A female heir to the iron throne.

[Corvo Attano]

Woman are never supposed to sit on the IT, but Cersei pooped all over that in the show. I think the 'no women' rule only applied to the Targaryen dynasty. Stannis explicitly says that if he dies, his men are to carry on and try to sit Shireen on the IT, so it appears that the Baratheon dynasty has done away with that rule. If Dany or fAegon take the IT, it will technically be a new Targ dynasty, so they won't have to adhere to the rule.

[Knight Of Winter]

Let's not go into "does Stannis come before Dany in line of succession" debate again.

To answer OP's question, yes, it's possible. If King has no sons, his eldest daughter would interhit the throne. When she marries, her offspring would likely keep her family name, not those of her husband. Her husband would nominally be "only" King Consort, not king with much actual power (likewise, compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_consort with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_regnant).

How much power in practice would said daughter wield, and how much would she give to her husband - well, it mostly depends on daughter's character.

[Nictarion]

The only heir to I T right now is a female. Shireen.

Stannis hasn't taken it yet. Tommen and Myrcella aren't going to just hand it over to him.

[ARYa_Nym]

Cersei was only a regent. After her kids are dead the power is gone so the power was never really hers to begin with unlike someone like Queen Nymeria when she was living amongst the Rhoynar.

[Toxspecific]

If Dany ever takes the IT, I think she may change the rules to something like you described yes. She'd be Regent not her husband.

Well if you go by the way regency is done in England, in this said situation the King would be called "Prince" not King (as it so now).

Why the heck would she do that?

[TalalOfDorne]

Stannis hasn't taken it yet. Tommen and Myrcella aren't going to just hand it over to him.

The Iron Throne is his though. Whether he takes it or not, Shireen still remains his heir.

And I dont think the poor kids will be making that choice, or any choice really :frown5: .

[SeanF]

If Dany or Shireen took the Iron Throne, she'd be a ruling Queen (if she wanted to be). Her husband might have the title of King, but he'd be a consort, and his power would derive from her.

[Toxspecific]

If Dany or Shireen took the Iron Throne, she'd be a ruling Queen (if she wanted to be). Her husband might have the title of King, but he'd be a consort, and his power would derive from her.

Because screw the history of male dominated Westerosi kingdoms :P

Stannis hasn't taken it yet. Tommen and Myrcella aren't going to just hand it over to him.

Dany hasn't taken it either. There's another fact.

[Nictarion]

Because screw the history of male dominated Westerosi kingdoms :P

Exactly. All hail, Queen Daenerys!

[joluoto]

Shireen is Stannis heir. Myrcella is Tommen's. We have alot of female heirs right now.

[Toxspecific]

Exactly. All hail, Queen Daenerys!

I do hope you know I was being sarcastic. One does not simply ignore the fact that Westerosi nobility is male dominated just to make their theory sound less unrealistic.

[Nictarion]

I do hope you know I was being sarcastic. One does not simply ignore the fact that Westerosi nobility is male dominated just to make their theory sound less unrealistic.

Of course I know that, I saw the emotion. I do think its time Westeros has its first female ruler though.

[three-eyed monkey]

This is going to be quite hypothetical but say the heir to the iron throne was a girl. (Would this be even possible?) When she married would she keep the throne or would her husband get it? And if she did would husband be called King or not?

Currently in England the Queen is regent and her husband does not hold the title of King. He is Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh.

In the "Baratheon" line Myrcella is Tommen's heir. Stannis is attainted as a rebel so has been removed from the line of succession. If he had not rebelled then I'm unsure if he would come before or after Myrcella but I think she would come first. I base that on the case Jon made for Alys Karstark, saying a daughter comes before an uncle by all the laws he knows. The same way that if Bran and Rickon were really dead then WF would go to Sansa, as opposed to her uncle Edmure, (if he was not a prisoner of the crown). If Tommen dies without legit issue then the crown goes to Myrcella and she would be regent even if married to a Martell or someone, and the crown would pass to her issue, males first. If both Tommen and Myrcella die without issue, then I'm not sure where it goes next. Perhaps there would be a Grand Council or something to decide on a new dynasty, based on strongest claim. In the mean time, anyone with enough power to take the throne by force is free to do so, as per Robert's rebellion, and start their own line of kings.

[SeanF]

As always, much depends on the personalities of the individuals involved. A strong-willed and competent woman (like Isabella of Castille or Maria Theresa of Austria) can rule in a male-dominated society. Female lords aren't unheard of in Westeros, and a woman who's won the Iron Throne by conquest would be unlikely to be merely her husband's consort, IMHO.

[Maia]

That's the way it works with most houses in Westeros. But after the Targaryen's "Dance with Dragons", ie. the civil war between Rhaenyra and Aegon II, that is not how the Targaryens observe the line of succession. They specifically say that any and all male claimants come before any female claimants.

In the books they don't. Claim of Daeron the Drunken's daughter was considered before those of her male relatives by the Great Council, but she was officially stepped over because of her feeble-mindedness. Baby son of Aerion was stepped over too, so it was not even gender-exclusive. Sure, in reality everybody wanted an adult man on the throne rather than a minority reign, but they didn't discount Daeron's daughter because of her gender alone.

What we have in the books are 3 cases where a female should have inherited, but didn't, and some of them (daughters of Aegon III) are the result of GRRM goofing with Targaryen genealogy. In the early editions of AGoT Viserys II was supposed to be a son of Aegon III, not his brother, but of course the dates he gave didn't work for it.

IMHO, everything in AGoT and ACoK is predicated on women being technically able to inherit the Iron Throne, even if it has never happened yet. Rhaenys's murder, Barristan going to Dany, rather than Stannis, how people see Myrcella's and Shireen's places in succession, etc.

[SummerSphinx]

I have been wondering if there is something very important about female Targaryens when it comes to the dragons. The dragons died out shortly after (and partially due to) the Dance of Dragons. Perhaps the man-made rules regarding succession caused the "true dragons" to be people who are not obvious. I know that people in the kingdom care about male succession, legitimacy, and so forth, but the dragon blood or dragon magic may operate independently of man-made rules.

I wonder about Dany seeming so much stronger than Viserys. I wonder if Aerys was the real father of Dany.

If women had inherited equally after the Dance, do we know if there are people with better claims?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Women can inherit, only after every male claimant is exhausted. That's not the same as women flat-out not being able to. As to whether Stannis would come before Dany, that's something GRRM needs to clear up.

While it's not entirely clear from the books that Robert kept that system, two lines from the show (which isn't canon, I know, but it can offer some insight into these things) make it appear that he did. Sansa asks Septa Mordane what would happen if she had only girls, and the septa says Tommen would become king. And Renly tells Loras that he's "fourth in line," so after Joffrey, Tommen and Stannis but before Myrcella.

If women had inherited equally after the Dance, do we know if there are people with better claims?

If the rules hadn't changed after the Dance, then Daena would have been queen in her own right after Baelor I died. Instead the throne passed to Viserys II, her uncle.

[Maia]

Women can inherit, only after every male claimant is exhausted.

That has never been suggested in the books themselves. In the books, Daeron the Drunken's daughter came before her male kin in succession to the throne.

In the books, Rhaenys was a serious threat to Robert's claim, right after her brother Aegon and had to die. In the books, Myrcella came directly after her brothers and before her "uncles".

Also, Shireen was in succession _before_ Renly and Stannis explicitly suggested naming his brother as heir _over her_ to bribe Renly into laying down his crown. And that along with Wyman Webber's shenangians re: inheritance of Coldmoat is, IMHO our clue as to what happened with Daena and her sisters:

Baelor, a pretty extreme misogynist even by Westerosi standards, explicitly excluded his sisters from succession and named his uncle heir. And since said uncle had been ruling the realm for the last 14 years at that point and had an adult son and a mostly adult grandson,while Baelor's sisters have been imprisoned for a decade and were unwed, he managed to make Baelor's will stick.

As to whether Stannis would come before Dany, that's something GRRM needs to clear up.

We know that he doesn't. Rhaenys had to die for Robert's claim to be safe. Barristan didn't go to Stannis either. I.e. people who shoud know - like Tywin Lannister and Barristan Selmy, don't think that Baratheon claim trumps that of a female Targ.

Frankly, it seems to me that the idea that inheritance for the throne is somehow different from standard Andal inheritance comes mostly from those who dislike Dany and try to present her blood claim as illegitimate and inferior to Stannis's (hah!). There is no evidence for this in the books and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

That has never been suggested in the books themselves. In the books, Daeron the Drunken's daughter came before her male kin in succession to the throne.

In the books, Rhaenys was a serious threat to Robert's claim, right after her brother Aegon and had to die. In the books, Myrcella came directly after her brothers and before her "uncles".

Also, Shireen was in succession _before_ Renly and Stannis explicitly suggested naming his brother as heir _over her_ to bribe Renly into laying down his crown. And that along with Wyman Webber's shenangians re: inheritance of Coldmoat is, IMHO our clue as to what happened with Daena and her sisters:

Baelor, a pretty extreme misogynist even by Westerosi standards, explicitly excluded his sisters from succession and named his uncle heir. And since said uncle had been ruling the realm for the last 14 years at that point and had an adult son and a mostly adult grandson,while Baelor's sisters have been imprisoned for a decade and were unwed, he managed to make Baelor's will stick.

We know that he doesn't. Rhaenys had to die for Robert's claim to be safe. Barristan didn't go to Stannis either. I.e. people who shoud know - like Tywin Lannister and Barristan Selmy, don't think that Baratheon claim trumps that of a female Targ.

Frankly, it seems to me that the idea that inheritance for the throne is somehow different from standard Andal inheritance comes mostly from those who dislike Dany and try to present her blood claim as illegitimate and inferior to Stannis's (hah!). There is no evidence for this in the books and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

1. Uh, passing over Daeron's daughter in the succession is just proof of the post-DotD succession in action. They had to pass her over because there were still possible males in line who would trump her. It actually supports my case, not yours.

2. Myrcella came before both of her uncles because both had been displaced for "committing treason." From the perspective of the Iron Throne at the time, both Renly and Stannis were traitors who had forfeited their place in the succession. This is also why Stannis has to allow Renly ahead of Shireen as part of his terms -- it's the equivalent of forgiving Renly for his treason.

3. I don't see much evidence that Rhaenys was a serious threat to Robert's claim so much as Lannister goons just decided to kill the kids when they found him. Viserys would still have come before Rhaenys even if she had survived. I'm also constantly seeing people arguing that Varys didn't bother to save Rhaenys because she wasn't terribly important. Either way, someone's argument is wanting.

4. The Baelor explanation for Daena is directly contradicted by the author's own explanation.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Comic_Con_San_Diego_CA_July_20_232

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.

I have no idea why you're writing off an inheritance system that the author himself has come up with and confirmed. Call me crazy but I'm going to take his word over yours.

[Maia]

1. Uh, passing over Daeron's daughter in the succession is just proof of the post-DotD succession in action. They had to pass her over because there were still possible males in line who would trump her. It actually supports my case, not yours.

No, since her claim, according to Jeor Mormont, was considered before that of any of the males and argument of feeble-mindedness was employed to dismiss it. According to you, her claim shouldn't have been considered at all, since she came after Aegon the Unlikely in the line of succession anyway! Needless to say, that this position contradicts published text of the book.

2. This is also why Stannis has to allow Renly ahead of Shireen as part of his terms -- it's the equivalent of forgiving Renly for his treason.

How so?

"I will grant you Storm's End and your old seat on the council and even name you my heir until a son is born to me"

That's what Stannis tells Renly during their parley. Renly never was Stannis's heir. Stannis offers to "even" name Renly as a provisional heir as a gesture of reconciliation and enticement.

3. I don't see much evidence that Rhaenys was a serious threat to Robert's claim so much as Lannister goons just decided to kill the kids when they found him. Viserys would still have come before Rhaenys even if she had survived. I'm also constantly seeing people arguing that Varys didn't bother to save Rhaenys because she wasn't terribly important.

Tywin told Tyrion that he personally ordered murders of _both_ kids because they were a danger to Robert's hold on the throne and that Robert knew it too and was relieved to see them dead. Tyrion, in his PoV, didn't disagree. Two people who knew the laws of succession as well as anyone in Westeros considered Rhaenys to have been a serious threat to Robert's claim.

More serious than Viserys and Dany. After all, Arryn may have convinced Robert not to send assassins after them, but Tywin still could have made sure of them on his own initiative and didn't.

And yes, she was less important than her brother Aegon and should have been a little safer because she could have been married into the Robert's family in the future and thus bolstered their claim. There could have been plots to steal her away and crown her in the interim, of course. But that's neither here nor there, since Varys is obviously _not_ a sincere Targ loyalist that he seemed to be prior to ADwD and Aegon is obviously (f)Aegon, so nobody was saved.

If Varys had been a Targ loyalist, he did have the resources to save Aegon, however, and may not have bothered with Rhaenys, since it would have been much harder to spirit her away without Aerys's knowledge.

I have no idea why you're writing off an inheritance system that the author himself has come up with and confirmed. Call me crazy but I'm going to take his word over yours.

Because it contradicts the text of the published books and seriously undermines several long-established plot-lines, while saddling a number of characters with idiot balls.

Let's not forget that GRRM is free to change his mind until stuff is actually published. He did so on several occasions, notably concerning Rhaenyra's age difference with her brother Aegon and identities of her husbands.

Where SSM contradicts published text, it makes vastly more sense to me to go with the actual text, but YMMV.