Why are Targaryens considered rightful heirs to the throne?

[srini]

Westerosi society is not Law-based like our modern our modern society. So legal technicality is not important, "social acceptability" is far more important. King Robert was generally accepted as King because of his battlefield victories and blood ties to Tageryens. 

[Lord Freddy Blackfyre]

Well, The Targs create the United Kingdom of Westeros...Westeros is still a feudal monarchy...then you have to look what made Robert Baratheon "rightful King of Westeros".  While some argue that  '"right of conquest"  was enough to put Rober B in the IT is established in the books that Robert has a claim to the IT because he has royal blood, that's why the Lords of Westeros  consented that he and no other leader of the rebellion like Jon Arryn or Ned Stark would be King. That's why Robert was happy with the murder of Rhagar's children and his obssession with killing Viserys and Dany. Since Viserys was still alive and with an heir (Daenerys Stornborn, Princess of Dragonstone) Lord Robert Baratheon wasn't more than a simple usurper, just like Richard III.

[Tianzi]

8 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Very good! Since they made it, it’s theirs.  Think of it as a family heirloom passed down from one generation to the next.

Perhaps Danaerys can simply take it back to Valyria with her and leave Westeros in peace.

And the Westerosi will change the system to democracy, and give everyone equal rights

7 hours ago, Lord Freddy Blackfyre said:

Well, The Targs create the United Kingdom of Westeros...Westeros is still a feudal monarchy...then you have to look what made Robert Baratheon "rightful King of Westeros".  While some argue that  '"right of conquest"  was enough to put Rober B in the IT is established in the books that Robert has a claim to the IT because he has royal blood, that's why the Lords of Westeros  consented that he and no other leader of the rebellion like Jon Arryn or Ned Stark would be King. That's why Robert was happy with the murder of Rhagar's children and his obssession with killing Viserys and Dany. Since Viserys was still alive and with an heir (Daenerys Stornborn, Princess of Dragonstone) Lord Robert Baratheon wasn't more than a simple usurper, just like Richard III.

Yes, there is a feudal monarchy and it isn't goind anywhere, at least in the foreseeable future (it may even survive the White Walkers). We are talking 'rights' in this setting and the argument that 'a kingdom or people belong to noone!' is pointless.

We can say that the 'right' lies where the power lies, but it is only partly true. Having every next ruler starting a rebellion and taking the throne obviously does not go with the kingdom's and it inhabitants interests, so a system gets established. Just how a lord leaves his lands to his descendants, the kings leaves the kingdom to his heir. And any defferents are seen mostly negatively; Robb doesn't want to support Renly saying, that if he does, then his own bannermen will start fearing their younger brother getting ideas. Of course, if one has enough power, and/or the previous ruler was clearly cuckoo, s/he can be accepted as a ruler, but the matter of legitimacy still exists - see Robert being a Targ descendant, Dany deciding to marry a Mereenese noble, etc.

A part of legitimacy is tradition. Targs have been sitting on the IT a shitload of years, and the longer it took, the longer (if not the better) and more established their dynasty was. The Baratheon rule has a five minutes long tradition. The have not really established a dynasty, heck, they only had one undisputed king, and then the shitstorm hit. Stannis, bless him, ended as a page in somebody else's history book, Renly made it a paragraph, Joffrey and Tommen were both boys, both bastards (with the half of the kingdom well aware of that), both stupid, one a psychopath. The Baratheons don't have any legacy, besides RR.

Sure, we can talk 'the right of conquest', like Stannis did, and then he was all butthurt when Renly decided to play the 'I have a bigger army!' card. Having any guy who feels he has the power/he would do a better job as the king trying to force himself as a ruler is just trouble.

Besides, the king doesn't have to be the one doing the actual ruling (see: Robert), and s/he doesn't have to be the most genius person around, s/he just have to be smart enough not to do any harm. The people who should be elected based on their competence are in the council. The king can be just a nice, representative heir doing PR work and satisfying his subjects' thoughts that he's coming from a 59834275982346 yo dynasty, not out of the Flea Bottom.

So yeah, as far as 'rightful' goes, I'm going with the Targaryens, or maybe dividing the country and resurrecting the traditions of the Kings of the North, etc. Of course, it doesn't mean it's the best.

Setting up Jon and Tyrion as possible Targ descendants also might suggest setting them as somewhat 'truer' candidates than many other.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 3/6/2016 at 6:18 PM, Castigear said:

but Robert based his ascent partially on his distant Targaryen heritage

Not true. Robert took the Throne because of his war

On 3/6/2016 at 6:54 PM, Masha said:

Its not just "some people", its been implied that most smallfolk (aka majority of population) still call Robert, who is already famously dead, as usurper. 

When was that? Because the BwB which is supported by the smallfolk say that they protect Robert's Realm.

8 hours ago, Lord Freddy Blackfyre said:

is established in the books that Robert has a claim to the IT because he has royal blood,

Not true. In the books his blood was just one of the reason which was used in order to persuade the Targ supporters.

obssession with killing Viserys and Dany

again not true, if he was obsessed he would had killed them, the fact that they were alive during his reign proves you wrong.

That's why Robert was happy with the murder of Rhagar's children

Not true. The reason was who their father was.

[Kaibaman]

On 6/3/2016 at 4:47 AM, Kingpin said:

I am against hereditary rule or power of any sort. I don't even understand how even in modern times, some of the most supposedly advanced countries and educated people can tolerate monarchy. It's unthinkable to me me for someone to be anything just because he was born. 

So if Democracy is out of the question, then the person that is going to rule must be the most capable. Daenerys can of course try to get the throne, but she is not the rightful heir, noone is. If I had to choose someone, I'd pick one that knows the most and his perception is superior to everyone else.

Who are the characters that are above all else in knowning what is happening to the world and around them?

Littlefinger seems to be unaware of very few things if anything. 

Varys aswell, but it's questionable why he would support someone as ignorant as Daenerys, it's like giving your blessing to a child while Littlefinger wants to rule himself. Plus he got shot down by the priestess. 

Tywin and Olenna seem to be on top, possibly others I forget like the Iron Bank and Faceless men leadership. 

Last but not least Bran, he already knows things most people can never know, in detail the people who lived at that time couldn't perceive. He has a huge potential and if someone should rule it's him, because he's basically all knowing. 

Who has the better legal claim is no small matter. Had the lawful succession been followed, as opposed to defied and schemed against, the War of Five Kings would have been avoided or seriously mitigated. The lawful system of government has broken down because powerful actors have either chosen to break it down themselves or have decided to let it break down so they could pick up the pieces. The problem with Westeros is its a system where people matter more then laws.

Hereditary monarchy has its advantages in the premodern world. Edward Gibbon remarked that it might seem ridiculous for the bravest and wisest men to bow low before the cradle of an infant upon the death of his father, but this saves everyone from the dangerous pastime of finding themselves a master, a pastime that in larger countries will inevitably involve armies and appeals to pure force (as happened in the Roman Empire).

[Masha]

On 6/5/2016 at 7:52 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

 When was that? Because the BwB which is supported by the smallfolk say that they protect Robert's Realm.

 

Its all over the books, where several people - peasants, old women and such refer to Robert as "usurper" and in several POV there is a complaint and many still refer to Robert as "Usurper" and Aerys as "good king", I think it might have been Arya's, Brianne's and Jaime's POVs. 

BwB is not indicative of "smallfolk" they are basically made up by deserters and former retainers of Robb Stark's, King Robert's (not Lannister's or Frey's) armies,  

They are also led by nobles - especially Beric Dondarrion - there under direct orders from King Robert's hand Ned Stark, Thoros, the same, even Lady Stoneheart.

BwB claims to protect smallfalk - they are mostly made up of NOT smallfolk. At best we get former ministrel who served for nobles who had taken Robert's side.

I am talking about completely unrelated smallfolk - old woman in the hut, peasants trying to tilt the earth, innkeepers on the roads and so on, Not former retainers of nobles who had taken Rebellion's side.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

34 minutes ago, Masha said:

Its all over the books, where several people - peasants, old women and such refer to Robert as "usurper" and in several POV there is a complaint and many still refer to Robert as "Usurper" and Aerys as "good king", I think it might have been Arya's, Brianne's and Jaime's POVs. 

Haven't seen that. The only one who I remember saying that is Viserys and Jorah said that no one cares who sit on the IT.

34 minutes ago, Masha said:

BwB is not indicative of "smallfolk" they are basically made up by deserters and former retainers of Robb Stark's, King Robert's (not Lannister's or Frey's) armies,  

They are the closest thing we have to smallfolk since they are smallfolk and they are supported by smallfolk. The only highborns are Bric, Ned and zombieCat.

 

[BlueNightzx]

Robert was VERY popular, just see how renly did, and renly is said to be a copy of young robert
and under jon arryn the realm lived in peace and plenty, with the bonus of no noble lords burned alive.

and some say even in the good days of aerys, before his madness, tywin was the one who ruled anyway

i don't know about targaryens good old days, the wars with dorne, the dance of the dragons, the blackfyre rebellions, the conflicts with the faith. i believe the realm was a much in trouble as it was before aegon. or even worse maybe, since they neve heard the level of slaughter that dragons can create.

to me the claim of targaryens is a moral one" we created the iron throne, we united the seven kindgons"
but in reality they're just another noble house squabbling for power, only with dragons to answer for their bullsh*t
daenerys notions of reclaiming the IT are very selfish to me, at least stannis thought of "saving the realm" agains the WW, the boltons,(even if misguided), but dany is purely greed without reflection at this point.

to sum it up, power resides where men believe it resides, whoever is strong enough to conquer the IT, is the rightful ruler

and people forget that the rebellion did not came from robert's greed, Aerys fucked up things royally, his actions while king strips the targaryens of any moral claim to the throne in my opinion,

[Kingpin]

6 hours ago, Kaibaman said:

Who has the better legal claim is no small matter. Had the lawful succession been followed, as opposed to defied and schemed against, the War of Five Kings would have been avoided or seriously mitigated. The lawful system of government has broken down because powerful actors have either chosen to break it down themselves or have decided to let it break down so they could pick up the pieces. The problem with Westeros is its a system where people matter more then laws.

The problem? They do matter more. 

Noone should care about royal bloodlines and claims, there are no royals and no lords. There are more or less capable people, and they should rule. Noone should give up freedom and Democracy to trade a conflict with another, worse conflict. 

If all the kingdoms in Westeros burn in the process, so be it. No Lannisters, no Starks, no pledges. What has Sansa Stark have done in her life to demand people die so she gets her kingdom back? Why do they even feed her for free when others have to work hard for it? I don't understand this mentality, it's alien to me. 

6 hours ago, Kaibaman said:

Hereditary monarchy has its advantages in the premodern world. Edward Gibbon remarked that it might seem ridiculous for the bravest and wisest men to bow low before the cradle of an infant upon the death of his father, but this saves everyone from the dangerous pastime of finding themselves a master, a pastime that in larger countries will inevitably involve armies and appeals to pure force (as happened in the Roman Empire).

All types governments have some sort of advantage, doesn't make them good or better. 

To save the state from conflict I have to bow down to an infant? Yeah, no. Noone is superior to another one just because he was born. I am also against inheritance, noone should inherit power and wealth that is not due to his own effort except up to a point (house, car, family heirlooms etc).

I like meritocracy. 

[Masha]

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Haven't seen that. The only one who I remember saying that is Viserys and Jorah said that no one cares who sit on the IT.

They are the closest thing we have to smallfolk since they are smallfolk and they are supported by smallfolk. The only highborns are Bric, Ned and zombieCat.

 

Its among travelogue chapters for Arya, Brianne and Jaime (I think) when they go around just traveling and interacting with actual smallfolk. Usually it was muttered or said aside with the POV just noticing it and not paying attention.

Jorah and Viserys are not reliable witnesses, obviously.

Bwb is a group of former mercenaries peppered with some more of upper smallfolk types (blacksmiths, ministrel, etc) led by a former King Robert's men, of course they are loyal to Robert and influenced by their closeness to events. 

[RoamingRonin]

On June 5, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Not true. Robert took the Throne because of his war

When was that? Because the BwB which is supported by the smallfolk say that they protect Robert's Realm.

Not true. In the books his blood was just one of the reason which was used in order to persuade the Targ supporters.

again not true, if he was obsessed he would had killed them, the fact that they were alive during his reign proves you wrong.

Not true. The reason was who their father was.

Yes, it is true. It's from the books. He based his claim in part because of his grandmother. Ned himself says, "You had the better claim, your grace" which is a direct quote from the books. 

The small folk only care about surviving the game of thrones and the Brotherhood without Banners supplies their protection. The small folk aren't banner men flocking to their favorite standard so just because they support the Brotherhood doesn't mean the small folk support Robert. Besides: Robert Baratheon is dead and the Brotherhood have lost their way now that Stoneheart leads them. 

Your third statement contradicts your first and is a lie. It's never stated he uses his claim to sway Targaryen supporters. 

He wasn't obsessed with killing them but he most certainly tried or else why send Stannis to Dragonstone? Happy is perhaps not the best word for it but he was satisfied with the death of those "dragonspawn". Just hearing Dany is pregnant sends him in a fit of rage.

[Drogonthedread]

I don't know when will people realize

that aegon conquest is called conquest and Roberts called rebellion not conquest .

That he based his claim from his grandmother .

That there are people whi still acknowledge the claim dany has on iron throne.,,starting from robert, ned ,varys,renly,little finger, and pycelle and see barristan ...doran and other houses ..and mace and tywin's brother all acknowledges dany's claim.

That people still think dany is the Rightful ruler of seven kingdoms as they drink to the name of dany as "rightful queen" in prologue of AFFC

And how people remembered that aerys was far better than Robert...aerys left the treasurry full and Robert left the realm in huge debt and bankrupt..

So in short in the books its clear that as long as dany lives she is a threat to Roberts claim and that's why he wanted her to die .and as long as there is a IT  targs will have a claim...its simple as that 

[Protagoras]

What we have here is an excellent example of multiple dynasty claims to the same throne.

Just like in England with the Norman conquest and the establishment of the ruling family, the claim to the Iron Throne derives from the Targaryens, simply because they have held it for centuries. Same things about the Starks and Winterfell - they didn´t just lose Winterfell just because they were defeated by the crown and the Boltons. People still talk about the Starks of Winterfell. They therefore are not gone, regardless of the numbers of edicts and laws you put in place that say so. You dont remove 8000 years of history with the whim of a hand.

Similiary - Danys (as well as other Targaryen claimers) claim didn´t disappear just because Robert won the rebellion. Its very much still there, but will get weaker simply due to the passing of time. What the Baratheons needed to do was to found a dynasty who could hold the throne so long that it becomes the new standard. Setting such a tradition is hard but can be done - William the bastard (also know as the Conqueror) did it. You have to become the new tradition and that requires time. Just consider - if some nutjob would show up today 2016 and claim that Elizabeth II should give up her throne to him since he is the direct descendant to Harold the Saxon, he would be laughed at. No one would have laughed year 1116, but instead being seen as very serious. Over those 900 years something has happened - the Norman claim from William has become the standard for the english throne in a way it never was during Williams lifetime, despite all oaths of fealty given to him.

At this point in the book (and show as well I think) series it is very obvious that Baratheons have failed by creating such a standard. Their 15 year kingly dynasty is already wrecked by problems (The war of the five kings, bankrupting the realm, a northern secession) and are simply at this point not old, strong nor estabilshed enough to do more than slightly weaken the Targaryen claim. Both dynasties have claims, but traditionwise the Baratheon claim is the weak one. We are comparing 300 years to 15.

The so called "Right of conquest" is a red herring. If you want a legal perspective there's no such thing. What there is is a "right by my ancestors who took stuff and beat everyone up many, many years ago" and in order for it to be your stuff you need to hold it for so long with pure naked force until no one remembers any different.

And the Baratheons aren´t even close to this yet.

In general, just because you hold something right now with raw power for a while doesn´t make it yours directly, not really. Sure, Robert forced everyone to acknowledge him as king, but he knew people called him usurper behind his back and why wouldn't they. Why do people think he was chosen king in the first place? Well, he had the best claim of the rebels through the Targaryens, that's why (and wanted to kill the "dragonspawns" with a better one). This is Robert making an omitting -  the Targaryens with a better claim than Robert have been removed from succession, but that is an omittment you need to have naked force in order to uphold. Kingship is not the same as "instant ability to set laws and traditions" but rather "In time, people will accept my dynasty".

[Jon's Queen Consort]

9 hours ago, Drogonthedread said:

That he based his claim from his grandmother .

Quote or it never happened.

[devilish]

On 03/06/2016 at 6:30 PM, A Prince of Dorne said:

I think people were doing just fine under Robert's reign. Seems to me the smallfolk miss Robert quite a bit now

 

they were not doing fine. The idiotic king was piling more debt towards the Lannisters and the iron bank. Soon enough someone would have asked for their money back

[OldGimletEye]

44 minutes ago, devilish said:

 

they were not doing fine. The idiotic king was piling more debt towards the Lannisters and the iron bank. Soon enough someone would have asked for their money back

And how was that hurting the average person in Westeros?  Was it because everyone's pension plan was holding Westerosi bonds, as safe assets, to bring down the level of risk? Did Westerosi banks hold a lot of Robert Baratheon issued bonds?

Was Robert's borrowing so extensive, it was causing interest rates in Westeros to significantly rise, thereby crowding out private investment?

Robert's borrowing might have hurt his own monarchy. It might have hurt his ability to raise finances in case of an emergency.

But, it's not clear to me how it would have affected the average person all that much.

[Boarsbane]

49 minutes ago, devilish said:

 

they were not doing fine. The idiotic king was piling more debt towards the Lannisters and the iron bank. Soon enough someone would have asked for their money back

Tywin's grandchildren are the heirs to the IT, he's not going to someday be like "pay me back everything you owe me, or else." The Iron Bank is more problematic but I guess he can always borrow more money from Tywin or Mace if he has to.

[OldGimletEye]

14 hours ago, Drogonthedread said:

And how people remembered that aerys was far better than Robert...aerys left the treasurry full and Robert left the realm in huge debt and bankrupt..

No one old man, in the RL, remarked something about the good old days under Aerys. 
Except that old man showed he didn't know what he was talking about because a war did in fact break out under Aerys and Aerys was largely responsible for starting that war.
So, you support Dany for the throne. Okay fine. But you know, it's pretty sad when people have to start doing Aerys' apology.
But, hey, I know, despite the fact Aerys was a brutal maniac he was better than Robert because, because , he had better fiscal policy? Like seriously.
And if you are so worried about the fiscal health of Westeros long term, I'd submit that in reality that Westerosi fiscal health would probably be a lot better off without some absolutist tyrant in control.  Absolutist have a tendency to waste resources on bullshit (try reading some state development literature). So like for instance, the state of Westerosi finances or it's pattern of spending, long term, might not do so well, under, I don't know, some absolutist Khaleesi state backed by dragons and a huge Dothraki horde. Absolutist have a bad habit of wasting resources. If Westerosi fiscal policy is such a big concern here, I'd submit, that long term, the structure of Westerosi government is what matters here in the long run.
Maybe I do not know the ultimate question of who has the right to rule Westeros. But, what I do know is this: If Dany tries to vindicate Aerys in anyway, even in the slightest, or tries to vindicate his over reaches of power she can go fuck off. 

[RoamingRonin]

50 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No one old man, in the RL, remarked something about the good old days under Aerys. Except that old man showed he didn't know what he was talking about because a war did in fact break out under Aerys and Aerys was largely responsible for starting that war.

So, you support Dany for the throne. Okay fine. But you know, it's pretty sad when people have to start doing Aerys' apology. But, hey, I know, despite the fact Aerys was a brutal maniac he was better than Robert because, because , he had better fiscal policy? Like seriously.

And if you are so worried about the fiscal health of Westeros long term, I'd submit that in reality that Westerosi fiscal health would probably be a lot better off without some absolutist tyrant in control.  Absolutist have a tendency to waste resources on bullshit (try reading some state development literature). So like for instance, the state of Westerosi finances or it's pattern of spending, long term, might not do so well, under, I don't know, some absolutist Khaleesi state backed by dragons and a huge Dothraki horde. Absolutist have a bad habit of wasting resources. If Westerosi fiscal policy is such a big concern here, I'd submit, that long term, the structure of Westerosi government is what matters here in the long run.

Maybe I do not know the ultimate question of who has the right to rule Westeros. But, what I do know is this: If Dany tries to vindicate Aerys in anyway, even in the slightest, or tries to vindicate his over reaches of power she can go fuck off. 

If "absolutist have a tendency to waste resources" then why did Aerys leave the treasury overflowing with gold while Robert bankrupted the realm?

Ned Stark who was far from a Aerys apologist and that quote about the treasury comes from him. The fact that you're raging at Dany for hypothetically wasting resources yet you have nothing to say for Robert who actually bankrupted the crown is... 

[OldGimletEye]

18 minutes ago, RoamingRonin said:

If "absolutist have a tendency to waste resources" then why did Aerys leave the treasury overflowing with gold while Robert bankrupted the realm?

Ned Stark who was far from a Aerys apologist and that quote about the treasury comes from him. The fact that you're raging at Dany for hypothetically wasting resources yet you have nothing to say for Robert who actually bankrupted the crown is... 

I guess some people are not familiar with the concept of something being true "on average" and there being variation from those averages.

And I am not just talking about Dany here, but about her successors as well, long term. How her successor may or may not waste resources, over the long term, might very well depend on how the monarchy is structured as an institution.

Nice try. But, I think you need to try again.