Rhaenyra: Traitor or legitimate heir?

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2017-12-26 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

Those men tried to overthrow kings. They are not different from the man propping up Robert Baratheon to be king - which apparently were Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark, Hoster Tully, and presumably others - likely many of Robert's Stormlords.

But in your initial response to me you said, "Those are two different issues here."

On 2017-12-26 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

What right has a Stark, Lannister, Arryn, or Tyrell to rule over the Seven Kingdoms?

What right has a Targaryn to rule over the Seven Kingdoms? Less than the houses that you named, I would say, considering they have resided on and ruled the lands of Westeros for eight thousand years or so longer than the Targs have.

On 2017-12-26 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

If Robert hadn't had any royal blood they would have offered the throne to somebody else.

Conjecture.

On 2017-12-26 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that any of this is true. This wasn't a rebellion to depose a dynasty, it was just a rebellion against the ruling king.

There is no indication that it's not true.

So why didn't they place Viserys on the throne if that were the case?

And back to your original comment that I responded to:

Quote

And when you are the king, you are the king. You are above anyone else. You may have become king this or that way, but once you receive your crown and are anointed with the seven oils, and take possession of the Conqueror's Iron Throne and the sword of kings, etc. you are no longer a mortal man like your subjects, princes included

I'm quite positive that if you were to ask Robert his opinion on this matter, he would agree that he deposed of the Targaryn dynasty, and established his own. That would make your arguments irrelevant.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

t right has a Targaryn to rule over the Seven Kingdoms? Less than the houses that you named, I would say, considering they have resided on and ruled the lands of Westeros for eight thousand years or so longer than the Targs have.

They built the throne and actually made the country? Through conquest yes but they are the one who made these petty kingdoms into an empire.Like, if not them or someone with they're blood mass civil war would be immediately follow.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

There is no indication that it's not true.

So why didn't they place Viserys on the throne if that were the case?

And back to your original comment that I responded to:

Because they had Robert but even if Robert blood he'd or Arryan would like be asked to shelter the Targaryian offspring(maybe not Viserys since he's old enough to feel the hurt of the losses in the family) until they're the age to marry one of the military commanders of the rebellion. T

I'm quite positive that if you were to ask Robert his opinion on this matter, he would agree that he deposed of the Targaryn dynasty, and established his own. That would make your argument

 But as we know Robert has an extreme dislike towards all thing Targaryian, even if his rule was legitimized because of his Targaryian blood.  Robert's opinion on this matter isn't sacrosanct.

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They built the throne and actually made the country? Through conquest yes but they are the one who made these petty kingdoms into an empire.Like, if not them or someone with they're blood mass civil war would be immediately follow.

Right, the right of conquest, just as Robert won that right through conquest.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because they had Robert

But Viserys' claim was substantially stronger than Robert's. If they were playing by the rules, as is being claimed, they'd have no choice but to relinquish the throne to Viserys.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But as we know Robert has an extreme dislike towards all thing Targaryian, even if his rule was legitimized because of his Targaryian blood.  Robert's opinion on this matter isn't sacrosanct.

Isn't that the hypocrisy that I'm attempting to pointing out? Lord Varys had claimed that this is the case, only to contradict that if it's not referring to a Targaryn.

Which now that I think about it is a case of double contradiction (or something like that), as he claims that Robert's rule isn't legit due to him usurping the throne, but then claims the only reason he was named the King is because of his legitimate claim as a Targaryn.

  Honestly, my head is kind of spinning trying to keep track of all his conflicting arguments.

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Right, the right of conquest, just as Robert won that right through conquest.

Still the reason the Targaryians have a better claim to rule than anyone else is because they made the empire. Like, the Starks would have the best claim for who should be king in the north out of all the northern houses since they're the ones who actually unified the north  under a kingdom. Not the best reason or a particularly good one in my mind but that's it.

But Viserys' claim was substantially stronger than Robert's. If they were playing by the rules, as is being claimed, they'd have no choice but to relinquish the throne to Viserys.

They bent it slightly but they didn't necessarily break the line of succession as much they had Robert skip in front. Ned and Arryn make clear they really wanted to do this as by the book as they can even it wasn't perfectly done.

Isn't that the hypocrisy that I'm attempting to pointing out? Lord Varys had claimed that this is the case, only to contradict that if it's not referring to a Targaryn.

I'm sorry weren't you trying to argue that Robert's rule couldn't be classified as an extension of the Targaryian dynasty?

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Still the reason the Targaryians have a better claim to rule than anyone else is because they made the empire. Like, the Starks would have the best claim for who should be king in the north out of all the northern houses since they're the ones who actually unified the north  under a kingdom. Not the best reason or a particularly good one in my mind but that's it.

Yeah, I understand the mind set behind that argument, but I don't really agree with it. As far as I'm concerned, nobody has the "right" to rule anyone.

The Targaryns didn't have a right to invade a foreign land and claim it as their own unified Kingdom. Just as the Kings of the the seven independent Kingdoms didn't have a right to rule before that.

Rights are a self proclaimed privilege bestowed upon oneself by those who have the might to say it's so. The Targaryn's dragons gave them the right and ability to form the Seven Kingdoms, and as far as I'm concerned, if Robert's war hammer was strong enough to take that empire away from them, it gives him the right to rule it, whether they built that empire or not is of no consequence.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They bent it slightly but they didn't necessarily break the line of succession as much they had Robert skip in front. Ned and Arryn make clear they really wanted to do this as by the book as they can even it wasn't perfectly done.

They did? I don't recall that at all. You have a quote?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I'm sorry weren't you trying to argue that Robert's rule couldn't be classified as an extension of the Targaryian dynasty?

Well to be honest, I was playing the role of devil's advocate somewhat, to point out the hypocrisy in Lord Varys' claim.

I don't think it's as clear cut and simple as saying its one or the other. Robert won the throne by conquest, if he had happened to have no Targ blood, it wouldn't have necessarily prevented him from claiming the throne.

The fact that he did have a claim, made for a fortunate means to make his ascension to the throne appear more legitimate to those who were Targaryn loyalists, and opposed his rule. Basically, I think the decision to choose Robert was more of a PR move, than an adherence to the succession. As you mentioned about civil war in your previous post, this was a way to subdue that possibility.

Really, it came down to Bobby, Ned, or Jon, none of whom wanted the position, so why not give it to the one with best claim out of the three? Had there been someone amongst the rebels who was more fit to lead the Kingdom than Robert, and wanted the position, I believe he would have been made King, Targ blood or not.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Yeah, I understand the mind set behind that argument, but I don't really agree with it. As far as I'm concerned, nobody has the "right" to rule anyone.

The Targaryns didn't have a right to invade a foreign land and claim it as their own unified Kingdom. Just as the Kings of the the seven independent Kingdoms didn't have a right to rule before that.

 

Meh, you may not agree but bloodright is how a feudal functions. Demokracy sadly isn't really an option for who should rule.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Rights are a self proclaimed privilege bestowed upon oneself by those who have the might to say it's so. The Targaryn's dragons gave them the right and ability to form the Seven Kingdoms, and as far as I'm concerned, if Robert's war hammer was strong enough to take that empire away from them, it gives him the right to rule it, whether they built that empire or not is of no consequence.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

True to a degree. Blood however makes any take over seen as more legitimate and gives a clear order on how people can do things.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

They did? I don't recall that at all. You have a quote?

I don't have a book handy with me but in AGOT Ned points out when Robert complains about Ned and Arryn putting the crown on his head and Ned says Robert was the one with the blood.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

eally, it came down to Bobby, Ned, or Jon, none of whom wanted the position, so why not give it to the one with best claim out of the three? Had there been someone amongst the rebels who was more fit to lead the Kingdom than Robert, and wanted the position, I believe he would have been made King, Targ blood or not.

Jon did all the work Robert was supposed to do as king so he wasn't adverse to the task of running the country. Ned while not ambitious wouldn't have skirted away from the task if he was the one who had the blood.

If there was no one amongst the rebels with Targ odds are Viserys and Aegon's children would have been taken into custody till they were the apropiate age to marry. That's really the only rational course for otherwise there'd be civil war.

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2017-12-30 at 10:40 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, you may not agree but bloodright is how a feudal functions. Demokracy sadly isn't really an option for who should rule.

Conquest is not a form of democracy.

On 2017-12-30 at 10:40 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

True to a degree. Blood however makes any take over seen as more legitimate and gives a clear order on how people can do things.

And how do you think it is determined which blood it is that gives a man his divine rights?

As to the bolded, I did allude to that as a consideration in my previous post.

On 2017-12-30 at 10:40 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jon did all the work Robert was supposed to do as king so he wasn't adverse to the task of running the country.

Sure, but that's handling the affairs from behind the scenes, not as the King.

Quote

Ned while not ambitious wouldn't have skirted away from the task if he was the one who had the blood.

Agreed, but he didn't have the blood, and although he admits that taking the throne was an option for him, he refused it.

Quote

If there was no one amongst the rebels with Targ odds are Viserys and Aegon's children would have been taken into custody till they were the apropiate age to marry.

As I've already said, if maintaining the Targ dynasty was really a concern for them, that's exactly what they would have done. I don't buy that they were just bending the rules a little bit. Either the succession mattered, or it didn't. Where do you draw the line as to how much bending of the rules is OK or acceptable?

Quote

That's really the only rational course for otherwise there'd be civil war.

So what...if Robert hadn't of had Targ blood and was named King, the loyalists whom he had just defeated in a war, were going to call a mulligan and continue on fighting another war to prevent a non-Targaryn from ascending the throne?

[Blackwater Revenant]

@Varysblackfyre321

In case you already read my post, just wanted to inform you that I edited it some.

[Blackwater Revenant]

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XII

Quote

 

The queen stood. "And what of my wrath, Lord Stark?" she asked softly. Her eyes searched his face. "You should have taken the realm for yourself. It was there for the taking. Jaime told me how you found him on the Iron Throne the day King's Landing fell, and made him yield it up. That was your moment. All you needed to do was climb those steps, and sit. Such a sad mistake."

"I have made more mistakes than you can possibly imagine," Ned said, "but that was not one of them."

"Oh, but it was, my lord," Cersei insisted. "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground."

 

How could Ned have taken the realm for himself, being a mere Stark and not a Targaryn?

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

As I've already said, if maintaining the Targ dynasty was really a concern for them, that's exactly what they would have done. I don't buy that they were just bending the rules a little bit. Either the succession mattered, or it didn't. Where do you draw the line as to how much bending of the rules is OK or acceptable?

It did. To a degree certainly. But, they didn't actually have that opportunity to do it more properly, Tywin had eliminated Rheagar's children with Ellia, a Targaryian loyalist had smuggled Viserys(who was too old to forget they killed his father), and newborn Dany away from Westeroes. 

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

handling the affairs from behind the scenes, not as the King.

Actually literally everything. Everyone around Robert and Robert himself is quite clear he does absolutely nothing as king besides throw lavish parties. Honestly, I think a major reason for offering Ned the position of hand is he wanted to dump all the work he's supposed to do on Ned like he did Arryn. Like, really the guy never attended council meetings.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And how do you think it is determined which blood it is that gives a man his divine rights?

Eta: As to the bolded, I did allude to that as a consideration in my previous post.

Society largely. Yes, Their rule wouldn't be a thing if they didn't have power but blood right  gives some  reassurance to the lords in a feudal society if they are illegally disposed by their subjects or kin the rest of society will come to their aid.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Conquest is not a form of democracy

Didn't imply it was, you said no one has a right to rule but the fairest thing in a feudal society...at the very least kings can claim since they're family has governed/created  the country they should too.

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

44 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Actually literally everything. Everyone around Robert and Robert himself is quite clear he does absolutely nothing as king besides throw lavish parties. Honestly, I think a major reason for offering Ned the position of hand is he wanted to dump all the work he's supposed to do on Ned like he did Arryn. Like, really the guy never attended council meetings.

Yeah, I don't deny any of this. And I may have misspoke when I included Jon as not wanting the position, we don't know either way.

I also don't deny that the reason Robert was appointed over Jon was due to his claim being better. Had Robert not had Targ blood, I believe Jon very well may have been appointed King, despite not having Targ blood or a claim. I agree that succession and blood rights are extremely important in a feudal system, just that in a situation such as a rebellion, it's not an infallible system which must be upheld.

Let's say the Ironborn uprising had been successful, would they have searched for a Targaryn to place on the throne? Of course not, Balon Greyjoy would have been proclaimed the King. Just as if there happened to not be anyone available from the rebels with Targ blood, they wouldn't have stood down and forfeited the throne. They would have placed anyone of their choosing on the throne.

---

I believe this is the quote you were referring to previously:

A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII

Quote

 

Ned took the horn and drank. The beer was black and thick, so strong it stung the eyes.

Robert sat down again. "Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon."

"You had the better claim, Your Grace."

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

et's say the Ironborn uprising had been successful, would they have searched for a Targaryn to place on the throne? Of course not, Balon Greyjoy would have been proclaimed the King. Just as if there happened to not be anyone available from the rebels with Targ blood, they wouldn't have stood down and forfeited the throne. They would have placed anyone of their choosing on the throne.

The iron born rebellion was Pyke seceding from the 7 kingdoms like the north did, not to take the Iron throne.

 

6 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

ointed King, despite not having Targ blood or a claim. I agree that succession and blood rights are extremely important in a feudal system, just that in a situation such as a rebellion, it's not an infallible system which must be upheld

Of course not, the wo5k show how really much feudalism sucks ballz.

Boys who have no real experience at government get tasked to lead powerful institutions or even decide the fate of a country the second they turn a legal adult seriously the idea it is some how ever under any circumstance to entrusting a 16 year old boy to lead an entire country is insane.  It's why we moved away from monarchies.

[Blackwater Revenant]

15 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The iron born rebellion was Pyke seceding from the 7 kingdoms like the north did, not to take the Iron throne.

Right, of course. But I think you understand my point.

[Varysblackfyre321]

28 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Right, of course. But I think you understand my point.

Yeah and I agree to a degree. In the absence of someone apparently  legitimate someone still is going to get chosen-though claims would doubtless be manufactured and those with claims are either going to be married to the strongest military commanders off spring  and quickly disposed of if male. 

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

But in your initial response to me you said, "Those are two different issues here."

The two different issues are the reasons as to why the rebellions broke out. Robert and his buddies didn't start with the intention of making him king. Daemon Blackfyre's buddies and Aegon II's kin began with that idea in mind.

11 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

What right has a Targaryn to rule over the Seven Kingdoms? Less than the houses that you named, I would say, considering they have resided on and ruled the lands of Westeros for eight thousand years or so longer than the Targs have.

LOL, no. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Nobody in Westeros gives any indication that he or she has a shadow of a doubt that the Targaryens are the rightful rulers of the Seven Kingdoms. Even Robert acknowledges as much when he repeatedly makes it clear that he fears a (Dothraki) invasion led by King Viserys III Targaryen. Robert is aware of the fact that he is a usurper.

Nobody in Westeros gives any indication that Daenerys (or Aegon) Targaryen have no claim to the Iron Throne because Rhaegar and Aerys II were slaughtered and Robert Baratheon put his ass on the chair of the Conqueror. Everyone acknowledges that they have claims. Pate's gang in Oldtown even propose a toast to their rightful queen, Daenerys Targaryen. And the whores of White Harbor have a similar opinion.

Aegon the Conqueror conquered six of the Seven Kingdoms. He took all the crowns of the former kings and they bent the knee and did him and his successors homage as their rightful kings.

Jon Umber even acknowledges the fact that the Targaryens were the masters of the Starks and the Northmen while they were still around. His argument is that Robb can be crowned and declared king because their true and rightful overlords - the Targaryens - are all gone.

11 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Conjecture.

Based on the fact that Ned himself told Robert that he became king because he had the better claim. That means that if Robert a worse claim -or no claim at all - than other potential claimants allied with or friendly towards to the rebels he wouldn't have become king.

11 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

There is no indication that it's not true.

So why didn't they place Viserys on the throne if that were the case?

Because they chose to make Robert king? Aside from not punishing Jaime and the murderers of Elia and the royal children crowning Robert is pretty much the core mistake of the rebels. Rebelling against/deposing a mad or tyrannical king isn't all that much a problem. But crowning somebody else whose claim isn't all that good causes potential problems for the future.

Robert had royal blood through his grandmother. He had a claim. But Viserys III and Daenerys have better claims.

11 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'm quite positive that if you were to ask Robert his opinion on this matter, he would agree that he deposed of the Targaryn dynasty, and established his own. That would make your arguments irrelevant.

Not really. Because Viserys III was crowned, too. There was a rival pretender from the start. Historically, Robert Baratheon will be counted as a King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, but the Targaryen kings ruling after him might brand him a traitor and usurper anyway. He also didn't really establish a dynasty. He left no trueborn children of his own body nor did he legitimize any of his bastards.

10 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Right, the right of conquest, just as Robert won that right through conquest.

Robert was nothing but a lord and subject of King Aerys II Targaryen. 'Right by conquest' is usually something that applies if a head of state/king whatever wars with another sovereign (nation). Cromwell and the Parliament didn't 'conquer' England when they deposed and executed King Charles. Lenin didn't 'conquer' Russia when he seized power in Russia, the rebels in New England didn't 'conquer' the colonies when they declared their independence, etc.

Aegon the Conqueror declared war on various sovereign monarchs and crushed them and their armies in a succession of battles. Just as William the Conqueror conquered England, Alexander the Great conquered Persia, etc.

The idea that anybody and his grandmother can 'conquer' lands makes little sense. You cannot go out 

10 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

But Viserys' claim was substantially stronger than Robert's. If they were playing by the rules, as is being claimed, they'd have no choice but to relinquish the throne to Viserys.

No one says they were all playing by the rules. They were not, in the end.

10 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Isn't that the hypocrisy that I'm attempting to pointing out? Lord Varys had claimed that this is the case, only to contradict that if it's not referring to a Targaryn.

I was referring to what it means to be a king in this world. Robert may have been the wrong king but he was still properly crowned and anointed, being in control of all the symbols of power. He was seen as the king throughout his life by a huge part of the people of Westeros, and since he was never properly deposed throughout his life he can only be branded a traitor, usurper, and false king post mortem. Something Aegon and/or Daenerys Targaryen may or may not do. But even they cannot erase the fact from history that Robert Baratheon once sat the Iron Throne.

Rhaenyra was a queen sitting on the Iron Throne, too, never mind what Aegon II decreed, just as Maegor the Cruel ruled as king never mind what King Aenys, his wife, and children thought about that.

[Blackwater Revenant]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The two different issues are the reasons as to why the rebellions broke out. Robert and his buddies didn't start with the intention of making him king. Daemon Blackfyre's buddies and Aegon II's kin began with that idea in mind.

And you believe that makes any difference when all is said and done?

Besides, one could easily argue that Robert's reasons for rebelling were far more warranted and legitimate than a bunch of entitled family members fighting over which of them is more divine than the other.

Quote

LOL, no. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Nobody in Westeros gives any indication that he or she has a shadow of a doubt that the Targaryens are the rightful rulers of the Seven Kingdoms.

Who? Because last time I read GoT; Ned Stark, Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, Balon Greyjoy, Tywin Lannister, Mace Tyrell, Dorrian Martell, Leyton Hightower, Lord Commander Mormont, the Citidel, and the Faith, all acknowledged Robert Baratheon as the rightful ruler of the Seven Kingdoms.

Not to mention all of the sovereign states across the Narrow Sea.

Quote

Even Robert acknowledges as much when he repeatedly makes it clear that he fears a (Dothraki) invasion led by King Viserys III Targaryen.

Lol, that's not what he acknowledges. As is clearly written by you in your own post, he acknowledges and fears the possibility of an invasion by Viserys, which he would consider an attempt to usurp the throne that he has been ordained as the rightful ruler of. He does not fear Viserys walking into King's Landing and calling a great council forth to challenge him and press a claim.

Quote

Robert is aware of the fact that he is a usurper.

Of course he's aware that he usurped the throne, but I guarantee he doesn't consider himself an usurper, he considers himself the legitimate and ordained King of the Seven Kingdoms.

Quote

Nobody in Westeros gives any indication that Daenerys (or Aegon) Targaryen have no claim to the Iron Throne because Rhaegar and Aerys II were slaughtered and Robert Baratheon put his ass on the chair of the Conqueror. Everyone acknowledges that they have claims. Pate's gang in Oldtown even propose a toast to their rightful queen, Daenerys Targaryen. And the whores of White Harbor have a similar opinion.

Some whores and some kids in a pub is not everyone, and their opinions certainly don't carry any weight. There's a reason, if I recall correctly, that one of the members in Pate's party was telling them to keep quite, or something like that. It's because if overheard they would be labelled as speaking treason.

This argument that some people still consider the Targs their rightful rulers doesn't change the fact that Robert is their King. Do you think that when Aegon conquered the Seven Kingdoms and the Lords bent the knee to him, there weren't people who secretly opposed their rule, and denied that they were the rightful rulers of the Kingdom?

Quote

Aegon the Conqueror conquered six of the Seven Kingdoms. He took all the crowns of the former kings and they bent the knee and did him and his successors homage as their rightful kings.

Robert conquered all seven - not just a mere six - Kingdoms regions, he took the Conqueror's Crown, and all Lords of the Seven Kingdoms bent the knee and did him and his successors homage as the their rightful King.

The fact that Viserys and Danerys fled, instead of bending the knee or being executed, does not negate that. By fleeing, they admitted defeat, and it is equivalent to bending the knee.

If Viserys wasn't wiling to relinquish his title of King of the Seven Kingdoms, he shouldn't have taken up the title of the Beggar King.

Quote

Jon Umber even acknowledges the fact that the Targaryens were the masters of the Starks and the Northmen while they were still around

Yeah, because it's the truthful fact. I agree with him.

Quote

 His argument is that Robb can be crowned and declared king because their true and rightful overlords - the Targaryens - are all gone.

Yes, because that's who they bent the knee to when they gave up their Independence. Notice that they did not rebel and declare Independence from Robert, of whom they also paid their allegiance to, but only once he was murdered, and they were now under the rule of fraudulent usurpers of whom they did not acknowledge as their rightful rulers did they rebel against the Crown.

Quote

Based on the fact that Ned himself told Robert that he became king because he had the better claim. That means that if Robert a worse claim -or no claim at all - than other potential claimants allied with or friendly towards to the rebels he wouldn't have become king.

No, Ned is explaining why he became the King over Jon or himself. It in no way confirms that had nobody from the rebels had a claim to speak of, that Robert couldn't have been named King. Of course, if that were the case, it's likely that Jon would have been named King.

Why would Ned even have to state the reason Robert was King over him or Jon, if their was no possibility of either of them taking the Crown?

Quote

Because they chose to make Robert king?

Exactly, it was their choice.

Quote

But crowning somebody else whose claim isn't all that good causes potential problems for the future.

Of course it could, by treasonous rebels who oppose Robert's rule, and insight an illegal rebellion.

Quote

Not really. Because Viserys III was crowned, too. There was a rival pretender from the start.

Crowned by who? Anyone can perform a faux ceremony in secret. I don't recall the Lords of the Kingdom paying their allegance to Viserys, nor did the Faith ordain him as the legal King.

Quote

Historically, Robert Baratheon will be counted as a King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, but the Targaryen kings ruling after him might brand him a traitor and usurper anyway.

What ruling Targaryens after him? You mean if. And yeah, if a Targaryn can reclaim the throne through might, they can brand him anything they want. That's the luxury of being in power. The same luxury Robert had to declare himself the rightful and legal King of the Iron Throne.

Quote

Robert was nothing but a lord and subject of King Aerys II Targaryen. 'Right by conquest' is usually something that applies if a head of state/king whatever wars with another sovereign (nation).

Fine, if you want to haggle over definitions and semantics, he won the throne by might, not by conquest. 

Quote

The idea that anybody and his grandmother can 'conquer' lands makes little sense. You cannot go out 

Cannot go out...and what? Conquer lands if you're a nobody like Aegon I was?

Quote

I was referring to what it means to be a king in this world.

Really? I wasn't aware that Kings were anointed by the Seven oils in this world, or that there is a real world Iron Throne.

[Blackwater Revenant]

4 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

The idea that anybody and his grandmother can 'conquer' lands makes little sense

Umm...What about anybody and his great great grandmother? 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And you believe that makes any difference when all is said and done?

Sure. You see that the lords and rebels overthrowing Aegon II and Maegor the Cruel also didn't slaughter or depose the entire dynasty or put one of their own on the Iron Throne, no?

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Besides, one could easily argue that Robert's reasons for rebelling were far more warranted and legitimate than a bunch of entitled family members fighting over which of them is more divine than the other.

Robert just rebelled because a prince stole his wife and a king called for his head for (apparently) no good reason. The former reason is ridiculous, the latter understandable and justified. But then - Robert didn't rebel to become king. He is a puppet or figurehead propped up by a successful rebel coalition.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Who? Because last time I read GoT; Ned Stark, Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, Balon Greyjoy, Tywin Lannister, Mace Tyrell, Dorrian Martell, Leyton Hightower, Lord Commander Mormont, the Citidel, and the Faith, all acknowledged Robert Baratheon as the rightful ruler of the Seven Kingdoms.

I don't think the Martells did ever actually do homage to King Robert. Robert never went to Sunspear and nothing indicates Prince Doran ever cared to come to court during Robert's reign. Even if they technically acknowledged Robert as the king they were clearly not honest about that, no?

Robert certainly had the allegiance of his lords on paper but with the Targaryens still out there this allegiance wasn't worth all that much. And Robert knew that-

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Not to mention all of the sovereign states across the Narrow Sea.

Well, some of them also did acknowledge King Viserys III Targaryen, no?

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Lol, that's not what he acknowledges. As is clearly written by you in your own post, he acknowledges and fears the possibility of an invasion by Viserys, which he would consider an attempt to usurp the throne that he has been ordained as the rightful ruler of. He does not fear Viserys walking into King's Landing and calling a great council forth to challenge him and press a claim.

Nope, Robert fears Viserys III is going to take back the throne he, Robert, stole from Aerys II. Robert stole the throne from the rightful royal dynasty. Fifteen years are not enough to give yourself and your 'dynasty' the appearance of legitimacy. We see how quickly the Realm burns after Robert's death, and the Targaryens haven't even raised as much as a finger at that point.

King Robert and his 'dynasty' are a joke.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Of course he's aware that he usurped the throne, but I guarantee he doesn't consider himself an usurper, he considers himself the legitimate and ordained King of the Seven Kingdoms.

He doesn't speak in that manner. He hates being king and dreams about giving up his crown.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Some whores and some kids in a pub is not everyone, and their opinions certainly don't carry any weight. There's a reason, if I recall correctly, that one of the members in Pate's party was telling them to keep quite, or something like that. It's because if overheard they would be labelled as speaking treason.

Yet nobody says it is nonsense to speak of Daenerys Targaryen in this manner, no? Nobody says it is a lie to say this, either, right? The overwhelming majority of Westeros thinks the Targaryens are their rightful rulers, not the Baratheons, the Lannisters, the Starks, etc. Those are all scheming and ambitious noble families who overreach themselves.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

This argument that some people still consider the Targs their rightful rulers doesn't change the fact that Robert is their King. Do you think that when Aegon conquered the Seven Kingdoms and the Lords bent the knee to him, there weren't people who secretly opposed their rule, and denied that they were the rightful rulers of the Kingdom?

Sure, but those cowards and cravens did nothing and died, one after another. The only highborn nobleman who ever rebelled against the Targaryens was Jonos Arryn the Kinslayer and he is little more than a footnote in Westerosi history.

If Robert had been the grandson of the lord who overthrow Aerys II we could, perhaps, assume the Baratheons had already acquired some legitimacy. But Robert wasn't Jaehaerys I. And Aegon the Conqueror wasn't Robert, either. He actually conquered kingdoms and built cities and castles. Robert did pretty much nothing as king.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Robert conquered all seven - not just a mere six - Kingdoms regions, he took the Conqueror's Crown, and all Lords of the Seven Kingdoms bent the knee and did him and his successors homage as the their rightful King.

Did they? Balon Greyjoy only swore allegiance to 'King Robert' after Robert had crushed his rebellion, six years after Robert had taken the throne. We have no indication that all lords of the Seven Kingdoms ever did personally do homage to Robert.

And Robert never conquered anything. He was just put on the throne by his buddies.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

The fact that Viserys and Danerys fled, instead of bending the knee or being executed, does not negate that. By fleeing, they admitted defeat, and it is equivalent to bending the knee.

Nonsense. For one, both of them were children, and they had no legal guardians after Queen Rhaella's death.

But if you actually think nobility and royalty give up or lose their claims just because a bunch of peasants or rebellious think they have deposed them you are pretty much wrong. Royalty never give up their claims - and if they do, they do it by their own sovereign authority and power, not because some democrats or other morons think they have taken it from them.

And we do know it is rather easy for royals to return to power even if the monarchy has been abolished. The Stuarts returned to the English throne after the end of Cromwell, and the Bourbons returned to the French throne after the end of Napoleon.

In the framework of Westeros nobody has forgotten the fact that the Targaryens are their true rulers - just as no one has forgotten that the Starks are the true lords of Winterfell, never mind the fact that Brandon and Rickon Stark abandoned their seat and their people like cravens.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Yeah, because it's the truthful fact. I agree with him.

It shows that Jon Umber has no respect whatsoever for the Baratheon dynasty, no? Not just for evil Joffrey but also for Tommen and Myrcella nor for Robert's trueborn brothers, Stannis and Renly.

The man had no idea yet that Robert didn't have any trueborn children.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Yes, because that's who they bent the knee to when they gave up their Independence. Notice that they did not rebel and declare Independence from Robert, of whom they also paid their allegiance to, but only once he was murdered, and they were now under the rule of fraudulent usurpers of whom they did not acknowledge as their rightful rulers did they rebel against the Crown.

They had no proof that Eddard Stark wasn't a traitor, no? And King Joffrey - Robert's son and chosen heir - was under no obligation to ask Ned's family and vassals for permission to execute the man if he felt the man was a traitor. This is no a democracy.

We all understand why Robb and the North rebelled against Joffrey, but as Robb himself points out - that doesn't mean Tommen, Myrcella, Stannis, or Renly lose their claims to the throne.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

No, Ned is explaining why he became the King over Jon or himself. It in no way confirms that had nobody from the rebels had a claim to speak of, that Robert couldn't have been named King. Of course, if that were the case, it's likely that Jon would have been named King.

Robert said that Jon or Ned would have been better kings. He is not talking about claims. Ned is. And he makes it clear to Robert and the reader that Robert became king because he had the better claim. That means if Robert hadn't had a (good) claim he wouldn't have been king.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Why would Ned even have to state the reason Robert was King over him or Jon, if their was no possibility of either of them taking the Crown?

Ned never says anything of that sort. Robert tells Ned he or Jon should have been king, and then Ned tells him why he and not Jon or Ned became king.

We have no idea whether Jon or Ned had a claim to the throne. Could very well be. We don't know whether they are related to House Targaryen through the female line.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Crowned by who? Anyone can perform a faux ceremony in secret. I don't recall the Lords of the Kingdom paying their allegance to Viserys, nor did the Faith ordain him as the legal King.

A king isn't king because a bunch of people confirm he is king. The point here is that Robert Baratheon wasn't an undisputed king. There was another pretender to the Iron Throne, a man with a better claim, and everybody knew that.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

What ruling Targaryens after him? You mean if. And yeah, if a Targaryn can reclaim the throne through might, they can brand him anything they want. That's the luxury of being in power. The same luxury Robert had to declare himself the rightful and legal King of the Iron Throne.

As far as we know Robert never did anything of that sort, no? He never says Viserys III and Daenerys are attainted traitors and rebels, etc.

The Baratheon dynasty is already dead, by the way. Tommen and Myrcella are fakes, and Stannis and Shireen are dead men walking. If Edric Storm lives he might end up as Lord of Storm's End, but he is not going to sit the throne.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Fine, if you want to haggle over definitions and semantics, he won the throne by might, not by conquest. 

He didn't 'win' anything, actually. He was put on the throne as figurehead by his buddies. He had the blood and the looks to make the whole thing work. The Lannisters took KL and the Red Keep, not Robert. Tywin and Jaime killed the Targaryens in the capital, not Robert or his troops. Tywin and Jaime gave the throne to Robert's representative, Ned. Robert didn't take anything. He was made king.

6 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Cannot go out...and what? Conquer lands if you're a nobody like Aegon I was?

Aegon of Dragonstone was a monarch in his own right. He ruled Dragonstone and the adjacent lands. He was no man's vassal, unlike Robert Baratheon and his rebellious buddies.

Within a monarchic framework - and even within the framework of our modern rules of warfare - sovereign (states) can war with each other and even conquer each other. There are even rules for this kind of thing. But there are no rules for rebellions and revolutions - such things are crimes within ever government or state that cares about remaining intact.

[Varysblackfyre321]

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

mework - and even within the framework of our modern rules of warfare - sovereign (states) can war with each other and even conquer each other. There are even rules for this kind of thing. But there are no rules for rebellions and revolutions - such things are crimes within ever government or state that cares about remaining intact.

Huh, that's a good point. 

Robert cannot use the right of conquest as the basis for his rule, for he launched a rebellion not a conqueroring and the Targaryians never relinquished the throne to him and are still alive. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Baratheon dynasty is already dead, by the way. Tommen and Myrcella are fakes, and Stannis and Shireen are dead men walking. If Edric Storm lives he might end up as Lord of Storm's End, but he is not going to sit the throne.

If Edric luck enough to do that I mean I don't imagine anyone actually legitimizing him.