The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game of Thrones Lannister Hat
Game of Thrones Lannister Hat
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Robert was never the rightful King?


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#121 WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive

WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:14 PM

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.

/cheers.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheers:' />

#122 Adelstein

Adelstein

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:34 PM

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.

Well, that is basically the whole point in monarchy.

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?

It doesn't matter much any more, although there are still people who demand a DNA test to prove that Harry is really Charles's son, so obviously it matters to some people. But historically, yes, it has mattered very much.

#123 Lord of Castamere

Lord of Castamere

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 118 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:50 PM

Might makes right.

#124 viking warrior

viking warrior

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:05 PM

Might makes right.

Some people on this thread are gonna require more fatcs than a fraise (not me though)

Edited by viking warrior, 23 May 2013 - 01:26 PM.


#125 Aleksandar

Aleksandar

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:11 PM

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.


I just cant agree more

#126 Of Starfall

Of Starfall

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:24 PM

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.


/shocked.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':shocked:' />

Edited by Of Starfall, 23 May 2013 - 01:25 PM.


#127 Lord Damian

Lord Damian

    Fist of the First Men

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,349 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:45 PM

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).

Regarding John vs Arthur. the matter was still in the air but Arthur died. Legend has it that John killed him or had him killed. The whole premise of Yorkist re-establishment as the true line from Richard Duke of york was claimed through the Earl of March. We may not agree but I contend that Henry iv was indeed an unjustifiable Usurper. It haunted him to his grave. One of the reasons Henry V invaded France, according to historians was there there was still lingering doubts over his and his father's claim and it was a popular distraction AND he wanted France too. Very convenient. Note, I am a Yorkist as well. Are you familiar with Henry's wild assertion that his ancestors desend from a brother of Edward I (Longshanks) that they claimed was the "elder" brother when in all documented history, he was the younger. My point is, Henry claimed he was the rightful heir over Rickard II to begin with. It was complete bullshit. He knew that the Earl had the better claim.

Edited by Lord Damian, 23 May 2013 - 01:47 PM.


#128 mrunderhill

mrunderhill

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,619 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:57 PM

Regarding John vs Arthur. the matter was still in the air but Arthur died. Legend has it that John killed him or had him killed. The whole premise of Yorkist re-establishment as the true line from Richard Duke of york was claimed through the Earl of March. We may not agree but I contend that Henry iv was indeed an unjustifiable Usurper. It haunted him to his grave. One of the reasons Henry V invaded France, according to historians was there there was still lingering doubts over his and his father's claim and it was a popular distraction AND he wanted France too. Very convenient. Note, I am a Yorkist as well. Are you familiar with Henry's wild assertion that his ancestors desend from a brother of Edward I (Longshanks) that they claimed was the "elder" brother when in all documented history, he was the younger. My point is, Henry claimed he was the rightful heir over Rickard II to begin with. It was complete bullshit. He knew that the Earl had the better claim.

I tend to agree with you, except that John for me was another clear usurper. The Plantagenet's came to the throne, through inheriting from Empress Matilda over Stephen's children. The Plantagenet were foolish enough to wipe themselves out and lose the throne as it passed to the Stuarts. I personally favoured the House of Lancaster of the House of York and Henry V in my opinion was England's greatest ever monarch (partly influenced by Shakespeare, but fair I believe), but th rightful claim belonged to the House of York. Oddly enough Henry VIII had the best claim to the throne since Richard II, but he was still paranoid and kept wiping out Plantagenet's.

#129 Adelstein

Adelstein

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:26 PM

I tend to agree with you, except that John for me was another clear usurper. The Plantagenet's came to the throne, through inheriting from Empress Matilda over Stephen's children. The Plantagenet were foolish enough to wipe themselves out and lose the throne as it passed to the Stuarts. I personally favoured the House of Lancaster of the House of York and Henry V in my opinion was England's greatest ever monarch (partly influenced by Shakespeare, but fair I believe), but th rightful claim belonged to the House of York. Oddly enough Henry VIII had the best claim to the throne since Richard II, but he was still paranoid and kept wiping out Plantagenet's.

Depends whether you believe Dicky III - in which case Elizabeth of York's claim was null, and Henry VII's claim was pretty much nonexistent to begin with. I can't help but feel that the main reason we don't believe Richard III's claims (or rather the bishop who first made them that Richard agreed with) about Edward's marriage is that his successors had too much to lose from its being true and buried all the evidence... which isn't to say it was true, of course, but it can't have been as obviously false as conventional history suggests.

I'm not such a fan of Henry V, to be honest - while a great war leader, he left things in a right mess.

To be honest, I'd have been more in favour of a tanistry system than a strict hereditary one, something akin to the Saxon/Norman system, where the best man for the job is chosen from a limited pool of candidates, and the convention is to succeed horizontally rather than vertically. Under such a system, the succession problem would never have arisen in the first place because one of Edward III's sons could have taken over (probably John) and been succeeded by another (probably Thomas) and ultimately by Henry IV, then his various sons or the Mortimers/Yorkists if suitable, with no need for messing about with child despots. But that's wishful thinking rather.

#130 Tommens Cat

Tommens Cat

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:31 PM

Well, the boar's eldest son, as it was killed and eaten after all


Oh, what a great exchange I lol'd

#131 Alistair's Pantaloons

Alistair's Pantaloons

    Council Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:35 PM

Claims and rights mean nothing. As Ser Jorah says, "Aegon took the throne because he COULD."

Robert earned it when he killed everyone else. All this bloodlines stuff is pretty much a joke when you look on the series overall. Dany can say "I am the blood of the dragon" all she wants but actually being given three eggs as gifts are what got her so far. Stannis can talk all he wants about being the "rightful heir" but if he's not sitting on that throne when the game is over... we can all assume he was wrong.

I look on the war over the Iron Throne as a bunch of morons squabbling for the amusement of we the readers. The real threat is obviously the dark and powerful magic of the White Walkers. The "rightful" kings and queens are just playing violent games compared to that.

#132 Marco

Marco

    This one was only the watcher...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,206 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:46 PM

Differences between Aegon and Robert ;
-Aegon conquered everyone, Robert defeat Targaryens and their followers.
-Aegon was alone, he conquered without help of other houses, Robert has big partners (North, East, Riverlands)

Robert was usurper, and Ned, Jon, Hoster was fool they have big part in this victory and they bend the knee with no reason...

Edited by Marco, 23 May 2013 - 02:51 PM.


#133 mrunderhill

mrunderhill

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,619 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 02:46 PM

Depends whether you believe Dicky III - in which case Elizabeth of York's claim was null, and Henry VII's claim was pretty much nonexistent to begin with. I can't help but feel that the main reason we don't believe Richard III's claims (or rather the bishop who first made them that Richard agreed with) about Edward's marriage is that his successors had too much to lose from its being true and buried all the evidence... which isn't to say it was true, of course, but it can't have been as obviously false as conventional history suggests.

I think people like to believe in a legitimate government when things are going well, not so much when things are going badly. I agree the whole Tudor Rose loses a lot of the mythology about it, if the kids were illegitimate. These things are very hard to proof though.

I'm not such a fan of Henry V, to be honest - while a great war leader, he left things in a right mess.

Maybe I am being blinded by nationalism a bit, but he certainly achieved all the goals a Medieval king should have done. If he had lived longer he may have been able to sort out many of the problems.

To be honest, I'd have been more in favour of a tanistry system than a strict hereditary one, something akin to the Saxon/Norman system, where the best man for the job is chosen from a limited pool of candidates, and the convention is to succeed horizontally rather than vertically. Under such a system, the succession problem would never have arisen in the first place because one of Edward III's sons could have taken over (probably John) and been succeeded by another (probably Thomas) and ultimately by Henry IV, then his various sons or the Mortimers/Yorkists if suitable, with no need for messing about with child despots. But that's wishful thinking rather.

This does solve the problem of child kings, but it raises another one. What happens when two men of virtually equal worth vie for the kingship. Especially if both have great power. It leaves the opportunity for other countries to invade or has a high risk of a civil war. Though it is ironic in Medieval England a strong king was usually followed by a weak one, who lost everything their father had built. Even Elizabath I was unable to consolidate on her reign with a strong natural heir.

#134 Lord Damian

Lord Damian

    Fist of the First Men

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,349 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:11 PM

I tend to agree with you, except that John for me was another clear usurper. The Plantagenet's came to the throne, through inheriting from Empress Matilda over Stephen's children. The Plantagenet were foolish enough to wipe themselves out and lose the throne as it passed to the Stuarts. I personally favoured the House of Lancaster of the House of York and Henry V in my opinion was England's greatest ever monarch (partly influenced by Shakespeare, but fair I believe), but th rightful claim belonged to the House of York. Oddly enough Henry VIII had the best claim to the throne since Richard II, but he was still paranoid and kept wiping out Plantagenet's.

Oh, I agree with you on John 100%. Arthur Duke of Brittany was the rightful heir but Grandmother Eleanor of Aquitaine knew that Arthur, who was practically raised in Phillip II of France's influence would have been a French "dupe" In an irony, this and John's betrayal of his French Vassals (his second queen was taken from her betrothal into the powerful - Lusignan family) that led him to being wiped out in France except for Calais and some Normandy lands.

#135 BericDondarrion

BericDondarrion

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:14 PM

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.


No it doesn't.The throne belongs to Stannis.It's funny, Robert is an usurper but Aegon I wasn't?Oh 300 years of Targs means they had right of conquest but Robert was an usurper?Guess people forgot that the Storm Kings, kings of winter, river kings etc had dynastys THOUSANDS OF YEARS LONG.But 283 years of Targaryens somehow trumps all?And anyway, Dany is a female so she would be all the way at the bottom..Any male Targ heir should be higher, which means Stannis (Targ grandmother, male, brother to King Robert I)Dany was the daughter of the deposed and killed king who she never even met.She has no claim.If she didn't have dragons she'd be a nobody.

Edited by BericDondarrion, 23 May 2013 - 03:18 PM.


#136 Lord Damian

Lord Damian

    Fist of the First Men

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,349 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:23 PM

Ser Barristant giving Dany the homage blah blah blah.. he had no where else to go. Joff was after him after he told him off, heh, heh. Dany without dragons would not have gotten into Quarth unless she was going as a sex slave. She owes her life to the "carnival attraction" known as the dragons. Dany COULD conquer Westeros, oh yes but right, no.

#137 Alistair's Pantaloons

Alistair's Pantaloons

    Council Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:29 PM

Ser Barristant giving Dany the homage blah blah blah.. he had no where else to go. Joff was after him after he told him off, heh, heh. Dany without dragons would not have gotten into Quarth unless she was going as a sex slave. She owes her life to the "carnival attraction" known as the dragons. Dany COULD conquer Westeros, oh yes but right, no.

Yeah, Berristan the "Bold" is going with his one option even though he'd been happy to sit by and let Robert and the council order Dany's death a few years before. Not Ned.

#138 viking warrior

viking warrior

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:31 PM

Differences between Aegon and Robert ;
-Aegon conquered everyone, Robert defeat Targaryens and their followers.
-Aegon was alone, he conquered without help of other houses, Robert has big partners (North, East, Riverlands)

Robert was usurper, and Ned, Jon, Hoster was fool they have big part in this victory and they bend the knee with no reason...

* - Aegon had Balerion the black dread, he could swallow a mammuth whole. Robert had his warhammer.

Edited by viking warrior, 23 May 2013 - 03:33 PM.


#139 mrunderhill

mrunderhill

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,619 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:34 PM

Yeah, Berristan the "Bold" is going with his one option even though he'd been happy to sit by and let Robert and the council order Dany's death a few years before. Not Ned.

To be fair to him he did vote against it, but that says it all about Barristan. He know that is a great knight and hero, but he seems to care more about being "honourable" than doing the right thing.

#140 viking warrior

viking warrior

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:37 PM

To be fair to him he did vote against it, but that says it all about Barristan. He know that is a great knight and hero, but he seems to care more about being "honourable" than doing the right thing.

To him, being honourable is the right thing.