Stannis stepping aside

[Maid So Fair]

^ Can a king take the black?

It's not something any King has done before voluntarily, but I see no real reason why not if there is a clear heir. It would be a bit like Joer Mormont taking the black to make space for his son to rule. Mormonts are no where close to royalty of course, but the principle is the same. It seems possible for members of the royal family to give up their claims, as we see with Aemon and Duncan the Small, with the latter in a direct live to the throne, so why couldn't a King rescind his rights and resign as well? We also know that it's possible for a king to join the NW because Nymeria sends several (admittedly defeated) kings to the Wall.

Of course, for someone who actually wants to be Kign and has every intention of becoming one that seems like a very strange course of action to take once he succeeds.

[Maid So Fair]

He was offering to legitimate Jon and he has not yet a crown.

Considering Stannis already calls himself King, I think he can, or at least could if he wanted to.

Yes, and IIRC Jon among other things reflects on the fact that Stannis's authority to do so is pretty dodgy and basically only applies to those willing to follow him. I'll try to dig out a quote, but it's common sense, really. Why should anyone who doesn't consider Stannis his or her King care who the man chooses to legitimise?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Yes, and IIRC Jon among other things reflects on the fact that Stannis's authority to do so is pretty dodgy and basically only applies to those willing to follow him. I'll try to dig out a quote, but it's common sense, really. Why should anyone who doesn't consider Stannis his or her King care who the man chooses to legitimise?

I suppose the North would matter. But yeah, you're right.

[James Arryn]

It's not something any King has done before voluntarily, but I see no real reason why not if there is a clear heir. It would be a bit like Joer Mormont taking the black to make space for his son to rule. Mormonts are no where close to royalty of course, but the principle is the same. It seems possible for members of the royal family to give up their claims, as we see with Aemon and Duncan the Small, with the latter in a direct live to the throne, so why couldn't a King rescind his rights and resign as well? We also know that it's possible for a king to join the NW because Nymeria sends several (admittedly defeated) kings to the Wall.Of course, for someone who actually wants to be Kign and has every intention of becoming one that seems like a very strange course of action to take once he succeeds.

The issue with feudal abdication isn't how it affects the king, but what it does to the fealties of his barons. He is effectively breaking his agreement, and feudal fealty isn't inherited, so it would involve another succession crisis. Some historically sought to overcome this by appointing their heir as co-ruler while they still lived, but even that can prove tricky.

That aside, the real factor would be how binding the new ruler finds the oath precluding the abdicated ruler from resuming contestation. If he/she isn't totally convinced, the ex-ruler would usually become an ex-person pretty quickly. It doesn't require their intentions to contest, but merely what could be done 'in their name'.

[Mikkel]

Yes, and IIRC Jon among other things reflects on the fact that Stannis's authority to do so is pretty dodgy and basically only applies to those willing to follow him. I'll try to dig out a quote, but it's common sense, really. Why should anyone who doesn't consider Stannis his or her King care who the man chooses to legitimise?

Indeed. I mean I hate to sound like a broken record, and I realize Varys' story about power gets brought up way too often, but it does that because it applies to so damn much. In this case, too. Stannis has the power to legitimize Jon, but it only counts to those that believe Stannis to have that power. Similarly with Ramsay "Bolton" Snow, in the event he survives, but the Boltons no longer rule the North, it means that King Tommen's decision to legitimize him counts for very little.

[Maid So Fair]

Re: Authority to legitimise. We actually encounter a very similar situation when Littlefinger as the alleged Lord Protector of the Vale awards Nestor Royce the Gates of the Moon in perpetuity. He does so specifically because he knows that it obliges Nestor to recognise him as Lord Protector or risk eventually losing his new castle when the alternative/future Lords of the Vale declare LF's title and therefore his decrees illegitimate.

[TheWolfHeart]

I think that it would be helpful to look at the law in Westeros (or the lack of law) when it comes to government.

I don't believe there is a written Constitution or Charter that lays out how the central government will function. The central government being the Iron Throne (or the Crown if you like).

In the absence of any formal text I would argue that what goes on in Westeros is a form of common law, or law that is understood by the majority of the population but not necessarily written down.

This common law is established by precedence. Aegon, the first King of Westeros, established precedence when he passed away and his son Aenys took control of the Iron Throne. There was no opposition to this succession.

Westeros is an absolute monarchy yet it holds true to the idea of "government by consent of the governed." The government is the Iron Throne and House Targ (because they created and hold the Iron Throne). The governed in this case are the various Houses that Aegon conquered. Small folk are given little to no rights in the common law. Its a feudal society headed by the Iron Throne. Houses that opposed Aegon were defeated in battle and either no longer exist or eventually bent the knee.

"Consent" here, I believe, means "bending the knee." Each house that bent the knee to Aegon then had its own succession and continued to live under the situation their predecessor created when he bent the knee to Aegon. This, again, establishes precedence. The heir to the Stark who bent the knee did not oppose the governmental system when he "took office."

I mentioned "opposition" higher in the post. What I believe constitutes opposition in Westeros is armed rebellion. What constitutes consent is bending the knee. There seems to be no middle ground. One either bends the knee or is deemed to be in rebellion to the Iron Throne.

There is no process in which a King can be removed from power ie. impeachment and even if there was there is nothing stated explicitly that would disrupt the precedence established by Aegon passing power to his son. There are no Houses of Parliaments or Congresses. The Iron Throne constitutes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. (The Hand of the King serves as a Prime Minister but he is appointed by the king and can be removed by the King. Same with the Small Council. These two bodies/offices were established by the Iron Throne and can be done away with by the Iron Throne.)

Therefore the only measure available to the "governed" is armed rebellion when it comes to removing a King from office (and the same can be said about lesser nobles that live under the various Houses -- remember it is a feudal society). This is the measure taken by Robert Baratheon and his allies. As a result of Robert's rebellion the King was dead. The Iron Throne stood vacant.

Now, I do not believe that because a Targ king is "removed from office" that his heir would automatically be seated in his place. There is no precedence for such a succession. I don't believe that a Targ king was ever foricibly removed from office by forces outside of House Targ and then the immediate Targ heir ascended to the Throne.

Robert's Rebellion establishes the NEW precedence in which a non-Targ can remove a Targ from office and said non-Targ can become the King. No Targ heir or force loyal to a Targ heir came forth to remove Robert. However, there was "opposition" to King Robert from the Iron Islands. The Iron Islands choose to oppose King Robert and an armed conflict came to pass. The Iron Islands then BENT THE KNEE to King Robert. There was no more opposition. A member of the "governed", in this case, the Iron Islands (House Greyjoy) engaged in an attempt to remove the King and failed and subsequently Bent the Knee. Remember, those are the only two options available to the "governed."

King Robert then dies and again establishes a New Precedence in which his son and heir takes the Iron Throne. There was no opposition to this transfer of power. Therefore the Iron Throne is controlled by the leader of House Baratheon based on Westerosi common law and Iron Throne precedence. However, we all know that Tommen Baratheon is really Tommen Lannister, therefore it is House Lannister that ursurped the Iron Throne as they did not engage in armed conflict to destroy the Baratheon's hold on the office. Remember, there are two options available to the governed and the Lannisters didn't choose either, making them operating outside of Westerosi common law and precedence.

Therefore Stannis Baratheon, the true and rightful heir to Robert Baratheon, is the King of Westeros and the first men and blah blah.

If the Targs want control of the Iron Throne back then they must engage in armed rebellion and win it and then establish a new precedent in which a Targ holds the Iron Throne and receieves no opposition and then transfers power to the rightful Targ heir with no opposition.

[James Arryn]

I think that it would be helpful to look at the law in Westeros (or the lack of law) when it comes to government.

I don't believe there is a written Constitution or Charter that lays out how the central government will function. The central government being the Iron Throne (or the Crown if you like).

In the absence of any formal text I would argue that what goes on in Westeros is a form of common law, or law that is understood by the majority of the population but not necessarily written down.

This common law is established by precedence. Aegon, the first King of Westeros, established precedence when he passed away and his son Aenys took control of the Iron Throne. There was no opposition to this succession.

Westeros is an absolute monarchy yet it holds true to the idea of "government by consent of the governed." The government is the Iron Throne and House Targ (because they created and hold the Iron Throne). The governed in this case are the various Houses that Aegon conquered. Small folk are given little to no rights in the common law. Its a feudal society headed by the Iron Throne. Houses that opposed Aegon were defeated in battle and either no longer exist or eventually bent the knee.

"Consent" here, I believe, means "bending the knee." Each house that bent the knee to Aegon then had its own succession and continued to live under the situation their predecessor created when he bent the knee to Aegon. This, again, establishes precedence. The heir to the Stark who bent the knee did not oppose the governmental system when he "took office."

I mentioned "opposition" higher in the post. What I believe constitutes opposition in Westeros is armed rebellion. What constitutes consent is bending the knee. There seems to be no middle ground. One either bends the knee or is deemed to be in rebellion to the Iron Throne.

There is no process in which a King can be removed from power ie. impeachment and even if there was there is nothing stated explicitly that would disrupt the precedence established by Aegon passing power to his son. There are no Houses of Parliaments or Congresses. The Iron Throne constitutes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. (The Hand of the King serves as a Prime Minister but he is appointed by the king and can be removed by the King. Same with the Small Council. These two bodies/offices were established by the Iron Throne and can be done away with by the Iron Throne.)

Therefore the only measure available to the "governed" is armed rebellion when it comes to removing a King from office (and the same can be said about lesser nobles that live under the various Houses -- remember it is a feudal society). This is the measure taken by Robert Baratheon and his allies. As a result of Robert's rebellion the King was dead. The Iron Throne stood vacant.

Now, I do not believe that because a Targ king is "removed from office" that his heir would automatically be seated in his place. There is no precedence for such a succession. I don't believe that a Targ king was ever foricibly removed from office by forces outside of House Targ and then the immediate Targ heir ascended to the Throne.

Robert's Rebellion establishes the NEW precedence in which a non-Targ can remove a Targ from office and said non-Targ can become the King. No Targ heir or force loyal to a Targ heir came forth to remove Robert. However, there was "opposition" to King Robert from the Iron Islands. The Iron Islands choose to oppose King Robert and an armed conflict came to pass. The Iron Islands then BENT THE KNEE to King Robert. There was no more opposition. A member of the "governed", in this case, the Iron Islands (House Greyjoy) engaged in an attempt to remove the King and failed and subsequently Bent the Knee. Remember, those are the only two options available to the "governed."

King Robert then dies and again establishes a New Precedence in which his son and heir takes the Iron Throne. There was no opposition to this transfer of power. Therefore the Iron Throne is controlled by the leader of House Baratheon based on Westerosi common law and Iron Throne precedence. However, we all know that Tommen Baratheon is really Tommen Lannister, therefore it is House Lannister that ursurped the Iron Throne as they did not engage in armed conflict to destroy the Baratheon's hold on the office. Remember, there are two options available to the governed and the Lannisters didn't choose either, making them operating outside of Westerosi common law and precedence.

Therefore Stannis Baratheon, the true and rightful heir to Robert Baratheon, is the King of Westeros and the first men and blah blah.

If the Targs want control of the Iron Throne back then they must engage in armed rebellion and win it and then establish a new precedent in which a Targ holds the Iron Throne and receieves no opposition and then transfers power to the rightful Targ heir with no opposition.

Firstly, absolute rule and feudal rule are not the same thing.

Secondly, we see examples of fealty being demanded/given, meaning that the normal feudal association applies.

Third, precedent isn't as you are suggesting. Yes, Aenys succeeded Aegon...but Aenys was not succeeded by his son, but rather his brother. Hence there is no linear process established by precedent excepting some combination of blood claim and the power to enforce it. And the further deviations from direct inheritance since added other wrinkles; gender, popularity, sanity, competence, etc.

Lastly, what we as readers know is not known to Westeros, nor is it necessarily complete, and therefore does not affect common law even were that the standard at play.

[TheWolfHeart]

Firstly, absolute rule and feudal rule are not the same thing.

Secondly, we see examples of fealty being demanded/given, meaning that the normal feudal association applies.

Third, precedent isn't as you are suggesting. Yes, Aenys succeeded Aegon...but Aenys was not succeeded by his son, but rather his brother. Hence there is no linear process established by precedent excepting some combination of blood claim and the power to enforce it. And the further deviations from direct inheritance since added other wrinkles; gender, popularity, sanity, competence, etc.

Lastly, what we as readers know is not known to Westeros, nor is it necessarily complete, and therefore does not affect common law even were that the standard at play.

1. Absolute rule does exist in Westeros even in the feudal system. Absolute rule was established by Aegon the Conquerer. The Iron Throne represents the Surpeme Rule of the Land. It is the Executive, the Judicial, and the Leglislative Branch of the Central Government. That's the meaning of absolute rule. Aegon allowed the lower Houses to serve as the government in their areas. All of the layers of government below the Iron Throne ie the Houses below it, follow its dictates.

2. Never said this doesn't happen.

3. I clearly said that the precedent established included the passing of power to the next rightful heir. So, yes, this can include a brother in place of a lack of sons. And even if a brother took power over a son it would not cancel out Stannis' claim, in fact it would strenghten it.

4. What we as readers know can only come from what we read. Westeros is a mythical place. However, I have not seen mention of a legislative body or a recall mechanism that can remove a king from power. What does take place when it comes to how a King's position is handled is "bending the knee" or armed conflict. That's what I based my entire post on.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

1. Absolute rule does exist in Westeros even in the feudal system. Absolute rule was established by Aegon the Conquerer. The Iron Throne represents the Surpeme Rule of the Land. It is the Executive, the Judicial, and the Leglislative Branch of the Central Government. That's the meaning of absolute rule. Aegon allowed the lower Houses to serve as the government in their areas. All of the layers of government below the Iron Throne ie the Houses below it, follow its dictates.

:bs:

Please read about absolutism and feudalism. The two are mutually exclusive. And your definition of absolutism is not correct in any case.

[Monctonvike]

For arguments sake, say Aegon ends up on the throne once the Lannisters are out of the Red Keep. That would mean Stannis is no longer has the rightful claim to the throne. Do you think he would stand aside for the rightful Targaryen family to continue their rule, or would he usurp?

Since his whole claim has been about him having the best claim, surely he would stand aside. Thoughts?

I could see him stepping aside for Jon if somehow he were convinced of the R+L=J, I don't think he would for Dany or Aagon unless it was proven somehow that Agon is not fAagon

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

1. Absolute rule does exist in Westeros even in the feudal system. Absolute rule was established by Aegon the Conquerer. The Iron Throne represents the Surpeme Rule of the Land. It is the Executive, the Judicial, and the Leglislative Branch of the Central Government. That's the meaning of absolute rule. Aegon allowed the lower Houses to serve as the government in their areas. All of the layers of government below the Iron Throne ie the Houses below it, follow its dictates.

Err... no. If a mighty local prince has at his disposal a powerful army loyal to him first, and to the Crown maybe, possibly, in the second place, then it's not an absolute monarchy. If there is a mighty local prince, then it's not an absolute monarchy. Hell, the power struggle between the Iron Throne and the nobility is the major part of the political component of the plot. I bet you haven't actually missed it.

[C.T. Phipps]

Its why the letter is important.

Rob may be dead but it's worth its weight in gold to Northmen.

We're also getting to the heart of the law, really.

The law exists by the consent of the governed.

Even if many dislike it.

Stannis is already a King but his authority extends only to those who recognize him as King.

[TheWolfHeart]

I should clarify and say that I meant absolutism as in that the irom throne constitutes the head of government aand head of state. The feudal system exists because aegon inherited it from the westerosi and allowed it to continue.

[TheWolfHeart]

And if the iron throne isn't the big chief then why is this war occuring?

[James Arryn]

1. Absolute rule does exist in Westeros even in the feudal system. Absolute rule was established by Aegon the Conquerer. The Iron Throne represents the Surpeme Rule of the Land. It is the Executive, the Judicial, and the Leglislative Branch of the Central Government. That's the meaning of absolute rule. Aegon allowed the lower Houses to serve as the government in their areas. All of the layers of government below the Iron Throne ie the Houses below it, follow its dictates.

2. Never said this doesn't happen.

3. I clearly said that the precedent established included the passing of power to the next rightful heir. So, yes, this can include a brother in place of a lack of sons. And even if a brother took power over a son it would not cancel out Stannis' claim, in fact it would strenghten it.

4. What we as readers know can only come from what we read. Westeros is a mythical place. However, I have not seen mention of a legislative body or a recall mechanism that can remove a king from power. What does take place when it comes to how a King's position is handled is "bending the knee" or armed conflict. That's what I based my entire post on.

1) Well, first off it's not a centralized government. You are applying post-nationalistic terminology. All forms of monarchy by definition contain power within one person in theory. It's in practice where we distinguish the various forms, and while feudalism is phlegmatic in specifics, it's easy to spot it's presence as distinct from absolute power by virtue of things like...(cont'd below)

2) You may not think you've not said it doesn't happen, but in fact by stating the IT as an absolute rather than feudal form of power, you are. Fealty is necessary to a feudal system, and completely redundant/unnecessary in an absolutist state.

3) no, the brother took power when a son existed. Hence non-linear succession precedent. It absolutely strengthens' Stannis claim vs. Joff, but only in so much as it opens the succession up to many claimants. The very fact of a non-linear precedent invalidates the concept of linear necessity. Better for Stannis vs. Joff, worse for Stannis vs. Renly, Robb, Balon, Edric, etc.

4) you misunderstood my point, I think. An appeal to common law as the basis for succession requires an ability for the applicable factors to be evident or made evident to the commonality. No one outsid of Cersei 'knows' that the kids aren't Robert's. Not even her confession to infidelity would establish that as fact, unless Robert were shown to be impotent (evidence to the contrary) or that the marriage wasn't consummated, which has never been claimed. So common law says the kids are Robert's.

What we know about twincest makes no more difference to the common law than my contention that Stannis is Cressen's son, as all other Baratheons have thick hair and a joi de vivre.