Sticky Sucession

[Curled Finger]

By now most of us recognize that Jon Snow really is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark.  Keep in mind that Lyanna would have been dead last in line among her siblings to inherit Winterfell.  Rhaegar was heir apparent to the Iron Throne, but was killed.   Rhaegar’s known and acknowledged children with his legal wife, Elia Martell, were also killed during Robert’s Rebellion which resulted in the overthrow of Targaryen rule.  Somewhere after the sack of Kings Landing Queen Rhaella Targaryen crowned her son, Rhaegar’s younger brother and only sibling, King of Westeros.   At some point after that Queen Rhaella dies in childbirth bearing what most of us take to be a legitimate Targaryen heir, Princess Daenerys.  

Lyanna Stark, an unlikely heir to Winterfell, died shortly after childbirth.  Rhaegar was already dead when Jon was born.   We don’t know if Jon is a legitimate Targaryen heir via Rhaegar or not although a case could be made for Jon as a bastard of Rhaegar’s to make a claim as a Targaryen should he ever become aware of his parentage.   Only 2 of Rickard Stark’s children bore children so far as we are told, Ned and his 5 children and Lyanna with her solitary son.  Ned was the 2nd son and inherited Winterfell, which should pass on to 1 of his 3 sons or to 1 of his 2 daughters.  Ned has raised Jon as his own bastard, which I believe also gives him the very last claim upon Winterfell.   Theon Greyjoy as a ward has no claim on Winterfell.

Ned’s dead wife Catelyn has 1 living sibling, Edmure, who is expecting a child as well as a nephew, Robert Arryn, her daughter’s son.   Edmure Tully is the legitimate heir to River Run as would be any child resulting from his marriage.    Robert Arryn is a minor child and orphan in very poor health, but he is Lord of the Vale.   His heir is a cousin at least twice removed until such time as Robert can produce an heir he sired.    I would think that Robert Arryn would have a claim on River Run if Edmure and his child an an uncle Blackfish were to perish.  Perhaps the legitimate Stark children have claims as well.  It is possible that Edmure or his child and Catelyn’s children may have claim to the Vale, but it’s very complicated.   I would think that in the event of no direct heir, that is, immediate family, maybe the rule goes to someone established within the region.  

So let’s talk about sucession.  Do the Tully grandchildren have claims in any of the lands their parents didn’t marry into or even River Run?   If a reigning king is dead can the Queen crown an heir? If the reigning king is dead and knows the royal children are not the king’s children  can he name the king’s brother heir? If Jon Snow is a bastard all the way around where does he really stand with inheritances to both his families?   If Jon is legitimized as a Stark, what does that do to his claim on the throne?  Is Dany the legitimate Targ heir if Rhaegar had a bastard child? Who gets first claim to the Vale when Robert Arryn dies if Harry is dead?  Harry’s got bastard daughters and Robert’s got cousins.   Does Edmure’s child get first right of refusal being the child of the only son of Hoster?  Do Cat’s kids get some advantage being the eldest child’s children?   If the Tullys are all completely wiped out who gets 1st crack at River Run, the eldest or younger daughter’s children or just the eldest boy of the grandchildren?  

I would think the potential rule over 3 regions would be a thing no rulers or subservients wants.   Seems to me there would be a monopoly that measures would be taken to prevent?  I look forward to reading your thoughts on this complicated situation we may be close to seeing.  

[velo-knight]

Well, generally agnatic-cognatic primogeniture applies, and the rules are theoretically very clear. GRRM has made it clear in statements that the rules matter, but so does power and ability - meaning that very young lordlings and women may find it more difficult to successfully ascend to their 'rightful' seats if a strong male figure with a competing claim is around (but again, not preventing it).

Bastardy is tricky, because you have to deal with:

1. Legal status coming from kings, and whether their kingships are recognized
2. Whether in fact Jon is legitimate
3. Whether he can prove or be seen to be legitimate.
4. Where exactly bastards fall: in the same place a trueborns, at the back of their "tier" (so male bastards behind male trueborns, but before female trueborns, regardless of age), or at the very back of the succession.

Cat and her kids have claims to Riverrun after Edmure and his child, in the following order: Cat, Robb, Bran, Rickon, Sansa, Arya. The reason Sansa and Arya are ahead of Lysa and Sweetrobin is that male-preference primogeniture is generally held to extend within a household, but not past it: ie, sons before daughters, but still daughters before uncles (or male cousins). Again, this is tricky in practice, but that's the technical order. Sweetrobin has no claim to Winterfell, nor the Starklings to the Eyrie, nor Edmure's brood to either.

For the Targs: it depends on whether you accept Aerys decree of Viserys as his heir. In that case, the Targaryen Succession is Aerys - Viserys - Daenerys - Rhaella - Robert Baratheon - Stannis - Renly - Selwyn? - Brienne?. If you don't accept the decree, or you believe it was only a stopgap meant to give the realm a slightly less boy-king should he die, then Jon's status is based on whether A.) he is a bastard at all (assume for the moment that to be legitimate he also must prove legitimacy), B.) where a legitimized bastard comes in the Targaryen succession, which is much more male-preference than traditional agnatic-cognatic systems. If Jon's truly legitimate from a polygamous marriage, can prove it, and make people accept it, then he's the rightful Targaryen monarch - if not, Dany is. Supposing Dany or some other claimant took the throne, they might decide to include Jon a specific place in the succession based on their assessment of his various claims, but I don't see him on the Iron Throne without a lot of help.

The Vale and Riverrun: presumably if Harry the Heir exists, other people with a formerly distant but now credible claim to each seat also exist. The Starklings do have quite a strong claim to Riverrun, and Robb's generally respected leadership in the Riverlands likely means any of the Stark-Tullys with an ounce of military credibility would be widely accepted there.

[kissdbyfire]

It is all very complicated, isn't it? There are rules of inheritance, but Martin has said these laws of inheritance are not simple or straightforward.

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

Secret eye thingy to save space. 

Spoiler

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars. The Hundred Years War grew out of a dispute about whether a nephew or a grandson of Philip the Fair had a better claim to the throne of France. The nephew got the decision, because the grandson's claim passed through a daughter (and because he was the king of England too). And that mess was complicated by one of the precedents (the Salic Law) that had been invented a short time before to resolve the dispute after the death of Philip's eldest son, where the claimants were (1) the daughter of Philip's eldest son, who may or may not have been a bastard, her mother having been an adulteress, (2) the unborn child of the eldest son that his secon wife was carrying, sex unknown, and (3) Philip's second son, another Philip. Lawyers for (3) dug up the Salic Law to exclude (1) and possibly (2) if she was a girl, but (2) was a boy so he became king, only he died a week later, and (3) got the throne after all. But then when he died, his own children, all daughters, were excluded on the basis of the law he's dug up, and the throne went to the youngest son instead... and meanwhile (1) had kids, one of whom eventually was the king of Navarre, Charles the Bad, who was such a scumbag in the Hundred Years War in part because he felt =his= claim was better than that of either Philip of Valois or Edward Plantagenet. And you know, it was. Only Navarre did not have an army as big as France or England, so no one took him seriously.

The Wars of the Roses were fought over the issue of whether the Lancastrian claim (deriving from the third son of Edward III in direct male line) or the Yorkist claim (deriving from a combination of Edward's second son, but through a female line, wed to descendants of his fourth son, through the male) was superior. And a whole family of legitimized bastard stock, the Beauforts, played a huge role.

And when Alexander III, King of Scots, rode over a cliff, and Margaret the Maid of Norway died en route back home, and the Scottish lords called on Edward I of England to decide who had the best claim to the throne, something like fourteen or fifteen (I'd need to look up the exact number) "competitors" came forward to present their pedigrees and documents to the court. The decision eventually boiled down to precedence (John Balliol) versus proximity (Bruce) and went to Balliol, but those other thirteen guys all had claims as well. King of Eric of Norway, for instance, based his claim to the throne on his =daughter=, the aforementioned Maid of Norway, who had been the queen however briefly. He seemed to believe that inheritance should run backwards. And hell, if he had been the king of France instead of the king of Norway, maybe it would have.

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

 

[velo-knight]

I'd also like to make an observation: "all the way behind all other claimants" is virtually synonymous with "no claim at all". Whether it's women or legitimized bastards, "back of the line" makes no sense. If a title-holder dies and has only living daughters / female descendants, then their claims can still be disregarded for the title-holder's brothers, nephews, etc., - and if they are all dead, his male-line cousins (male heirs of father's brothers, etc.,). There are always people with a hypothetical claim. That's what makes Targaryen succession so problematic. Daenerys is only able to have a stronger Targaryen claim than Robert because all direct male connections are dead and Robert is a female-line Targaryen descendant. With legitimized bastards it's even more unclear, since you can keep finding legitimate cousins of various degrees.

[Lord Varys]

35 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

So let’s talk about sucession.  Do the Tully grandchildren have claims in any of the lands their parents didn’t marry into or even River Run?   If a reigning king is dead can the Queen crown an heir? If the reigning king is dead and knows the royal children are not the king’s children  can he name the king’s brother heir?

Such claims exist, but they are comparable weak. But they are used when it is convenient. Quite a few people tried to lay claim to the Hornwood lands and titles by virtue of marrying the dowager lady Donella, with Ramsay Snow eventually succeeding. Barbrey Ryswell Dustin rules Barrowton by the virtue of her marriage to the late Lord Willam Dustin.

In Dorne, Princess Nymeria claimed rule of Sunspear and all Dorne after the early death of her husband, Prince Mors. Dorne only passed to her eldest daughter after her death decades later.

This kind of thing does happen, but it usually takes either especially forceful and charismatic women or a situation where there is no clear heir around - meaning only bastards and/or very distant and obscure cousin.

Being the consort of a lord or king gives you great power and prestige. People look up to you and see you as sharing in the rule of your husband - especially if you actually do share in it. And then you certainly can try to stick to it and not let it go if he dies untimely. Usually you would do that for your minor children, of course, but if they aren't there you can certainly do it for yourself and the memory of your late husband. You don't want it all to go to ugly and distant relations.

35 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

If Jon Snow is a bastard all the way around where does he really stand with inheritances to both his families?   If Jon is legitimized as a Stark, what does that do to his claim on the throne?

If Jon is actually legitimized as a Stark he'll lose his claim to the Iron Throne. People will legitimize him as Eddard Stark's son in such a scenario, not as Lyanna Stark's son. And Eddard Stark didn't have an affair with a Targaryen princess. Perhaps Jon could try to claim Starfall then, if people believe his mother was Lady Ashara Dayne.

35 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

Is Dany the legitimate Targ heir if Rhaegar had a bastard child?

Aerys II made Viserys III his heir after Rhaegar's death. And Viserys III named his sister Daenerys his heir in exile. She is even styled Princess of Dragonstone in AGoT. Daenerys is not only the last scion of House Targaryen but also unquestionably the heiress of her late brother, King Viserys III.

Jon Snow can never hope to challenge that because he cannot even prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is Rhaegar's son, never mind that he was born in wedlock. And nobody outside of House Targaryen - in fact, nobody but a rightful monarch on the Iron Throne - could legitimize Jon Snow or adopt him into the royal family.

35 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

Who gets first claim to the Vale when Robert Arryn dies if Harry is dead?  Harry’s got bastard daughters and Robert’s got cousins.

While Lysa was still alive they could actually have tried to install some of her kin as heirs of Robert. People like Sansa. But now that is much more difficult. There must be other, more distant Arryn cousins, but we don't know who they are. Harry's bastards are too young and definitely out of the race if they are not legitimized. They are baseborn on their mother's side, after all.

35 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

Does Edmure’s child get first right of refusal being the child of the only son of Hoster?  Do Cat’s kids get some advantage being the eldest child’s children?   If the Tullys are all completely wiped out who gets 1st crack at River Run, the eldest or younger daughter’s children or just the eldest boy of the grandchildren?  

I don't see the Tullys laying claim to the Riverlands, especially not since right now Robert Arryn's stepfather is technically the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands. Littlefinger could strengthen his claim to the Riverlands by also pushing Robert Arryn's claim to Riverrun. The fact that he is male should make it stronger than Sansa's. Nobody should like to want to bent the knee to a cripple so Rickon Stark might have a shot, too, but he is very young and still believed to be dead. Lord Robert, on the other hand, is the Lord of the Vale. He has prestige and (and at least nominally) power to enforce his claim.

35 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

I would think the potential rule over 3 regions would be a thing no rulers or subservients wants.   Seems to me there would be a monopoly that measures would be taken to prevent?  I look forward to reading your thoughts on this complicated situation we may be close to seeing.  

I actually doubt we'll see any of that. I doubt Edmure is going to die. He rather seems like a character who might come to fore now that he has gone through a lot of unpleasant things. But even if he was to die and his unborn child and wife, too - the Tully laying claim to Riverrun and the Riverlands is not going to be a child, it will be Catelyn Tully herself. She has returned from death, after all, and she has even figured out how to speak again. She may not going to be kind or forgiving ruler but the endpoint of her quest is not death in some cave but instead power. Power to avenge herself and her children on all her enemies, real or imagined.

If she can save Edmure she might prop up him as her mouthpiece as long as she does not want to reveal herself.

[Curled Finger]

@velo-knight and @kissdbyfire, thanks very much for the legal lesson.   It's all very good stuff.   My questions stem from reading numerous discussions about Sansa's potential sway over all these regions and the possible claim she could make on the Westerlands.    I think she's given way too much potential here, but that's my take.

It's my understanding that Rhaella crowned Viserys.   Aerys was dead and a new king was either on the throne or just about on the throne.   Can the Queen of an overthrown King really crown her son king?   I would think she had zero power or say at the time this was done.   Just as I'm not sure Ned as Hand could actually withhold the crown from Robert's son.  Perhaps once paternity could be disproven or at least serious shade cast on it, but not at the time of Robert's death.  Though I think there was a small loophole in writing Ned in as Regent.  As we saw, Cersei, the better connected, was able to do as she pleased politically.  

It is that connection through cousins in the male and female lines that gives rise to the topic.   Real history is great and meaningful.   But this is the situation we are dealing with.  If a cousin in the male line would have a greater claim than a cousin in the female line wouldn't Edmure and his (male) child have a claim to the Vale?   There are no more Arryns unless Harold Hardyng  has relatives and I'm not sure he actually does.   Though I'm sure that there is Arryn blood in all the noble houses of the Vale.    

[Curled Finger]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This kind of thing does happen, but it usually takes either especially forceful and charismatic women or a situation where there is no clear heir around - meaning only bastards and/or very distant and obscure cousin.

If Jon is actually legitimized as a Stark he'll lose his claim to the Iron Throne. People will legitimize him as Eddard Stark's son in such a scenario, not as Lyanna Stark's son.

Aerys II made Viserys III his heir after Rhaegar's death. And Viserys III named his sister Daenerys his heir in exile. She is even styled Princess of Dragonstone in AGoT. Daenerys is not only the last scion of House Targaryen but also unquestionably the heiress of her late brother, King Viserys III.

Jon Snow can never hope to challenge that because he cannot even prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is Rhaegar's son, never mind that he was born in wedlock. And nobody outside of House Targaryen - in fact, nobody but a rightful monarch on the Iron Throne - could legitimize Jon Snow or adopt him into the royal family.

While Lysa was still alive they could actually have tried to install some of her kin as heirs of Robert. People like Sansa. But now that is much more difficult. There must be other, more distant Arryn cousins, but we don't know who they are. Harry's bastards are too young and definitely out of the race if they are not legitimized. They are baseborn on their mother's side, after all.

I don't see the Tullys laying claim to the Riverlands, especially not since right now Robert Arryn's stepfather is technically the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands. Littlefinger could strengthen his claim to the Riverlands by also pushing Robert Arryn's claim to Riverrun. The fact that he is male should make it stronger than Sansa's. Nobody should like to want to bent the knee to a cripple so Rickon Stark might have a shot, too, but he is very young and still believed to be dead. Lord Robert, on the other hand, is the Lord of the Vale. He has prestige and (and at least nominally) power to enforce his claim.

I actually doubt we'll see any of that. I doubt Edmure is going to die. He rather seems like a character who might come to fore now that he has gone through a lot of unpleasant things. But even if he was to die and his unborn child and wife, too - the Tully laying claim to Riverrun and the Riverlands is not going to be a child, it will be Catelyn Tully herself. She has returned from death, after all, and she has even figured out how to speak again. She may not going to be kind or forgiving ruler but the endpoint of her quest is not death in some cave but instead power. Power to avenge herself and her children on all her enemies, real or imagined.

If she can save Edmure she might prop up him as her mouthpiece as long as she does not want to reveal herself.

Ah that's some great 'splaining, Lord Varys.   I was angling for an absolute answer on the Jon Snow question.    I would think that being a legitimate ONE would obliterate a legitimate claim to THE OTHER.   Starks don't have claim to Targ anything and vice versa.   Very nice.  

I realize the Tullys probably won't find themselves fat and happy Lords again.  But frickin Little Finger is an ugly shadow in the corner of everything happening in the Riverlands.   He could try to prop Lord Arryn or Lady Sansa up, but he would have to be ready to take on the Lannisters and I don't think it's quite ready yet.  

Nice twist bringing Lady Stoneheart in.   Didn't see that coming, but a very nice surprise take on things.    

[Count Balerion]

Another complicating factor, in theory, is the council's decision (around 100 AC, I think) to exclude women from the royal succession. In theory, that would mean Daenerys couldn't rule. But 1. I'm not sure how legally binding that decision is; 2. in the absence of any other claimant (i.e., if Jon Snowgaryen isn't recognised), couldn't it be set aside?; 3. Dany has dragons.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

Ah that's some great 'splaining, Lord Varys.   I was angling for an absolute answer on the Jon Snow question.    I would think that being a legitimate ONE would obliterate a legitimate claim to THE OTHER.   Starks don't have claim to Targ anything and vice versa.   Very nice. 

Well, if Eddard's children all die then Jon could also lay claim to Winterfell, of course, as Lyanna's (legitimized) son. But for that to happen he would have to acknowledged and recognized as her son by Rhaegar. Wouldn't that be nice, we would have a Targaryen Lord of Winterfell...

It would be much more easier for him to claim Winterfell as Ned's son, though, since that would make him of the male line.

3 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

I realize the Tullys probably won't find themselves fat and happy Lords again.  But frickin Little Finger is an ugly shadow in the corner of everything happening in the Riverlands.   He could try to prop Lord Arryn or Lady Sansa up, but he would have to be ready to take on the Lannisters and I don't think it's quite ready yet.  

I doubt Littlefinger will care all that much about this. He has the Vale, and with its power they are more likely to mess with the Iron Throne by supporting Aegon or something of that sort than to try to put the Riverlands to rights. That's something the Riverlords can do on their own.

3 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

Nice twist bringing Lady Stoneheart in.   Didn't see that coming, but a very nice surprise take on things.    

People often overlook that Catelyn is back. Somehow they think just because nobody knows she is out there she isn't there. But she is. And she will retake Riverrun and cruelly kill both Emmon Frey and Genna Lannister. And then she will be the new Lady of Riverrun.

[velo-knight]

I have to say, I disagree on the "legitimization as a Stark kill Jon's claim to the IT". In any circumstance where he'd make such a claim, he'd presumably declare to the public that he is in fact Rhaegar's son, and that he only recently discovered this evidence. There will be those - likely many - who view this as self-serving and dishonest / illegitimate, but would any of those people really have felt any different if he hadn't ever been legitimized as a Stark of Winterfell? I doubt it. The best answer is, "legitimization as Eddard Stark's son suppresses Jon's claim and creates a legal and public relations knot to untangle to lay a claim to the Iron Throne, possibly making it unlikely to succeed". That's very different from "obliteration" of a claim in my mind.

[Curled Finger]

3 minutes ago, Count Balerion said:

Another complicating factor, in theory, is the council's decision (around 100 AC, I think) to exclude women from the royal succession. In theory, that would mean Daenerys couldn't rule. But 1. I'm not sure how legally binding that decision is; 2. in the absence of any other claimant (i.e., if Jon Snowgaryen isn't recognised), couldn't it be set aside?; 3. Dany has dragons.

All I have for the Council is that Viserys did name Rhaenrya his heir.  Aegon had no inclination to take the throne.

Prince Aegon was with a paramour when he was found. At first, the prince refused to be a part of his mother’s plans. “My sister is the heir, not me,” he said. “What sort of brother steals his sister’s birthright?”  TPATQ

Perhaps Rhaenyra or Viserys, rather, set precedent?   If the eldest son took it for granted his sister would rule and so many lords supported Rhaenyra's claim, it looks like Allicent was all that stood in Rhaenyra's way.

[Curled Finger]

2 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

I have to say, I disagree on the "legitimization as a Stark kill Jon's claim to the IT". In any circumstance where he'd make such a claim, he'd presumably declare to the public that he is in fact Rhaegar's son, and that he only recently discovered this evidence. There will be those - likely many - who view this as self-serving and dishonest / illegitimate, but would any of those people really have felt any different if he hadn't ever been legitimized as a Stark of Winterfell? I doubt it. The best answer is, "legitimization as Eddard Stark's son suppresses Jon's claim and creates a legal and public relations knot to untangle to lay a claim to the Iron Throne, possibly making it unlikely to succeed". That's very different from "obliteration" of a claim in my mind.

That's why I love an open discussion.    Your exception is noted and appreciated.   In my simple way of seeing things, one would discount the other.   Many readers appreciate that a good claim to the Iron Throne would propel Jon to action whereas many others read Jon's character as more propelled by Stark worthiness (for lack of a better term).   We sympathize with Jon as he struggles with his identity which is definitely Stark.   I'm not sure what being a Targ will actually do for Jon outside what it does for me.   It explains Ned's sacrifice and love.   It gives poor misunderstood Jon an edge over all but 2 other players in the game.  

In a tale as long as ASOIAF I still hold out hope I will read "The End" in my lifetime within 2 books.   Again, the simple minded trusting in an end and assuming there isn't enough time for Jon to become a Targ.    I was hoping for Jon to be who he wanted to be from the beginning, not the Prince That Was Promised.  

[Curled Finger]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I doubt Littlefinger will care all that much about this. He has the Vale, and with its power they are more likely to mess with the Iron Throne by supporting Aegon or something of that sort than to try to put the Riverlands to rights. That's something the Riverlords can do on their own.

As I read this it occurred to me frickin Little Finger is collecting Hoster's grandchildren.   Ick.   Let's hope Edmure's child takes the long way around by way of Dorne or something.   Ick.

[Lollygag]

If you look past the Targs and the dragon wars in the Dance with Dragons short story whose title I can never remember, GRRM does quite a good job of laying out different succession scenarios with the Targs and other families in the story, some with fairly close parallels to some of the Stark kids.

[bent branch]

The problem with trying to figure out succession in ASOIAF is that GRRM mixes up a form of land tenure and the modern idea of private property (this concept has existed for only about 200 to three hundred years). The incident with Donella Hornwood is totally something that could only arise under the concept of private property. Under land tenure a man couldn't lay claim to land simply by marrying a widow who is not herself a proper heir to the property. Under land tenure (of which many different variations exist) all the land belongs to the monarch. Generally a person received a charter when they were given the land with the condition under which they and their descendents were allowed to keep the land. In a case like Donella's, she would either return to the home of her birth family or to the church. The monarch would want to name the new tenant of that land him or herself. Particularly in the situation of war. The victor would want to give the property as a reward to a loyal follower. Anyhow, rules in ASOIAF are pretty much whatever GRRM wants. He wanted Donella to be able to inherit Hornwood, because he wanted to use that as an introduction to Ramsey. It is writer's prerogative.

As to Sansa, neither she nor any of her siblings have any claim to the Vale. Even if she were to marry the Lord of the Vale, Robin or Harry, she would still not have a direct claim on the Vale. The only claim she could have would be through her child with Robin or Harry. Sansa doesn't have a claim to the Westerlands because even if she could make a claim through her husband, Tyrion has been attainted. Sansa has no claim to Winterfell because Robb disinherited her. Sansa also has no claim to Riverrun because the Tully family has been attainted and lost their claim to Riverrun and her claim would only be through her Tully relatives.

So basically Sansa neither has nor will she have anything. Of course, GRRM can always change his mind.

[TMIFairy]

21 minutes ago, bent branch said:

The problem with trying to figure out succession in ASOIAF is that GRRM mixes up a form of land tenure and the modern idea of private property (this concept has existed for only about 200 to three hundred years). The incident with Donella Hornwood is totally something that could only arise under the concept of private property. Under land tenure a man couldn't lay claim to land simply by marrying a widow who is not herself a proper heir to the property. Under land tenure (of which many different variations exist) all the land belongs to the monarch. Generally a person received a charter when they were given the land with the condition under which they and their descendents were allowed to keep the land. In a case like Donella's, she would either return to the home of her birth family or to the church. The monarch would want to name the new tenant of that land him or herself. Particularly in the situation of war. The victor would want to give the property as a reward to a loyal follower. Anyhow, rules in ASOIAF are pretty much whatever GRRM wants. He wanted Donella to be able to inherit Hornwood, because he wanted to use that as an introduction to Ramsey. It is writer's prerogative.

 

Full agreement - Donella Hornwood and Barbery Dustin mess up an otherwise quite consistent picture.

To simplify things:

1 - Jon, as a bastard, has claim to nothing. On top of that he is a sworn Black Brother. In the crazy circumstances of the War of Five Kings - Ned's trueborn children KIA or MIA - he might make a claim to Winterfell and even be supported. If he is Rhaegar's and somehow this fact becomes know and is BELIEVED he might - or might not - lose support for his hyptothetical claim for WF. As to the Iron Throne - if any Targ sympathiser buys the story of hm being Rhaegar's then - unless said sympathiser has a problem with backing either Faegon or Danaerys, only then would he support a horsefaced, dark haired Northman.

Either way Jon has no claim to the Riverlands.

2 - Rhaella had no "right" to crown Viserys. But politics is not about "legal right" but about what "might makes right" in "the right circumstances". It was simply a demonstration to the remaining Targ soldiers at Dragonstone that Viserys is now their King. With Aerys, Rheagar and Aegon dead, was there anybody else?

3 - the line of succession to RR after Edmure already has been given. One "So spake Martin" states that "Westeros does not like the accumulation of lands/titles", so e.g. Robert Arryn - if he lives, inherits RR, and has children - would have to spin off RR to his 2nd son/child.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

On 10.7.2017 at 3:30 AM, velo-knight said:

I have to say, I disagree on the "legitimization as a Stark kill Jon's claim to the IT". In any circumstance where he'd make such a claim, he'd presumably declare to the public that he is in fact Rhaegar's son, and that he only recently discovered this evidence. There will be those - likely many - who view this as self-serving and dishonest / illegitimate, but would any of those people really have felt any different if he hadn't ever been legitimized as a Stark of Winterfell? I doubt it. The best answer is, "legitimization as Eddard Stark's son suppresses Jon's claim and creates a legal and public relations knot to untangle to lay a claim to the Iron Throne, possibly making it unlikely to succeed". That's very different from "obliteration" of a claim in my mind.

Well, he could try to use the revelation of his true identity as a springboard from the northern throne (if Robb's last will legitimized him as Jon Stark, son of Lord Eddard, and he eventually becomes King in the North of the basis of that - in light of the fact of the existence of Rickon, Bran, Sansa, and Arya the latter outcome isn't all that likely) to the Iron Throne, but the chances that the people who made him King in the North would also support his claim to the Iron Throne (or be sufficient to help claim it) is very unlikely.

And there is certainly the very strong possibility that those men supporting his Stark claim as Robb's heir would simply not want him to be Lyanna Stark's son by Rhaegar Targaryen because that would simply complicate things. Eddard Stark's legitimized bastard might be able to push aside Bran, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya (Jon is older than all of them, after all) while Lyanna's son would only be a Stark through the female line and would thus have less of claim than any of Eddard Stark's children by Catelyn Tully.

It is not clear whether a legitimized bastard comes behind all the trueborn children or wherever he should become by the order of birth.

And it is not that unlikely that a Jon Stark would simply be supported by quite a few lords because of his age (assuming the Night's Watch thing is overcome). A grown-up lord or king is very much preferred to a cripple boy, a very young boy, or a girl. He could lead and rule in his own right. Rickon, Bran, Sansa, or Arya could not.

But since Howland Reed seems to control Robb's will right now I doubt we'll see it being revealed without the truth of Jon's parentage being revealed at the same time. Anything else would be very odd.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

It will be so hilarious when its revealed that r+l isnt j lol-

[TMIFairy]

1 hour ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

It will be so hilarious when its revealed that r+l isnt j lol-

Yup

[Ser_Jon_General]

Something to consider is the idea of a character declaring themselves ruler versus others declaring them rulers.

We've already seen that people can declare themselves King, that does not mean that people are forced to agree with them.  We, the readers, know that Stannis is the rightful ruler yet very few other lords agree with him and he struggles to attract forces.  Renly had a really sketchy claim to the throne and yet he gathered the strongest force to claim it.

Also consider the Great Council ruling on female succession, in theory it should mean that Dany is blocked from ruling, however in practice she's likely to turn up with several thousand Unsullied, perhaps an entire Dothraki horde and, most importantly, a dragon or three.  Anyone wishing to debate legalese with her is likely to become a short snack for her pets.

On the Tully lands and claims, if the main Tully line is dead then the Stark children (and Robert Arryn) would be in line to succeed.  However, their rule would be reliant on the other Riverlords supporting them.  The easiest route to fix that would be for the claimant (presumably Sansa, Arya or Rickon) to adopt the Tully name.  It may raise a few eyebrows but most would go along with it, especially if it came with a marriage pact to another Riverlands family.

Medieval-style laws were not the hard-and-fast rules we have today, there was no going-40-in-a-30-zone type law where a clear example of rule breaking would lead to a cut-and-dried conviction.  The "laws" are more of a best practice guide and succession laws are no different, you can have all the rights on your side and yet completely lack the support to enforce them.