Baratheon Civil War: Who's argument is better?

[UFT]

stannis - birthright. and robert having a big hammer. 

renly - kinder than the other claimants, more charismatic, much much larger military (and would have been even more if robb agreed to an alliance), right of conquest, with renly specifically citing his elder bro's rebellion against mad king (i dont think stannis = mad king of course). 

 

[falcotron]

The way you're selling it, obviously Stannis.

First, Renly's much larger military and anticipated right of conquest are worth zilch if Stannis can shadowbaby him to death without even needing anyone to enter the camp.

And his charisma isn't worth that much if he couldn't convince Stannis to let him pass by and assault KL unmolested and then they could fight it out amongst themselves once Cersei and Joffrey were out of the way, or convince Robb to join even a temporary alliance.

So Renly's got nothing left other than being kind.

[elder brother jonothor dar]

5 minutes ago, UFT said:

stannis - birthright. and robert having a big hammer. 

I don't understand are you saying Stannis has a birthright to be Roberts heir? And because Robert had a big hammer and took the throne Stannis assumes a birthright to throne as Robert does not have a trueborn child?

If so the argument that Robert winning of the throne by right of conquest  means Renly has a better claim due to his army being better (bigger hammer)

[devilish]

Robert had no claim to the IT. The IT in itself is a Targeryan thing not a Baratheon one. The LP of the smallest region in Westeros became king not because of his family name (ie they are descendents of bastards and a humiliated former queen) but because he got his hands dirty, leading his men to war in a cause he believed that it was right. He didn't sit out throughout the war playing soldiers or expected much more powerful Lords to just bend the knee because he's a Baratheon. He earned his bannermen trust.

So in my opinion, none of them had a claim to the IT. Renly lost it when he failed to lead his horde to war while expecting the wolf to do the work for him, Stannis lost it when he preferred to commit kinslaying rather then help the Riverlanders/the North in their time of need. The latter lost Ned or were cruelly invaded for the Baratheon claim to the throne. They deserved to be protected. 

 

 

[Graydon Hicks]

the baratheons did actually have a very small blood claim on the iron throne. robert's, stannis's, and renly's paternal grandmother was a targaryen.

[Nihlus]

Joffrey, as far as everyone knew. 

Mace (not Renly) if you just believe might makes right.

[falcotron]

11 minutes ago, devilish said:

So in my opinion, none of them had a claim to the IT

Sure they did.

Whenever someone takes over from an existing dynasty—whether by war or otherwise—that person founds a new dynasty, whose heirs succeed him to the throne. It's never just, "Well, nobody has claims anymore, everything is just up for grabs from now on". And it's very rarely "OK, he's done, let's go back and look for heirs to the guy he overthrew". It's almost always his heirs.

Of course Westeros isn't Europe, but everyone in-story assumed that the next king after Robert was Robert's heir, and the only question was who that was. So clearly, things are the same there. Everyone who had a claim to be Robert's heir had a claim to the Iron Throne.

(Presumably that's because the same kind of thing came up with kings of the individual seven kingdoms, and the even smaller kingdoms that preceded them, enough times that they built the same precedents as our world. But, even without knowing why it's true, we know that it's true, which is what matters.)

So yes, of course Stannis had a claim. It was a good enough claim to get some people to back him, to get him into the running for the succession war. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter how good it was. If he wins, everyone would have agreed he was the legitimate king, because there's no good argument against it, and because nobody likes losing their heads. If he dies fighting, well, then it doesn't matter anymore, so nobody will care whether he would have been legitimate if he'd won

[devilish]

46 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Sure they did.

Whenever someone takes over from an existing dynasty—whether by war or otherwise—that person founds a new dynasty, whose heirs succeed him to the throne. It's never just, "Well, nobody has claims anymore, everything is just up for grabs from now on". And it's very rarely "OK, he's done, let's go back and look for heirs to the guy he overthrew". It's almost always his heirs.

Of course Westeros isn't Europe, but everyone in-story assumed that the next king after Robert was Robert's heir, and the only question was who that was. So clearly, things are the same there. Everyone who had a claim to be Robert's heir had a claim to the Iron Throne.

(Presumably that's because the same kind of thing came up with kings of the individual seven kingdoms, and the even smaller kingdoms that preceded them, enough times that they built the same precedents as our world. But, even without knowing why it's true, we know that it's true, which is what matters.)

So yes, of course Stannis had a claim. It was a good enough claim to get some people to back him, to get him into the running for the succession war. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter how good it was. If he wins, everyone would have agreed he was the legitimate king, because there's no good argument against it, and because nobody likes losing their heads. If he dies fighting, well, then it doesn't matter anymore, so nobody will care whether he would have been legitimate if he'd won

Robert's rebellion was a righteous thing. Aerys was indeed cuckoo and after ordering half of the nobility class to die (Rickard, Brandon, Robert and Ned) the only decent thing to do was to rebel. However, that didn't give Robert the right to usurp the throne. The IT was a Targeryan thing and Robert was a Baratheon, descendent of a foreign bastard and a disgraced queen. Sure his grandmother was a Targeryan. There again, Rhaella T, Aegon T and Viserys T had a better claim to his and were innocent of their father's crime. As loyal subject and cousin to Rhaella (an equal victim to Aerys madness), Robert was bound by blood and by loyalty to the crown to protect her and to restore her. 

The only way the rebels could usurp the IT was through right by conquest. That's how the Targs won their crown in the first place and that's the way they could lose it. However, unlike Aegon, Robert didn't win the IT alone. He actually had a small part of it. In fact the rebellion was started by JA. Most of the rebels army was Stark, Arryn and Tully men. Kudos for Robert for his heroic performance and his ability to persuade his former enemies to bend the knee so quickly. I think that spared the rebels another battle of the trident (that's another story for another thread). However his role was that of a poster boy. His Stormlands army was small, he couldn't persuade half of his own region to join the war and when he died he left a mess. 

The Baratheons became the ruling family by public acclaim. Which is a very very flimbsy way to claim the crown. If the Baratheons claim relies on a popolarity contest then once that popularity contest is lost, then they lose their crown. That's exactly what happened a generation later. Renly got the support of the Stormlands and the Reach, Robb got the support of the North and the Riverlands. The Westerlands supported Joffrey, Balon got the support of the IR while the Vale and Dorne decided to 'abstain'. Also since Robert gave the thumbs up to the murder of innocent people coming from the royal family, then no one really bother doing the same with the King of the North's unborn son, Stannis kinslaying, Joffrey's murder etc. What's good for the goose....

 

[falcotron]

3 minutes ago, devilish said:

The only way Robert could justify the IT was through right by conquest… However, unlike Aegon, Robert didn't win the IT alone… The Baratheons became the ruling family by public acclaim. They can easily lose that title by public acclaim.

That's just not how it works. Once you're on the throne and everyone swears fealty to you, you are the king, and your successor is your heir. It doesn't matter how you got there.

That's part of the reason they have ideas like Divine Right—William must be legitimate or God wouldn't have let him win. And all the bizarre extra qualifications—someone who was acclaimed by the crowds of London/KL, who could sit on the Iron Throne without being cut, etc. must be legitimate. People only half-believe those things, but it's enough for people to accept that the new king is a new dynast, not just a one-shot king who and we'll find someone else or go back to the old line after he's gone.

The people and the nobles were not clamoring for a Targaryen restoration. Failing to understand that is kind of the point of Viserys's story.

Of course someone can always overthrow you and replace you. But that's no different for a new dynast than it is for the scion of a long established crown. Sure, occasionally the rebels find a pretender from the old line, but that's rarely the reason they're actually supporting him; they're people who want to rebel, and the old line is a nice source of pretenders. (See Edwin and Morcar supporting Edgar Aetheling in their last attempt to rebel against William the Conqueror, for example.)

The Baratheons became the ruling family. That means that when Robert dies, the first place anyone is going to look for the next king is Robert's heir. Which is Joffrey, or maybe Stannis if Joffrey and the other kids are bastards. Even if things get so crazy that the crown looks like it's almost up in the air, more people are going to support Renly, or try to set up their own breakaway kingdoms, than are going to clamor for Viserys. That's not even a prediction, it's just a statement of exactly what happened in the books, so it's hard to argue that it wouldn't happen.

[The Sunland Lord]

Stannis. Renly is younger than Stannis. 

[devilish]

20 minutes ago, falcotron said:

That's just not how it works. Once you're on the throne and everyone swears fealty to you, you are the king, and your successor is your heir. It doesn't matter how you got there.

That's part of the reason they have ideas like Divine Right—William must be legitimate or God wouldn't have let him win. And all the bizarre extra qualifications—someone who was acclaimed by the crowds of London/KL, who could sit on the Iron Throne without being cut, etc. must be legitimate. People only half-believe those things, but it's enough for people to accept that the new king is a new dynast, not just a one-shot king who and we'll find someone else or go back to the old line after he's gone.

The people and the nobles were not clamoring for a Targaryen restoration. Failing to understand that is kind of the point of Viserys's story.

Of course someone can always overthrow you and replace you. But that's no different for a new dynast than it is for the scion of a long established crown. Sure, occasionally the rebels find a pretender from the old line, but that's rarely the reason they're actually supporting him; they're people who want to rebel, and the old line is a nice source of pretenders. (See Edwin and Morcar supporting Edgar Aetheling in their last attempt to rebel against William the Conqueror, for example.)

The Baratheons became the ruling family. That means that when Robert dies, the first place anyone is going to look for the next king is Robert's heir. Which is Joffrey, or maybe Stannis if Joffrey and the other kids are bastards. Even if things get so crazy that the crown looks like it's almost up in the air, more people are going to support Renly, or try to set up their own breakaway kingdoms, than are going to clamor for Viserys. That's not even a prediction, it's just a statement of exactly what happened in the books, so it's hard to argue that it wouldn't happen.

On paper you may be right but in reality things don’t work that way. Robert is indeed an usurper and he achieved that simply because he was the most popular around. Once the Baratheons were not that popular anymore then its only fair for others to declare independence using that same argument. Same thing can be said about Robert’s failure in defend his kin + his inability to punish those who murdered innocent children of noble blood. If the Lannisters can get away with it then others can do the same with lets say Robert B, John A, Joffrey, Renly, Robb and co. What’s good for the goose its good for the gender

In my opinion, the rebel’s army biggest mistakes were not to punish the Lannister + to cut ties with the Targs. They turned their righteous rebellion into a bloodshed + a popularity contest (the latter can be lost at any times). Sure the mad king lost it but most of the royal family were perfectly sane and on top of it they were innocent.  Robert was bound by both his vows and his blood ties to protect them and restore them. Of course he could take a leaf from his bastard ancestor book on how to achieve that. With mortality rates being so high and people being so keen to join the KG and the NW, little Aegon and Viserys could easily lose out of the IT paving the way for either Rhaenys or Rhaella’s possible future male children to inherit the crown. If that worked for a bastard then it will work well for Robert. 
 

 

[falcotron]

30 minutes ago, devilish said:

On paper you may be right but in reality things don’t work that way.

That's exactly how things work in reality. You can tell by just looking at the reality.

In the reality of the story, Robert was succeeded by Joffrey, not Viserys. And the only serious contenders were Robert's two brothers, while Viserys was so irrelevant that people weren't even bothering to laugh at the Beggar Prince anymore. Just as Aegon was succeeded by his family, and for centuries, every succession war was among his descendants.

Just as, in the real world, William I was succeeded by his son William II, and for centuries every succession war was among his descendants. Or William and Mary. Or almost anyone who ever took a throne by right of conquest. Exceptions like the Sverkers and Eriks trading the throne back and forth in Sweden for almost a century are interesting precisely because they're so rare.

You seem to think that everyone will decide "If he can do it, I can do it too", but you can't actually do it unless there are powerful people to support you, and most powerful people don't want to set the precedent that succession means nothing and they have to raise their armies for a new war every decade or so. So they only do it in extreme cases, like a religious war between Catholics and Protestants.

But again, we don't have to theorize about what people will do, because we have countless examples, and we can see what they almost always actually do.

ETA: Also, you seem to think that because other people might have a claim, that means Stannis and Joffrey must not have one. That's not how claims work. If it were never possible for two people to have a claim at the same time, there would never be wars of succession in the first place.

[devilish]

55 minutes ago, falcotron said:

That's exactly how things work in reality. You can tell by just looking at the reality.

In the reality of the story, Robert was succeeded by Joffrey, not Viserys. And the only serious contenders were Robert's two brothers, while Viserys was so irrelevant that people weren't even bothering to laugh at the Beggar Prince anymore. Just as Aegon was succeeded by his family, and for centuries, every succession war was among his descendants.

Just as, in the real world, William I was succeeded by his son William II, and for centuries every succession war was among his descendants. Or William and Mary. Or almost anyone who ever took a throne by right of conquest. Exceptions like the Sverkers and Eriks trading the throne back and forth in Sweden for almost a century are interesting precisely because they're so rare.

You seem to think that everyone will decide "If he can do it, I can do it too", but you can't actually do it unless there are powerful people to support you, and most powerful people don't want to set the precedent that succession means nothing and they have to raise their armies for a new war every decade or so. So they only do it in extreme cases, like a religious war between Catholics and Protestants.

But again, we don't have to theorize about what people will do, because we have countless examples, and we can see what they almost always actually do.

ETA: Also, you seem to think that because other people might have a claim, that means Stannis and Joffrey must not have one. That's not how claims work. If it were never possible for two people to have a claim at the same time, there would never be wars of succession in the first place.

2 slight corrections

William I was a conqueror. Robert invaded mainly with the army of others. 
England is not Westeros. Its one realm not a group of realms forged in 1 by fire and blood. That's quite significant. The South of England was always a powerhouse. The crownlands was always Westeros underbelly

 

 

[Ser Petyr Parker]

You mean "whose".

Who's = who is.

And Renly has no argument until he actually wins the throne. Then his argument is "What are you going to do about it?" Which is a terrible argument, but no one is going to challenge it.

[Lion of the West]

4 hours ago, devilish said:

Robert had no claim to the IT.

He had the same kind of claim that Aegon the Dragon had, the right of conquest.

4 hours ago, devilish said:

The IT in itself is a Targeryan thing not a Baratheon one.

That's like saying that Baratheons have no claim on Storm's End and the Tyrells don't have a claim on Highgarden. They sure as hell do. The Baratheon dynasty is certainly younger than the Targaryen and thus don't have as much tradition behind it but I fail to see why House Baratheon can't hold the Iron Throne any less than the Tullys can hold the Riverlands.

4 hours ago, devilish said:

The LP of the smallest region in Westeros became king not because of his family name (ie they are descendents of bastards and a humiliated former queen) but because he got his hands dirty, leading his men to war in a cause he believed that it was right. He didn't sit out throughout the war playing soldiers or expected much more powerful Lords to just bend the knee because he's a Baratheon. He earned his bannermen trust.

Not really in regards to the descent. On the female side the Baratheons are descended of a god and from the male side to the Targaryens if we look far back. But I agree that Robert won his throne thanks to his warhammer and the support of his allies.

4 hours ago, devilish said:

So in my opinion, none of them had a claim to the IT. Renly lost it when he failed to lead his horde to war while expecting the wolf to do the work for him, Stannis lost it when he preferred to commit kinslaying rather then help the Riverlanders/the North in their time of need. The latter lost Ned or were cruelly invaded for the Baratheon claim to the throne. They deserved to be protected.

And in my opinion all of them had a claim, however tenious, because the Baratheons won the war and can claim the Iron Throne by right of conquest, just like many, many rulers in Westeros who pass on their winnings to their descendents.

As for the Riverland and Northmen they are actually the last people that Renly and Stannis need to protect after they made Robb king, and I don't see it as possible to protect them before they made Robb king due to distance or due to lack of men. In fact Renly wanted to cooperate with Eddard but it was Eddard himself who refused the aid of Renly Baratheon.

*******

But on to the question of the thread. As I see it there are three Baratheon claimants to the Iron Throne; Joffrey, Stannis and Renly. And I've named them in the line of the strength of their legitimacy.

Joffrey - The designated and named heir to the Iron Throne by King Robert Baratheon and has been such for well over a decade and recognized by all accounts as such throughout the realm. Its rather clear to me that this argument trumphs both Stannis and Renly due to the absolut power of the king. We know that Joffrey is a fake but we also know that King Robert while in a false belief never said or thought to make anyone both Joffrey his heir despite many people thinking that Robert would have changed the heir if the accusation was laid before him that Joffrey was not his.

Stannis - Robert's closest kin and thus the primogenture heir of the Baratheon line, as we know, but the problem is of course that Stannis is terrible with getting this information out and after Eddard confesses and his executed then Stannis' cause looks very, very self-serving and pretty much made up in-universe.

Renly - Bases his claim on his army. If Renly can win he can claim the right of conquest but until he has actually won he has the worst claim of them all. And the fact that he didn't get his army very far and how there's no one to press his claim after his death kind of shows that his claim is very, very bad. Now the problem is of course also that Renly has no heir who isn't Stannis but the way that people either go over to Stannis or Joffrey after Renly is killed hints to me that his claim was very poor and people knew it. Even more so when his former allies in the Tyrells does their shenanigans with Renly's armour in service to Joffrey. Not a very nice way to treat someone's memory so I'd think that it shows the Tyrells, except Loras, were only ever using Renly as a tool. The only real Renly loyalist I can think about is Brienne and she seems to have mostly gotten over him and happily tags along with King Tommen's men and takes a quest from King Tommen's Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.

[TMIFairy]

LotW said all there was to be said on the subject

IMO

Renly was a Tyrell sock puppet ...

 

[devilish]

Quote

He had the same kind of claim that Aegon the Dragon had, the right of conquest.

Not really. Aegon had dragons and people who were forced to their knees out of sheer fear of them. Robert's rebellion wasn't even his. Jon Arryn pitied him by keeping him alive instead of obeying his king + the Vale, the North and the Riverlands provided with the bulk of the army.

Robert became king because he won the popularity contest. Under such circumstances once the Baratheon magic wore off it was only 'fair' others would support different candidates. That is why Robert was so desperate for a marriage deal between his son and Ned's daughter, Hoster's granddaughter and Robin's cousin that he raised his lazy arse and moved to Winterfell with the whole entourage. He knew that if his son had to survive being king then he would need powerful allies. 

Quote

That's like saying that Baratheons have no claim on Storm's End and the Tyrells don't have a claim on Highgarden. They sure as hell do. The Baratheon dynasty is certainly younger than the Targaryen and thus don't have as much tradition behind it but I fail to see why House Baratheon can't hold the Iron Throne any less than the Tullys can hold the Riverlands.

I answered before. 

Quote

Not really in regards to the descent. On the female side the Baratheons are descended of a god and from the male side to the Targaryens if we look far back. But I agree that Robert won his throne thanks to his warhammer and the support of his allies

The descendent of a 'god' ended up naked in and in chains. That was hardly worth anything right? Orys on the other hand was a bastard. 

Quote

 

And in my opinion all of them had a claim, however tenious, because the Baratheons won the war and can claim the Iron Throne by right of conquest, just like many, many rulers in Westeros who pass on their winnings to their descendents.

 

 

That is the thing. Robert didn't won the war. He didn't even started it and when he did he was able to raise only half his region. It was the Arryns who started the rebellion with the North, the Vale and the Riverlands providing most of the troops.

Robert became king because he won the popularity contest and because out of the remaining winners he was the only one who could sit on the IT. Jon was ancient and childless. Ned was a Northerner. Even his gods were wrong. Hoster on the other hand was an opportunist. Once he died, the popularity contest started from scratch and everyone ended up picking his favourite. Some chose Joffrey, others Renly, very few people opted for Balon, less so picked Stannis and some simply decided to either go solo (Robb) or go neutral.

Quote

As for the Riverland and Northmen they are actually the last people that Renly and Stannis need to protect after they made Robb king, and I don't see it as possible to protect them before they made Robb king due to distance or due to lack of men. In fact Renly wanted to cooperate with Eddard but it was Eddard himself who refused the aid of Renly Baratheon.

Before Robb was made king he had

a- unite all the North
b- he was force to whore himself to Walder
c- he had to fight the Lannisters
d- he had to rescue Edmure

In each of those points. Stannis could intervene by providing troops (5k aren't much but they are still a boost) or at least a lift to the Riverlands (he had the biggest fleet). Robb lost his dad because he defended Stannis claim. He was so green that he pissed grass yet he was left alone to fight the Lannisters while his king was grumbling in dragonstone, planning on ways of how to commit kinslaying.  Can you blame the boy for going solo after that?

Quote

 

But on to the question of the thread. As I see it there are three Baratheon claimants to the Iron Throne; Joffrey, Stannis and Renly. And I've named them in the line of the strength of their legitimacy.

Joffrey - The designated and named heir to the Iron Throne by King Robert Baratheon and has been such for well over a decade and recognized by all accounts as such throughout the realm. Its rather clear to me that this argument trumphs both Stannis and Renly due to the absolut power of the king. We know that Joffrey is a fake but we also know that King Robert while in a false belief never said or thought to make anyone both Joffrey his heir despite many people thinking that Robert would have changed the heir if the accusation was laid before him that Joffrey was not his.

Stannis - Robert's closest kin and thus the primogenture heir of the Baratheon line, as we know, but the problem is of course that Stannis is terrible with getting this information out and after Eddard confesses and his executed then Stannis' cause looks very, very self-serving and pretty much made up in-universe.

Renly - Bases his claim on his army. If Renly can win he can claim the right of conquest but until he has actually won he has the worst claim of them all. And the fact that he didn't get his army very far and how there's no one to press his claim after his death kind of shows that his claim is very, very bad. Now the problem is of course also that Renly has no heir who isn't Stannis but the way that people either go over to Stannis or Joffrey after Renly is killed hints to me that his claim was very poor and people knew it. Even more so when his former allies in the Tyrells does their shenanigans with Renly's armour in service to Joffrey. Not a very nice way to treat someone's memory so I'd think that it shows the Tyrells, except Loras, were only ever using Renly as a tool. The only real Renly loyalist I can think about is Brienne and she seems to have mostly gotten over him and happily tags along with King Tommen's men and takes a quest from King Tommen's Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.
 Quote

 

I think none of the Baratheons deserved to be king.

Joffrey lack the legitimacy (+ he's the mad king V2).

Renly also lack the legitimacy but while he's mentally sane he opted to play soldiers rather then defend the smallfolk who were dying in droves and that despite having the army to stop all that.

Stannis left a 15 year old to go toe to toe ALONE, against one of the richest and most ruthless men in Westeros and that was after Ned broke the Tyrell siege, he was instrumental in putting a Baratheon on the IT and died trying to put Stannis on the IT. He also committed kinslaying using dark magic. 

The solution to this conundrum was for each and every region to decide its own fate. Following such agreement hostages would be exchanged and everyone would go to their own way. 

[UnFit Finlay]

There's pluses and minuses to all their claims.

Stannis was Robert's oldest brother and "rightful heir" but no one wanted him as King and, with the clarification that he's my favourite character, they were right. He'd have been terrible at that point. He wouldn't have lasted a year.

Robert was the nearest male Targaryen relative outwith Aerys line. He was also a born leader, a natural commander and people loved him. He wasn't a great King, obviously but they couldn't have known that at the time.

Renly was a dead man walking. He'd been plotting to depose Cersei (and probably Joff) for a while and now that they were in charge he was pretty much doomed. His claim was weak but he was extremely popular and had the support of the largest army in the realm. In truth, he had little choice but to do what he did, because nobody was following Stannis, at that point.

[Lord Varys]

It is quite clear that the Baratheons don't have the same claim as the Targaryens. The Targaryens are seen as the rightful royal dynasty of Westeros while the Baratheons are not. Even Robert acknowledges this. Him winning a war didn't settle the issue, not while there are still Targaryens alive. Hell, even while people still want to believe the Targaryens are still alive and might come back. That's why the Aegon plan is about to succeed right now.

The idea that one war decides such an important issue is just silly. Even the Conqueror didn't complete the Conquest during his long reign. His sons had to deal with various rebellions and only after the power of the Faith was broken was the Targaryen rule secure.

Robert's position would have been a lot better had killed all Targaryens. But he failed to do that.

There is a reason why Varys/Illyrio are working with a (fake) Targaryen pretender rather than, say, using some (alleged) bastard of Robert to challenge the claim of Tommen and Myrcella.

There is also a reason why Euron, Aegon, Victarion, Quentyn, etc. want to marry Daenerys. Her name and bloodline gives her legitimacy, and that legitimacy is going to give her consorts legitimacy and power, too.

There is also a reason why no bastards or cousins of Robert's on the Baratheon side are claiming any crowns.

The Baratheons may have had the chance to establish a lasting royal dynasty but that's gone. They are done.

And - yes. Robert really doesn't have a 'right of conquest'. He was no monarch by the time the rebellion started, just a rebel and a traitor. People who rise up and depose or kill their own king do not conquer anything. They stage a coup or usurp a throne, and that is usually not seen as something that's legitimate - whereas a proper war between two kings/countries usually is. They are equals. Robert and Aerys/Rhaegar were never equals.

And keep in mind that this is Westeros where royal and noble blood is more sacrosanct than anywhere in the real world. This is a world where royal and noble dynasties rule their lands and castles for thousands of years.

The Baratheon coup should by and far have about as legitimacy in Westeros as the Bolton coup at Winterfell. People go along with it for the time being but they don't think that's how things should be.

[The Fattest Leech]

6 hours ago, UFT said:

stannis - birthright. and robert having a big hammer. 

renly - kinder than the other claimants, more charismatic, much much larger military (and would have been even more if robb agreed to an alliance), right of conquest, with renly specifically citing his elder bro's rebellion against mad king (i dont think stannis = mad king of course). 

 

Between the two, Stannis. The Baratheon reconquered and won their spot. Even Dany thinks how her father lost the throne. Stannis was upset with Robert giving him Dragonstone instead of the Baratheon Storm's End, but historically Dragonstone goes to the next in line. I think Stannis just missed that small point.