Renly was the true steel

why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

636 posts in this topic

16 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

As far as we know he is. Had Tywin died before Joffrey was killed Tyrion would be the Lord of the Rock. Tywin, as far as we know, had done nothing. Not announced another heir, not publicly disinherited Tyrion. 

 


It's murky since Ned is pretty sure that Jaime will be Warden of the West one day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

As far as we know he is. Had Tywin died before Joffrey was killed Tyrion would be the Lord of the Rock. Tywin, as far as we know, had done nothing. Not announced another heir, not publicly disinherited Tyrion. 

But there is no default setting as per some line of succession. A lord or king has to name, recognize, and declare an heir. If there is none declared heir you get a situation like we have it with the Starks right now. There is no clear Stark heir right now, for a number of reasons, but even if people didn't think a lot of them were dead it is still unclear who is Robb's heir right now.

Tyrion demanded that Tywin publicly declare him his heir. He didn't. And it is pretty clear that this had an effect on their relationship as well as the legal situation. Tyrion could, of course, try to take Casterly Rock after the death of his father in light of the fact that Tywin had no named heir, but the chances that anyone would have declared for the ugly dwarf are not that high.

And those chances would drop even more if he ended up naming another heir, say, Kevan, or Cersei, or Tommen (something he seems to have had in mind before Joffrey died).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:


It's murky since Ned is pretty sure that Jaime will be Warden of the West one day. 

Sure. It is a military title. Children, women and dwarves are probably not suitable, by Westeros standards, to serve in such a role. 

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But there is no default setting as per some line of succession. A lord or king has to name, recognize, and declare an heir.

Oh that is not true at all. Did Rickard Stark ever declare Ned his heir? No, it was Brandon and Ned became ruler after his father and brother's death. 

Many Lords don't get the same opportunity that Robert has, in being able to draw up his will on his deathbed. At no point before had we seen him call him his heir as he didn't have to. He was his firstborn son. 

We see in House Hunter the younger brother bumping off the people ahead of him, or the animosity between the Corbray brothers. It is unlikely that these Lords have have made their brothers heirs, they just are. 

Daeron II became King despite his father never really accepting him as his heir as he was his only legitimate son. 

Aegon II hated Aegon IIIand yet was stick with him.

At no point did Tywin make Cersei his heir, yet Kevan acknowledges her as the new ruler of the Rock. 

 

Not only have we never heard that this rule exists, but there is plenty of evidence that it does not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Oh that is not true at all. Did Rickard Stark ever declare Ned his heir? No, it was Brandon and Ned became ruler after his father and brother's death. 

No, but Eddard and Benjen would have decided who is going to run Winterfell between themselves after Ned returned there alive. Ned certainly wasn't legally the Lord of Winterfell until Robert sat the Iron Throne - Aerys II most likely attainted the entire Stark line.

That wasn't a proper succession.

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Many Lords don't get the same opportunity that Robert has, in being able to draw up his will on his deathbed. At no point before had we seen him call him his heir as he didn't have to. He was his firstborn son. 

He was treated as the heir and referred as the Crown Prince. That's why he was the heir and everybody knew that he would succeed Robert. If Robert had never named or confirmed Joffrey as his heir people wouldn't have considered him his heir. This was not the case with Aegon II. If Robert had publicly humiliated Joffrey at every turn, not granting him any honors due to a royal prince, and had instead treated Tommen or Stannis as his heir people wouldn't have looked to Joffrey as Robert's heir.

If there was a proper line of succession there would have never been confusion about the Targaryen succession, either. But there was. And it is precedents that shaped that succession, not some universally accepted law regulating the line of succession. A king named an heir, usually his eldest son, but when that heir died then people did not always look for that man's child as the new heir.

Don't take me wrong, usually a man wants his eldest son to succeed him. But it doesn't happen always.

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

We see in House Hunter the younger brother bumping off the people ahead of him, or the animosity between the Corbray brothers. It is unlikely that these Lords have have made their brothers heirs, they just are.

Well, I never said it would be easy for a lord to make some distant relation his heir instead of his closest male kin. And while it is clear that murderous Hunter isn't exactly a nice guy, there is no hint that either Lord Hunter or Lord Corbray ever tried to name different heirs. If they set their mind to do that, it could have worked.

Westeros is a society where a nobleman has a say in the matter of his own property. People draw up wills and name heirs. The idea that a man is forced to leave his lands and titles to a brother or son he absolutely despises doesn't make any sense to me. He should have means to prevent that. He has the power.

And kings can do that. Aegon IV threatened to name one of his not yet legitimized bastards his heir instead of his legitimate son Daeron. He never did that, but the fact that he spoke about meant that he could have done it. Now, not everybody would have accepted that, especially since Daeron had been his father's heir for quite some time but it is a constant danger. Aerys II's council also urged the king to disinherit Rhaegar, indicating that Aerys II could have done that.

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Daeron II became King despite his father never really accepting him as his heir as he was his only legitimate son. 

He originally made him his heir. He even named him Prince of Dragonstone, a title Daeron would never had had if his father hadn't granted it to him.

And the Heir Apparent always needs to be named by the king. During the reign of Aerys I the king had to name three heirs since he had no children of his own body - first his younger brother Rhaegel, then Rhaegel's son Aelor, and finally his youngest brother Maekar. Those men weren't just heirs by default. They were made heirs by the king who also named them Prince of Dragonstone.

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Aegon II hated Aegon III and yet was stick with him.

Because Corlys Velaryon forced him to spare the life of the boy, betroth him to his only daughter and heir, and name they joint heirs in exchange for the support of the Velaryon fleet. Ran recently told us that somewhere.

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

At no point did Tywin make Cersei his heir, yet Kevan acknowledges her as the new ruler of the Rock. 

Yes, because she is the only living child of Lord Tywin that can inherit. And the custom usually suggests that daughters come before siblings. Not to mention that Cersei was the Queen Regent by the time of her lord father's death. De iure she had all the power in the Realm, and no household knight of her father's could take Casterly Rock from her. At least not then. Now things are different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that quote. But Tyrion is not Tywin's heir despite the fact that he is the only son he has that isn't in the Kingsguard. Things are not so easy in that regard.

He's not? Care to provide some text that would confirm this?

Quote

That is the legal concept of marriage in any developed country.

It is? Care to provide some evidence to support this claim?

Quote

 

mar·riage
ˈmerij/
noun
  1. 1.
    the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).
    "a happy marriage"
    synonyms: wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union
    "the marriage took place at St. Margaret's"
     
  2. 2.
    a combination or mixture of two or more elements.
    "a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel"
    synonyms: union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger
    "a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel
 
Do you see anything alluding to what you've just made up in regards to the concept of marriage?
 
Quote

 Robert never had a chance to doubt so, well, his sons was his son.

Sorry, ignorance of a fact does not change the reality of that fact.

Joffrey was NOT Robert's son.

Quote

That's not proof. Proof is something you can present to someone. A testimony is not proof.

It's all the proof that Ned needs. A confession of a treasonous crime is certainly grounds for the Hand of the King to act upon.

This is aSoIaF, not CSI. Ned doesn't need scientific evidence to accuse, or persecute Cercei.

Would you care to inform me of what evidence was used to convict Gared, or accuse Tyrion? Or how about the evidence used to accuse Cercei and Margery of their crimes? I didn't read of any fingerprinting, or DNA testing going on.

Quote

And, quite honestly, Cersei's claim that her children are Jaime's isn't worth all that much. Do we know that Robert didn't also fuck her around that time? Do we know Cersei can be sure that Jaime is the father of her children? We don't. She could be mistaken there

You will go to any lengths to deny the actual text, while providing none to support your arguments yourself. Cercei makes it quite clear that she knows, and that she took every precaution to prevent having a child by Robert. Please stop with your made up scenarios and excuses, if there is nothing in the novels to support them.

Quote

In a world where there are no paternity tests there can't be any such proof. The fact that Cersei's children all greatly resemble her but not Robert doesn't prove anything. Ridiculous talk about the seed being strong is just that ... ridiculous talk.

Well, if you have a problem with it, take it up with GRRM. It's his story, and he decided to include this as a reliable means to identify parentage in his world. While it's not unequivocal evidence to prove anything, it sure is enough grounds for Ned to pursue his suspicions, and act accordingly on them - and by accordingly, I don't mean the ridiculous notion you have that everybody is to turn a blind eye to murder and treason because they don't have paternity tests, or because Robert didn't know, and he's dead, so it doesn't matter.

Quote

If you would read what I'm saying I actually acknowledged that Ned as Hand had the right to rule on the succession. He was speaking with the King's Voice. But it was treason not to tell Robert the truth and to try to get himself installed as King Joffrey's Lord Regent and Protector when he actually wanted to depose that king.

And if you actually read what I posted, you would know that that was not what my response was in regards to.

Quote

That is not all that difficult to understand.

Yet you're having difficulties doing so.

Quote

The point is that only the king can rule on the parentage and legitimacy of his own children, just as only the king can sit in judgment over the queen. The king's brother can't do that.

I don't suppose you have anything from the text to support this; especially in the case of the King having been murdered, and the Queen having confessed to the Hand of the King of committing treason, and that the King's heir is an illegitimate bastard born of incest.

I'm pretty sure the proper protocol in that situation is not to say, "Oh well, got no paternity tests, and well, the King is dead anyway. All hail the bastard abomination, illegitimate King Joffrey!"

Quote

And that's why Stannis isn't the king and should have either spoken to Robert or supported his royal nephew against his enemies. Nobody is obliged to take the claims of a man like Stannis seriously. That's why he has as many followers as he has.

Who is claiming otherwise?

Quote

The fact that Randyll Tarly didn't choose to disown Sam doesn't mean he could have done so. Do you know who would have decided whether Sam had given him 'just cause'? Lord Randyll. He sure as hell could have found some pretext, just as Tywin didn't even need a pretext to not name Tyrion his heir.

Yup, I'm going to believe this made up stuff you have presented here, and discard what is actually in the books, on your word. Show me some text to support this.

Quote

Now, the fact that he didn't points towards the fact that Randyll wanted Sam to be either dead or gone. He did not want him to be still around and alive when he finally died, so that he could perhaps try to challenge Dickon's claim by complaining to Mace or the king about the whole affair. 

This would contradict your entire argument. On what grounds could Sam challenge Dickon's claim if it was so easy to disregard the succession laws? Obviously, as you've just admitted, Randyll cannot just disown Sam, and name Dickon as his heir if he wanted to.

Quote

Nobody betrayed Stannis. Stannis is just a usurper's brother trying to usurp the throne his brother stole, too. You can't legally inherit stolen goods.

You repeatedly ranting this, doesn't make it so. And another contradiction, as you have no objections to any of the Targ's inheriting something that is stolen.

Quote

The way Stannis is treated, both by the Stormlords, the Reach lords, as well as the people following Joffrey but actually not believing that he is Robert's son perfectly illustrates the fact that very few people actually care about the right of primogeniture or a line of succession. 

No, what it illustrates is that some men will discard, and break the law if there are gains to be had, and they think they can get away with it. And it illustrates that other men will turn a blind eye to something if it isn't beneficial to them to oppose it, and especially if doing so could bring them dire or tragic consequences.

This isn't rocket science, it's basic human nature, and none of what you put forth as proof of your assertion that "few people actually care about the right of primogeniture or a line of succession" supports your argument, or is in the text - and in fact, actually contradicts the text.

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stannis didn't make a mistake by NOT supporting Renly but neither did Renly really.

-For the general populace, Joffrey was the true heir/king (sadly)

-Stannis was the rightful heir and probably not a bad governor...but his awful PR skills and the Lord of Light thing mean he probably wouldn't be very loved. If the Others invasion wasn't coming he'd probably pass to history as a bleh leader but since it is, if he won it might have been enough to make him liked. Circumstances meant that, as far as general populace knew, his claim was as good as Renly though (he only acted after his brother's death and the only true big name backing him "confessed" he had "lied"

-Renly wasn't the rightful heir but he didn't really know the royal kids were born from twincest. He probably would have been a decent ruler too, or better said, the Tyrells would have been. Although i got the feeling they wouldn't have taken seriously the Others threat until it was far too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, but Eddard and Benjen would have decided who is going to run Winterfell between themselves after Ned returned there alive. Ned certainly wasn't legally the Lord of Winterfell until Robert sat the Iron Throne - Aerys II most likely attainted the entire Stark line.

That wasn't a proper succession.

There is absolutely no evidence of this. No offence Lord Varys, but a lot of your arguments requires others accepting your personal head cannon.

You don't get to decide what was and was not a proper succession. 

 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

He was treated as the heir and referred as the Crown Prince. 

And at no point do we see Robert call him his heir, like you claimed had to be done. Don't change the goal posts of your argument when the books contradict it. 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If there was a proper line of succession there would have never been confusion about the Targaryen succession, either. But there was. 

Again, moving the goalposts. You claimed that Kings and Lords regularly had to name their heirs. Not as far as we have seen and in fact in one case an heir had to be sent to the Wall to stop his claim. 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't take me wrong, usually a man wants his eldest son to succeed him. But it doesn't happen always.

Name the examples in Westeros?

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I never said it would be easy for a lord to make some distant relation his heir instead of his closest male kin. And while it is clear that murderous Hunter isn't exactly a nice guy, there is no hint that either Lord Hunter or Lord Corbray ever tried to name different heirs. If they set their mind to do that, it could have worked.

There is also no hint that they have named their brothers as heirs. There is no need as that is the natural custom. There is not this need for Lords to officially name their their sons, daughters or even brothers as their heirs. 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Westeros is a society where a nobleman has a say in the matter of his own property. People draw up wills and name heirs. The idea that a man is forced to leave his lands and titles to a brother or son he absolutely despises doesn't make any sense to me. He should have means to prevent that. He has the power.

Then give examples?

Tarly had to resort to threaten to kill his son in a bid to get him to disinherit himself and go the Wall.

Name these examples of Lords picking their own successors and their oldest sons losing their inheritance. 

 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And kings can do that. Aegon IV threatened to name one of his not yet legitimized bastards his heir instead of his legitimate son Daeron. He never did that, but the fact that he spoke about meant that he could have done it.

Kings can as Kings make the law. Randyll Tarly is not the King. That is why he was forced to remove Sam in another way. 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He originally made him his heir. He even named him Prince of Dragonstone, a title Daeron would never had had if his father hadn't granted it to him.

Where in the books is it mentioned that Aegon named him Prince of Dragonstone?

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And the Heir Apparent always needs to be named by the king.

Needs? Then when did Robert do this for Joffrey? What would have happened had he died before writing a will, no heir?

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because Corlys Velaryon forced him to spare the life of the boy, betroth him to his only daughter and heir, and name they joint heirs in exchange for the support of the Velaryon fleet. Ran recently told us that somewhere.

Are you saying that Ran has said that Kings have to name their heirs? I would love to see the quote. 

Aegon II hated Aegon III. He was stuck with him as an heir

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, because she is the only living child of Lord Tywin that can inherit. And the custom usually suggests that daughters come before siblings. Not to mention that Cersei was the Queen Regent by the time of her lord father's death. De iure she had all the power in the Realm, and no household knight of her father's could take Casterly Rock from her. At least not then. Now things are different.

So there you have it. Tywin had never named her his heir, everybody knew she was next in line. 

Your claim that Lords have to name their heir is lacking in any evidence. There is no  chapter where Ned has to make Robb his heir as he is his oldest legitimate son. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

There is absolutely no evidence of this. No offence Lord Varys, but a lot of your arguments requires others accepting your personal head cannon.

So you think the attainted Alekyne Florent is now the Lord of Brightwater, never mind the fact that King Joffrey gave the title to Garlan Tyrell? And Edmure Tully is still the Lord of Riverrun despite the fact that Riverrun is Emmon Frey's now?

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

You don't get to decide what was and was not a proper succession. 

I don't, the circumstances of the story do. The idea that a man who was sentenced to death by the king was legally a lord doesn't make a lot of sense. The North stood with Ned, and rose with him, but until Robert did sit the Iron Throne Ned wasn't *really* the Lord of Winterfell.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And at no point do we see Robert call him his heir, like you claimed had to be done. Don't change the goal posts of your argument when the books contradict it.

He makes it clear in his will that Joffrey is his heir, no? And since he doesn't name Joffrey his heir then it is pretty clear that he did so before. A boy who is named 'the Crown Prince' by various characters is the Heir Apparent of the throne.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Again, moving the goalposts. You claimed that Kings and Lords regularly had to name their heirs. Not as far as we have seen and in fact in one case an heir had to be sent to the Wall to stop his claim. 

If you actually had read the relevant sources you would know that this is the case. All the Heirs Apparent and Heirs Presumptive were named by the king. All the Princes of Dragonstone were named by the king, too. They did not get that title automatically. And no, Maester Aemon did not have to go to the Wall. He chose to go there voluntarily.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Name the examples in Westeros?

Aegon II wasn't the heir of King Viserys I. Tyrion Lannister isn't the heir of Lord Tywin. Aenys Blackfyre, Daemon Blackfyre's fifth son, tried to claim the Iron Throne against Daemon III Blackfyre, the eldest son of his late elder brother Haegon, the previous Blackfyre pretender. Lord Wyman Manderly doesn't think Brandon Stark is his liege lord. Ronard Storm confined his own royal brother to a tower cell and stole his crown and wife.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

There is also no hint that they have named their brothers as heirs. There is no need as that is the natural custom. There is not this need for Lords to officially name their their sons, daughters or even brothers as their heirs. 

That doesn't make any sense. Do you know what happens when a lord does not name an heir? Then the succession is unclear and has to be settled. That's what the Small Council now has to do with Rosby since six claims have been presented. If people cared about some line of succession there would be a clear heir to Rosby, Hornwood and pretty much any lordship that is vacant. But there isn't.

People don't give a shit about a line of succession.

There are guidelines that a younger son comes after an elder but even that's not always followed. The best example is when the elder son is a man like Stannis. Nobody wants such a king, and thus nobody follows such a man. It is that easy.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Then give examples?

Tarly had to resort to threaten to kill his son in a bid to get him to disinherit himself and go the Wall.

He could have taken another road. He chose to do that. Tywin didn't kill Tyrion but he, too, made it clear that Tyrion wouldn't get Casterly Rock.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Kings can as Kings make the law. Randyll Tarly is not the King. That is why he was forced to remove Sam in another way. 

He could have done it in his will, too. Kings don't name the heirs of lords. Lords do. Sam or Tyrion could go to their liege or king to complain and such a will might then be overturned. That's what Randyll wanted to prevent. And he wanted Sam to be gone. He did not want him to be a maester in some castle in the Reach, nor as septon in some septry (a road he could also have taken). He wanted him gone.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Where in the books is it mentioned that Aegon named him Prince of Dragonstone?

We know kings make the Princes of Dragonstone. Daeron wasn't Prince of Dragonstone during the reign of Viserys II, Aegon was. So Aegon did make Daeron Prince of Dragonstone just as Daeron II later made Baelor Prince of Dragonstone.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Needs? Then when did Robert do this for Joffrey? What would have happened had he died before writing a will, no heir?

Robert would have named his firstborn son Joffrey his heir soon after the boy's birth. How else do you think the boy was recognized as the king's son? Just the fact that the queen gave birth to him isn't enough.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Are you saying that Ran has said that Kings have to name their heirs? I would love to see the quote. 

He did say that, he even pointed out that kings actually can choose their heirs and are not bound to follow any line of succession. That's what Aerys II did, too, when he made Viserys his heir instead of Aegon after the death of Rhaegar.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Aegon II hated Aegon III. He was stuck with him as an heir.

No, he wasn't. He could have killed him. He could have named only his daughter Jaehaera his heir, never betrothing her to him. No king is ever stuck with an heir.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

So there you have it. Tywin had never named her his heir, everybody knew she was next in line.

I never said that people only recognize a clear heir if he or she is named. They certainly do. I said a king or lord usually name and treat their heir as heir. Robb wasn't just Ned's eldest son. He was named his heir and treated as such. Ned groomed him to rule one day in fashion he never did with Bran or Rickon. That's what kings and lords do, and that's a very crucial element in actually developing a strong claim. Only when the bannermen and vassals of a lord or king realize and grow accustomed to the fact that this or that person is their lord/king's chosen successor will they come to know and accept him as such. If they don't then such a person can still try to take the throne but it is much more difficult and dangerous.

Take Tyrion's case as an example. If Tywin had died during Robert's reign there is a very small chance that Casterly Rock would have gone to Tyrion. Tyrion would have to lay his claim before Robert, and Robert would then either have allowed Jaime to leave the KG and become Lord of Casterly Rock or he would ruled that the title go to Cersei so that the Crown would control the gold of Casterly Rock and one of Cersei's sons would inherit the lordship from her.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Your claim that Lords have to name their heir is lacking in any evidence. There is no  chapter where Ned has to make Robb his heir as he is his oldest legitimate son.

Why should there be such a chapter? Robb was Ned's heir long before the books began.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

So you think the attainted Alekyne Florent is now the Lord of Brightwater,

Did I say that in my post? Can you stop with this strawman bullshit and respond to what people have actually said rather than what you interpreted them as saying. 

It is fairly annoying and an obvious tactic you seem to use a lot on this forum. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He makes it clear in his will that Joffrey is his heir, no? And since he doesn't name Joffrey his heir then it is pretty clear that he did so before. A boy who is named 'the Crown Prince' by various characters is the Heir Apparent of the throne.

No, it is not clear. Not once do we see him call Joffrey his heir until on his deathbed, a luxury many do not get. 

Joffrey is his heir because he is his oldest son, not because Robert has claimed him to be his heir. In fact going by what Robert tells Ned it becomes clear that he is stcuk with Joffrey as his heir, not that it is a matter of choice. 

 You know what stops me? The thought of Joffrey on the throne, with Cersei standing behind him whispering in his ear. My son. How could I have made a son like that, Ned?"

"He's only a boy," Ned said awkwardlyHe had small liking for Prince Joffrey, but he could hear the pain in Robert's voice. "Have you forgotten how wild youwere at his age?"

"It would not trouble me if the boy was wild, Ned. You don't know him as I do." He sighed and shook his head.
 
That is not a King who is at all happy with who his heir is but has no choice on the matter. He can't simply name Tommen or another as his heir it is Joffrey. 
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If you actually had read the relevant sources you would know that this is the case. All the Heirs Apparent and Heirs Presumptive were named by the king. All the Princes of Dragonstone were named by the king, too. 

All? Then provide the evidence then. I look forward to it. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II wasn't the heir of King Viserys I.

Well half the realm thought he was. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Tyrion Lannister isn't the heir of Lord Tywin.

Yeah, he was. By all means who was Tywin's heir while he was alive and please point out the chapter when Tywin announced who his heir was. 

 

You made a claim that is not backed up in the books. At no point have we seen Tywin officially name anyone his heir. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 Lord Wyman Manderly doesn't think Brandon Stark is his liege lord.

eh? He does not even know if the cripple boy who has gone North of the Wall is even alive or if he is ever coming back. 

And of course what does this have to do with your argument that Lords had to name their Heirs? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Ronard Storm confined his own royal brother to a tower cell and stole his crown and wife.

Through conquest, not law. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make any sense. Do you know what happens when a lord does not name an heir? Then the succession is unclear and has to be settled.

Tywin never named an heir and the succession was very clear and did not have to be settled. So clearly you are wrong. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That's what the Small Council now has to do with Rosby since six claims have been presented. If people cared about some line of succession there would be a clear heir to Rosby, Hornwood and pretty much any lordship that is vacant. But there isn't.

What on earth are you blathering about and what does it have to do with any of the points I have made?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

People don't give a shit about a line of succession.

Yeah they do.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There are guidelines that a younger son comes after an elder but even that's not always followed. The best example is when the elder son is a man like Stannis. Nobody wants such a king, and thus nobody follows such a man. It is that easy.

Again, what does this have to do with your argument?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He could have taken another road. He chose to do that. Tywin didn't kill Tyrion but he, too, made it clear that Tyrion wouldn't get Casterly Rock.

He never named another heir. 

And you are ignoring the argument you actually made:

"A lord or king has to name, recognize, and declare an heir."

This is clearly not true and nothing you have said has shown evidence of this.

  • Cersei bacame Lady of the Rock without ever being named heir
  •  Robert was stuck with Joffrey as his heir despite him feeling that his oldest son a very, very poor choice. 
  • Ned never has to name Robb his heir or even consider the possibilities that he has to. It is automatic, no declaration has to be made. 

Look at what we are told from Jon in the first book

He had thought on it long and hard, lying abed at night while his brothers slept around him. Robb would someday inherit Winterfell, would command great armies as the Warden of the North. Bran and Rickon would be Robb's bannermen and rule holdfasts in his name.

There is zero indication that a living Robb could be replaced as heir. He is automatically it. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He could have done it in his will, too. Kings don't name the heirs of lords.

lol no, he could not. Your headcanon is not evidence in this discussion. Tarly is pretty clear that the only way to rid himself of Sam as his heir is death or the Wall. If it was as simple as a will he would have done so. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We know kings make the Princes of Dragonstone.

No, we don't. That is an assumption, not a fact. 

You are sounding like Stannis now. Stannis thinks something is true without knowing it as 100% fact. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert would have named his firstborn son Joffrey his heir soon after the boy's birth. How else do you think the boy was recognized as the king's son? Just the fact that the queen gave birth to him isn't enough.

Why did Robert name another heir when he was clearly aghast at the prospect of Joffrey inheriting?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He did say that, he even pointed out that kings actually can choose their heirs and are not bound to follow any line of succession. 

Please provide the quote. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, he wasn't. He could have killed him. He could have named only his daughter Jaehaera his heir, never betrothing her to him. No king is ever stuck with an heir.

Could he? So why did he not? He hated his heir, he was stick with him. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I never said that people only recognize a clear heir if he or she is named. They certainly do. I said a king or lord usually name and treat their heir as heir. Robb wasn't just Ned's eldest son. He was named his heir and treated as such. 

Please provide the chapter when Ned had to name Robb his heir?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Take Tyrion's case as an example. If Tywin had died during Robert's reign there is a very small chance that Casterly Rock would have gone to Tyrion. Tyrion would have to lay his claim before Robert, and Robert would then either have allowed Jaime to leave the KG and become Lord of Casterly Rock or he would ruled that the title go to Cersei so that the Crown would control the gold of Casterly Rock and one of Cersei's sons would inherit the lordship from her.

Where is this said in the books?This is all your own personal head canon. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should there be such a chapter? Robb was Ned's heir long before the books began.

If you are saying that a Lord or King has to name his heir and can change who his heir is regardless of who his first born is then a clear way of showing this law  you have made up is by showing a few characters doing it. 

Robb was automatically the heir of Winterfell on his birth, Ned had no need to declare him the official heir because everyone knew he was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

...

Many Lords don't get the same opportunity that Robert has, in being able to draw up his will on his deathbed. At no point before had we seen him call him his heir as he didn't have to. He was his firstborn son. 

We see in House Hunter the younger brother bumping off the people ahead of him, or the animosity between the Corbray brothers. It is unlikely that these Lords have have made their brothers heirs, they just are. 

Daeron II became King despite his father never really accepting him as his heir as he was his only legitimate son. 

Aegon II hated Aegon IIIand yet was stick with him.

At no point did Tywin make Cersei his heir, yet Kevan acknowledges her as the new ruler of the Rock. 

 

Not only have we never heard that this rule exists, but there is plenty of evidence that it does not. 

 

This is all right, but I'd emphasise a further point. Robert only dictated a Will because Joffrey was not of age. He wrote it to name Ned as lord protector. Robert took for granted that Joff as his eldest trueborn son was his heir and that was not the subject of the will, but merely mentioned as the condition for Ned being regent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that I am a pretty well known proponents for the idea that Westeros practices primogeniture. but through debated in this esteemd forum this is how I nowadays view the issues of succession. And its in general a subject that I'm interested in and so I'll happily post away. :)

First there is a primoenture in which sons inherits before daughters after age. That's the basic thing that the firstborn son gets the inheritance and then the inheritance moves downwards. And this would seem to have the weight of tradition behind it which should be remembered to be very powerful in a conservative society like Westeros. If you don't believe me just look at gender roles in our own society. Its been pretty long since the first feminists came along and gender roles would still seem to be very influential also in progressive and liberal societies. Then imagine how it would be in a society as conservative as Westeros and the oldest children can reasonably see inheritance as his or her right unless she's done something like renounce it or join an order that prevents inheritance, like for example Arianne does when she suspects that her father will pass Dorne over to her brother.

But there is a situation where there's a "???" in the system. That's when there are no trueborn children of the ruler's body alive or able to inherit. In that kind if situation we get the Rosby, Hornwood or Dustin scenario, and its open for initiativ to rightfully claim a title without being a child of the ruler.

And finally, and this seems to be a case of regional differences, that if the ruler appoints some who isn't the firstborn son to be his heir then that trumps primogeniture and essentially gives the name heir the "firstborn son" status. The reason I say that it seems to be a thing of regional difference is that apparently kings can name heirs pretty much as they want while for example Lord Tarly does can't just disinherit Samwell without a reason for it and Robb protests that Renly can't inherit before Stannis due to being younger.

I hope this made some kind of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

 

But there is a situation where there's a "???" in the system. That's when there are no trueborn children of the ruler's body alive or able to inherit. In that kind if situation we get the Rosby, Hornwood or Dustin scenario, and its open for initiativ to rightfully claim a title without being a child of the ruler.

 

The Hornwood stuff is pretty interesting. From what I gather it appears that Lord Hornwood has at least three sisters

 "With no direct heir, there are sure to be many claimants contending for the Hornwood lands. The Tallharts, Flints, and Karstarks all have ties to House Hornwood through the female line..."

So I'm guessing it might be a case of Berena Hornwood not being the oldest but being the only one who has sons or that her sons are the older than her cousins. 

My own head canon for House Dustin has always been that Lord Ryswell either married a Dustin or his mother was a Dustin so he technically is the next in line for the title but already being a Lord allows his daughter to remain there as a place holder. And when his second daughter was still alive the idea was that Domeric, who was fostered their, was being groomed to inherit but once his mother died with only one child that prospect was abandoned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Did I say that in my post? Can you stop with this strawman bullshit and respond to what people have actually said rather than what you interpreted them as saying. 

LOL, you are the guy who said the son of man who burned as a traitor and who was himself sentenced to death by the king was a 'lord'. Eddard Stark is as much a lord as Alekyne Florent is.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, it is not clear. Not once do we see him call Joffrey his heir until on his deathbed, a luxury many do not get.

That's just nonsense. You apparently don't know the books very well. Joff is called the Crown Prince by number of people. And 'Crown Prince' is another name for 'Heir Apparent', and you are not styled that way if the king does not see you as his heir.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Joffrey is his heir because he is his oldest son, not because Robert has claimed him to be his heir. In fact going by what Robert tells Ned it becomes clear that he is stcuk with Joffrey as his heir, not that it is a matter of choice. 

 You know what stops me? The thought of Joffrey on the throne, with Cersei standing behind him whispering in his ear. My son. How could I have made a son like that, Ned?"

"He's only a boy," Ned said awkwardlyHe had small liking for Prince Joffrey, but he could hear the pain in Robert's voice. "Have you forgotten how wild youwere at his age?"

"It would not trouble me if the boy was wild, Ned. You don't know him as I do." He sighed and shook his head.
 
That is not a King who is at all happy with who his heir is but has no choice on the matter. He can't simply name Tommen or another as his heir it is Joffrey. 

If Aerys II and Aegon IV could contemplate the idea to disinherit their heirs and choose others, Robert Baratheon could have done that, too. He just didn't want to do it because it would have meant severe trouble with Cersei and the Lannisters.

He could even have legitimized one or all of his bastard and named one of them his heir. He was the king.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Well half the realm thought he was. 

Not while Viserys I was still alive.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yeah, he was. By all means who was Tywin's heir while he was alive and please point out the chapter when Tywin announced who his heir was.

You can go look for yourself and read the section where it is made clear that Tyrion was not Tywin's heir. The fact that we don't know who Tywin's heir is doesn't mean Tyrion is his heir. He made it clear that Tyrion wasn't his heir, and Tyrion even accepted that. He understood that he would never be Lord of Casterly Rock.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

eh? He does not even know if the cripple boy who has gone North of the Wall is even alive or if he is ever coming back. 

He doesn't know for sure that Rickon is alive or on Skagos, either. He just believes he is on the basis of 'the words' of some mute bastard. Wyman knows that Bran and Rickon survived Winterfell. And as long as Bran is not proven to be dead or officially declared dead he is the eldest surviving son of Eddard Stark. He would be Robb's heir if Wyman would care about primogeniture. But he obviously doesn't.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Through conquest, not law. 

LOL, you are calling confining a man to a tower cell 'a conquest'? Then I can be a 'conqueror', too.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Tywin never named an heir and the succession was very clear and did not have to be settled. So clearly you are wrong. 

No, I'm not. Cersei was in an ideal position to make good of her claim. She was the Queen Regent and Tywin's only child with a claim left. Nobody was expecting Tywin to die and nobody tried to challenge her.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

What on earth are you blathering about and what does it have to do with any of the points I have made?

If you don't understand, I can't help you.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Again, what does this have to do with your argument?

Stannis is evidence to the fact that people only care about primogeniture when it suits them. Stannis doesn't know that his brother's children are not his. He wants to kill them to claim their throne. Renly does the same.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He never named another heir. 

Again, so what? You don't have to tell you hated son who your heir is when you make it clear that he isn't.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And you are ignoring the argument you actually made:

"A lord or king has to name, recognize, and declare an heir."

This is clearly not true and nothing you have said has shown evidence of this.

  • Cersei bacame Lady of the Rock without ever being named heir
  •  Robert was stuck with Joffrey as his heir despite him feeling that his oldest son a very, very poor choice. 
  • Ned never has to name Robb his heir or even consider the possibilities that he has to. It is automatic, no declaration has to be made. 

Look at what we are told from Jon in the first book.

 

LOL, the fact that a man didn't get around to properly name an heir before he died doesn't prove your point. But people usually name heirs when they get around to do it. And they should do it since there will be confusion if he doesn't.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

He had thought on it long and hard, lying abed at night while his brothers slept around him. Robb would someday inherit Winterfell, would command great armies as the Warden of the North. Bran and Rickon would be Robb's bannermen and rule holdfasts in his name.

There is zero indication that a living Robb could be replaced as heir. He is automatically it. 

LOL, some character thinking that the heir of Winterfell will one day be the Lord of Winterfell doesn't prove anything.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol no, he could not. Your headcanon is not evidence in this discussion. Tarly is pretty clear that the only way to rid himself of Sam as his heir is death or the Wall. If it was as simple as a will he would have done so.

Then why could Lord Webber stipulate conditions in his will that his daughter Rohanne could lose Coldmoat to one of his cousins? He made it clear that his castle would go to his cousin should she remain unwed until a year after his death.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, we don't. That is an assumption, not a fact. 

I suggest you read or reread TWoIaF before discussing this topic. Among others, Prince Aegon, Prince Baelon, Prince Viserys, Princess Rhaenyra, Prince Daeron, Prince Daeron, Prince Baelor, Prince Rhaegel, Prince Aelor, Prince Maekar, Prince Daeron, Prince Aerion, Prince Duncan, Prince Jaehaerys, Prince Aerys, Prince Rhaegar, and Princess Daenerys were all named Prince(ss) of Dragonstone by kings.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Why did Robert name another heir when he was clearly aghast at the prospect of Joffrey inheriting?

I guess you meant 'why didn't Robert name another heir', right? Most likely because Robert didn't give a shit about his kingdom and had no intention to go to blows with Cersei and the Lannisters.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Could he? So why did he not? He hated his heir, he was stick with him. 

Again, he was forced to do that by Corlys Velaryon. He needed the Velaryon support and had to make a deal. His mother wasn't fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Did I say that in my post? Can you stop with this strawman bullshit and respond to what people have actually said rather than what you interpreted them as saying. 

LOL, you are the guy who said the son of man who burned as a traitor and who was himself sentenced to death by the king was a 'lord'. Eddard Stark is as much a lord as Alekyne Florent is.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, it is not clear. Not once do we see him call Joffrey his heir until on his deathbed, a luxury many do not get.

That's just nonsense. You apparently don't know the books very well. Joff is called the Crown Prince by number of people. And 'Crown Prince' is another name for 'Heir Apparent', and you are not styled that way if the king does not see you as his heir.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Joffrey is his heir because he is his oldest son, not because Robert has claimed him to be his heir. In fact going by what Robert tells Ned it becomes clear that he is stcuk with Joffrey as his heir, not that it is a matter of choice. 

 You know what stops me? The thought of Joffrey on the throne, with Cersei standing behind him whispering in his ear. My son. How could I have made a son like that, Ned?"

"He's only a boy," Ned said awkwardlyHe had small liking for Prince Joffrey, but he could hear the pain in Robert's voice. "Have you forgotten how wild youwere at his age?"

"It would not trouble me if the boy was wild, Ned. You don't know him as I do." He sighed and shook his head.
 
That is not a King who is at all happy with who his heir is but has no choice on the matter. He can't simply name Tommen or another as his heir it is Joffrey. 

If Aerys II and Aegon IV could contemplate the idea to disinherit their heirs and choose others, Robert Baratheon could have done that, too. He just didn't want to do it because it would have meant severe trouble with Cersei and the Lannisters.

He could even have legitimized one or all of his bastard and named one of them his heir. He was the king.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Well half the realm thought he was. 

Not while Viserys I was still alive.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yeah, he was. By all means who was Tywin's heir while he was alive and please point out the chapter when Tywin announced who his heir was.

You can go look for yourself and read the section where it is made clear that Tyrion was not Tywin's heir. The fact that we don't know who Tywin's heir is doesn't mean Tyrion is his heir. He made it clear that Tyrion wasn't his heir, and Tyrion even accepted that. He understood that he would never be Lord of Casterly Rock.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

eh? He does not even know if the cripple boy who has gone North of the Wall is even alive or if he is ever coming back. 

He doesn't know for sure that Rickon is alive or on Skagos, either. He just believes he is on the basis of 'the words' of some mute bastard. Wyman knows that Bran and Rickon survived Winterfell. And as long as Bran is not proven to be dead or officially declared dead he is the eldest surviving son of Eddard Stark. He would be Robb's heir if Wyman would care about primogeniture. But he obviously doesn't.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Through conquest, not law. 

LOL, you are calling confining a man to a tower cell 'a conquest'? Then I can be a 'conqueror', too.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Tywin never named an heir and the succession was very clear and did not have to be settled. So clearly you are wrong. 

No, I'm not. Cersei was in an ideal position to make good of her claim. She was the Queen Regent and Tywin's only child with a claim left. Nobody was expecting Tywin to die and nobody tried to challenge her.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

What on earth are you blathering about and what does it have to do with any of the points I have made?

If you don't understand, I can't help you.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Again, what does this have to do with your argument?

Stannis is evidence to the fact that people only care about primogeniture when it suits them. Stannis doesn't know that his brother's children are not his. He wants to kill them to claim their throne. Renly does the same.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He never named another heir. 

Again, so what? You don't have to tell you hated son who your heir is when you make it clear that he isn't.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And you are ignoring the argument you actually made:

"A lord or king has to name, recognize, and declare an heir."

This is clearly not true and nothing you have said has shown evidence of this.

  • Cersei bacame Lady of the Rock without ever being named heir
  •  Robert was stuck with Joffrey as his heir despite him feeling that his oldest son a very, very poor choice. 
  • Ned never has to name Robb his heir or even consider the possibilities that he has to. It is automatic, no declaration has to be made. 

Look at what we are told from Jon in the first book.

 

LOL, the fact that a man didn't get around to properly name an heir before he died doesn't prove your point. But people usually name heirs when they get around to do it. And they should do it since there will be confusion if he doesn't.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

He had thought on it long and hard, lying abed at night while his brothers slept around him. Robb would someday inherit Winterfell, would command great armies as the Warden of the North. Bran and Rickon would be Robb's bannermen and rule holdfasts in his name.

There is zero indication that a living Robb could be replaced as heir. He is automatically it. 

LOL, some character thinking that the heir of Winterfell will one day be the Lord of Winterfell doesn't prove anything.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol no, he could not. Your headcanon is not evidence in this discussion. Tarly is pretty clear that the only way to rid himself of Sam as his heir is death or the Wall. If it was as simple as a will he would have done so.

Then why could Lord Webber stipulate conditions in his will that his daughter Rohanne could lose Coldmoat to one of his cousins? He made it clear that his castle would go to his cousin should she remain unwed until a year after his death.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, we don't. That is an assumption, not a fact. 

I suggest you read or reread TWoIaF before discussing this topic. Among others, Prince Aegon, Prince Baelon, Prince Viserys, Princess Rhaenyra, Prince Daeron, Prince Daeron, Prince Baelor, Prince Rhaegel, Prince Aelor, Prince Maekar, Prince Daeron, Prince Aerion, Prince Duncan, Prince Jaehaerys, Prince Aerys, Prince Rhaegar, and Princess Daenerys were all named Prince(ss) of Dragonstone by kings.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Why did Robert name another heir when he was clearly aghast at the prospect of Joffrey inheriting?

I guess you meant 'why didn't Robert name another heir', right? Most likely because Robert didn't give a shit about his kingdom and had no intention to go to blows with Cersei and the Lannisters.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Could he? So why did he not? He hated his heir, he was stick with him. 

Again, he was forced to do that by Corlys Velaryon. He needed the Velaryon support and had to make a deal. His mother wasn't fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 28.5.2017 at 2:35 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Did I say that in my post? Can you stop with this strawman bullshit and respond to what people have actually said rather than what you interpreted them as saying. 

LOL, you are the guy who said the son of a man who was burned as a traitor and who himself was sentenced to death by the king was a 'lord'. Eddard Stark is as much a lord as Alekyne Florent is.

Quote

No, it is not clear. Not once do we see him call Joffrey his heir until on his deathbed, a luxury many do not get.

That's just nonsense. You apparently don't know the books very well. Joff is called the Crown Prince by a number of people. And 'Crown Prince' is another name for 'Heir Apparent', and you are not styled that way if the king does not see you as his heir.

Quote

Joffrey is his heir because he is his oldest son, not because Robert has claimed him to be his heir. In fact going by what Robert tells Ned it becomes clear that he is stcuk with Joffrey as his heir, not that it is a matter of choice. 

 You know what stops me? The thought of Joffrey on the throne, with Cersei standing behind him whispering in his ear. My son. How could I have made a son like that, Ned?"

"He's only a boy," Ned said awkwardlyHe had small liking for Prince Joffrey, but he could hear the pain in Robert's voice. "Have you forgotten how wild youwere at his age?"

"It would not trouble me if the boy was wild, Ned. You don't know him as I do." He sighed and shook his head.
 
That is not a King who is at all happy with who his heir is but has no choice on the matter. He can't simply name Tommen or another as his heir it is Joffrey. 

If Aerys II and Aegon IV could contemplate the idea to disinherit their heirs and choose others in their place, Robert Baratheon could have done that, too. He just didn't want to do it because it would have meant severe trouble with Cersei and the Lannisters.

He could even have legitimized one or all of his bastards and named one of them his heir. He was the king.

Quote

Well half the realm thought he was. 

Not while Viserys I was still alive.

Quote

Yeah, he was. By all means who was Tywin's heir while he was alive and please point out the chapter when Tywin announced who his heir was.

You can go look for yourself and read the section where it is made clear that Tyrion was not Tywin's heir. The fact that we don't know who Tywin's heir is doesn't mean Tyrion is his heir. He made it clear that Tyrion wasn't his heir, and Tyrion even accepted that. He understood that he would never be Lord of Casterly Rock.

Quote

eh? He does not even know if the cripple boy who has gone North of the Wall is even alive or if he is ever coming back. 

He doesn't know for sure that Rickon is alive or on Skagos, either. He just believes he is on the basis of 'the words' of some mute bastard. Wyman knows that Bran and Rickon survived Winterfell. And as long as Bran is not proven to be dead or officially declared dead he is the eldest surviving son of Eddard Stark. He would be Robb's heir if Wyman would care about primogeniture. But he obviously doesn't.

Quote

Through conquest, not law. 

LOL, you are calling confining a man to a tower cell 'a conquest'? Then I can be 'a conqueror', too.

Quote

Tywin never named an heir and the succession was very clear and did not have to be settled. So clearly you are wrong. 

No, I'm not. Cersei was in an ideal position to make good of her claim. She was the Queen Regent and Tywin's only child with a claim left. Nobody was expecting Tywin to die and nobody tried to challenge her.

Quote

What on earth are you blathering about and what does it have to do with any of the points I have made?

If you don't understand, I can't help you.

Quote

Again, what does this have to do with your argument?

Stannis is evidence to the fact that people only care about primogeniture when it suits them. Stannis doesn't know that his brother's children are not his. He wants to kill them to claim their throne. Renly does the same.

Quote

He never named another heir. 

Again, so what? You don't have to tell your hated son who your heir is when you make it clear that he isn't.

Quote

And you are ignoring the argument you actually made:

"A lord or king has to name, recognize, and declare an heir."

This is clearly not true and nothing you have said has shown evidence of this.

  • Cersei bacame Lady of the Rock without ever being named heir
  •  Robert was stuck with Joffrey as his heir despite him feeling that his oldest son a very, very poor choice. 
  • Ned never has to name Robb his heir or even consider the possibilities that he has to. It is automatic, no declaration has to be made. 

Look at what we are told from Jon in the first book.

 

LOL, the fact that a man didn't get around to properly name an heir before he died doesn't prove your point. People usually name heirs when they get around to do it. And they should do it since there will be confusion if one doesn't.

Quote

He had thought on it long and hard, lying abed at night while his brothers slept around him. Robb would someday inherit Winterfell, would command great armies as the Warden of the North. Bran and Rickon would be Robb's bannermen and rule holdfasts in his name.

There is zero indication that a living Robb could be replaced as heir. He is automatically it. 

LOL, some character thinking that the heir of Winterfell will one day be the Lord of Winterfell doesn't prove anything.

Quote

lol no, he could not. Your headcanon is not evidence in this discussion. Tarly is pretty clear that the only way to rid himself of Sam as his heir is death or the Wall. If it was as simple as a will he would have done so.

Then why could Lord Webber stipulate conditions in his will that his daughter Rohanne could lose Coldmoat to one of his cousins? He made it clear that his castle would go to his cousin should she remain unwed until a year after his death.

Quote

No, we don't. That is an assumption, not a fact. 

I suggest you read or reread TWoIaF before discussing this topic. Among others, Prince Aegon, Prince Baelon, Prince Viserys, Princess Rhaenyra, Prince Daeron, Prince Daeron, Prince Baelor, Prince Rhaegel, Prince Aelor, Prince Maekar, Prince Daeron, Prince Aerion, Prince Duncan, Prince Jaehaerys, Prince Aerys, Prince Rhaegar, and Princess Daenerys were all named Prince(ss) of Dragonstone by kings.

Quote

Why did Robert name another heir when he was clearly aghast at the prospect of Joffrey inheriting?

I guess you meant 'why didn't Robert name another heir', right? Most likely because Robert didn't give a shit about his kingdom and had no intention to go to blows with Cersei and the Lannisters.

Quote

Could he? So why did he not? He hated his heir, he was stick with him. 

Again, he was forced to do that by Corlys Velaryon. He needed the Velaryon support and had to make a deal. His mother wasn't fine with that.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Hornwood stuff is pretty interesting. From what I gather it appears that Lord Hornwood has at least three sisters

 "With no direct heir, there are sure to be many claimants contending for the Hornwood lands. The Tallharts, Flints, and Karstarks all have ties to House Hornwood through the female line..."

So I'm guessing it might be a case of Berena Hornwood not being the oldest but being the only one who has sons or that her sons are the older than her cousins. 

My own head canon for House Dustin has always been that Lord Ryswell either married a Dustin or his mother was a Dustin so he technically is the next in line for the title but already being a Lord allows his daughter to remain there as a place holder. And when his second daughter was still alive the idea was that Domeric, who was fostered their, was being groomed to inherit but once his mother died with only one child that prospect was abandoned. 

Indeed it is, although the relations that the Tallharts, Flints and Karstarks have may not be contemprary even to each other. Its just that these links are so recent that they are not so far back that no one cares about it. But the idea of three sisters married off too three Houses of course also makes good sense in that it would be rather neat and orderly and give all these Houses essentially the same claim on Hornwood. Until we get more information, that is of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now