GallowsKnight Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Stannis and Renly were Robert's heir-presumptives. Not heir-apparent. They only inherit if Robert has no children. 1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said: 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. I think his point was that Robb's crowning was viewed as a restoration of an older dynasty and their "right to rule" stems from Stark blood, not Robb's blood, even though he is the first in 300years. Where as the Baratheons are the start of a completely new Dynasty where legitimacy flows from Robert, first of his name, not from the actual Baratheon/Durrandon (or Targaryan) line. But you're right it really means squat. They probably could have decided to be called princes and that would have been fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1000th Lord Commander Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 It pretty much comes down to Robert at the point he assumes the throne. During the Rebellion, he could have not awarded the title of Prince to Renly and Stannis as a means of protecting them if the Rebellion failed. I also wonder if Ceresi would have had something to say about promoting Renly and Stannis to prince after the fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Storm Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 I honestly think Robert became King after just fighting for a year and didn't really know what to do. The Targaryens had 300 years of tradition as monarchs and planning. Giving newborns from a princely line like Maekars (Aegon V) dragons egg and naming them Prince. The Targs had a strong control on controlling their marriages/genes and who was a prince/princess. Robert won and didn't give a darn about naming Renly or Stannis a prince in his name. Even the Baratheons as a historical family were never Kings. They married into the Durrandons as a bastard branch of House Targaryen so they didn't even have the history like that Robb knew of the Kings in the North. Renly is a prince but his Kingly brother didn't know how to be a King and ensure that his conquest was protected and sound. He just wanted worldly pleasure and didn't care about his legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 Truth be told, there is no good reason for that, considering pretty much every single Martell and his dog is called "prince(ss)", that's how it went for all the Targs, too, no matter how far down in the line of succession, and also Robb Stark's siblings. Possible in-universe explanation: that was part of the marriage contract between Robert and Cersei. Possible real world explanation: it's still "A Game of Thrones", George didn't yet figure out and carve in stone all his world-building ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey family reunion Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 On 9/1/2016 at 0:51 AM, GallowsKnight said: Stannis and Renly were Robert's heir-presumptives. Not heir-apparent. They only inherit if Robert has no children. I think his point was that Robb's crowning was viewed as a restoration of an older dynasty and their "right to rule" stems from Stark blood, not Robb's blood, even though he is the first in 300years. Where as the Baratheons are the start of a completely new Dynasty where legitimacy flows from Robert, first of his name, not from the actual Baratheon/Durrandon (or Targaryan) line. But you're right it really means squat. They probably could have decided to be called princes and that would have been fine. Yes, you articulated my point much better than I could. And I agree, in the end it's all a fictitious bunch of nonsense. But of course that applies to all of the "right to the throne" bs that we spend so much time arguing. Including Jon's "right to the Iron Throne" based on him allegedly being Rhaegar's son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aedam Targaryen Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 Anyone named Targaryen was a prince the instant that they were born. Renly and Stannis were not. They became princes when Robert took the throne, but I'd say the reason that some people still call them Lord is because they weren't princes their whole lives. Tommen was a prince from birth, so if Joffrey lived and Tommen never became king, I think he would always be referred to as Prince. It doesn't change the succession or make them any less princely... it's just probably the reason they were also still occasionally called Lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurid Jester Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 Before the shit hit the fan, what was the line of succession? All this talk of princes and lords got me wondering about Princess Myrcella, but I thought women couldn't inherit. Joffrey Tommen Myrcella? Stannis Renly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey family reunion Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 12 hours ago, Lurid Jester said: Before the shit hit the fan, what was the line of succession? All this talk of princes and lords got me wondering about Princess Myrcella, but I thought women couldn't inherit. Joffrey Tommen Myrcella? Stannis Renly I think women can inherit but they have their claim is subservient to any male heirs. So I think your order is right, Myrcella inherits after Joffrey and Tommen but before Stannis and Renly except for the small fact that she really isn't Robert's daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurid Jester Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said: I think women can inherit but they have their claim is subservient to any male heirs. So I think you're order is right, Myrcella inherits after Joffrey and Tommen but before Stannis and Renly except for the small fact that she really isn't Robert's daughter. I have it in my head that she would be married off for alliance purposes and thusbexcluded from inheriting the throne. I guess to prevent whomever she married from being king (lower case since I don't mean that he would rule). the more I read this thread the more I realize that I know very little about how Royal/nobility stuff really works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBoss01 Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said: I think women can inherit but they have their claim is subservient to any male heirs. So I think you're order is right, Myrcella inherits after Joffrey and Tommen but before Stannis and Renly except for the small fact that she really isn't Robert's daughter. The lords of Westeros wouldn't have been fine with a woman as their ruler a great council would take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBoss01 Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, BigBoss01 said: The lords of Westeros wouldn't have been fine with a woman as their ruler a great council would take place. But probably Cersei and Tywin will do the impossible to keep Myrcella as queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.