Introduction+Claims to the Iron Throne.

[EricStargaryen]

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.

He pretty much did replace them. You have to remember that they were KINGS. Now they are just lords. Of course, they have power in their respected region, but not nearly as much power as they would if they were kings. There are a variety of things a Warden of the North can't do to the North that a king can. Do you think these Houses wanted to bend the knee? No. He usurped their crowns.

Edit: Included quotes.

[Rhaegar Estellion]

Please take your post out of my quote. That's confusing.^^

He did not. He changed their title and forced them to swear fealty to him. That is entirely different from replacing them. They were still in power. Just then, they had a higher overlord.

And what they wanted is irrelevant. They agreed (through force). This is exactly the same as if they had summoned a great cuncil and elected a High King or something. They officially declared Aegon their King. After that their oaths bound them. Forcing somebody to abdicate is not the same thing as taking their crown without any right.

[The Sea Snake]

This.

They just displaced some families indirectly like the Graderners.

Well i did not remember about that but I guess you have a point. Still, it might just pass as "war cassualties" I guess.

My point was that replacing regional dynasties was not the objective of Aegon's conquest

[Stormland's Fury]

He pretty much did replace them. You have to remember that they were KINGS. Now they are just lords. Of course, they have power in their respected region, but not nearly as much power as they would if they were kings. There are a variety of things a Warden of the North can't do to the North that a king can. Do you think these Houses wanted to bend the knee? No. He usurped their crowns.

Edit: Included quotes.

Well no, replacing means putting someone else in place of someone else. Which he didn't do, except with the Tyrells. The Iron Islands voted their own ruler, the Durrendon married a Baratheon and the Tullys were not replacing anyone in particular. The rest are still in charge of their holdings,

[Stormland's Fury]

Well i did not remember about that but I guess you have a point. Still, it might just pass as "war cassualties" I guess.

My point was that replacing regional dynasties was not the objective of Aegon's conquest

That's my point too ;)

I was just clarifying.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

 

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.

:agree:

Edit: Included quotes.

 

And what we are saying is that by declaring himself the one and only king (demoting all others to lords and taking their crowns in the case of Torrhen, literally) he becomes King of the North, King of the Stormlands, King of the Reach, King of the Westerlands and King of the Vale. Torrhen did not keep his throne, he was not a King. His crown was taken, his throne usurped with the threat of death of himself and his people. To be king of all the realms, you have to be king of each and as we know, 300 years later they are still called the 7 Kingdoms and not the one Kingdom of Westeros. Seven Kingdoms, seven thrones, one king.

[EricStargaryen]

Please take your post out of my quote. That's confusing.^^

He did not. He changed their title and forced them to swear fealty to him. That is entirely different from replacing them. They were still in power. Just then, they had a higher overlord.

And what they wanted is irrelevant. They agreed (through force). This is exactly the same as if they had summoned a great cuncil and elected a High King or something. They officially declared Aegon their King. After that their oaths bound them. Forcing somebody to abdicate is not the same thing as taking their crown without any right.

I should not have said replaced. And yet, still. I don't think you realize how much power they were stripped of. Sure, it wasn't enough to cast them down a lot, but it was a massive blow to each king. Think of it like this: Instead of running a massive business, you now have a bigger business looking down on you, watching everything you do, and how you do it. You no longer have supreme power. Considering the greed of Westeros, this was a big deal. They declared Aegon for their king because they were scared shitless of his power, not cause they were just like "oh, we're just downsizing. no big deal."

[Nymeria Stone]

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.

Yes, I agree with you on that.

But what I meant to say is that she has a better claim than most. Not as good as Stannis, who is currently THE rightuful king, but she does have some kind of claim.

The Targaryen loyalists wouldn't considered her an Usurper, but the rightful queen restoring the original lineage. Who else can claim the same?

[Stormland's Fury]

  

And what we are saying is that by declaring himself the one and only king (demoting all others to lords and taking their crowns in the case of Torrhen, literally) he becomes King of the North, King of the Stormlands, King of the Reach, King of the Westerlands and King of the Vale. Torrhen did not keep his throne, he was not a King. His crown was taken, his throne usurped with the threat of death of himself and his people. To be king of all the realms, you have to be king of each and as we know, 300 years later they are still called the 7 Kingdoms and not the one Kingdom of Westeros. Seven Kingdoms, seven thrones, one king.

If anything you could call Aegon a High King or Emperor it still wouldn't change anything.

[Stormland's Fury]

Yes, I agree with you on that.

But what I meant to say is that she has a better claim than most. Not as good as Stannis, who is currently THE rightuful king, but she does have some kind of claim.

The Targaryen loyalists wouldn't considered her an Usurper, but the rightful queen restoring the original lineage. Who else can claim the same?

It depends of course of point of view. But on paper there's really only one way that's lawful.

[Rhaegar Estellion]

  

And what we are saying is that by declaring himself the one and only king (demoting all others to lords and taking their crowns in the case of Torrhen, literally) he becomes King of the North, King of the Stormlands, King of the Reach, King of the Westerlands and King of the Vale. Torrhen did not keep his throne, he was not a King. His crown was taken, his throne usurped with the threat of death of himself and his people. To be king of all the realms, you have to be king of each and as we know, 300 years later they are still called the 7 Kingdoms and not the one Kingdom of Westeros. Seven Kingdoms, seven thrones, one king.

And this I reject. True, he combines the authority of each one of these Kings in himself creating a super-kingdom. But this is completely different to usurping. Instead he basically forces the Kings to abdicate and to transfer their power to him. This is not usurping in a narrow sense.

And names are just names. The 7 Kingdoms are called 7 Kingdoms for historic reasons. There is only one Kingdom, which is called: The 7 Kingdoms.

[The Sea Snake]

That's my point too ;)

I was just clarifying.

:wideeyed: haha rightly done then!

[EricStargaryen]

And this I reject. True, he combines the authority of each one of these Kings in himself. But this is completely different to usurping. Instead he basically forces the Kings to abdicate and to transfer their power to him. This is not usurping in a narrow sense.

usurp   Use Usurp in a sentence

Ad

Get The Facts on Keystone

keystone-xl.com

Good For the Economy & Safe For The Environment. Learn More Today.

u·surp [yoo-surp, -zurp] Show IPA

verb (used with object)1.to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right:

[EricStargaryen]

To seize or hold. Aegon seized their kingship, without legal right.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

 

If anything you could call Aegon a High King or Emperor it still wouldn't change anything.

 

He would still have to depose the authority of 6 kings and take their position. Torrhen could not act with the same autonomy he had before. He could not make laws to govern his former kingdom, he could only enact ones made from above. He now has to pay someone above him taxes like his lords paid him taxes.

[EricStargaryen]

   

He would still have to depose the authority of 6 kings and take their position. Torrhen could not act with the same autonomy he had before. He could not make laws to govern his former kingdom, he could only enact ones made from above. He now has to pay someone above him taxes like his lords paid him taxes.

:agree: exactly! King and Lord are entirely different. This was a major blow to Torrhen, and all the other previous kings.

[Stormland's Fury]

To seize or hold. Aegon seized their kingship, without legal right.

Of a position that didn't exist before him. In essence he created a High Kingdom.

[King Hodorius]

Wow guys you aren't disappointing me in the slightest! You're putting some really nice discussions there which I'm really enjoying reading.

I must say after reading all the posts I've come to the conclusion that Hodor can sit on the Iron Throne without any problems, thanks :). Just wanted to make sure that Hodor of house Hodor, the first of his name, King of the Andals, blablabla seizing the Iron Throne is still a plausible event to occur :).

[Rhaegar Estellion]

   

He would still have to depose the authority of 6 kings and take their position. Torrhen could not act with the same autonomy he had before. He could not make laws to govern his former kingdom, he could only enact ones made from above. He now has to pay someone above him taxes like his lords paid him taxes.

Exactly. And Torrhen suffered this loss in power because he acknowledged Aegon as his King! This is the whole point. He accepted a higher overlord and swore fealty.

[Stormland's Fury]

Wow guys you aren't disappointing me in the slightest! You're putting some really nice discussions there which I'm really enjoying reading.

I must say after reading all the posts I've come to the conclusion that Hodor can sit on the Iron Throne without any problems, thanks :). Just wanted to make sure that Hodor of house Hodor, the first of his name, King of the Andals, blablabla seizing the Iron Throne is still a plausible event to occur :).

In essence: yes ;)