Who was the rightful king in the TWoFK?

[SunfyreTheGolden]

I think the rightful king was Stannis. He had the biggest claim. I know the Targaryen rules say that 'Firstborn son's firstborn son has the biggest claim.' But I don't know.

[Yucef Menaerys]

That depends, to the readers? Probably Stannis since we as readers have the benefit of knowing that Robert's children by Cersei are bastards and after them obviously the next person in line is Stannis. To most people in Westeros? Joffrey. They couldn't know that he wasn't Robert's son for sure, no DNA test available and everyone rightfully assumes that he is Robert's trueborn son, so that makes Joffrey the rightful king in their eyes.

[Stormking902]

Joffrey since Robert claimed him as his true born son right until his death so as far as law and Westeros is concerned it has to be Joffrey. 

[Jon Fossoway]

It's been a while since I read the books, but I remember that Joffrey's parentage was never truly stablished, apart from spam and not-supported-by-evidence letters from Stan, a bitter claimant whose key informers and possible allies were murdered (Jon Arryn and then Ned Stark), so I would say Joffrey had the strongest claim. He was the King, after all.

Since we do know that the Barannister kids didn't really have any true claim, then the true King is Stannis, hands down.

 

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

Definitely Stannis, He had the only true claim after Roberts death. Robert had no kids of his own, and as said above me, we're privy to the knowledge of all of Cersi's supposed Baratheon children, being the offspring of Jaime. And that knowledge was being spread all throughout the Seven Kingdoms, though it was largely rumor, as the only ones who had proof of it was Stannis and Ned, whom died because of it, with him trying to threaten Cersi basically with that piece of information. It was never going to turn out well for him.

[Faera]

With the War of the Five Kings, only three of the five were really contesting the right to sit the Iron Throne: Joffrey, Stannis and Renly.

Now, we as readers are obviously aware that Joffrey is illegitimate and thus has no true claim to Robert's throne and that the next in line as per primogeniture succession would be Stannis. However, Joffrey is legally recognised as Robert's son -- you would have to prove he was a bastard in order to really sure up the claim. Proving that in a medieval world is hard, even with a couple of Robert's bastards to compare Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella to. Therefore, relying on the line of succession alone was never going to be good enough. That is why conquest was necessary.

So, yes, in reality, it is Stannis. In the eyes of the Seven Kingdoms, it is "Robert's children" or whoever is 'ard enough to take it from them.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

The Mannis was the rightful king

[The Lord of the Crossing]

None of the five.  Because the Targaryens retained the legal right to rule.  The laws made no provisions for rebellion.  Rebellion is illegal.  Therefore, the Baratheons had no legal right to rule.  The legitimate ruler was King Viserys III.  The right to rule passed from King Aerys II and on down to his chosen son, King Viserys III, who was crowned on Dragonstone by Queen Rhaella herself.  Viserys was in fact the rightful ruler.  Stealing the kingdom does not make it yours.  Possession does not make the throne yours.  According to their system, rebelling is illegal and therefore any rebellion is not legal.  Any gains from rebelling is ill-gotten and stolen. 

[1000th Lord Commander]

It's kind of a null question. Aside from Renly, each of the other four had a legitimate justification for thier actions. Robb was rejecting a king who had killed his father. Balon was seeking freedom for his people. Jofferey was sitting the Iron Throne as the presumed heir, with Stannis seeing that he was the rightful heir due to the illigitimacy of Ceresi's children.

23 minutes ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

None of the five.  Because the Targaryens retained the legal right to rule.  The laws made no provisions for rebellion.  Rebellion is illegal.  Therefore, the Baratheons had no legal right to rule.  The legitimate ruler was King Viserys III.  The right to rule passed from King Aerys II and on down to his chosen son, King Viserys III, who was crowned on Dragonstone by Queen Rhaella herself.  Viserys was in fact the rightful ruler.  Stealing the kingdom does not make it yours.  Possession does not make the throne yours.  According to their system, rebelling is illegal and therefore any rebellion is not legal.  Any gains from rebelling is ill-gotten and stolen. 

Have you forgotten Aegon the 6th? as the son of Rheagar, he would have been the legitimate heir.

 

[Dorian Martell's son]

7 hours ago, SunfyreTheGolden said:

I think the rightful king was Stannis. He had the biggest claim. I know the Targaryen rules say that 'Firstborn son's firstborn son has the biggest claim.' But I don't know.

Joff was the rightful king, like his father bob before him. He won. That is all that matters. nothing more 

 

[Foot_Of_The_King]

Varys' riddle is pretty relevant here (as it is in many cases throughout the novels).   

[SirArthur]

7 hours ago, SunfyreTheGolden said:

I think the rightful king was Stannis. He had the biggest claim. I know the Targaryen rules say that 'Firstborn son's firstborn son has the biggest claim.' But I don't know.

This is a pointless discussion as earlier or later someone will rub the "might makes right" under everyones nose. 

Oh wait, it already happened. 

[MrJay]

Technically: Whoever has the strongest army and can plant their rear on the Throne. 

Legally: Stannis. 

Also legally  : Joff. Son or not, Rob claimed him as heir. So he is heir. 

[Adam Yozza]

As readers we know the answer is Stannis. Most people in Westeros though believe it to be Joffrey.

 

[Pikachu101]

Technically there are three rightful kings:

• Stannis the Mannis is Robert's heir thus the one true king of Westeros
• Robb was crowned king by the North and Riverlands
• Balon is also the legal king of the Iron Islands for the same reasons as Robb

So really it depends on whether or not you think the North and Iron Islands are allowed to declare independence. 

[oldbus]

8 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

None of the five.  Because the Targaryens retained the legal right to rule.  The laws made no provisions for rebellion.  Rebellion is illegal.  Therefore, the Baratheons had no legal right to rule.  The legitimate ruler was King Viserys III.  The right to rule passed from King Aerys II and on down to his chosen son, King Viserys III, who was crowned on Dragonstone by Queen Rhaella herself.  Viserys was in fact the rightful ruler.  Stealing the kingdom does not make it yours.  Possession does not make the throne yours.  According to their system, rebelling is illegal and therefore any rebellion is not legal.  Any gains from rebelling is ill-gotten and stolen. 

The Targaryens only ruled through right of conquest.  Robert Baratheon ruled with the same right as Aegon the Conqueror and for the same basic reasons:

1. He and his mates kicked their opponents asses and won;
2. Enough people with enough power (lords, knights, septons, maesters etc) bent the knee and enabled conquest to become a reign.

[Regular John Umber]

12 minutes ago, oldbus said:

The Targaryens only ruled through right of conquest.  Robert Baratheon ruled with the same right as Aegon the Conqueror and for the same basic reasons:

1. He and his mates kicked their opponents asses and won;
2. Enough people with enough power (lords, knights, septons, maesters etc) bent the knee and enabled conquest to become a reign.

 

 

 This has always felt like a misconception to me. The monarchy was deposed, but Robert was chosen as king because he had Targaryen blood, not because he won.

[oldbus]

4 minutes ago, Regular John Umber said:

 

 

 This has always felt like a misconception to me. The monarchy was deposed, but Robert was chosen as king because he had Targaryen blood, not because he won.

He had Targaryen blood, which will have helped with people accepting him (as the closest rebel by blood), as per point 2, but it didn't legitimise him fully - that would have been Viserys.

The fact is there would always have been precendent in Westeros for a change of king by right of conquest, and Aegon was the prime example.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I always laugh at these "legal" comments.

Legal according to which court of law? Who judges what is legal in Westeros? There essentially is no law. Just a bunch of customs supported by a combination of the Faith, the lords and the beliefs of the common folk (although the latter seems pretty meaningless in the bigger scheme of things). And of course, the first (the Faith) is meaningless in the North, and likely in the Iron Isles too.

That leaves the lords, and they just act in their own best interest most of the time.

So "legally"? There is no legal system in Westeros. At least, none that Martin has gone to any great lengths to explain. Basically he has said the rules of succession are "murky", and left it at that.

Anyway, we know that Joffrey was a bastard, so according to custom, Stannis was the rightful heir of House Baratheon. But there is no law that gave House Baratheon the right to rule the other Houses. Only some oaths of fealty which the various lords swore to them 15 years ago. Oaths which Houses Stark, Tully and Greyjoy renounced in the WotFK. So the only right House Baratheon had over these Houses would be the rights they could enforce by force of arms. Which they managed to do, as at the time of Dance of Dragons. Whether that remains so by the end of Winds remains to be seen.

[Jon Fossoway]

48 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Anyway, we know that Joffrey was a bastard, so according to custom, Stannis was the rightful heir of House Baratheon. But there is no law that gave House Baratheon the right to rule the other Houses. Only some oaths of fealty which the various lords swore to them 15 years ago. Oaths which Houses Stark, Tully and Greyjoy renounced in the WotFK. So the only right House Baratheon had over these Houses would be the rights they could enforce by force of arms. Which they managed to do, as at the time of Dance of Dragons. Whether that remains so by the end of Winds remains to be seen.

Yeh I do believe the OP means who has the better claim to the Iron Throne, disregarding of all dissident vassals. It's about having the right amount of soldiers and alies to support a claim. I also believe Stan missed his chance at the Blackwater.