Right Of Conquest- Proof from TWOIAF

[Lord Nightstalker]

From TWOIAF, The section entitled 'The Baratheons'

In 282 AC, at the ford of the Trident, Robert

Baratheon slew Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone,

and shattered his host, effectively ending three centuries

of rule by the House of the Dragon. Soon thereafter he

ascended the Iron Throne himself as Robert I Baratheon,

the progenitor of a glorious new dynasty.

The above extract makes it rather clear that Robert was establishing a new dynasty and a new line of succession, not laying claim to the Targaryen succession.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

New dynasties typically are founded from cadet branches of the previous dynasty, and this case is no different. No one would doubt that roberts claim gains legitimacy due to the Targaryen heritage, else there would have been no talk from ned about robert having "the better claim".

It's exceedingly rare in history for a ruling dynasty to have no connection by blood (or sometimes marraige) to the previous dynasty. Partly that's because the nobles all intermarried of course so they were all at least distantly related several times over.

[Lion of the West]

The above extract makes it rather clear that Robert was establishing a new dynasty and a new line of succession, not laying claim to the Targaryen succession.

I don't really get it.

Just because Robert could claim some link to the Targaryens don't mean that he would've re-establish that dynasty. The same happened in the Reach. When the Gardeners were toasted Aegon could have given Highgarden and the Reach to either Tyrell or Florent who both have connections to House Gardener but both of them would make a new ruling House to the Reach, not simply continue the Gardeners.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

I don't really get it.

Just because Robert could claim some link to the Targaryens don't mean that he would've re-establish that dynasty. The same happened in the Reach. When the Gardeners were toasted Aegon could have given Highgarden and the Reach to either Tyrell or Florent who both have connections to House Gardener but both of them would make a new ruling House to the Reach, not simply continue the Gardeners.

I think the point OP is trying to make is that because it's a new dynasty founded with Robert as its king, it has "nothing to do" with the blood connections to the previous dynasty (targ lineage).

Which is of course nonsense as the gardener-Tyrells-florent example nicely demonstrates.

People like to make this argument in order to "prove" that all Targaryens are forever disinherited and have no claim to the IT.

[El Guapo]

The above extract makes it rather clear that Robert was establishing a new dynasty and a new line of succession, not laying claim to the Targaryen succession.

Did you expect a maester writing a book for King Tommen to call his "father" a usurper?

[David Selig]

I think the point OP is trying to make is that because it's a new dynasty founded with Robert as its king, it has "nothing to do" with the blood connections to the previous dynasty (targ lineage).

Which is of course nonsense as the gardener-Tyrells-florent example nicely demonstrates.

This and a hundred real life examples. Even when the new dynasty had no blood relation to the previous one, they often invented one to add to their legitimacy.

[The Mountain That Flies]

Did you expect a maester writing a book for King Tommen to call his "father" a usurper?

People seem to constantly forget the bias that's supposed to be part of the reading experience of the more contemporary bits in TWOIAF.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

That's just one point of view. Here's another:

Renly shrugged. “Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?” He did not wait for an answer. “Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer.”

And yet another one:

“Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved 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.”

But, if you just pick one line from one book, you can prove beyond any doubt whatever the hell you want. Only if you look at the whole picture, things get complicated.

BTW, for everyone's entertainment, here's a quote from the same world book, proving once and for all that Stannis is a liar and an usurper:

Our noble king has overseen one of the longest summers in many years, filled with prosperity and good harvests. Moreover, the king and his beloved queen have given the realm three golden heirs to ensure that House Baratheon will long reign supreme.

See? Joffrey was Robert's (and so were Tommen and Myrcella). TWOIAF says so. Which makes Stannis a dirty backstabbing traitor.

[Lord Nightstalker]

I don't really get it.

Just because Robert could claim some link to the Targaryens don't mean that he would've re-establish that dynasty. The same happened in the Reach. When the Gardeners were toasted Aegon could have given Highgarden and the Reach to either Tyrell or Florent who both have connections to House Gardener but both of them would make a new ruling House to the Reach, not simply continue the Gardeners.

My point was regarding the basis on which Robert made his claim to the throne. His primary claim to the throne was the victory of the rebels, not his Targaryen blood.

[Lord Nightstalker]

Did you expect a maester writing a book for King Tommen to call his "father" a usurper?

Since my point was regarding the basis on which the 'Baratheon' dynasty claims the throne (ie conquest or Targaryen blood), the fact that the book has a bias towards the current rulers only strengthens that point .

[sifth]

People seem to constantly forget the bias that's supposed to be part of the reading experience of the more contemporary bits in TWOIAF.

Yea, the parts about Robert's Rebellion were quite funny to read about. The history becomes biased as hell at that point.

[ChillyPolly]

The above extract makes it rather clear that Robert was establishing a new dynasty and a new line of succession, not laying claim to the Targaryen succession.

It's a new dynasty by name, basing its claim on its "royal blood" linkage to the old dynasty, after the extinction of the old dynasty and/or disqualification of its surviving members.

Not a simple either/or situation. Sorry.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

People seem to constantly forget the bias that's supposed to be part of the reading experience of the more contemporary bits in TWOIAF.

And it's hard not to notice, and quite funny to boot.

Aerys’s Hand, Rossart, was killed at a postern gate after cravenly attempting to flee the castle. And last of all to die was King Aerys himself, at the hand of his remaining Kingsguard knight, Ser Jaime Lannister. Like his father, Ser Jaime did as he thought best for the realm, bringing an end to the Mad King.

Which demonstrates 1) insufficient knowledge of the facts, 2) shameless, unapologetic brown nosing. I think the whole thing is supposed to be of dubious credibility. After all, Yandel would be building on the works of earlier historians, who, I guess, followed the same methodology.

[RoamingRonin]

"You had the better claim, your grace."

[ChillyPolly]

Wikipedia says the following about Dynasties:

Dynasties throughout the world have traditionally been reckoned patrilineally, such as under the Frankish Salic law. Succession through a daughter when permitted was considered to establish a new dynasty in her husband's ruling house.

It gives no source for this, but it fits the facts here, and solves the OP's objection. King Robert's claim is based on succession through a daughter, and therefore creates a new dynasty in the name of that daughter's husband (Baratheon).

[Lowborn]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dynasty

The Oxford dictionary gives the following definitions:

"1 A line of hereditary rulers of a country"

"1.1 A succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field"

Robert was from another family, but the relation to the Targaryens was what gave him the legal right to the throne. Now obviously he became king because he was figurehead of the rebellion. They needed a new king, and Robert was the one of the three leaders who had the closest relation to the old dynasty, so he was chosen. It probably didn't hurt that Eddard wasn't interested in the position and Jon was old with no children. Robert was clearly the best choice of them, and luckily the one with best legal claim as well. As Chillypolly says it was both the legal claim and the military might that contributed to Robert's ascension.

Also I seem to remember that it's stated somewhere that Robert didn't become the clear leader of the rebellion until the battle at the Trident. I believe the name Robert's Rebellion is an name given to it after the fact. Things could have transpired differently. Say for example that Tywin goes along with the rebellion early and is one of the leaders. He could have been chosen because of his proven ability to rule. It's not certain but there is a possibility it could have gone that way. It's easy to see Robert as the obvious new king, but that might be because we're reading it after the fact.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Also I seem to remember that it's stated somewhere that Robert didn't become the clear leader of the rebellion until the battle at the Trident. I believe the name Robert's Rebellion is an name given to it after the fact. Things could have transpired differently. Say for example that Tywin goes along with the rebellion early and is one of the leaders. He could have been chosen because of his proven ability to rule. It's not certain but there is a possibility it could have gone that way. It's easy to see Robert as the obvious new king, but that might be because we're reading it after the fact.

Must have been earlier than the Trident. Jon Connington believed that killing Robert in Stoney Sept would've ended the war right there. So he must've been the leader of the rebellion by the Battle of the Bells.

[The Wolfswood]

It is all very complicated, as in the history of the British monarchy too.

People have inherited the throne as expected directly from father to son, fought their close relatives for it, fought other houses (Wars of the Roses), inherited after being declared legitimate, then a bastard, then legitimate again in their father's will (Mary & Elizabeth) died without leaving heirs (e.g. Anne), the king of Scotland unofficially inherited England after Elizabeth I but it rather worked out the other way round, many legitimate heirs were disbarred because of their religion in favour of Jane Grey and George I, William & Mary won the throne, but was it through conquest (William) or claiming to be the legitimate heir (Mary)? Recently the comparison of the DNA of Richard III with previous and subsequent kings proves that somewhere along the male line their was a break - illegitimacy too.

And yet the current Queen dates her line back from Cerdic in the 6th century, but a new dynasty was founded from the Norman Conquest in 1066.

Suffice to say it is very, very complicated and open to interpretation. The winner of each generation has made up their own rules according to how they got the job and yet still they were all related to each other.

Westeros is easy in comparison.

[Lord Lannister]

It's not like paper rights matter one bit. Right of conquest is a basic thing and everything else is just excuses to justify it. Like Robert claiming his Targ heritage entitled him to the throne. It's not like you fill out forms to make a rebellion legal. "Oh hmm, yes everything's in order... wait, this revolution paperwork was dated for yesterday! I don't care if your army was delayed by the flooding Trident this is an illegal revolution!"

[Table8]

Seriously, this thread....

Does it matter? It all comes back to the whole "power resides where Men believe". Once Robert took the throne, it was his because the people followed him, whether it was because of his minute targ blood, or his fierceness in war. No one followed Viserys, and thats why he had no power in his life.

Claims are total BS. I mean a lannister is in control of the IT last I checked.