Cersai's Son Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 I don't think rights of conquest applies here. It was a rebellion and not an invasion. If it was about right of conquest Robert wouldn't be needing to have Targ blood to become king. He got the thrones because of targ blood but there is still someone else with Targ blood ahead of him in pecking order to the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagon Greyjoy Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 King Bob was never the rightful King, but if he'd been a good King it woudn't have mattered. The difference between an usurper and a rightful monarch is three generations on the throne without losing it to any major screw up :P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakenfist Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Robert had a weak claim to throne but he took it through conquest, which is perfectly acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealbando Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 I think the whole Robert had Targ blood, that`s why he became king, was just a technicality, because, as Ned says, Robert won his throne with his warhammer. He was chosen by the other leaders of the rebellion as their leader, so there`s your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 He won the throne by the right of conquest. Whether it was inside or outside job doesn`t really matter. Also, he was as close to the Targaryen as you can get, so it was natural for him to be chosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 I don't think rights of conquest applies here. It was a rebellion and not an invasion. If it was about right of conquest Robert wouldn't be needing to have Targ blood to become king. He got the thrones because of targ blood but there is still someone else with Targ blood ahead of him in pecking order to the throne.Absolutely spot on. This is why he is called the Usurper.Because he was a usurper. And he usurped the throne. The throne that belongs to Dany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrunderhill Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Right of conquest applies even if it was not an invasion look at Henry Tudor. The Targaryens also have a history of disinheriting mad members and their children. So Robert had two fairly legitimate ways to justify his conquest.1. He won it by conquest.2. Aerys was mad like Aerion and so his line was disinherited, making Robert the next heir.Besides that what matters is all the Lords swore loyalty and accepted Robert as king. They all bent the knee and that is what made him the legal king.I do think he should have taken the throne solely by right of conquest, gotten rid of the Iron Throne, destroyed the dragons publicly and declared himself king with a different title. Maybe too radical, but with 5 of the kingdoms very loyal to him, who would stop him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cersai's Son Posted May 22, 2013 Author Share Posted May 22, 2013 Robert had a weak claim to throne but he took it through conquest, which is perfectly acceptable.like i said if it was about conquest Robert wouldn't be needing Targ blood. The Rebels decided before the war that were going to put RObert in charge just because of his Targ connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrunderhill Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 like i said if it was about conquest Robert would't be needing Targ blood. The Rebels decided before the war that were going to put RObert in charge just because of his Targ connection.Well if the argument could be made, that legally mad kings can be set aside and their offspring barred from the line of succession. So if that was the case with Aerys then Robert was next in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Robert was never the rightful King and because of him and others Westerosi is on the verge of extinction. Robert's Rebellion was the worst thing that could have happened to Westerosi and Robert becoming King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitbert Strangejoy Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 A person who sits on the Iron Throne and whose subjects call him "King" is rightfully the King. Full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groat Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 like i said if it was about conquest Robert wouldn't be needing Targ blood. The Rebels decided before the war that were going to put RObert in charge just because of his Targ connection.That's not true, it was the Maester's after the rebellion who said Robert was the rightful king with the most targ blood in him. The fact is, even if Robert had 0 Targ blood whatsoever, they would have agreed him as the rightful king on some other pretense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Because he was a usurper. And he usurped the throne. The throne that belongs to Dany.You know what`s interesting? He comes before Dany according to Targaryen laws of succession. So, basically after Viserys` death, he was next in line :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direwolf of the Starks Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 All the kingdoms bent their knee to him after e WON the IT. It was his by right of conquest no matter that it was a rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 That's not true, it was the Maester's after the rebellion who said Robert was the rightful king with the most targ blood in him. The fact is, even if Robert had 0 Targ blood whatsoever, they would have agreed him as the rightful king on some other pretense.The maesters thing is hyperbole on Renly's part but yes, if no Targ blood connection could be made some other shit would be invented.But so what. 'Claims' are the product of legal and political thought and this is shaped by the need to achieve certain ends in political systems. The 'claim' they used is illogical because it means there are people before Robert in the line of succession. So his 'right' to the throne is dubious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dornishman's Wife Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Robert was obviously the rightful king of the Baratheon dynasty while (for most of his reign) Viserys was the rightful king of the Targaryen dynasty*. Which dynasty you prefer to hold the throne is another matter *shrug*.------* (or at least that was how it appeared - we of course can consider Jon and/or Aegon to have trumped him) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 You know what`s interesting? He comes before Dany according to Targaryen laws of succession. So, basically after Viserys` death, he was next in line :)The idea all male claimants no matter the distance of their descent precede all female claimants, regardless of the closeness of theirs, is not a claim made either in the books, or by the author.It derives from a wiki article about the Targ succession and the author of that article (a poster on this board) regrets that the phrasing of said article has led so many to erroneous conclusions about the Targ succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 The idea all male claimants no matter the distance of their descent precede all female claimants, regardless of the closeness of theirs, is not a claim made either in the books, or by the author.It derives from a wiki article about the Targ succession and the author of that article (a poster on this board) regrets that the phrasing of said article has led so many to erroneous conclusions about the Targ succession.I know about all of this conundrum. But the issue is that Targaryen laws prevented females from inheriting the Throne. Also, we do know that Rhaegar reffered to Robert as `cousin`. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cersai's Son Posted May 22, 2013 Author Share Posted May 22, 2013 That's not true, it was the Maester's after the rebellion who said Robert was the rightful king with the most targ blood in him. The fact is, even if Robert had 0 Targ blood whatsoever, they would have agreed him as the rightful king on some other pretense.During the rebellion the rebels already chose Robert as their leader because he had Targ blood so could make claim to the throne. Whoever the rebels chose was going to be king if they had won. If Robert didn't have Targ blood then someone other lord of the house could have been choosen to lead the rebels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Leftwich Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 like i said if it was about conquest Robert wouldn't be needing Targ blood. The Rebels decided before the war that were going to put RObert in charge just because of his Targ connection.I think I recall an SSM or the like saying that the rebels decided on Robert as the king between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident, because of the Targ association, but I can not find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.