Win or Loose, is Stannis still doomed?

[mrlukeduke]

Jon and Stannis ftw.

[Lord Varys]

Elia Martell married into the royal house. She may have a claim to the Iron Throne through the first Princess Daenerys, but she would come after the other male Martells and after Rhaenys, Daenerys, and Queen Rhaella.

I have to repeat it: What GRRM revealed about the law of succession within House Targaryen after the Dance of Dragons does not confirm that females always come behind all collateral male offspring. That's just speculation. When Baelor I died without issue Viserys II most likely claimed the Iron Throne using the legal argumentation that women should not inherit (the devastations of the Dance would still be remembered by many, I guess) but it's way more likely that he actually seized the Iron Throne because he had enough power to do so. Princess Daena apparently was not married, she had no power base of her own, whereas Prince Viserys had served both Daeron I and Baelor I as Hand, and perhaps even Aegon III (and he may have been technically Daeron's I Regent as well). And Baelor's erratic behavior and rule would have put even more real power in Viserys's hand. When his royal nephew died (either of his repeated fastings or from poison) Viserys II was the logical successor. Daena and her sisters were locked up in the Maidenvault after all!

Later on, when the Dance of the Dragons and its immediate consequences are less remembered, females are considered to be not that far back in the line of succession. When Maekar I died, Prince Daeron's lackwit daughter was actually considered a claimant to the Iron Throne. And later during the series, both Princesses Shireen Baratheon and Myrcella Baratheon are considered the legal heiresses to their royal father/brother(s). The Targaryen law of succession does apply also to House Baratheon since the appendix of ADwD strongly suggested that House Baratheon is technically nothing but a side branch of House Targaryen (this is backed further by the stuff the World of Ice and Fire revealed about Aegon I and Orys Baratheon). If neither Shireen nor Myrcella have claims to the Iron Throne, both King Tommen and King Stannis would have named the next male heirs their successors, rather than their daughter/sister.

The very fact that no one seems to care who is technically Stannis's or Tommen's next male heir strongly suggests that Shireen and Myrcella have rather strong claims.

[TheCrannogDweller]

The above is in error, this is the best that we know:

1. King Aerys
   
2. Prince Aegon (fake?)
   
3. Jon Targaryen
   
4. Prince Rhaegar
   
5. Prince Viserys
   

I'm not going to argue with the rest of the list, since both you and Lord Varys seem to be better versed in that subject, but I'm pretty sure you can't put Prince Aegon before his father Rhaegar. So, the first four would go like that:

1. King Aerys

2. Prince Rhaegar

3. Prince Aegon

4. Prince Viserys

I'm not including Jon because his parentage and legitimacy are still not completely clear.

[MtnLion]

I'm not going to argue with the rest of the list, since both you and Lord Varys seem to be better versed in that subject, but I'm pretty sure you can't put Prince Aegon before his father Rhaegar. So, the first four would go like that:1. King Aerys2. Prince Rhaegar3. Prince Aegon4. Prince ViserysI'm not including Jon because his parentage and legitimacy are still not completely clear.

No, eldest son of eldest son is first. That puts Aegon before Rhaegar on the list, and Jon as well. Rhaegar would be Regent.

ETA: I was unable to find anything supporting this, and it was a side issue with another regarding the crown skipping a generation that made me point this out. As I said there is no support in the text for the statement and I have withdrawn it.

[TheCrannogDweller]

No, eldest son of eldest son is first. That puts Aegon before Rhaegar on the list, and Jon as well. Rhaegar would be Regent.

That feels wrong. Do you have any example from the ASOIAF universe to prove that?

ETA: Actually, I think that you're incorrect in that assumption. If you are right, then how come Baelor Breakspear didn't become king after Aegon IV's death? The crown passed to his father Daeron. And Baelor was 14 at the time.

[Lord Varys]

That's nonsense. A Regent is only required when the legal heir (which is always the direct issue of the body, not the issue of the son or the grandson!) is unfit to rule, or not yet able to do so by himself. Rhaegar did not cease to be Aerys's heir when his son Aegon was born, nor did Jaehaerys II cease to be Aegon's V heir when his son Aerys was born. In fact, when King Aegon V died at Summerhall, Prince Jaehaerys ascended the Iron Throne and not his son Prince Aerys (or his son, infant Prince Rhaegar).

[MtnLion]

That's nonsense. A Regent is only required when the legal heir (which is always the direct issue of the body, not the issue of the son or the grandson!) is unfit to rule, or not yet able to do so by himself. Rhaegar did not cease to be Aerys's heir when his son Aegon was born, nor did Jaehaerys II cease to be Aegon's V heir when his son Aerys was born. In fact, when King Aegon V died at Summerhall, Prince Jaehaerys ascended the Iron Throne and not his son Prince Aerys (or his son, infant Prince Rhaegar).

At what age was Prince Aerys when hsi father was crowned? I withdraw the regency, as that was from a side discussion, and probably was not related here. However, in absolute lineage, that is assuming that all heirs are capable, Aegon would indeed be crowned before Rhaegar. What it means is that if Aerys had continued until Aegon had come of age, Rhaegar would be bypassed in favor of the younger king.

[TheCrannogDweller]

At what age was Prince Aerys when hsi father was crowned? I withdraw the regency, as that was from a side discussion, and probably was not related here. However, in absolute lineage, that is assuming that all heirs are capable, Aegon would indeed be crowned before Rhaegar. What it means is that if Aerys had continued until Aegon had come of age, Rhaegar would be bypassed in favor of the younger king.

Sorry, but that argument is simply incorrect. Daeron the Young Dragon ascended to the throne at the age of 14 (not yet of age) and ruled without a regent. Baelor Breakspear was at the same age when his grandfather, king Aegon IV died, and yet his father inherited the crown. It's grandfather - father - son, unless explicitly stated otherwise (that is unless the king designates a different heir).

[MtnLion]

Sorry, but that argument is simply incorrect. Daeron the Young Dragon ascended to the throne at the age of 14 (not yet of age) and ruled without a regent. Baelor Breakspear was at the same age when his grandfather, king Aegon IV died, and yet his father inherited the crown. It's grandfather - father - son, unless explicitly stated otherwise (that is unless the king designates a different heir).

That is assuming that in your examples the king did not designate his heir? We know of one case where the king failed to designate his heir and it ended up being a war, and the inheritance laws of Targaryens were changed forever as a result. None of your examples are before the Dance of the Dragons, right? ;)

[TheCrannogDweller]

That is assuming that in your examples the king did not designate his heir? We know of one case where the king failed to designate his heir and it ended up being a war, and the inheritance laws of Targaryens were changed forever as a result. None of your examples are before the Dance of the Dragons, right? ;)

Viserys I did designate an heir - his daughter Rhaenyra. The Dance of the Dragons wasn't caused by a murky succession - it was caused by the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard choosing to stick his fingers into politics and crowning (unlawfully) Aegon II in place of his sister.

I've provided an example in support of my theory - something you still haven't done.

[MtnLion]

Viserys I did designate an heir - his daughter Rhaenyra. The Dance of the Dragons wasn't caused by a murky succession - it was caused by the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard choosing to stick his fingers into politics and crowning (unlawfully) Aegon II in place of his sister.

I've provided an example in support of my theory - something you still haven't done.

And, because of that females are excluded from inheritance unless all (legitimate) male descendants of Aegon I are extinguished.

The above is in error, this is the best that we know:

1. King Aerys
   
2. Prince Rhaegar
   
3. Prince Aegon (fake?)
   
4. Jon Targaryen
   
5. Prince Viserys
   
6. Robert Baratheon
   
7. Stannis Baratheon
   
8. Renly Baratheon
   
9. Princess Rhaenys
   
10. Princess Elia
    
11. Princess Rhaella (may have been preferred over Elia because her family was Targaryen)
    
12. Princess Daenerys (may have been preferred over Elia because her family was Targaryen)
    

After some research this is the correct lineage. I recall a conversation once with another about the eldest male taking precedance over the father, thus causing a skip in the generations. I cannot find any referances that would support that. But, the beauty of age is that I will soon forget this, too. :P

Aegon and Jon are definitely ahead of Viserys and Daenerys is at the bottom of the totem pole. Daenerys can only inherit if there are no (living legitimate) male descendants of Aegon I.

[TheCrannogDweller]

We weren't discussing Daenerys - this argument stemmed from your claim that Aegon VI precedes his father Rhaegar in the line of succession. Here, let me remind you:

No, eldest son of eldest son is first. That puts Aegon before Rhaegar on the list, and Jon as well. Rhaegar would be Regent.

And that is clearly not the case.

ETA: Also, the only case in which a grandson inherited the crown is Viserys I. And that is most likely either because his father was dead (his grandfather reigned for 50 years), or because he was explicitly designated as the heir by Jaeherys I.

[aryagonnakill]

At what age was Prince Aerys when hsi father was crowned? I withdraw the regency, as that was from a side discussion, and probably was not related here. However, in absolute lineage, that is assuming that all heirs are capable, Aegon would indeed be crowned before Rhaegar. What it means is that if Aerys had continued until Aegon had come of age, Rhaegar would be bypassed in favor of the younger king.

It's been said in between your post and mine here but I'm sorry that is simply wrong. Rhaegar would not be passed over and it really doesn't make sense to say he would be. If you were actually listing the legal Kings of Westeros in order, Rhaegar would not be on it and it would technically be

1. Aerys

2. Aegon, and this is possibly where it ends

3. Possibly Viserys, if Aegon was killed

4. Possibly Jon snow depending on whether or not he was born a bastard and whether or not Aegon was really killed, if he was born a bastard Viserys remained king (assuming Aegons death)

5/4. Danaerys, Jon had taken the black by the time Viserys died (assuming Aegons death)

What you were actually ordering however was the heir to the Iron throne. which is

1. Aerys

2. Rhaegar

3. Aegon on Rhaegars death

4. Viserys was Aegons heir as soon as Aerys died

5. If Aegon was killed then for a time Viserys was king with his own mother as heir.

6. If Aegon was killed and Jon was born legitimate then Viserys became heir again on Jon's birth

7. If Aegon was killed and Jon was born a bastard he became heir behind Visery's

8. If Aegon was killed regardless of Jon's birth then Danaerys became heir when Jon took the black

5. If Aegon was smuggled out and Jon was born legitimate then he replaced Visery's as heir upon his birth

6. If Aegon was smuggled out and Jon was born legitimate then Visery's became heir again when Jon took the black

7. If Aegon was smuggled out and Jon was born legitimate then Danaerys became heir when Visery's died

All of this assumes that neither Jaime or Tyrion nor Cersei are Targ bastards, and obviously some of the things I wrote were talking about legal technicalities saying Viserys or Jon were king, but obviously Robert was.

[mrlukeduke]

So anyways, back on the main topic of if Stannis is doomed or not...

[aryagonnakill]

So anyways, back on the main topic of if Stannis is doomed or not...

I'd bet that at some point Stannis is completely boned. Like he rounds a corner and see's 100 WW or something equally unsurmountable. OR Stannis accepts that his name is actually nowhere on anyones list of legal King of Westeros while all those Targs are still alive.

[ab aeterno]

OR Stannis accepts that his name is actually nowhere on anyones list of legal King of Westeros while all those Targs are still alive.

Seems unlikely considering that many of the Northern lords are supporting his claim now. Realtively few in Westeros seem to be Targ loyalists.