Who is more legitimate, Stannis or Aegon?

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

 

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. 

I didn't say anything of the Starks. What I am saying is that the Lannisters - as a family, are not ruling in their own right. Otherwise they would call Tommen, King Tommen Lannister right? He only gets to rule under the premise that he is a Baratheon. Because we know he isn't truly a Baratheon we know Stannis is Robert's rightful heir. Now, the rest of Westeros doesn't know this so they believe they are being ruled by his rightful heir. But the Lannisters don't have the throne, King Tommen Baratheon does. 

[BlackLightning]

On 3/9/2020 at 4:38 PM, Putin said:

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.

That's not a fair equivalent. The Baratheons took the Iron Throne by right of conquest (thus, opening the floodgates for every single war and skirmish that has happened since Robert's Rebellion) but the Targaryens made the Iron Throne.

 

[kissdbyfire]

28 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

That's not a fair equivalent. The Baratheons took the Iron Throne by right of conquest (thus, opening the floodgates for every single war and skirmish that has happened since Robert's Rebellion)

The way you put it makes it seem like the ~ 300 hundred years the Targs ruled Westeros were like a Disney film. No DotD, no Blackfyre Rebellion I, II, III, LVII, etc. 

28 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

but the Targaryens made the Iron Throne.

Now that’s true enough. A neat solution is, Stannis as king of Westeros, and he can ship that nasty ugly chair to Dany in Essos.

[frenin]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The way you put it makes it seem like the ~ 300 hundred years the Targs ruled Westeros were like a Disney film. No DotD, no Blackfyre Rebellion I, II, III, LVII, etc. 

Word, it's not like before the Robellion, we hadn't dumbasses Greyjoys like the Red Kraken or the last Reaper, or ambitious brothers like the Black Dragon and Aegon 2.

I mean, if your kin start invading  kingdoms for funsies and you start chopping off heads of beloved and respected Great lords you will have a big ass war in your hands whether your dynasty have been ruling the land for 5k years or for the last 30 minutes. That's why the Targs were kicked off from Westeros and nearly obliterated in the first place...  

It's lik others saying the Targs made the IT... Thus opening the floodgates  for every single war and skirmish that has happened since Aegon's conquest... 

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Now that’s true enough. A neat solution is, Stannis as king of Westeros, and he can ship that nasty ugly chair to Dany in Essos.

The roads tho, i'm sure they'll want the roads too.

[BlackLightning]

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The way you put it makes it seem like the ~ 300 hundred years the Targs ruled Westeros were like a Disney film. No DotD, no Blackfyre Rebellion I, II, III, LVII, etc. 

Now that’s true enough. A neat solution is, Stannis as king of Westeros, and he can ship that nasty ugly chair to Dany in Essos.

What I meant is that with the Baratheon usurpation of the Iron Throne, anyone can usurp anyone's rule and take their throne/seat and claim it for themselves by right of conquest.

That's why Renly felt comfortable enough to usurp Stannis, why Balon Greyjoy felt comfortable enough to divorce the Iron Islands from the Iron Throne the first time around, why Cersei can feel at peace putting a Lannister bastard on a Baratheon seat, etc.

[frenin]

51 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

What I meant is that with the Baratheon usurpation of the Iron Throne, anyone can usurp anyone's rule and take their throne/seat and claim it for themselves by right of conquest.

 That's why Renly felt comfortable enough to usurp Stannis, why Balon Greyjoy felt comfortable enough to divorce the Iron Islands from the Iron Throne the first time around, why Cersei can feel at peace putting a Lannister bastard on a Baratheon seat, etc.

The only true out of those is Renly, who is really, the only pretender who was heavily influenced by the Robellion. Balon wanted to divorce the Iron Islands from the get go and Cersei... where has Cersei said that she's supplanting the Baratheons but they did it first ergo it's ok?? I feel that people are pinning a lot of the decisions people take in the Robellion just because. Is Cersei incapable of doing the same if married with Viserys?? Would she refrain herself because is a silver haired purple eyes boy instead of a black haired blue eyes boy?? I don't really think so. Cersei wanted her kids to be Kings and deeply despised her hubby and didn't want to have her husband's children.

There are events that are directly related to the Robellion, Renly's crowning and Robb's crowning, this one very partially since the northmen were the ones who made the Baratheons the royal house in the first place so...Greatjon, there are events that not however.

[Lord Varys]

21 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

No, that's just making a strong case. Of course that's not going to happen without a fight. But the point is that they had good reason to expect that a decent portion of 'King Robert's leal subjects' would declare for them when they finally arrived.

I mean, that's not difficult to understand. A proper conquest is something where you take an army from your land, march into another, and conquer it. At the end of the conquest the conquered do agree that they have been conquered and the old rulers hand over power to the new ones.

That's what happened during Aegon's Conquest in six kingdoms ... but not in Dorne which is the reason why, despite Aegon's title and presumptions, he never was the King of the Rhoynar nor any of his descendants until Daeron I (briefly) and from Daeron II onwards.

Robert was the scion of a cadet branch of the royal family. He rebelled and overthrow his rightful monarch, he did not conquer anything. He fought with King Aerys II's men against him. That is not a conquest. It is like saying Henry of Bolingbroke 'conquered' England when he led a rebellion against King Richard II and deposed him. Or that Queen Isabella and Prince Edward 'conquered' England when they overthrew and imprisoned Edward II.

Or, perhaps, even a better example - when Cromwell executed Charles I, Charles II did later not have 'to conquer England' to retake his father's throne. Likewise, after the execution of Louis XVI and the downfall of Napoleon, Louis XVIII didn't have to 'conquer France' either. There were still people believing in the right of the old dynasties to rule. And it is the same in Westeros.

Also, Viserys III and Daenerys were never captured by Robert or bend the knee to him ... thus, like Dorne, they were never conquered and thus never subjected themselves or acknowledged the authority of 'King Robert' - just like Robb or Bran/Rickon can never be traitors to 'King Joffrey' - who they never acknowledged nor did homage as their king - Viserys III and Daenerys never gave up their claims to their father's throne.

If they had - like Queen Alyssa Velaryon and her children Viserys, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne did to Maegor - acknowledged Robert as king and formally given up their claims to the Iron Throne (like Duncan Targaryen did) then one could make a case that they no longer had claims.

21 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. 

Within an aristocratic and monarchistic mindset the only people being able to take away a rightful claim are the people themselves if they give them up - nobody else (of course, with house rules and succession laws certain actions also can cost you a claim, but that's not the case in Westeros - kings can marry Catholics there, as far as we know ;-)).

It is an undue introduction of modern/democratic thinking that such feudals go away by virtue of majority vote or something like that.

20 hours ago, frenin said:

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'd very much doubt that the Stark claim to Winterfell would disappear from the collective memory of the North after just two decades. If the new regime was good then, perhaps, Rickon's great-grandsons or great-great-grandsons would face serious trouble but not he himself, or his children or grandchildren.

20 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

Well, you don't seem to understand aristocratic thinking.

20 hours ago, frenin said:

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. 

LOL, no. Nobody in the books following the Baratheons ever said that the Targaryens no longer had a claim. And that's rather striking considering the threat posed by the Beggar King is discussed rather often in AGoT. Nobody ever says anything about him or his sister or her children by the savage Drogo do no longer have a claim. Instead, 'King Robert' seems to be very much afraid of their claims.

That goes as far as Tyrion Lannister saying in ADwD that Aegon has a better claim than Daenerys, implying that he acknowledges both their claims as real things.

20 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

Nobody said anything about lords going to Essos.

20 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

LOL, again. Of course they went with the pretenders that were there when they made their moves. Nobody did anyone say that the Baratheons didn't have a significant power base in Westeros.

Revenge is an important point for the Martells, but they want revenge by means of a Martell-led Targaryen restoration. You might not like that but that's how it is. First the Arianne-Viserys plan, then the Quentyn-Dany plan, and now, most likely, the Arianne-Aegon plan.

20 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

See above for that.

I mean, this kind of talk is just childish. If any of the characters thought in ridiculous categories 'like claims no longer exist because would-be king x decreed something' then the Blackfyres, Stannis and Renly, Balon, etc. would have never bothered crowning themselves and trying to win the Iron Throne (again and again for the silly Blackfyres, who never even sat on the damned chair).

20 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

Only if there is a consensus that said body can rule on the succession - which wasn't the case for Robert Baratheon. If there had been a Great Council and Viserys III and Dany and agreed to go there and present their claims and abide by the judgment of the assembled lords then you would have a case there. But they did not.

I mean, that's not difficult to understand - this is a pre-modern world where rights and powers are carried by persons of particular bloodlines. It is up to people to recognize decision as binding to them, they are not ruled by abstract laws and institutions.

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said:

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. 

Even if we considered Stannis' flimsy claim for a moment ... if 'right of conquest' counted for anything in that department then Stannis would surely have 'lost' his claim when King Joffrey gave his army a good beating on the Blackwater. He tried to usurp the throne and he lost. Meaning he has no longer a claim, right?

After all, he has also been duly attainted by the King on the Iron Throne, Joffrey is Robert Baratheon's chosen and anointed heir, the heir he mentioned by name in his will (which was insidiously forged by Eddard Stark).

The fact that nobody thinks that of Stannis should tell pretty much everyone this nonsense about 'losing claims' is just that - nonsense.

This is why I tried to broaden the scope there - the Starks are good examples, the Tullys, too, and perhaps even the Florents - they all have lost their 'claims' (and some even their castles) yet chances are that they might still get them all back. Which wouldn't then be some sort of weird 'reconquest' but rather them just taking back what was theirs all along.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that's just making a strong case. Of course that's not going to happen without a fight. But the point is that they had good reason to expect that a decent portion of 'King Robert's leal subjects' would declare for them when they finally arrived.

We don't hear many of King Robert's subjects profess their undying loyalty for the Targaryens - That's Viserys's dream. Dany knows better. There are some, surely, who would prefer a Targaryen ruler but there is really nothing to say that a decent portion of them would declare for the Targaryens if they returned. I would also argue that if a decent portion of Robert's subjects would declare for the Targaryens & that Dany/Aegon have good reason to expect this, they wouldn't need an army of their own - they could rally the subjects that are willing to declare for them & take the throne that way, which would still be a conquest though. 

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, that's not difficult to understand. A proper conquest is something where you take an army from your land, march into another, and conquer it. At the end of the conquest the conquered do agree that they have been conquered and the old rulers hand over power to the new ones.

And how is this different than what Dany or Aegon would do? Dany would be taking an army from another land, march into Westeros & conquer it. At the end of the conquest the conquered would agree that they have been conquered and the Baratheons would hand over power to Dany - if any of them were left. 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's what happened during Aegon's Conquest in six kingdoms ... but not in Dorne which is the reason why, despite Aegon's title and presumptions, he never was the King of the Rhoynar nor any of his descendants until Daeron I (briefly) and from Daeron II onwards.

I don't understand what this has to do with it. 

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert was the scion of a cadet branch of the royal family. He rebelled and overthrow his rightful monarch, he did not conquer anything. He fought with King Aerys II's men against him. That is not a conquest. It is like saying Henry of Bolingbroke 'conquered' England when he led a rebellion against King Richard II and deposed him. Or that Queen Isabella and Prince Edward 'conquered' England when they overthrew and imprisoned Edward II.

 

According to the Websters Dictionary: 

Conquest

1: the act or process of conquering

2a: something conquered especially : territory appropriated in war

b: a person whose favor or hand has been won

 

Conquering: 

1: to gain or acquire by force of arms 

2: to overcome by force of arms 

3: to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition

4: to overcome by mental or moral power 

 

Sounds like a Conquest to me 

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Also, Viserys III and Daenerys were never captured by Robert or bend the knee to him ... thus, like Dorne, they were never conquered and thus never subjected themselves or acknowledged the authority of 'King Robert' - just like Robb or Bran/Rickon can never be traitors to 'King Joffrey' - who they never acknowledged nor did homage as their king - Viserys III and Daenerys never gave up their claims to their father's throne.

Well I'm not arguing that Viserys &/or Daenerys were 'conquered' by Robert. I'm arguing in order for Dany to take the IT she will have to conquer it first. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If they had - like Queen Alyssa Velaryon and her children Viserys, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne did to Maegor - acknowledged Robert as king and formally given up their claims to the Iron Throne (like Duncan Targaryen did) then one could make a case that they no longer had claims.

A claim says nothing. Anyone can stake a claim on anything, it doesn't make it true. They did not give up their claims but they were run out of town & had their claim forcibly taken. A claim is no more than a demand for something you believe you have a right to. They may think they have a right to the throne & morally speaking, maybe they do but that does fuck-all for them. They will have to take the throne by force claim or no claim

[Lord Varys]

23 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

We don't hear many of King Robert's subjects profess their undying loyalty for the Targaryens - That's Viserys's dream. Dany knows better. There are some, surely, who would prefer a Targaryen ruler but there is really nothing to say that a decent portion of them would declare for the Targaryens if they returned. I would also argue that if a decent portion of Robert's subjects would declare for the Targaryens & that Dany/Aegon have good reason to expect this, they wouldn't need an army of their own - they could rally the subjects that are willing to declare for them & take the throne that way, which would still be a conquest though. 

Who said anything about 'undying loyalty'? There are, however, a number of subtle clues that the Targaryen basis in Westeros is much stronger than men like Ned would have believed. We see this throughout AGoT-ADwD. If you don't catch them, it is your loss (it is Raymun Darry's tapestries, the old man in the Riverlands idealizing King Aerys II, the men of the Brotherhood condemning Sandor of his brother's vile murders of the royal children, Mathis Rowan's anger over the same thing at the council table, Alleras and his buddies drinking to the health of their rightful queen, the play about the arrogant lions being devoured by a young dragon, the Targaryen allegiance of the Crackclaw Point folk, the talk about the whores of White Harbor about Targaryen princes and princesses, and, of course, the plans of Doran Martell to restore the Targaryens to the Iron Throne.

As for your second point - that's just a non-argument. It is like saying that 'If the Northmen are, in their majority, loyal Stark men then why the hell don't Bran or Rickon walk into Winterfell with their direwolves.'

It would be stupid, that's why.

And to be sure, in Robert's heyday Viserys III would have a lot of trouble if he staged an invasion - young Robert was dashing and charismatic and had created a pretty powerful alliance of great houses. To convince people to show their true colors in such a scenario you have to convince them that you can win ... but that doesn't mean they would not prefer you to be king. It just means you have to convince them more than you would if you had a weak usurper at the helm.

But I daresay that this alliance was already rotten to the core in AGoT - if Robert and Viserys III had both lived and there had been a Dothraki invasion early in ACoK then this wouldn't have been an easy war for Robert to win, especially with the Stark-Lannister tensions running so high. And if the twincest had come out everything would have exploded no matter whether the Dothraki were outside the gates or not.

23 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

And how is this different than what Dany or Aegon would do? Dany would be taking an army from another land, march into Westeros & conquer it. At the end of the conquest the conquered would agree that they have been conquered and the Baratheons would hand over power to Dany - if any of them were left. 

Because normally the people who are supposed to be conquered don't jump ship and declare for the invader - which is the case in a succession war or a war to restore a deposed dynasty. During World War II the French and Polish and English didn't fall over themselves to declare themselves loyal Nazis, did they?

Or take the Hundred Years' War - Edward III didn't try to conquer France, he saw himself as King of France by right of birth and blood, and he simply tried to convince the French to share his view. That's not conquest in the sense that you want to expand your kingdom or add some new territories to your empire.

23 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't understand what this has to do with it. 

It means that to take away the claims of Viserys III and Daenerys Robert would have gotten them to give them up ... just Aegon I would have had to convince the Dornish that they had been conquered rather than just claim he had.

23 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sounds like a Conquest to me 

This isn't a dictionary question. It is question how historians and political science or law would define a proper conquest. And there you just don't call it conquest if a deposed dynasty is restored, or some cadet branch of a royal family deposes a king - and that's what happened in Robert's Rebellion. Edward IV of York, one of the kings who inspired Robert, also didn't 'conquer' England when he deposed Henry VI two times - just as neither Rhaenyra nor Aegon II 'conquered the Seven Kingdoms' during the Dance.

23 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well I'm not arguing that Viserys &/or Daenerys were 'conquered' by Robert. I'm arguing in order for Dany to take the IT she will have to conquer it first. 

That remains to be seen. She could also be offered the Iron Throne as her birthright and the people could all hail them as their queen. Since she hasn't even set foot on Westerosi soil we don't know what will happen ... but we can be pretty sure that Aegon is likely not going to have to do much conquering. They will hand over the Iron Throne and the capital to him without a fight.

23 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

A claim says nothing. Anyone can stake a claim on anything, it doesn't make it true. They did not give up their claims but they were run out of town & had their claim forcibly taken. A claim is no more than a demand for something you believe you have a right to. They may think they have a right to the throne & morally speaking, maybe they do but that does fuck-all for them. They will have to take the throne by force claim or no claim

Nah, a claim in this very specific context means you are the scion of a royal or noble house. Not everybody has a claim - only those who actually do have a claim have one.

If you are forced into exile or hounded out of town you don't lose your claim, either. If that were the case then Stannis lost his claim on the Blackwater, Sansa lost her claim when she did homage to Joff as her king, Bran and Rickon lost their claims when they abandoned Winterfell and hid like cowards, Edmure gave up his claim to Riverrun when he submitted to Jaime, etc.

And that's all just not true. None of those people gave up their claims.

[frenin]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd very much doubt that the Stark claim to Winterfell would disappear from the collective memory of the North after just two decades. If the new regime was good then, perhaps, Rickon's great-grandsons or great-great-grandsons would face serious trouble but not he himself, or his children or grandchildren.

Depends of how succes have the new regime. If they give them nothing more than war and grieve then sure... People (as in majority) will yearn for the good ol days where there was a Stark in Winterfell.  If the Boltons give them peace and plenty however...

And even then the Stark are more connected to the North in ways the Targs never were with the 7K, so yeah you're right, lets say 40 years.

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. Nobody in the books following the Baratheons ever said that the Targaryens no longer had a claim. And that's rather striking considering the threat posed by the Beggar King is discussed rather often in AGoT. Nobody ever says anything about him or his sister or her children by the savage Drogo do no longer have a claim. Instead, 'King Robert' seems to be very much afraid of their claims.

That goes as far as Tyrion Lannister saying in ADwD that Aegon has a better claim than Daenerys, implying that he acknowledges both their claims as real things.

??? Robert is afraid that the traitors would join Viserys and Dany, is not about them having a claim, but about them still having sway in Westeros. Ned himself, never ever, even remotely thinks about the Targs' claims after Robert's passing.

 

Are you serious?? Tyrion is discussing to someone who believes himself Westeros rightful King and they are talking about someone who believes herself Westeros rightful Queen. Ofc that in that coversation they are talking about their hypotheyical claims. 

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody said anything about lords going to Essos.

No, this is what you said.

Quote

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.

Now, i will think that you aren't talking in absolutisms and so you are talking about the majority. Can you tell me, where does that silent majority is shown??

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, again. Of course they went with the pretenders that were there when they made their moves. Nobody did anyone say that the Baratheons didn't have a significant power base in Westeros.

 

Significant... If by significant you mean almost all Westeros... 

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Revenge is an important point for the Martells, but they want revenge by means of a Martell-led Targaryen restoration. You might not like that but that's how it is. First the Arianne-Viserys plan, then the Quentyn-Dany plan, and now, most likely, the Arianne-Aegon plan.

I don't care about it. Things stand that if the Martells were so eager to support the Targ regime, more than 10k spears would've shown up for the Trident... And ofc the Martells are planning a Targ restoration... Almost the only way of ending for good both the Baratheons and Lannisters and their regime is... by restoring the Targs back onto power, have you ever seen them showing their true colors like men in the Cracklaw point do?? Ofc not, and you never will, why would them?? 

 

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above for that.

I mean, this kind of talk is just childish. If any of the characters thought in ridiculous categories 'like claims no longer exist because would-be king x decreed something' then the Blackfyres, Stannis and Renly, Balon, etc. would have never bothered crowning themselves and trying to win the Iron Throne (again and again for the silly Blackfyres, who never even sat on the damned chair).

@Lyanna<3Rhaegar answered too.

I agree that it's childish, it's childish to think that the acts of entitled men carry more weight than it really does. Renly above all whose claim was his army. Balon does not want the IT etc.

 

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Only if there is a consensus that said body can rule on the succession - which wasn't the case for Robert Baratheon. If there had been a Great Council and Viserys III and Dany and agreed to go there and present their claims and abide by the judgment of the assembled lords then you would have a case there. But they did not.

I mean, that's not difficult to understand - this is a pre-modern world where rights and powers are carried by persons of particular bloodlines. It is up to people to recognize decision as binding to them, they are not ruled by abstract laws and institutions.

Ofc there were a consensus. Most of the people come to accept Robert as their King, but then again, you keep moving goalpost.

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Who said anything about 'undying loyalty'? There are, however, a number of subtle clues that the Targaryen basis in Westeros is much stronger than men like Ned would have believed. We see this throughout AGoT-ADwD. If you don't catch them, it is your loss (it is Raymun Darry's tapestries, the old man in the Riverlands idealizing King Aerys II, the men of the Brotherhood condemning Sandor of his brother's vile murders of the royal children, Mathis Rowan's anger over the same thing at the council table, Alleras and his buddies drinking to the health of their rightful queen, the play about the arrogant lions being devoured by a young dragon, the Targaryen allegiance of the Crackclaw Point folk, the talk about the whores of White Harbor about Targaryen princes and princesses, and, of course, the plans of Doran Martell to restore the Targaryens to the Iron Throne.

 

Of all of them, the Darry and the Cracklaw point are the only.

- The men of the Brotherhood were by their own definition Robert's men.

- Rowan was not angry, he was disgusted by Tywin's charade.

- People being done with the Lannisters and believing the Baratheons done is a theme in the later books.

- I can tell you from now, that White Harbor and the North are not interested in the Targs, nor the whores in White Harbor profess any kind of loyalty towards them.

 

That without the fact that loyalties change with war, do you really believe those few who are reminding the Targs with fondness would do it if they were still in peace and under the longest summer in living memory?? Ofc not. There is a reason for why there was peace under Jon Arryn, I mean Robert. 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 As for your second point - that's just a non-argument. It is like saying that 'If the Northmen are, in their majority, loyal Stark men then why the hell don't Bran or Rickon walk into Winterfell with their direwolves.'

Because the Northmen aren't in their majority Stark men, there is a reason why Roose is still in charge.

And nobody has said anything about going to the Red Keep, go to Sunspear and try and oust the usurpers from there...

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Or take the Hundred Years' War - Edward III didn't try to conquer France, he saw himself as King of France by right of birth and blood, and he simply tried to convince the French to share his view. That's not conquest in the sense that you want to expand your kingdom or add some new territories to your empire.

... By swordpoint.

 

 

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Who said anything about 'undying loyalty'? There are, however, a number of subtle clues that the Targaryen basis in Westeros is much stronger than men like Ned would have believed. We see this throughout AGoT-ADwD. If you don't catch them, it is your loss (it is Raymun Darry's tapestries, the old man in the Riverlands idealizing King Aerys II, the men of the Brotherhood condemning Sandor of his brother's vile murders of the royal children, Mathis Rowan's anger over the same thing at the council table, Alleras and his buddies drinking to the health of their rightful queen, the play about the arrogant lions being devoured by a young dragon, the Targaryen allegiance of the Crackclaw Point folk, the talk about the whores of White Harbor about Targaryen princes and princesses, and, of course, the plans of Doran Martell to restore the Targaryens to the Iron Throne.

It would have to be pretty undying if they were willing to take up arms to fight for the last Targ princess right? 

The brotherhood condemning Sandor or Mathis Rowan being agree doesn't have to be a nod to Targ loyalty. Maybe they just don't like someone who would murder children? Anyway, I said there are likely some supporters but I don't think this is proof that a decent portion of the population would support them & how in the world would Dany or Aegon know any of this in order to be able to even suspect it, let alone have a 'good reason to expect' it. 

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

As for your second point - that's just a non-argument. It is like saying that 'If the Northmen are, in their majority, loyal Stark men then why the hell don't Bran or Rickon walk into Winterfell with their direwolves.'

 

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It would be stupid, that's why.

What makes it stupid? 

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And to be sure, in Robert's heyday Viserys III would have a lot of trouble if he staged an invasion - young Robert was dashing and charismatic and had created a pretty powerful alliance of great houses. To convince people to show their true colors in such a scenario you have to convince them that you can win ... but that doesn't mean they would not prefer you to be king. It just means you have to convince them more than you would if you had a weak usurper at the helm.

Well, yeah, they will have an easier time of it if the current ruler is weak & unliked, because they will have more support. More support means less fighting. This doesn't negate the fact that they would have to conquer to get the throne though. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But I daresay that this alliance was already rotten to the core in AGoT - if Robert and Viserys III had both lived and there had been a Dothraki invasion early in ACoK then this wouldn't have been an easy war for Robert to win, especially with the Stark-Lannister tensions running so high. And if the twincest had come out everything would have exploded no matter whether the Dothraki were outside the gates or not.

The Starks still would have fought for the crown regardless of the tension between them. Indeed though, a horde of Dothraki screamers would be difficult to deal with. I'm not sure what the point is of this though. My stance was & still is that Viserys or Daenerys or Aegon or anyone else for that matter, would have to take the IT by force, effectively conquering. 

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because normally the people who are supposed to be conquered don't jump ship and declare for the invader - which is the case in a succession war or a war to restore a deposed dynasty. During World War II the French and Polish and English didn't fall over themselves to declare themselves loyal Nazis, did they?

So what decides if it's a conquest or not is whether or not the people being conquered jump ship & declare for the invader? I don't see that anywhere in the definition. That simply isn't true. 

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Or take the Hundred Years' War - Edward III didn't try to conquer France, he saw himself as King of France by right of birth and blood, and he simply tried to convince the French to share his view. That's not conquest in the sense that you want to expand your kingdom or add some new territories to your empire.

I don't know what Edward III did but if he used words to convince others to follow him, it may still fall under the category of overcoming by mental or moral power, & thus would still be a conquest. There is not conquest "in the sense that you want to expand your kingdom or add some new territories to your empire" that I'm aware of. There is only a conquest, which I've posted the definition for. Certainly, a conquest to expand your kingdom or add territories to your empire has some differences to taking back a throne & territories your family used to rule but the differences are not that one is conquest & the other is not. 

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

t means that to take away the claims of Viserys III and Daenerys Robert would have gotten them to give them up ... just Aegon I would have had to convince the Dornish that they had been conquered rather than just claim he had.

They did give up. They ran away, they went into hiding. The only thing they didn't give up was the idea that the throne belonged to them. They can have any idea they want but that doesn't make it so. Robert was holding the throne so whether or not they thought it belonged to them, they were not in possession of it. 

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This isn't a dictionary question. It is question how historians and political science or law would define a proper conquest. And there you just don't call it conquest if a deposed dynasty is restored, or some cadet branch of a royal family deposes a king - and that's what happened in Robert's Rebellion. Edward IV of York, one of the kings who inspired Robert, also didn't 'conquer' England when he deposed Henry VI two times - just as neither Rhaenyra nor Aegon II 'conquered the Seven Kingdoms' during the Dance.

Where else should I find the 'proper' definition of conquest than in the dictionary? You said it wouldn't be a conquest. I posted the definition of conquest - which this most certainly falls under. If there is some, more proper or true definition of conquest, please point me to it. 

What is the proper term to call it? 

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That remains to be seen. She could also be offered the Iron Throne as her birthright and the people could all hail them as their queen. Since she hasn't even set foot on Westerosi soil we don't know what will happen ... but we can be pretty sure that Aegon is likely not going to have to do much conquering. They will hand over the Iron Throne and the capital to him without a fight.

By who?? Who would be offering her the throne? If you're arguing if this happened & if that happened then someone may hand over the throne to her - yeah, sure, maybe. We can't forsee the future.  Surely not Cersei. I highly doubt Aegon will be handed over the throne with out a fight. Even if it is a very small fight he has still taken it by force & thus is a conquest. 

 

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nah, a claim in this very specific context means you are the scion of a royal or noble house. Not everybody has a claim - only those who actually do have a claim have one.

Not everyone has a rightful or true claim but anyone can make a claim. Robert didn't really have a rightful claim but used it anyway. 

Anyway, again, I'm not arguing whether or not they have a claim - they certainly believe they do & I'm sure there are others. My point is a claim does nothing for them if they cannot take the throne by force.

 

[Texas Hold Em]

On 3/12/2020 at 12:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Even if we considered Stannis' flimsy claim for a moment ... if 'right of conquest' counted for anything in that department then Stannis would surely have 'lost' his claim when King Joffrey gave his army a good beating on the Blackwater. He tried to usurp the throne and he lost. Meaning he has no longer a claim, right?

After all, he has also been duly attainted by the King on the Iron Throne, Joffrey is Robert Baratheon's chosen and anointed heir, the heir he mentioned by name in his will (which was insidiously forged by Eddard Stark).

The fact that nobody thinks that of Stannis should tell pretty much everyone this nonsense about 'losing claims' is just that - nonsense.

This is why I tried to broaden the scope there - the Starks are good examples, the Tullys, too, and perhaps even the Florents - they all have lost their 'claims' (and some even their castles) yet chances are that they might still get them all back. Which wouldn't then be some sort of weird 'reconquest' but rather them just taking back what was theirs all along.

Understood. The Targaryens taking Westeros back will not be considered a reconquest but rather taking back what was theirs all along. 

 

[Lord Varys]

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It would have to be pretty undying if they were willing to take up arms to fight for the last Targ princess right? 

The brotherhood condemning Sandor or Mathis Rowan being agree doesn't have to be a nod to Targ loyalty. Maybe they just don't like someone who would murder children? Anyway, I said there are likely some supporters but I don't think this is proof that a decent portion of the population would support them & how in the world would Dany or Aegon know any of this in order to be able to even suspect it, let alone have a 'good reason to expect' it. 

Well, maybe Wylla Manderly is just lying when she appears to be a Stark loyalist?

If you down this road you get very strange results.

Nobody said Dany or Aegon know of that stuff ... I just pointed out that there is considerable potential for such support among the people of Westeros. And we will see that when Aegon takes the Iron Throne in a matter of days/weeks without facing much opposition.

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What makes it stupid? 

The fact that the Boltons would kill them.

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well, yeah, they will have an easier time of it if the current ruler is weak & unliked, because they will have more support. More support means less fighting. This doesn't negate the fact that they would have to conquer to get the throne though. 

No, the usurpers could just as well be deposed.

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The Starks still would have fought for the crown regardless of the tension between them. Indeed though, a horde of Dothraki screamers would be difficult to deal with. I'm not sure what the point is of this though. My stance was & still is that Viserys or Daenerys or Aegon or anyone else for that matter, would have to take the IT by force, effectively conquering.

Again, no. This wouldn't be a conquest in a proper sense of the word, nor is it even a given that there would have been much fighting. If Robert ended the way Maegor the Cruel or Aegon II went down then Viserys III would have 'conquered' the Iron Throne the same way Jaehaerys I or Aegon III did. And chances are pretty good that Aegon won't have to bloody his hands to get rid of Tommen and Myrcella, either.

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So what decides if it's a conquest or not is whether or not the people being conquered jump ship & declare for the invader? I don't see that anywhere in the definition. That simply isn't true. 

Are you unwilling or incapable to see the difference between a deposed royal line reclaiming their birth right and a proper conquest of another country?

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't know what Edward III did but if he used words to convince others to follow him, it may still fall under the category of overcoming by mental or moral power, & thus would still be a conquest. There is not conquest "in the sense that you want to expand your kingdom or add some new territories to your empire" that I'm aware of. There is only a conquest, which I've posted the definition for. Certainly, a conquest to expand your kingdom or add territories to your empire has some differences to taking back a throne & territories your family used to rule but the differences are not that one is conquest & the other is not.

Well, we are talking about William the Conqueror and not Edward the Conqueror or Henry (IV) the Conqueror so that's that.

Right of conquest in a medieval sense mean you attack another foreign nation - or even a neighboring lord - and take what's theirs by force. Afterwards you come to an understanding with the guy (or his heirs) whose lands you conquered and they agree that said lands are now yours. That's how William and Aegon conquered England/Westeros. The conquered eventually agreed and acknowledged that they had been conquered.

But before that they would have resisted. When a Targaryen invades Westeros after the Rebellion he or she will not have to conquer the lands that are his or hers by right - he or she will be invited and supported by a number of lords and knights and everybody who resists him or her will know that they resist their rightful monarch and not some foreign would-be conqueror.

That's how things in a monarchistic mindset work. Royal power is inherited, it is not given by the consensus of the governed. Which means that even Robert and his heirs would have trouble overcoming/denying the claim that the Targaryens are the rightful rulers and they are just bloody usurpers.

And it would be the same with the Tullys, Starks, and all the other ancient houses who have been ousted by their enemies for a time. Emmon and Genna will not be able to count on the support of the men sworn to Riverrun if they were challenged by a Tully pretender - just as Roose and Ramsay would be in serious trouble if a powerful Stark pretender showed up.

They could all count on the fact that there were still people who remembered that they were their real rulers and that it was only just and proper that they were restored to their rightful place.

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

They did give up. They ran away, they went into hiding. The only thing they didn't give up was the idea that the throne belonged to them. They can have any idea they want but that doesn't make it so. Robert was holding the throne so whether or not they thought it belonged to them, they were not in possession of it. 

Viserys III never gave up. It was not his decision to leave KL or Dragonstone, but of men who took possession of his person. Just as Brandon and Rickon did not decide to leave Winterfell on their own.

And nobody ever doubted Robert was in possession of the Iron Throne. If I steal your property I might possess it for the time being, but this doesn't make me the legal owner, does it? If it did, I had long started a career as robber and thief...

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Where else should I find the 'proper' definition of conquest than in the dictionary? You said it wouldn't be a conquest. I posted the definition of conquest - which this most certainly falls under. If there is some, more proper or true definition of conquest, please point me to it.

A dictionary gives you colloquial usages of words, it doesn't provide for the special cases the word might be used for.

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

By who?? Who would be offering her the throne? If you're arguing if this happened & if that happened then someone may hand over the throne to her - yeah, sure, maybe. We can't forsee the future.  Surely not Cersei. I highly doubt Aegon will be handed over the throne with out a fight. Even if it is a very small fight he has still taken it by force & thus is a conquest. 

Cersei doesn't wield any power. Sure, there might be some fighting between the Tyrells and Aegon, but it is even possible that Mace's men abandon him defect to Mathis Rowan standing beneath a Targaryen banner. The Kingslanders will definitely open the gates to Aegon when he comes knocking. They hate the Lannisters and KL was always a Targaryen city.

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Not everyone has a rightful or true claim but anyone can make a claim. Robert didn't really have a rightful claim but used it anyway.

No, not everybody can make a claim. Robert made a claim because he had a claim as the grandson of Princess Rhaelle and the great-grandson of King Aegon V.

Claims are not 'rightful' or not - they simply exist because you are descended from this or that lord or king.

On 3/12/2020 at 7:03 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Anyway, again, I'm not arguing whether or not they have a claim - they certainly believe they do & I'm sure there are others. My point is a claim does nothing for them if they cannot take the throne by force.

Again, no. It would depend on whether they have to take the throne by force - which isn't a given. They could also be offered it by the people of Westeros or their simple appearance could cause the people to defect them them by the thousands.

Even if there were some fighting - it makes no sense to talk about a conquest when half of the 'conquered' fight on your side and help you 'to conquer' stuff.

33 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

Understood. The Targaryens taking Westeros back will not be considered a reconquest but rather taking back what was theirs all along.

More or less that.

And you can see how people can continue to believe that something is 'theirs by right' even if they never actually had it - Daemon Blackfyre never sat the Iron Throne and was killed as the traitor that he was in battle. Yet this didn't cause his sons Daemon II, Haegon, Aenys, and his grandsons Daemon III and Maelys to give up their claims or consider them invalid because their forebears were defeated in battle.

The Blackfyres show how long such claims can last, how long they remain powerful enough in the eyes of the people to start bloody wars.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Are you unwilling or incapable to see the difference between a deposed royal line reclaiming their birth right and a proper conquest of another country

There is no such term as a "proper" conquest that I am aware of. I've posted the definition of conquest, proving I'm using it in the correct way. 

I've acknowledged there are differences but noted that the differences are not that one is a conquest & one is not. 

You insisting I'm not using it properly without giving the evidence for why you deem it improper does not show a lack of willingness or inability on my part, but on yours. 

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Right of conquest in a medieval sense mean you attack another foreign nation - or even a neighboring lord - and take what's theirs by force

According to who? Where & by who has it been determined that a "proper" conquest only includes conquering a foreign nation? 

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

dictionary gives you colloquial usages of words, it doesn't provide for the special cases the word might be used for.

Again, I'm unaware of any "special" cases the word might be used for & the word having special cases it would include under its meaning does not remove the most accepted, normal, used, meaning of the word - which is the sense I have been using it in. 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, no. It would depend on whether they have to take the throne by force - which isn't a given. They could also be offered it by the people of Westeros or their simple appearance could cause the people to defect them them by the thousands

If I'm talking about taking the throne by force, which at this point in the story is what is most likely, then I'm not talking about the off chance that they will be handed the throne when speaking of a conquest right? 

Further more, deposing the current King/Queen by having people defect to them, having overwhelming support, etc would still be taking the throne by force. 

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, not everybody can make a claim. Robert made a claim because he had a claim as the grandson of Princess Rhaelle and the great-grandson of King Aegon V.

Claims are not 'rightful' or not - they simply exist because you are descended from this or that lord or king.

This was a small pretense on which Robert gained the throne. Do you suggest that if Robert didn't have any relation to the Targ's that he would have just said "welp, I know I've conquered the throne, removed all the Targ's, but seeing as how I have no Targ blood, I'll just go on my merry way back to Storm's End, see ya'all"

No. If Joe Blow from flea bottom some how mustered up support & an army large enough to conquer the throne, he would sit his low-born arse on it & rule if & until he lacked the strength to hold it & someone challenged him & it wouldn't matter one bit that he had no Royal blood because no one could do a thing about it. 

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And nobody ever doubted Robert was in possession of the Iron Throne. If I steal your property I might possess it for the time being, but this doesn't make me the legal owner, does it? If it did, I had long started a career as robber and thief

That's not what I'm suggesting at all, but there is something to that, I believe according to US law possession is 9/10ths. 

What I am saying is ruling the realm is not a tangible item. Robert is ruling, his word is law, according to all the laws of Westeros he is the legal, rightful King. There is no police or court that Viserys can appeal to saying "I never gave up my right to rule & so Robert is illegal & I am legal." There is only Robert's court. 

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if there were some fighting - it makes no sense to talk about a conquest when half of the 'conquered' fight on your side and help you 'to conquer' stuff

Maybe it makes no sense to you but this is a stipulation in your own head. There is no universally or majority accepted stipulation on conquering that says less than half the conquered fight with you or rally to your cause. 

59 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that the Boltons would kill them

How do you presume they would do that if it were true, as stated, that all of the North are loyal to Bran & Rickon? The Bolton's are going to wipe out the entire North all by themselves? 

 

[King17]

Stannis is he is the rightfull heir of the previous king.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, maybe Wylla Manderly is just lying when she appears to be a Stark loyalist?

 If you down this road you get very strange results.

Nobody said Dany or Aegon know of that stuff ... I just pointed out that there is considerable potential for such support among the people of Westeros. And we will see that when Aegon takes the Iron Throne in a matter of days/weeks without facing much opposition.

The difference is telling, Wylla Manderly speaks freely about her loyalties, just as Crabb when he says he is a loyalist, others like Mathis Rowan.... 

The difference between Aegon taking the Throne and everyone else retaking it is as night and day, Westeros is wartorn, people hate the Lannisters from the North to Dorne, a toddler sits in the IT and his regent is  unpopular and incompetent  and hardly taken seriously.  There is a reason Varys had Kevan killed and there is a better reason the GC would not have done much had Tywin being alive and kicking, circumstances changes, alligiances and loyalties changes, the situation and circumstances Aegon and Tommen wil face would not be the same if Aeegon would be facing Kevan, Tywin, Stannis, Renly or Robert and thus the loyalties and allegiances  do perfectly changes, Mathis Rowan can be a secret loyalist but be scared to cross Tywin (he does not join the Targs), disgusted by Robert's behaviour (he does join the Targs), more loyal to Renly than he is to the Targs (he doesn't join the Targs)... He could have become a Baratheon loyalist as the years passed by and thus (not join the Targs), being dissapointed about how the Baratheons left everything (he does join the Targs) etc etc etc. The idea, because it's still an idea, that Aegon taking easily the throne means that all those people were loyal or more importantly willing to throw their support all along and in every scenario does not hold any water.  We're literally told that with the Stormlords example...

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 No, the usurpers could just as well be deposed.

Or they could end like show Tommen, if there is fighting, is conquest.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Again, no. This wouldn't be a conquest in a proper sense of the word, nor is it even a given that there would have been much fighting. If Robert ended the way Maegor the Cruel or Aegon II went down then Viserys III would have 'conquered' the Iron Throne the same way Jaehaerys I or Aegon III did. And chances are pretty good that Aegon won't have to bloody his hands to get rid of Tommen and Myrcella, either.

Robert had the backing of 5 kingdoms and his baby's brother's squire and close companion was the favourite child of the key of the a Targ restoration success... What makes you  think he'd end up like Maegor or Aegon who were friendless and cornered and without any meaningful ally willing to fight for them??  Conquest, in a proper sense of the word, means taking or appropiating of a land in war.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Are you unwilling or incapable to see the difference between a deposed royal line reclaiming their birth right and a proper conquest of another country?

There is no such proper difference, especially with the very very subjective part of "birthright".

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, we are talking about William the Conqueror and not Edward the Conqueror or Henry (IV) the Conqueror so that's that.

Right of conquest in a medieval sense mean you attack another foreign nation - or even a neighboring lord - and take what's theirs by force. Afterwards you come to an understanding with the guy (or his heirs) whose lands you conquered and they agree that said lands are now yours. That's how William and Aegon conquered England/Westeros. The conquered eventually agreed and acknowledged that they had been conquered.

 It works the exact same way with internal affairs, just that one is called invader the other is called usurper.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But before that they would have resisted. When a Targaryen invades Westeros after the Rebellion he or she will not have to conquer the lands that are his or hers by right - he or she will be invited and supported by a number of lords and knights and everybody who resists him or her will know that they resist their rightful monarch and not some foreign would-be conqueror.

Honestly i can't really take seriously some parts.

- If he or she finds resistance, they would have to conquer again the lands that were his by right.

- The i suspect that every invader that succesfully occupied the Riverlands were its rightful ruler then...

- This part is so ludicrous that i can't take seriously... Why would those who resist them know they are fighting their rightful ruler, not even their once rightful ruler, but their still righful ones, why would the Stormlords believe that?? Or the Valemen?? Why would anyone who has swore new alligiances and more importantly and mean to keep them believe that??

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 That's how things in a monarchistic mindset work. Royal power is inherited, it is not given by the consensus of the governed. Which means that even Robert and his heirs would have trouble overcoming/denying the claim that the Targaryens are the rightful rulers and they are just bloody usurpers.

Except in Robert's case were they were given the power and his supporters don't think of him as a usurper, why would Ned think of Robert as a usurper??  Royal power is indeed given by the consensus of the governed, if not you either have a secret weapon to keep those governed from going loose or you have no royal power at all. 

But i agree that the entitlement of royal power is indeed inherited and is not given by the consensus of the governed and usually can remain until long after royal power is gone.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And nobody ever doubted Robert was in possession of the Iron Throne. If I steal your property I might possess it for the time being, but this doesn't make me the legal owner, does it? If it did, I had long started a career as robber and thief...

If i steal your property and then get everyone and/or the pertinent legal authorities that your property is now mine, it sure as hell makes me the legal owner of it.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A dictionary gives you colloquial usages of words, it doesn't provide for the special cases the word might be used for.

It usually does but

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, no. It would depend on whether they have to take the throne by force - which isn't a given. They could also be offered it by the people of Westeros or their simple appearance could cause the people to defect them them by the thousands.

Even if there were some fighting - it makes no sense to talk about a conquest when half of the 'conquered' fight on your side and help you 'to conquer' stuff.

Even if people defect to them by the thousands and millions, as long as they have to fight for the Throne makes it a conquest.

Why not?? Exactly, people inviting others to invade territories and joining them have been a thing for us almost all our history and for a decent part of Westeros' s history too. But i fail too see how Harwyn Hoare, the Andals or Arrec Durrandon aren't conquerors even when they were invited (minus Harwyn but he had the support of almost all the Riverlands) and a decent part of the conquered actually helped and fought for them.

 

 

 

@Lyanna<3Rhaegar

Quote

No. If Joe Blow from flea bottom some how mustered up support & an army large enough to conquer the throne, he would sit his low-born arse on it & rule if & until he lacked the strength to hold it & someone challenged him & it wouldn't matter one bit that he had no Royal blood because no one could do a thing about it. 

And his kids would have a claim too¡¡¡¡

But seriously if Joe Blow somehow could get the majority of people to believe him King and swear to him, the only discussion about him being not the rightful ruler would be that we should heed to noble entitlement... Instead to common sense. That's the way you have Blackfyres, Yronwoods or worse Eustace Osgreys... 

[The Fattest Leech]

On 3/9/2020 at 2:20 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

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

Neither. The whole concept of the iron throne is that it is an oppressive abomination to the natural cycle of things. Those that covet the seat have what is referred to in Martinworld as the "red thirst". Ozymandias (or Ozy-man-dee-us if you're Abner ).

This is something that Stannis, with the guidance of Davos and Jon, is slooowly discovering on his own. The while cart and horse idea.

If anything, the seat itself is akin to a dragon- huge, spikey, bloody, fiery, oppressive, etc. In that way it does belong to the "fire gods", but that is an extreme element that is out of balance in this (that?) world. A Song (battle) of Ice and Fire. The point is the iron throne and the bloodlust to rule from it needs to be ended and destroyed.

 

[Annalee]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a monarch ruling over Westeros.  The great houses ruled over the lesser houses. The nobility ruled over the commons. The monarch is the top of this system. All of them are part of this system.  Robert's Rebellion opened a can of worms.  The legitimate king after Aerys was Viserys. Might put Robert on the throne. He has might on his side but Viserys has legitimacy on his side because the law was not changed. Robert got around the law and got away with it. It does not mean the law no longer exists.  Might does not make right. It just means you can force your will on the people.  The succession got messy and it still is. Renly was able to challenge and he had something to stand on. Robert got around the law, so why should Renly not do the same.  The question asks who is more legitimate.  Aegon. The legitimate heirs are Viserys, then Daenerys, followed by Rhaego. Aegon would follow should that line break. Aegon is lacking the might needed right now but the question was not about that.

[Nevets]

There is no "most" legitimate claimant for the throne.  There are 4 or 5 possible legitimate claimants for the throne - Tommen, Stannis, Daenerys, Aegon, and Jon, if his birth becomes known.

Who you regard as most legitimate depends on where you stand, what you believe, and who you like, or don't like.

Whoever wins will use their claim of legitimacy to cement their victory.  And at this point, nobody's claim is really superior.