Ser Malthred Stark, on 29 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:
Recently, I have seen many posts claiming that the Targaryens are still the LAWFUL heirs/rulers of Westeros, however I don't see how this is true. Robert assumed the Iron Throne and overthrew the Targaryen dynasty, creating a new era of rulers (Baratheons). Why would the Targaryen conquest hold weight, but not the Baratheon conquest? There is thousands of years of history, pre-Targaryen conquest, that bred it's own heirs, why do these heirs not come into question, but post-Targaryen heirs do? My opinion is that it is related to the large amount of Dany fans, compared to the small percentage of Robert fans.
Let's take a look at the War of the Five Kings:
Renly Baratheon - The youngest brother of Robert Baratheon. (Invalid Claim)
Balon Greyjoy - The lord of a house that was formerly led by kings. (Semi Valid Claim---Not to the Iron Throne)
Robb Stark - The lord of a house formerly led by kings. (Semi Valid Claim---Not to the Iron Throne)
Joffrey/Tommen Lannister/Hill - The bastards of Jaime and Cersei Lannister. (Invalid Claim)
Stannis Baratheon - The younger of the king Robert Baratheon, who had no children. (Valid Claim)
Daenerys/Aegon Targaryen - The last of the overthrown Targaryens. (Invalid Claim)
The only people who have a current (semi)valid claim are:
Balon Greyjoy, and
Stannis having the only claim to the Iron Throne. While there are some semi valid claims, Stannis' current claim (younger brother to the last king) trumps those claims, making him the only true lawful ruler.
Joffrey/Tommen have not successfully won the War of the Five Kings, so they are not yet the lawful rulers.
Your entire argument is fundamentally self-defeating, as it's based on the assumption that the Baratheon claim is now valid simply because
the Targaryens were overthrown. If true, then that means any
claim is valid if the claimant can successfully overthrow the current ruler. Now that may well be
-- and you seem to be making that case yourself in saying that it was also the Targaryen case -- and there's certainly an internal logic to that reasoning.
However, it also
means your entire list is irrelevant and meaningless by your own argument.
What does it mean to call a claim "invalid" when anyone who can seize the throne is a valid claimant to it? Renly could have been the valid ruler if he'd won the throne ... Joffrey if he'd survived and successfully killed all of the other claimants ... and so on. When "might makes right" is the order of the day, that applies across the board ... not just when you want it to apply.
Edited by Kittyhat, 29 April 2012 - 09:08 PM.