Jump to content

R+L=J v.164


SFDanny

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Ran said:

There's also the fact that the past precedents against women inheriting may be a point of argument. Even with Aegon III, where the straightforward approach is to see his claim descending from his mother, he also happens to have been the son of Daemon Targaryen, brother to the last uncontested king. If you're inclined to discount Rhaenyra, and all of Viserys's children by Alicent are dead but for a daughter, Daemon would have been next by proximity, and Aegon following him.

Ran, now that you are bringing this up - a theory that has been tossed around by various people - I have to ask:

Is there any basis for this kind of legal talk in Gyldayn's writings on the end of the Dance and the Regency?

The last update on that I read from you is that Corlys Velaryon effectively forced Aegon II to accept Aegon the Younger as his heir - and the betrothal to Jaehaera - due to political realities (the need for the Velaryon fleet, etc.).

The last thing the Hightower-Targaryens and Greens at the end of the Dance would have wanted was that any child of Rhaenyra's or Daemon's - or both - ended up on the throne, no? After all, Daemon did not only kill Aemond but also arrange the whole Blood and Cheese thing. Alicent and Aegon II must have hated him even more than 'the whore'.

In that sense, the proper thing to do for Aegon II and Alicent would have been to indeed acknowledge Princess Jaehaera as the king's presumptive heir until such time as his new Baratheon bride gave him sons. If the king has only (a) daughter(s) - and all the male kin of the king's are attainted traitors - then said daughter should be the heir. That this whole thing would have been rather ironic in light of the fact that a decent number of Green supporters supported Aegon II because he was the male claimant is obvious, but it couldn't have helped.

The idea that we can count Aegon III's rise as him being the legal heir of Aegon II as a son of Daemon Targaryen makes little sense in light of the fact that Rhaenyra and Daemon - and all their children and kin - must have been attainted at the beginning of the Dance when Rhaenyra first refused Aegon II's terms.

Vice versa, we also do know that Stannis Baratheon and Shireen Baratheon have been attainted by King Joffrey. They technically could receive a royal pardon - but if they don't, they are not eligible to inherit the throne should Tommen and Myrcella die without issue. The throne would have to go some other Targaryen cousins, presumably of the Tarth, Martell, Plumm, or Penrose variety. Unless, of course, people ignore the attainder issued against Stannis/Shireen.

Now, if Aegon III had been some sort of compromise candidate at the end of the Dance - say, if the two factions had found each other without pretenders, and then decided that they could both settle on the boy as a figurehead to end the war - then this argument would make some sense.

But as history went it doesn't seem to be all that likely.

Although it is very likely that such an argument is used as a post hoc rationalization to find an explanation as to why Rhaenyra's son could rule if Rhaenyra herself hadn't been a queen and no male claimant through the female line was ever supposed to sit the throne (as per the 'iron precedent' interpretation thing).

20 minutes ago, Ran said:

In any case, the general "default" in Westeros is primogeniture. The Targaryens sort of/kind of tried to establish that as far as the throne goes, women and the heirs of women cannot inherit, a rule that was followed by Viserys II at least. But whole proximity business raised its head in 92AC because of the specific situation where it was either a woman or an infant (or, later, a boy) vs. an adult. Had Laenor been 18 instead of 8 at 101AC, he may well have been selected over Viserys.

Laenor wasn't yet born in 92 AC. Laena is born in 93 AC and Laenor in 94 AC as far as we know, right?

In that sense, it was a granddaughter who might have children by her husband, Corlys Velaryon, and the king's second son. Do you have any information as to why Rhaenys wasn't married to Viserys? The only way this makes sense is that Corlys-Rhaenys married before Prince Aemon died in 92 AC. The subsequent troubles could have been so easily avoided if they had just united those two branches of the family via a marriage.

And chances are indeed pretty high that Laenor would have won in 101 AC had he been somewhat older.

But we have proximity win the day again in 233 AC. Princess Vaella, Prince Maegor, and Maester Aemon are all favored by primogeniture, yet Aegon V wins the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it turns out that crazy Aerys actually named Viserys his heir while Rhaegar's kids were still alive, I highly doubt that most of Westeros learned of it before the death of Aegon and Rhaenys, or would have actually cared to enforce it. It is amusing to me that so much has been built off of one line based on knowledge the Citadel wouldn't have received until after everyone except Viserys and pregnant Rhaella were dead anyway. Daenerys is a woman, and one that doesn't believe she can have children at that, which only guarantees future instability. She might receive support because she has dragons, but she might just as easily be opposed for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@The Twinslayer

We do know that kings name and anoint their heirs, even if there is a line of succession. King Aerys I named three Princes of Dragonstone throughout his reign. And he went strictly by the principle of primogeniture: first Rhaegel, then Aelor, then Maekar.

It is also pretty clear that Valarr and Matarys were seen as the ones next in line after Baelor Breakspear - in fact, the whole thing is pretty much confirmed for Valarr who becomes his grandfather's heir after Baelor dies at Ashford.

Proximity is also a strong principle, but it usually only wins the day if the royal (great-)grandchildren are far too young to rule in their own right.

The succession of Maekar was apparently as contested as it was because King Maekar himself never got around to name and anoint an heir after Aerion - then likely Prince of Dragonstone - died in 232 AC. Without public confirmation from the king the succession usually isn't as clear as one might think.

In that sense, your idea that there is a default setting on the succession unless the king intervenes doesn't make a lot of sense.

We see this very strongly with Tyrion - technically he would be the heir to Casterly Rock, but with Tywin not publicly acknowledging this fact people neither see nor treat him as such.

I'm with you that Dany's claim is rather strong due to the fact that her royal father named Viserys III his heir - who then was crowned the last Targaryen king on Dragonstone - and he, in turn, later named Daenerys Princess of Dragonstone and acknowledged her as his heir. Viserys and Daenerys are what's left of House Targaryen, both factually as well as because their father favored Viserys III rather than Rhaegar's children. It is rather likely that Dany is going to use that line of argumentation to push her own claim against Aegon's.

If we assumed for a moment Viserys III had succeeded his father as King on the Iron Throne as Aerys II had wished, then it would have fallen to Viserys III to name his heir, in turn. We don't know if he had chosen Daenerys if he had had no children of his own body, but if he had done so then she would have succeeded him in Westeros, just as she did in exile.

The contrary view would then be that Viserys III simply didn't know that there were still male Targaryens around - and that he would have named Aegon his heir had he known he was still alive. Or perhaps Aegon's followers are even going to claim Aegon had a better claim that Viserys III from the start, ignoring or dismissing the decision of the Mad King.

I think that the universe of possibilities includes my theory (that based on past precedent, Viserys came before Aegon) or yours (that after Rhaegar died, the succession was unclear).  I don't think it includes the possibility that Aegon was the heir until Aerys did something affirmative to displace Aegon.

1 hour ago, ChuckPunch said:

I find this highly likely. People loved Rhaegar and hated Aerys. Plus Dany has a rather bad reputation on top of delineating from the Mad King, while Aegon can lean heavily on Rhaegar's romanticized history on top of his own inspiring backstory. 

I think Dany's dragons will be more important than peoples' memory of Rhaegar -- who, after all, was only an adult for a few years, who married a Dornish woman, who ran off with a high lord's fiancé, and who lost the only battle he ever fought.

47 minutes ago, Ran said:

There's also the fact that the past precedents against women inheriting may be a point of argument. Even with Aegon III, where the straightforward approach is to see his claim descending from his mother, he also happens to have been the son of Daemon Targaryen, brother to the last uncontested king. If you're inclined to discount Rhaenyra, and all of Viserys's children by Alicent are dead but for a daughter, Daemon would have been next by proximity, and Aegon following him.

In any case, the general "default" in Westeros is primogeniture. The Targaryens sort of/kind of tried to establish that as far as the throne goes, women and the heirs of women cannot inherit, a rule that was followed by Viserys II at least. But whole proximity business raised its head in 92AC because of the specific situation where it was either a woman or an infant (or, later, a boy) vs. an adult. Had Laenor been 18 instead of 8 at 101AC, he may well have been selected over Viserys.

Male-preference primogeniture appears to be the default rule in Westeros (except for Dorne) when the claimants are the children of the former lord or king.

But I am not aware of any reference in any of the books to a default rule whereby primogeniture trumps proximity when the competing claims are from the king's (or lord's) grandson vs the king's (or lord's) younger son.  All we have is the SSM on the Hornwood inheritance where GRRM said the issue was up for debate plus the one historical precedent where the son  (Egg) was crowned instead of the grandson.

Dany might have an issue when pressing her claim against Aegon based on her gender due to the way in which the Dance of the Dragons was resolved, as you point out.  But I think she could overcome that based on the fact that kings and lords reserved the right to appoint their own heirs and that Viserys appointed her.  But I do think that for the reasons you describe, Dany v Aegon is a closer question than Viserys v Aegon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Male-preference primogeniture appears to be the default rule in Westeros (except for Dorne) when the claimants are the children of the former lord or king.

Dorne practices absolute primogeniture instead, yeah.

 

Quote

But I am not aware of any reference in any of the books to a default rule whereby primogeniture trumps proximity when the competing claims are from the king's (or lord's) grandson vs the king's (or lord's) younger son.  All we have is the SSM on the Hornwood inheritance where GRRM said the issue was up for debate plus the one historical precedent where the son  (Egg) was crowned instead of the grandson.

The case of Egg is, again, a situation where the heir by primogeniture is an infant and so gets passed over. The case of Viserys I is that Laenor was favored by primogeniture, but the lords preferred the male line to take precedence, so it was accounted better to go by proximity instead. 

From A Clash of Kings, the Frey boys reveal their understanding of the situation:

Quote

"Don't be stupid," his cousin said. "The sons of the first son come before the second son. Ser Ryman is next in line, and then Edwyn and Black Walder and Petyr Pimple. And then Aegon and all his sons."

Later Catelyn confirms that Ryman is heir by dint of being the eldest son of the late heir, Ser Stevron. And after Ryman is dead, Edwyn -- _his_ eldest son -- is heir, at least according to Edwyn and (implicitly) Walder Rivers.

GRRM's remark is more about the way that people can certainly argue all sorts of things. Which is true! Their specific situation may make some argument stronger than some other argument, often on the basis of ideas such as experience or a time of crisis needing a firm hand or what have you. But in general in Westeros, the heir's offspring count ahead of the heir's siblings... except when they don't, as we see with the Frey bunch very much preparing to go for one another's throats, or as we see the Hunters apparently doing according to Littlefinger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Even if it turns out that crazy Aerys actually named Viserys his heir while Rhaegar's kids were still alive, I highly doubt that most of Westeros learned of it before the death of Aegon and Rhaenys, or would have actually cared to enforce it. It is amusing to me that so much has been built off of one line based on knowledge the Citadel wouldn't have received until after everyone except Viserys and pregnant Rhaella were dead anyway. Daenerys is a woman, and one that doesn't believe she can have children at that, which only guarantees future instability. She might receive support because she has dragons, but she might just as easily be opposed for that.

Whether the people learned of that quickly or not isn't the issue. But I see little reason to assume Aerys II didn't sent out letters proclaiming his new heir to leal lords (which the Hightowers of Oldtown happened to be). After all, we do know that ravens flew back and forth after the Trident.

But the main point is that it was done, and thus it has some sort of legal reality. Whether people end up caring about that reality when it might become relevant is unclear at that point, of course.

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

I think that the universe of possibilities includes my theory (that based on past precedent, Viserys came before Aegon) or yours (that after Rhaegar died, the succession was unclear).  I don't think it includes the possibility that Aegon was the heir until Aerys did something affirmative to displace Aegon.

Strictly speaking, nobody would be 'the heir' until he is confirmed as such. Take the birth of a child. If he or she is treated as the heir - like Robb, Rhaenyra, Aenys, etc. were - people also also see such a child as the heir.

If that doesn't happen - like in the case of Tyrion - things are much more unclear.

The Targaryen system of succession involved making the Heir Apparent also the Prince of Dragonstone - which included legal act/ceremony/decree, etc. in its own right. You weren't the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne by the informal right of primogeniture - like it is with a mere lord - but you were specially anointed and declared the Heir Apparent in a special act.

At least that's how it went since King Aenys made his Heir Apparent, Prince Aegon, also the Prince of Dragonstone. Aenys himself was just informally treated as the Heir Apparent by his father, King Aegon I.

In that sense, the succession would be unclear whenever a king forgot or refused to properly anoint a successor.

The best example for this is the fact that the succession of Viserys I is a contested issue early on during the man's reign, since he doesn't have a son and people are confused whether Prince Daemon is just the presumptive heir or the Heir Apparent, and what exactly Rhaenyra's status is (while her father favored her and kept her close but had not yet named her the Heir Apparent).

Another is the death of Maekar. If there was an established line of succession on the basis of male primogeniture then there was only one possible heir in 233 AC - young Prince Maegor, the only son of King Maekar's second son. Prince Aegon, Maester Aemon, and Princess Vaella all came behind Maegor.

It seems to have been the same during Baelor's reign. If the man had named his uncle Viserys Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone one assumes nobody would have talked about the claims of Baelor's sisters after Baelor's death.

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

I think Dany's dragons will be more important than peoples' memory of Rhaegar -- who, after all, was only an adult for a few years, who married a Dornish woman, who ran off with a high lord's fiancé, and who lost the only battle he ever fought.

The dragons will be very important, but people will still talk about claims - or at least pretend to talk about those. The idea of a Targaryen pretender - Aegon - turning against the Mother of Dragons - the one who restored the (Targaryen) dragons to the world - is not likely going to make him all that popular in Westeros. Even if they paint Dany as the daughter of the Mad King and an evil foreign conqueror, etc. they won't be able to make the dragons go away. And when people actually see them flying above the land they will be a very effective symbol of power and kingship (or rather: queenship).

We'll get the same with the Starks. It is completely unclear at this point who is going to get Winterfell in the end. The rightful heir is cripple, who is likely going to be rejected for that very reason by the Lords of the North who don't want to bend the knee to such people.

Rickon would be next, but he is still very young and could thus easily be pushed aside by either Sansa or Jon Snow, depending how things go.

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

Dany might have an issue when pressing her claim against Aegon based on her gender due to the way in which the Dance of the Dragons was resolved, as you point out.  But I think she could overcome that based on the fact that kings and lords reserved the right to appoint their own heirs and that Viserys appointed her.  But I do think that for the reasons you describe, Dany v Aegon is a closer question than Viserys v Aegon.

Considering that there apparently will be a Second Dance - and if that Dance is going to be a war involving (also) Aegon and Daenerys - we'll see that question resolved by poison, murder, battle, and war.

But, yeah, she has to make a case that she is the rightful monarch, and not this Aegon fellow. And doing that only by claiming the boy isn't Rhaegar's son would be pretty cheap. She will never be able to prove that conclusively, anyway, so she should be better make a case as to why she is the rightful heir.

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Viserys never in his life had any supporters. The best he had was a secret marriage pact Dorne didn't trust him enough to ever let him in on. The idea that anyone, especially Targaryen supporters, will care about Viserys's chosen heir, is hilarious.

The lords and people of Westeros will rediscover their Targaryen allegiance quickly enough. And then Viserys III becomes a real factor - and he always was one, he was the king across the water Robert Baratheon feared. They have to choose right now between an impressive young man who might be the son of beloved Rhaegar and two young children who most likely are not the seed of Robert Baratheon. That isn't really a choice.

The point is that Dany can make the case that she is the chosen and anointed heir of her late brother, King Viserys III. That makes her more than just some female Targaryen, it makes her the rightful heiress of the last Targaryen king. And people professing to follow House Targaryen will have some difficulty ignoring or dismissing that fact.

That doesn't mean they will all follow her or declare for her.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Later Catelyn confirms that Ryman is heir by dint of being the eldest son of the late heir, Ser Stevron. And after Ryman is dead, Edwyn -- _his_ eldest son -- is heir, at least according to Edwyn and (implicitly) Walder Rivers.

The whole Frey thing is sort of undercut by Lord Walder's own remark that he could name his youngest son his heir in AGoT. He isn't really serious there, but it seems as if this kind of thing isn't exactly completely outrageous.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

GRRM's remark is more about the way that people can certainly argue all sorts of things. Which is true! Their specific situation may make some argument stronger than some other argument, often on the basis of ideas such as experience or a time of crisis needing a firm hand or what have you. But in general in Westeros, the heir's offspring count ahead of the heir's siblings... except when they don't, as we see with the Frey bunch very much preparing to go for one another's throats, or as we see the Hunters apparently doing according to Littlefinger.

Things seem to be betting really problematic when there is no clear heir. The situation between grandchild vs. younger son, etc. is apparently not so uncommon and can be resolved rather easily, but if it goes down to grandchildren vs. great-grandchildren or cousins of various degree against each other the waters should get murky very quickly.

We see this with the Hornwood inheritance as well as the present issue of the Rosby inheritance. Which indicates that the Iron Throne has to hear and judge various claims that have been put forth.

The details of the succession of those kings who lived those long lives - the two Gardener kings, Edrick Snowbeard, etc. - would be very interesting since in both cases the clear heirs all predeceased the king.

There shouldn't be all that many precedents one can cite when great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren are vying for a throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2017 at 3:17 PM, maudisdottir said:

If you want to be tricky you could interpret it as "it was a lesson she learned long before the lessons she learned in Asshai". She might have been in Asshai, then left to learn a lesson, then came back to Asshai for more lessons. Yeah, I'm not really buying it either, but it's one explanation.

It's possible.  The phrasing is a little clunky, though; I think if most of us were originally from, say, New York City, we wouldn't think of lessons we had learned long before New York City.  

And since Mel is thinking it, not saying it, we know she really believes it.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:34 PM, maudisdottir said:

I also agree that "Melisandre of Asshai" doesn't have to mean that's where she's originally from, only where she is known to have emerged from at some point - where she came from before that isn't really important.

Sure.  However, we're talking about why the app says what it does.  

In the canon, you can see that various characters just think she's from Asshai -- hence the phrase "Melisandre of Asshai."  For instance, Cressen thinks of her this way in his POV chapter in ACOK.

Whereas in the app -- basically a database, no POV structure -- it looks as if it's supposed to be a straight-up fact that she is from Asshai.  Not open to debate.

But now we know that we can't simply read something in the app and assume it's a fact.  Maybe it is, and maybe it's not.

So, with the app just as with the canon, we are responsible for analyzing content against the sum total of relevant facts we have and then drawing our own conclusions, like good journalists have to do in vetting a story.  

That GRRM has two degrees in journalism, one with highest honors, means all this is extremely familiar territory for him and he baked it naturally into his writing.  (I bet it's also what he has in mind in saying that journalism died with the Internet -- emerging news is no longer always vetted by professionals, and the actual professionals aren't always trusted.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, JNR said:

It's possible.  The phrasing is a little clunky, though; I think if most of us were originally from, say, New York City, we wouldn't think of lessons we had learned long before New York City.  

And since Mel is thinking it, not saying it, we know she really believes it.

Sure.  However, we're talking about why the app says what it does.  

In the canon, you can see that various characters just think she's from Asshai -- hence the phrase "Melisandre of Asshai."  For instance, Cressen thinks of her this way in his POV chapter in ACOK.

Whereas in the app -- basically a database, no POV structure -- it looks as if it's supposed to be a straight-up fact that she is from Asshai.  Not open to debate.

But now we know that we can't simply read something in the app and assume it's a fact.  Maybe it is, and maybe it's not.

So, with the app just as with the canon, we are responsible for analyzing content against the sum total of relevant facts we have and then drawing our own conclusions, like good journalists have to do in vetting a story.  

That GRRM has two degrees in journalism, one with highest honors, means all this is extremely familiar territory for him and he baked it naturally into his writing.  (I bet it's also what he has in mind in saying that journalism died with the Internet -- emerging news is no longer always vetted by professionals, and the actual professionals aren't always trusted.)

Doesn't TWOIAF say that there are no children in Asshai? Maybe she had to leave after she was born, but returned later? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Doesn't TWOIAF say that there are no children in Asshai? Maybe she had to leave after she was born, but returned later? 

George already told us that one should not exactly take that rumor collected by Yandel at face value. It is in the same league as the knowledge a medieval European monk may have had about Vietnam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ran said:

 

Dorne practices absolute primogeniture instead, yeah.

 

The case of Egg is, again, a situation where the heir by primogeniture is an infant and so gets passed over. The case of Viserys I is that Laenor was favored by primogeniture, but the lords preferred the male line to take precedence, so it was accounted better to go by proximity instead. 

From A Clash of Kings, the Frey boys reveal their understanding of the situation:

Later Catelyn confirms that Ryman is heir by dint of being the eldest son of the late heir, Ser Stevron. And after Ryman is dead, Edwyn -- _his_ eldest son -- is heir, at least according to Edwyn and (implicitly) Walder Rivers.

GRRM's remark is more about the way that people can certainly argue all sorts of things. Which is true! Their specific situation may make some argument stronger than some other argument, often on the basis of ideas such as experience or a time of crisis needing a firm hand or what have you. But in general in Westeros, the heir's offspring count ahead of the heir's siblings... except when they don't, as we see with the Frey bunch very much preparing to go for one another's throats, or as we see the Hunters apparently doing according to Littlefinger.

The discussion between Little Walder and Big Walder is interesting for a few reasons, not the least of which is that it's a discussion of proximity v precedence.  Little Walder starts by assuming that proximity controls, and Big Walder makes the case for precedence.  

I'm not sure how reliable Big Walder is, though, because he seems to think that Jinglebell and all his (Jinglebell's) sons are high on the list.  And that seems very unlikely.

Also, Catelyn's thoughts on Ryman are not all that clear.  She does not say that Ryman is heir by dint of being Stevron's firstborn son.  She just says that with Stevron dead, Ryman is now the heir.  She does not say that that happened automatically.

Which is interesting because in AGOT, Lord Walder asserts that he has the right to simply choose his heir.  He has to know that with a family as large as his, and with children from so many different wives, he has created a recipe for a Frey family civil war.  And with his advanced age, it is likely he will outlive some of his sons.  So it makes sense that he would lay down some clear rules, in the same way Henry VIII tried to do in real-world history.  So if House Frey is going to follow strict male-preference primogeniture when Walder dies, then that may just be because that is how Lord Walder has set it up in his own unique circumstances.

And that is not enough to persuade me that Aerys had to alter the line of succession in House Targaryen in order for Viserys to be his heir.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

George already told us that one should not exactly take that rumor collected by Yandel at face value. It is in the same league as the knowledge a medieval European monk may have had about Vietnam.

That one specifically? Or the things said about Asshai and other exotic, far off places more generally? Perhaps you could quote the actual SSM? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2017 at 9:09 PM, Lost Melnibonean said:

And could be seen more as a slap in the face to Dorne. Didn't Aerys in his paranoia suspect Dorne for throwing the Battle of the Trident? 

Maybe more than just a slap in the face. The pro-Rhaegar faction at court seems to have had a strong Dornish contingent, and Aegon's sole surviving parent was Elia of Dorne. With Aegon as Aerys' heir, the Dornish who Aerys was so paranoid about were a dagger in the dark away from taking control of the Iron Throne. Aerys may have viewed making Viserys his heir as a simple matter of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The discussion between Little Walder and Big Walder is interesting for a few reasons, not the least of which is that it's a discussion of proximity v precedence.  Little Walder starts by assuming that proximity controls, and Big Walder makes the case for precedence.  

Little Walder doesn't assume it, since he asks. But yes, he's confused on the issue because as I've repeatedly said, arguments for proximity over precedence can and are made, and sometimes are followed for various reasons. Doesn't change the fact that Big Walder is reflecting the default situation.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I'm not sure how reliable Big Walder is, though, because he seems to think that Jinglebell and all his (Jinglebell's) sons are high on the list.  And that seems very unlikely.

They are when you just look at precedence. Doesn't change the fact that it's a weak default in Westeros, which has been George's point.

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Also, Catelyn's thoughts on Ryman are not all that clear.  She does not say that Ryman is heir by dint of being Stevron's firstborn son.  She just says that with Stevron dead, Ryman is now the heir.  She does not say that that happened automatically.

"With his father dead, Ryman was heir to the Twins." I mean, that's pretty straightforward. There's no sign of Walder Frey sending out ravens proclaiming that Ryman is now his heir, etc. It is, again, a reflection of a default understanding. And when Ryman dies, no one starts wondering if Emmon is heir again. It's worth noting that Jaime treats Edwyn as being the rightful leader of the Frey encampment following the dismissal of his father, as well, again favoring precedence over ... well, anything else he might choose, such as experience, where he might have named Walder Rivers the leader.

 

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Which is interesting because in AGOT, Lord Walder asserts that he has the right to simply choose his heir.

Yeah, Walder says a lot. But the fact is that he's probably right that the lord's wishes can carry the day. Look at the situation of Rohanne Webber, who inherits... but from beyond the grave her father's will can control whether she continues to rule or not depending on whether she marries by a certain time, otherwise it goes to some cousin. 

It's a default position in Westeros, but a weak default. It's also why Valarr and Matarys were ahead of Aerys and the rest, per AWoIaF.

"Traditional primogeniture" -- as GRRM refers to it in his write up for the Ironborn chapter (the context is that there are some advantages from the kingsmoot compared to "traditional primogeniture", i.e. no babies or boys, women or cravens, men given to unnatural practices or councils of regents, no madmen or halfwits) -- in our world includes the idea that the eldest sons children have a right to substitute him as heir if he predeceases his father. We have examples of this being the case. We also have examples where it's clear that a choice was made to do something else due to extenuating circumstances. But in all these cases, it's something argued for, not something assumed to be a default. 

If we agree that primogeniture is a norm in Westeros -- and it obviously is -- there's no reason to then doubt evidence in support it just because of an e-mail where George revealed that Westeros has a very weak legal code in regards to inheritance, and this means that the argument from proximity gains more ground especially with extenuating circumstances (i.e. the heir by precedent is incapacitated or an infant).

Long and short of it, after Rhaegar's death, the default assumption was that Aegon was heir. But he was an infant, a classic extenuating circumstance in Westeros, so perhaps people should not have been too surprised by Yandel's report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Marwyn has written of his time in Asshai, and Corlys Velaryon got there as well, a journey that was the subject of a maester's later work based, presumably, on accounts of those who had participated.

That said, perhaps there are children, they were just hidden away from people like Marwyn and Corlys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Maybe more than just a slap in the face. The pro-Rhaegar faction at court seems to have had a strong Dornish contingent, and Aegon's sole surviving parent was Elia of Dorne. With Aegon as Aerys' heir, the Dornish who Aerys was so paranoid about were a dagger in the dark away from taking control of the Iron Throne. Aerys may have viewed making Viserys his heir as a simple matter of survival.

That seems likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zionius said:

 

Thanks! Sounds like he was a bit surprised by the fact, or at least the claim, that there are no children in Asshai. Whether it's true in his mind or not, it seems unlikely to explain how Melisandre could have originated in Asshai and have learned lessons before Asshai. Unless of course, he need to cover up an inconvenient inconsistency.  

Maybe what the George was having Melisandre think about was before some formative event happened in Asshai? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Maybe more than just a slap in the face. The pro-Rhaegar faction at court seems to have had a strong Dornish contingent, and Aegon's sole surviving parent was Elia of Dorne. With Aegon as Aerys' heir, the Dornish who Aerys was so paranoid about were a dagger in the dark away from taking control of the Iron Throne. Aerys may have viewed making Viserys his heir as a simple matter of survival.

As of yet, we don't know where Lewyn and Elia herself stood in relation to Rhaegar after Harrenhal and the continuation of the Lyanna affair. Chances are that Dorne and House Martell viewed Rhaegar much more negatively than they viewed Aerys - just as Robert's hatred of the Targaryens is grounded in his hatred of Rhaegar and not Aerys.

In that sense, Rhaegar's faction at court may have no longer included any Dornishmen after Harrenhal and Lyanna's abduction. The fact that Aerys felt he had to force Doran Martell to send them troops may indicate that the Martells were not exactly looking for serve under or work with Prince Rhaegar - who as per Aerys' orders commanded the Targaryen army.

But in any case - after the Trident, the only Targaryen party at court would have been Aerys' party. Rhaegar was dead, and most of his friends and allies either died with him or were neither at the Trident nor in the capital.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

To be fair, Marwyn has written of his time in Asshai, and Corlys Velaryon got there as well, a journey that was the subject of a maester's later work based, presumably, on accounts of those who had participated.

Was Corlys Velaryon really in Asshai? I seem to recall that TWoIaF explicitly states he didn't get as far as Asshai. He got to the Hundred Islands and Nefer in the north and to Yi Ti and Leng in the south, but that's it.

Marwyn could have provided Yandel with a detailed firsthand account on Asshai, but one assumes that the Mage and the hopelessly conventional Yandel weren't exactly close or likely to ever share information. In addition, there is the chance that Yandel had already completed his book for the most part when Marwyn finally returned from the east. The sidebar of the Asshai section references information provided by Marwyn, but the main text of the section could have been written before Marwyn's return, being little more than some kind of excerpt Yandel compiled by sifting through some second- or thirdhand accounts on the lands by the Jade Sea, etc.

As to the succession issue:

One should keep in mind that George's view on the matter seems to have become more subtle and complex over the years, a fact that's actually reflected in the writing of the novels.

In AGoT, ACoK, and THK women have a stronger claim to the throne than they have later. Myrcella and Shireen are eligible to sit the Iron Throne should their fathers/brothers die - which, as per the 'iron precedent' of 101 AC and the Dance, etc., would be pretty much impossible. Tommen's heir would be Stannis, not Myrcella, and Stannis' heir would be Renly, not Shireen. Yet it is an important plot point in ACoK that Stannis offers Renly to name him his heir - rather, than, you know, merely acknowledging that Renly is his heir anyway, considering that a woman cannot sit the Iron Throne.

And Myrcella's status as Tommen's immediate heir remains an important plot point even in AFfC and ADwD. Not just in Arianne's schemes but also in Tyrion's abandoned plans and Mace Tyrell's potential marriage plans (Ser Kevan suspects he intends to marry Myrcella to his son Willas in the Epilogue).

In that sense, we can say that the succession was much clearer male-based primogeniture with daughters coming after sons but before the brothers, sisters, and nephews/nieces of a monarch. It seems that this system received its first severe crack with the retcon of Viserys II as Aegon III younger brother - previously he had been seen as the fourth son of Aegon III - which caused an uncle to take the throne in place of the sister of a king.

Also, we have Mormont's ACoK tale of the Great Council of 233 AC which essentially makes it clear that the simple Princess Vaella - only child of Prince Daeron the Drunk - was technically first in the line of succession, due to the fact that she was the only child of the eldest son of the king. And we do know that a daughter comes before an uncle, right? In light of all the precedents against female inheritance by the time of 233 AC (not just Aerea/Rhaella, Baelon, Viserys, Aegon II, and Viserys II but also quite recently Aerys I decision to name Maekar his heir rather than Princess Aelora or Princess Daenora) it is rather odd that anyone was considering the claim of a lackwit girl at all.

In addition, THK seems to have a clear-cut line of succession - Baelor Breakspear > Valarr > Matarys, etc. - resembling a more modern monarchy were the line of succession contains dozens or hundreds of people with little to no controversy as to who comes before whom.

In TMK things are much more complex when it is clear that people see Maekar and Bloodraven as King Aerys I's immediate heirs, not mad Rhaegel and his twins.

As to the Frays:

I'm not sure Jaime looking to Edwyn Frey as the leader of the Frey forces means that he acknowledges Edwyn as the new heir to the Twins. He is simply the son of the Frey Lord Walder gave the command of the Frey forces as well as the Frey the Freys at Riverrun consider their new commander in Ryman's absence. Not to mention that Jaime effectlvely made Edwyn the new Frey commander by commanding Ryman to return home.

In the whole field of the administration and military command, etc. seniority and birth order may play a role - but they don't have to. You can give the command of your armies to a younger son if you feel they more competent than your immediate heirs. Just think of Maekar commanding armies during the First Blackfyre Rebellion while Aerys and Rhaegel apparently stayed at home, doing mad and scholarly things, presumably.

As to Coldmoat:

The Webber inheritance is a very important thing because it establishes that lords can make wills regulating their own succession. If Lord Webber could stipulate criteria under which his daughter Rohanne would lose Coldmoat - and if that will was confirmed by Lord Roman, the liege lord of the Webbers (which it was) - then there is no reason to believe that other lords could not make similar wills. Wills stipulating conditions under which their sons, grandsons, brothers, nephews, cousins, etc. would or would not inherit their holdings, title, wealth, etc.

And one assumes that the further down in the feudal hierarchy we go the greater the power of such wills could be, especially if they were approved of by the immediate liege lord - or the king - before said lord actually died.

At the very top such wills cannot be confirmed by a higher authority, of course. But we can be reasonably sure that the Iron Throne did occasionally rule on the succession of some great lordships. Jeyne Arryn's rise to the Eyrie would have been one such case in which the voice of King Jaehaerys I and Queen Alysanne would have been rather crucial. One could also see King Aerys I being involved in ruling on the succession of Lord Tybolt Lannister, confirming little Cerelle as the new Lady of Casterly Rock.

In peaceful times the Iron Throne would have settled succession disputes among all the houses of the Realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest text says no, but the Heirs of the Dragon says yes. It was one of those points where we had to make a choice, but F&B will sort out which is accurate.

I doubt Marwyn personally gave Yandel an account, but rather prepared an account of Asshai for the Citadel, which is what Yandel is referencing. It's true enough that the main text suggests there are no accounts from Asshai to explain all these details, whether true or false, but I think this is more a reference to Marwyn himself only illuminating some details. Probably under a bit of duress. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...