Westeros Law Regarding Female Heirs

[RumHam]

There's definitely some misogyny involved, I think it's always gonna be harder for a female heir to gather support than a male one. Do know for sure that Jaehaera outlived Aegon II? I can't see the Greens putting Aegon III on the throne of they had any other option, female or not. The Rogue Prince made it even more clear that the Dance wasn't really a war to keep a woman off the throne.

I don't remember who Egg was up against, Daeron the Drunken's infant daughter? But yeah that's a bad example because it was a Great Council.

[E-Ro]

It was established here

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Comic_Con_San_Diego_CA_July_20_232/

There's also the fact Prince Daeron's daughter was passed over and there has never been a ruling Targaryen queen.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The author confirmed it man.

[RumHam]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The author confirmed it man.

Relax man, your post hadn't shown up when I submitted mine. Anyway that SSM is a little problematic, because the dude flat out lied about that Last Hero thing.

[Note: The struck claim below is being kept in to highlight the fact that it is struck. The original submitter has come forward to admit that GRRM did not state this, and that it was his own insertion. We are very disappointed, and offer our apologies for offering an erroneous report, especially one on such an important matter to fans who have wondered about this particular topic and have been misled by this entry in the So Spake Martin.]

Yeah, Martin probably did say that, but we can't be sure. In any event he's said before that nothing is canon until it appears in the books. I can find the SSM if you want.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

There's definitely some misogyny involved, I think it's always gonna be harder for a female heir to gather support than a male one. Do know for sure that Jaehaera outlived Aegon II? I can't see the Greens putting Aegon III on the throne of they had any other option, female or not. The Rogue Prince made it even more clear that the Dance wasn't really a war to keep a woman off the throne.

Definitely. She was married to Aegon III to cement the peace, but died a couple years later. What's important, Aegon III, the son of an executed traitor and a convicted traitor himself, inherited from his uncle Aegon II ahead of the latter's daughter.

Of course there were probably some deals under the hand, but that doesn't matter anymore. This inheritance, as it officially happened, was the (first) precedent which did create the "no girls on the IT" rule.

[E-Ro]

Relax man, your post hadn't shown up when I submitted mine. Anyway that SSM is a little problematic, because the dude flat out lied about that Last Hero thing.

Yeah, Martin probably did say that, but we can't be sure. In any event he's said before that nothing is canon until it appears in the books. I can find the SSM if you want.

It already is in the books. There has never been a targaryan queen regnant. I mean what more are you looking for here?

[RumHam]

Definitely. She was married to Aegon III to cement the peace, but died a couple years later. What's important, Aegon III, the son of an executed traitor and a convicted traitor himself, inherited from his uncle Aegon II ahead of the latter's daughter.

Of course there were probably some deals under the hand, but that doesn't matter anymore. This inheritance, as it officially happened, was the (first) precedent which did create the "no girls on the IT" rule.

Right I had forgotten that. Still we don't know how that war actually ended. If the Blacks end up in power (as the MUSH seems to hint, with many Black regents of Aegon III) then the marriage would not be an example of "no girls on the throne" but rather "we won. Aegon III is king, now lets try to make peace with the surviving greens." We just don't know yet for sure.

[RumHam]

It already is in the books. There has never been a targaryan queen regnant. I mean what more are you looking for here?

I guess if I'm looking for anything it's a source for that line on the wiki. I aknowledge that you guys are probably right. I do think that we shouldn't assume things and then get all dogmatic about them.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Right I had forgotten that. Still we don't know how that war actually ended. If the Blacks end up in power (as the MUSH seems to hint, with many Black regents of Aegon III) then the marriage would not be an example of "no girls on the throne" but rather "we won. Aegon III is king, now lets try to make peace with the surviving greens." We just don't know yet for sure.

As I said, that kind of backroom diplomacy doesn't matter one whiff. Only the official and legal precedent does.

[E-Ro]

I guess if I'm looking for anything it's a source for that line on the wiki. I aknowledge that you guys are probably right. I do think that we shouldn't assume things and then get all dogmatic about them.

I just gave you the source though, the source is right from the authors lips. I don't see anyone assuming anything here, people are taking the authors word as law because, well, its his world.

[RumHam]

As I said, that kind of backroom diplomacy doesn't matter one whiff. Only the official and legal precedent does.

I don't see how that wouldn't matter. In one instance they victorious Greens are saying "well, we won, but we can't have a woman on the throne so effectively they win." In the other the Blacks win(remember, they were aiming for Rhaenyra as queen at first, they're not gonna pass a law forbiding women for the throne) and are just saying "hey our new king needs a queen. keep the blood pure blah blah."

[RumHam]

I just gave you the source though, the source is right from the authors lips. I don't see anyone assuming anything here, people are taking the authors word as law because, well, its his world.

Yes, you did provide a source, thank you! I will add it to the wiki when I get home. But can you sorta understand why that SSM is a little sketchy, in my eyes? I mean they're all a little sketchy because he both makes mistakes and changes his mind, but this one especially.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I don't see how that wouldn't matter. In one instance they victorious Greens are saying "well, we won, but we can't have a woman on the throne so effectively they win." In the other the Blacks win(remember, they were aiming for Rhaenyra as queen at first, they're not gonna pass a law forbiding women for the throne) and are just saying "hey our new king needs a queen. keep the blood pure blah blah."

You need to understand how medieval laws were formed. You look at how it was ruled in the past. If it has happened a couple times and there is no conflicting precedent, you do just the same. From single rulings to a universal rule over time.

Backroom diplomacy doesn't enter the picture.

For the contemporaries of Viserys II, that was living memory. They may decide to do some other backroom diplomacy. But 150+ years later, it has become an old and honored law.

By the way, Rhaenyra to this date is a convicted traitor and Aegon II the lawful King. Source: Stannis going on about traitors.

[E-Ro]

By the way, Rhaenyra to this date is a convicted traitor and Aegon II the lawful King. Source: Stannis going on about traitors.

Yeah.

"It has always been so. I am not . . . I am not a cruel man, Ser Davos. You know me. Have known me long. This is not my decree. It has always been so, since Aegon's day and before. Daemon Blackfyre, the brothers Toyne, the Vulture King, Grand Maester Hareth . . . traitors have always paid with their lives . . . even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more, yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown. It is law. Law, Davos. Not cruelty."

[RumHam]

You need to understand how medieval laws were formed. You look at how it was ruled in the past. If it has happened a couple times and there is no conflicting precedent, you do just the same. From single rulings to a universal rule over time.

Backroom diplomacy doesn't enter the picture.

For the contemporaries of Viserys II, that was living memory. They may decide to do some other backroom diplomacy. But 150+ years later, it has become an old and honored law.

By the way, Rhaenyra to this date is a convicted traitor and Aegon II the lawful King. Source: Stannis going on about traitors.

But if nobody ever said "no girls allowed" then what is the precedent? There's some talk of this in The Rogue Prince, but I don't have the book with me.

Anyway, in my opinion at least, who won the war is not "backroom diplomacy."

Edit: sorry if I'm being daft but what does Rhaenyra still being attainted have to do with this?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

But if nobody ever said "no girls allowed" then what is the precedent? There's some talk of this in The Rogue Prince, but I don't have the book with me.

Anyway, in my opinion at least, who won the war is not "backroom diplomacy."

Edit: sorry if I'm being daft but what does Rhaenyra still being attainted have to do with this?

The precedent is Aegon II being crowned ahead of Aegon II's daughter. This very action is the precedent.

Rhaenyra still being attainted means that the Blacks did not push for the inheritance line Rhaenyra => Aegon III but Aegon II => Aegon III.

[E-Ro]

Edit: sorry if I'm being daft but what does Rhaenyra still being attainted have to do with this?

Stannis says she tried to "usurp her brothers crown" even though she was the elder of the two. This indicates that the people of Westeros consider it law that no female could hold the throne under the targs.

[RumHam]

The precedent is Aegon II being crowned ahead of Aegon II's daughter. This very action is the precedent.

Rhaenyra still being attainted means that the Blacks did not push for the inheritance line Rhaenyra => Aegon III but Aegon II => Aegon III.

I don't think they would have been so concerned with sorting out "how we got here" at that point. Clearly even Aegon III didn't care enough to un-attaint his mother and have her called a true queen.

Stannis says she tried to "usurp her brothers crown" even though she was the elder of the two. This indicates that the people of Westeros consider it law that no female could hold the throne under the targs.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that women could not inherit prior to the dance. Otherwise the whole matter would have been clear and Rhaenyra would not have been Visery's heir. The question is if the laws were changed after the dance. The only evidence (that I know of) that they were is that SSM that you linked.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I don't think they would have been so concerned with sorting out "how we got here" at that point. Clearly even Aegon III didn't care enough to un-attaint his mother and have her called a true queen.

What they thought at the time doesn't matter anymore. The modern perception does.

[RumHam]

What they thought at the time doesn't matter anymore. The modern perception does.

Ok. But IF the the Blacks won in the end, and installed Aegon III as monarch and wed him to Jaehaera (either to attempt to mend the rift or just keep in in the family) Then there would be records of this. People would know that at no point was the "no females on the throne" precedent established. At least the Maesters and the Master of Laws should be aware. The fact that there's never been a ruling queen of Westeros is not enough to establish precedent that a woman cannot rule, or comes after all male claimants. There needs to be something in the past. Like Jaehaerys passing Rhaenys over for Viserys set that precedent. But then Viserys naming Rhaenys heir obliterated that precedent (this is what I was thinking of in the Rogue Prince, I'm pretty sure.) Unless another king since the passed a law or set another precedent (which may have happened) then there's no reason a sister can't come before a younger brother.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ok. But IF the the Blacks won in the end, and installed Aegon III as monarch and wed him to Jaehaera (either to attempt to mend the rift or just keep in in the family) Then there would be records of this. People would know that at no point was the "no females on the throne" precedent established. At least the Maesters and the Master of Laws should be aware. The fact that there's never been a ruling queen of Westeros is not enough to establish precedent that a woman cannot rule, or comes after all male claimants. There needs to be something in the past. Like Jaehaerys passing Rhaenys over for Viserys set that precedent. But then Viserys naming Rhaenys heir obliterated that precedent (this is what I was thinking of in the Rogue Prince, I'm pretty sure.) Unless another king since the passed a law or set another precedent (which may have happened) then there's no reason a sister can't come before a younger brother.

Again: The legally established fact that the traitorous son of an executed female traitor sister to a lawful King inherits before said King's daughter is the precedent that established it.

Nevermind who said traitorous son wed after that. He isn't King because he married the Queen, he is the King because he's Aegon II's nephew and she's the Queen because she married him.