Why are Targaryens considered rightful heirs to the throne?

[TheBraveSerDavos]

So I get that the targs were the first to conquer and unite the seven kingdoms under Aegon the Conquerer. But why is it that people consider Targaryens the true heirs to the throne?

Since Robert Baratheon won the Iron Throne fair and square dosen't this make Baretheons the rightful heir to the throne? 

I mean if the Targs won by conquering and the Baratheons won by conquering why are targs rightful heirs and not Baratheons?

This is mainly going out there to people who go around stating that Jon, Dany, or Aegon is the rightful heir to the iron throne. Shouldn't it go to the last living Baratheon or in the case of no Baratheon being left alive the next closest of kin?

[Castigear]

All previous and present royal houses at some point paid the iron price for the throne. There is no objectively rightful heir to the throne, just perspective. Baratheon supporters consider them the rightful rulers, Targaryen supporters see them as the rightful rulers, and people with no vested allegiance will support whomever they think will give them personally the best life. There is no objective right answer.  From a Baratheon perspective, that line is effectively dead...but Robert based his ascent partially on his distant Targaryen heritage, so even legally it would possibly fall back on that line. 

From a practical perspective, the reason some people still consider the Targaryen's the true royal family is because they ruled for a LONG time, and comparatively speaking the Baratheons have not. Plenty of people are still alive that remember the Targaryen rule, and other than Aegon losing his marbles at the end, it was a pretty good run. More recently, the Baratheons have had a rough go of it. it's the "good old days" syndrome.

[Masha]

34 minutes ago, Castigear said:

All previous and present royal houses at some point paid the iron price for the throne. There is no objectively rightful heir to the throne, just perspective. Baratheon supporters consider them the rightful rulers, Targaryen supporters see them as the rightful rulers, and people with no vested allegiance will support whomever they think will give them personally the best life. There is no objective right answer.  From a Baratheon perspective, that line is effectively dead...but Robert based his ascent partially on his distant Targaryen heritage, so even legally it would possibly fall back on that line. 

From a practical perspective, the reason some people still consider the Targaryen's the true royal family is because they ruled for a LONG time, and comparatively speaking the Baratheons have not. Plenty of people are still alive that remember the Targaryen rule, and other than Aegon losing his marbles at the end, it was a pretty good run. More recently, the Baratheons have had a rough go of it. it's the "good old days" syndrome.

Its not just "some people", its been implied that most smallfolk (aka majority of population) still call Robert, who is already famously dead, as usurper. 

[TheSerb]

I think people are so sick of Robert and Joffrey being so horrible at ruling, plus knowing that it was the Lannisters in power all along, that makes them want to go back to how things were in the old days instead of finding yet another horrible Baratheon to put on the throne. And who would it be anyway? Stannis is hated by the whole realm, his daughter would be an even more unpopular choice and I expect they'll both get killed in TWoW if HBO is anything to go by. Then we have the bastards Robert made, but they are not Baratheons, but rather children of whores that Robert had one-night stands with, so I don't know how they would qualify.

[Snoop Arryn]

Well the "Iron Throne" - as in the ruler of the 7K under 1 banner and also the chair itself -  was established and quite literally built by the Tagaryens. So in some sense it is "theirs" and was for a long, long time. Then, Robert led a rebellion and claimed that same seat and title, essentially. So I would think the heirs would need to come through Robert, legally... However, the Targaryen claimants can simply say that they are taking back their throne and Kingdom as if they never conceded defeat in Robert's Rebellion  - since they would be re-establishing that family dynasty and rule, but it would have to be done by conquest or treaty. - So the Targaryen claim isn't "legal" but will be just as valid in the end if they win.

[A Prince of Dorne]

I think people were doing just fine under Robert's reign. Seems to me the smallfolk miss Robert quite a bit now

[TheSerb]

19 minutes ago, A Prince of Dorne said:

I think people were doing just fine under Robert. Seems to me the smallfolk miss Robert quite a bit now

He is pretty much the only member of House Baratheon people would like to see be king. And he can't come back to life, can he? Only others are either acknowledged yellow-haired bastards, unacknowledged black-haired bastards, and Stannis.

[Castigear]

2 hours ago, Masha said:

Its not just "some people", its been implied that most smallfolk (aka majority of population) still call Robert, who is already famously dead, as usurper. 

Hence the "plenty of people...good old days" comment later in that paragraph.

[Kingpin]

I am against hereditary rule or power of any sort. I don't even understand how even in modern times, some of the most supposedly advanced countries and educated people can tolerate monarchy. It's unthinkable to me me for someone to be anything just because he was born. 

So if Democracy is out of the question, then the person that is going to rule must be the most capable. Daenerys can of course try to get the throne, but she is not the rightful heir, noone is. If I had to choose someone, I'd pick one that knows the most and his perception is superior to everyone else.

Who are the characters that are above all else in knowning what is happening to the world and around them?

Littlefinger seems to be unaware of very few things if anything. 

Varys aswell, but it's questionable why he would support someone as ignorant as Daenerys, it's like giving your blessing to a child while Littlefinger wants to rule himself. Plus he got shot down by the priestess. 

Tywin and Olenna seem to be on top, possibly others I forget like the Iron Bank and Faceless men leadership. 

Last but not least Bran, he already knows things most people can never know, in detail the people who lived at that time couldn't perceive. He has a huge potential and if someone should rule it's him, because he's basically all knowing. 

[Tianzi]

20 hours ago, TheBraveSerDavos said:

So I get that the targs were the first to conquer and unite the seven kingdoms under Aegon the Conquerer. But why is it that people consider Targaryens the true heirs to the throne?

Because they made the throne?

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, Kingpin said:

I am against hereditary rule or power of any sort. I don't even understand how even in modern times, some of the most supposedly advanced countries and educated people can tolerate monarchy. It's unthinkable to me me for someone to be anything just because he was born. 

So if Democracy is out of the question, then the person that is going to rule must be the most capable. Daenerys can of course try to get the throne, but she is not the rightful heir, noone is. If I had to choose someone, I'd pick one that knows the most and his perception is superior to everyone else.

Who are the characters that are above all else in knowning what is happening to the world and around them?

Littlefinger seems to be unaware of very few things if anything. 

Varys aswell, but it's questionable why he would support someone as ignorant as Daenerys, it's like giving your blessing to a child while Littlefinger wants to rule himself. Plus he got shot down by the priestess. 

Tywin and Olenna seem to be on top, possibly others I forget like the Iron Bank and Faceless men leadership. 

Last but not least Bran, he already knows things most people can never know, in detail the people who lived at that time couldn't perceive. He has a huge potential and if someone should rule it's him, because he's basically all knowing. 

You will notice, here, on this forum, a great deal of people are arguing who is legitimate. As if Westeros and its inhabitants were a pair of old shoes, belonging to a dead man.

The right leader should be the one making the lives of his people better. Not necessarily the most powerful. Would it be Littlefinger? I don't think so. Varys is no better. In books, he is aiming 100% for Aegon. Without Aegon, his storyline has just no sense. I don't know what he is in the show. Tywin, Olenna, others: they only serve their thirst for power. Tywin was entertaining a band of the most despicable people, just to terrorize his enemies.

Someone like Mance Rayder would probably be a good king. Davos too. But he has not the leadership of Mance. IMO, Jon is by far the best choice. Will he be king?

[Tianzi]

If we are aiming at ruling skills + the desire to make people's lives better, the natural answer would be probably Tyrion.

[Kingpin]

33 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

The right leader should be the one making the lives of his people better.

I don't think so, because a kid might have a pure heart and wants just good things, but it's a kid and cannot see things as an adult. 

To be the top dog, you have to be above everyone else, know more than everyone else and see farther than everyone else. As a kid can't see what you can see and you can predict their actions and motives, so must the ruler be an "adult among children", as far as perception goes. 

Jon Snow is a nice guy, a great fighter, but...he knows nothing  If something were to happen that would put him above all others perception wise, then I'd support him too. Melisandre could teach him. 

[BalerionTheCat]

I didn't say "wants just good things". I said "the one making the lives of his people better". You need to be strong, convince everyone they cannot abuse the weak. And be able to kill if necessary. But you must serve the greater good, not be served as a slaver.

The end result is what matters, not the intention. If you want to free people from slavery, but you end up killing them, your are wrong. Particularly if they didn't ask for you and you did it without their leave.

[lancerman]

Targaryens ruled for 300 years. Robert Baratheon invoked his Targaryen ancestor to assume the throne in lieu of Ned and Jon. He really took it, but he left the door open with that because it made more sense not ruffle too many feathers. Robert also more or less kept the same United Westeros set up that was established under the Targs. So in some ways its just another guy at the head of the Targ dynasty.

It's all a matter of perspective. Realistically the Lannister's have usurped the Baratheons without anyone realizing it.

[Sir Matthis Light]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Targaryens ruled for 300 years. Robert Baratheon invoked his Targaryen ancestor to assume the throne in lieu of Ned and Jon. He really took it, but he left the door open with that because it made more sense not ruffle too many feathers. Robert also more or less kept the same United Westeros set up that was established under the Targs. So in some ways its just another guy at the head of the Targ dynasty.

It's all a matter of perspective. Realistically the Lannister's have usurped the Baratheons without anyone realizing it.

I think the now dead Ned and Jon Arryn would disagree lmao, but I see your point. They just notice it until it was too late. I don't know how since there been rumors about Cersei and Jamie since they were kids.

I personally consider Robert a Usurper. He was fighting for his life in the beginning of the Rebellion, but once he defeated Rhaegar at the Trident he decided he wanted to take the Throne. Why? Did he not want more capable men like Jon/Ned/Hoster to rule? Or did his sense of  winning battles with him ultimately killing Prince Rhaegar, the man who started the whole damn thing, give him some type of entitlement??? 

But Since Robert DID take the Throne, Stannis is his rightful heir. So his claim is the rightful one to the Baratheon Dynasty to the Iron Throne.

Cersei children are Waters bastards, but since Robert died believing they were his, they have that weak claim going for them.

Jon( If R+L is true, which I believe it is ) has the truest claim outta everyone. Thats if he not Rhaegars bastard. But even if he was, his claim is WAAAAYYYY stronger then the Waters bastards.

ULTIMATELY I believe whoever has the POWER to fight the threats to the realm, put all the noble houses in check, and make life better for everyone, is Dany and her three Dragons.

Had Aegon V had Dragons like he wanted, he would have made life better for everyone. Well maybe not the nobles

[helter skelter]

I think legitimacy is a matter of power. With the enough amount of soldiers, the butcher's son would also be legitimate. The problem is ruling the noble houses. The noble houses have the men power and i don't think they really care who had a better claim. They only care about their interests. Anyone from house targaryen or house baratheon would be legitimate if they have enough number of noble houses at their side. Dany would land to westeros with her dothraki, unsullied, second sons and dragons and when the people saw the dragons they probably will think she is legitimate. Jon would learn about his parents and he might march to kings landing with the armies of north, vale and riverlands and if the southern lords believe he might win they would accept his claim. Until his victory robert was the usurper. 

When he claimed the throne richard iii was the strongest man of england and the parliament of england solved his legitimacy issue even though edward had two sons. When henry tudor defeated richard he was a bastard born yet he became king of england. 

But if are talking about the law if rhaegar and lyanna were married then jon would have the strongest claim. If not because tommen is the last baratheon i think dany will have the strongest claim. Even if she sits on the iron throne she will be the last targaryen ruler because she will never have children. After her who knows the lords of the kingdoms would seek a bastard born targaryen or baratheon or a bıther's son.

[mediterraneo]

I think that one of the main points in Martin is that there is not a "rightful" ruler of anything.

The one time the Hound talks for him is his the "Your father is a killer" speach. There are no good men in the top of a feudal pyramid.

And there is no such thing as a true right to rule.

Just the means to enforce your claim. Militar, economial, political, ideological means to an end.

[CrypticWeirwood]

On June 3, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Tianzi said:

Because they made the throne?

Very good! Since they made it, it’s theirs.  Think of it as a family heirloom passed down from one generation to the next.

Perhaps Danaerys can simply take it back to Valyria with her and leave Westeros in peace.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

I say because of nostalgia. The Mad King ruled so long ago and after he died the country didn't go to sh*t like after Robert that people kinda forgot how bad he was.