• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About DarkBastard

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

659 profile views
  1. I have the final word, with as much proof as Megorova has provided for his argument: I just flew to New Mexico and had breakfast with GRRM, he said Stannis was next in line. My proof: (hint: there's nothing here, because Megorova also has nothing to prove his argument!)
  2. Again refusing to acknowledge the Hand of the King stating that Stannis is next in line. Still not providing a single piece of literary evidence proving your theory. You are simply wrong, and should re-read the books. Or take a reading comprehension course, then re-reading.
  3. No, it isn't. To end this idiotic debate, name one piece of literary evidence that states Renly was ahead of Stannis in the line of succession. We all have already shown you several examples in the text that Stannis was the next in line. You can't just say "because I think so" and expect us to take it as fact. The Hand of the King (Eddard Stark at the time) stated clearly and concisely that Stannis is the next in line. Eddard knew Stannis was not given Storm's End, but gave zero credence to your lunatic reasoning. No "maybe", no "possibly". Zero. Try to refute that. Again...L-i-t-e-r-a-r-y E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. No more opinions.
  4. This is way off course. It was said multiple times by multiple characters that Stannis was still the next in line to the throne if the kids are not Roberts. Stannis considered the granting of Dragonstone rather than Storm's End as a slight, but then again he saw many things as a slight. Nowhere in the text of the books does it indicate that Renly was ahead of Stannis in the line of succession.
  5. Got it, I misunderstood what you wrote.
  6. You are incorrect, and here is why: A "claim" to the throne is part of succession. If your family is deposed or ousted, your claim is gone, as you are no longer in the line of succession. In conquest, the danger in allowing the children of the deposed king to live is not that they have a claim, but that they may have supporters who will help them retake the throne through conquest (their only way back to power). That is why Robert wanted all the Targaryens dead, half the realm supported them during the rebellion, and many noble houses were made wealthy under their rule. You'll notice he wasn't afraid of them coming back and claiming "I'm the rightful heir", he was afraid they would come back with an army to retake the throne through conquest. In the books, Targaryen supporters call him "usurper" because they feel that what he did was illegal. "There are still those in the Seven Kingdoms who call me usurper". -King Robert Baratheon to Lord Eddard Stark To be an actual "usurper", you must seize power without right. Renly would have been a usurper if Littlefinger had convinced Ned to support his ascent to the throne (not through conquest, but seating him in the manner suggested by Baelish). Ned refused to usurp Stannis, but if he had, Stannis would have had rightful claim to the throne. If you look at what I posted previously, "right of conquest" is a legitimate right, and if you "read more attentively" there is nothing stated in the books to the contrary.
  7. Without G.R.R.M. providing exact legal definitions, below is the defined terminology for feudal monarchy succession as we know it. The underlined areas are of particular importance. If you cannot provide literary proof to the contrary (in ASOIAF or accompanying works), stop arguing! Right of Conquest: If one overthrows the monarch, taking the crown and kingdom by force, and holds them, then one is monarch. Usurpation and deposing of the monarch fall into this category. THIS WAS ROBERT BARATHEON, AND PARTLY AEGON THE CONQUEROR Presumption: In the absence of a monarch, if one lays claim the crown and kingdom without resistance and can hold them, then one is monarch. THIS WAS ALSO AEGON THE CONQUEROR, TO THE UNIFICATION OF THE SEVEN KINGDOMS UNDER ONE MONARCH ONCE RESISTANCE ENDED Right of Royal Succession: When the monarch dies, should the law prescribe the succession of the crown and kingdom, and one is numbered first in that succession, then one is monarch, so long as no other person usurps the crown. THIS WAS VISERYS, UNTIL THE CROWN WAS USURPED; AND JOFFREY AFTER ROBERT BARATHEON'S DEATH (EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH) Right of Kinship: Should the monarch die leaving no designated heir, and in the absence of law prescribing succession of the crown and kingdom, and one is the closest relative by kinship to the deceased monarch, then one is monarch, so long as no other person usurps the crown and one can quell all other claimants. THIS IS STANNIS BARATHEON (FOR THOSE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH) I truly hope we can get past this now...
  8. I couldn't agree more.
  9. I'm sorry, I thought you understood the concept of conquest. You see, when a king is deposed (or in this case killed) by insurgency or external army, and conqueror is then made king, the child of the dead king no longer has a claim to the throne. You see, there is a new king and his children or other family members are now the heirs. The child of the dead king can attempt to overthrow the new king, but short of that he/she has no legal claim to the throne. I suppose they could ask nicely for the conqueror to give it to him/her, but I doubt that would be considered seriously by the ruling family. That child can likely rally supporters based on who they are, but that doesn't make them king/queen. Get it?
  10. Unless you're watching a show I am not, my comments have nothing to do with the show. I've read the books, and I'm pretty sure it's clear Dany is looking to retake the Iron Throne eventually. Either way, what I posed was satire, if you couldn't tell by the "valley girl" tone.
  11. Amazing that someone can think that any King who ever conquers other areas en-masse is then somehow permanently the rightful rulers of said realm. If that were in any way accurate, the Queen of England would still be in control of a majority of the United States. The British, French, and Dutch would be the rightful rulers of most of Africa by that logic. Besides the fact that the Seven and the Citadel both confirmed Robert's legitimacy as king...I guess that just doesn't apply, right?
  12. This is spinning way off topic, but since we're there...the history books don't talk about slavery in Africa, or the fact that it was Africans who sold people to the rest of the world as slaves.
  13. If I remember correctly, it was named "The War of the Five Kings" before Mance was even engaging the Night's watch to get south. Again, because there were five declared Kings in the Seven Kingdoms, regardless of who engaged in battle.
  14. That is a moot point because the Targaryens were deposed through conquest. The Targaryen line has no claim to the throne, living or dead, unless it is retaken through conquest...as Dany is building toward now. She can't just walk in and say "Hi, I'm...like...a Targaryen, I'm like totally in charge here because my daddy was a king so...can I like...have my chair and stuff?"