An alternative scenario where daenerys takes the iron throne

[laningx3]

Succession in westeros is usually clear cut. Outside of controversial situations like the Great Council it works like this. Sons>daughters>brothers>sisters>uncles>aunts and so on. Unless there is any evidence that in addition to the targaryens being ousted there is a legal basis for saying they were barred from the line of succeession. Daenerys can inherit the throne through natural means and not through conquest. Consider that roberts kids are all bastards therefore have no place in the line of succession. Lord Lyonels only living descendants that we are aware of Stannis and Roberts children. If his daughter found a spouse and brought forth children that would expand this line of succession by a bit. But there is no evidence of such in the story. Making Daenerys the closest relative of the baratheons.

The succession would go like this: Tommen>Myrcella>Stannis>Shireen>Daenerys.

 Although assuming r plus l equals j and that young griff is indeed aegon they both go before

[Alyn Oakenfist]

This is Westeros not ck2 were agnatic (ocasionally agnatic cognatic) primogeniture reigns supreme.

If Tommen and Myrcella were to die the Lannsiters would crown one of their own, not Stannis or Dany

[CamiloRP]

Actually, succession is not clear cut. Ask the Blackfyres, or Robert's descendants. Some people think daughters go before brothers, some people think brothers go before daughters. Some rulers can be skipped by the small or great council. Some wills can be changed.

[laningx3]

8 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Actually, succession is not clear cut. Ask the Blackfyres, or Robert's descendants. Some people think daughters go before brothers, some people think brothers go before daughters. Some rulers can be skipped by the small or great council. Some wills can be changed.

I know thats why i said its usually clear cut with the exception of the great council. Especially the council of who should succeed King Maekar. But even then Princess vaella and Prince Maegor were only passed over because of age and undesirability. I suppose in the event of the baratheon line dying out its possible and even likely another great council would be called. Like Alyn said the Lannisters or whoever controls kings landing will seek to crown one of their own. 

[Bronn Urgandy]

It’s a tricky one, there is a way things should work in theory, then there is the way the current King wants things to work, then there is the way the current power bases want things to work. In theory these things should line up more often than not; King has children, oldest male is groomed to be next King, current King approves of heir and teaches him well, the current powerbases are kept happy by said heir because he maintains the status quo of father that has also kept them happy. Job done, seamless changeover once old King dies.

 

Like all things it gets messed up in practice, rumours of bastardy, heir is a weakling or not suitable or perhaps even non existent, forcing people to consider other options such as daughters, uncles or nephews, but does a nephew born of the Kings sister come before the Kings daughter? She is a direct descendent of the male line, whereas he is a male descendent of the female line, both are cursed by the vagina. That’s civil war territory. If the Kings kids are proven bastards then do we look to the oldest uncle? Targs certainly would, but why should the Baratheons? They themselves have the vagina and bastard curse, as old as it may be, why should people not rally behind the younger uncle, or the actual son or grandson of the former King, if neither of those can be proved to be legit then why not his daughter? She can claim as much legitimacy through the rule of penis as the Baratheons can on account of being much more Targaryen through a recent male line than them, even if she doesn’t actually have one.

Look, I didn’t mean to rant so much about penis’ and vaginas, my mind is in the gutter right now

 

[SeanF]

There is no law of succession in Westeros, simply a collection of precedents, like England, prior to 1660, or Russia, prior to 1798.

[BlackLightning]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

There is no law of succession in Westeros, simply a collection of precedents, like England, prior to 1660, or Russia, prior to 1798.

That's only partially true. Dorne has a law of succession.

[Rondo]

20 hours ago, laningx3 said:

Succession in westeros is usually clear cut. Outside of controversial situations like the Great Council it works like this. Sons>daughters>brothers>sisters>uncles>aunts and so on. Unless there is any evidence that in addition to the targaryens being ousted there is a legal basis for saying they were barred from the line of succeession. Daenerys can inherit the throne through natural means and not through conquest. Consider that roberts kids are all bastards therefore have no place in the line of succession. Lord Lyonels only living descendants that we are aware of Stannis and Roberts children. If his daughter found a spouse and brought forth children that would expand this line of succession by a bit. But there is no evidence of such in the story. Making Daenerys the closest relative of the baratheons.

The succession would go like this: Tommen>Myrcella>Stannis>Shireen>Daenerys.

 Although assuming r plus l equals j and that young griff is indeed aegon they both go before

Clear cut ended when King Aerys was forcibly overthrown.  There is no more clear cut.  For evidence, you only have to look at the Baratheons.  Renly tried to take the throne from his older brother.  Why not make a try.  Robert took it by force from the rightful owner, King Aerys.  If Robert could do it so could he.  Renly reasoned only public opinion and superior force mattered.  His opinion.  Stannis was not doing clear cut himself.  He beat Renly through sorcery and less than honorable means.  Daenerys is the highest ranking Targaryen because she is the mother of dragons.  She is the promised prince this family has been waiting for.  She rides the largest dragon and earned her right to rule a khalasar.  You can throw out "clear cut" because it doesn't matter anymore.  It was clear cut for every khal's widow to go to the retirement community of Vaes Dothrak.  Daenerys paid it no heed.  I agree with her.  Slavery was the status quo in Slaver's Bay for over a thousand years.  She paid that no mind and swept aside slavery because it was wrong.  It's wrong to send khal's widows to the Vaes Dothrak retirement community.  It's wrong to force people into slavery.  And it's wrong for females to take a lesser place than the males.  Daenerys will not stand for it and she will change the way succession is done in Westeros.  Robert did it when he took the throne from King Aerys.  Aegon changed the way things are done in Westeros when he conquered it.  Cersei took the throne from the Baratheons through guile.  Daenerys will take her throne using her own style.  Which is a combination of Rhaenys, Visenya, and Aegon.  She will be the most qualified ruler when she makes it back to Westeros.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 hours ago, Rondo said:

Clear cut ended when King Aerys was forcibly overthrown.  There is no more clear cut.

Heck it was messy even before, especially with Viserys II and Aegon V

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 hours ago, Rondo said:

Daenerys will take her throne using her own style.  Which is a combination of Rhaenys, Visenya, and Aegon.  She will be the most qualified ruler when she makes it back to Westeros.

Yes, nothing says qualified like someone who likes to resolve all problems with fire and blood, has lived her whole live abroad, has no knowledge of Westerosi traditions and customs, and who leads an army of unwashed rapists.

[Bronn Urgandy]

It’s all irrelevant because the Iron Throne will go to Cersie and she will keep it, she is a modern day Lann the clever, much how Lann tricked the Casterlys out of the Rock, she had tricked the Baratheons out of Kings Landing. All hail Queen Cersie!

[Muffin King]

Whoever has the biggest army will win the crown, the succession changes at a whim.

That's how Robert won the IT

[Alyn Oakenfist]

30 minutes ago, Muffin King said:

Whoever has the biggest army will win the crown, the succession changes at a whim.

That's how Robert won the IT

Yes and no. Strength at arms deffo played a part, but Robert was crowned as opposed to Jon, Ned or even Hoster because of his Targaryen blood. So blood still definitely matters.

[frenin]

I mean at the end of the day. Bran the Broken.

 

 

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yes and no. Strength at arms deffo played a part, but Robert was crowned as opposed to Jon, Ned or even Hoster because of his Targaryen blood. So blood still definitely matters.

This makes me hate a title bit all of the above.

Is like a right wing political cartoon of a revolution. They overthrew a corrupt system with an incompetent ruler and replaced it with the exact same system, while chosing the worst possible ruler out of the four candidates. And what always bugged me is that all four kingdoms went to eat, and the Tullys where the ones to suffer thermos because of it, yetthe Baratheons kept all the prizes. 

They could've created a better succession method, maybe a choice between their four houses, or even kept things the same but chose Ned, Jon or Hoster as long, but no, they chose Robert cause he was more legitimate. The same reason they got the Mad King in the first place!

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

They could've created a better succession method, maybe a choice between their four houses, or even kept things the same but chose Ned, Jon or Hoster as long, but no, they chose Robert cause he was more legitimate. The same reason they got the Mad King in the first place!

Are you sure this was the worst pick of ruler?

Jon Arryn was old and childless and judging his heir in Robin Arryn I don't know if that kid would have made much of an improvement instead of Joffrey. Eddard was clueless to court intrigues and the political game of the realm, Hoster (and in my opinion probably the most scummy of the four) had a family lacking the royal prestige, so that left Robert; young, fertile, solid pedigree, charismatic, well-known and a acknowledged warrior - not to mention unmarried and so could make a political match to shore up the new regime and thus tie the Lannisters to that regime's future as well.

[laningx3]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

This makes me hate a title bit all of the above.

Is like a right wing political cartoon of a revolution. They overthrew a corrupt system with an incompetent ruler and replaced it with the exact same system, while chosing the worst possible ruler out of the four candidates. And what always bugged me is that all four kingdoms went to eat, and the Tullys where the ones to suffer thermos because of it, yetthe Baratheons kept all the prizes. 

They could've created a better succession method, maybe a choice between their four houses, or even kept things the same but chose Ned, Jon or Hoster as long, but no, they chose Robert cause he was more legitimate. The same reason they got the Mad King in the first place!

Robert's Rebellion was never intended to be a revolution though. They were rebelling against a tyrannical ruler not against the system. And yes they could have chosen a better succession but they chose not to. But can you really blame them? The westerosi have been doing the things the same way for so long they have little to no interest in changing the system.

I mean really the most progressive law in westeros concerning succession is that males and female are equal in succession. And thats only limited to one region and one of the least populated ones at that.

And they had no idea the kind of ruler Robert would be. Keep in mind Robert was a young man who had only just recently taken rule of the stormlands. He was untested in matters of rulership and when the rubber met the road he failed in governance. Come on this is a guy whose wife was sleeping around with his brother in law and was none the wiser. And virtually everyone in the modern world agrees that this is why succession in monarchy is flawed at best.

[laningx3]

10 minutes ago, Lion of the West said:

Are you sure this was the worst pick of ruler?

Jon Arryn was old and childless and judging his heir in Robin Arryn I don't know if that kid would have made much of an improvement instead of Joffrey. Eddard was clueless to court intrigues and the political game of the realm, Hoster (and in my opinion probably the most scummy of the four) had a family lacking the royal prestige, so that left Robert; young, fertile, solid pedigree, charismatic, well-known and a acknowledged warrior - not to mention unmarried and so could make a political match to shore up the new regime and thus tie the Lannisters to that regime's future as well.

Ironically the one man who would have been best suited to the kingship was the man the rebel leaders would have refused to elect to be king. Tywin Lannister.

[Lion of the West]

Just now, laningx3 said:

Ironically the one man who would have been best suited to the kingship was the man the rebel leaders would have refused to elect to be king. Tywin Lannister.

I totally agree with that. As you can probably tell.

[laningx3]

51 minutes ago, Lion of the West said:

I totally agree with that. As you can probably tell.

Lol yeah its pretty apparent