The idea that there is a rule that the IT goes to the next *male* in the main branch - where does it come from?

[Annara Snow]

I've heard this mentioned in the fandom lots of times - and it's often brought up in discussion about how the succession of the Iron Throne works. There's this idea that, after the Dance of the Dragons, there has been an established law or rule that the inheritance skips the female and goes to the next male in the main branch (uncle before daughter), as opposed to the male-preference primogeniture rules of succession (children of the elder brother before the younger brother, daughter before uncle) employed for everything else in Westeros (or the Dornish absolute primogeniture).

There's never been any evidence of that; all we have are examples when males were preferred for the inheritance of the Iron Throne before the Dance, by explicit wishes of the King himself (Jaehaerys I), in opposition to the Westerosi rules of male-preference primogeniture (Baelon over Rhaenys), which caused a conflict between him and his wife queen Alysanne; one by the decision of the Great Council where one male from the younger male branch was given preference over, among others, a male from an older female branch (Viserys over Laenor), and one example where, by the wishes of the king himself (Viserys I), an elder daughter was preferred to a younger son (Rhaenyra over Aegon), also in opposition to the mainstream Westerosi rules of inheritance only in another direction (more akin to Dornish rules of absolute primogeniture), which was accepted by most of the lords until the Greens challenged her inheritance after Viserys' death (but a lot of other factors went there as well, from the ambition of the Hightowers, to Criston Cole the resentful rejected dude, to Daemon's infamy, to the problematic parentage of Rhaenyra's first two sons...). Half the country thought Rhaenyra was the rightful heir and fought on her side. Then we have an example post-Dance where an uncle was given preference over a daughter of the previous king (Viserys II over Daena), and maester/writer's statement that people preferred males as kings after the Dance because supposedly they had bad memories of the last time a woman was on the IT, which is in itself hard to check - and he also admits that there were other factors at play, like the fact that Daena and her sisters had no support network since they had been in the Maidenvault for 10 years, that Daena was "unruly" and had a bastard son, and I'm sure the fact that Viserys had been Hand for so long played a big part in it.

But there's no evidence or even mention of any established legal rule at any point; there's just talk of "precedents".

And then there's the Great Council of 233, for the succession of Maekar, where Vaella, the 11-year old feeble minded daughter of his eldest son Daeron (the Drunken) was considered as one of the candidates, alongside Aerion Brightflame's infant son Maegor, maester Aemon (who refused the attempts to release him from his vows and pit him against Egg), Egg himself (who was unpopular among nobles), and eventually Aenys Blackfyre. Vaella was, unsurprinsingly, immediately dismissed, as was Maegor, because she was simple-minded, writes the maester, or because she was simple-minded in addition to being female, as Old Bear explained in ACOK. (Which doesn't tell us anything about what would have happened if she had been intelligent, determined, older, and popular with strong allies in the nobility.) But the very fact she was considered as a candidate proves that there was no rule that the IT went to the next male in the main branch, or else there would have been no legal grounds on which to consider her a candidate at all.

So, where exactly does this idea come from and why it persists in the fandom?

[kompaya]

Name a single historical society where this has not been the case. Thats where it comes from.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

But there's no evidence or even mention of any established legal rule at any point; there's just talk of "precedents".

And then there's the Great Council of 233, for the succession of Maekar, where Vaella, the 11-year old feeble minded daughter of his eldest son Daeron (the Drunken) was considered as one of the candidates, alongside Aerion Brightflame's infant son Maegor, maester Aemon (who refused the attempts to release him from his vows and pit him against Egg), Egg himself (who was unpopular among nobles), and eventually Aenys Blackfyre. Vaella was, unsurprinsingly, immediately dismissed, as was Maegor, because she was simple-minded, writes the maester, or because she was simple-minded in addition to being female, as Old Bear explained in ACOK. (Which doesn't tell us anything about what would have happened if she had been intelligent, determined, older, and popular with strong allies in the nobility.) But the very fact she was considered as a candidate proves that there was no rule that the IT went to the next male in the main branch, or else there would have been no legal grounds on which to consider her a candidate at all.

:agree:

Unless people are arguing that Aemon didnt' know what he was talking about or that GRRM messed up, it's quite clear that very recently women were taken seriously as claimants despite the presence of men in the line of succession.

Furthermore, we the fact that no one ever has questioned Daenerys' being Viserys heir. If this was really a "law" they should be dismissing her claim outright, or referring to her claim as contingent upon having a son. Of course that's not how claims work anyway - as a daughter of a Targaryen King she quite obviously has a claim (how good it is depends on how many support it, like any claim).

So, where exactly does this idea come from and why it persists in the fandom?

If I say where I think it comes from I will be summarily scolded.

Some of it does come for preference for certain characters / distates for certain other characters. People like to have reasons why their preferred claimant is the "rightful" heir, as if that has any meaning whatsoever.

[Annara Snow]

Name a single historical society where this has not been the case. Thats where it comes from.

Pretty much every European monarchy, other than France?

Not that it matters anyway, since we're not talking about historical societies but about a fictional one.

So, you're saying that it comes from some people's lack of knowledge about real world history, which they apply to a fictional world? Well, that explains a lot.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Name a single historical society where this has not been the case. Thats where it comes from.

I don't think you read OP.

She's asking why people assert that no woman ever can be considered a claimant to the IT when in fact the Andals generally prefer a direct female decendent over a lateral one (daughters before uncles).

[aryagonnakill#2]

I thought we were told this directly but I could be wrong. However, A spoon of knife and fork, Danaerys is always considered Viserys heir because she is the last person with the name Targaryen, so that doesn't prove it wrong.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Oh, one other point - a big reason that it persists in the fandom is that it's what the Wiki says. People refer to the wiki as if it's textual evidence.

Here's the text

Targaryen inheritance differs from the inheritance customs in the rest of Westeros. After the Dance of the Dragons is was decreed by law that all males would be placed before all females. The execution of this law was seen within decades after the Dance, when, after the deaths of both King Daeron I and King Baelor I, their uncle, Viserys, inherited the thrones, instead of the three sisters of Daeron and Baelor, or their children.^[13]"

By the way the citation 13 it refers to is a SSM (sort of ) - the relevant text:

I told George that when he changed Viserys I from a son to a brother he created an error in that Baelor's sisters did not inherit the throne after him, George replied that women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD. Something interesting and neatly explains Daena and the rest not becoming queen.

However if you follow the link, this particular fan recollection has had other parts of it censored for being outright wrong, so I don't personally put much stock into it. He could quite easily have misinterpreted something GRRM said - it's not a quote, after all.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

I thought we were told this directly but I could be wrong. However, A spoon of knife and fork, Danaerys is always considered Viserys heir because she is the last person with the name Targaryen, so that doesn't prove it wrong.

Interesting point, but I don't think that this supposed rule cares what your name is as long as you are a male descendant of Aegon the Conquerer. Many people who support this position say that Stannis, or Aegon Blackfyre, or a male Dornish should be the heir to the Targ lineage over Daenerys.

It could just be people who really, really want to legally disinherit Daenerys who are supporting this.

In any case I take the written words from Aemon in aGoT much more seriously than I do a second hand comment from a fan at SDCC 12 years ago.

[MoIaF]

Oh, one other point - a big reason that it persists in the fandom is that it's what the Wiki says. People refer to the wiki as if it's textual evidence.

Here's the text

By the way the citation 13 it refers to is a SSM (sort of ) - the relevant text:

However if you follow the link, this particular fan recollection has had other parts of it censored for being outright wrong, so I don't personally put much stock into it. He could quite easily have misinterpreted something GRRM said - it's not a quote, after all.

That's a very good catch with the SSM, if it's not a direct quote we should take the information with a grain of salt.

ETA: Especially when the SSM was in reference to something GRRM hadn't completely hashed out. He knows the broad strokes of his story but he doesn't work out the details until he starts writing the books.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Furthermore, the choice of words is telling in itself. Jon recalls that "The lords passed over Prince Aerion’s infant son and Prince Daeron’s daughter and gave the crown to Aegon". If the two were passed over, it implies that they had been ahead. King's granddaughter before king's youngest son. Jon's education was no worse than any lordling's, and better than many's, so what he said should reflect universally accepted rules of inheritance.

So that rule is either a retcon by the author (but still no traces of it anywhere in the text proper, correct me if I'm wrong), or an outright fan construct.

[kompaya]

I don't think you read OP.

She's asking why people assert that no woman ever can be considered a claimant to the IT when in fact the Andals generally prefer a direct female decendent over a lateral one (daughters before uncles).

you got me! I didnt read all but the point that I failed at making was that females are ruled out of the consciousness of some of our minds. (Guilty as charged.)

the law of inheritance strickly explains that men come first, Jah I did that. I dont know what else can make it clearer

[Mal Malenkirk]

The idea that the throne always goes to a male derives from the fact that it's what happened in the past 300 years. Things are that way because they are that way...

But it's not a law. There are no laws in Westeros, the position of Master of Laws not-withstanding. Not as we undertsand the term. I am not aware that there exist a written code of law that is disseminated in all the courts and there sure as hell is no permanent body of judge to interpret it and make rulings that are then recorded as jurisprudence.

All Westeros has are customs, decrees from the King and LPs and occasional ad hoc ruling by great council that sometime are used as precedant and sometime ignored if inconvenient. That's the law in Westeros.

After 300 years without a reigning Queen, you can pretty much treat it as a tradition that only male can reign. Until someone with enough power comes along and say 'Screw That'.

ETA: You know, establishing a uniform, written code of law and establishing a court system is one of the many ways the Targaryen could have slowly pulled the continent together over their 300 years of reign. Any time I reflect on it, it astounds me how lazy they've been as ruler.

[kompaya]

Pretty much every European monarchy, other than France?

Not that it matters anyway, since we're not talking about historical societies but about a fictional one.

So, you're saying that it comes from some people's lack of knowledge about real world history, which they apply to a fictional world? Well, that explains a lot.

You already know your question.

[TheNorthmen]

I've heard this mentioned in the fandom lots of times - and it's often brought up in discussion about how the succession of the Iron Throne works. There's this idea that, after the Dance of the Dragons, there has been an established law or rule that the inheritance skips the female and goes to the next male in the main branch (uncle before daughter), as opposed to the male-preference primogeniture rules of succession (children of the elder brother before the younger brother, daughter before uncle) employed for everything else in Westeros (or the Dornish absolute primogeniture).

There's never been any evidence of that; all we have are examples when males were preferred for the inheritance of the Iron Throne before the Dance, by explicit wishes of the King himself (Jaehaerys I), in opposition to the Westerosi rules of male-preference primogeniture (Baelon over Rhaenys), which caused a conflict between him and his wife queen Alysanne; one by the decision of the Great Council where one male from the younger male branch was given preference over, among others, a male from an older female branch (Viserys over Laenor), and one example where, by the wishes of the king himself (Viserys I), an elder daughter was preferred to a younger son (Rhaenyra over Aegon), also in opposition to the mainstream Westerosi rules of inheritance only in another direction (more akin to Dornish rules of absolute primogeniture), which was accepted by most of the lords until the Greens challenged her inheritance after Viserys' death (but a lot of other factors went there as well, from the ambition of the Hightowers, to Criston Cole the resentful rejected dude, to Daemon's infamy, to the problematic parentage of Rhaenyra's first two sons...). Half the country thought Rhaenyra was the rightful heir and fought on her side. Then we have an example post-Dance where an uncle was given preference over a daughter of the previous king (Viserys II over Daena), and maester/writer's statement that people preferred males as kings after the Dance because supposedly they had bad memories of the last time a woman was on the IT, which is in itself hard to check - and he also admits that there were other factors at play, like the fact that Daena and her sisters had no support network since they had been in the Maidenvault for 10 years, that Daena was "unruly" and had a bastard son, and I'm sure the fact that Viserys had been Hand for so long played a big part in it.

But there's no evidence or even mention of any established legal rule at any point; there's just talk of "precedents".

And then there's the Great Council of 233, for the succession of Maekar, where Vaella, the 11-year old feeble minded daughter of his eldest son Daeron (the Drunken) was considered as one of the candidates, alongside Aerion Brightflame's infant son Maegor, maester Aemon (who refused the attempts to release him from his vows and pit him against Egg), Egg himself (who was unpopular among nobles), and eventually Aenys Blackfyre. Vaella was, unsurprinsingly, immediately dismissed, as was Maegor, because she was simple-minded, writes the maester, or because she was simple-minded in addition to being female, as Old Bear explained in ACOK. (Which doesn't tell us anything about what would have happened if she had been intelligent, determined, older, and popular with strong allies in the nobility.) But the very fact she was considered as a candidate proves that there was no rule that the IT went to the next male in the main branch, or else there would have been no legal grounds on which to consider her a candidate at all.

So, where exactly does this idea come from and why it persists in the fandom?

The Great Council of 101 AC is considered to be what established this rule as an actual rule. Prior to that it was pretty much just an unspoken rule.

At the time of the Great Council of 101 AC there was an abundance of Targaryens and the King at the time, Jaehaerys I, was unable to decide who to name successor after two of the obvious heirs died.

Of course 2 generations later this would be challenged when the Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Aegon II began the Dance of the Dragons. Where Aegon II attempted to claim the crown before Rhaenyra could give birth and return to Kings Landing for the Coronation.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

The idea that the throne always goes to a male derives from the fact that it's what happened in the past 300 years.

But it's not a law. There are no law in Westeros, the position of Master of Laws not-withstanding. Not as we undertsand the term. I am not aware that there exist a written code of law that is disseminated in all the courts and there sure as hell is no permanent body of judge to interpret it and make rulings that are then recorded as jurisprudence.

All Westeros has are customs, decrees from the King and LPs and occasional ad hoc ruling by great council that sometime are used as precedant and sometime ignored if inconvenient. That's the law in Westeros.

After 300 years without a reigning Queen, you can pretty much treat it as a custom or traditions that only male can reign. Until someone with enough power comes along and say 'Screw That'.

While I generally agree with your sentiment I wouldn't even go so far as to say there is a custom that only males CAN reign, given that females have been considered as potential rulers (even if they never ended up ruling in fact).

I'd say there is a tradition that male claimants have been preferred over female claimants to a stronger degree in the Targaryen lineage than in the other great families of Westeros.

[TheNorthmen]

The Great Council of 101 AC is considered to be what established this rule as an actual rule. Prior to that it was pretty much just an unspoken rule.

At the time of the Great Council of 101 AC there was an abundance of Targaryens and the King at the time, Jaehaerys I, was unable to decide who to name successor after two of the obvious heirs died.

Of course 2 generations later this would be challenged when the Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Aegon II began the Dance of the Dragons. Where Aegon II attempted to claim the crown before Rhaenyra could give birth and return to Kings Landing for the Coronation.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

ETA: You know, establishing a uniform, written code of law and establishing a court system is one of the many ways the Targaryen could have slowly pulled the continent together over their 300 years of reign. Any time I reflect on it, it astounds me how lazy they've been as ruler.

Something like this, you mean?

With Barth’s aid and advice, King Jaehaerys did more to reform the realm than any other king who lived before or after. Where his grandsire, King Aegon, had left the laws of the Seven Kingdoms to the vagaries of local tradition and custom, Jaehaerys created the first unified code, so that from the North to the Dornish Marches, the realm shared a single rule of law.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

The Great Council of 101 AC is considered to be what established this rule as an actual rule. Prior to that it was pretty much just an unspoken rule.

At the time of the Great Council of 101 AC there was an abundance of Targaryens and the King at the time, Jaehaerys I, was unable to decide who to name successor after two of the obvious heirs died.

Of course 2 generations later this would be challenged when the Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Aegon II began the Dance of the Dragons. Where Aegon II attempted to claim the crown before Rhaenyra could give birth and return to Kings Landing for the Coronation.

But what evidence have we that it is an "actual rule" rather than just tradition? No where in the text does it say "No Woman may Ever Sit the Iron Throne", or anything like it.

Two hotly contested decisions against female claimants does not a unbreakable law make. Of course, the winner will say that they were the legal heir all along. But, if the same thing comes up again and a woman wins this time, then they will say they were the legal heir all along. That's how it goes.

[Annara Snow]

That's a very good catch with the SSM, if it's not a direct quote we should take the information with a grain of salt.

ETA: Especially when the SSM was in reference to something GRRM hadn't completely hashed out. He knows the broad strokes of his story but he doesn't work out the details until he starts writing the books.

Yeah, even if GRRM said that, he may have changed his mind, just as he's changed his mind on quite a few other things in Targaryen history. It was not canon, as opposed to the text of ASOAIF, side stories and TWOAIF.

Maester Yandel on the succession of Baelor the Blessed:

"Though both of the sons of King Aegon III were dead, his three daughters yet survived, and there were some among the smallfolk - and even some lords - who felt that the Iron Throne should now by rights pass to Princess Daena. They were few, however; a decade of isolation in the Maidenvault had left Daena and her sisters without powerful allies, and memories of the woes that had befallen the realm when last a woman sat the Iron Throne were still fresh. Daena the Defiant was seen by many to be wild and unmanageable besides... and wanton as well, for a year earlier she had given birth to a bastard son named Daemon, whose sire she steadfastly refused to name.

The precedents of the Great Council of 101 and the Dance of the Dragons were therefore cited, and the claims of Baelor's sisters were set aside. Instead the crown passed to his uncle, the King's Hand, Prince Viserys."

So, there was no law passed, only a ruling in this specific case, based on 'precedents' (though naming Dance as a 'precedent' is hilariously inaccurate for multiple reasons). And there were other factors at play as well, in favor of Viserys.

Yandel on the Great Council of 233:

"Prince Daeron sired a daughter, Vaella, in 222 AC, but the girl sadly proved simple."

"In 233 AC, hundred of lords great and small assembled in King's Landing. With both of Maekar's elder sons deceased, there were four possible claimants. The Great Council dismissed Prince Daeron's sweet but simple-minded daughter Vaella immediately. Only a few spoke up for Aerion Brightflame's son Maegor; an infant king would have meant a long, contentious regency, and there were also fears that the boy may have inherited his father's cruelty and madness. (...)"

[bluntraven]

The Great Council of 101 AC is considered to be what established this rule as an actual rule. Prior to that it was pretty much just an unspoken rule.

At the time of the Great Council of 101 AC there was an abundance of Targaryens and the King at the time, Jaehaerys I, was unable to decide who to name successor after two of the obvious heirs died.

Of course 2 generations later this would be challenged when the Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Aegon II began the Dance of the Dragons. Where Aegon II attempted to claim the crown before Rhaenyra could give birth and return to Kings Landing for the Coronation.

this.

The debacle that was Rhaenyra's attempt to make good her claim must have convinced many highborn and smallfolk alike that a woman was unfit to rule on top of the precedent already set by the Great Council. After her, the only female candidate who comes up is Aerion's daughter and she is immediately dismissed as a candidate. Even Cersei understands that her claim derives through her marriage and her children.