What did Renly mean by that odd statement to Catelyn

[mormont]

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....CA_July_20_232/

As I say, this is a paraphrase by someone else of a remark GRRM made in conversation, not a quote. We don't know exactly what GRRM said, and I find that when you don't have the words of the man himself people are apt to interpret things as suits their own perspective (quite naturally). It's best to treat indirect information like this with some caution.

What the quote does establish, I think, is that male primogeniture in the Targaryen line extends as far as preferring an uncle over a sister, which seems uncontentious - although, as I pointed out, it's interesting that one of the examples is an uncle through the female line, suggesting that the female line is important.

Politics always plays a role, but Martin has said how Targaryen succession works, there has never been a Targaryen Queen and heiresses have been passed up for uncles more than once.

As I pointed out, the two examples you've given are of uncles being preferred over a sister, not a daughter: and each is exceptional in some regards. In the case of Maekar at least one male heir was passed over as well as a female one. In the case of Viserys II, he had long held the position of Hand and was regarded as the de facto ruler by many even before he inherited de jure.

Selmy is just desperate to have a Queen/King to serve. He is a traitor for leaving Joffrey.

But the point is, he regards Daenerys as a Queen. He chose to go to her over Stannis, who according to you is the clear Targaryen heir.

Yeh my mistake though his older brother Rhaegel had two children and we are not told of what happened to the,.

We're not, but there's a strong suggestion that at least one of them was male. That child, if legitimate, should have been ahead of Maekar in the line of succession.

This alongside Aegon V does begin to establish a precedent. There has never been a ruling queen.

But that's because there was always a fairly close male heir - a brother or an uncle - not because there is any precedent for a male relative as distant as a second cousin being preferred over a daughter.

Robert was fairly close and a royal cousin. Was an adult and a powerful Lord in his own right. Both could press their claims, but Robert would have the greater legal claim.

I don't think so, and the suggestion in the book is that even Robert himself regarded his claim to be the Targaryen heir as a bit of a fig leaf. He says as much to Ned and Ned does not demur. Renly (as is the topic of this thread) seems to feel the same. I can't recall a single quote that suggests any character regarded his claim by blood as being all that strong: all of them seem to regard the strength of Robert's claim as being through force of arms, not law.

I wouldn't say second cousins are too distant. Robert's great-grandfather was a king.

That's significantly more distant than someone whose father was a king.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

It's from the Westeros Wiki, which is not canon and though useful, is wrong sometimes most times.

...at least in the details. Furthermore, that particular piece of information derives from similar discussions in the forums, not from the books. And while I agree with the general statement, it isn't hammered into stone.

Robert had an inferior claim to Aerys, Rhaegar and Viserys. Aerys broke the social contract between feudal overlord and underlord. Robert's warhammer did the rest and the Maesters started juggling claims to please the winner. That's it. And that juggling is what Renley refers to.

[joluoto]

1. Renly does not know shit

2. Renly doesn't care about Robert's claim, and show it by misremembering the details, that it isn't important. His point is claims aren't important.

[mrunderhill]

As I say, this is a paraphrase by someone else of a remark GRRM made in conversation, not a quote. We don't know exactly what GRRM said, and I find that when you don't have the words of the man himself people are apt to interpret things as suits their own perspective (quite naturally). It's best to treat indirect information like this with some caution.

What the quote does establish, I think, is that male primogeniture in the Targaryen line extends as far as preferring an uncle over a sister, which seems uncontentious - although, as I pointed out, it's interesting that one of the examples is an uncle through the female line, suggesting that the female line is important.

Yes the female line may be important, but it seems women specifically are barred from inheriting the throne unless there is absolutely no one else left. This just gives greater legitimacy to Robert as a male through the female line. Notice that Robert is very worried that Dany will have a son, but not a daughter.

As I pointed out, the two examples you've given are of uncles being preferred over a sister, not a daughter: and each is exceptional in some regards. In the case of Maekar at least one male heir was passed over as well as a female one. In the case of Viserys II, he had long held the position of Hand and was regarded as the de facto ruler by many even before he inherited de jure.

Whether or not the cases were exceptional individually, together they begin to form a precedent. Robert has a precedents to argue from. What precedent does Dany have about a ruling Queen?

But the point is, he regards Daenerys as a Queen. He chose to go to her over Stannis, who according to you is the clear Targaryen heir.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was clear. I said Robert had the stronger legal claim. From Selmy's POV Joffrey would be the legal Targaryen heir, but he is betraying him. His only hope of clinging to honour is to go to Dany.

We're not, but there's a strong suggestion that at least one of them was male. That child, if legitimate, should have been ahead of Maekar in the line of succession.

Yes and the child may have died young we still don't know what happened.

But that's because there was always a fairly close male heir - a brother or an uncle - not because there is any precedent for a male relative as distant as a second cousin being preferred over a daughter.

There is a precedent for male relatives inheriting over women. It's easier to extend this to a second cousin than to crown the first ruling Queen.

I don't think so, and the suggestion in the book is that even Robert himself regarded his claim to be the Targaryen heir as a bit of a fig leaf. He says as much to Ned and Ned does not demur. Renly (as is the topic of this thread) seems to feel the same. I can't recall a single quote that suggests any character regarded his claim by blood as being all that strong: all of them seem to regard the strength of Robert's claim as being through force of arms, not law.

Robert hates Targaryens and is not the type to argue his claim was based on his Targaryen blood. Ned and Jon feel differently though. Also the argument of whether he comes before Dany or not is a mute one, because Viserys was alive for most of his reign. He also took the throne by killing Aegon and Rhaegar, who undoubtedly were ahead of him.

"So you say. If you are wrong, we need not fear. If the girl miscarries, we need not fear. If she births a daughter in place of a son, we need not fear. If the babe dies in infancy, we need not fear." "But if it is a boy?" Robert insisted. "If he lives?"

Why is there nothing to fear if the girl is a daughter?

That's significantly more distant than someone whose father was a king.

Yet still close enough for men to have served Egg and Robert.

[Dragon Roast]

In Targaryen succession all males have a claim over females whether they are descended from a female line or not. The only people above Robert in the line of succession would be Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys. Technically I am not even sure Rhaenys comes before Robert. That puts Robert fourth in line. Only if Egg's third son had descendants left would they come before Robert.

Isn't this males first rule of Targ succession a result of the first Dance with Dragons? The Wiki says that: " Viserys raised his daughter Rhaenyra as his heir, but his wishes were defied by the Lord Commander of his Kingsguard, Ser Criston the Kingmaker, who earned his epithet by crowning Aegon II, a son of a second marriage".

That would suggest another layer to this conversation. Perhaps we'll learn more when the THE PRINCESS AND THE QUEEN comes out later this year.

[mormont]

Yes the female line may be important, but it seems women specifically are barred from inheriting the throne unless there is absolutely no one else left.

No, it doesn't. It seems that there is almost always a close male relative to inherit: there is never a situation where there is 'absolutely no one else left', nor even close to it.

You're going much, much further than the evidence supports, extrapolating a conclusion that is simply not justified on the basis of the facts.

Whether or not the cases were exceptional individually, together they begin to form a precedent.

You keep talking about these cases 'beginning to form' a precedent. Another way of putting that is, not actually forming a precedent. A precedent doesn't 'begin' to exist: it either exists or it does not. In this case, it does not. These cases form precedents for an uncle inheriting over a sister*: they don't form a precedent for a male second cousin taking precedence over a daughter.

*they may also form a precedent for an uncle inheriting over a nephew, something we know also happened with Aegon V.

Robert has a precedents to argue from. What precedent does Dany have about a ruling Queen?

There are no precedents for either. There are two claims.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was clear. I said Robert had the stronger legal claim. From Selmy's POV Joffrey would be the legal Targaryen heir, but he is betraying him. His only hope of clinging to honour is to go to Dany.

Why is that?

And why is it relevant to whether or not he regards Dany as the Targaryen heir?

There is a precedent for male relatives inheriting over women. It's easier to extend this to a second cousin than to crown the first ruling Queen.

Why is it easier to extend male primogeniture to an entirely different House (in effect extinguishing the Targaryen name and line) than to keep the line of inheritance within the Targaryen House and allow a woman to inherit?

Robert hates Targaryens and is not the type to argue his claim was based on his Targaryen blood. Ned and Jon feel differently though.

I don't think they do. Ned suggests that Robert had a better claim than he did himself, but that's at best a lukewarm endorsement of the blood claim. We have nothing to suggest that Jon Arryn saw it as any more than a political expediency.

In any case, as you point out, Robert's blood claim was certainly inferior to Viserys' - nobody was pretending otherwise. So nobody really thought it mattered, except as a way of pretending to some degree of legitimacy. In this respect, Renly is making an apt comparison - Stannis has a better blood claim than Renly does, but Viserys had a better blood claim than Robert all along.

[AstronautMargaery]

Well, nobody posted this here and I'm reading the SSMs and I stumbled on this:

It's from December 22, 1999

[The response to this mail concerns a question about a statement Renly makes (quoted by myself and included in Martin's response) about justification for the Baratheon claim to the throne after the rebellion.]

"Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, _of second sons and elder daughters._"

Ummmm... I think you are putting a lot more weight on this slender branch than it can bear. Renly was a carefree and careless soul, and he was speaking in broad generalizations here. He cared almost nothing about the legal basis of his brother's claim, as the context makes clear; so far as he was concerned, the only thing that mattered was the size of your army.

[mrunderhill]

No, it doesn't. It seems that there is almost always a close male relative to inherit: there is never a situation where there is 'absolutely no one else left', nor even close to it.

You're going much, much further than the evidence supports, extrapolating a conclusion that is simply not justified on the basis of the facts.

There are situations where women were next in line according to primongeniture, women would be able to inherit but they never did. It seems the Targaryens practiced uterine primogeniture. Once they have established a system of rejecting female rulers for male relatives, where do you draw the line?

You keep talking about these cases 'beginning to form' a precedent. Another way of putting that is, not actually forming a precedent. A precedent doesn't 'begin' to exist: it either exists or it does not. In this case, it does not. These cases form precedents for an uncle inheriting over a sister*: they don't form a precedent for a male second cousin taking precedence over a daughter.

*they may also form a precedent for an uncle inheriting over a nephew, something we know also happened with Aegon V.

It's a male relative inheriting over a female one. It's that simple. You are trying to make the inheritance law more complicated than it was. There has never been a case of succession laws applying only to relatives a certain distance away. Can you provide such a case?

There are no precedents for either. There are two claims.

There is a precedent for male relatives inheriting through the female line, none for females inheriting.

Why is that?

And why is it relevant to whether or not he regards Dany as the Targaryen heir?

It was relevant, because someone mentioned how Selym went to take Dany's side, but he was just desperate for a Queen/King to fight for. Everyone knew he would try and be someone's Kingsguard; it is all he has.

Why is it easier to extend male primogeniture to an entirely different House (in effect extinguishing the Targaryen name and line) than to keep the line of inheritance within the Targaryen House and allow a woman to inherit?

Because that was the rules they were going by. Males inheriting over females. You forget that the male can be forced to change his name or that the female's son might take the name of his father's house like the case with Henry I.

I don't think they do. Ned suggests that Robert had a better claim than he did himself, but that's at best a lukewarm endorsement of the blood claim. We have nothing to suggest that Jon Arryn saw it as any more than a political expediency.

It was important politically, because there was truth to it. Robert had a claim to the throne and everyone accepted it.

In any case, as you point out, Robert's blood claim was certainly inferior to Viserys' - nobody was pretending otherwise. So nobody really thought it mattered, except as a way of pretending to some degree of legitimacy. In this respect, Renly is making an apt comparison - Stannis has a better blood claim than Renly does, but Viserys had a better blood claim than Robert all along.

Renly is talking rubbish like the post above shows. He does not care about claims and is foolish enough to think his big army will make him king. This is why people don't take him seriously.

We don't know what Robert's claim to the throne officially was. I expect it was by Right of Conquest and then he used his Targaryen blood to justify sitting on the throne. Robert is a descendant of Aegon the Dragon and many, many other kings.

However, Robert could have just claimed that Aerys line was tainted due to the madness. Therefore as an adult and a capable ruler he should take the throne over young boys much like Egg himself did.

[Djinn]

Ah, Renly! The Beau Brummell of Westeros.

[Red Raven]

Selmy is just desperate to have a Queen/King to serve. He is a traitor for leaving Joffrey.

Joffrey dismissed and humiliated Selmy and later tried to have him arrested and possibly killed. Selmy was not a traitor for leaving after Joffrey already threw him away.

[Dragon Roast]

Well, nobody posted this here and I'm reading the SSMs and I stumbled on this:

It's from December 22, 1999

So it means little and less and Renly could care less about history? I would buy that, but even fools sometime speak deeper truths. Did Renly do that here when he dismissed Robert's claim as nothing more than the size of an army (even though there is a Targ/Bar connection). Perhaps, but so many others seem to place a great importance on King's blood. What we know about Renly is filtered. Still, I think there is a deeper connection between House Baratheon and House Targaryen and that blood lines matter. Just as it matters who is related to the Starks...

[mormont]

There are situations where women were next in line according to primongeniture, women would be able to inherit but they never did.

Nobody's arguing that the Targs practised equal primogeniture in the manner of the Dornish, at least not after the Dance of Dragons.

Once they have established a system of rejecting female rulers for male relatives, where do you draw the line?

Per GRRM, there is no 'line'. There are competing claims. Being male is certainly a factor that significantly strengthens your claim, but so is proximity. I would expect that within a degree or two of proximity, sex is sufficient to win the day: but we're talking here about going outside the Targaryen House entirely. At that point, I think that proximity would become a very important factor, sufficient to overcome sex.

In any case, the original point I was making is that we simply cannot say that "in Targaryen succession all males have a claim over females whether they are descended from a female line or not", and in particular we can't say that this is true to the extent that even Robert was ahead of Dany in the line of inheritance. We don't have sufficient evidence from the books to support such a claim. Unfortunately, many people continue to treat that supposition as a fact.

It's a male relative inheriting over a female one. It's that simple. You are trying to make the inheritance law more complicated than it was.

Again, per GRRM, inheritance law is complicated. "Vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory... There are no clear cut answers."

There has never been a case of succession laws applying only to relatives a certain distance away. Can you provide such a case?

Certainly. Sansa is regarded as the heir to Winterfell, despite the existence of male second cousins in the Vale. Shella Whent inherited despite there being male Tully second cousins (through Minisa Whent, Edmure's mother). That's two just off the top of my head: I'm sure there are more. If you want real-world examples, look no further than Liz Windsor...

It was relevant, because someone mentioned how Selym went to take Dany's side, but he was just desperate for a Queen/King to fight for. Everyone knew he would try and be someone's Kingsguard; it is all he has.

You still haven't explained why Selmy would pick Dany over Stannis if Stannis comes before her in the Targaryen line of inheritance.

Because that was the rules they were going by. Males inheriting over females. You forget that the male can be forced to change his name or that the female's son might take the name of his father's house like the case with Henry I.

But this doesn't answer why it would be easier to force the male to change his name than to allow a female heir to inherit. It just reiterates your claim that this rule is the one that always applies.

Renly is talking rubbish like the post above shows. He does not care about claims and is foolish enough to think his big army will make him king. This is why people don't take him seriously.

We've discussed this before, and your claim that 'people don't take him seriously' was comprehensively rebutted. Renly's army was set to make him King until sorcery intervened.

However, that's not relevant to the topic at hand: the point is, Renly's comparison is apt, since neither he nor Robert were in fact the next in the lineage they were using as the basis for their claim.

[Maia]

It's a male relative inheriting over a female one. It's that simple.

Except that it contradicts the text of actual series, where it is written black on white that Daeron the Drunken's daughter was considered by the Great Council _before_ any of her male relatives and that her feeble-mindedness was brought up as one of the arguments to pass her over. None of it would have been needed if women were automatically discounted.

SSM is all well and good, even though we still don't have a direct quote, just a paraphrase. But when SSM contradicts published text, well, the text trumps it, IMHO.

Also, Tywin, when discussing the murder of Rhaegar's children with Tyrion in ASOS said that "stupid as Robert was, he knew that they were a danger to him" (paraphrased). If Robert and his brothers lawfully came before Rhaenys in Targ succession, why would she have been a danger? This makes zero sense.

Re: Robert being afraid of Dany having a son, but not of Dany herself - he clearly didn't believe a woman capable of conquest, so...

And Selmy, as pointed out, chose to go to Dany to reclaim his honor. He considered her and not the Baratheons to be the rightful heir.

Also, let's not forget that Stannis thought that Shirren and not Renly was heir to the throne after himself, legally. He offered to _make_ Renly his heir in exchange for the latter abdicating his crown.

I.e. books 1-3 are full of evidence that females slot into the royal succession according to the normal Andal inheritance laws.

Well, I can only hope that GRRM came up with something that can plausibly reconcile all those discrepancies and that World of Ice and Fire will give us some definitive answers...

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Certainly. Sansa is regarded as the heir to Winterfell, despite the existence of male second cousins in the Vale. Shella Whent inherited despite there being male Tully second cousins (through Minisa Whent, Edmure's mother). That's two just off the top of my head: I'm sure there are more. If you want real-world examples, look no further than Liz Windsor...

But the Iron Throne doesn't follow Andal law, as the Starks, Tullys and Whents do. Otherwise Daena the Defiant, Rhaena and Elaena would have been Queens in their own right before Viserys II (and Daemon Blackfyre King instead of Daemon II).

Not disputing that the law is somewhat murky, but citing rulings according to Andal law doesn't work for the Iron Throne in possession of the Targaryens. In Possession of the Baratheons may be different though. They followed Andal law.

[mormont]

But the Iron Throne doesn't follow Andal law, as the Starks, Tullys and Whents do. Otherwise Daena the Defiant, Rhaena and Elaena would have been Queens in their own right before Viserys II (and Daemon Blackfyre King instead of Daemon II).

Sorry, but nowhere is it stated that the Targaryens follow different rules of succession - Dorne is the only noted exception.

As for the examples you give, GRRM specifically notes in the link I gave above that under Westerosi succession laws, it is unclear whether legitimised bastards come ahead of trueborn sons: so it is not the case that Daemon would necessarily have inherited rather than Daeron. Nor is it true that any of the women you list would have had an undisputed claim over Viserys II, who as noted had an extremely strong claim, being regarded as the de facto ruler at the time he inherited.

There are two sets of inheritance rules in Westeros - Dornish and everyone else, and 'everyone else', so far as we know, includes Targaryens.

ETA - the idea that the Targs do have a different set of inheritance rules, to my knowledge, is based solely on the claim that they go through all possible male claimants before considering even the nearest female claimants, which is the claim I'm disputing - thereby making the whole argument rather circular.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Sorry, but nowhere is it stated that the Targaryens follow different rules of succession - Dorne is the only noted exception.

As for the examples you give, GRRM specifically notes in the link I gave above that under Westerosi succession laws, it is unclear whether legitimised bastards come ahead of trueborn sons: so it is not the case that Daemon would necessarily have inherited rather than Daeron. Nor is it true that any of the women you list would have had an undisputed claim over Viserys II, who as noted had an extremely strong claim, being regarded as the de facto ruler at the time he inherited.

There are two sets of inheritance rules in Westeros - Dornish and everyone else, and 'everyone else', so far as we know, includes Targaryens.

Daemon maybe, but he's only an afterthought. But children of one's body come before siblings according to Andal law. That's stressed again and again. Alys Karstark is just one example of several. Viserys is clearly inheriting despite Andal law stating otherwise. That's at least a precedent for House Targaryen following a different set of rules. For the legality of his claim, his political power doesn't matter.

Furthermore, the Ironborn have another set of inheritance laws as well: "No woman or ungodly man may sit the Seastone Chair".

[mormont]

Daemon maybe, but he's only an afterthought. But children of one's body come before siblings according to Andal law. That's stressed again and again. Alys Karstark is just one example of several.

Not really a comparable example: Alys Karstark has no uncles. Her rival claimant is a male second cousin.

Viserys is clearly inheriting despite Andal law stating otherwise.

But, per GRRM, Andal law does not state otherwise, at least not clearly:

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

It's true that characters say that children of the body legally come before siblings in the books - but those characters are arguing for the inheritance of a child of the body! The main counterexample is Shireen and Renly - but even then, we can read Stannis' offer as intended to make Renly the undisputed heir to clarify the issue. Most people seem to regard Stannis himself as next in the Baratheon line after Tommen (except the Dornish, of course).

Furthermore, the Ironborn have another set of inheritance laws as well: "No woman or ungodly man may sit the Seastone Chair".

Yet Asha thinks she can inherit. I think this is more of a custom or belief than a law, though of course the lines between these things and laws are blurry in Westeros. That's partly my point.

[SeanF]

If Daenerys successfully invades Westeros, and puts down her rivals, I'm sure that the nobility and Maesters will discover that women can inherit the Iron Throne, after all.

[mrunderhill]

Nobody's arguing that the Targs practised equal primogeniture in the manner of the Dornish, at least not after the Dance of Dragons.

The Targaryens did not have female Queens plain and simple. Not one in 300 years.

Per GRRM, there is no 'line'. There are competing claims. Being male is certainly a factor that significantly strengthens your claim, but so is proximity. I would expect that within a degree or two of proximity, sex is sufficient to win the day: but we're talking here about going outside the Targaryen House entirely. At that point, I think that proximity would become a very important factor, sufficient to overcome sex.

In any case, the original point I was making is that we simply cannot say that "in Targaryen succession all males have a claim over females whether they are descended from a female line or not", and in particular we can't say that this is true to the extent that even Robert was ahead of Dany in the line of inheritance. We don't have sufficient evidence from the books to support such a claim. Unfortunately, many people continue to treat that supposition as a fact.

Exactly there is no 'line'. When you have laws of inheritance they are applied. We have been through this before, but just because people break laws and steal crowns/lands etc does not mean there was no strict code. Read through primary material and you will the problems that arose.

Of course Dany could contest the inheritance, but she would not have the legal precedent on her side.

Again, per GRRM, inheritance law is complicated. "Vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory... There are no clear cut answers."

This may be what Martin thinks about Medieval times, though he is wrong, but ASOIAF is much more simple. You don't see anyone disputing Robert Arryn as Lord of the Vale or the other children that inheirt. They seem to strictly follow the specific laws of inheritance in Westeros.

Certainly. Sansa is regarded as the heir to Winterfell, despite the existence of male second cousins in the Vale. Shella Whent inherited despite there being male Tully second cousins (through Minisa Whent, Edmure's mother). That's two just off the top of my head: I'm sure there are more. If you want real-world examples, look no further than Liz Windsor...

How do these examples even remotely apply? The Starks or the Whents don't follow any type of Salic or Utrinal Primogeniture. The rest of Westeros except Dorne practice Cognatic Primogeniture. Of course women would inherit if they have no brothers in such a case. This is not the case with the Targaryens or the Iron Throne. If you are using Queen Elizabeth II then you don't seem to understand the difference between these inheritance laws. The French Crown has NEVER been passed to a women either has the Hanoverian crown.

You still haven't explained why Selmy would pick Dany over Stannis if Stannis comes before her in the Targaryen line of inheritance.

I did. Stannis comes after Joffrey. Going to serve Stannis would have not even a remote shred of legitimacy. At least he can pretend he is being honourable by going to serve Dany.

But this doesn't answer why it would be easier to force the male to change his name than to allow a female heir to inherit. It just reiterates your claim that this rule is the one that always applies.

Both can be done so it shows how futile your point about keeping the Targaryen name was. However, we do know that no woman has ever sat on the throne. You have not answered why Robert is concered about Dany having a son?

We've discussed this before, and your claim that 'people don't take him seriously' was comprehensively rebutted. Renly's army was set to make him King until sorcery intervened.

However, that's not relevant to the topic at hand: the point is, Renly's comparison is apt, since neither he nor Robert were in fact the next in the lineage they were using as the basis for their claim.

Yes we discussed this before and I provided quote after quote from many individuals, who wrote Renly off. From Cressen to Tywin, to Jaime to Olenna. The only people, who thought Renly was worth anything was two teenagers madly in love with him. Renly was probably set to blow things.

Renly tries to draw the comparison, but they are not very similar at all. Robert started his rebellion to remove a mad tyrant from the throne. Renly was just usurping the crown with no pretence given accept, he thought he would be a better king. He is a fool. To hold a crown you must always give people a reason to accept you as king.

[mrunderhill]

If Daenerys successfully invades Westeros, and puts down her rivals, I'm sure that the nobility and Maesters will discover that women can inherit the Iron Throne, after all.

I am sure they would if she had dragons to enforce her rule. Much like Henry V made himself heir to the French throne, but it was never really accepted and as soon as they could the French rebelled. Though if Dany was to have a son, then there would be no real arguments or point in rebelling.