they were protecting jon. From what? (TOJ)

[Fae Boleyn]

Absolutely accurate. Just because Daenerys doesn't know this, and because it has not been prominent in the books many people think that Daenerys has a claim when she clearly does not. How is she going to deal with the sudden realization that she has been wrong all along? This is going to be very interesting in how GRRM decides to unfold this story. It can go so many ways.

As Lady G says, Robert was not afraid of Daenerys until it was possible that she would birth a boy. That boy would have a stronger claim to the throne than Robert's, thus was a threat.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people forgot the details of Targ succession rules, tbh? The Dance of the Dragons is well-known, but the details of its consequences are finicky little things and most people probably just remember the cool story about dragonriders fighting each other. After all, Westerosi standard would mean Dany is next in line, and there doesn't seem to have been a serious lack of main-line male heirs such that they had to go looking back through the marriages. Which is probably why people like Barristan see Dany as the rightful Targaryen heir.

Robert remembers, because his family was the closest relation to the Targs; when Rhaegar was the only child of Rhaella and Aerys there was probably some note made of his father being next in line after the Prince, and him after that.

Anybody else sincerely hoping for a Tower of Joy stand alone after the main series ends?

Dear God, yes. I want to know precisely how that went down.

[MtnLion]

We're talking about 2 different types of claims for the IT. One is a hereditary claim and the other is a claim by right of conquest. Daenerys is definitely confused (or ignorant) of the difference between the two. She thinks her claim is purely hereditary. By conquest, however, Daenerys has as much claim as anybody who has an army capable of overthrowing the current occupants.

Under Aerys, Robert Baratheon absolutely has a hereditary claim to the throne, although at most he would be 4th in line behind Rhaegar, Aegon and Viserys (and barring any other collateral Targaryen branches that we don't have enough info on yet). So, as can happen rarely, he in effect had a double claim of both conquest AND heredity once the rebellion was successful.

So, it seems to me that there really isn't a contradiction between Robert's sitting the IT as a conqueror or as an heir. He's both.

I guess the 3 KG at the ToJ simply didn't see it that way.

The three Kingsguard at the tower label him a usurper. He is a usurper, because he placed his claim ahead of Viserys, which is a known claim greater than his. But, the three Kingsguard have an obligation to protect and defend the king, which they cannot do at the tower, unless the king is at the tower. Therefore, GRRM is telling us that there is someone with a greater claim than Viserys at the tower. That someone is through many other hints conveyed to be Jon.

[Cripper]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people forgot the details of Targ succession rules, tbh? The Dance of the Dragons is well-known, but the details of its consequences are finicky little things and most people probably just remember the cool story about dragonriders fighting each other. After all, Westerosi standard would mean Dany is next in line, and there doesn't seem to have been a serious lack of main-line male heirs such that they had to go looking back through the marriages. Which is probably why people like Barristan see Dany as the rightful Targaryen heir.

It is the succession rules of House Targaryen. Robert, Stannis and Renly are members of House Baratheon so they have no claim ahead of any living true born Targaryen. That is why people like Barristan and Doran see Dany the last living Targaryen as the rightful heir to House Targaryen and therefore the Iron Throne. If it was a rule for everyone claiming the iron throne why does Stannis consider Shireen his heir and why is Myrcella considered next in line.

[Consigliere]

It is the succession rules of House Targaryen. Robert, Stannis and Renly are members of House Baratheon so they have no claim ahead of any living true born Targaryen. That is why people like Barristan and Doran see Dany the last living Targaryen as the rightful heir to House Targaryen and therefore the Iron Throne. If it was a rule for everyone claiming the iron throne why does Stannis consider Shireen his heir and why is Myrcella considered next in line.

The succession rules are certainly ambiguous however the bolded portion of your post is not necessarily correct. After DoD, all male claimants come before all female ones. Therefore, Robert, Stannis and Renly's claim supercede's Dany's. Stannis sees Shireen as his heir because he considers Joffery, Tommen and Myrcella to be born of incest and illegitimate. Myrcella is seen as Tommen's heir because Stannis is considered to be a traitor to the realm.

[JLE]

Rules? What rules?

As far as I can see, what passes for Targaryen succession rules appears to be "What I say goes, and I have DRAGONS so don't think of arguing".

Which, of course, doesn't really work when there are two or more factions with dragons. Or indeed, none, although at first you can substitute that with "I have a large army and a lot of gold to pay them so don't think of arguing".

If you want to throw down that principle, then you can't throw it down by replacing one tyranny with another - you have to throw it down by replacing it with a proper rule of law - the law is above the crown: the crown may change the law, but must obey it before and after the change, and the law for one man is the same for the law for another, and the law for one family is the same as the law for another.

And by any measure on THAT score: Rhaegar Targaryen was married to Elia Martell, he never divorced her, therefore even if he had a child by Lyanna Stark, that child is a bastard.

Of course, by any measure on that score, a great deal of Targaryen marriages are invalid on grounds of incest (since you cannot, under any "rule of law", have one family allowed to practice incest when others are not, and it is a thing often repeated that incest is against the laws of gods and men alike.) Including that of Aerys and Queen Rhaelle, making Rhaegar himself a bastard (and Viserys, and Daenerys).

Oddly enough, for four generations before Aerys, the direct line between Daeron II and Jahaerys III had married at sufficient distance not to be incestuous: Daeron to a Dornish princess. Maekar's wife is not named but she was not a sister, aunt or niece. Aegon V and Jahaerys III both married outside the family for love - though presumably to people of sufficient nobility that their spouses were accepted (Aegon V's eldest son also married for love, but to a commoner, and gave up his position as crown prince for it when it became clear that the nobles of the realm would not accept a commoner as Queen.) Maekar and Aegon were both fourth sons... all their elder siblings, most of whom practiced incest as did their offspring, found various ways to die young, as also did their offspring, and those whose death is not noted are noted as having been mad, imbecilic or sickly... So I think we can safely conclude that there has been enough warning against incest, to say that Aerys and Rhaelle's marriage must itself be declared invalid.

If Joffrey, Tommen or Myrcella were legitimate, and this was accepted by Stannis, then Stannis would never have rebelled. The sons would come ahead of Myrcella, but she as a child of Robert would precede Stannis as a brother of Robert. It is their illegitimacy - and the fact that Robert has no legitimate children, either son or daughter - that makes Stannis his next rightful heir: and Shireen would then be ahead of Renly in the order of precedence, if both were still alive. Renly's rebellion was treacherous even within his own family, and in any case he appears not to have even cared whether Joffrey was legitimate or not.

[Consigliere]

And by any measure on THAT score: Rhaegar Targaryen was married to Elia Martell, he never divorced her, therefore even if he had a child by Lyanna Stark, that child is a bastard.

You are incorrect. As far as I recall, polygamy is not against the law and there is precedent for it.

Of course, by any measure on that score, a great deal of Targaryen marriages are invalid on grounds of incest (since you cannot, under any "rule of law", have one family allowed to practice incest when others are not, and it is a thing often repeated that incest is against the laws of gods and men alike.) Including that of Aerys and Queen Rhaelle, making Rhaegar himself a bastard (and Viserys, and Daenerys).

Oddly enough, for four generations before Aerys, the direct line between Daeron II and Jahaerys III had married at sufficient distance not to be incestuous: Daeron to a Dornish princess. Maekar's wife is not named but she was not a sister, aunt or niece. Aegon V and Jahaerys III both married outside the family for love - though presumably to people of sufficient nobility that their spouses were accepted (Aegon V's eldest son also married for love, but to a commoner, and gave up his position as crown prince for it when it became clear that the nobles of the realm would not accept a commoner as Queen.) Maekar and Aegon were both fourth sons... all their elder siblings, most of whom practiced incest as did their offspring, found various ways to die young, as also did their offspring, and those whose death is not noted are noted as having been mad, imbecilic or sickly... So I think we can safely conclude that there has been enough warning against incest, to say that Aerys and Rhaelle's marriage must itself be declared invalid.

If Joffrey, Tommen or Myrcella were legitimate, and this was accepted by Stannis, then Stannis would never have rebelled. The sons would come ahead of Myrcella, but she as a child of Robert would precede Stannis as a brother of Robert. It is their illegitimacy - and the fact that Robert has no legitimate children, either son or daughter - that makes Stannis his next rightful heir: and Shireen would then be ahead of Renly in the order of precedence, if both were still alive. Renly's rebellion was treacherous even within his own family, and in any case he appears not to have even cared whether Joffrey was legitimate or not.

Joffery, Myrcella and Tommen are illegitimate because Jaime and Cersei are not married. As far as I recall, there is no law against incest. The Faith looks down upon it, other people may look down upon it but there is no actual law forbidding it. Tywin did marry his cousin afterall. Your argument that a great deal of Targ marriages are invalid on the grounds of incest is unfounded.

[Ygrain]

If you want to throw down that principle, then you can't throw it down by replacing one tyranny with another - you have to throw it down by replacing it with a proper rule of law - the law is above the crown: the crown may change the law, but must obey it before and after the change, and the law for one man is the same for the law for another, and the law for one family is the same as the law for another.

And by any measure on THAT score: Rhaegar Targaryen was married to Elia Martell, he never divorced her, therefore even if he had a child by Lyanna Stark, that child is a bastard.

Of course, by any measure on that score, a great deal of Targaryen marriages are invalid on grounds of incest (since you cannot, under any "rule of law", have one family allowed to practice incest when others are not, and it is a thing often repeated that incest is against the laws of gods and men alike.) Including that of Aerys and Queen Rhaelle, making Rhaegar himself a bastard (and Viserys, and Daenerys).

Only it has been repeatedly pointed out how the Targaryens were above laws of gods and men and a law unto themselves and what not.

[JLE]

Just because the Targaryens chose to act as if they were above the laws of gods and men, and be a law unto themselves, and people dared not oppose them because they had dragons, a large army, and the gold to pay said army: does not mean, in the absence of said dragons and with a less adequate army, that acting like one is above the law ACTUALLY makes one above the law.

King Aerys II, of course, believed otherwise. Oh boy was he mistaken, and surprised.

[Consigliere]

Just because the Targaryens chose to act as if they were above the laws of gods and men, and be a law unto themselves, and people dared not oppose them because they had dragons, a large army, and the gold to pay said army: does not mean, in the absence of said dragons and with a less adequate army, that acting like one is above the law ACTUALLY makes one above the law.

King Aerys II, of course, believed otherwise. Oh boy was he mistaken, and surprised.

What is the point of your argument? And what law are you referring to? I've already pointed out that people look down on incest but there is no actual law forbidding it. The same goes for polygamy. There is no actual law forbidding either.

[JLE]

Erm. Nowhere does it say that there is NOT such a law. Indeed, there must in fact be one. Otherwise, when the Targaryens practiced polygamy or incest, that practice would not be able to be associated with a statement that they answered neither to the laws of gods or men.

[Valandui]

The succession rules are certainly ambiguous however the bolded portion of your post is not necessarily correct. After DoD, all male claimants come before all female ones. Therefore, Robert, Stannis and Renly's claim supercede's Dany's. Stannis sees Shireen as his heir because he considers Joffery, Tommen and Myrcella to be born of incest and illegitimate. Myrcella is seen as Tommen's heir because Stannis is considered to be a traitor to the realm.

They come from a female line, though. I think this is where some of the ambiguity comes into play. If Viserys and Dany were dead and Jon hidden, there's no question that the kingship would pass to the Baratheons. With Dany alive and Jon hidden, it becomes a stickier situation but could still play out the same way.

[Consigliere]

Erm. Nowhere does it say that there is NOT such a law. Indeed, there must in fact be one. Otherwise, when the Targaryens practiced polygamy or incest, that practice would not be able to be associated with a statement that they answered neither to the laws of gods or men.

That is a poor argument to make. In the text no one considers Rhaegar, Dany or Viserys to be bastards.

[Consigliere]

They come from a female line, though. I think this is where some of the ambiguity comes into play. If Viserys and Dany were dead and Jon hidden, there's no question that the kingship would pass to the Baratheons. With Dany alive and Jon hidden, it becomes a stickier situation but could still play out the same way.

It is a sticky situation. Strictly speaking though, I don't think that Robert, Stannis and Renly being descended from the female line makes a difference. At the end of the day, all male claimants come before all female ones. So the Baratheon brothers are likely still ahead of Dany in the succession.

[MtnLion]

They come from a female line, though. I think this is where some of the ambiguity comes into play. If Viserys and Dany were dead and Jon hidden, there's no question that the kingship would pass to the Baratheons. With Dany alive and Jon hidden, it becomes a stickier situation but could still play out the same way.

I am confused what your point might be. It is pretty simple that no female claimants can be honored before all possible male claimants, including collateral lines. Danenerys' great aunt Rhaelle's male children, and male children of her children, etc.

[J. Stargaryen]

I am confused what your point might be. It is pretty simple that no female claimants can be honored before all possible male claimants, including collateral lines. Danenerys' great aunt Rhaelle's male children, and male children of her children, etc.

Can you show me that SSM that states this?

[Valandui]

I am confused what your point might be. It is pretty simple that no female claimants can be honored before all possible male claimants, including collateral lines. Danenerys' great aunt Rhaelle's male children, and male children of her children, etc.

I just meant that if they were descended from a Targaryen male, like a second son or something, there would be no question. In this case, there could be a legitimate case made for each side involved. Having said that, the outcome would most likely be the same.

[Lonin]

After the first Dance of Dragons the Targ succession was changed such that male Targaryens came ahead of female Targaryens. I don't think it was changed to all males with a drop of targ blood come before female Targaryens , The Baratheons, Martels, Plumms and many more from female Targs wed out of the Targ line. Claiming its all males with any Targ blood is effectively saying that females were not in line of succession.

[Fae Boleyn]

After the first Dance of Dragons the Targ succession was changed such that male Targaryens came ahead of female Targaryens. I don't think it was changed to all males with a drop of targ blood come before female Targaryens , The Baratheons, Martels, Plumms and many more from female Targs wed out of the Targ line. Claiming its all males with any Targ blood is effectively saying that females were not in line of succession.

The thing is, we just don't know. We know male heirs come before female ones, even if the female heirs are more closely related. For example, baby Aegon's heir was his uncle, whereas in the rest of Westeros, a sister would come before an uncle. We don't know when you were discounted as an heir entirely - the second your mother married someone who was not a Targ? The generation after that?

And, tbh, like in the historical example I gave above, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they did mean to effectively bar women from the succession. We don't know because until this point it's never come up. There always was at least one male Targ to take the throne, meaning no real test to the issue of who comes first. We still don't know because the Baratheon claim (as it may have existed in the pre-Rebellion succession order) no longer exists; their family stole the Throne, any right they did have is null and void by someone who considers Aerys' line to still be the rightful rulers and all others mere pretenders.

Current situation is an unusual case/emergency case where the only male heirs are dead/rebels/possibly hidden even from himself/maybe real and maybe a fake. Emergency cases tend to bypass the rules if need be.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

This isn't an SSM, but I trust the source, Elio & Linda at tor.com on inheritance:

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/05/the-cycle-of-inheritance-in-a-song-of-ice-and-fire

"...from then on out, Targaryen women could never inherit the throne, her male kin were always preferred...

"If one passes [Robert's children] over and sticks by primogeniture, Stannis Baratheon really does have the best claim"

[mambru]

Neds idea of what makes a "fine knight" is an unquestioning killing machine.

----

Provide a quote that a moral compass doesn't matter to Ned.

That's a straw man. Nobody said that a moral compass doesn't matter to Ned. Ned did admire the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy because they epitomized what a traditional KingsGuard is supposed to embody - and the most important quality of a Kingsguard IS that he has unmatched martial prowess (that is, he's a "killing machine") and uses that prowess unquestioningly at the king's orders. Honorable Ned admired that they stuck unquestioning to those orders to their death because they had taken a vow - even though they were trying to keep him from seeing his dying sister. Ned didn't resent and distrust Jaime because he'd stood idly by and watched as Aerys burned Ned's father and strangled his brother - if he did, he'd have to resent and distrust Gerold Hightower, who stood idly by right along with Jaime watching Brandon and Rickard die, and later told horrified Jaime that their job was to guard the king, not to judge him. But Ned admires Gerold because Gerold willingly fought and died against overwhelming odds when he didn't have to - because he made a vow. That's the kind of traditional, uncomplicated honor Ned approves of.

So - because Ned approved of the KG honor at the TOJ - does that mean that what the KG did was definitely the RIGHT thing to do by Westerosi standards? It's questionable, I think. Ned is an honorable guy, but his honor is kind of simplistic. If it's traditional, it's honorable to Ned. It's traditional for the Warden of the North to execute any deserter from the NW, so Ned does it at the beginning of AGoT - even though this guy seems half-mad (mitigating factor) AND he has valuable information the NW desperately needs (location of Waymar Royce's body and what killed him) but won't get because Ned killed him so swiftly (which probably led to Benjen's disappearance). It's traditional and honorable to hold a hostage and threaten to kill him if his father misbehaves, so Ned takes a child (Theon) and accepts the responsibility to kill this innocent child if his father does something that the child has no control over and is innocent of. Ned never ONCE questions whether anything might be WRONG with that. He doesn't question any of his simplistic assumptions about honor until FINALLY life forces him into a complex situation where honor is not always as black and white as he likes to believe. It's dishonorable for Robert to want to kill Danaerys the child, and Robert ordering Ned to agree to it doesn't make it honorable to him. (It IS dishonorable to put children to death, isn't it? Unless it's Theon?) It's part of his honorable duty as Hand to turn in the adulterous queen and let her and her children be put to death - but wait - it's dishonorable to put innocent children to death. What to do?! Ned's head explodes...and because he's so resolutely avoided the idea that the morally right thing can be complex, when he's finally FORCED to deal with moral complexity he completely fumbles it. A great guy, Ned - but kind of a simpleton.

The three Kingsguard at the tower label him a usurper. He is a usurper, because he placed his claim ahead of Viserys, which is a known claim greater than his. But, the three Kingsguard have an obligation to protect and defend the king, which they cannot do at the tower, unless the king is at the tower. Therefore, GRRM is telling us that there is someone with a greater claim than Viserys at the tower.

I don't think that the fact that those particular 3 Kingsguard fought to the death at the Tower of Joy proves anything for certain. Yes, maybe they fought to the death because they honestly believed baby Jon was the king, and maybe that was because they knew Rhaegar and Lyanna had gotten married, but I don't think the fact that they fought to the death proves either that Jon absolutely WAS king or that Rhaegar absolutely WERE married. Yes, if the Kingsguard were robots programmed in a simple binary code that said "We shall protect the Targaryen king and his legitimate Targaryen heirs unswervingly unto death," you could absolutely predict their behavior and deduce accurately from it, but the KG were ALL human beings - ALL of them can have differing interpretations of what honoring their vows entails.

Example? Barristan. The three who died at TOJ called Robert an Usurper and rejected his authority as king. Barristan - whose honor nobody doubts - fought sincerely at Rhaegar's side and was nearly killed, then pardoned. He didn't reject Robert, he apparently decided that Robert DID lawfully hold the throne by right of conquest, and he swore fealty for him instead of going after Viserys, who was the Targaryen king by inheritance. He came to one conclusion about what his vows required. The TOJ 3 obviously came to another. But because they also are human, we can't say exactly why they did what they did...and we don't know enough about them as human beings to make a good prediction. Yes, maybe it was because R & L were married and they believed Jon was the rightful heir. But it ALSO could be that Jon was a bastard but the KG decided to follow Rhaegar's last orders out of personal fidelity to Rhaegar (Arthur Dayne, remember, was Rhaegar's best friend). IMO, we don't know enough now to prove things either way - and IMO, it's gonna stay that way till Howland Reed (or maybe Wylla) finally speaks.