why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, please do. I am curious to see what you come up with - especially the ones backing Renly. And then we can compare the character, reliability, and motives of the people making those claims against the ones that I have provided.

And no quotes by Renly, Danny or Viserys themselves, as I didn't include the quotes by Stannis.

Well, there is always Missandei, the herald in Illyrio's manse, Illyrio himself, Jorah, Drogo, many of Dany's people, Tyrion (in ADwD), and all the other people who consider themselves to be Targaryen loyalists (Nimble Dick, Doran Martell and Arianne, etc.).

[Lion of the West]

10 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

So there's this book called 'The King's Two Bodies,' which does an excellent historical examination of the notion that the kingship as an institution survives beyond the life of the actual king (and a lot about kingship conferring special attributes to whomever holds the title). Part of this is the smooth succession from one king to the next. 

Turns out that the civil service (if you can call it that) ensuring the easy move from a dead king to his next of kin was a development that didn't get particularly started until about the 12th or 13th century. And even then there were tons of hiccups. There were often civil wars in England around succession until well into the Early Modern period. 

But we're not in a constitutional monarchy in Westeros, so the rule of law doesn't have a ton of force beyond the will of the state (by which I mean the nobility as a group) to enforce it. There's no machine to keep everything rolling in the absence of direct authority. 

So what we need to look at is what kind of monarchy this is. Is it a late-style monarchy, where the concept of laws and their force lives well intact beyond the death of a king? Or is it more like a 12th century monarchy, where everyone knows broadly what's supposed to happen, except when the king dies the servants all run off with the silverware and wars tend to break out between his kin?

I would say look to how smooth succession was in 15th century England to get an idea of how it should work. War of the Roses, or just before.

I believe there's a quote by GRRM that the Targaryen, and later Baratheon, kings were absolute in their power and that's one of the bases we have to go on for what kind of monarchy Westeros is. Given how relatively few civil wars there were in Westeros history, I count like three wars breaking at time of succession (or about it) and so it does seem that a peaceful and orderly succession was the norm. Sure there were alot of backdoor dealings and stuff but I don't see the voilatable society with war around the corner at every king's death.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

So there's this book called 'The King's Two Bodies,' which does an excellent historical examination of the notion that the kingship as an institution survives beyond the life of the actual king (and a lot about kingship conferring special attributes to whomever holds the title). Part of this is the smooth succession from one king to the next. 

Turns out that the civil service (if you can call it that) ensuring the easy move from a dead king to his next of kin was a development that didn't get particularly started until about the 12th or 13th century. And even then there were tons of hiccups. There were often civil wars in England around succession until well into the Early Modern period.

George draw a lot inspiration from the English kings for his series, especially in relation to his succession wars (the Anarchy, the Wars of the Roses, etc.) but there is no Magna Carta in Westeros, nor the deposition of a king (like there was with Edward II, Richard II, or Henry VI).

And English kings actually considerably weak in comparison to other European monarchs of the same age.

George has made it pretty clear that there are no legal institutions in Westeros that are not controlled by the king or a balance against the power of the king. There is no Parliament, nor an independent justice system, or anything even remotely resembling anything of that sort.

All power lies with the king, comes from the king, and goes through the king. That established very early on in AGoT when Eddard Stark sentences Gared to death in the name of King Robert.

The doesn't mean the voice of the king is always heard or the king is involved in any decision. The real power can lie with the Hand or the king's advisers, especially if the king is a minor, disinterested, or otherwise incapacitated. And even if he is active and overseeing as much as he can he cannot involve himself in everything. But it is quite clear that all power depends on the king. A powerful Hand like, say, Bloodraven only holds power in the name of King Aerys I. If Aerys I died, Bloodraven's power would quickly disappear if Aerys I's successor would not keep him as Hand.

10 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

So what we need to look at is what kind of monarchy this is. Is it a late-style monarchy, where the concept of laws and their force lives well intact beyond the death of a king? Or is it more like a 12th century monarchy, where everyone knows broadly what's supposed to happen, except when the king dies the servants all run off with the silverware and wars tend to break out between his kin?

I would say look to how smooth succession was in 15th century England to get an idea of how it should work. War of the Roses, or just before.

It is difficult to say what kind of monarchy this is. George has said the Targaryens established an absolute monarchy. That is the explanation why there is no parliament or any formal body of the lords advising the king and sharing in the governance of the Realm. A Great Council is only convened by the king and it can only discuss the matters the king (or the Hand, in absence of a king) lays before them, and while the Small Council has a number of defined offices, with the member running essentially a set of ministries (the treasury, the royal navy, the royal intelligence service, etc.), it is entirely up to the king to hire and fire those men. And the king certainly still has the power abolish certain offices like the Handship or others.

Succession is always a different matter in monarchies. A government and state which is run by and totally dependent on the king doesn't really work without a king. That is even the case in constitutional monarchies, especially such in which there is no written constitution (like the UK).

In Westeros things are of course much worse. When there is no crowned king there is no ultimate authority and thus no order and no clear chain of command. If the heir is clear and universally accepted everything is going to fine in a few days (or almost immediately after the king's death). If not, then there is the risk of chaos, civil war, or at least of a difficult start for the new monarch, unrest, a weakening of authority, etc. And regents aren't monarchs. They just rule in the name of the king but they are mortal men like the rest of us. They are not special. They only have nearly absolute power for a limited time, and that puts them in very precarious positions.

From Aegon I to Aerys II Westeros went somewhat through the age of the traveling kings of the early middle ages who visited all their provinces to ensure that they were seen and recognized as kings to kings who mostly ruled from their capital.

The fact that Westeros is still a very primitive state with primitive weaponry (no cannons, guns, etc.) makes it very hard to date its monarchy in comparison to the real world middle ages. The chances that a continent like Westeros could be governed by single monarch without a large standing army and a very efficient bureaucracy is completely unrealistic. Dragons don't help you with that, especially not just three big ones.

In any realistic depiction the Targaryens would just be the nominal figureheads of their kingdom, with the lords having the real power in their domains, and corruption running rampant throughout the entire Realm because there simply are no institution which are remotely capable of keeping that in check.

[Bernie Mac]

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

that Robert had the right to claim the throne he conquered, or if you think he had an obligation to put Viserys on the throne?

Robert was under no obligation to do that. He was obligated to do what was best for himself, his supporters and the realm in general and Viserys becoming King would endanger both his own life and that of the men who supported him in his war against his family. 

 

[BricksAndSparrows]

On 3/29/2017 at 7:45 PM, Renly was the true steel said:

ill never understand why people think Renly "doing his duties as younger brother" would be a good idea the Tyrells would be gone and still reck them on the blackwater and stannis stubborn fool that he is wouldn't even try to reach terms with Robb (which Davos and Cresson urged him to)

meanwhile if Stannis concedes to Renly they can all take kingslanding together beat back Tywin end the war much faster 

Maybe I'm late to the party here, but the answer to this seems obvious. Stannis saw himself as the rightful heir.

Your line of reasoning can be applied all over this series, and while it works, it doesn't fall in line with the character's personalities. In fact the same argument can be applied to Renly himself. He could have brought the Tyrells to his older brother's cause with a betrothal. Willas and Shireen.

Why didn't Lysa join her forces with Robb? She would have stood a better chance of destroying the Lannisters, who she feared so much. Or why doesn't Cersei just embrace the Tyrell's alliance?

I actually liked Renly and I think the 7 kingdom's would have been better off with him on the Throne (if you don't take the Others into consideration...not sure how that would turn out.) If there is any blame to be given to Renly it would be for believing Stannis would consent. Though I doubt he did, or cared.

[Darkstream]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Darkstream

Aegon the Conqueror didn't kill seven kings. The Gardener king and the Durrandon king died in battle, and Harren the Black burned with his castle. The Arryn king, Lannister king, and Stark king survived and bent the knee. And Princess Meria lived for another 14 years, too.

Yes, I realize he didn't actually kill all six Kings, and a Princess. But if you want to go into the details of how he claimed his throne, and compare that to either Robert or Stannis' methods, we sure can.

Why don't we start with Harren the Black, and how did you put it, he "burned with his castle?" Now, was this just some cook fire that got out of control? Or no, that's right, he was burned alive by dragon fire in his castle, along with his sons, and all of the men, women and children who occupied the castle. I'm thinking that the burning of one treason committing Hand isn't looking so bad in comparison. Should we go on, and tally up all the rest of the men that were burned alive - an act that you so vehemently criticized Stannis for - in Aegon's conquest?

Well, I guess it's a good thing that Aegon had these international laws of war - of which you have still failed to provide any textual evidence for, or even answered my repeated question of who makes and regulated these rules - to justify these appalling means in by which he claimed his throne.  

Quote

You seem to not grasp that your modern views are completely invalid in a medieval setting. Kings are not the same as common men. A man like Robert isn't a man of the royal family and can thus never be on equal footing with his king. Monarchs are far removed from the common rabble, including their most powerful subjects.

You keep rambling on about this, but again, who makes up these rules and enforces them? That would be the King himself. What, just because Aegon proclaimed himself as a King, you think that makes him and his line untouchable? Sure, I understand the concept, but modern views or no, these are just his words in the wind, and there are men like Robert, who despite you claiming that he can't challenge a King, actual has. His actions speak louder than any claim made in hubris by some King. The facts are that he did wage war, and that he did elevate himself onto equal footing as to that of a King. If your claims had any merit at all, then Robert in his defiance of one so much higher than himself, would have been smitten down by some ancient Valaryen god. But Robert deposed of Aery's, and by the same means as Aegon had - proclaiming himself the King -  elevated himself to this all mighty, and untouchable status

Quote

And that is why a subject cannot really declare war on a king. They can rebel but if you do that you are a traitor. And that doesn't change if you call yourself king, too. It is wrong and it remains wrong, never mind what you or anyone else say. That is part of the schizophrenic legal structure of a monarchy.

Again, what legal institution makes and enforces these rules?

Quote

The opinions of the lords and people of Westeros don't matter.

I thought you said that the opinions of "half or more of Westeros" was a good enough reason to invalidate Robert's rule. Now all of a sudden, what they think doesn't matter?

Quote

Not really. What matters is whether Viserys III and Daenerys give up their claims to the Iron Throne in favor of Robert Baratheon or not. If they did so voluntarily then Robert could claim he was the rightful king now. But they did not.

They gave it up by running off into exile. They were not there to oppose Robert when he proclaimed himself King, and sat his ass on that uncomfortable, ugly, Iron chair. 

Quote

The kings who were defeated by Aegon and lived gave up their crowns and titles. They took and accepted Aegon as their king. That is how a king conquers other kings. But Robert never conquered Viserys III and Daenerys, nor did he kill them. And that's why he isn't the rightful king.

Oh? So you're claiming that the only thing that kept him from becoming the true King, is that he heeded Aryn's advise not to have two innocent children murdered in cold blood?

Quote

You also confuse laws and the legitimacy of governments. It doesn't matter what a government does, the question is whether it is legitimate. And a coup, rebellion, etc. is never legitimate because there are always laws in place that forbid that kind of thing. There might be states where the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant but a medieval society like Westeros didn't have rules for that although it is clear that the opinion was that you could do that.

And once again, who makes, regulates, and enforces these laws, which are absent from the text, that you continue to go on about?

Quote

However, that doesn't mean that you can then make a new king of your own choosing. Monarchy isn't a bowl of cherries.

And yet, Robert had as an abundance of cherries to pick from, as Renly did peaches.

Quote

To stick to your Trump example. If he was impeached the US would be stuck with Mike Pence as the new President (or whoever Trump made the new Vice President if he stepped down before Trump's own impeachment). The people there don't have the right to choose a new President before the next election.

You are still missing the point of my comparison, what you are talking about is irrelevant and an equivalency fallacy.

Quote

We can say that Robert and Ned (although not Jon Arryn, he just was a traitor) had a right to fight against and overthrow Aerys but they had no right to make Robert king. Just as Renly and Stannis had no right to declare themselves king.

You can say that, I would say otherwise.

[Darkstream]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, there is always Missandei, the herald in Illyrio's manse, Illyrio himself, Jorah, Drogo, many of Dany's people, Tyrion (in ADwD), and all the other people who consider themselves to be Targaryen loyalists (Nimble Dick, Doran Martell and Arianne, etc.).

Har!! You are going to have to do a lot better than listing a bunch of random names, many of whom are slaves or servants who have never stepped foot in Westeros. Let's see some actual quotes. 

[Darkstream]

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Robert was under no obligation to do that. He was obligated to do what was best for himself, his supporters and the realm in general and Viserys becoming King would endanger both his own life and that of the men who supported him in his war against his family. 

Cool, we haven't agreed on much, it's good we could at least find some common grounds to do so on.

I'm glad you brought up what was best for Robert and his supporters, and especially the realm. A King, as well as the Lords of a Kingdom, have an obligation to do what is in the best interest of their subjects, first and foremost. I agree that placing Viserys on the throne would have just perpetuated an environment in which the stability and welfare of the realm would have been in jeopardy.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, and the realm is now in quite some disarray, but that has more to do with Robert's negligent ways of ruling, than of his decision to claim the throne in the first place.

[RedViperofDorne54]

On 5/24/2017 at 11:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

In addition, keep in mind that the rebellion was begun by Jon Arryn. That man had no right to rebel nor any right to protect his former wards Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon. Both were men grown by that point.

The problem with this assertion is that there's nothing to suggest that Eddard and Robert were no longer Jon Arryn's wards at this point. After all Theon is referred to as Eddards ward numerous times in GoT and he's 19-20 at the time, certainly a "man grown". Therefore Aerys is asking Jon Arryn to break two of Westeros' oldest laws at the same time, the prohibitions against breaching guest right and kin slaying, without any proof of guilt. And after his denial of a trial for Rickard and Brandon, (who I admit did commit a crime) there was no reason to think Aerys would uphold his duty to delivers the King's Justice for Eddard and Robert. 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, I realize he didn't actually kill all six Kings, and a Princess. But if you want to go into the details of how he claimed his throne, and compare that to either Robert or Stannis' methods, we sure can.

Why don't we start with Harren the Black, and how did you put it, he " burned with his castle?" Now, was this just some cook fire that got out of control? Or no, that's right, he was burned alive by dragon fire in his castle, along with his sons, and all of the men, women and children who occupied the castle. I'm thinking that the burning of one treason committing Hand isn't looking so bad in comparison. Should we go on, and tally up all the rest of the men that were burned alive - an act that you so vehemently criticized Stannis for - in Aegon's conquest?

If Aegon had stormed the castle those people would also have died. People die in war.

I did not criticize Stannis for burning people alive. That's okay. I also don't criticize Aerys for burning people alive. I criticized Stannis for accusing Lord Alester of treason and executing him for it when the man did not really commit treason.

Quote

Well, I guess it's a good thing that Aegon had these international laws of war - of which you have still failed to provide any textual evidence for, or even answered my repeated question of who makes and regulated these rules - to justify these appalling means in by which he claimed his throne.  

It is quite clear that the heads of state in Martinworld recognize each other as equals. Robert and Aerys weren't equals. They were subject and king.

Quote

You keep rambling on about this, but again, who makes up these rules and enforces them? That would be the King himself. What, just because Aegon proclaimed himself as a King, you think that makes him and his line untouchable? Sure, I understand the concept, but modern views or no, these are just his words in the wind, and there are men like Robert, who despite you claiming that he can't challenge a King, actual has. His actions speak louder than any claim made in hubris by some King. The facts are that he did wage war, and that he did elevate himself onto equal footing as to that of a King. If your claims had any merit at all, then Robert in his defiance of one so much higher than himself, would have been smitten down by some ancient Valaryen god. But Robert deposed of Aery's, and by the same means as Aegon had - proclaiming himself the King -  elevated himself to this all mighty, and untouchable status

The point here is that Westeros is obviously a society where continuation of kingship in very ancient families is an important part of a society. We are talking about a world where there are royal lines stretching back (allegedly) 6,000 years (Arryns), 8,000 years (Starks), and even farther back in time (Lannisters and Hightowers). The idea that some distant cousin of a royal line could take the throne and then be accepted as the rightful king when this guy had never ruled over the other great houses is, well, insane.

That is the reason why the Reach and Stormlands later don't care about the laws and customs anymore. If Robert could be king, Renly could, too. Anybody could. Even Robb could be King of the Trident.

Quote

Again, what legal institution makes and enforces these rules?

They are not enforced by a legal institution, they have to be accepted as a consensus. And the consensus among the lords during the reign of Robert wasn't that the man was 'the rightful king'. Else this man wouldn't have been afraid that Viserys III or Daenerys' son by Drogo would take the Iron Throne back.

Again, Robert himself knows that he is usurper, and that his subjects that stand behind him or consider him 'the rightful king'. If they did, nobody would expect a Targaryen restoration.

Quote

I thought you said that the opinions of "half or more of Westeros" was a good enough reason to invalidate Robert's rule. Now all of a sudden, what they think doesn't matter?

What people think doesn't matter when we are talking claims. An feudal monarchy isn't a society where popular votes or opinion matter. If you are a Tarly, a Stokeworth, or an Arryn you have claims to certain castles and lands, and it doesn't matter what your neighbor or some other dude thinks about that. And if you are a Targaryen you have a claim to the Iron Throne.

But the thing is that most people actually acknowledge this. People think in those monarchistic and aristocratic categories. The fact that some guy won a war doesn't mean the losing side can't come back and reclaim what was lost. Especially if they are the rightful royal dynasty. But even if they are not - like the Blackfyres - they really can get support for decades.

Quote

They gave it up by running off into exile. They were not there to oppose Robert when he proclaimed himself King, and sat his ass on that uncomfortable, ugly, Iron chair. 

King Viserys III Targaryen was proclaimed king and crowned on Dragonstone, too. He didn't make the decision to go into exile, his guardian did. The fact that some other dude sat the Iron Throne doesn't change that he was the rightful king of Westeros. Just as you say that Stannis and not Joffrey is the rightful king of Westeros. There is no difference there. Just the fact that Stannis is the would-be heir of a usurper while Viserys III was the chosen heir of the rightful king.

Quote

Oh? So your claiming that the only thing that kept him from becoming the true King, is that he heeded Aryn's advise not to have two innocent children murdered in cold blood?

Could Robert have killed Viserys and Dany? He could have tried. Eradicating the Targaryen line would have greatly helped the Baratheon cause. If they were all dead there wouldn't have been a good alternative to Robert and his heirs. Now, the Targaryen loyalists could have still avenged them, plunging the Realm into chaos in the process but there would have been no one out there to challenge the Baratheon claim. Robert and his brothers are the closest Targaryen cousins around.

Quote

And once again, who makes, regulates, and enforces these laws, which are absent from the text, that you continue to go on about?

I'm not talking about laws, I talk about basic definitions. A rebel is a criminal. A king is not. A king is above the law, makes the law, and interprets the law. A man who is a subject cannot gain a throne by killing his king. That is a vile crime. And if he isn't the heir then he cannot become king in any legal way.

Rebellion, usurpation, etc. aren't things people in Westeros, the real middle ages, or anywhere consider legal behavior.

22 minutes ago, RedViperofDorne54 said:

The problem with this assertion is that there's nothing to suggest that Eddard and Robert were no longer Jon Arryn's wards at this point. After all Theon is referred to as Eddards ward numerous times in GoT and he's 19-20 at the time, certainly a "man grown". Therefore Aerys is asking Jon Arryn to break two of Westeros' oldest laws at the same time, the prohibitions against breaching guest right and kin slaying, without any proof of guilt. And after his denial of a trial for Rickard and Brandon, (who I admit did commit a crime) there was no reason to think Aerys would uphold his duty to delivers the King's Justice for Eddard and Robert. 

The situation there is different. Theon wasn't just a ward, he was also a hostage, and as such he was the charge of the Starks until such time as the king gave Theon permission to return home.

Robert was already the Lord of Storm's End in his own right, and a man grown, and Ned, too, and he became Lord of Winterfell after Brandon and Rickard died. Now, Jon would have broken guest right if he had killed Robert and Ned since they were visiting him at the time the letter arrived. And I'm not saying Jon should have executed them. But he still didn't have any right to call his banners and rebel against his king. Aerys II had not wronged Jon Arryn in any way, shape, or form.

And nothing indicates that a lord has a right to denounce a king who has never wronged him, personally. He could have allowed Robert and Ned to escape. He could have written Aerys telling him that he refused such order unless the king would clarify why he should kill those men, he could have demanded to conduct a proper trial against them, etc. He could even have provoked Aerys so that the king declared him a traitor and a criminal, too, so that he would now have the necessary pretext to call his banners. But just rising against the king to defend some buddies of yours is a little bit much.

[Jaehaerys-III]

Renly had no right to claim the throne. He could've married Margaery and then allied the Reach and Stormlands to Stannis, and then his army plus Stannis' fleet would've taken KL with ease. Instead he let his desire for power get to him and declared himself King, despite lacking a strong claim. He could've made a deal with Stannis and gained some sort of power upon winning (eg Hand)

[Jaehaerys-III]

17 hours ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

Maybe I'm late to the party here, but the answer to this seems obvious. Stannis saw himself as the rightful heir.

Your line of reasoning can be applied all over this series, and while it works, it doesn't fall in line with the character's personalities. In fact the same argument can be applied to Renly himself. He could have brought the Tyrells to his older brother's cause with a betrothal. Willas and Shireen.

Why didn't Lysa join her forces with Robb? She would have stood a better chance of destroying the Lannisters, who she feared so much. Or why doesn't Cersei just embrace the Tyrell's alliance?

I actually liked Renly and I think the 7 kingdom's would have been better off with him on the Throne (if you don't take the Others into consideration...not sure how that would turn out.) If there is any blame to be given to Renly it would be for believing Stannis would consent. Though I doubt he did, or cared.

Agreed

[Bernie Mac]

46 minutes ago, Jaehaerys-III said:

Renly had no right to claim the throne. He could've married Margaery and then allied the Reach and Stormlands to Stannis, and then his army plus Stannis' fleet would've taken KL with ease. Instead he let his desire for power get to him and declared himself King, despite lacking a strong claim. He could've made a deal with Stannis and gained some sort of power upon winning (eg Hand)

If Renly had no right to usurp his nephews throne, then why should he help his brother usurp it?

 

And of course it seems unlikely that the Reach Lords would support Stannis to be King. Renly they loved, Stannis not so much. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

4 hours ago, Jaehaerys-III said:

Renly had no right to claim the throne. He could've married Margaery and then allied the Reach and Stormlands to Stannis, and then his army plus Stannis' fleet would've taken KL with ease. Instead he let his desire for power get to him and declared himself King, despite lacking a strong claim. He could've made a deal with Stannis and gained some sort of power upon winning (eg Hand)

If he wanted to lose all his support from the Reach, then yes he could have done that.

[Darkstream]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Aegon had stormed the castle those people would also have died. People die in war.

OK, then why are you bringing up the people who died when King's Landing was stormed? If Robert used a dragon to burn down the Red Keep, a lot more would have died than did.

Quote

I did not criticize Stannis for burning people alive. That's okay. I also don't criticize Aerys for burning people alive. I criticized Stannis for accusing Lord Alester of treason and executing him for it when the man did not really commit treason.

Only he did. Surrendering your King's cause, and selling off his heir to marry a bastard born of incest, in order to save your life, and gain lands, is treason.

Quote

It is quite clear that the heads of state in Martinworld recognize each other as equals. Robert and Aerys weren't equals. They were subject and king.

The point here is that Westeros is obviously a society where continuation of kingship in very ancient families is an important part of a society. We are talking about a world where there are royal lines stretching back (allegedly) 6,000 years (Arryns), 8,000 years (Starks), and even farther back in time (Lannisters and Hightowers). The idea that some distant cousin of a royal line could take the throne and then be accepted as the rightful king when this guy had never ruled over the other great houses is, well, insane.

Oh please, the Targaryns are foreigners who have only been around for a measly three hundred years, in a society having a history of Royal lines dating back eight thousand years. This is an extremely weak argument.

Quote

That is the reason why the Reach and Stormlands later don't care about the laws and customs anymore. If Robert could be king, Renly could, too. Anybody could. Even Robb could be King of the Trident.

This is a causal fallacy. Robert did not set some sort of unheard of precedent here. Do you think he is the first person in history to take down a King and claim a throne? You are ignoring the situation, and actual motives of those who are committing these acts.

Quote

They are not enforced by a legal institution, they have to be accepted as a consensus.

I have no idea what you are going on about anymore with any of this, and fail to see any connection to the actual story being told by GRRM, or the relevancy to the discussion. If they are not enforced by a legal institution, they cannot invalidate the legality of Robert's rule.

...whatever 'they' is that you are talking about.

Quote

And the consensus among the lords during the reign of Robert wasn't that the man was 'the rightful king'. Else this man wouldn't have been afraid that Viserys III or Daenerys' son by Drogo would take the Iron Throne back.

Again, Robert himself knows that he is usurper, and that his subjects that stand behind him or consider him 'the rightful king'. If they did, nobody would expect a Targaryen restoration.

  He certainly was considered the rightful King by the Lords. This is a completely fabricated, and false claim.

And that is another causal fallacy. Care to provide evidence for these ridiculous claims? The reason anyone fears, or expects an attempted Targaryen restoration is because Viserys had married Danny to a Dothroki Khal in order to gain support of his army, with the intent to invade Westeros.

Quote

What people think doesn't matter when we are talking claims. An feudal monarchy isn't a society where popular votes or opinion matter. If you are a Tarly, a Stokeworth, or an Arryn you have claims to certain castles and lands, and it doesn't matter what your neighbor or some other dude thinks about that. And if you are a Targaryen you have a claim to the Iron Throne.

A claim to a throne that they lost in the same manner that they originally gained that claim.

Quote

But the thing is that most people actually acknowledge this. People think in those monarchistic and aristocratic categories. The fact that some guy won a war doesn't mean the losing side can't come back and reclaim what was lost. Especially if they are the rightful royal dynasty. But even if they are not - like the Blackfyres - they really can get support for decades.

Nobody is denying that they can't attempt to reclaim what they lost.

Quote

King Viserys III Targaryen was proclaimed king and crowned on Dragonstone, too. He didn't make the decision to go into exile, his guardian did. The fact that some other dude sat the Iron Throne doesn't change that he was the rightful king of Westeros.

He was never accepted, or recognized as the King by ninety nine point nine percent of the realm, and was not coronated as the King. And no, it doesn't change that he was the rightful heir, it means he no longer is.

Quote

Just as you say that Stannis and not Joffrey is the rightful king of Westeros. There is no difference there. Just the fact that Stannis is the would-be heir of a usurper while Viserys III was the chosen heir of the rightful king.

There is a difference. Viserys is the heir of a King who's regime is no longer in power, or existent. Stannis is the legal heir of the current regime in power.

Quote

I'm not talking about laws, I talk about basic definitions. A rebel is a criminal. A king is not. A king is above the law, makes the law, and interprets the law. A man who is a subject cannot gain a throne by killing his king. That is a vile crime. And if he isn't the heir then he cannot become king in any legal way.

Rebellion, usurpation, etc. aren't things people in Westeros, the real middle ages, or anywhere consider legal behavior.

Robert was the King. as you said, he is above the law, makes the law, and interprets the law. His rule is now legal according to the decree of the King.

[Lord Varys]

@Darkstream:

You are not really interested in a discussion of the topic we discuss, are you? You just want to have a pretext to feel good that Stannis is 'the rightful king'.

[Darkstream]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Darkstream:

You are not really interested in a discussion of the topic we discuss, are you? You just want to have a pretext to feel good that Stannis is 'the rightful king'.

What in the Seven Hells is that suppose to mean? Now, as your last line of defense, you're stooping down to an ad hominem argument. I have addressed all of the ridiculous assertions you have put forth, while you continually contradicted yourself, dodged any points I've brought up, and incessantly attempted to move the goal posts.

I'll consider your post as an admission of defeat. A good day to you Ser.

 

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

What in the Seven Hells is that suppose to mean? Now, as your last line of defense, you're stooping down to an ad hominem argument. I have addressed all of the ridiculous assertions you have put forth, while you continually contradicted yourself, dodged any points I've brought up, and incessantly attempted to move the goal posts.

I'll consider your post as an admission of defeat. A good day to you Ser.

That is supposed to mean that you obviously only defend this idea that Robert was 'the rightful king' because you have to save your idea that Stannis is 'the rightful king', too, as 'the rightful heir' or 'the rightful king'.

I don't argue in favor or against the interests or belief of a fictional character. I'm actually interested in what kingship, legitimacy, claims, and warfare mean in Martinworld. I think about that. I don't presuppose that there is a feudal contract which clauses I define to justify my own beliefs. And that's what you are doing.

I'll try one last analogy. If I own something and you take it from me it remains my property but it is in your possession. That doesn't make you the rightful owner, though. Robert stole the Iron Throne. It is certainly in his possession but while the rightful owners and their heirs yet live (in feudal societies such claims to property, lordships, and kingship are inherited). If we are talking about a kingdom I can't go to some police or judge to get it back. I have to fight you to get it back. And you can kill me. But regardless what you do you are simply not the rightful owner, regardless what happens to me. That is just a fact.

If it wasn't then there would be no right to property and stealing wouldn't be a crime.

[Darkstream]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is supposed to mean that you obviously only defend this idea that Robert was 'the rightful king' because you have to save your idea that Stannis is 'the rightful king', too, as 'the rightful heir' or 'the rightful king'.

Don't presume to tell me what I think, or what my motives are. You couldn't be further from the truth.

And I'll state it again, there is no such thing as a rightful King. Those are just meaningless boasts made by those who have the might to claim so. My argument is that Robert was the legally recognized King, which is a fact according to the text. By the laws and mindset of those living in a feudal society, that gives him the ability to claim he is the rightful King, just as Aegon did - who's forbearers were just lower echelon Dragon Lords in a foreign land before he declared war on the "rightful" King's of Westeros.

Quote

I don't argue in favor or against the interests or belief of a fictional character. I'm actually interested in what kingship, legitimacy, claims, and warfare mean in Martinworld. I think about that. I don't presuppose that there is a feudal contract which clauses I define to justify my own beliefs. And that's what you are doing.

No, you presuppose that there is some made up international governing laws to justify Aegon's conquest, discredit Robert's rule, and support your beliefs. And I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but you are infamous on this forum for your Targaryen bias. Don't tell me that you don't argue in favor of a fictional character, I don't buy it one bit.

Quote

I'll try one last analogy. If I own something and you take it from me it remains my property but it is in your possession. That doesn't make you the rightful owner, though. Robert stole the Iron Throne. It is certainly in his possession but while the rightful owners and their heirs yet live (in feudal societies such claims to property, lordships, and kingship are inherited). If we are talking about a kingdom I can't go to some police or judge to get it back. I have to fight you to get it back. And you can kill me. But regardless what you do you are simply not the rightful owner, regardless what happens to me. That is just a fact.

If it wasn't then there would be no right to property and stealing wouldn't be a crime.

And there you go contradicting yourself again. Aegon stole the lands and titles that belonged to the Kings of Westeros for near on eight thousand years. Just because Aegon had the might to steal what was the property of the the Kings of Westeros, doesn't make him the rightful owner. Him and his line may have certainly been in possession of these lands, and the title of King, but that does not make them the rightful owners.

Quote

in feudal societies such claims to property, lordships, and kingship are inherited

Too bad Aegon didn't inherit the Seven Kingdoms.

[Bernie Mac]

9 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

And I'll state it again, there is no such thing as a rightful King. Those are just meaningless boasts made by those who have the might to claim so.

I'm on board with this in regards to Westeros. Our own (mostly Western) cultures would often have the God or Gods declare that they were the rightful King and to challenge them a crime against God but (as far as we know) Westeros has no God's Mandate to validate their authority. 

I do wonder if there is such a thing as the Chinese interpretation of Heaven's Mandate were successful rebellions are thought of as being the will of the Gods. 

It is hard to fault GRRM as he has put so much detail into the world and even created interesting and diverse religions but I feel he kind of dropped the ball by not showing how the establishment and Religions would work together to maintain the Status Quo.