[TWOIAF Spoilers] Female claimants to the Iron Throne

[Annara Snow]

Interestingly, the World book family tree lists Kevin as Lord, not Cersei, after Tywin.

But ASOAIF wiki lists Cersei as Lady of Casterly Rock.

There really shouldn't be any controversy about this. By law, everywhere in Westeros the inheritance of anything, other than the Iron Throne, daughters of the elder son come before the second son. (Even though the Ironborn would prefer to ignore that law.)

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Interestingly, the World book family tree lists Kevin as Lord, not Cersei, after Tywin.

But ASOAIF wiki lists Cersei as Lady of Casterly Rock.

I think this is due to the nature of the book. When it was written (the tree at least), Robert was still alive, and even after his death, Cersei was probably meant to be the Regent and stay in KL as mother of the future King. Yandell couldn't have known that Tywin wanted her gone and married to someone else and get Jaime out of the KG.

[Colonel Green]

Interestingly, the World book family tree lists Kevin as Lord, not Cersei, after Tywin.

It's not just Cersei/Kevan, the map also doesn't have Sarelle as ruling lady, even though from the text we know she was. Bias on the part of the chart-maker?

[Annara Snow]

I think this is due to the nature of the book. When it was written (the tree at least), Robert was still alive, and even after his death, Cersei was probably meant to be the Regent and stay in KL as mother of the future King. Yandell couldn't have known that Tywin wanted her gone and married to someone else and get Jaime out of the KG.

But Elio/Ran says that the family trees are not an in-universe thing.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

But Elio/Ran says that the family trees are not an in-universe thing.

...Yandel... had... a machine that... allowed him into our world...

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Interestingly, the World book family tree lists Kevin as Lord, not Cersei, after Tywin.

It's not just Cersei/Kevan, the map also doesn't have Sarelle as ruling lady, even though from the text we know she was. Bias on the part of the chart-maker?

Both are errors, which IIRC are supposed to be corrected in the new print

[Lord Annaly]

The statement in the World Book about Robert producing three golden heirs is not a mistake.

Myrcella is an heir of his body (legally) just as Sansa and Arya were/are heirs of Ned Stark.

Daughters are heirs too...even if they do not get the full inheritance in their own name.

Listing Mycella as his heir does not mean that the rules of agnatic primogenture has been changed by Robert.

We discuss it often enough here about inheritance and if Myrcella was like Sansa she would inherit once her brothers died but would have to be married and her husband would be the lord but she still would be Robert's heir and the conduit for Robert's grandson to inherit just like a son's son would.

The maester was simply stating that the marriage of King Robert and Queen Cersei was a success in that it produced enough children that the new Royal Line was secure, the Heir & the Spare with a beautiful daughter thrown in for good measure. And if Mycella survives her two brothers the line can continue if needs be via a marriage ...just like all cases.

This was not a statement about the Line of Succession but about a sign the god smiled on the new king.

No need to get your knickers in a bunch about a simple factual statement.

Don't over complicate everything!

[The Academic Wolf]

Both are errors, which IIRC are supposed to be corrected in the new print

Ah, good. I had wondered why this was so. It was weird- I missed Sarrelle, but the Cersei one had me seriously over-thinking things.

[Annara Snow]

The statement in the World Book about Robert producing three golden heirs is not a mistake.

Myrcella is an heir of his body (legally) just as Sansa and Arya were/are heirs of Ned Stark.

Daughters are heirs too...even if they do not get the full inheritance in their own name.

Listing Mycella as his heir does not mean that the rules of agnatic primogenture has been changed by Robert.

We discuss it often enough here about inheritance and if Myrcella was like Sansa she would inherit once her brothers died but would have to be married and her husband would be the lord but she still would be Robert's heir and the conduit for Robert's grandson to inherit just like a son's son would.

The maester was simply stating that the marriage of King Robert and Queen Cersei was a success in that it produced enough children that the new Royal Line was secure, the Heir & the Spare with a beautiful daughter thrown in for good measure. And if Mycella survives her two brothers the line can continue if needs be via a marriage ...just like all cases.

This was not a statement about the Line of Succession but about a sign the god smiled on the new king.

No need to get your knickers in a bunch about a simple factual statement.

Don't over complicate everything!

Uh, no. The maester is talking about the inheritance of the Iron Throne, not Storm's End. If he were talking about Storm's End, Myrcella would be in line to be Lady of Storm's End in case her brothers died without issue. Whether she marries or not has absolutely nothing with that. She would be Lady of Storm's End if she stays single, too. And Stannis and Renly would be behind her in the line of inheritance. There's no doubt about that.

But since the maester is clearly talking about the inheritance of the Iron Throne, this has nothing to do with Myrcella being a Lady or how husband a Lord. She is in line to be Queen Regnant. Which also has nothing to do with whether she marries someone or not. The only question is, whether she comes after Stannis and Renly (the Targaryen rules after Dance) or before Stannis and Renly (regular rules of inheritance in most of Westeros, minus Dorne, where Myrcella also comes before Tommen). That's not entirely clear from the text. But Stannis' promise to Renly that he'll make him his heir if he bends the knee seems to suggest that Shireen would normally come before Renly - i.e. daughters come before younger brothers, according to the general rules of inheritance of Westeros, rather than the Targ rules after Dance.

[Lord Annaly]

Uh, no. The maester is talking about the inheritance of the Iron Throne, not Storm's End. If he were talking about Storm's End, Myrcella would be in line to be Lady of Storm's End in case her brothers died without issue. Whether she marries or not has absolutely nothing with that. She would be Lady of Storm's End if she stays single, too. And Stannis and Renly would be behind her in the line of inheritance. There's no doubt about that.But since the maester is clearly talking about the inheritance of the Iron Throne, this has nothing to do with Myrcella being a Lady or how husband a Lord. She is in line to be Queen Regnant. Which also has nothing to do with whether she marries someone or not. The only question is, whether she comes after Stannis and Renly (the Targaryen rules after Dance) or before Stannis and Renly (regular rules of inheritance in most of Westeros, minus Dorne, where Myrcella also comes before Tommen). That's not entirely clear from the text. But Stannis' promise to Renly that he'll make him his heir if he bends the knee seems to suggest that Shireen would normally come before Renly - i.e. daughters come before younger brothers, according to the general rules of inheritance of Westeros, rather than the Targ rules after Dance.

Yes all valid points but the statement was not conveying anything about a change in the inheritance customs or traditions.

It was simply saying that the new king and queen were blessed with beautiful children a sign of the start of a glorious reign.

My point is that readers are reading too much into this line, making suppositions with no basis from what we know of Robert and his thoughts on succession of daughters.

There is a difference in the use of the plural in this instance. In the singular, heir means the one who is assumed to inherit whereas the use of the plural, heirs, just means those who are of that line.

So as I said, all children are considered heirs in the simplest sense. And that is all Yandel was saying.

We can debate all about the inheritance rights or lack of for daughters, both royal and lordly but this is not what Yandel meant.

[Annara Snow]

Yes all valid points but the statement was not conveying anything about a change in the inheritance customs or traditions.

It was simply saying that the new king and queen were blessed with beautiful children a sign of the start of a glorious reign.

My point is that readers are reading too much into this line, making suppositions with no basis from what we know of Robert and his thoughts on succession of daughters.

There is a difference in the use of the plural in this instance. In the singular, heir means the one who is assumed to inherit whereas the use of the plural, heirs, just means those who are of that line.

So as I said, all children are considered heirs in the simplest sense. And that is all Yandel was saying.

We can debate all about the inheritance rights or lack of for daughters, both royal and lordly but this is not what Yandel meant.

If he meant children, he'd say children. An heir is someone who can inherit, obviously. If girls were excluded from inheritance (as in the French law on royal inheritance), they would not be heirs, and Yandel would say that he was blessed with two heirs, not three.

Though I don't know why we're even discussing this, when girls were never excluded from inheritance by any law in Westeros, the difference is just in what order they come relative to the male heirs.

[Lord Annaly]

If he meant children, he'd say children. An heir is someone who can inherit, obviously. If girls were excluded from inheritance (as in the French law on royal inheritance), they would not be heirs, and Yandel would say that he was blessed with two heirs, not three.

Though I don't know why we're even discussing this, when girls were never excluded from inheritance by any law in Westeros, the difference is just in what order they come relative to the male heirs.

Yes and Myrcella is an heir regardless of whether she would become a queen regnant or a queen consort.

In all probability, if Myrcella was in the position of surviving her two brothers she would be considered an heir and then it would be up to whatever support she could garner whether she would inherit in her own right or as a consort or be dismissed completely.

That is how is always has been.

You are missing my point here. I am not disputing that Myrcella is an heir of Robert. She is and always was. Just as Shireen is King Stannis' heir. (Whether she would be a ruling queen or just a consort is open to whatever the political scene is at the time.)

My point is that the line in the Book was simply saying that but not making any other statement on any changes of the laws of succession for royal daughters.

Yandel was just stating the simple fact that all children are heirs (that does not mean all will inherit just that they all possibly could).

And as we know what a king wants or decrees for his preferred heir has no bearing on who will actually wear the crown...the lords always determine that by supporting it or denying that support.

So for the last time....there is no need for readers to get all excited by a line saying "three golden heirs" as it did not mean anything new or any great new inheritance era being ushered in by King Robert, it was just stating the simple fact...all children are heirs.

[joluoto2]

I think the Crown uses Andal succession since the Baratheon takeover, which would place Myrcella in line before Stannis, Shireen and Renly.

[Maid So Fair]

Though I don't know why we're even discussing this, when girls were never excluded from inheritance by any law in Westeros, the difference is just in what order they come relative to the male heirs.

:agree:

[Lord Annaly]

I think the Crown uses Andal succession since the Baratheon takeover, which would place Myrcella in line before Stannis, Shireen and Renly.

As I said, it doesn't matter what custom is followed if enough lords don't support it.

If it came to Myrcella being the only heir of Robert left it won't matter if its the established Targaryen way of no ruling queen or the the Andal way of a daughter inheriting if a large contingent of lords don't want a female liege.

There is no point trumpeting the Andal way because we have seen enough examples of daughters being pushed aside for uncles or cousins or simply inheriting as a half-way option til her son comes of age.

The Andal way has produced some Ruling Ladies but not often enough to be the norm.

Most Andal daughters who are not pushed aside simply beacuse they hand over control to their lord husband who will be the lord protector, regent, until a male heir is produced.

Lords will only support a ruling queen more often than not only if it suits them rather than because she is the "heir".

The Andal tradition of daughetrs over uncles etc is only partially observed and when it comes to the Throne even the more enlightened lords would balk.

[Lord Varys]

Myrcella is Robert's heir in the sense that she is (presumed to be) his daughter. As such, she will always have 'a claim', but not necessarily a good or a strong claim.

Note that Ned and Littlefinger talk only about Joffrey and Tommen when they discuss Robert's inheritance. Myrcella does not play a role - aside from Littlefinger's suggestion that Ned make peace with the Lannisters and marry Joff to Sansa, and Robb to Myrcella.

Later on, after Stannis and Shireen are declared traitors and are attainted, Myrcella becomes more and more important, even more so after Joffrey's death. Myrcella clearly is Tommen's heir - just as Shireen is Stannis' - as there are simply no other (presumed) Targaryen-Baratheons left but Tommen and Myrcella.

TWoIaF pretty much confirmed that Steffon was the only child of Rhaelle Targaryen and Ormund Baratheon. Robert's legal claim comes from Egg's daughter Rhaelle, other Baratheon cousins through the female branch going back to Ormund's or Lyonel's siblings do not have a claim to the Iron Throne.

Saying that Robert's so-called 'right of conquest' now magically makes all his distant relations 'royal' would be stretch indeed...

Not to mention the fact that the current Lannister-Tyrell regime in KL has no interest whatsoever to place some distant cousin of Robert Baratheon on the Iron Throne. If Tommen would die, both the Lannisters and the Tyrells would crown Myrcella - if we assume that she has returned to KL by this point (which is by no means certain).

[Lord Annaly]

Myrcella is Robert's heir in the sense that she is (presumed to be) his daughter. As such, she will always have 'a claim', but not necessarily a good or a strong claim.

Note that Ned and Littlefinger talk only about Joffrey and Tommen when they discuss Robert's inheritance. Myrcella does not play a role - aside from Littlefinger's suggestion that Ned make peace with the Lannisters and marry Joff to Sansa, and Robb to Myrcella.

Exactly.

[Lord Annaly]

Folks talking about how Robert's accession changed the royal succession just because he was Andal are missing the glaring point...

Everytime Andal lords got to vote on whether they wanted a ruling queen they voted against in the majority.

They did not reject Rhaenys because she was a female Targaryen but because she was female.

The Targaryen's followed most of the Andal traditions and customs and for the most part they followed the Andal inheritance tradition of male over female.

It was a Targaryen king who was the one who tried to change it from the Andal formula by putting a female on the Throne.

When it came to female claimants the king was the one who changed it either by decree or by putting the question to the Andal lords.

It is the Andal lords who for the most part do not want a ruling lady or queen for that matter.

Individual Houses may support their own as a ruling lady but once en masse to choose a monarch they revert to type...misogynistic

To bring it back to the OP...the mention of three heirs of Robert and Cersei was not a significant phrase about a new approach change but a simple phrase of fact.

If Yandel had been writing about a new Targaryen king and his beautiful new queen producing a daughter amongst the sons he would still have used the phrase, heirs.

[Lord_Pepsi_Cupps]

Here's how I understand it:

1. The maesters reverse-engineered Robert's claim through his paternal grandmother (a Targ lady).
   
2. Why? Aegon was king by conquest, and that was OK - so why not for Robert? Because, I'm gonna say this was the wise Jon Arryn's thinking, it was seen that there's a lot to be gained from claiming continuity with the Targ line.
   
3. This, in turn, is because the Targs still had many supporters. After all, the Rebellion wasn't about overthrowing Targs, it was about ending Mad Aerys' reign - everything else that ended up happening was an "oops, how did this happen??" development (the Baratheon white-washers want us to think)
   
4. In fact, Yandel expressly says that the Targaryen family tree had been whittled down to just "two lonely branches". There we have it: he is expressly saying that the Baratheons are a "branch" of the Targs (the other branch being Aerys/Rhaella and their kids/grandkids). Recognizing the distaff line (through women) as a "branch" of the family shows their inheritance was always contemplated as a possibility. How fortunate for Robert's claim!
   
5. Remember: this book is written for the Baratheon kings. It doesn't hurt to have both a conquest claim, and a "legitimate heir" claim. [ETA: Of course, it's not the claim of THE legitimate heir, because that was our boy Viserys; but if Yandel can establish that inheriting through the female line would have been no problem, then that helps Robert some.]
   

Finally: this may all be brought up when the realm has to toss up between two possible claimants (Dany or Aegon?). Not that a Great Council will decide between the two in the end, cos there is gonna be a Dance-dance-dance, but it would still make for a cute discussion before Dany applies the Drogon logic to resolve the conundrum.

[Lord Varys]

Robert did not 'conquer' anything. He successfully rebelled against his rightful, or, to be more precise, his treason was successful.

He was no foreign monarch like Aegon who declared war on his neighbors and subdued them. He rebelled, that is not a good foundation for a monarchy. Half the Realm refers to him, quite correctly, as 'the Usurper'. 'The Conqueror', on the other hand, sounds much more honorable, don't you think?