93 replies to this topic

[dtones520]

Apple Martini, on 29 April 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

A lot of people do know it and choose to ignore it (the Tyrells) or choose to stand against it (Stannis). I'd say at this point, most people in Westeros are in one of those two camps.

Knowing and strong assumptions are two different things. The only people, that we know of, that has been directly told by Cersei or Cersei was Ned and Catelyn, and I can't remember the convo but I think Brienne was told. And news flash, Ned and Cat are dead...for the most part.

Yea, it's pretty obvious that they aren't Roberts kids to most everyone, but it's not fact to almost anyone.

[Ivy Snow]

Ser Malthred Stark, on 29 April 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

I apologize as I have been very unclear on my message.
Let me clarify what point I am trying to convey:
When Robert rebelled, I would consider his claim as invalid, he is not the heir and has no blood relation to Aerys.

He does have Targ blood though, from his grandmother. So basically, if the whole line of decendant from Aery's are gone, the Baratheons have the best claim. That's how I understand it. So do correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ser Malthred Stark]

Ivy Snow, on 29 April 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

He does have Targ blood though, from his grandmother. So basically, if the whole line of decendant from Aery's are gone, the Baratheons have the best claim. That's how I understand it. So do correct me if I'm wrong.

He would have been in something similar to Renly's situation then. The way I view it is that the Targaryens were conquered, ending their rights to the Throne.

[Apple Martini]

dtones520, on 29 April 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Knowing and strong assumptions are two different things. The only people, that we know of, that has been directly told by Cersei or Cersei was Ned and Catelyn, and I can't remember the convo but I think Brienne was told. And news flash, Ned and Cat are dead...for the most part.

Yea, it's pretty obvious that they aren't Roberts kids to most everyone, but it's not fact to almost anyone.

I don't even know what you're arguing. I can pretty much guarantee that the Faith blessing Tommen isn't going to make Stannis or Dany or anyone else sit up and go, "Oh well in that case, I withdraw my claim!"

[FuzzyJAM]

Apple Martini, on 29 April 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

I must have missed the part where every lord in Westeros declared Dany's claim to be the valid one. Or the part where she successfully overthrew Tommen and Stannis and everyone else. I thought she was still wandering aimlessly around the Dothraki Sea, talking to hallucinations. Huh. And I never made the claim that everyone recognized Stannis — obviously not all of them do. Just like not all of them recognize Joffrey, or Renly, or Robb, or Balon, or Tommen. But they have recognized the Baratheons, and Stannis is the rightful Baratheon heir. The obstacle is getting everyone else to recognize it, a threshold that, yes, you're right, Stannis has not yet met.

ETA: Dany and Viserys have been in Essos for years and everyone in Westeros knew they were alive and where they were. If they were truly gagging for a return to Targ rule, why didn't any of them make an effort to finance or support the Targ siblings in Essos? When push came to shove, even the Targaryen loyalists put up and shut up and made no real effort to reinstate the old dynasty. Unless you count the Martells' dusty marriage contract that no one's interested in honoring.

The fundamental point is that, if all that is required to be the "valid" monarch, is the ability to (1) take and hold the crown and (2) make people swear fealty, then the entire premise of a "rightful ruler" is pointless.  (Coincidentally, this is mostly my view.)

Why is rule based on lies any less valid than rule based on dragonfire (Targs) or murder, slavery, disinheritance and theft (Baratheon)?

Edited by FuzzyJAM, 29 April 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[Kittyhat]

Apple Martini, on 29 April 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

I must have missed the part where every lord in Westeros declared Dany's claim to be the valid one.

Never said they did.  How could they at this stage?

Do you deny there are Targaryen loyalists? Or that Daenerys has more charisma in her left pinkie than Stannis has accumulated over the entire course of his life (whether you personally like her or not)?

Do you really think there aren't people in Westeros who will flock to her? Are you that blinded by your own fanatical hatred of the character?

Quote

But they have recognized the Baratheons, and Stannis is the rightful Baratheon heir.

I guess you did miss the part where there are still Targaryen loyalists.

[Anvilbreaker]

you would be right if robert claimed the throne based on conquest. House baratheon was distantly related to the targs and they used that relationship as the basis to claim the vacated throne, which leaves room for the more valid claim of a true born targ

[Kittyhat]

FuzzyJAM, on 29 April 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

The fundamental point is that, if all that is required to be the "valid" monarch, is the ability to (1) take and hold the crown and (2) make people swear fealty, then the entire premise of a "rightful ruler" is pointless.  (Coincidentally, this is mostly my view.)

Why is rule based on lies any less valid than rule based on dragonfire (Targs) or murder, slavery, disinheritance and theft (Baratheon)?

Ah.  Finally, someone who understood the point.

[Apple Martini]

Kittyhat, on 29 April 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Never said they did.  How could they at this stage?

Do you deny there are Targaryen loyalists? Or that Daenerys has more charisma in her left pinkie than Stannis has accumulated over the entire course of his life (whether you personally like her or not)?

Do you really think there aren't people in Westeros who will flock to her? Are you that blinded by your own fanatical hatred of the character?

I don't deny that there are Targ loyalists, no. I am wondering why you think that they never made any attempts to reinstate the dynasty or provide some measure of support for Dany and Viserys when they were in Essos. Weak knees? True loyalty is measured when a house is at its lowest.

"Fanatical hatred"?

Edited by Apple Martini, 29 April 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[Ser Malthred Stark]

FuzzyJAM, on 29 April 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

The fundamental point is that, if all that is required to be the "valid" monarch, is the ability to (1) take and hold the crown and (2) make people swear fealty, then the entire premise of a "rightful ruler" is pointless.  (Coincidentally, this is mostly my view.)

Why is rule based on lies any less valid than rule based on dragonfire (Targs) or murder, slavery, disinheritance and theft (Baratheon)?

I know that "rights" don't win thrones, however that was never the point of my thread, it was to discuss who IS the "rightful" ruler, not IF they will succeed in their attempt.

Kittyhat, on 29 April 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Never said they did.  How could they at this stage?

Do you deny there are Targaryen loyalists? Or that Daenerys has more charisma in her left pinkie than Stannis has accumulated over the entire course of his life (whether you personally like her or not)?

Do you really think there aren't people in Westeros who will flock to her? Are you that blinded by your own fanatical hatred of the character?



I guess you did miss the part where there are still Targaryen loyalists.

Speaking of fanaticism...

Yes, there may be some loyalists, like the Martells, but I seriously doubt that houses Lannister, Stark, Tully, Baratheon, or Arryn will support the Targaryens.

Edited by Ser Malthred Stark, 29 April 2012 - 10:38 PM.

[FuzzyJAM]

Apple Martini, on 29 April 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

I don't deny that there are Targ loyalists, no. I am wondering why you think that they never made any attempts to reinstate the dynasty or provide some measure of support for Dany and Viserys when they were in Essos. Weak knees?

"Fanatical hatred"?

We know Doran was (ineffectually) planning it for years.  Apparently they were waiting for the kids to mature and gain an army or something, who really knows?  

Ser Malthred Stark, on 29 April 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

I know that "rights" don't win thrones, however that was never the point of my thread, it was to discuss who IS the "rightful" ruler, not IF they will succeed in their attempt.

The definition of "rightful monarch" being given is someone who can grasp the throne and get others to swear fealty to them.  As such, the idea of a "rightful" monarch is meaningless - either you are the monarch, and thus the rightful one, or you're not the monarch, and thus not the rightful one.  If you have a different understanding, please feel free to present it.  

Apparently a clause on getting lords to swear fealty is that it be done honestly, but that's why I'm asking why deceit is any less valid a method of gaining fealty than threatening to burn lands to a crisp or kill those who don't, which is apparently a totally acceptable method.

Edited by FuzzyJAM, 29 April 2012 - 10:43 PM.

[Apple Martini]

FuzzyJAM, on 29 April 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

We know Doran was (ineffectually) planning it for years.  Apparently they were waiting for the kids to mature and gain an army or something, who really knows?  

The keyword being "ineffectually." Which is my point — how "loyal" are these Targaryen loyalists when the heir to the Targ dynasty (*cough* that they know of anyway) is known to be wandering around the Free Cities and would be a decent rallying point in an attempt to knock off Robert, and they do bugger all to assist him? Why did these loyalists not help Viserys form a court in exile, or volunteer to serve in his army, or send him financial aid, or provide him ships? When you consider that the northerners are marching to Winterfell in a blizzard to save "Arya" when the Starks' political power is all but decimated, it seems like "Targaryen loyalty" isn't worth the paper the Martells' shoddy marriage proposal was written on.

[FuzzyJAM]

Oh, for sure.  Doran isn't loyal to the Targs, he just sees potential vengeance.  Similarly, the Tyrells aren't loyal to Robert or Renly or Joffrey or Tommen or House Baratheon or anything of the sort - they want power.  "Loyalty" is mostly a misnomer in such things.

I'm still wanting to know why gaining fealty through deceit is worse than gaining it through murder and threats of murder, by the way.  

[Ser Malthred Stark]

FuzzyJAM, on 29 April 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

The definition of "rightful monarch" being given is someone who can grasp the throne and get others to swear fealty to them.  As such, the idea of a "rightful" monarch is meaningless - either you are the monarch, and thus the rightful one, or you're not the monarch, and thus not the rightful one.  If you have a different understanding, please feel free to present it.  

Apparently a clause on getting lords to swear fealty is that it be done honestly, but that's why I'm asking why deceit is any less valid a method of gaining fealty than threatening to burn lands to a crisp or kill you, which is apparently a totally acceptable method.

I am basing rights on the status of inheritance, not support. According to your definition and the fact that there are still 1-3 rebellions and a possible war between Lannister-Tyrell, there is no rightful king. It also states that any children born from the Targaryens (If they end up the victors) will not be the rightful rulers, but will have to take their throne. If there is a rebellion caused when they ask fealty sworn, who has the just cause: The Targaryen or the rebel?

[FuzzyJAM]

Ser Malthred Stark, on 29 April 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

I am basing rights on the status of inheritance, not support. According to your definition and the fact that there are still 1-3 rebellions and a possible war between Lannister-Tyrell, there is no rightful king. It also states that any children born from the Targaryens (If they end up the victors) will not be the rightful rulers, but will have to take their throne. If there is a rebellion caused when they ask fealty sworn, who has the just cause: The Targaryen or the rebel?

Nobody.  The concept is inherently flawed.  No one has the right to rule others based on birth or conquest or anything of the sort.  The right to rule others comes from free acquiescence to that rule.  Well, that is how it should be, anyway.  In Westeros, the country hasn't existed long enough for any sort of real constitution to develop, especially considering the Targs openly flaunted all previous rules.  The kingdom was created with an absolute monarchy where might was 100% all that made right.  There is no real legal concept of the right to rule that I'm aware of.  


If inheritance is all that matters, except in the case of conquest, then there is still no "rightful ruler" - Dany and Aegon are both strong potential challengers to the Baratheon claims; the Targs were never fully conquered and are returning in force, why is their inheritance now irrelevant?

[Wyman's Man]

Kingdoms get conquered and follow the new family, otherwise the English throne would be in the hands of a descendent of Harold rather than William the Conqueror (although the current bloodline is only partially descended from the Conqueror). The Baratheons, whether rightly or wrongly, defeated the Targaryens and claimed the throne. Stannis should be the king, but doesn't have the backing the Lannisters or the Tyrells have. Anyway Stannis has to deal with the Boltons and Daenerys needs to get some ships...

[mor2]

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:
Stannis Baratheon,
Balon Greyjoy, and
Robb Stark.
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.

That or who ever has the most swords/Dragons to back his claim, see Aegon the conqueror.

[Ser Malthred Stark]

I am not speaking of who has the most ships/swords/knights/dragons, ONLY who has the legal right, using the succession law used in six of the seven kingdoms (Not Dorne), which is a Primogeniture Agnatic-Cognatic.

Edited by Ser Malthred Stark, 29 April 2012 - 11:42 PM.

[All Men Must Rhyme]

As far as lawful goes, it's Stannis. Based on what we know, anyway. When Robert's rebellion was successful, the Baratheon's became the royal line. This rules out Viserys's claim, as he is no longer an heir. He could claim the throne through conquest, as Robert did, but he has no right through succession anymore. The same applies to Dany, even more so. When Viserys died, so did any claim the Targaryens had to the throne, as a woman could not ascend (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, but it had to be a male heir, except for in Dorne? At least Stannis planned to name Renly as his heir over Shireen until he had a son). She could claim by conquest, but by law, she had no claim to it. As we know, Robert left no trueborn heirs. This leaves Stannis, as the eldest surviving brother, to be the lawful claimant. Robb wanted the north, not Westeros, so I'm excluding him from this, although as he was rebelling, he would be unlawful anyway.

[etu]

Ser Malthred Stark, on 29 April 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

He would have been in something similar to Renly's situation then. The way I view it is that the Targaryens were conquered, ending their rights to the Throne.

If I steal someone's laptop, they do not stop having a de jure right to it. It is still legally theirs. Of course, if they/the police don't find me, then it is de facto mine. Theft does not legalise something. It just doesn't. If we accept that Kingdoms are different, and with enough people agreeing it does, then I really don't see the point to this topic.

Now -

I am guessing Robert's legal claim would have rested on

a) The presumption and belief that Aerys and his family have broken their vows of rulership, and that oaths of fealty to them are now null and void and then
In the absence of a king, a new one must be picked, and Robert had a reasonable blood claim and popular accord, for whatever it is worth

Now, if you accept this, then the right of legal descent remains in House Barethon, and if you don't Targaryen want their laptop back.

Assuming the former, descent obviously goes from Robert to children, then to brothers, then to whoever, excepting any changes in the will, which may or may not be legal anyway; considering that the Targaryens weren't above skipping people in the line of succession, I would consider them to be so. Its at this point that I can't remember what exactly the will said, which is annoying.

Personally, unless the will says otherwise and it may well have done, nobody's actually legally proved that Tommen isn't Robert's son. We all know reading the book, but to the average Westerosi, Tommen is the lawful heir until such time as he is disinherited for being not Robert's son. Unless the will as drafted by Eddard said straight to Stannis, which I think it might have, but can't remember, and am too lazy to look up.

And, of course, assuming the latter, than House Targaryen remain the lawful heirs to the Iron Throne. And the former or the latter really comes down to opinion, both in the book and out.

That's how I see it anyway. Three legal heirs, depending on which legal decisions you honour or not. Well. 'Legal'.