Thoughts on Daemon Blackfyre

[Allyria Dondarrion]

Bloodraven sums it up nicely in The Mystery Knight when he says that some people think a man will make a good king if he looks dashing on a horse.

[AdelinaZ]

Bloodraven sums it up nicely in The Mystery Knight when he says that some people think a man will make a good king if he looks dashing on a horse.

This.

[Fire Eater]

That isn't being a warrior, a warrior is someone who actually known true battle, to say he was a warrior king ignores how war was never a focus during his reign or how he was never known for war. Simply because he favored a warrior son made him no warrior. Robert never had to, his hand backed Baelish. So taking booze, money and the free sex do to his new title and muscle isn't exorting?

He clearly was a warrior. He favored the warrior son over the son who was more of a scholar, the son he was disappointed in. Robert took no role in governance except if it involved war. The fact remains that if Robert had been more active in governance he could have seen what was going on.

Daemon isn't described as getting free whores. The innkeepers keepers of gambling dens could have been trying to court his favor given he is the head of the goldcloaks and a prince, hoping Daemon would turn a blind eye to any illicit activities they had.

Bull, Aegon, a king who is incredible a warrior, was fantastic.

Then they would have to face the rightful heirs the traitorous shits, no, that isn't even true, andal law has been practice in Westeros forever, likely they married a cousin, or you know, the husband took the name. You don't seem to get how this issue exit one way or another. Just some lords pick Viserys, doesn't mean others wouldn't follow Rhaenys if Viserys pissed people off. I mean before the council, when he picked Baelon.

I would have expected a more mature response. Did you forget the warrior kings I just mentioned? Robert was a great warrior, but many agree he was a terrible king. Maegor was a good warrior too, and he was a tyrant. Daemon Targaryen was an excellent warrior as well. You can't ignore the facts for convenience as I said once before. It clearly takes more than warrior to be king, but an administrator, diplomat and politician.

Except how many lords would they have backing them? Unless you have WOIAF in front of you then I guess you don't have the authority to shoot that down, to be fair I don't think I do either. Some lords pick Viserys? Hardly "some lords" given Viserys had the support of 95% of the lords of the entire realm. Rhaenys supporters would be outnumbered twenty to one by the rest of the lords who backed Viserys. It doesn't seem to be necessary as no wars resulted from Jaehaerys's decision. The Great Council worked.

Daemon surredned himself with men that offered prtty much what Stannis' men bring him: a brand of truth. To him and his followers, he was the rightful king.

It wasn't truth that Daemon should have sat the IT. They knew Daeron was the elder trueborn son, and the throne was his by rights.

[Wmarshal]

He clearly was a warrior. He favored the warrior son over the son who was more of a scholar, the son he was disappointed in. Robert took no role in governance except if it involved war. The fact remains that if Robert had been more active in governance he could have seen what was going on.

No he wasn't, he was whoremonger. Aegon liked him more, still doesn't make him a warrior king. And as far as we can see, niether did Viserys, he just parted and messed around with his family. How? Jon Arryn didn't even see it.

Daemon isn't described as getting free whores. The innkeepers keepers of gambling dens could have been trying to court his favor given he is the head of the goldcloaks and a prince, hoping Daemon would turn a blind eye to any illicit activities they had.

So sampling whores isn't a meaning for sex? Gambling and wine selling isn't illegal, using your position to get free stuff is extorting.

Very mature response. Did you forget the warrior kings I just mentioned? Robert was a great warrior, but many agree he was a terrible king. Maegor was a good warrior too, and he was a tyrant. Daemon Targaryen was an excellent warrior as well. You can't ignore the facts for convenience as I said once before. It clearly takes more than warrior to be king, but an administrator, diplomat and politician.

One of this days I will find out what mood you are in when we are talking. Did you forget the not warrior kings I mentioned? As was Viserys. Maegor was a sadist. It clearly takes both, Daeron needed warrior sons to fight his warriors and Jaeherys when the time called for it needed a heavy hand. We know nothing of how Daemon kept his household or his beliefs in taxes. To say war kings are all bad is untrue.

Except how many lords would they have backing them? Unless you have WOIAF in front of you then I guess you don't have the authority to shoot that down, to be fair I don't think I do either. Some lords pick Viserys? Hardly "some lords" given Viserys had the support of 95% of the lords of the entire realm. Rhaenys supporters would be outnumbered twenty to one by the rest of the lords who backed Viserys. It doesn't seem to be necessary as no wars resulted from Jaehaerys's decision. The Great Council worked.

Anyone who wanted to be ruled by her or liked her reign, like most wars go. True to that. And many a lord who swore a vow to Rhaenyra rebelled against her, what a lord do at one moment isn't the same as another. If it came to blows I have no doubt Rhaenys' brood can find more support then the ass clown Daemon and Rhaenyra. Because Rhaenys never tried, she could have easily could, but did not.

It wasn't truth that Daemon should have sat the IT. They knew Daeron was the elder trueborn son, and the throne was his by rights.

To those that backed Daeron, Naerys and Aemon's love for one another was very plain and Daeron did not help when he tried to arrest Daemon.

[Fire Eater]

No he wasn't, he was whoremonger. Aegon liked him more, still doesn't make him a warrior king. And as far as we can see, niether did Viserys, he just parted and messed around with his family. How? Jon Arryn didn't even see it.

So sampling whores isn't a meaning for sex? Gambling and wine selling isn't illegal, using your position to get free stuff is extorting.

He was. He preferred the warrior son, and none of the nobles were complaining about Aegon IV like they did Daeron II. Jon Arryn had his hands full, and an interest in the crown's finances would have helped.

It isn't stated he didn't pay. I know those activities weren't illegal, but maybe they were exchanging favors. There is a difference between extortion and kickbacks. It could have been extortion I'll grant you.

One of this days I will find out what mood you are in when we are talking. Did you forget the not warrior kings I mentioned? As was Viserys. Maegor was a sadist. It clearly takes both, Daeron needed warrior sons to fight his warriors and Jaeherys when the time called for it needed a heavy hand. We know nothing of how Daemon kept his household or his beliefs in taxes. To say war kings are all bad is untrue.

I wasn't saying all warrior kings are bad, Aegon I and Baelor Breakspear are proof of that, but that a warrior king doesn't automatically mean one will be a good king. Daemon was bored by administration, and you bring up his experience as captain of the goldcloaks in terms of corruption. The guy was shitty to pretty much everyone his wives, his brother, etc with possible exception of his kids, his second wife and Netty.

Anyone who wanted to be ruled by her or liked her reign, like most wars go. True to that. And many a lord who swore a vow to Rhaenyra rebelled against her, what a lord do at one moment isn't the same as another. If it came to blows I have no doubt Rhaenys' brood can find more support then the ass clown Daemon and Rhaenyra. Because Rhaenys never tried, she could have easily could, but did not.

To those that backed Daeron, Naerys and Aemon's love for one another was very plain and Daeron did not help when he tried to arrest Daemon.

Those lords who wanted her were outnumbered twenty to one. Wrt to Rhaenyra, there was no Great Council where the lords decided to go along with whatever decision, Viserys violated the precedent of the Great Council, and millenia-old male primogeniture laws going over her brothers. Daemon was known to be a very skilled warrior, and Rhaenyra had a large portion of the realm behind her compared to Rhaenys having only 5%. Rhaenys couldn't try as she would be violating the will of the lords of the realm and her grandfather.

Daemon had declared himself king, and that he was rebelling against Daeron. What did you expect Daeron with Daemon's treason? If he didn't arrest him, then Daemon would go to his army and recruit more followers to his cause, which he did.

[Wmarshal]

He was. He preferred the warrior son, and none of the nobles were complaining about Aegon IV like they did Daeron II. Jon Arryn had his hands full, and an interest in the crown's finances would have helped.

He wasn't, I don't know how not being known for warfare but liking your son who is a warrior makes you a warrior. How do you know this? I think the lords didn't like he who slept with everyone's daughter. Jon Arryn gave this man a job and his hands had not that much to do, after the Gryejoy Rebellion was under a great peace.

It isn't stated he didn't pay. I know those activities weren't illegal, but maybe they were exchanging favors. There is a difference between extortion and kickbacks. It could have been extortion I'll grant you.

I don't image sampling means he payed them. I grant you it could have been him just being given stuff.

I wasn't saying all warrior kings are bad, Aegon I and Baelor Breakspear are proof of that, but that a warrior king doesn't automatically mean one will be a good king. Daemon was bored by administration, and you bring up his experience as captain of the goldcloaks in terms of corruption. The guy was shitty to pretty much everyone his wives, his brother, etc with possible exception of his kids, his second wife and Netty.

I never said it it automatically meant they were great. If I did, I am a fool. I think we are talking of two different Daemons right now.

Those lords who wanted her were outnumbered twenty to one. Wrt to Rhaenyra, there was no Great Council where the lords decided to go along with whatever decision, Viserys violated the precedent of the Great Council, and millenia-old male primogeniture laws going over her brothers. Daemon was known to be a very skilled warrior, and Rhaenyra had a large portion of the realm behind her compared to Rhaenys having only 5%. Rhaenys couldn't try as she would be violating the will of the lords of the realm and her grandfather.

The lords didn't follow primogeniture, they followed andal law, a law that made Rhaenys queen. Because her father was king and made them swear a oath, take this oath away and his crown, and she is a spoiled brat of a cousin of a queen. Daemon, as we both stated, was corrupt asshole who only real friends were the Velyrons. And doing the right of andal law. Don't forget in a world where anything change in a minute The Velyrons and their multiple kin can easily forge many alliances and Borros would likely be more incline to follow a half Baratheon queen.

Daemon had declared himself king, and that he was rebelling against Daeron. What did you expect Daeron with Daemon's treason? If he didn't arrest him, then Daemon would go to his army and recruit more followers to his cause, which he did.

How would Daemon be in a scenario where he could be arrested if he declared himself king already and had a army around him?

[Fire Eater]

He wasn't, I don't know how not being known for warfare but liking your son who is a warrior makes you a warrior. How do you know this? I think the lords didn't like he who slept with everyone's daughter. Jon Arryn gave this man a job and his hands had not that much to do, after the Gryejoy Rebellion was under a great peace.

I think he clearly was. He was described as muscular when he was young meaning he exercised a lot.

The lords didn't follow primogeniture, they followed andal law, a law that made Rhaenys queen. Because her father was king and made them swear a oath, take this oath away and his crown, and she is a spoiled brat of a cousin of a queen. Daemon, as we both stated, was corrupt asshole who only real friends were the Velyrons. And doing the right of andal law. Don't forget in a world where anything change in a minute The Velyrons and their multiple kin can easily forge many alliances and Borros would likely be more incline to follow a half Baratheon queen.

Male primogeniture is in Andal law. There aren't specifics regarding reigning queens in the history of the 7K. Except Viserys had the crown, and the majority of the realm placed it on his head. Daemon had friends amongst the goldcloaks, and younger sons of noble houses fought with him in the Stepstones. He was also charismatic. The Velaryons are only a single house, and the Baratheons would be facing the Tyrells and Tullys on their borders along with lords of the Crownlands. Viserys had the overwhelming majority of the realm behind him. They would look illegitimate in violating the will of the king and the decision they likely swore oaths to upheld.

How would Daemon be in a scenario where he could be arrested if he declared himself king already and had a army around him?

I clearly said "got to his army", meaning he didn't have one with him. It was said that the intercession of Fireball allowed Daemon to escape, meaning Daemon likely didn't have an army with him.

[Wmarshal]

I think he clearly was. He was described as

Male primogeniture is in Andal law, and no specifics in Andal law say Rhaenys would have been queen. There aren't specifics regarding reigning queens in the history of the 7K. Except Viserys had the crown, and the majority of the realm placed it on his head. Daemon also had friends amongst the goldcloaks, and younger sons of noble houses fought with him in the Stepstones. He was also charismatic. The Valryons are only a single house, and the Baratheons would be facing the Tyrells and Tullys on their borders along with lords of the Crownlands. Viserys had the overwhelming majority of the realm behind him. They would look illegitimate in violating the will of the king and the decision where they likely swore oaths to upheld.

I clearly said "got to his army", meaning he didn't have one with him. It was said that the intercession of Fireball allowed Daemon to escape, meaning Daemon likely didn't have an army with him.

A fat asshole who did nothing that stuck but his whoring. There is no specifis saying kings ignored this law other lords followed. And in a world where he

Yeah it is, a niece comes before a uncle. After what Jaeherys and the council did, should we go back to numbers? We are talking in this point the threat of Viserys brood, which was made up of one spoiled rotten Rhaenyra. Because his brother gave him a job, and what lord would follow a dick only because his second likes him? And sadistic and greedy, who shamed his wife openly and earned the hate of house Arryn. No they wouldn't, to my belief, for these lords have no reason to back a king who basically did nothing of note over house Velyron, a house filled with members to marry. And yet others did and had right of Andal law to fall back on.

So how do you know he was committing treason at the time of his attempted arrest?

[Fire Eater]

A fat asshole who did nothing that stuck but his whoring. There is no specifis saying kings ignored this law other lords followed. And in a world where he

A fat asshole yes, but a warrior.

Yeah it is, a niece comes before a uncle. After what Jaeherys and the council did, should we go back to numbers? We are talking in this point the threat of Viserys brood, which was made up of one spoiled rotten Rhaenyra. Because his brother gave him a job, and what lord would follow a dick only because his second likes him? And sadistic and greedy, who shamed his wife openly and earned the hate of house Arryn. No they wouldn't, to my belief, for these lords have no reason to back a king who basically did nothing of note over house Velyron, a house filled with members to marry. And yet others did and had right of Andal law to fall back on.

So how do you know he was committing treason at the time of his attempted arrest?

GRRM said such a thing could get messy given the lack of laws on the books. During that time, Viserys's wife was still alive, and it was not uncommon to think they would have sons. Daemon didn't offend every house, and he commanded respect from those who followed him, and the second is the lord's brother or son. House Arryn fought alongside him in the Dance. The lords had reason to back the king given they gave him the crown, and House Velaryon swore an oath to Viserys, and would be moving against an anointed king. they didn't get to marry into his house, so did everyone else except the Arryns and Hightowers. Except medieval times were ruled by men rather than laws as GRRM said. The decision was made with the support of the entire nobility of Westeros, and they couldn't go against the decision without being charged with treason.

Because Daemon declared himself king, and declaring to usurp the king or secede is clearly treason.

[Wmarshal]

A fat asshole yes, but a warrior.

GRRM said such a thing could get messy given the lack of laws on the books. During that time, Viserys's wife was still alive, and it was not uncommon to think they would have sons. Daemon didn't offend every house, and he commanded respect from those who followed him, and the second is the lord's brother or son. House Arryn fought alongside him in the Dance. The lords had reason to back the king given they gave him the crown, and House Velaryon swore an oath to Viserys, and would be moving against an anointed king. they didn't get to marry into his house, so did everyone else except the Arryns and Hightowers. Except medieval times were ruled by men rather than laws as GRRM said. The decision was made with the support of the entire nobility of Westeros, and they couldn't go against the decision without being charged with treason.

Because Daemon declared himself king, and declaring to usurp the king or secede is clearly treason.

What made him a warrior? What battles did he fight? Was the war he "fought" the thing that stuck with him?

Who bore him no sons, so it is pointless to say in the truth they would be a threat. But he was a shameful dick. Second sons and rogues, both causes he fought for he largely gave up. House Arryn fought for Rhaenyra. Yet they so easily followed Aegon II, a man of no worth. As has anyone who ever changed the statue qua. Don't know what this part means. Please, queens ruled in their own right plenty. It is only treason if they lose.

When was it said he declared himself king at the time Daeron tried to arrest him?

[Fire Eater]

What made him a warrior? What battles did he fight? Was the war he "fought" the thing that stuck with him?

He had to get that exercise from some activity, and he had the standard martial training. Daemon Blackfyre was regarded as a warrior as well even before the Blackfyre Rebellion was the first (and last) war he fought in. Aegon IV preferred the warrior son over the less physically active one like himself, and Henry VIII, his parallel, was a warrior.

Who bore him no sons, so it is pointless to say in the truth they would be a threat. But he was a shameful dick. Second sons and rogues, both causes he fought for he largely gave up. House Arryn fought for Rhaenyra. Yet they so easily followed Aegon II, a man of no worth. As has anyone who ever changed the statue qua. Don't know what this part means. Please, queens ruled in their own right plenty. It is only treason if they lose.

When was it said he declared himself king at the time Daeron tried to arrest him?

I am not disagreeing that Daemon was an asshole, but as Tyler Durden demonstrated in Fight Club, even assholes can be charismatic and command followers. Those second sons would likely admire him if he was able to command the love of the goldcloaks to the point they mutinied against the greens. Aegon II was Viserys's eldest son, anointed by the Faith, and millenia of tradition named him heir whereas Aemon, Rhaenys's father, had no sons. Westeros has an inherent male bias given being a highly patriarchal society. Except they weren't facing the entire realm against them. Name to me a queen who ruled in her own right in any of the 7K. It was treason, unless they won. The odds would still be against them, twenty to one are very bad odds.

Why else would Daeron try to arrest him?

[Wmarshal]

He had to get that exercise from some activity, and he had the standard martial training. Daemon Blackfyre was regarded as a warrior as well even before the Blackfyre Rebellion was the first (and last) war he fought in. Aegon IV preferred the warrior son over the less physically active one like himself, and Henry VIII, his parallel, was a warrior.

I am not disagreeing that Daemon was an asshole, but as Tyler Durden demonstrated in Fight Club, even assholes can be charismatic and command followers. Those second sons would likely admire him if he was able to command the love of the goldcloaks to the point they mutinied against the greens. Aegon II was Viserys's eldest son, anointed by the Faith, and millenia of tradition named him heir whereas Aemon, Rhaenys's father, had no sons. Westeros has an inherent male bias given being a highly patriarchal society. Except they weren't facing the entire realm against them. Name to me a queen who ruled in her own right in any of the 7K. It was treason, unless they won. The odds would still be against them, twenty to one are very bad odds.

Why else would Daeron try to arrest him?

Henry was no warrior, he let others fight his wars while he played. daemon in compression was a skilled warrior, known for mastering weapons and was known for his skill, Aegon, on the other hand, was known as a whoremonger.

Dude, that movie was awesome. Those second sons watched him leave the campaign he started. Gold Cloaks, sure, because he pretty much made them. A tradition so old it was called Andal law decreed Rhaenys queen. No doubt, but they know the law that makes them lords and none of them would want their brothers to come before their daughters. you said medieval times. Not really, when the lords are quiet flick and the enemy very sad and idiotic.

Same reason Doran arrested the snakes, their last talk likely gave the threat of war to it, I imagine one very heated would leave no imagination of what was to come to Daeron.

[Fire Eater]

Henry was no warrior, he let others fight his wars while he played. daemon in compression was a skilled warrior, known for mastering weapons and was known for his skill, Aegon, on the other hand, was known as a whoremonger.

Henry was described as "a fit young warrior" in his youth. One of his favorite activities was wrestling, and he exercised more than any English king. Aegon was a warrior as every king except Daeron II, Baelor, Aerys I and Jaehaerys were. Robert was a whoremonger as well.

Dude, that movie was awesome. Those second sons watched him leave the campaign he started. Gold Cloaks, sure, because he pretty much made them. A tradition so old it was called Andal law decreed Rhaenys queen. No doubt, but they know the law that makes them lords and none of them would want their brothers to come before their daughters. you said medieval times. Not really, when the lords are quiet flick and the enemy very sad and idiotic.

The City Watch of KL was there before Daemon. Many of those highborn likely left as well after him. We have no specifics regarding that. That concern for daughters before brothers was rejected by 95% if the lords. Medieval times as GRRM described, were messy regarding who inherited after the lord and his sons died given the lack of laws on the books.

[summary: Maia asks about the Hornwood inheritance, given that Lord Hornwood's sister is not being considered for the lordship but her son is and so is one of his bastards. Given that we have seen female heads of houses (Mormont, Whent, and other examples listed), this doesn't seem to make sense. Moreover, how could Lord Hornwood's wife or a future husband of herself be considered a legitimate holder of her lands over Lord Hornwood's blood relatives. Also, Maia asked about Lady Whent being called the "last of her line" given that a female Whent is listed as married to a Frey, but GRRM did not answer that one.]

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.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars. The Hundred Years War grew out of a dispute about whether a nephew or a grandson of Philip the Fair had a better claim to the throne of France. The nephew got the decision, because the grandson's claim passed through a daughter (and because he was the king of England too). And that mess was complicated by one of the precedents (the Salic Law) that had been invented a short time before to resolve the dispute after the death of Philip's eldest son, where the claimants were (1) the daughter of Philip's eldest son, who may or may not have been a bastard, her mother having been an adulteress, (2) the unborn child of the eldest son that his second wife was carrying, sex unknown, and (3) Philip's second son, another Philip. Lawyers for (3) dug up the Salic Law to exclude (1) and possibly (2) if she was a girl, but (2) was a boy so he became king, only he died a week later, and (3) got the throne after all. But then when he died, his own children, all daughters, were excluded on the basis of the law he's dug up, and the throne went to the youngest son instead... and meanwhile (1) had kids, one of whom eventually was the king of Navarre, Charles the Bad, who was such a scumbag in the Hundred Years War in part because he felt =his= claim was better than that of either Philip of Valois or Edward Plantagenet. And you know, it was. Only Navarre did not have an army as big as France or England, so no one took him seriously.

The Wars of the Roses were fought over the issue of whether the Lancastrian claim (deriving from the third son of Edward III in direct male line) or the Yorkist claim (deriving from a combination of Edward's second son, but through a female line, wed to descendants of his fourth son, through the male) was superior. And a whole family of legitimized bastard stock, the Beauforts, played a huge role.

And when Alexander III, King of Scots, rode over a cliff, and Margaret the Maid of Norway died en route back home, and the Scottish lords called on Edward I of England to decide who had the best claim to the throne, something like fourteen or fifteen (I'd need to look up the exact number) "competitors" came forward to present their pedigrees and documents to the court. The decision eventually boiled down to precedence (John Balliol) versus proximity (Bruce) and went to Balliol, but those other thirteen guys all had claims as well. King of Eric of Norway, for instance, based his claim to the throne on his =daughter=, the aforementioned Maid of Norway, who had been the queen however briefly. He seemed to believe that inheritance should run backwards. And hell, if he had been the king of France instead of the king of Norway, maybe it would have.

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

I doubt 95% of the lords are idiotic, and the decision was made with the support of the realm. Going against it would be politically dangerous. If the decision of the entire realm (the lords) is successfully disregarded by the monarch who sits the IT and wasn't chosen, what does that say about the said monarch who would sit the IT?

Same reason Doran arrested the snakes, their last talk likely gave the threat of war to it, I imagine one very heated would leave no imagination of what was to come to Daeron.

Daeron likely would have had a good reason to arrest half-brother/cousin Daemon: declaring himself king. Doran was truly trying to give the illusion of trying to appease the Lannisters and draw suspicion away while Daeron didn't need to pull a ruse for anyone.

[Wmarshal]

Henry was described as "a fit young warrior" in his youth. One of his favorite activities was wrestling, and he exercised more than any English king. Aegon was a warrior as every king except Daeron II, Baelor, Aerys I and Jaehaerys were. Robert was a whoremonger as well.

The City Watch of KL was there before Daemon. Many of those highborn likely left as well after him. We have no specifics regarding that. That concern for daughters before brothers was rejected by 95% if the lords. Medieval times as GRRM described, were messy regarding who inherited after the lord and his sons died given the lack of laws on the books.

[summary: Maia asks about the Hornwood inheritance, given that Lord Hornwood's sister is not being considered for the lordship but her son is and so is one of his bastards. Given that we have seen female heads of houses (Mormont, Whent, and other examples listed), this doesn't seem to make sense. Moreover, how could Lord Hornwood's wife or a future husband of herself be considered a legitimate holder of her lands over Lord Hornwood's blood relatives. Also, Maia asked about Lady Whent being called the "last of her line" given that a female Whent is listed as married to a Frey, but GRRM did not answer that one.]

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.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars. The Hundred Years War grew out of a dispute about whether a nephew or a grandson of Philip the Fair had a better claim to the throne of France. The nephew got the decision, because the grandson's claim passed through a daughter (and because he was the king of England too). And that mess was complicated by one of the precedents (the Salic Law) that had been invented a short time before to resolve the dispute after the death of Philip's eldest son, where the claimants were (1) the daughter of Philip's eldest son, who may or may not have been a bastard, her mother having been an adulteress, (2) the unborn child of the eldest son that his second wife was carrying, sex unknown, and (3) Philip's second son, another Philip. Lawyers for (3) dug up the Salic Law to exclude (1) and possibly (2) if she was a girl, but (2) was a boy so he became king, only he died a week later, and (3) got the throne after all. But then when he died, his own children, all daughters, were excluded on the basis of the law he's dug up, and the throne went to the youngest son instead... and meanwhile (1) had kids, one of whom eventually was the king of Navarre, Charles the Bad, who was such a scumbag in the Hundred Years War in part because he felt =his= claim was better than that of either Philip of Valois or Edward Plantagenet. And you know, it was. Only Navarre did not have an army as big as France or England, so no one took him seriously.

The Wars of the Roses were fought over the issue of whether the Lancastrian claim (deriving from the third son of Edward III in direct male line) or the Yorkist claim (deriving from a combination of Edward's second son, but through a female line, wed to descendants of his fourth son, through the male) was superior. And a whole family of legitimized bastard stock, the Beauforts, played a huge role.

And when Alexander III, King of Scots, rode over a cliff, and Margaret the Maid of Norway died en route back home, and the Scottish lords called on Edward I of England to decide who had the best claim to the throne, something like fourteen or fifteen (I'd need to look up the exact number) "competitors" came forward to present their pedigrees and documents to the court. The decision eventually boiled down to precedence (John Balliol) versus proximity (Bruce) and went to Balliol, but those other thirteen guys all had claims as well. King of Eric of Norway, for instance, based his claim to the throne on his =daughter=, the aforementioned Maid of Norway, who had been the queen however briefly. He seemed to believe that inheritance should run backwards. And hell, if he had been the king of France instead of the king of Norway, maybe it would have.

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

I doubt 95% of the lords are idiotic, and the decision was made with the support of the realm. Going against it would be politically dangerous. If the decision of the entire realm (the lords) is successfully disregarded by the monarch who sits the IT and wasn't chosen, what does that say about the said monarch who would sit the IT?

Daeron likely would have had a good reason to arrest half-brother/cousin Daemon: declaring himself king. Doran was truly trying to give the illusion of trying to appease the Lannisters and draw suspicion away while Daeron didn't need to pull a ruse for anyone.

Henry was a athlete, at best, but warrior? No. He jousted and wrestled but when it came to war he left it to other men while he played. He knew really nothing of warfare, his victories came from the deeds of others. Aegon the conquer took Westeros, Daeron the first was a ingenious battle commander, Maekar smashed rebellions, Aegon V was hands on when it came to the West, Aegon the second fought and nearly died for his crown, and even Aerys as a boy likely took part in his fathers war. No, he was no warrior, same as Aenys was no warrior. And? Did I say he wasn't?

They were a peasant band, he armed them, trained them, and gave them the cloaks they take their nickname. This is descibing a "man's world" but what ever people want at the moment, and seeing how easily you pulled this out, should note that it works both ways, Rhaenys can gut Viserys, take the throne, and say Andal law, so long as she kills or pleases everyone, it is law. Seeing how they elected a fool, I think they were.

That she has balls and her dragons can destroy us.

Why? We know nothing of daeron, his rule may have been great, but so was Tywin's, there is nothing that says he wouldn't arrest Daemon if he felt the threat of war was great.

[Fire Eater]

Henry was a athlete, at best, but warrior? No. He jousted and wrestled but when it came to war he left it to other men while he played. He knew really nothing of warfare, his victories came from the deeds of others. Aegon the conquer took Westeros, Daeron the first was a ingenious battle commander, Maekar smashed rebellions, Aegon V was hands on when it came to the West, Aegon the second fought and nearly died for his crown, and even Aerys as a boy likely took part in his fathers war. No, he was no warrior, same as Aenys was no warrior. And? Did I say he wasn't?

He was trained at arms and was devoted to war, and going simply by that definition he was a warrior.

They were a peasant band, he armed them, trained them, and gave them the cloaks they take their nickname. This is descibing a "man's world" but what ever people want at the moment, and seeing how easily you pulled this out, should note that it works both ways, Rhaenys can gut Viserys, take the throne, and say Andal law, so long as she kills or pleases everyone, it is law. Seeing how they elected a fool, I think they were.

That she has balls and her dragons can destroy us.

She can't gut Viserys, the chosen heir, without losing legitimacy which matters in every government. Viserys ruled well for the first part of his reign. You can't make sweeping generalizations based on one' support for a claimant, especially if it compromises 95% of a population.I doubt there weren't any competent or experienced warriors in that camp. We have nothing to suggest Rhaenys would have been better than Viserys.

You aren't thinking through the political implications. It would suggest that monarchy's power overrides that of the entire community of lords'. Feudal lords are used to a degree of autonomy, and they would be uncomfortable with that precedent, feeling they have lost their voice in the realm, affecting their power and influence.

Why? We know nothing of daeron, his rule may have been great, but so was Tywin's, there is nothing that says he wouldn't arrest Daemon if he felt the threat of war was great.

Except Daeron was described as intelligent and wise, and likely would have waited until Daemon declared himself.

[Wmarshal]

He was trained at arms and was devoted to war, and going simply by that definition he was a warrior.

She can't gut Viserys, the chosen heir, without losing legitimacy which matters in every government. Viserys ruled well for the first part of his reign. You can't make sweeping generalizations based on one' support for a claimant, especially if it compromises 95% of a population.I doubt there weren't any competent or experienced warriors in that camp. We have nothing to suggest Rhaenys would have been better than Viserys.

You aren't thinking through the political implications. It would suggest that monarchy's power overrides that of the entire community of lords'. Feudal lords are used to a degree of autonomy, and they would be uncomfortable with that precedent, feeling they have lost their voice in the realm, affecting their power and influence.

Except Daeron was described as intelligent and wise, and likely would have waited until Daemon declared himself.

Devoted to war? He sent men to fight, but largely had little to do with the actually battles.

She does have legitimacy, Andal Law. Because nothing happened, the second he actually had to do something, he messed up, he largely did nothing while his brother made a ass of himself. Who decision seemed to be purely do to sex, because Viserys was anything but a impressive choice. Her and her lord husband showed more courage, strength, intelligence and balls then Viserys in both books.

Well yeah, they are top dog. They all ever get say in a great council, a very rare thing that really started at that time. Not like they had meetings every week.

Daemon has no reason to declare himself in the realm where Daeron could easily send his men to arrest him, and there is nothing that says that he wouldn't arrest Daemon before hand. A specially seeing how easily he ordered his death and that of his sons.

[Fire Eater]

Henry VIII was a warrior man, regardless of how he fought his wars.

She does have legitimacy, Andal Law. Because nothing happened, the second he actually had to do something, he messed up, he largely did nothing while his brother made a ass of himself. Who decision seemed to be purely do to sex, because Viserys was anything but a impressive choice. Her and her lord husband showed more courage, strength, intelligence and balls then Viserys in both books.

Until the Grand Council picked Viserys, and she likely agreed to go along with the decision. Daemon couldn't be controlled, and Viserys exiled him once and made him go back to his wife. Viserys was a good administrator. Except where did we Rhaenys and Corlys's skills in administration? Rhaenys went alone on her dragon that ended getting herself killed, and Corlys went on a military campaign in the Stepstones that went ill.

Well yeah, they are top dog. They all ever get say in a great council, a very rare thing that really started at that time. Not like they had meetings every week.

Daemon has no reason to declare himself in the realm where Daeron could easily send his men to arrest him, and there is nothing that says that he wouldn't arrest Daemon before hand. A specially seeing how easily he ordered his death and that of his sons.

No, this isn't an absolute monarchy, but a feudal monarchy. You make the mistake of conflating the two. The feudal king derives his military power from the lords, and the lords have a prime importance in feudalism. Rhaenys would be violating the feudal contract in a way. The decision was made with the backing of the realm.

Except Daemon did declare himself, and he wasn't described as super-intelligent. Daeron is described as intelligent, and arresting Daemon without just cause is a risky move. Daeron didn't order his death. Where is that stated? You ignore that Daemon and his sons died on the battlefield not execution. Daemon died on the battlefield not an Daeron's orders, but BR"s actions. Daemon full well knew the risks of trying to crown himself king. Also, just so you know it's "especially" not "a specially."

[Wmarshal]

Henry VIII was a warrior man, regardless of how he fought his wars.

Until the Grand Council picked Viserys, and she likely agreed to go along with the decision. Daemon couldn't be controlled, and Viserys exiled him once and made him go back to his wife. Viserys was a good administrator. Except where did we Rhaenys and Corlys's skills in administration? Rhaenys went alone on her dragon that ended getting herself killed, and Corlys went on a military campaign in the Stepstones that went ill.

No, this isn't an absolute monarchy, but a feudal monarchy. You make the mistake of conflating the two. The feudal king derives his military power from the lords, and the lords have a prime importance in feudalism. Rhaenys would be violating the feudal contract in a way. The decision was made with the backing of the realm.

Except Daemon did declare himself, and he wasn't described as super-intelligent. Daeron is described as intelligent, and arresting Daemon without just cause is a risky move. Daeron didn't order his death. Where is that stated? You ignore that Daemon and his sons died on the battlefield not execution. Daemon died on the battlefield not an Daeron's orders, but BR"s actions. Daemon full well knew the risks of trying to crown himself king. Also, just so you know it's "especially" not "a specially."

Being a wrestler makes you no warrior.

Again, the GC was bran new, the andal law is old. And admittedly came back, with zero things happening to him. No he wasn't, he was good at giving money away and parties. Cloys gave brilliant, and quiet smart ideas in the time the council. As to Rhaenys death, that had to be done, it is a war, she was a warrior and her allies needed aid, her action and final flight porved she had more courage in her finger then Viserys and Rhaenyra. As the the invasion, it was needed, the foreigners were enslaving Westerosi and damaging trade.

You make the mistake that Westeros kings really have to care. They get troops from them, but other then that, a king can make the laws as he wills and so long as he has the might to gut anyone that says other wise, he is fine. No should not, this is a new thing, with no backing what so ever, othe then this, we have seen no other function where they voiced any other opinion.

yes, but whether it was before or after the attempted arrest is not clear. Please, he is the king, and he his bastard brother, if it worked no one would speak of the poor bastard. Yeah he did, Baelor asked for mercy, but Brynden's will of lack of mercy was what was aloud. Hedge Knight.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Do we know whether Daemon declared himself before Daeron ordered his arrest, or after? I am guessing after, and that the arrest was because Daeron II had learned of such plots and plans.

Wasn't it stated by GRRM that Daemon was influenced heavily by Fireball and Bittersteel? Crowning himself King might thus not originally have been his own idea, though in the end, he did accept and agree with it.

The Baelor asking for mercy, Brynden for the lack of it, was long after the rebellion itself, though. It wasn´t about Daemon. It was a small council meeting that Egg overheard, and Egg would have to have been at least a few years old when the discussion we know about took place.

[Fire Eater]

Being a wrestler makes you no warrior.

Martial training does.

Again, the GC was bran new, the andal law is old. And admittedly came back, with zero things happening to him. No he wasn't, he was good at giving money away and parties. Cloys gave brilliant, and quiet smart ideas in the time the council. As to Rhaenys death, that had to be done, it is a war, she was a warrior and her allies needed aid, her action and final flight porved she had more courage in her finger then Viserys and Rhaenyra. As the the invasion, it was needed, the foreigners were enslaving Westerosi and damaging trade.

Overturning the GC would regardless be very politically risky given it had the support of the entire realm. Viserys's problem was always seeing the best in people. Except there is no recorded royal debt, and the realm was at peace with no rebellions. He was be a good king by medieval standards. It takes more than courage to be a good monarch, and I will admit she was ordered to go. We have nothing to show she would have been a better monarch overall given the little we know of her. But it was a small group against the Triarchy, and they weren't like to give up such a valuable spot. Corlys could have tried negotiating with the Triarchy, or petitioning Viserys with a large following of merchants to do something.

You make the mistake that Westeros kings really have to care. They get troops from them, but other then that, a king can make the laws as he wills and so long as he has the might to gut anyone that says other wise, he is fine. No should not, this is a new thing, with no backing what so ever, othe then this, we have seen no other function where they voiced any other opinion.

They do have to care, as the nobles are the source of the overwhelming majority of their military and political support. The only monarchs who thought they didn't have to care are Cersei, Maegor, Joffrey and Aerys II. No offense, but I think you show a clear lack of understanding regarding feudalism and feudal monarchies. The king can't just gut any lord who says otherwise, as that would be a violation of the feudal contract. Even a lord has rights in feudalism, such as a right to a trial. Aerys did what you said, and doing so with Lord Rickard and Brandon along with others resulted in a rebellion that overthrew his house. If not even the Warden of the North and his heir are protected by feudal rights under the king, then what did that say about everyone else? It obviously did have backing given the lords of the entire realm were involved.

yes, but whether it was before or after the attempted arrest is not clear. Please, he is the king, and he his bastard brother, if it worked no one would speak of the poor bastard. Yeah he did, Baelor asked for mercy, but Brynden's will of lack of mercy was what was aloud. Hedge Knight.

Except Daeron knew the "poor bastard" had a following, and there would need to be proper justification. First of all, that was in TSS not THK. Second, that was about Blackfyre supporters not Blackfyres themselves. Third, Baelor's plan regarding the rebels who stayed behind was the plan put into action. Also, it's "allowed" not "aloud," unless you mean BR's plan was spoken loudly. :)