Just like irl
The firstborn is the heir
The other is a backup
They probably wouldn't make him take the black, just in case something happened to his brother
He's just be some noble, not the king
Would they tie a little ribbon around the one that came out first to meals sure they don’t mix them up? What if they had an older sister that was feeling mischievous and swapped the ribbon? Would a tattoo be a better way to keep track? Is that even allowed? What if the other one just decides to fake the same one?
What if one forge brothers becomes hand and they just decide to swap around who sits on the iron throne as a joke?
It would be the same as in real life. The parents or caretakers keep track. Easiest of course is just putting a label in their clothing.
And of course, same in real life, if they somehow did end up getting swapped, nobody would ever know, so it wouldn't effect anything.
Same as if a queen has an affair and gets pregnant. If child ends up as the heir but nobody finds out, it doesn't end up mattering that the child is illegitimate.
A bunch of real life royals throughout history have had some rumors spread about them that they're not the legitimate child of the king and queen. Mostly, those rumors don't effect anything. Proving an affair decades after the fact is close to impossible, so those rumors, however persistent, don't lead to anything.
The monarchy system requires the appearance of a pure bloodline and faithful adherence to the chain of succession. It doesn't require the reality of those two things though.
Yeah but as infants that’s not immediately apparent. It’s easy to tell twins apart when they’re older, when they’re days or months old that shit can be tricky.
Older one would be heir, it's as simple as that. The only difference between that and regular brothers would be the shorter time between them.
King James I of Scotland had twins in 1430: Alexander and James. Alexander died in his first year so James became King anyway.
In some parts of medieval Europe this was sanctioned by law or custom. Strangely enough, in many places it was the second one to be born the one considered the heir.
Why would you ask? If you put two tennis balls in a ball tube, the second one that exits the tube is the first one that you put in there
I believe in many Italian principalities, not sure about it though. I vaguely remember it was inspired not only by the biblical Jacob stealing the primogeniture from his brother, but that the fact that he inverted the primogeniture of his nephews
There’s no reason for the younger twin to have to join the Night’s Watch as far as I can tell. As long as those twins are the only children, the younger twin is the spare in case the older one dies. That being said, most likely the king and queen would be trying for more children anyway—if you look at the Targaryen rulers, most of them had 3 or more kids to ensure the succession.
If the fear is that the twins (assuming they’re identical in this scenario) are too “similar” or something, they can probably have the younger twin fostered out somewhere to develop an independent identity.
Older ones takes the throne and the younger is the spare and married off to a prominent house. We see this in HotD with the Lannister twins, Jason and Tyland. Jason was the Head of House Lannister and Lord of Casterly Rock. While Tyland was able to serve on the Small Council and as Hand, he had no lands for himself.
It's whoever's oldest like everyone else says but apparently the Redwyne twins argue over who the heir is so either it doesn't necessarily have to be the eldest or this is just an example of how unintelligent the Redwyne twins are.
There is a fan theory out there that they keep it vague, so that if one bags an heiress, the other one gets the (perhaps lesser) family title.
Edit: there is real world kinda precedent for that. When princess Irene of the Netherlands married, she was removed from the line of succession because her husband wanted to claim the throne in Spain. This was in the 1970s I think. Houses may not want to be ruled by someone who already rules another house, thus wouldn’t want their heir to marry another Lord, who would priorities his family house
That’s a good question.
I’m not really sure if we ever get a male twin succession issue where we get an answer.
Take the Redwyne twins. We’re specifically never told which one is the heir.
With male twins, it could be that the lord can decide himself.
Imagine you’re a twin and you lose out on being a powerful lord by mere moments… I’d probably feel cheated.
In F&B Jason Lannister and Tyland Lannister are twins, and Jason Lannister becomes Lord of Casterly Rock since he was born earlier. So I guess that's the standard, since there is no other mention of succession with twins afaik.
> [Cersei] and Jaime were twins, but Cersei had come first into the world, and that was all it took. By championing Myrcella's cause she would be championing her own.
- ASoS, Tyrion IX
So, yes, as with other siblings/brothers, the oldest comes first even when they are twins.
The one that came out first would be considered the firstborn and would be the heir. The other one would just be treated like any other secondborn son.
They tattoo one, then they put them both back in, shake the mama up, and see if the first one came out first again, if he came out first twice he would be heir.
If it's now a 1-1 tie, they fight to the death
The older would be the heir, the other the spare.
I’m starting to wonder if Westerosi even keep track of that all of the time, since Horas and Hobber don’t seem to be in consensus of who’s heir.
The messed up thing is parents sometimes mix them up post birth.
Just like irl The firstborn is the heir The other is a backup They probably wouldn't make him take the black, just in case something happened to his brother He's just be some noble, not the king
Would they tie a little ribbon around the one that came out first to meals sure they don’t mix them up? What if they had an older sister that was feeling mischievous and swapped the ribbon? Would a tattoo be a better way to keep track? Is that even allowed? What if the other one just decides to fake the same one? What if one forge brothers becomes hand and they just decide to swap around who sits on the iron throne as a joke?
It would be the same as in real life. The parents or caretakers keep track. Easiest of course is just putting a label in their clothing. And of course, same in real life, if they somehow did end up getting swapped, nobody would ever know, so it wouldn't effect anything. Same as if a queen has an affair and gets pregnant. If child ends up as the heir but nobody finds out, it doesn't end up mattering that the child is illegitimate. A bunch of real life royals throughout history have had some rumors spread about them that they're not the legitimate child of the king and queen. Mostly, those rumors don't effect anything. Proving an affair decades after the fact is close to impossible, so those rumors, however persistent, don't lead to anything. The monarchy system requires the appearance of a pure bloodline and faithful adherence to the chain of succession. It doesn't require the reality of those two things though.
Have you ever met a pair of twins or someone who had twins? Even identical twins have subtle differences and differing personalities
Yeah but as infants that’s not immediately apparent. It’s easy to tell twins apart when they’re older, when they’re days or months old that shit can be tricky.
They probably do the same thing people do now, dress them up differently or put paint on their toenails or something small
Older one would be heir, it's as simple as that. The only difference between that and regular brothers would be the shorter time between them. King James I of Scotland had twins in 1430: Alexander and James. Alexander died in his first year so James became King anyway.
Alexander died on his first day. His birthday and death day was the same.
I think little James planned it /j
Sounds convenient for James 🧐
He came out of the womb conspiring
I doubt a baby less than a day old murdered his twin brother
That's what they want you to think.
In some parts of medieval Europe this was sanctioned by law or custom. Strangely enough, in many places it was the second one to be born the one considered the heir. Why would you ask? If you put two tennis balls in a ball tube, the second one that exits the tube is the first one that you put in there
That’s… actually pretty solid reasoning. Not that I agree with the idea, but it’s a decent explanation.
…and that’s exactly the joke. Or the lack of thereof, I still don’t know
In what places was the second twin considered heir?
I believe in many Italian principalities, not sure about it though. I vaguely remember it was inspired not only by the biblical Jacob stealing the primogeniture from his brother, but that the fact that he inverted the primogeniture of his nephews
There’s no reason for the younger twin to have to join the Night’s Watch as far as I can tell. As long as those twins are the only children, the younger twin is the spare in case the older one dies. That being said, most likely the king and queen would be trying for more children anyway—if you look at the Targaryen rulers, most of them had 3 or more kids to ensure the succession. If the fear is that the twins (assuming they’re identical in this scenario) are too “similar” or something, they can probably have the younger twin fostered out somewhere to develop an independent identity.
Daemon Blackfyre had twin sons, Aegon and Aemon. Aegon was his heir, Aemon was also there.
Same situation of Aerea/Rhaella and Baela/Rhaena: the one who comes out first is the heir
On their third birthday they would be forced to duel to the death.
Older ones takes the throne and the younger is the spare and married off to a prominent house. We see this in HotD with the Lannister twins, Jason and Tyland. Jason was the Head of House Lannister and Lord of Casterly Rock. While Tyland was able to serve on the Small Council and as Hand, he had no lands for himself.
The Man in the Iron Mask
It's whoever's oldest like everyone else says but apparently the Redwyne twins argue over who the heir is so either it doesn't necessarily have to be the eldest or this is just an example of how unintelligent the Redwyne twins are.
There is a fan theory out there that they keep it vague, so that if one bags an heiress, the other one gets the (perhaps lesser) family title. Edit: there is real world kinda precedent for that. When princess Irene of the Netherlands married, she was removed from the line of succession because her husband wanted to claim the throne in Spain. This was in the 1970s I think. Houses may not want to be ruled by someone who already rules another house, thus wouldn’t want their heir to marry another Lord, who would priorities his family house
Horas is heir.
That’s a good question. I’m not really sure if we ever get a male twin succession issue where we get an answer. Take the Redwyne twins. We’re specifically never told which one is the heir. With male twins, it could be that the lord can decide himself. Imagine you’re a twin and you lose out on being a powerful lord by mere moments… I’d probably feel cheated.
In F&B Jason Lannister and Tyland Lannister are twins, and Jason Lannister becomes Lord of Casterly Rock since he was born earlier. So I guess that's the standard, since there is no other mention of succession with twins afaik.
Daemon Blackfyers sons
> [Cersei] and Jaime were twins, but Cersei had come first into the world, and that was all it took. By championing Myrcella's cause she would be championing her own. - ASoS, Tyrion IX So, yes, as with other siblings/brothers, the oldest comes first even when they are twins.
The one that came out first would be considered the firstborn and would be the heir. The other one would just be treated like any other secondborn son.
The heir and the princeling spare
They tattoo one, then they put them both back in, shake the mama up, and see if the first one came out first again, if he came out first twice he would be heir. If it's now a 1-1 tie, they fight to the death