Velaryon (and Hightower?) right to the throne

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

stuff

If Selwyn Tarth is the closest living relative the to the royal dynasty in control of a rebel faction then he could easily fulfill such a role as figurehead. There are more than enough historical examples for that. Just look at Henry Tudor who, most likely, had good a legal claim to the English throne as Selwyn Tarth would have to Iron Throne.

TWoIaF also gives us scenario in which distant relatives - second cousins, for instance - took over after the royal branch died (best example there is the Mern VI Gardener, second cousin of Garth X, who took over after the civil war in the wake of the death Garth Greybeard).

If there is a 'natural succession crisis' (say, the entire royal family died at Summerhall or during some freak accident) then people would also have to go back to the closest relative of the royal family. And if there is, for some reason, no squabble about that, a guy like Selwyn Tarth could easily come to the throne.

And then some goes for a rebel movement in need of a figurehead. Half the Blackfyre loyalists most likely never believed that any son of Daemon's had a good claim to the throne. They just used the narrative about 'the rightful king' as a pretext for their rebellion.

My point in the end was that if we assume that Robert's Rebellion had had no leader or figurehead with a legal claim to the Iron Throne (i.e. neither a Robert Baratheon or his brothers, nor a Selwyn Tarth) then they would either have been forced to work with Viserys III or call a Great Council or something similar after they won to find a new king if they didn't want to take any of the exiled Targaryen pretenders.

Just some dude taking the throne wouldn't have worked and would have quickly led to the fragmentation of the Realm.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Just some dude taking the throne wouldn't have worked and would have quickly led to the fragmentation of the Realm.

There have also been real world exambles of new, unrelated, dynasties taking over the overthrown ones. I feel lazy right now to search for in-story precedents but I expect there would be (of the pre-Targaryen era).

You can't say it wouldn't and it would, about developements of "socio-historical" nature with even half the certainty of that last line. It's not physics.

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

There have also been real world exambles of new, unrelated, dynasties taking over the overthrown ones. I feel lazy right now to search for in-story precedents but I expect there would be (of the pre-Targaryen era).

You can't say it wouldn't and it would, about developements of "socio-historical" nature with even half the certainty of that last line. It's not physics.

We can make educated guesses. Robert's victory dealt a severe blow to the legitimacy of the kingship of the Iron Throne (which is also very evident in both Renly and Stannis claiming the throne after his death as well as the continuous Greyjoy rebellions) but it is also quite clear that the majority of the society isn't likely to support claimants and pretenders with no royal blood whatsoever. That is apparent in regards to the Iron Throne, the North, and even the Iron Islands (only the Greyjoy claimants had a real chance at the Kingsmoot!).

Having royal blood or claiming to have royal blood is important coin in the political game. It gives you a level of legitimacy that no no-name claimant can have. This doesn't mean that only claimants with royal blood can win, but right now the majority of Westeros isn't willing to back a claimant that has no royal blood at all.

I'm not saying this cannot happen, I'm just saying this point hasn't been reached yet. Littlefinger easily could be the Iron Throne with bread and possibly even set himself up as god-king if the coming wars also devastate the Reach, destroying the crops there.

And there is certainly historical precedent for all that, I never doubted that. The rise of House Teague in the Riverlands certainly is an example (but then, they were never loved by the subjects due to the fact that they were up-jumped outsiders lacking legitimacy).

I dare to make the prediction that the Iron Throne will never survive the eradication of the Targaryen and/or the final extinction of the dragons (if it comes to either of that) because then no dynasty will ever have the universally accepted authority to rule over the entirety of Westeros.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

...

And there is certainly historical precedent for all that, I never doubted that. The rise of House Teague in the Riverlands certainly is an example (but then, they were never loved by the subjects due to the fact that they were up-jumped outsiders lacking legitimacy).

...

What I've been trying to say all along is that a person with, say, Selwyn Tarth's proximity to the main line of the previous dynasty, would not be regarded much differently. He'd be practically viewed as random. I've brought up the examble of the Vale cousin in regards to the North succession problem. Robb was right, I believe.

 

Robert's proximity was on the verge, IMO.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

What I've been trying to say all along is that a person with, say, Selwyn Tarth's proximity to the main line of the previous dynasty, would not be regarded much differently. He'd be practically viewed as random. I've brought up the examble of the Vale cousin in regards to the North succession problem. Robb was right, I believe.

 

Robert's proximity was on the verge, IMO.

Well, but there are many historical examples for claimants with such distant relations to the royal family rising to the throne. You can take Henry Tudor or the rise of the House of Hanover to the British throne as examples. Not to mention that there were very rigid regulations in many monarchies cutting close relations out of the succession (for instance, for the reasons of a morganatic marriage and the like.

The idea that people in Westeros (as well in real world aristocratic societies) forget the value of royal and noble blood is simply wrong. The throne cannot remain vacant. There may be some debate - and perhaps even a war - to settle who of the distant relations has the best claim, but usually people don't dismiss the claims of the distant relations to the main line out of hand.

The Vale cousins were a problem for Robb's succession policy because he didn't know them and no control over them (or access to them). Naming one of them would simply not have worked considering that Lysa most likely wouldn't have allowed them to leave the Vale in the first place. But there are examples of stuff like that working pretty well - Harry the Heir being the prime example for that.

[SeanF]

18 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

There have also been real world exambles of new, unrelated, dynasties taking over the overthrown ones. I feel lazy right now to search for in-story precedents but I expect there would be (of the pre-Targaryen era).

You can't say it wouldn't and it would, about developements of "socio-historical" nature with even half the certainty of that last line. It's not physics.

The Roman Empire is certainly one example of a society in which an unrelated dynasty could seize power.

But, I think Westeros (like medieval Europe) is a society in which claimants  are expected to be able to show some link to the former King.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

The Roman Empire is certainly one example of a society in which an unrelated dynasty could seize power.

But, I think Westeros (like medieval Europe) is a society in which claimants  are expected to be able to show some link to the former King.

The Roman Empire wasn't a medieval monarchy - more something like of a military dictatorship in which essentially the supreme general ruled. The army - and essentially only the army - was the institution that kept you in power. However, there were some stable dynasties stretching over a couple of generations - but royal or even noble blood wasn't really that important.

There were, of course, usurpations and such in European monarchies in the middle ages but England aside those weren't all that common. You just have to look at the age of some of the royal houses which exist to this day.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, but there are many historical examples for claimants with such distant relations to the royal family rising to the throne. You can take Henry Tudor or the rise of the House of Hanover to the British throne as examples. Not to mention that there were very rigid regulations in many monarchies cutting close relations out of the succession (for instance, for the reasons of a morganatic marriage and the like.

The idea that people in Westeros (as well in real world aristocratic societies) forget the value of royal and noble blood is simply wrong. The throne cannot remain vacant. There may be some debate - and perhaps even a war - to settle who of the distant relations has the best claim, but usually people don't dismiss the claims of the distant relations to the main line out of hand.

The Vale cousins were a problem for Robb's succession policy because he didn't know them and no control over them (or access to them). Naming one of them would simply not have worked considering that Lysa most likely wouldn't have allowed them to leave the Vale in the first place. But there are examples of stuff like that working pretty well - Harry the Heir being the prime example for that.

No, this is not the reason at all, not in the text. The reason is clearly stated and it's that such a person means nothing to the North, his claim means nothing to the North, he'd command no loyalty because of his great grandmother.

 

49 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Roman Empire is certainly one example of a society in which an unrelated dynasty could seize power.

But, I think Westeros (like medieval Europe) is a society in which claimants  are expected to be able to show some link to the former King.

What exactly was Aegon the conqueror's link to the former kings of the seven kingdoms?

[Lord Varys]

32 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

No, this is not the reason at all, not in the text. The reason is clearly stated and it's that such a person means nothing to the North, his claim means nothing to the North, he'd command no loyalty because of his great grandmother.

 

What exactly was Aegon the conqueror's link to the former kings of the seven kingdoms?

The Vale cousins aren't even discussed in the books. Cat mentions Jocelyn Stark's marriage, her three daughters, and the houses in which they (supposedly) married into (she isn't sure about the Templeton match there) but Robb dismisses the whole idea out of hand - not because that's no option, but because he doesn't want to name any of those cousins his heir. He wants to disinherit Sansa and (presumably) legitimize and name Jon Snow his heir. And that's what he apparently does.

As King in the North Robb could have forced his bannerman to affix their seals to his last will and/or swear an oath of obeisance to both Jon Snow or a some Vale cousin - he was the king, and the king commands, he doesn't ask for permission.

The Conqueror united the Seven Kingdoms and created the Iron Throne. You don't have to have a blood link to anything if you are a conqueror. Aegon was a foreign monarch who invaded Westeros and subdued all his enemies outside of Dorne.

But that was a war among equals. Monarchs deal with their peers this way. But rebels and usurpers are traitors, plain and simple. As a vassal and subject you don't have a right to take up arms against your king - a foreign monarch is no man's subject and can do as he pleases. Those were (and are) very important differences stretching even into today's international law. If I lead a rebellion against my head of state and/or try to topple the government by force I'm a criminal. But I were the head of state of a foreign nation declaring war on my neighbor I'm just doing what I can do according to international law.

A successful rebellion like Robert's set a dangerous precedent for a subject rising against his sovereign and toppling him. If Robert can do that, nearly everyone can - especially if he says he just became king because he had the bigger warhammer. If that really was true then anyone with a sword can become, basically. And you actually don't want to communicate that if you want to hand the kingdom to your son.

Robert is a unique case considering that he actually hated the Targaryens so much that he wanted to distance himself from them.