Untitled

He could have made Rhaenyra’s position a matter of law rather than something dependent on everyone continuing to respect his personal wishes after he was gone.

Yes, I know that people will argue that "the king’s word is law" in particular contexts, but that does not mean a medieval king had unlimited freedom to do whatever he wanted. It depends on the circumstances, what exactly the king was ordering, and whether his decision contradicted established legal norms, customs, precedents, or the rights of others.

For example, if a king ordered his subjects to execute heretics according to the laws and religious practices of his realm, then his command could obviously have the force of law in that particular situation. But if we’re talking about succession, the situation becomes much more complicated. A king naming someone as his heir does not automatically mean that every other competing claim disappears.

Edward VI attempted to exclude Mary Tudor and Elizabeth from the succession and designate Lady Jane Grey as his successor. Yet Jane’s appointment did not automatically make her universally accepted as the rightful queen. Mary had a strong hereditary and legal claim, and Jane’s accession was immediately contested. Therefore, the king’s personal decision was not enough by itself to make the succession politically or legally unquestionable.

Martin’s books are obviously fantasy, but they draw heavily from medieval and early-modern history. Westerosi monarchy therefore isn’t best understood through the modern idea that “the king said it, therefore it is automatically legal.” Medieval monarchies were surrounded by customs, traditions, precedents, oaths, religious law, and political expectations that could all affect how a royal decision was understood.

GRRM himself repeatedly mocks and criticize the idea that wearing a crown gives a king unlimited authority through Tyrion.

Joffrey Baratheon: "You can't talk to me like that. The king can do as he likes!"

Tyrion Lannister: "The Mad King did as he liked. Has your uncle Jaime ever told you what happened to him"

Joffrey is an example of this mentality he believes that being king means he can simply do whatever he wants. The story clearly treats that belief as foolish rather than presenting it as an accurate description of how monarchy works.

I actually find it funny when Team Black stans defend the idea that “the king’s word is law” while also presenting themselves as defenders of gender equality, when in fact this is just defending absolute monarchy not gender equality.

Equality would actually mean questioning the king’s unlimited power, limiting his authority (his words) and recognizing that even the king should be subject to laws and customs. He can create or change laws, sure, but he shouldn’t simply be above them and do whatever he wants.

And we really need to stop treating “the king said it, therefore it’s automatically legitimate” as some progressive argument, especially when GRRM is clearly criticizing this kind of unchecked royal power in the first place.

And when I say the king can’t simply do whatever he wants if the process means destroying the rights and political interests of other people, I’m also talking about his second wife.

Alicent isn’t just some random woman who happened to have children with the king. She is a Hightower, a daughter of one of the wealthiest and most powerful houses in Westeros, the queen, and after Viserys’s death she would become a Dowager Queen with multiple royal sons.

She has her own political interests and, within the logic of politics, she has every reason to care about what happens to her children and her bloodline after his death. She gave Viserys sons who themselves have legitimate claims, so it makes sense that her only “reward” should be watching one of them become king or simply marrying Aegon to Rhaenyra.