Velaryon (and Hightower?) right to the throne

[Isobel Harper]

Under Dornish law, Rhaenys should have been heir to the throne, not Baelon or his son Viserys I. 

Two estrangements are recorded, but they did not last more than a year or two before the pair resumed their customary friendship. The Second Quarrel, however, is of note, as it was due to Jaehaerys's decision in 92 AC to pass over his granddaughter Rhaenys—the daughter of his deceased eldest son and heir, Prince Aemon—in favor of bestowing Dragonstone and the place of heir apparent on his next eldest son, Baelon the Brave. Alysanne saw no reason why a man should be favored over a woman...and if Jaehaerys thought women of less use, then he would have no need of her.

Rhaenys had two (twin) children: Laena and Laenor.  Laena was born first; Laenor was born one year later.  Laena had two (also twin) daughters, Rhaena and Baela.  Laenor had four sons (if Jacaerys, Lucerys, Joffrey, and Alyn of Hull were his sons... but Laenor recognized them as his sons, so it's likely that their paternity - if not true - is a nonissue.)  (Note Laena's family tree here.  Also note that Laena and Laenor, and Rhaena and Baela were twins and that we do not know which was born first, although perhaps this is known in-story.) 

House Velaryon is descended through Baela Targaryen and Alyn of Hull, descendants of Laena and Laenor, the children of Rhaenys.  Therefore, House Velaryon has a right to the throne under Dornish Law. 

The only potential flaw in this inheritance is Rhaena Targaryen's descendants:  She had six daughters with Garmund Hightower, so perhaps their descendants have a claim to the throne as well, although we do not know whom these daughters eventually wed.

With the Dornish possibly becoming bigger players in Winds and/or Dream, how might Dornish Law effect the succession to the throne?  Could House Velaryon or Rhaena's descendants possibly try to make a claim to the throne?

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Isobel Harper said:

Under Dornish law, Rhaenys should have been heir to the throne, not Baelon or his son Viserys I. 

Two estrangements are recorded, but they did not last more than a year or two before the pair resumed their customary friendship. The Second Quarrel, however, is of note, as it was due to Jaehaerys's decision in 92 AC to pass over his granddaughter Rhaenys—the daughter of his deceased eldest son and heir, Prince Aemon—in favor of bestowing Dragonstone and the place of heir apparent on his next eldest son, Baelon the Brave. Alysanne saw no reason why a man should be favored over a woman...and if Jaehaerys thought women of less use, then he would have no need of her.

Rhaenys had two (twin) children: Laena and Laenor.  Laena had two (also twin) daughters, Rhaena and Baela.  Laenor had four sons (if Jacaerys, Lucerys, Joffrey, and Alyn of Hull were his sons... but Laenor recognized them as his sons, so it's likely that their paternity - if not true - is a nonissue.)  (Note Laena's family tree here.  Also note that Laena and Laenor, and Rhaena and Baela were twins and that we do not know which was born first, although perhaps this is known in-story.) 

House Velaryon is descended through Baela Targaryen and Alyn of Hull, descendants of Laena and Laenor, the children of Rhaenys.  Therefore, House Velaryon has a right to the throne under Dornish Law. 

The only potential flaw in this inheritance is Rhaena Targaryen's descendants:  She had six daughters with Garmund Hightower, so perhaps their descendants have a claim to the throne as well, although we do not know whom these daughters eventually wed.

With the Dornish possibly becoming bigger players in Winds and/or Dream, how might Dornish Law effect the succession to the throne?  Could House Velaryon or Rhaena's descendants possibly try to make a claim to the throne?

Dornish law doesn't apply outside Dorne.

But, even if equal primogeniture was the law throughout Westeros, the Hightowers and Velaryons are far further away from the line of succession than either Daenerys or Jon (if he is who we think he is) or Aegon (if he is genuine).

 

[Isobel Harper]

Equal primogeniture would imply that Dany, Jon, and Aegon were not direct heirs to the throne.  That is, Viserys I and his descendants (who Dany, Jon, and Aegon ultimately are) should not have inherited the throne in the first place:  Rhaenys and her descendants should have right to it first.

While on the topic of equal primogeniture, House Blackfyre can make a claim to the throne via Dornish Law - not through Aegon IV, but through Daena Targaryen, Daemon Targaryen's mother, who should have inherited the throne under equal primogeniture law.

[SeanF]

35 minutes ago, Isobel Harper said:

Equal primogeniture would imply that Dany, Jon, and Aegon were not direct heirs to the throne.  That is, Viserys I and his descendants (who Dany, Jon, and Aegon ultimately are) should not have inherited the throne in the first place:  Rhaenys and her descendants should have right to it first.

While on the topic of equal primogeniture, House Blackfyre can make a claim to the throne via Dornish Law - not through Aegon IV, but through Daena Targaryen, Daemon Targaryen's mother, who should have inherited the throne under equal primogeniture law.

Well, I was assuming that your post was based on the assumption that the Iron Throne had descended all the way to Aerys II.

If Rhaenys had become Queen, then yes, the Iron Throne would have passed to her descendants.

After all this time, any Targaryen loyalist is going to support the descendants of Jaehaerys II over the descendants of remoter Targaryen ancestors.  It's only if Dany, Aegon, and Jon all die, or are discredited, that any Targaryen   loyalist would start looking at Velaryons, Plumms, Hightowers, Martells, Tarths etc.

[Isobel Harper]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Well, I was assuming that your post was based on the assumption that the Iron Throne had descended all the way to Aerys II.

If Rhaenys had become Queen, then yes, the Iron Throne would have passed to her descendants.

After all this time, any Targaryen loyalist is going to support the descendants of Jaehaerys II over the descendants of remoter Targaryen ancestors.  It's only if Dany, Aegon, and Jon all die, or are discredited, that any Targaryen   loyalist would start looking at Velaryons, Plumms, Hightowers, Martells, Tarths etc.

Discredit is something along the lines that I'm thinking.  It begins with affiliation with the wrong people: Daenerys' affiliation with the Dothraki and The Red Priests or Jon's affiliation with wildlings, for example.  Next comes lack of support of claim and/or identity (Aegon not being believed for being the son of Elia and Rhaegar or Rhaegar and Lyanna's marriage - if applicable - not being recognized.)

Another opportunity to make one's claim would be at a Great Council, which is likely to happen again in the main series.  (Aerys II named Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death, making it unsure whether Daenerys or Aegon would be Viserys' heir.)

[hiemal]

I think those connections could be used to justify claiming the throne if circumstances ever set them upon it, but it would be a flimsy banner to wave for rallying purposes.

[Lord Varys]

I don't think any of that will have any effect on the story in the main series, but it is quite interesting to speculate how things stood back after the Dance.

In fact, we can guess that Baela was Laena's elder daughter because she was the one who was betrothed to Rhaenyra's eldest son and heir, Jacaerys Velaryon. One assumes that Corlys and Rhaenys wanted her eldest granddaughter become the future Queen Consort of Westeros, not the younger.

From Ran we know that the regents had a discussion who would inherit the Iron Throne should the young Aegon III die childless - a very important question, especially while Prince Viserys hadn't yet returned and was still presumed dead. Unfortunately we don't what they decided or whether they decided anything at all. While she was still alive Jaehaera Targaryen would have had a strong claim, too, but her being both a lackwit and a girl would work to her serious disadvantage. I maintain that Aegon II did not actually name Aegon the Younger his heir after his restoration but considered his only surviving child, Jaehaera, his heir - assuming he thought of that at all, and did not only look forward to father new sons on his new Baratheon bride - but those Greens fighting for Aegon II because they did not want a Queen Regnant would have had problems making a girl their queen even if the Blacks didn't effectively win the war.

The best candidate for Aegon III's heir presumptive is actually Alyn Velaryon. He was legitimized as a son of Laenor Velaryon (despite most likely actually being Corlys' son), being therefore descended from Princess Rhaenys, Prince Aemon, and Jaehaerys I. One assumes that Corlys Velaryon married him to Baela to strengthen his claim both to Driftmark and, potentially, the Iron Throne since Baela herself was undoubtedly Laena's daughter by Prince Daemon, and both a granddaughter of Prince Baelon and Prince Aemon, as well as a great-granddaughter of the Old King.

But all that sort of resolved itself after Prince Viserys returned, and quickly had sons of his own by Larra Rogare (not to mention that Aegon III remarried and had five children of his own eventually).

I assume that the six daughters of Rhaena Targaryen and Garmund Hightower started Targaryen cadet branches of their own but whether the Hightowers themselves profited from that is completely unclear. We don't know whether Garmund was or became the Lord of Oldtown nor whether his eldest daughter ruled the city after him. Considering her connection to the Iron Throne this is not unlikely. I my opinion, some or all of the brides of the sons of Daeron II are descendants of Rhaena and Garmund through some of those daughters. Aelinor Penrose is confirmed to be cousin of Aerys I, and since Ran has already ruled out that Aelinor was a descendant of Elaena Targaryen and Ronnel Penrose, the next best guess is that she is a cousin to the main Targaryen branch through Garmund and Rhaena.

The same should be true for Jena Dondarrion as well since it is very odd to assume that the marriage of the Prince of Dragonstone to a Dondarrion is just accepted without causing an uproar. If Jena had Targaryen blood of her own and was one of the few female cousins in the right age available at this point such a match fits with the Targaryen marriage policy (after all, Egg's marriage to Betha Blackwood - who most likely had no Targaryen blood - only caused no trouble because Egg was at the very end of the line of succession).

Alys Arryn and Dyanna Dayna may or may not have Targaryen blood of their own. Strictly speaking, the Arryns don't need Targaryen blood to be worthy enough to marry into the royal family, and Maekar was only the youngest son, so he could get a not-so-noble-match as well. But we don't know - a marriage between a Dayne and one of Rhaena's daughters is easily imaginable during the Conquest of Dorne or as part of the peace treaty Baelor I later made.

We can make a good guess that George scrapped the daughter(s) Daeron II and Mariah originally had to make more sense of the Blackfyre situation and the Dornish treaty. The messed-up time line in THK (Baelor being 39 when he died) sent ripples throughout the entire history. Viserys II had then to be changed from the fourth son of Aegon III to his younger brother, and even then did he have to be very young indeed when he had his three children. In addition, Daeron II was married to Mariah Martell long before he himself ascended the Iron Throne, retconning the union between Dorne and the Iron Throne being sealed by a marriage between a Targaryen king and a Martell princess to being sealed by the Prince of Dorne's marriage with Daeron II's sister.

This, in turn, necessitated that Princess Daenerys was much younger than her royal brother. But in light of all that Daeron II having at least one daughter of his own (Aelinor), being married to his younger son, Prince Aerys, no longer makes much sense. One would assume that Daeron II marry her - if she was his only daughter - either to his eldest son and heir, Baelor, or to the Prince of Dorne. That way Princess Daenerys actually could have married Daemon Blackfyre.

But back to the original question:

If cadet branches of House Targaryen come forth claiming the throne (or creeping towards it) it will, most likely, be more recent cadet branches - that is, descendants of Maekar I through the female line. We know that Egg's sisters Daella and Rhae both had children, and Prince Maegor and Princess Vaella also could have had issue. Granted, many of their descendants (and/or they themselves) might have died at Summerhall, but it seems that at least the Targaryen-Tarths survived to this day (my guess is that Selwyn Tarth is the son of daughter by Daella and Dunk).

Whether the Targaryens have other closer-related surviving kin than the Tarths and the Baratheons remains to be seen. Next already come the Martell descendants of Daenerys and Maron, and directly behind them Penrose descendants of Elaena and Ronnel, followed by the 'Plumm descendants' of Elaena and Aegon IV. 

[redtree]

22 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

Equal primogeniture would imply that Dany, Jon, and Aegon were not direct heirs to the throne.  That is, Viserys I and his descendants (who Dany, Jon, and Aegon ultimately are) should not have inherited the throne in the first place:  Rhaenys and her descendants should have right to it first.

While on the topic of equal primogeniture, House Blackfyre can make a claim to the throne via Dornish Law - not through Aegon IV, but through Daena Targaryen, Daemon Targaryen's mother, who should have inherited the throne under equal primogeniture law.

Actually it would mean they need to go way back. Back to Aerea and Rhalla Targaryen, Aenys's granddaughter by his 1st son Aegon. Jaehaerys was the 3rd son yet he got the throne. There aren't much info about them, did they even have issue ? Weird that GRRM doesn't tell us about them

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, redtree said:

Actually it would mean they need to go way back. Back to Aerea and Rhalla Targaryen, Aenys's granddaughter by his 1st son Aegon. Jaehaerys was the 3rd son yet he got the throne. There aren't much info about them, did they even have issue ? Weird that GRRM doesn't tell us about them

They most likely had issue, and possibly even quite a lot descendants. There were nine lesser claimants whose claims were discussed and dismissed at the Great Council in 101 AC, and most, if not all of them, would have been descendants of Aerea and Rhalla Targaryen (or possibly even of Rhaena's, if she remarried after Maegor's death - she was only 25 in 48 AC, after all).

But we have no idea into which houses they married into, nor whether their lines survive to this day. I'm inclined to believe that Lord Lyonel Strong may have had Targaryen ancestors. Jaehaerys I made Lucamore Strong a KG and granted Harrenhal to Lord Lyonel when the Towers line died out. If they were distant relations that could make sense, but that's just a guess.

Any other cadet branches would have to have been founded by (legitimized) Targaryen bastards but we don't know anything about the existence of such bastards throughout the reigns of Aegon I to Jaehaerys I.

[The Wondering Wolf]

22 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

Rhaenys had two (twin) children: Laena and Laenor.

Laena and Laenor were not twins, she was older than him.

[SeanF]

10 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

Discredit is something along the lines that I'm thinking.  It begins with affiliation with the wrong people: Daenerys' affiliation with the Dothraki and The Red Priests or Jon's affiliation with wildlings, for example.  Next comes lack of support of claim and/or identity (Aegon not being believed for being the son of Elia and Rhaegar or Rhaegar and Lyanna's marriage - if applicable - not being recognized.)

Another opportunity to make one's claim would be at a Great Council, which is likely to happen again in the main series.  (Aerys II named Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death, making it unsure whether Daenerys or Aegon would be Viserys' heir.)

A fair point, although I was thinking more in terms of discrediting their descent.

Jon has no real claim to the IT if Rhaegar and Lyanna were unmarried.  If they were married bigamously, it would be still be very much in dispute, given that no Targaryen has married bigamously for 240 years.  The Faith seems prepared to give the Targaryens a pass for incest, but not      bigamy.

Plenty of readers regard Aegon as a fake, and no doubt, there'll be plenty of people in Westeros who view him in the same light.

But, there are no doubts over Dany's heritage at all. 

 

 

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They most likely had issue, and possibly even quite a lot descendants. There were nine lesser claimants whose claims were discussed and dismissed at the Great Council in 101 AC, and most, if not all of them, would have been descendants of Aerea and Rhalla Targaryen (or possibly even of Rhaena's, if she remarried after Maegor's death - she was only 25 in 48 AC, after all).

Any other cadet branches would have to have been founded by (legitimized) Targaryen bastards but we don't know anything about the existence of such bastards throughout the reigns of Aegon I to Jaehaerys I.

Probably the majority of Great Houses can claim a Targaryen ancestor from the First Century.

I agree with you that the Tarths are probably the closest to the Targaryens, after the Baratheons.  I would guess that Brienne is Dany's Third Cousin.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

22 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

With the Dornish possibly becoming bigger players in Winds and/or Dream, how might Dornish Law effect the succession to the throne?  Could House Velaryon or Rhaena's descendants possibly try to make a claim to the throne?

I don't think that dornish law could have a retroactive impact.

After so many generations, Velaryons and Hightowers would not be viewed as anything else but Velaryons and Hightowers. Any of them laying a claim, and you'll have a bunch of other, even more powerful/influential lords to ask themselves "why them and not me". I don't believe that anyone would follow them for the IT on the basis of their claim.

Remember that Robert used his distant Targaryen heritage only as an extra source of legitimacy, only after he had won the throne with his war hammer. Before that, he got his following for other reasons and not because he had a claim.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Probably the majority of Great Houses can claim a Targaryen ancestor from the First Century.

I agree with you that the Tarths are probably the closest to the Targaryens, after the Baratheons.  I would guess that Brienne is Dany's Third Cousin.

Since the Targaryen-Tarth connection from TWoIaF came effectively out of nowhere we can reasonably assume that Brienne is either going to gravitate to Aegon's or Dany's court. I actually expect Brienne to join Aegon's Kingsguard to eventually end up in Dany's camp, playing a crucial role in the coming War for the Dawn as one of the major Targaryen-blooded champions fighting with a Valyrian steel blade.

Whether she or Selwyn make a claim of their own is difficult to say.

Dornish Law in general could come to the fore if the Martells themselves would make a claim for the Iron Throne as the closest noble cousins of House Targaryen should Aegon die prematurely (and after he has effectively won the Iron Throne). Arianne would be his natural heiress, especially if she becomes his wife. And Arianne could sort of solidify her claim to the throne by marrying Selwyn Tarth.

Overall not a very likely scenario but if Aegon dies while people in Westeros still believe that Dany is dead, too, or has no intention of coming that would be a possible scenario.

6 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Remember that Robert used his distant Targaryen heritage only as an extra source of legitimacy, only after he had won the throne with his war hammer. Before that, he got his following for other reasons and not because he had a claim.

That is not the case. First, the Targaryen heritage wasn't exactly distant. Robert and Rhaegar were second cousins.

It is quite clear that Robert's charisma and people skills greatly helped his campaign and won him unexpected allies during the Rebellion, but him slaying Robert in single combat didn't make him claim. His legal claim to the Iron Throne did.

Robert was pushed in the leadership/figurehead position of his claim after Jon Arryn started the Rebellion because of his legal claim. Had Robert not been Aegon V's great-grandson the rebels would have fought in the name of another pretender with Targaryen ancestry - say, Selwyn Tarth or a Penrose.

Westeros hasn't reached a level of barbarism in which only might make right. Trident or not, if Robert didn't have a better legal claim than Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, or Eddard Stark, then there wouldn't have been any reason why those men would have chosen him to be their king. If Robert had just been some great lord with no blood ties to the royal house it would have been very difficult to justify why he should rule over his peers.

Just look at Robb - he could claim kingship over the North and the Riverlands because he was ruling the North already, had blood ties to the Tullys of Riverrun, and because they were fighting against the Iron Throne. But had Robb actually defeated all his enemies in the field/conquered KL there wouldn't have been any reason why the Vale, the Stormlands, the Reach, or Dorne would have accepted Robb as their king. Not while he hadn't conquered all those territories.

Had Robert been just 'some dude' like Robb would have been, the Trident and the Sack wouldn't have ended the war because the rebels wouldn't have any reason to assume that the other great lords would have accepted him as their king.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not the case. First, the Targaryen heritage wasn't exactly distant. Robert and Rhaegar were second cousins.

It is quite clear that Robert's charisma and people skills greatly helped his campaign and won him unexpected allies during the Rebellion, but him slaying Robert in single combat didn't make him claim. His legal claim to the Iron Throne did.

Robert was pushed in the leadership/figurehead position of his claim after Jon Arryn started the Rebellion because of his legal claim. Had Robert not been Aegon V's great-grandson the rebels would have fought in the name of another pretender with Targaryen ancestry - say, Selwyn Tarth or a Penrose.

Westeros hasn't reached a level of barbarism in which only might make right. Trident or not, if Robert didn't have a better legal claim than Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, or Eddard Stark, then there wouldn't have been any reason why those men would have chosen him to be their king. If Robert had just been some great lord with no blood ties to the royal house it would have been very difficult to justify why he should rule over his peers.

Just look at Robb - he could claim kingship over the North and the Riverlands because he was ruling the North already, had blood ties to the Tullys of Riverrun, and because they were fighting against the Iron Throne. But had Robb actually defeated all his enemies in the field/conquered KL there wouldn't have been any reason why the Vale, the Stormlands, the Reach, or Dorne would have accepted Robb as their king. Not while he hadn't conquered all those territories.

Had Robert been just 'some dude' like Robb would have been, the Trident and the Sack wouldn't have ended the war because the rebels wouldn't have any reason to assume that the other great lords would have accepted him as their king.

I do not agree.

His claim did help in order to finish the war easier and to face smaller resistance. But no, I do not agree that they would look for another pretender. One of the three leaders would take the role (though I would agree that they'd propably chose the one who would be more likely to gain acceptance more easily, if that's really the point - so it wouldn't be Ned).

Robb is not a valid examble IMO: he was never after the IT, or any throne for that matter, to begin with; the crowning just happened.

The Sack really sealed the deal IMO; it added Tywin's Westerlands into the Stormlands, Riverlands, North, Vale alliance. There were not many options after that, really; it was either accept the new regime or claim independence, irrespectively of Robert's (or any dude's) proximity to the Targaryen line. I don't think Doran gave a shit about Robert's claim, for examble, and that he might have took a different path of action if he was just a "random" lord.

(Dorne, contrary to the Iron Islands, might have pulled this off successfully, IMO, if only they had another leader instead of Doran.)

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

stuff

Well, there is a reason why Lord Tywin didn't claim the Iron Throne for himself during the Sack. The Lannisters toppled the Targaryen dynasty, not Robert Baratheon. Tywin didn't have a claim. There is talk that Robert 'was too strong' and all but militarily the Lannisters certainly had numbers and the strength to oppose the rebels.

As to the other thing:

Robert's Rebellion didn't begin as a rebellion to win the throne just Robb didn't march to become king. He was proclaimed because he had success and was fighting against the Iron Throne. Robert and the rebels made the decision to make Robert king at one point during the war - around the Trident, as far as we know.

We also know that Robert had little intention to become king and was pushed into that role by Jon and Ned, effectively. That means that the rebels most likely had, if there had been no claimant with royal blood among the other great lords among the rebels, put forth some claimant who wasn't a leader of the rebels like, say, Selwyn Tarth.

Just as other rebel leaders like Bittersteel had put forth other pretenders as figureheads/puppets because they themselves had either not the claim or little hope to push their claim.

Or go back to the wars against Maegor - Robar Baratheon and other rebels eventually supported Jaehaerys' claims rather than pushing their own and/or trying to restore the old Seven Kingdoms again. During the Dance minors became puppets as well. Being a dragonrider gave you a claim of sorts as well but the majority of the lords stuck to the Targaryen claimants rather than trying to take the throne themselves.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, there is a reason why Lord Tywin didn't claim the Iron Throne for himself during the Sack. The Lannisters toppled the Targaryen dynasty, not Robert Baratheon. Tywin didn't have a claim. There is talk that Robert 'was too strong' and all but militarily the Lannisters certainly had numbers and the strength to oppose the rebels.

As to the other thing:

Robert's Rebellion didn't begin as a rebellion to win the throne just Robb didn't march to become king. He was proclaimed because he had success and was fighting against the Iron Throne. Robert and the rebels made the decision to make Robert king at one point during the war - around the Trident, as far as we know.

We also know that Robert had little intention to become king and was pushed into that role by Jon and Ned, effectively. That means that the rebels most likely had, if there had been no claimant with royal blood among the other great lords among the rebels, put forth some claimant who wasn't a leader of the rebels like, say, Selwyn Tarth.

Just as other rebel leaders like Bittersteel had put forth other pretenders as figureheads/puppets because they themselves had either not the claim or little hope to push their claim.

Or go back to the wars against Maegor - Robar Baratheon and other rebels eventually supported Jaehaerys' claims rather than pushing their own and/or trying to restore the old Seven Kingdoms again. During the Dance minors became puppets as well. Being a dragonrider gave you a claim of sorts as well but the majority of the lords stuck to the Targaryen claimants rather than trying to take the throne themselves.

Re Tywin, why would he go to a costly, and of uncertain outcome, war against the rebels when he effectively claimed the throne by other means?

Re the exambles of children/puppet claimants are about direct heirs, not about some distant relative pulled out of the closet, like Selwyn Tarh, that you propose, would be. My opinion is that a Selwyn Tarh figure would invoke zero loyalty on the ground of being "the rightful heir". This is not, I repeat not, at all the same with, say, baby Aegon if he was kept alive. He could be used as a figurehead; a Selwyn guy not. It's just like the cousin in the Vale debate between Robb and Catelyn.

Look, you reply as if I am positing that a claim does not matter at all. This is not the case though. I am only saying (and I see no argument good enough to change my opinion) that a distant relative just won't do. The "claim" is so weak that they'd need some serious force to impose it, thus rendering it quasi useless.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, ShadowCat Rivers said:

stuff

Well, okay, I just mentioned the Tarth claim and possibly even the Penrose claim because both houses would have been among Robert's rebels during the war, and could thus have been used by them as figureheads against the Targaryens - if Robert can be made king by the rebels so could they if Robert and the others backed them, no?

Robert and the other rebels could have been 'King Selwyn's' loyal champions and counselors like Bittersteel, Fireball, and the other Blackfyre partisans were for Daemon I and his sons and grandsons.

But if we assume that there was no Tarth claimant then the Rebellion most likely wouldn't have ended with Robert's ascension to the Iron Throne but the installation of King Viserys III and Regency dominated by the rebels. That would have been preferable to a king without a legal claim who wouldn't have been able to keep other secessionists like Balon Greyjoy in check. Not to mention that Robert, in such a scenario, would have had no chance to argue against Viserys' claim should he eventually return to Westeros to claim his father's throne.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, okay, I just mentioned the Tarth claim and possibly even the Penrose claim because both houses would have been among Robert's rebels during the war, and could thus have been used by them as figureheads against the Targaryens - if Robert can be made king by the rebels so could they if Robert and the others backed them, no?

Robert and the other rebels could have been 'King Selwyn's' loyal champions and counselors like Bittersteel, Fireball, and the other Blackfyre partisans were for Daemon I and his sons and grandsons.

But if we assume that there was no Tarth claimant then the Rebellion most likely wouldn't have ended with Robert's ascension to the Iron Throne but the installation of King Viserys III and Regency dominated by the rebels. That would have been preferable to a king without a legal claim who wouldn't have been able to keep other secessionists like Balon Greyjoy in check. Not to mention that Robert, in such a scenario, would have had no chance to argue against Viserys' claim should he eventually return to Westeros to claim his father's throne.

Again I do not agree, and I am not sure how well I manage to phrase what I am trying to say.

The idea is, that SelwynTarth (or anyone with a similar level of relevance to the Targaryen line) would not provide the desirable legitimacy as a "continuator" of the rulling dynasty because he's too far removed that the argument of lawful succession would not persuade anyone. Consequently, he could not fullfil the very reason to push him forward. Ergo, nobody would opt to use such a person as figurehead. That's my take anyway. (Again, Daemon and sis sons are direct heirs, so IMO not good counter exambles. I don't think they'd be able to do the same with some son of Daemon's second cousin.)

I don't know what's the argument in the last paragraph. It's not like the Iron Islands didn't rebel anyway, because Robert had a claim. I don't even know if Balon might have had the exact same idea  in the case of your Viserys III examble, just because he might estimate that the situation allows to go for it, or if he might decide to only do some raid instead, or nothing at all. However, I can be quite certain that it was not Robert's claim that kept Dorne into the fold. I also don't know what the rebels might have decided to do in the 'no claim' case. Perhaps they might have opted to go for separate kingdoms once again (which might be preferable, but this is only my opinion), or as you say they might prefer to call for Viserys provided that they'd keep the regency. But again, Viserys is a direct heir, a son of the previous king, not some distant relative like a Velaryon or a Hightower would be at that point.

[illrede]

There was another context to the Baratheon claim that worked in its favor; lines of descent to determine who qualifies as the most valid Targaryen de-facto cadet branch are a matter of breaking out the genealogies and adjudicating dead history; the people that put/agreed-to-live-with-other-people-putting Robert on the throne were probably guests at his grandmother's wedding- it was still all vital living memory. If they had to do the exact thing again, a generation removed, it wouldn't be the same sort of thing. Probably made things much easier and more plausible.