Sasha Steelsong Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 No, this is incorrect tommen is a bastard. If people knew this he would not be on the throne, people not knowing tommen is a bastard does not change the fact that stannis is the rightful king.Actually it does, because to claim to be the "rightful king" you have to have the power to back it up. I get that from a purely factual point you're right but simple facts don't determine the outcome in these cases. And ultimately the rightful king is the one who is crowned. Should Stannis ever get to that point he can write the history with the facts he knows to justify his claim and conquest but I don't think people knowing about Tommen would matter that much if they are benefiting from the Lannister/Tyrell alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinytoyrobots Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 And from that point on.."The Targaryens were the only family to ever exclude direct daughters from succession and follow a purely male order" like I said. In fact regardless of the fact that they came to it after the conquest, they are still the only family that we know of to ever employ that inheritance practice even if it wasn't for the whole time they were in power...so "The Targaryens were the only family to ever exclude direct daughters from succession and follow a purely male order" holds true regardless.Although, going down through the family tree, although the Wiki says (unreferenced) that "The Targaryens were the only family to ever exclude direct daughters from succession and follow a purely male order"; I can't actually find any specific examples where they did this. i.e. all of the inheritances seen within standard Andal practices, given the children (or lack thereof) and the legitimacy of those children under the various Targ kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 And it seems to me you are being very confrontational with people. You turn talks of ASOIAF and make it personal. I understand some times things can put us in a bad mood and it therefore affects our reactions to people online as well. Perhaps you might want to spend some time relaxing and away from people for some time, clear your head, and rejoin the conversation at that point.I noticed you used this "confrontational" line with another poster, maybe its just you? Me disagreeing with you and giving numerous examples does not make me confrontational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha Steelsong Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Understood.Hypothetically speaking, if Jon Snow was the bastard of Rhaegar, can he inherit the Throne before Daenerys? According to the Targaryen law, that is.No. Cause bastards throughout Westeros can't inherit in any house (unless a King makes them legitimate but then they aren't bastards anymore and making them legitimate can cause a huge mess). The only way for Jon to be ahead of Dany is for Rhaegar and Lyanna to have been married. It would make him Rhaegar's second son and either first in line for the throne (if Aegon is fake) or Aegon's heir (till he has kids). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Actually it does, because to claim to be the "rightful king" you have to have the power to back it up. I get that from a purely factual point you're right but simple facts don't determine the outcome in these cases. And ultimately the rightful king is the one who is crowned. Should Stannis ever get to that point he can write the history with the facts he knows to justify his claim and conquest but I don't think people knowing about Tommen would matter that much if they are benefiting from the Lannister/Tyrell alliance.This is correct of course, I was merely trying to show that might is usually the deciding factor. Not law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viserys's Queen Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Laws means naught when it comes to the Iron Throne. Rhaenyra found out the hard way...Rhaenyra was my favourite queen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Lepus Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Understood.Hypothetically speaking, if Jon Snow was the bastard of Rhaegar, can he inherit the Throne before Daenerys? According to the Targaryen law, that is.If he were legitimized, yes, he would come before Dany. As a matter of fact, the male descendants of Daemon Blackfyre, Bittersteel and the other bastards of Aegon the Unworthy would all come before Dany, since they were legitimized and would technically be Targayrens.(but they are supposedly extinct).The thing, is, Jon is a bastard, and bastards can't inherit, unless they are legitimized or there isn't anybody else with any kind of claim, so Jon should be legitimized first, and, who would legitimize him? And even more important, who could prove that he's the son of Rhaegar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha Steelsong Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Although, going down through the family tree, although the Wiki says (unreferenced) that "The Targaryens were the only family to ever exclude direct daughters from succession and follow a purely male order"; I can't actually find any specific examples where they did this. i.e. all of the inheritances seen within standard Andal practices, given the children (or lack thereof) and the legitimacy of those children under the various Targ kings.I think from a practical standpoint it didn't come up again after it was decided how this would be so there probably aren't examples..making the whole thing more confusing. As I recall there was always a brother or a brother's son so that they weren't actually faced with a choice of a Targ woman or a distant cousin from another house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I dont think a bastard could inherit before a daughter, even for targs. But the one with the most support and power will sit the throne. Thats all I am trying to say.Might>Right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonin Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I think the Targayren version is that a Targayren woman can't reign as long as there is a Targayren man fit for the throne, but I doubt that law puts non-Targayren males before Targayren females; that wouldn't made sense; why would the Targayren create a law like that?Regarding Targ succession, I think Ser Lepus makes a very valid point. It seems very unlikely that the Targaryens would have adopted a succession plan that would allow a non Targaryen to be selected over a Targaryen to rule. I think the wiki is a good source of info... but a distant cousin on female side over the Kings daughter, seems unlikely.I do think Dany will rule Westeros and be on the Iron Throne, She will rule by right of conquest, bend the knee or burn in dragon fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Lepus Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I think from a practical standpoint it didn't come up again after it was decided how this would be so there probably aren't examples..making the whole thing more confusing. As I recall there was always a brother or a brother's son so that they weren't actually faced with a choice of a Targ woman or a distant cousin from another house.We are speaking of a family that practised incest with the purpose of avoiding creating colateral branches that could dispute the throne to the main branch; they really disliked the idea of a rival house pretending the throne. I doubt they would have ever considered the option of allowing another house to take the crown as long as there were a live Targayren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARYa_Nym Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 If he were legitimized, yes, he would come before Dany. As a matter of fact, the male descendants of Daemon Blackfyre, Bittersteel and the other bastards of Aegon the Unworthy would all come before Dany, since they were legitimized and would technichally be Targayrens.(but they are supposedly extinct).The thing, is, Jon is a bastard, and bastards can't inherit, unless they are legitimized or there isn't anybody else with any kind of claim, so Jon should be legitimized first, and, who would legitimize him? And even more important, who could prove that he's the son of Rhaegar?He has to leave the NW and not be bound to his vows first as well."I shall wear no crowns..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Rivers Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Dany doesn't need to have any legal right to sit the throne. She has dragons. She can create legal right later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I have an auxiliary question: can a woman lead a khalasar? And the answer is: nope. Never. Impossible. The tradition clearly precludes it. It is known. And it's nearly as impossible for a woman to sit the Iron Throne (the Dothraki are even more conservative and sexist than the worst of Westerosi.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinytoyrobots Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I think from a practical standpoint it didn't come up again after it was decided how this would be so there probably aren't examples..making the whole thing more confusing. As I recall there was always a brother or a brother's son so that they weren't actually faced with a choice of a Targ woman or a distant cousin from another house.Yeah, which is kinda my point. If the Wiki claim that the Targs had a different inheritance practice seems to be unreferenced in any canon source, and there doesn't appear to be any situation where the question actually came up, then we seem to be back to the idea that "the Lord Commander decided he didn't want some woman to be queen, so crowned her brother" as an isolated incident, without necessarily setting any kind of precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Lepus Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 He has to leave the NW and not be bound to his vows first as well."I shall wear no crowns..."Yes, that's another good point. Jon can't inherit due to his vows.Do you know who would be in exactly the same situation? Bloodraven. He is a legitimized Targayren bastard, but he is a brother of the NW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third World King Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 If he were legitimized, yes, he would come before Dany. As a matter of fact, the male descendants of Daemon Blackfyre, Bittersteel and the other bastards of Aegon the Unworthy would all come before Dany, since they were legitimized and would technichally be Targayrens.(but they are supposedly extinct).Do the Blackfyre still have that "right"? Ain't they traitors to the Targaryen crown? They fought against the monarchy, after all. The thing, is, Jon is a bastard, and bastards can't inherit, unless they are legitimized or there isn't anybody else with any kind of claim, so Jon should be legitimized first, and, who would legitimize him? And even more important, who could prove that he's the son of Rhaegar?This pleases me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha Steelsong Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 We are speaking of a family that practised incest with the purpose of avoiding creating colateral branches that could dispute the throne to the main branch; they really disliked the idea of a rival house pretending the throne. I doubt they would have ever considered the option of allowing another house to take the crown as long as there were a live Targayren.I agree that if it come to it they would have found a way out of letting a minor house inherit, but since it didn't come up they could still claim the "no girls" rule was in practice. Frankly given the great council passing over two Targs who technically had claims, I think the whole succession were just a set of guidelines that are capable of being disguarded or bent in the face of practical realities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 then we seem to be back to the idea that "the Lord Commander decided he didn't want some woman to be queen, so crowned her brother" as an isolated incident, without necessarily setting any kind of precedent.Except for the fact that half the realm sided with him, showing others in westeros wanted a male as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARYa_Nym Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yeah, which is kinda my point. If the Wiki claim that the Targs had a different inheritance practice seems to be unreferenced in any canon source, and there doesn't appear to be any situation where the question actually came up, then we seem to be back to the idea that "the Lord Commander decided he didn't want some woman to be queen, so crowned her brother" as an isolated incident, without necessarily setting any kind of precedent.GRRM mentioned in an SSM I believe but I can't get the search to function properly.Edit: Found it from an old Targ thread.I told George that when he changed Viserys I from a son to a brother he created an error in that Baelor's sisters did not inherit the throne after him, George replied that women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD. Something interesting and neatly explains Daena and the rest not becoming queen.http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Comic_Con_San_Diego_CA_July_20_232/There's also the fact Prince Daeron's daughter was passed over and there has never been a ruling Targaryen queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.