The Rightful Heir to the Iron Throne

[The Summer Islander]

how can they overthrow Stannis when he doesn't even have the throne?

.....so it has come to this :leaving:

[UVA]

.Legality means nothing, it's all about power and power resides where men believe it resides. So far, no one believes the Targaryens should be in power.

Have you not read my last two replies in this thread? Correct, law as we understand it has no application here. Thus, no valid argument can be made for anyone's right to the IT, or the right to rule, or right to a claim, or legal heir, whatever. Stannis, like Dany would have to take the throne by force.

Also, it was more than Right of Conquest, The "Targ-Baratheon" line by Robert's grandmother overthrew the ruling Targ line at the time and became the Kings. That's the cut-and-dry of it.

I'm not singling you out here because several people have said similar things but I think you're overemphasizing Robert's so-called blood claim. This blood claim seems to have been used as a matter of convenience at the time power was transferred. This does not legitimize his seizure of power because it still assumes and appeals to the continuity of a Targaryen throne. Seen in this light the Baratheon's didn't really overthrow the existing regime, just merely replaced the figurehead, exterminating and or exiling Aerys' line.

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

1 Stannis

2 Shireen

Dany, Aegon, and even Jon are non factors until they can overthrow Stannis.

I'd bet Stannis is the next big character to bite the dust in this saga.

[GCabot]

The right of conquest gives Robert the power to rule, it does not legitimize his claim to the Iron Throne. If it did, the rebels wouldn't have bothered using Robert's Targaryen ancestry to legitimize his claim. As much as people in this thread seem to want to dismiss or ignore this, the fact is that they believed this was important enough to put forth as the basis for Robert's rule.

Over time, such a cadet branch of the family can become legitimized as the true heirs to the throne, since the goal of a line of succession is to ensure stability in the kingdom from one monarch to another. If ten generations of Baratheon kings had passed, it would be nonsensical to claim a Targaryen descendant has a better claim at that point.

That's not the case here. Robert's rule only lasted fifteen years, a pittance in dynastic terms. The weakness of the Baratheon claim to the throne is illustrated by the War of the Five Kings and the chaos that followed his death. Thus, the person with the best claim to the Iron Throne at this point is the person best able to impose order, stability, and unity on the Seven Kingdoms. That certainly isn't Stannis, who couldn't even convince most of his own bannermen to support him. The person with the strongest claim, who is most likely to be able to bind the Seven Kingdoms together again, is Aegon, Daenerys, or Jon, depending on their true parentage. In the absence of someone able to simply impose his reign upon the Seven Kingdoms by sheer force of will, past precedent makes the rule of a (sane) Targaryen the most acceptable to all parties involved.

To say otherwise is to say that the only thing that matters is who sits on the throne right now. Under that theory, the Lannisters are the legitimate ruling dynasty, and I don't think most people seriously believe that.

[otherbeef]

.....so it has come to this :leaving:

what i meant was, if Dany or Aegon comes and takes the throne from Tommen, Stannis is irrelevent

[The Summer Islander]

what i meant was, if Dany or Aegon comes and takes the throne from Tommen, Stannis is irrelevent

Oh well then Stannis will have to come and take it from Dany, as I see that Dany will kill Aegon when she finally comes to Westeros. But he doesn't have to worry or fight much because she will not sit the throne long because she will die of unknown circumstances, but to a few people (it will be revealed to someone that the throne kills those who are not worthy like Maegor the Cruel, possibly Aegon IV and it kept cutting Aerys)

ETA-and I ran out because I didn't really have a good defense for that first answer

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

We need to remember that in the WO5K just three were fighting for the IT because the other two were just secessionist. Robb and Balon didn't wanted the IT they wanted to be independents and knew they didn't have a claim to rule Westeros.

[GCabot]

We need to remember that in the WO5K just three were fighting for the IT because the other two were just secessionist. Robb and Balon didn't wanted the IT they wanted to be independents and knew they didn't have a claim to rule Westeros.

True, but their willingness to secede and refusal to acknowledge the authority of the IT, is a direct reflection of the strength and legitimacy of the Baratheon claim.

[ejhawman]

At this point, with Tommen and Myrcella incestuous bastards, Stannis unpopular, the Targaryens far less popular that they think, it's really every lord for himself. Concepts of "law" and "right" are a lot softer than we are used to. The King will be whoever can convince others to recognize him as such. The IT will probably be in play for generations to come.

If Dany gets it, well, she can't have children, so after her it will probably be up for grabs again, with whatever House can come out on top getting it. If Jon takes it, there's a chance he could leave heirs, but Jon will need to live a long time for the lords to calm down and secure his descendants' claim. Aegon similarly, but I don't have a high estimate of his life expectancy. Stannis, similar to Dany, could calm down contests over the throne for his lifetime, but Shireen can't inherit directly so it would be similar to Dany.

This may be what Martin means by a bittersweet ending: peace in the short term, but no strong foundation for it to last, and most of the realm wrecked by the Walkers.

[King Stannis]

True, but their willingness to secede and refusal to acknowledge the authority of the IT, is a direct reflection of the strength and legitimacy of the Baratheon claim.

actually it is more a reflection of how little they cared to be under the rule of the IT and are leaving at the first chance they get(which a chaotic war as such is)

[GCabot]

actually it is more a reflection of how little they cared to be under the rule of the IT and are leaving at the first chance they get(which a chaotic war as such is)

If this were the case, there were plenty of other opportunities for them to have rebelled: The Dance of Dragons, The Blackfyre Rebellions, and any other incidents where weak/unpopular rulers ascended the throne (Aegon V, Viserys II, Baelor I, etc.)

[Maegor the Cuddly]

True, but their willingness to secede and refusal to acknowledge the authority of the IT, is a direct reflection of the strength and legitimacy of the Baratheon claim.

Yes, the Baratheon line is not considered particularly legitimate due to it being a new line. You can't imagine the Targaryens were accepted as the legitimate line right after Aegon took the throne however, it took a tough King with competent wives, a weak king with a strong, cruel Hand, and then a strong, cruel King, followed by one of the best Kings ever known to solidify Targaryen control. If Stannis takes the throne and holds it, and holds it for Shireen (or if he pops out a boy at some point, him) and his/her descendants, then it will be equally legitimate to the Targ rule.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

All through the books. Aerys was actually a popular king with the smallfolk. Viserys seems to be right. People are not willing to risk their lives to get the Targaryens back, but they would be happy if they returned.

These are just a few quotes I remember for where I am in the books at the moment. There are many others.

1 "It's a sin and a shame," an old man hissed. "When the old king was still alive, he'd not have stood for this." "King Robert?" Arya asked, forgetting herself. "King Aerys, gods grace him," the old man said, too loudly.

Brienne is not exactly one of the smallfolks, but she sums up a lot of there opinions.

2 "He's not. Robert was never the rightful king either, even Renly said as much. Jaime Lannister murdered the rightful king, after Robert killed his lawful heir on the Trident. Where were the gods then? The gods don't care about men, no more than kings care about peasants."

3 Not really, because these things are still in the back of their minds. Nobody is going to love a usurper no matter how good things are. Tywin made things great for those in the Westerlands, but he was never loved. Stannis is another competent ruler, but people don't love him.

1. OK. One old man. Claiming Aerys of all people was a good king. It still does not show general sentiment that the Targs are loved. People are bitching the war. An old man claims Aerys was better. It reads less pro-Targ and more anti-these current assholes. Admittedly, this could be used by Aegon and Dany, but generally supports Jorah's take on the smallfolk since the whole topic is how much these people suck.

2. This is weak. Brienne is a noble woman. She was not summing up how the smallfolk felt. She was rejecting the idea that Stannis was the rightful king. The small folk's feelings play nothing into her statement. She only says how kings don't care about them as the gods don't care about men. Nothing her conversation with Cat is about how the smallfolk feel about the politics of the realm and is Cat talking her down from a suicide mission.

3. Two things about Tywin. First of all, he is not an usurper. He is the rightful heir of the Westerlands. Second, he made things great for House Lannister. That's different from the Westerlands in general. He ruled by fear and ruthlessness. That might make you great, but it's not going to make you loved.

At this point, with Tommen and Myrcella incestuous bastards, Stannis unpopular, the Targaryens far less popular that they think, it's really every lord for himself. Concepts of "law" and "right" are a lot softer than we are used to. The King will be whoever can convince others to recognize him as such. The IT will probably be in play for generations to come.

If Dany gets it, well, she can't have children, so after her it will probably be up for grabs again, with whatever House can come out on top getting it. If Jon takes it, there's a chance he could leave heirs, but Jon will need to live a long time for the lords to calm down and secure his descendants' claim. Aegon similarly, but I don't have a high estimate of his life expectancy. Stannis, similar to Dany, could calm down contests over the throne for his lifetime, but Shireen can't inherit directly so it would be similar to Dany.

This may be what Martin means by a bittersweet ending: peace in the short term, but no strong foundation for it to last, and most of the realm wrecked by the Walkers.

Shireen can directly inherit. It has been stated repeatedly by multiple people that she is Stannis's heir.

“Eastwatch is not safe.” The queen put a hand on her daughter’s shoulder. “This is the king’s true heir. Shireen will one day sit the Iron Throne and rule the Seven Kingdoms. She must be kept from harm, and Eastwatch is where the attack will come. This Nightfort is the place my husband has chosen for our seat, and there we shall abide. We— oh!”

Selyse clearly believes Shireen will sit on the Iron Throne. No one ever claims otherwise (obviously, this is only talking about those who recognize Stannis as king). The no women on the Throne was a Targ tradition. As for the Bartheon dynasty, the question has simply never came up. Robert believed he had sons, and Stannis knows that all three children are not Robert's. So, there is no precedence for the Bartheons. It is entirely reasonable they would/will treat it like how they did prior to their taking of the Throne (ie regular daughter before brother which makes Stannis's offer to Renly actually mean something).

[GCabot]

Yes, the Baratheon line is not considered particularly legitimate due to it being a new line. You can't imagine the Targaryens were accepted as the legitimate line right after Aegon took the throne however, it took a tough King with competent wives, a weak king with a strong, cruel Hand, and then a strong, cruel King, followed by one of the best Kings ever known to solidify Targaryen control. If Stannis takes the throne and holds it, and holds it for Shireen (or if he pops out a boy at some point, him) and his/her descendants, then it will be equally legitimate to the Targ rule.

That's my exact point. If Stannis were to take the throne and his descendants held it, time would serve to legitimize his rule and it would supersede Targaryen dynastic claims. Initially, however, the rebels needed a way to immediately gain a measure of legitimacy so that those that had supported the Targaryens would be at least partially mollified. This was the reasoning behind asserting Robert's Targaryen ancestry as the source of his right to the Iron Throne. After Robert, however, the Baratheons weren't powerful or united enough to impose their rule on all the Seven Kingdoms. Therefore, if we're considering this point in time, legitimacy has to fall back on the dynasty that created and held the Iron Throne for all but the past seventeen years.

[Maegor the Cuddly]

That's my exact point. If Stannis were to take the throne and his descendants held it, time would serve to legitimize his rule and it would supersede Targaryen dynastic claims. Initially, however, the rebels needed a way to immediately gain a measure of legitimacy so that those that had supported the Targaryens would be at least partially mollified. This was the reasoning behind asserting Robert's Targaryen ancestry as the source of his right to the Iron Throne. After Robert, however, the Baratheons weren't powerful or united enough to impose their rule on all the Seven Kingdoms. Therefore, if we're considering this point in time, legitimacy has to fall back on the dynasty that created and held the Iron Throne for all but the past seventeen years.

On the other hand, I'd argue that legitimacy is lost easily. When Aerys had Rickard killed for no crime whatsoever, (Brandon however, did, but regardless) and demanded the heads of his son and Robert Baratheon, he lost a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of the lords, even the lords that had fought for him, as evidenced by their willingness to lower their banners when the Targaryens no longer held King's Landing. When Rhaegar died, and all the remaining heirs were children, legitimacy was lost entirely. So currently, until a dynasty can establish themselves for multiple generations, no one is legitimate. Which of course, will create issues in the long run.

[GCabot]

On the other hand, I'd argue that legitimacy is lost easily. When Aerys had Rickard killed for no crime whatsoever, (Brandon however, did, but regardless) and demanded the heads of his son and Robert Baratheon, he lost a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of the lords, even the lords that had fought for him, as evidenced by their willingness to lower their banners when the Targaryens no longer held King's Landing. When Rhaegar died, and all the remaining heirs were children, legitimacy was lost entirely. So currently, until a dynasty can establish themselves for multiple generations, no one is legitimate. Which of course, will create issues in the long run.

I'd agree that Aerys' actions seriously weakened the legitimacy of the Targaryens in the eyes of many Westerosi. That's why I made the proviso that any Targaryen claim is now conditioned on a claimant that has not inherited the Targaryen madness. I think tolerance for that particular trait has been exhausted in regards to kingship. I also agree that we're clearly in a power vacuum at the moment in terms of legitimacy, but if we're talking about who has the most legitimacy (not necessarily who is legitimate), I would argue it still has to be a Targaryen.

[IRON BANK]

True, but their willingness to secede and refusal to acknowledge the authority of the IT, is a direct reflection of the strength and legitimacy of the Baratheon claim.

However couldn't their willingness to seceded also be viewed as a rebellion against the ruling Baratheon party and thus a show of there willingness not to acknowledge that legitimacy, making it in perspective easier for a former targ to press said claim?

[King Stannis]

If this were the case, there were plenty of other opportunities for them to have rebelled: The Dance of Dragons, The Blackfyre Rebellions, and any other incidents where weak/unpopular rulers ascended the throne (Aegon V, Viserys II, Baelor I, etc.)

Ah. I meant for these particular lords. Balon Greyjoy in particular was clearly itching to get out as soon as he could, as he also rebelled right after Robert's Rebellion, thinkin it was a good time period.

[GCabot]

However couldn't their willingness to seceded also be viewed as a rebellion against the ruling Baratheon party and thus a show of there willingness not to acknowledge that legitimacy, making it in perspective easier for a former targ to press said claim?

That was what I meant - that the rebellions after Robert's death reflected how weak the Baratheon claim and hold on the IT was in the eyes of the other great houses.

[IRON BANK]

That was what I meant - that the rebellions after Robert's death reflected how weak the Baratheon claim and hold on the IT was in the eyes of the other great houses.

I AGREE: Then the throne must be completely up for grabs, Because if not and westeros was United, Dany would be the only contender. I for one feel Dany has a very strong claim. Just like I feel that the North has a right to secede after the actions taken involving Bran and Ned.