Best Claim to the Iron throne

[Alwyn]

At the point that we are at in aSoIaF now, who do you think has the best cliam to the Iron throne in westeros?

Dany of course can claim birthright dating back to Aegon the conqueror, she has 300 years of kings behind her. Then again Robert did win the throne fair and square, and he has as much right to it as the Targaryens since they too won the throne by conquering, and possession is nine tenths of the law. Of course Roberts is now dead and he has no legitemate heirs, so do his bastards such as Gendry and Mya have a right to it, or is Stannis now rightful king? And then of course there is Tommen can he have the right to it by intermediate of Cersei and becuase everyone thinks he is Robert's son? Or do the Starks , Martells Tullys , Arryns Lannisters and Greyjoys and so on all deserve to be Kings on their own territory again, though of course they too were defeated fair and square by Aegon? Or do you think the next person to conquer the throne should sit on it?

What's your opinion on this, just curious, who do you see as rightful ruler of Westeros? Do we wnat to track legitemacy all the way back to before Aegon or only back to Robert's Rebellion?

And also, as a side note, who do you think would make hte best king/queen of Westeros and why?

[Errant Bard]

Whoever is the strongest has the best claim on it, period.

Strength is of course determined by how much support you have, so having a good bloodline helps, but if all the lords had decided to put pate the pig boy on the throne instead of Robert, then it would be it.

[Daemrion]

There has been plenty of debate over this issue already...

EB's correct though, if they decided to put the pig boy on the throne it would be perfectly legitimate, even if it seems to be insane and irrational.

[Knight-Who-Used-To-Say-Ni]

I might be wrong, but wasn't Robert largely accepted as the next king because he had some Targaryen blood? Aegon, OTOH, was a conqueror, and the Kingdom of Westeros didn't exist prior to him. In real history, I don't think there are many examples of someone made king without having any relationship to previous dynasty(/ies), except in a case of conquest (and even William the Conqueror *coughBastardcough*, as an example, claimed that Edward the Confessor had promised to make him his heir...)

So I don't think they can make just about anyone to king/queen, there has to be some legitimate claim.

As to who has the best claim in Westeros, I think Dany at the moment (if the undead baby Aegon doesn't spring up somewhere). Even if R+L=J is true, Jon is a bastard, and a unlegitimized one at that... If Dany kicks the bucket, Jon is the next if his heritage is acknowledged and he has power to take the crown. Then probably some noble with some Targaryen blood in his/her veins, Edric Dayne, maybe? (Can't remember who of the families have ties to them...)

[Ironwill]

In modern Westros, I would say Stannis would be the best King, or ruler for that matter, but right now... I would say Dany has the best claim through Dragons, advisors, support of Houses (At the very least Martell), and troops relativly unweary of fighting. Of course she is on the other side of the world.

In the past I would say Darion the Good was noteable for finally bringing Drone into the Seven Kingdoms. And I love Mr. Martin's description of him.

DAERON II. Daeron the Good. A thoughtful face, pale, dignified, kindly Not a warrior by any means; round-shouldered, with thin legs and a small pot belly. His face has a certain quiet strength, though, and his eyes are clear and full of resolve. In his forties. In his hands is a parchment treaty. Wears his father's elaborate dragon crown.

(Above quote taken from the Citadel.)

Of course I tend to like all of Mr. Martin's descriptions...

Jaheries the Second seemed like a good person, and was clever enough to spot the madness in Targaryen blood (I wonder if his arm was malformed?).

And I would say that Viserys the First seemed like quite a fellow. I would not mind swaping stories with him over a drink or ten.

[The Mountain that Reads]

Robert rested the claim of the Iron Throne from the Targaryens just as they had rested the claims of the seven kings from them. If you hold that Dany has the strongest claim because the Targ's ruled for longer than Robert then you cannot deny that the Seven Kingdoms should be split up once again because they were seperate for longer than they were united under the Targaryen's. Robb's claim of the King of the North had just as much validity as Dany's claim to the Iron Throne.

Robert's heirs have the strongest claim and since he believed Joffrey and Tommen to be his heirs, their's is the strongest claim. However, should it be proven that Tommen is not Robert's son, perhaps through a forced confession from Cersei, then Stannis' claim becomes de facto, regardless of what Cersei wants.

Since Tommen has been predicted to die by Maggy the Frog, despite me wanting to see him live, Stannis will probably hold the strongest claim. However, should Dany reconquer Westeros (by the gods I hope not) she would begin a new dynasty for the Targaryens, but since she can't have children, I think she has to fail at her bid and make Stannis the king by the end.

We've already seen from the seige of Storm's End during Robert's Rebellion that Stannis has the will and patience to see things through, I think that was GRRM foreshadowing Stannis' ultimate victory.

[Antonius Pius]

Hands down the best claim to the Iron Throne is Dany's, IF females are alowed to rule in their own name... During the first Dance of the Dragons that was the problem (an older sister claiming the throne over her younger brother). If not, she can rule with the aid of a marriage with a Westerosi lord, and then claiming regency for her her potential sons, who will come before her if she cannot rule herself as queen. Judging from the legality of these things, as I take it from the books, I suggest Stannis comes after Dany. If Rhaegars son were still alive (as some suggest may be the case), his claim precedes Dany's.

Of course, might always makes right... As did Robert, but the fundamental thing was, as I have argued in other threads, that Roberts claim was not legal, but made legal after the demise of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon. That is to say, while they were alive, Robert had no claim (other than Maekar from the Hedge Knight, who ALWAYS had a claim to the throne, no matter how many older brothers he had).

The lords of Westeros can also choose a new scenario, if Tommens rule falls apart... Then they can call a Great Council and decide who should rule, or wether the Seven Kingdoms should once again become Seven Kingdoms.

And also, as a side note, who do you think would make the best king/queen of Westeros and why?

The best king in ability, I would say Tywin, or after his death Tyrion... I have a feeling Tyrion will go a long way to emulate his dear departed father. Other than that, lots of guys seem capable... Remember, with all we know of Robert, he doesn't stand out as a good king either, but most people seem to have liked him regardless. It's only the ones up close and the Lannisters that don't like him.

Robert rested the claim of the Iron Throne from the Targaryens just as they had rested the claims of the seven kings from them. If you hold that Dany has the strongest claim because the Targ's ruled for longer than Robert then you cannot deny that the Seven Kingdoms should be split up once again because they were seperate for longer than they were united under the Targaryen's. Robb's claim of the King of the North had just as much validity as Dany's claim to the Iron Throne.

Just a detail: in medieval history, precendence counted for almost everything. While what you say seems correct (if Dany can reassert an old claim, why can't Robb?), there is a subtle difference: for three-hundred-years worth Stark lords have relinquished the crown of the north or accepted lordship... Dany's predecessors were murdered and their thrown illegally taken from them, which means the point could be argued that her claim is as strong as ever, while Robbs is diminshed these last three hunderd years.

[Errant Bard]

Roberts claim was not legal

Drop that already, legality has nothing to do with conquest, and there are no laws that are above the will of king wannabes and their faction.

Bringing it down to a "law" makes it sound like there was this higher instance that could judge and convinct illegal kings, when really, anyone judging who should get the crown is on one side or another. If someone is taking the throne, like hell will he submit to the rules and judges of his predecessor.

[Dornishman]

Bittersteels descendants, of course.

Robert did not conquer. He usurped an empire. There is a difference: The Targaryens created their empire, and hence they create the rules of legitimacy for it. Robert created naught, he usurped, thus any rules of him are illegetimate. Yes, of course, Robert was stronger, thats a fact nobody can dispute - and hence we dont discuss facts here, we discuss claims and legitimations.

So, it must be a Targaryen. However, clearly Aegon V. had the right to legitimate his bastard sons, so Daemon Blackfyre would have been the rightful king. He lost the war of course, and his last descendants were, as far as we know, slain in the War of the Ninepenny Kings. Thus, the claim goes over to Bittersteels line, which still, it seems, leads the Golden Company. Whoever is most senior in that line has the best claim to the Iron Throne.

[Antonius Pius]

Drop that already, legality has nothing to do with conquest, and there are no laws that are above the will of king wannabes and their faction.

So Tommen can outlaw beets? There are rules that kings must follow too, they can't go around doing as they like. Aerys did that. The rules are called the kings laws. He must abide by them too. The king has a higher status, to be sure, but there are restrictions to his power as well.

Legality has everything to do with conquest, or rather the other way around: conquest is forceful acceptance of illegality. Now, the topic of this thread was "who has the best claim", and you have to begin by looking who has the most right to the throne; then you can look to who has the best chance of winning it.

I agree with you that legality may not be the decisive factor, politics being politics, but it's not superfluous either. After all, why then still seek for Targaryens in Roberts ancestry after he had already won the war?

[Errant Bard]

The targaryens created nothing, they usurped the seven kingdoms.

And if someone accepts your authority then your rule is legitimate over him from his point of view. There is no absolute, legitimity is created by those who accept that legitimity, not the other way around.

So Tommen can outlaw beets? There are rules that kings must follow too, they can't go around doing as they like.

He can. Yes they can do as they like. There are no law for the king, as there are not tribunal to judge them. As I said, there are however, people who accept the authority of a king, or not, and that's what create his legitimity.

[Antonius Pius]

So, it must be a Targaryen. However, clearly Aegon V. had the right to legitimate his bastard sons, so Daemon Blackfyre would have been the rightful king. He lost the war of course, and his last descendants were, as far as we know, slain in the War of the Ninepenny Kings. Thus, the claim goes over to Bittersteels line, which still, it seems, leads the Golden Company. Whoever is most senior in that line has the best claim to the Iron Throne.

Unless Daemon Blackfyre and Bittersteel and all their decendants were attainted by Daeron II (which I think is likely). They may still try to impose their claim, of course (if they are around that is), but then they will be usurpers like Robert.

[Dornishman]

EB: Nah, the Targaryens created nothing. Except, of course, for a fairly stable empire and a Pax Targaryena. But, apart from that, nah, nothing. By the definition of the word, the Targaryen did not usurp the seven kingdoms, they created a new empire conuqering the Seven Kingdoms. Robert kept everything the way it was - the Small Council, the Kings Justice, the Iron Throne itself, everything. He basically kept teh Targaryen Empire, but with himself as King. THAT is usurpation, and that is not what the Targs did. There is a difference.

And yes, legitimacy is created when somebody accepts your authority. But usually people dont do so for no reason at all. Either people do so because you have a good claim to start with, or because you have superior force. But even the latter is normally only reached when you can find allies and supporters, and again a good claim to begin with is a good base for that.

So, no, legal claims cannot be dismissed so easily.

AP:

Of ocurse, if Daeron II. isnt the rightful King, his actions arent legitimate, either, so Blackfyres and Bittersteels claim stand. But, yes, well, thats the nature of wars of sucession - there is never one absolute claim, but many competiting claims. Still, one can of course theoretically look at what might be the best claim.

[Elrostar]

Really, a usurper is someone who is unsuccessful, when you get down to it

The winners are the ones who will write the histories, so to speak.

I'm not sure how much we know about the details of how a conclave of nobles works, other than that they offered the crown to Aemon at one point. That is the closest thing to determining some sort of legitimacy, I suppose.

After all, supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony

[Antonius Pius]

And if someone accepts your authority then your rule is legitimate over him from his point of view. There is no absolute, legitimity is created by those who accept that legitimity, not the other way around.

Legitimate rule is not the same as omnipotence... Legitimacy is created by both parties: the king and his subjects (read: his lords). If the lords do not recognize the kings decisions or decrees, they are invalid. A king cannot proclaim what he will, because there is no absolute power in a feudal system. And that is were legitimacy and legality come into play: the lords have to recognize that what the king proclaims is according to his prerogatives and within the bounds of his position.

Really, a usurper is someone who is unsuccessful, when you get down to it

I'm not sure how much we know about the details of how a conclave of nobles works, other than that they offered the crown to Aemon at one point. That is the closest thing to determining some sort of legitimacy, I suppose.

A usurper is someone who is succesful, otherwise he is a renegade or a traitor.

You're right about the Great Council though, we really don't know a lot about it.

After all, supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony

That is a bit of modern presentation, but I guess in outline you are correct (substituting masses with lords).

[Errant Bard]

Nah, the Targaryens created nothing. Except, of course, for a fairly stable empire and a Pax Targaryena. But, apart from that, nah, nothing. By the definition of the word, the Targaryen did not usurp the seven kingdoms, they created a new empire conuqering the Seven Kingdoms. Robert kept everything the way it was - the Small Council, the Kings Justice, the Iron Throne itself, everything. He basically kept teh Targaryen Empire, but with himself as King. THAT is usurpation, and that is not what the Targs did. There is a difference.

Ah! The targaryen brought so much peace and stability to the land that their empire lasted less than the kingdoms before, and that it began by a gigantic (but apparently peaceful) barbecue party featuring the kingdom citizen as the skewered meat.

Also, remind me, what was the claim of Aegon the conqueror on the seven kingdoms, and what differentiated him from robert in the end? Robert won fair and square, openly, on the battlefield. And you're arguing he would have been a better man if, like aegon he wouldn't have just seized control of westeros but also pushed and invaded the free cities and the east?

AP: So you're agreeing that legitimacy and therefore claim is created by whoever accepts to support you.

[Elrostar]

Legitimate rule is not the same as omnipotence... Legitimacy is created by both parties: the king and his subjects (read: his lords). If the lords do not recognize the kings decisions or decrees, they are invalid. A king cannot proclaim what he will, because there is no absolute power in a feudal system. And that is were legitimacy and legality come into play: the lords have to recognize that what the king proclaims is according to his prerogatives and within the bounds of his position.

A usurper is someone who is succesful, otherwise he is a renegade or a traitor.

You're right about the Great Council though, we really don't know a lot about it.

That is a bit of modern presentation, but I guess in outline you are correct (substituting masses with lords).

I was simply quoting the Constitutional peasant from The Holy Grail. But yes, ultimately the king does derive power from a mandate from the nobles.

I guess a usurper has to be successful, but he can't be too successful. I mean, at that point he won't be referred to as a usurper anymore. Viserys constantly calls Robert the Usurper, but he's on the other side, so to speak. Ned certainly doesn't think of Robert as a usurper. So in order to be a usurper you have to both be succesful, but ultimately fail?

Anyway, we are perhaps ending up on too much of a tangent discussing the semantics of legitimacy and usurpation?

[Errant Bard]

That's no tangent, that's defining what we are talking about in the first place.

[mcbigski]

The Targaryens are the ruling dynasty in the Seven Kingdoms. How can it be said they created nothing? There was no Iron Throne before Aegon.

Dany has the best claim. Stannis is next (his grandmother was the daughter of Aegon V). Then Shireen. Possibly Doran Martell after them - Dorne was married into the realm after all, so he's probably got some Targ in him too.

Of course, this excludes all the bastards. I would assume that if the bastards were taken into account, Edric Storm would be at the head of that line, as he was acknowledged, though not legitimized, by a ruling king. Who's to say if someone claiming descent from Bittersteel 5 generations ago is really of Targ descent?

[Jon Targaryen]

As said before, the Targareyns created a new kingdom on their own. They established one, new kingdom. Robert usurped their kingdom. He did not make any claims to conquest; he based his rule off the Targaryen succession and his place in it. Dany is simply higher in that succession. Therefore, she has the better claim to the throne.

However, if she dies without heirs, the next best claimant is probably Stannis, followed by Shireen.

If Jon can be released from his vows and if Rhaegar and Lyanna married, his claim would come before Dany's.