Next in line after tommen

[TheLastWolf]

Moonboy

Or better, Patchface. These fools would do a lot better than the current fools in ruling the realm.

[Mourning Star]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no such precedent. There are precedents of women and descendants through the female line being passed over, but the Targaryens are not the French kings. No law was made nor invented to cut out women permanently from the succession. There are just individual precedents ... and quite a few of them actually established women as potential heirs. Rhaena, Aerea, Rhaenys, Rhaenyra, Jaehaera, Baela/Rhaena all were heirs at various points, and Princess Aelora was even the Heir Apparent and Princess of Dragonstone after the death of her twin brother and husband Aelor had died.

A woman has never been queen in her own right... that's what precedents are... and it is literally spelled out in the world book:

In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendents.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In Myrcella's and Shireen's cases there are no males around. There are no brothers, nephews or cousins who could challenge their respective claims.

Neither Myrcella nor Shireen has tried to claim the Iron throne... also did you forget about Aegon? He sure seems to be challenging the claims of both. A woman can obviously hold a lesser seat, but since a woman has never been queen in their own right, and they have been passed over at basically every opportunity, the precedent is real.

Obviously, I hope, I'm not defending that as being somehow morally correct or saying a woman could never be Queen, just speaking to precedent.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Basically, this is a complete mess. In Westeros there would be no way to figure out whose claim is stronger because these people do not have proper succession laws. A Queen Myrcella or a Queen Shireen would have to name/acknowledge a presumptive heir, but even that would not guarantee that this person could succeed them after their deaths if other, more powerful claimants would come forth. If no heir is named, then chances would be pretty good that some powerful dude - Mace Tyrell, say - would try to usurp the Iron Throne because none of the potential claimants with royal blood out there have close ties to court or the great houses.

They have pretty clear traditions of inheritance. Someone could always usurp a throne or change precedent... that is always true, but it doesn't change who the "rightful" heir is. They clearly keep detailed records of heritage in Westeros.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But I very much doubt that the people in charge could actually agree on who should the presumptive heir be. Prior to the return of Prince Viserys, the succession of Aegon III was unclear, too, because the regents and Hand couldn't agree whether the elder or younger half-sister of the king should be his heir. As Gyldayn tells the story, the chances for another Dance were pretty high if Aegon III had died before Viserys' return. Some people would have proclaimed Baela queen, others Rhaena, and others still would have insisted Jaehaera was the rightful queen as only surviving child of Aegon II (assuming Aegon III would have died while Jaehaera was still alive, of course).

The Plumms and Penroses could, for instance, claim that their claim is stronger because they are descendants of Aegon III, making them the more senior female Targaryen cadet branch whereas the Martells are only descended from Viserys II's younger branch. The Martells could counter that this is bogus since they are descended from a more recent king, etc.

People can always argue but this isn't really a close call by any stretch, it is like trying to defend Renly's claim. Its not that he can't possibly make a claim, he did, its just very clear it isn't rightful. A man's son comes before an uncle, there is no precedent for going back to the top of the tree and starting over that I have ever heard.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Chances are that it is the most recent one, possibly through one of Egg's sisters (in my opinion by ways of Daella marrying Dunk whose daughter then ends up becoming Selwyn Tarth's mother). But then - Vaella the Simple or Prince Maegor could also have had offspring, Princess Daenora could have remarried after Aerion's death, and Duncan and Jenny could have been outlived by some of their children (if they had any).

Or maybe they all died childless. It's awfully hard to speculate about people who we don't even know exist.

 

[Mourning Star]

16 hours ago, El Guapo said:

Then why is it after finding out that Viserys is dead does Barristan not turn around to jon Stannis at Dragnstone instead of going half way around the world to find Dany?  Why does an educated man like Tyrion not say taht Dany has no claim because she is a woman?  The only thing he does say in this matter is that Aegon (if real) has the better claim.

He went half way around the world to find Dany because Jof insulted and fired him. He didn't suddenly decide to support the rightful king.

It isn't that Dany has no claim, anyone can make a claim, the question is how good that claim is by the precedents of Westeros... and the fact is there is no precedent for a Queen inheriting in her own right, and many times when a woman has been intentionally passed over.

Aegon the Conqueror had no legitimate claim to Westeros, he made his claim with Dragons, and that is what Dany has going for her.

It is easy to ignore precedent when it suits, but that doesn't change who has the rightful claim.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

A woman has never been queen in her own right... that's what precedents are... and it is literally spelled out in the world book:

In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendents.

It is said that many believed this, not all. And the voices of those 'many' weren't exactly heard when King Viserys I made Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent. Nor were they relevant when Robert Baratheon - as a grandson of a royal princess - claimed the Iron Throne. Which he shouldn't be allowed to do as per the 'iron precedent interpretation' of the Great Council of 101 AC.

Regardless of the Great Council half the Realm or more stood with Rhaenyra during the Dance. Her defeat certainly set a pretty strong precedent against female inheritance, but we don't know the details about that yet. King Aerys I had a female Heir Apparent later down the road, and I don't expect that Baelor's succession was discussed only after the king's death. The man must have named an heir considering that he was childless and unmarried. My best guess is that originally he may have kept Daena as his heir only to disinherit her and her sisters after she gave birth to that bastard. Something like that - in addition with the princesses being prisoners, anyway - should have made it very easy for Viserys to succeed to the throne.

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

Neither Myrcella nor Shireen has tried to claim the Iron throne... also did you forget about Aegon? He sure seems to be challenging the claims of both. A woman can obviously hold a lesser seat, but since a woman has never been queen in their own right, and they have been passed over at basically every opportunity, the precedent is real.

Of course Aegon or Daenerys may make the search for Baratheon heirs moot. But it is equally clear that Shireen and Myrcella are the acknowledged heirs of their father/brother, and nobody has an issue with that on principle. Nor Lannister or Tyrell would turn to Stannis or Shireen instead of Myrcella, just as Stannis' people would never consider anyone but Shireen as Stannis' heir.

They are down to only girls and thus they will go with the girls. Just as Dany goes with herself because she is the last Targaryen around (as far as she knows).

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

Obviously, I hope, I'm not defending that as being somehow morally correct or saying a woman could never be Queen, just speaking to precedent.

Precedents are not laws. They are things to be cited and considered and followed ... or not. And unlike with the French kings in Westeros women were never summarily excluded from the royal succession. They were just dismissed in favor of other claimants on a case by case basis.

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

They have pretty clear traditions of inheritance. Someone could always usurp a throne or change precedent... that is always true, but it doesn't change who the "rightful" heir is. They clearly keep detailed records of heritage in Westeros.

Of course they do keep records. But the thing is - like in the real middle ages - it wasn't clear what to do when the king had no trueborn son. Especially in a setting when a king's son had followed his royal father since time immemorial - as was the case for the Capet kings of France. When that no longer happened then things would start to get confused.

It is not really clear in the first century after the Conquest whether a daughter or brother comes next if there is no sense (hence the discussion whether little Rhaena or Maegor were next in line after Prince Aenys, the Heir Apparent of Aegon the Conqueror).

And when things were to get down to the daughter/sister of a king and some obscure cousin we don't even know anything about at this point (or an attainted traitor uncle) then we can be pretty sure that the daughter/sister would make the race. Especially since Shireen and Myrcella are the acknowledged heirs of Stannis and Tommen, respectively.

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

People can always argue but this isn't really a close call by any stretch, it is like trying to defend Renly's claim. Its not that he can't possibly make a claim, he did, its just very clear it isn't rightful. A man's son comes before an uncle, there is no precedent for going back to the top of the tree and starting over that I have ever heard.

It is quite clear that the universally accepted thing is that a son should come before a brother ... but even that was sort of challenged when Rhaenyra was Heir Apparent and people actually supported her claim against that of Aegon II, no? But we are not talking about that, we are talking about how to figure out which distantly related cadet branch should inherit the throne if a monarch died without an heir of his body and there are no siblings, nephews, nieces, and close cousins around.

That is something very difficult to figure out. The only thing that's easy to settle is whether a son should follow his father or not. It is already pretty difficult whether a daughter or another male relation should succeed, but when it comes down to decide when there are only distant cousins, bastards, and widows as potential heirs then things get pretty messy. There are six people who lay claim to Rosby right now, and nobody seems to know who the 'rightful heir' is (which should be easy to figure out if there were proper laws of succession). In the North Lady Dustin rules Barrowton in her own right as widow of the previous lord.

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

Or maybe they all died childless. It's awfully hard to speculate about people who we don't even know exist.

We do know that Egg's sisters all had children. Maester Aemon confirmed that in AFfC. Might be none of those children have (living) offspring around during the main series, but we do know they all gave birth to children.

[Mourning Star]

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is quite clear that the universally accepted thing is that a son should come before a brother ... but even that was sort of challenged when Rhaenyra was Heir Apparent and people actually supported her claim against that of Aegon II, no?

No. 

Precedent is what it is... it can be changed but at this point, after the Dance of Dragons, a woman's claim comes after all male claims.

We even have the So Spake Martin where he says:

 "women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD."

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Comic_Con_San_Diego_CA_July_20_232/

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

No. 

Precedent is what it is... it can be changed but at this point, after the Dance of Dragons, a woman's claim comes after all male claims.

We even have the So Spake Martin where he says:

 "women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD."

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Comic_Con_San_Diego_CA_July_20_232/

That is from before TWoIaF and turned out to be not exactly accurate. After the Dance was over, Aegon II and his mother wanted Jaehaera to succeed the king, not Aegon the Younger. And during the Regency era Baela and Rhaena were the presumptive heirs of Aegon III.

And as I said - Aerys I named another female heir when they were plenty of males around, just as Baelor's sisters were considered as his successors after his death.

[Mourning Star]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is from before TWoIaF and turned out to be not exactly accurate. After the Dance was over, Aegon II and his mother wanted Jaehaera to succeed the king, not Aegon the Younger. And during the Regency era Baela and Rhaena were the presumptive heirs of Aegon III.

And as I said - Aerys I named another female heir when they were plenty of males around, just as Baelor's sisters were considered as his successors after his death.

Your first examples are both literally from the dance of dragons... and no amount of presumptive heirs will change the fact that there has never been a queen on the iron throne in her own right, and each time it has been a possibility they have been passed over.

I'm inclined to trust the word of the author over the world book. But, where does it say anything about Aerys I naming a female heir? 

Baelor's sisters meanwhile are a great example of the precedent for a woman not inheriting the throne... they were passed over in favor of his uncle Viserys, literally sighting the precedents of the Dance of Dragons.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Your first examples are both literally from the dance of dragons... and no amount of presumptive heirs will change the fact that there has never been a queen on the iron throne in her own right, and each time it has been a possibility they have been passed over.

Perhaps you can count my Jaehaera example as something still from the Dance, but not the consideration of the succession of Aegon III after the Dance.

That aside from Rhaenyra no woman ever ruled as queen is quite clear. But this has no bearing on the strength of the claims of Daenerys, Myrcella, and Shireen in the absence of closely related male heirs.

19 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm inclined to trust the word of the author over the world book. But, where does it say anything about Aerys I naming a female heir?

The author is wrong here, since both TWoIaF and FaB established that the Great Council of 101 AC established the idea that no woman and no male descended from a woman of royal blood can sit the Iron Throne, and not the Dance of the Dragons. The Dance didn't establish something like that. It might be that later on the war as such will be cited as a precedent against female rule, but we have to wait and see if and when that happened.

Aerys I's third Heir Apparent prior to the naming of Maekar was his niece Princess Aelora.

19 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Baelor's sisters meanwhile are a great example of the precedent for a woman not inheriting the throne... they were passed over in favor of his uncle Viserys, literally sighting the precedents of the Dance of Dragons.

We have to wait and see for that, too. I've repeatedly pointed out that the narrative we have so far makes little sense. King Baelor annulled his marriage and ensured that he would have no children by taking the vows of a septon early in his reign. From that point on the king must have named/acknowledged an heir like childless Aerys I did later, too. It makes no sense to assume the succession of Baelor I was unclear and only settled after the death of the king.

In that sense, there is a possibility that Daena and her supporters (if she had any) weren't happy with the ascension of Viserys II, but Viserys II must have been the chosen heir of King Baelor at the time of the king's death.

What kind of rationale King Baelor is going to use to make his uncle rather than his sister his heir we don't yet know. Could be a lot of reasons, including the Dance of the Dragons.

[Mourning Star]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps you can count my Jaehaera example as something still from the Dance, but not the consideration of the succession of Aegon III after the Dance.

Well written response, although I think we still disagree.

So now I'm a little confused... trying to brush up on my facts I looked to the wiki which says:

The sudden death of Lord Corlys Velaryon in 132 AC raised the issue of the king's successor. When King Aegon was asked who his heir should be, the king offered the name of his only friend, Gaemon Palehair, the bastard-born pretender during the Moon of Madness during the Dance of the Dragons. The suggestion was ignored by the regents. Although Aegon's half-sisters Baela and Rhaena were dismissed on account of their sex, the considered that any sons the twins, in particular Baela, the eldest of the two, would have would be a suitable successor to the king.[12]

Which again supports what I was saying... where is it written that Aegon's heir was his sister?

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That aside from Rhaenyra no woman ever ruled as queen is quite clear. But this has no bearing on the strength of the claims of Daenerys, Myrcella, and Shireen in the absence of closely related male heirs.

I strongly disagree with you here, I think it is directly relevant.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The author is wrong here, since both TWoIaF and FaB established that the Great Council of 101 AC established the idea that no woman and no male descended from a woman of royal blood can sit the Iron Throne, and not the Dance of the Dragons. The Dance didn't establish something like that. It might be that later on the war as such will be cited as a precedent against female rule, but we have to wait and see if and when that happened.

Again, I'm inclined to believe the author, and I disagree with you. The 101 council may have established the idea, but it was the Dance which tested and reinforced the prescedent... and the quote simply says it was the reality after the dance.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aerys I's third Heir Apparent prior to the naming of Maekar was his niece Princess Aelora.

Where is this coming from? I can't find actual evidence of it in text.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We have to wait and see for that, too. I've repeatedly pointed out that the narrative we have so far makes little sense. King Baelor annulled his marriage and ensured that he would have no children by taking the vows of a septon early in his reign. From that point on the king must have named/acknowledged an heir like childless Aerys I did later, too. It makes no sense to assume the succession of Baelor I was unclear and only settled after the death of the king.

Baelor doesn't exactly seem the rational type, but I think I understand your point.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In that sense, there is a possibility that Daena and her supporters (if she had any) weren't happy with the ascension of Viserys II, but Viserys II must have been the chosen heir of King Baelor at the time of the king's death.

What kind of rationale King Baelor is going to use to make his uncle rather than his sister his heir we don't yet know. Could be a lot of reasons, including the Dance of the Dragons.

The wiki sights the world book:

The precedents of the Great Council of 101 AC and the Dance of the Dragons were therefore cited, the claims of Baelor's sisters were set aside, and the crown passed to Viserys.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

The sudden death of Lord Corlys Velaryon in 132 AC raised the issue of the king's successor. When King Aegon was asked who his heir should be, the king offered the name of his only friend, Gaemon Palehair, the bastard-born pretender during the Moon of Madness during the Dance of the Dragons. The suggestion was ignored by the regents. Although Aegon's half-sisters Baela and Rhaena were dismissed on account of their sex, the considered that any sons the twins, in particular Baela, the eldest of the two, would have would be a suitable successor to the king.[12]

That is a wrong depiction in the wiki. It is quite clear that Baela and Rhaena are the only potential heirs they have, and they cannot agree which one it should be. Munkun insists it has to be a male, but the Hand, Ser Tyland, aptly points out that the male Targaryens are all dead.

They hope for the girls to give birth to sons, but at the time they talk the succession they only have the girls.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I strongly disagree with you here, I think it is directly relevant.

It isn't, because in the books you read it is quite clear that Myrcella is Tommen's heir and Shireen is Stannis' heir. Both has been made abundantly clear in the books. There are no alternatives.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Again, I'm inclined to believe the author, and I disagree with you. The 101 council may have established the idea, but it was the Dance which tested and reinforced the prescedent... and the quote simply says it was the reality after the dance.

The author didn't include that particular statement in FaB, and until he does it just isn't the case in published material that after the Dance of the Dragons the succession of the Iron Throne changed in a meaningful way. Female succession was never encouraged, anyway. Even before the Great Council of 101 AC.

We do not have Aegon II nor the regents of Aegon III, nor Aegon III himself issue some kind of male only succession law or decree in the books we know so far.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Where is this coming from? I can't find actual evidence of it in text.

It isn't in the published text but part of the longer text Ran and Linda used to write the account on King Aerys I. We have Prince Aelor dying in 217 AC, and then the king did not immediately turn to Maekar as his new heir but named Aelor's sister-wife Aelora instead. Only after her suicide did Aerys I name Maekar Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne.

We don't know more details on that, but I guess it might turn out that Aerys I/Bloodraven only fully reconciled with Maekar (or he with them) after the Third Blackfyre Rebellion in 219 AC. If Bloodraven did not want Maekar to succeed Aerys I in 217 AC this could explain why they named Aelora heir.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

The precedents of the Great Council of 101 AC and the Dance of the Dragons were therefore cited, the claims of Baelor's sisters were set aside, and the crown passed to Viserys.

That is just a brief summary. We don't have a detailed account of the reign of King Baelor so far. It is sort of similar to what we knew about the reign of Jaehaerys I prior to FaB. A lot of things changed there when they were fleshed out in detail.

Baelor's succession will be as big and important an issue as the later succession of childless Aerys I and as the succession of Viserys I - who was forced to rule on his own succession in the third year of his reign because it was unclear whether Daemon or Rhaenyra should succeed him. Similarly, the Old King had to rule on his own succession twice when his anointed heirs died.

Baelor will be in the same situation as soon as his annuls his marriage and takes his vows of chastity. It is not really conceivable that the court of Baelor the Blessed overlooked the unclear succession for a decade and only ruled on the succession after the king's death. If the succession had been unclear throughout Baelor's reign there would be a lot of factionalism at court as it would be unclear who should succeed the king. Everybody could put forth a claim ... not just Daena and Viserys, but also Aegon, Naerys, Rhaena, Elaena, even little Daeron.

Instead, one would expect Baelor to have a chosen heir - which, I think, could have been Daena until the birth of Daemon Waters - and then there being a brief discussion after Baelor's death whether to go through with the king's final decision (that Viserys succeed him) or whether Daena or one of her sisters should be crowned.

But the idea that everything was unclear until after the succession was discussed after the king's death makes no sense. That would contradict the practices during the reign of any other king we know in detail so far. And Baelor's personality doesn't help there. He might not care who succeeds him for this or that reason ... but his court would. They would push him to make a ruling in this matter. Perhaps not immediately, but definitely after it became clear he would keep his chastity vows and never marry. Even more so after he started the fastings which could kill him easily enough.

And, hell, Viserys and the council most likely already opened the can of Baelor's succession after the viper pit incident. It looked as if the king might die, so people would have to think who should succeed him if the worst happened.

[Thandros]

Technically if Stannis is removed from the line of succession then Myrcella could make a claim and the Lannister would probably push for that. Stannis would probably try and convince people of his rightful claim. If both of them and Daenerys are excluded. Reasonable given Stannis is probably attainted and Myrcella and Daenerys are female. Females have deliberately been overlooked in the past in issues of succession. After the death of Baelor the Blessed is the most overt occasion. 

Robert when he claimed the throne made his claim on the basis of his Targaryen descent. Implicitly if you accept Robert as King then you accept that Royal claims can pass through the female line after male lines. Which would be fine except there are four female lines with superior seniority to both the Baratheon line and the Targaryen line.

If you accept that Alyn Velaryon was in fact the son of Laenor rather than Corlys or through Daena Targaryen than Monterys Velaryon could make a reasonable claim to be the rightful king of Westeros if he wasn't 6 or 7 and probably still serving Stannis.

After that the 6 daughters of Rhaena Targaryen could be drawn upon but we know nothing of what happened with them so nothing can be said. Then the Blackfyres could make the next claim but it's hard to say anything of them as well.

After that you get Phillip Plumm and Lord Penrose who have the next best claims that you could reasonably attach a person to rather than vague speculation.

 

The reality who comes next depends less on lines of succession and more on who has the biggest army in King's Landing when the question is asked right now. Just about anyone could come up with a reasonable line of succession that would place them having some claim and with enough armies around to back it up the line of succession doesn't matter that much.

[Isobel Harper]

The succession issue is NOT as clear cut as it seems.  

The Seven prefer strict male-preference primogeniture, and this culture has influenced the Seven Kingdoms significantly.  (Alys Karstark makes a point of this difference in Dance; in the North, laws support a niece before an uncle.)

With the Seven such a strong force at the moment, especially in King's Landing, I doubt Myrcella could claim the throne without significant difficulties.

Next in line after Tommen?  Fervently religious Lancel.  What better king for the High Sparrow?

[Isobel Harper]

And, that being said, I'm sure Cersei will prefer to put her own daughter on the throne.

With Aegon warring in the Stormlands, he could make a potentially good marriage/ally for Aegon, but will he and JonCon make such a move?

[Lord Varys]

32 minutes ago, Isobel Harper said:

The Seven prefer strict male-preference primogeniture, and this culture has influenced the Seven Kingdoms significantly.  (Alys Karstark makes a point of this difference in Dance; in the North, laws support a niece before an uncle.)

That is actually not the case. The North doesn't have any different traditions there - there were no Queens in the North nor Ruling Ladies of Winterfell (unlike the Arryns, who had at least one Ruling Lady in the Maiden of the Vale). But that a daughter should succeed her father rather than her uncle is the standard practice both on the Iron Islands and the Andal kingdoms. And, in fact, the most progressive kingdom in that regard outside Dorne would be the Reach where there was at least one Gardener queen regnant before the Conquest - which we don't have confirmed for any other kingdom.

32 minutes ago, Isobel Harper said:

With the Seven such a strong force at the moment, especially in King's Landing, I doubt Myrcella could claim the throne without significant difficulties.

She is the heir right now. And if the Faith were to stick with the Baratheons they would go with Myrcella. If they go with Aegon then things would go very differently, of course, but in a theoretical scenario who Tommen's successor would be it is quite clear that Myrcella is the one.

32 minutes ago, Isobel Harper said:

Next in line after Tommen?  Fervently religious Lancel.  What better king for the High Sparrow?

That wouldn't work. Lancel isn't Baratheon and a Warrior's Son. He cannot hold a lordship after his vows (hence him giving up Darry), meaning he could not possibly ever be king ... even if he had royal blood. Not to mention that the Faith won't decide who succeeds a dead Tommen. At least not alone.

29 minutes ago, Isobel Harper said:

And, that being said, I'm sure Cersei will prefer to put her own daughter on the throne.

With Aegon warring in the Stormlands, he could make a potentially good marriage/ally for Aegon, but will he and JonCon make such a move?

One scenario of Myrcella as queen - which is sort of foreshadowed by her wearing a crown in Maggy's prophecy - would be her as Aegon's first queen consort - forced into a marriage to lend further strength and legitimacy to Aegon's claim ... to then quickly end like Queen Jaehaera did.

But there is also the chance of Myrcella as a pretender in the West if Tommen were to die and Cersei were able to flee with her. If the Tyrells end up controlling her person she could also be married to Willas Tyrell and end up a pretender in the Reach.

[Castellan]

In respect of whether women can 'legally' rule, technically Robert claimed the throne on account of his rather small amount of Targ blood. But the hatred he had for the Targs and the fact that most of the powerful families had fought against the Targs mean that their male-only rule, whatever its status, would have lost a lot of salience by the time period of the books.

The fact that the Lannisters are now the weaker partners with the Tyrells would make it hard for her to get support. Luckily Willas has not married so they could marry her off to him.