Robert was never the rightful King?

[Lord Damian]

Deposing a tyrannical king was pretty much exactly the reason given by Henry IV.

Henry IV usurped the throne from the 9 year old Earl of March that was his and Richard II's cousin. He, the Earl, Last name/surname Mortimer was the Grandson of Edward III's second eldest son (the older, Richard II's father was Edward The Black Prince). The young Earl was not an issue of Richard II and was already the heir apparent. Henry IV had absolutely no right to do what he did. Eventually, that young Earl had a daughter who married a Plantagenet male cousin, the Duke of York, Richard in fact, his sons were Edward IV, George Duke of Clarence and Richard III. The line was pretty much restored and through, Elizabeth of York - Henry Tudor In other words, Henry iv, HENRY V and Henry VI were not really legitimate kings, neither was Richard III for that matter, anointed all, yes, but not rightful by the way THEY CLAIMED THE THRONE.

[WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive]

Nobody is ever the rightful king.

They become a king because people call them a king.

[/thread]

[Thendel]

So if someone does something that can be described as conquest, that means they must claim the leadership through conquest as part of some sort of natural process. This is therefore a valid extrapolation from the evidence ..?

Urr.

Fact is, if the claim was based on conquest people would not mention the Targ blood. People mention the Targ blood, ergo the claim was not based on conquest.

And despite the redoubtable authority of wikipedia I think it is accepted that being in a relation of vassalage and subjection to the person you overthrow changes things. It raises the question of whether the war was done with right, and if it was not that can be taken as delegitimizing any consequences that flow from it. No government, or legal profession would ever want to rest a claim purely on the successful application of force if they had other options, as that destroys any notion that obedience is required to the king.

No, it's not a fact that Robert claimed kingship solely by right of blood. It was one of the two reasons for his claim, the other being right of conquest. We don't have the explicit wording of his claim, but those are the reasons that are continually brought up.

And I believe you're getting off track if you want to argue the legality of "might makes right". Of course it's not an accepted legal reason in modern international law, but by the laws of Westeros, it is. Applying modern law to a fictional, medieval setting makes zero sense to me.

Is "might makes right" an arbitrary concept? I'd be inclined to agree on that, and I'd never want to live in a society where such a notion is accepted, but that's how Westeros works. My point was that given that Westeros accepts that idea as legal justification, Robert's claim to the throne was legal, especially when it was affirmed by all the lords of the realm.

And if you want to dispute the value of my source, I ask you to procure a definition from a greater authority that actually disputes mine. "I think it is accepted" is not really a strong way of arguing that your definition is more correct than the one I've sourced. We're discussing definitions, not personal opinions or analyzations.

[Alester Florent]

Henry IV usurped the throne from the 9 year old Earl of March that was his and Richard II's cousin. He, the Earl, Last name/surname Mortimer was the Grandson of Edward III's second eldest son (the older, Richard II's father was Edward The Black Prince). The young Earl was not an issue of Richard II and was already the heir apparent. Henry IV had absolutely no right to do what he did. Eventually, that young Earl had a daughter who married a Plantagenet male cousin, the Duke of York, Richard in fact, his sons were Edward IV, George Duke of Clarence and Richard III. The line was pretty much restored and through, Elizabeth of York - Henry Tudor In other words, Henry iv, HENRY V and Henry VI were not really legitimate kings, neither was Richard III for that matter, anointed all, yes, but not rightful by the way THEY CLAIMED THE THRONE.

By agnatic primogeniture, Henry was Richard's heir, and there was a long-running dispute over whether the succession was agnatic or not. This was part of the reason Richard and Henry had fallen out in the first place: it's probable that the reason Richard actually plumped for the Earl of March as his heir was to annoy Henry, and because the Earl of March was a child. Henry's coronation relied on older precedent suggesting that the succession was supposed to be agnatic, although the real justification was obvious (Richard had to go, and Henry was the only viable alternative). Of course, Henry's usurpation of Richard itself was not particularly lawful, since nobody disputed that Richard was the rightful king; that was circumvented by getting him to abdicate virtually at sword-point.

When it comes to Richard III, of course, that's all very difficult. If the claim he made was actually true (that Edward IV's children were out of lawful wedlock and therefore technically illegitimate) then the rightful heirs was John de la Pole and his brothers, followed by Richard (George and his heirs were under attainder). However, following, ironically, the precedent set by Henry IV himself, in which living sons come ahead of female-line grandchildren, then Richard was Edward's heir if Edward's children were out of the picture. Of course, on that basis Edward had no right to overthrow Henry VI in the first place. Certainly John de la Pole didn't seem to have a problem with Richard's arguable leapfrogging of him.

In fact, the real reason in both situations was that child monarchs were a disaster waiting to happen (as had repeatedly been seen in English history by that point) and it's worth fudging the details of the succession in order to avoid getting one, which is probably why both coups were widely accepted even if there were a couple of legal fictions in their reasoning. Possibly the only reason the same thing didn't happen with Henry VI was that he was de jure king of France as well, and because there wasn't a glaringly obvious candidate next in line... and that decision didn't turn out particularly well.

[Lord Damian]

By agnatic primogeniture, Henry was Richard's heir, and there was a long-running dispute over whether the succession was agnatic or not. This was part of the reason Richard and Henry had fallen out in the first place: it's probable that the reason Richard actually plumped for the Earl of March as his heir was to annoy Henry, and because the Earl of March was a child. Henry's coronation relied on older precedent suggesting that the succession was supposed to be agnatic, although the real justification was obvious (Richard had to go, and Henry was the only viable alternative). Of course, Henry's usurpation of Richard itself was not particularly lawful, since nobody disputed that Richard was the rightful king; that was circumvented by getting him to abdicate virtually at sword-point.

When it comes to Richard III, of course, that's all very difficult. If the claim he made was actually true (that Edward IV's children were out of lawful wedlock and therefore technically illegitimate) then the rightful heirs was John de la Pole and his brothers, followed by Richard (George and his heirs were under attainder). However, following, ironically, the precedent set by Henry IV himself, in which living sons come ahead of female-line grandchildren, then Richard was Edward's heir if Edward's children were out of the picture. Of course, on that basis Edward had no right to overthrow Henry VI in the first place. Certainly John de la Pole didn't seem to have a problem with Richard's arguable leapfrogging of him.

In fact, the real reason in both situations was that child monarchs were a disaster waiting to happen (as had repeatedly been seen in English history by that point) and it's worth fudging the details of the succession in order to avoid getting one, which is probably why both coups were widely accepted even if there were a couple of legal fictions in their reasoning. Possibly the only reason the same thing didn't happen with Henry VI was that he was de jure king of France as well, and because there wasn't a glaringly obvious candidate next in line... and that decision didn't turn out particularly well.

I respectfully disagree. The young Earl of March was indeed the "widely viewed heir apparent to Richard II" before Henry was exiled to Ireland. The deal was none of the other dukes and barons wanted to bend the knee to a child and Henry offered bribes and other benefits (imagine that) to those who supported his , ahem... claim. Usurped the Earl of March all the way.

[Alester Florent]

I respectfully disagree. The young Earl of March was indeed the "widely viewed heir apparent to Richard II" before Henry was exiled to Ireland. The deal was none of the other dukes and barons wanted to bend the knee to a child and Henry offered bribes and other benefits (imagine that) to those who supported his , ahem... claim. Usurped the Earl of March all the way.

Widely viewed, yes, but not universally, nor legally settled. Richard's nomination of Mortimer (actually, Mortimer's father) as heir was an informal one, while Richard himself was still in his teens and expected to have children of his own, and the decision was never ratified either in writing or Parliament. When challenged directly on the issue a few years later, Richard demurred, and instead passed off the normal offices of state that the heir would expect on the Duke of York and his sons. Shortly before the business with Henry's exile, Richard issued a warrant for Mortimer's arrest on suspicion of treason, and that was only stayed by his death in battle.

The other factor to consider is John of Gaunt - John was already the most powerful lord in the kingdom, widely unpopular, and few people if anyone would have wanted to see him end up with the crown as well. Richard hated him, too, despite John's longstanding support of him, so it was unlikely Richard would ever settle the kingdom on him, and, therefore, Henry, while options were available. That's not to mention the brooding presence of Thomas of Woodstock who seems to have rather fancied the throne for himself. Ultimately, though, by the only legal document available, the Lancastrians were Richard's heirs, because that's what Edward III signed off on and Richard never contradicted it sufficiently clearly. Had Roger Mortimer survived, the chances are there might well have been more of an argument, and, as Richard's personal designated heir, even if unofficial, and a formidable man in his own right, his cognatic legal claim would have been backed by substance. The Percys might well have supported him over Henry, albeit it would probably still have needed Henry to kickstart the rebellion (Richard had tried the same trick with the Mortimer estates that he did with the Lancaster ones, but Mortimer was a child at the time rather than a grown man so didn't really have the opportunity to rebel). But given a choice between an agnatic war hero and a cognatic child, it was a no-brainer, and sufficient documentation existed to justify it. Moreover, and critically, it was ratified by parliament during Richard's abdication process. Had they opted for the Earl of March instead - not likely, but possible - then Henry wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on.

By subsequent succession law, ultimately that established under, rather ironically again, the Tudors, the Mortimers were Richard's heirs beyond doubt. But at the time it was more up for grabs. The question of agnatic vs cognatic primogeniture hadn't reared its head in England in over two hundred years by that point, and even on the previous occasion it had been inconclusive. The French - and England was still fervently maintaining a claim to the throne at that point - had recently ruled in favour of an agnatic succession too. Moreover, on the previous occasion in England that the succession had been disputed when the choice had been between an established uncle and a child cousin (John vs Arthur), the uncle won out, and that was a cousin via agnatic succession, rather than through a mother. So there was a reasonable precedent for Henry's claim.

(FWIW, I'm a Yorkist, although I do have a lot of sympathy for Henry).

[Chaircat Meow]

No, it's not a fact that Robert claimed kingship solely by right of blood. It was one of the two reasons for his claim, the other being right of conquest. We don't have the explicit wording of his claim, but those are the reasons that are continually brought up.

Where? No one ever talks about conquest as creating a legal justification. They say things like Robert won the throne with his warhammer, but that is just a factual statement, not an argument from right of conquest, and tends to be opposed to the language of 'right' and 'claim.'

If they did talk about right of conquest in relation to Robert I wouldn't be arguing the point. They don't though and you never presented any evidence they did. Your last argument was that 'according to wikipedia Robert fits the definition of a conquer, therefore conquest was part of his legal justification,' which is an absurd argument, as people do not necessarily make arguments other people think they could potentially make, nor do other people make them for them.

Also, the definition of conquering says nothing about specific conditions that might render such a statement dubious, like the idea the 'conquest' involved 'rebellion.' That articles doesn't speak to the point so I'm confused as to why you think you've proved anything by citing it. It's not the case anyway that a 'usurpation,' which is a wrongful seizure of power, doesn't involve the things a conquest does; it is the fact it is an action done without right, and is thusly illegitimate. States generally think you can go to war with each other, and that is it wrong for their subjects to go to war with them.

[WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive]

Where? No one ever talks about conquest as creating a legal justification. They say things like Robert won the throne with his warhammer, but that is just a factual statement, not an argument from right of conquest, and tends to be opposed to the language of 'right' and 'claim.'

Oh my god. The lords swore fealty to him and accepted him as their king. He didn't need a legal justification. Lords make the kings, not lawyers. Stop looking at this from 21st century perspective please.

[Chaircat Meow]

Oh my god. The lords swore fealty to him and accepted him as their king. He didn't need a legal justification. Lords make the kings, not lawyers. Stop looking at this from 21st century perspective please.

Huh. What has this got to do with a 21st century perspective? It is pretty patent the westerosi have the concept of a de jure claim to the throne, that can be maintained in the face of the behaviour of the lords. Note the fact that some still call Robert 'usurper' and appreciate also that were this not the case Stannis truly is a raving lunatic.

[WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive]

Huh. What has this got to do with a 21st century perspective? It is pretty patent the westerosi have the concept of a de jure claim to the throne, that can be maintained in the face of the behaviour of the lords. Note the fact that some still call Robert 'usurper' and appreciate also that were this not the case Stannis truly is a raving lunatic.

There is a difference between "rightful heir" and "king", as I've said multiple times in this thread. Targaryens call Robert usurper because he is a usurper, no one can deny that. But there is no such thing as a rightful king. Some claims are stronger than others, but in the end a claim is only as strong as the swords behind it. If all great lords recognized random peasant #69533703 as their king, then he would be king.

Stannis believes in law and the law dictates that after the king's death his heir becomes the king. But this is not always the case. The king is the one whom the lords swear fealty to. If they choose not to recognize the heir as king, then he is no king. That is what Stannis and his fans do not understand - a claim is nothing and support of the great lords is everything.

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

Nonsense. There are plenty of nations that have preserved a sense of 'right' or 'just' government despite being battered by the vicissitudes of war. Take England under Cromwell and the Republicans. No could doubt they won the war, but it was still seen as an illegal regime, despite the fact according to its own 'laws' it was in the right.

Laws, btw, don't have to equate strictly to the will of the current ruler; that's not really the medieval idea of law at all.

It was seen as an illegal regime because Cromwell ultimately was ousted. Contrast his "illegal regime" with the perfectly lawful and celebrated unrightful (?) coronnation of King William III and Mary II after the Glorious Revolution. Bear in mind that a "rightful" King existed at the time.

[Chaircat Meow]

It was seen as an illegal regime because Cromwell ultimately was ousted. Contrast his "illegal regime" with the perfectly lawful and celebrated unrightful (?) coronnation of King William III and Mary II after the Glorious Revolution. Bear in mind that a "rightful" King existed at the time.

In both cases you mention a large part of the political nation thought the proceedings were (in some sense) wrong/unlawful, when they happened. I'm not speaking to what happened afterwards.

The GR example is especially choice given the Tories were reluctant to call William a real king (something he famously joked about), and came up with elaborate excuses for not supporting James II and III, such as the idea the II 'abdicated' (i.e. gave up voluntarily) and that the III was really not the II's son.

You seem to be possessed of the notion that ideas about constitutional propriety undergo a radical transformation whenever it is convenient for the government of the day. In truth it is much more complicated than that. The questionable regime tries to justify itself against the inherited set of ideas about political right, sometimes convincingly, sometimes not. IMO Robert and co did so rather unconvincingly, if not patently illogically.

[King Aerys the Just]

There is a difference between "rightful heir" and "king", as I've said multiple times in this thread. Targaryens call Robert usurper because he is a usurper, no one can deny that. But there is no such thing as a rightful king. Some claims are stronger than others, but in the end a claim is only as strong as the swords behind it. If all great lords recognized random peasant #69533703 as their king, then he would be king.

Stannis believes in law and the law dictates that after the king's death his heir becomes the king. But this is not always the case. The king is the one whom the lords swear fealty to. If they choose not to recognize the heir as king, then he is no king. That is what Stannis and his fans do not understand - a claim is nothing and support of the great lords is everything.

You are chasing shadows. Nobody is saying that a righteous claim is all that it takes to make a person king in reality. It is relevant when discussing a topic like "who is the rightful king" or similar, however.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

He is the last male of Targaryen bloodline. Iron Throne can be inherited only by men, which excludes Daenerys, no matter how close she is to the main line.

I believe this is correct. Notice how Robert wasn't worried about Daenerys until she got married and there was a chance she might have a son? The exact quote in the wiki about "highly modified agnatic primogeniture" comes from this essay by Ran and Linda on the Tor website:

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/05/the-cycle-of-inheritance-in-a-song-of-ice-and-fire

Also there's the SSM Dr. Pepper referenced. All of which points to Robert being heir apparent to Viserys, who was a child and rumored to share his father's madness. Given that the Great Council passed over a madman's child in favor of Aegon V, I think that's precedent enough to say Bob was the rightful King both by conquest and inheritance (a la Henry Tudor)

[David Selig]

I believe this is correct. Notice how Robert wasn't worried about Daenerys until she got married and there was a chance she might have a son? The exact quote in the wiki about "highly modified agnatic primogeniture" comes from this essay by Ran and Linda on the Tor website:

http://www.tor.com/b...of-ice-and-fire

He wasn't worried about Dany much because Viserys was alive and he was the Targ heir.He still wanted both of them dead but Jon Arryn convinced him otherwise.

[Alester Florent]

There is a difference between "rightful heir" and "king", as I've said multiple times in this thread. Targaryens call Robert usurper because he is a usurper, no one can deny that. But there is no such thing as a rightful king. Some claims are stronger than others, but in the end a claim is only as strong as the swords behind it. If all great lords recognized random peasant #69533703 as their king, then he would be king.

I'd say, if anything, that this is the 21st-century concept, rather than the reverse. In a society which has a lot of ritual and magic associated with the kingship and the person and attributes of the king, a society which developed the concept of divine right of kings, the legal right and claim to the throne was extremely important. Kings aren't dictators, or presidents, they're kings, and that's a different ball game.

This can be seen with a look at English history (sorry). The last king of England to take the throne by right of conquest alone was Sweyn Forkbeard nearly a thousand years ago, and that was really a foreign invasion. Since then every king - even those who won the throne by right of arms, like William I, Henry II or Edward IV - has been careful to construct a legal claim before calling themselves king. There are a number of instances throughout history where a dictator has overthrown the existing power structure and taken over the institutions of government, becoming a king in all but name (de Montfort, Mortimer, Cromwell) - but there's the thing - in all but name. Any of those guys could have declared themselves king, but none of them did, because there's so much baggage wrapped up in the notion of kingship that none of them could have got away with it.

The same goes in Westeros. The "dragons' blood" may represent a form of divine right theory, although that's not clear. But everyone calling themselves a king has done so on the basis of some connection or inheritance or some form of legal right other than just "I can". Everyone but Renly, but even then he only dared because he was Robert's brother, and even then the weakness of his claim is a plot point.

[Thendel]

Where? No one ever talks about conquest as creating a legal justification. They say things like Robert won the throne with his warhammer, but that is just a factual statement, not an argument from right of conquest, and tends to be opposed to the language of 'right' and 'claim.'

If they did talk about right of conquest in relation to Robert I wouldn't be arguing the point. They don't though and you never presented any evidence they did. Your last argument was that 'according to wikipedia Robert fits the definition of a conquer, therefore conquest was part of his legal justification,' which is an absurd argument, as people do not necessarily make arguments other people think they could potentially make, nor do other people make them for them.

Also, the definition of conquering says nothing about specific conditions that might render such a statement dubious, like the idea the 'conquest' involved 'rebellion.' That articles doesn't speak to the point so I'm confused as to why you think you've proved anything by citing it. It's not the case anyway that a 'usurpation,' which is a wrongful seizure of power, doesn't involve the things a conquest does; it is the fact it is an action done without right, and is thusly illegitimate. States generally think you can go to war with each other, and that is it wrong for their subjects to go to war with them.

The phrasing "won the throne with his warhammer" and "the warhammer was his claim" are, as I read it, actually referring to the same notion: Robert took up arms against the throne, won, and claimed dominion because he won. That's the line of causation. I'm not sure how much more explicit it has to be before you'll admit that this is one of the reasons Robert is king. If you want me to find the necessary quotes I'll oblige you, but I'm confident a closer reading would confirm that people continuously refer to Robert "winning" the throne, more so than him actually inheriting it. And no, I'm not making an argument that isn't there: Ned argues it, Renly argues it, and Robert himself argues it by referring to the fact that he "won" the throne. The right of conquest part is implicit, as it is simply a notion that the characters espouse. Or do we need a passage where Ned thinks: "Robert is king of the Seven Kingdoms because according to U237, §3, Right of conquest is claimed..." before you'll agree that they think that way?

As for your confusion regarding my use of the wikipedia definition, I'll explain: Right of conquest means that one has conquered the throne. The OP in particular has brought up the notion that Robert cannot claim right of conquest as he gained it through rebellion, not by launching an invasion from outside the kingdoms' borders, to which I've responded by laying out that conquering in itself does not explicitly mean that one has to come from outside the territory to conquer it: You just have to take it by force, which Robert did. Meaning that he conquered the throne, hence it is his by conquest, as was the case for Aegon I, Aegon II and all other kings that had to fight for the right to sit the throne. I really don't see how the nature of the conflict being a rebellion changes the fact that one took something from another by force.

As for the usurpation: Yes, Robert rose up against his liege lord, took the throne by force, and displaced the Targaeryens from power. That's usurpation, all right. Yet it doesn't matter; the lords of the Seven Kingdoms affirmed him as their new king, making the rebellion legally founded. That's how something becomes legal in Westeros: Might makes it right.

[WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive]

You are chasing shadows. Nobody is saying that a righteous claim is all that it takes to make a person king in reality. It is relevant when discussing a topic like "who is the rightful king" or similar, however.

I guess this thread is hopeless. There is no such thing as rightful king. Viserys was the rightful heir after Aerys' death, but no one recognized his claim. Instead, they recognized Robert as their king, which gave him the right to rule.

[viking warrior]

I guess this thread is hopeless. There is no such thing as rightful king. Viserys was the rightful heir after Aerys' death, but no one recognized his claim. Instead, they recognized Robert as their king, which gave him the right to rule.

I think I now where you're going at, The king is the guy thats in charge, the one that the lord paramounts bend their knee to. Period. His son would be the rightful heir. The King is killed in war an another lord takes the throne, the lord parmounts bend their knee to this Usurper. The son was and still is the rightful heir to the throne, but he is no king.

[Frumpus]

You guys are acting as if the position of King is some mythical position that absolutely requires the right lineage and right position to the throne.

You should be asking yourselves why you care so much about that. Does someone's blood really matter so much? Would it matter in the real world?