[TV] House of the Dragon

[AcidicSyn]

He didn't change or create any law.

The law is and was that the King names his heir. Tradition was that the heir has to be his oldest son. He went against tradition, but that is his right as king. He miscalculated the pushback his decision would get, biggest mistake being that he can't do anything about it since he'd be dead by the time any heir would take the throne. But still, he was the king, his word about who will be heir is the law. Not that hard to understand, really.

It's interesting someone would bring this up. if I am remembering correctly (Though I cannot for the life of me remember which book so apply salt generously) there was precedent for a king simply stepping aside for their heir to take over before they died themselves.

Viserys could have just done that earlier, let his daughter rule as queen for like 10 years that way when he dies, shes already established.

[Varodoc]

Yeah, I agree his decision to name Rhaenyra heir led to the civil war. That doesn't mean the decision was unlawful. It only means that, even in Westeros, if enough people want tradition be followed revolutions/rebellions/usurpations might be the repercussion of the decision.

Your interpretation cannot be reconciled with the exchanges from Oberyn and Tyrion that I provided.

If agnatic primogeniture is just a meaningless tradition that can be ignored on a whim, Oberyn wouldn't be bragging about Dorne treating women equally on the matters of succession, as the Seven Kingdoms would do the same, it would just be a matter of the lord's whim. And Tyrion wouldn't remind his father that he's his legal, heir, as he'd likely be smart enough to realize that Tywin would simply disregard tradition to make Cersei the heiress.

Your interpretation cannot be reconciled with the stories of these two aforementioned characters and the overall reason that makes Dorne unique (the fact that they don't discriminate women on matters of succession). A major world-building point about Dorne would crash down if your interpretation were taken as true.

Lastly, the civil war literally started because enough people didn't want to follow tradition.

Viserys did not want to follow tradition. If he had, Aegon would have publicly been named heir and Rhaenyra would have legally been forced to swear fealty to him. It's literally the opposite of what you said. The civil war didn't start because the king made the traditional choice and people were tired. It started because the king made the untraditional choice.

Let's not even get into the fact that, if Rhaenyra won, you'd be handing the throne over to illegitimate bastards, since Rhaenyra's children are bastards, and everyone in-universe knows this. Yet one more reason that makes Rhaenyra's position look terrible. If you wanted to argue "screw tradition, the king can do what he likes!" (Joffrey and Aerys II also did what they liked btw), then there would be the whole problem that Rhaenyra's children are bastards and you'd basically be mocking the institution itself by giving the throne over to a bastard.

[Khaza-R]

Your interpretation cannot be reconciled with the exchanges from Oberyn and Tyrion that I provided.

If agnatic primogeniture is just a meaningless tradition that can be ignored on a whim, Oberyn wouldn't be bragging about Dorne treating women equally on the matters of succession, as the Seven Kingdoms would do the same, it would just be a matter of the lord's whim. And Tyrion wouldn't remind his father that he's his legal, heir, as he'd likely be smart enough to realize that Tywin would simply disregard tradition to make Cersei the heiress.

Your interpretation cannot be reconciled with the stories of these two aforementioned characters and the overall reason that makes Dorne unique (the fact that they don't discriminate women on matters of succession). A major world-building point about Dorne would crash down if your interpretation were taken as true.

Lastly, the civil war literally started because enough people didn't want to follow tradition.

Viserys did not want to follow tradition. If he had, Aegon would have publicly been named heir and Rhaenyra would have legally been forced to swear fealty to him. It's literally the opposite of what you said. The civil war didn't start because the king made the traditional choice and people were tired. It started because the king made the untraditional choice.

I am curious what imaginary governing body you seem to think has sovereignty over Viserys. The poster you quoted is correct. Viserys did nothing unlawful because he is king and there is no authority to stop him from enacting his own laws or breaking from traditions if he chooses to do so.

[Varodoc]

I am curious what imaginary governing body you seem to think has sovereignty over Viserys. The poster you quoted is correct. Viserys did nothing unlawful because he is king and there is no authority to stop him from enacting his own laws or breaking from traditions if he chooses to do so.

I don't know. Maybe the Small Council, the governing body of the realm which has an office that is literally called "Master of Laws"?

What you say directly opposes the entire message of Game of Thrones.

Doing whatever you want, without regard for the law is the mark of a bad king, and Game of Thrones showed this via Joffrey, who believed the king was entitled to do whatever he wanted, but was confronted by Tyrion, who reminded him that Aerys II (infamously known as Mad King) also did whatever he wanted. Both Joffrey and Aerys, spoiled brats who cared nothing about laws, only made the country bleed. Aerys II's own daughter and spiritual successor, Daenerys, also ended up being a stain in Westerosi history, as she torched the capital against the wishes of all her advisors. The same fate happened to Viserys, another monarch who believed the king could just do whatever tf he wanted, and went down in history as a weak king who planted the seeds for the civil war.

As it turns out: No. In no feudal monarchy is the king ever allowed legally to do whatever he wants. Westeros isn't an absolute monarchy and Viserys I isn't Louis XIV.

[Khaza-R]

I don't know. Maybe the Small Council, the governing body of the realm which has an office that is literally called "Master of Laws"?

Nope. The small council nor the Hand have any authority over the king. They are there to keep the King's law. Not the other way around.

What you say directly opposes the entire message of Game of Thrones.

Doing whatever you want, without regard for the law is the mark of a bad king, and Game of Thrones showed this via Joffrey, who believed the king was entitled to do whatever he wanted, but was confronted by Tyrion, who reminded him that Aerys II (infamously known as Mad King) also did whatever he wanted. Both Joffrey and Aerys, spoiled brats who cared nothing about laws, only made the country bleed. Aerys II's own daughter and spiritual successor, Daenerys, also ended up being a stain in Westerosi history, as she torched the capital against the wishes of all her advisors. The same fate happened to Viserys, another monarch who believed the king could just do whatever tf he wanted, and went down in history as a weak king who planted the seeds for the civil war.

And the Mad King was assassinated not removed from power by any governing body to keep him in check. Because killing him or physically overthrowing him was the only way to remove him from power.

As it turns out: No. In no feudal monarchy is the king ever allowed legally to do whatever he wants. Westeros isn't an absolute monarchy and Viserys I isn't Louis XIV.

Except it is an absolute monarchy. Confirmed so by its own author :

Question : Why do you think the political institutions in the Seven Kingdoms are so weak?

GRRM : the Kingdom was unified with dragons, so the Targaryen's flaw was to create an absolute monarchy highly dependent on them, with the small council not designed to be a real check and balance. So, without dragons it took a sneeze, a wildly incompetent and megalomaniac king, a love struck prince, a brutal civil war, a dissolute king that didn't really know what to do with the throne and then chaos.

[PACOX]

He didn't usurp anything. All he did was give Viserys the chance to make a male heir and continue with the traditional laws of succession. Had Viserys publicly replaced Rhaenyra with Aegon as heir, the Dance of Dragons would never have happened.

This took me out of everything you wrote. I'm not sure if you're just stanning for Team Green or you actually misunderstood the show. They literally say in the episode that houses already pledged to Rhaenyra. She was publically named heir. Otto always conspired against her and Alicents (mistaken) revelation on added false legitimacy to his plan.

Vis's fault is that he couldnt see/didnt check the Hightower conspiracy. Which was not really his fault because he thought his Hand and wife wouldnt be snakes. His other fault was slipping up and confusing Alicent and Rhae...which again isn't something you can honestly hold him to because it was the honest mistake of a man moments from death made in the dark.

Also tradition and misogyny isn't law. Women arent prohibited from sitting on the throne, its lords who don't accept a woman on the throne thats the issue. Hell Otto didnt care that a woman would be a throne, he wanted his bloodline on the throne.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don't know. Maybe the Small Council, the governing body of the realm which has an office that is literally called "Master of Laws"?

What you say directly opposes the entire message of Game of Thrones.

Doing whatever you want, without regard for the law is the mark of a bad king,

That doesn't say what you think it does. A bad King is still King.

Joffrey was a bad king...but still King. Aerys was a mad King...but still King. Viserys may have been a soft king that broke with tradition...but he was still the King. Otto was still his Hand...and sworn to carry out the King's Will...not his own. All those men that swore fealty to Rhaenyra and then plotted to put Aegon on the throne are Oathbreakers and traitors. Their justification that a lot of those lords that swore to Rhaenyra are dead now is just that...a justification. Rhaenyra is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. Would her claiming the Iron Throne set off a Civil War anyway? Possibly, but that doesn't make what the Greens did any less treasonous.

If there were any actual law about a Queen sitting on the Iron Throne...then Rhaenys wouldn't have been considered for it in the first place. But she was, she lost, but she was being considered. If it were an unbreakable law than Rhaenyra couldn't be named heir over Daemon and Aegon would have automatically been named heir upon his birth. If memory serves...it was Otto that wanted Viserys to name Rhaenyra his heir over Daemon in the first place.

[Celista]

I'm sure this has been said in the thread already but Rhaenys really should have toasted the Hightowers with her dragon She's just causing even more bloodshed by delaying the conflict.

[Linkedblade]

It's obviously a law and it was still present even in the GoT era. In fact, Tyrion once reminded Tywin that he was his rightful heir to Casterly Rock. This simple exchange tells us two things: 1) that I am right 2) that the law exists and it was still in place by the time of GoT; as Cersei, despite being older than Tyrion, had no right to Casterly Rock, due to being a woman (Jaime was obviously excluded due to being kingsguard). Leaving Tyrion as the rightful heir to Casterly Rock, as the eldest son still eligible to inherit titles. And even Tywin had to cope with that fact and acknowledge Tyrion as the rightful heir.



Because Viserys was an idiot who planted the seeds of the civil war, like I'm explaining to you and like the Maesters stated in the recounting of the civil war.




The literal historians of Westeros would agree that the main cause of the civil war, in the end, was Viserys himself.

From what I can find:

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

Link

I'd argue that the main cause of the war is the the Greens' choice to usurp the King's command and crown their own "heir." I don't think anyone would take the drug and near-death induced ramblings of a man as a sober command. Also doesn't help the there are plenty of people in the family have the same or similar sounding names. "Aegon is the prince that was promised," and Alicent know's that both her son and her step-grandson are both named Aegon.

[Polyxo]

playin crusader kings all my life for this convo

[Corvus]

The House of Dragons is based on the period of English history called The Anarchy (and if you don't want spoilers, don't go look it up.) At that stage primogeniture was not the tradition yet.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

She didn't even try to be morally good. She never has. She covers for her rapist son who she then puts on the Iron Throne. No, she isn't Jon Snow...or Eddard Stark.. because those were actually morally good people. And I would say that Larys isn't her "useful pawn"... she's his. She's been a pawn for others her entire life.

It's kind of amazing when you're speaking pure truth and facts.
Have to fully agree with you here.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know. Maybe the Small Council, the governing body of the realm which has an office that is literally called "Master of Laws"?

What you say directly opposes the entire message of Game of Thrones.

Doing whatever you want, without regard for the law is the mark of a bad king, and Game of Thrones showed this via Joffrey, who believed the king was entitled to do whatever he wanted, but was confronted by Tyrion, who reminded him that Aerys II (infamously known as Mad King) also did whatever he wanted. Both Joffrey and Aerys, spoiled brats who cared nothing about laws, only made the country bleed. Aerys II's own daughter and spiritual successor, Daenerys, also ended up being a stain in Westerosi history, as she torched the capital against the wishes of all her advisors. The same fate happened to Viserys, another monarch who believed the king could just do whatever tf he wanted, and went down in history as a weak king who planted the seeds for the civil war.

As it turns out: No. In no feudal monarchy is the king ever allowed legally to do whatever he wants. Westeros isn't an absolute monarchy and Viserys I isn't Louis XIV.

What a joy, then, that feudal Lords are allowed to do as they please, as was neatly pointed out by Joffrey to Tywin's face.

- - - Updated - - -

The argument to 304nyra's sons being bastards holds no weight, by the way.
She's a legal heir to the throne, these are her children, ergo, legal heirs to her.

[Varodoc]

Nope. The small council nor the Hand have any authority over the king. They are there to keep the King's law. Not the other way around.

An idea that is disproven many times. Tywin was pretty much the ruler while he served as Hand under Aerys II, Joffrey, and Tommen. Tyrion was pretty much the ruler under Joffrey. Jon Arryn was pretty much the ruler under Robert. Otto himself was pretty much the ruler under Jahaerys (his last years) and Viserys I. "Hand of the King" is just a glorified name for "Regent" and "De-facto ruler when the king is incompetent".

And the Mad King was assassinated not removed from power by any governing body to keep him in check.

The war was lost, the capital was breached when Jaime killed him. If he didn't kill him, he would simply have been deposed by his rebellious vassals, who won the civil war. Amongst them was his former Hand Tywin. The King can absolutely be held accountable for his transgressions and defied by his vassals.

Except it is an absolute monarchy. Confirmed so by its own author :

Death of the author.

What GRRM says in interviews is irrelevant to what is actually written in the work and our interpretation of it.

If it was an absolute monarchy, the King would have a royal standing army; not only does the king not have a centralized standing army, having to call his vassals to war instead; but when Joffrey proposes the creation of a royal army, Cersei literally tells him that it's impossible and the king can't have that much power.

The Seven Kingdoms are not an absolute monarchy. The only "absolute" thing about the country is that the king used to have a firebreathing nuke at his disposal. Beyond that, every lord paramount of every region is independent enough to do whatever they want (even raise a rebellion or straight up openly defy the crown, like Roose Bolton did when he gave refuge to the traitor Sansa).

If it was an absolute monarchy, Viserys wouldn't need his vassals to swear allegiance to Rhaenyra in the first place. It's literally a medieval feudal monarchy.

This took me out of everything you wrote. I'm not sure if you're just stanning for Team Green or you actually misunderstood the show. They literally say in the episode that houses already pledged to Rhaenyra. She was publically named heir..

All those men that swore fealty to Rhaenyra and then plotted to put Aegon on the throne are Oathbreakers and traitors.

This is a meaningless point to bring up.

All those people swore fealty at the end of episode 1, before Viserys even married Alicent.

If you acknowledge that Alicent shouldn't have taken the old king's rambling about Aegon as proof that Aegon deserved to rule, then you must also acknowledge that the lords swearing allegiance to Rhaenyra as heir, before anyone even knew Viserys was going to remarry to get the male heir, is also an invalid justification.

Yes, the lords of Westeros swore fealty to Rhaenyra as heir... a long time before Viserys even decided to remarry and get the male heir.

It would be one thing if they swore allegiance to Rhaenyra even after Viserys had a male heir. But it's not what happened.

The Lords of Westeros literally did not know an alternative (a male heir) was coming. How is them swearing fealty to Rhaenyra legitimate in any way, then?

Would her claiming the Iron Throne set off a Civil War anyway? Possibly.

Not Possibly; Definitely, Undoubtedly.

Because if Rhaenyra became queen, then Jacaerys would be next in line for the Iron Throne. The problem is that pretty much everyone can tell that Jacaerys and Lucerys are bastards that Rhaenyra conceived illegitimately.

You remember how the War of the Five Kings started because Ned and Stannis discovered that Joffrey was an illegitimate bastard? This is the same situation, except that it's somehow even worse, because it's not a secret only few know, it can't just be dismissed as a rumour (like Cersei, Tywin, and the rest of Joffrey's PR department did): Everyone, even Corlys and Rhaenys, the entire country know that Rhaenyra's heirs are bastards.

So if Rhaenyra took the crown, there would 100000% be a future war after her death, because the country would never accept an illegitimate bastard (Jacaerys "Velaryon") as king.

And this is the second major, massive problem that Rhaenyra's council have. Not only they have to justify Rhaenyra getting the crown, but they ALSO have to justify her bastard son getting the crown.

Meanwhile Otto's council obviously don't have any of these problems. They don't have to justify Aegon getting the crown since the Seven Kingdoms have always favoured agnatic primogeniture. They don't have to justify Aegon's son eventually getting the crown because he was conceived legitimately with Heleana.

If there were any actual law about a Queen sitting on the Iron Throne...then Rhaenys wouldn't have been considered for it in the first place. But she was, she lost, but she was being considered. If it were an unbreakable law than Rhaenyra couldn't be named heir over Daemon and Aegon would have automatically been named heir upon his birth. If memory serves...it was Otto that wanted Viserys to name Rhaenyra his heir over Daemon in the first place.

You mentioned the Great Council of 101... how does this prove your point in any way? Rhaenys was literally rejected due to being a woman, while Viserys was chosen as king, despite being much younger.

And not just that, but Jaehaerys had literally summoned every noble in Westeros to the Great Council to set a precedent, so... Rhaenys even acknowledges that the men of the realm would rather have war than accept a female heir. To which Rhaenyra vowed that she would change the system. So No, the idea presented in this thread that it is completely arbitrary, a lord can choose a man or woman as heir on a whim, he can do whatever he wants, is easily disproven by the story. There was a system in place that clearly favoured men over women. Your idea that the king can just ignore everything and choose a woman as a heir over a man is fanfiction, in the actual story, the king can't do that, if he doesn't want to cause a civil war.

You blamed Otto for abusing his power and not respecting the king's wishes, we should blame Viserys too for not doing his job as a king; for failing to keep the country united, for failing to set up the succession in a clear and unquestionable way, and for failing to make sense in the first place (he decides to remarry with Alicent to get a male heir then he pretty much throws the male heir and Alicent with him under the bus).

I'd argue that the main cause of the war is the the Greens' choice to usurp the King's command and crown their own "heir."

No, the main cause was Viserys choosing to remarry with Alicent, desperate for a male heir, and then, when he finally gets that male heir, he still chooses to keep Rhaenyra as the official heir.

At which point you even have to wonder why the dumbass wanted to remarry in the first place, if he was going to keep Rhaenyra anyway.

What a joy, then, that feudal Lords are allowed to do as they please, as was neatly pointed out by Joffrey to Tywin's face.

You said you agree with him... Then you literally concede to me that the king can't just do what he wants because the feudal lords hold a lot of power and autonomy in the country.

The argument to 304nyra's sons being bastards holds no weight, by the way.
She's a legal heir to the throne, these are her children, ergo, legal heirs to her.

Lol, it doesn't work like that. Maybe in Rhaenyra's dream world it works like that, but not in the actual world she lives in.

Rhaenyra was supposed to marry Laenor Velaryon. Legally, she was only allowed to have children with him. Jacaerys, Lucerys, and Joffrey are clearly Strong bastards that she conceived with another man, not with Laenor Velaryon, so they are bastards. Since they are bastards, their mere existence is proof to Rhaenyra's complete disregard and lack of respect for laws and official unions. Their mere existence is literally illegal. That's why everyone looks at them with contempt, with Lucerys even noting that he wishes he looked more like Laenor.

In the actual world of Westeros, no one will ever accept an illegitimate bastard on the Iron Throne. It doesn't matter if they have Targaryen blood, because they don't have Velaryon blood too.

Basically, Rhaenyra wants to have her cake and eat it too. She clearly doesn't understand in what world she's living in. She has no concern for duty at all. If she wanted to press her claim to the throne, fine, but she didn't even want to give Laenor children like the law dictated. She spent her entire life enjoying herself with her lovers, while Alicent had to spend all her time with Viserys, who was much older than her, being treated as a broodmare to give him a male heir (that Viserys then completely ignored), and having to serve as his literal caretaker.

Sadly Westeros is not Rhaenyra's dream world, so what we have been seeing in ep. 7-8 is simply Rhaenyra getting a reality check. She, being the entitled spoiled princess that she is, thought she could have her fun with her lover and everyone would accept it, but as it turns out, the real Westeros doesn't accept that, and so now pretty much everyone whispers behind her children's back.

Women arent prohibited from sitting on the throne, its lords who don't accept a woman on the throne thats the issue..

And can you list me all the women in Westeros who became heads of their houses despite having a male sibling? Not from Dorne, ofc.

[Twdft]

What GRRM says in interviews is irrelevant to what is actually written in the work and our interpretation of it.

Hilarious. Also the point I stop reading anything you further write.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

You said you agree with him... Then you literally concede to me that the king can't just do what he wants because the feudal lords hold a lot of power and autonomy in the country.

No.

You are attributing to me a statement that I did not utter nor intend, and I will not allow you to do that.
I will have you quote me directly to show the exact part where I "concede" that the King can't do away as he pleases.

And can you list me all the women in Westeros who became heads of their houses despite having a male sibling? Not from Dorne, ofc.

Lady Mormont comes to mind, despite the butchering of her character in s8.

[Varodoc]

Hilarious. Also the point I stop reading anything you further write.

Your refusal to accept that Death of the Author is a thing is irrelevant to me. Believe (wrongly) what you want, it's not my problem.

I will have you quote me directly to show the exact part where I "concede" that the King can't do away as he pleases.

Can you read literally what you wrote?

You said:

What a joy, then, that feudal Lords are allowed to do as they please, as was neatly pointed out by Joffrey to Tywin's face.

This was literally my argument on how the Seven Kingdoms is a feudal monarchy with decentralized power, and the king can't just do whatever he wants.

Lady Mormont comes to mind, despite the butchering of her character in s8.

The girl only had two men left in her family; one was sent to the Night's Watch, the other was exiled to Essos. So it's a meaningless example to bring up. There were no men left in the family who could legally inherit.

I'm asking an example of a female head of a noble family who got the title despite having alive, male siblings who were eligible to inherit titles.

[Jinnobi]

playin crusader kings all my life for this convo

That's genuinely hilarious bro, I feel you

Viserys didn't have the power to change the law so easily.

This is obviously what Varodoc was trying to convey. A King can obviously change law, but it's a process - and it requires more than just a single individual to approve, unless your kingdom is literally a dictatorship. Which, for my money, I'm going to assume Westeros is not.

Hilarious. Also the point I stop reading anything you further write.

Must be easy to ignore someone when you disagree with them.
BTW, in a hypothetical situation: if GRRM said something in an interview that blatantly contradicted what the books say, and then he died before he could amend his interview statement, you and I and everyone would go by the books.

We all give canon lore ultimate authority unless GRRM does something more official than a goddamned "interview" to change canon lore.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

Can you read literally what you wrote?

Yes, I can.
Perhaps, you need to be literally shown this sign

when I say that:

What a joy, then, that feudal Lords are allowed to do as they please, as was neatly pointed out by Joffrey to Tywin's face.

[Varodoc]

Must be easy to ignore someone when you disagree with them.
BTW, in a hypothetical situation: if GRRM said something in an interview that blatantly contradicted what the books say, and then he died before he could amend his interview statement, you and I and everyone would go by the books.

We all give canon lore ultimate authority unless GRRM does something more official than a goddamned "interview" to change canon lore.

It's actually pretty straightforward.

Death of the Author is a concept from mid-20th Century literary criticism; it holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no special weight in determining an interpretation of their writing.

I use Death of the Author because what GRRM said in an interview cannot be reconciled with what he wrote.

In an absolute monarchy the king would have a centralized, royal army; this is not the case in Westeros, and Joffrey's dream of creating one was instantly shut down by Cersei.

I also think that the poster in question misinterpreted the interview really, or took it too much at face value.

The Targaryens had "absolute" power in the sense that they had firebreathing nukes who could roast anyone who defied them (GRRM even acknowledges in that statement that the Targaryens created the realm with their firebreathing nukes). Many times in this show it's mentioned how the Targaryens have used dragons to dominate Westeros, how they see themselves almost as Gods, because they control those dragons.

It doesn't literally mean that Westeros is an absolute monarchy like Louis XIV's France, how is this even possible? They don't even have a centralized, royal army.

Yes, I can.
Perhaps, you need to be literally shown this sign

when I say that:

My bro, I have like 6 replies coming to me, I can't analyse the rhetoric devices used in each of them, sorry.

It's hilarious that you think that interaction between Joffrey and Tywin proves your point. The monarch, Joffrey, had so much power that Tywin literally sent him to bed. Afterwards, Tyrion literally pointed out that Tywin completely owned "his king", to which Tywin mocked Tyrion, telling him that Joffrey might formally be king, but he was far from being the most powerful man in the country.

So you brought up an interaction that literally proves my point: that, many times, the king is powerless, and it's his vassals and his council who really pull the strings.

How does this correlate to my point?

Simple, my point is that there are laws, traditions, system, "order of things" (the exact term Rhaenys used with Rhaenyra) that even the king cannot defy. Because the king is not some almighty superhuman who can do everything he wants. Thus, Viserys should have wisely realized that he couldn't just change the succession laws/tradition/system/order of things on a whim; he should have swallowed his pride and made Aegon heir.

It was the whole reason why he remarried in the first place. To have another opportunity to produce a male heir. And from this perspective, Otto was actually giving Viserys the opportunity to secure his succession.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

It's hilarious that you think that interaction between Joffrey and Tywin proves your point. The monarch, Joffrey, had so much power that Tywin literally sent him to bed. Afterwards, Tyrion literally pointed out that Tywin completely owned "his king", to which Tywin mocked Tyrion, telling him that Joffrey might formally be king, but he was far from being the most powerful man in the country.

So you brought up an interaction that literally proves my point: that, many times, the king is powerless, and it's his vassals and his council who really pull the strings.

I could hammer nails with you.
I am done at this point.
Won't bother.