So who actually has a rightful claim to the Iron Throne now? [SPOILERS]

[RoamingRonin]

This idea that Robert just woke up one day and decided to steal a throne from Targaryen babies is just Targ propaganda. It's complete bullshit.

So is the idea that Robert started the rebellion to save the realm from the evil Mad King. Example:

:agree:

I always tell these Targ loyalist fans to think of this situation.

The president of your country decides to randomly burn houses (maybe yours).

Has women dragged out and raped publically

Large number of children burned alive in front of you.

Kills every protestant.

All just for "fun".

You probably are homeless, have your family degraded and destroyed. Have no food and in addition forced to pay twice the tax or die.

Would you call a person who stood up against this a "savior" or a "usurper"?

Would he be the person who "wrongfully" took power away from the president?

The person you were responding to didnt even imply Robert just decided to claim thr throne. You created that argument.

[El Guapo]

Didnt Aegon do something similar then?

He overthrew kings and crowned himself king.

Sure, there might have been some lords 300 years ago who thought Aegon was a usurper but given the fact that Aegon's family was able to rule the seven kingdoms for 300 years that feeling has long since died. That is what gives the Targaryens legitimacy.

[RoamingRonin]

Didnt Aegon do something similar then?

He overthrew kings and crowned himself king.

Yes but he didnt make Harrenhal or Winterfell his seat. He didnt claim blood ties to any Westerosi family. He built his own castle, his own throne and made his own city to rule from. That's why Robert is a usurper and Aegon is a conqueror.

[Mithras]

Dany does not have a rightful claim to even the foulest chamberpot in the Red Keep.

[The Tower of Almond Joy]

What if Stannis legitimized Gendry in the parchment which he entrusted to Davos?

Or Edric Storm?

Who now holds Storms End? and Dragonstone?

[robasp2]

Yes but he didnt make Harrenhal or Winterfell his seat. He didnt claim blood ties to any Westerosi family. He built his own castle, his own throne and made his own city to rule from. That's why Robert is a usurper and Aegon is a conqueror.

Good.

Now I understand, that you answered my question specefically.

If Robert had made storms end his capital and not used the targeryan blood card, he would not be a usurper :D

[robasp2]

The person you were responding to didnt even imply Robert just decided to claim thr throne. You created that argument.

That is why there is a frikkin "I agree" at the top.

The remaining was for the Targ fans..

Anyway I got my answer now, case closed :p

[OldGimletEye]

So is the idea that Robert started the rebellion to save the realm from the evil Mad King. Example:

The person you were responding to didnt even imply Robert just decided to claim thr throne. You created that argument.

You know damn well why the war broke out. Or should know.

That's why Robert is a usurper and Aegon is a conqueror.

Seems to me like a Judean People's Front vs. The People's Front of Judea situation.

[RoamingRonin]

According to who?

"You had the better claim, your grace." That better claim comes from Robert's Targaryen grandmother.

The characters in the books seem to be fully aware of just how dangerous a displaced heir can be:

"A poisoned prize. House Darry is extinguished in the male line, House Tully is not. That muttonhead Ser Ryman puts a noose round Edmure's neck, but will not hang him. And Roslin Frey has a trout growing in her belly. My grandsons will never be secure in Riverrun so long as any Tully heir remains alive."

And why does Ser Kevan have Lancel marry Amerie Frey? Because she has Darry blood.

"On that we can agree," Ser Kevan said, "but the girl is of the blood of Aegon the Conqueror, and I do not think she will be content to remain in Meereen forever. If she should reach these shores and join her strength to Lord Connington and this prince of his, feigned or no … we must destroy Connington and his pretender now, before Daenerys Stormborn can come west."

Why doesn't Ser Kevan just go, "Oho, guys, don't worry. Dany can't claim the throne because of the Great Council so let's all just chill." Or dismiss her because she is a female? Because all that matters is that her last name is Targaryen.

Those that come second will always have a weaker claim than those that came first.

That is why there is a frikkin "I agree" at the top.

The remaining was for the Targ fans..

Anyway I got my answer now, case closed :P

You mistake me, ser. I used your post to make a point but I wasn't talking to you directly :P.

You know damn well why the war broke out. Or should know.

So it's only Targaryen propaganda that bothers you? Gotcha.

Dany does not have a rightful claim to even the foulest chamberpot in the Red Keep.

Show me on the doll where the Targaryen hurt you.

[Sopranos With Swords]

An usurper is anyone who takes the throne without inheriting it. It doesn't matter if he was right or wrong. The fact that Robert took the throne was not what 'should' have happened - no council gathered to choose him nor was he the heir - and that controversy is what makes him an usurper. The fact that Aegon usurped power from a number of kings makes him - among other things - an usurper.

That isn't to say wither was wrong in the context, but if someone takes the throne that way then regardless of the ethics they are - by definition - an usurper. It doesn't matter where Robert's capital is, he took the title of ruler of the seven kingdoms/king of westeros etc. without consideration of succession of Aegon. Even Britain's little baby George can trace his bloodline to William the Conqueror. Not only that but even Robert's heir's legitimacy is openly questioned. Someone like Dany isn't 'owed' the crown, but if she took it in the same way Robert did she would, as far as legitimacy, have a far better argument to defend her invasion.

[OldGimletEye]

"You had the better claim, your grace." That better claim comes from Robert's Targaryen grandmother.

The characters in the books seem to be fully aware of just how dangerous a displaced heir can be:

And why does Ser Kevan have Lancel marry Amerie Frey? Because she has Darry blood.

You know, you keep quoting this particular line as if it ends the argument in your favor. But, you know, it does not. There is no fucking way that Robert Baratheon confirmed the legitimacy of Aerys' children over his own monarchy and his own progeny. If Robert's statement here was construed in the way you would have us believe, then that's exactly what he did. That doesn't make one iota of fucking sense.

I wouldn't be in denial that the Targaryen name carries some legitimacy. Certainly, a person with a Targaryen last name would most likely be seen as a more legitimate candidate for the throne than some random guy out of KL without a famous last name.

But, the precise issue in question here is whether the Targaryen last name trumps the legitimacy of Robert Baratheon's monarchy. I submit it does not, as Aerys's pissed much of the Targaryen legitmacy away. Both House Stark and House Arryn et al., and the banner men who followed them, have legitimate reasons to be uspset with the Targaryens.

Also, I am well aware that certain families have a certain amount of legitimacy in the regions they have historically ruled. The Starks have a great deal of legitimacy in the North. The Martells have a ton of it as their own people waged a war to boot the Targaryens out of Dorne when the Targs invaded. I am well aware how medieval type societies operate. But, that legitimacy can be pissed away, like the way Aerys pissed away a great deal Targaryen legitimacy. Or the legitimacy the Freys or Bolton's likely pissed away because of their involvement in the Red Wedding. In short, a famous last name isn't the only legitimizing norm in Westeros.

So it's only Targaryen propaganda that bothers you? Gotcha.

That and nonsensical fanboy horseshit. Particularly, when it supports absolutism, which I fucking detest with a passion. My hope is that Westeros will evolve into a place that has a little more respect for the law. Yours is evidently one that has Targaryen absolutism in place.

[Twenty of House Goodmen]

Again, depending on which line of succession you use-

FBaratheons: Tommen>Mycerlla>Stannis>Shireen>Daenerys

TBaratheons: Stannis>Shireen>Daenerys

Targaryens:Daenerys>Stannis>Shireen

So not only does she have a strong claim to the throne, but being that we the readers know that Cersei' kids are Lannister bastards, she is the rightful Queen now.

[Clariana]

The law never mattered actually, it's always been a matter of military power and alliances. "Rightful claim" doesn't mean anything.

Exactly in the Game of Thrones might makes right...

[Clariana]

I agree with the Dany part, there seem to be no other contenders. Apart from Dany I also can't think of anyone else in the show. But I still think she is going to have to fight for it.

Perhaps that is the reason for FAegon in the books? Dany would have to clear a run and more conflict was needed?

[Red Tiger]

If Robert was entitled to the throne because of Targ blood, then so was Jon Arryn and so were the Martells. Robert was king because he had 4 kingdoms backing him before he even swung his hammer once.

[King Zee]

Right now excluding Dany's claim, and any potential Blackfyres its Doran Martell who has the most Targaryean blood.

[Eddy1]

After looking through the past rulers of Westeros, it seems that the line of succession can't pass through a woman. Therefore, for example, neither Myrcella nor her son could inherit the throne. (This would also make Shireen's sacrifice slightly more understandable).

Robert's successor would therefore be some unknown second or third cousin descended from Robert's great-grandfather Lyonel Baratheon.

[RoamingRonin]

You know, you keep quoting this particular line as if it ends the argument in your favor. But, you know, it does not. There is no fucking way that Robert Baratheon confirmed the legitimacy of Aerys' children over his own monarchy and his own progeny. If Robert's statement here was construed in the way you would have us believe, then that's exactly what he did. That doesn't make one iota of fucking sense.

Ned said it not Robert. Robert said:

"And how long will this one remain an innocent?" Robert's mouth grew hard. "This child will soon enough spread her legs and start breeding more dragonspawn to plague me."

"The whore is pregnant!" The king's fist slammed down on the council table loud as a thunderclap. "I warned you this would happen, Ned. Back in the barrowlands, I warned you, but you did not care to hear it. Well, you'll hear it now. I want them dead, mother and child both, and that fool Viserys as well. Is that plain enough for you? I want them dead."

The Targaryens have the better claim and Robert knows it because the Iron Throne belonged to them until he took it. Drop all the F bombs you like. I'm dropping facts, not opinions.

But, the precise issue in question here is whether the Targaryen last name trumps the legitimacy of Robert Baratheon's monarchy. I submit it does not, as Aerys's pissed much of the Targaryen legitmacy away. Both House Stark and House Arryn et al., and the banner men who followed them, have legitimate reasons to be uspset with the Targaryens.

I remember your completely ridiculous belief that the Targaryens are no longer the rightful rulers because Mad Aerys broke some social contract between the crown and the people of the realm by being a terrible king.

What rubbish. Bad rulers come and go.

Or the legitimacy the Freys or Bolton's likely pissed away because of their involvement in the Red Wedding. In short, a famous last name isn't the only legitimizing norm in Westeros.

Examples?

Side-note: there are still Targaryen loyalist in the realm.

That and nonsensical fanboy horseshit.

Thanks for being honest. That makes you a hypocrite but an honest hypocrite, at least.

Particularly, when it supports absolutism, which I fucking detest with a passion.

I believe you do detest absolutism because you are doing a lot cursing and name-calling so of course that makes me want to take you seriously. Anyway, Martin made Westeros an example of an absolute monarchy, not me. He made it so that the people of the realm have to do exactly as the king says.

But tell me: is the belief that "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell" an example of absolutism?

My hope is that Westeros will evolve into a place that has a little more respect for the law. Yours is evidently one that has Targaryen absolutism in place.

... what law are you talking about? I swear you're making stuff up just because "that's how it should be so hmph." The king and his council make the laws. They don't fall from heaven.

[Numantia]

I am not sure about Westeros laws regarding this point... Considering that there are (apart of traditional father to son heritage), they exist only in G.R.R. Martin head's, and if needed (in case of Tommen & descendants? death) he will illustrate us (hopefully before any similar situation happens in the show...).

Taking traditional Royal families rules we have three options.

- As the ruling family is Baratheon family, having no Baratheon descendants we have to look for descendants from second sons.Of course, no royal heritage in females (they aren't Donish).

For this I've been trying to find Robert's ancestors. But I was unable to find any brother of Steffon or Lyonel. There was a Gowen Baratheon but who didn't have descendants. But probably there were some. In this case, their grandchildrens would have a claim to the throne as the closer relatives.

- In the absence of males, maybe then we can start considering Steffon or Lyonel daughter descendants. But again I didn't find any.

So probably there are many people which could hold a claim, but we would need G.R.R. Martin to create it in his mind (all houses may have a book with their marriages/birds and deaths,and maybe something similar is keep in the Citadel)

- In the absence of any Baratheon ancestry descendants (that probably exist) I believe that although the small council could hold enough power to legitimate Robert's bastard sons, as there are no genetic tools to verify that they are truly Robert's sons, there could appear hundreds of people claiming to be Robert's son... so even if they look Baratheonly, I doubt that they could be accepted as Robert's children and other lords would accept them and legitimate them...

So, we have two options: a democratic election (impossible to believe in a middle-ages based monarchy), or a war for the throne (as historically has happened always in many real kingdoms).

I dont't think that Daenerys could hold a claim because her link to Baratheon family cames from a female Targaryen (and of course no Lannister/Tyrell). However, not been a Daenerys fan, probably if a Targaryen appears in the absence of any Baratheon claim, with some dragons... he/she would be accepted as a king/queen.

We can create hypotheses, but in any case (Baratheon second son, or strange traditional law regarding crown heritage), we need to wait for Martin.

[CornCornSnow]

There was a War of Five Kings for the Iron Throne. Four of the Kings are dead, one glorious King still lives, with an army of proud vikings largely untouched by the recent conflict. Only Ramsey Bolton has the personal strength and military acumen to defeat Balon Greyjoy the Undying. So by logic, Balon will sit upon the Iron Throne with the North breaking away under Ramsey's rule.