James Arryn Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Been drinking, getting some air...quick comment, will expand later:Feudalism and blood claim are 2 entirely different concepts which, aside from the occasional overlap, have nothing whatever to do with one another. And any feudal system, whatever it's succession customs, is all premised on this balancing act:1) All land belongs to the king. He lets some barons make use of parts of it in exchange for their service, usually martial, on his behalf. Those barons let lesser lords use smaller parts of their parts for service, and so on down the line.2) Without the support of his Barons, the King has no real power. Royal armies were very rare, as they were so costly. So even though the system starts with the premise that everything belongs to the king, the armies effectively belong to his barons. And a Baron (or indeed King) can cancel their deal at any time, so long as he goes about it legally. There is no concept of 'the state', nor any assumption that loyalty was 'owed'. It was, rather, bought or more accurately rented in some form or other. So the actual power of a feudal king is very much up in the air, and depends on so many factors. No feudal king ever approached the absolute power of the Monarchs in the Age of Enlightenment, and sometimes people confuse the 2. Some feudal Kings held a considerable amount of power at times; some feudal Kings held almost no power at times. And everything in between. But in a feudal system, power is a give and take relationship. Power is either given or taken. All feudal monarchies start with conquest, and all noble families start out by being given land by the King or a Baron, or by taking it from those not powerful enough to defend theirs. In Stannis case, we gave another classic paradox which won't trouble him or his advocates:1) If a claimant surrenders his claim when defeat forces him to flee the field, then Stannis has surrendered his claim to Joff since the BW.2) If a blood claim is perpetual and can be held in abeyance until it has gathered enough strength to try and reclaim the Throne as with Stannis' claim, than both Aegon and Dany have claims.He cannot argue for one meaning when it suits his interests and the other when it suits the interests of his opponents, which in Stannis' case means that's almost certainly what he will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Also, it should be noted that no one in the books...not even Stannis himself....argues that blood claim is the only factor in determining kingship. He only argues that now that that's his only argument.But several other factors have been demonstrated as real: the will of the previous King, the qualities of the claimants, the support of the claimants, the actions of the actions of the current King, the division of loyalties between King and House, and the whereabouts of the claimants have all been cited as true factors. The idea that there's blood claim and that's it is a myth.For example, if blood claim were all that mattered, Robb's concerns about 'Lady Lannister' and his will would be irrelevant. Sansa would be Lady of Winterfell until one of her dead brothers became less dead, period. We also saw in the first Dance that the will of the previous King was a very real factor. Etc.It ain't just about blood, and it never has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 In Stannis case, we gave another classic paradox which won't trouble him or his advocates:1) If a claimant surrenders his claim when defeat forces him to flee the field, then Stannis has surrendered his claim to Joff since the BW.2) If a blood claim is perpetual and can be held in abeyance until it has gathered enough strength to try and reclaim the Throne as with Stannis' claim, than both Aegon and Dany have claims.He cannot argue for one meaning when it suits his interests and the other when it suits the interests of his opponents, which in Stannis' case means that's almost certainly what he will do.Another completely ridiculous argument. Joffrey and Tommen's claim does not come from the fact that they defeated Stannis, it comes from the lie that they are Robert's legitimate sons. If Joffrey defeated Stannis as Joffrey Waters or Joffrey Lannister, then he would have a claim through right of conquest. But his claim does not derive from right of conquest. Hence Stannis is king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Also, it should be noted that no one in the books...not even Stannis himself....argues that blood claim is the only factor in determining kingship. He only argues that now that that's his only argument.But several other factors have been demonstrated as real: the will of the previous King, the qualities of the claimants, the support of the claimants, the actions of the actions of the current King, the division of loyalties between King and House, and the whereabouts of the claimants have all been cited as true factors. The idea that there's blood claim and that's it is a myth.For example, if blood claim were all that mattered, Robb's concerns about 'Lady Lannister' and his will would be irrelevant. Sansa would be Lady of Winterfell until one of her dead brothers became less dead, period. We also saw in the first Dance that the will of the previous King was a very real factor. Etc.It ain't just about blood, and it never has been.Is this a joke? :dunno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Nope. Otherwise he'd be a usurper. The only reason Robert sat the throne and not Jon Arryn or Ned is because of that Targ grandmother. Robert himself states that as the justification. Not really. He killed Rhaegar, neither Ned nor Jon had done something like that. When he did it he became the King. Rhaelle was just PR. FTFY. So far, only the Iron Islands are in open defiance, everyone else at least pretends to play ball. (Of course universal recognition is hardly the card you should play, when advocating Stannis' truekingness.) The fact that North and Riverlands need a tyrant to bend the knee to the IT proves that they don't recognize Tommen. As for Dorne they tried to crown Myrcella, are making alliances with other claimants and the most obvious was when they refused to drink in Tommen's health. Stannis' claim is partially predicated on his having a drop of Targaryen blood. That was the fig leaf on Robert's claim. No it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viserys - The last dragon Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Hmm, where does it say that Stannis was unsure if we'd "declare" for Robert or if he would stay "loyal" to the Targaryens? If anyone know could you give me the quote. Thaaaannkkss (read this is Cartmans voice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viserys - The last dragon Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Not really. He killed Rhaegar, neither Ned nor Jon had done something like that. When he did it he became the King. Rhaelle was just PR. The fact that North and Riverlands need a tyrant to bend the knee to the IT proves that they don't recognize Tommen. As for Dorne they tried to crown Myrcella, are making alliances with other claimants and the most obvious was when they refused to drink in Tommen's health. No it wasn't. No. They made the choice that Robert would be the "leader" of the rebellion long before he killed Rhaegar (based upon many factors. He gained much support because of the way he was, and a little bit because of his grandmother). Its not like in some movies where you kill the king you become the king (or in this case the heir)...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Hmm, where does it say that Stannis was unsure if we'd "declare" for Robert or if he would stay "loyal" to the Targaryens? If anyone know could you give me the quote. Thaaaannkkss (read this is Cartmans voice). Aerys, if you only knew… that was a hard choosing. My blood or my liege. My brother or my king. This? No. They made the choice that Robert would be the "leader" of the rebellion long before he killed Rhaegar (based upon many factors. He gained much support because of the way he was, and a little bit because of his grandmother). Its not like in some movies where you kill the king you become the king (or in this case the heir)...... Wrong. He was declared king after he killed Rhaegar. Of course the most charismatic of the leaders would be the public face of the Rebellion but this had nothing to do with Rhaelle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankytoes Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 No. They made the choice that Robert would be the "leader" of the rebellion long before he killed Rhaegar (based upon many factors. He gained much support because of the way he was, and a little bit because of his grandmother). Its not like in some movies where you kill the king you become the king (or in this case the heir)...... Quote? "Robert's rebellion" has always seemed like retrospective naming to me, it was Jon Arryn's rebellion really. Robert's leadership seems more circumstantial- first he killed Grafton to take Gulltown and thus the Vale, then he did his awesome three wins in a day to secure the Stormlands, and showed the force of his personality. I'm guessing at some point they all met up and Jon Arryn probably said that Robert was the best candidate for king. Before the Trident, but maybe not "long" before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viserys - The last dragon Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Aerys, if you only knew… that was a hard choosing. My blood or my liege. My brother or my king. This? Wrong. He was declared king after he killed Rhaegar. Of course the most charismatic of the leaders would be the public face of the Rebellion but this had nothing to do with Rhaelle. Well, yeah obviously he was declared king afterwards. But I believe that was the intent. I do not think Ned would have been the king if he had killed Rhaegar and not Robert... Or do you? My point is only that this was not what made Robert (or as you like to call him the Doctors consort: Sweet Robby-Dobby) king... But many other factors. For example the fact that he had a couple of drops of Targaryen blood (but I do not believe this was anything big. Just a small part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viserys - The last dragon Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Aerys, if you only knew… that was a hard choosing. My blood or my liege. My brother or my king. This? Wrong. He was declared king after he killed Rhaegar. Of course the most charismatic of the leaders would be the public face of the Rebellion but this had nothing to do with Rhaelle. And yes, thank you my liege :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Well, yeah obviously he was declared king afterwards. But I believe that was the intent. I do not think Ned would have been the king if he had killed Rhaegar and not Robert... Or do you? My point is only that this was not what made Robert (or as you like to call him the Doctors consort: Sweet Robby-Dobby) king... But many other factors. For example the fact that he had a couple of drops of Targaryen blood (but I do not believe this was anything big. Just a small part). No I believe that Jon would had been neither Robert nor Ned. The point is that from the books we know that his grandmother was used to ease the Targ supporters. Nothing more. I would prefer if you don't make assumptions about me. And yes, thank you my liege :) You are welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lullipop Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Y'all know Stannis would never - homeboy thinks he should be king by succession laws, homeboy dies trying to be king. There's not much arguing on that. Now, the most personal way in wich a Targaryen can trouble Stannis's path to the throne is th AAR thing. Because against dragons and Targaryen loyalists Stannis still goes to war, but someone better fit to the AAr prophecy? It puts him at the risk of losing Melisandre and the men who supports him with religious belief, and that's what, half of his force? Also, at wich point Stannis himself believes he's destined by some greater force to be king? Because that would be the extent of his self-doubt about his rights. Concerning claims and laws his duty is clear as a day to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pib_Juju Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 No it wasn't. Yeah, it was. "Robert sat down again. “Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I love you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon”“You had the better claim, Your Grace” He was referring to Robert's small amount of Targaryen blood. That was what made his claim a little more acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falstaff_Stark Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 It comes down to Dany. Who marries her? Jon, Aegon, or Stannis? Marriages matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallTyrion Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 It comes down to Dany. Who marries her? Jon, Aegon, or Stannis? Marriages matter. Two of those guys aren't really eligible bachelors at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falstaff_Stark Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Selyse has a face that screams for an axe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallTyrion Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Selyse has a face that screams for an axe. And I'm sure Danny would jump at the chance to marry the brother of the man who's responsible for the death of her family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falstaff_Stark Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Queens don't marry where they will. You really see fiery passion, roses, butterflies, and happiness for her? What books are you reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoamingRonin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Another completely ridiculous argument.Joffrey and Tommen's claim does not come from the fact that they defeated Stannis, it comes from the lie that they are Robert's legitimate sons. If Joffrey defeated Stannis as Joffrey Waters or Joffrey Lannister, then he would have a claim through right of conquest. But his claim does not derive from right of conquest. Hence Stannis is king. Stannis was defeated on the Blackwater. Read James Arryn's post again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.