Stannis stepping aside

[Bright Blue Eyes]

There was no new feudal contract for Robert, is what I am arguing. He just carried on. With one that already existed.

If anyone could take over anyone's seat just by murdering them there would be mass Chaos . Nothing we have seen in the books suggest this is true for any feudal monarchy.

Being a brother of a king, stannis claim is very strong.

Being the son or grandson of one like Aegon is also a strong claim.

Daenerys claim is not good unless she has a son, then his claim would be strong.

There was a new feudal contract for Robert: Every Lord Paramount swore fealty to him. Yes, even Doran Martell and Balon Greyjoy. And every Lord Paramount had every Lord in his region sworn to him.

No relation to murdering anybody.

And that's the reason why Stannis has the best claim by miles. Robert was the last King to have everybody swearing fealty to him and Stannis is his lawful heir.

[Pib_Juju]

Targaryen originally aren't from Westeros, they are conquerors. Stannis lineage ties to Westeros way back before them. But I think every House is a conqueror no thrue rightful king or queen.

Stannis' claim is partially predicated on his having a drop of Targaryen blood. That was the fig leaf on Robert's claim.

[kimim]

Actually, We don't know what stannis, Ned, Jon Arryn, or anyone intended to do with other Targ claimants at the time they entered the rebellion. The idea that Robert would be king rather than Aegon came much later

IMO the rebellion was always about removing Aerys, and additionally for Robert, killing Rhaegar.

We don't know what they planned, but we know a lot about how Stannis feels about his brothers. He complains a lot, but he never even distantly hints that Robert should have handed the throne to a Targ heir. My feeling is that he believes his brother was the rightful king, that he is the rightful king, as his heir. He would be unlikely to step aside for a Targ.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

There was a new feudal contract for Robert: Every Lord Paramount swore fealty to him. Yes, even Doran Martell and Balon Greyjoy. And every Lord Paramount had every Lord in his region sworn to him.

No relation to murdering anybody.

And that's the reason why Stannis has the best claim by miles. Robert was the last King to have everybody swearing fealty to him and Stannis is his lawful heir.

That doesn't prove anything - he had them swear because he had just usurped the claims of 5 other people in front of him in the line of succession, some of which were still alive.

It seems like you are arguing that anyone that murders the king can then ask for fealty and become king. I'm arguing that's not gonna work unless most people believe they have some right to it and In a feudal system, blood right is where the power is.

I do not believe that without the Targ blood Robert would be king. Maybe there would be no more IT, or maybe Aegon would be alive.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That doesn't prove anything - he had them swear because he had just usurped the claims of 5 other people in front of him in the line of succession, some of which were still alive.

It seems like you are arguing that anyone that murders the king can then ask for fealty and become king. I'm arguing that's not gonna work unless most people believe they have some right to it and In a feudal system, blood right is where the power is.

I do not believe that without the Targ blood Robert would be king. Maybe there would be no more IT, or maybe Aegon would be alive.

You don't seem to understand feudalism.

It's a personal contract between two guys. This personal contract is repeated up and down and sideways all around, until everybody got contracts up and down.

As soon as everybody is enmeshed in that net of contracts, everything is settled. Everybody in Westeros was enmeshed in that net of contracts centered on Robert. Stannis inherits that place.

Now, you could chancel these contracts and replace them with new ones. That's what Robb and Balon did in their regions and why they've got a certain legitimacy. But neither Tommen nor Dany nor Aegon managed to. Only Stannis as Robert's heir got a legitimate claim on the Iron Throne.

[In A Coat of Gold]

No it doesn't. Robert's claim came from the fact that his warhammer was making out with Rhaegar's chest.

Nope. Otherwise he'd be a usurper. The only reason Robert sat the throne and not Jon Arryn or Ned is because of that Targ grandmother. Robert himself states that as the justification.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Bottom line: OP, you have your answer. Stannis won't step aside for Aegon (nor anyone else), for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. They might not be objectively true, but they're true from Stannis' point of view.

/thread

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Nope. Otherwise he'd be a usurper. The only reason Robert sat the throne and not Jon Arryn or Ned is because of that Targ grandmother. Robert himself states that as the justification.

No, he does not. Renly jokes about it and Ned pushes it forward because he doesn't want the job, but Robert never does.

[George48]

Stannis stepping aside will happen before 'never' and after 'ever'.

That man is dead set to save the Realm and get the throne and he will not step aside, there is no going back.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

We don't know what they planned, but we know a lot about how Stannis feels about his brothers. He complains a lot, but he never even distantly hints that Robert should have handed the throne to a Targ heir. My feeling is that he believes his brother was the rightful king, that he is the rightful king, as his heir. He would be unlikely to step aside for a Targ.

Stannis made the decision that his vows to his brother superseded his loyalty to the crown. After that, he was bound to support his brothers actions. Doesn't mean he thought or wanted all of the targs to die. Honestly that would be extreme IMO.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

You don't seem to understand feudalism.

It's a personal contract between two guys. This personal contract is repeated up and down and sideways all around, until everybody got contracts up and down.

As soon as everybody is enmeshed in that net of contracts, everything is settled. Everybody in Westeros was enmeshed in that net of contracts centered on Robert. Stannis inherits that place.

Now, you could chancel these contracts and replace them with new ones. That's what Robb and Balon did in their regions and why they've got a certain legitimacy. But neither Tommen nor Dany nor Aegon managed to. Only Stannis as Robert's heir got a legitimate claim on the Iron Throne.

If that was how feudalism works then there would be no point to ever name an heir - people would constantly be killing the king and force new contracts to take his place because apparently that's totally going to fly.

The basis for feudalism is inheritance by blood which in most cases is justified by some "divine right" argument.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Not nitpicking. I just don't like when people hype up characters for doing stuff they didn't actually do. Why do you think you can say Stannis "laid siege" when he didn't? Fact is: the Targaryens loyalist were ready to surrender and Dany and Viserys were too young to do anything but flee.

and so? The argument I made, fot the sake of the thread stayed the same. Stannis led an army against a targaryen rightful heir, Viserys Targaryen. If Stannis had no problem with doing that, I dont think he will look at aegon differently.

Its really childish to start hunting me because I said "siege" insted of "assaulted", specially when Im not a native speaker.

The point, for the freaking thread was exactly the same.

[Stannis's Lawyer]

If that was how feudalism works then there would be no point to ever name an heir - people would constantly be killing the king and force new contracts to take his place because apparently that's totally going to fly.

The basis for feudalism is inheritance by blood which in most cases is justified by some "divine right" argument.

You sure you aren't talking about the guy who said "Moi, c'est l'état"?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

If that was how feudalism works then there would be no point to ever name an heir - people would constantly be killing the king and force new contracts to take his place because apparently that's totally going to fly.

The basis for feudalism is inheritance by blood which in most cases is justified by some "divine right" argument.

Well, if they managed to get these contracts started... Ever heard of something called the Holy Roman Empire? Killing not necessary by the way, convincing four Lords to vote for you was good enough as soon as the old King/Emperor bit the dust.

You sure you aren't talking about the guy who said "Moi, c'est l'état"?

My point exactly.

[Gabfest]

Those who have the best claim are probably the starks cause their origins come from the first men. They are probably the most ancient house from westeros. The Arryn too but Sweet Robin is not in good shape...

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Well, if they managed to get these contracts started... Ever heard of something called the Holy Roman Empire? Killing not necessary by the way, convincing four Lords to vote for you was good enough as soon as the old King/Emperor bit the dust.

My point exactly.

Ok? But clearly that's not how this have ever worked in Westeros.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ok? But clearly that's not how this have ever worked in Westeros.

Meera and Jojen Reed, Bran Stark, Brienne of Tarth, Catelyn Stark, Wylla Manderly, the Mountain Clans, Tywin Lannister and a whole bunch of others disagree.

Like, everybody in the books even remotely going into that direction disagrees. Except Joffrey and Dany maybe, but that's not exactly a good argument.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Meera and Jojen Reed, Bran Stark, Brienne of Tarth, Catelyn Stark, Wylla Manderly, the Mountain Clans, Tywin Lannister and a whole bunch of others disagree.

Like, everybody in the books even remotely going into that direction disagrees. Except Joffrey and Dany maybe, but that's not exactly a good argument.

Huh? all of those people inherited their claims.

Or are you now trying to conflate this with the succession of the north? Because declaring yourself as no longer part of an empire (now an independent nation) is not remotely the same thing as murdering the king and taking his place without a blood claim.

Bran's claim is based on blood - he is a descendent of the kings of the north. It's quite analogous to Roberts (and stannis) claim through their Targ blood.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Huh? all of those people inherited their claims.

Or are you now trying to conflate this with the succession of the north? Because declaring yourself as no longer part of an empire (now an independent nation) is not remotely the same thing as murdering the king and taking his place without a blood claim.

Bran's claim is based on blood - he is a descendent of the kings of the north. It's quite analogous to Roberts (and stannis) claim through their Targ blood.

All of these people refer to the feudal contract.

Meera and Jojen swear it once to more to Bran at Winterfell, Brienne swears it to Cat, Wylla Manderly and the Mountain Clans reference it, Tywin Lannister insists on people swearing fealty to Joffrey/Tommen.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

All of these people refer to the feudal contract.

Meera and Jojen swear it once to more to Bran at Winterfell, Brienne swears it to Cat, Wylla Manderly and the Mountain Clans reference it, Tywin Lannister insists on people swearing fealty to Joffrey/Tommen.

Exactly! All of these people are renewing vows of fealty to monarchs/lords who have inherited their positions due to being descended from former rulers.

This is done specifically so that it is made clear that they are loyal to this person rather than any of several other people who could make the claim based on blood.

If it was as you say, Jojen and meera might very well have given their vows to illyn Payne since he killed Ned, or hodor, or whoever they want. They renewed them to Robb/bran because they have a blood claim.