Jump to content
Bufo

True Heir to the Throne

Recommended Posts

I'm late to the party. I didn't start watching GoT until this year and now I'm totally obsessed with it and have watched it several times. I'm in the middle of the first book too. I can't get enough of it!

I apologize if this topic has already been posted but I couldn't find it anywhere.

I'm confused as to who the real heir to the iron throne is. Cercei is sitting on it now. If she should die without giving birth and it stands as it did at the end of season 7 then:

Wouldn't Jaimie be the true heir? Just like if Prince William didn't have children, Harry would be next in line.

Or if it should go to a Baratheon heir because she was Robert's wife, then it should fall to Gendry as his son.

Or if Robert was truly a usurper, then it should go to Jon.

What do y'all think?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bufo said:

I'm late to the party. I didn't start watching GoT until this year and now I'm totally obsessed with it and have watched it several times. I'm in the middle of the first book too. I can't get enough of it!

I apologize if this topic has already been posted but I couldn't find it anywhere.

I'm confused as to who the real heir to the iron throne is. Cercei is sitting on it now. If she should die without giving birth and it stands as it did at the end of season 7 then:

Wouldn't Jaimie be the true heir? Just like if Prince William didn't have children, Harry would be next in line.

Or if it should go to a Baratheon heir because she was Robert's wife, then it should fall to Gendry as his son.

Or if Robert was truly a usurper, then it should go to Jon.

What do y'all think?

 

 

 

 

It depends on the opinions of the lords and ladies of the realm as to who they’d consider the true heir, and they’ll have different opinions like people on this forum do. I’d consider Jon, as a legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen, to be the true heir to the throne. But one could argue Daenerys is the true heir, because Queen Rhaella crowned Viserys III on Dragonstone and he named Daenerys his heir. Those who support the Baratheon Rebellion may consider Gendry the heir, as the legitimate Baratheon line is extinct. Cersei also has a claim, not only through conquest but also through proximity, in which case Jaime could put forward a claim as her eldest brother. There may even be a claim for Brienne’s father Lord Selwyn Tarth as House Tarth has recent ties to House Baratheon and House Targaryen and so they *might* be the legitimate heirs to both House Targaryen (after Jon and Daenerys) and to House Baratheon. 

So long story short, there is no “true heir,” just claims. Jon has the best claim to me, but if I was a lord I might not believe the evidence and so consider the true heir to be Daenerys, and even then I might consider her too brutal and choose to support another claimant even if I believe their claim weaker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/27/2018 at 7:38 AM, Bufo said:

What do y'all think?

I don't know who is the true heir. All I know is, that Cersei cannot sit (by right) on the Iron Throne, as she is a woman. 

In the books I would say Edric Storm is the heir of Robert. In the show ? Who knows. i would argue against Gendry, as he is not acknowledged. But in the end ... D&D will declare it "was all based on a lie". *depressing look*

Edited by SirArthur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS FAR AS THE SHOW IS CONCERNED

Technically, Jon is the true heir.

However, if there is no hard evidence to attest to Jon's bloodline, then the right belongs to Daenerys. The proof of her Targaryen blood is self-evident. If I was any person in Westeros - highborn or lowborn - then I'd lean in favor of Daenerys. As far as most people would be concerned, Jon is the Dornish-born bastard son of Ned Stark. So, the thought of him on the Throne? No way.

Cersei has no right to sit on the Iron Throne. Her sex (and her blood ties to the previous king) has a little to do with it but it has more to do with the fact that none her children are legitimate Baratheons - they are illegitimate Lannisters. They couldn't even inherit Casterly Rock.

That's one of the worst aspects about season 7. People should be protesting her reign and conspiring against her either openly or secretly...for a whole slew of reasons. Conquest? Please but whatevs I guess.

Gendry has more right than she does and Gendry had never been acknowledged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

AS FAR AS THE SHOW IS CONCERNED

Technically, Jon is the true heir.

However, if there is no hard evidence to attest to Jon's bloodline, then the right belongs to Daenerys. The proof of her Targaryen blood is self-evident. If I was any person in Westeros - highborn or lowborn - then I'd lean in favor of Daenerys. As far as most people would be concerned, Jon is the Dornish-born bastard son of Ned Stark. So, the thought of him on the Throne? No way.

Cersei has no right to sit on the Iron Throne. Her sex (and her blood ties to the previous king) has a little to do with it but it has more to do with the fact that none her children are legitimate Baratheons - they are illegitimate Lannisters. They couldn't even inherit Casterly Rock.

That's one of the worst aspects about season 7. People should be protesting her reign and conspiring against her either openly or secretly...for a whole slew of reasons. Conquest? Please but whatevs I guess.

Gendry has more right than she does and Gendry had never been acknowledged.

You’re right. Jon doesn’t even have immunity to fire. 

I’m surprised by the smallfolk’s approval of Cersei comes from, considering she’s done: 

  • Slept with her brother and bore three incest-born bastards, one of which was one of the most notable examples of the Caligula in living Westeros memory, 
  • Had the Great Sept of Baelor blown up with wildfire, which also counts her as a kinslayer since Kevan and Lancel were among the victims, as well as the popular Tyrells, which blew up a bunch of smallfolk as well
  • Allied with Euron Greyjoy, who is Ironborn (one of the most disliked Seven Kingdoms)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 4:06 PM, Angel Eyes said:

You’re right. Jon doesn’t even have immunity to fire. 

I’m surprised by the smallfolk’s approval of Cersei comes from, considering she’s done: 

  • Slept with her brother and bore three incest-born bastards, one of which was one of the most notable examples of the Caligula in living Westeros memory, 
  • Had the Great Sept of Baelor blown up with wildfire, which also counts her as a kinslayer since Kevan and Lancel were among the victims, as well as the popular Tyrells, which blew up a bunch of smallfolk as well
  • Allied with Euron Greyjoy, who is Ironborn (one of the most disliked Seven Kingdoms)

Toss in that destroying the Sept would be akin to blowing up the Vatican, as well as killing the High Septon (she called him the sparrow) as well as all the High Church Officials and she killed Queen Maergery and probably a fair amount of the nobility.  She has absolutely no right to the throne.  There must be a Baratheon cousin somewhere with a claim.  After all, if you look at HenryVIth of England, despite his being deposed Margaret of Anjou never became, or was seriously considered a ruler in her own right.  Failing a Baratheon heir then undoubtedly it would pass to Dany, or to Jon since, once his story is told, he is the true heir.  I always felt that his story would wind up being Arthurian in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Byfort of Corfe said:

Toss in that destroying the Sept would be akin to blowing up the Vatican, as well as killing the High Septon (she called him the sparrow) as well as all the High Church Officials and she killed Queen Maergery and probably a fair amount of the nobility.  She has absolutely no right to the throne.  There must be a Baratheon cousin somewhere with a claim.  After all, if you look at HenryVIth of England, despite his being deposed Margaret of Anjou never became, or was seriously considered a ruler in her own right.  Failing a Baratheon heir then undoubtedly it would pass to Dany, or to Jon since, once his story is told, he is the true heir.  I always felt that his story would wind up being Arthurian in nature.

So Rhaegar is Uther Pendragon, with all the questionable consent to boot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 10:37 PM, Jabar of House Titan said:

Cersei has no right to sit on the Iron Throne. Her sex (and her blood ties to the previous king) has a little to do with it but it has more to do with the fact that none her children are legitimate Baratheons - they are illegitimate Lannisters. They couldn't even inherit Casterly Rock.

Didn't you read all those articles last year that declared Cersei the heir of Tommen, because she is a very distant relative of Robert ? And then I think it is very fair to argue that Cersei's children are definitly her's, definitly "acknowledged" by her and definitly raised by her. Which is more or less an adoption and should also count for Lannister inheritance. Else I guess some bastard of Jaime has the best claim. Oh wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are talking technically, it is hard to say. It started off belonging to House Targaryen, they lost it to House Baratheon through right of conquest, but technically since Robert Baratheon's grandmother was a Targaryen, you could argue that once the Targaryens were dead he was next in line to the throne anyway, after Viserys and Daenerys. (and unknowingly Jon) 

If there was a Great Council then the Lords would probably choose Jon are the rightful King, since:

A.) He is the son of Rhaegar, who everyone loved.

B.) He grew up in Westeros.

C.) He has experience in ruling, even if it is only the Nights Watch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the message of the story is that a "true heir" or "rightful ruler" doesn't exist. The one who wins the war becomes the king. The winners write history. Just like in the real world, by the way.

We don't know much, from what I remember, about the pre-Targaryen Westeros, but we know that they also came and conquered it, or in other words, overthrew whoever was ruling before and usurped the power. And that someone had probably overthrown someone else before. 

Not sure if that was the case in the books, but having recently caught up with the show, I remember there being hints that maybe they will do away with all the hereditary systems in Westeros. That's at least what Daenerys is planning. Tyrion even suggested other ways of choosing the king, like the one's in Night's Watch or on the Iron Islands. It's possible that the happy ending will be the introduction of general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Jon is NOT the Heir. While he might be the issue of marriage in the eyes of the Faith, due to Prince Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna, such a marriage, involving as it did, the need of a royal decree in support of the divorce and then a royal decree allowing the marriage and Lyanna's father's permission given Lyanna's status as a daughter of House Stark and a minor, could be considered illegal. Jon would then have no claim on title, land, family name or succession. He would legally be a bastard and remain one until the holder of the iron Throne can grant a decree legitimizing him. Perhaps Prince Rhaegar intended such an action after the Rebellion when he forced his father to abdicate.

2. Westeros is evidently under something like Salic Law, which grants inheritance to the eldest living male and the division of an inheritance such as Charlemagne did with his empire at his death. It is also obviously a patriarchal society, feudal in nature with undertones of clan and tribal culture. As such the last remaining male with any of the dynasty's blood is the Heir. If not, then a female might be considered. There might also be a conclave of the "great" Houses to pick an heir. As far as legitimacy, the Lannisters hold the Throne by right of conquest through a coup d'état executed by Lady Cersei Lannister Baratheon, the Queen Mother, in the absence, supposedly, of any male heir of Baratheon blood. Gendry is an unacknowledged bastard, the lowest of the low, even lower than a serf or slave legally (which also applies to Robert's other bastards, which meant they were legally no real threat to Geoffrey or Cersei and killing them had no real political context or rational). For him to claim the succession, he would need to be legitimized either by the head of the Baratheon family or by the King/Queen. If there are other males with Baratheon blood, then they would be Pretenders to the Throne in their claims of succession, as they do not hold the Throne. And it could be argued that Robert's claims of Targaryan bloodline was fig leaf for his seizure of the Throne through military action (and trying to wipe out any other claimants). The same can be said of the Targaryans, having been removed from the Throne by the Baratheons by both blood right in their relationship to ancient Targaryan blood and by right of conquest. Danerys claims to be the Targaryan Pretender in the absence of any male with Tragrayan blood. As I pointed out above, legally Jon is a bastard. He would even be like Gendry, an unacknowledged bastard as Prince Rhaegar never made any public acknowledgement of his issue. A bastard, however, has no legal rights, no family rights or name. It doesn't matter that Jon was not Lord Edard Stark's son by any other woman. He acknowledged him as a Stark bastard, giving him a name and specific family and legal rights. In doing so, Lord Stark changed Jon's "bloodline" from Targaryan to Stark. While Jon is by blood and Faith, Danerys' nephew, legally he has no family relationship to her that would prevent marriage. Only the head of the Targaryan family and or either a king or queen can now make Jon legally a Targaryan. Also, legally any male head of the Stark family could legitimize Jon as a Stark as could a queen or king. Finally, it could be argued since only a Stark can be King in the North, Jon's acclamation by the Northern Houses as King legitimizes him as a Stark, regardless of his bloodl relationship to Danerys. Believe or not, one reason studying at law and becoming a lawyer was actually important during the later Middle Ages was the litigious nature of medieval society just over such legal issues as we just covered. Lawyers could argue before the Faith, the Royal Court or a Conclave of the Houses as to who really was legally heir to the iron Throne. Of course, in the end, military might matters, as with the succession to Edward the Confessor, when William of Normandy took the Throne of England by conquest and covered it by arguing the legalities of Edward's and Harald's promises to him.

3. This doesn't prevent a female from inheriting, especially if a House, like Mormont, has made provisions for accepting a female as head of family and lord. A Queen, however, was always uneasy on the Throne when there were other male claimants ( "The White Princess" captured the essence of this in its last episode, though it was Henry VII on the throne, but Queen Elizabeth I's career is another example, see the Duke of Norfolk). She ruled with the consent of the politically powerful males of her realm (note at Cersei's conference with the lords of Westeros, not a woman among them). This was a residual impact of the ancient tribal customs. The leader of a tribe was the leader because he led the tribe to war, fighting in the front line. His military leadership was a major part of his reason for being. Male kings and lords who did not do so, risked the disapproval of their vassals and neighbors and the possibility of being replaced. This was one of the reasons for Salic law. Note that there was never a female Holy Roman Emperor, no Queen of France that ruled in her own right. This is also why Bran would probably not be accepted as Lord Stark, even with his stepping aside. His physical limitations create political, social and cultural barriers to leadership.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2018 at 10:18 AM, Michael Snyder said:

1. Jon is NOT the Heir. While he might be the issue of marriage in the eyes of the Faith, due to Prince Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna, such a marriage, involving as it did, the need of a royal decree in support of the divorce and then a royal decree allowing the marriage and Lyanna's father's permission given Lyanna's status as a daughter of House Stark and a minor, could be considered illegal. Jon would then have no claim on title, land, family name or succession. He would legally be a bastard and remain one until the holder of the iron Throne can grant a decree legitimizing him. Perhaps Prince Rhaegar intended such an action after the Rebellion when he forced his father to abdicate.

This may be a line of thought in the books, but I think the show doesnt care. 

Ramsay's marriage to Sansa was never under threat of being legitimate even if her marriage to Tyrion was never annulled.

Rhaegar could always say he was pulling an Aegon I, and practicing polygamy by marrying two wives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×