Iron Throne succession question... [maybe spoilers]

[Alester Florent]

During Robert's lifetime, the legal succession would have stood thusly:

Joffrey

- (Joffrey's heirs)

Tommen

- (Tommen's heirs)

- (Myrcella's male children)

Stannis

- (Stannis's sons)

- (Shireen's male children)

Renly

- (Renly's heirs)

After this we're into crazy land. Unfortunately, that's where we're headed. Under the Baratheon succession, Tommen is the last available ruler. Neither Myrcella nor Shireen have male children and are apparently barred from taking the Iron Throne themselves although the succession can pass through them. Stannis is an attainted traitor (we presume) and Renly is dead.

We're never treated to a full legal exposition of what happened at Robert's accession. Robert took the throne by force and always maintained his hammer was his claim, but it's doubtful Jon Arryn et al wouldn't have tried to add a veneer of dynastic legitimacy. One presumes that what "Robert" did was attaint Aerys and all his heirs (thus excluding Viserys, Dany and Aegon in perpetuity) and claim the throne as the rightful successor of either Jahaerys II or Aegon V (likely Aegon V, as his own ancestor).

Anyone after Renly's children on the list is going to have to claim the succession in the same right, so the next in line would be the siblings and descendants of siblings of Steffon Baratheon - but we don't know if there were any. If not, we have to go back to Aegon V and look for other descendants. He seems to have a son other than Duncan and Jahaerys, so there might be some descendants there. If not, then we go back again, to Maekar's other children, any surviving descendants of Aerion or Maekar's daughters, and so on.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, and very unlikely to happen. In the scenario that all the Baratheon heirs above predecease Robert, he would probably legitimise Edric Storm and name him successor.

In reality, though, and what is occasionally forgotten, monarchy is a legal concept, not a genetic one.

In the current situation, the rightful heir is the one who can get their hands on the legal authority to amend the rules in their favour. It no longer matters one whit whether Tommen or Stannis is Robert's "true heir" because whoever wins the war will end up being the rightful king and their legitimacy will never be questioned. Equally, if Daenerys or Aegon takes over, they would probably reverse the attainder against Aerys and descendants, rule Robert, Joffrey and Tommen as pretenders, and date their own reign from the death of Aerys. So long as it is done through the correct legal procedures, it will be perfectly legally legitimate.

Examples of complicated successions in English history:

Compare, for instance, the Glorious Revolution in England (and Scotland) in 1688. James II was the recognised monarch and his son was the heir; he was overthrown by his daughter and her husband (who had an independent, but weaker, claim). Once they were established, Parliament, the fount of all legal authority in England, issued statute making them the rightful monarchs and barring all the descendants of James II (and a number of other Stuart cousins) from the succession forever. This was all perfectly legal and within about sixty years the Stuart claim was to all intents and purposes extinct. There are still Stuart descendants out there now, but the chances of their ever taking the throne are utterly negligible unless they marry into the house of Windsor.

Or, even better, the succession to Edward the Confessor of England. He himself took power instead of his nephew who had a better genetic claim (succeeding a trio of Danish kings each of dubious legitimacy). Edward was succeeded by his brother-in-law Harold, who was no blood relative of the house of Wessex, and then in turn by his (Edward's) maternal cousin William, who also had no blood relation to the house of Wessex. William was succeeded by his second son, and subsequently by his third son, who fought a war against the eldest son and defeated him. That king, Henry I, nominated his daughter Matilda as successor but his nephew Stephen claimed the throne, so a war ensued at the end of which Matilda's son Henry II was named Stephen's heir and became king. He was succeeded in turn by two of his sons, Richard and John, although John killed his nephew Arthur, who had a better claim than him. John was finally succeeded by his son Henry (III).

All in all, in England between 1016 and 1217, there were only two successions where the rightful heir was obvious and/or didn't have to fight to be recognised as king. And that was just to determine the ruling family who would later fight amongst themselves in the Wars of the Roses.

[Fire Eater]

even though I really want Jon there.

IMO opinion you just may get that wish given the foreshadowing

[Buckwheat]

If you believe the Targs are still the royal family, then Jon Snow (cough cough) Targaryen is the rightful king...because lets face it, Aegon is the son of Illyrio and Septa Mordane.

Even if Jon is Rhaegar's son, he is still a bastard. Uncknowledged and unlegitimised, and sworn to the NW.

[ab aeterno]

IMO opinion you just may get that wish given the foreshadowing

I really hope not though. :P

[Bright Blue Eyes]

During Robert's lifetime, the legal succession would have stood thusly:

Joffrey

- (Joffrey's heirs)

Tommen

- (Tommen's heirs)

- (Myrcella's male children)

Stannis

- (Stannis's sons)

- (Shireen's male children)

Renly

- (Renly's heirs)

After this we're into crazy land. Unfortunately, that's where we're headed. Under the Baratheon succession, Tommen is the last available ruler. Neither Myrcella nor Shireen have male children and are apparently barred from taking the Iron Throne themselves although the succession can pass through them. Stannis is an attainted traitor (we presume) and Renly is dead.

Depends on whether Robert intended to use Targaryen or Andal law. All signs point to Andal law, as the law used by House Baratheon before. Under Andal law, Myrcella and Shireen could sit the Iron Throne themselves.

Even if Jon is Rhaegar's son, he is still a bastard. Uncknowledged and unlegitimised, and sworn to the NW.

Targaryen used to be in polygamous marriages. Rhaegar and Lyanna were most likely married, making Jon a legal heir.

Of course there is a certain lack of witnesses and Jon is sworn to the Night's Watch taking him out of succession, but de jure and de facto he would be Rhaegar's legal son.

[Buckwheat]

Targaryen used to be in polygamous marriages. Rhaegar and Lyanna were most likely married, making Jon a legal heir.

Of course there is a certain lack of witnesses and Jon is sworn to the Night's Watch taking him out of succession, but de jure and de facto he would be Rhaegar's legal son.

What makes you think they were married? They ran away and hid into a tower. That is what we know. There is a possibility that they mrried somewhere in between, but we have no claim that it is what "most likely" happened.

Until we meet a septon/red priest/any other kind of priest to tell us he married them, or see a vision of it through the weirnet, I believe they were not married because nothing in the books shows they were.

[mcb]

What makes you think they were married?

Half the Kingsguard guarding the Tower of Joy. Makes sense if Lyanna gave birth to the heir of the Targaryen dynasty, quite implausible in any other case.

[Myrish Swamp Thing]

Half the Kingsguard guarding the Tower of Joy. Makes sense if Lyanna gave birth to the heir of the Targaryen dynasty, quite implausible in any other case.

Kingsguards can be assigned to mistresses and bastard childs. An anyway, surely they relocated before the Sack of King's Landing, at which time Aegon was well alive (assuming the current Aegon is fake).

As to the topic at hand, I'm pretty sure the Lannister-Tyrell alliance won't outlive Tommen. If both him and Myrcella snuff it, I guess Great Council unless Aegon or Dany are at the gates

[Buckwheat]

Kingsguards can be assigned to mistresses and bastard childs. An anyway, surely they relocated before the Sack of King's Landing, at which time Aegon was well alive (assuming the current Aegon is fake).

As to the topic at hand, I'm pretty sure the Lannister-Tyrell alliance won't outlive Tommen. If both him and Myrcella snuff it, I guess Great Council unless Aegon or Dany are at the gates

Yes, I think Rhaegar could have sent the guards where he wanted them to be.

I agree that the alliance will not last long if both children die, maybe the Tyrells will try to push it further for Margaery, but the Lannister will likely not allow it. Neither do I see the nobility listen to any council of the Faith, even if such are the rules by law. I can see another war in this case, with more smaller lands declaring independence again.

[mcb]

Kingsguards can be assigned to mistresses and bastard childs. An anyway, surely they relocated before the Sack of King's Landing, at which time Aegon was well alive (assuming the current Aegon is fake).

And even after the king and crown prince's deaths they'd remain there, instead of going to Dragonstone to serve King Viserys? As I said, implausible.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

What makes you think they were married? They ran away and hid into a tower. That is what we know. There is a possibility that they mrried somewhere in between, but we have no claim that it is what "most likely" happened.

Until we meet a septon/red priest/any other kind of priest to tell us he married them, or see a vision of it through the weirnet, I believe they were not married because nothing in the books shows they were.

Lovers wanting to be married isnt inconceivable. The Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy stated they were right where they belong (with the King). They didn't go to Dragonstone and King Viserys, they stayed with Lyanna and King Jon.

[Buckwheat]

Lovers wanting to be married isnt inconceivable. The Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy stated they were right where they belong (with the King). They didn't go to Dragonstone and King Viserys, they stayed with Lyanna and King Jon.

But even if this is revealed, who would believe it? Who would believe Jon Snow had any claim to the throne?

Howland Reed comes out from the swamp and says: "Oh, right, just before Lyanna died, she mumbled something about the oaths given in front of a heart tree. Apparently she was saying that her child was legitimate. Thus, you need to give the throne to him, your Grace (whoever is on the throne ATM)".

The crannogmen are not well respected in front of most of nobility in Westeros and Howland was not seen in a long time.

[Ponys123]

If you only care about the law, Myrcella... And after that, not Stannis or his daughter, Martells would be in line since that the realm banished Aerys's descendants and ignored their claim, Martells would be in line... As the only family in Westeros with Targaryen blood other than Baratheons..

Rubbish, after Robert's coronation, there can be no legal claim derived from the Targaryens. Sure, they might rally supporters and take the throne by force - but they don't have a legal claim. All legal claim is derived from the first king of the dynasty, Robert. Theory doesn't always match practice, though - the nobles might cook up and support any number of silly claims if they think it suits their goals.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

But even if this is revealed, who would believe it? Who would believe Jon Snow had any claim to the throne?

Howland Reed comes out from the swamp and says: "Oh, right, just before Lyanna died, she mumbled something about the oaths given in front of a heart tree. Apparently she was saying that her child was legitimate. Thus, you need to give the throne to him, your Grace (whoever is on the throne ATM)".

The crannogmen are not well respected in front of most of nobility in Westeros and Howland was not seen in a long time.

That wasn't my argument. I only talked about de jure, not about the Lords accepting proof for it.

Of course there is a certain lack of witnesses and Jon is sworn to the Night's Watch taking him out of succession, but de jure and de facto he would be Rhaegar's legal son.

[Buckwheat]

That wasn't my argument. I only talked about de jure, not about the Lords accepting proof for it.

I can understand that.

I cannot see Jon on the throne in the end, though.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I can understand that.

I cannot see Jon on the throne in the end, though.

Me neither. The guy will live and die as Lord Commander.

[Golden&Crimson]

Queen Dowager and Queen Mother doesn't prevent being Lady Paramount. Neither does being king.

Currently Jaime and Lancel are out. They could develop a solution in the future, but that doesn't matter in the present.

I never said that Cersei was not Lady of Casterly Rock.

And to me, she is already a queen: Queen Dowager and Lady of Casterly Rock.

Regarding the situation of Jaime and Lancel: any Regent, the King himself, a reunited Great Council and the suport of the Faith and the High Septon, can easily bend the rules of the Kingsguard and of the Warrior Sons, and put the two Lannisters in the sucession line.

The Lannisters though have NO claim; it's only through House Baratheon. So anyone mentioning Lannister cousins or whatever is emphatically incorrect.

Tommen and Myrcella:

Father Baratehon:

1st Baratheons:

-Myrcella

-Stannis, void of any rights because he is a traitor and rebel.

Cousins:

- Lannisters

- Florents: void of any rights because of treason and rebelion.

- Estermonts

- Targaryen: void of any rights since their defeat (and acceptance by the lords of the Kingdom of the new Baratheon dinasty) and subsequent exile.

Mother Lannister:

2nd- Lannisters main line.

Cousins:

Baratheons: Stannis void of any rights because he is a traitor and rebel.

Lannisters

Freys

Hayfords

Swyfts

Marbrands

Crakehalls

Peakes

Jasts

In short, in the current sucession line, and following the current laws of sucession in Westeros:

1st Myrcella Baratheon

2nd Lannisters

3rd Cousins of the Baratheons

4th Cousins of the Lannisters

[Buckwheat]

Tommen and Myrcella:

Father Baratehon:

1st Baratheons:

-Myrcella

-Stannis, void of any rights because he is a traitor and rebel.

Cousins:

- Lannisters

- Florents: void of any rights because of treason and rebelion.

- Estermonts

- Targaryen: void of any rights since their defeat (and acceptance by the lords of the Kingdom of the new Baratheon dinasty) and subsequent exile.

Mother Lannister:

2nd- Lannisters main line.

Cousins:

Baratheons: Stannis void of any rights because he is a traitor and rebel.

Lannisters

Freys

Hayfords

Swyfts

Marbrands

Crakehalls

Peakes

Jasts

In short, in the current sucession line, and following the current laws of sucession in Westeros:

1st Myrcella Baratheon

2nd Lannisters

3rd Cousins of the Baratheons

4th Cousins of the Lannisters

No.

The succession never goes through somebody's mother. Ever.

[mcb]

No.

The succession never goes through somebody's mother. Ever.

So, is Littlefinger wrong about Harry the Heir being, indeed, the heir?

ETA: unless we're talking about the Iron Throne, in that case we have Aegon III.

[Buckwheat]

So, is Littlefinger wrong about Harry the Heir being, indeed, the heir?

No, that is inhereiting through Harry's mother who was of the Arryn family. It is not like the Tommen and Myrcella problem. G&C claims that the Lannisters should succeed Robert because the mother of (supposedly) his children was a Lannister. This is just plain wrong. This would mean that any of the families from which Walder's wives came from has a claim to the Twins.