Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

1. Yes I read your post, and I told you it was flawed and laid out why, did you read mine ?

2. NO, every lord in Westeros did not decided female heirs would be no more. That is blatantly false. 

3. Your Baelor argument doesnt work because he had locked up the female members of his family for a decade and people thought them to be crazy at that point. Every time women were passed over, a justification was given, the same for men who have been passed over

Lets be clear, your whole argument was based on something that wasnt true, which is that there were succession laws made following the Dance of the Dragons  that said only men could inherit the thrown.  That is completely false, the Black Council were loyal to Rhaenyra to the point that they marched on King's landing after she was killed and pledged to put her son on the Iron Throne when they took the city, and they fulfilled that promise. 


They placed Aegon III on the throne, executed traitors to Rhaenyra. Those people certainly didnt make any law saying women couldnt inherit the throne, and that was your claim. 

Aegon was put on the throne not only because he was Rhaenyra's heir but because he was literally the on next in line as a son of daemon and Rhaenyra. All of Targaryen princes died except for 2 of them. The Black council was loyal to Rhaenyra's line and had a lot of hatred towards the greens. 

If the daughter of a king can take the Iron Throne after the Dance, than why wasnt Daena made Queen after both her brothers died. Thats because the small council remembers what happened the last time a female claimant was named heir or attempted to become Queen. During the councillors reign, when his first born son died, and also his second, a great council was called. Prince Aemons line was bypassed due to the prince failing to sire any sons, and in favour the lrods supported Prince Baelors son (the son of a second son). 

You claim my argument is based on something that isnt true, but im gonna leave this here. https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Aegon was put on the throne not only because he was Rhaenyra's heir but because he was literally the on next in line as a son of daemon and Rhaenyra. All of Targaryen princes died except for 2 of them. The Black council was loyal to Rhaenyra's line and had a lot of hatred towards the greens. 

 

Daemon, and honestly Aegon II, are just post facts reasonongs maesters and nobles alike give to not only not consider Rhaenrya as a Queen but to justify Rhaenrya's line keeping the Throne. If the Greens, and especially the Hightowers, argued that Aegon was the legit ruler, then  Jaehara was their Queen, not Aegon.

The truth as it is, no Black, ever considered Daemon as a motive to crown Aegon the Younger, Aegon was Rhaenrya's heir and the Black hailed him as King because of that.

 

 

Quote

 If the daughter of a king can take the Iron Throne after the Dance, than why wasnt Daena made Queen after both her brothers died. Thats because the small council remembers what happened the last time a female claimant was named heir or attempted to become Queen. During the councillors reign, when his first born son died, and also his second, a great council was called. Prince Aemons line was bypassed due to the prince failing to sire any sons, and in favour the lrods supported Prince Baelors son (the son of a second son). 

And because as it was straight said, after 10 years in locked, the girls lacked the support to challenge those who wanted Viserys on the Throne.

Many on the Councils ignored Laenor and Maegor because of their age, does that mean that there is a law that no infants can ascend to the Throne??

As i said before Princess Aelora Targ (Rhaegel's daughter) died Princess of Dragonstone and heiress of the Iron Throne, while Maekar and his children were alived.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Daemon, and honestly Aegon II, are just post facts reasonongs maesters and nobles alike give to not only not consider Rhaenrya as a Queen but to justify Rhaenrya's line keeping the Throne. If the Greens, and especially the Hightowers, argued that Aegon was the legit ruler, then  Jaehara was their Queen, not Aegon.

The truth as it is, no Black, ever considered Daemon as a motive to crown Aegon the Younger, Aegon was Rhaenrya's heir and the Black hailed him as King because of that.

 

 

And because as it was straight said, after 10 years in locked, the girls lacked the support to challenge those who wanted Viserys on the Throne.

Many on the Councils ignored Laenor and Maegor because of their age, does that mean that there is a law that no infants can ascend to the Throne??

As i said before Princess Aelora Targ (Rhaegel's daughter) died Princess of Dragonstone and heiress of the Iron Throne, while Maekar and his children were alived.

 

 

 

How about you read this. https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

I read it, how about you reading what other users are saying instead of straight up ignore it?? 

Viserys ascension wasn't due to any law, but a precedence and said precedence wasn't an obstacle to name Aelora instead of Maekar, Princess of Dragonstone.

Do you honestly think that had Vaella Targ not being "simple minded" The other Lords wouldn't have choosed her instead of Egg?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

He trusted Theon too much, and failed to understand that Balon had every reason to hate the Starks after they killed his two sons and kidnapped the third. Also, using the phrase "I will give you a crown" is a huge diplomatic blunder. I think that Robb may have had some chances to convince Balon to join him if he had addressed as an equal, had appealed his basic instincts (finish what he started in the first rebellion, sack the wealth of the west, and pay the iron price), and made the point that the Ironmen couldn't stand alone against all of Westeros and that an independent kingdom of the North and the Riverlands was their best chance to be independent.

I don't see how Robb could know this.

Robb never meet Balon, he does not know him, all he knew was that Balon tried a revolt against the throne before and if his interests remained the same they would be natural allies.

The Starks didn't killed any of Balon sons, one died at seagard and the other at Pyke.

“I forget nothing.” Ned Stark had killed neither of his brothers, in truth. Rodrik had been slain by Lord Jason Mallister at Seagard, Maron crushed in the collapse of the old south tower" 

Freeing Theon at the eyes of any other lord would be seing as a sign of goodwill and good faith. The Lannisters when starting to negotiate with the Tyrells also released the Redwyne twins. The poor use of worlds would not soft the blow. Balon was dead set on invading the north.

“I’ll include Horror and Slobber in my party, and send them on to their lord father afterward. A gesture of goodwill. We need Paxter Redwyne, he’s Mace Tyrell’s oldest friend, and a great power in his own right.”

6 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

In order to convince/force Lysa to join them, perhaps he should have tried something more forceful. Spread the rumor that the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn. Then, make public Lysa's letter accusing them of doing so. After that, Lysa would have a much harder time maintaining neutrality.

The letter send by Lysa was coded and then burned by Catelyn. Robb had no way to use it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Aegon was put on the throne not only because he was Rhaenyra's heir but because he was literally the on next in line as a son of daemon and Rhaenyra. All of Targaryen princes died except for 2 of them. The Black council was loyal to Rhaenyra's line and had a lot of hatred towards the greens. 

If the daughter of a king can take the Iron Throne after the Dance, than why wasnt Daena made Queen after both her brothers died. Thats because the small council remembers what happened the last time a female claimant was named heir or attempted to become Queen. During the councillors reign, when his first born son died, and also his second, a great council was called. Prince Aemons line was bypassed due to the prince failing to sire any sons, and in favour the lrods supported Prince Baelors son (the son of a second son). 

You claim my argument is based on something that isnt true, but im gonna leave this here. https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs 

I already explained why you were wrong. If you disagree, simply state so, but dont ask repetitive  questions as if I didnt already give you an answer.  It makes it look like you are being purposefully obtuse and arguing for the sake of arguing. 

As for your link, again, your post stated there was a law, that is false, there is precedence to pass over women, But clearly that didnt work when Rhaenyra had the support of House Stark, Arryn, Tully, and Velaryon, Might equals right in our story and if any of those princesses had armies like Rhaenyra, they would have sat the Iron Throne as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 4:24 PM, dsjj251 said:

Our Story overlooks daughters because of "might equals right" and women cant fight for their own rights, but in every case where a daughter can, they do. There have been ruling ladies in at least 3 kingdoms outside of Dorne and multiple houses that have had ruling ladies. And Rhaenyra herself.  as well as the fact that the claims of other women were voted on in great councils, not outright outlawed under succession laws for them being women as claimed. 

Again, women who can fight for their claims, do. 

Catelyn does not seem to believe in "might equals right". If that was the case she would consider Renly as the rightful heir which she does not.  Also Myrcella does have a lot of "might" and in this case she is fully capable of fighting for her claim. 

P.S I have not read Fire and Blood or TWOIAF so I apologize if I am getting something wrong. This is just the impression I got from the main books. Also a quick browse through the wiki on laws of inheritance on the iron throne seems to suggest that a female's claim or the claim's of someone from the female line was considered weaker than a male claim with several female claims being overlooked over the years in favor of a male one

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EccentricHorse11 said:

Catelyn does not seem to believe in "might equals right". If that was the case she would consider Renly as the rightful heir which she does not.  Also Myrcella does have a lot of "might" and in this case she is fully capable of fighting for her claim. 

P.S I have not read Fire and Blood or TWOIAF so I apologize if I am getting something wrong. This is just the impression I got from the main books. Also a quick browse through the wiki on laws of inheritance on the iron throne seems to suggest that a female's claim or the claim's of someone from the female line was considered weaker than a male claim with several female claims being overlooked over the years in favor of a male one

 

No, it isnt the case. Might equals right is about justification . It doesnt mean someone will get 100% support. Not sure how you got that out of my post. 


And yes, Myrcella having might is my point, thats why in the context of our scenario, I dont see her claim being passed over.  That was my point. 

Last but not least, there is no wiki on "laws of inheritance". Even the Wiki says its customs and precedence . And yes, female claims have been passed over. I never said otherwise. My point is that women with the might of powerful Houses dont allow their claims to be passed over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 6:40 AM, dsjj251 said:

I already explained why you were wrong. If you disagree, simply state so, but dont ask repetitive  questions as if I didnt already give you an answer.  It makes it look like you are being purposefully obtuse and arguing for the sake of arguing. 

As for your link, again, your post stated there was a law, that is false, there is precedence to pass over women, But clearly that didnt work when Rhaenyra had the support of House Stark, Arryn, Tully, and Velaryon, Might equals right in our story and if any of those princesses had armies like Rhaenyra, they would have sat the Iron Throne as well. 

Rhaenyra was declared heir. How many times did i say that the succession was changed after the dance of the dragons (after Rhaenyra died). Only reason Rhaenrya received support was because she was the legal heir. But after that no targaryen princess heir or other wise was able to support her claim to the throne, because no one cared to support it. 

Even tho i gave you evidence of the Iron Thrones succession laws you still deny it. Just because you want your fact to be true dosent mean you are justified on calling my evidence false. How about you provide to me evidence to support your words. The fact that no targaryen princess has taken the Throne after the Dance of Dragons is evidence enough of how the succession laws work. Trying to take the throne by force and inheriting it, are two different things. Rhanerya legally inherited it but she was challenged therefore the lords of westeros came to her aid. 

Here how about you read it again https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Rhaenyra was declared heir. How many times did i say that the succession was changed after the dance of the dragons (after Rhaenyra died). Only reason Rhaenrya received support was because she was the legal heir. But after that no targaryen princess heir or other wise was able to support her claim to the throne, because no one cared to support it. 

Even tho i gave you evidence of the Iron Thrones succession laws you still deny it. Just because you want your fact to be true dosent mean you are justified on calling my evidence false. How about you provide to me evidence to support your words. The fact that no targaryen princess has taken the Throne after the Dance of Dragons is evidence enough of how the succession laws work. Trying to take the throne by force and inheriting it, are two different things. Rhanerya legally inherited it but she was challenged therefore the lords of westeros came to her aid. 

Here how about you read it again https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs

Aelora would've taken the Throne had she not died, she died heir pressumptive to the Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Rhaenyra was declared heir. How many times did i say that the succession was changed after the dance of the dragons (after Rhaenyra died). Only reason Rhaenrya received support was because she was the legal heir. But after that no targaryen princess heir or other wise was able to support her claim to the throne, because no one cared to support it. 

Even tho i gave you evidence of the Iron Thrones succession laws you still deny it. Just because you want your fact to be true dosent mean you are justified on calling my evidence false. How about you provide to me evidence to support your words. The fact that no targaryen princess has taken the Throne after the Dance of Dragons is evidence enough of how the succession laws work. Trying to take the throne by force and inheriting it, are two different things. Rhanerya legally inherited it but she was challenged therefore the lords of westeros came to her aid. 

Here how about you read it again https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs

You gave no such evidence, in fact, the word "law" does not even appear in the section about inheritance to the iron throne. You simply cant admit you are wrong. 

 

George himself is however mentioned in your link 

 

Quote

Inheritance laws in the Seven Kingdoms are not clear cut. According to George R. R. Martin,

The short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory.

If you had wanted to claim people choose men over women, there would be no debate, we would all agree, but you keep making a claim about a law that doesnt exist. 

Also, saying no one supported their claim is not the same as saying they legally had no claim(which was your original argument)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

You gave no such evidence, in fact, the word "law" does not even appear in the section about inheritance to the iron throne. You simply cant admit you are wrong. 

 

George himself is however mentioned in your link 

 

If you had wanted to claim people choose men over women, there would be no debate, we would all agree, but you keep making a claim about a law that doesnt exist. 

Also, saying no one supported their claim is not the same as saying they legally had no claim(which was your original argument)

So you pressing ctrl+f and searching for the word "law" and not seeing it is there is reason enough for you to still go against the clear evidence I have given you. The law is made by the lords and kings of westeros, whatever they say is the law. And when they decide who shall be king, that is the law.

And truthfully we havent seen a Queen on the Iron Throne since the Dance of the Dragons. Why is that may I guess? Because the lords didn't want another Queen. Over and over they have gone for a cousin or uncle because they don't want the princess taking the mantle. 

It is true that the succession of the Iron throne is decided by its Lords. And I can easily see a Queen on the Iron Throne by the next book. But until that happens my point still stands, and I have the history of Westeros to back my claim. Therefore there is no point trying to defend your point since we've already seen a princess be passed on for her uncle and cousin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

So you pressing ctrl+f and searching for the word "law" and not seeing it is there is reason enough for you to still go against the clear evidence I have given you. The law is made by the lords and kings of westeros, whatever they say is the law. And when they decide who shall be king, that is the law.

And truthfully we havent seen a Queen on the Iron Throne since the Dance of the Dragons. Why is that may I guess? Because the lords didn't want another Queen. Over and over they have gone for a cousin or uncle because they don't want the princess taking the mantle. 

It is true that the succession of the Iron throne is decided by its Lords. And I can easily see a Queen on the Iron Throne by the next book. But until that happens my point still stands, and I have the history of Westeros to back my claim. Therefore there is no point trying to defend your point since we've already seen a princess be passed on for her uncle and cousin. 

No, the author of the book series saying you are wrong, that is enough for me to say it, i even quoted it in my reply where you pretended you didnt see it. 

Other than that, there is the fact that no law exists in the book to back up your claim and you are confusing the term precedence with law, believing they are one in the same and they are not. 

Seriously, this isnt that complicated.  The entire point here was whether or not Tywin would back his granddaughter over bending the knee to Stannis.  I assume you, he would back Myrcella. 

Edited by dsjj251

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

No, the author of the book series saying you are wrong, that is enough for me to say it, i even quoted it in my reply where you pretended you didnt see it. 

Other than that, there is the fact that no law exists in the book to back up your claim and you are confusing the term precedence with law, believing they are one in the same and they are not. 

Seriously, this isnt that complicated.  The entire point here was whether or not Tywin would back his granddaughter over bending the knee to Stannis.  I assume you, he would back Myrcella. 

The way I see it. We’ve never seen a Queen on the Throne. 

Precedence? Didn’t you say that the succession for the throne was decided by its lords or something around those words. The lords make the law, they keep the tradition of choosing the male rulers over female ones. They don’t have to make it a law in order to put the ambitious uncle on the throne. They have tradition and history by their side. 

During the Great council of Jaehaerys I, it is rumoured that Jaehaerys’s granddaughter (by his eldest son) lost to her cousin Viserys by a Margin of 20-1. That’s proof enough of what the lords of Westeros want. 

Support for the beautiful but Lannister looking Myrcella would be quite dull. Even tho no one likes Stannis, they’d all rather have the veteran stannis as King rather than Myrcella. Tywin would argue otherwise and start a war. From there on it’s all about who wins it. But I assure you Stannis will have more support. Even if the Tyrell’s support Myrcellas claim, their banner men would dim it otherwise, and go for Stannis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

The way I see it. We’ve never seen a Queen on the Throne. 

Precedence? Didn’t you say that the succession for the throne was decided by its lords or something around those words. The lords make the law, they keep the tradition of choosing the male rulers over female ones. They don’t have to make it a law in order to put the ambitious uncle on the throne. They have tradition and history by their side. 

During the Great council of Jaehaerys I, it is rumoured that Jaehaerys’s granddaughter (by his eldest son) lost to her cousin Viserys by a Margin of 20-1. That’s proof enough of what the lords of Westeros want. 

 

 

 

As I have stated from the beginning, the flaw in your argument is your use of the word "law", its that simply. There is no law, your own argument proves that. 

And the fact that there was even a great council where a women was considered destroys your claim, because if women couldnt inherit the thrown, there would be no need to vote on the claim. 

Its really not that hard to understand that law and precedence arent the same, and to simply admit you made a mistake and used the wrong term, but you are to stubborn to do so. 

Nothing in your argument has to change for you to admit that simple mistake, but pride(or genuinely not understanding the difference, and not being willing to research it) keeps you from doing so ,

Quote

Support for the beautiful but Lannister looking Myrcella would be quite dull. Even tho no one likes Stannis, they’d all rather have the veteran stannis as King rather than Myrcella. Tywin would argue otherwise and start a war. From there on it’s all about who wins it. But I assure you Stannis will have more support. Even if the Tyrell’s support Myrcellas claim, their banner men would dim it otherwise, and go for Stannis.

And yet, Stannis didnt have more support than Renly.  And still yet, didnt have more support than Joffrey after Renly died. 

 

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

×