#inheritance issues

[elfwreck]

What was in Thomas and Martha Wayne's will?

I assume Bruce inherits basically everything substantial - the company, the manor & adjacent grounds, most of the money. Alfred probably got... something. A hefty personal payment, ownership of the vacation home in the Bahamas that he liked and Bruce has never seen, and so on. A car, part of the library, etc.

Was he mentioned as the preferred caretaker of Bruce while Bruce is under 18? Was he given management of the company, the home, the cars, etc? I assume they had a trust set up for Bruce - Is Alfred the trustee for that, until Bruce is 18?

There has to be a lawyer involved somewhere (or a law firm, more likely); is that closely watching everything for the next 10-ish years, or just getting annual reports of spending? (Those have to be wild.)

How the hell does ownership of the company work? Who's Bruce's proxy voter until he comes of age and can inherit his shares?

I can see a court deciding, "Alfred is not a blood relative and is a servant of the household; he's got a strong incentive to both manage the assets for his benefit, not Bruce's, and Bruce is young and impressionable enough to be brainwashed; he could be guardian of the child or trustee of the assets, but definitely not both."

...Pretty sure Alfred winds up being his legal guardian, and can make a strong argument that Bruce likes him and is used to him. The least-disruptive, least-traumatic solution is for Alfred to be Bruce's caretaker, a job he's already been doing.

Which means they may hand control of the money to someone else. But. That someone should be

Connected to Bruce in a way that makes them unlikely to try to cheat him out of the money

Attached to the world of the super-rich so they don't freak out at the idea of $150 for a new shirt, or $1500 for a suit (or for that matter, $1500 for a new shirt and $5000 for a suit. And so on.)

...Is that someone likely to be the Kanes? Batwoman's parents, or other relatives?

[moonlitgleek]

Do you think Jaehaerys I and Viserys I were meant to contrast each other? It’s hard to be a good man and a good king and all that jazz? I had really hated Vis until I got through Jae in F&B since I thought he screwed up the strong Westeros Jaehaerys had left him with. It’s kinda interesting/disturbing that part of why Jae is considered such a successful king is for screwing over his granddaughter, while Vis isn’t because he respected his daughter’s inheritance. I guess sexism makes good kings!

I think you’re conflating a few things here.

First off, Jaehaerys is not considered a successful king for passing over Rhaenys, partly or wholly. He is considered one for his law-codifying, sewer-building, road-constructing, Faith-reconciling efforts. Westeros flourished economically in Jaehaerys’ reign and he set up the foundation for the true unification of Westeros as a single sovereignty which is why it’s said that Aegon and his sisters conquered the Seven Kingdoms but it was Jaehaerys the Conciliator who truly made them one. His decision to pass over Rhaenys, while not argued against within the text, is actually acknowledged as what planted the seeds for war.

Second, I think that painting Viserys’ decision to keep Rhaenyra as his heir as a sign of him respecting women’s rights of inheritance beautifies his inaction that was mostly born out of laziness and complacency to the situation as is. Viserys tried for a long time to have a male heir and he initially dismissed Otto Hightower’s advice to name Rhaenyra his heir specifically because he was waiting for a male heir. The ceremony in which he named Rhaenyra heir mostly happened as a reaction to Daemon’s cruel remark about “the heir for a day”, meaning that it was motivated by Viserys’ hurt and desire to punish his callous brother for his remark rather than a belief in Rhaenyra’s rights. He does keep her as his heir after his sons’ birth, but that reads to me as contented complacency in leaving everything as it is because it was comfortable.

Third, Viserys did screw up the strong Westeros Jaehaerys left him with. Regardless of his motivation for keeping Rhaenyra as his heir, Viserys’ political action regarding the matter of succession was atrocious. Whatever else the Dance may be (and I certainly see it as a quarrel between two entitled individuals willing to burn everything for their selfish wants), it had a serious legal dispute at its core - what is to be done when the precedents governing the inheritance of the Iron Throne are mutually exclusive?

In his choice of Rhaenyra as heir, Viserys I relied on the precedent of the king’s right to choose his heir as his grandfather Jaehaerys did in naming Baelon the Brave Prince of Dragonstone instead of Princess Rhaenys. But the problem is that that same decision, further supported by Jaehaerys’ own accession and later by the Great Council of 101, also established what became “an iron precedent” in the eyes of many lords that the throne can not pass to a woman or through a woman to her descendants, which is actually the legal argument that Viserys’ own kingship was built on. To make things more complicated, Viserys later went against the main tenent of popular succession laws that say that a son comes before a daughter in the same generation. That’s a rather knotty succession debate that Jaehaerys I may not have envisioned, but in establishing the Great Council as an authority to determine matters of succession, he gave Viserys the means to solve the matter peaceful and avoid war, as Jaehaerys himself did after Baelon’s death. Both Corlys Velaryon and Daemon Targaryen were setting up for a fight over the claims of their respective claimants, but Jaehaerys sidestepped the war by having succession established by the will of his vassals instead, willingly giving up the power to arbitrarily name his heir for a majority vote from his lords instead).

What was a complicated but not an unsolvable issue became a huge problem specifically because Viserys showed no interest in having it solved. He had a situation where both Rhaenyra and Aegon had strong claims and no intention of settling the matter peacefully… and he let the situation escalate. Establishing that a daughter could inherit ahead of a son is an incredibly hard thing to do, not only because of how strong and prevalent the patriarchal attitude against ruling women is but also because the one place where a daughter could inherit before a son in Westeros is Dorne. Remember Rogar Baratheon’s dismissive “this is not Dorne” on the matter of Rhaena’s claim? That’s a rather popular sentiment in a society that dismisses women and is incredibly prejudiced against the Dornish and their traditions.

But my main problem with Viserys is that he didn’t even try. He may have declared Rhaenyra his heir but he did very little to secure her queenship. In fact, he made Rhaenyra’s queenship harder when he remarried, ensuring the presence of an arguably stronger competing claim supported by a powerful faction. He recognized the aspirations of the greens and the rising tension between them and the blacks, but despite his continued insistence on keeping Rhaenyra as his heir, he didn’t even attempt to neutralize the claims of Alicent’s children or even curtail the power of the greens. Instead, to avoid conflict, he trapped his daughter on Dragonstone, effectively cutting her off from the dealings of court and vassals alike, while he appointed Alicent’s own father as Hand, leaving the greens with every bit of authority they need to proclaim Aegon king. All of that is on Viserys. Please don’t absolve him from that responsibility. That’s his willful inaction, his disastrous action and his driving need to avoid conflict by slapping a band aid on a festering wound. But conciliation is not a performative attitude, and having Rhaenyra and Alicent hug and kiss in front of him or giving Daeron and Jace the same wetnurse solves nothing.

That is the difference between Jaehaerys I and Viserys I as political actors. I’m not sure they were meant to contrast each other as much as show two sides to the desire to keep the peace. Jaehaerys famously adopted a conciliatory approach during his reign but he put in the work to have it realized. He recognized a coming storm that he helped create and acted to get ahead of it by calling a Great Council. Meanwhile, Viserys built his kingship on avoiding (not to be confused with resolving) conflict that he willfully let tensions fester in a misguided (and lazy) attempt to make everyone happy.

[moonlitgleek]

Why is the 'iron' precedent of no girls on the IT thrown around by fandom but not no small nephews before grown uncles? Maegor kills Aegon but his still a king, Egg takes the IT over baby Maegor, why isn't this precedent howled about?

Because that’s literally the legal situation presented to us by the text through both Yandel and Gyldayn. The precedents of Jaehaerys’ accession, Baelon’s heirship, and the decision of the Great Council of 101 are cited so many times before, during and after the Dance of the Dragon that it is expressly clear that they became a main tenent of the legality of succession to the Iron Throne and thus should be treated as such. Comparatively, Aegon V’s kingship as decided by the Great Council of 233 receives little fanfare in the text, zero mention of any supporting precedents, and no indication that it was viewed as something that changed the laws of inheritance.

But why did one became a main legal principle within-universe but not the other? There are a few contributing factors.

1. Misogyny and the patriarchal attitude towards ruling ladies. Ruling ladies do exist in Westeros but the attitude towards them is blatantly unfriendly. They often have to contend with male relatives trying to usurp their rightful inheritance and struggle to assert their authority as rulers in a society that carries the belief they are unfit for that male-dominated role. That is if their birthright isn’t flat-out taken by a male relative, as in the case of Serena and Sansa Stark, or the unnamed Lannister daughter of Gerold III Lannister whose Lydden husband succeeded her father. In such a society, seizing on something that prevents the possibility of a ruling queen falls right in line with how the patriarchal attitude that challenges, pushes against and sometimes actively rejects female rulership. It was always going to be regarded differently than a situation that decides between two men. Westeros follows male-preference primogeniture but there is a decidedly notable tendency (and willingness) to exclude girls altogether from that, as was most glaringly argued by Grand Maester Munken in the aftermath of the Dance (which was largely used as a confirmation of the downside of ruling queens. Gotta love the patriarchy, right? That came up again in the discussion of Daena the Defiant’s claim after Baelor’s death, where the the Dance was specifically invoked and Daena’s character was used to undermine her political claim). But no one was ever going to argue to revoke primogeniture and make it that uncles inherit before nephews as a rule, especially not when that would have put the lords’ own seats in danger.

2. Political legacy. The identity of who made the precedent matters. Whose accession are the lords more prone to use as a governing principle, the tyrannical Maegor whose reign was marked by death, torture and bloodshed and who was rejected as a monarch by almost everyone in the realm, or the conciliatory Jaehaerys I and the popular Baelon the Brave? Yes, Maegor was included in the roll of kings but literally no one was trying to argue that he was not a usurper or that his example should be followed. Jaehaerys I certainly persisted in calling his uncle so throughout his reign, and considering how broadly hated Maegor became as a political figure, that was a rather popular sentiment. No one in their right mind would ever attempt to use Maegor of all people to support a legal precedent, especially not when everything about his reign was a lesson in “don’t ever do that”.

3. Time and recurrence. Jaehaerys’ accession over Aerea, Baelon’s heirship over Rhaenys and Viserys’ confirmation over Laenor all happened over the span of little over 50 years, lending itself to a clear and consistent pattern that’s been affirmed by the political action of an extremely popular king and reaffirmed by a majority vote from the lords of the realm. A power struggle between a male and a female claimant followed in the Dance of the Dragons which was largely treated as proof that women should not sit the throne (and which witnessed a confirmation of the principle of the Great Council of 101 in Rhaenyra’s exclusion from the roll of monarchs, probably as a part of war-ending efforts). Another succession debate arose after Baelor the Blessed’s death that saw another confirmation in passing over the claim of Daena the Defiant in favor of her uncle Viserys II.

In the face of that, there is a gap of nearly 200 years between Maegor forcibly seizing the throne from his nephew Prince Aegon and the Great Council deciding on Aegon V over his nephew Prince Maegor, a gap that witnessed the regular legal principle of sons succeeding before uncles that’s been in effect for thousands of years maintained and observed everywhere in Westeros.

4. History. Maegor Targaryen’s attempt to circumvent the principle that a man’s sons came first in inheritance sparked a war. Viserys I’s attempt to circumvent the principle that a man’s sons came first in inheritance also sparked a war. That only reinforces the inherent protectiveness of the “sons first” part of male-preference primogeniture that gave many of the lords their seats. It also provides something to point at to prove the perils of trying to subvert that as a governing principle. Aegon V may not fit that but he was also confirmed to the throne by the will of his vassals, so the principle his kingship was based on was not that uncles succeed before sons, but that a Great Council could make an exception (which is probably what Rhaegar Targaryen banked on in his plans to overthrown his father).

That’s why the decision of the Great Council of 233 seems to have been largely treated as an exception to deal with a current issue rather than the foundation of a rule, as opposed to the iron precedent of the Great Council of 101. Of course, that iron precedent was technically overturned anyway by Robert Baratheon’s acclamation since a legal argument for his kingship comes from his descent from Rhaelle Targaryen.

[moonlitgleek]

Sorry that this is a F&B ask, but here it goes... I still don't get why Jaehaerys I didn't add Prince Aegon to the roll of kings and exclude Maegor from it? Same goes for Aegon III, Rhaenyra and Aegon II. Could you explain why neither of them made any changes in this regard? In fact, I don't get why Aegon II is considered king and Rhaenyra isn't when she also sat the Iron Throne...

I don’t mind answering questions about F&B so I see no reason for you to apologize.

Peacekeeping is probably the answer to your question. Both Jaehaerys and Aegon came to the throne on the heels of a devastating civil war that bled the realm and bred a lot of resentment that threatened to continue to destabilize the realm, so the tone of each new regime had to be conciliatory in order to alleviate the tension and achieve peace. That included certain compromises and an effort to draw the opposing faction in that the government of both young kings was a mix of the supporters of each faction. Allowing the king of the defeated faction to maintain his place in the roll of monarchs (or allowing his edict of exclusion of his half-sister in the case of Aegon II) was probably a part of that. There were also political and legal considerations to take into account.

If Maegor were to be counted as usurper, then his entire reign was unlawful and those who had supported him were guilty of treason and must needs be put to death. Such was the course urged by Queen Alyssa [..] Against her fury stood Lord Rogar Baratheon, Hand of the King and Protector of the Realm. Whilst his lordship agreed that Maegor’s men were surely deserving of punishment, he pointed out that should their captives be executed, the usurper’s remaining loyalists would be disinclined to bend the knee. Lord Rogar would have no choice but to march on their castles one by one and winkle each man out of his stronghold with steel and fire.

The matter of succession was also a thorny issue.

If Maegor the Cruel were accounted only a usurper with no right to rule, as certain maesters argued, then Prince Aegon had been the true king, and the succession by rights should pass to his elder daughter, Aerea, not his younger brother.

As for Aegon III, Viserys I had contradicted the legal principle that the Great Council of 101 established and which gave him his throne by naming Rhaenyra as his heir, and those mutually exclusive legal arguments sprouted the Dance of the Dragons. Rhaenyra’s inclusion in the roll of kings would have renewed the conflict and raised the possibility of competing claims, or so the parties involved might have seen it. After all, if the Dance had established that women could inherit, Aegon II had a surviving daughter in Jaehaera, and Baela and Rhaena Targaryen had claims through both parents. But the Dance ended in a way that allowed for a middle ground: the blacks had their triumph in having Aegon II dead and Rhaenyra’s son on the throne, but the greens could claim their own success in having the legal principle of the Great Council of 101 upheld through the accession of Prince Daemon’s son, the only known surviving male male-line heir from Prince Baelon’s line, and thus the next senior male heir to Aegon II. Rhaenyra’s inclusion in the roll of monarchs would have upset that delicate balance and left the matter of contradictory legal principles unsettled for another generation to war over.

[moonlitgleek]

Had Rhaelle been a boy (and goes thru with the betroth) do think Aegon would have still taken Jaehaerys as his heir? Or say Daeron and Olenna wed?

Yes. It is stated in TWOIAF that Duncan “foreswore his claim to the crown in favor of his brother Jaehaerys, and abdicated as Prince of Dragonstone” so there wasn’t any ambiguity over which brother would be named heir in the wake of Duncan’s abdication. And while Aegon V could have theoretically passed Jaehaerys over after his elopement with Shaera, I don’t see how a change in Rhaelle’s gender might have instigated that. Aegon confirming Jaehaerys as Prince of Dragonstone wasn’t for lack of other heirs. He still had Daeron as a possible alternate heir who, at the time, was still betrothed to a daughter of one of the most important families in the Reach. There were six years between Jaehaerys and Shaera’s marriage and Daeron’s own broken betrothal so Aegon would have named Daeron as Prince of Dragonstone in that period if he’d ever intended to. Though I do wonder if Aegon might have had an inkling that Daeron could follow in his siblings’ footsteps and break his own betrothal, especially if he and Betha knew of Daeron’s homosexuality like they knew of Jaehaerys and Shaera’s feelings.

However, to our knowledge, skipping Jaehaerys in the line of succession was not floated as an option, probably because unlike Jenny of Oldstones, Shaera was a princess of the blood so a choice such as the one presented to Duncan was not an option. Breaking a betrothal is socially inadvisable, but Jaehaerys was not in the same position as his elder brother. Duncan’s case was different because Jenny of Oldstones was lowborn and the aristocracy was never going to allow a peasant to become their queen. Too, breaking his betrothal to a Baratheon maid to marry Jenny was tantamount to a statement on Duncan’s part that he found a lowborn peasant superior to a Baratheon, something that was guaranteed to attract the disfavor of the aristocratic class and the various institutions whose leadership skews towards the nobility - which is why the narrative makes a clear distinction between Duncan’s marriage and Jaehaerys and Shaera’s in framing how broad and insistent the opposition to Duncan’s marriage went. It often goes undiscussed that Aegon V was made to give Duncan the choice between Jenny and the throne. By his own initiative, Aegon did everything to have the marriage undone and demanded Duncan put Jenny aside, but it’s by the pressure of his small council, the Grand Maester and the High Septon that he forced Duncan to choose. Too, the insult to the Baratheons was understood to be so profound that even a rebellion brought no consequences on the Baratheons; instead they were the one family to whom the Targaryens made reparations to through Rhaelle’s betrothal to Ormund Baratheon.

Comparatively, Jaehaerys and Shaera’s marriage garnered none of the severity of backlash that met Duncan and Jenny. The reaction was restricted to a note of how the families of their respective betrothed were angered and that Aegon was left to deal with them. Shaera’s station probably mitigated a great deal of the fallout since there would hardly be anyone to argue that a born princess would not make for an attractive prospect for a queen. That puts Jaehaerys and Shaera on a much better footing than Duncan, for they were not likely to attract the unanimous ire and condemnation for their marriage that Duncan did. While breaking two royal-mandated marriage pacts and offending two great Houses in the process is far from a good example to set, I doubt that there was much pressure on Aegon to pass over Jaehaerys. Not only would that invite serious political ramifications and overcomplicate succession, but penalizing the Prince of Dragonstone for following a Targaryen tradition that exists on merit of the argument that the Targaryens were not like your run-of-the-mill Westerosi family might not be good optics for a family whose exceptionalism and god-like status - which once played a big role in their dynastic power consolidation - was dwindling more and more as the years went by. It might also be that Aegon feared that the royal succession, and by extension the entire dynasty, would look unstable if the heir to the throne changed each year. And if Aegon had any reason to think that Daeron might break his betrothal as well, that could only be an additional reason for him not to consider passing over Jaehaerys in succession.

[moonlitgleek]

So I am confused. If Rhaenys was never a heir for the IT why was she called the Queen who Never Was and why wasn't she married to Viserys then. They were close in age and sixteen plus years with no siblings. It is pretty obvious she might not ever have any.

She was never recognized as heiress. However..

As the firstborn child of the Prince of Dragonstone, many hailed [Rhaenys] as next in line for the Iron Throne after her father. When Queen Alysanne held her in her arms for the first time, she was heard to call the little girl “our queen to be.”

Though Rhaenys was later passed over for her uncle Baelon, she still possessed a strong claim by First Men-Andal succession laws. The Targaryen succession was a right mess at this point in time, but the principle that a daughter inherits before an uncle had been employed in Wetseros for thousands of years and saw plenty of women succeed to their fathers and grandfather’s seats. In the strictest legal terms of popular inheritance laws, Rhaenys Targaryen was her father Aemon’s heir and should have followed him as Princess of Dragonstone and sat the throne after Jaehaerys. But Jaehaerys named Baelon his heir instead and the Great Council of 101 affirmed his decision. However, the issue of Rhaenys’ inheritance remained a famous point of contention that was not only pushed multiple times by various parties including Rhaenys herself and her Velaryon husband, but was the cause of the infamous Second Quarrel between the Concillator and Good Queen Alysanne. Everyone knew that Rhaenys might have been queen if typical Andal-First Man laws were observed, regardless of whether or not she was ever acknowledged as heir to the Iron Throne.

As for the matter of marriage, note that Rhaenys’ match to Coryls Velaryon appears to have been by her own will. It is reported that Rhaenys “told [Jaehaerys] of her plans to marry, and received the king’s blessing.” It might not be the neat consolidation of Targaryen power that a match with Viserys would have been, or a decisive settling of the matter of succession, but things didn’t appear too dire with Aemon hale and healthy and Rhaenys expected to have a son soon. Indeed, Gyladyn says that while “the succession appeared solid as stone” in the Conciliator’s early reign, the stone only began to crack in 92 AC when Prince Aemon was slain on Tarth. Though Jaehaerys subsequently named Baelon as heir to the Iron Throne, Aemon’s comment to Rhaenys before his departure for Tarth about liking a grandson and Rhaenys’ own objection to the Jaehaerys’ decision being “You would rob my son of his birthright” suggests that it was Rhaenys’ son who was expected to be Aemon’s immediate successor. This is further supported by how Laena Velaryon’s birth is described by Gyldayn.

“The boy in the belly,” the unborn child who had been the subject of so much debate, proved to be a girl when born in 93 AC. Her mother named her Laena.

Though Rhaenys’ claim (and even Laena’s) would be raised again, it’s clear that the claim of Rhaenys’ possible son (who Rhaenys was carrying when Jaehaerys named Baelon Prince of Dragonstone, and who turned out to be Laena) was the main source of discussion at the time. That’s why it was mainly Laenor Velaryon’s claim that was considered by the Great Council of 101 (though the claims of his mother Rhaenys and sister Laena were also examined, they weren’t given much credence); with Aemon being Jaehaerys’ first heir and Baelon his second, it was the claims of their heirs that the lords had to decide between. For Aemon, it was his grandson Laenor who was clearly framed as his successor.

[moonlitgleek]

It annoys me that Rhaenys the Queen Who Never Was gets dismissed so steadily. She was third in line for the throne until her father's death. Than whoops Succession Crisis What About Rhalla and Aerea!?! That problem would have still been there if Aemon lived and taken the throne. So why is Jaehaerys betraying his granddaughter so applauded? The Great Councils did nothing but kick the problem down the generations.

First thing I want to point out here is that I don’t think that Jaehaerys passing over Rhaenys in succession is applauded, at least not from what I’ve seen? What I’ve seen is explanations that offer a more nuanced reasoning beyond Jaehaerys simply being a misogynistic jerk who thought women shouldn’t rule. It might be that Jaehaerys’ decision did derive from a degree of misogyny - Queen Alysanne certainly seemed to think if the Second Quarrel is anything to judge by, but I personally like to think there is a deeper reason because this move shows uncustomary behavior from Jaehaerys. Certainly the guy who made policy changes on the recommendation of his queen and who actively demonstrated political trust in her to where it was said that she ruled the realm as much as he did doesn’t seem likely to pass over his granddaughter simply due to her gender. It also stands to reason that the political partnership of Jaehaerys and Alysanne was likely informed by the crucial political role their mother Alyssa Velaryon and their eldest sister Rhaena played in saving the Targrayen dynasty after Aenys’ weak rule and Maegor’s brutality threatened to do it in, and in winning Jaehaerys his throne in the first place. It is only by the action, bravery and (personal and political) sacrifice of two women that Jaehaerys was coronated in the first place, and Queen Alyssa then held the realm together in the aftermath of war and huge instability for two years till Jaehaerys reached his majority. That the three most prominent women in Jaehaerys’ life were all such active and astute political actors who not only shaped his life but also his reign makes me think there has to be more to his decision to pass over Rhaenys than just prejudice. I also think there could be thematic resonance to Jaehaerys’ decision to bypass his grandaughter’s rights to stave off instability paralleling his sister’s Rhaena’s own decision to bypass her daughters’ rights for a similar reason, and how that juxtaposes against the rampant selfishness of the two sides of the Dance of the Dragons.

Another point of discussion is why concerns about Rhalla and Aerea’s lines only emerged after Aemon’s death and why hadn’t Jaehaerys acted before. That part is a bit hard to discern because we don’t know what Prince Aemon and Jocelyn Baratheon’s fertility history was like. Rhaenys was their only daughter but it is possible that they had either conceived again or at least were trying to since producing a male heir was widely seen as securing the line of succession in a way that a female heir wasn’t. If Aemon and Jocelyn conceived again after Rhaenys or even had children who died in infancy, the issue of the claim of Rhalla and Aerea’s line might not have seemed as dire since there was still hope that Aemon, who was only in his thirties when he died, would have a son, something that was soundly lost with his death. So it might not be necessarily true that concern about his nieces’ lines only came to Jaehaerys’ mind after Aemon’s death as much as that Aemon’s death made Rhaenys’ succession a matter of course which in turn made the possibility of conflicting rival claims to the throne more real prompting Jaehaerys to take action to settle the matter.

As for the Great Council, certainly it is one of the dark ironies of the series that Jaehaerys’ speculated attempt to get ahead of a possible succession debate and war ends up being used to inspire the biggest civil war in Targaryen history. But that’s to blame on Viserys I’s laziness and refusal to deal with the complicated legalities of the succession during his reign rather than on the efficiency of a Great Council. The purpose of a Great Council was to put succession debates to a majority vote rather than the arbitrary choice of the king which is a pretty sound political and legal move all things considered. That’s a solid solution since it decides succession by the will of the vassals over whom the king claimed the right to rule while establishing a body of authority to decide matters of succession allowing for such debates to be settled peacefully and curtailing possible wars. That Viserys I chose to overcomplicate succession by not only ignoring the legal argument that put him in power in the first place when naming his daughter heiress but also by refusing to settle a painfully obvious succession debate in which the two legal precedents clashed is to be blamed on him rather than the Great Council or Jaehaerys I. Viserys set the stage for the Dance by unnecessarily making an already complicated legal matter worse, ignoring the blatant bad blood between the blacks and the greens then stupidly setting the greens up with all the authority they needed to force the issue. Viserys is the one who kicked the problem down a generation while offering no alternate solution and taking no decisive action to settle the matter peacefully. Putting the blame of that on either Jaehaerys or the Great Council exonerates Viserys from much of his ineptitude and willful inaction.

[moonlitgleek]

How much power do legal wills have? Cersei ripped up Robert's but Daeron honored his father's commitments to the bastards. Rohanne would have lost her inheritance b/c of her father's.

I’m a bit out of my depth here because my knowledge of legal matters are fairly limited and I don’t have enough historical knowledge to pull from. My only source of info would be the text and the examples we have of legal wills so if you want a more comprehensive answere, you might be better served checking with someone like @racefortheironthrone for that.

As far as the text goes, we have a few examples of wills, most of which are related to matters of inheritance which makes things murkier, but they are still informative. The most famous - and infamous - will in Westerosi historiography is the one left by Aegon IV Targaryen in which he legitimized all his natural children on his deathbed. While Daeron II might not have appreciated his father’s last spiteful act and the dangers it brought, he was in no position to rescind a royal edict because to do so would be tantamount to denying that his father had the royal authority to legitimize bastards. Daeron couldn’t very well claim that he inherited his royal authority from his father (which he was very conscious to emphasize, as evidenced by him crowning himself with his father’s crown, to counter the doubts cast upon his own legitimacy by Aegon) and simultaneously try to argue that his father didn’t posses the full authority of a king. And since legitimizations can not be rescinded in general, there was nothing Daeron could do. Note that the continuance of incomes bestowed on Aegon’s natural children through Daeron’s reign was not a part of the will. Daeron II simply chose to allow them to continue, honored the betrothal Aegon made for Daemon and additionally granted him a tract of land to build a castle on, probably in the hopes that the crown’s generosity towards his newly legitimized siblings, especially Daemon who was primed for an attempted usurpation by the machinations of Aegon IV, would curtail any thoughts of rebellions.

Technically the same circumstances should have applied to Robert’s will naming Ned regent to his heir. That was a royal edict presented by the Hand of the King who, by law, speaks for the king in his absence. In normal circumstances, that will should have installed Ned as regent, as the king has the authority to choose the regent and Robert chose Ned. Cersei planned a coup though. With the exception of Barristan Selmy (who absolutely should have fought for Ned in that throne room but, well, Selmy tends to ascribe to a very narrow view of a Kingsguard’s duty and has shown an inability to take a stand in morally complicated situations), and Ned and his men who were promptly arrested and slaughtered respectively, everyone present was either Cersei’s man, in her pocket, or in Littlefinger’s. There was no one left to enforce Robert’s will after the showdown in the throne room and no one to challenge Cersei after she destroyed the physical will and accused Ned of treason.

Also a royal edict is Robb Stark’s will in which he legitimized Jon Snow as Jon Stark and names him his heir, but this one has its own complications. Between the fact that we don’t know where the written will is and that all the witnesses are in no position to do anything with the information; that Stannis Barartheon is in the North and that he definitely does not recognize Robb’s authority as king to accept his legitimization of Jon as a Stark and certainly not as the next King in the North; that Jon is dead and about to be resurrected which is bound to change a lot of things; that there are schemes aimed to bring Sansa and Rickon back to the North with the explicit goal to install each as the ruler of Winterfell by their own factions which will certainly conflict with the edicts in the will; that, oh yeah, Jon is not biologically Ned’s son which is known by Howland Reed (currently the host of Galbart Glover and Maege Mormont, two of the witnesses of Robb’s will), almost certainly known by Benjen Stark and is bound to be discovered by Bran Stark, I think it’s unlikely that it will be allowed to stand.

That leaves the two non-royal wills. The first one is the will left by Wyman Webber dictating that his daughter Rohanne had to marry within two year of his death or Coldmoat would go to her cousin. In normal circumstances Lady Rohanne might have had grounds to protest the unnecessary stipulation and argue that this will undercuts normal Andal-First Men succession laws but the cousin that was designated as heir in case she failed to meet her father’s conditions was married to her overlord’s sister so Lord Rowan was more prone to enforce Wyman’s will than to set it aside. Too, Ser Lucas Inchfield, her castellan and the man Lord Webber installed to “scare off unworthy suitors”, looked to use the will to corner her into marrying him so she wouldn’t lose her inheritance. It was pretty hard for Rohanne to challenge her father’s will without support from any side.

Lastly, there is the document Ramsay Snow forced Donella Hornwood to sign naming him heir to the Hornwood. Everything about this was made under duress and so should have easily been set aside but Ser Rodrik Cassel certainly seemed to give it weight when discussing the matter with Maester Luwin, despite the maester arguing that vows made at sword point do not count. But Cassel pointed out that Roose Bolton might not agree and try to press the claim. And while Robb probably wouldn’t have allowed the Boltons to appropriate the Hornwood if he’d survived, Roose’s treachery and alliance with the Lannisters meant that Wyman Manderly did have to concede the Hornwood lands that he seized after Lady Donella’s death to the Boltons on grounds of her marriage to Ramsay and her will.

It’s also worth mentioning that GRRM identified “will of the deceased” as one of the things that makes inheritance laws vague and contradictory, which suggests that this is one of the things that gives one a claim in succession. So I don’t think there is a clear cut answer, not in practice at least. It seems that, like inheritance laws, the acceptance of a will is as dependent on politics and force of arms as it is on legality. In a strictly legal sense, the king’s last will and testament should be binding as a royal decree otherwise his heir risks his own authority. But we’ve seen royal wills destroyed or ignored for the lack of an authority to enforce it. Vows made under duress shouldn’t count, but politics could force the recognition of a claim made through those vows. I think it’s mostly a case by case thing where the presence of an authority to either enforce or override a will, the political and/or military weight of the parties involved and the recognition of the authority of the testator and their right to make such a directive all play a part in whether a will is followed or not. At least that’s as far I can tell.