People not knowing what is usurping | !!Rant!!
Something a little different from me but, I really needed to get this out of me cause the stupidity of these arguments makes me want to finish Fire and Blood quicker out of spite.
This is something a bit different from my usual posts. But, I genuinely need to rant about this.
Let's begin with how this argument stems from people not being okay with the fact that Aegon II is known as an Usurper (which he is). This person compared Aegon the Conqueror, Aegon the Uncrowned, Viserys II, Aegon the Unlucky, Baelon the Brave and Viserys I as all usurpers.
Now let's analyze these situations shall we?
Aegon The Conqueror
By the title alone, there should be no argument that he's no usurper. He's a conqueror. I had a guy who argued that "since he crowned himself as King before he was named king, means he usurped all the thrones because he called himself King of the Rhoynars, The Andals and the First Men. To which I replied, there was no King of the Andals the shabang. Ergo, there was no throne for him to usurp. He created the institution that we now know as the Iron Thrones and the Seven Kingdoms united as one. So he is not an usurper. But a conqueror or more informally invader. But, he didn't usurp anyone who held the title of King of the Andals, The Rhoynars and the First Men.
Aegon The Uncrowned
Now, Aegon the Uncrowned is a trickier situation. But, the fault is not his. It is completely his father's. But, in a way they managed to resolve this by marrying them together. Rhaena and Aegon to me aren't in love, but, definitely found comfort in each other and valued one and others opinion.
By birth Rhaena should've been Queen, but, Westeros is founded in patriarchy so, it could've never be. But, the key thing here is that she was never named officially as Heir. It was Aegon. I can see how some might see this as usurpation, but, by law, he didn't. He was named, and Rhaena would've still been Queen Consort.
Baelon The Brave & Viserys The Peaceful
In Baelon's situation, the blame is Jaehaerys. Aemon and Jocelyn since the birth of Rhaenys affirmed her right as Aemon's heir. But, with Aemon's death, and Jaehaerys not wanting for the Targaryen line to seem weak named Baelon. Baelon could've refused. But, then again, back then Vaegon wasn't born yet, and Viserys not old enough, he would've still relied on Baelon as a regent, so naming him as Jaehaerys heir seemed right at the time. Returning to the main topic, Baelon is still not an usurper. Because, once again, by birth the throne should've gone to Rhaenys, but due to Jaehaerys and Westerosi culture in general, the crown went to Baelon, and he was named heir. Ergo, not an usurper by law.
Now Viserys, was named by the Great Council of 101. Once again, the crown should've gone to Jaehaerys oldest grandchild, Rhaenys, but, with the vote of the Great Council, Viserys was chosen and named heir. Meaning he's no usurper by law.
Aegon The Usurper
Now to the only actual Usurper alongside Maegor. Aegon is the first born male son of Viserys, the ruling king. And for two generations absolute male primogeniture was preferred. But, just because it was preferred, doesn't mean there was a law. It is the standard but, as King, what Viserys said and commanded was law. By that logic, Viserys for 20 years named and kept Rhaenyra as his heir. Meaning she's the crown princess and named heir to the current king.
After Viserys death, in Rise of the Dragon and Fire and Blood, Alicent for 4 days plans the usurpation of Rhaenyra Targaryen with the Green Council. Breaking the Widow's Law set by Queen Alysanne as well as the words of the previous King. Making her and those who conspired traitors. Aegon then accepted the crown meaning he partook the act of usurping Rhaenyra and allowed himself to be named King. Going against the words of the previous king. Aegon is an usurper because he was never named heir. The only reason why he got the crown is because he was born a man and Rhaenyra a woman.
Final Thoughts
I'm ending it here since I don't think there's much I need to say on Aegon III and Viserys II. Since I'd be just regurgitating the same thing.
The argument just doesn't stand and people have to acknowledge that Aegon is only worthy of the title Usurper. Because, let's all be honest, that's what he mainly remembered for.
Never in my life have I ever seen people twisting the narrative so hard to try to justify Aegon's actions and the Greens by extension.
That's all from me.
Thanks all for reading my very frustrated thoughts on this stupid ass argument.
