Seite 90 - 91 : "... However, no material survives with any direct bearing on what transpired on the death of a king without an heir. From the unique painting of Ay before the corpse of Tutankhamun in KV 62(31), it has been inferred that the burial of one's predecessor could serve to legitimate a succession.(32) Association as coregent may also have been relevant, if the scanty evidence in favour of Horemhab and Ramesses I's joint rule is correct.(33) Kings' daughters may also have played a role in the succession. Wholly discredited are the old 'Great Heiress' theories, according towhich no son could succeed his father without marrying his sister, who carried the actual right to the throne (34), but, where no son survived, realpolitik, if nothing else, would have pushed a king's son(s)-in-law to the fore. It is unfortunate that none of the spouses of kings known, or thought, to have lacked the blood royal can definitely be identified as royal daughters.(35) Further elucidation of the internal dynamics of the royal family as a sub-system of the Egyptian political whole requires new evidence.
(35) Arguments making Mutnodjmet, wife of Horemheb, a daughter of Ay fall short of proof, as does the interpretation of Tuthmosis I's Queen Ahmose's title snt-nsw as referring to Amenophis I. If the marriage between Ay and Ankhesenamun postulated on the basis of the 'Newberry' ring-bezel actually occurred, legitimation by marriage to a princess of the blood gains support, particularly in light of Ankhesenamun's offer to Shuppiliumash to make his son king by marrying him (Bryce, below, pp. 97-105)."