The Lawful Ruler of Westeros (Spoilers)

[cuendillar]

Robert's claim wasn't truly exclusively by conquest. I looked through the family trees created, at the point of his coronation he was the closest heir to Aerys who was of age - not to mention that both ahead of him were in exile.

Sure, his "method" to get first in line was questionable in several ways, but his ascent at that point was sort of lawful.

The line of succession after the Sack of King's Landing:

1. Viserys Targaryen (8 years old refugee)

2. Daenerys Targaryen (infant or unborn)

3. Robert Baratheon

4. Stannis Baratheon

5. Renly Baratheon

6. Doran Martell

7. Oberyn Martell

Then it gets really obscure.

This also rebuilds the entire succession line following Robert's death, but that's another thread entirely.

[oba]

Dornish support has been burned, literally.

The reason why Stannis has a claim but Dany doesn't is acknowledgement. Every single Lord Paramount has officially acknowledged Robert Baratheon as the rightful King on the Iron Throne. Yes, even Dorne. They can't go back on that.

Well, I don't think one can really say that the Lords Paramount can't go back on their acknowledgment of Robert as rightful king when they went back on their acknowledgment of the Targaryens in order to acknowledge Robert in the first place. That's why I think the notion of "validity" is especially tricky.

[Dessimay]

Many believe that Dany's last chapter included a part about her suffering a miscarriage --- meaning that she can at least conceieve. Quentyn could have been the sun that sets in the East, the Dothraki sea is turning dry, the pyramids in Meereen are the mountains blowing in the wind. That, or something else, or Mirri Maz Duur wasn't making a prophecy, but basically just saying "he's never coming back" to Dany (believing her to be barren due to the difficult birth).

By the way, you don't have to spoiler that stuff. In this forum you only need to use the spoiler tags if you write about stuff from sample chapters, or public readings, of the Winds of Winter. And possibly Dunk and Egg, but no one seems to care about that... Also, welcome to the forum!

Ah k, it was my first post so I figured better safe than sorry. If she truly still can conceive then that's another story. I just feel like it'd be a little anticlimactic for her to finally acquire her throne and only be able to hold it for her lifetime. If she really is barren I just see her becoming Queen as not an option for the future direction of the story. But there are vague prophecies and descriptions scattered everywhere. So maybe she can have children. I just remember reading or getting the impression that after her sacrifice she would never have children. But perhaps I missed something later on or it remains open to interpretation.

[cuendillar]

Ah k, it was my first post so I figured better safe than sorry. If she truly still can conceive then that's another story. I just feel like it'd be a little anticlimactic for her to finally acquire her throne and only be able to hold it for her lifetime. If she really is barren I just see her becoming Queen as not an option for the future direction of the story. But there are vague prophecies and descriptions scattered everywhere. So maybe she can have children. I just remember reading or getting the impression that after her sacrifice she would never have children. But perhaps I missed something later on or it remains open to interpretation.

An interesting interpretation of Mirri Maz Duurs words as a prophecy is that the final point, that she will meet Khal Drogo again when she bears a child to full term means that she is going to die in childbirth - and thus join him in death/afterlife.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Well, I don't think one can really say that the Lords Paramount can't go back on their acknowledgment of Robert as rightful king when they went back on their acknowledgment of the Targaryens in order to acknowledge Robert in the first place. That's why I think the notion of "validity" is especially tricky.

Well, they could probably go back if some new circumstances show up. For example, new and definite proof that Tommen is a bastard would be sufficient reason to revolt against him and choose a new king . Or that Aerys violated all laws and customs when he burned the Starks. But otherwise they can't change that they acknowledged Robert as king.

[Val the Wildling Princess]

Oh my God how dare you it is not the same thing at all. Don't you know that just because something doesn't belong to you anymore, that doesn't mean you don't still have a right to it?!?! Why just last month I sold my car to the guy down the street and I went back over a few days ago and took it on a drive downtown. I got back and my neighbor was all, "Apple wtf were you doing with my car!" I explained to him — calmly — that just because the car belonged to him now didn't mean that I still didn't have a right to drive it. He was not impressed.

Hahaha no you're totally right, Dany's a hypocrite. And yes I think that little event was a deliberate insertion to demonstrate how out of touch she is.

LOL :D yeah, I'm not quite sure if she is an hypocrite and thinks that the gods that are the Targaryens shouldn't follow the rules that apply to simple mortals :P or she is just dumb and cannot see that the situation it's exactly the same.

[theemir87]

in order for a person to become king he has 2 option defeat the preview ruling dynasty and proclein himself king therefore uprising the throne from the legitimate heir. which robert did most also try to claim that they are only continue the line of the previous king, Robert is Aegon V descent trough is daughter which why he was the one chosen to be king. the second option is to inherit the throne which tommen did true son or not that means we have many claimant to the throne which the reason we had the war of succession in Spain and France England Scotland and many other kingdom. its not always the one with the best claim who becomes king but the one who wins

[Meg Stark]

"Power resides where men believe it resides"

I think in the end that is all that matters for claiming the Iron Throne. Whomever can convince the most people that his/her power is greatest will sit in it- rather through bloodline, battles, or dragons.

That being said, the rightful ruler will probably be whomever Varys successfully plots for it to be.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

But perhaps I missed something later on or it remains open to interpretation.

You didn't miss anything. I personally believe that she did suffer a miscarriage, but there is no consensus that I'm aware of.

ETA: Oh, and on Mirri Maz Duur: I think she was just saying never. Still, the signs I mentioned earlier are fun to think about (the Dothraki sea one being my favorite).

[theemir87]

we also know that

Mirri Maz Duur master who taught her a skill Marwyn is coning to Dany maybe he will be able to cure her

[jlk7e]

So, Robert won the throne by conquest, vitiating all Targaryen claims forever. He then passes those claims on to Stannis, who is now the rightful king in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the Seven Kingdoms recognizes Tommen as king. Is that the argument here? I don't think it holds water, because it basically contradicts itself.

If Robert's claim is based on right of conquest (which it only partially is), then the fact of who actually rules the kingdoms is the important one. And who actually rules the kingdoms is, in fact, Tommen. If the throne is won by right of conquest, then Tywin, Kevan, and Jaime Lannister, Mace Tyrell, Roose Bolton, and Walder Frey have between them conquered the vast majority of the Seven Kingdoms on behalf of Tommen, and he is the rightful king. For Stannis to be king by right of conquest, he has to, you know, conquer the Seven Kingdoms, just like Dany will have to.

[Ser Malthred Storm]

So, Robert won the throne by conquest, vitiating all Targaryen claims forever. He then passes those claims on to Stannis, who is now the rightful king in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the Seven Kingdoms recognizes Tommen as king. Is that the argument here? I don't think it holds water, because it basically contradicts itself.

If Robert's claim is based on right of conquest (which it only partially is), then the fact of who actually rules the kingdoms is the important one. And who actually rules the kingdoms is, in fact, Tommen. If the throne is won by right of conquest, then Tywin, Kevan, and Jaime Lannister, Mace Tyrell, Roose Bolton, and Walder Frey have between them conquered the vast majority of the Seven Kingdoms on behalf of Tommen, and he is the rightful king. For Stannis to be king by right of conquest, he has to, you know, conquer the Seven Kingdoms, just like Dany will have to.

The perspective I mean to view it from is what we, as readers/viewers know, which is that Robert's next heir is currently Stannis.

Tommen has not yet conquered all rebellions, making him not YET the legitimate ruler

[Dark Rider]

Once the realm swore fealty to Robert they swore fealty to his rightful heir.

Technically there is no evidence to support that Joff was not Robert's son other than the fact that he his brother and sister have blonde hair. While that's certainly circumstancial evidence it's not enough to break your oath. Without any witness to the incest and with an inability to blood type or do any genetic analysis I would have to say that as horrible as he is Joff is the lawful ruler of Westeros.

[FuzzyJAM]

The reason why Stannis has a claim but Dany doesn't is acknowledgement. Every single Lord Paramount has officially acknowledged Robert Baratheon as the rightful King on the Iron Throne. Yes, even Dorne. They can't go back on that. That seals the Baratheons claim on the Iron Throne.

They can go back on it and they have, at least as much as with Targs.

Houses Stark and Tully have declared independence, albeit Tully has since surrendered and been effectively neutered. House Greyjoy has declared independence. House Baratheon has been through something of a civil war, with most of their people fighting against Stannis as well as Joffrey - those surviving still claim the throne under the name of a man who isn't close to it. With Cersei now the head and fully aware of her son's origins, House Lannister has separated its claim from the Baratheon one in fact if not in words. House Tyrell has recently rebelled against the two potential "lawful" kings, murdered one of them and then been brought back into the fold with Tommen with the understanding that he is not actually a Baratheon. Arryn has remained apparently neutral and with the murder of their Lady before she could submit to either king (I believe?) it seems hard to say any backing was given to anyone. House Martell has been scheming to depose House Baratheon and Lannister for decades. And, of course, House Targaryen is still alive and (somewhat) well, has not relinquished its claim and has both the strongest army in the world, albeit rather far from Westeros, and a huge professional army in the south to boot, albeit potentially not from a genuine heir.

So how do these events not change things as much as Robert's conquest? Depending on whether you think Joffrey/Tommen or Stannis has the "lawful claim", all but five or six houses have withdrawn support.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

So, Robert won the throne by conquest, vitiating all Targaryen claims forever. He then passes those claims on to Stannis, who is now the rightful king in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the Seven Kingdoms recognizes Tommen as king. Is that the argument here? I don't think it holds water, because it basically contradicts itself.

If Robert's claim is based on right of conquest (which it only partially is), then the fact of who actually rules the kingdoms is the important one. And who actually rules the kingdoms is, in fact, Tommen. If the throne is won by right of conquest, then Tywin, Kevan, and Jaime Lannister, Mace Tyrell, Roose Bolton, and Walder Frey have between them conquered the vast majority of the Seven Kingdoms on behalf of Tommen, and he is the rightful king. For Stannis to be king by right of conquest, he has to, you know, conquer the Seven Kingdoms, just like Dany will have to.

As soon as all Lords Paramount acknowledge Tommen. What do the Starks, Greyjoys and Baratheons do? Stay in open rebellion.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

They can go back on it and they have, at least as much as with Targs.

Houses Stark and Tully have declared independence, albeit Tully has since surrendered and been effectively neutered. House Greyjoy has declared independence. House Baratheon has been through something of a civil war, with most of their people fighting against Stannis as well as Joffrey - those surviving still claim the throne under the name of a man who isn't close to it. With Cersei now the head and fully aware of her son's origins, House Lannister has separated its claim from the Baratheon one in fact if not in words. House Tyrell has recently rebelled against the two potential "lawful" kings, murdered one of them and then been brought back into the fold with Tommen with the understanding that he is not actually a Baratheon. Arryn has remained apparently neutral and with the murder of their Lady before she could submit to either king (I believe?) it seems hard to say any backing was given to anyone. House Martell has been scheming to depose House Baratheon and Lannister for decades. And, of course, House Targaryen is still alive and (somewhat) well, has not relinquished its claim and has both the strongest army in the world, albeit rather far from Westeros, and a huge professional army in the south to boot, albeit potentially not from a genuine heir.

So how do these events not change things as much as Robert's conquest? Depending on whether you think Joffrey/Tommen or Stannis has the "lawful claim", all but five or six houses have withdrawn support.

Yes, these Houses are rebelling. If they are successful, they can choose a new King. But at one time they have acknowledged the Baratheons and simultaneously dismissed Viserys and Danys old claim.

Dany can legally rule as conqueror, but not as Aerys heir.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Robert's claim wasn't truly exclusively by conquest. I looked through the family trees created, at the point of his coronation he was the closest heir to Aerys who was of age - not to mention that both ahead of him were in exile.

Sure, his "method" to get first in line was questionable in several ways, but his ascent at that point was sort of lawful.

The line of succession after the Sack of King's Landing:

1. Viserys Targaryen (8 years old refugee)

2. Daenerys Targaryen (infant or unborn)

3. Robert Baratheon

4. Stannis Baratheon

5. Renly Baratheon

6. Doran Martell

7. Oberyn Martell

Then it gets really obscure.

This also rebuilds the entire succession line following Robert's death, but that's another thread entirely.

of course it was.

Renly shrugged. “Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?” He did not wait for an answer. “Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer.”

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

The perspective I mean to view it from is what we, as readers/viewers know, which is that Robert's next heir is currently Stannis. Tommen has not yet conquered all rebellions, making him not YET the legitimate ruler

of course that's obviously ridiculous. Does that mean Robert actually never "conquered all rebellions", as Viserys roamed around calling himself king?

[LuisDantas]

The perspective I mean to view it from is what we, as readers/viewers know, which is that Robert's next heir is currently Stannis.

Tommen has not yet conquered all rebellions, making him not YET the legitimate ruler

Reader knowledge does not figure into the legitimacy of Tommen's rule. Most of the influential figures and High Lords recognize him as King, and he is solidly established in King's Landing and sitting on the Iron Throne, so he is legitimate despite probably rising to power by way of a false claim. The _claim_ was false, but the power is oh ever so legit.

While Stannis has convinced himself that he has the support of the letter of the law (and for all we know he is correct about that), that is ultimately just a pretext, and has always been. Stannis did not call for arbitrage about the succession, he stole Renly's armies instead. He is the only one claiming that the law should override the reality of power, yet even he pays only lip service to that claim.

That Stannis, Euron or the BWB are challenging Tommen and the Lannisters and Tyrells is irrelevant to the matter of legitimacy, which is an artificial construct to begin with. Those are military challenges, not legal disputes. The Blackfyre rebellions, particularly the first one, had more meat to them as far as legitimacy disputes go.

Even Stannis seems to have given up or at least severely deemphasized his claims of lawfulness. Which is a good thing, since he can never prove his perception of facts as true anyway. Even if he could, odds are good that most Lords would simply refuse him fealty and the "civil war" would go on indefinitely.

[MikeDC]

Reader knowledge does not figure into the legitimacy of Tommen's rule. Most of the influential figures and High Lords recognize him as King, and he is solidly established in King's Landing and sitting on the Iron Throne, so he is legitimate despite probably rising to power by way of a false claim. The _claim_ was false, but the power is oh ever so legit.

While Stannis has convinced himself that he has the support of the letter of the law (and for all we know he is correct about that), that is ultimately just a pretext, and has always been. Stannis did not call for arbitrage about the succession, he stole Renly's armies instead. He is the only one claiming that the law should override the reality of power, yet even he pays only lip service to that claim.

"Paying lip service" suggests Stannis is acting contrary to law by using power, but against Renly this is not so. Stannis did parlay with Renly and try to talk sense with him. When Renly wouldn't budge, Stannis killed him. That's certainly a use of power, but it was supported by a legal claim.

Stannis isn't saying law should override the reality of power, he's saying he will use his power to make law reality. There's no inconsistency there. He thinks he has the legal right, but he understands (unlike Eddard Stark) that others who hold power won't simply obey the law when confronted.

The real question is whether the pure law of legitimacy and right of succession matters at all, or rather, as Renly said, it's all about power.

I say yes to law and yes to Stannis because it's preferable (more orderly and less costly) to have rule by common adherence to principle than continual power struggle. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.