The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI)

[Guest Other-in-law]

You're right, I stand corrected. As modified by your excellent memory, my questions still stands. Does the precedent of Daeron's daughter have any impact on a female claimant to the Iron Throne versus an uncle?

Oh, my memory has been proven to be plenty flawed on a number of occasions. I don't know that the Great Council really set any precedents on regular successions, it was an extraordinary event that went against the established rules...it seems to me like a largely one time thing.

To me, the real precedent with uncles over daughters was set back when Viserys I Viserys II succeeded his nephew Baelor, instead of Baelor's three sisters: Daena, Rhaena, and Elaena.

And as applied to Baby Aegon (or a legitimate child of R+L) vs Dany, it's actually irrelevant. Dany is junior to them in the succession, just as Viserys was. It might have a bearing on Dany vs her Baratheon cousins, though.

It seems to me like Targaryen females are excluded from the succession (largely after Rhaenyra, and even more so after Daena the Defiant) unless there's really no one else left. Dany was announced as "the Princess of Dragonstone" at Drogo's manse, and Viserys didn't complain. That seems to indicate that she was accepted as his heiress.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Maegor I is the only point you have, but you seam to think that the entire dynasty proves your point, which makes me think that you aren't capable of understanding mine.

No, the fact that the Faith prohibits incest proves the point that the Faith does not have the authority to decide whether Targaryen marriages are legitimate or not.

As to Aegon's marriages, Maegor was the son of the elder sister, Visenya. Either they both married simultaneously, or Visenya probably married first. So the descendants of Rhaenys are as much prone to being delegitimised as Maegor, if polygamous royal mariages aren't recognised.

So of course, they were recognised, just as much as the far more numerous incestuous Targaryen marriages were.

[SFDanny]

You still aren't following. The critical issue is how Maegor I came to be king. This is the only instance of an heir from Visenya's line superceding an heir from Rhaenys's line. And what happened to Visenya's line? Did it die out or was it just ignored?

Maegor I is the only point you have, but you seam to think that the entire dynasty proves your point, which makes me think that you aren't capable of understanding mine.

I'd suggest this quote from Martin:

June 06, 2001

Targaryen Polygamy

First off all I want to thank you for the one of the best fantasy novels I ever read. Then I would like to ask one question: In the SOS Jora Mormont told to Dany that Aegon The Dragon had two wives and she could take two husbands. The question is if there were any other precedents of polygamy among Targaryens besides Aegon the First.

Yes, there were.

Maegor the Cruel had eight or nine wives, I seem to recall, though not all of them were simultaneous. He beheaded a few of them who failed to give him heirs, a test that all of them ultimately failed.

There might have been a few later instances as well. I'd need to look that up... (or make that up, as the case might be)

Maegor and Aegon the Conqueror had polygamous marriages that we know were accepted by the Faith. Martin thinks there might be later instances as well, and obviously has no problem with there being such cases. So, the idea that the Faith dictated marriage customs to the Targaryens is without support. Now, if you want to argue that the High Septon of A Feast for Crows, might want to force any new Targaryen dynasty to accept the Faith's view, you might have a case. Not that I think he will end up being able to impose his will on anybody once Daenerys arrives with three fire-breathing pets in tow. All of which has nothing to do with the Faith's ability to tell Rhaegar Targaryen a bloody thing some 17 or so years ago, relative to the story present.

[SFDanny]

Oh, my memory has been proven to be plenty flawed on a number of occasions. I don't know that the Great Council really set any precedents on regular successions, it was an extraordinary event that went against the established rules...it seems to me like a largely one time thing.

To me, the real precedent with uncles over daughters was set back when Viserys I succeeded his nephew Baelor, instead of Baelor's three sisters: Daena, Rhaena, and Elaena.

And as applied to Baby Aegon (or a legitimate child of R+L) vs Dany, it's actually irrelevant. Dany is junior to them in the succession, just as Viserys was. It might have a bearing on Dany vs her Baratheon cousins, though.

It seems to me like Targaryen females are excluded from the succession (largely after Rhaenyra, and even more so after Daena the Defiant) unless there's really no one else left. Dany was announced as "the Princess of Dragonstone" at Drogo's manse, and Viserys didn't complain. That seems to indicate that she was accepted as his heiress.

I think you're probably right, but do we therefore assume that with the death of her father, Rhaenys is not the second in line of succession after her younger brother Aegon, but instead is after Viserys? That is, if we forget for the moment a male legitimate child at the Tower of Joy. Setting that aside and using either the Great Council's actions or the Viserys I precedent, do you think Viserys was the baby Aegon's heir instead of his sister? If so then the Targaryen succession before the battle of the Trident is as follows: King Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys, Rhaenys, Rhaella - with Daenerys and a possible child of Lyanna both still unborn. Or is it Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Rhaenys, Viserys, Rhaella? I think an argument can be made for both.

What can't be argued, imo, is, if Jon is the legitimate child of Rhaegar and Lyanna, then Jon is not the rightful heir to the throne. He would fit in the line of succession right after Aegon, in either scenario.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I think you're probably right, but do we therefore assume that with the death of her father, Rhaenys is not the second in line of succession after her younger brother Aegon, but instead is after Viserys? That is, if we forget for the moment a male legitimate child at the Tower of Joy. Setting that aside and using either the Great Council's actions or the Viserys I precedent, do you think Viserys was the baby Aegon's heir instead of his sister?

Yes, I think so.

If so then the Targaryen succession before the battle of the Trident is as follows: King Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys, Rhaenys, Rhaella - with Daenerys and a possible child of Lyanna both still unborn. Or is it Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Rhaenys, Viserys, Rhaella? I think an argument can be made for both.

My suspicion is the former; all the women after all the men. That seems to be Viserys II's (I got that wrong earlier....Viserys I actually wanted his daughter to succeed him, so his views would have been very different from Viserys II's) precedent. I think everyone wanted to avoid any ruling Queens if at all possible, after the Dance of the Dragons catastrophe.

What can't be argued, imo, is, if Jon is the legitimate child of Rhaegar and Lyanna, then Jon is not the rightful heir to the throne. He would fit in the line of succession right after Aegon, in either scenario.

Agreed completely.

[Mezeh]

Well… after a log time I decide to check this never ending thread and the first thing I see – my old question to GRRM is quoted again. ïŠ

However this is an interesting point. Daenerys is going to be accepted as queen by many despite her sex and we have some indications of this. For example – Mollander cal her their rightful queen and offer to drink for her and Doran Martell is going to offer her Dorne support. Of course Dorne less of all has any trouble with woman ruling…

Yet if some male relative with real claim to the throne would appear Daenerys would have a trouble since he would have better claim that she has. Yet she is the only one known so far and recognized scion to the Targaryen dynasty and if Rhaegar married Lyanna he did it in secret with a few witness most of them most probably long time dead. The most prominent person who may have witnessed the marriage and may be still alive is Jon Connington but even so Daenerys would have choice to accept or not to accept her new relative. Accepting would mean that her leadership would be changed but she also knows that dragon has three heads…

[Cowgirl]

Hi, me again:

I just wanted to say thank you to Other-In-Law & SFDanny. I really did not understand how European succession works and I appreciate that you explained it instead of just blasting me for not knowing. :thumbsup:

[Prince of the North]

lol, sorry.

There is at least one wrinkle in all of this...

You're being a bit of a "master of understatement" here! I think we can all agree that there are actually many "wrinkles" in this situation ;) And you're right about gender being a very important consideration in any claims to the throne. If you noticed, I sort of tried to avoid that because I think it's a whole new can o' worms, so to speak.

As you, OiL, and Mezeh allude to, it will be very interesting to see how Dany deals with learning that there is another with a better claim than hers (if R+L=J, of course). Currently, her gender really doesn't matter because she will have to conquer her way back onto the throne regardless and we all know that might makes right, the winner makes the rules, to the victor goes the spoils, etc., etc., etc. However, if there is a better claimant out there will she do the "right and honorable" thing and step aside or, dare I say it, actually support the other's claim? Will the better claimant actually learn of his claim and will he want it if he does? Would Dany disregard it and want the throne for herself? Would the rest of the "world" believe the existence of a hidden Targ heir and, if so, how's that going to be pulled off? If Dany has a formidable military force and she believes it, does it even matter if anyone else does? Does any of this even matter when the Others are bearing down and, if so, how? Hmm..."wrinkles" indeed ;)

[Blackthrone]

OK, one of you timeline followers back me up on this:

1. Battle at the Trident = Rhaegar killed

2. Arys still alive when Rhaegar killed = Succession passes to Viserys

3. Sack of Kings landing = Arys killed, Viserys is now king

4. John Connington takes Viserys to Free Cities and Robert usurps throne = Viserys still legitimate king

So, never in the course of the actual written evidence in any of the books does baby Ageon become king. Why would any offspring of R+L bump Viserys in the line of succession?

I'm not saying that R+L=J isn't so, just that said baby, legitimate or not, would not be king unless Viserys dies. So, why are there kings guard at the ToJ? By the time that Ned gets there, Viserys is the legitimate king. right?

No. Targs follow Salic law. If a lord has two sons, and the elder son has a son of his own but then dies - the lord's grandson is the heir, not his younger son.

Succession during the Great Spring Sickness. After Baelor Breakspear's death, his sons Valarr and Matarys became heirs to King Daeron in quick succession, before anyone moved on to Aerys and Maekar.

[Ladyof7Hells]

However, if there is a better claimant out there will she do the "right and honorable" thing and step aside or, dare I say it, actually support the other's claim? Will the better claimant actually learn of his claim and will he want it if he does? Would Dany disregard it and want the throne for herself?

There will be a King and Queen ruling by the end of this series. Or perhaps 7 :)

7 does seem to be the lucky number in this story.

[Mezeh]

There is no formal Salic law in Westeros – only a tradition not to put women on the throne but there always were male claimants.

For the rest. Once again Dany is the only one know and recognized heir to Targaryen’s dynasty. Besides she has the dragons. So any other Targ claimant needs to be recognized by her. If she would accept him as relative the rest of the world would follow her example particularly since the acceptance would mean also recognizing of superior claim to the throne. What could cause Dany to do this? First of all she know that dragon must have three heads and she also knows that she will need help to achieve her goals.

[Blackthrone]

There is no formal Salic law in Westeros – only a tradition not to put women on the throne but there always were male claimants.

If the Targs don't follow Salic law, why were Valarr and Matarys next in the succession after Baelor? By all indications, Valarr was pretty useless, and from Maekar's general disapproval of Baelor's sons we have nothing to suggest that Matarys was much good either. They aren't the sort of people anyone would want to put on the throne, but they would have been up there if not for they were dead.

[burnt hound]

WHy Valarr and Matarys were next in line for the throne: maybe because of the Blackfyre's. A great war of succession had just been fought, maybe the Targaryens thought that it wasn't the time to muck up something as fundamental as succession. So Valarr was weak; probably wasn't the first weak heir.

But by changing heir all willy-nilly sets a dangerous precedent, don't you think?

[Maia]

If the Targs don't follow Salic law, why were Valarr and Matarys next in the succession after Baelor?

Because they were Baelor's sons? I am not sure why you are bringing up Salic law, as that's just normal primogeniture inheritance.

[Edward the Great]

Maegor and Aegon the Conqueror had polygamous marriages that we know were accepted by the Faith.

After Maegor made the Faith accept them. Maegor's reign was a civil war, and not just with the Faith Militant. That's why the next king was called the "Conciliator." And no polygamous marriages during and after the reign of the Conciliator (apparently, Martin needs to think about this)? What exactly did he agree to?

I wish Martin had more details on Maegor's reign. One advantage if Tolkien were writing this, he would have those details worked out ahead of time for sure.

Dany has a big incentive to accept Jon - she's barren, something I keep on putting out of my mind in an effort to predict a melodramatic ending. But being the son by a 2nd wife, with the great houses liking the idea that they can be in charge, with the Faith Militant restored and not looking to go anywhere, I can't see Jon being accepted by the Seven Kingdoms peacefully.

[SFDanny]

After Maegor made the Faith accept them. Maegor's reign was a civil war, and not just with the Faith Militant. That's why the next king was called the "Conciliator." And no polygamous marriages during and after the reign of the Conciliator (apparently, Martin needs to think about this)? What exactly did he agree to?

I wish Martin had more details on Maegor's reign. One advantage if Tolkien were writing this, he would have those details worked out ahead of time for sure.

Dany has a big incentive to accept Jon - she's barren, something I keep on putting out of my mind in an effort to predict a melodramatic ending. But being the son by a 2nd wife, with the great houses liking the idea that they can be in charge, with the Faith Militant restored and not looking to go anywhere, I can't see Jon being accepted by the Seven Kingdoms peacefully.

Actually, I think it is Aegon who makes the Faith accept Targaryen marriage customs. They accept them when they accept his rule as king of Westeros. There is nothing to show, as far as I know, that Maegor's war with the Faith has anything to do with polygamous marriage on the part of the royal family. As to what Martin is saying, I think you misunderstand. Martin is relying on memory for his response, but shows that he has no problem with later royal polygamous marriage under Targaryen rule. He isn't saying how many of these types of relationships existed, only that they could have existed. Which kind of eliminates the idea the Faith could have had control over the acceptance of a second marriage by any of the Targaryen kings.

What happens now, is a totally different subject. Jon may well be the rightful heir to Rhaegar, but there is nothing that says that will ever even be an issue around who sits the Iron Throne. Jon may never find out. Jon may find out and refuse the throne. Jon may find out and Dany would refuse to accept him. And on, and on the possibilities go. Just because one thinks, as I do, that Jon is likely Rhaegar and Lyanna's legitimate son, and therefore the rightful Targaryen heir, does not mean I think this story must end with Jon as the king of Westeros. Far from it. I'd bet he never becomes king.

[Edward the Great]

What happens now, is a totally different subject.

Because the Faith Militant is back and the proverbial genie is out of the bottle. It will take war and bloodshed to put it back in. No one wants the Targaryens anymore.

Let's suppose that House Tyrell kicks Lannister butt, Tommen is king with Margaery his queen (after being found not guilty) and either Mace or Randyll as Hand/Regent. Then suppose Dany lands in Westeros, and suppose, for argument's sake, that Dany had a penis. The Tyrell's were loyalists during Robert's rebellion. Do you think they would go "Now that the Targaryen's are back, we welcome you to the Iron Throne and give you Tommen as an offering!" I don't think that would happen.

[Mezeh]

If the Targs don't follow Salic law, why were Valarr and Matarys next in the succession after Baelor?

What is the connections? By Westeros law (except Dorne) sons inherit ahead of daughters. We could see the order of succession very well when Old Bear tells the story of maester Aegon. Daeron’s daughter was the first in the line but she was put aside due to her week wits. There was no mention of any law existed by the time that could have prevented her from having the crown.

[facesintrees]

I've heard a lot of theories about Jon's dreams and what is down the Winterfell crypts, a dragon and the like, but I have yet to hear anyone say anything about Lightbringer? Jon being a candidate for Rhaegar's son and Prince that was Promised, and though it's not all that plausible, but Azor Ahai died fighting the Great Other yes? Though a dragon seems more likely, it seems like the Kings in the North might have built Winterfell over something originally or be hiding some serious relics? Just to add, I totally buy the R + L = Jon theory and will personally be very upset if it doesn't pan out....

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

but azor ahai died fighting the great other yes?

What are you basing that on? Our information about Azor Ahai is pretty scanty; I don't recall any specifics given about his death. Nor do we know for certain that the Great Other or any gods actually exist.

Mezeh,

Daeron’s daughter was the first in the line but she was put aside due to her week wits. There was no mention of any law existed by the time that could have prevented her from having the crown.

Mormont clearly spoke of her gender as being a strike against her inheriting:

"and Daeron's daughter was a lackwit besides being female"

And while there probably wasn't any law forbidding female inheritance of the Iron Throne, there's a pretty clear tradition of it after the Dance of the Dragons. We have the example of Aeon III's three daughters being passed over in favout of their uncle, as mentioned a number of times in this thread.