Could Stannis bend the knee to a Targaryen?

[total1402]

Their claim is legitimised by virtue of having the entirety of the realm accept and submit to Baratheon rule.

The whole 'heir to the dragon kings' comment is irrelevant.

The claim is completely relevent. It means, in line with what Renly said, that Hosue Baratheon legitimised its rule by asserting that it had Targ blood. This is one of Roberts Kingsguard talking and talking to Sansa his future Queen. He was bigging up Joffrey there. You are claiming that the legitimacy part began and ended with force; it didn't. Robert still felt the need, advised by Jon Arryn, to point out his Targ heritage and other usurper medieval lords in history did the same. The legitimacy part was always grounded on this and it was inherently false. Otherwise Robert would be giving the go-ahead for every vassal lord to usurp his betters and undermine the fuedal system by legalising usurption. Belief is very important in terms of keeping the social order; its not just about brute force.

300 years ago Aegon was a Usurper, but for 300 years they have been accepted as the legit monarchs. its been 15 years and Roberts line hasn't been accepted, even by members of Roberts own line as shown by Renly and Baratheon bannermen. People still believe that the Targs are the legit monarchs at the minute; they just aren't willing to risk their necks for no benefit or benefit from a pretender King. If people in Kings landing are watching puppet shows where dragons eat lions it pretty clear where sentiment lies on this. Jorah brings up a dry academic point. If people believe that there is magic around the Targ line then they are legit; Robert is a usurper.

[total1402]

Barristan did bend the knee to Robert, so he legitimate him. And, the kingsguard always must serve the king, but he waited to see if Danny was crazy. So, as much as I love Barristan, he is not an authority to legit anybody. His loyalty to the Targaryan is doubtful.

He could have easily went to Stannis. I doubt that he'd cross to the other side of the world if his heart wasn't in it. His loyalty is pretty unquestionable at this point, he had huge reservations before but by his POV in ADWD he seems pretty devout towards Dany.

[Scipio Africanus]

If you steal something, it does not belong to you, that was true in Medieval law and its true in todays law. They violated their own laws and are continuing to violate their own laws by keeping pretenders on the throne.

Empires in antiquity and medieval kingdoms derived their right to rule from the god(s), in other words divine right.

Westeros' kings are not linked to the gods like that. Whomever is top dog gets the crown. Targs were top dogs for a while but have lost out. That's the way things go if a monarchy is not linked to divine right. And even if it is dynasties come and go, as we've seen throughout history all over the world.

Bob Baratheon won his crown through the right of might. And his succesor (whomever it may be) will do the same.

I don't see anything special about Dany's claim other then she was a member of the former ruling family. She's just another pretender.

[The Drunkard]

The claim is completely relevent. It means, in line with what Renly said, that Hosue Baratheon legitimised its rule by asserting that it had Targ blood. This is one of Roberts Kingsguard talking and talking to Sansa his future Queen. He was bigging up Joffrey there. You are claiming that the legitimacy part began and ended with force; it didn't. Robert still felt the need, advised by Jon Arryn, to point out his Targ heritage and other usurper medieval lords in history did the same. The legitimacy part was always grounded on this and it was inherently false. Otherwise Robert would be giving the go-ahead for every vassal lord to usurp his betters and undermine the fuedal system by legalising usurption. Belief is very important in terms of keeping the social order; its not just about brute force.

Exactly. Belief is the centre here. People no longer believed strongly enough that the Targaryen's were worth fighting for, so they accepted Robert, and believed him to be king. The man pointed out his partial Targaryen ancestry so those who had a belief that the king should at least be somewhat related had their belief satisfied, and thus believed him to be thr rightful king.

It was this belief that allowed him to rule a realm at peace.

300 years ago Aegon was a Usurper, but for 300 years they have been accepted as the legit monarchs. its been 15 years and Roberts line hasn't been accepted, even by members of Roberts own line as shown by Renly. People still believe that the Targs are the legit monarchs at the minute; they just aren't willing to risk their necks for no benefit or benefit from a pretender King. If people in Kings landing are watching puppet shows where dragons eat lions it pretty clear where sentiment lies on this. Jorah brings up a dry academic point. If people believe that there is magic around the Targ line then they are legit; Robert is a usurper.

So after an arbitrary time period a dynasty suddenly becomes legit, but before then they are all filthy usurpers? So what if we draw the line at 400 years? Doesn't that mean the Targaryens are still usurpers? Sorry, not buying that. Any law becomes a legitimate law when enough people accept it. Westeros accepted Robert as king, in the same way it accepted the Targaryens.

And as to your comment about the commoners watching those puppet shows, so what? Some people watched a play about a dragon eating a lion and a stag? Are you forgetting the sheer amount of people that supported kings who weren't Targaryens?

[total1402]

Empires in antiquity and medieval kingdoms derived their right to rule from the god(s), in other words divine right.

Westeros' kings are not linked to the gods like that. Whomever is top dog gets the crown. Targs were top dogs for a while but have lost out. That's the way things go if a monarchy is not linked to divine right. And even if it is dynasties come and go, as we've seen throughout history all over the world.

Bob Baratheon won his crown through the right of might. And his succesor (whomever it may be) will do the same.

I don't see anything special about Dany's claim other then she was a member of the former ruling family. She's just another pretender.

Westerosi society is a rigid hierachy based on inalienable ownership of land which is backed up in law. What you are suggesting, is that anyone cansteal anyone elses land with impunity and that this is morally justifiable in the law. Westeros hasn't been portrayed as anarchistic. There are laws which make usurption illegal. Otherwise Bran wouldn't have intervened after Ramsey tried to annex a neighbouring lordship.

[total1402]

Exactly. Belief is the centre here. People no longer believed strongly enough that the Targaryen's were worth fighting for, so they accepted Robert, and believed him to be king. The man pointed out his partial Targaryen ancestry so those who had a belief that the king should at least be somewhat related had their belief satisfied, and thus believed him to be thr rightful king.

It was this belief that allowed him to rule a realm at peace.

So after an arbitrary time period a dynasty suddenly becomes legit, but before then they are all filthy usurpers? So what if we draw the line at 400 years? Doesn't that mean the Targaryens are still usurpers? Sorry, not buying that. Any law becomes a legitimate law when enough people accept it. Westeros accepted Robert as king, in the same way it accepted the Targaryens.

And as to your comment about the commoners watching those puppet shows, so what? Some people watched a play about a dragon eating a lion and a stag? Are you forgetting the sheer amount of people that supported kings who weren't Targaryens?

So if a group of people drive another off their land and proclaim their natural homeland thousands of years ago liberated, after just a few years, these aren't colonists and those trying to reclaim it are terrorists? If something happens in living memory and the crime is fresh then it demands redress. I really can't accept the sentiment you have. The insistence by Stannis fanboys that Dany should just turn the other cheek coz Baratheon are legit and shes breaking the law now just makes me ill.

[Volantis]

The only person Stannis will bend the knee to is Jon.

And why would he do that?

[The Drunkard]

So if a group of people drive another off their land and proclaim their natural homeland liberated, after just a few years, these aren't colonists and those trying to reclaim it are terrorists? If something happens in living memory and the crime is fresh then it demands redress. I really can't accept that sentiment. The insistence by Stannis fanboys that Dany should just turn the other cheek coz Baratheon are legit and shes breaking the law now just makes me ill.

That's a pretty immature way of looking at it, to be honest. For one, I'm not a "Stannis fanboy". I don't want any single entity ruling Westeros at the end of the series. Two, I've never suggested Dany accept her fate, either, that's just you being defensive. Three, you also seem to have missed my point entirely. I'm saying that whenever the overwhelming majority accepts a belief as law, then that law becomes the legitimate practise.

So if Dany can get Westeros to accept her as Queen, then good job to her, she's now Queen. Until that day, she is in the same position as Stannis.]

Anywho, I'm off to bed. Night yall.

[Scipio Africanus]

Westerosi society is a rigid hierachy based on inalienable ownership of land which is backed up in law. What you are suggesting, is that anyone cansteal anyone elses land with impunity and that this is morally justifiable in the law. Westeros hasn't been portrayed as anarchistic. There are laws which make usurption illegal. Otherwise Bran wouldn't have intervened after Ramsey tried to annex a neighbouring lordship.

Our ideas of social mobility, equalitarian justice and populair government are relatively new. Almost all societies before the 19th century were feudal with strict hierachies, class justice and little social mobility.

Despite this thrones and lands were often fought over and changed hands all the time despite that there the thrones and lands were already claimed.

There were laws in Westeros of course but mostly, it was defined by the elites. The Boltons had no right to Winterfell or betraying their liege lord yet they did. And they got away with it. For a time. So in this case, it was right by might, because they killed their liege lord and claimed their title.

Same thing happened with Bob, same thing will happen when Dany comes over and torches everyone into submission.

Again, nothing special about Dany. She just has a powerful trump card in the form of her B17 Flying Fortress superweapons.

Just like Aegon the Conqueror had.

[The Lord's Kiss]

And why would he do that?

Because plot might demand it. Then again, they might never meet again, but if they do, Jon will have a flaming sword in his hand and be in charge of slaying Others.

As it stands now though, Stannis owes Jon his life for that plan. Doesn't mean he has to bend the knee, but if he should fail against Dany or Aegon and Jon's parentage becomes known then he should.

[Larry of the Lawn]

All this stuff about who's legit, Baratheon or Targ doesn't matter. You can argue that Baratheon's earned the throne by right of conquest, nullifying any Targ claims to the throne. The Targ supporters will argue that the Baratheon's power derived from some ancestral Targ relationship. None of it matters. Power matters. That's how Aegon the Conqueror took the throne, not because he was the legit ruler, but because he had dragons and an army.

They don't call him Aegon the Legally Recognized First King of the Seven Kingdoms. The Conqueror. So Dany isn't the rightful queen anymore than Stannis is the rightful king. The rightful monarch will be the last man/woman standing. That's how it works.

But to get back to the OP, Stannis will die before he bends the knee, unless he's given some other out like taking the Black. Which I could see the Northern Lords forcing him to do after Winterfell if he's still alive and they come to a disagreement over who really runs the North.

@Total - Wouldn't Jon be the 'legit' Targ heir anyway since he's ahead of Dany in succession and Aegon is a fake?

[total1402]

.

@Total - Wouldn't Jon be the 'legit' Targ heir anyway since he's ahead of Dany in succession and Aegon is a fake?

Can we at least christen the ship before we start boarding it? :D

Thats still a theory. Although he is still a royal bastard.

Yeah Jon would be legit.

Not remotely keen on it though. Jon is boring and I quite enjoyed that Martin didn't make a central male protagonist who gets to be King n saves the realm. There aren't many fantasy books that give a female character as much prominence. Having Jon become legit Targ, King, AA and all that in the final few books with a dragon; would detract from Dany as a character and her purpose in the plot. Essentially leaving her to be the stories Arwyn and all the previous books big red herrings.

[Tyrion_is_Omar]

I think that the only remote chance that Stannis bend the knee is if Mel says to Stannis: see I was wrong, you are not Azor Azhai , ....(insert your favorite theory here) is AA.

And even in that case he won´t be bending his knee for birth rights,he would be bending his knee to a "god".