What makes someone truly legitimate?

[Nevets]

There seem to be two main questions at play here:  How to confirm someone is who they say they are, and how to confirm someone's parents are who they say they are.  

Proving identity pretty much depends on either being recognizable to a large number of people, or being recognized by someone who is also known and trusted.  Ramsay needed Theon to vouch for "Arya"'s identity because he was known to everyone and he knew Arya.  He had ulterior motives, obviously, and lied to keep himself alive.  I expect there are those on scene who actually recognize Jeyne Poole and therefore knows she is a fake.  This situation could possibly poison the well when the real Arya shows up.  She could very possibly have trouble establishing who she really is.  She will need someone credible and known to others to vouch for her, and it may be difficult.  That is also the reason that Manderly insists on Rickon's wolf appearing with him if he arrives.  The wolf, in this case, will serve to affirm his identity.

Aegon, essentially, has to prove his parentage.  This will probably be essentially impossible.  ON the other hand, if someone, such as Varys, admits he is a fake, that would likely be true, since there would probably be no motive. to lie about it.   In-world, Tommen's parentage is unprovable, without a public statement by Cersei or Jaime.  We know better, because both of them have privately admitted it, to Eddard and Catelyn respectively.

[Ser Loras The Gay]

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

There seem to be two main questions at play here:  How to confirm someone is who they say they are, and how to confirm someone's parents are who they say they are.  

Proving identity pretty much depends on either being recognizable to a large number of people, or being recognized by someone who is also known and trusted.  Ramsay needed Theon to vouch for "Arya"'s identity because he was known to everyone and he knew Arya.  He had ulterior motives, obviously, and lied to keep himself alive.  I expect there are those on scene who actually recognize Jeyne Poole and therefore knows she is a fake.  This situation could possibly poison the well when the real Arya shows up.  She could very possibly have trouble establishing who she really is.  She will need someone credible and known to others to vouch for her, and it may be difficult.  That is also the reason that Manderly insists on Rickon's wolf appearing with him if he arrives.  The wolf, in this case, will serve to affirm his identity.

Aegon, essentially, has to prove his parentage.  This will probably be essentially impossible.  ON the other hand, if someone, such as Varys, admits he is a fake, that would likely be true, since there would probably be no motive. to lie about it.   In-world, Tommen's parentage is unprovable, without a public statement by Cersei or Jaime.  We know better, because both of them have privately admitted it, to Eddard and Catelyn respectively.

Exactly what I was trying to make a discussion about. In ASOIAF everything is about the perception and acceptance rather than the truth. If enough people believe in a story the story becomes true for everyone. People can know it's not true, but that doesn't matter, much like our own world. When powerful, trustful and honest people on the setting say something it's regardaded as absolute truth, even if we can't falsify the information.

[Universal Sword Donor]

19 minutes ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

Exactly what I was trying to make a discussion about. In ASOIAF everything is about the perception and acceptance rather than the truth. If enough people believe in a story the story becomes true for everyone. People can know it's not true, but that doesn't matter, much like our own world. When powerful, trustful and honest people on the setting say something it's regardaded as absolute truth, even if we can't falsify the information.

When you are too legitimate, you cannot quit.

[Victor Newman]

23 hours ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

fuck. I don't know if I made my point confusing or the subject is confusing by itself. I was talking about true identity. Is aegon a targaryen? If so, how can we be 100% sure? By witnessess? By a paper signed by the king? By conquering the kingdoms and self proclaiming a targaryen? We now know that DNA is unique per person, but for the ASOIAF story how to be sure about those things?

This is exactly the problem that any person claiming to be Targaryen will have to face.  Implanted dreams and a piece of paper is not going to be convincing enough.  Three dragons and silver-blonde hair will do the trick.

[The Twinslayer]

Being legitimate vs being a bastard depends on your parents going through a wedding ceremony that is perceived as legitimate by the lords, the religious authorities, and to a lesser extent, the small folk.  That is why the Green Grace tells Dany that a marriage to Hizdar must conform to local practice in Meereen in order to be valid.  So a marriage that violates the customs and norms of Westeros (for example, a polygamous marriage) is unlikely to produce any "trueborn" offspring.

Being legitimate for inheritance purposes is more complicated.  Walder Frey says in AGOT that he has the right to name his own heir from among his trueborn children or his bastards.  That was certainly true in much of medieval Europe and it may have been designed to lay the groundwork for the revelation in TWOIAF that Aerys placed Viserys before Rhaegar's children in the line of succession.  In other words, a lord or a king gets to choose his own heir. 

Being legitimate in terms of being the genetic (or legal)  child of your mother's husband is even more complicated.  Tywin confirms (when talking to Tyrion) that the law in Westeros says that a child born to a married woman is legally the child of her husband unless he can prove otherwise.  That is why Maester Aemon seems indifferent to whether King Daeron was really the son of Aegon IV or the son of Aemon the Dragonknight.   Because no one could prove that Daeron was genetically a bastard, either through convincing people or through winning a civil war, Daeron was (legally) the king and his descendants "legitimately" inherited the throne.  If it really mattered what the true genetic facts are, then every king and prince who came after Daeron -- from Baelor Breakspear to Rhaegar -- would have their royal status open to question.  

[Moiraine Sedai]

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

Being legitimate vs being a bastard depends on your parents going through a wedding ceremony that is perceived as legitimate by the lords, the religious authorities, and to a lesser extent, the small folk.  That is why the Green Grace tells Dany that a marriage to Hizdar must conform to local practice in Meereen in order to be valid.  So a marriage that violates the customs and norms of Westeros (for example, a polygamous marriage) is unlikely to produce any "trueborn" offspring.

Being legitimate for inheritance purposes is more complicated.  Walder Frey says in AGOT that he has the right to name his own heir from among his trueborn children or his bastards.  That was certainly true in much of medieval Europe and it may have been designed to lay the groundwork for the revelation in TWOIAF that Aerys placed Viserys before Rhaegar's children in the line of succession.  In other words, a lord or a king gets to choose his own heir. 

Being legitimate in terms of being the genetic (or legal)  child of your mother's husband is even more complicated.  Tywin confirms (when talking to Tyrion) that the law in Westeros says that a child born to a married woman is legally the child of her husband unless he can prove otherwise.  That is why Maester Aemon seems indifferent to whether King Daeron was really the son of Aegon IV or the son of Aemon the Dragonknight.   Because no one could prove that Daeron was genetically a bastard, either through convincing people or through winning a civil war, Daeron was (legally) the king and his descendants "legitimately" inherited the throne.  If it really mattered what the true genetic facts are, then every king and prince who came after Daeron -- from Baelor Breakspear to Rhaegar -- would have their royal status open to question.  

Aerys was the lawgiver and could name his heir.  Walder doesn't get the same choice.  Robb doesnt have that choice.

[Lord Varys]

The basic thing that makes you 'a legitimate and rightful heir' would be that you are born in wedlock and are recognized by the husband of your mother as his seed. They usually do that by accepting you as their son.

You should also look somewhat like your father so that there are no foul rumors spread that you may be somebody else's seed.

But that isn't enough. If you are a cripple, a freak, an eccentric, a weirdo, a weakling, a dwarf, etc. people won't be all that willing to follow you, look up to you, serve you.

George introduces us to this fact in the very Prologue of the series, when he has Will reflect on Ser Waymar Royce. Birth and rank mean little in relation to experience. If the heir of a king or lord shows again and again that he is stupid, foolish, incompetent, craven, erratic, etc. this will have an effect on his public image and the willingness of his father's subjects to accept him as their liege or king when the time comes.

People not liking such a person will find reasons and pretexts why to reject such a person and denounce him as their liege or king. That can be seen in Visenya Targaryen who spread the tale that Aenys I giving Blackfyre to Maegor 'proves' that he himself admits that he isn't up to the task of being king. The same tale is later spread by the adherents of Daemon Blackfyre in the variation that Aegon giving Blackfyre to Daemon meant that he wanted Daemon to be king.

Or take the rumors the Greens spread about Rhaenyra's sons or Stannis about Cersei's children. Or Cersei's attempt to destroy Margaery. She was targeting her reputation.

The gist of all that is to undermine a legitimacy of a person that is in the stronger position. If you are not happy with the firstborn son of somebody and the father is fine with that person you have to discredit them if you are trying to get around them.

And this works in Westeros just as well as it does in our world.

[Luddagain]

Lord Varys

Quite so.

However we must also consider that there are many different cultures (in our world and in Westeros) and therefore legitimacy is cultural . For example in some societies (eg Saudi) polygamy is permitted and any child of 10 or more wives may be considered legitimate (you can divorce easily so the wives change over from time to time). Order of marriage, age of the child and the power and prestige of the mother's family matter too, along with the personality of the son (it is always a son). However they are all "legitimate." 

In Westeros the Targs (as in Egyspt) practice polygamy and incest. The "church" is opposed but power ie dragons means that it is tolerated. As the power of the dragons waned so too did the Targ capacity to change convention wane.

The other issue that always arises is when two cultures meet. We see it obviously in Dorne where the eldest inherits regardless of sex, but this is unacceptable in the rest of Westeros.  In Scotland the real story of MacBeth and Duncan was over the order of inheritance ie matrilineal versus patrilineal.

A similar problem arises when two kingdoms merge. When Torrhen knelt presumably he owed allegiance to the IT but what actual powers over his lands and people did he in fact cede. Rues of succession? religion? marriage rites? right of the first night? justice and sentencing? We can assume that some but not all of these powers were ceded but slowly, over time.

We actually know NOTHING of marriage practices of the old Gods. Is polygamy accepted? What constitutes a marriage - do you need witnesses? This matters a very great deal in terms of legitimacy and inheritance. It matters a very great deal for Jon Snow.  If for example under the Old Gods polygamy is accepted provided marriage sworn to a heart tree and the father acknowledges the child, then Jon is possibly legitimate - regardless of Robb's will.

The other problem arises when a state chooses secession.  Thus when Robb declared himself KoN he was withdrawing from a contract that he maintained was no longer valid. Indeed under feudal laws Robb owed NO loyalty to Joffrey, until such time as HE took an oath. The swearing of successors only works to an extent because conflict is always possible. After all Lords and Princes may well inherit property from two different realms an owe allegiance to two different "Kings" (this was definitely true of the UK Plantagenet on whom the Targs are based. That is why kings routinely demanded that all their vassals come swear personally in court (and leave a child as squire or Lady in Waiting - essentially a hostage).

[The Commentator]

12 hours ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

Exactly what I was trying to make a discussion about. In ASOIAF everything is about the perception and acceptance rather than the truth. If enough people believe in a story the story becomes true for everyone. People can know it's not true, but that doesn't matter, much like our own world. When powerful, trustful and honest people on the setting say something it's regardaded as absolute truth, even if we can't falsify the information.

Not necessarily.  That may be enough if there are no competing beliefs that have stronger evidence to back them up.  Evidence trumps belief. 

[The Commentator]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The basic thing that makes you 'a legitimate and rightful heir' would be that you are born in wedlock and are recognized by the husband of your mother as his seed. They usually do that by accepting you as their son.

You should also look somewhat like your father so that there are no foul rumors spread that you may be somebody else's seed.

But that isn't enough. If you are a cripple, a freak, an eccentric, a weirdo, a weakling, a dwarf, etc. people won't be all that willing to follow you, look up to you, serve you.

George introduces us to this fact in the very Prologue of the series, when he has Will reflect on Ser Waymar Royce. Birth and rank mean little in relation to experience. If the heir of a king or lord shows again and again that he is stupid, foolish, incompetent, craven, erratic, etc. this will have an effect on his public image and the willingness of his father's subjects to accept him as their liege or king when the time comes.

People not liking such a person will find reasons and pretexts why to reject such a person and denounce him as their liege or king. That can be seen in Visenya Targaryen who spread the tale that Aenys I giving Blackfyre to Maegor 'proves' that he himself admits that he isn't up to the task of being king. The same tale is later spread by the adherents of Daemon Blackfyre in the variation that Aegon giving Blackfyre to Daemon meant that he wanted Daemon to be king.

Or take the rumors the Greens spread about Rhaenyra's sons or Stannis about Cersei's children. Or Cersei's attempt to destroy Margaery. She was targeting her reputation.

The gist of all that is to undermine a legitimacy of a person that is in the stronger position. If you are not happy with the firstborn son of somebody and the father is fine with that person you have to discredit them if you are trying to get around them.

And this works in Westeros just as well as it does in our world.

Discrediting can only work up to a point.  The law is strict and followed.  Samwell is an obese craven who liked to dress up in girl clothes and play with porcelain tea sets, yet that would not prevent him from inheriting his father's lands and titles.  Look, their system is rigid in some things and laughably flexible in other matters.  The right to succeed depends on birth order and blood line.  It had nothing to do with competence.  The nobles ruled by right of birth (and might) and not by personal competency.  Eddard is far more competent than Brandon and yet Brandon would have inherited Winterfell and the right to govern the north on behalf of the throne.  Stannis is more competent than Robert but that didn't matter.  The southron conspiracy involved Robert and Brandon, not Stannis and Eddard.  

[Ser Loras The Gay]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Not necessarily.  That may be enough if there are no competing beliefs that have stronger evidence to back them up.  Evidence trumps belief. 

And what is evidence in the ASOIAF universe? Similar looks? Dragons? Paper?

[The Twinslayer]

12 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Aerys was the lawgiver and could name his heir.  Walder doesn't get the same choice.  Robb doesnt have that choice.

Walder claims that right in AGOT:  "Save your sweet words, my lady.  Sweet words I get from my wife.  Did you see her?  Sixteen she is, a little flower, and her honey's only for me.  I wager she gives me a son by this time next year.  Perhaps I'll make him heir, wouldn't that boil the rest of them?"

There is no reason for GRRM to have Walder say that unless it is designed to make the reader aware that inheritance rules are flexible.  

Also, Robb and Catelyn seem to think Robb also has that power:  "That dwarf must never have the north."  "No," Catelyn agreed.  "You must name another heir, until such time as Jeyne gives you a son."

Just as Arianne thinks Doran Martell has that power:  "Tell me, father, when did you decide to disinherit me?" 

[Valyrian Blade]

While it is true that lords have the power to name their heir or desinherit. We are ignoring birthright.

 

The eldest son has birthright to his father's lands, titles and holdings. And the first time a king tried to ignore birthright a civil war sparked.

The concept of birthright is respected in Westeros, i could get some quotes but through my phone is hard.

[ftheking]

On 31.5.2017 at 4:20 AM, Ser Loras The Gay said:

fuck. I don't know if I made my point confusing or the subject is confusing by itself. I was talking about true identity. Is aegon a targaryen? If so, how can we be 100% sure? By witnessess? By a paper signed by the king? By conquering the kingdoms and self proclaiming a targaryen? We now know that DNA is unique per person, but for the ASOIAF story how to be sure about those things?

WE can be 100% sure, when we see Varys take Aegon from Elia's arms and put him into Jon's. Kind of like in real life where we can be sure of many things which we expirienced first hand.

Do DNA test play a huge role in your life? Do they in the succession to the throne in any monarchy anywhere today? No. So ... where is the difference?

15 hours ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

Exactly what I was trying to make a discussion about. In ASOIAF everything is about the perception and acceptance rather than the truth. If enough people believe in a story the story becomes true for everyone. People can know it's not true, but that doesn't matter, much like our own world. When powerful, trustful and honest people on the setting say something it's regardaded as absolute truth, even if we can't falsify the information.

Well no, on the contrary, no lie ever prevails in ASoIaF. It is very important and consequential that Cersei's children are not Robert's. It starts a HUGE war and kills all those mentioned eventually (I guess). It is very important that Jon isn't Ned's bastard and it will not stay hidden. It matters a huge deal to everyone involved that Jeyne is not Arya. It's probably what brings Theon back, because he can't lie to himself like that, no matter how afraid he is. Jeyne, Jeyne it rhymes with pain. That is important. NOTHING is as important as the truth in ASoIaF. 

26 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

Walder claims that right in AGOT:  "Save your sweet words, my lady.  Sweet words I get from my wife.  Did you see her?  Sixteen she is, a little flower, and her honey's only for me.  I wager she gives me a son by this time next year.  Perhaps I'll make him heir, wouldn't that boil the rest of them?"

There is no reason for GRRM to have Walder say that unless it is designed to make the reader aware that inheritance rules are flexible.  

Also, Robb and Catelyn seem to think Robb also has that power:  "That dwarf must never have the north."  "No," Catelyn agreed.  "You must name another heir, until such time as Jeyne gives you a son."

Just as Arianne thinks Doran Martell has that power:  "Tell me, father, when did you decide to disinherit me?" 

Balon also thinks he has that power. Quite apparently he is wrong. Maybe if people agreed with his choice,

Seriously we never saw that working out ever, right? Randyll Tarly knows what's up and that he either has to kill Sam or send him to the wall to settle the issue. (Even though I bet Sam would actually be the one person who'd accept the slight without fight)

[The Twinslayer]

50 minutes ago, ftheking said:

Balon also thinks he has that power. Quite apparently he is wrong. Maybe if people agreed with his choice,

Seriously we never saw that working out ever, right? Randyll Tarly knows what's up and that he either has to kill Sam or send him to the wall to settle the issue. (Even though I bet Sam would actually be the one person who'd accept the slight without fight)

Balon is not a good example for your point. If inheritance rules were rigid, the kingsmoot would have made Theon king.  Just as the Great Council would have made Maegor (son of Aerion) king rather than Aegon V.

And Randyll Tarly did not have to kill Sam or send him to the Wall to make Dickon his heir.  Randyll could easily make Dickon his heir -- he even tells Sam that he has the power to disown him.  Randyll sent Sam to the Wall so that Sam would not join the Citadel and become a Maester.  "No son of House Tarly will ever wear a chain.  The men of Horn Hill do not bow and scrape to petty lords."  Randall thought that having a son join the Night's Watch was nobler than having a son become a maester. 

Randall had several options for making Dickon his heir but the only way to prevent Sam from becoming a maester was to send him to the Wall or kill him.  (The irony, of course, is that the Watch is sending Sam to the Citadel anyway).  

[ftheking]

1 minute ago, The Twinslayer said:

Balon is not a good example for your point. If inheritance rules were rigid, the kingsmoot would have made Theon king.  Just as the Great Council would have made Maegor (son of Aerion) king rather than Aegon V.

And Randyll Tarly did not have to kill Sam or send him to the Wall to make Dickon his heir.  Randyll could easily make Dickon his heir -- he even tells Sam that he has the power to disown him.  Randyll sent Sam to the Wall so that Sam would not join the Citadel and become a Maester.  "No son of House Tarly will ever wear a chain.  The men of Horn Hill do not bow and scrape to petty lords."  Randall thought that having a son join the Night's Watch was nobler than having a son become a maester. 

Randall had several options for making Dickon his heir but the only way to prevent Sam from becoming a maester was to send him to the Wall or kill him.  (The irony, of course, is that the Watch is sending Sam to the Citadel anyway).  

Theon was not at the kingsmoot. He was believed dead.

The kingsmoot was a VERY out of the ordinary event, only made possible by the king naming his daughter his heir. So it's a very good example for my point. (Well, and by Euron claiming the crown after killing th king, Plus Theon was believed dead. And Damphair is quite creative, especially when it comes to oppossing Euron. Several issues came together tbh. Still no one whatsoever cares about Balon's will. Those who support Asha do it for her sake alone)

I remember the citadel thing, but I think you are mixing the two stories up. Randyll tortured the maester plans out of Sam when he was much younger - a little kid was my impression. He sent him to the wall and threatened to kill him so that Dickon would be the heir, I think that is made pretty clear.

 

[Raisin' Bran]

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

When you are too legitimate, you cannot quit.

Hey Hey!!!

4 hours ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

And what is evidence in the ASOIAF universe? Similar looks? Dragons? Paper?

Paper has been discredited before in the series (or simply torn up). At this point in time, the only way I see that Aegon can gain widespread acceptance is if he is a  dragonrider. The looks would be secondary evidence.

[Ser Loras The Gay]

1 hour ago, Raisin' Bran said:

Paper has been discredited before in the series (or simply torn up). At this point in time, the only way I see that Aegon can gain widespread acceptance is if he is a  dragonrider. The looks would be secondary evidence.

I see, so there is some objective way to measure this things.

[Raisin' Bran]

55 minutes ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

I see, so there is some objective way to measure this things.

Acceptance has nothing to do with objectivity. Circumstantial evidence and testimony do not produce facts. The people will fall into line or get burned to a crisp if Aegon successfully mounts a dragon.

Once his right to rule is accepted, it will become truth. Though truth and fact are not always compatible with each other.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Luddagain said:

Lord Varys

Quite so.

However we must also consider that there are many different cultures (in our world and in Westeros) and therefore legitimacy is cultural.

That is definitely the case. Nobody doubts that.

9 hours ago, Luddagain said:

For example in some societies (eg Saudi) polygamy is permitted and any child of 10 or more wives may be considered legitimate (you can divorce easily so the wives change over from time to time). Order of marriage, age of the child and the power and prestige of the mother's family matter too, along with the personality of the son (it is always a son). However they are all "legitimate." 

In Westeros the Targs (as in Egyspt) practice polygamy and incest. The "church" is opposed but power ie dragons means that it is tolerated. As the power of the dragons waned so too did the Targ capacity to change convention wane.

That isn't the case. There is precedent among the Targaryens for polygamy, as there was in Valyria, but those were, compared to the traditional incest, uncommon and mostly done by those so-called 'sorcerer princes'. Now, there were two Targaryens kings who practiced polygamy in Westeros - Aegon and Maegor - but there were also First Men kings (a Gardener king and the Durrandon bastard king Ronard Storm) who practiced polygamy. Kings are above the law. They can do that. Everybody else cannot.

The Targaryens ended up enforcing their incest thing but they did not do the same for polygamy. And even incest remained a crime. It seems that only kings could arrange incestuous marriages (or allow their family to get away with it after the fact). If Viserys I or Aegon V had wanted it they most likely could have sentenced Rhaenyra, Daemon, Jaehaerys, and Shaera to death for the crime of incest.

9 hours ago, Luddagain said:

The other issue that always arises is when two cultures meet. We see it obviously in Dorne where the eldest inherits regardless of sex, but this is unacceptable in the rest of Westeros.  In Scotland the real story of MacBeth and Duncan was over the order of inheritance ie matrilineal versus patrilineal.

In Dorne there was a slow cultural shift there. And it doesn't seem that Dornish inheritance follows Rhoynish custom everyone. The heir to Yronwood isn't Lord Anders' eldest child (a daughter), it is Lord Anders' eldest son.

9 hours ago, Luddagain said:

A similar problem arises when two kingdoms merge. When Torrhen knelt presumably he owed allegiance to the IT but what actual powers over his lands and people did he in fact cede. Rues of succession? religion? marriage rites? right of the first night? justice and sentencing? We can assume that some but not all of these powers were ceded but slowly, over time.

Aegon apparently let the laws stand as they were for the time being but he was the overlord now. Considering the power the Targaryens had back then only distance would have given the Starks the feeling of power and semi-independence. But with the dragonriders and a king who was doing many royal progresses this would have been an illusion.

9 hours ago, Luddagain said:

We actually know NOTHING of marriage practices of the old Gods. Is polygamy accepted? What constitutes a marriage - do you need witnesses? This matters a very great deal in terms of legitimacy and inheritance. It matters a very great deal for Jon Snow.  If for example under the Old Gods polygamy is accepted provided marriage sworn to a heart tree and the father acknowledges the child, then Jon is possibly legitimate - regardless of Robb's will.

As I've said, there were First Men kings who had multiple wives. But those were kings. Normal people don't seem to have them, and even the kings thing has fallen out of practice.

Prince Rhaegar married Princess Elia in the Great Sept of Baelor, speaking the marriage vow of the Faith of the Andals, the religion House Targaryen follows. And that vow forbids you to take a second wife. Even if Rhaegar did marry Lyanna in front of true the Faith would not accept that. And essentially the entire Realm follows the Seven. The adherents of the old gods or the Drowned God are minorities. They don't decide whether a marriage in the Seven Kingdoms is valid or not. The Faith does.

8 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Discrediting can only work up to a point.  The law is strict and followed.  Samwell is an obese craven who liked to dress up in girl clothes and play with porcelain tea sets, yet that would not prevent him from inheriting his father's lands and titles.

We actually don't know that. Perhaps Samwell could have tried to claim Dickon's lordship against Randyll's will, perhaps not. He is, as you point out, a craven. So he might have just sat meekly while Dickon takes Horn Hill as his father (and by that time most likely all of his father's retainers because they don't like to serve a fat craven).

We don't know that. The idea that the law or Lord Tyrell or the king would have come to Samwell's defense is pretty far-fetched. A man has to fight for his right in this world. People are not going to give it to him. And even Tytos Lannister would have been a stronger, more determined man than Samwell as he was when he arrived at the Wall.

Now, I'd agree that Sam would have been the heir had Randyll not made it clear that he wanted Dickon to inherit. But if he had done that Sam might have been at least as bad a position as Tyrion is in ASoS. He is most definitely not Tywin's heir. And he knows and understands that.

I think Randyll sent Sam to the Wall because he did not want this piece of shit around anymore. He did not want to see him, and he did not want to be reminded by anybody that he ever existed. That is why Sam was not allowed to become a maester or septon who might then in service somewhere in the Reach and still a disgrace to House Tarly.

The other reason would be that Randyll's enemies and ambitious people in the Reach might end up using the craven Sam as a tool against Dickon if he was still around somewhere, just as Maester Aemon feared he could be used against Aegon V if he remained at his court. That could be a real danger for Dickon, even if Sam was a septon or maester.

8 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Look, their system is rigid in some things and laughably flexible in other matters.  The right to succeed depends on birth order and blood line.  It had nothing to do with competence.  The nobles ruled by right of birth (and might) and not by personal competency.

They rule if they can. Right of birth and blood doesn't make you ruler, though. If you can't rule, you will die. Either in battle or because your brothers, cousins, lords, or vassals kill you. That's how things go. Tytos Lannister could not rule and he had no strong son to defend him in the end the Reynes would have taken Casterly Rock in the end. That much is clear.

We also see this in the North. The Northmen will never accept a cripple like Bran as their lord or king. They will kill him or at least not accept him as their liege, never mind the right of primogeniture and blood. It is also clear that you have to show that you can rule in the North. Else you will end up dead, too. Robb is permanently tested by his lords in AGoT, and it is a matter of life and death that he pass them.