Westeros Law Regarding Female Heirs

[Winterfell is Burning]

Andals (and possibly First Men) traditonally have agnatic-cognatic succession, meaning that males come before females, but daughters still before uncles. (Oldest son inherits, daughters only if there are no trueborn sons)

In Dorne they use cognatic succession, meaning that females and males have equal rights (The oldest inherits regardless of gender).

Iirc, Aegon II established agnatic succession for the House Targaryen after the Dance. This means that only males can inherit.

Yep, I don't know why people find it so hard to understand it honestly.

[KittensRuleBeetsDrool]

My interpretation is that the "Salic Law" of the Targaryen succession was put into effect after the Dance of Dragons. Before that, Rhaenys "The Queen Who Never Was" was seriously considered as heir before Jaehaerys I passed her over. (The Starks supported Rhaenys' claim, btw...) Then Rhaenyra was the heir, no questions asked, until Viserys remarried to Alicent Hightower and had Aegon. Without Alicent (and her father) I don't know if there would have been the momentum to put Aegon II on the throne. So I don't think that a female monarch was unthinkable before the Dance; it just never happened.

Post-Dance is when the Salic Law was put into effect. Aegon II was married to Jaehaera to unite the two warring branches of the Targs. Unfortunately Jaehaera died young and childless, and seems to have been developmentally disabled anyway. Daeron's daughter passed over, much later, was "feeble witted." Not wanting to put a mentally deficient person on the throne is understandable.

As for Dany's right to the throne - she has Drogon. Nobody else has a dragon at this point; I think she can press her claim pretty forcefully. If she gets all her dragons back, even more so.

The rest of Westeros outside of Dorne seems to put brothers first, then sisters, in order of age. Daughters before uncles. That's why all the fuss over Sansa's claim. Without brothers, she is the heir. It's also why Cregan Karstark had to marry Alys to get any claim on Karhold. Alys is Harrion Karstark's sister and heir, so Cregan can't get Karhold without marrying Alys.

[TheMysteriousOne]

The issue about the current Targaryen succession, wrt to Stannis and Dany, is if the claim of a male belonging to another House with Targaryen blood (derived from a female ancestor) supersedes that of a female who is the daughter of the last king and last (known) survivor of the male line. Personally, I believe the latter.

I highly doubt that Targaryens would choose a male from another House to inherit the throne in place of a female, unless she married said male and unless said male would change his name.

[RumHam]

Again: The legally established fact that the traitorous son of an executed female traitor sister to a lawful King inherits before said King's daughter is the precedent that established it.

Nevermind who said traitorous son wed after that. He isn't King because he married the Queen, he is the King because he's Aegon II's nephew and she's the Queen because she married him.

I'm not trying to be contrarian here, I really think you might be misunderstanding my point. I'm proposing the possibility that that's not what happened. We know from the Princess and The Queen that there were still Black armies in the field, and that Aegon's restoration lasted only half a year. We know from Ran that there was another dragon involved that we have never heard of. So it seems quite possible that the Blacks end up winning the war, deposing Aegon II, and installing Aegon III. Then he marries Jaehaera, who wasn't passed over for being a woman, but for being one of Alicent's children. (Actually in this scenario she wouldn't really be passed over at all, it's just that Rhaenarya's team won, so her line continues on the throne.)

Once again, you're probably right about all this. We don't know what happened. My original point was that nowhere in the books is it established that the laws were changed after the Dance. Then E-Ro was kind enough to provide the source for the idea that they were. After that I'm even more convinced that you're probably right. I still think it's possible that Martin changed his mind or the person who made that report lied (which we know he did about other aspects of that same report) or misinterpreted what he was saying. Not likely, just possible. Until we have something on the page, it remains a possibility.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I'm not trying to be contrarian here, I really think you might be misunderstanding my point. I'm proposing the possibility that that's not what happened. We know from the Princess and The Queen that there were still Black armies in the field, and that Aegon's restoration lasted only half a year. We know from Ran that there was another dragon involved that we have never heard of. So it seems quite possible that the Blacks end up winning the war, deposing Aegon II, and installing Aegon III. Then he marries Jaehaera, who wasn't passed over for being a woman, but for being one of Alicent's children. (Actually in this scenario she wouldn't really be passed over at all, it's just that Rhaenarya's team won, so her line continues on the throne.)

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. You are very likely right and it happened just as you described - de facto. But de jure, Aegon III inherited from Aegon II ahead of Jaehaera and only that legal fact matters nowadays.

[SeanF]

Andals (and possibly First Men) traditonally have agnatic-cognatic succession, meaning that males come before females, but daughters still before uncles. (Oldest son inherits, daughters only if there are no trueborn sons)

In Dorne they use cognatic succession, meaning that females and males have equal rights (The oldest inherits regardless of gender).

Iirc, Aegon II established agnatic succession for the House Targaryen after the Dance. This means that only males can inherit.

Females can inherit in House Targaryen, but only if there are no male claimants.

Although Stannis is second cousin to Aerys II, I think that's a bit too distant to make him part of House Targaryen. In addition, he would have to claim through a female ancestor.

Dany is, so far as most people know, the only remaining legitimate Targaryen heir. Obviously, Jon and Aegon mat complicate things.

[SeanF]

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. You are very likely right and it happened just as you described - de facto. But de jure, Aegon III inherited from Aegon II ahead of Jaehaera and only that legal fact matters nowadays.

It must have hurt, for Aegon III to effectively brand his mother a usurper - unless the law actually post-dates his reign.

[corbon]

The issue about the current Targaryen succession, wrt to Stannis and Dany, is if the claim of a male belonging to another House with Targaryen blood (derived from a female ancestor) supersedes that of a female who is the daughter of the last king and last (known) survivor of the male line. Personally, I believe the latter.

Robert didn't take the throne because he was the senior Targaryen left. Robert took the throne by conquest, and of all the rebels he had the 'best claim' - whatever that means.

I take it to mean two things. Unstated, and probably uncomprehended by most people, Robert was the one of the three senior leaders (Jon Arryn, Ned STark and Robert Baratheon) who was least able to argue his way out of the throne - neither Ned nor Jon wanted it and both were able to foist it on Robert who wasn't smart enough to avoid it (probably not smart enough to know he didn't actually want it either). But just as importantly, Robert is the one of the three that is the most unifying. By summoning his not-really-relevant but still actually there distant connection to the Targaryen dynasty, he gives a small sop to the Targaryen loyalists, a way to make the new king less of an imposition than he really is. He's also the most southern of the three, important to reconcile the southern loyalists, the most personable of the three, important for everyone, and the only one available to marry off and further cement the new peace.

Robert's Targaryen connections really have nothing to do with his Kingship except perhaps as the slightest of feel-not-so-bad factors for some loyalists. All the other reasons are far more important.

[naseridrl]

I've never understood why the Targs in particular stood in the way of female inheritance. You'd think they'd be the one family who didn't care either way given that women rode dragons in that family, and rode them well and into battle like men did. Plus really in those times you only know who a babies mother is so if you're that into incest and bloodlines like they were isn't it better all babies on the throne have a Targ mother because at least you know for certain they are at least 50% Targ.

Although this may go hand in hand with my lack of understanding why in and fantasy novel with magic and mystical beings men are usually still always the bosses, when magic and such things takes away the physical advantages men have.

[TheMysteriousOne]

<snip>

My post was about who would be the current ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, according to the Targaryen succession laws.

[RumHam]

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. You are very likely right and it happened just as you described - de facto. But de jure, Aegon III inherited from Aegon II ahead of Jaehaera and only that legal fact matters nowadays.

How is this an example of agnatic primogeniture? Aegon III was older than Jaehaera and from the winning side (in my hypothetical but likely scenario.) It's obvious he should inherit over her. If she was a man you'd have the exact same situation. Well, minus the wedding.

[corbon]

My post was about who would be the current ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, according to the Targaryen succession laws.

Yes, and the point is that the two candidates you were examining are following mutually exclusive rules. Stannis derives his claim from Robert and his claim had nothing to do with Targaryen relationship in truth, so there is no comparison with a "male from a female line".

By Targaryen rules Stannis is irrelevant. He's not a Targaryen at all. Dany is the last known Targaryen so is the only (known) candidate by Targaryen rules for a Targaryen throne.

By Stannis' rules, Dany is irrelevant as she is merely a scion of a deposed House and not relevent to the inheritance of a Baratheon throne.

[TheMysteriousOne]

Yes, and the point is that the two candidates you were examining are following mutually exclusive rules. Stannis derives his claim from Robert and his claim had nothing to do with Targaryen relationship in truth, so there is no comparison with a "male from a female line".

By Targaryen rules Stannis is irrelevant. He's not a Targaryen at all. Dany is the last known Targaryen so is the only (known) candidate by Targaryen rules for a Targaryen throne.

By Stannis' rules, Dany is irrelevant as she is merely a scion of a deposed House and not relevent to the inheritance of a Baratheon throne.

I don't think you understand my post.

I wrote that in response to the idea that Stannis is possibly the legal successor according to the Targaryen succession, thus invalidating Dany's claim as a Targaryen, even if the Iron Throne was still under the power of House Targaryen. Proponents of this, claim that because Stannis is a male and has Targaryen blood, he comes before Daenerys.

I said that I believe otherwise, and that according to Targaryen succession, Daenerys would likely be chosen instead according the reasons mentioned in that post.

[corbon]

I don't think you understand my post.

I wrote that in response to the idea that Stannis is possibly the legal successor according to the Targaryen succession, thus invalidating Dany's claim as a Targaryen, even if the Iron Throne was still under the power of House Targaryen. Proponents of this, claim that because Stannis is a male and has Targaryen blood, he comes before Daenerys.

I said that I believe otherwise, and that according to Targaryen succession, Daenerys would likely be chosen instead according the reasons mentioned in that post.

Then its this claim which is wrong. Stannis has zero relevance to the Targaryen succession. Its not even an 'instead', he's just not relevant at all.

[Mal Malenkirk]

Although this may go hand in hand with my lack of understanding why in and fantasy novel with magic and mystical beings men are usually still always the bosses, when magic and such things takes away the physical advantages men have.

Magic doesn't takes away the physical advantage of men. It just add another path to power than good old fashionend violence. And I'd point out that Melisandre is powerful specifically because of her control over some arcane might. Still, by and large, magic in ASOIF is just not prévalent and powerful enough to lead to significant difference from the real world in term of gender inequality.

[Lord Varys]

On the Targaryen succession:

GRRM may have thought some time ago that the law of succession changed after the Dance, but that must need be the case now that he has fully flashed out the history of the Targaryen reign.

If we look on TRP and TPatQ then it seems that women - and males from female lines - were actually cut out of the succession by Jaehaerys I in 92 AC (when he decided to pass over Rhaenys in favor of Baelon, effectively disregarding Andal law stating that 'a daughter comes before an uncle'), as well as the Great Council which dismissed both Rhaenys' claim - because she was female - as well as Laenor's - who was a great-grandson of the Old King through the female line.

Viserys I, chosen by a Great Council who dismissed both females and males through the female line, then disregarded the precedents set by Jaehaerys I in 92 and by the Great Council in 101 when he first named Rhaenyra as his heir against Daemon (an uncle would come before a daughter by the rulings of 92 and 101), and then pushed things even farther when he kept Rhaenyra as his heir after he had sons from his second wife.

The Blacks fought the Dance to uphold Viserys' decree and last will. Due to the fact that Rhaenyra predeceased Aegon II - and due to the fact that he was crowned in KL before Rhaenyra was even aware of her father's death - Aegon II could decree that Rhaenyra was never a queen since he had been 'the rightful king' from his coronation until his death, despite the fact that Rhaenyra sat on the Iron Throne some time in-between.

I'd be very surprised if Aegon II had actually named/declared Aegon III his heir during his brief restoration. Black armies were fighting the Greens in the name of Aegon III, which would have made Aegon III a traitor even if he didn't want to ascend the Iron Throne or avenge his mother. Aegon II would most certainly not name him his heir. The Dance resembles the Anarchy, but it really isn't the same thing. Aegon II was restored for such a brief amount of time that the Greens might never have settled or discussed Aegon's succession, especially since the king could remarry and have more children (we don't know if Aegon II was unable to perform after his many injuries).

I'm with RumHum in the sense that I'm inclined to believe that the Blacks won the Dance in the sense that they killed Aegon II and/or took KL from the Greens, and thus had the power install Aegon III as the new king.

By the way, it also makes little sense to differentiate between Targaryen rules of succession, and Baratheon rules. It's the succession of the Iron Throne. Whoever wants to sit there, would have adhere to and check the laws and precedents concerning the succession. Thus Targaryen law should also apply to the Targaryen-Baratheons on the Iron Throne, just as it would have to the Targaryen-Velaryons on the Iron Throne (if Laenor or Rhaenyra's sons by him had ever ruled as kings).

And Great Councils - when discussing the succession of the Iron Throne - seem to be essentially kingsmoots. Every claimant can make a claim there, and the claimant who gains most support wins the throne. Regardless of what previous precedents or the actual law say. The passing over of Daeron's lackwit daughter, Aerion's infant son, Rhaenys, and Laenor were all against Andal law, at least to my understanding.

Most is easily explained - Laenor and Aerion's son were children/infants, Daeron's daughter was a lackwit, Viserys I and Aegon V were grown men with a lot of followers. But this doesn't change the fact that according to Andal tradition the lackwit daughter should have inherited (a daughter becomes before an uncle or a cousin, i.e. before Aerion or his son) in 233, and that Rhaenys or Laenor should have succeeded Jaehaerys, due to the fact that 'a daughter comes before an uncle'/they belonged to the elder Targaryen branch.

[RumHam]

I just wanted to say that I was wrong. Back when we had this argument I mistakenly thought that the Targaryens initially had a system of inheritance like the Dornish, where gender did not matter and the elder child inherited. So I thought THAT was the change supposedly made after the dance, that an elder sister now came behind a younger brother. Turns out it was always this way. (Which I should have realized, as it was Aegon's conquest not Visenya's.) What supposedly changed after the Dance was only that an uncle comes before a daughter. Though we still have nothing but that somewhat sketchy SSM indicating that the laws were changed at all after the Dance.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Daughters come before uncles in Westerosi inheritance law, or at least that's the case in the North, as Jon explained in one of his chapters in A Dance with Dragons. The Targaryen inheritance law is any male before any female, though Robert or Stannis surely aren't considered serious Targaryen heirs.

I actually the Targaryen succession law would be Any TARGARYEN male before any TARGARYEN female.

I am sure that a Targaryen King would not make a law/ rule that one day could be used to Crown an non-Targaryen, even if he was a cousin