What did Renly mean by that odd statement to Catelyn

[mormont]

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

Bit of a non-sequitur there... doesn't really relate to the quoted material.

But anyway, the only conclusion we can draw from the history of the Targaryen monarchy is that since the Dance of Dragons, there has never been a situation where a female heir had a better claim than a male rival.

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.

So there's no line? Females simply can't inherit, under any circumstances?

But the author's own words on the topic, given above, suggest otherwise, not to mention that Dany's whole plotline suggests otherwise. No character ever seems to think or suggest that Dany's sex would legally bar her from inheriting the Iron Throne. Female characters do inherit lands, albeit not on the same terms as male ones. Hell, even the paraphrased quote you're claiming to support your argument about Robert being ahead of Dany acknowledges that at some point, you go to the female heirs.

So if your position is that there 'is no line', you're flat wrong. On the other hand, if what you're saying is that the line exists, you just disagree over where it is, that's a whole different discussion.

This may be what Martin thinks about Medieval times, though he is wrong, but ASOIAF is much more simple.

You realise you're actually telling me the author himself is wrong about his own world? He says it's complicated, you say it's simple, and you're telling me you're right?

I'll go with GRRM's opinion.

You don't see anyone disputing Robert Arryn as Lord of the Vale or the other children that inheirt.

Robert Arryn's case is indisputable! He's the only child of Jon Arryn. The existence of simple, indisputable cases does not show that there are no complex ones.

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.

As I said above: there's zero evidence that there is any legal distinction between the inheritance practised by the Targaryens and that practised by anyone else, other than Dorne. (OK, arguably the Iron Isles have a stronger presumption against women, as BBE suggests.)

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 according to you, Stannis is the Targaryen heir! How can serving him not have 'a remote shred of legitimacy'? How can picking someone behind him in the line of succession be more legitimate?

Look, you've had three tries to answer this question and you still haven't done it. I'm going to give up asking it now.

You have not answered why Robert is concered about Dany having a son?

It's not really relevant: at the time, Viserys is the Targaryen claimant. Presumably, Dany's son would leapfrog her and be Viserys' heir: that's not incompatible with my view. But even before then, Dany was Viserys' heir. And, as others have answered, what Robert's worried about is a Targaryen heir leading an army against him - presumably he discounts the idea of a daughter of Daenerys doing this for the same reason he discounts the idea of Daenerys doing it.

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.

Not one quote.

[mrunderhill]

Bit of a non-sequitur there... doesn't really relate to the quoted material.

But anyway, the only conclusion we can draw from the history of the Targaryen monarchy is that since the Dance of Dragons, there has never been a situation where a female heir had a better claim than a male rival.

No it's not. It is the only conclusion you want to draw. There are many other conclusions such as women not inheriting as long as their is a male

So there's no line? Females simply can't inherit, under any circumstances?

But the author's own words on the topic, given above, suggest otherwise, not to mention that Dany's whole plotline suggests otherwise. No character ever seems to think or suggest that Dany's sex would legally bar her from inheriting the Iron Throne. Female characters do inherit lands, albeit not on the same terms as male ones. Hell, even the paraphrased quote you're claiming to support your argument about Robert being ahead of Dany acknowledges that at some point, you go to the female heirs.

So if your position is that there 'is no line', you're flat wrong. On the other hand, if what you're saying is that the line exists, you just disagree over where it is, that's a whole different discussion.

Different areas and different lands have different laws of succession. Just, because the Andal Laws and the Rhoynor Laws allow women to inherit does not make it so for the Targaryen's Iron Throne. Apart from desperate men like Jorah and Selmy nobody has actually taken Dany's claim seriously in Westeros.

Saying that all males come before every female is not drawing a line somewhere.

You realise you're actually telling me the author himself is wrong about his own world? He says it's complicated, you say it's simple, and you're telling me you're right?

I'll go with GRRM's opinion.

No I am saying he is wrong about the Middle Ages. The Westeros world is much more simple than the Middle Ages. We don't have numerous half siblings, remarriages, several annulments or Lords with lands in different kingdoms. In the Middle Ages Ned would be Lord Paramount of the North, but would also probably hold some land in the Vale. The lands in the Vale might only be passed through salic law, but his North lands would not. As Lord of the lands in the Vale he would have to pay homage and tax to Jon Arryn, but as Lord Paramount of the North he would not have to. Sansa would therefore be the heir of the North, but would not be for his lands in the Vale. Such complexities like that are absence in ASOIAF.

Robert Arryn's case is indisputable! He's the only child of Jon Arryn. The existence of simple, indisputable cases does not show that there are no complex ones.

Robert Arryn is weak and sickly. In Medieval times he would likely lose his lands. The most complex case we hear about if Lady Hornwood's lands. In most cases things are very straightforward.

As I said above: there's zero evidence that there is any legal distinction between the inheritance practised by the Targaryens and that practised by anyone else, other than Dorne. (OK, arguably the Iron Isles have a stronger presumption against women, as BBE suggests.)

How can you even say this when we know that twice the Targaryens have passed up daughters for brothers? Jon is very adamament that this is not the case it should be. Nobody doubts Cersei is heiress to the Rock.

But according to you, Stannis is the Targaryen heir! How can serving him not have 'a remote shred of legitimacy'? How can picking someone behind him in the line of succession be more legitimate?

Look, you've had three tries to answer this question and you still haven't done it. I'm going to give up asking it now.

I already answered the question, but you refuse to understand that JOFFREY is the Targaryen heir not Stannis. Stannis is just another usurper trying to steal the crown from his nephew. There is absolutely NO argument for Stannis coming ahead of Joffrey, unless you accept the incest claims, which Selmy did not know.Selmy's only hope of honour was to make the case that you are making, that Dany should come before Joffrey. It's a weaker claim than Joffrey, but much much stronger than Stanni.

It's not really relevant: at the time, Viserys is the Targaryen claimant. Presumably, Dany's son would leapfrog her and be Viserys' heir: that's not incompatible with my view. But even before then, Dany was Viserys' heir. And, as others have answered, what Robert's worried about is a Targaryen heir leading an army against him - presumably he discounts the idea of a daughter of Daenerys doing this for the same reason he discounts the idea of Daenerys doing it.

Robert was thinking short term and this is partly why he names Jaime as Warden of the East. Viserys was viewed as a loser and unstable. He was the Beggar King. People are not going to be so keen to fight to put Viserys on the throne as they would be somebody more stable.

Not one quote.

I will refresh your mind then.

The bold little boy with wild black hair and laughing eyes was a man grown now, one-and-twenty, and still he played his games. Look at me, I'm a king, Cressen thought sadly. Oh Renly, Renly, dear sweet child, do you what you are doing? And would you care if you did?

WHat has Renly ever done to earn a throne. He sits in council and jest with Littlefinger, and at tourney he dons his splendid suit of armour and allows himself to be knocked off his horse by a better man. That is the sum of my brother Renly, who thinks he ought to be a king.

The youngest or Lord Steffon's three sons had grown into a man bold but heedless, who acted from impulse rather than calculation. In that as in so much else, Renly was like his brother Robert, and utterly unlike Stannis.

And Renly, that one, he's copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day.

Gallant, yes, and charming, and very clean. He knew how to dress and he knew how to smile and he knew how to bathe, and somehow he got the notion that this made him fit to be king.

"He was the king that should have been. He was the best of them." The best dressed perhaps, Jaime thought, but for once he did not say it.

Why did Doran not join Renly against the Lannisters?

Doran plays to win, whether at cyvasse or the game of thrones. Likely he did not see Renly as a winner. The emnity between Dorne and Highgarden also played a part, I am sure.

Yes looks like Renly was respected by those that knew him doesn't it?

[mormont]

No it's not. It is the only conclusion you want to draw. There are many other conclusions such as women not inheriting as long as their is a male

The difference is that these conclusions go beyond the available evidence. They're therefore not conclusions, they're speculations.

Different areas and different lands have different laws of succession.

Apart from Dorne, we have no evidence that this is so.

Saying that all males come before every female is not drawing a line somewhere.

Clearly, it is. Even if we take that to be literally every single male with any sort of blood relation, no matter how distant - four or five generations removed? More? - it's drawing a line somewhere.

How can you even say this when we know that twice the Targaryens have passed up daughters for brothers?

Because nobody's provided an example of daughters being preferred to brothers in any other case, and because the two examples we have in Targaryen history were highly unusual in a number of ways. As I said, repeatedly, one can argue precedent for passing over male heirs if we take exceptional cases from the Targaryen history as establishing a clear law of succession.

Nobody doubts Cersei is heiress to the Rock.

A good counterexample. But critically, the person who explicitly acknowledges this is Kevan - her uncle. We cannot say that if Kevan chose to make a claim, nobody would back him.

I already answered the question, but you refuse to understand that JOFFREY is the Targaryen heir not Stannis. Stannis is just another usurper trying to steal the crown from his nephew. There is absolutely NO argument for Stannis coming ahead of Joffrey, unless you accept the incest claims, which Selmy did not know.

But there is also absolutely no argument, according to you, for Dany coming ahead of Stannis.

I will refresh your mind then.

No need. It's off-topic, and I remember the discussion (and its outcome) very well.

[Le Cygne]

Still, the term "second sons" seems to have a special meaning in the series. It could just be a figure of speech, but given GRRM, perhaps there is something more to it...

It's a very interesting question you pose, and a good discussion, but I think in Renly's context, he's using "second sons" in a dismissive way (hence the "hundred years").

[mrunderhill]

The difference is that these conclusions go beyond the available evidence. They're therefore not conclusions, they're speculations.

We have 300 years of history. No Targaryen Queen, instead we see daughters passed over for uncles.

Apart from Dorne, we have no evidence that this is so.

Dorne, the Iron Islands, the bulk of Westeros and the Targaryens have different laws. How do we have a lack of evidence for this?

Clearly, it is. Even if we take that to be literally every single male with any sort of blood relation, no matter how distant - four or five generations removed? More? - it's drawing a line somewhere.

Or maybe every male comes first, providing they have the right education and are capable. Obviously if the only available males are crazy then something may have to be arranged.

Because nobody's provided an example of daughters being preferred to brothers in any other case, and because the two examples we have in Targaryen history were highly unusual in a number of ways. As I said, repeatedly, one can argue precedent for passing over male heirs if we take exceptional cases from the Targaryen history as establishing a clear law of succession.

Yes and there is a precedent for passing over male heirs. When the realm is in serious danger of invasion and the male heir is a baby, there is a precedent for passing them over. It's a decision the Great Council has made before and could make again. Pycelle was actually hoping for this.

There are two examples and that is more than enough.

A good counterexample. But critically, the person who explicitly acknowledges this is Kevan - her uncle. We cannot say that if Kevan chose to make a claim, nobody would back him.

Being backed does not mean you had a legal claim. Sometimes people are just out for power and back, whoever offers them the most power. Other times they back their friends. Kevan trying to contest the right does not mean he legally has a strong claim at all. Usually in history when someone tries to usurp the throne they make up some claim. Richard III claimed his nephews were illegitimate. King John actually won and all English kings are descended from him, but even so Shakespeare is still prepared to paint him as a usurper. Part of the reason John loses Normandy is, because the barons don't believe he is a rightful king. Richard I had named him his heir. Winning does not mean you had the legal right.

But there is also absolutely no argument, according to you, for Dany coming ahead of Stannis.

There is an argument, but it is a weaker than Stannis' claim. Dany can present her case, but legally Robert has the stronger claim and the precedent to back it up. Stannis though has no claim.

No need. It's off-topic, and I remember the discussion (and its outcome) very well.

Obviously not if you think the points were refuted, but will leave it there for now.

[Ulrik1312]

It's a very interesting question you pose, and a good discussion, but I think in Renly's context, he's using "second sons" in a dismissive way (hence the "hundred years").

I believe he meant Orys Baratheon (technically a bastard second son) and the elder daughter of the Strom King.

[mormont]

Dorne, the Iron Islands, the bulk of Westeros and the Targaryens have different laws. How do we have a lack of evidence for this?

Because apart from Dorne, and one line about the Iron Islands which might well have no legal significance whatsoever, none has been provided.

I'll repeat for the last time: the word of the author himself is that inheritance law in Westeros is "vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory... There are no clear cut answers." That has several ramifications for the present discussion. First, vague: so we know that the law in this area is not very specific and is unlikely to cover unusual circumstances. Second, uncodified: so we know that there is no written corpus of law on inheritance that is agreed by all parties and can be resorted to in case of dispute. Third, subject to varying interpretations: so we know that two similar cases might well have different outcomes. And fourth, often contradictory: so we know that any given precedent might not actually establish a rule.

The upshot of all this is that the notion that there is a separate set of rules for the Iron Throne is extremely unlikely. You can't infer it by taking one case from the Targaryens and a similar one from another House and saying, 'look, they have different outcomes', because we are told that inheritance cases are 'often contradictory'. You can't suggest the existence of a written set of rules that formally separates the case of the Targaryens, because we're told there isn't one. And in any case, the Iron Throne is the source of law, as well as the subject: anyone who takes it has, pretty much, de facto done so legally.

At best, you can suggest that in practise, the factors that come into play when it comes to inheritance of the Iron Throne are likely to be differently weighted, such that there would be an added reluctance to allow a woman to inherit. If you're going to say there is an actual canon of law that establishes different rules for the Targaryens than any other family, you're out on a branch, swinging in the wind, without any evidence or support.

[Four-Eyed Crow]

ITT: sixty people say the exact same thing, only occasionally acknowledging that someone other than OP has spoken before them.

[Le Cygne]

I believe he meant Orys Baratheon (technically a bastard second son) and the elder daughter of the Strom King.

I just think he's downplaying it.

[Inquisitor Glokta]

In ACOK Catelyn meets Renly. He takes her to the top of a tower to show her his massive army and claim his right as King. She challenges him and says that Stannis has the better claim. Then Renly says something that strikes me as odd (emphasis added):

This is in the year AL 299. We know that the daughter of Aegon V married an unnamed Baratheon. The only known child of that union was Steffon Baratheon, father to Robert, Stannis and Renly. Like many, I have assumed that the Baratheon claim to Targaryen blood was based on the marriage of Egg's daughter to some Baratheon. But that is NOT the claim that Renly cites.

He talks of "weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters" as the root of the Baratheon/Targaryen blood link. Ageon V was born in AL 199, so he had no kids to get married a hundred years past--and the phrase "elder Daughter" suggests more than one, but Aegon V only had one daughter and Jaehaerys II was his second son.

Renly's time-frame also rules out Orys Baratheon as the source of the link his House and House Targaryen.

So what is the source of Baratheon legitimacy to the IT that Renly cites?

The timing seems to suggest the children of Aegon IV (Aegon the Unworthy) or his granchildern. Of them, the only one to have a second son and more than one daughter was Maekar I, Egg's dad. Aerion (Brightflame) was the second son and Rhae was the eldest daughter. Their mates and fates of their children is unknown. Did they marry Baratheons? Or was it another Baratheon/Targaryen paring that Renly cites? Or did Renly lack a sense of his own history and anything in the past seemed like a hundred years ago to him?

Of course in AFFC, Measter Aemon tells Sam that it was through Egg's daughter that the Baratheon's had some Targ blood, so it is possible that Renly just had no idea what he was talking about, but the line "weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters" seems pretty specific and none of the details fit the marriage of Aegon V's daughter to some unnamed Baratheon.

It is an odd little mystery. Any ideas?

This is obviously a response from renly to something Catelyn said. If you want to get the real meaning, why didn't you include Cat's statement?

You can't just take half a quote and hope for people to guess it's meaning...

[mrunderhill]

Because apart from Dorne, and one line about the Iron Islands which might well have no legal significance whatsoever, none has been provided.

I'll repeat for the last time: the word of the author himself is that inheritance law in Westeros is "vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory... There are no clear cut answers." That has several ramifications for the present discussion. First, vague: so we know that the law in this area is not very specific and is unlikely to cover unusual circumstances. Second, uncodified: so we know that there is no written corpus of law on inheritance that is agreed by all parties and can be resorted to in case of dispute. Third, subject to varying interpretations: so we know that two similar cases might well have different outcomes. And fourth, often contradictory: so we know that any given precedent might not actually establish a rule.

The upshot of all this is that the notion that there is a separate set of rules for the Iron Throne is extremely unlikely. You can't infer it by taking one case from the Targaryens and a similar one from another House and saying, 'look, they have different outcomes', because we are told that inheritance cases are 'often contradictory'. You can't suggest the existence of a written set of rules that formally separates the case of the Targaryens, because we're told there isn't one. And in any case, the Iron Throne is the source of law, as well as the subject: anyone who takes it has, pretty much, de facto done so legally.

At best, you can suggest that in practise, the factors that come into play when it comes to inheritance of the Iron Throne are likely to be differently weighted, such that there would be an added reluctance to allow a woman to inherit. If you're going to say there is an actual canon of law that establishes different rules for the Targaryens than any other family, you're out on a branch, swinging in the wind, without any evidence or support.

Look at the full quote of what you provided.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

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."

He is clarifying his the statement he made earlier. The fact that MOST people in Westeros would say the daughter comes before an uncle is what is generally accepted.

Later on he tries to discuss actual Medieval situations and here is where I disagree with him. However, about Westeros he is of course correct. He also says this.

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

Robert inheriting over Dany has two precedents and nothing to contradict it. Dany has no precedent supporting her claim.

Why is it unlikely that the Targaryens would have a separate law of inheritance for the Iron Throne? This has always been the case in the Medieval world. The inheritance laws for the French Crown were different than say the Duchy of Aquitaine.

Taking and HOLDING the Iron Throne is the key. The Iron Born took the North, but they have no chance of holding it. Without a valid claim, which people accept you cannnot hold a crown.

No where did I say there was canon written law. Westeros is not like that, but there is Tradition and previous Precedent's which are used to judge a case. Robert has both these legal factors on her side. Dany would have nothing accept the appeal to proximity. Looking at all the precedents and Tradition of the Iron Throne, Robert has the stronger claim legally.

Of course if it came down to a choice political reasons would play a huge factor.

[mormont]

Look at the full quote of what you provided.

I've read it many times, and quoted it previously in this very thread in order to support the points I'm making.

Why is it unlikely that the Targaryens would have a separate law of inheritance for the Iron Throne? This has always been the case in the Medieval world. The inheritance laws for the French Crown were different than say the Duchy of Aquitaine.

It's not whether you personally find it likely or unlikely that we're discussing: it's whether there is any evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. As I say, there's none.

Robert inheriting over Dany has two precedents and nothing to contradict it. Dany has no precedent supporting her claim.

Robert inheriting over Dany has no precedents. No relative as distant as a cousin, let alone a more distant relative like Robert, has ever succeeded to the Iron Throne: and no non-Targaryen has ever succeeded to the Iron Throne either, prior to Robert himself. And of course, dragging this back around to the topic, when Robert did in fact succeed he supplanted a direct male heir of Aerys' body. His bloodline justification was therefore inherently flimsy, which is what Renly meant by that 'odd statement' to Cat. And that really is the endpoint of that discussion.

[Sleeve of Wizard]

Maester: "Jibber Jabber... succession... Jibber Jabber... bloodlines... Jibber Jabber..." Usurper: *smash* goes the hammer *splat* goes the blood. Maester: "Hail to the King!"

[SJC]

Look at the full quote of what you provided.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

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."

He is clarifying his the statement he made earlier. The fact that MOST people in Westeros would say the daughter comes before an uncle is what is generally accepted.

Later on he tries to discuss actual Medieval situations and here is where I disagree with him. However, about Westeros he is of course correct. He also says this.

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

Robert inheriting over Dany has two precedents and nothing to contradict it. Dany has no precedent supporting her claim.

Why is it unlikely that the Targaryens would have a separate law of inheritance for the Iron Throne? This has always been the case in the Medieval world. The inheritance laws for the French Crown were different than say the Duchy of Aquitaine.

Taking and HOLDING the Iron Throne is the key. The Iron Born took the North, but they have no chance of holding it. Without a valid claim, which people accept you cannnot hold a crown.

No where did I say there was canon written law. Westeros is not like that, but there is Tradition and previous Precedent's which are used to judge a case. Robert has both these legal factors on her side. Dany would have nothing accept the appeal to proximity. Looking at all the precedents and Tradition of the Iron Throne, Robert has the stronger claim legally.

Of course if it came down to a choice political reasons would play a huge factor.

Neither Robert nor Dany have any direct precedent in their favor. The Targaryens only ruled for 300 years, which is not nearly long enough to have encountered and set the necessary precedents. Frankly, we do not know how they would resolve a question like Dany vs. Robert. On the one hand, no woman ever inherited the Throne. On the other hand, no male ever inherited the Throne from as far from the main line as Robert. In modern parlance, a judge or arbitrator could eaisly decide that brothers and uncles are one thing, but cousins through the female line (several generations removed) are quite another.

The larger issue here is the attempt to impose a set of legal rules on a system in which such rules are mostly lacking. Westeros does not recognize the rule of law, and GRRM has noted his interpretation of succession history in the middle ages (and his is the only interpretation relevant to a discussion of Westeros) to which he draws inspiration. Indeed, even in the bit you cited as "context," GRRM merely states that a case might set a precedent, but, really, matters are determined case-by-case (where precedents therefore may be properly ignored or distinguished). A precedent might provide the underlying foundation for a claim (e.g., a male vs. a female), but it does not necessarily define the superiority among claims. There is nothing "legal" here in any recognizably modern sense.

Even if a direct precedent addressed Robert v. Dany (which it does not), there is no reason to believe it would necessarily be considered binding or otherwise controlling. The best the realm could hope for is probably a Great Council (or, more likely if it happened organically without a Rebellion deposing the Targaryens, Robert never making a claim vis-a-vis Dany). And, of course, the issue never arose in the story. Robert never made a legal claim (indeed, Ned is the only person who makes a comment suggesting Robert's blood claim was anything more than just a convenient political facade; and Ned both is clearly wired to think like that and had an incentive--not wanting the Throne--to stress this distinction between himself and Robert). At any rate, Robert's claim would have been vis-a-vis Viserys, who plainly had the superior Targaryen claim.

[mrunderhill]

I've read it many times, and quoted it previously in this very thread in order to support the points I'm making.

It's not whether you personally find it likely or unlikely that we're discussing: it's whether there is any evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. As I say, there's none.

Robert inheriting over Dany has no precedents. No relative as distant as a cousin, let alone a more distant relative like Robert, has ever succeeded to the Iron Throne: and no non-Targaryen has ever succeeded to the Iron Throne either, prior to Robert himself. And of course, dragging this back around to the topic, when Robert did in fact succeed he supplanted a direct male heir of Aerys' body. His bloodline justification was therefore inherently flimsy, which is what Renly meant by that 'odd statement' to Cat. And that really is the endpoint of that discussion.

Distant or not Robert was a Lord Paramount with Targaryen blood. Aerys himself recognised the claim.

AS for Renly he is speaking fancy words without actually thinking about what he is saying. After Robert killed Rhaegar he was the best choice for the Targaryen heir.

Pycelle is the Grand Maester and they record the history. This is what he has to say about the situation.

"For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king . . . I prayed it should be your good father, but Robert was too strong, and Lord Stark moved too swiftly . . .

Two boys and a mad king or great general Robert? This is why Robert was able to hold the realm together.

[mrunderhill]

Neither Robert nor Dany have any direct precedent in their favor. The Targaryens only ruled for 300 years, which is not nearly long enough to have encountered and set the necessary precedents. Frankly, we do not know how they would resolve a question like Dany vs. Robert. On the one hand, no woman ever inherited the Throne. On the other hand, no male ever inherited the Throne from as far from the main line as Robert. In modern parlance, a judge or arbitrator could eaisly decide that brothers and uncles are one thing, but cousins through the female line (several generations removed) are quite another.

Robert may not have a DIRECT precedent, but he has precedents in his favour. 300 years is long enough to have set the precedent. For instance it was acknowledged and accepted by the French that no woman could sit on the throne. Robert is not a cousin several generations removed. He is Dany's second cousin. Inheriting the crown through the female line has never been a problem either. What can Dany point to, in justifying her claim to the throne? Arguments that are made against Robert are not necessarily in favour of Dany, which people are assuming.

The larger issue here is the attempt to impose a set of legal rules on a system in which such rules are mostly lacking. Westeros does not recognize the rule of law, and GRRM has noted his interpretation of succession history in the middle ages (and his is the only interpretation relevant to a discussion of Westeros) to which he draws inspiration. Indeed, even in the bit you cited as "context," GRRM merely states that a case might set a precedent, but, really, matters are determined case-by-case (where precedents therefore may be properly ignored or distinguished). A precedent might provide the underlying foundation for a claim (e.g., a male vs. a female), but it does not necessarily define the superiority among claims. There is nothing "legal" here in any recognizably modern sense.

Except throughout the story we do see a general rule of law being recognised. Nobody is shouting out for Harry the Heir to take over the Vale. Of course Tradition and Precedent are not always respected. Precedents and Tradition are used to judge the superiority of a claim. Nobody thinks Westeros has a written law, but they have history, tradition and precedent that they follow. Renly for instance himself acknowledges that Stannis has a superior claim, but he does not care. When a decision is being made about the choice of Dany vs Robert, the weight of the superior claim will be measured with the practicality of the situation.

Aerion Brightflame's son had the better claim than Egg. However, due to the situation at Hand, the superior claim was wavered away for the practicality of having a strong king. Just, because Egg won does not mean his claim suddenly became stronger.

Even if a direct precedent addressed Robert v. Dany (which it does not), there is no reason to believe it would necessarily be considered binding or otherwise controlling. The best the realm could hope for is probably a Great Council (or, more likely if it happened organically without a Rebellion deposing the Targaryens, Robert never making a claim vis-a-vis Dany). And, of course, the issue never arose in the story. Robert never made a legal claim (indeed, Ned is the only person who makes a comment suggesting Robert's blood claim was anything more than just a convenient political facade; and Ned both is clearly wired to think like that and had an incentive--not wanting the Throne--to stress this distinction between himself and Robert). At any rate, Robert's claim would have been vis-a-vis Viserys, who plainly had the superior Targaryen claim.

Precedents and Laws themselves can be put aside. Even if there was a concrete law stating the line of succession does not mean that it could not be put aside. Case in point Great Britain would have/are changed the inheritance laws to allow Absolute Prigmogeniture. So of course precedents can be dismissed and new ones set.

That being said we still have to judge, who had the stronger claim based on the evidence we have. All things being equal history, tradition and precedent favour Robert over Dany.

We don't actually know by what right Robert exactly claimed the Throne. We have contradictory claims made from different people, however, I am more likely to trust Ned and Jon over Robert and Renly. After the death of Rhaegar there are two distinct ways Robert could have claimed the throne.

1. Right of Conquest

2. Closest, responsible male to the throne.

The Council has rejected children for a stable ruler once, why not again.

[mormont]

Last word on this, I think...

AS for Renly he is speaking fancy words without actually thinking about what he is saying. After Robert killed Rhaegar he was the best choice for the Targaryen heir.

Pycelle is the Grand Maester and they record the history. This is what he has to say about the situation.

"For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king . . . I prayed it should be your good father, but Robert was too strong, and Lord Stark moved too swiftly . . .

Not for the first time, you've provided us with a quote that doesn't actually say what you're telling us it says.

This isn't Pycelle explaining why Robert was the best choice as Rhaegar's heir. This is Pycelle explaining why he thought Tywin - a man with no blood claim whatsoever - should have been King instead of Robert! He never talks about Robert's blood claim at all, in fact. Instead he explains why the timing of Ned's arrival at King's Landing, and Robert's 'strength', meant that Tywin was unable to seize power as Pycelle had hoped.

It is a telling quote, but in rather the opposite direction than you're suggesting. As you say, this is a maester - the Grand Maester, in fact - talking about how and why Robert became King, and he doesn't even mention Robert's claim to Targaryen descent as a factor. This tends to support the view, expressed by Robert himself (and corroborated by Renly's remarks that are the subject of this thread), that it was an ex post facto justification, rather than a real legal qualification.

[SJC]

We don't actually know by what right Robert exactly claimed the Throne. We have contradictory claims made from different people, however, I am more likely to trust Ned and Jon over Robert and Renly. After the death of Rhaegar there are two distinct ways Robert could have claimed the throne.

...

The Council has rejected children for a stable ruler once, why not again.

Just to these two points (because, principally, I think your conviction continues to presume an underlying rule of law and clarity of precedent that simply do not exist here).

(1) Ned is saying that Robert had a better Targaryen blood claim than Ned or Jon Arryn. That is unremarkable and, moreover, meaningless as to any claim by Robert in relation to Dany. Ned is assuming a world (after the Rebellion) where no Targaryen claimant remains because the Targaryens are dead and deposed. In that world, Ned suggests to Robert that Robert's blood made him superior among the rebels. We do not know that anyone else in the realm felt that blood was the deciding factor (and have statements from others that they did not feel that way), and we know Ned had an incentive to emphasize Robert's claim over his own. Ned's statement is likewise consistent with the view---expressed by others who actually gave an opinion on the point---that the blood claim was an ex post political expedient to help mollify the realm to a regime change (and that, frankly, is probably more consistent with the worldview GRRM has given us).

(2) You cannot have it both ways by claiming that Robert "legally" had the better claim and that a Great Council theoretically could have chosen him over Dany for the good of the kingdom despite her legal claim (e.g., Egg over Aerion's son). The latter does not support the former in the sense that you have been using the term "legal." More to the point, I only raised the Great Council as an example of a preferable way---from Westerosi history---to resolve rival claims other than war. But even the actual Great Council raises an interesting point, because Daeron's daughter was also mentioned as having been passed over (as mentally infirm) again suggesting that women are not categorically excluded. Rather, as GRRM has plainly stated, it is a fluid process. In theory, a Council could just as easily choose a teenage Dany (the age at which she became the sole remaining---known---Targaryen) over her generationally-removed cousin.

But still, this debate is surpassingly academic. Thank goodness it is not a real legal case; it would not meet any justiciability requirement.

[mrunderhill]

Just to these two points (because, principally, I think your conviction continues to presume an underlying rule of law and clarity of precedent that simply do not exist here).

(1) Ned is saying that Robert had a better Targaryen blood claim than Ned or Jon Arryn. That is unremarkable and, moreover, meaningless as to any claim by Robert in relation to Dany. Ned is assuming a world (after the Rebellion) where no Targaryen claimant remains because the Targaryens are dead and deposed. In that world, Ned suggests to Robert that Robert's blood made him superior among the rebels. We do not know that anyone else in the realm felt that blood was the deciding factor (and have statements from others that they did not feel that way), and we know Ned had an incentive to emphasize Robert's claim over his own. Ned's statement is likewise consistent with the view---expressed by others who actually gave an opinion on the point---that the blood claim was an ex post political expedient to help mollify the realm to a regime change (and that, frankly, is probably more consistent with the worldview GRRM has given us).

Whenever a blood claim is made it about how Robert murdered Aerys true heirs. Dany is actually never really brought up. Renly, Jaime and Brienne all think Rhaegar and his children. Murdering all the people above you in the line of succession until you are the rightful king does not really cut it.

Renly's quote, though typically dismissive as expected from a man like Renly, shows that attempts were made to legalise Robert's crown by blood. So blood was an issue.

Martin himself has said Aerys feared Robert, because of the Blood claim he had to the throne. This is before Robert had even done anything, Aerys knew Robert could make a case for himself.

(2) You cannot have it both ways by claiming that Robert "legally" had the better claim and that a Great Council theoretically could have chosen him over Dany for the good of the kingdom despite her legal claim (e.g., Egg over Aerion's son). The latter does not support the former in the sense that you have been using the term "legal." More to the point, I only raised the Great Council as an example of a preferable way---from Westerosi history---to resolve rival claims other than war. But even the actual Great Council raises an interesting point, because Daeron's daughter was also mentioned as having been passed over (as mentally infirm) again suggesting that women are not categorically excluded. Rather, as GRRM has plainly stated, it is a fluid process. In theory, a Council could just as easily choose a teenage Dany (the age at which she became the sole remaining---known---Targaryen) over her generationally-removed cousin.

My point about the great council was concerning Aegon and Viserys not Dany. These two undoubtedly had the greater claim, but after a costly civil war a Great Council might have chosen Robert as king anyway.

Laws are always fluid, whether written down or not. When Parliament decided to ban all Catholics from the succession it became law, but now may once again be changed.

But still, this debate is surpassingly academic. Thank goodness it is not a real legal case; it would not meet any justiciability requirement.

It would be a hard case, but a ruling has to be made or else a new form of government decided. As things stand for me Robert had the stronger claim. The Targaryen succession seems to be closest to the Romanov succession. Since we know of no other limiting factors, like we do with the Romanov's, Robert has tradition and precedent on his side.

However, just because I say Robert had the stronger claim, does not mean I think he would necessarily get the throne. I have always said the decision would be made on political grounds and maybe even come to war. I believe Robert would get the nod over Dany, but Stannis would not.

[aceluby]

Last word on this, I think...

Not for the first time, you've provided us with a quote that doesn't actually say what you're telling us it says.

This isn't Pycelle explaining why Robert was the best choice as Rhaegar's heir. This is Pycelle explaining why he thought Tywin - a man with no blood claim whatsoever - should have been King instead of Robert! He never talks about Robert's blood claim at all, in fact. Instead he explains why the timing of Ned's arrival at King's Landing, and Robert's 'strength', meant that Tywin was unable to seize power as Pycelle had hoped.

It is a telling quote, but in rather the opposite direction than you're suggesting. As you say, this is a maester - the Grand Maester, in fact - talking about how and why Robert became King, and he doesn't even mention Robert's claim to Targaryen descent as a factor. This tends to support the view, expressed by Robert himself (and corroborated by Renly's remarks that are the subject of this thread), that it was an ex post facto justification, rather than a real legal qualification.

\thread

Can't believe this is still even a discussion TBH... Claims are only as strong as your army that supports it. Whole kingdom? Easy. Only part (or none)? Not so easy.