Dood Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 50 minutes ago, DarkBastard said: Amazing that someone can think that any King who ever conquers other areas en-masse is then somehow permanently the rightful rulers of said realm. If that were in any way accurate, the Queen of England would still be in control of a majority of the United States. The British, French, and Dutch would be the rightful rulers of most of Africa by that logic. Besides the fact that the Seven and the Citadel both confirmed Robert's legitimacy as king...I guess that just doesn't apply, right? Well no, because the king can renounce his claim on any part of his country, but I don't see what you are trying to prove, it happened literally all the time. Also, the Seven and the Citadel do not posses the power to transfer the crown to anyone. Only a great council could have this power, and even then, I have doubt it would be able to transfer the crown to someone else while a valid heir is alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandru Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 2 hours ago, DarkBastard said: If that were in any way accurate, the Queen of England would still be in control of a majority of the United States. Is it too late now? Seems like this Constitution thing has gone off the rails lately... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Would you agree that the Boltons are now the rightful and legal governors of the north? After all, they rebelled against the Starks, who themselves were outlaws because they were rebelling against their king, and beat the Starks for control of the north. Yes the Boltons are the legal rulers of the North for the time being, but they don't have the support of the North which means if Sansa and the Vale or Rickon and the Manderlys ever attempt a coup the Boltons will lose. House Bolton's legitimacy is shaky because they don't have the North's support, Robert on the other hand was backed by 4/7 of Westeros so minus a few whispers here and there no one was particularly interested in overthrowing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhaegoTheUnborn Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/26/2017 at 4:08 PM, Dood said: When Aerys died, the crown passed on to the next pretendant in line. Legally speaking Viserys was the pretendant to the Iron Throne. Robert took the power by a coup d'état, and was an usurper, the "Crown" was never his to take - at least not while Viserys was alive. But as someone said above, Viserys died just before the War of the five kings, so I guess Stannis would be the next in line due to his Targaryens ascendants. In terms of medieval law regarding monarchies and rules of succession, Viserys was not a king. Aery's lost the throne, it was usurped from him but taken by conquest nonetheless. I say rules of succession also supported Robert because once he removed Aerys and his heir from the picture, he would've argued his Tarygaryen blood, which would've been proven because he was Targaryen by blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yucef Menaerys Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 15 hours ago, Pikachu101 said: What Robert did was the same as Henry IV seizing power from his cousin Richard II through the backing of nobles At least Henry IV was a Plantagenet, the crown remained within the same family, so it's not comparable to what Robert did because he wasn't a Targaryen and had zero claim to the Iron throne hence why he's called the usurper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Yucef Menaerys said: At least Henry IV was a Plantagenet, the crown remained within the same family, so it's not comparable to what Robert did because he wasn't a Targaryen and had zero claim to the Iron throne hence why he's called the usurper. Actually after the direct royal family Robert’s the closest Targaryen relation, his grandmother was a Targaryen. Regardless Robert won the throne through the right of conquest, he led a rebellion and was backed by the majority of Westeros, that gives his crown legitimacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralphis Baratheon Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 20 hours ago, DarkBastard said: "Hi, I'm...like...a Targaryen, I'm like totally in charge here because my daddy was a king so...can I like...have my chair and stuff?" Please no show spoilers good Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 The king names his heir and Robert was king and named Joffrey. Thus Joffrey is the rightful heir to the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygett Lannister Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: The king names his heir and Robert was king and named Joffrey. Thus Joffrey is the rightful heir to the throne. Not how succession works. Succession follows written laws and Iron Throne has Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture. Also Robert's will (the letter Ned writes) says just until heir comes of age. Without Joffrey's name. And Joffrey being a Queens bastard, even if legitimized has no claim to throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ghost of Someone Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 9 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said: At least Henry IV was a Plantagenet, the crown remained within the same family, so it's not comparable to what Robert did because he wasn't a Targaryen and had zero claim to the Iron throne hence why he's called the usurper. It is not so much that they overthrew who was believed to be an unstable Tyrant, it was that they usurped Richard's II true and legitimate heir, the Earl of March, Grandson of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, who was the older brother of John of Gaunt, the father of Henry iv. Then again, the Earl's family name was Mortimer and he was what? 9-11 years old? This was corrected when Edward IV, through his great grandfather, that same Earl of March regained the Throne for the true line of succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reekazoid Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/26/2017 at 9:39 AM, Dood said: de jure, Viserys, as he was the heir of the previous rightful king. de facto Joffrey, as he was legally recognised as the first born of Robert, who usurped the crown. This is a succinct and accurate summary, but I've often wondered how usurpation differs from conquest. For example, no one calls Aegon I Targaryen "Aegon the Usurper" even though a cavalcade of monarchs fell to him in battle or bent the knee before him. Is it usurpation and not conquest if you are a previous subject of the monarchy you win by battle or coup d'etat? Do you have to be in the line of succession in some capacity, and jump your place in line, or at least have royal blood, to be a usurper? Does usurpation require the existence of living heirs of the previous monarch to be considered usurpation proper? If a monarch dies with no heirs and there is no clearly defined legal system to clearly state who becomes king next, is whoever seizes the throne in a power vacuum a usurper? If there is a strict definition of usurpation somewhere that I've missed then I welcome education. But if Robert I Baratheon doesn't pass that test, I suspect that the definition of "Usurper" has more to do with what house/dynasty the definer likes better, or supported in the struggle for the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 6 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said: Not how succession works. Succession follows written laws and Iron Throne has Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture. Also Robert's will (the letter Ned writes) says just until heir comes of age. Without Joffrey's name. And Joffrey being a Queens bastard, even if legitimized has no claim to throne. Laws are not infallible. In thousands years of history I'm pretty sure not every Stark, Lannister or Arryn King/Lord was the biological heir of the previous ruler but the law still recognises them all as legitimate Kings. We know for a fact that Joffrey is a bastard, but Westeros does not. He and his heirs are the legal heirs until they are either usurped and the new King proclaim them bastards, the Hifgh Septon denounces them or a Great Council strips them of their titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygett Lannister Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/26/2017 at 4:39 PM, Dood said: de jure, Viserys, as he was the heir of the previous rightful king. de facto Joffrey, as he was legally recognised as the first born of Robert, who usurped the crown. What right did Aegon have to conquer Westeros? Non. Robert was actually related to king. So no de jure: Stannis (by laws) de facto: Joffrey (since he holds most of Westeros) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygett Lannister Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: We know for a fact that Joffrey is a bastard, but Westeros does not. He and his heirs are the legal heirs until they are either usurped and the new King proclaim them bastards, the Hifgh Septon denounces them or a Great Council strips them of their titles. North and Riverlands know and recognize it officially, everyone in the Throne room heard Ned say it, most people in KL believe it because it is believable and makes sense. Most people (Tyrells, Boltons) just pretend they don't know about it just because it is beneficial for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said: North and Riverlands know and recognize it officially, Not as of the end of ASOS. Most of the Lords of the Riverlands and North have sworn fealty to Joffrey Baratheon. AGOT they recognised Joffrey as the legal heir, for as long as Robb was in the West Joffrey was recognised as the legal heir. Can you give quotes from the books when the North and Riverlands did not recognize Joffrey was the legal son of Robert? 16 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said: everyone in the Throne room heard Ned say it, Head him say what? And how does Ned saying something make it law? 16 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said: most people in KL believe it because it is believable and makes sense. Most people (Tyrells, Boltons) just pretend they don't know about it just because it is beneficial for them. It is a rumour, not law. People believing gossip does not change the law. Shireen is still the legal daughter of Stannnis Baratheon despite people believing the gossip about her. To make it clear I am talking about the law of Westeros, and Joffrey and Tommen are, by law, the recognised sons of Robert Baratheon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 6 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said: Not how succession works. Succession follows written laws and Iron Throne has Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture. Also Robert's will (the letter Ned writes) says just until heir comes of age. Without Joffrey's name. And Joffrey being a Queens bastard, even if legitimized has no claim to throne. Well, I used to agree with what you wrote and I had may big debates regarding this issue connected with the Dance of the Dragons but in the end there's a quote by GRRM that the Westerosi kings rules as absolute monarchs and thus there's precious little ground to base anything on which would go against the will of the king. While I personally favor the kind of system that you favor, although I personally would rather see it as absolute primogeniture its now how Westeros seems to work in the design of the author and as reasonable and open-minded people who have to accept facts for Westeros as the author gives them to us. To this comes that I kind of disagree with you about Joffrey. That Eddard falsified Robert's will and that Robert was mislead about Joffrey's parentage does not mean that Robert did not appoint Joffrey as his heir and it does not mean that Joffrey is the heir through royal appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRANDON GREYSTARK Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/25/2017 at 9:41 PM, 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 Tagaryens gain the throne through the right of conquest and they lost it when Dragonstone fell and the Dornish prince pledge fealty to Robert , by right of conquest . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygett Lannister Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 25 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Well, I used to agree with what you wrote and I had may big debates regarding this issue connected with the Dance of the Dragons but in the end there's a quote by GRRM that the Westerosi kings rules as absolute monarchs and thus there's precious little ground to base anything on which would go against the will of the king. While I personally favor the kind of system that you favor, although I personally would rather see it as absolute primogeniture its now how Westeros seems to work in the design of the author and as reasonable and open-minded people who have to accept facts for Westeros as the author gives them to us. To this comes that I kind of disagree with you about Joffrey. That Eddard falsified Robert's will and that Robert was mislead about Joffrey's parentage does not mean that Robert did not appoint Joffrey as his heir and it does not mean that Joffrey is the heir through royal appointment. Thinking about it again you guise are right Joffrey is rightful heir. Though in middle ages kings could change their heirs by sending older sons to monestary or simply disinheriting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reekazoid Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/25/2017 at 5:01 PM, RhaegoTheUnborn said: 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. Well, Robert had plenty of children , just none with Cersei. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhaegoTheUnborn Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, Reekazoid said: Well, Robert had plenty of children , just none with Cersei. Right, none of which could ever sit the throne. Unless they took it by force ala the Blackfyre rebellions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.