Can a woman even sit on the Iron Throne?

[shinytoyrobots]

Except for the fact that half the realm sided with him, showing others in westeros wanted a male as well.

And half didn't, which suggests that others in Westeros...didn't. Just brings us back to might + some kinda claim of blood link = claim to the throne.

Whether others in Westeros supported a male heir has no bearing on whether this subsequently changed the Targaryen inheritance practices. All we have is a Wiki comment that doesn't have a canon reference, and no subsequent situation where it came up. So that makes the whole "Targ inheritance is different" seem purely speculative.

[Sasha Steelsong]

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.

I disagree. A precident can be created without coming up again and still be in effect. Just because the situation did not present itself after the rule was created, and thus there was no need to apply the rule, doesn't mean it didn't exist. But the Targs were a unique noble family in that they had very very few offshoots because of their incest, thus very few opportunites for the situation to ever come up. Still outwardly they claimed to the world that this is how their succession would go, so it was seen as the way the Targs do things (even if they never got around to actually doing it).

Whether they would have followed it if push comes to shove it is hard to say, cause I happen to agree with Ser Lepus that they were too proud to let a distant cousin surplant the main branch, but they certainly projected the idea that females couldn't inherit.

[ARYa_Nym]

And half didn't, which suggests that others in Westeros...didn't. Just brings us back to might + some kinda claim of blood link = claim to the throne.

Whether others in Westeros supported a male heir has no bearing on whether this subsequently changed the Targaryen inheritance practices. All we have is a Wiki comment that doesn't have a canon reference, and no subsequent situation where it came up. So that makes the whole "Targ inheritance is different" seem purely speculative.

I just posted an SSM. Apparently Baelor's sisters were supposed to inherit after him. Daena was supposed to inherit but could not because of the law.

[7V3N]

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.

Well I felt saying confrontational was much better than saying you're being a real douche. I do not mind people disagreeing, but how you say it makes it insulting, as you have proven with almost every post.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

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.

Try Egg. He came after Maester Aemon, excluded as a Maester, and a female cousin of an older uncle, who was excluded for being female (and a lackwit as additional reason),

[E-Ro]

Snip

Thank you ARya_Nym, we can put this matter to rest now. It seems the wiki was correct, what a shocker.

[aedalia]

So...

Sansa becomes Queen of the North

Myrcella becomes Queen of Westeros and Casterly Rock

Asha becomes Queen of the Iron Islands

Arianna becomes Princess of Dorne

Shireen gets Storm's End

The Lady Tyrells are already in charge in Highgarden.

Dany shows up, takes a look around, and goes back and becomes Queen in the East.

And we have 1000 years of peace! :D

[Skeksi]

Several good points raised in the thread. In terms of whether a female could sit the throne based on the inheritance rights, it would depend upon their House, I imagine. If House Martell held the Iron Throne, Arianne would be the heir, and not her brothers. In the case of the Targaryens, all male relatives come before female relatives, since the Dance of Dragons. In the cases of most other Westerosi houses, all sons inherit before any daughters, but daughters theoretically should inherit before brothers.

In the case of the Iron Islands, it seems a little less clear- Asha was the eldest child of Balon, and was favoured by him, but many other senior Ironborn refused to follow a woman, and called for her uncles to inherit ahead of her. Aeron supported Victarion's claim, despite Euron being the elder.

Since House Baratheon took the Iron Throne, one assumes that they will continue their own practices, not those of the Targaryens. Myrcella is considered Tommen's heir, Stannis refers to Shireen as his heir, and no-one around them seems to be correcting them, or even acting surprised.

However, as several people have pointed out, might seems to be the defining factor. The Targaryen inheritance law followed the Dance with Dragons because the side that wished for males to inherit ahead of females won. House Baratheon became the royal family through force. Whilst I'm sure many would object to female rule because Westeros is a deeply sexist society, I highly doubt that if a female takes the throne by force, or if a male ruler names his daughter as heir, I doubt very much being told that "But women cannot inherit the Iron Throne since the Dance with Dragons" is going to make them go "Oh, I'm terribly sorry, my mistake, time to change places!"

And I severely doubt that should Dany ever take the Iron Throne, she would necessarily follow the previous Targaryen laws. She didn't let it stop her leading a khalasar, she appointed women to her councils in Meereen, she had Missandei as her herald- I find it hard to believe that she would win the Iron Throne only to give it back because she was a woman.

Basically, to end the waffling, inheritance laws depend on whatever house is holding the throne at the time. It may well be that even within the house different precedents can be established, as they were in the DoD.

[E-Ro]

Well I felt saying confrontational was much better than saying you're being a real douche. I do not mind people disagreeing, but how you say it makes it insulting, as you have proven with almost every post.

You should grow thicker skin, what you perceive as an insult is odd. And you are the one that made this personal, not me.

[ARYa_Nym]

So...

Sansa becomes Queen of the North

Myrcella becomes Queen of Westeros and Casterly Rock

Asha becomes Queen of the Iron Islands

Arianna becomes Princess of Dorne

Shireen gets Storm's End

The Lady Tyrells are already in charge in Highgarden.

Dany shows up, takes a look around, and goes back and becomes Queen in the East.

And we have 1000 years of peace! :D

Comparatively, GRRM said that there has never been a ruling queen in the North or lady of WF either. This could be because there were always males to inherit or something else.

[Ser Lepus]

Do the Blackfyre still have that "right"? Ain't they traitors to the Targaryen crown? They fought against the monarchy, after all.

They were traitors against the the Targayren crown, but if there isn't a Targayren crown anymore, are they still traitors?

[dtones520]

But the Faiths voice is only one in many. The Lords Paramount are vastly more important, and with the Lords Paramount of the North, the Riverlands, the Stormlands and the Iron Isles in open rebellion while the Lords Paramount of the Vale and Dorne sit on the sidelines...

The current Lord Paramount of the North is Roose Bolton, he supports Tommen. The Lord Paramount of the Riverlands is Petyr Baelish, he *supports* Tommen or is not one rebellion against him. Most of the River Lords have bent the knee. The Stormlands are a mess right now,but most of the Storm lords have bent the knee.

Dorne and the Vale sit on the sidelines, but they have not raised up in open rebellion, meaning they are not trying to usurp the Crown. Dorne is in the process of doing this, but hasnt moved yet.

Tommen currently has the strongest military force with the forces of High Garden and Casterly Rock behind him. He also has the remnents of the Stormlands armies and the remnents of the decimated Riverlords behind him. Technically he also has Roose and his armed forces behind him, so the North is his as well. I doubt they would travel South again though. Which probably gives Tommen the support of about 80-100,000 troops.

Aegon only has a force of about 10,000 and will get up to about 25-35,000 once Dorne backs him. Stannis has maybe 10,000 men behind him. The Vale can probably field 30-40,000 since they haven't been involved in the War yet. Once Dany arrives, she could bring as many as 40,000 troops with her if she brings that Khalasar with her. Which means the rest of the forces currently not involved are all going to have to team up to overthrow Tommen.

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.

The problem is that people don't know or don't care that Tommen is a bastard because supporting him helps their cause more than supporting Stannis does. You are looking at this from our point of view, which is one where we know that Tommen is not Roberts son. In Westeros there are less than 10 people that know that for 100% fact. Hell, even Stannis doesn't have rock solid proof to show that he knows without a doubt at they are.

So, yes, Tommen is king under false presences, but the Faith has given him their blessing and he has the support of some of the strongest areas of Westeros to help fend off any Usurpers. And until anyone can prove otherwise, with non-refutable proof, then Tommen is the lawful king.

[shinytoyrobots]

Interestingly, even the Rhaenyra inheritance (or lack thereof) falls outside of the norms of inheritance, given that she's the only surviving member of Viserys I's first marriage, and he <b>specifically names her heir in his will</b>.

Targaryen inheritance seems a little lax in general, given that as far back as Aenys I's succession we have an inheritance by a half-brother before a monarch's son.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Comparatively, GRRM said that there has never been a ruling queen in the North or lady of WF either. This could be because there were always males to inherit or something else.

I would go with always males to inherit. The North seems to be a little more liberal than the South (except Dorne) when it comes to women. It makes sense. It's a brutal land and practicality forces it (see House Mormount for example).

[E-Ro]

Whether others in Westeros supported a male heir has no bearing on whether this subsequently changed the Targaryen inheritance practices. All we have is a Wiki comment that doesn't have a canon reference, and no subsequent situation where it came up. So that makes the whole "Targ inheritance is different" seem purely speculative.

GRRM mentioned in an SSM I believe but I can't get the search to function properly.

http://www.westeros....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.

It is not speculative GRRM himself said it.

[shinytoyrobots]

I would go with always males to inherit. The North seems to be a little more liberal than the South (except Dorne) when it comes to women. It makes sense. It's a brutal land and practicality forces it (see House Mormount for example).

I don't think the Mormonts had a lot of choice, given that they had one male brother, who took the black to let his son rule, and then saw his son run off. So they've only got Maege and her five daughters at the point who are able to inherit.

[Fender]

There is no objective legal heir. All of the claimants have some legitimacy, strong or weak. It's a vital part of what persuades other nobles to support them. There needs to be at least some tenuous link to a "legal" claim to throne, even if only on a technicality. Otherwise we'd simply see the nobles who commanded the most powerful armies place themselves as monarch.

On the Dany claim, I don't think there's anything in the book that suggests Dany, or any other woman, can't sit on the Iron Throne. Westerosi inheritance seems relatively clear. The eldest son inherits. In the absence of a son, the eldest daughter inherits. Being male only take precedence within the direct line (so a son trumps a daughter, but a daughter trumps, say, a cousin).

This man above got it right. I think that the only exception to this was what caused the Dance with Dragons, no? (At least, I think that that's the name of the battle that started because someone, either the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard or the Hand, don't remember which, decided that some male cousin should sit the throne instead of the female heir from the main line.)

[ARYa_Nym]

I would go with always males to inherit. The North seems to be a little more liberal than the South (except Dorne) when it comes to women. It makes sense. It's a brutal land and practicality forces it (see House Mormount for example).

I think it's weird that there always was a male apparently for thousands of years but some have thrown around supernatural theories.

I think letting one rule a minor house is different than ruling the whole region. It could be that there were always males though rather than it being deliberate.

[shinytoyrobots]

It is not speculative GRRM himself said it.

Yeah, found the quote in that article;

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.

Whether intentionally, or a good solution to an oversight made by a character change, does make that canon.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The current Lord Paramount of the North is Roose Bolton, he supports Tommen. The Lord Paramount of the Riverlands is Petyr Baelish, he *supports* Tommen or is not one rebellion against him. Most of the River Lords have bent the knee. The Stormlands are a mess right now,but most of the Storm lords have bent the knee.

Only if Tommen has the power to appoint Lords Paramount, for which he needs to be the lawful King, for which he needs Lords Paramount to bend the knee, for which he needs to appoint new Lords Paramount, a really nice circle.

As long as not everybody has sworn to him, he can't be lawful king.

Dorne and the Vale sit on the sidelines, but they have not raised up in open rebellion, meaning they are not trying to usurp the Crown. Dorne is in the process of doing this, but hasnt moved yet.

True, but that means it's at best 4:4 instead of 4:2:2 against Tommen.

Tommen currently has the strongest military force with the forces of High Garden and Casterly Rock behind him. He also has the remnents of the Stormlands armies and the remnents of the decimated Riverlords behind him. Technically he also has Roose and his armed forces behind him, so the North is his as well. I doubt they would travel South again though. Which probably gives Tommen the support of about 80-100,000 troops.

Tommen has Highgarden. Casterly Rock doesn't exist as a military power anymore. Stormlands are split, and flocking to Aegon, Riverlands exhausted and very, very wolfish. Roose has 4,000 men and faces 40,000 Northmen hellbent on revenge and feeding him his in-laws.