Robert was never the rightful King?

[mrunderhill]

To him, being honourable is the right thing.

Except he is twice a traitor. Betrays the Targaryens then he goes and betrays Joffrey. The "honourable" thing to do would be go and protect Viserys. When Joffrey dismissed him the "honourable" thing to do was accept it and maybe take service as a knight for the army.

[Cersai's Son]

No it doesn't.The throne belongs to Stannis.It's funny, Robert is an usurper but Aegon I wasn't?Oh 300 years of Targs means they had right of conquest but Robert was an usurper?Guess people forgot that the Storm Kings, kings of winter, river kings etc had dynastys THOUSANDS OF YEARS LONG.But 283 years of Targaryens somehow trumps all?And anyway, Dany is a female so she would be all the way at the bottom..Any male Targ heir should be higher, which means Stannis (Targ grandmother, male, brother to King Robert I)Dany was the daughter of the deposed and killed king who she never even met.She has no claim.If she didn't have dragons she'd be a nobody.

If Robert won by rights of conquest Stannis lost the throne after Battle at blackwater. So Stannis isn't a rightful king either way.

[mrunderhill]

If Robert won by rights of conquest Stannis lost the throne after Battle at blackwater. So Stannis isn't a rightful king either way.

It's not that simple, because Tommen is holding the throne on an illegitimate basis. If it was announced that Tommen was a bastard and the Lannisters/Tyrells were taking the throne by conquest, then you can argue Stannis had lost it by conquest. As of the moment Tommen holds the throne based on being the legitimate heir of Robert.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

He wasn't worried about Dany much because Viserys was alive and he was the Targ heir.He still wanted both of them dead but Jon Arryn convinced him otherwise.

True, but I believe his conversations with Ned about the matter more than prove that his principal worry about Daenerys was her ability to breed Targaryen sons. He did not seem worried that she herself would come to Westeros with her husband's Dothraki, but that her son would.

[Chaircat Meow]

True, but I believe his conversations with Ned about the matter more than prove that his principal worry about Daenerys was her ability to breed Targaryen sons. He did not seem worried that she herself would come to Westeros with her husband's Dothraki, but that her son would.

I think the idea was that Drogo would only be interested in invading if it was to secure the rights of a son. So it was about the Targs and Dothraki cementing the alliance.

Viserys was still alive at this time, as far as Robert knew, so he wasn't worried Dany was going to produce the only person who outranked him in the succession.

[Alistair's Pantaloons]

It's not that simple, because Tommen is holding the throne on an illegitimate basis. If it was announced that Tommen was a bastard and the Lannisters/Tyrells were taking the throne by conquest, then you can argue Stannis had lost it by conquest. As of the moment Tommen holds the throne based on being the legitimate heir of Robert.

Actually Tommen is holding the throne because his supporters have managed to fend off the other threats. Forget about rights, he's simply winning the game right now; which is funny because he probably doesn't even know he's playing a game.

[Cersai's Son]

It's not that simple, because Tommen is holding the throne on an illegitimate basis. If it was announced that Tommen was a bastard and the Lannisters/Tyrells were taking the throne by conquest, then you can argue Stannis had lost it by conquest. As of the moment Tommen holds the throne based on being the legitimate heir of Robert.

yes but robert got the throne based on having targ blood, while others with targ blood were alive and ahead of him in lineage. So robert himself was illegitimate king in the first place.

[viking warrior]

Except he is twice a traitor. Betrays the Targaryens then he goes and betrays Joffrey. The "honourable" thing to do would be go and protect Viserys. When Joffrey dismissed him the "honourable" thing to do was accept it and maybe take service as a knight for the army.

He didn't directly betray the Targs, he was rather pushed towards Robert, as for Joffrey, he was kicked out of the Kingsguard, somethingthat is completly unheard of.

[mrunderhill]

Actually Tommen is holding the throne because his supporters have managed to fend off the other threats. Forget about rights, he's simply winning the game right now; which is funny because he probably doesn't even know he's playing a game.

Yes, but they are holding it based on a lie. He is not holding it on his own merit. We can argue whatever "rightful" king means, but Tommen's claim to the throne is based on a lie. Do you think if it was announced Tommen was a bastard he would hold the throne?

yes but robert got the throne based on having targ blood, while others with targ blood were alive and ahead of him in lineage. So robert himself was illegitimate king in the first place.

We don't know why Robert got the throne. We have never seen the exact reason. It was probably conquest, but considering Aerys was mad, Robert could have simply barred Aerys and all of his descendants from the succession. This was done with Aerion and has a precedent. If Aerys and his line is barred then Robert is the legal heir.

[mrunderhill]

He didn't directly betray the Targs, he was rather pushed towards Robert, as for Joffrey, he was kicked out of the Kingsguard, somethingthat is completly unheard of.

Yes he did betray the Targaryens. Did you not hear what his brothers said?

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Except if you are called Selmy.

Yes Joffrey kicke dhim out of the kingsguard and reworked the new law. Not really reason to commit treason over.

[Alistair's Pantaloons]

Yes, but they are holding it based on a lie. He is not holding it on his own merit. We can argue whatever "rightful" king means, but Tommen's claim to the throne is based on a lie. Do you think if it was announced Tommen was a bastard he would hold the throne?

It has been announced he is a bastard and still there he sits. Same with Joffrey. It doesn't matter if he's holding it based on a lie. He's still holding it.

[viking warrior]

Yes he did betray the Targaryens. Did you not hear what his brothers said?

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Except if you are called Selmy.

Yes Joffrey kicked him out of the kingsguard and reworked the new law. Not really reason to commit treason over.

He didn't commit treason, He was disbanded and then the goldencloaks came to arrest him. The thing Dayne said is more like boasting.

, kinda like "USA is nr. 1!" or "We never lose" or some random bullshit, its not an absolute fact, it doen't make it true. Besides, he didn't have to bend the knee, the one who wounded him beat him to his knees. He was greavly wounded and didn't recover before he and jaime were the only one left, not much of a point to fight on then.

[Cersai's Son]

Yes, but they are holding it based on a lie. He is not holding it on his own merit. We can argue whatever "rightful" king means, but Tommen's claim to the throne is based on a lie. Do you think if it was announced Tommen was a bastard he would hold the throne?

there will be war, same reason robert was scared that if dany/viserys came back some house would support them, that's why he tried to get them killed.

We don't know why Robert got the throne. We have never seen the exact reason. It was probably conquest, but considering Aerys was mad, Robert could have simply barred Aerys and all of his descendants from the succession. This was done with Aerion and has a precedent. If Aerys and his line is barred then Robert is the legal heir.

robert got the throne because rebels won, but the official reason given was because robert had targ blood. if he had just claimed the throne by conquest there wouldn't be a problem, but he claimed targ blood. same way lannister/tyrell could claim right of conquest but are holding onto a lie.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

I think the idea was that Drogo would only be interested in invading if it was to secure the rights of a son. So it was about the Targs and Dothraki cementing the alliance.

Viserys was still alive at this time, as far as Robert knew, so he wasn't worried Dany was going to produce the only person who outranked him in the succession.

Correct, but the point is (imo) that Robert did not consider Danaerys to be a part of the succession at all because of the nature of Targ succession, as described in the article I linked.

[daario's man]

Robert was indeed a "usurper" as he literally took the IT from Aerys' heir when he crushed his chest on the Trident. But after that he was declared king by all the lords of the land. This makes it a legal usurpation.

History is full of people who did the same, dubious links to royal families propping up the fact that they had thoroughly beaten said royal family. Robert won the IT with his warhamer and the support of more regions than were prepared to defend the old regime, this was sugar coated with his Targaryen blood.

To argue that the IT is and should always be Targaryen is absurd, their line were only the valid rulers of Westeros as long as they were a) supported by the realm and B) the people felt it could not overthrow them. Have people forgotten Varys' riddle.

Robert used violence to gain the throne and while living in the developed world this seems idiotic to me we are talking about a feudal world, not our own and this is how things would have happened. I must point out that I also find it idiotic to make someone ruler because their parent was ruler before them.

[Alester Florent]

Maybe I am being blinded by nationalism a bit, but he certainly achieved all the goals a Medieval king should have done. If he had lived longer he may have been able to sort out many of the problems.

Probably, yes. As it was, though, he left the job badly half-done, and that led to a disaster. There's also something deeply unpleasant about his personal character if you look past the jingoism; he was something of a fanatic, and a proto-absolutist in much the same way as Richard had been; he just had better PR than Richard had. He did little to advance the interests of the country beyond launching a war it could scarcely afford, oversaw no meaningful reforms, and introduced new levels of religious persecution. Compared to the accomplishments of the first two Henries, or Edwards I and III, his legacy was pretty thin.

His reign also oversaw a disastrous period for the royal family which he can't be blamed for directly but didn't deal with adequately either. One of the most overlooked consequences of Agincourt was the death of the Duke of York, which opened the door for his nephew (the son of an executed traitor, no less) to press his claim. He didn't keep his brother (his heir, in fact) on a tight enough leash and let him go off and get himself killed stupidly, which deprived his kingdoms of a competent administrator and one of its best generals. The entire French expedition, which he launched largely for the sake of his personal reputation after a long period of peace, was largely pointless and vainglorious, resulting ultimately in the loss of all the English crown's possessions on the continent. His lack of attention to domestic affairs also permitted the rise of powerful court factions used to running the country in his absence, most notably those of Cardinal Beaufort, Edmund Mortimer, and his own brother Humphrey, which led to divisions in the government and ultimately to the Wars of the Roses.

Ultimately, too, he failed to secure the succession. Although he died relatively young, he was still older than Richard II had been, and the lack of heir to Richard was a serious problem even by his late 20s. Henry left it very late in the day to start reproducing, which meant a longer than necessary period of regency, squabbles over the protectorship, and, again, civil war.

He wasn't a terrible king, but in every respect except militarily, nothing more than good enough; I find it hard to call him a great one.

This does solve the problem of child kings, but it raises another one. What happens when two men of virtually equal worth vie for the kingship. Especially if both have great power. It leaves the opportunity for other countries to invade or has a high risk of a civil war. Though it is ironic in Medieval England a strong king was usually followed by a weak one, who lost everything their father had built. Even Elizabath I was unable to consolidate on her reign with a strong natural heir.

Well, that's one of the things the tanistry system is supposed to address, and it worked well enough in pre-Conquest England. After Alfred, there was scarcely a weak king until Ethelred, and he was a child who only came to the throne because his mother murdered his half-brother. You do run into problems when multiple strong claimants contest the throne, but that happens under an hereditary system anyway, and the ability to designate an heir rather than rely on the vagaries of succession law would help to circumvent the problem anyway. How much grief would have been spared if Edward III had been able to name John of Gaunt heir, or Henry V able to name John of Lancaster, or Edmund Mortimer, or Edward IV able to name his brother rather than his young son?

The Elizabethan succession is actually an example of one of the strengths of the principle if looked at from the right angle; rather than a child, she was succeeded by a grown man with experience of government who did, all things told, a reasonable enough job. In many respects, James's position when he succeeded to the throne was the most secure of any English king since... well, Henry V, probably, and certainly since Henry VIII. The lack of an obvious heir did create problems earlier in Elizabeth's reign while Mary was still alive, but that was a religious matter as much as anything.

[Lord Varys' Pecker]

People really don't understand how feudalism works, jeez.

Also, Robert's Targ blood was something that was even mentioned in the book to have been only used as a way to smooth over the transition of kings and for PR. He was already picked as the leader of the Rebellion and was the obvious contender for King out of the other commanders, by reasons already mentioned.

Rebellion, conquest, etc whatever you want to call it Robert won the throne fair and square. He didn't usurp anybody. The King has a duty to protect his people, and to rule justly just as his subjects have a duty to the Crown and be loyal,etc. Aerys did none of those two, in fact he made sure to do the exact opposite and Rhaegar didn't exactly help the situation.

It's like if your wife cheats on you and you've been loyal? Do you expect to be given shit for divorcing her?

[mrunderhill]

Probably, yes. As it was, though, he left the job badly half-done, and that led to a disaster. There's also something deeply unpleasant about his personal character if you look past the jingoism; he was something of a fanatic, and a proto-absolutist in much the same way as Richard had been; he just had better PR than Richard had. He did little to advance the interests of the country beyond launching a war it could scarcely afford, oversaw no meaningful reforms, and introduced new levels of religious persecution. Compared to the accomplishments of the first two Henries, or Edwards I and III, his legacy was pretty thin.

:Longshanks was probably even more unpleasant than Henry V on a personal note. The issue of with France was a major problem whilst we had a Plantagenet on the throne. With them holding lands on France and claiming the French throne, which the crown did until the French revolution, Henry as a medieval king had a duty to press his claim there. Had he succeeded in his claim, the taxes he would eventually raise from the Armagnac and other regions after the conquest would full the coffers. Henry V's legacy was wrecked by the weakness and insanity of his son. However, introducing English into court is no small thing.

His reign also oversaw a disastrous period for the royal family which he can't be blamed for directly but didn't deal with adequately either. One of the most overlooked consequences of Agincourt was the death of the Duke of York, which opened the door for his nephew (the son of an executed traitor, no less) to press his claim. He didn't keep his brother (his heir, in fact) on a tight enough leash and let him go off and get himself killed stupidly, which deprived his kingdoms of a competent administrator and one of its best generals. The entire French expedition, which he launched largely for the sake of his personal reputation after a long period of peace, was largely pointless and vainglorious, resulting ultimately in the loss of all the English crown's possessions on the continent. His lack of attention to domestic affairs also permitted the rise of powerful court factions used to running the country in his absence, most notably those of Cardinal Beaufort, Edmund Mortimer, and his own brother Humphrey, which led to divisions in the government and ultimately to the Wars of the Roses.

I don't think it is fair to blame the man for what his successors lost. He left England in an exceptionally strong position against a weak French claimant. He showed his political ability with a very intelligent marriage, which helped solidify his claim. As you said he was very good at PR and came across even to the French as the model pious king. He was very merciful to those who accepted him in Normandy and often allowed them to keep their land. Compared to other commanders of the time he was a "gentleman" of conflict, which helped gain him support. He was wise enough not to tax his French gains quickly before he had secured his power. Prior to the war he had also masterfully played off the French fractions against one another. He gave England peace and united the realm after the wars.

Ultimately, too, he failed to secure the succession. Although he died relatively young, he was still older than Richard II had been, and the lack of heir to Richard was a serious problem even by his late 20s. Henry left it very late in the day to start reproducing, which meant a longer than necessary period of regency, squabbles over the protectorship, and, again, civil war.

This is because he need to marry the right woman to press his claim for France. He knew what had to be done, but sadly died so shortly after his marriage.

He wasn't a terrible king, but in every respect except militarily, nothing more than good enough; I find it hard to call him a great one.

He was arguably the greatest military commander of his time, had a reputation for treating his vanquished foes fairly. Actually tried to bring back the law after the chaos before him. Politically maneuvered his opponents into fighting each other. Established an English nationality and set up English in court.

Well, that's one of the things the tanistry system is supposed to address, and it worked well enough in pre-Conquest England. After Alfred, there was scarcely a weak king until Ethelred, and he was a child who only came to the throne because his mother murdered his half-brother. You do run into problems when multiple strong claimants contest the throne, but that happens under an hereditary system anyway, and the ability to designate an heir rather than rely on the vagaries of succession law would help to circumvent the problem anyway. How much grief would have been spared if Edward III had been able to name John of Gaunt heir, or Henry V able to name John of Lancaster, or Edmund Mortimer, or Edward IV able to name his brother rather than his young son?

Hereditary succession does give you weak kings, but I blame Edward III for giving his sons so much power. He decided to create duchies for them and that was the root of the problem. He would have been better off weakening his other sons. Still again the problem was that the undisputed heir, with popular support died before coming to the throne.

The Elizabethan succession is actually an example of one of the strengths of the principle if looked at from the right angle; rather than a child, she was succeeded by a grown man with experience of government who did, all things told, a reasonable enough job. In many respects, James's position when he succeeded to the throne was the most secure of any English king since... well, Henry V, probably, and certainly since Henry VIII. The lack of an obvious heir did create problems earlier in Elizabeth's reign while Mary was still alive, but that was a religious matter as much as anything.

Elizabeth had to kill her cousin to stop revolutions against her reign. Too often kings would hold back on naming a successor for fear of causing an uprising. It would also cause to much rivalry and conflict for the throne. In the case of Elizabeth, she was lucky that James was of age, but what if James had died young? There would have been a huge civil war over England, with no clear claimant. The Saxon system led to William the Conqueror invading the country. Perhaps if Harold did not have to fight the battle of Stamford Bridge he may have won.

[Alistair's Pantaloons]

A great quote from Mr. Martini that sums up Dany's "right" to the throne:

Butterbumps made the excellent observation that Dany has perhaps unknowingly settled her own case, based on a plea she heard in Meereen. A woman whose family had been killed when Dany sacked the city had to flee her house and take shelter with her brother. After she left, the house was turned into a brothel. Dany refused to give the house back to her because she lost the rights to it when she left it. Based on Dany's logic, she lost the rights to Westeros when her family left it. But the rules she sets for others don't apply to her, apparently.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

He defeated the Targaryens, killed or exiled all of their (known) members and received fealty (the sticking point) from every major lord as the new king, with House Baratheon recognized as the new royal house. So yes, he was very much the rightful king.

Dany being butthurt about her psychotic freakshow family losing doesn't change any of that.

A great quote from Mr. Martini that sums up Dany's "right" to the throne:

Ms. Martini B)