Legitimacy

[The Fallen]

So, in the 'Robb could have won' thread, the issue of legitimacy came up.

Was Robb Stark - seen as a rebel by the crown - the legitimate king of the North and the Riverlands?

How about Balon Greyjoy; was he the legitimate king of the Iron Islands ? How about his claim to the North?

Was Renly Baratheon's claim as 'King of the Realm legitimate?

All three of these contenders, plus Stannis Baratheon, claim a crown through different means. Stannis as Robert's legitimate heir, Robb through the declaration of his bannermen, Renly through force of arms (although he died before achieving it), and Balon through conquest.

Both Balon and Robb have competing claims for the North (and Stannis and Renly the entire realm). So who has the more legit claim?

Usually, a king gets legitimacy through his vassals. They swear fealty to the king in return for protection and the right to lands - or keep the lands they have. (We know Aegon asked for the fealty of the kings he conquered.)

So if the king gets his legitimacy from his vassals, can those same vassals remove their support, thus ending the legitimacy of the monarchy?

In other words, if the lords of the Riverlands and the North feel aggrieved with the monarchy, can they remove their support (and regions) for King Joffrey and throw it behind Lord Robb Stark, thus making him their legitimate king?

Even when you claim a kingdom through conquest you still have to win over the lords if you ever expect to gain legitimacy - as we saw with Aegon I Targaryen and Robert I Baratheon - unless you simply kill off all the lords and replace them with your own supporters.

Is legitimacy real or does the support of the lords only gain it's sheen of legitimacy once it's attached to a king? Or does it only exist in theory, but not in practice? And if it exist in practice is it respected by the monarch; enough that you could withdraw it without repercussions?

What say you?

[Berric_Dondiedagain]

I say legitimacy is determined by he whose army is still standing-

might makes right- on Earth and Westeros

Robert was legitimate - just because he won-his claim was not stronger than the Mad King- but his army was

[The Amethyst Empress]

If you're looking for legitimacy in Westeros you're gonna have a bad time...

[The Fallen]

I say legitimacy is determined by he whose army is still standing-

might makes right- on Earth and Westeros

Robert was legitimate - just because he won-his claim was not stronger than the Mad King- but his army was

But didn't he need the lords to submit, thus conferring on him legitimacy?

[Pecan]

Legitimacy is what men believe it is. Aegon Targaryen won because he had dragons, and then he was able to found a dynasty. Over successive generations of Targaryen rulers, the notion of legitimacy became attached to the dynasty.

Robert won the throne by force of arms, but it was backed up by a claim of legitimacy through his Targaryen grandmother. Ned could have taken the throne, or Jon Arryn, but without that close tie to the Targaryens, it would have been difficult for either of them to make that claim of legitimacy. Really, it's branding.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Legitimacy is achieved as soon as you got peace. Inside your claimed holdings for sure, but with other regions should be done as well.

In that vein, Robb is closest to legitimacy, but he doesn't fully achieve it. Stannis is next, since the other claimants attacked him as Robert's legitimate heir. Balon's claim to the Iron Islands is good, but his claim on the North isn't.

[Wmarshal]

I view legitimacy like this: He had just cause to rebel, he wins, and the lords of his lands see him as the king.

He had no cause not to bow to Stannis, he lost, but his lords saw him as king. 1/3.

[Sir Lee knot]

I don't even know how this topic makes sense. I mean legitimacy means you are legitimate. So you are basically asking if Robb was the real King of the north and Riverlands and the answer is of course yes. The Lords from both regions crowned him and he ruled over that land even if only for a short time.

Renly, Stannis, Joffrey and Tommen were never the real Kings of Westeros because they never actually ruled over all of Westeros but they were all legitimate Kings because they did/do rule over some people/land and are considered the King of said people/land by those people.

[The Fallen]

But Joffrey ruled all of Westeros until Robb was pronounced king by his bannermen.

That's why I asked if the northern lords and riverlords can switch their support and have it be legitimate. Joffrey didn't feel that way. Neither did Stannis. Nor Robert before them, when ha fought the Greyjoys.

Or does legitimacy only materialize once a king, say Robert or Aegon I, accepts the acquiescence of his lords?