Does a blackfyre have more claim to the IT than Daenerys ?

[El Guapo]

For the trillionth time, a right is completely different from a claim. Daenerys has a claim to the Iron Throne as she is the only (confirmed) heir of the previous ruling House. She does not have a right to the throne, and arguably, no one else does either.

For the trillionth and one time.

[Mal Malenkirk]

True. The Targs lost the throne so basically none of them have any claim and they will have to take the throne by conquest.

That's kind of why I would like for Aegon to be fake AND that he does end with the Throne. That'd be ironic. All this talk about claims... in the end the Throne belongs to whoever is strong enough to hold it. It's all there is to it.

[El Guapo]

That's kind of why I would like for Aegon to be fake AND that he does end with the Throne. That'd be ironic. All this talk about claims... in the end the Throne belongs to whoever is strong enough to hold it. It's all there is to it.

Agreed. But that still doesn't mean that there aren't people with legitimate claims to the throne.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Maybe the question could be asked this way--if a Grand Council is gathered to weigh the competing claims and if the Grand Council agrees ahead of time to use historical rules regarding right of succession and if the Grand Council decided that Robert was a Usurper and the Targaryen dynasty is the rightful dynasty, then who would have a better claim before the Grand Council, Dany or a Blackfyre.

I believe Dany would for multiple reasons. First, the Blackfyres are well up the chain so even if females generally don't inherit, you should not go that far back up the chain to find a male. Second, the Blackfyre line died out from the male line, so any male "Blackfyre" today would have to be from a female Blackfyre and given that Dany's claim is superior to that female's claim, that female's male descendant cannot have a better claim than his female ancestor would have. Finally, I think the Grand Council would agree that the Blackfyres were disinherited from the Targ line of succession as a result of their rebellion.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

That's kind of why I would like for Aegon to be fake AND that he does end with the Throne. That'd be ironic. All this talk about claims... in the end the Throne belongs to whoever is strong enough to hold it. It's all there is to it.

I believe that he will end up with the throne but not that he will be the one who will have it in the end.

Agreed. But that still doesn't mean that there aren't people with legitimate claims to the throne.

Who can judge who has legitimate claim and who doesn't? My opinion is that the winner is the only one who could do that.

[El Guapo]

I believe that he will end up with the throne but not that he will be the one who will have it in the end.

Who can judge who has legitimate claim and who doesn't? My opinion is that the winner is the only one who could do that.

The people of Westeros.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Until the worldbook or something else clarifies, I'm pretty iffy about this statement. It's never been established in books, just in a SSM from eight years ago. (A kinda suspect SSM, because the reporter lied about something else in the same report.)

I discussed it with some nice folks here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/113710-westeros-law-regarding-female-heirs/page-3

Actually, I don't think we do need the "World..." for that. We have the novels. And if the "no girls on the throne, evuh!!!1" was an actual rule, I firmly believe it would be said aloud at least once by at least one character somewhere on those four thousand pages. Considering that nobody did, there are two believable reasons for that: either there's no such rule, or nobody in the whole wide world gives a fuck about it.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The people of Westeros.

I didn't knew that the Westerosi had one brain and one mouth. Because since they hadn't what you said could mean that everyone who has one Westerosi supporter can have a claim. If one of the Lord Butterwell's daughter gave birth to a child after her night with Aegon and this child has descendants today if someone believes that those descendants have any claim they would trully have a claim or that Hugh Hammer had any claim?

[El Guapo]

I didn't knew that the Westerosi had one brain and one mouth. Because since they hadn't what you said could mean that everyone who has one Westerosi supporter can have a claim. If one of the Lord Butterwell's daughter gave birth to a child after her night with Aegon and this child has descendants today if someone believes that those descendants have any claim they would trully have a claim?

Not a claim that would be taken seriously by anyone.

However if you are the daughter of the former King or a grandson of the former King people would take those claims seriously. I am not sure why this is even a debatebale point.

[Nictarion]

So by your logic, Dany is claimless.

If you asked a Baratheon.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Not a claim that would be taken seriously by anyone.

However if you are the daughter of the former King or a grandson of the former King people would take those claims seriously. I am not sure why this is even a debatebale point.

And who decides who has a serious claim or not? Because as I see it: a daughter of a mad man who comes bringing chaos, mayhem, death and by her own words "fire and blood" upon people who she calls her people then she has less claim than the last Flee Bottom's thug who could happen to have Royal blood. The point is that only the winner can define wthe laws and the legal claims.

[HexMachina]

Because they lost. Twice.

More than twice...

[Mal Malenkirk]

Agreed. But that still doesn't mean that there aren't people with legitimate claims to the throne.

In political terms, legitimacy is basically acceptance of the authority of the ruler by the governed. In Westeros, If enough noble families accept a ruler, he's legitimate. It's not much more sophisticaded then that.

[Foibles]

And who decides who has a serious claim or not? Because as I see it: a daughter of a mad man who comes bringing chaos, mayhem, death and by her own words "fire and blood" upon people who she calls her people then she has less claim than the last Flee Bottom's thug who could happen to have Royal blood. The point is that only the winner can define wthe laws and the legal claims.

Nobility has a say in it. If the nobility won't take the rulers claim seriously then they're likely to try and put someone on the throne that does. But it's not in the nobilities favor to just blatantly ignore legitimate claims, either, as they also are subject to succession laws and claims as well.

And it's not so simple as the king saying "here's a new law!" Aegon could and the first Targs could do it simply because they had dragons. A king needs his nobles to support the laws he wishes to create or change, otherwise he risks revolt.

In this case, right of conquest only works if the conqueror is willing to work with the nobles to keep the general status quo or if the conqueror has such an overwhelming martial strength that the conquered cannot resist whatever he/she wants to impose. Of course, as months and years pass this becomes more favorable for Dany as her dragons just grow that much larger.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Nobility has a say in it. If the nobility won't take the rulers claim seriously then they're likely to try and put someone on the throne that does. But it's not in the nobilities favor to just blatantly ignore legitimate claims, either, as they also are subject to succession laws and claims as well.

And it's not so simple as the king saying "here's a new law!" Aegon could and the first Targs could do it simply because they had dragons. A king needs his nobles to support the laws he wishes to create or change, otherwise he risks revolt.

In this case, right of conquest only works if the conqueror is willing to work with the nobles to keep the general status quo or if the conqueror has such an overwhelming martial strength that the conquered cannot resist whatever he/she wants to impose. Of course, as months and years pass this becomes more favorable for Dany as her dragons just grow that much larger.

I can bet that the nobility wouldn't support someone who comes with hordes of barbarians in order to take their lands and I don't believe that Dany's dragons will be a great advantage either.

[Foibles]

I can bet that the nobility wouldn't support someone who comes with hordes of barbarians in order to take their lands and I don't believe that Dany's dragons will be a great advantage either.

I definitely think trying to bring the dothraki over would do more harm for her cause than good, but I don't think it's realistic to believe she has anyway of doing that to begin with. She'd need a huge fleet to move any amount of Dothraki that would be a serious threat, and I doubt she'd have enough ships even with Victarion's fleet.

The dragons, right now, would be a minor advantage. The fear they could cause would likely be their biggest strength. The smart thing to do would be to wait out the winter in Essos. When the next summer comes the dragons would likely be a much bigger threat. Of course, that's ignoring whether Dany is needed to fight the Others.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I definitely think trying to bring the dothraki over would do more harm for her cause than good, but I don't think it's realistic to believe she has anyway of doing that to begin with. She'd need a huge fleet to move any amount of Dothraki that would be a serious threat, and I doubt she'd have enough ships even with Victarion's fleet.

The dragons, right now, would be a minor advantage. The fear they could cause would likely be their biggest strength. The smart thing to do would be to wait out the winter in Essos. When the next summer comes the dragons would likely be a much bigger threat. Of course, that's ignoring whether Dany is needed to fight the Others.

If she hasn't got the Dothraki and/or the Unsullied she has no army so it's difficult for her to take the throne.

I wouldn't bet that Dany's dragons would either be needed to fight the Others and that they would been able to survive the Winter.

[El Guapo]

And who decides who has a serious claim or not? Because as I see it: a daughter of a mad man who comes bringing chaos, mayhem, death and by her own words "fire and blood" upon people who she calls her people then she has less claim than the last Flee Bottom's thug who could happen to have Royal blood. The point is that only the winner can define wthe laws and the legal claims.

You're not a Westerosi.

.We have already have one of the major Houses actively seeking to restore the Targaryens to the throne. Hell, I'd argue that House Tyrell is one execution away from joining up with the Targaryen cause as well (most likely Aegon). We have also been shown smallfolk in the pillaged Riverlands longing for the protection of their old King (hint: it wasn't Robert). And I am not sure why you'd think a House with "fire and blood' as their house words would be some kinf of negative given the fact that Westeros lived under said house for nearly 3 centuries.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

You're not a Westerosi.

.We have already have one of the major Houses actively seeking to restore the Targaryens to the throne. Hell, I'd argue that House Tyrell is one execution away from joining up with the Targaryen cause as well (most likely Aegon). We have also been shown smallfolk in the pillaged Riverlands longing for the protection of their old King (hint: it wasn't Robert). And I am not sure why you'd think a House with "fire and blood' as their house words would be some kinf of negative given the fact that Westeros lived under said house for nearly 3 centuries.

Which one this house would be? Martell? Because the only thing that we have seen with Martell and the Targs is that they want to use them If they wanted to support them then the would had took care of them and they would had helped them. But now Dany has lost even the last Westerosi ally she could had when she spurned Quentyn exactly the same time when there is a Targ(?) who has something to give back to the Martells.

The point is that the winner is the one who makes the rules and the laws. So the winner is the one who takes the power. For all we know Daeron could be Aemon's son but still he had the power so he mayde the rules.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

If Dany doesn't have a claim to the Iron Throne, then neither does Jon or Stannis or anyone that isn't Tommen. He's the sitting King. By the logic put by some, then Sansa, Arya, Rickon and Jon don't have a claim to Winterfell because Robb was overthrown. It's ridiculous. Claims don't work that way. It's a much more complex system than just "Guy in Power."