Winter's Knight Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yes, this is technically true.But that doesn't knock out Stannis' claim, or the Martells'. Quentyn Martell could have had a better claim than Dany. The hilarity. And, barring a real Aegon or someone spilling the beans on Jon, Stannis is actually the "rightful heir" to both dynasties. So all of the arguing over the Targs and Baratheons and which one is the legit house is moot, because it'd still come down to the same guy. The same guy who's still alive after all of the other "five" kings are dead, in a society that superstitiously suggests that the gods favor the righteous and/or innocent.The SSM didn't make any difference between male-line males and female-line males. It was "all males in the Targaryen succession."The Martells too have Targ blood?Also: "George replied that women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD."-that does not mean all men with Targ blood.ETA: For example, according to semi-Saelic law:"succession order stipulates that firstly all male descendance is applied, including all collateral male lines; but if all agnates become extinct, then the closest heiress (such as a daughter) of the last male holder of the property inherits, and after her, her own male heirs according to the Salic order."So, once all male line descendents are exhausted, the throne'd pass to the first female of male descent-in this case, Dany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The Martells too have Targ blood?Also: "George replied that women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD."-that does not mean all men with Targ blood.Yes. Daeron II's sister Daenerys married Maron Martell, and that's where the modern Martell line comes from. The Martells have Targaryen blood; that's why Aerys II made the match between Elia and Rhaegar. Elia was the closest thing to a Targ family member in Westeros.If you're a trueborn male with Targaryen ancestry, you would be in the succession, I'd presume. The succession to the English crown is dozens of people deep — none of them will ever be the monarch, but they're in the succession nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yes, this is technically true.But that doesn't knock out Stannis' claim, or the Martells'. Quentyn Martell could have had a better claim than Dany. The hilarity. And, barring a real Aegon or someone spilling the beans on Jon, Stannis is actually the "rightful heir" to both dynasties. So all of the arguing over the Targs and Baratheons and which one is the legit house is moot, because it'd still come down to the same guy. The same guy who's still alive after all of the other "five" kings are dead, in a society that superstitiously suggests that the gods favor the righteous and/or innocent.The SSM didn't make any difference between male-line males and female-line males. It was "all males in the Targaryen succession."Yes, but the question is if you're still in the succession if you're only a female-line Targaryen. Specifically, it comes down to the question if you can inherit solely based on the fact that your (Grand-grand-great-)mother was a Targaryen, or if your female Targaryen ancestor, if alive, would be the heir because there's no male left in the usual line of succession, with her being the first female in the line and you being her heir according to the Targaryen fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yes, but the question is if you're still in the succession if you're only a female-line Targaryen. Specifically, it comes down to the question if you can inherit solely based on the fact that your (Grand-grand-great-)mother was a Targaryen, or if your female Targaryen ancestor, if alive, would be the heir because there's no male left in the usual line of succession, with her being the first female in the line and you being her heir according to the Targaryen fashion.I don't know. I'm just going on the wording of the SSM, which says "all males in the succession," without making any stipulations about male- or female-line. Based on that wording, without any conditions thrown in, I would presume that Stannis at least would come before Dany. Assumptions about differentiating between male- and female-line are just that, without any specific basis in what Martin said, that I can tell.I guess you can think of it this way — as people who think that Drogo and Rhaego fit the "two kings" thing in the AA prophecy point out, Dany thought that Rhaego was the true Westerosi king. So in her mind, her son — an heir in the female line — would be the king. And Robert of course made his claim through Rhaelle Targaryen, which as we can see was recognized.Oh, and another one ... Aegon II died without any male heirs, only daughters. So the throne went to Aegon III, Rhaenyra's son. So there, a female-line male came before the king's daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickStormborn Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 You have to remember that Stannis is considered a traitor to the Targaryen dynasty. Daenerys would therefore come before him in the line of succession, because he would be removed from it -- just like Myrcella now comes before him in the Baratheon line of succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 You have to remember that Stannis is considered a traitor to the Targaryen dynasty. Daenerys would therefore come before him in the line of succession, because he would be removed from it -- just like Myrcella now comes before him in the Baratheon line of succession.Robert was a traitor to the Targaryen dynasty but still used his ancestry to justify his claim.ETA: But hey, you think Stannis should be knocked out, that's cool. On to Doran Martell then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Robert was a traitor to the Targaryen dynasty but still used his ancestry to justify his claim.ETA: But hey, you think Stannis should be knocked out, that's cool. On to Doran Martell then.Robert used his warhammer to justify his claim.Doran is a descendent from the female line-a father's daughter comes before a mother's son-Tommen's daughter would inherit before Myccella's son, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Robert used his warhammer to justify his claim.Doran is a descendent from the female line-a father's daughter comes before a mother's son-Tommen's daughter would inherit before Myccella's son, for instance.Which is why I pointed out Aegon II's crown going to Aegon III. Aegon II had at least one daughter, but the crown went to Aegon III, Rhaenyra's son. So there, why actually yes, a "mother's son" came before a "father's daughter." You were looking for evidence that a female-line male could make a claim before a male-line female, and there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tze Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Legitimised bastards still come after true-borns though.That's the thing though---are we sure it would be that clear-cut in the Targ succession if the issue came down to a legitimized male bastard versus a trueborn woman? Daemon Blackfyre and his supporters tried to put forth the Blackfyre claim, at least partially, on the idea that Dareon II was not really Aegon IV's son, but was the son of Naerys and Aemon the Dragonknight. But even if that had been true, and Dareon had really been Aemon's bastard, nobody (as far as I can tell) was making the same claim about the first Daenerys. So even if the realm had believed Dareon was a bastard, if trueborn daughters were believed to come before legitimized male bastards, then the result of Daemon's accusation wouldn't have resulted in Daemon (legally) getting the crown, the crown would have passed to Daenerys and her Martell husband (and possibly to Daenerys's Martell children). I doubt they would have tried making this sort of claim in the first place (especially given the fact that "he's not really Aegon the Unworthy's son" sounds kind of absurd, since that would make Dareon II, like, one of the few people in Aegon IV didn't father) tells me that Daemon and his supporters thought Daenerys's claim would still be trumped by Daemon's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickStormborn Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Robert was a traitor to the Targaryen dynasty but still used his ancestry to justify his claim.ETA: But hey, you think Stannis should be knocked out, that's cool. On to Doran Martell then. Doran Martell does not consider himself the heir to the Iron Throne. He is the Prince of Dorne.Daenerys and Aegon (whether he's legitimate or not -- power resides where men believe it resides) are the only current Targaryen claimants to the throne. As Martin has said, there will be a second dance of the dragons ... And I find it very unlikely that a character who has only been in one book will beat one of the most important -- and powerful -- characters in the series.Conclusion: Dany's gonna get the Iron Throne. H8ers to the Wall (or whatever's left of it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeRuiner Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Facing a trueborn Targaryen with actual fire-breathing dragons will quickly put any nitpicky succession debate to an end. As it has been proven by the popularity of Renly's claim over Stannis's and by Robert taking the throne, in the end Westeros is more impressed by sheer power than by the laws of succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Which is why I pointed out Aegon II's crown going to Aegon III. Aegon II had at least one daughter, but the crown went to Aegon III, Rhaenyra's son. So there, why actually yes, a "mother's son" came before a "father's daughter." You were looking for evidence that a female-line male could make a claim before a male-line female, and there you have it.Dany could easily argue that Aegon II, having gone against his father's will was a traitor to the rightful heir and thus the crown was simply returned to the rightful line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Daenerys and Aegon (whether he's legitimate or not -- power resides where men believe it resides) are the only current Targaryen claimants to the throne. As Martin has said, there will be a second dance of the dragons ... And I find it very unlikely that a character who has only been in one book will beat one of the most important -- and powerful -- characters in the series.Conclusion: Dany's gonna get the Iron Throne. H8ers to the Wall (or whatever's left of it).Have you actually, you know, thought this through at all? As you said, people believe what they want to believe, and they'll probably want to believe that Young Griff is darling Rhaegar's darling son and the true Targ scion. Which means his claim is stronger than auntie Dany's. But oh no, auntie Dany remembers the mummer's dragon prophecy and thinks her nephew is a fake. So auntie Dany fights him off with a dragon and kills him and, yes, gets to sit on the Iron Throne. Except that no one else in the realm got auntie Dany's mummer's dragon memo and now they think that auntie Dany is a paranoid, psychotic kinslayer who killed the rightful Targ heir. Why ... she's no better than that usurping dog Robert. I'm clutching my pearls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Dany could easily argue that Aegon II, having gone against his father's will was a traitor to the rightful heir and thus the crown was simply returned to the rightful line.Aegon II won. Rhaenyra lost. Do I need to explain how that works? Do you think that if Aegon II had had a son, that the crown wouldn't have passed to him? You guys keep moving the goalposts. You doubted there was evidence of a "mother's son" coming before a "father's daughter" and I provided it. Now you find some other excuse why it's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARYa_Nym Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The Undying prophecy says Slayer of Lies. Dany can't slay the lie without proof. She will need to get proof most likely on Illyrio and Varys and show it to the right people.Slayer of Lies doesn't mean that she will slay Aegon directly but possibly by revealing that he isn't Rhaegar's son it will lead to his downfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Aegon II won. Rhaenyra lost. Do I need to explain how that works? Do you think that if Aegon II had had a son, that the crown wouldn't have passed to him? You guys keep moving the goalposts. You doubted there was evidence of a "mother's son" coming before a "father's daughter" and I provided it. Now you find some other excuse why it's not right.Moving the goalposts? You provided one example and I pointed out how there was an alternative interpretation possible. Note that Aegon II did not inherit the crown, he won it by dethroning the rightful heir. and then implemented a particular mode of succession. If Dany wins the crown, she may choose to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Scorpion Knight Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Slayer of Lies doesn't mean that she will slay Aegon directly but possibly by revealing that he isn't Rhaegar's son it will lead to his downfall.and what if the lie if her own claim the iron throne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Moving the goalposts? You provided one example and I pointed out how there was an alternative interpretation possible. Note that Aegon II did not inherit the crown, he won it by dethroning the rightful heir. and then implemented a particular mode of succession.If Dany wins the crown, she may choose to do the same.You could say that Aegon II winning made him the "rightful heir." I mean, Robert made his claim with his warhammer, right?I'll ask again: If Aegon II had had a son instead of only daughters, who would have gotten the throne? That son, or Aegon III? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARYa_Nym Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 and what if the lie if her own claim the iron throneRhaegar still has a son that lives. Dany is not in the slayer of lies sequence though. The other person in it is Stannis. I don't think that she will kill him either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 You could say that Aegon II winning made him the "rightful heir." I mean, Robert made his claim with his warhammer, right?I'll ask again: If Aegon II had had a son instead of only daughters, who would have gotten the throne? That son, or Aegon III?Based on the succession plan put in place by Aegon II, his own son.There's nothing keeping Dany from swooping in and establishing a Martelll like inheritance law if she chooses, just as Aegon ii did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.