Introduction+Claims to the Iron Throne.

[King Hodorius]

I couldn't find anywhere else to introduce myself so here I go!

I'm a young reader who around a year ago discovered ASOIAF by GRRM and now I'm really addicted to the books! I've read them more than twice and I think they're great. I've surfed these forums for some time already, and since I saw a lot of interesting threads I decided to sign in and share my opinions!

I hope I am welcome here.

Claims to the Iron Throne:

So there is something that bothers me about the "rightful claims to the Iron Throne":

If Aegon I conquered the Iron Throne by force (actually I think had the Iron Throne made from the swords of his enemies but I'm not sure) and he was appointed rightful King of Westeros, does that mean that anyone who conquers Westeros can be "rightful" king? Or, for example, Hodor leading an army wouldn't be allowed to sit on the Iron Throne?

Maybe it's a stupid question but I haven't found any place stating what kind of people can be Kings, if there are restrictions.

[Rhaenys Reborn]

Yeah, that made me wonder too. If Targs ruled Westeros based on the right of conquest, then the Baratheons did the same thing and should now be the rightful kings. Right?

I mean, how do you tell who is an usurper and who is not?

What I can say for sure is that Tommen is not a rightful king, a Lannister bastard has zero claim to the IT. And that is why the poor boy is probably gonna get killed. Gold will be his shroud.

[Stormland's Fury]

Yeah, that made me wonder too. If Targs ruled Westeros based on the right of conquest, then the Baratheons did the same thing and should now be the rightful kings. Right?

I mean, how do you tell who is an usurper and who is not?

What I can say for sure is that Tommen is not a rightful king, a Lannister bastard has zero claim to the IT. And that is why the poor boy is probably gonna get killed. Gold will be his shroud.

The Targaryens never disposed of a king of Westeros, they created that post. All they did was getting fealty from the other kings (or houses). Robert usurped and displaced the Targaryens from the position that they created themselves. His house did technically the same with the Stormkings 300 years ago.

[Nymeria Stone]

Well, first of all, welcome to the boards :cheers:

I believe that anyone can, technically, take the throne by force and crown themselves. However, this someone would be considered an usurper, for breaking the current line of succession and stealing the throne from the rightful heir.

Aegon is not considered an Usurper, because he united the Seven Kingdoms and crowned himself King. Westeros had no king before him.

Robert on the other hand, went agains his rightful King and took the Throne. His House had agreed to obey the Aerys, but he started a rebellion.

Therefore, following the Baratheon line of succession, Stannis is the rightful King. But Dany also has a claim, due to her Targaryen lineage.

[Stormland's Fury]

Therefore, following the Baratheon line of succession, Stannis is the rightful King. But Dany also has a claim, due to her Targaryen lineage.

This is were I have to disagree.

When Robert became king every lord was swearing fealty to him and dismissing the Targaryens by law. If Dany takes it back by force (which she has to) then she's an usurper herself.

[Rhaegar Estellion]

Welcome to the forum!

Aegon the Conquerer conquered Kingdoms and reduced them to provinces in the greatest kingdom Westeros has ever seen. By right of conquest, he took their souvereignity and united them in the new entity of the Iron Throne.

Then, his dynasty ruled. The rightful king was always his direct heir. Every war of succession was about the question, who that was in particular. Just look at the Blackfyres ...

Robert was a special case. He deemed King Aerys to have broken his royal boundaries and went to war (though tecnically it was Jon Arryn to call the banners ...) During the war, Rhaegar and his children were killed, and Viserys and Dany fled into exile. Due to their exile they were out of the equation.

Robert then became King, because he was the one living person with most Targaryen blood for his grandmother Rhaelle was a born Targaryen.

So all in all, Dany has (imho) the best claim to the Iron Throne (just ignore FAegon for the moment), however, she is currently in exile and therefore unavailable. That makes Robert's heir the true heir, which is Stannis.

Hodor has almost no way of winning the throne legally. However In times of war, the law falls silent...

[EricStargaryen]

I believe the person who takes the throne, has the throne. In Westeros, when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. Meaning, that if you take the throne, the throne is yours. With that in mind, it would technically mean that Stannis has the right of the throne, and if Daenerys took the throne she would be a Usurper. Aegon was technically a Usurper. He Usurped the Kings of the North, the Reach, the Vale, etc. If one person still says that Dany has a better right to the throne because the Targaryens are the rightful rulers, they aren't thinking very clearly. If you're playing the "rightful rulers" card, then technically the Lannisters should rightfully rule the Westerlands, the Arryn's the Vale, and etc.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Great username! Welcome to the boards.

A usurper is defined as anyone sitting on the throne who you do not support. For instance those who support Robert do not call him a usurper, while Targaryen supporters (and Targaryens themselves) do call him a usurper.

A conqueror comes in (usually from elsewhere) and subdues all the realm. They have to fight to get the throne, or establish one. Robert did not fight for the throne. He fought for his own life and for Lyanna. He claimed the throne by right of bloodline, being the next person in line who wasn't disinherited by the council. Aegon was a conqueror, Robert was not. Thus "by right of conquest" does not apply to Robert's reign.

If Hodor had a big enough army, and they fought intelligently, yes he could become king. But there is a question of whether anyone would support him. Without support you don't stay king for long.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

I believe the person who takes the throne, has the throne. In Westeros, when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. Meaning, that if you take the throne, the throne is yours. With that in mind, it would technically mean that Stannis has the right of the throne, and if Daenerys took the throne she would be a Usurper. Aegon was technically a Usurper. He Usurped the Kings of the North, the Reach, the Vale, etc. If one person still says that Dany has a better right to the throne because the Targaryens are the rightful rulers, they aren't thinking very clearly. If you're playing the "rightful rulers" card, then technically the Lannisters should rightfully rule the Westerlands, the Arryn's the Vale, and etc.

Aegon did not usurp anything. He conquered, offering everyone the chance to join him or die. Some of them ended up dead, with their heirs gone as well; there was no one left to claim the mini-kingdom, thus it was ended and became part of the larger kingdom Aegon had created. The KITN knelt and pledged fealty. It's not usurpation if the guy says "ok you're the king!"

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

 

The Targaryens never disposed of a king of Westeros, they created that post. All they did was getting fealty from the other kings (or houses). Robert usurped and displaced the Targaryens from the position that they created themselves. His house did technically the same with the Stormkings 300 years ago.

 

They deposed 6 kings in Westeros, usurping 6 individual thrones form their rightful holders and made them kneel under pain of death. Robert only had to take one.

 

Aegon did not usurp anything. He conquered, offering everyone the chance to join him or die. Some of them ended up dead, with their heirs gone as well; there was no one left to claim the mini-kingdom, thus it was ended and became part of the larger kingdom Aegon had created. The KITN knelt and pledged fealty. It's not usurpation if the guy says "ok you're the king!"

 

That's an oversimplifiction of the situation. Usurper and conqueror are terms defined in the long term. William the Bastard usurped the House of Wessex. He's called a conqueror. The Targs have been around long enough to push the propaganda of Aegon. But he did the same thing Bob did only times 6.

[EricStargaryen]

Lady Blizzardborn, the right of conquest is more simple than that. The right of conquest simply means that if you take the throne, it's yours, and that any heirs to the past royal family have no claim. So technically, Aegon Targaryen, at first, was committing treason to the Westerlands and the Reach during the Field of Fire. It is quite possible the people referred to Aegon as the Usurper in those days. However, once House Gardener was gone, the Lannisters bent the knee, and the Starks bent the knee, the throne was Aegon's. But then there is this question: If you are king, and you bend the knee after a hard war, is the person you're bending the knee to still a Usurper? The Targaryen's never bent the knee. That is where I believe you are right. But, there still might be discussion.

[Stormland's Fury]

   

They deposed 6 kings in Westeros, usurping 6 individual thrones form their rightful holders and made them kneel under pain of death. Robert only had to take one.

There was no king of Westeros before Aegon. The individual families, like the Lannisters or Starks, still were in charge of their lands after the conquest.

[Rhaegar Estellion]

Lady Blizzardborn, the right of conquest is more simple than that. The right of conquest simply means that if you take the throne, it's yours, and that any heirs to the past royal family have no claim. So technically, Aegon Targaryen, at first, was committing treason to the Westerlands and the Reach during the Field of Fire. It is quite possible the people referred to Aegon as the Usurper in those days. However, once House Gardener was gone, the Lannisters bent the knee, and the Starks bent the knee, the throne was Aegon's. But then there is this question: If you are king, and you bend the knee after a hard war, is the person you're bending the knee to still a Usurper? The Targaryen's never bent the knee. That is where I believe you are right. But, there still might be discussion.

Prior to Aegons Conquest, there was no throne to usurp, which is why Aegon was never a usurper. And right of conquest as a legal term is totally overused on this forum, by the way.

During the war of conquest, Aegon basically declared war on each and every kingdom of Westeros. Then, after he defeated some on the field, he forced them to swear fealty to him. From that moment on, he was King of all who declared him King.

He may have claimed kingship over them through right of conquest, but their oath of fealty finally gave him the right to rule.

Edited for clarification.

[The Sea Snake]

I many times have also wondered about this myself. What is a "rightful claim" and what counts as "usurping".

Look for example at Stannis, who is so fixed on him being King (even if he never explicitly manifests a desire to do so, but is rather driven by sheer duty) Because he is the rightful heir . What might he have said if he had to wager his claim against Viserys or Danny? Was Robbert the rightful owner of the IT in the first place?

Also, how about Daemon Blackfyre. I know he was a bastard and all.. But I can empathize with all the Lords that rallied behind his claim. He was a better ruler, a stronger knight, more charismatic. And he was a legetimized son, with pure Targaryen blood from both sides. And he was given Blackfyre, sign of the Targaryen Kings. I mean, why not make him king?

What about The dance of the Dragons and the both claimants. No Lord could agree on the VERY RULES of herritage there. Was the firstborne male? was it the Firstborne from the first marriage?

I think there are a LOT of grey areas when it comes to the topic of "Rightful Heir to the Iron Throne"

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

 

There was no king of Westeros before Aegon. The individual families, like the Lannisters or Starks, still were in charge of their lands after the conquest.

 

There were Kings in Westeros that he usurped. Not of the whole land but of countries in that land. Its like becoming King of Europe by deposing Lizzie as Queen of Britain and the other European monarchies. You still usurp their places. You are now King or Queen of Britain and Spain and the Netherlands and France etc in addition.

[EricStargaryen]

Prior to Aegons Conquest, there was no throne to usurp, which s why Aegon was never a usurper. And right of conquest as a legal term is totally overused on this forum, by the way.

During the war of conquest, Aegon basically declared war on each and every kingdom of Westeros. Then, after he defeated some on the field, he forced them to swear fealty to him. From that moment on, he was King of all who declared him King.

He may have claimed kingship over them through right of conquest, but their oath of fealty finally gave him the right to rule.

Edited for clarification.

There was a throne. In fact, there were many. Aegon wasn't king because the former kings declared him to be, he was king because he forced them to knelt. If they didn't bend the knee, it wouldn't have mattered. He would have destroyed them all and become king anyways. He did not need their approval to rule. He would rule whether they liked it or not.

[Stormland's Fury]

Yes but he didn't put Targaryens in charge of every region.

His sister didn't get Casterly Rock for example, it was still the Lannisters'.

[The Sea Snake]

He might made them bend the knee. But he did not take their place. He just set himself overthem, like an overlord (or "overking")

Very much like the "Kings of Kings" in the Ancient Persian Empire

[Rhaegar Estellion]

There was a throne. In fact, there were many. Aegon wasn't king because the former kings declared him to be, he was king because he forced them to knelt. If they didn't bend the knee, it wouldn't have mattered. He would have destroyed them all and become king anyways. He did not need their approval to rule. He would rule whether they liked it or not.

De facto yes. Legally no.

He would be a usurper, if he had declared himself King of the Rock, King in the North, or Stormking. He did neither. He never sat on any of those thrones you mentioned. Instead he created a new throne, which is superior to all thrones and kings. And he was King, because the others declared for him. That hey were forced is not important for this. And yes, had they resisted they would have been killed and replaced with heirs until somebody knelt.

My point was not about his actual power but about his legal right to said power.

Yes but he didn't put Targaryens in charge of every region.

His sister didn't get Casterly Rock for example, it was still the Lannisters'.

He might made them bend the knee. But he did not take their place. He just set himself overthem, like an overlord (or "overking")

Very much like the "Kings of Kings" in the Ancient Persian Empire

:agree:

Edit: Included quotes.

[Stormland's Fury]

He might made them bend the knee. But he did not take their place. He just set himself overthem, like an overlord (or "overking")

Very much like the "Kings of Kings" in the Ancient Persian Empire

This.

They just displaced some families indirectly like the Graderners.