Who is more legitimate, Stannis or Aegon?

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The ,,their founder was a Targ so they are as well" argument doesn't really hold water when you consider the fact that Orys took the Durrandon coat of arms and words, as well as their castle, not to mention marrying Argella. He clearly wanted, and succeeded in taking a Durrandon identity.

Nah, if that were so then one would say that somebody like Harrold Hardyng can also not presume to be an Arryn, Rhaenyra could not include her mother's or husband's arms in her personal sigil, and no descendant through the female line could ever lay claim to a lordship/seat/throne of a grandfather, great-grandfather, or great-great-grandfather because he would be forever stuck with 'the identity' he inherited from his father.

But that is pretty much nonsense as the books establish as early as Joffrey's personal arms are introduced very early in AGoT.

And I'd not be so keen to interpret this as taking 'an identity' - rather as usurping property and transforming oneself from a baseborn bastard into a great lord. Orys Baratheon likely didn't have a sigil or words he had to give up - and that he wanted to keep his identity can very much be drawn from the fact that he kept his (Valyrian?) name instead of taking on the Durrandon name (like Joffrey Lydden took the Lannister name).

The Baratheon claim to the Iron Throne Orys would have some substance because, if the main Targaryen branch died out, it would be the only male branch left. Robert would be a direct patrilinear descendant of Lord Aerion Targaryen and Aenar the Exile.

This doesn't mean this would be a very strong claim, though. Orys was never publicly acknowledged as a Targaryen bastard and it was a long time ago - one imagines that a more recent Targaryen cousin would have a better shot in this context. But the best shot and the obvious heirs to Aerys II and his descendants were Steffon's sons - both because of their descent from Orys and, of course, because they are also the great-grandsons of Aegon V.

7 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Oh no I agree that blood matters, but it's mattering less and less, sadly for Westeros. I'm saying sadly due to the fact that the less it matters, the more lords will be fighting for the Throne. In the times of the Targs the war of the five kings would have maybe been between Stannis and Joffrey and not a five way civil war. Also while coups and conquest are different so are coups and civil wars.

We could say that it mattered less if random dudes of various power were trying to lay claim to thrones and lordships. But they aren't, right?

Robert's usurpation certainly damaged the Seven Kingdoms up to a point, but if you consider the quarrelsome nature of the Baratheon brothers the Joffrey-Stannis-Renly thing certainly is something that could have happened in a different scenario, too. In a different version we also see something like that with the Arryn succession war after the death of Jeyne Arryn (which also had three claimants fighting each other).

And one could also see the Targaryens descending into something like that if there had been less incest and more cadet branches.

7 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Mate, he only cares about Dany for the dragons, he doesn't give a squat about legitimacy. He even says he is going to conquer the seven kingdoms, not take his right or something like that but conquer.

He intends to marry Daenerys Targaryen. The dragons are part of the deal, but an equally important, perhaps even more important part of the deal is Daenerys herself and her claim.

If Euron just wanted the dragons he would have told Vic to fetch him some dragons and not to fetch him his dragon queen bride.

If Euron just had dragons and had no intention to marry a Targaryen queen he could be seen as an ironborn version of Aegon the Conqueror. But he isn't.

Also, considering Ironborn culture there is essentially no chance that Euron could ever conquer Westeros without the advantage of a legitimate claim - which would also bring some Targaryen loyalists on his side, helping him with his conquest. The Ironborn alone could at best conquer one of the Seven Kingdoms - and even that they would not hold for long if the other kingdoms remained united and would eventually come for them.

If Dany's dragons had the size of Aegon's they would be powerful weapons of war. But they are not. Euron on a dragon would still be an impressive sight and it might help him somewhat - but the Ironborn are loathed throughout all the Seven Kingdoms. Without any kind of legitimacy Euron's campaign is doomed (unless he removed all resistance with magic, of course).

7 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well limited royal authority can be either a good or a bad thing, depending on whom does the freed up power goes to. That's why the normal step towards progress was feudalism -> absolutism -> democracy

In a feudal setting the common people suffered more from the 'semi-private shenanigans' for the aristocracy. In that sense a strong monarchy would usually profit the commoners. In fact, the foundation of absolute royal power would be the commoners.

7 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I dunno, absolutism if clearly better then the current feudalistic mess, but I think there is going to be enough when Dany comes in with the dragons. She would have absolute power due to them. And Dany's (probably short and bloody) rule is going to show the problems of absolutism. I think in the end the result will be a kind of constitutional absolutism, similar to the Tudors in England (though that was a bit weird seeing as it was never clear exactly who had the power seeing as King and Parliament almost always worked together. It wasn't until Charles that King and Parliament starting to have problems)

Don't see room for such a plot. Also don't think that Dany is going to be worse than Euron, Stannis, Aegon, or whoever else may end up ruling with an iron fist over a bunch of people. Summer is over, and 'rule by consensus' and 'talking things through' pretty much died with Renly and his summer knights.

This would also extend to the High Septon - who already rules with an iron fist and his building his army of fanatics.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Your compassion is a bit forced, don't you think. What I'm saying is that the that feudalism is the worst, followed by absolutism and then by democracy. Absolutism has the King at his highest power so removing his power can lead in 2 directions, one good one bad.

I understand what you're saying and i don't think it's forced, there is no use in removing all Gregors from power while there are Ramsays and Tywins who can and do create other thugs, you just centralized pain. Absolutism  is the best when you have a peaceful and very powerful King like Jaeharys or Viserys, but you can very much have a Maegor.

Saying that the lords, and only the lords, are responsible for the suffering of said smallfolk when the King is the very first who enables and benefits from it it's astonishing and simplistic.

I understand what the charming of absolutism is. I never bought it however, it does not seem so different than now. Powerful ruler, peace and people fall in line, weak ruler, uncertainty and war, cruel ruler, everyone suffers and likely than not the cruel King is offed.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

24 minutes ago, frenin said:

I understand what you're saying and i don't think it's forced, there is no use in removing all Gregors from power while there are Ramsays and Tywins who can and do create other thugs, you just centralized pain. Absolutism  is the best when you have a peaceful and very powerful King like Jaeharys or Viserys, but you can very much have a Maegor.

Saying that the lords, and only the lords, are responsible for the suffering of said smallfolk when the King is the very first who enables and benefits from it it's astonishing and simplistic.

I understand what the charming of absolutism is. I never bought it however, it does not seem so different than now. Powerful ruler, peace and people fall in line, weak ruler, uncertainty and war, cruel ruler, everyone suffers and likely than not the cruel King is offed.

Oh no, you get me wrong, absolutism has some horrid deficiencies, mainly when inevitably they get a shitty king. As the 2 shitty Louis have shown (the Sun King and the decapitated) absolutism can massively screw the people, cause as you say you can easily get a Tywin, or worse a Ramsay. However, under an absolutism king there are little to no civil wars, as well as a standing professional army (a standing army in necessary for an absolutist ruler for him to enforce his rule). Therefore there are a lot less wars, almost none of them internal (which are by far the worst) and the people who do participate in them are usually volunteers, not conscripted peasants. So while yes you can have Maegor or Ramsay as ruler, their cruelty while horrendous is still better then war. Also with absolutism you can also get great rulers like Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I or Napoleon who massively modernize the country and bring on whatever the Enlightenment is going to look like in the World of Ice and Fire.

32 minutes ago, frenin said:

Saying that the lords, and only the lords, are responsible for the suffering of said smallfolk when the King is the very first who enables and benefits from it it's astonishing and simplistic.

Did I ever say that. It's chose your poison here honestly, and at least with absolutism it's only the king screwing you over. In Westerosi feudalism it's the King, the lord paramount, the lord and finally the landed knight, all simultaneously screwing you over. And when they screw each other over you get to experience the pleasures of civil war.

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

I understand what the charming of absolutism is. I never bought it however, it does not seem so different than now. Powerful ruler, peace and people fall in line, weak ruler, uncertainty and war, cruel ruler, everyone suffers and likely than not the cruel King is offed.

Totally agree with you. I'm just saying that literally any other civilized system of government is better then feudalism, and that includes absolutism. Absolutism is important because most major kingdoms, after feudalism go towards absolutism, and only after an Enlightenment under said absolutism (and a revolution/civil war) do they finally turn towards some democratic form of government (which is let's be fair the best governing systems we ever managed to concoct)

[Yucef Menaerys]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the best shot and the obvious heirs to Aerys II and his descendants were Steffon's sons - both because of their descent from Orys and, of course, because they are also the great-grandsons of Aegon V.

Nope. The obvious heirs to Aerys II were Viserys and Dany, you know his own direct and true born descendants. If the rebels were so concerned about choosing a king with the most Targaryen blood as you seem to indicate then they would've simply invited Viserys to take over the crown while they rule as regents before he reached his majority. 

Frankly I find the idea that the Baratheons are somehow a continuation of house Targaryen as absolutely absurd. Certainly none of the Baratheons we see in the series consider themselves Targaryens or their heirs, let's not forget Robert who vowed to kill every Targaryen he could get his hands own.

Newsflash: Just because the current Baratheons happen to have a Targaryen grandmother doesn't mean "The Baratheons effectively are Targaryens themselves. They just go by a different name and they have different looks. That's it." 

By this logic Margaery, Loras and Garlan are effectively Redwines and Aerys II was effectively a blackwood who went by a different name (Targaryen) 

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Not the same at all. Aside from Bran and Rickon being children when all of the uncertainty of what was happening to the Starks was happening, they weren't conquered by might. They were taken advantage of by trickery because the sitting Stark was a boy and was slightly misguided. Small infractions that should have meant nothing in normal times, but all added up to allow a breach in Winterfell. And by breach, the biggest trickster in the whole fiasco is Ramsay Snow.

Who cares about any of that? Robb Stark and his mother were killed at the Red Wedding like Aerys II was killed by the treacherous Lannisters. War is easier won by deceit and trickery than by honest and open battle. I mean, you could just as well complain that Robb defeated Stafford Lannister with a ruse or that it wasn't 'fair' that Aegon II lured Rhaenyra into a trap at Dragonstone and murdered her.

The fact that people are taken out by trickery doesn't affect their ability to steal a throne or a lordship.

Especially not when the power of the usurping force is later consolidated. The Iron Throne approved of the Red Wedding, just as King Robert approved of the murders of the royal family in KL, and formally installed Roose and Ramsay as the new rulers of the North.

They rule there with exactly the same authority as Robert sat the Iron Throne.

Who lasts in the end is an irrelevant question in such a discussion. We don't try to figure out who is going to win the game - nor would it matter if we would do that since the person who wins the game is not very likely to be morally justified by the fact that they won - in this series they are likely going to turn to be the most ruthless people, not the most noble.

Our question here is whether an ousted party retains a blood claim to his or her family's lands and titles and thrones and whether he or she is seen as well within his/her rights to take but what is theirs. And the answer to that is simply 'yes'.

If this weren't the case then the whole 'game of thrones' theme of that story wouldn't be about noble people losing their homes (the Targaryens and Starks) and trying to get them back. Instead it would be about something else.

5 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Half the lords in Westeros know Cersei's children are Jaime's = NOT legit to being Baratheon nor "legit" to sit the throne and rule. But they follow because they get rewards and/or they fear Tywin (to narrow it down simply). This is a repeating theme amongst the lords, they are greedy and sit as "just watchers" when all the shit happens around them they know is wrong if it means they could survive. However, these twisted "watchers" don't last in the end:

Here you are, perhaps inadvertently, going along with the 'beat up the bastard' theme the Westerosi are so good at. Yes, Cersei's children are biologically not Robert's. But so what? Are we really believing that it matters who fathered a child when it is raised in a marriage? No, we don't. At least we shouldn't. Cersei being unfaithful to Robert gives Robert's shitty brothers a pretext to try to steal the throne Robert decided should go to Joffrey. But what if Robert had been sterile/unwilling to father children on Cersei and they had agreed to create heirs in another fashion?

The question of biological parentage is not in the books for the reader to side with the shitty people in the books who say 'this woman had an affair and her children aren't really the children of her husband - let's use that a pretext to start a war that will kill thousands!' It is there to illustrate how shitty people do use shitty rules of their advantage.

It shouldn't matter who actually fathered Tommen. What should matter is that Robert viewed him as his son.

5 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So Ramsay "Bolton" is a fake, and he knows it, and he knows it so much that he knows he has to marry a Stark in order to get and keep Winterfell. Why? Because the Starks are legit and haven't lost everything. The lords of the north and mountains know this and are willing to fight for "the Ned's girl". Hell, even Theon always wanted to be a Stark, so his Stark cosplay was an act and we know and see he is coming back to his wits on the matter.

Sure, I know all that ... it is exactly my point. It shows that the Starks didn't lose their claim when they were ousted and defeated. It is even strong enough that a fake Stark does the trick of binding the Northmen to the Boltons.

And it is pretty much the same with the Targaryens although on a much larger scale since they ruled all of Westeros before they were ousted, not just the North.

5 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Do you understand what the narrative purpose of Rob being most like a Tully? Born, named a not northern name, crowned, ruled, crown made in the riverlands, and died in the riverlands. This is a story where these ingrained details mean more than the perceived "rules". This isn't a measurable account of actual history, but a work of fiction told in a way that Martin wants it to be. His rules.

That seems to make no sense at all - Robb has exactly the same coloring as Brandon and Rickon and Sansa. And were do you take it that 'Robb' isn't a northern name? It is a shorter version of Robert, the simple way the First Men would render such a name. Not to mention that Ned, Rickard and Brandon also died outside the North? Does this mean they were 'half-Starks', too?

5 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And the majority of Westeros is smallfolk, and the smallfolk just want to be left alone to live their lives. It is only the upper "elites" that care who is on the throne = who gives them favors... often taken at the cost of smallfolk.

Jorah Mormont isn't exactly an expert on the public opinion of the people of Westeros. He may be somewhat well-informed about the opinion of his Bear Islanders back in the day when he still was the Lord of that place (which he wasn't in recent years) but he wouldn't know much about the people outside his own domains.

George uses him to establish a certain background ... that the common people/most people don't give a damn. Only to subvert that later because it is quite clear that this is wrong. We do know there are quite a few Targaryen loyalists among the smallfolk (and the nobility) just as we do learn in ACoK that there were a lot Stark loyalists among the people of Winterfell, just as there are in quite a few (although not all) Northern houses.

It would be naive to assume that a Targaryen or Stark could march into Winterfell or the Red Keep right now with just a dozen companions and demand that Roose/Tommen hand the castle over to them - that wouldn't work. But if they played their cards right they could easily enough gather a powerful enough army of Westerosi people to retake what is theirs in battle.

And the bottom line is the Targaryens basically have a very similar 'narrative of cruelty and treason' they can exploit to gain sympathy as the Starks have ... the brutal Sack of King's Landing, the murder of royal women and children, and the murder of an anointed king at the hands of his own Kingsguard.

That is just as a powerful a story to cultivate a sense of payback as the Red Wedding is. The only difference is that the Targaryens would likely cash in some of the older fellows - such people who were still children and youths when they heard about the Sack - while the wounds demanding vengeance for the Red Wedding are much fresher.

Not to mention that both the Brotherhood without Banners and the sparrow movement long ago revealed how wrong a view Jorah Mormont has of the Westerosi people. They do care about more than just their own day-to-day affairs.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Nope. The obvious heirs to Aerys II were Viserys and Dany, you know his own direct and true born descendants.

This is why I explicitly wrote 'the obvious heirs of Aerys II and his descendants'. You even quoted that part. Didn't you read it?

Robert and his brothers are next in line after Aerys II, Rhaegar, and their (other) children.

This is signficant because this is the very definition of a female cadet branch of House Targaryen. Robert would be the founder of a new dynasty if he were not related to the Targaryens at all or only so distantly that pretty much nobody who wasn't into geneology could figure how exactly they were related and/or they were, say, a dozen or so more closely related Targaryen cousins than Robert whose claims were ignored when Robert took the throne. Instead, the only Targaryen cousins Robert overthrew/pushed aside were Aerys II himself and his immediate descendants.

This is how Renly paints the blood ties between the dragon and the stag in ACoK. But as it turns out in AFfC and ADwD (and was already hinted at in ASoS) this is simply not true.

1 hour ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

If the rebels were so concerned about choosing a king with the most Targaryen blood as you seem to indicate then they would've simply invited Viserys to take over the crown while they rule as regents before he reached his majority. 

Well, no. Nobody said the rebels were so keen to seat one of Aerys II immediate descendants on the throne. They clearly wanted to seat Robert there.

My point is that the reason why they wanted Robert there, why they thought one of their own could sit the Iron Throne at all, is that Robert, one of their leaders, also happened to be Aegon V's great-grandson.

My personal take on the Rebellion is that their original sin, so to speak, was to not avenge the murder of the king, to openly condone the murder of the royal family, and to put Robert on the throne. Overthrowing a mad, tyrannical king is perfectly fine with me.

But even in their crowning of Robert they were not the tiniest bit revolutionary. How many people did Robert push aside when he stole the throne? More than Maegor the Cruel (who, when he usurped the throne, pushed aside his nephews Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaerys as well as his nieces Rhaena and Alysanne) whereas Robert only pushed aside Viserys III and, if you want to count them, Daenerys and Rhaella, while she yet lived. All the other Targaryens were dead by the time Robert took the throne.

1 hour ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Frankly I find the idea that the Baratheons are somehow a continuation of house Targaryen as absolutely absurd. Certainly none of the Baratheons we see in the series consider themselves Targaryens or their heirs, let's not forget Robert who vowed to kill every Targaryen he could get his hands own.

They do not call themselves Targaryen but that doesn't change their ancestry. Again, if Harry the Heir can include the Arryn arms into his sigil, Robert could also include the three-headed dragon in his. He could even call himself Targaryen if he wanted to.

A family name is just a custom ... they can be changed. And that seems to work in Westeros easily enough if you some of your matrilinear ancestors are of this or that family.

1 hour ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Newsflash: Just because the current Baratheons happen to have a Targaryen grandmother doesn't mean "The Baratheons effectively are Targaryens themselves. They just go by a different name and they have different looks. That's it." 

By this logic Margaery, Loras and Garlan are effectively Redwines and Aerys II was effectively a blackwood who went by a different name (Targaryen) 

Mace's children certainly are Redwynes in the sense that as Olenna's descendants they could put forth a claim to the Arbor - a claim that would have a strong chance of success if the current Redwyne branch had died out or was disgraced for some reason.

And, yes, Aerys II and his children all are half-Blackwoods and could definitely lay claim to Raventree Hall since they are descended from Betha Blackwood.

In fact, we see something like that happening when Robb becomes King of the Trident. That is due to the fact that he is half-Tully. The Riverlords wouldn't have been eager to proclaim him king if he had had no blood tie whatsoever to the Riverlands.

And I think I've laid out in detail how the Baratheons are effectively Targaryens themselves:

1. Because they all Baratheons are descended from a Targaryen bastard in (seemingly) unbroken male line.

2. Because especially Steffon and his sons are descended from King Aegon V Targaryen.

[The Fattest Leech]

 

Quote

Not to mention that both the Brotherhood without Banners and the sparrow movement long ago revealed how wrong a view Jorah Mormont has of the Westerosi people. They do care about more than just their own day-to-day affairs.

I don't have a lot of reply time at the moment, but the Sparrow movement is doing a few things in the story. One, it is setting up a religious war with Cersei in the middle and soon to be Aegon and/or Dany- so yeah, the "game of thrones" is effecting the small folk. But this is also the larger aspect, that they are tired of being stepped on by the elites. If the small/common folk were left alone, they wouldn't be doing this (but they have to because the plot can't move forward in the KL arc until they do).

 

Anyway, this is going way off-topic and Stannis is the heir by rights and law, and Shireen is his heir by rights and law, etc, etc, etc which is why he has plans for her to live.

[Yucef Menaerys]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Our question here is whether an ousted party retains a blood claim to his or her family's lands and titles and thrones and whether he or she is seen as well within his/her rights to take but what is theirs. And the answer to that is simply 'yes'.

They absolutely do have their claims. For example I think Daenerys' claim is just as strong or even stronger than Stannis'. The issue boils down to two things:

1. If the Baratheons are illegitimate usurpers then their entire claim to the IT is nonexistent and they're nothing but pretenders, which means that the rightful ruler of Westeros is the eldest male from house Targaryen, barring that a female, making Dany the rightful ruler. 

2. If the Baratheons are righful monarchs who established themselves based on the force of arms just like Aegon the conqueror did then that would make their word law, making them the legitimate and righful rulers of Westeros, this invalidates all the rights of any Targaryen. 

This is what all this topic amounts to and I  think it's very important to make a distinction between right and claim. From what I can see, some like you hold the first view and other posters here like @The Fattest Leech hold the second view, as for me I'm undecided (as of yet), both sides have valid points. 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The question of biological parentage is not in the books for the reader to side with the shitty people in the books who say 'this woman had an affair and her children aren't really the children of her husband - let's use that a pretext to start a war that will kill thousands!' It is there to illustrate how shitty people do use shitty rules of their advantage.

Wouldn't you do the same in Stannis' position? Would you let a bastard born of incest and adultery who shares no kingly blood ascend the throne? Would you hold thesame view if it were a Targaryen king cuckolded like this? Do you have no problem with Jacaerys Strong reigning as Jacaerys Velaryon/Targaryen when infact he was a Strong bastard? 

And how exactly are the rules shitty, what is shitty about a rule that says if a king/Lord has no true born descendant then the throne passes to his immediate younger male sibling?

[frenin]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If this weren't the case then the whole 'game of thrones' theme of that story wouldn't be about noble people losing their homes (the Targaryens and Starks) and trying to get them back. Instead it would be about something else.

About the living and the death?? The Starks and the Targs aren't the only ones who have lost their home  btw.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Here you are, perhaps inadvertently, going along with the 'beat up the bastard' theme the Westerosi are so good at. Yes, Cersei's children are biologically not Robert's. But so what? Are we really believing that it matters who fathered a child when it is raised in a marriage? No, we don't. At least we shouldn't. Cersei being unfaithful to Robert gives Robert's shitty brothers a pretext to try to steal the throne Robert decided should go to Joffrey. But what if Robert had been sterile/unwilling to father children on Cersei and they had agreed to create heirs in another fashion?

The question of biological parentage is not in the books for the reader to side with the shitty people in the books who say 'this woman had an affair and her children aren't really the children of her husband - let's use that a pretext to start a war that will kill thousands!' It is there to illustrate how shitty people do use shitty rules of their advantage.

It shouldn't matter who actually fathered Tommen. What should matter is that Robert viewed him as his son.

Elitist powers come with elitist rules, Stannis and Renly aren't stealing anything from Robert, they are Robert's heirs. If not Robert could've perfectly talked to them about it. This somewhat curious when the one who likes  to go on and on about "guiding principales". Since Robert was neither sterile nor unwilling to fuck his wife, nor aware of being cuckolded, Robert's  will is meaningless.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

1. If the Baratheons are illegitimate usurpers then their entire claim to the IT is nonexistent and they're nothing but pretenders, which means that the rightful ruler of Westeros is the eldest male from house Targaryen, barring that a female, making Dany the rightful ruler. 

Excuse me!??? In which world does a male son come before a younger sister (relative to Rhaegar)?

[The Fattest Leech]

7 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

This is what all this topic amounts to and I  think it's very important to make a distinction between right and claim. From what I can see, some like you hold the first view and other posters here like @The Fattest Leech hold the second view, as for me I'm undecided (as of yet), both sides have valid points. 

Wouldn't you do the same in Stannis' position? Would you let a bastard born of incest and adultery who shares no kingly blood ascend the throne? Would you hold thesame view if it were a Targaryen king cuckolded like this? Do you have no problem with Jacaerys Strong reigning as Jacaerys Velaryon/Targaryen when infact he was a Strong bastard? 

And how exactly are the rules shitty, what is shitty about a rule that says if a king/Lord has no true born descendant then the throne passes to his immediate younger male sibling?

Haha. I am actually sorta playing along when it comes to doling out ideas on who is "legit" or not. (Not literally, but you get the point). I firmly stand by my first post in this thread, even though I am now realizing and going along with in-world rules over what author intent is showing us.

 

Also, if we go by Westerosi law, every single Targaryen who has sat the throne can be questioned as a "bastard" since the bloodline follows Rhaenys the second wife, and not Visenya the first. But again, I know that is me wanting to discuss author intent over in-world (screeeewwwballll) rules, instead.

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I don't have a lot of reply time at the moment, but the Sparrow movement is doing a few things in the story. One, it is setting up a religious war with Cersei in the middle and soon to be Aegon and/or Dany- so yeah, the "game of thrones" is effecting the small folk. But this is also the larger aspect, that they are tired of being stepped on by the elites. If the small/common folk were left alone, they wouldn't be doing this (but they have to because the plot can't move forward in the KL arc until they do).

What it is doing or not doing for the overall plot of the series is another matter entirely. That is open for interpretation.

The point here is that both the Brotherhood as well as the sparrows definitely prove the smallfolk do have a voice of their own. They do care. Historically, we also see this with the humble Riverlanders who were the first to answer Prince Daemon's call to defend Rhaenyra's claim. Or think of Dick Bean who was basically the only man willing to stand with Maegor against the Faith ... until his example shamed others into emulating him.

There is a large enough number of smallfolk in this world who is willing to fight and die for a noble or royal cause to use them to assemble an army independent of their noble overlords.

The idea that they only do things because they are not left alone is not accurate. That is just what Jorah believes ... and he is wrong.

22 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Anyway, this is going way off-topic and Stannis is the heir by rights and law, and Shireen is his heir by rights and law, etc, etc, etc which is why he has plans for her to live.

Stannis doesn't really have a case. By law Joffrey is Robert's heir because he is the heir the king named. Stannis was not named heir and he has no proof for his calumnies and claims. There is no objective justice here. Robert was the only person who could rule on his own succession with authority (or perhaps a Great Council acknowledged as an authority by all the pretenders) but he never did that, thanks to Stannis and Ned literally doing everything in their power to not inform Robert about what was going on. If Robert had ruled in Cersei's favor - dismissing the claims that her children were not Robert's - then Stannis wouldn't have been Robert's heir, period.

Biological parentage isn't something that can be proven or disproven in this world.

8 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

1. If the Baratheons are illegitimate usurpers then their entire claim to the IT is nonexistent and they're nothing but pretenders, which means that the rightful ruler of Westeros is the eldest male from house Targaryen, barring that a female, making Dany the rightful ruler. 

There is no way to figure who the rightful heir there is in this case. The best take is that Viserys III, as chosen heir of Aerys III, succeeded him as king in exile, followed by the last scion of House Targaryen and chosen and anointed heiress of his, Daenerys.

Aegon is a dead prince even if he lives. He has been proclaimed dead and has to prove he is alive and who he is before he can make a claim. But even if he is the real deal the fact that his royal grandfather passed him over when ruling on his own succession stands.

8 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

2. If the Baratheons are righful monarchs who established themselves based on the force of arms just like Aegon the conqueror did then that would make their word law, making them the legitimate and righful rulers of Westeros, this invalidates all the rights of any Targaryen.

Well, not really. For one, a king's word may law be in many cases, but it cannot create legitimacy when there is an usurpation, just as it cannot settle a succession if all a king uses are words (that's how Viserys I failed with Rhaenyra).

But the more important part is that it is irrelevant what Robert says. He cannot take the right to rule away from the Targaryens unless they agree. The only way to truly get rid of them were to kill them or to have them publicly give up their claims.

Not to mention that my entire point here is that this idea that Robert invalidated any Targaryen rights to the throne, etc. by royal decree is something the readership seems to be just pulling out of their asses - something like that is nowhere stated. This view a certain portion of the fandom has - that Robert's victory somehow makes the Targaryen claim illegitimate - is something that is only in their heads. It is not supported by any textual evidence.

If there had been some sort of Great Council after the Rebellion where essentially all the lords - or a huge majority of them - had summarily condemned the Targaryens and had declared Aerys II's children monsters and traitors who forfeited their right to rule for all time things would have been different. As would they be if there was textual evidence that all or a majority of the people of Westeros were of the opinion that Aerys II being a madman and tyrant (if that's how we want to see him) somehow invalidated the rights of his children and grandchildren to succeed him - but there is nothing to be found of that sort, either. Neither for the Targaryens nor for any other powerful house that is ousted. Just because Rickard Karstark was a traitor doesn't mean his sons and daughter have no longer a claim to Karhold. Robb also makes that very clear when he differentiates Tommen from Joffrey - the latter is a false king he wants to topple because he murdered his father but he himself defends Tommen's right to succeed his royal brother.

Thus we cannot just imagine without any textual evidence that the Targaryens are seen as having lost their claims just because they lost the first round of the war.

This just isn't a society where sagely nod to each other and agree with a king when he makes a one-sided proclamation that the people he overthrew now have no longer a right to take their property back. Instead, everybody would expect them to do just that ... because that's what they all would do if some rival ousted them from their lordship and castles.

These people do not have a mental switch in their heads causing them to switch allegiance from Targaryen to Baratheon or Stark to Bolton or Florent to Tyrell just because somebody decreed something or somebody thinks he won the war.

Take the Hundred Years War or the Wars of the Roses as an example: Were the Valois secure on their throne when Edward III and the Black Prince died? Was the war as we understand it today over? No. Did the Wars of the Roses end when Edward IV overthrew Henry VI for the first time and eventually imprisoned him? No. And so on.

Westeros is about as much 'in the Baratheon camp' right now as all of England was Yorkist while a York sat the throne or Lancastrian while a Lancaster sat the throne. The 15 years of peace between the wars were just a respite.

8 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

This is what all this topic amounts to and I  think it's very important to make a distinction between right and claim. From what I can see, some like you hold the first view and other posters here like @The Fattest Leech hold the second view, as for me I'm undecided (as of yet), both sides have valid points. 

I tried to lay out my view in detail in that post above there. I do acknowledge that Robert Baratheon is the King on the Iron Throne ... the same way Maegor the Cruel or Aegon II were - as usurpers who stole the throne from the rightful heir. All this talk about Robert founding a new royal dynasty is bogus. It is the same dynasty looking somewhat different and going by a different name, something I really try to illustrate by comparing Robert to Daemon Blackfyre - he, too, is basically just a Targaryen but somehow his different name makes him seem different for no good reason.

And, of course, Robert does have his own heirs, regardless whether one favors Joffrey or Stannis or Renly. But that would be the succession within the usurping branch of the extended royal family - the rightful heirs of the Iron Throne are, while they yet live, the descendants of Aerys II. And that is something the Baratheons know very well, else they wouldn't have tried to kill them.

8 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Wouldn't you do the same in Stannis' position? Would you let a bastard born of incest and adultery who shares no kingly blood ascend the throne? Would you hold thesame view if it were a Targaryen king cuckolded like this? Do you have no problem with Jacaerys Strong reigning as Jacaerys Velaryon/Targaryen when infact he was a Strong bastard?

I'd not try to murder my nephews, niece, and sister-in-law, just as I hope that Prince Andrew doesn't try to steal the British throne from William after Charles's death by claiming he and Harry were in truth fathered by Dodi or the riding instructor (there were indeed claims that Harry was not Charles's son but Hewitt's as I just found out ;-)).

The idea that it is the right thing to start a war that's going to kill thousands or tens of thousands just because your brother's children might be your biological children is ridiculous. And regardless what Cersei and Joffrey are ... it is always wrong to plan to murder your sister-in-law and nephews.

And it is quite clear that the case of Rhaenyra's sons is supposed to illustrate this point. Assuming her sons aren't Laenor's - which isn't proven - the situation there is very different. Laenor Velaryon acknowledged the children as his and was not deceived by an evil wife (like Robert was by Cersei). Instead, this whole thing would then have been an arrangement to enable Laenor and Rhaenyra to have children despite the fact that they did not want to go through the ordeal of conceiving them. Which is perfectly fine in this case because Rhaenyra is the Heir Apparent and the future claim and her sons would inherit her claim to the Iron Throne from her, not Laenor Velaryon.

Finally and most decisively - it would be the family of the cuckolded husband who would have a right to have grievances. With Robert it is Stannis who cannot accept what Cersei did - instead he wants to kill her, Jaime, and their children. But Laenor's father, mother, and sister were apparently perfectly fine with the way Rhaenyra treated Laenor.

In fact, one of the most touching scenes in FaB - if Laenor's sons were indeed not his - is the scene where Corlys Velaryon says with pride in his voice that Rhaenyra's sons are Velaryons not Targaryens. This hammers home the simple truth that family is not defined by biology but by choice, really.

Rhaenyra's story there is a contrast to Cersei's, it is not a variation of the same ugly theme.

8 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

And how exactly are the rules shitty, what is shitty about a rule that says if a king/Lord has no true born descendant then the throne passes to his immediate younger male sibling?

Well, for one it is obviously shitty to try to invoke such a rule when you have no right to prove that what you claim is true. It is also shitty to wait with such shady claims until the king who allegedly had no trueborn descendants is dead, so you can to use the power vacuum/uncertainty that always follows the death of a king to seize the throne yourself.

And, in Robert's case it is especially shitty because he actually did have two acknowledged natural children (Mya Stone and Edric Storm) who the king could have legitimized to bar Stannis from claiming the throne for himself - which he conveniently couldn't do when he didn't know about that. A man like Stannis wouldn't have forgotten that ... nor does it strike me as likely that Robert would have ever wanted Stannis to succeed him. If Robert had learned the truth from Ned and if he had believed it and decided to rule on his own succession with his last breath he would have either legitimized Edric and named him heir or he would have anointed Renly his heir rather than Stannis because he couldn't have closed his eyes in peace knowing that Stannis would succeed him. What made Robert content when he died was the thought that Ned would put things to right. That he would rule and shape Joffrey into a man who could become a good or at least adequate king. If it had turned out that Joffrey and Tommen and Myrcella couldn't succeed him he would have likely tried to push Ned into the role of the regent by making Edric his heir. At least that's my take on this. We'll never know for sure. But the way in which as irresponsible and shitty a king like Robert ridicules some of Stannis' suggestion (like banning prostitution in KL) indicates to me that for him the prospect of Stannis ruling Westeros would have been nearly as bad as Cersei doing it.

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Also, if we go by Westerosi law, every single Targaryen who has sat the throne can be questioned as a "bastard" since the bloodline follows Rhaenys the second wife, and not Visenya the first. But again, I know that is me wanting to discuss author intent over in-world (screeeewwwballll) rules, instead.

There is no textual evidence for the claim that Rhaenys is a second wife in a temporal sense (i.e. that she is the sister he did marry after he had already wed Visenya). The man has two wives, so one has to be the first and one the second if you talk about them - just as Maegor has a fourth, fifth, and sixth wife and not just three fourth wives because he married the black brides all in a single ceremony.

Not to mention that there is no indication that anyone would think that this would make a child from such a union 'a bastard'. We have no clue how people interpreted royal polygamy but indication is that it wasn't different from monogamy, and the eldest son of a polygamist remained his eldest son, regardless whether his first or hundredth wife gave birth to him.

[And come to think of it, if Rhaenys' son Aenys was 'a bastard' because she was 'the second wife' then Jon Snow definitely would be a bastard as well in light of the fact Lya was Rhaegar's second wife, too.]

But, of course, Aenys Targaryen is still not the biological son of the Conqueror because he is sterile. He was fathered by some singer - that is why Aenys was such a great singer. This doesn't matter, either, though, because the important thing is that Aegon treated and loved Aenys as his son despite the fact that he wasn't his biological son - just like Laenor treated Rhaenyra's sons as his (if they weren't) and Lord Corlys treated them as his trueborn grandchildren which made him proud.

[The Fattest Leech]

 

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no textual evidence for the claim that Rhaenys is a second wife in a temporal sense (i.e. that she is the sister he did marry after he had already wed Visenya). The man has two wives, so one has to be the first and one the second if you talk about them - just as Maegor has a fourth, fifth, and sixth wife and not just three fourth wives because he married the black brides all in a single ceremony.

This also fits that Lyanna was Rhaegar's second wife and died in Dorne, and Lyanna had a "bastard" boy.

Aegon married Visenya first for duty and then Rhaennys for love. If you are thinking of arguing otherwise, please add it because there is nothing that says Aegon 1 did not follow this custom, even though he followed most all other Targaryen/Valyrian customs.

Even still, take one as wife first, that is "legit" and should be enough there. But Aegon didn't, he went for a second, that which all the bastards came from who sat their arse on the pointy chair o'death.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Reign of the Dragons: The Conquest

The Aegon who is known to history as Aegon the Conqueror and Aegon the Dragon was born on Dragonstone in 27 BC. He was the only son, and second child, of Aerion, Lord of Dragonstone, and Lady Valaena of House Velaryon, herself half-Targaryen on her mother's side. Aegon had two trueborn siblings; an elder sister, Visenya, and a younger sister, Rhaenys. It had long been the custom amongst the dragonlords of Valyria to wed brother to sister, to keep the bloodlines pure, but Aegon took both his sisters to bride. By tradition, he was expected to wed only his older sister, Visenya; the inclusion of Rhaenys as a second wife was unusual, though not without precedent. It was said by some that Aegon wed Visenya out of duty and Rhaenys out of desire.

 

[The Fattest Leech]

Quote

[And come to think of it, if Rhaenys' son Aenys was 'a bastard' because she was 'the second wife' then Jon Snow definitely would be a bastard as well in light of the fact Lya was Rhaegar's second wife, too.]

This is a major, MAJOR point to the story (that I keep mentioning). That the idea of "legit" through bloodline, etc is CRAP! GRRM is doing away with this elitist idea of who rules. The negative stigma of so-called bastards is a lie, and will return to being a lie. This is why Bran will never have children, even as he grows to a normal, natural age then dies normally like nature intended; so he won't have a bloodline to carry on. No fights or squabbles or fifteenth Dance of Dragons.

So, who gives a fartknuckle of Jon has the right name by birth?!? He is going to chose his own identity anyway. Rhaegar wanted change (think Dying of the Light) and what changes he made, "bastardy" wouldn't be an issue.

*To be clear on the last part about Bran, I do believe, and always have, that Bran will be the last hero of the story and he is bringing back the whole green-tree thing because that is how GRRM is intending to show a balance returning to Westeros/Planetos after the fire extremes are extinguished. Will he be king, doubt it, but something or some title in the meantime until the system changes. Gardens take a while to grow, afte rall.

 

[Lord Varys]

27 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

This is a major, MAJOR point to the story (that I keep mentioning). That the idea of "legit" through bloodline, etc is CRAP! GRRM is doing away with this elitist idea of who rules. The negative stigma of so-called bastards is a lie, and will return to being a lie. This is why Bran will never have children, even as he grows to a normal, natural age then dies normally like nature intended; so he won't have a bloodline to carry on. No fights or squabbles or fifteenth Dance of Dragons.

Sorry, if George wanted to tell such a story he should have written something else. Like a story not set in a world of aristocratic pricks whose families have ruled thousands of years in allegedly unbroken patrilinear succession.

Setting up as unrealistic a setting as a world were noble bloodlines continue in unbroken succession for 8,000 years isn't going to be setting where a meaningful revolution is going to take place in a three years or so. Even if that was the theme of the series, it would be impossible for anyone to buy such a revolutionary ending since a world where culture and society have lived by feudal aristocratic principles for all of known history - a history that is nearly twice as long as all of recorded human history - would revert back to the way things always were at the first opportunity.

Nowhere in this story so far has anyone ever even considered the possibility that rulership should go to a person best suited for rule or to a guy with no noble or royal blood.

The exclusion of bastards from rulership also has nothing to do with being anti-elitist. Westeros wouldn't be a better place if bastards and women had equal right to inherit since that would just allow a tiny fraction of privileged pricks (highborn women and the natural children of the nobility) to play the game of thrones the same way trueborn males of the nobility do. It would just make the aristocracy a tidbit less exclusionary since it would allow all their children access to power. But this doesn't include everybody who isn't part of the nobility.

It wouldn't change society in a meaningful way. Sure the lives of noble bastards sucks compared to the lives of 'trueborn children'. But so what? They still live a pampered and privileged life compared to the millions of people who don't have noble parent at all.

If Hot Pie had the same right to claim a throne as Robb or Joffrey or Daenerys you would have a point but something like that is never ever going to happen in this story.

I mean, if you believe the noble and royal bastards aren't part of the noble circle you are wrong. They are children of nobility who don't get all the benefits that come with being born noble or royal but they still get some. That is the whole point of Jon's AGoT plot where he is first too stupid to see that to his brothers at the Wall he is just as much an aristocratic prick as the ones who are born on the right side of the blanket. Being a Stark bastard is what allowed him to train at arms. His brothers didn't grow up in such a pampered fashion.

27 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So, who gives a fartknuckle of Jon has the right name by birth?!? He is going to chose his own identity anyway. Rhaegar wanted change (think Dying of the Light) and what changes he made, "bastardy" wouldn't be an issue.

Rhaegar wanted to topple his dead, he didn't want to abolish the custom of ostracizing bastards. At least not in the books I was reading.

I mean, seriously, where the hell are you getting this idea that 'child of (so-called) second wife' equals 'bastard child' (which is defined as child of a woman you did not marry)? That simply is nowhere in the books.

One can make a case that polygamy isn't something anyone but a king can do in the Seven Kingdoms but that would mean people would doubt the validity of a second marriage done by a lord or prince not that they would say a guy who they acknowledged has two or more wives at the same time could only get bastards from his second or third wife - instead they would say the man has only one wife (the one he married first) and then a bunch of mistresses and whores. And the latter could only give him bastards, of course.

But this is clearly not the case for King Aegon and his two sons, nor would it have been the case for any children King Maegor may have had. That is why the lords of the Seven Kingdoms really wanted those kings to marry their daughters, too.

[Mystical]

There is no one who is legitimate via family because everyone in power constantly violates the rules of succession. This is often done when a female is next in line. Sometimes someone just goes Targ crazy and legitimizes kids that aren't even close in the running. This happens all over Westeros to the point that one could argue there is no legitimate ruler of any House nor a legitimate Warden or King. Everyone does it, from Starks to Targs, so there is no legitimacy to be had. After all, Serena Stark was the rightful ruling Lady of WF and all of her descendants are the rightful heirs.

When it comes to 'right by might' (conquest), well if you need might in the first place then you aren't legitimate.