jons nissa Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I keep telling you, the Martells! :D Who wouldn't want to see King Oberyn, First of His Name? as much as i love the idea of the martells in the red keep, the martells don't have a chance in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 With Stannis and Shireen attainted per the Iron Throne's view, I suspect the throne would be declared vacant after Tommen and Myrcella died and a new royal house chosen, rather than chasing after some distant Baratheon relation who has no actual descent from a Baratheon king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatever Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 as much as i love the idea of the martells in the red keep, the martells don't have a chance in hell.don't stop believin(Though I agree, it's wishful thinking.) ETA: I was quoting the Journey, not Glee; let's make this clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jons nissa Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 With Stannis and Shireen attainted per the Iron Throne's view, I suspect the throne would be declared vacant after Tommen and Myrcella died and a new royal house chosen, rather than chasing after some distant Baratheon relation who has no actual descent from a Baratheon king. which is how succession is usually handled, right? the royal family just gives up the throne rather than find a relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 which is how succession is usually handled, right? the royal family just gives up the throne rather than find a relative. In this case, "the royal family" is a smokescreen for the Lannisters and the Tyrells. There are no known Baratheon relatives within the last few generations, in any event, and certainly not any within the power of the aforementioned families. Steffon had no siblings that we know of, and there's a possible sibling of Steffon's father (Harbert) but no mentioned descendants, etc. The Lannisters or Tyrells (depending on who was the predominant power) would most likely just declare themselves the new royal house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jons nissa Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 There are no known Baratheon relatives within the last few generations, just as how cat was coming up with names of "starks" that robb could name as his heir, i'm sure there are "baratheons". eta: and it could very much work out for the tyrells and lannisters to do this since a long lost cousin , especially a young one, would have no idea of how to rule and would require a regent, hand, queen and council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 just as how cat was coming up with names of "starks" that robb could name as his heir, i'm sure there are "baratheons". Yeah, but just as with that case, there aren't any of real association with the current line, and said current line is a front for two other houses, not a force in its own right. The Baratheon name, at this point, is just a mask for the Lannisters and Tyrells. We don't have any idea who the nearest Baratheon descendant is, and if they're in any way amenable to the current controlling powers in King's Landing. Most likely, said powers wouldn't bother pursuing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jons nissa Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Yeah, but just as with that case, there aren't any of real association with the current line, and said current line is a front for two other houses, not a force in its own right. The Baratheon name, at this point, is just a mask for the Lannisters and Tyrells. We don't have any idea who the nearest Baratheon descendant is, and if they're in any way amenable to the current controlling powers in King's Landing. Most likely, said powers wouldn't bother pursuing it. even if all of this is the case, the tyrells and lannisters cannot just say "we're in charge now" unless they are prepared to defend that. in other words, another rebellion. that's always possible. having the queen or queen mother of the reigning king who just died say well, now it's my family's turn is not considered succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 even if all of this is the case, the tyrells and lannisters cannot just say "we're in charge now" unless they are prepared to defend that. in other words, another rebellion. that's always possible. having the queen or queen mother of the reigning king who just died say well, now it's my family's turn is not considered succession. They pretty much are prepared to defend that though. The 9 administrative regions of westeros are mostly in pocket outside of Dorne, the Vale, Iron Islands, and whatever shattered remnants of armies are left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime FTW Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I should be Stannis but since he is rebeling and Shireen is with him they're both knocked out of succession. I'd guess some Lannister is next. definitely not a Lannister, because Throne officially belongs to Baratheons. my guess is Edric Strom. he is the only acknowledge Robert's bastard. it would be awesome if he gets the Throne. everyone loves Edric. but for now i'm rooting for Stannis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jons nissa Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 They pretty much are prepared to defend that though. The 9 administrative regions of westeros are mostly in pocket outside of Dorne, the Vale, Iron Islands, and whatever shattered remnants of armies are left. which is fine, but that is not succession. it is rebellion. also called a coup. also, i'm not sure if all the regions of westeros would support that but depending on the timing, there may be little desire for another full blown war so it's entirely possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevvy Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 If we're basing it on Baratheon lineage, wouldn't it pass to the Estermonts assuming Stannis and Shireen died? Eldon Estermont is the brother to Stannis' grandfather, which means there's the blood ties at least... No? I'll see myself out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrich Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 If we're basing it on Baratheon lineage, wouldn't it pass to the Estermonts assuming Stannis and Shireen died? Eldon Estermont is the brother to Stannis' grandfather, which means there's the blood ties at least... No? I'll see myself out... No, its the same case as with Lannisters, or Targs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 If we're basing it on Baratheon lineage, wouldn't it pass to the Estermonts assuming Stannis and Shireen died? Eldon Estermont is the brother to Stannis' grandfather, which means there's the blood ties at least... No? I'll see myself out... No. Estermonts don't have Baratheon blood, Baratheon have Estermonts' blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatever Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 If we're basing it on Baratheon lineage, wouldn't it pass to the Estermonts assuming Stannis and Shireen died? Eldon Estermont is the brother to Stannis' grandfather, which means there's the blood ties at least... No? I'll see myself out... The problem is that (according to Ned in AGOT) Robert still claimed the Throne because of his Targ blood, the 'he had the better claim' bit. It's fiction, of course, since King Bob hated the Targs, but there you have it. Seriously speaking, if Myrcella were to die IMO it would be just anarchy -- with Kevan dead, probably the Tyrells would seize the Throne. The kingdoms won't all secede since most of them are in no condition to risk another war, but Dorne will, so will the Vale (Littlefinger) and Bolton, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Do any of the Lannisters have a claim to the throne? If Myrcella, Tommen, Stannis and Shireen die, would any other Lannisters (e.g. Jaime or Tyrion) have a claim by being blood relative to the queen. I'm not sure about Westerosi law, but I know in some cases in Medieval times where in the absence of children someone related to the queen's family inherited the throne. Some of the Lannisters might have a better claim than any non-Baratheon.So, the in-laws? Despite of what you've heard here, it's not out of the realm of possibility. That's how House of Romanov got Moscow; Michael I's claim, as it was, was through his great-aunt married to Ivan the Terrible. Another example you'll find in an SSM on inheritance. The one almost inevitably linked and/or quoted in most discussions about succession, and yet somehow a lot of people here seems to think that the issue is simple and clear-cut. It's anything but.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.(...)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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jons nissa Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 So, the in-laws? Despite of what you've heard here, it's not out of the realm of possibility. That's how House of Romanov got Moscow; Michael I's claim, as it was, was through his great-aunt married to Ivan the Terrible. Another example you'll find in an SSM on inheritance. The one almost inevitably linked and/or quoted in most discussions about succession, and yet somehow a lot of people here seems to think that the issue is simple and clear-cut. It's anything but.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.(...)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. but you've only included a small part of the quote so the context looks like anyone could claim the throne. as the quote stands, martin gives specific examples as part of the question and none of them are relatives of a spouse. the best one could reach for, based on the quote from grrm, is widow, which is margaery. that could potentially work for a while but if she remarried, and then had a child...... considering the amount of detail grrm chooses to share and none of it supports someone who is connected to the dead king by blood, assuming the family of the spouse of the king can succeed the throne is quite a stretch. it appears to be about blood or swords and probably, both. ssm: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatever Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 So, all in all, to summarize: I'm guessing it'd be messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jons nissa Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 So, all in all, to summarize: I'm guessing it'd be messy. this is the only thing we can be absolutely sure of. grrm himself has said several people will sit on the throne before the story's done. i think this is his way of saying there will be huge turmoil for control of the throne. it will not be a smooth succession at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 which is fine, but that is not succession. it is rebellion. also called a coup. also, i'm not sure if all the regions of westeros would support that but depending on the timing, there may be little desire for another full blown war so it's entirely possible. If the proper Baratheon succession is exhausted, it doesn't really matter. Moreover, everybody knows that the Lannisters/Tyrells are the ones actually running the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.