Roswell Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 7 hours ago, Reekazoid said: This is a succinct and accurate summary, but I've often wondered how usurpation differs from conquest. For example, no one calls Aegon I Targaryen "Aegon the Usurper" even though a cavalcade of monarchs fell to him in battle or bent the knee before him. Is it usurpation and not conquest if you are a previous subject of the monarchy you win by battle or coup d'etat? Do you have to be in the line of succession in some capacity, and jump your place in line, or at least have royal blood, to be a usurper? Does usurpation require the existence of living heirs of the previous monarch to be considered usurpation proper? If a monarch dies with no heirs and there is no clearly defined legal system to clearly state who becomes king next, is whoever seizes the throne in a power vacuum a usurper? If there is a strict definition of usurpation somewhere that I've missed then I welcome education. But if Robert I Baratheon doesn't pass that test, I suspect that the definition of "Usurper" has more to do with what house/dynasty the definer likes better, or supported in the struggle for the throne. There was no unified kingdom before Aegon so he really didn't usurp anybody. He built the united land that we now call Westeros. Robert, otoh, rebelled against the lawful heirs of Aegon, and thus Robert is a lawbreaker. Robert's reign was illegal and the legal ruler of Westeros was Viserys with Daenerys as his heir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roswell Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 On 10/26/2017 at 2:55 PM, Pikachu101 said: Aerys lost the throne and the Targaryens were deposed, Viserys has no legal claim over the throne so he'd have to fight for it back, which Aegon is doing right now. The only legal heir is Stannis Baratheon, but technically Robb and Balon are also rightful kings because their kingdoms declared independence from Westeros. You can build a case for Stannis. You cannot build a case for Robb and Balon. You have to win independence first before you can call yourself king. The land can't have two kings and both the north and the iron islands are still part of the kingdom of Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endymion I Targaryen Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Joffrey is the rightful king. He is Robert's son and heir. Stannis did not provide any certain proof about the twincest. In the eyes of Westeroshi he is just a usurper. We readers of course know that Stannis is Robert's legal heir. Renly has no legal right to the throne. Robb is the rightful king of the North and Riverlands. Balon is the rightful king of the Iron Islands. They both renounced their loyalty to the Iron Throne and declared independence. Especially Robb was declared king by his subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 23 minutes ago, Endymion I Targaryen said: Joffrey is the rightful king. He is Robert's son and heir. Stannis did not provide any certain proof about the twincest. In the eyes of Westeroshi he is just a usurper. We readers of course know that Stannis is Robert's legal heir. Renly has no legal right to the throne. Forgive me but maybe its just me, but I don't see how Robb and Balon becomes the rightful kings of their respective regions. As far as I can see they are merely rebel pretenders to those crowns until they've forced the Iron Throne to relinquish its claims to these territories. Being named king by your supporters is all good but until the issue of who is the ultimate overlord of the mentioned regions I don't feel that it would be enough. Otherwise the Iron Throne would have had no business to put down the various Greyjoy Rebellions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 58 minutes ago, Endymion I Targaryen said: Especially Robb was declared king by his subjects. By his army at Riverrun. The vast, vast majority of his subjects did not crown him, the majority of the Lords of the North were not even given a voice on the matter. He was crowned by his army, led by (a possibly drunk) Greatjon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 11 hours ago, The Transporter said: You can build a case for Stannis. You cannot build a case for Robb and Balon. You have to win independence first before you can call yourself king. The land can't have two kings and both the north and the iron islands are still part of the kingdom of Westeros. You have a point, Robb lost the war so the North can't declare independence. Though now that the Lannisters are in disarray I can see Sansa and the Vale attempt another coup, the only issue will be the Riverlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endymion I Targaryen Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: Forgive me but maybe its just me, but I don't see how Robb and Balon becomes the rightful kings of their respective regions. As far as I can see they are merely rebel pretenders to those crowns until they've forced the Iron Throne to relinquish its claims to these territories. Being named king by your supporters is all good but until the issue of who is the ultimate overlord of the mentioned regions I don't feel that it would be enough. Otherwise the Iron Throne would have had no business to put down the various Greyjoy Rebellions. They chose not to have an overlord. I think that's enough. Whatever reaction comes from the Iron Throne is normal too. 4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: By his army at Riverrun. The vast, vast majority of his subjects did not crown him, the majority of the Lords of the North were not even given a voice on the matter. He was crowned by his army, led by (a possibly drunk) Greatjon. There were many riverlords and northern lords among this army, present at this meeting, who chose Robb instead of Renly, Stannis, Joffrey. And no Northman seems to question this decision later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirArthur Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 14 hours ago, The Transporter said: The land can't have two kings and both the north and the iron islands are still part of the kingdom of Westeros. Welll .... there was that thing with the king in prussia and funny enough Robb uses the same logic by calling himself king in the north and not king of the north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 17 minutes ago, Endymion I Targaryen said: There were many riverlords and northern lords among this army, Not that many Northern. Absent Lords and Ladies; Bolton, Manderly, Dustin, Ryswell, Hornwood, Cerwyn, Reed, Locke, Flint of Widow's Watch and Master Tallhart. It was a minority of Lords who swore him as King. 17 minutes ago, Endymion I Targaryen said: And no Northman seems to question this decision later on. What exactly are they going to do? The Greatjon was threatened with his life when he questioned Robb's orders when he was merely a son of a Lord, Karstark was executed for disobeying his King. They are hardly going to risk Robb and his armies wrath by rejecting his rule, certinaly not while he seems powerful enough to hurt them. And of course later on we see 3,500 Northmen join Roose at the Red Wedding in ending Robb's reign so the claim that no Northman questioned him as King does not ring true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygett Lannister Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/29/2017 at 3:59 AM, The Transporter said: There was no unified kingdom before Aegon so he really didn't usurp anybody. He built the united land that we now call Westeros. Robert, otoh, rebelled against the lawful heirs of Aegon, and thus Robert is a lawbreaker. Robert's reign was illegal and the legal ruler of Westeros was Viserys with Daenerys as his heir. Aegon only broke laws of 7 kingdoms while Robert did for one kingdom but only after Aerys II broke multiple laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkBastard Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/28/2017 at 4:13 AM, Ralphis Baratheon said: Please no show spoilers good Sir. Unless you're watching a show I am not, my comments have nothing to do with the show. I've read the books, and I'm pretty sure it's clear Dany is looking to retake the Iron Throne eventually. Either way, what I posed was satire, if you couldn't tell by the "valley girl" tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkBastard Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/27/2017 at 4:00 PM, Dood said: Well no, because the king can renounce his claim on any part of his country, but I don't see what you are trying to prove, it happened literally all the time. Also, the Seven and the Citadel do not posses the power to transfer the crown to anyone. Only a great council could have this power, and even then, I have doubt it would be able to transfer the crown to someone else while a valid heir is alive. I'm sorry, I thought you understood the concept of conquest. You see, when a king is deposed (or in this case killed) by insurgency or external army, and conqueror is then made king, the child of the dead king no longer has a claim to the throne. You see, there is a new king and his children or other family members are now the heirs. The child of the dead king can attempt to overthrow the new king, but short of that he/she has no legal claim to the throne. I suppose they could ask nicely for the conqueror to give it to him/her, but I doubt that would be considered seriously by the ruling family. That child can likely rally supporters based on who they are, but that doesn't make them king/queen. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Ravens Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/25/2017 at 7:06 PM, 1000th Lord Commander said: It's kind of a null question. Aside from Renly, each of the other four had a legitimate justification for thier actions. Robb was rejecting a king who had killed his father. Balon was seeking freedom for his people. Jofferey was sitting the Iron Throne as the presumed heir, with Stannis seeing that he was the rightful heir due to the illigitimacy of Ceresi's children. Have you forgotten Aegon the 6th? as the son of Rheagar, he would have been the legitimate heir. I believe that by right of conquest Robert Baratheon became the rightful king of Westeros. Having said that I disagree that Aegon VI would inherit the throne ahead of Viserys III. Viserys was the son of King Aerys II while Aegon was a grandson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 32 minutes ago, White Ravens said: I believe that by right of conquest Robert Baratheon became the rightful king of Westeros. Having said that I disagree that Aegon VI would inherit the throne ahead of Viserys III. Viserys was the son of King Aerys II while Aegon was a grandson. Inheritance works so that the eldest son and his children come before the second son, it's like how Prince George is William's heir rather than Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 39 minutes ago, Pikachu101 said: Inheritance works so that the eldest son and his children come before the second son, it's like how Prince George is William's heir rather than Harry It is supposed to work like that but quite clearly does not always work like as we see with Jaehaerys and Cregan Stark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkBastard Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Without G.R.R.M. providing exact legal definitions, below is the defined terminology for feudal monarchy succession as we know it. The underlined areas are of particular importance. If you cannot provide literary proof to the contrary (in ASOIAF or accompanying works), stop arguing! Right of Conquest: If one overthrows the monarch, taking the crown and kingdom by force, and holds them, then one is monarch. Usurpation and deposing of the monarch fall into this category. THIS WAS ROBERT BARATHEON, AND PARTLY AEGON THE CONQUEROR Presumption: In the absence of a monarch, if one lays claim the crown and kingdom without resistance and can hold them, then one is monarch. THIS WAS ALSO AEGON THE CONQUEROR, TO THE UNIFICATION OF THE SEVEN KINGDOMS UNDER ONE MONARCH ONCE RESISTANCE ENDED Right of Royal Succession: When the monarch dies, should the law prescribe the succession of the crown and kingdom, and one is numbered first in that succession, then one is monarch, so long as no other person usurps the crown. THIS WAS VISERYS, UNTIL THE CROWN WAS USURPED; AND JOFFREY AFTER ROBERT BARATHEON'S DEATH (EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH) Right of Kinship: Should the monarch die leaving no designated heir, and in the absence of law prescribing succession of the crown and kingdom, and one is the closest relative by kinship to the deceased monarch, then one is monarch, so long as no other person usurps the crown and one can quell all other claimants. THIS IS STANNIS BARATHEON (FOR THOSE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH) I truly hope we can get past this now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf of the Steppes Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/27/2017 at 7:12 AM, DarkBastard said: That is a moot point because the Targaryens were deposed through conquest. The Targaryen line has no claim to the throne, living or dead, unless it is retaken through conquest...as Dany is building toward now. She can't just walk in and say "Hi, I'm...like...a Targaryen, I'm like totally in charge here because my daddy was a king so...can I like...have my chair and stuff?" Did you not read the quote I was responding to? On 10/26/2017 at 0:25 PM, Wolf of the Steppes said: "Looking at it from our partially omnipotent point of view as readers...Stannis. Not Viserys, the Faith and the Maesters legitimized Robert Baratheon's rule. The Targaryens were deposed by conquest, the only way to gain rule back is through conquest." I didn't say that any Targaryen had a claim...Other people on this thread did. My point was--even if you were to say Viserys had a claim, he was dead already. So your point is irrelevant because I had already agreed with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AryaNymeriaVisenya Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 29/10/2017 at 2:59 AM, The Transporter said: There was no unified kingdom before Aegon so he really didn't usurp anybody. He built the united land that we now call Westeros. Robert, otoh, rebelled against the lawful heirs of Aegon, and thus Robert is a lawbreaker. Robert's reign was illegal and the legal ruler of Westeros was Viserys with Daenerys as his heir. Or he's the ultimate usurper who usurped 6 Kings. Its all about point of view as Kenobi would say. Aegon wasn't the legal heir to any of the crowns he took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 3 hours ago, DarkBastard said: I'm sorry, I thought you understood the concept of conquest. You see, when a king is deposed (or in this case killed) by insurgency or external army, and conqueror is then made king, the child of the dead king no longer has a claim to the throne. If you read the series more attentively, you'll observe that such concept as "no longer has a claim" is as good as non-existent. Why do you think the likes of Bolton and Lannister give a rat's ass about Stark blood, if they already won the war and cut Robb's head off? No, "Right of Conquest" is not a magic phrase which, when chanted with just the right intonation after a battle, irrevocably invalidates the losing side's claim. Or their children's claim. Or their children's children's. "Claim" is a thing one can have even when his arse doesn't at the moment occupy the seat in question. And more than one person (or one branch) can simultaneously have claims to the same throne. Both in Westeros as in European history. Lancaster and York. Targaryen and Baratheon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: It is supposed to work like that but quite clearly does not always work like as we see with Jaehaerys and Cregan Stark. Do you mean Cregan's daughters not inheriting and Jaehaerys choosing Viserys over Rhaenys? That's because they were women so were set aside in favour of a male relative, not the same as Viserys superseding his nephew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.