Stannis Baratheon has no true claim to the throne

[UFT]

and he is a naive fool for thinking he still does. 

in westerosi history, its chock full of conquerers and ambition. from andal invasion, ironborn taking the riverlands and aegon the conqueror,  "claim" and blood right seems to be tossed aside for might makes right, every time. when you can't hold some shit, ambitious assholes rise up and take it away from you. the real claim is claim of "conquest" which rewards only the most powerful generals, and the most populist and charismatic ones. mix the two and you get robert, no matter how much of an usurping thug he might also be. 

stannis claim to the iron throne thus can be tossed aside as easily as robert tossed aside the claims of viserys, daenerys and rhaella when his rebellion ended.and as easily as when aegon took westeros. if the only claim you need is a large army, or superweapon and the populist charisma to keep the shit you took after you took it and had people bend the knee, then anyone with a big army can take and keep anything they want. and its seemingly always been this way, going back to valyria, andals and old ghis. power resides only where men believe it resides. and usually you need some kind of long dynasty before people fully accept it. otherwise you'll just have every ambitious asshole trying to take your shit the moment you seem vulnerable because hey, you were an asshole first. 

stannis entire relevance comes from one thing, hes the brother of a much more badass dude who did much more badass shit. and thats it. hes got a tiny army and no one supporting him. had he not been the one with the closest blood relation to robert, he would have faded into obscurity along with the "one true king"" memes. even though we are told all throughout the series it doesn't mean shit unless you can hold it, and he CANT HOLD IT. too many people want to deny him. hes outnumbered thousands to one, trapped in the frozen north with only a few weakened houses backing him. 

"anyone who merely says hes the king is not a true king"

"all the chivalry of the south rides with me. you'll destroy me? with what? those 5000 codfish lords?"

renly explained once that because he had a large army, and because his brother robert seemed to handle conquering westeros, he would do the same thing, as that is the precedent set by not just robert but also aegon. not to mention daemon blackfyre rebelling because he felt he was the better choice. stannis is just robert's brother. well if robert's whole thing was "i have a big hammer and a big army and that means i can have this throne" then a civil war after his death between every brother and uncle and cousin only made sense. it wasn't based on anything else so like i said, if you're the asshole first, of course people are gonna take your stuff by being assholes too. whoever wins writes the history books, and whoever writes the history books gets to say three the true legitimate royal.  isnt that what robert and aegon founded their claims on? as well as renly and ironborn and the andals? stannis better actually win first. before he can count himself as a legitimate king, or else he's just one  more claimant like dany is. 

he wants to do so with magic, which he likens to the use of dragons, which is indirectly admitting he wants to take it with the same force as everybody else but like i said, cannot. he cant spam shadow babies. armies win wars. 

all the evidence is there that in the ASOIAF, the supposed law means nothing. what law? the law didn't seem to matter when they committed treason against rhaella viserys and dany and denied them their throne.even if you want to deny viserys and aerys the throne, what about rhaella? wouldn't rhaella have been ten times the stateswoman, diplomat and leader robert was, who thought that being king meant he could bang boars and hunt whores all day, and had ten times the experience? i would not deny her the throne cos her family members did some shit. she hated her king as much as anyone. if you want law, why didn't robert immediately execute gregor for his murders? he had an odd way of proving he cares about the law. 

i could be horribly wrong about all of this, and maybe stannis does end up the king of westeros by the end of the series, but i doubt it. and i doubt it because of the evidence in book 2 that he had no support then, not even his own stormlander people initially, and is only barely getting by via the abilities of someone else (melisandre). 

all throughout the show (im not entirely sure about the books. years since i read them), you have men and women all saying that no, just saying you have a good claim to a thing you want does not mean you get to have it and hold it. it takes more than that.

"no one wants you for their king. you never wanted any friends, and a man without friends is a man without power."

in my mind the only system that truly works, is elective merit based one, that NW has. and to some extent the ironborn and north. 

and to cement my point once and for all, imagine if a more modern army got teleported into westeros and then they took it over with modern guns? what does their precious blood right mean then? you can't do anything without either a large populace enforcing your will, or the weapons to kill them if thye dont.

[Pride of Driftmark]

This we all know. The whole idea of "rightful" claims is stupid, and that's the point. Nobody will ever agree who has the best claim, and might always does make right. Stannis is such a fan favorite because he's the underdog- things keep going wrong for him but he pulls through. He is a shady dude- he's willing to use magic and human sacrifices, after all. But his determination, wit, and mad jokes are what get him so many fans. The Stannis portrayed in the books is quite paradoxical- Martin goes on and on about how nobody in universe likes Stannis, yet the only eyes we see him through are Jon, Davos, Asha, and Theon- people who hold respect (or fear) for him. 

[Ser Duncan of Flea Bottom]

A rightful claim happens in times of peace, when the heir succeed his liege with no challenge.

It is war now, so, of course the "rightful heir" thing won't work. The only possible claim now is by conquest.

[The Sunland Lord]

He does, it's just that other people have better. If he wins it, he will sit on it though. Like what Euron says about the Seastone Chair-"I sat on it for days and it didn't protest at all."

[The hairy bear]

12 hours ago, UFT said:

in westerosi history, its chock full of conquerers and ambition. from andal invasion, ironborn taking the riverlands and aegon the conqueror,  "claim" and blood right seems to be tossed aside for might makes right, every time.

Westerosi history is also full of rulers who were weak  and had vassals much stronger than them and ruled anyway. In fact, once the Targaryens lost their dragons, they became weaker than any of the great houses. It's only their "claim" that placed weaklings such as Aerys I or Jaehaerys II on the throne. It surely wasn't for their strength or martial prowess.

It is important to realize that might vs. might is not a real dichotomy. A better claim is likely to win you many supports, which directly translates to might.

12 hours ago, UFT said:

stannis claim to the iron throne thus can be tossed aside as easily as robert tossed aside the claims of viserys, daenerys and rhaella when his rebellion ended.and as easily as when aegon took westeros.

Easily? It's not true that it was "easily" tossed aside. In fact, it took a huge gamble and cruel civil war that the rebels could have easily lost.

Given that Aerys was mad beyond saving, the fact that half the realm rose to defend his cause is also telling that "claim" bears a lot of weight too. And it's important to remember that the rebels decided to crown Rebel because he had Targaryen blood. Again, this shows that claim has a significant weight.

12 hours ago, UFT said:

all the evidence is there that in the ASOIAF, the supposed law means nothing. what law? the law didn't seem to matter when they committed treason against rhaella viserys and dany and denied them their throne.even if you want to deny viserys and aerys the throne, what about rhaella?

Say that law counts nothing in Westeros just because in a particular time the succession was resolved violently instead of according to law is not a fair assessment. Most of the times succession is arranged according to it. Laws are also continiously broken in real life, and that doesn't mean they mean nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Mormont]

Two points:

A claim, rightful or not, can come anytime during a succession.  Theoretically and in accordance with the law of succession, Stannis should be King, but as the Shadow of Asshai pointed out, to become king he would need to do it through conquest.

It is obvious that Stannis was hurt and angry about Renly getting Storms End at the end of RR, so he is even more incensed over the fact that Renly would deny him of what Stannis knows is theoretically right. 

Stannis needed to swallow his pride and join with Renly because he had the Tyrells and they would tip the scales in any war. 

[Pikachu101]

Ok here we go:

1. Robert overthrew the Targaryens
2. Robert is now king
3. Robert has no legitimate sons
4. Stannis is Robert's brother
5. Stannis inherits the throne

It's not that hard.

[Lady Anna]

I think Stannis knows all of that but the thing is, legally, he has the best claim, cause he is legally the heir to the throne. However, due to a myriad of reasons, such as Roberts' kids' legitimacy not being widely known at first, Stannis not having many friends or allies or armies, or the fact that parts of the realm fell into conflict, he didn't have a big chance of winning the throne. Regardless of that, though, he is the heir, and in fact, he's still standing.

[Dorian Martell's son]

15 hours ago, UFT said:

and he is a naive fool for thinking he still does. 

Not at all. He feels he has a right to the throne, but he also knows he needs an army to take it. there is a reason that he is the only surviving king from the war of the 5 kings. He is an effective general, a pragmatic ruler and he is not afraid to use magic as a weapon 

[Bernie Mac]

23 minutes ago, Lady Anna said:

I think Stannis knows all of that but the thing is, legally, he has the best claim, cause he is legally the heir to the throne.

Stannis is the rightful heir, he is not the legal one. The acknowledged sons and heirs of Robert are the legal heirs. Both of whom have been legally made King by the High Septon. 

Stannis is aware that he is not the legal heir, that is why he needed a large enough army so he could usurp the Throne and take it by force and then once in power legally reduce Cersei's children's status (whether they are alive or not) to bastards. 

Laws are not infallible, they are sometimes wrong but Joffrey and Tommen were legally Robert's sons and the legal heirs, if not rightful. 

 

[Lady Anna]

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Stannis is the rightful heir, he is not the legal one. The acknowledged sons and heirs of Robert are the legal heirs. Both of whom have been legally made King by the High Septon. 

Stannis is aware that he is not the legal heir, that is why he needed a large enough army so he could usurp the Throne and take it by force and then once in power legally reduce Cersei's children's status (whether they are alive or not) to bastards. 

Laws are not infallible, they are sometimes wrong but Joffrey and Tommen were legally Robert's sons and the legal heirs, if not rightful. 

 

You're right. Joffrey and co.'s illegitimacy is not recognized legally. Sorry. I guess I meant 'rightful', in that way.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

5 hours ago, Shadow of Asshai said:

A rightful claim happens in times of peace, when the heir succeed his liege with no challenge.

It is war now, so, of course the "rightful heir" thing won't work. The only possible claim now is by conquest.

Completely disagree. The Baratheon dynasty still has the throne and with Cersei's children being bastards, Stannis is still the rightful heir.

[Paxter Redwyne]

Maybe lawful king is better word for Stannis. But of course in the end "history is always written by the winners". 

[zandru]

About the only thing that familial succession has going for it is that it provides for a peaceful transfer of power. Sure, conquest and slaughter work, but if the society accepts rules which determine the next person to get the throne, they can avoid all the waste and destruction and death in selecting their next ruler.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Pikachu101 said:

Ok here we go:

1. Robert overthrew the Targaryens
2. Robert is now king
3. Robert has no legitimate sons
4. Stannis is Robert's brother
5. Stannis inherits the throne

It's not that hard.

Robert uses the basis of his Targyen blood to hold the throne. Legally the crown should have been placed on Viserys' head after Aerys' death for he was  next in line. But given how old the boy was and how he'd likely want to seek vegence for those who'd murdered his kin(in his eyes.) as he got older and Robert's disgust towards the Targyens in general he simply wasn't.

Next in line would be Daenarys or more aptly any sons she'd give birth to(pressumbly those of her husband).

[Varysblackfyre321]

22 hours ago, UFT said:

and he is a naive fool for thinking he still does. 

in westerosi history, its chock full of conquerers and ambition. from andal invasion, ironborn taking the riverlands and aegon the conqueror,  "claim" and blood right seems to be tossed aside for might makes right, every time. when you can't hold some shit, ambitious assholes rise up and take it away from you. the real claim is claim of "conquest" which rewards only the most powerful generals, and the most populist and charismatic ones. mix the two and you get robert, no matter how much of an usurping thug he might also be. 

stannis claim to the iron throne thus can be tossed aside as easily as robert tossed aside the claims of viserys, daenerys and rhaella when his rebellion ended.and as easily as when aegon took westeros. if the only claim you need is a large army, or superweapon and the populist charisma to keep the shit you took after you took it and had people bend the knee, then anyone with a big army can take and keep anything they want. and its seemingly always been this way, going back to valyria, andals and old ghis. power resides only where men believe it resides. and usually you need some kind of long dynasty before people fully accept it. otherwise you'll just have every ambitious asshole trying to take your shit the moment you seem vulnerable because hey, you were an asshole first. 

stannis entire relevance comes from one thing, hes the brother of a much more badass dude who did much more badass shit. and thats it. hes got a tiny army and no one supporting him. had he not been the one with the closest blood relation to robert, he would have faded into obscurity along with the "one true king"" memes. even though we are told all throughout the series it doesn't mean shit unless you can hold it, and he CANT HOLD IT. too many people want to deny him. hes outnumbered thousands to one, trapped in the frozen north with only a few weakened houses backing him. 

"anyone who merely says hes the king is not a true king"

"all the chivalry of the south rides with me. you'll destroy me? with what? those 5000 codfish lords?"

renly explained once that because he had a large army, and because his brother robert seemed to handle conquering westeros, he would do the same thing, as that is the precedent set by not just robert but also aegon. not to mention daemon blackfyre rebelling because he felt he was the better choice. stannis is just robert's brother. well if robert's whole thing was "i have a big hammer and a big army and that means i can have this throne" then a civil war after his death between every brother and uncle and cousin only made sense. it wasn't based on anything else so like i said, if you're the asshole first, of course people are gonna take your stuff by being assholes too. whoever wins writes the history books, and whoever writes the history books gets to say three the true legitimate royal.  isnt that what robert and aegon founded their claims on? as well as renly and ironborn and the andals? stannis better actually win first. before he can count himself as a legitimate king, or else he's just one  more claimant like dany is. 

he wants to do so with magic, which he likens to the use of dragons, which is indirectly admitting he wants to take it with the same force as everybody else but like i said, cannot. he cant spam shadow babies. armies win wars. 

all the evidence is there that in the ASOIAF, the supposed law means nothing. what law? the law didn't seem to matter when they committed treason against rhaella viserys and dany and denied them their throne.even if you want to deny viserys and aerys the throne, what about rhaella? wouldn't rhaella have been ten times the stateswoman, diplomat and leader robert was, who thought that being king meant he could bang boars and hunt whores all day, and had ten times the experience? i would not deny her the throne cos her family members did some shit. she hated her king as much as anyone. if you want law, why didn't robert immediately execute gregor for his murders? he had an odd way of proving he cares about the law. 

i could be horribly wrong about all of this, and maybe stannis does end up the king of westeros by the end of the series, but i doubt it. and i doubt it because of the evidence in book 2 that he had no support then, not even his own stormlander people initially, and is only barely getting by via the abilities of someone else (melisandre). 

all throughout the show (im not entirely sure about the books. years since i read them), you have men and women all saying that no, just saying you have a good claim to a thing you want does not mean you get to have it and hold it. it takes more than that.

"no one wants you for their king. you never wanted any friends, and a man without friends is a man without power."

in my mind the only system that truly works, is elective merit based one, that NW has. and to some extent the ironborn and north. 

and to cement my point once and for all, imagine if a more modern army got teleported into westeros and then they took it over with modern guns? what does their precious blood right mean then? you can't do anything without either a large populace enforcing your will, or the weapons to kill them if thye dont.

Are you trying to start a flame war? This discussion has been done over and over for decades now.

[Lord Lannister]

Sure, Stannis is the rightful heir. Now only if he can just get rid of all the unrightful heirs...

[Foot_Of_The_King]

Dude.... We all know this. It's abstract. Was this just a "why do people like Stannis?" kind of post? If so it seems unnecessarily long. 

[UFT]

Quote

 

Westerosi history is also full of rulers who were weak  and had vassals much stronger than them and ruled anyway. In fact, once the Targaryens lost their dragons, they became weaker than any of the great houses. It's only their "claim" that placed weaklings such as Aerys I or Jaehaerys II on the throne. It surely wasn't for their strength or martial prowess.

 

then it must also be true that blood right should be a system by which you govern and that is all stannis and daenerys have. my point is to the victor goes the spoil and the history books. 

martial prowess also should not be a factor as the ironborn and dothraki both govern by that system. 

Quote

 

Completely disagree. The Baratheon dynasty still has the throne and with Cersei's children being bastards, Stannis is still the rightful heir.

 

rightful heir to what? what the hell does "heir" mean? a throne they stole by murdering the targ kids and stealing their home away? because robert had a hammer and a big army? whats so rightul about that? by robert's example, anyone can take it away from him and all they need is a dragon or an even larger army. if the dynasty is built on muscling your way to power and being an asshole then anyone can be assholes right back. 

stannis whole thing is thinking robert had any true claim to the throne when he had the same flimsy "i have a big army" claim everyone else does. its arrogant and absurd. you wont be able to hold it if you're just basing it on "my brother was an asshole 20 years ago". power is a lie. a shadow on the wall. it lies where men believe it resides. and if its true that only the person with the greatest weaponry can have the right, ala aegon's example, then dany is the heir. all she has to say is bend the knee or burn. thats how it works. 

all those weak rulers you whined abouyt, they still had military support. they still had the backing of the lord paramounts. 

 

Quote

 

Easily? It's not true that it was "easily" tossed aside. In fact, it took a huge gamble and cruel civil war that the rebels could have easily lost.

 

but once they did depose aerys, which i agree with btw, why didn't the throne immediately go to his closest blood relative? out of pure anti targ racism, viserys was denied it and that was the only reason. who the hell heard of a rebellion to stop a cruel king where you blame the kids for it? assholes do that. 

And it's important to remember that the rebels decided to crown Rebel because he had Targaryen blood. 

there is endless dialogue that shows thats not really what it was about. only the maesters cared about that. robert had a very big hammer and a very big army that saw him as their greatest general and leader. the only other alternatives either didn't want the thing or were brutally chased out of the country out of racism. thus he was crowned. 

Quote

 

He feels he has a right to the throne, but he also knows he needs an army to take it. there is a reason that he is the only surviving king from the war of the 5 kings. He is an effective general, a pragmatic ruler and he is not afraid to use magic as a weapon 

 

he incorrectly feels he has any right to anything even though robert and aegon proved conquest is the only right that matters. 

there is a reason why hes trapped in the frozen north, outnumbered thousands to one with no hope of victory against the south. because he is not the rightful king. rightful kings have support and friends who back him up. he is so unpopular, unlikeable and generally an asshole that people see that and are like "ew.no". all the bannermen  who should have risen for him happily turned their back on him for renly because at least renly is kinder.

such a pragmatic and effective general that he successfully angered half the south, and the rest won't rise for him or his family either way. tyrells won't back him, not ever. arryns won't back him, not ever. and starks all want their independence back. 

 

1. Quote

    

   1. Robert is now king
   2. Robert has no legitimate sons
   3. Stannis is Robert's brother

    

    

and as i explained, all anyone needs to deny him that is have a bigger army which as it turns out, not that hard to manage. even his own supposed bannermen left him for renly.

all that really matters is do you have a bigger army. 

robert's whole claim is based on "i have a big army and hammer" so is it surprising when with a few choice words, renly is convinced he can take that chair the exact goddamn same way? you already built up your dynasty on being assholes about it.
 

Quote

 

Dude.... We all know this.

 

not really. there is comments everywhere about how stannis is "omg the true king" and my entire point is no it isnt. the show has endless quotes about how power resides where men beleive it resides. how people take shit because they can, not because of blood. westerosi society is too warlike and its all about who can take it and hold it. 

and stannis cannot hold it. hes too unpopular. no monarch can do anything without friends and he never wanted any friends. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stormking902]

This topic makes no sense Cersies children claim rights to the Iron Throne through Robert Baratheon who is suppose to be there father, they did not take the throne through conquest so since they are NOT Roberts kids the Throne by rights belongs to Stannis.