Jump to content

What did Renly mean by that odd statement to Catelyn


Dragon Roast

Recommended Posts

In spite of popular belief, Robert Baratheon didn't simply take the throne. He had a claim, because Baratheons were linked to the Targaryens. There were others who could aspire the throne: Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, why not Tywin?

What Renly is saying is simply that claims don't matter. He has the biggest army, he will take the crown. Robert's claim was just blablabla and no one really cared.

He's right up to some point. Robert's claim probably helped, but it wasn't what got him in the Iron Throne.

Robert's claim made him the most sensible choice politically, out of the rebels, to take the throne, but it was the fact that he had become the figurehead and leader of the rebellion that was responsible for his becoming king, I would argue. Ned would never have wanted to be king, Jon Arryn was relatively old even then and had no heirs (Robert had at least two,) and Tywin wasn't a part of the rebellion and to be frank, no-one liked him, so he never really had a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably talking about Orys Baratheon, founder of House Baratheon, second son of Aerion Targaryen, and by elder daughters he might be talking about Rhaelle Targaryen, mother of Steffon Baratheon. Aegon V had 4 children: Duncan the small, Jaehaerys, Rhaelle and another unknown son, and it's known that Duncan was the first son, but that doesn't mean he was Aegon's first child. If Rhaelle was the first born, her son Steffon should have been the heir to the Iron Throne, but since she was a woman, the crown went to Jaehaerys (since Duncan gave the crown up to marry Jenny of Oldstones). I'm just making hypotesis, I don't know for sure. But Renly would know better :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renly is an idiot and probably did not know exactly what he was talking about. I am always surprised when people quote Renly of all people about the succession. Aerys himself feared Robert, because of his claim. Robert at the time was probably fourth in line to the throne, with two of the other candidates being children. For comparison Prince Harry and Robert were equally close to the throne. With Aerys being mad, Viserys and Aegon being kids, Robert might have been offered the throne anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert's claim made him the most sensible choice politically, out of the rebels, to take the throne, but it was the fact that he had become the figurehead and leader of the rebellion that was responsible for his becoming king, I would argue. Ned would never have wanted to be king, Jon Arryn was relatively old even then and had no heirs (Robert had at least two,) and Tywin wasn't a part of the rebellion and to be frank, no-one liked him, so he never really had a chance.

Yes, I agree. Though I wonder if they didn't exaggerate Robert's part in the rebellion because he was the face on the new coin. History written by the victors and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. Though I wonder if they didn't exaggerate Robert's part in the rebellion because he was the face on the new coin. History written by the victors and all.

I don't think so. Ned worships Robert and thinks he is the greatest commander ever, so does Stannis, though it eats away at him. Jon Connington thought the rebellion would collapse with the death of Robert and Aerys considered him enemy no 2 from the off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renly is an idiot and probably did not know exactly what he was talking about. I am always surprised when people quote Renly of all people about the succession. Aerys himself feared Robert, because of his claim. Robert at the time was probably fourth in line to the throne, with two of the other candidates being children. For comparison Prince Harry and Robert were equally close to the throne. With Aerys being mad, Viserys and Aegon being kids, Robert might have been offered the throne anyway.

In Targaryen succession, all males including distant cousins have a claim before any females, even if a female is in the direct line. The most recent Targaryen ancester that married into the Baratheon line was female. All male Targs would have had a claim before Robert and there are other female Targs that are closer than Robert's grandmother. Robert was pretty far down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he was just saying that as a way of showing that these long drawn out claims of legitimacy really don't mean anything. It's who has the muscle makes the rules.

On a related note, I like the part in the show's History and Lore of Westeros: House Clegane where the Hound says something like "Most families claim some famous ancestor so far back that no one can prove them liars." Just goes to show how puffed up all of these "family lines" are.

In Targaryen succession, all males including distant cousins have a claim before any females, even if a female is in the direct line. The most recent Targaryen ancester that married into the Baratheon line was female. All male Targs would have had a claim before Robert and there are other female Targs that are closer than Robert's grandmother. Robert was pretty far down.

This and this together. Robert was pretty far down a blood line in recent history, and a second cousin to Aerys by dint of a Baratheon marriage (Robert's grandfather) to Aerys' auntie Rhaelle. So his claim is mostly that 1) He had more muscle and 2) Neither Ned, Hoster nor Jon Arryn wanted the job. Anyway, how 'fit to rule' does it make you to have blood that produces madness as often (or seemingly more often) than greatness?

In a very limited way Renly WAS right about Robert ruling by the strength of his warhammer at Ruby Ford. The problem with that is that if you take blood and the idea of a 'legitimate' king out of it altogether you'd just be left with a continuous state of war - whoever considered themselves to be the strongest faction of the moment would always be vying for the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't any source for it though. Not a single one in all five books. But quite a bit of hints that she was child number two.

Yeh, the wiki doesn't even state her birth order, I think Urglovi just assumed she was last-born by the family tree, but the family trees in the wiki don't show birth order by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, the wiki doesn't even state her birth order, I think Urglovi just assumed she was last-born by the family tree, but the family trees in the wiki don't show birth order by default.

Exactly. That family tree has her last of Aegon V's children, but not because the birth order is known. She just has to be somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others (including myself) have mentioned before, Renly never was known for his interest in books and history, so his statement wasn't meant to be accurate. However, it can not have escaped his notice that for Robert's claim to come true, not only Aerys and Rhaegar had to die but also Rhaenys, Aegon, Viserys and Daenerys. As long as (f)Aegon, Viserys and Daenerys are alive - even in exile - Robert and his heirs will always be the Usurpers (by Targaryen law) and there will always be someone plotting to get them back on the Iron Throne. In other words, Renly must've been aware that the Baratheon claim was always dubious from the (Targaryen) law's point of view; the more convincing argument for House Baratheon always was: "Baratheons will be better kings than those utterly mad Targaryens."

P.S. A small disclaimer: I still maintain that the Targaryen madness is primarily a product of political badmouthing, growing up under the influence of the IT and a lack of scientific insight into psychopathology than a real genetic disposition towards madness. But that's been talked through here and I accept that people agreed to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Targaryen succession, all males including distant cousins have a claim before any females, even if a female is in the direct line. The most recent Targaryen ancester that married into the Baratheon line was female. All male Targs would have had a claim before Robert and there are other female Targs that are closer than Robert's grandmother. Robert was pretty far down.

In Targaryen succession all males have a claim over females whether they are descended from a female line or not. The only people above Robert in the line of succession would be Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys. Technically I am not even sure Rhaenys comes before Robert. That puts Robert fourth in line. Only if Egg's third son had descendants left would they come before Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Targaryen succession all males have a claim over females whether they are descended from a female line or not.

People keep making statements about how Targaryen succession works, but these are not facts: they're speculation. Frankly, we don't actually know how it works once you get beyond the children of the current monarch. All we know is that after the Dance of Dragons, sons were preferred over daughters. We have very little information on how succession works beyond the children of the current monarch's body, because there are very few cases where it's been an issue. The books don't contain a definitive statement, and GRRM's own words suggest it's murky and depends on politics as much as law.

We do know that Daeron Targaryen's daughter was passed over in favour of Aegon V, but we also know that her claim was at least considered, we know that there were reasons to pass over her anyway (she was said to be feeble-minded) and that was a case of two claimants with a very close relationship to the last king (granddaughter and son). For that matter, Aegon's claim was preferred to that of a rival male claimant, the son of his older brother Aerion. So it's not a very clear indication and certainly doesn't suggest that Robert's claim was stronger than Daenerys'.

It's just not credible to suggest that a second cousin through the female line had an indisputably superior claim to a daughter or granddaughter of Aerys. At best, you could suggest that he might have been considered a serious rival claimant, but even that seems frankly a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep making statements about how Targaryen succession works, but these are not facts: they're speculation. Frankly, we don't actually know how it works once you get beyond the children of the current monarch. All we know is that after the Dance of Dragons, sons were preferred over daughters. We have very little information on how succession works beyond the children of the current monarch's body, because there are very few cases where it's been an issue. The books don't contain a definitive statement, and GRRM's own words suggest it's murky and depends on politics as much as law.

Everything always depends on politics, but it does not mean things are not straight forward. We know for a FACT that not only do sons come before daughters, but uncles come before daughters as well. Maekor and Viserys II come before their daughters. I am sure Martin himself has said that male Targaryens come before female ones.

We do know that Daeron Targaryen's daughter was passed over in favour of Aegon V, but we also know that her claim was at least considered, we know that there were reasons to pass over her anyway (she was said to be feeble-minded) and that was a case of two claimants with a very close relationship to the last king (granddaughter and son). For that matter, Aegon's claim was preferred to that of a rival male claimant, the son of his older brother Aerion. So it's not a very clear indication and certainly doesn't suggest that Robert's claim was stronger than Daenerys'.

We also know that Viserys II came before his nieces as well.

It's just not credible to suggest that a second cousin through the female line had an indisputably superior claim to a daughter or granddaughter of Aerys. At best, you could suggest that he might have been considered a serious rival claimant, but even that seems frankly a stretch.

It happens with salic law all the time. This is precisely why the 100 years war with France happened. Undisputed is too strong a word, but Robert probably had the stronger claim. It's not a stretch to say he had a serious claim at all. Just look at the Hanoverian succession. Ernst Augustus I inherited the crown over his niece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything always depends on politics, but it does not mean things are not straight forward. We know for a FACT that not only do sons come before daughters, but uncles come before daughters as well. Maekor and Viserys II come before their daughters.

I think you're a little confused about Maekar: he was a brother, not an uncle, and Aerys I had no children.

Viserys II inherited from his nephew who, again, had no children. He did have sisters, who were passed over, but we've agreed that this is the case. It's notable that Viserys II's own claim was through his mother.

These cases don't establish any sort of precedent that supports Robert's claim over Dany's.

I am sure Martin himself has said that male Targaryens come before female ones.

We have a (paraphrased) remark to that effect, but no detail on the extent to which this holds true. It's perfectly possible that he meant that every single male descendant, no matter how distant, comes before even the very closest female relative - but it's equally possible that he meant no such thing, only that male descendants take precedence in the close family. His remarks above would suggest the latter.

We also know that Viserys II came before his nieces as well.

Indeed. But an niece and an uncle is a very different case than a distant cousin.

It happens with salic law all the time. This is precisely why the 100 years war with France happened. Undisputed is too strong a word, but Robert probably had the stronger claim. It's not a stretch to say he had a serious claim at all. Just look at the Hanoverian succession. Ernst Augustus I inherited the crown over his niece.

I don't think these cases prove anything wrt how things work in ASOIAF, and even if they did, I'm quite sure that a trawl of the history books would produce counterexamples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure Martin himself has said that male Targaryens come before female ones.

Well, without a quote it is not much of an argument, is it?

We also know that Viserys II came before his nieces as well.

Sure, but it could have been because of a double whammy of Baelor's will and of the fact that his sisters have been imprisoned for 10 years and thus had no support at court.

We do know that the claim of Daeron the Drunken's daughter was considered _before_ that of any male claimant. If there had been a law that denied females succession anyway, why would it have had to be considered and arguments found to pass over her? This makes zero sense.

Also, if Targaryen women didn't count, why did Rhaenys have to die? Why was Danaerys considered a threat to Robert? Why did Selmy go to her and not to Stannis/Renly, who, according to you, would have been rightful heirs before her? Why did Stannis offer to name Renly his heir before Shireen as inducement to renounce his crown, if by law Renly already was a heir to the throne if Stannis became king?

Really, a lot of important plot points would cease to make sense if this new succession law was retroactively introduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if Targaryen women didn't count, why did Rhaenys have to die? Why was Danaerys considered a threat to Robert? Why did Selmy go to her and not to Stannis/Renly, who, according to you, would have been rightful heirs before her? Why did Stannis offer to name Renly his heir before Shireen as inducement to renounce his crown, if by law Renly already was a heir to the throne if Stannis became king?

While I don't have a strong opinion either way on the extent to which Targaryen succession favors males over females, nor not, I think this part of your post does seem to be explained, at least partially in the books. Robert didn't consider Daenerys a threat to him so much as he feared her child as leader of the Dothraki, it seems, it was the pregnancy that triggered the assassination attempts, I believe. As for Rhaenys, it's difficult to know how much we can read into it, because Tywin went after Rhaegar's family to prove that he had truly abandoned the Targaryens, I believe we are told, so it's just as plausible that it was a political statement as a legal one.

I know Tywin claims to Tyrion something alone the lines of Gregor going beyond what he was told to do, but I don't remember the exact line off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, without a quote it is not much of an argument, is it?

I told George that when he changed Viserys I from a son to a brother he created an error in that Baelor's sisters did not inherit the throne after him, George replied that women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD. Something interesting and neatly explains Daena and the rest not becoming queen.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Comic_Con_San_Diego_CA_July_20_232/

Sure, but it could have been because of a double whammy of Baelor's will and of the fact that his sisters have been imprisoned for 10 years and thus had no support at court.

We do know that the claim of Daeron the Drunken's daughter was considered _before_ that of any male claimant. If there had been a law that denied females succession anyway, why would it have had to be considered and arguments found to pass over her? This makes zero sense.

Politics always plays a role, but Martin has said how Targaryen succession works, there has never been a Targaryen Queen and heiresses have been passed up for uncles more than once.

Also, if Targaryen women didn't count, why did Rhaenys have to die? Why was Danaerys considered a threat to Robert? Why did Selmy go to her and not to Stannis/Renly, who, according to you, would have been rightful heirs before her? Why did Stannis offer to name Renly his heir before Shireen as inducement to renounce his crown, if by law Renly already was a heir to the throne if Stannis became king?

Really, a lot of important plot points would cease to make sense if this new succession law was retroactively introduced.

Selmy is just desperate to have a Queen/King to serve. He is a traitor for leaving Joffrey.

Rhaenys had to die, because Targaryen loyalist would fight to put her on the throne even if technically Robert came before her. Look at the support Renly got. Rhaenys would have a good claim and with the right marriage, powerful allies.

I think you're a little confused about Maekar: he was a brother, not an uncle, and Aerys I had no children.

Yeh my mistake though his older brother Rhaegel had two children and we are not told of what happened to the,.

Viserys II inherited from his nephew who, again, had no children. He did have sisters, who were passed over, but we've agreed that this is the case. It's notable that Viserys II's own claim was through his mother.

These cases don't establish any sort of precedent that supports Robert's claim over Dany's.

This alongside Aegon V does begin to establish a precedent. There has never been a ruling queen.

We have a (paraphrased) remark to that effect, but no detail on the extent to which this holds true. It's perfectly possible that he meant that every single male descendant, no matter how distant, comes before even the very closest female relative - but it's equally possible that he meant no such thing, only that male descendants take precedence in the close family. His remarks above would suggest the latter.

Robert was fairly close and a royal cousin. Was an adult and a powerful Lord in his own right. Both could press their claims, but Robert would have the greater legal claim.

Indeed. But an niece and an uncle is a very different case than a distant cousin.

I wouldn't say second cousins are too distant. Robert's great-grandfather was a king.

I don't think these cases prove anything wrt how things work in ASOIAF, and even if they did, I'm quite sure that a trawl of the history books would produce counterexamples.

Different kingdoms have different laws of succession. Sometimes they are broken for political reasons like James II or John I. Still as things stand Robert has a strong legal case.

1. No ruling Queen in nearly 300 years.

2. Daughters have been passed up for other relatives in the past.

All Dany can argue is that Robert is too distant for previous precendts to matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep making statements about how Targaryen succession works, but these are not facts: they're speculation. Frankly, we don't actually know how it works once you get beyond the children of the current monarch. All we know is that after the Dance of Dragons, sons were preferred over daughters. We have very little information on how succession works beyond the children of the current monarch's body, because there are very few cases where it's been an issue. The books don't contain a definitive statement, and GRRM's own words suggest it's murky and depends on politics as much as law.

There is this common quote (can't remember source):

Since the Dance, House Targaryen has practiced a highly modified version of agnatic primogeniture, placing female claimants in the line of succession behind all possible male ones, even collateral relations.

That shows that we do know the succession rules since the dance favour ANY male over women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is this common quote (can't remember source):

Since the Dance, House Targaryen has practiced a highly modified version of agnatic primogeniture, placing female claimants in the line of succession behind all possible male ones, even collateral relations.

That shows that we do know the succession rules since the dance favour ANY male over women.

It's from the Westeros Wiki, which is not canon and though useful, is wrong sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...