Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If a lord had one daughter from his first marriage and one son from his second marriage, who would go first? (as in "are the children of a lord and a lady's offspring considered a single line, or are all the children of one lord (no matter from which lady) considered of the same line?")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MaxwellBridge03 said:

If a lord had one daughter from his first marriage and one son from his second marriage, who would go first? (as in "are the children of a lord and a lady's offspring considered a single line, or are all the children of one lord (no matter from which lady) considered of the same line?")

That is an interesting question.

The Widow's Law of Jaehaerys I stipulates that a lord cannot disinherit the children from his first marriage in favor of the children from his second marriage - which can mean, one assumes, that if a lord had formally declared and anointed his daughter his heiress before he entered into a second marriage and had sons by his second wife that he doesn't have the right to replace said daughter with his son(s).

However, such a thing may not be that likely - although it actually is the scenario with Viserys I and Rhaenyra.

But one could also imagine that happening with a lord who only had (a) daughter(s), only to remarry in late life and essentially dying an old man with a toddler son for an heir. In that scenario one would imagine that the (eldest) daughter was treated as heiress the entire time, and one might assume the lordship might either pass to her or through her to a male grandchild.

Unfortunately, there are not many cases of that kind of thing. However, George might shed more light on that when he tells the story of Cregan Stark and the children he has by his three wives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that technically all the man's children are considered part of his line, Westeros being a patrilineal society and all. Although from previous experience we can see that "family" regarding relations are normally those who have a common mother as opposed to a common father, even if they legally are on big family as seen from the perspective of the patriarchal system.

The examples I would mention in order to support this idea that common mothers are what binds families together are; Aegon I's children, Viserys's children and grandchildren and the Freys in the main series. In all those cases having a common mother means peace and cooperation, to my knowledge, while having a common father means very little for their mutual relation. I can't remember a scenario where people with a common mother kill or fight each other, but there are plenty of examples where people with a common father does so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure a son comes before any daughter regardless the case. There were cases in real life when a full-blooded sibling was the heir to his predecessor rather than half-bloods, but gender always takes precedence over that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The dance answers that question.

Normally it would be the lords son. However if the daughter had enough political and marshall backing, she could put up a fight. There are also many other factors that play into it. Like who has the more compelling leaders on their side. If say the daughter has a son who is a great warrior and leader compared to her brother who say is just a little boy.

Some lords are sexist, traditionalists or just plain calculative (which side will benefit my house the most?). There are also houses that would simply choose to honor the wishes of the lord himself even if that lords chosen successor contradicts thousands of years of precedent. 

If the lords family was unhappy or felt that the decision was unlawful, they'd take it up with the king. Unless he WAS the king as was with house Targaryan. Then it's just a matter of whos in the better political/marshall position when the king dies, as I mentioned before.

Edited by Aemon Darkbrother
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/10/2019 at 4:58 PM, MaxwellBridge03 said:

If a lord had one daughter from his first marriage and one son from his second marriage, who would go first?

Widow's law is quite clear on this:

To rectify these ills, King Jaehaerys in 52 AC promulgated the Widow’s Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or eldest daughter, where there was no son) to inherit...

So it's the (eldest) son, irregardless whether it was first, second or tenth marriage he was born to.

Edited by Myrish Lace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the Widow's Law in full:

Quote

To rectify these ills, King Jaehaerys in 52 AC promulgated the Widow’s Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or eldest daughter, where there was no son) to inherit, but requiring said heirs to maintain surviving widows in the same condition they had enjoyed before their husband’s death. A lord’s widow, be she a second, third, or later wife, could no longer be driven from his castle, nor deprived of her servants, clothing, and income. The same law, however, also forbade men from disinheriting their children by a first wife in order to bestow their lands, seat, or property upon a later wife or her own children.

That means that if a daughter from a first wife has been named heiress before a lord got a son from a second or third wife said daughter - as a child from the first wife - could object against being disinherited.

I don't think stuff like that happened often - neither Hoster Tully nor Borros Baratheon ever treated or named their daughters as their heirs - but it may have happened occasionally. If you only have a daughter for an heir for most of your life/reign you may grow accustomed to her and make your peace with her as your successor - even if some young filly you wed in the winter of your years gives you a male babe around the time you lost your last tooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 6:11 PM, Lord Varys said:

which can mean, one assumes, that if a lord had formally declared and anointed his daughter his heiress before he entered into a second marriage and had sons by his second wife that he doesn't have the right to replace said daughter with his son(s).

I don't think, that that's how it is. Rhaenyra was Viserys' heir presumptive, only as long as he didn't had male children. I think, that it was clear for everyone there, so clear, that it didn't even needed any explanations or clarifications. Rhaenyra was the only one, who didn't get it, that with Aegon's birth, things have changed. She, and people that were her supporters. In those 10 years, that everyone thought, that Rhaenyra in the future will be the ruler of 7K, many people have invested into her, thinking that later it will benefit them, when she will become the Queen. And they weren't going to let all of those investments to go into waste. Thus, they continued supporting Rhaenyra, even after Aegon's birth.  

Probably, some of them thought, that Rhaenyra still can become Queen, thru her marriage with Aegon. Even Alicent Hightower pondered a marriage between Rhaenyra and her son. 

And some things, that Viserys did, support an option, that he didn't considered Rhaenyra, as the future Queen, after Aegon was born. But he didn't wanted to say it aloud. Nevertheless, he thought, that after his death, Aegon will become the ruler of 7K.

For example, he wanted Rhaenyra to marry with the Prince of Dorne. At that time Dorne was not 7K's part. I don't think, that Dorne would have agreed to become part of 7K, just because of that marriage. They were independent from the rest of Westeros, and managed for over 100 years to fight off Targaryens and their dragons. Also, would people of 7K agreed for the Prince of Dorne to become their ruler, and the King of 7K after Viserys' death, just because of his marriage with Rhaenyra? I doubt it. Most likely, people would have wanted Aegon to be proclaimed Viserys' heir, the moment Rhaenyra would have married with the Dornish Prince. I think, that that marriage would have removed Rhaenyra and her children from succession line of Targaryens, as long as there were male heirs in direct line. Instead, her children would have became successors of Dornish throne.

Then Viserys forced Rhaenyra to marry with a guy, who was a known gay. It seems, that he was expecting, that because of Laenor's preferences, they won't have sex, and won't have children. Thus, later Viserys could have proclaimed Aegon as his heir, on basis that Rhaenyra is a "baren branch". And because she wouldn't have had children, who would have inherited Iron Throne after her, she would have had to renounce her rights as Viserys' heir.

And a third example - after death of Grand Maester Mellos, Rhaenyra recommended to her father maester Gerardys for this post, and Alicent recommended to her husband maester Alfador. Viserys refused both of their offers, and said, that the Citadel will decide, who will become a new Grand Maester. It seems, that in his opinion, everything should be decided by law, not by personal preferences. And by law, sons are first in succession line, before daughters. So, by law, Aegon was Viserys' heir. And Viserys was supporting law, and knew that after his death, the next ruler of 7K will be Aegon, not Rhaenyra. Though, he didn't wanted to say it directly to Rhaenyra. Probably, he felt guilty, because in the past, when he didn't had a son, and thought, that he will never have a son, or any other children, he was too hasty in promising to Rhaenyra, that she will be his heir. But then he remarried, and his wife gave birth to two sons. By law, those sons were in front of Rhaenyra, in line of succession for Iron Throne. And Viserys wasn't going to break the law, just because he made a mistake by promising to Rhaenyra something, to which she had no legal right (at least, not after Aegon's birth).

So, first he wanted to marry her with a Dornish Prince, which would have removed her from succession line of Targaryen dynasty. Then he married her with a gay, which would have made her childless, and would have also removed her from succession line. Then he told to Rhaenyra and to his wife, that who gets what, is based on the law. And according to laws of inheritance of Westeros, any son, whether he is older or younger, from the first wife or from the second, he is first in line, before any daughter. So, based on those three things combined together, it seems, that Viserys knew, that after his death, Aegon will become King.

Add to that, that when he was old, ill, and weakened, he didn't asked Rhaenyra to come to King's Landing. And he never directly said to other people, that were pressuring him to say directly, who is his heir, that his heir is Rhaenyra. Not after Aegon was born. And about his will - either it was fake, or Viserys knew that its invalid, because it goes against the law, thus even though it was written there, that his heir is Rhaenyra, he knew that the one, who will be eventually crowned, is Aegon. He made that will, just to temporarily pacify Rhaenyra and her supporters. In the first place, he proclaimed Rhaenyra as his heir, just to punish Daemon. 

Quote

Once his mourning for his wife and son had run its course, the king moved swiftly to resolve the long-simmering issue of the succession. Disregarding the precedents set by King Jaehaerys in 92 and the Great Council in 101, Viserys declared his daughter, Rhaenyra, to be his rightful heir, and named her Princess of Dragonstone. In a lavish ceremony at King’s Landing, hundreds of lords did obeisance to the Realm’s Delight as she sat at her father’s feet at the base of the Iron Throne, swearing to honor and defend her right of succession.

Prince Daemon was not amongst them, however. Furious at the king’s decree, the prince quit King’s Landing, resigning from the City Watch. He went first to Dragonstone, taking his paramour Mysaria with him upon the back of his dragon Caraxes, the lean red beast the smallfolk called the Blood Wyrm. There he remained for half a year, during which time he got Mysaria with child.

When he learned that his concubine was pregnant, Prince Daemon presented her with a dragon’s egg, but in this he again went too far and woke his brother’s wroth. King Viserys commanded him to return the egg, send his whore away, and return to his lawful wife, or else be attainted as a traitor. The prince obeyed, though with ill grace, dispatching Mysaria (eggless) back to Lys, whilst he himself flew to Runestone in the Vale and the unwelcome company of his “bronze bitch.” But Mysaria lost her child during a storm on the narrow sea. When word reached Prince Daemon he spoke no syllable of grief, but his heart hardened against the king, his brother. Thereafter he spoke of King Viserys only with disdain, and began to brood day and night on the succession.

Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty.

Based on that text, it seems, that everyone knew, that Rhaenyra is Viserys' heir only as long, as he has no sons. So, when his son was born, things changed, and it was OBVIOUS.

Similar example, is Baratheons' case. When Robert didn't had children, his heir presumptive was Stannis, whom Robert made the Prince of Dragonstone. But when Joffrey was born, he became Robert's successor, and Stannis lost that position, and it was obvious to everyone, and there was no need for declarations, that Stannis isn't Robert's heir anymore. Same thing with Viserys, Rhaenyra and Aegon.

And this

Quote

In 107 AC, she bore the king a healthy son, naming him Aegon, after the Conqueror. Two years later, she produced a daughter for the king, Helaena; in 110 AC, she bore him a second son, Aemond, who was said to be half the size of his elder brother, but twice as fierce.

Yet Princess Rhaenyra continued to sit at the foot of the Iron Throne when her father held court, and His Grace began bringing her to meetings of the small council as well.

this means nothing. At that time Rhaenyra was 13, and little Aegon was only 3. Was Viserys supposed to take his infant son to council's meetings, for people to see him as Viserys' heir? Of course not. Just because Viserys allowed Rhanyra to attend those meetings, doesn't mean, that he still saw her as his heir presumptive.

Quote

And though His Grace reasoned with her, pleaded with her, shouted at her, and called her an ungrateful daughter, no words of his could budge her…until the king brought up the question of succession. What a king had done, a king could undo, Viserys pointed out. She would wed as he commanded, or he would make her half-brother Aegon his heir in place of her. At this the princess’s will gave way. Septon Eustace says she fell at her father’s knees and begged for his forgiveness, Mushroom that she spat in her father’s face, but both agree that in the end she consented to be married.

In Viserys' opinion, Rhaenyra's marriage with Laenor, would have eventually removed her from succession line. He made her his heir, and when she would have remained childless, for many years after her wedding, he would have unmade her his heir, and declared Aegon as his successor.

He didn't wanted to have confrontation with Rhaenyra, that's why he never said to her (or anyone else) directly, that she's not his heir anymore.

 

 

Cregan Stark was married three times: Arra Norray, son Rickon Stark; Alysanne Blackwood, four daughters; Lynara Stark, five children. Rickon died in Dorne, he had two daughters, and neither of them inherited Winterfell. Not Rickon's two daughters, not his four sisters/daughters of Alysanne from his father's second marriage, but Rickon's younger brother from his father's third marriage - Jonnel. Based on those six girls passed over in inheritance, it seems, that sons are always first in line, no matter from what marriage are they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there's a case with Aegon III's children. After his death, the crown was inherited by his oldest son, Daeron I, then by his fourth child, his son Baelor I, while his second and third children, his daughters Rhaena and Elaena, were passed over. And after Baelor's death, his sister, Aegon's fifth child, Daena, was also passed over, and the next ruler of 7K became Aegon's brother, Viserys II. So, the King's three daughters (and any of their children, female and male) were passed over, in favour of the King's brother.

I think, that it's irrelevant, whether the candidates for inheritance are children of the same mother, or different mothers, in any case, the one, who will inherite, is the oldest male. And in case, when there are only girls, then the oldest daughter is the heir.

Share this post


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

I don't think, that that's how it is. Rhaenyra was Viserys' heir presumptive, only as long as he didn't had male children. I think, that it was clear for everyone there, so clear, that it didn't even needed any explanations or clarifications. Rhaenyra was the only one, who didn't get it, that with Aegon's birth, things have changed. She, and people that were her supporters. In those 10 years, that everyone thought, that Rhaenyra in the future will be the ruler of 7K, many people have invested into her, thinking that later it will benefit them, when she will become the Queen. And they weren't going to let all of those investments to go into waste. Thus, they continued supporting Rhaenyra, even after Aegon's birth.  

Rhaenyra was never Viserys I's presumptive heir. His presumptive heir was his brother Daemon, since the Great Council and King Jaehaerys before had dismissed the female claim. Rhaenyra became Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne when King Viserys I declared Rhaenyra his heir in 105 AC. And then she was his heir even after his second wife gave birth to sons - which fits with the Widow's Law since Rhaenyra would have to be disinherited to favor the children from the second marriage. Rhaenyra was the only living child from the king's first marriage, after all. A child that had formally been anointed heir before the king got a son.

I expect that this scenario could also work if a lord formally anointed his daughter his heir and then (much later) got a son from a new wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/12/2019 at 2:59 AM, Lord Varys said:

That means that if a daughter from a first wife has been named heiress before a lord got a son from a second or third wife said daughter - as a child from the first wife - could object against being disinherited. 

No, it does not. First, the law states the opposite in no uncertain terms; there is no proviso for several marriages or allowances for designating anyone as heir ahead of the eldest son for that matter. Second, you confuse being disinherited (which is referred to in the law) and being naturally moved down in the line of succession.

In all available texts, word "disinherited" is used in a very specific set of circumstances, when a person in question is explicitly and purposefully removed from the line of succession via official decision. There is but a handful of cases when people are actually disinherited. Heirs to traitors are disinherited by Joffrey('s government). Maegor disinherited Jaehaerys via a decree (or at least attempted to). No disinherited person is ever disinherited by implication, that's not how it works in ASOIAF.

This is the reason why Widow's Law, if ever applied to Rhaenyra/Aegon II situation, supports Aegon II. Neither Rhaenyra nor Aegon II was disinherited - aka had their rights explicitly annulled via vow/abdication/verdict. If you apply Widow's Law, then after Aegon II's birth, Rhaenyra was not disinherited - she was simply moved to the end of the line, since the law clearly places sons ahead of daughters. Just like Catelyn was not disinherited by Edmure's birth - merely moved down the line.

This is also the reason why no person in-universe tries to justify Rhaenyra's claim via Widow's Law.

 

Edited by Myrish Lace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

No, it does not. First, the law states the opposite in no uncertain terms; there is no proviso for several marriages or allowances for designating anyone as heir ahead of the eldest son for that matter. Second, you confuse being disinherited (which is referred to in the law) and being naturally moved down in the line of succession.

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.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

In all available texts, word "disinherited" is used in a very specific set of circumstances, when a person in question is explicitly and purposefully removed from the line of succession via official decision. There is but a handful of cases when people are actually disinherited. Heirs to traitors are disinherited by Joffrey('s government). Maegor disinherited Jaehaerys via a decree (or at least attempted to). No disinherited person is ever disinherited by implication, that's not how it works in ASOIAF.

Rhaenyra would have been disinherited if Viserys I had changed the succession in favor of Aegon. That is very clear in the text. I made it quite clear that I talked about cases where daughters were formally installed as heiresses while lords have no sons from a second wife.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

This is the reason why Widow's Law, if ever applied to Rhaenyra/Aegon II situation, supports Aegon II. Neither Rhaenyra nor Aegon II was disinherited - aka had their rights explicitly annulled via vow/abdication/verdict. If you apply Widow's Law, then after Aegon II's birth, Rhaenyra was not disinherited - she was simply moved to the end of the line, since the law clearly places sons ahead of daughters. Just like Catelyn was not disinherited by Edmure's birth - merely moved down the line.

Rhaenyra was the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne by the decree of her royal father before Aegon the Elder was born. A lord having only daughters doesn't have to groom or name any of his daughters his heir - but he can. He can decide that he is not believing that he will have sons and he can decide that his title goes to a daughter rather than some other relation. And when that's happened then the daughter is the heir - that wouldn't magically change when a son is born.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

This is also the reason why no person in-universe tries to justify Rhaenyra's claim via Widow's Law.

No, the reason for that is that George only came up with the Widow's Law when writing the Jaehaerys/Alysanne section of FaB - which happened years after he had written HotD and TDotD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viserys I always intended Rhaenyra to succeed him.  That's why she was Princess of Dragonstone.  The Greens launched  a coup after his death, because the law did not support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is clear: Heirs are named and installed.

We are discussing a law that makes no mention of either naming or installing heirs, opting for a rigid system of automatic male-preference inheritance instead.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra would have been disinherited if Viserys I had changed the succession in favor of Aegon.

Have you not read a word I've written? George uses "disinherit" as a very specific way, as an explicit ejection of an heir from the line of succession. Aegon was not disinherited by Viserys' decree; had Viserys changed the succession in favor of Aegon II, Rhaenyra would not have been disinherited either. Unless Viserys I specifically decrees "Rhaenyra/Aegon II are hereby disinherited", neither of them is disinherited.

What you are referring to is not disinheriting (at least as George uses the word) - it's reshuffling of inheritance order by law/decree. The former favors Aegon II, since he is the eldest son. The latter is not even an option under Widow's law.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

A lord having only daughters doesn't have to groom or name any of his daughters his heir - but he can.

Under the Widow's Law - yes he has to accept her as his heir. If the lord has only daughters, the eldest one is his heir. It's not a matter of preference or choice, the law commands that in absence of sons the eldest daughter is the heir, period.  

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And when that's happened then the daughter is the heir - that wouldn't magically change when a son is born. 

That's precisely what Widow's law commands. The eldest son is the heir, no ifs or buts. The eldest son inherits, the eldest daughter is the next in line after her brothers. And this would not constitute "disinheriting" the daughter that was previously the heiress, since "disinheriting" would require a decree that ejects her from the line of succession altogether.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, the reason for that is that George only came up with the Widow's Law when writing the Jaehaerys/Alysanne section of FaB - which happened years after he had written HotD and TDotD. 

I'm not sure what undermines your argument more - George's edits of Dance sections for Fire&Blood, with extra material and cuts. Or maybe your attempt to somehow derive Rhaenyra's right to the throne from the law that literally has "reaffirming the right of the eldest son to inherit" in it. 

Edited by Myrish Lace

Share this post


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

We are discussing a law that makes no mention of either naming or installing heirs, opting for a rigid system of automatic male-preference inheritance instead.

Have you not read a word I've written? George uses "disinherit" as a very specific way, as an explicit ejection of an heir from the line of succession. Aegon was not disinherited by Viserys' decree; had Viserys changed the succession in favor of Aegon II, Rhaenyra would not have been disinherited either. Unless Viserys I specifically decrees "Rhaenyra/Aegon II are hereby disinherited", neither of them is disinherited.

What you are referring to is not disinheriting (at least as George uses the word) - it's reshuffling of inheritance order by law/decree. The former favors Aegon II, since he is the eldest son. The latter is not even an option under Widow's law.

Under the Widow's Law - yes he has to accept her as his heir. If the lord has only daughters, the eldest one is his heir. It's not a matter of preference or choice, the law commands that in absence of sons the eldest daughter is the heir, period.  

That's precisely what Widow's law commands. The eldest son is the heir, no ifs or buts. The eldest son inherits, the eldest daughter is the next in line after her brothers. And this would not constitute "disinheriting" the daughter that was previously the heiress, since "disinheriting" would require a decree that ejects her from the line of succession altogether.

I'm not sure what undermines your argument more - George's edits of Dance sections for Fire&Blood, with extra material and cuts. Or maybe your attempt to somehow derive Rhaenyra's right to the throne from the law that literally has "reaffirming the right of the eldest son to inherit" in it. 

I don't think the Widow's Law has any bearing on Rhaenyra's claim. She was the heir apparent because Viserys I decreed that she was.

As an aside, it would be interesting to know to what extent lords in Westeros can leave their property as they choose.  Medieval England had a widow's law that required tenants-in-chief to bequeath one third of their income for life to their widow.  If a lord had both a living mother and grandmother, he only got one third of the income while they lived.  The entire estate passed to the oldest son, but in default of a son, it was divided equally between daughters. 

Ser Kevan Lannister inherited a vast sum of money from his father, but no lands.  Perhaps lords can leave money, armour, swords and jewels as they wish, but the law prescribes who is to inherit land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Ser Kevan Lannister inherited a vast sum of money from his father, but no lands.  Perhaps lords can leave money, armour, swords and jewels as they wish, but the law prescribes who is to inherit land.

This would be likely.  Many titles of nobility specify their own inheritance rules, and often cannot legally be changed by the holder.  The specifics of title law doesn't seem to have been addressed directly by GRRM.  

Something I've been curious about, is what are the specifics of holding multiple titles?  Petyr is Lord of Harrenhal and Lord of the Fingers, lands in two different regions.  For the Fingers he has a liege lord below the King, (Robert Aryn), but for Harrenhal he is directly responsible to the king.  This sort of thing caused huge problems in medieval europe, and could get very complicated.  But in other places (such as Fuedal Japan) they often kept things much simpler by just requiring you to give up conflicting titles to your relative or back to its liege lord.

Lysa isn't going to ask Petyr to do that, but would Jon Aryn have accepted Petyr's dual loyalty?  And assuming Petyr ever got Harrenhal actually operational, he would be quite powerful and would he really operate subserviently to the Lord of the Vale?  This was the problem the French King facced with the Dukes of Normandy after they became Kings of England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SeanF said:

As an aside, it would be interesting to know to what extent lords in Westeros can leave their property as they choose.  Medieval England had a widow's law that required tenants-in-chief to bequeath one third of their income for life to their widow.  If a lord had both a living mother and grandmother, he only got one third of the income while they lived.  The entire estate passed to the oldest son, but in default of a son, it was divided equally between daughters. 

We know that lords actually do have wills that settle their affairs, wills that also affect the conditions under which their heirs can take over their lordships (e.g. the will of Lord Webber which regulated under which conditions Lady Rohanne could succeed to Coldmoat).

There is no reason to assume that a lord cannot make similar demands to a male heir - say, Hoster could demand that Brynden Tully only succeed to Riverrun in a scenario where he had no heirs of his body if he took a wife.

Property apparently was not divided among daughters since in absence of a son the eldest daughter (occasionally) succeeded to a lordship in the same way a son might.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Ser Kevan Lannister inherited a vast sum of money from his father, but no lands.  Perhaps lords can leave money, armour, swords and jewels as they wish, but the law prescribes who is to inherit land.

I doubt that a lord has to bequeath his lordship as he got it to his heir. That's how it is done, but we do know that a lord can purchase and acquire more lands while he is lord, so it is not unlikely that a particularly generous lord would actually leave lands and villages and holdfast to a younger son or brother. He could not make that guy a lord in his own right (that has to be done by the king) but he certainly could make him a very wealthy landed knight.

One imagines that the practice of giving the entire lordship to a single heir is just a developed custom that's, for some reason, universally practiced.

13 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

Have you not read a word I've written? George uses "disinherit" as a very specific way, as an explicit ejection of an heir from the line of succession. Aegon was not disinherited by Viserys' decree; had Viserys changed the succession in favor of Aegon II, Rhaenyra would not have been disinherited either. Unless Viserys I specifically decrees "Rhaenyra/Aegon II are hereby disinherited", neither of them is disinherited.

You confuse attainted and disinherited here. Joffrey doesn't disinherit anyone in the books, he attaints a number of lords, some of which happen to his paternal uncles.

Heirs are installed in this world. As kin to a noble or king you certainly have a legal claim to his holdings, etc. but this doesn't make you an acknowledged heir. For that you have to be treated and recognized and installed as such - by decree, by practice, by public proclamation/announcement, by the will of the lord, etc.

And it certainly means that a person who has once been named or recognized as heir only be replaced by a child from another wife is disinherited when he or she no longer is supposed to inherit what he or she originally was supposed to get.

13 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

Under the Widow's Law - yes he has to accept her as his heir. If the lord has only daughters, the eldest one is his heir. It's not a matter of preference or choice, the law commands that in absence of sons the eldest daughter is the heir, period.

The situation there is obviously different and that's not difficult to understand. A daughter would always only be a presumptive heir since every lord or king does not want a female heir/successor. He wants a son of his own body. Hence no lord or king actually ever treats an oldest daughter as his heir because he hopes he will eventually get sons. If no sons come then eventually he may reach a point where he would formally anoint and acknowledge his oldest daughter as his heir. If that's done - like it was in Rhaenyra's case - then said daughter is the heir. And as per the Widow's Law the children of a first wife cannot be disinherited in favor of the children of the second wife.

It certainly is possible that long-standing female heiresses with grandchildren of their own would be able to push their claims through against the claim of the babe their feeble-minded father fathered on some young wife in his nineties. And they certainly could interpret the Widow's Law the way I laid out. Whether this would work we don't know at this point since no such cases are clear.

And it is quite clear that none of Borros Baratheon's daughters were treated or seen by him as his heirs. A daughter should inherit in absence of a son, but that's not a given.

13 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

I'm not sure what undermines your argument more - George's edits of Dance sections for Fire&Blood, with extra material and cuts. Or maybe your attempt to somehow derive Rhaenyra's right to the throne from the law that literally has "reaffirming the right of the eldest son to inherit" in it. 

The Rhaenyra case doesn't need the Widow's Law at all. It is based on the king's power to rule on his own succession. He is not bound by any law his grandfather decreed, just as said grandfather was not bound by any law when he ruled on his own succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/18/2019 at 4:07 PM, argonak said:

This would be likely.  Many titles of nobility specify their own inheritance rules, and often cannot legally be changed by the holder.  The specifics of title law doesn't seem to have been addressed directly by GRRM.  

Something I've been curious about, is what are the specifics of holding multiple titles?  Petyr is Lord of Harrenhal and Lord of the Fingers, lands in two different regions.  For the Fingers he has a liege lord below the King, (Robert Aryn), but for Harrenhal he is directly responsible to the king.  This sort of thing caused huge problems in medieval europe, and could get very complicated.  But in other places (such as Fuedal Japan) they often kept things much simpler by just requiring you to give up conflicting titles to your relative or back to its liege lord.

Lysa isn't going to ask Petyr to do that, but would Jon Aryn have accepted Petyr's dual loyalty?  And assuming Petyr ever got Harrenhal actually operational, he would be quite powerful and would he really operate subserviently to the Lord of the Vale?  This was the problem the French King facced with the Dukes of Normandy after they became Kings of England.

IIRC, the rule is that if you inherit two tenancies in chief, (eg Lord of the Vale and Lord of the Riverlands) you have to give one of them up to a relative.

Other than that, I imagine one could hold more than one lordship.  If your overlords fight each other, then presumably, you would surrender one of your titles estates back to whichever overlord you are fighting, at least for the duration of the conflict. Enguerrand de Coucy, who was Earl of Bedford and married to Isabella, the daughter of Edward III, surrendered his lands back to Edward III in order to fight for France against him (and destroyed his marriage in the process).

 

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You confuse attainted and disinherited here. Joffrey doesn't disinherit anyone in the books

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.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It certainly is possible that long-standing female heiresses with grandchildren of their own would be able to push their claims through against the claim of the babe their feeble-minded father fathered on some young wife in his nineties

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

Edited by Myrish Lace

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

×