Renly, prince or lord?

[BigBoss01]

Renly is the brother of a king,yet they call him lord Renly shouldn't people call him prince Renly? Prince is a higher title than lord isn't it?

[Sullen]

He's both, as is Stannis. It would be appropriate to call him by either title, but his status as "Prince" is kind of irrelevant considering how low he is in the line of succession.

[GHOSTSTARK]

if Robert wouldnt of had his "kids" with Cersei he wouldve been a prince considering Renly wouldve been third in line after Robert and Stannis. so he was more of a Lord since Robert gave him Storms End while Robert ruled KL and Stannis at Dragonstone.

[BigBoss01]

16 minutes ago, GHOSTSTARK said:

if Robert wouldnt of had his "kids" with Cersei he wouldve been a prince considering Renly wouldve been third in line after Robert and Stannis. so he was more of a Lord since Robert gave him Storms End while Robert ruled KL and Stannis at Dragonstone.

What about Maekar Targaryen then? He wasn't his father heir still he was the prince of                

Summerhall not the lord of Summerhall.

[Lurid Jester]

5 minutes ago, BigBoss01 said:

What about Maekar Targaryen then? He wasn't his father heir still he was the prince of  Summerhall not the lord of Summerhall.

Children of the King/Queen are probably always a Prince/Princess.  The monarch's own siblings, on the other hand, probably lose that title once the monarch has children. Considering how far down the line Stannis and Renly were, calling them Princes instead of just Lord might be a bit presumptive.  Still accurate, technically, but probably highly frowned upon.  

Not sure how real monarchies handled this though. Might be different. 

[fenr1s]

6 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

Children of the King/Queen are probably always a Prince/Princess.  The monarch's own siblings, on the other hand, probably lose that title once the monarch has children. Considering how far down the line Stannis and Renly were, calling them Princes instead of just Lord might be a bit presumptive.  Still accurate, technically, but probably highly frowned upon.  

Not sure how real monarchies handled this though. Might be different. 

In real world monarchies they would be called princes, and considering the Targaryens or Oberyn who himself is only 4th in the line of succession it seems odd.

The explanation for not getting the title might be that they werent born as royalty.

.

[theblackdragonI]

Well the Targaryens definitely called all siblings and children prince/princess, e.g. the Rogue Prince Daemon Targareyan and Prince Aemon the Dragonknight. 

Same with Dorne. 

The only reason I can think of would be that both the Targaryens and Martells are established dynasties with a legitimate and prestigious histories, while Robert is the first Baratheon to sit the throne and as none of the brothers were particularly close, he didn't feel the need to call his brothers princes? I don't recall Renly or Stannis ever being referred to as prince, but maybe they are in technical terms.

[Frey family reunion]

Prince can either be a sovereign in and of itself (such as the Prince of Dorne) or it can be defined as the son of a king.  Since the sovereign in Westeros was a king, the title of prince would only apply to the sons of the king (or queen).  Renly's parents were not king and queen, thus Renly was not a prince.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Lurid Jester said:

Children of the King/Queen are probably always a Prince/Princess.  The monarch's own siblings, on the other hand, probably lose that title once the monarch has children. Considering how far down the line Stannis and Renly were, calling them Princes instead of just Lord might be a bit presumptive.  Still accurate, technically, but probably highly frowned upon.  

Not sure how real monarchies handled this though. Might be different. 

We have a few examples from the books.

Prince Daemon

The first Dany remained a princess after Baelor was born (though to be fair she married into a Dornish family).

Aemon the Dragonknight

Maegor

There are probably more. Frankly Renly and Stannis might have preferred Lord to Prince since they derived most of their power from their estates and vassals than their relation to the ruling family*.

* Yes I realize that Robert gave them those lands *because* he is their brother, but being a landless prince is less than being LP.

[BigBoss01]

6 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Prince can either be a sovereign in and of itself (such as the Prince of Dorne) or it can be defined as the son of a king.  Since the sovereign in Westeros was a king, the title of prince would only apply to the sons of the king (or queen).  Renly's parents were not king and queen, thus Renly was not a prince.

So you are saying that Renly not being a descendant of a king couldn't call himself prince?

[Frey family reunion]

1 hour ago, fenr1s said:

In real world monarchies they would be called princes, and considering the Targaryens or Oberyn who himself is only 4th in the line of succession it seems odd.

The explanation for not getting the title might be that they werent born as royalty.

.

Apparently all of the sons of the Prince or Princess of Dorne are princes.  (just like all of the sons of the king or queen of westeros are called princes).  It doesn't matter where they actually fall in the line of succession.

[Frey family reunion]

Just now, BigBoss01 said:

So you are saying that Renly not being a descendant of a king couldn't call himself prince?

Yes, that's what I'm saying Renly's parents were not king and queen, so he would not be a prince.  That doesn't mean he couldn't be a king depending on line of succession.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Just now, Frey family reunion said:

Yes, that's what I'm saying Renly's parents were not king and queen, so he would not be a prince.  That doesn't mean he couldn't be a king depending on line of succession.

They would go directly against how the Targs treated their princes. Aemon was referred to as a prince long before his dad was king. Same with Aegon IV.

[Frey family reunion]

2 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

They would go directly against how the Targs treated their princes. Aemon was referred to as a prince long before his dad was king. Same with Aegon IV.

It all goes back to the monarch.  Aemon and Aegon were princes because their fathers were princes because their father was the king.  Just like we have Prince William today even though his father is a prince not a king (due to the fact that Queen Elizabeth is still alive)

[BigBoss01]

6 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

It all goes back to the monarch.  Aemon and Aegon were princes because their fathers were princes because their father was the king.  Just like we have Prince William today even though his father is a prince not a king (due to the fact that Queen Elizabeth is still alive)

It all comes from Aegon the conqueror.

[Universal Sword Donor]

12 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

It all goes back to the monarch.  Aemon and Aegon were princes because their fathers were princes because their father was the king.  Just like we have Prince William today even though his father is a prince not a king (due to the fact that Queen Elizabeth is still alive)

I will have to disagree on that. If they are in the direct line of succession, it makes no sense for them not to be called Prince. That is irrelevant though. Aegon III was considered a prince as was Viserys and their father was never king. Their mother was "queen" but that would have been erased after she lost the civil war, so in your eyes they'd have no real claim to be called "prince", yet they were anyway. Aegon III was Aegon II's heir, so he'd have to be prince, but Viserys came back and his brother had sons. No need for him to be called "prince" unless everyone in the direct line of succession is a prince.

[Raisin' Bran]

21 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

It all goes back to the monarch.  Aemon and Aegon were princes because their fathers were princes because their father was the king.  Just like we have Prince William today even though his father is a prince not a king (due to the fact that Queen Elizabeth is still alive)

I would also like to point out that Bran and Rickon became princes with Robb's coronation and Sansa and Arya became princesses. Yet Ned and Cat were not king and queen, nor Rickard, nor any other Stark for the previous almost 300 years. With your supposition that Renly and Stannis were not princes, how does that work for the Starks?

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Yes, that's what I'm saying Renly's parents were not king and queen, so he would not be a prince.  That doesn't mean he couldn't be a king depending on line of succession.

It is not that simple. Mostly because Robb's trueborn siblings all are promoted to the status of prince after their brother proclaims himself king. George seems to imply that the heirs presumptive of a monarch also are princes, regardless whether their father or grandfather was one.

In addition we know that Robert was extremely generous. He made both his brothers great lords of the Realm. There is no reason to assume he would withhold the title of prince from them considering that it would have meant nothing in comparison to giving them Dragonstone and Storm's End.

Shireen also gets promoted from a mere lady to princess after her father proclaims himself king.

However, real world monarchies have special regulations how far down the family tree descendants are still considered royal or noble. Up until the birth of Prince George only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales was considered to be a royal prince. All others did not get that styling from birth (Elizabeth II changed that recently, extending it to all siblings George might have). But the other great-grandchildren from younger grandchildren or children of the monarch aren't princes or princesses.

In Westeros we don't have the case often that great-grandchildren are around while their royal great-grandfather still lives. But we do know that Rhaenyra was apparently born a princess in 97 AC. And it is also heavily implied by Gyldayn (although not Yandel) that Laenor and Laena Velaryon weren't prince(sse)s. If so, then most likely because great-grandchildren through the female line weren't entitled to such a styling.

That is sort of confirmed by the fact that the twin daughters of Daemon Targaryen by Laena Velaryon are mere ladies, not princesses. They are the great-grandchildren of the Old King on their father's side and his great-great-grandchildren on their mother's side. 

Rhaenyra's sons are special, of course, because they are the sons of the Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent. They seem to be all princes.

It doesn't seem likely that a king's grandchildren through the female line are usually styled princes considering that neither Steffon Baratheon nor the Plumm and Penrose children of Elaena Targaryen are referred to as princes.

But it is quite clear that in the male line even great-grandsons are entitled to the styling of prince. Prince Daeron is born in 153 AC, during the reign of his granduncle Aegon III. But the last ruling monarch among his ancestors was his great-grandmother Rhaenyra Targaryen or, if you skip her, his great-great-grandfather Viserys I. If we would ignore Rhaenyra's line completely then we would have to go through Daemon's line, as far back as the Old King again, Daeron's great-great-great-great-grandfather.

Thinking about that makes it very unlikely that Aegon II's decree that Rhaenyra never was a queen doesn't have all that many teeth. Her decree to legitimize Addam and Alyn of Hull stood, and apparently also the royal and princely status of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

The idea that Aegon III specially granted Viserys' sons and his grandson the title of prince is possible, of course, but then we are back as to why the hell Robert wouldn't do the same for Stannis and Renly.

By the way:

In Dorne must be a rule how far down the generations the princely title is inherited. I assume only the elder children of the Ruling Prince of Dorne are allowed to pass the title down to their children. Oberyn is a prince because his mother was the Ruling Princess but his trueborn children are not going to inherit the title. Else there would be a lot princes among the lesser houses of Dorne considering that both spare sons and daughters of House Martell can become consorts to ruling lords and ladies.

Not to mention that we know that Doran's cousin Manfrey Martell isn't a prince.

[Frey family reunion]

There is a fundamental difference between Robert Baratheon's kingdom and Robb styling himself, the King of the North.  Aegon I created a kingdom due to his conquest.  His sovereignty was then passed down to his descendants.  You could argue that Robert either stole the Targaryen kingdom or alternatively started his own kingdom through his rebellion.  Either way his monarchy began with him.  

Robb, didn't create a kingdom, or seize a kingdom, but instead he and his allies resumed the Stark family status as kings of the north, a title and kingdom that existed long before Robb.   Robb was entitled to his status as King as a result of his status as a Stark.  Likewise, Robb's brothers assumed their status in the kingdom due to their status as Starks.  The argument would be that the Starks have always been kings, but due to their deference to their Targaryen overlord, they dropped the title.

Before Robert's rebellion there was no Baratheon kingdom.  Thus Renly could not have inherited the title of Prince from his forebears.

As for the Prince of Dorne, as far as I can tell the title is not only given to the eldest child.  We have Princess Arianne, Prince Quentyn, and Prince Tristayne.  From what I can tell, once you are born as a Prince a Prince you remain.  Now once Doran became the "sovereign" of Dorne, I don't think that any legitimate children that Oberyn could have had would have inherited the title.  But I'm a bit unsure of this last part.  Perhaps any aficionados of the British Royal family might know more.

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

There is a fundamental difference between Robert Baratheon's kingdom and Robb styling himself, the King of the North.  Aegon I created a kingdom due to his conquest.  His sovereignty was then passed down to his descendants.  You could argue that Robert either stole the Targaryen kingdom or alternatively started his own kingdom through his rebellion.  Either way his monarchy began with him.  

Robb, didn't create a kingdom, or seize a kingdom, but instead he and his allies resumed the Stark family status as kings of the north, a title and kingdom that existed long before Robb.   Robb was entitled to his status as King as a result of his status as a Stark.  Likewise, Robb's brothers assumed their status in the kingdom due to their status as Starks.  The argument would be that the Starks have always been kings, but due to their deference to their Targaryen overlord, they dropped the title.

Before Robert's rebellion there was no Baratheon kingdom.  Thus Renly could not have inherited the title of Prince from his forebears.

As for the Prince of Dorne, as far as I can tell the title is not only given to the eldest child.  We have Princess Arianne, Prince Quentyn, and Prince Tristayne.  From what I can tell, once you are born as a Prince a Prince you remain.  Now once Doran became the "sovereign" of Dorne, I don't think that any legitimate children that Oberyn could have had would have inherited the title.  But I'm a bit unsure of this last part.  Perhaps any aficionados of the British Royal family might know more.

There was no stark kingdom either. They bent the knee, handed over the crown, and accepted a lordship. It was that way for 300 years. Robb and Robert were in the same boat. In any sense Robert's brothers probably would have *more* right to style themselves princes since they overthrew a true kingdom in its entirety. But that is really a difference without merit. Stannis and Renly are princes like the Targaryens before them and the Stark brothers after.