Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alyn Oakenfist

Who is more legitimate, Stannis or Aegon?

Recommended Posts

Stannis. The Baratheon's currently hold the IT. The current 'Baratheon' is not a true Baratheon & so Stannis is the rightful heir. Aegon was heir to Rhaegar Targaryen, who never sat the throne & the throne is no longer in Targaryen hands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Supposing Aegon is legit, then who would be more legitimate Stannis or Aegon?

Daenerys.  She is the most legitimate of all the contenders.

There are understandable doubts regarding Aegon's identity that will come into play. As much as I don't like it, Stannis has more legitimacy than Young Griff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Daenerys.  She is the most legitimate of all the contenders.

There are understandable doubts regarding Aegon's identity that will come into play. As much as I don't like it, Stannis has more legitimacy than Young Griff.

Baratheons Took the iron throne by the right of conquest (just like Targaryens established their rule by same right of conquest)

Currently Daenerys has no more legitimate rights than some wildlings north of the Wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Daenerys.  She is the most legitimate of all the contenders.

There are understandable doubts regarding Aegon's identity that will come into play. As much as I don't like it, Stannis has more legitimacy than Young Griff.

I did say supposing Aegon was legit as he's both higher on the succession line and a man (which does matter quite a lot in Westeros).

1 hour ago, Putin said:

Baratheons Took the iron throne by the right of conquest (just like Targaryens established their rule by same right of conquest)

Actually Robert claimed the Iron Throne by saying that Aerys has lost the right to rule for both him and his line and as such Robert would be the legitimate heir (his grandma was Jaeharys the II's sister). I know that this only happened because of the war, but Robert was chosen among the 3 men (Robert, Ned and Jon) because of this reason. As such the problem of legitimacy comes down to whether Aerys's deposal was legit (probably was) and whether his deposal also removed his children from the succession line. Cause Robert is an usurper in the truest sense of the word, ie someone who jumps ahead in the succession line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I did say supposing Aegon was legit as he's both higher on the succession line and a man (which does matter quite a lot in Westeros).

Actually Robert claimed the Iron Throne by saying that Aerys has lost the right to rule for both him and his line and as such Robert would be the legitimate heir (his grandma was Jaeharys the II's sister). I know that this only happened because of the war, but Robert was chosen among the 3 men (Robert, Ned and Jon) because of this reason. As such the problem of legitimacy comes down to whether Aerys's deposal was legit (probably was) and whether his deposal also removed his children from the succession line. Cause Robert is an usurper in the truest sense of the word, ie someone who jumps ahead in the succession line.

Reality is that conquest right took throne from Targaryens , while best claim made sure it was Robert  to be crowned among those 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

Depends on who you ask. 

True, true.  

Westeros belongs to the family who forged the kingdom.  That would be House Targaryen.  Stannis, if we are to use right of conquest as justification, would surely lose to the Lannisters.  The Lannisters took the throne from Robert.  So what if it's not in battle.  It doesn't matter.  And if we are to use right of conquest as our standard, then it must apply to all situations.  So that means the loser Starks lost the North and Winterfell because they got their collective asses handed to them during the War of the Five Kings.  The Tullys lost Riverun because they were on the losing Stark team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Big P said:

True, true.  

Westeros belongs to the family who forged the kingdom.  That would be House Targaryen.  Stannis, if we are to use right of conquest as justification, would surely lose to the Lannisters.  The Lannisters took the throne from Robert.  So what if it's not in battle.  It doesn't matter.  And if we are to use right of conquest as our standard, then it must apply to all situations.  So that means the loser Starks lost the North and Winterfell because they got their collective asses handed to them during the War of the Five Kings.  The Tullys lost Riverun because they were on the losing Stark team.  

Last time i read about Tommen, he called himself Baratheon, not Lannister. And when Jaime demanded  to come clean, they all knew that if the truth became accepted they lose their heads. And yes, the Starks and the Tullys lost their homes because they were beaten and attainted, the only difference is that no one gives a shit and the Starks are still considered  the rightful rulers of the North, that's why everyone wants Sansa... But that momentum will disappear as it disappeared for the Targs.

Now, I'm with @Trigger Warning it all comes down to who do you really prefer to rule.

 

 

12 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

There is no legitimacy, there is only power.

Meh, that is true even for current democracies, there is legitimacy that comes with power. If legitimacy wasn't relevant, Jon Arryn would've been King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Actually Robert claimed the Iron Throne by saying that Aerys has lost the right to rule for both him and his line and as such Robert would be the legitimate heir (his grandma was Jaeharys the II's sister). I know that this only happened because of the war, but Robert was chosen among the 3 men (Robert, Ned and Jon) because of this reason. As such the problem of legitimacy comes down to whether Aerys's deposal was legit (probably was) and whether his deposal also removed his children from the succession line. Cause Robert is an usurper in the truest sense of the word, ie someone who jumps ahead in the succession line.

Yeah, I mean this played a part but I think a very small part. As you said it was a choice between 3 men, not who was the rightful heir according to bloodline & the only reason Robert had the ability to make this claim & enforce it was through conquest. The fact that he was distantly related to the Targ's would have held no water whatsoever if he hadn't been able to win the rebellion. 

I don't know if it matters if Aerys's disposal was legit (I think it was) because he wasn't disposed of 'lawfully' I don't know what the process is for removing someone from power in universe but there are theories that suggest Rhaegar was attempting to do just that. At any rate, it didn't come to fruition & Aerys was forcibly removed from power & murdered. Robert is an usurper, however, I don't think that negates his claim to the throne - at least not in anyway that matters. There are certainly those that believe the Targaryen's are still the rightful rulers but many more of them submitted to Robert's rule, so he is King in all that counts & therefore it is his heirs who will sit the throne if & until someone removes them from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Big P said:

Westeros belongs to the family who forged the kingdom.  That would be House Targaryen.  Stannis, if we are to use right of conquest as justification, would surely lose to the Lannisters.  The Lannisters took the throne from Robert.  So what if it's not in battle.  It doesn't matter.  And if we are to use right of conquest as our standard, then it must apply to all situations.

This is an interesting point & one I brought up not long ago. The Lannisters have effectively removed the Baratheon's from the throne so it can be said that in a way, they conquered the throne & are now the rulers of the 7K. I think what makes that untrue, though, is the fact that they are not ruling in their own right. They are only able to have the throne under the guise that they are Baratheon's, so it isn't quite the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This is an interesting point & one I brought up not long ago. The Lannisters have effectively removed the Baratheon's from the throne so it can be said that in a way, they conquered the throne & are now the rulers of the 7K. I think what makes that untrue, though, is the fact that they are not ruling in their own right. They are only able to have the throne under the guise that they are Baratheon's, so it isn't quite the same. 

I mean it's not the same. Sure, in 50-60 years no one  would care, no one would tell from a Lannister Baratheon.

The Lannisters have not conquered anything, had they done that, they would not be using the last name of someone they despise  so much or Jaime's idea of coming clean would not be equal of collective suicide.

Targs situation would ve similar to the Starks if they don't retake Winterfell soon.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't know if it matters if Aerys's disposal was legit (I think it was) because he wasn't disposed of 'lawfully' I don't know what the process is for removing someone from power in universe but there are theories that suggest Rhaegar was attempting to do just that.

I would be very surprised if there is a lawful way of removing someone, if there was, there would be no reason to call  Robert usurper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I mean it's not the same. Sure, in 50-60 years no one  would care, no one would tell from a Lannister Baratheon.

The Lannisters have not conquered anything, had they done that, they would not be using the last name of someone they despise  so much or Jaime's idea of coming clean would not be equal of collective suicide.

Targs situation would ve similar to the Starks if they don't retake Winterfell soon.

I agree. 

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I would be very surprised if there is a lawful way of removing someone, if there was, there would be no reason to call  Robert usurper.

Yeah, probably not. I just meant that if Rhaegar had convinced the other lords that Aerys was mad & his reign should come to a close, they could have forcibly removed him peacefully & that would be considered lawful according to the Targ's. Because Robert took the throne by right of conquest I don't think it really matters what is considered 'legal' to the Targ's any more - they aren't in power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should not make the mistake of believing Westeros (or strictly the 7K) in any way resembles a rules-based system. Even where competing claims have been put to Great Councils, the decision has always been about who had the most support, not the most royal blood. And that support was largely granted by various Lords in their own best interests.

At best, 'legitimacy' is a fig-leaf to cover the naked steel - after the fact. We find more truth in Varys' little parable about 'where power lies' than the pious platitudes we hear in the court. Renly understood it better than Stannis - swords make kings, not 'birthrights'.

.'Right of conquest' is simply a pretty bow tied on usurpation, which like bastards, can be 'legitimised' retroactively. I don't think there's too much coincidence in the similarities between Robert Baratheon and Henry VIII. All the big issues that beset the legitimacy of the Tudor dynasty are reflected in ASoIaF. The difference between a 'loyalist' and a 'traitor' can only be seen after the battle - Henry VII even dated the start of his reign to the day before the Battle of Bosworth so he could attaint Lords who fought for Richard (our great rebel and traitor Duke of Gloucester, calling himself Richard III), depriving them of the defence of serving the Crown. It's all there in the Tudor tales: usurping an alleged tyrant, Princes being declared bastards, and bastards being declared Princes, lost pretenders being found or made, there's even allegation of brother-sister incest on the part of an unpopular Queen (yep, that's part of what got Anne Boleyn shortened in stature...), there's the question of whether a king can name his heir (Edward VI's 'Devise for the Succession' in favour of Jane Grey etc)

In short, I think in ASoIaF - as in real history - royal 'legitimacy' is purely a legal fiction that sets the seal on the realpolitik: a slightly more decorous way of going 'ner ner ner, finders keepers' on the part of anyone with the power to slap the crown on their head and their arse on the world's most uncomfortable chair. And I think that's what George meant it to be :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

We should not make the mistake of believing Westeros (or strictly the 7K) in any way resembles a rules-based system. Even where competing claims have been put to Great Councils, the decision has always been about who had the most support, not the most royal blood. And that support was largely granted by various Lords in their own best interests.

At best, 'legitimacy' is a fig-leaf to cover the naked steel - after the fact. We find more truth in Varys' little parable about 'where power lies' than the pious platitudes we hear in the court. Renly understood it better than Stannis - swords make kings, not 'birthrights'.

.'Right of conquest' is simply a pretty bow tied on usurpation, which like bastards, can be 'legitimised' retroactively. I don't think there's too much coincidence in the similarities between Robert Baratheon and Henry VIII. All the big issues that beset the legitimacy of the Tudor dynasty are reflected in ASoIaF. The difference between a 'loyalist' and a 'traitor' can only be seen after the battle - Henry VII even dated the start of his reign to the day before the Battle of Bosworth so he could attaint Lords who fought for Richard (our great rebel and traitor Duke of Gloucester, calling himself Richard III), depriving them of the defence of serving the Crown. It's all there in the Tudor tales: usurping an alleged tyrant, Princes being declared bastards, and bastards being declared Princes, lost pretenders being found or made, there's even allegation of brother-sister incest on the part of an unpopular Queen (yep, that's part of what got Anne Boleyn shortened in stature...), there's the question of whether a king can name his heir (Edward VI's 'Devise for the Succession' in favour of Jane Grey etc)

In short, I think in ASoIaF - as in real history - royal 'legitimacy' is purely a legal fiction that sets the seal on the realpolitik: a slightly more decorous way of going 'ner ner ner, finders keepers' on the part of anyone with the power to slap the crown on their head and their arse on the world's most uncomfortable chair. And I think that's what George meant it to be :cheers:

Absolutely, especially the bolded.  And just as  you mentioned, if Robert had lost the rebellion he would be seen as a traitorous rebel rather than the new King. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

We should not make the mistake of believing Westeros (or strictly the 7K) in any way resembles a rules-based system. Even where competing claims have been put to Great Councils, the decision has always been about who had the most support, not the most royal blood. And that support was largely granted by various Lords in their own best interests.

But it was who had the most support amongst a very specific pool of people. You did not see Lannisters or Greyjos presenting their claims. It was always among people with Targ blood.

 

32 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

At best, 'legitimacy' is a fig-leaf to cover the naked steel - after the fact. We find more truth in Varys' little parable about 'where power lies' than the pious platitudes we hear in the court. Renly understood it better than Stannis - swords make kings, not 'birthrights'.

As i said, this is true even in today  world.  Legitimacy  has always a fig leaf to cover a naked steel- after fact. That does not change the fact that people needs legitimacy toda y as much as the Westerosi need it. If not, you end up living in a place like the Riverlands pre conquest, a no mans  land in which petty  lords warred constantly because they accept no legitimacy but theirs.

 

 

Quote

Right of conquest' is simply a pretty bow tied on usurpation, which like bastards, can be 'legitimised' retroactively. I don't think there's too much coincidence in the similarities between Robert Baratheon and Henry VIII. All the big issues that beset the legitimacy of the Tudor dynasty are reflected in ASoIaF. The difference between a 'loyalist' and a 'traitor' can only be seen after the battle - Henry VII even dated the start of his reign to the day before the Battle of Bosworth so he could attaint Lords who fought for Richard (our great rebel and traitor Duke of Gloucester, calling himself Richard III), depriving them of the defence of serving the Crown. It's all there in the Tudor tales: usurping an alleged tyrant, Princes being declared bastards, and bastards being declared Princes, lost pretenders being found or made, there's even allegation of brother-sister incest on the part of an unpopular Queen (yep, that's part of what got Anne Boleyn shortened in stature...), there's the question of whether a king can name his heir (Edward VI's 'Devise for the Succession' in favour of Jane Grey etc)

Which is curious because Robert and the Baratheons are the Plantagenet brothers (Edward IV- Bobby, Stannis- Richard III, Renly- George Plantagenet) Martin himself has said so. Ofc that in every civil war and the inmediate  aftermath there is a clash of legitimacies and legalities.

Right or conquest, or usurpation, can only be used by very specific reasons or else  you are risking getting into anarchy. As no one is dumb enough to risk what one has conquered in the following morning, they all build justifications for their power graba, Aegon himself did not say, I have dragons you have to follow me. He, and Jaeharys, did their best to reconcile  Westeros under their rulers and create justifications, those justifications were the same that in his House  most weak moment still half the Realm were willing to fight  for them.

 

 

Quote

In short, I think in ASoIaF - as in real history - royal 'legitimacy' is purely a legal fiction that sets the seal on the realpolitik: a slightly more decorous way of going 'ner ner ner, finders keepers' on the part of anyone with the power to slap the crown on their head and their arse on the world's most uncomfortable chair. And I think that's what George meant it to be :cheers:

Every legality is by definition  fiction. There is a reason however while the Riverlands were only in peace during the reign of one accepted dynasty (Justmans) and were a chaos after and before that and for why the Iron Islands only knew internal peace during the Kingsmoot era... 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Which is curious because Robert and the Baratheons are the Plantagenet brothers (Edward IV- Bobby, Stannis- Richard III, Renly- George Plantagenet) Martin himself has said so. Ofc that in every civil war and the inmediate  aftermath there is a clash of legitimacies and legalities.

I've never seen him say this. I have seen him say there are no one-to-one matches between history and his characters, though. Just echoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...