Law versus Custom: A Question About Succession Rights

[JLE]

In the British royal family, Henry VIII gave *several* examples - not just the one.

Failing to sire a son by his first wife, he had the marriage declared invalid so he could remarry (note: this was an annulment - a declaration that it had never been valid - not a divorce, a lawful end to a lawful marriage. The difference was that, firstly, it meant that even a daughter by his second wife would take precedence over the daughter of his first wife: and secondly, it labelled Katherine of Aragon (and himself, but it was evidently a worse crime for women) as an unwitting sinner over decades, for having slept with him so often and borne him a child with no "legal" marriage.

Of course, the grounds for annulment were contested by many - not least the Pope. But, for whatever reason, Henry did not want to legalise divorce as a general principle.

When the second wife also failed to give him a son, only a daughter, charges of adultery were brought against her - with charges of witchcraft held in reserve, just in case the adultery charges didn't stick - and Anne Boleyn lost her head. He also declared the marriage legally invalid - apparently by re-validating his first marriage: Katherine of Aragon having conveniently died of natural causes, so with both wives dead, there was no impediment to his marrying a third time. He still had no legitimate son, by either wife - though he had a daughter by each: and he had at least two bastard sons by mistresses, the first - by Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount - of whom he officially acknowledged by giving him the surname "Fitzroy". Henry Fitzroy was at this time grown to manhood and had been given a title, the Duke of Richmond: this was widely assumed to be in preparation for Henry VIII adopting his bastard legally as his heir. However, Fitzroy died young, of tuberculosis. Another bastard son, named Henry, also existed (and he also had an older sister named Catherine): however, since this bastard was the son of Mary Boleyn, sister to the recently-beheaded Anne (who had been Anne's predecessor as Henry's mistress before the annulment / remarriage), there was no chance of his finding favour at court. Mary wisely kept him away from court, officially declaring both her children to belong to her first husband, William Carey, and have his surname (despite both "Carey" children being redheads, which King Henry was but William Carey was not): Carey himself had since died in an epidemic, and Mary Boleyn had already left court to remarry a minor country gentleman, William Stafford. (Henry Carey survived everybody and was eventually ennobled by Queen Elizabeth - Anne Boleyn's daughter - as Viscount Hunsdon.)

Of course Henry finally sired a son by his third wife, Jane Seymour - Edward, later to succeed him as Edward VI. His mother died shortly after the birth. Henry's later three wives were of little consequence: #4,Anne of Cleves, was officially annulled on the grounds of non-consummation, neither husband nor wife able to abide the look of the other (this went uncontested by anybody, she was fobbed off with a minor title, the rank of dowager duchess, and outlived everybody into a long spinsterhood): #5, Catherine Howard, was - like Anne Boleyn (of whom she was a close cousin) - found guilty of adultery and executed, with rather more justification than her cousin: and #6, Catherine Parr (already a widow before the marriage), outlived her husband - and remarried for a third time - but had no children by any of her husbands.

But now we get to the even more interesting bit - the line of succession, as put in his will.

 - First, of course, was his son Edward. There was no doubt about this: regardless of the legality of Henry's first two marriages, both women were dead so there was no impediment to his third, and Edward was his only son.

 - Next, of course, would have been any offspring of Edward: but Edward was a child at the time he got to the throne, and a teenager when he died, having not yet sired any children, nor even married...

 - ...Next in the line, came his two daughters, in order of age. BOTH of them - Mary first, then Elizabeth. Doubts existed over the legality of both of Henry's first two marriages: he had flip-flopped on the first (Catherine of Aragon) at least twice, and it was thanks to Catherine Parr that Elizabeth (Anne Boleyn's daughter) was finally back in favour at court. There was certainly no way that BOTH of the first two marriages could be said to be legal, unless the first had been terminated by a lawful divorce - the one step that Henry would not take, even retroactively. Catholics said that Mary was legitimate and Elizabeth a bastard: Protestants the reverse, since Elizabeth had taken up the Protestant religion (to the annoyance of her father, who viewed his Anglican church as a variant of the Catholic, even though neither he nor the Pope acknowledged the other.)

 - However, there was an alternative precedent, and one which Henry had taken earlier: he had clearly been taking steps to legally adopt his bastard Fitzroy, even though Fitzroy died before the adoption could be declared. Thus it was, by virtue of naming *both* daughters into the line of succession, he was making the statement: either one might be a bastard, and since there was dispute over it, he would take no side in that dispute by officially legitimizing BOTH daughters.

 - Next after his daughters: With no further offspring, he looked to the descendants of his siblings. Henry had two sisters: the elder, Margaret, had married King James IV of Scotland, and became the mother of James V, while the younger, Mary - after a brief marriage to an aging, senile King of France which only ever existed on paper, the couple never meeting, the marriage being declared by proxy and terminated by King Louis's death shortly afterwards - had refused a second arranged marriage with France's next king, Francis, and - with Francis's own connivance - married Henry's best friend: Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. Henry had initially banished Brandon from court for this, but could not bring himself to remain angry with one of the few men he genuinely liked and trusted, so he forgave the couple not long afterwards. Princess Mary had had a couple of daughters by Brandon, but died young.

 - By rights, the elder sister - Margaret - and her offspring should have been next in line should Henry run out of descendants. However, her husband, James IV of Scotland, and later her son, James V, both made war on England, and died for it - the elder James in battle, the younger shortly after another battle twenty years later, leaving an infant daughter - Mary Stuart - as heir to Scotland. Henry thus disinherited that line of the family, favouring his younger sister's descendants (by the loyal Brandon) over those of his elder sister.

So. Edward VI succeeded to the throne, while still a minor. He seemed at first to accede to the general principle that both his sisters were lawfully after him in the line of succession: but the regency council either persuaded him otherwise, or went over his head when it was clear that he was going to die young, and attempted to pass over both daughters (citing the doubts over the legitimacy), in favour of a girl from the Mary Tudor-Brandon line - her granddaughter, Jane Grey. Jane appears never to have really wanted the throne, nor were either of Henry's daughters accepting the palace coup that put her there: a rebellion ensued, Jane lost her head after nine days, and Henry's daughter Mary was installed as with little in the way of opposition. The rest of the Brandon descendants - a couple of young women also with the Grey surname - were quietly sidelined.

Mary, of course, had become a hardline reactionary Catholic - taking after her husband, Philip of Spain in that regard, as well as after her mother Katherine of Aragon, a deeply religious woman. A series of purges and heretic-burnings followed - which only served to turn the wavering population *against* Catholicism. Mary lasted five years before dying of cancer: she (reluctantly) accepted her father's decision to adopt Elizabeth, and accepted that it would be her half-sister who succeeded her, regardless of the controversy over their father's marriages... even though Elizabeth remained Protestant, and Catholics still called her a bastard. Thus, Mary - even if she believed Elizabeth to be a bastard - accepted her father's right to adopt a bastard. Her husband, of course, did *not* accept this, and insisted that the throne of England was his by right of marriage... hence the invasion generally known as the Spanish Armada, which was fought off by England under Elizabeth.

Meanwhile... Mary Stuart, queen of Scotland - and grand-daughter of the disinherited line from Princess Margaret Tudor - made something of a disaster of her rule in Scotland. Not least because there was religious strife there, between hardline Catholics and hardline Protestants: a couple of disastrous marriages (including at least one to a man who had raped her), the murder of her husband (for which she was widely believed guilty even though many sympathised with her), and taking at least one lover who was also murdered, also did not help, and she ended up thrown out of Scotland, and calling to her cousin - Elizabeth of England - for help. Initially, this was just in the hope of regaining Scotland: but Mary soon ended up as figurehead for Catholic revolutionists in England who had never accepted that Elizabeth was anything but a bastard, nor accepted Henry VIII's right to adopt a bastard. Elizabeth could not return her to Scotland without force, nor leave her at liberty in England while there were plots looking for her support (even though at first she did not cooperate with them), so Mary was promptly put under house arrest. Mary's own line was officially disqualified from the English succession thanks to her father and grandfather's wars against England: but Elizabeth, legitimate or no, was Henry VIII's last descendant, and the Brandon-Greys (from Henry's younger sister) had been sidelined, leaving Mary Stuart (descendant of the older sister) as the only other living relative of the whole Tudor dynasty,  the last descendant of its founder Henry VII. So at the very least, assuming Elizabeth did not marry or have an heir (and, though she was said to have a lover or two, she never did), Mary was her only relative and thus could claim to be her heir: and to those who called Elizabeth a bastard, Mary was the rightful queen.

However, thanks to Mary's own misrule in Scotland, plots to put her on the English throne never really got off the ground: and when Mary herself was trapped into agreeing to become the figurehead for one such plot (which had in fact been set up by Lords Cecil and Walsingham to catch her out), she lost her head. However the blame was attached only to her: she had a son, who had been installed as King of Scotland after his mother's exile, and thus it was that James VI of Scotland ended up as heir to the English throne, later crowned as James I of England...

[Lord Varys]

@Protagoras

I think you are overestimating the power 'the law' has in Westeros. Law in general isn't more than a guideline in such a society.

There are no authorities who would protect the rights of a successfully disinherited heir. The power is in the hand of the lord, not his heir or extended family. If I throw my son out of my house no force in Westeros can force me to take him back in. Not even the king (unless he wants to go to war over this issue).

Things might change after such a lord is dead but whether they change in the disinherited guy's favor is far from obvious. Why the hell should anybody favor the cause of a dispossessed man - who may even have been dispossessed justly. We have to keep in mind that usually a lord wants his eldest son to follow him, so there would mostly be a good reason to disinherit an heir. A dispossessed heir would only be able to challenge his father during the latter's lifetime under very special circumstances. Thus such scenarios can actually be mostly neglected when discussing this thing in theory.

Take a boy like Brandon the Broken as an example. He can no longer father children and has become a weak boy, unable to command the amount of respect and loyalty that's necessary to keep the Lords of the North in line. Were he Eddard Stark's eldest son and heir Catelyn would most likely fervently oppose Eddard's decision to disinherit him in favor of Rickon but let's assume Ned disinherits him anyway. Do you think a majority of the men who muttered in Bran's hearing that the cripple should better end his misery and take his own life would ever support his claim against a healthy Lord of Winterfell?

That's completely unlikely. People like Bran, Tyrion, mutilated Theon, etc. stand little to no chance in that game.

The other thing is that the idea that people treat primogeniture like a legal fetish doesn't make any sense in that world, either. We see how the lords go about with the principle at the Great Councils (and the kings don't care all that much about it, either).

People should not get confused by the Dance insofar as the lords supporting Aegon II out of principle were defending the line of succession. They backed the man over the woman. That was the major issue. Not whether the man was truly the eldest son of the king. If Viserys I had named Aemond his heir quite a lot of people would have preferred him over the fat adulterer, that much is clear.

Westeros is a pretty primitive society. A lord owns property and a title and he wants that to remain in the family. That is well and good. And usually you give your stuff to your eldest son in this world. But if you have (good) reasons not to want to do that then there is little reason to believe that your neighbors will force you to accept your eldest son as your heir, especially not if that guy completely sucks at that job for various reasons. That would essentially be other people interfering with another lord's private matters.

The king might have the right to interfere there, though. We don't know the status of a lord in relation to the king nor have we any idea whether stuff like the right of pits and gallows were rights the lords held since time immemorial (in all the Seven Kingdoms) or merely since, say, the Conquest or the reign of Jaehaerys I.

If Westeros had powerful legal institutions which enforce 'succession law' we could perhaps reasonably assume that male primogeniture is effectively sacrosanct and almost always enforced. But we have no reason to believe that. The king has no reason to always stick with male primogeniture if the Crown is asked to rule on a succession. And there might be good reasons not to grant a lordship to a man, say, of the reputation of Gregor Clegane. The idea that the Iron Throne doesn't have some leeway and cannot cite some precedent to justify such a decision isn't far-fetched at all. And even if there is none, the Iron Throne can create new precedents. Say, by establishing that a man claiming a lordship must also meet minimal criteria that allow him to actually manage such a lordship.

The idea that an act like Randyll legally correctly disinheriting Sam (assuming he got the permission of Highgarden and the Iron Throne to do that) wouldn't immediately put an end to Sam's claim is a pretty bold claim.

1. There is the fact that people actually follow people and not mere names. Sam might call himself 'the rightful Lord of Horn Hill' all day long if a majority of the people stick to Dickon that's not going to change anything. Some great-grandson's of Sam living on the street or serving as a steward to a small lord on the Tarly lands would never have the standing to challenge the claim of the Lord of Horn Hill. Just as Rennifer Longwaters is in no position to claim the Iron Throne (despite the fact that he has a better claim than Cersei's children).

2. We know that the Crown can attaint traitors and has successfully done so. We also know that the lords only hold their lands in the name of the king. If a king doesn't want to allow a lord's son to inherit his father's lands and titles then he can presumably withhold them and grant them to the next guy. If that's an established practice in Westeros then the idea of some guy being thrown out of his house with the support of the Crown wouldn't be a major scandal at all.

3. The idea that such affairs are often or likely to come down to a civil war simply doesn't make much sense. Usually a lord would control the finances of a lordly house, meaning that a disinherited son wouldn't have any assets to challenge the claim of the new heir. Assuming the disinherited guy is no longer in the castle, the new heir should easily enough take possession of the castle and its lands, securing his position there.

Only in some special scenario where the dispossessed guy has a lot of assets and support of his own could he become a serious threat to the new heir. 

In addition one should also keep in mind that people usually have better things to do than to die over the question which rich prick is going to rule over them. The majority of the vassals/smallfolk of a lord would accept the new heir as the new lord and not answer any calls of the disinherited guy to take up arms against 'the usurper'.

Even more so considering that a violent conflict of this sort could raise the ire of the Iron Throne, possibly resulting in an attainder against the entire house. What's going to stop, say, the Iron Throne and House Tyrell from taking Goldengrove from the Rowans should they not be able to resolve their internal differences peacefully and stop breaking the King's Peace in the Reach. Such private wars could have dire consequences for all the parties involved.

In general I'd like to add that successfully disinheriting an heir would already entail

- making the thing public in your lifetime (else your will is likely to be suppressed or openly ignored).

- seeking and gaining the blessing of your own liege and the king in this matter (which should usually mean that said liege and the king won't hear any complaints of the dispossessed heir after your own death).

- introducing your new heir to your vassals and successfully creating a power base for him before you yourself die (that should ensure that the transition goes smoothly and nobody is going to complain about this unusual thing).

[bent branch]

I have read numerous threads where this issue is debated and I have two thoughts. The first is that succession to the Iron Throne and succession in any of the nobles from Lords Paramount on down should be considered completely separately. The rules for one is not the same as for the other.

Second: No lord, from Lord Paramount on down is free to chose his own heir. Every time a lord, no matter his level, must get approval from the throne. And I say this for a reason I've never seen given before. Every lord or landed knight enjoys their position due to the good graces of the king. The Lord Paramounts are put in place by the king and they control the territory they are given. For instance, we've been told the stories of how the Mormonts and Manderlys came to control the areas they control. So each guy can say who can have various pieces of property with anyone below them. Each lord can be overruled by the lord above him, with the king having the final word. So while custom says the person who inherits is the lord's eldest son, the king can place or remove anyone he wants as a lord. Therefore, if a lord wants to put anyone except his eldest son (or who ever custom dictates is the next in line) he needs to get the king's approval for this. This is the reason Tarly and Tywin couldn't just openly state they didn't want their customary heir to inherit. If they said they wanted someone else, then the king could step forward and name anyone he wanted. In order to place who they wanted as their heir, they had to figure out how to get rid of their legitimate heir.

ETA: Hah, just noticed Lord Varys touched on my reason while I was still typing. I'm sooo slow.

[Trigger Warning]

It occurs to me that everyone expected King Robert's brothers to make some sort of claim for the Iron Throne in opposition to the Lannister dominated court, we have for example Tywin stating that he saw Stannis as the greatest threat before Stannis even declares and then we have this at Robb's council: "Renly Baratheon has claimed his brother’s crown.” “Renly?” she said, shocked. “I had thought, surely it would be Lord Stannis...” “So did we all, my lady,” Galbart Glover said." 

This issue then goes on to be hotly debated and it's Robb that cites the order of succession, Joffrey, Tommen etc because he takes after Ned yet other lords suggest backing Renly or Stannis yet the general consensus is that none of them will support a Lannister king, this being the paramount issue. 

I think this lends credence to the idea that it's not uncommon for legitimate heirs to face huge opposition if they are somehow not suited to rule in the eyes of their vassals, in this case because Joffrey and the court is entirely Lannister dominated so much so that it was expected for there to be a Baratheon claimant. 

Now imagine how easy it would for a lord to disinherit an ill suited or unpopular son when Joffrey despite being seen as legitimate at this point can garner so much opposition from the Riverlanders based on his mother's house, how he favours a more Lannister visage over Baratheon and the composition of his court. The issues that arise would generally be how rivals may use this to their advantage rather than the breach is convention.

It all comes down to personal influence and power politics, showing how nuanced feudal politics is.

Lets say for example, Robb had won his victories but didn't take after Ned and didn't care much for the succession and lets say Renly had managed to take control of the court as he had intended, Renly could easily seize the throne on some flimsy pretext using his strong claim as Robert's brother and the North and Riverlands would likely back it simply because Joffrey represented the Lannister faction whilst still being seen as legitimate where as Renly represented a more traditionally Baratheon corner whilst sporting a strong claim. Obviously the opposing Lannister factions would in this circumstance use the succession as their rallying cry whereas the personal motivations of the opposition would lead them to disregard it.  

However it turns out that Robb does care for succession which would throw a spanner into the works, showing once again how it comes down to the personal opinions of the power players. 

[Protagoras]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Protagoras

I think you are overestimating the power 'the law' has in Westeros. Law in general isn't more than a guideline in such a society.

There are no authorities who would protect the rights of a successfully disinherited heir. The power is in the hand of the lord, not his heir or extended family. If I throw my son out of my house no force in Westeros can force me to take him back in. Not even the king (unless he wants to go to war over this issue).

Things might change after such a lord is dead but whether they change in the disinherited guy's favor is far from obvious. Why the hell should anybody favor the cause of a dispossessed man - who may even have been dispossessed justly. We have to keep in mind that usually a lord wants his eldest son to follow him, so there would mostly be a good reason to disinherit an heir. A dispossessed heir would only be able to challenge his father during the latter's lifetime under very special circumstances. Thus such scenarios can actually be mostly neglected when discussing this thing in theory.

Take a boy like Brandon the Broken as an example. He can no longer father children and has become a weak boy, unable to command the amount of respect and loyalty that's necessary to keep the Lords of the North in line. Were he Eddard Stark's eldest son and heir Catelyn would most likely fervently oppose Eddard's decision to disinherit him in favor of Rickon but let's assume Ned disinherits him anyway. Do you think a majority of the men who muttered in Bran's hearing that the cripple should better end his misery and take his own life would ever support his claim against a healthy Lord of Winterfell?

That's completely unlikely. People like Bran, Tyrion, mutilated Theon, etc. stand little to no chance in that game.

The other thing is that the idea that people treat primogeniture like a legal fetish doesn't make any sense in that world, either. We see how the lords go about with the principle at the Great Councils (and the kings don't care all that much about it, either).

People should not get confused by the Dance insofar as the lords supporting Aegon II out of principle were defending the line of succession. They backed the man over the woman. That was the major issue. Not whether the man was truly the eldest son of the king. If Viserys I had named Aemond his heir quite a lot of people would have preferred him over the fat adulterer, that much is clear.

Westeros is a pretty primitive society. A lord owns property and a title and he wants that to remain in the family. That is well and good. And usually you give your stuff to your eldest son in this world. But if you have (good) reasons not to want to do that then there is little reason to believe that your neighbors will force you to accept your eldest son as your heir, especially not if that guy completely sucks at that job for various reasons. That would essentially be other people interfering with another lord's private matters.

The king might have the right to interfere there, though. We don't know the status of a lord in relation to the king nor have we any idea whether stuff like the right of pits and gallows were rights the lords held since time immemorial (in all the Seven Kingdoms) or merely since, say, the Conquest or the reign of Jaehaerys I.

If Westeros had powerful legal institutions which enforce 'succession law' we could perhaps reasonably assume that male primogeniture is effectively sacrosanct and almost always enforced. But we have no reason to believe that. The king has no reason to always stick with male primogeniture if the Crown is asked to rule on a succession. And there might be good reasons not to grant a lordship to a man, say, of the reputation of Gregor Clegane. The idea that the Iron Throne doesn't have some leeway and cannot cite some precedent to justify such a decision isn't far-fetched at all. And even if there is none, the Iron Throne can create new precedents. Say, by establishing that a man claiming a lordship must also meet minimal criteria that allow him to actually manage such a lordship.

The idea that an act like Randyll legally correctly disinheriting Sam (assuming he got the permission of Highgarden and the Iron Throne to do that) wouldn't immediately put an end to Sam's claim is a pretty bold claim.

1. There is the fact that people actually follow people and not mere names. Sam might call himself 'the rightful Lord of Horn Hill' all day long if a majority of the people stick to Dickon that's not going to change anything. Some great-grandson's of Sam living on the street or serving as a steward to a small lord on the Tarly lands would never have the standing to challenge the claim of the Lord of Horn Hill. Just as Rennifer Longwaters is in no position to claim the Iron Throne (despite the fact that he has a better claim than Cersei's children).

2. We know that the Crown can attaint traitors and has successfully done so. We also know that the lords only hold their lands in the name of the king. If a king doesn't want to allow a lord's son to inherit his father's lands and titles then he can presumably withhold them and grant them to the next guy. If that's an established practice in Westeros then the idea of some guy being thrown out of his house with the support of the Crown wouldn't be a major scandal at all.

3. The idea that such affairs are often or likely to come down to a civil war simply doesn't make much sense. Usually a lord would control the finances of a lordly house, meaning that a disinherited son wouldn't have any assets to challenge the claim of the new heir. Assuming the disinherited guy is no longer in the castle, the new heir should easily enough take possession of the castle and its lands, securing his position there.

Only in some special scenario where the dispossessed guy has a lot of assets and support of his own could he become a serious threat to the new heir. 

In addition one should also keep in mind that people usually have better things to do than to die over the question which rich prick is going to rule over them. The majority of the vassals/smallfolk of a lord would accept the new heir as the new lord and not answer any calls of the disinherited guy to take up arms against 'the usurper'.

Even more so considering that a violent conflict of this sort could raise the ire of the Iron Throne, possibly resulting in an attainder against the entire house. What's going to stop, say, the Iron Throne and House Tyrell from taking Goldengrove from the Rowans should they not be able to resolve their internal differences peacefully and stop breaking the King's Peace in the Reach. Such private wars could have dire consequences for all the parties involved.

In general I'd like to add that successfully disinheriting an heir would already entail

- making the thing public in your lifetime (else your will is likely to be suppressed or openly ignored).

- seeking and gaining the blessing of your own liege and the king in this matter (which should usually mean that said liege and the king won't hear any complaints of the dispossessed heir after your own death).

- introducing your new heir to your vassals and successfully creating a power base for him before you yourself die (that should ensure that the transition goes smoothly and nobody is going to complain about this unusual thing).

Well, then we are down again to the informal law and that power node who really can´t be forced to follow the formal rules. Certainly, if Randyll seeks and gains the blessing of his liege and the king, such an act would mean that an exception to the Andal law has been granted, but thats not what happens in Westeros usually (the afffairs of the crown is after all - a very special case). Nothing points to that Randyll seeked that approval from Lord Tyrell for Dickon and nothing points to that Rohanne Webbers father Wyman did the same to either house Rowan or House Tyrell. They just did it, becuiase they thought they could. There is no fundamental difference between Lord Tarly getting a formal consent from Lord Tyrell to disinherit his son and Lord Bolton getting a formal consent from Lord Stark to practice first night. Both cases breaks the law, but the informal structure is simply so much stronger in most cases. Few people would confront Lord Bolton or Lord Tarly about this, but if could be used with people with an agenda. And people are interested in which rich prick that governs them - those with ambition might see this as an opportunity to strengthen themselves.

Yet neither Lord Bolton nor Lord Tarly would take this to their overlord and that creates a possibility to scheme. Maybe Lord Tyrell doesn´t like Lord Tarly and would like some more pliable person at Horn Hill. Well, in that case its pretty easy to give Sam an option, foster him at Highgarden despite Lord Tarlys protests an then later claim that the disinheritance is an illegal act. Most likely, this won´t happen. Indeed, few would shout Brans name if he was deposed but claiming that his claim is gone because Ned say so is stretching it and, again, not how claims work. It doesn´t need an authority who can force you to take your son back (even if the king would come pretty close since they can attain whoever they like and a war is certainly not out of the question as it might have been if Rickard Stark had found out about Lord Boltons escapades) - this is about theory and not practice. You still break the law. Yet no one can (maybe) force you to do different. Sams grandsons might not have the force neccessary, but thats not really that relevant. Their usurpers just need to use enough force for enough time and the time will make the title rightfully theirs. Largest-army diplomacy doesn´t mean instant win.

And certainly this might be bad for the entire house if ire is raised, but as a dispossessed heir, I don´t have much to lose, do I. And we have seen several times that a claim is taken to their overlord when many people claim the same things (Hornwood, Rosby). Yet its very possible, if not likely, that both those dead lord named a successor after them but it didn´t stick. If Sam shows up at Highgarden they won´t just say "No, Randyll can do whatever he pleases". They would think "How can we use this".

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

15 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

But if he would've had a better army he would've won despite being 3rd born. Shadow baby protection unit could have won him the throne.

Yes, "have an even better army" is a good solution. Or "have infinite supply of money". Or "have dragons". All those things help. And if Renly had had none of those things, only the best legal claim, he'd have won the crown, too.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

4 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Yes, "have an even better army" is a good solution. Or "have infinite supply of money". Or "have dragons". All those things help. And if Renly had had none of those things, only the best legal claim, he'd have won the crown, too.

Yes. I think you get my point. The best legal claim is good, but it really doesn't matter if you can't take it with a force (maybe friends because of said claim) behind you. 

And we don't know for sure if Renly would have won. If Mellisandre went against Stannis (assuming he is supporting Renly because he is older hypothetically) because she sees him needing the IT to be AA then Renly dies because of shadow baby anyway.

Side note: how many men is one shadow baby worth? 10,000?

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, bent branch said:

I have read numerous threads where this issue is debated and I have two thoughts. The first is that succession to the Iron Throne and succession in any of the nobles from Lords Paramount on down should be considered completely separately. The rules for one is not the same as for the other.

There are different precedents for the Kings on the Iron Throne then there are for the lordships of the various regions but that doesn't mean the rules once governing the succession of the Seven Kingdoms were so much different from the ones that now give the guideline to the Targaryen succession.

Keep in mind that female monarchs are only confirmed for the Reach. All the other kingdoms never had a Queen Regnant. But on the lordly level female inheritance apparently happens more often.

13 hours ago, bent branch said:

Second: No lord, from Lord Paramount on down is free to chose his own heir. Every time a lord, no matter his level, must get approval from the throne. And I say this for a reason I've never seen given before. Every lord or landed knight enjoys their position due to the good graces of the king. The Lord Paramounts are put in place by the king and they control the territory they are given. For instance, we've been told the stories of how the Mormonts and Manderlys came to control the areas they control. So each guy can say who can have various pieces of property with anyone below them. Each lord can be overruled by the lord above him, with the king having the final word. So while custom says the person who inherits is the lord's eldest son, the king can place or remove anyone he wants as a lord. Therefore, if a lord wants to put anyone except his eldest son (or who ever custom dictates is the next in line) he needs to get the king's approval for this. This is the reason Tarly and Tywin couldn't just openly state they didn't want their customary heir to inherit. If they said they wanted someone else, then the king could step forward and name anyone he wanted. In order to place who they wanted as their heir, they had to figure out how to get rid of their legitimate heir.

I'm not sure you have to get permission from the Crown to name your eldest son your heir but the Crown most likely is going to confirm him as lord after your death (or not).

In the case of Lord Webber we know he stipulated the conditions under which his daughter Rohanne would lose her lordship to his cousin. This will was then confirmed by Lord Rowan. The Crown never got involved in that whole thing as far as we know. But the fact that Lord Webber cited Rohanne's unwillingness to marry as a reason why she should lose the lordship we can reasonably assume that a male heir behaving in a likewise manner might also be considered unfit to inherit a lordship.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Well, then we are down again to the informal law and that power node who really can´t be forced to follow the formal rules. Certainly, if Randyll seeks and gains the blessing of his liege and the king, such an act would mean that an exception to the Andal law has been granted, but thats not what happens in Westeros usually (the afffairs of the crown is after all - a very special case). Nothing points to that Randyll seeked that approval from Lord Tyrell for Dickon and nothing points to that Rohanne Webbers father Wyman did the same to either house Rowan or House Tyrell. They just did it, becuiase they thought they could. There is no fundamental difference between Lord Tarly getting a formal consent from Lord Tyrell to disinherit his son and Lord Bolton getting a formal consent from Lord Stark to practice first night. Both cases breaks the law, but the informal structure is simply so much stronger in most cases. Few people would confront Lord Bolton or Lord Tarly about this, but if could be used with people with an agenda. And people are interested in which rich prick that governs them - those with ambition might see this as an opportunity to strengthen themselves.

Well, one can complicate things even more. What happens in cases in which a lord has never formally acknowledged the son of his wife as his own son? Or if he never formally acknowledged his son as his heir? Is a son entitled to inherit the title of his father if said father (who holds that title until his death if the king does not take it from him) never named him his heir?

The kind of automatism implied there - the idea that the birth of a child automatically creates an heir, no matter what - doesn't really fit well with the early medieval setting of Westeros.

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Yet neither Lord Bolton nor Lord Tarly would take this to their overlord and that creates a possibility to scheme. Maybe Lord Tyrell doesn´t like Lord Tarly and would like some more pliable person at Horn Hill. Well, in that case its pretty easy to give Sam an option, foster him at Highgarden despite Lord Tarlys protests an then later claim that the disinheritance is an illegal act. Most likely, this won´t happen. Indeed, few would shout Brans name if he was deposed but claiming that his claim is gone because Ned say so is stretching it and, again, not how claims work. It doesn´t need an authority who can force you to take your son back (even if the king would come pretty close since they can attain whoever they like and a war is certainly not out of the question as it might have been if Rickard Stark had found out about Lord Boltons escapades) - this is about theory and not practice. You still break the law. Yet no one can (maybe) force you to do different. Sams grandsons might not have the force neccessary, but thats not really that relevant. Their usurpers just need to use enough force for enough time and the time will make the title rightfully theirs. Largest-army diplomacy doesn´t mean instant win.

Well, if you can disown somebody - and it is implied that you can - then you are not breaking the law if you disown somebody. And disowning more or less means that your child is no longer legally your child and has no longer the right to inherit anything from you after your death. If that legal concept was known in Westeros then the claim of a properly disowned son would indeed be null and void because this kind would be part of legal system of Westeros.

Attainder works pretty much the same way. And it usually works, too

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

And certainly this might be bad for the entire house if ire is raised, but as a dispossessed heir, I don´t have much to lose, do I. And we have seen several times that a claim is taken to their overlord when many people claim the same things (Hornwood, Rosby). Yet its very possible, if not likely, that both those dead lord named a successor after them but it didn´t stick. If Sam shows up at Highgarden they won´t just say "No, Randyll can do whatever he pleases". They would think "How can we use this".

If there are special interests involved then supporting some 'rightful Lord of Horn Hill' could come in handy. But I really can't see a good reason why a Lord Tyrell would support a simmering civil war in the Reach. What would be the point of that? Perhaps the Tyrells would take care of Sam in such a situation, granting him a little income or something of that sort (that's what I'd Lord Leyton expect to do for his wife's brother, Alekyne Florent - I don't expect him to support Alekyne's claim against his daughter's son, Garlan Tyrell).

[bent branch]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 7:59 AM, Lord Varys said:

There are different precedents for the Kings on the Iron Throne then there are for the lordships of the various regions but that doesn't mean the rules once governing the succession of the Seven Kingdoms were so much different from the ones that now give the guideline to the Targaryen succession.

Keep in mind that female monarchs are only confirmed for the Reach. All the other kingdoms never had a Queen Regnant. But on the lordly level female inheritance apparently happens more often.

I'm not sure you have to get permission from the Crown to name your eldest son your heir but the Crown most likely is going to confirm him as lord after your death (or not).

In the case of Lord Webber we know he stipulated the conditions under which his daughter Rohanne would lose her lordship to his cousin. This will was then confirmed by Lord Rowan. The Crown never got involved in that whole thing as far as we know. But the fact that Lord Webber cited Rohanne's unwillingness to marry as a reason why she should lose the lordship we can reasonably assume that a male heir behaving in a likewise manner might also be considered unfit to inherit a lordship.

Damn, sometimes I feel I must be the world's worst writer. Your example of Rohanne Webber illustrates my point perfectly. However, you seem to think it disproves it. Before I address that though, let me answer first about the inheritance of the Iron Throne. It doesn't matter how much alike or different the rules for the king and other nobles are. The important thing is who is determining the inheritance. What the DoD proves is that the king doesn't have freedom to name his own heir. Whether through great councils or armed uprisings the nobles have a say in who sits the throne. Standard inheritance rules are mostly used, but there are measures in place to chose a different heir if need be.

Now let's move on to inheritance amongst the nobles. For greater clarity let's review how people come to have land in the first place. Step one: All the land belongs to the king. Step two: The king names Lords Paramount for the seven different regions (plus Iron Islands). Step three: The Lords Paramount gives land to people who will answer directly to their Lord Paramount. Step four: If one of the vassals answering directly the Lord Paramount has enough land, they can give some to someone else and that someone else will then become their vassal. All of these people answer to the person directly above them. Are we agreed upon this basic principle?

When an individual is given land they are probably given something like a charter at the same time (charter: a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power, by which an institution such as a company, college, or city is created and its rights and privileges defined.). Thus, the individual being given the land will know if they have use of the land throughout their lifetime only or if it can be passed to their heirs. Thus, the individuals don't have deed to their land (they don't own it), but have an agreement with the lord directly above them about who can occupy the land and for how long. Who can be their heirs is strongly defined by custom. If a lord doesn't have an heir, he can't just give it to that nice kid down the road. He has to get the permission of his overlord. The overlord will then decide if he will allow the proposed heir to take the land or have that land revert back to its original charter holder.

In the case of Rohanne Webber, she was the proper heir. The laws and customs of Westeros suggested that she would be the lady of Coldmoat. However, her father wanted to be able to force her into marriage so he went to his overlord with a suggested amendment to charter between House Rowan and House Webber in this instance. Lord Rowan agreed to the stipulation because his sister was married to the suggested alternative heir. Lord Rowan lost nothing from this arrangement. Let's look at a few more instances. It should become apparent that no lord in Westeros has the right to name as heir or disinherit just anyone he wants.

Looking next at the case of House Rosby, we can see why a family would want to avoid a succession fight. When Gyles Rosby dies a number of people (six I think), think they should inherit Rosby. The issue is taken to their overlord House Baratheon of King's Landing. Oops. Cersei looks at the wealth of the Rosby's and decides to pull the charter under the guise of no true heir. There is no doubt that someone else will be named as the lord of Rosby, but all the resources of the Rosby family are now gone.

Let's look at the Tarly situation. Randyll Tarly thought Sam would have made a terrible lord because he was a fat slob who couldn't fight for his land. If a man was unfit for battle, then that man was unfit to be a lord. Surely the Tyrells would understand this reasoning and let Randyll pass over Sam for Dickon. They would find nothing wrong with this reasoning, right? Or maybe, the Tyrells would be against allowing Tarly to do this because it would cause more questions to be raise about their own heir, Willas.

Let's look at the Tywin situation. It was beyond clear that Tywin didn't want Tyrion as his heir. However, Tywin neither acknowledge Tyrion as his heir nor repudiated Tyrion. Why not? Why hesitate? The answer is he didn't want to open the can of worms about inheritance. Tywin wanted to solve the situation without needing to go to his overlord (first Aerys, then Robert) since he might not be in control of the decision reached. Aerys enjoyed the fact that Tyrion was Tywin's heir and would never have let Tywin change. Tywin didn't ask Robert because he hadn't yet figured out how to get Jaime back. Notice that as soon as Lannisters were running the show he did try to get Jaime back and only it is only because Jaime put an end to that attempt that Tywin needed to continue to look for a way to get rid of Tyrion.

Finally, let's look at the case of Lady Dustin. Lady Dustin is the instance in the novels where a wife was left as the sole heir of her husband. Usually, a woman would have needed to produced an heir to remain as the lady of a House, particularly one as prominent as Dustin. Why is she still in charge. Probable answer, William Dustin was the last Dustin. Since Ned felt guilty about the death of her husband, Ned allowed Barbrey to remain the lady of Barrowtown until her death. At that time another family will probably be given Barrowtown. Evidence for this, no Dustins are coming forward to complain about Barbrey still being lady. This is completely non-standard.

Anyhow, this is the reason no lord in Westeros can name just any heir he wants - the land and title is not his to give.

[1000th Lord Commander]

Seen a few threads about the laws of succession, and usually end up saying the same thing: There aren't any.

In English history, which both GRRM and us use as a basis, up until Henry VIII, only if there was a adult son who was powerful in his own right would there be a peaceful, uncontested succession to the crown. If the child was a minor, or there was no widely recognised heir, war would usually result. And even if there was a adult, powerful heir, I can think of two successions off the top of my head where the named heir was in rebellion against thier father at the time of the succession.(Henry I and II)

Pretty much comes down to whatever people can make stick, really.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

The important thing is who is determining the inheritance. What the DoD proves is that the king doesn't have freedom to name his own heir. Whether through great councils or armed uprisings the nobles have a say in who sits the throne. Standard inheritance rules are mostly used, but there are measures in place to chose a different heir if need be.

I'd not say the lords always have a say in the matter considering that there were only two Great Councils discussing the succession. At other times the kings named new heirs when the need arose (Jaehaerys I in 92 AC, Aerys I three time during his reign, Maekar presumably after Prince Daeron had died, Aegon V after Duncan had given up his claim, Aerys II after Rhaegar had died).

And there was only one civil war about the succession. And that was a very special case when there were two powerful factions vying for control at court.

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

Now let's move on to inheritance amongst the nobles. For greater clarity let's review how people come to have land in the first place. Step one: All the land belongs to the king. Step two: The king names Lords Paramount for the seven different regions (plus Iron Islands). Step three: The Lords Paramount gives land to people who will answer directly to their Lord Paramount. Step four: If one of the vassals answering directly the Lord Paramount has enough land, they can give some to someone else and that someone else will then become their vassal. All of these people answer to the person directly above them. Are we agreed upon this basic principle?

That seems to be correct for the most part. The only important detail I'd like to add is that lords apparently cannot create other lords. Only the king can make you a lord. And that greatly reduces the power of the great lords if you think about it. They have bannermen and vassals but they don't have the right or the means to change the feudal landscape around them without permission of the Crown.

You see this exemplified with only Joffrey/Cersei as Queen Regent or Stannis creating new lords (or offering to make people lords under certain circumstances - bringing Cersei the head of Tyrion, for instance). Tywin, Ned, Mace, Roose, etc. never actually make new lords.

One would assume that the Crown grants the lands issued for all eternity. I'm not sure a man holding land only until his own death would qualify as a proper land in Westeros. In the Webber-Osgrey case we see that the Crown can grant privileges only for a certain time or under certain conditions, and it is quite likely that such rules affect many of the holdings of the various lords. But I don't think that's the case for the core of the lordship.

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

When an individual is given land they are probably given something like a charter at the same time (charter: a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power, by which an institution such as a company, college, or city is created and its rights and privileges defined.). Thus, the individual being given the land will know if they have use of the land throughout their lifetime only or if it can be passed to their heirs. Thus, the individuals don't have deed to their land (they don't own it), but have an agreement with the lord directly above them about who can occupy the land and for how long. Who can be their heirs is strongly defined by custom. If a lord doesn't have an heir, he can't just give it to that nice kid down the road. He has to get the permission of his overlord. The overlord will then decide if he will allow the proposed heir to take the land or have that land revert back to its original charter holder.

Considering that the king would be making lords the Crown would issue such charters, not the immediate overlord in the feudal hierarchy. That guy would only have the right to oversee such a secondary lord but the lord is not likely to hold his lands in a great lord's name but in the king's name only.

Now, it might be different with landed knights. Landed knights might receive their lands from some lord or a lord paramount with the Crown having no direct business in the whole thing. After all, landed knights only own land. They don't have the right of pits and gallows (and presumably other rights a lord actually holds).

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

In the case of Rohanne Webber, she was the proper heir. The laws and customs of Westeros suggested that she would be the lady of Coldmoat. However, her father wanted to be able to force her into marriage so he went to his overlord with a suggested amendment to charter between House Rowan and House Webber in this instance. Lord Rowan agreed to the stipulation because his sister was married to the suggested alternative heir. Lord Rowan lost nothing from this arrangement. Let's look at a few more instances. It should become apparent that no lord in Westeros has the right to name as heir or disinherit just anyone he wants.

The way I understand it is that Lord Webber wrote his testament without consulting anyone. Rohanne only realized what had happened when her father's will was opened and read. She then went to Goldengrove to challenge that will but Lord Rowan confirmed it. And that was the end of that.

My understanding is that a lord can make a will and has a lot of leeway stipulating conditions therein. If you don't want to rebel or go to war over this the only thing you can do is to go to the higher legal authority (Lord Rowan in the case we are discussing) and ask to overturn it on this or that grounds. If that fails there is nothing you can do it seems. At least not legally.

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

Looking next at the case of House Rosby, we can see why a family would want to avoid a succession fight. When Gyles Rosby dies a number of people (six I think), think they should inherit Rosby. The issue is taken to their overlord House Baratheon of King's Landing. Oops. Cersei looks at the wealth of the Rosby's and decides to pull the charter under the guise of no true heir. There is no doubt that someone else will be named as the lord of Rosby, but all the resources of the Rosby family are now gone.

Lord Gyles actually named his ward heir of Rosby (who is likely to have been some distant relation) and Cersei ignored that. By the time of the ADwD Epilogue six persons have made a claim to Rosby and Kevan intended to rule on that during the next Small Council session (I don't think that's a priority now).

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

Let's look at the Tarly situation. Randyll Tarly thought Sam would have made a terrible lord because he was a fat slob who couldn't fight for his land. If a man was unfit for battle, then that man was unfit to be a lord. Surely the Tyrells would understand this reasoning and let Randyll pass over Sam for Dickon. They would find nothing wrong with this reasoning, right? Or maybe, the Tyrells would be against allowing Tarly to do this because it would cause more questions to be raise about their own heir, Willas.

That very well could be the case. But my idea more is that Randyll despised Samwell so much that he really wanted him gone. He did not want him to see at his castle anymore nor eventually meet him again as some maester or septon serving this or that lord in the Reach. He saw Sam as the ultimate disappointment and he wanted to rid himself of the boy.

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

Let's look at the Tywin situation. It was beyond clear that Tywin didn't want Tyrion as his heir. However, Tywin neither acknowledge Tyrion as his heir nor repudiated Tyrion. Why not? Why hesitate? The answer is he didn't want to open the can of worms about inheritance. Tywin wanted to solve the situation without needing to go to his overlord (first Aerys, then Robert) since he might not be in control of the decision reached. Aerys enjoyed the fact that Tyrion was Tywin's heir and would never have let Tywin change. Tywin didn't ask Robert because he hadn't yet figured out how to get Jaime back. Notice that as soon as Lannisters were running the show he did try to get Jaime back and only it is only because Jaime put an end to that attempt that Tywin needed to continue to look for a way to get rid of Tyrion.

Well, it is easily enough imaginable that Tywin has made a will and named Jaime his heir therein. But that doesn't matter all that much. If Tywin had predeceased Robert Cersei would have demanded that the king rule on the succession of Casterly Rock and Robert himself would have ensured that the lordship passed to Cersei and eventually Tommen. That would have solved a lot of the Crown's financial problems. 

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

Finally, let's look at the case of Lady Dustin. Lady Dustin is the instance in the novels where a wife was left as the sole heir of her husband. Usually, a woman would have needed to produced an heir to remain as the lady of a House, particularly one as prominent as Dustin. Why is she still in charge. Probable answer, William Dustin was the last Dustin. Since Ned felt guilty about the death of her husband, Ned allowed Barbrey to remain the lady of Barrowtown until her death. At that time another family will probably be given Barrowtown. Evidence for this, no Dustins are coming forward to complain about Barbrey still being lady. This is completely non-standard.

We know from the SSM on succession laws that widows do have claims. Just as non-legitimized bastards have claims. Just not very strong claims. Lady Hornwood and Lady Dustin both have claims to the lordships of their husbands. In Barbrey's case it is pretty obvious that Winterfell accepted and confirmed her claim, possibly because Ned felt he owed it to the woman who had lost both Brandon and her husband in the war.

We don't have to believe the Dustins are extinguished. It seems Lord Willam Dustin didn't have any brothers, uncles, or first cousins. But I'm pretty sure there must be some distant cousins either through the male or female line. But when matters get as complicated as that then the claim of a powerful widow looks much better than, say, the claim of second or third cousin.

7 hours ago, bent branch said:

Anyhow, this is the reason no lord in Westeros can name just any heir he wants - the land and title is not his to give.

I think it is more likely that the lord actually decides who his heir is and the Crown only has a right to intervene if such an heir would refuse to do homage to the king and recognize him as his monarch. The same would go if there is a new king and a lord would refuse to do him homage. The latter is the pretext on which Joffrey issues attainders against the entire Realm, basically, when nobody shows up at court to do him homage.

[bent branch]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd not say the lords always have a say in the matter considering that there were only two Great Councils discussing the succession. At other times the kings named new heirs when the need arose (Jaehaerys I in 92 AC, Aerys I three time during his reign, Maekar presumably after Prince Daeron had died, Aegon V after Duncan had given up his claim, Aerys II after Rhaegar had died).

And there was only one civil war about the succession. And that was a very special case when there were two powerful factions vying for control at court.

That seems to be correct for the most part. The only important detail I'd like to add is that lords apparently cannot create other lords. Only the king can make you a lord. And that greatly reduces the power of the great lords if you think about it. They have bannermen and vassals but they don't have the right or the means to change the feudal landscape around them without permission of the Crown.

You see this exemplified with only Joffrey/Cersei as Queen Regent or Stannis creating new lords (or offering to make people lords under certain circumstances - bringing Cersei the head of Tyrion, for instance). Tywin, Ned, Mace, Roose, etc. never actually make new lords.

One would assume that the Crown grants the lands issued for all eternity. I'm not sure a man holding land only until his own death would qualify as a proper land in Westeros. In the Webber-Osgrey case we see that the Crown can grant privileges only for a certain time or under certain conditions, and it is quite likely that such rules affect many of the holdings of the various lords. But I don't think that's the case for the core of the lordship.

Considering that the king would be making lords the Crown would issue such charters, not the immediate overlord in the feudal hierarchy. That guy would only have the right to oversee such a secondary lord but the lord is not likely to hold his lands in a great lord's name but in the king's name only.

Now, it might be different with landed knights. Landed knights might receive their lands from some lord or a lord paramount with the Crown having no direct business in the whole thing. After all, landed knights only own land. They don't have the right of pits and gallows (and presumably other rights a lord actually holds).

The way I understand it is that Lord Webber wrote his testament without consulting anyone. Rohanne only realized what had happened when her father's will was opened and read. She then went to Goldengrove to challenge that will but Lord Rowan confirmed it. And that was the end of that.

My understanding is that a lord can make a will and has a lot of leeway stipulating conditions therein. If you don't want to rebel or go to war over this the only thing you can do is to go to the higher legal authority (Lord Rowan in the case we are discussing) and ask to overturn it on this or that grounds. If that fails there is nothing you can do it seems. At least not legally.

Lord Gyles actually named his ward heir of Rosby (who is likely to have been some distant relation) and Cersei ignored that. By the time of the ADwD Epilogue six persons have made a claim to Rosby and Kevan intended to rule on that during the next Small Council session (I don't think that's a priority now).

That very well could be the case. But my idea more is that Randyll despised Samwell so much that he really wanted him gone. He did not want him to see at his castle anymore nor eventually meet him again as some maester or septon serving this or that lord in the Reach. He saw Sam as the ultimate disappointment and he wanted to rid himself of the boy.

Well, it is easily enough imaginable that Tywin has made a will and named Jaime his heir therein. But that doesn't matter all that much. If Tywin had predeceased Robert Cersei would have demanded that the king rule on the succession of Casterly Rock and Robert himself would have ensured that the lordship passed to Cersei and eventually Tommen. That would have solved a lot of the Crown's financial problems. 

We know from the SSM on succession laws that widows do have claims. Just as non-legitimized bastards have claims. Just not very strong claims. Lady Hornwood and Lady Dustin both have claims to the lordships of their husbands. In Barbrey's case it is pretty obvious that Winterfell accepted and confirmed her claim, possibly because Ned felt he owed it to the woman who had lost both Brandon and her husband in the war.

We don't have to believe the Dustins are extinguished. It seems Lord Willam Dustin didn't have any brothers, uncles, or first cousins. But I'm pretty sure there must be some distant cousins either through the male or female line. But when matters get as complicated as that then the claim of a powerful widow looks much better than, say, the claim of second or third cousin.

I think it is more likely that the lord actually decides who his heir is and the Crown only has a right to intervene if such an heir would refuse to do homage to the king and recognize him as his monarch. The same would go if there is a new king and a lord would refuse to do him homage. The latter is the pretext on which Joffrey issues attainders against the entire Realm, basically, when nobody shows up at court to do him homage.

Actually, at the core of it we agree. A lord may name any heir he wishes and anyone in direct authority above him can refuse to honor those wishes. You see that as yes the lord can name anyone he wants. I see that as no the lord can't name anyone he wants. To-may-to, To-mah-to.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, bent branch said:

Actually, at the core of it we agree. A lord may name any heir he wishes and anyone in direct authority above him can refuse to honor those wishes. You see that as yes the lord can name anyone he wants. I see that as no the lord can't name anyone he wants. To-may-to, To-mah-to.

Well, I guess our difference would be that I think a lord does not have to double-check with the king or his liege before he names his eldest son (or any other family, really) his heir. My impression is that the Crown can object to the investiture of a new lord under certain conditions. But the king cannot just refuse to accept the son of some lord as his successor for 'reasons' if the noble house in question was granted its holdings for all time.

[bent branch]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I guess our difference would be that I think a lord does not have to double-check with the king or his liege before he names his eldest son (or any other family, really) his heir. My impression is that the Crown can object to the investiture of a new lord under certain conditions. But the king cannot just refuse to accept the son of some lord as his successor for 'reasons' if the noble house in question was granted its holdings for all time.

Well no wonder you're confused. Everything I have said is based on the idea that said lord is wanting to name someone other than the traditional heir. This should be obvious from the things I've said. I'm not blaming my writing at this point.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, bent branch said:

Well no wonder you're confused. Everything I have said is based on the idea that said lord is wanting to name someone other than the traditional heir. This should be obvious from the things I've said. I'm not blaming my writing at this point.

Oh, okay. But then the degree in which an heir is related to a lord is of little significance if the king (or the liege lord) hates that guy.

My impression is that a lord or king has to name/confirm/acknowledge any heir, regardless whether that guy is his own son or his second cousin once removed.

If you are disinheriting somebody then the whole naming thing would be even more pressing, of course. And then you most likely need permission by the king or your liege lord. But if you are just naming a new heir after previous heir died there is no reason to believe you have to get anybody's permission in advance. If there is a weird situation where you have no heir of your own body and a bunch of distant relatives to choose from your will most likely is going to establish the new heir.

[Annalee]

On 11/3/2016 at 1:00 PM, YOVMO said:

I think I had this conversation, or at least the periphery of it, some time ago as regarded Sam and Dickon Tarly, but I am still a little confused and would appreciate some help.

So the basic law of succession seems easy enough. The Lord's eldest (living) son is the first in line with the eldest living son's eldest living son next despite whether or not the Lord had a younger son (and despite whether than younger son is a man grown while the eldest living son of the Lord's eldest living son is merely a babe). This is why (f)Aegon, if he is actually the son of Rhaegar, would be lawful king before (a still living) Viscerys.

This said, to what degree does a living lord or king have to change this.

Obviously Randyl Tarly figured a way around allowing Sam to inherit over Dickon by giving him the Wall or the fateful hunting trip option. Once Sam was in the NW it wasn't a question any more. The same would go, obviously, for the KG and even more obviously for death. However, would Lord Randyl Tarly have the right to simply have left the lordship to his youngest son Dickon and said "I am the lord of house Tarly and this is the way I want it to be." This is to ask, to what degree is this right of succession a law in which skipping an elder son for a younger son or skipping a late elders eldest son for a second son an infringement on the rights of the child and to what degree is it a custom that can be overlooked.

Further, skipping the issue of it being a Lord or even a Great Lord...what about a king. Aerys II seemed to be looking to favor a younger Viscerys. I understand it gets sketch if the king chooses a bastard to be his successor but if the king has several true born children who is to say that he can't undermine the crowned prince (heir apparent) in favor of a son he felt better suited towards kingship? Is it just custom?

The king is the lawmaker in Westeros.  While Randyll Tarly's hands are bound, King Aerys II was not bound.  Even a High Lord cannot change the status of a bastard and make him legitimate.  But a king can change the status of a bastard to legitimate, thus allowing the bastard the right to inherit and carry titles.  So yes, King Aerys II had the right, if he so chooses, to make Viserys his heir.  And that he actually did.  He disinherited Rhaegar's line and made Viserys the next in line to the throne.  Upon his death, Viserys became king.  Daenerys inherited the Seven Kingdoms from Viserys.