Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 7/18/2019 at 4:10 AM, Lord Varys said:

It is clear: Heirs are named and installed. If a daughter is the heir, she cannot be disinherited in favor of the children from the second marriage.

Based on your reasoning, Catelyn Tully was disinherited by her father, when Edmure was born.

Or do you mean, that if a daughter is moved lower in line of inheritance by her sibling, born by the same mother, then it's not a disinheritance, by if she is moved down the line by her half-sibling, born by a different mother, then it is a disinheritance? That's just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Based on your reasoning, Catelyn Tully was disinherited by her father, when Edmure was born.

Or do you mean, that if a daughter is moved lower in line of inheritance by her sibling, born by the same mother, then it's not a disinheritance, by if she is moved down the line by her half-sibling, born by a different mother, then it is a disinheritance? That's just wrong.

No, the point is that daughters are always only presumptive heirs until it is clear that a man won't ever have a son - which is essentially never really clear even if his wife can no longer bear children since he could still remarry after her death.

But once a man comes to terms with the fact that he won't have any sons there would be a point where he formally installs and anoints his daughter as his heir so that the Realm and other male kin know that he has a female heir now, a daughter he grooms to succeed him one day, etc.

With an oldest son it is always clear that he will be the heir, but with a daughter this is not the case.

And my argument is that the Widow's Law could be used to defend the formal installation of an eldest daughter from the first marriage as heir against the disinheriting of that daughter in favor of a son from a second or third wife. After all, you are disinherited if you have been formally named heir.

That is what the Widow's Law means when it stipulates that the children from the first marriage cannot be disinherited in favor of those from the second marriage - this literally means that a man cannot pass over the older children from the first wife in favor of the children from the second marriage. Meaning disinheriting definitely means pass over in this context. It doesn't mean you can not inherit under any possible circumstances, it just means you cannot now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

No, it is you who are confused on the matter - Joffrey quite clearly disinherits a bunch of people in the books.

Forty-seven lesser lordlings and six hundred nineteen knights had lost their lives beneath the fiery heart of Stannis and his Lord of Light, along with several thousand common men-at-arms. Traitors all, their heirs were disinherited, their lands and castles granted to those who had proved more loyal.

Hence my point stands. "Disinheriting" is a very specific thing in ASOIAF, it happens only by explicit decree ejecting the heir from succession. Thus your idea that a "person who has once been named or recognized as heir only be replaced by a child from another wife is disinherited" doesn't hold up. One can not be disinherited by being merely moved in the order of succession in ASOIAF.

You continue to insist upon this point, yet Widow's Law makes no provisions for such claims.

It is quite clear that the Widow's Law means 'passing over the children from the first wife in favor of those from a later wife' when it forbids the disinheriting of the children from the first wife. 

Which, in turn, also confirms that prior to the Widow's Law there were lords who did disinherit the children from a first wife in favor of those from a later wife. There wouldn't be any need to forbid that kind of practice if all lords were sticking to their oldest children from their first wife as their heirs.

And lords like Walder Frey still see themselves as able to name their heir. They don't feel bound by an imaginary line of succession.

25 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

Does someone still enforce Widow's Law in Westeros? Or did that law die with Jaehaerys I?

Since it is one of the great laws of Queen Alysanne one assumes that's as alive as the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 6:37 PM, Loose Bolt said:

Does someone still enforce Widow's Law in Westeros? Or did that law die with Jaehaerys I?

A bit of speculation but...

We know very little of daily life in Westeros due to the main series focusing on a major war that throws the normal playbook out the window or with the absolute upper crust of the nobility who may or may not actually care much for such things in such times.

I would think its often, depending on the personality of the king, enforced in normal times unless there's a good reason not to do so.

With some luck we may get a Dunk&Egg episode that deals with this issue in the future. But that's about as far as I would dare to hope to get some clarity on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×