Who is more legitimate, Stannis or Aegon?

[Frey family reunion]

While I truly hate discussing the "legitimacy" of a fictional right to rule Westeros, under the rules that everyone seems to have tepidly agreed to, if you believe that the Targaryens never legitimately lost their claim to the throne, than Dany would probably have a better claim than Aegon.  

If you believe the account set forth in the Worldbook, it appears that Aerys made Viserys his heir over Rhaegar's heirs, effectively disinheriting Rhaegar's line.  And Dany (if actually legitimate herself ) would be next in line after Viserys.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

While I truly hate discussing the "legitimacy" of a fictional right to rule Westeros, under the rules that everyone seems to have tepidly agreed to, if you believe that the Targaryens never legitimately lost their claim to the throne, than Dany would probably have a better claim than Aegon.  

If you believe the account set forth in the Worldbook, it appears that Aerys made Viserys his heir over Rhaegar's heirs, effectively disinheriting Rhaegar's line.  And Dany (if actually legitimate herself ) would be next in line after Viserys.

Except the Targs lost the throne, courtesy of batshit megalomaniac Aerys. They have no “right” to anything anymore. If they reconquer it, then yeah. But as of the current timeline, Stannis is Robert’s rightful heir. 

[Frey family reunion]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Except the Targs lost the throne, courtesy of batshit megalomaniac Aerys. They have no “right” to anything anymore. If they reconquer it, then yeah. But as of the current timeline, Stannis is Robert’s rightful heir. 

That’s why I presented the caveat, if you believe the Targaryens never legitimately lost their claim to the throne.  If so than you have to acknowledge that Aerys apparently disinherited Rhaegar’s line (much like Duncan the Small’s line would have been disinherited had he lived to have children (he didn’t, right? Umm, right?))

Personally, I believe the adage live by the sword die by the sword should fit the Targaryens.  They created the throne from violence, and they lost the throne from violence.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

While I truly hate discussing the "legitimacy" of a fictional right to rule Westeros, under the rules that everyone seems to have tepidly agreed to, if you believe that the Targaryens never legitimately lost their claim to the throne, than Dany would probably have a better claim than Aegon.  

If you believe the account set forth in the Worldbook, it appears that Aerys made Viserys his heir over Rhaegar's heirs, effectively disinheriting Rhaegar's line.  And Dany (if actually legitimate herself ) would be next in line after Viserys.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

23 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.  

If we are to use "right of conquest" as the justification to rule, yes.  Yes, the Starks lost every right to Winterfell.  Stannis lost to the Lannisters and he no longer has a right to the throne.  

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

If we are to use "right of conquest" as the justification to rule, yes.  Yes, the Starks lost every right to Winterfell.  Stannis lost to the Lannisters and he no longer has a right to the throne.  

The Lannisters haven't taken the throne. Tommen 'Baratheon' sits the throne & he is no true Baratheon. Stannis is Robert's rightful heir. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 3/9/2020 at 5:53 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

 

He will have to prove his claim. The best he can do is not enough to overcome Daenerys and her proof. And even if he could, it doesn't undo the past. Aerys chose Viserys.  Rhaella crowned Viserys. The line of succession passed to Viserys and Daenerys.

[Darth Sidious]

On 3/9/2020 at 4:50 PM, Rufus Snow said:

There is no legitimacy, there is only power.

Yes, when you get down to the brass tacks, yes.  Power can sweep away legitimacy.  Time and legacy aid in the perception of legitimacy.  But power can sometimes still trump legitimacy.  

[TedBear]

Wouldn't it be Tommen? He is Robert's son legally, Robert never knew he was a bastard to take away his legitimacy.

Between Stannis and Aegon it would be Stannis, Aegon cannot prove its origin, in fact it happens with any targaryen that appears with the exception of Dany, but I do not consider Aerys to have disinherited Rhaegar, Rhaegar became known as the last dragon, the targaryens would not had another person fit for the throne, even if Aerys had disowned him, people would hardly consider it.

[frenin]

18 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

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.

More... I see a lot of Henry IV of Castile in Robert Baratheon, if I am right, you will now what I mean...

Sorry, Henry IV is not a fellow I know much about. If Robert is modelled on anyone, it is more Edward IV of England... though as usual, I rang in some changes.   Here

 

I've seen Martin saying that there are parts of Henry VII in him, so you're right to.

The point is tho, that legitimacy does matter, as fig leaf  as it is.  It matters as much as it mattered in real life, a lot.  We're talking about dynasties here whose purpose is to last,  the only way of  doing that is creating a justification  for people to restrain themselves to do with you the same thing you did to the former rulers of the land... legitimacy. I don't really see why the readers believe that claims and legitimacies are unimportant when the books and its characters, from the noblest to the lowest are so focused  in the blood.

Robert was chosen for his blood, all the contenders  for the Throne descend directly (Stannis, Renly, Viserys, Dany) or allegedly (Joffrey, Tommen, Myrce, Young G) from Aegon 5, the Lannisters have succesfully suplanted the Baratheons and have enlisted the Tyrells on their shenanigans and yet they are still going by the Baratheon name, the Starks are traitors and almost extinct, and yet the very first thing the Boltons do is marrying  Ramsay to Arya Stark while Westeros at whole don't give a fuck about that and tries to get Sansa because all of them she her as the rightful ruler of Winterfell, Harry the ass is treated so well because he is the last Arryn after Robert, the Tyrells tried to justify their rulership by claiming a connection to the Gardenerseen when a hugeass dragon had granted them Highgarden, so on and so forth. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

I've seen Martin saying that there are parts of Henry VII in him, so you're right to.

I think you mean to say Henry VIII. Henry VII is more similar to Tywin then Robert.

11 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

He will have to prove his claim. The best he can do is not enough to overcome Daenerys and her proof. And even if he could, it doesn't undo the past. Aerys chose Viserys.  Rhaella crowned Viserys. The line of succession passed to Viserys and Daenerys.

Well here we're talking about if Aegon is legit, cause else there is no point in discussing his claim. There a couple of problems with what you said.

It's improbable that Aerys chose Viserys, even if he did he left no written record of the fact and as such it doesn't matter.

Rhaella crowned Viserys because she though that Aegon and Rhaenys were dead. This doesn't make Aegon not the true heir to Aerys.

But most important of all, even if you say that Viserys was Aerys's rightful heir there is one very important fact. Viserys died. By every law of succession, Viserys's older brother (and as an extension his children) come before his younger sister Dany. 

Also even the book characters recognize that Aegon's claim is better then Dany's, Tyrion even says as much.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

31 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well here we're talking about if Aegon is legit, cause else there is no point in discussing his claim. There a couple of problems with what you said.

It's improbable that Aerys chose Viserys, even if he did he left no written record of the fact and as such it doesn't matter.

Rhaella crowned Viserys because she though that Aegon and Rhaenys were dead. This doesn't make Aegon not the true heir to Aerys.

But most important of all, even if you say that Viserys was Aerys's rightful heir there is one very important fact. Viserys died. By every law of succession, Viserys's older brother (and as an extension his children) come before his younger sister Dany. 

Also even the book characters recognize that Aegon's claim is better then Dany's, Tyrion even says as much.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

It's improbable that Aerys chose Viserys, even if he did he left no written record of the fact and as such it doesn't matter.

We know he chose Viserys and we know that there is a written record of that (one written by Maester Yandel, who wouldn't have pulled that out of his ass).

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Rhaella crowned Viserys because she though that Aegon and Rhaenys were dead. This doesn't make Aegon not the true heir to Aerys.

The king decided his heir was Viserys - Queen Rhaella may also have believed that Aegon was dead, but even if she wouldn't have known that it stands to reason she, too, would have preferred her son to her grandson in this issue - especially is Aegon had been a prisoner/hostage of Robert.

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

But most important of all, even if you say that Viserys was Aerys's rightful heir there is one very important fact. Viserys died. By every law of succession, Viserys's older brother (and as an extension his children) come before his younger sister Dany. 

Viserys III named and anointed Daenerys his heir - she is styled 'Princess of Dragonstone' in AGoT, indicating that for the Targaryens in exile and their allies she wasn't just a presumptive heir but the Heir Apparent of the exiled rightful King, Viserys III.

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Also even the book characters recognize that Aegon's claim is better then Dany's, Tyrion even says as much.

That is Tyrion poisoning Aegon against Daenerys. Dany might be female but she is unquestionably a Targaryen, unlike Aegon, and she is the Mother of Dragons and by now a dragonrider. This should make her claim much stronger than Aegon's if they were presenting it at the same time - Aegon might be able to gain an advantage by being the first Targaryen pretender in Westeros, but we can be pretty sure that his star is going to sink very quickly if he fails to acquire a dragon of his own.

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Except the Targs lost the throne, courtesy of batshit megalomaniac Aerys. They have no “right” to anything anymore. If they reconquer it, then yeah. But as of the current timeline, Stannis is Robert’s rightful heir. 

That is a faulty way of reasoning in a feudal aristrocratic world. Loyalty and conquest are personal, not institutional. Viserys III and Daenerys never 'lost their claims' because they never formally gave them up. They just went into exile, like Brandon the Broken and Rickon Stark. Aegon the Conqueror conquered six of the Seven Kingdoms because the kings and lords he conquered gave up their crowns, accepted him as their king and liege lord, and did him homage - Viserys III and Daenerys Targaryen never did homage to Robert Baratheon nor did they accept him as their king and liege lord.

Thus they never lost any claims since in a monarchistic world the subjects of a king can never rule over the claims of a king - just as the peers of a lord cannot really take away the rights of the heirs of a fellow lord they betrayed and murdered.

It is, of course, obvious that people who went into exile would have to come back and make good of their claims in word and deed, but there it is rather obvious that everybody in Westeros would accept it if a Targaryen came forth to lay claim to the Iron Throne as a child or grandchild of Aerys the Mad, just as everybody in Westeros would accept it if Brandon or Rickon or Sansa Stark one day came forth to lay claim to Winterfell and the North.

Nobody in the books ever implied that some lords can 'devaluate' the claims the members of a particular royal family had. In fact, we can also argue that a king attainting a particular family also have to enforce this - right now the Florents still hold Brightwater, no matter what Joffrey decreed, and it stands to argue that Tommen's decree to grant Riverrun to Emmon and Genna is also not going to stand despite the fact they are currently in possession of the castle.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I think you mean to say Henry VIII. Henry VII is more similar to Tywin then Robert.

Gotcha, I was thinking in the things while writing, thanks for the correction.

 

Quote

We know he chose Viserys and we know that there is a written record of that (one written by Maester Yandel, who wouldn't have pulled that out of his ass).

Well, the fact that our only source is Yandel, not even Viserys, does not help.

 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a faulty way of reasoning in a feudal aristrocratic world. Loyalty and conquest are personal, not institutional. Viserys III and Daenerys never 'lost their claims' because they never formally gave them up. They just went into exile, like Brandon the Broken and Rickon Stark. Aegon the Conqueror conquered six of the Seven Kingdoms because the kings and lords he conquered gave up their crowns, accepted him as their king and liege lord, and did him homage - Viserys III and Daenerys Targaryen never did homage to Robert Baratheon nor did they accept him as their king and liege lord.

Brandon the Broken and Rickon the toddler have no claim since their house  is attainted. Viserys and Dany may have not paid homage to the new dynasty... Westeros sure aa hell did tho, so they aren't righful rulers of much until they retake what they lost.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is, of course, obvious that people who went into exile would have to come back and make good of their claims in word and deed, but there it is rather obvious that everybody in Westeros would accept it if a Targaryen came forth to lay claim to the Iron Throne as a child or grandchild of Aerys the Mad, just as everybody in Westeros would accept it if Brandon or Rickon or Sansa Stark one day came forth to lay claim to Winterfell and the North.

Seriously?? I can think any of at least 4 Kings that  would not accept it at the beginning  of the books in fact, the only Kingdom that we know it would is on it for vengeance rather than loyalty.

If you're talking about ADWD time, with Kevan dead, even a goose would be welcomed. Hardly an accomplishment, there is a reason why Aegon only attacks with Tywin dead...

Even in the Stark case, there are very important houses pretty pissed with them and that would want to say a thing or two about their ascension.

 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody in the books ever implied that some lords can 'devaluate' the claims the members of a particular royal family had. In fact, we can also argue that a king attainting a particular family also have to enforce this - right now the Florents still hold Brightwater, no matter what Joffrey decreed, and it stands to argue that Tommen's decree to grant Riverrun to Emmon and Genna is also not going to stand despite the fact they are currently in possession of the castle.

Well ofc they can, that's the whole reason behind the Dance and the Iron precedent, lords devaluating the claim of the female line. And if the lords simply stop obeying and decide to choose a different ruler. What claim or right the former King has??

Well ofc that decress have to be made reaility.

[Lord Varys]

31 minutes ago, frenin said:

Brandon the Broken and Rickon the toddler have no claim since their house  is attainted. Viserys and Dany may have not paid homage to the new dynasty... Westeros sure aa hell did tho, so they aren't righful rulers of much until they retake what they lost.

Says who? You, perhaps, but nobody in the books we are talking about. In fact, Sansa Stark is still seen as Robb Stark's heir by both the Starks themselves (causing Robb to intend to disown her after she is married to Tyrion) and the Lannisters and the Tyrells, never mind that the Starks are also attainted by the Iron Throne (although that, too, is just conjecture, since we never see King Joffrey actually sign and seal an attainder).

You fail to see that in such a feudal world not everybody has a voice. If I'm a Stark you as a Bolton or a Lannister can never take my birthright from me. Even if you force me into exile, this doesn't cause people to see me as no longer eligible to take back what's mine by right of birth and blood.

31 minutes ago, frenin said:

Seriously?? I can think any of at least 4 Kings that  would not accept it at the beginning  of the books in fact, the only Kingdom that we know it would is on it for vengeance rather than loyalty.

If you're talking about ADWD time, with Kevan dead, even a goose would be welcomed. Hardly an accomplishment, there is a reason why Aegon only attacks with Tywin dead...

The point is that nobody would say 'Viserys III or Daenerys Targaryen no longer have a claim to the Iron Throne'. Many lords and knights would likely oppose their rise to the throne, but no one would say they no longer have a right to try.

Even Robert himself knows he is a usurper and is aware of the baggage that entails - that people do not think he is actually 'the rightful king'.

31 minutes ago, frenin said:

Even in the Stark case, there are very important houses pretty pissed with them and that would want to say a thing or two about their ascension.

LOL, nobody in Westeros seems to believe the Starks 'lost their claims to Winterfell and the North'. Not even the Boltons believe that, or else Ramsay would have never married 'Arya Stark' - she is the Lady of Winterfell and Ramsay Lord of Winterfell only by right of marriage.

If a century has passed while other lords held a particular seat or a different dynasty sat on the Iron Throne then the great-great-grandchildren of some attainted lord or a deposed king might have more difficulty to present their claims in a meaningful manner, but the fifteen years between the Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings clearly wasn't enough time to convince the Westerosi that the Targaryens no longer had a claim and the Baratheons were now the rightful royal dynasty.

It is quite clear that the Targaryens would not have to 'reconquer' Westeros, but could rather count on the fact that many 'Baratheon subjects' would declare for them and help the Targaryens to oust and destroy the usurpers. That's not 'a conquest' but a restoration of a royal dynasty.

31 minutes ago, frenin said:

Well ofc they can, that's the whole reason behind the Dance and the Iron precedent, lords devaluating the claim of the female line. And if the lords simply stop obeying and decide to choose a different ruler. What claim or right the former King has??

Well ofc that decress have to be made reaility.

The Great Council and the Dance set precedents that female (line) claims should come after male (line) claims, but that doesn't mean that royal descendants who happen to female or who are descended from a king through the female line don't have any claims. The 'iron precedent' and the Dance aside, female claims continue to come for the Iron Throne - when Baela and Rhaena are presumptive heirs of Aegon III, when Baelor dies, when Aerys I names his niece Aelora Heir Apparent and Princess of Dragonstone, at the Great Council of 233 AC, etc.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is quite clear that the Targaryens would not have to 'reconquer' Westeros, but could rather count on the fact that many 'Baratheon subjects' would declare for them and help the Targaryens to oust and destroy the usurpers. That's not 'a conquest' but a restoration of a royal dynasty.

I don't think that's true. If so why didn't Viserys &/or Daenerys just return to Westeros & claim their throne? They both knew, as well as does Aegon, that they cannot take the IT without an army & force. That is a conquest. 

[Trigger Warning]

59 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

Brandon the Broken and Rickon the toddler have no claim since their house  is attainted. Viserys and Dany may have not paid homage to the new dynasty... Westeros sure aa hell did tho, so they aren't righful rulers of much until they retake what they lost.

 

Claims and legitimacy are not as cut and dry as that, being in exile doesn't mean you don't have a claim it's not a tangible thing that you can just lose. 

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Says who? You, perhaps, but nobody in the books we are talking about. In fact, Sansa Stark is still seen as Robb Stark's heir by both the Starks themselves (causing Robb to intend to disown her after she is married to Tyrion) and the Lannisters and the Tyrells, never mind that the Starks are also attainted by the Iron Throne (although that, too, is just conjecture, since we never see King Joffrey actually sign and seal an attainder).

You fail to see that in such a feudal world not everybody has a voice. If I'm a Stark you as a Bolton or a Lannister can never take my birthright from me. Even if you force me into exile, this doesn't cause people to see me as no longer eligible to take back what's mine by right of birth and blood.

The fact that the Boltons are named Warden of the North by the crown, ofc that a house that has ruled a place for millenia is difficult to erase from the collective mind, but after two decades, yes.

I don't fail to see it, you as Stark are entitled to do whatever you like, that doesn't mean you have a right to do it.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is that nobody would say 'Viserys III or Daenerys Targaryen no longer have a claim to the Iron Throne'. Many lords and knights would likely oppose their rise to the throne, but no one would say they no longer have a right to try.

Even Robert himself knows he is a usurper and is aware of the baggage that entails - that people do not think he is actually 'the rightful king'.

Ofc they would, those who support the Baratheon regime will say by default that the Targs no longer have a claim to the Throne. Those who supoprt the Targs will say that they never lost their right. 

Robert himself knows that there are some that calls him usurper... And he calls them  traitors. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, nobody in Westeros seems to believe the Starks 'lost their claims to Winterfell and the North'. Not even the Boltons believe that, or else Ramsay would have never married 'Arya Stark' - she is the Lady of Winterfell and Ramsay Lord of Winterfell only by right of marriage.

Tell me, what that has to do with what i said??

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 If a century has passed while other lords held a particular seat or a different dynasty sat on the Iron Throne then the great-great-grandchildren of some attainted lord or a deposed king might have more difficulty to present their claims in a meaningful manner, but the fifteen years between the Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings clearly wasn't enough time to convince the Westerosi that the Targaryens no longer had a claim and the Baratheons were now the rightful royal dynasty.

If you say so. After Robert's death, i did not see lords fighting their ways to Essos to find their righful Kings, this is more wishful thinking that anything else.  Sure, some people would not be convinced... most would however.

They stood with charming Renly, with Stannis, with Robb, Balon, or Robert's heir. No one gave a shit about the Trags, even the Martells are only in just for revenge.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 It is quite clear that the Targaryens would not have to 'reconquer' Westeros, but could rather count on the fact that many 'Baratheon subjects' would declare for them and help the Targaryens to oust and destroy the usurpers. That's not 'a conquest' but a restoration of a royal dynasty.

You can call it whatever you want it after the fact, everyone do. But that does not change the fact that if the Baratheons hold the IT, "oust and destroy the usurpers" is pure conquest.

Besides @Lyanna<3Rhaegar has said it all.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Great Council and the Dance set precedents that female (line) claims should come after male (line) claims, but that doesn't mean that royal descendants who happen to female or who are descended from a king through the female line don't have any claims. The 'iron precedent' and the Dance aside, female claims continue to come for the Iron Throne - when Baela and Rhaena are presumptive heirs of Aegon III, when Baelor dies, when Aerys I names his niece Aelora Heir Apparent and Princess of Dragonstone, at the Great Council of 233 AC, etc.

Ofc, the purpose of the Iron precedent was not erase said claims  but "devaluate' the claims the members of a particular royal family  had". And precedents are and can be ignored, but Viserys was made king, not Daena.

As you see, nobles do can devaluate claims.

 

2 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

Claims and legitimacy are not as cut and dry as that, being in exile doesn't mean you don't have a claim it's not a tangible thing that you can just lose. 

Westeros having chosen a new leader is that cut and dry.

[kissdbyfire]

22 minutes ago, frenin said:

Robert himself knows that there are some that calls him usurper... And he calls them  traitors. 

23 minutes ago, frenin said:

Tell me, what that has to do with what i'm said??

Now, that’s a bloody good question. 

[Texas Hold Em]

22 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

If we are to use "right of conquest" as the justification to rule, yes.  Yes, the Starks lost every right to Winterfell.  Stannis lost to the Lannisters and he no longer has a right to the throne.  

 

21 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The Lannisters haven't taken the throne. Tommen 'Baratheon' sits the throne & he is no true Baratheon. Stannis is Robert's rightful heir. 

The Lannisters have taken the throne.  King Tommen is a Lannister.  On both sides.  There is nothing about him that has Baratheon blood.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say Stannis is the true heir because the Baratheons won it through right of conquest and then turn around say the Starks are still the true owners of Winterfell.  The Starks lost and lost very badly.