Jaehaerys I's art on the left was made by Amok.
The one in the right is my magnus opus edit made with Paint (like this thing as a whole).
Hello. This is a bit of speculation about an undeveloped aspect of the lore: what exactly was the succession system or Valyria? Thus, I'm not putting it as a "What if".
Well, Valyria is based on Rome in certain ways, so I wondered if their succession laws were also alike.
But, first, I will explain exactly what I'm talking about:
Unlike Medieval Europe, where there was often a confusion between the monarch's private property and the realm itself, Rome developed as a republic, and even retained this identity during the Empire.
Because of that, the Romans separated the concepts of public and private property.
The emperors, in that sense, did not own the empire. Their position was a public office, which originated from the combination of many older ones.
Because of that, the Romans never actually developed a formal succession line or system for it. Theoretically, anyone could become emperor through appointment or public acclamation.
This was completely different and distinct from actual family succession laws in Rome, when individuals inherited their familiars' private property.
In this case, a Roman could establish succession through testament. However, the general rule was that the inheritance was divided among the immediate family members under the household power (the children and, sometimes, the spouse), equally, no matter the gender (though daughters could be passed over, with a general clause).
As Valyria seems to have been a republic, too (I always interpreted the name "Freehold" as essentially a word for "republic" in the universe of the books), I imagine they also held such a distinction.
Also, if their inheritance laws were similar to those of Rome, the practice of incest adds another factor, as it would allow the family a way to protect their property and keep it in the family, rather than dividing it over and over again.
But how would this affect House Targaryen?
Well, we are told that Aenar the Exile was the first head of House Targaryen to establish himself in Dragonstone, transferring all his wealth to this island and becoming the first Lord of Dragonstone in 114 BC.
However, in this context, this could mean two very different things:
Aenar used his wealth to buy most of the valuable estates in Dragonstone, essentially becoming the "owner" of the island;
Since Dragonstone was an outpost of the Freehold, Aenar formally requested the government to be made its governor, under valyrian authority.
Both things probably happened.
However, what would happen after the Doom?
Well, the government that granted his position as governor would not exist anymore, but perhaps he could claim he "inherited" its authority as the last governor legitimately appointed to the office, and passed the position to the next Lord of Dragonstone through an appointment, in a similar fashion to how Valyria itself gave it to him (and to how the emperors appointed their successors).
Meanwhile, the Targaryens could keep practicing the normal family succession laws among themselves and their population, too, with marriages among siblings keeping most of the patrimony (especially the lands) in the main branch of the family.
Nevertheless, the Conquest would create its own problems. The valyrian notions of state and property rights would be too different from the Westerosi ones, where the nobles essentially own their nations and inheritance is generally passed through some form of primogeniture.
Trying to make the Iron Throne a public office of sorts would confuse the locals, who would find such concept alien. Bringing the Valyrian inheritance laws to the Iron Throne would mean Westeros would eventually get partitioned like a pie by multiple Targaryen princelings.
So, Aegon I decided to adopt the local system. He was crowned king and anointed by the High Septon, like previous monarchs of the Reach probably were, and overall kept the local institutions and co-opted them.
However, many would still wonder, through the years, on how much of the local customs should apply to House Targaryen, including on matters of inheritance. Jaehaerys' decision to name his heir and later hold the Great Council could have been inspired by older valyrian practices, but their exact role in a monarchical context got ambiguous, as different factions interpreted it as a precedent in diverse ways. This way, we got the Dance of Dragons.
So, does my hypothesis make sense? What do you think of it?
Hello. This is a bit of speculation about an undeveloped aspect of the lore: what exactly was the succession system or Valyria?
Well, Valyria is based on Rome in certain ways, so I wondered if their succession laws were also alike.
But, first, I will explain exactly what I'm talking about:
Unlike Medieval Europe, where there was often a confusion between the monarch's private property and the realm itself, Rome developed as a republic, and even retained this identity during the Empire.
Because of that, the Romans separated the concepts of public and private property.
The emperors, in that sense, did not own the empire. Their position was a public office, which originated from the combination of many older ones.
Because of that, the Romans never actually developed a formal succession line or system for it. Theoretically, anyone could become emperor through appointment or public acclamation.
This was completely different and distinct from actual family succession laws in Rome, when individuals inherited their familiars' private property.
In this case, a Roman could establish succession through testament. However, the general rule was that the inheritance was divided among the immediate family members under the household power (the children and, sometimes, the spouse), equally, no matter the gender (though daughters could be passed over, with a general clause).
As Valyria seems to have been a republic, too (I always interpreted the name "Freehold" as essentially a word for "republic" in the universe of the books), I imagine they also held such a distinction.
Also, if their inheritance laws were similar to those of Rome, the practice of incest adds another factor, as it would allow the family a way to protect their property and keep it in the family, rather than dividing it over and over again.
But how would this affect House Targaryen?
Well, we are told that Aenar the Exile was the first head of House Targaryen to establish himself in Dragonstone, transferring all his wealth to this island and becoming the first Lord of Dragonstone in 114 BC.
However, in this context, this could mean two very different things:
Aenar used his wealth to buy most of the valuable estates in Dragonstone, essentially becoming the "owner" of the island;
Since Dragonstone was an outpost of the Freehold, Aenar formally requested the government to be made its governor, under valyrian authority.
Both things probably happened.
However, what would happen after the Doom?
Well, the government that granted his position as governor would not exist anymore, but perhaps he could claim he "inherited" its authority as the last governor legitimately appointed to the office, and passed the position to the next Lord of Dragonstone through an appointment, in a similar fashion to how Valyria itself gave it to him (and to how the emperors appointed their successors).
Meanwhile, the Targaryens could keep practicing the normal family succession laws among themselves and their population, too, with marriages among siblings keeping most of the patrimony (especially the lands) in the main branch of the family.
Nevertheless, the Conquest would create its own problems. The valyrian notions of state and property rights would be too different from the Westerosi ones, where the nobles essentially own their nations and inheritance is generally passed through some form of primogeniture.
Trying to make the Iron Throne a public office of sorts would confuse the locals, who would find such concept alien. Bringing the Valyrian inheritance laws to the Iron Throne would mean Westeros would eventually get partitioned like a pie by multiple Targaryen princelings.
So, Aegon I decided to adopt the local system. He was crowned king and anointed by the High Septon, like previous monarchs of the Reach probably were, and overall kept the local institutions and co-opted them.
However, many would still wonder, through the years, on how much of the local customs should apply to House Targaryen, including on matters of inheritance. Jaehaerys' decision to name his heir and later hold the Great Council could have been inspired by older valyrian practices, but their exact role in a monarchical context got ambiguous, as different factions interpreted it as a precedent in diverse ways. This way, we got the Dance of Dragons.
So, does my idea make sense? What do you think of it?
Hello.
I've heard that, historically (including during the Ming Dynasty, which is the period I'm particularly interested about for this question), one's ethnicity (or the closest concept to it) was defined by their patrilineal ancestry. That is, if your father was a Mongol and your mother was Han, you would be considered a Mongol, but you'd be Han if your father was Han and your mother, a Mongol. In that sense, there was no true concept of "mixed race".
However, I wonder how accurate that information is, and if anyone could enlighten me on this matter.
This Alternative universe works based on three divergences.
The first change would happen around the time of the death of Prince Aemon Targaryen, son of King Jaehaerys I, in 92 AC.
In this AU, at some point before his death, Prince Aemon wrote a will demanding the rights of his daughter, Rhaenys, as the next in line in case he died without a male heir, to be respected. Said will would be made public by his wife, Lady Jocelyn Baratheon, and by his mother, Queen Alyssane. While King Jaehaerys would want to make his second son, Prince Baelon, his new heir, Aemon's will would complicate the situation, as doing it would seem disrespectful to Aemon's memory. So, Jaehaerys would be compelled to respect his son's last wishes, under the condition that her descendants with Corlys Velaryon take the Targaryen surname once they succeed her in the Iron Throne. Soon after that, Jaehaerys calls the most important lords in the realm, as well as Baelon and his sons, to swear loyalty to Rhaenys.
Let's say Rhaenys eventually rises to power after Jaehaerys' death, and her reign is stable, at least initially. There might exist some controversies regarding some matters, like the War over the Stepstones (which would now probably be fought directly by the Iron Throne), but the queen manages to keep her throne.
The second change would be the death of Crown Prince Laenor Velaryon in 114 AC, before his marriage to Lady Rhaenyra, daughter of Prince Viserys.
Even with a ruling queen, it would still be expected for her to put her son before her daughter in the succession line, so Laenor would be heir before his sister. Yet, his death would change everything.
(Why would he die? Maybe it could have something to do with Daemon, like in canon, as in this scenario he'd still marry Laena and would probably want her to become queen, so he can be King Consort).
The third change would happen in 120 AC.
In canon, this was the year Laena Velaryon died in Driftmark, while giving birth to her stillborn son with Daemon Targaryen.
In this AU, the labour would happen in either Dragonstone or King's Landing, and so, under the treatment of a different Maester, Laena would manage to survive. However, her son still dies just after his birth. Also, due to complications in the labour, Laena would become unable to have more children. This way, her heirs by blood would be her daughters, Baela and Rhaena.
Because of that, by 120 AC, Westeros under the rule of the Iron Throne would face a very peculiar situation: the potential reign of three queens in succession (Rhaenys, Laena and Baela).
How do you think the people of the Seven Kingdoms would react to this situation? Would they accept this potential "Age of Three Queens", or rebel? How could this scenario develop?
Acho que ele foi muito vilanizado pela historiografia brasileira, mas não posso dizer que ele foi um exemplo de governante. Ele tinha muito potencial e teve várias oportunidades, mas não conseguiu manter boas alianças e gastou muito de seu capital político com problemas (o caso da amante, por exemplo).
Mas como seria uma versão melhor do governo de nosso primeiro imperador? Poderíamos colocar o Brasil em rota de abolição mais cedo, evitar o caos do período regencial, ou outras coisas assim?
Hello.
Based on what I've read, the overall rule, especially during the Ming and Wing dynasties, was that only the emperor in China could wear anything with a five-toed dragon embroidered in it. Such a rule was generally so absolute that wearing such a thing could get someone executed for treason.
However, I've read some texts (though I couldn't really find the sources) about exceptions to this rule, like mentions of kings like Taejo of Joseon wearing five-clawed dragon robes. This seems to contradict what I had learned before.
So, I'd like to know more about the subject, and if such exceptions really happened and why.