Jump to content

Who do you think is the rightful ruler of the Seven Kingdoms?


Sappheira

Recommended Posts

I choose the black dragon. I serve the Rightful Kings of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men. They are the True Lords of the Seven Kingdoms and Protectors of the Realm. For far too long have Pretenders and Usurpers defiled the Throne of Kings. Soon the True Kings will take back the Iron Throne with Fire and Blood. House Blackfyre, baby!

I just can't see it why people won't understand that Daemon of the House Blackfyre was supposed to become the king. Ever since those days the Realm has been ruled on false pretenses. Targaryens or Baratheons have absolutely no right to the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't they just be a republic?

Can't be a republic with put a developing middle class and strong Labour party. Westeros is several hundred years away from the possibility, Essos may have some cities capable of it though.

As for OP question. Stannis is the rightful heir to Robert's stolen kingdom so it must be him. Jon is rightful heir to the Targarian house (assuming Aegon is fake), which would probably gather enough support to be restored if it was only common knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice thread.

I say Dany or Jon depending on if the latter got legitimized or not. As badass as Stannis is he is a kinslayer and a demon worshipper, and the legality of the dynasty his claim derives from is dubious at best.

To the bolded..... um, what?

The Baratheon claim is only as dubious as the Targaryen one when they inititally conquered Westeros. Right of Conquest is a risky one to uphold, but by all laws of Westeros, Stannis is the rightful ruler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the bolded..... um, what?

The Baratheon claim is only as dubious as the Targaryen one when they inititally conquered Westeros. Right of Conquest is a risky one to uphold, but by all laws of Westeros, Stannis is the rightful ruler.

Can you please point me to the passage in ASOIAF where the laws with regard to the 'right of conquest' and dynastic change are discussed please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the bolded..... um, what?

The Baratheon claim is only as dubious as the Targaryen one when they inititally conquered Westeros. Right of Conquest is a risky one to uphold, but by all laws of Westeros, Stannis is the rightful ruler.

He burns people alive as sacrifices to Red Raloo the fire demon, in case you skipped half the Davos chapters and the last Asha one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please point me to the passage in ASOIAF where the laws with regard to the 'right of conquest' and dynastic change are discussed please?

If the "right of conquest" does not exist or is not legitimate, then no one has the right to any throne ever.

Robert defeated the Targaryens on the battlefield, and all the lords of Westeros bowed to him. Legally, he is now king. Hence, right of conquest.

Targs made the 7 kingdoms a single empire. The iron throne is theirs because they made it. A usurper is a usurper, and he is dead now, with no true born heirs.

Aegon can take six crowns but Robert cant take one?

Also, yes we know Robert left no true born heirs. That's the entire point as to why Stannis is his heir.

He burns people alive as sacrifices to Red Raloo the fire demon, in case you skipped half the Davos chapters and the last Asha one.

Calling R'hllor a demon is like calling any of the other gods demons. I noted it due to the terminology used.

And Stannis isn't religious. He has made this much clear, in case you skipped the Davos chapters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather bend the knee to King Robb Stark, Asha Greyjoy or Daenerys Targaryen.

I'd roast alive in dragonfire before I'd ever name that incapable child my queen. Stannis Baratheon is the one true king, by every law of Westeros.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "right of conquest" does not exist or is not legitimate, then no one has the right to any throne ever.

Robert defeated the Targaryens on the battlefield, and all the lords of Westeros bowed to him. Legally, he is now king. Hence, right of conquest.

Aegon can take six crowns but Robert cant take one?

Also, yes we know Robert left no true born heirs. That's the entire point as to why Stannis is his heir.

Calling R'hllor a demon is like calling any of the other gods demons. I noted it due to the terminology used.

And Stannis isn't religious. He has made this much clear, in case you skipped the Davos chapters.

Yeah I agree with this. I just don't get it when people talk about the 'right of conquest' as if there is a clear legal framework and legal standards against which a claim can be tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right of conquest is a really awful argument.

I am not surprised Robert did not make it.

It is well nigh exploded in book i of Rousseau's Social Contract (not a guy I usually admire).

It is not really a valid claim to anything and it can't establish any moral rights to the crown.

It seems to be a post factum explanation for any rebellion but it can't be made until after success has been enjoyed; hence it acknowledges that rebellions do not need moral justification and implicitly admits there is no moral obligation to obey the dictates of any government established by it. And if people are not obliged to render you certain dues because of your 'right,' your right is not a real 'right' at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Targaryens conquered the Kingdoms and ruled them for many generations, they are by far the most rightful rulers of the Seven Kingdoms....and leave the other Great Houses to their duties without interfering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right of conquest is a really awful argument.

I am not surprised Robert did not make it.

It is well nigh exploded in book i of Rousseau's Social Contract (not a guy I usually admire).

It is not really a valid claim to anything and it can't establish any moral rights to the crown.

It seems to be a post factum explanation for any rebellion but it can't be made until after success has been enjoyed; hence it acknowledges that rebellions do not need moral justification and implicitly admits there is no moral obligation to obey the dictates of any government established by it. And if people are not obliged to render you certain dues because of your 'right,' your right is not a real 'right' at all.

1. Other laws can also be used to justify a regime change after the fact.

2. What is your beef with Rosseau?

3. What happened to your depressed/agile cat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Other laws can also be used to justify a regime change after the fact.

So, they will have rotten and illegitimate foundations.

What is your beef with Rosseau?

He was a scumbag because of his metaphysical collectivism.

3. What happened to your depressed/agile cat?

It gave way before the Queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...