Who is the legitimate Monarch at this point?

[James Nicholls]

So the last legitimate change of the throne was Robert taking it from Aerys by force. What with Joffrey actually not being Robert's natural heir the throne should have passed to Stannis. But given that Stannis attempted to take King's Landing and was defeated, do the Lannisters have rightful possession of the throne, and is Tommen the legitimate King?

[FanTasy]

It depends,

If you consider House Baratheon as the rightful kings of Westeros:

Stannis has a stronger claim to the Iron Throne than Tommen.

Stannis lost the Battle at the Blackwater, he didn't renounce his claim to the throne.

He is also part Targaryen by the way, he is the grandson of Rhaelle Targaryen, a daughter of Aegon V.

If you consider the Baratheons usurpers and that the Targaryen still should sit the Iron Throne:

Dany is the first in line.

I'm not sure it was acceptable for a female Targaryen to rule the realm, though.

If Jon is - as suspected by many boarders - not Ned's son but a legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen, his right comes before Dany's.

Spoiler for ADWD

If Aegon is alive, his right is the strongest.

[Fryie]

How can Jon be a legitimate son of Rhaegar? If he were, we knew, because the whole point of being legitimate is ... well, other people knowing that you are.

I can see Jon coming to the throne through some kind of prophetic-magic-his-is-the-song-of-ice-and-fire-thingy, but not through legitimacy.

[Roose Seal]

If Aegon is real then Aegon should have the strongest claim to the throne, over Daenerys, who is his niece, and a woman, and certainly over Jon (if R+L). Even if R+L, Jon would still be a bastard born out of wedlock (unless R and L were secretly married at the ToJ ?) and unless he is legitimized by some king, he has no claim at all.

However, by seizing the throne, Robert did was Aegon the Conqueror did 300 years before, so his claim became just as good as Aegon the Conqueror's. If Aegon could declare himself founder of a dynasty, why not Robert ? Aegon created the Iron Throne not because he had a right to, but just because he could.

Therefore, the one with the strongest claim is still Robert's next in line, ie. Stannis.

[Serie]

How can Jon be a legitimate son of Rhaegar? If he were, we knew, because the whole point of being legitimate is ... well, other people knowing that you are.

I can see Jon coming to the throne through some kind of prophetic-magic-his-is-the-song-of-ice-and-fire-thingy, but not through legitimacy.

a popular theory is that Rhaegar married Lyanna Stark so Jon is a legitimate son. Besides from the love story, Rhaegar's motivation for marrying Lyanna could be the fact that Elia could not give him another heir. On the other side, polygamy in westeros (and especially for Targs) is acceptable so...

[Evamitchelle]

If Aegon is real then Aegon should have the strongest claim to the throne, over Daenerys, who is his niece, and a woman, and certainly over Jon (if R+L). Even if R+L, Jon would still be a bastard born out of wedlock (unless R and L were secretly married at the ToJ ?) and unless he is legitimized by some king, he has no claim at all.

Even if Jon wasn't, for some reason, a bastard, Aegon is still the eldest of the two. On the Targ side Aegon is undoubtedly the one with the better claim (in theory at least).

[LuisDantas]

In the sense that succession laws in Westeros use the word, "legitimate" sons are those born from due marriage. It is at least technically possible for Jon to such.

As for Aegon, it has not been proven that he is a Targaryen.

But if it turns out that he is a Blackfyre, his claim will still be stronger than Daenerys' and arguably Jon's

That said, it is my understanding that Robert indeed had no sons by Cersei, and that Robert's claim to power rendered Aegon's and his descendents' null and void.

So, technically, it would be Stannis. It may still come to be, if and when he arranges to have his claim recognized by some sort of court that declares that Robert had no legitimate children.

Hopefully it won't come to that.

Besides, there is the pragmatic argument that Stannis has failed to reach the Iron Throne, so he is at best a Monarch in exile for the time being. In a very real sense, Tommen's claim is legitimate because King's Landing's authorities treat it as such.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Since Robert was the acknowledged King of Westeros, Stannis is the legitimate monarch.

If you consider Robert unlawful,

a non-fake Aegon is

before (a trueborn R+L=) Jon

Since the Iron Throne passes in extreme male primogeniture, a potential son of Dany could inherit, but she herself can't. And that makes Stannis Baratheon as next male in line to inherit from Egg King.

If conquering by force of arms doesn't makes one legitimate, Bran Stark as the heir of the only remaining Kingdom of the First Men is the legitimate King of (human) Westeros.

[Kate Poem]

Legitimate? I don't know.

If we'll respect Targaryen's rights, legitimate monarch is young Aegon, but he could be fake... or young khaleesi or, if Rhaegar's and Lyanne's story was true - maybe - Jon Snow now.

If Lyanne was Rhaegar's widow. If she was'nt...

And, if Night's Watch's oath last... importance after

Jon death

If we'll not respect Targaryen's rights, legitimate monarch is His Grace Stannis Baratheon.

If we'll not respect any rights, legitimate monarch should become, for example, Garlan Tyrell. He is, probably good courtier, man and knight.

[Bloodraven's Lost Eye]

How can Jon be a legitimate son of Rhaegar? If he were, we knew, because the whole point of being legitimate is ... well, other people knowing that you are.

I can see Jon coming to the throne through some kind of prophetic-magic-his-is-the-song-of-ice-and-fire-thingy, but not through legitimacy.

It's true other people don't know, but as far as legitimacy goes (let's pretend R+L=J is true) Jon would be legitimate. Rhaegar did acknowledge him as his son (presence of the KG at ToJ), he is of very noble birth and targaryans oft took multiple wives.

edit: first post and holy shit this board is active, like 6 replies while I was typing :eek:

[mediocre cheese]

Legitimacy is bestowed by popular consent, hence why the stuarts aren't monarchs of England. King is a title that in the end goes to who can claim it, Robert was the legitimate king because he had a giant warhammer which he used to kill the rightful heir to the throne. Tommen is the king, he reigns in KL, officially acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of the population (everyone other than a few recalcitrant nothern lords). In the end saying he stole the throne is meaningless, aegon stole the throne as did robert.

The "rights" people are absurdly talking about respecting are the right of a human to rule others based on their name alone. Those rights are not bestowed by popular consent, but based on force, and they are only as legitimate as far as force carries you.

According to the laws of westeros stannis is robert's, heir. But according to the laws of westeros viserys was aerys's heir (or aegon is if he is real). In the end neither really matters, unless they can get forces to support them. If aegon can claim the throne, it won't matter whether or not he really is rhaegar's son. If he can't he will be as doomed as viserys was. Same with stannis. Your legitimacy is based only as far as how much support you can get and how well that you use that support.

Edit:

To summarize legitimacy is a meaningless concept when your talking about a military dictator (which is what a monarch is). Aegon is not more legitimate than dany who is not more legitimate than stannis who is not more legitimate than tommen. All of their claims are based on force and only force will bring about their claim. This isn't democracy, you can't steal a throne, you can only take it.

[Fryie]

It's true other people don't know, but as far as legitimacy goes (let's pretend R+L=J is true) Jon would be legitimate. Rhaegar did acknowledge him as his son (presence of the KG at ToJ), he is of very noble birth and targaryans oft took multiple wives.

I find this concept of "legitimacy" to be very unrealistic.

Legitimacy is not a magic thing that you get once (in whatever way) someone bestows it on you. If nobody knows and accepts Jon as a legitimate son, how can he be so? It's not as if Rhaegar was around and could boast of it.

Then again, I don't agree that power resides only in your army. It's all about Varys' riddle in ACoK - power is where people think it resides. It's all a mummer's trick - it's part having an army, part being charismatic, part having some pseudo- or half-legitimate claim.

And no, a monarch is NOT a military dictator. There's a reason "monarchy" and "dictatorship" are treated as different concepts in politics, even if they tend to blend in some cases.

[LuisDantas]

If conquering by force of arms doesn't makes one legitimate, Bran Stark as the heir of the only remaining Kingdom of the First Men is the legitimate King of (human) Westeros.

Why specifically House Stark? Aren't there other known descendants of the First Men in Westeros?

[cybroleach]

So the last legitimate change of the throne was Robert taking it from Aerys by force. What with Joffrey actually not being Robert's natural heir the throne should have passed to Stannis. But given that Stannis attempted to take King's Landing and was defeated, do the Lannisters have rightful possession of the throne, and is Tommen the legitimate King?

If we're going by legitimacy then I would have to say Stannis. However Tommen is definately the ruling monarch of Westeros right now he need Stannis to die or renounce his claim or run away to give his claim legitimacy as a conqueror/usurper.

[Sun]

Personally, I consider Baratheon to currently be the rightful ruling house of Westeros, so I'll say Stannis. I don't think much of the Targaryan claim. They conquered, ruled for 300 years (am I right about the number?) and were then ousted, so their claim to the thrones is void, imo.

When all is said and done however, the Iron Thrones will belong to whomever manages to win it... rightful or not.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Why specifically House Stark? Aren't there other known descendants of the First Men in Westeros?

Descendants of First Men yes, undoubted heirs of their kingdoms no. Bracken and Blackwood each claim descent from First Men Kings, but they can't agree who of them was the king and who the servant. Bran on the other hand is the undisputed heir of Torrhen Stark, undisputed King in the North.

But I just remembered, House Hightower descents from a First Men Kingdom. So Bran Stark and Lord Hightower will have to work something out.

[The King in the South]

You can't argue the Baratheons aren't legitimate but the Targaryens are. Both of them conquered by force.

In my opinion, the whole concept of "legitimate claim" is crap, and either the title should go to whoever has the most support (be it Tommen, Stannis, or Hodor), or no one at all.

edit: The same goes for the First Men and the Andals. All of them conquered to make themselves kings. Just because one did it X years before the other should not give them leverage, unless you want to make the claim that the COTF should be in charge.

[The King in the South]

edit: double post

[TheFlayedMan]

I don't think it matters whether Aegon is legit or not. A legal Baratheon sits the throne. But he's not a Baratheon, so therefore he is not the rightful king. Stannis is. The Targs were removed from the throne. The Baratheons replaced them. So, in my opinion, Stannis' claim is the strongest.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Depending on the house:

Baretheon: Stannis or

Shireen if Stannis did fall against the Boltons

Baretheon/Lannister (by right of conquest and official heir): Tommen, though I prefer his sister and Dorne's rules, as Lannister/"Baretheon" they do not acknowledge Dornish inheritance, so any claim the Martells make is not legimate.

Targeryon:

Aegon if he is real. Dany is his aunt. Sex makes no difference. Karstark pointed out to Jon that daughters inherit before uncles.