supposedly wants to help them

means of defending themselves

the right to properly mourn (a funeral was recently attacked by settlers)

justice

Anyone who chooses to claim neutrality is choosing to claim the side of genocide. Neutral = complicit. The number of Palestinian deaths remains staggering and I promise, the occupying state’s numbers are nothing compared to it. Thousands more deaths and fatalities have occurred to the Palestinian people. When the death toll defers by roughly 9,000, I think it’s safe to say that the situation isn’t neutral.*

I repeat, if you are neutral, you side with genocide.

*x

As a bonus:

I really don’t mean to guilt trip anyone, but the word needs to be spread about Palestine and no major news outlets are covering it. Hundreds of Palestinians are being injured by the Israeli Occupation forces trying to defend their homes from settler violence and ethnic cleansing.

For the past month lynch mobs and anti-Palestinian pogroms have filled the streets of Jerusalem, this is an extension of over 70 years of ethnic cleansing, dispossession, occupation, settler colonialism, and murder that has effected Palestinians, and Israeli courts have ordered the eviction of 12 Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah and to hand over their land to Israeli settlers. If you are American, this is what your tax dollars are going to, the least you can do is spread the word and voice your support for us. 

If you are able to donate, here are some donation links for Palestinians in need: 

Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) 

Palestinian Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association 

Save the Children 

US Campaign for Palestinian Human Rights

Project Rozana USA 

Adalah Justice Project

Medical Aid for Palestine (UK)

Palestine Children’s Relief Fund

Palestinian Policy Network

Electronic Intifada 

Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU)

International Medical Corps (GAZA) 

Human Concern International (Gaza) 

Playgrounds for Palestine

Watch to Donate: 

X