Who is the legitimate Monarch at this point?

[Levo]

Stannis I think but it's arguable.

While Tommen reigns in Kings Landing Stannis hasn't bowed, and so to me until he flees or dies he will be the legitimate King.

But the Targaryen's were defeated and fled, so can be argued to be the legitimate monarch.

I think as Stannis hasn't given up yet he remains the rightful king in exile.

[Val the Wildling Princess]

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.

I agree.

[Isrararrafi]

my first post here...recently started reading the books after the show aired on hbo

According to me Stanis is the rightful king

Robert took the iron throne from the targaryens by war..which is the only way to rightfully take a kingdom. After all that's how the targaryens themselves took westeros..right? So now that Robert is dead and he has no true born son, the brother should be the king.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

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.

True, but the COTF are not human. Might make a difference ;)

Targeryon:

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

That's true for almost all cases. But the Iron Throne is special. Since the Dance of Dragons it's law that a woman can't inherit it for herself, only a male child/grandchild/whatever-generations-child can inherit through her. That is Targaryen law. And thus a male Baratheon, a male Martell, a male Blackfyre, Bloodraven etc., Robert Arryn and Lord Hightower, maybe some Velaryon too, inherit before Dany.

[Skeksi]

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.

Has it ever actually been stated that the Iron Throne passes in extreme male primogeniture? Because I hear it claimed on the boards, and yet Stannis still considers Shireen to be his legitimate heir to the monarchy, Daenerys still claims the throne in her own right, and whilst Myrcella is passed over in favour of her brothers, I always assumed she followed them in the line of succession.

There's a case to be argued for the leadership of the Iron Islands, as whilst Asha holds that her claim is the strongest, many other Ironborn protest that a woman cannot lead them. But I've never seen proof that women are prohibited from sitting the Iron Throne.

Meaning that:

- If you believe that by holding the Iron Throne, Tommen Baratheon is the rightful king, then obviously he is the legitimate monarch, with his heir being Myrcella. After that, I'm not sure whether the throne would pass to Shireen Baratheon, as their closest Baratheon relative, or whether she is removed from the line of succession when her father is declared a traitor.

- If you believe that the Baratheons, having conquered the Targaryens and won the throne, should still hold it, and that Tommen has no right to it as lacking Baratheon blood, then Stannis is the king, Shireen is his heir, and presumably you'd then have to go to Stannis' extended family tree (cousins, etc.) if they both died before producing more children.

- If you believe that the Targaryens are the rightful rulers still (which is a hard one to argue, given that they conquered the 7 kingdoms in the first place, and were then conquered themselves), then things are a little more complicated depending on theories relating to various characters. Obviously, Rhaegar's legitimate children come first in the line of succession, in order of sex and age. If Aegon is real, he is the rightful Targaryen king. If Jon is the legitimate son of R+L, then he follows Aegon. Daenerys, the only confirmed, absolutely definite Targaryen as far as we know, is theoretically third in the line of succession behind these two, as Rhaegar's sister, not his offspring.

HOWEVER, Daenerys probably has the strongest Targaryen claim, since as far as the world knows, Aegon was murdered as a baby, Rhaegar was only married to Elia, and Jon is the bastard son of Ned Stark- it's very easy to dismiss both of their claims, not so easy to dismiss Daenerys, as was pointed out in ADWD.

[Serie]

In a way it seems to me that Tommen is also a rightful heir of the throne. Or even better, Cercei. She fought for it. She earned it..... :unsure:

[Arland]

The fact that Targerians took the kigdom by force cannot be used to legitimise Roberts rule or to be used to dismiss any demand for some kind of legitimacy. In every case in history in the begining, the first conquest is "iligitimate" , since at this point no rules exist, but with time legitimacy is established, and therefore all the following actions can be judged in view of the "new established rules". No matter if Targerian invasion was legitimate at the time, after 300 years of rule, they become the legitimate rulers of Westeros. Almost every country on Earth was at some point established by force, should we see them all as illegitimate? (well may be besides the democratic once, where you can claim that legitimace arises from consent of the population) .

Another issus is that Targerians took the kingdom by right of conquest - something which seems to be recognized as legitimate way to gain land in this world. Robert on other hand didn't conquered Westeros - he rebelled against his lord. So if let's say Bravosi would have conquered Westeros and deposed Targerians it would have being one thing, but being deposed by someone from Westeros is something else.

Inspite all of the above I do believe that Roberts rule was legitimate since Aries broke his part of "feudal bargain" and lost his legitimacy by being nuts, but that is entirely different issue.

[Sun]

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 OP asks "who is the legitimate monarch at this point", meaning at this point in time of Westerosian history. To which there is only one answer, imo, it is House Baratheon.

As to who was or who will be the rightful ruler, then you are correct, there were many who claimed dominion by right of the conqueror, and when the war is done, I expect the victor will use that same right to claim it again.

Ofcourse, whether there will be a unified seven kingdoms to rule over, or 7 separate states with 7 kings, is an entirely different thread.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If you believe that the Targaryens were run out of town, defeated fair and square and are shit out of luck, then Stannis, as Robert's next legitimate heir, is the rightful king. He has an attainder against him, but the monarch who issued it was never legitimate himself, so his acts of attainder aren't worth anything. I don't consider the Battle of the Blackwater to be Stannis getting completely and utterly defeated, the way, say, Richard III was (i.e. killed) at Bosworth. If Stannis can live to fight another day and does not renounce his claim, it's still good.

This is what I believe: Targs lost, they're not longer the royal family, etc. It's the Baratheons.

If for whatever reason you think the Targs are still legitimate, then Aegon, if he's the real deal, is the rightful king. If he's a fake and the real Aegon is dead, then Jon, if he's legitimate, is the rightful king.

After that it gets tricky. Dany is the only Targaryen left if Aegon and Jon are knocked out, but because of the Iron Throne's succession rules, all male claimants, even obscure ones, must be exhausted before a woman can claim the throne. In which case, the only other male in Westeros with recent, direct Targaryen heritage is ... hey, look, it's Stannis. BUT I don't know if Stannis could make a claim, because his Targaryen heritage is female-line, from his grandmother. He might not be able to claim the Iron Throne in the same way that, say, Edward III couldn't claim the throne of France through his mother. I also don't know how far back you'd have to go, like how many generations back the lineage is considered "good." If they go way back, then the Martell family, like Doran, would also have a claim, unless, like Stannis, their rights would be put aside because they too are female-line descendants.

If the Targaryen succession laws allow for male claimants through a female line, then Stannis would actually supersede Dany, and, depending on how far back they'd have to go, possibly Doran would too. If female-line male claimants are knocked out, then, yes, Dany would be the rightful queen. Stannis might have an act of attainder against him for his role in Robert's Rebellion, but if he's the rightful king, who'd be around to actually enforce it? It's a cart-horse situation. Dany would want the attainder enforced, but the guy she'd want it enforced against would, in theory, be king before she would be queen.

It's kind of hilarious to me that Dany's so gung-ho about her birthright when, at face value, she's actually probably more like third in line, even if people do accept Targaryen rule.

End of the day, brass-tacks, rightful king, in my mind: Stannis Baratheon.

[Sevumar]

I don't think we're going to see the Westerosi houses agree on what's legitimate until someone can compel others to give up their claims. Look at how many different views there are on this board alone. I think that, as long as a given house sees itself as a viable player, legitimacy means whatever they need it to mean to get a member of their family on the throne.

For the Lannisters, possession is 9/10 of the law. Results and "facts on the ground" convey legitimacy for them. It's hard to argue with Tommen's crown when his manipulators and allies have managed to keep hold of King's Landing and emerge triumphant in the Riverlands. Their claim has a tenuous basis in law, and it seems to be accepted widely enough to keep the Lannisters in power, but readers know that their claim doesn't stand up under the laws of Westeros.

Various Targaryen family members and their sympathizers cling to the view that Robert Baratheon never became anything more than a usurper, despite holding the Iron Throne for about 15 years. They will try to use old sympathies, promises of better times, the return of dragons, and the force of arms to stake their claim. It's hard to see any basis in law for this claim, as Robert was acknowledged as king by all the major houses. Since we have two claimants identifying as Targaryens, there's the additional problem of sorting out Aegon's identity and his place in the succession. Succession law under the Targaryens would give the throne to a real Aegon, but Dany might have a better chance of winning a war. Still, it would be silly for Dany and Aegon (and their supporters) to start arguing about law and ownership of the Targaryen pretense to the throne when they've waged their campaign for it in clear defiance of the law.

The Baratheon claim of Stannis is the strongest when considered in full knowledge of all the facts and the laws of succession in Westeros. However, Stannis is also in the weakest military position of any claimant still living. Those who accept him as their king have done so because they are sworn to him, or had little choice but to accept his aid. It's unknown whether his Northern allies would continue to support him for the Iron Throne once their homeland is secure.

In peacetime, the law is the best reference for deciding the succession and it provides a framework for a predictable transfer of power from one generation to the next. But Westeros is at war, and the law is relegated to a secondary position to justify the outcome of the military struggle. Whichever side emerges victorious will cite some law or another to justify its taking the throne. We've seen this at work in the stories told about Robert's rise to power.

[Arland]

Actualy this opens another issue - was Robb declaration of being "king in the north" illegitimage? Starks have surrendered their right to be independant to Targerians. But once Targerians were gone, this agreement became void. Ned was loyal to Robert because personal frienship and cet, but did he gave up Starks right to be independent kings to Baratheons as a whole or to Irone throne as insitution or just declared his loyality to Robert the man. If later, the moment Robert died, Ned's personal declaration of loyality died with him.

[Golden&Crimson]

Aegon I, The Conqueror conquered almost all Westeros:

- The North surrendered without resistance.

- The royal family of the Iron Islands and the Riverlands was destroyed, and in their place Aegon I put the Tullys and Greyjoys.

- The Storm Kings were destroyed and replaced by Orys Baratheon, a bannerman of Aegon.

- The King of the Rock, defeated in battle, submited.

- The Gardener House ended with the death of his last king, and Aegon put the Tyrells with the lordship of the Reach

- Later (after Aegon and because of the guerrilla warfare of the dornishmen) Dorne was integrated (political marriage) peacefully and by their own will in the Seven Kingdoms.

- The Targaryens are the legitimate royal house.

The Baratheon Rebellion:

- Aerys II is murdered.

- The crownprince Rhaegar is killed in combat.

- The rest of the Targaryen royal family is either killed or exiled.

- The North, Riverlands, Vale, Westerlands, Reach, Stormlands, Dorne and Iron Islands acknowledge oficially Robert Baratheon has the new King of the Seven Kingdoms.

- The Baratheons are the legitimate royal house.

Regarding the Targaryens:

- Daenerys and/or Aegon conquer Westeros, and recover the alegiance of the Great Houses, and recover the lost legitimacy of the Targaryens over the Iron Throne, with Aegon has the legitimate king. But their claim is weak in two very important points: Daenerys seems to only take real interest in Mereen and the forces of Aegon are simple mercenaries, without any open suport from the Great Houses.

Regarding the Baratheons:

- Stannis is the only legitimate king because he is a true Baratheon, heir of the House that received the alegiance of all the Great Houses when Robert conquered the throne. Besides he is the only one that acts like a king: the safety of the Seven Kingdoms is essential for him, and he will do anything for the greater good of the Kingdom, even if he need to do something thats is considered cruel.

Others:

- Tommen is considered, generally, the true king, because people think he is a natural and legitimate son of Robert Baratheon, but he is a product of incest between the Lannister Twins. He is a fake. He only ocupies the Iron Throne because the truth is not know by the general public.

- If Jon is a bastard of Rhaegar and Lyanna he didn´t have any right to the Iron Throne. He is a not legitimated royal bastard, like Gendry or Barra.

- Edric Storm, even if he is the most priviliged bastard of Robert Baratheon, his possible claim is much weaker than his uncle, Stannis Baratheon.

So:

- The legitimate king is: Stannis Baratheon The First of his Name, King of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, Protector fo the Real.

[Sevumar]

Dany is the only Targaryen left if Aegon and Jon are knocked out, but because of the Iron Throne's succession rules, all male claimants, even obscure ones, must be exhausted before a woman can claim the throne. In which case, the only other male in Westeros with recent, direct Targaryen heritage is ... hey, look, it's Stannis. BUT I don't know if Stannis could make a claim, because his Targaryen heritage is female-line, from his grandmother. He might not be able to claim the Iron Throne in the same way that, say, Edward III couldn't claim the throne of France through his mother. I also don't know how far back you'd have to go, like how many generations back the lineage is considered "good." If they go way back, then the Martell family, like Doran, would also have a claim, unless, like Stannis, their rights would be put aside because they too are female-line descendants.

I think your example about the confusion in the succession is right on, and it shows us why Martin has always said that Westerosi succession laws are more of a guideline than an absolute. IIRC, he said in an SSM that the nobles prefer it this way so that they have room to maneuver in sticky situations, like the one you describe above.

Despite the fact that some minority cultures in Westeros (Targaryens, Dorne) have their own succession customs, events like the Dance of the Dragons have shown that the dominant Andal culture will try to impose its view of succession whenever possible. It seems like if a line is especially beloved, like the Starks, followers are willing to go to bastards or the female line to continue the family name. In fact, if the tale of Bael the Bard is to be believed, the Starks have probably been extinct in the male line since that time, but nobody is questioning the right of present-day Starks to bear that name handed down from Bael's daughter. We see further discussion about female relations in the succession of Rosby, and the role of bastards when Hornwood is without a legitimate heir. It seems like lords are pretty willing to be flexible when necessary unless a line is so hated or a connection so obscure as to be better off considered extinct.

Actualy this opens another issue - was Robb declaration of being "king in the north" illegitimage? Starks have surrendered their right to be independant to Targerians. But once Targerians were gone, this agreement became void. Ned was loyal to Robert because personal frienship and cet, but did he gave up Starks right to be independent kings to Baratheons as a whole or to Irone throne as insitution or just declared his loyality to Robert the man. If later, the moment Robert died, Ned's personal declaration of loyality died with him.

I think that even if we consider the Baratheons a new dynasty instead of the inheritance of a cadet Targaryen branch through the female line, Ned did willingly give his allegiance to Robert. I think that ties his house to the Baratheon throne as long as the dynasty persists, but the situation in which Robb found himself wasn't that clear-cut. I see his declaration coming more out of the realization that the throne was no longer in Baratheon hands, and that there were two Baratheon claimants (one with no real justifiable claim and one very weak one) fighting over the throne. It's not hard to see Robb going with his vassals and their assertion that an independent North is the best thing for them. Of course, Robb's family connection to the Tully line and the Riverlands ended up drawing him into the war of succession anyway. In hindsight, it doesn't look like King in the North was that prudent of a move.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

- If Jon is a bastard of Rhaegar and Lyanna he didn´t have any right to the Iron Throne. He is a not legitimated royal bastard, like Gendry or Barra.

Whoa now. Gendry and Barra are not legitimized. Not even Edric Storm was legitimized, only acknowledged.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Actualy this opens another issue - was Robb declaration of being "king in the north" illegitimage? Starks have surrendered their right to be independant to Targerians. But once Targerians were gone, this agreement became void. Ned was loyal to Robert because personal frienship and cet, but did he gave up Starks right to be independent kings to Baratheons as a whole or to Irone throne as insitution or just declared his loyality to Robert the man. If later, the moment Robert died, Ned's personal declaration of loyality died with him.

Well, even if Ned declared the Starks loyalty to House Baratheon forever, Robbs declaration was legitimate. Joffrey, as of this time known as Roberts heir, was clearly nuts and violated his oaths as Liege Lord to the North in the worst manner. Just like Aerys before him. Ergo no loyalty to Joffrey required.

Stannis, the true heir, doesn't clear the issue until months later. And instead of working on a solution, he declares Robb a traitor and sentences him to die, wrecking his right on loyalty from the North.

[Falrinn]

Depends on how you define legitimate I suppose.

If we ignore right of conquest, then pretty much no one is a legitimate king since everyone took their lands from someone else if you go back far enough (maybe with the exception of the Starks). The First Men took their lands from the Children of the Forest, the Andals took their lands from the First Men, and so on. If we allow for right of conquest, then Tommen, Stannis, Aegon, and Euron all qualify simply because they all hold lands in Westeros.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Well Robert, did not claim the throne thru might, he claimed it by birth. Granted he was a rebal, but he would have been the last oldest "dragon". If Aegon didnt get switched and Stannis made sure Dany and her brother died at Dragonstone he would be the only one. Bastards can't be kings, it's nothing against the people, they were just born on the wrong side of the sheets. So I would say Aegon, then Dany and then Stannis. However would do these stags and dragons know of the life up North! Why do they bow to such men who have never seen snow! lol Jon Snow was legitimized by King Robbs decree, however the Tullys and Snow dont get along, so it would fall to Bran who is a tree and therefor Rickon (who is chilling with the coolest "Hand" ever, but the Arryn's could claim to serve the North, in which case they would put forth Sansa as queen

[Gingerly Grumkin]

This reminds me of a riddle. A random sellsword is in a room with a priest, a rich man and his king...lol

[Talleyrand]

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.

Being a monarch just means that your ancestor was a military dictator

[Golden&Crimson]

Whoa now. Gendry and Barra are not legitimized. Not even Edric Storm was legitimized, only acknowledged.

Yes, i know that.

I write that they (Barra and Gendry) are bastards, like Jon.

I explained in my post that Edric is still a bastard, only in a better material situation than the other bastards of Robert Baratheon.

Sorry by any mistakes in my text, but english isn´t my first language.