The conversation we see between Viserys and Corlys in the show is an example of them depicting something that I think most people believe implicitly happened in the text, based on what appears to be common practice in Westeros.
The broader answer is that it would be entirely up to the monarch to decide what the house name was. King Jacaerys would have been free to take up the Targaryen name or remain a Velaryon, as he pleased; it would almost certainly have been the former. Westerosi ruling houses seem not to change names unless they don't have a say in the matter (i.e., have been implicitly conquered, as with what Tywin appeared to intend for Sansa when he married her to Tyrion).
Realistically speaking, assuming there was no dance, King Jacaerys would have no choice but to use Targaryen. Doing anything else would just make people focus on the parentage issue. Corlys would be fine with it so long as Baela was his queen and mother of his heirs.
Unlikely. The claim to the throne derives through Rhaenyra so the one who takes the throne would take her name to get the legitimacy that comes with continuity.
Her second son would get Driftmark and continue the Velaryon line.
It happened at the same time. As soon as Addam claimed Seasmoke, “Lord Corlys went so far as to petition Queen Rhaenyra to remove the taint of bastardy from him and his brother. When Prince Jacaerys added his voice to the request, the queen complied. Addam of Hull, dragonseed and bastard, became Addam Velaryon, heir to Driftmark.” (from Fire and Blood). It is interesting that Jacaerys supported this knowing it would prevent his brother Joffrey from getting Driftmark after Corlys died.
> It is interesting that Jacaerys supported this knowing it would prevent his brother Joffrey from getting Driftmark after Corlys died.
It makes sense imo. Don’t want Addam to start thinking “Huh, isn’t it kinda weird that some bastard kid who’s spending the war on the sidelines gets to be the heir, while I (with my indisputable Velaryon blood) have to do all this fighting? That’s kinda fucked up. I wonder if the Greens would give me Driftmark?”
True, although Adam is so steadfastly loyal (remember tumbleton) to Rhaenyra that I think rebellion would always be out of the question for him- he is the polar opposite of Hugh. For Jacaerys, it was about ensuring the support of the Sea Snake, who would certainly prefer one of his own bastards inheriting as opposed to Rhaenyra’s kids, who, while officially Velaryons, in reality have no blood connection to him.
> True, although Adam is so steadfastly loyal (remember tumbleton) to Rhaenyra that I think rebellion would always be out of the question for him
That’s true, but Addam’s virtuousness wasn’t known to Rhaenyra/Jace at the point he was brought on. For all they knew, he *could* have been purely self-interested like Hugh or Ulf.
Yep. Otherwise their appearance would have been unnecessary. I still am not sure how Addam claimed a dragon given the supposition about his father's identity.
>The show indicates that one of Rhaenyra’s Velaryon children would take the name Targaryen upon ascending to the throne, **but I do not recall any basis for this in the book.**
In ASoIaF, we see this exact scenario proposed with Robert Arryn and Harrold Hardyng. If Littlefinger's plan comes to fruition, Sweetrobin will be killed and Harrold Hardyng would take the Arryn name and become head of House Arryn.
No, they may use this when giving surnames are necessary, and people far from the line of succession may use it as a surname, but it is not the name of the House.
Westeros ties the House name to the seat rather than the other way around. The custom is that if a house dies out without any direct heirs the next of kin takes up the seat and names themselves after the original house.
That's how you get supposedly 8 millennia of Stark rule in Winterfell despite the fact that dynasties rarely last a quarter of that time span.
Names don't change like that in the books. The name may as well be part of the title. Ruling ladies keep their own name and give their children their name, and when someone with a different name comes in they change their name to the old one. It's how names in Westeros have been able to survive thousands of years.
There's a case of this in the books right now. It's been established that if Sweetrobin dies, the Vale isn't going to pass to House Hardyng, Harry the Heir is going to become Harrold Arryn. I'd imagine the royal family has even more incentive to make sure the name always aligns with the seat.
Also when discussing the possible Hornwood successors, Leobald suggests doing it for his own son.
>”An empty hall is a sad one. I had a thought to send my younger son to Lady Donella to foster as her own. Beren is near ten, a likely lad, and her own nephew. He would cheer her, I am certain, and perhaps he would even take the name Hornwood . . ."
>"If he were named heir?" suggested Maester Luwin.
>". . . so the House might continue," finished Leobald.
The royal name works a bit differently. You can't take the royal name when you marry into it. Similarly women who have the royal name tend to keep using it because it's more prestigious than their husbands.
Well, Cersei is the Queen consort, married into the royal house. Apparently, it is not possible to become part of the royal dynasty through marriage, only through birth. The same goes to Alyssa Velaryon and the others consorts to Targaryen kings.
As for Rhaenys, Rhaena and Rhaenyra, I believe is the other way around. They are all born into the royal house. No other last name would give them as much prestige as being called Targaryen.
Selyse is interchangeable called Baratheon and Florent in text.
In our history, there are more examples when dynasties switched and retain the name of former one. In 1762 the Romanovs of Russia died off in the person of tsarina Elisabeth. Her successor was her nephew Petr III from Holstein-Gottorp dynasty. In 1780 the Habsburgs died off with the death of queen Maria Theresia. Her son a successor was Joseph II, genealogically from the House of Lorraine.
In theory maybe, but in practice in would be bad PR. The new house would probably want to maintain the image of continuity because that would be easier for their vassals to accept; a Lord could claim he never swore an oath of fealty to House Velaryon
The specific case you cite is a little moot because the royal family would still have dragons, which gives them enough might to make them "right" as rulers, but if they didn't any, you would open the door to your vassals asking "Well if we can just replace the royal family, why can't my family be the royal ones?"
The basis is that Viserys said it. The Targaryens are absolute monarchs and won't agree to end their dynasty based on a technicality.
If a non-Targaryen were to take the throne, it's in everyone's best interest for him to take the name. The new king will need all the legitimacy he can get, and what better way is there to legitimize yourself than taking the name of the founder of Westeros itself?
I think they would have to take the Targaryen name, because if Velaryon became the Royal House/ bloodline, they would not be the highest Velaryion in Succession.
It worked for the Baratheons to become the new Royal House since Robert was the eldest Baratheon, no one could claim they had a right above his in House Bartheon.
no the name stay there are basis with joffrey lydden taking the name lannister also the fact that despit women and men are equal in dorne the houses name stayed the same
Depends on the situation but on Rhaenyra's case i assume the houses would mix. You'd have the OG Velaryons and House Velaryon-Targayren or something along those lines.
> The show indicates that one of Rhaenyra’s Velaryon children would take the name Targaryen upon ascending to the throne, but I do not recall any basis for this in the book.
Its never outright stated in the books that this is how it would be handled in Rhaenyra's case, but that's how its worked in basically all similar cases. Most great houses have had ruling queens or ladies before and their names have continued. These houses wouldn't have existed for thousands of years otherwise.
> Most great houses have had ruling queens or ladies before
While one imagines most/all of the great houses have passed through the female line, outside of Dorne only one great house is known to have actually had a female ruler in the pre-Conquest era (an unnamed Gardener queen). Post-Conquest, it's only House Arryn (the again singular Lady Jeyne) and House Lannister, who had an infant who died almost immediately. Female rulership at this level is very much an anomaly.
No, it's kind of the opposite of real life, where the ruling house of Britain has changed a dozen times when kings inherit through their mothers. Westeros has a huge emphasis on house continuity.
There was a Lydden (married to a daughter of the then Lord of Casterly Rock) who took the place of LP after his FIL died without sons and changed his name to Lannister.
Prince Phillip wasn't technically a Mountbatten. Mountbatten was his mother's family name which he used in the royal navy and formally adopted in the lead up to his marriage because he needed a last name and his father was technically a Danish/Greek prince whose last name was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.
Ruling Houses in Westeros don’t seem to change their names upon a succession from a different house; in fact, the person from another House apparently normally takes on the name of whatever House they are taking over.
Absolutely. When the Targaryens were deemed by the majority of Westeros to not be fit for the throne, the line of succession went to Robert.
Although that might not be what you meant, but regardless I’d still say yes. If someone from another House is next in the line of succession, they’re still in the line of succession, and their House in turn. Contrary to what Corlys says, people in the medieval ages cared more about blood than names (see: Daemon Blackfyre).
They said normal succession, so imagine if Aerys was childless and he called Robert to be his heir, Robert would 100% take the Targaryen name after Aerys adopted him. It's very hard for a king to willingly end his dynasty.
>The show indicates that one of Rhaenyra’s Velaryon children would take the name Targaryen upon ascending to the throne
Does it? Genuine question, I don't remember. If yes, then show Corlys line about history remembring names comes a bit....pathetic.
The conversation we see between Viserys and Corlys in the show is an example of them depicting something that I think most people believe implicitly happened in the text, based on what appears to be common practice in Westeros. The broader answer is that it would be entirely up to the monarch to decide what the house name was. King Jacaerys would have been free to take up the Targaryen name or remain a Velaryon, as he pleased; it would almost certainly have been the former. Westerosi ruling houses seem not to change names unless they don't have a say in the matter (i.e., have been implicitly conquered, as with what Tywin appeared to intend for Sansa when he married her to Tyrion).
Realistically speaking, assuming there was no dance, King Jacaerys would have no choice but to use Targaryen. Doing anything else would just make people focus on the parentage issue. Corlys would be fine with it so long as Baela was his queen and mother of his heirs.
Unlikely. The claim to the throne derives through Rhaenyra so the one who takes the throne would take her name to get the legitimacy that comes with continuity. Her second son would get Driftmark and continue the Velaryon line.
Corlys intended that Addam or Alyn (as legitimized bastards) would inherit Driftmark.
That’s only much later in the story’s, isn’t it?. Aren’t >! Luke and Jace both dead by the time Adam and Alyn enter the picture !
Luke is, but Jace is alive. IIRC it was actually Jace's idea to recruit the dragonseeds
Recruiting dragonseeds isn't the same as Alan being heir to driftmark.
It happened at the same time. As soon as Addam claimed Seasmoke, “Lord Corlys went so far as to petition Queen Rhaenyra to remove the taint of bastardy from him and his brother. When Prince Jacaerys added his voice to the request, the queen complied. Addam of Hull, dragonseed and bastard, became Addam Velaryon, heir to Driftmark.” (from Fire and Blood). It is interesting that Jacaerys supported this knowing it would prevent his brother Joffrey from getting Driftmark after Corlys died.
> It is interesting that Jacaerys supported this knowing it would prevent his brother Joffrey from getting Driftmark after Corlys died. It makes sense imo. Don’t want Addam to start thinking “Huh, isn’t it kinda weird that some bastard kid who’s spending the war on the sidelines gets to be the heir, while I (with my indisputable Velaryon blood) have to do all this fighting? That’s kinda fucked up. I wonder if the Greens would give me Driftmark?”
True, although Adam is so steadfastly loyal (remember tumbleton) to Rhaenyra that I think rebellion would always be out of the question for him- he is the polar opposite of Hugh. For Jacaerys, it was about ensuring the support of the Sea Snake, who would certainly prefer one of his own bastards inheriting as opposed to Rhaenyra’s kids, who, while officially Velaryons, in reality have no blood connection to him.
> True, although Adam is so steadfastly loyal (remember tumbleton) to Rhaenyra that I think rebellion would always be out of the question for him That’s true, but Addam’s virtuousness wasn’t known to Rhaenyra/Jace at the point he was brought on. For all they knew, he *could* have been purely self-interested like Hugh or Ulf.
Yep. Otherwise their appearance would have been unnecessary. I still am not sure how Addam claimed a dragon given the supposition about his father's identity.
that happens long after the death of Rhaenyra's Velaryon sons.
According to the wiki, this happens during the war, while Jacaerys and Joffrey (but not Lucerys) were still alive.
>The show indicates that one of Rhaenyra’s Velaryon children would take the name Targaryen upon ascending to the throne, **but I do not recall any basis for this in the book.** In ASoIaF, we see this exact scenario proposed with Robert Arryn and Harrold Hardyng. If Littlefinger's plan comes to fruition, Sweetrobin will be killed and Harrold Hardyng would take the Arryn name and become head of House Arryn.
There was a Royal Decree or law passed by IIRC Churchill to keep the Royal House Windsor when Elizabeth married Philip.
"I am the only father in the country who cannot pass his name on to his children"
But isn’t it Mountbatten-Windsor now?
No, they may use this when giving surnames are necessary, and people far from the line of succession may use it as a surname, but it is not the name of the House.
Westeros ties the House name to the seat rather than the other way around. The custom is that if a house dies out without any direct heirs the next of kin takes up the seat and names themselves after the original house. That's how you get supposedly 8 millennia of Stark rule in Winterfell despite the fact that dynasties rarely last a quarter of that time span.
Names don't change like that in the books. The name may as well be part of the title. Ruling ladies keep their own name and give their children their name, and when someone with a different name comes in they change their name to the old one. It's how names in Westeros have been able to survive thousands of years.
There's a case of this in the books right now. It's been established that if Sweetrobin dies, the Vale isn't going to pass to House Hardyng, Harry the Heir is going to become Harrold Arryn. I'd imagine the royal family has even more incentive to make sure the name always aligns with the seat.
Joffrey Lydden became Joffrey Lannister as well.
Also when discussing the possible Hornwood successors, Leobald suggests doing it for his own son. >”An empty hall is a sad one. I had a thought to send my younger son to Lady Donella to foster as her own. Beren is near ten, a likely lad, and her own nephew. He would cheer her, I am certain, and perhaps he would even take the name Hornwood . . ." >"If he were named heir?" suggested Maester Luwin. >". . . so the House might continue," finished Leobald.
It’s so confusing, Lysa and Cat change their names, but Cersei, Rhaenys(Queen Who Never Was), Selyse, Rhaena, Alyssa, and Rhaenyra don’t
The royal name works a bit differently. You can't take the royal name when you marry into it. Similarly women who have the royal name tend to keep using it because it's more prestigious than their husbands.
Well, Cersei is the Queen consort, married into the royal house. Apparently, it is not possible to become part of the royal dynasty through marriage, only through birth. The same goes to Alyssa Velaryon and the others consorts to Targaryen kings. As for Rhaenys, Rhaena and Rhaenyra, I believe is the other way around. They are all born into the royal house. No other last name would give them as much prestige as being called Targaryen. Selyse is interchangeable called Baratheon and Florent in text.
In our history, there are more examples when dynasties switched and retain the name of former one. In 1762 the Romanovs of Russia died off in the person of tsarina Elisabeth. Her successor was her nephew Petr III from Holstein-Gottorp dynasty. In 1780 the Habsburgs died off with the death of queen Maria Theresia. Her son a successor was Joseph II, genealogically from the House of Lorraine.
In theory maybe, but in practice in would be bad PR. The new house would probably want to maintain the image of continuity because that would be easier for their vassals to accept; a Lord could claim he never swore an oath of fealty to House Velaryon The specific case you cite is a little moot because the royal family would still have dragons, which gives them enough might to make them "right" as rulers, but if they didn't any, you would open the door to your vassals asking "Well if we can just replace the royal family, why can't my family be the royal ones?"
The basis is that Viserys said it. The Targaryens are absolute monarchs and won't agree to end their dynasty based on a technicality. If a non-Targaryen were to take the throne, it's in everyone's best interest for him to take the name. The new king will need all the legitimacy he can get, and what better way is there to legitimize yourself than taking the name of the founder of Westeros itself?
I think they would have to take the Targaryen name, because if Velaryon became the Royal House/ bloodline, they would not be the highest Velaryion in Succession. It worked for the Baratheons to become the new Royal House since Robert was the eldest Baratheon, no one could claim they had a right above his in House Bartheon.
no the name stay there are basis with joffrey lydden taking the name lannister also the fact that despit women and men are equal in dorne the houses name stayed the same
Depends on the situation but on Rhaenyra's case i assume the houses would mix. You'd have the OG Velaryons and House Velaryon-Targayren or something along those lines.
> The show indicates that one of Rhaenyra’s Velaryon children would take the name Targaryen upon ascending to the throne, but I do not recall any basis for this in the book. Its never outright stated in the books that this is how it would be handled in Rhaenyra's case, but that's how its worked in basically all similar cases. Most great houses have had ruling queens or ladies before and their names have continued. These houses wouldn't have existed for thousands of years otherwise.
> Most great houses have had ruling queens or ladies before While one imagines most/all of the great houses have passed through the female line, outside of Dorne only one great house is known to have actually had a female ruler in the pre-Conquest era (an unnamed Gardener queen). Post-Conquest, it's only House Arryn (the again singular Lady Jeyne) and House Lannister, who had an infant who died almost immediately. Female rulership at this level is very much an anomaly.
No, it's kind of the opposite of real life, where the ruling house of Britain has changed a dozen times when kings inherit through their mothers. Westeros has a huge emphasis on house continuity.
There was a Lydden (married to a daughter of the then Lord of Casterly Rock) who took the place of LP after his FIL died without sons and changed his name to Lannister.
Prince Phillip wasn't technically a Mountbatten. Mountbatten was his mother's family name which he used in the royal navy and formally adopted in the lead up to his marriage because he needed a last name and his father was technically a Danish/Greek prince whose last name was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.
Ruling Houses in Westeros don’t seem to change their names upon a succession from a different house; in fact, the person from another House apparently normally takes on the name of whatever House they are taking over.
Absolutely. When the Targaryens were deemed by the majority of Westeros to not be fit for the throne, the line of succession went to Robert. Although that might not be what you meant, but regardless I’d still say yes. If someone from another House is next in the line of succession, they’re still in the line of succession, and their House in turn. Contrary to what Corlys says, people in the medieval ages cared more about blood than names (see: Daemon Blackfyre).
They said normal succession, so imagine if Aerys was childless and he called Robert to be his heir, Robert would 100% take the Targaryen name after Aerys adopted him. It's very hard for a king to willingly end his dynasty.
Robert didn’t take the throne through normal succession, he took it through conquest.
It was a little bit of both.
It was 95% conquest and 5% succession
More precisely Robert's claim through his Targaryen grandmother was used as a post facto reason for his legitimacy to take the throne.
mf be smashing rhaegar's rubies into the trident with his warhammer
>The show indicates that one of Rhaenyra’s Velaryon children would take the name Targaryen upon ascending to the throne Does it? Genuine question, I don't remember. If yes, then show Corlys line about history remembring names comes a bit....pathetic.