The Rightful Heir to the Iron Throne

[profilebegone]

If The difference is that the northern lords don't agree and are plotting to remove the Boltons and perhaps even secede from the 7K.

Nah, I think they're in on Manderly's plan to restore Rickon as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North and support Stannis, which would bring us down to three Kings - Stannis, Euron, and Tommen.

Tommen's gonna die. It is known.

Euron's totally nuts and nobody wants him as king.

Oh wait there's two Targ's a comin'.

GAME CHANGE.

[Lord Stunny]

No, as Renly pointed out... Robert's warhammer was his right, not his grandmother...

that is correct... You are 1000% correct... And bed Ned Stark named it Roberts Rebellion and also from the start Robert had being known as their leader... He also led the first battle of the rebellion.. The battle of summerhall .......

[The guy from the Vale]

Summerhall wasn't the first battle of the Rebellion, that was Gulltown, led by Jon Arryn.

As for the claims business, let me simply put it that way: There can be several claims for the same object.

[Lord Stunny]

If Tommen is the rightful king,Stannis is his heir, not Myrcella.

stannis could end all his wars by allowing melisandre to kill Tommen... That will make him the last Baratheon.. And rightful king even the lannister a can't contest that.... That is the fact instead of fighting so many... He did renly and Joffrey why not boy king Tommen......

[otherbeef]

that is correct... You are 1000% correct... And bed Ned Stark named it Roberts Rebellion and also from the start Robert had being known as their leader... He also led the first battle of the rebellion.. The battle of summerhall .......

Ned Stark also plainly says that the reason Robert became king instead of anyone else after the rebellion was because of his claim to the existing throne and existing laws of succession through his Targaryen family.

saying that Dany or Aegon have no claim is ridiculous as at best there is clearly confusion about the matter of conquest vs succession.

[aceluby]

Robert won the throne by conquest, not because he has targ blood from a great great grandmother's cousin, or whatever. The only ones who cared about his targ blood were the Maesters, the people followed him because he was the leader of the Rebellion.

Tywin would have had ZERO chance to claim the throne against the rebels. He wouldn't risk his army WITH the IT, there's no chance he could hold the IT w/out the targ army and he knew it, so he supported Robert.

Ned and Jon don't want the IT and never did (which would have made them good rulers IMO) and loved Robert. I would bet that if Ned claimed the IT that Robert and Jon would have backed him, Jaime thinks that could have been a possibility in AGoT.

The Baratheon's being distantly related to the targs is meaningless. The targs and Robert were all conqerers and conquerers get to keep their power and succession laws as long as they can keep it. Both have lost it, so the 'Righful Heir' is whoever can conquer the whole of the 7 kingdoms. Dany has the best chance of doing this w/ her dragons, but if she can't, I don't see the IT lasting a whole lot longer.

[aceluby]

stannis could end all his wars by allowing melisandre to kill Tommen... That will make him the last Baratheon.. And rightful king even the lannister a can't contest that.... That is the fact instead of fighting so many... He did renly and Joffrey why not boy king Tommen......

I've thought about that as well? Why not get Mel to have another shadow baby or some other treachery so he has a claim outside of his 'incest' claim?

Regardless, I think we know how it will end... Cercei or Margery (or both) would refuse to give up the throne and we'd be right back where we are.

[Lord Stunny]

Bugger the Targs , they had no rightful claim to any of the seven kingdoms.. They were foreigners with socery infested blood.. Incestious and mad.. They took the kingdoms because they could.. Westeros is better rid of them... Baratheons descend from the daughter of the storm kings... They are have more rights in leading any kingdom in westeros than the Targs.. If Jon is a Targ... I will be disappointed.. I liked Jon

[Frozentree]

You people are forgetting that what matters is not some "lawful" succession, but the succession people believe. Stannis did not really want to remove the Targaryens from the throne, he just preferred to do it instead of fighting against his family (conflicting with war against Renly, I know, but it's what Stannis said), so I think there is a possibility he would support the Targaryen claim. He does not want to be a king, after all.

[three-eyed monkey]

Nah, I think they're in on Manderly's plan to restore Rickon as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North and support Stannis, which would bring us down to three Kings - Stannis, Euron, and Tommen.

Tommen's gonna die. It is known.

Euron's totally nuts and nobody wants him as king.

Oh wait there's two Targ's a comin'.

GAME CHANGE.

You clearly missed the point. The question I replied to was about the Bolton claim to the North. It is legit, according to the current king. How the game may change has nothing to do with it. You might well be right in your speculation, though I'm not convinced you are, but that is beside the point.

[Lord Stunny]

Stannis is the rightful king by rights ..I wager him sitting on the throne before the end of the story... He might not hold it for long but Stannis will sit on the iron throne

[aceluby]

Stannis is the rightful king by rights ..I wager him sitting on the throne before the end of the story... He might not hold it for long but Stannis will sit on the iron throne

No. There is no 'king by rights' and never has been. It's a farce created by the family in power to keep power in the family. Kings make the laws because they have an army to enforce them, especially succession laws. He has no army to enforce the law as he sees it.

[UVA]

The Targaryens no longer have a claim to the IT :rolleyes:

[snip]

So there you go, those lot are the rightful rulers not Dany or Jon :)

You really need to disabuse yourself of the notion of 'rightful' claim, rightful king, heir whatever. Sorry but I get so irritated by all of this legalistic thinking that goes on in these 'rightful heir' threads because it presupposes the existence of a complex legal framework on a society that has none (see the SSM that Knight of Winter referenced above). While Martin loosely appeals to historical medieval norms of succession, these rules, as Martin also notes were vague, contradictory, and subject to radical change. To go on and on about rightful kings is nonsensical in the context of Westeros.

No character mentioned in this thread (Stannis, Dany, Jon, Aegon, Tommen) has an undisputed just claim. For those arguing the case for a character's legal right to rule consider that for this to make any sense there would have to be some type of codified laws of succession generally accepted and enforceable as well as a lawmaking body that can objectively interpret these statutes if and when there is a succession controversy.

Dany, Stannis, Tommen – they all believe, and those who’ve sworn fealty to them, in their legit claim, but this isn’t legitimate in any abstract legal sense, rather it is a matter of perception. The Targaryens most certainly think that the removal of Aerys as king and the murder and exile of his descendants was not lawful. Likewise, the Baratheons believe that Aerys’ madness and the enormities he committed as king justified the nullification of his and his descendants’ right to rule; thus leaving Robert and his family legitimate kings, as they were most closely related (out of the rebel houses) to the fallen dynasty.

That said right of conquest is not law but rather a society’s acceptance of a change in power. As such it doesn’t give the Baratheons, or previously the Targaryens an inalienable right to the kingship. What events have shone since AGOT is that the IT, or what passes for a centralized state in Westeros doesn’t have a monopoly on violent force that’s strong enough to sustain the status quo.

Another thing about these discussions is that the terms 'legal' and 'rightful' need to be desegregated. The characters mentioned can produce a legal claim, such as it is a collection of precedents in-universe, but 'rightful'' is used differently throughout the series by Martin and that 'legal' doesn't necessarily mean 'rightful'. Stannis can argue from the basis of precedent (albeit this is vague, contradictory and subject to interpretation) but this is different than saying he is the rightful king, where rightful here carries some moral/ethical connotation. Objectively no one is indisputably just in their claim, despite the fact that, for example Stannis and Dany believe they have some moral superiority over others.

[UVA]

double post

[The guy from the Vale]

You really need to disabuse yourself of the notion of 'rightful' claim, rightful king, heir whatever. Sorry but I get so irritated by all of this legalistic thinking that goes on in these 'rightful heir' threads because it presupposes the existence of a complex legal framework on a society that has none (see the SSM that Knight of Winter referenced above). While Martin loosely appeals to historical medieval norms of succession, these rules, as Martin also notes were vague, contradictory, and subject to radical change. To go on and on about rightful kings is nonsensical in the context of Westeros.

No character mentioned in this thread (Stannis, Dany, Jon, Aegon, Tommen) has an undisputed just claim. For those arguing the case for a character's legal right to rule consider that for this to make any sense there would have to be some type of codified laws of succession generally accepted and enforceable as well as a lawmaking body that can objectively interpret these statutes if and when there is a succession controversy.

Dany, Stannis, Tommen – they all believe, and those who’ve sworn fealty to them, in their legit claim, but this isn’t legitimate in any abstract legal sense, rather it is a matter of perception. The Targaryens most certainly think that the removal of Aerys as king and the murder and exile of his descendants was not rightful. Likewise, the Baratheons believe that Aerys’ madness and the enormities he committed as king justified the nullification of his and his descendants’ right to rule; thus leaving Robert and his family legitimate kings, as they were most closely related (out of the rebel houses) to the fallen dynasty.

That said right of conquest is not law but rather a society’s acceptance of a change in power. As such it doesn’t give the Baratheons, or previously the Targaryens an inalienable right to the kingship. What events have shone since AGOT is that the IT, or what passes for a centralized state in Westeros doesn’t have a monopoly on violent force that’s strong enough to sustain the status quo.

Another thing about these discussions is that the terms 'legal' and 'rightful' need to be desegregated. The characters mentioned can produce a legal claim, such as it is a collection of precedents in-universe, but 'rightful'' is used differently throughout the series by Martin and that 'legal' doesn't necessarily mean 'rightful'. Stannis can argue from the basis of precedent (albeit this is vague, contradictory and subject to interpretation) but this is different than saying he is the rightful king, where rightful here carries some moral/ethical connotation. Objectively no one is indisputably just in their claim, despite the fact that, for example Stannis and Dany believe they have some moral superiority over others.

Thank you.

[aceluby]

:agree:

[The Prince of Ice]

How many times must i say this, there is no one true rightful ruler in Westeros. Only right of conquest is true. If you have the power to TAKE the throne and KEEP it then you are the rightful ruler. Other than that its a crap shoot.

[Pikachu101]

@UVA when did legality ever determine whose king?

[UVA]

@UVA when did legality ever determine whose king?

Didn't you say up thread that the Targaryens (via Dany or Jon) have no claim to rule? If so, you are assuming that there is a legal framework upon which to render this judgement, not to mention the fact that there would also need to be another legal framework in place for a legitimate rebellion that nullifies any future claims on the throne made by the deposed dynasty. Dany and Jon have just a legitimate claim as anyone else you mentioned. Who says they can't take the throne? You?

The only instance in-universe where what amounted to a lawmaking body choosing a king, and that decision accepted by the entire realm, is the example of the Great Council. Free to supersede precedent they selected Egg (Aegon V) over the despised Aerion Brightflame and his line, using their justification (most likely based on the fear that his madness was hereditary) that his descendents would be unfit to rule.

Would that Stannis et. al. reach a negotiated settlement.

[Aderyn the Sly]

It all depends on where you stand.

If Aegon is a Blackfyre the argument can still be made that he is the rightful heir. Daemon was ligitimized by his father and was the oldest of his sons, so many believed he had the rightful claim over his trueborn brother Daeron (who was at least 10 years his junior IIRC) and also believed that Aegon gifting him the family Valyrian steel sword was a sign that he wanted him to succeed him.

If Aegon isn't a Blackfyre and is in truth the son of Rhaegar, than his claim is obvious and needs to marry and sire an heir.

If you count the Blackfyre rebelion as an actual rebellion and that Daeron had the rightful claim and that Robert was an Usurper, some might think that Daenerys is the rightful queen. Although we have no evidence of a female succeeding to the throne since the sevon kingdoms were united. Some might argue that she could not be queen without a king, or that she needs a son to claim the throne.

Robert was in truth the fifth (Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Vyseris) male in line for the throne at the time of his rebellion and by eliminating the others (or by right of conquest depending on your opinion of the events) he would be the rightful heir. (I'm discounting the females because we have no evidence of a female inheriting the trone in her own right, although we do have evidence of them inheirting "Lordship" as it were but many times the rule of the Kingdom is different). If you follow this line of thinking than Stannis is the true ruler without issue. (Once again discounting Shireen because she is female and unmarried).

If you believe totaly in the right of conquest the power lies with the Lannisters following Robert's death. Cersei claims that she cannnot let the tale of Tommen being a bastard be spread because his claim comes from Robert, but I'm sure that wouldn't make a whole lot of fuss (but him being born of insest sure would) because they were in power. Now, the Tyrells are in power with Tommen as their pawn, and I'm sure once he is old enough they would want heirs in quick succession. If something were to happen to the Tommen I'm pretty sure it would be even more of a civil war. Stannis would stake his claim and more might follow him, some might vie for Marcella (but once again, female), and I'm sure more Lords would want to return to seven kingdoms and style themselves Kings again.