Who is more legitimate, Stannis or Aegon?

[sweetsunray]

Personally I think the IT is a construct and I do not personally believe power to rule is a "birtright", so I do not believe that Stannis or Aegon have more right to rule than anyone else, like @The Fattest Leech addressed. So, that said, I will regard it like a Westerosi, who knows Cersei's children aren't Robert's. Both are then primary heirs of their respective houses according to males coming before women (at least when it comes to having a claim to the IT), regardless whether Aerys' put Viserys before Aegon or not and whether I consider that a lawful appointment of an heir or not. Even if I do regard Aerys making Viserys his heir over Aegon, Viserys is now dead, and a son of male heirs come before daughters. So a legit Aegon is the one with the primary claim to the Iron Throne for the Targaryen dynasty, but only if he manages to reconquer that throne.

The same goes for Stannis for the Baratheon dynasty. He is the sole legitimate trueborn Baratheon left, and Stannis has the advantage that the Baratheon line ousted the Targaryen dynasty, and in that sense he has a headstart to Aegon, except for the pesky detail that an imposter sits on the throne and he also abandoned the Dragonstone seat, and thus he lost his headstart to Aegon.

So, euhm, let the best man win ... In that sense it's interesting that George bended Stannis towards a man who now fights for the realm and the people, by defending the realm against a wildling army, rescuing lands from Ironborn serfdom and attempting to get rid of House Bolton where the heir is a sadistic man hunting maniac, AND that I expect Aegon having a chance to drive off mad Cersei.

 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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

The point simply is that it makes no sense to retake what was stolen from you and frame that as 'a conquest'. It is the reclamation of stolen property.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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? 

The difference here is that there is a significant difference between somebody taken something back that belongs to him and somebody taking something/stealing something that was never his to begin with - the latter is a proper conquest, the former not so much.

Again, no ousted monarch ever framed a campaign to win back his throne as a conquest. And it makes no sense to do that for Westeros, either.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

No, that would mean that a false king/usurper is ousted by the fact that his people defect to the other side. That has nothing to do with a conquest and doesn't really have much to do with 'force'. Jaehaerys I and Aegon III took the Iron Throne without fighting so much as a single battle.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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"

Robert would have never been put forth as a pretender by the rebels if he hadn't been Aegon V's great-grandson, nor would anyone accepted him as king after the Trident if that had been the case. Beating a prince to pulp does not make you king in this world. The Targaryen loyalists could accept Robert as their king because he was a Targaryen descendant himself. If he had been just some dude then, at this point, there is no reason why Tywin, Mace, Hoster, Ned, etc. could not also be King on the Iron Throne.

In fact, we can be very sure that Ned and Jon and Hoster would have never agreed to bend the knee to Robert and do him homage as their king because the Baratheons of Storm's End had no right whatsoever to rule over the North or the Riverlands or the Vale.

Instead, they would have put some other Targaryen cousin on the Iron Throne, assuming they wouldn't have offered the throne to Viserys III in such a scenario.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

That is not entirely accurate. For one, the society is set up in a way that something like that would never, ever happen, because no knight or noblemen would ever follow lowborn scum like that. Second, strength alone isn't enough in the Seven Kingdoms. You have to have the right breeding, the right birth, the right family background. This is very well illustrated during the Dance of the Dragons were Hugh and Ulf are vilified in the extreme despite the fact that they rode two of the largest dragons alive (and were only a tidbit worse than Aemond Targaryen who used Vhagar to terrorize the Riverlands). If you are lowborn scum the highborn lords don't allow you in their circle ... and they definitely don't allow you to sit on a throne.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Well, no, there is also the court of King Viserys III in exile. There is also no indication that 'according to all the laws of Westeros Robert is the legal, rightful king'. That is nowhere stated anywhere in the books, nor is it ever stated by anyone in Westeros that the Targaryens somehow lost their claim to the Iron Throne.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

Well, of course this is only my opinion to a point, but it is also quite clear that there are objective differences between the restoration of an ousted monarch/dynasty and a proper conquest.

If your line of argument would make sense in a real world monarchistic context then Charles II should have faced much more trouble when he returned to the British throne after his father Charles I had been executed by Parliament. But he did not.

It is an illusion on your part that Westeros as a whole forgot/ignored that the Targaryens were their rightful kings. We'll never know how many people would have risen for Viserys III because he never got around to invade, but we'll see how many will rise for Aegon and Daenerys in future books.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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?

I never said all of the North are loyal to Bran and Rickon. I said that - like it is with the Targaryens - that all the Northmen knew that Bran and Rickon are their rightful rulers since they are Starks of Winterfell, brothers to King Robb, sons of Eddard Stark. Even Roose and Ramsay do know that ... which is why they have to go.

Which is also the very reason why Robert wanted to kill Viserys III and Daenerys and her unborn child - he knew that those three did have a better claim to the Iron Throne than he himself and his children and brothers had. If this hadn't been the case there would have been no need for Robert to demand their assassination.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, frenin said:

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...

That is just speculation. We have no way of knowing Viserys III would have gotten less or more support than Aegon will now. In fact, it might very well be that Aegon gets less since vast regions of Westeros are indeed wartorn.

I'd say it is utter ridiculousness to assume that Robert could have maintain a strong anti-Targaryen alliance if the twincest and the brewing Stark-Lannister civil war along with Balon Greyjoy's ambitions had flown into his face during such a campaign.

How could Robert have forged a united power bloc when the Lannisters were invading the Riverlands, the Starks were mistrusting and loathing the Lannisters, and Lysa Arryn would help King Robert the same way she helped King Robb?

Do we really believe that Ned and Tywin and Jaime could have ever fought side by side in an army led by Robert? I don't think so.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

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. 

That is democracy, not monarchy. In a medieval monarchy no peasant a field hand ever agreed to be ruled by a king or lord, yet that's how things were.

There were monarchies where kings were elected or confirmed or otherwise installed by some of their most powerful subjects ... but Westeros is no such monarchy. The King on the Iron Throne is not elected or proclaimed by any of his subjects.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

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.

Well, this didn't happen with the Iron Throne, did it? If Viserys III had formally abdicated/given up his claim to the Iron Throne in favor of Robert Baratheon you might have a point. But that never happened, did it?

It might be hard to accept, but kings do not treat their subjects as their equals. They are not entitled/allowed rule on royal affairs. This is not a democracy, and the opinions of the Westerosi subjects of the Targaryrens simply do not count in relation to the claims they have.

And this kind of thing is confirmed by the fact that Robert and his ilk are not seen as 'the rightful rulers' of Westeros by the people of Westeros. They still view the Targaryens as those people - despite the fact that this doesn't cause them go to Essos in droves to offer their services to them.

It is the same with the Starks - all the North still sees them as the rightful rulers and not the Boltons.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point simply is that it makes no sense to retake what was stolen from you and frame that as 'a conquest'. It is the reclamation of stolen property

And it falls under the definition of a conquest. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The difference here is that there is a significant difference between somebody taken something back that belongs to him and somebody taking something/stealing something that was never his to begin with - the latter is a proper conquest, the former not so much.

According to you. I understand the differences fine, but either way it is a conquest. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, no ousted monarch ever framed a campaign to win back his throne as a conquest. And it makes no sense to do that for Westeros, either

I don't know what all the ousted monarchs did but I do know the definition of conquest. 

Really, it's silly to keep arguing this point. If you mean something different when you say conquest - fine. I mean exactly what the definition has set forth. The point being that it is erroneous of you to say I've not used it properly. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that would mean that a false king/usurper is ousted by the fact that his people defect to the other side. That has nothing to do with a conquest and doesn't really have much to do with 'force'. Jaehaerys I and Aegon III took the Iron Throne without fighting so much as a single battle

I'll concede that there may not be force involved in a situation such as this but if the conquerer used words to convince people to defect to his side it will still fall under a conquest. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert would have never been put forth as a pretender by the rebels if he hadn't been Aegon V's great-grandson, nor would anyone accepted him as king after the Trident if that had been the case. Beating a prince to pulp does not make you king in this world. The Targaryen loyalists could accept Robert as their king because he was a Targaryen descendant himself. If he had been just some dude then, at this point, there is no reason why Tywin, Mace, Hoster, Ned, etc. could not also be King on the Iron Throne

Maybe not but having the support of the majority of the 7K is enough to take the throne, with or without Targ blood. 

I'm not suggesting beating a prince is enough. Beating 100 princes isn't enough, neither is having a drop of Targ blood. What it all came down to is Robert & his supporters ability to overthrow the Targaryen Dynasty. Remove the Targ blood from Robert & leave everything else the same (he has the same support, the same allies, the same strength) he still gets the throne. 

I understand who would or wouldn't have supported him with out Targ blood is arguable but I disagree that Ned & Co wouldn't have bent the knee if he didn't. The man on the throne was calling for Ned's head. He didn't have a lot of options there. 

He was the best suited for the throne, of those presented, because of his blood but if none of them had Targ blood, anything could have happened. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

fact, we can be very sure that Ned and Jon and Hoster would have never agreed to bend the knee to Robert and do him homage as their king because the Baratheons of Storm's End had no right whatsoever to rule over the North or the Riverlands or the Vale

The Baratheons would have the right of conquest by which to rule. It made it easier for him to have some distant Targ relative, because it allowed the Targ loyalists to give him support & while still supporting "Targaryens" but he was no heir to the throne, he had no right to rule even with his Targ blood. He had to take it by force & having done that there is not a single thing the remaining loyalists could do about it. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Instead, they would have put some other Targaryen cousin on the Iron Throne, assuming they wouldn't have offered the throne to Viserys III in such a scenario

Viserys was a child. If all they wanted was Targ blood they would have put him on the throne. They wanted someone loyal to them on that throne. Robert having some gave them the opportunity to break the line while still adhering to it in a small part. It was nothing more than a propaganda of sorts. They clearly aren't concerned with the line of succession or they would have put Viserys on the throne right? 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not entirely accurate. For one, the society is set up in a way that something like that would never, ever happen, because no knight or noblemen would ever follow lowborn scum like that

Under my scenario this low born man has gathered the support needed. I made that clear. I understand it wouldn't happen irl but if by some miracle it did, that person would rule blood be damned. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Second, strength alone isn't enough in the Seven Kingdoms. You have to have the right breeding, the right birth, the right family background.

Who will stop them from ruling if no one can stand against them? If this low-born man has the greatest allies, the biggest armies, etc who will stop him because he doesn't have the right pedigree? And how will said person stop him? 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is very well illustrated during the Dance of the Dragons were Hugh and Ulf are vilified in the extreme despite the fact that they rode two of the largest dragons alive (and were only a tidbit worse than Aemond Targaryen who used Vhagar to terrorize the Riverlands). If you are lowborn scum the highborn lords don't allow you in their circle ... and they definitely don't allow you to sit on a throne

Well, obviously having large dragons didn't equate to having the most strength then right? Again, how will these high-borns stop him from sitting in their circles or on the throne if they have no means by which to eject him?

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, no, there is also the court of King Viserys III in exile. 

Which doesn't exist & would have no power to do anything. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is also no indication that 'according to all the laws of Westeros Robert is the legal, rightful king'. That is nowhere stated anywhere in the books, nor is it ever stated by anyone in Westeros that the Targaryens somehow lost their claim to the Iron Throne.

You are mincing words now. I didn't say anything about it being stated in the books that the Targ's lost their claim to the throne. 

There is every indication that according to the laws of Westeros Robert is the legal, rightful, King. First indication being he had his arse on that throne. He rules the realm, his word is law, the people, high born & low born alike follow his word & law & call him King. What other indications could there be? 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, of course this is only my opinion to a point, but it is also quite clear that there are objective differences between the restoration of an ousted monarch/dynasty and a proper conquest

I still don't know what you mean by a 'proper' conquest other than whatever you decided is a proper conquest. What are the guidelines by which one decides something is a proper conquest or not & where do these guidelines come from? 

I've agreed, repeatedly, that there are differences in re-taking a throne your family once held & taking a throne otherwise but I disagree that the differences are that one is conquest & one isn't or that one is a proper conquest while the other is an improper conquest. 

 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If your line of argument would make sense in a real world monarchistic context then Charles II should have faced much more trouble when he returned to the British throne after his father Charles I had been executed by Parliament. But he did not

What? Why? I said nothing of how much trouble one should or shouldn't run into during a conquest. That is, again, your own stipulation. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is an illusion on your part that Westeros as a whole forgot/ignored that the Targaryens were their rightful kings

I never said this. 

I'm sure they remember right & well that the Targ's were once their rightful Kings. Now, however, they bend the knee to the Baratheons & pay homage to them as their rightful Kings. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We'll never know how many people would have risen for Viserys III because he never got around to invade, but we'll see how many will rise for Aegon and Daenerys in future books

Indeed, but I don't know what difference this makes to my argument. They likely have some support lurking. There is not much evidence to say how much, which was my original point. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

never said all of the North are loyal to Bran and Rickon. I said that - like it is with the Targaryens - that all the Northmen knew that Bran and Rickon are their rightful rulers since they are Starks of Winterfell, brothers to King Robb, sons of Eddard Stark. Even Roose and Ramsay do know that ... which is why they have to go

Maybe I misunderstood & I'll go back & read it to clarify but what I thought you said was something like that if all the North was loyal to Bran & Rickon doesn't mean they could take WF back & that it would be stupid because the Bolton's would kill them. Maybe I misunderstood, if so I apologize. 

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is also the very reason why Robert wanted to kill Viserys III and Daenerys and her unborn child - he knew that those three did have a better claim to the Iron Throne than he himself and his children and brothers had. If this hadn't been the case there would have been no need for Robert to demand their assassination

Well, he knew they could potentially, one day, challenge his rule, yes. But he clearly didn't think it was that much of a threat because he doesn't order them killed until Dany is 13 or so. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 3/12/2020 at 1:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

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

If they are all loyal Stark men Bran & Rickon could walk into WF with their direwolves, assuming they could get that far without being killed. 

Also, to clarify, you originally said much of Robert's 'leal' subjects would support a Targ returning, I said there are likely some supporters but we don't have much evidence to say how many (paraphrasing) 

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Personally I think the IT is a construct and I do not personally believe power to rule is a "birtright", so I do not believe that Stannis or Aegon have more right to rule than anyone else, like @The Fattest Leech addressed.

Sure, totally agree. But we’re talking from a 21st century perspective...

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

So, that said, I will regard it like a Westerosi, who knows Cersei's children aren't Robert's. Both are then primary heirs of their respective houses according to males coming before women (at least when it comes to having a claim to the IT), regardless whether Aerys' put Viserys before Aegon or not and whether I consider that a lawful appointment of an heir or not. Even if I do regard Aerys making Viserys his heir over Aegon, Viserys is now dead, and a son of male heirs come before daughters. So a legit Aegon is the one with the primary claim to the Iron Throne for the Targaryen dynasty, but only if he manages to reconquer that throne.

The same goes for Stannis for the Baratheon dynasty. He is the sole legitimate trueborn Baratheon left, and Stannis has the advantage that the Baratheon line ousted the Targaryen dynasty, and in that sense he has a headstart to Aegon, except for the pesky detail that an imposter sits on the throne and he also abandoned the Dragonstone seat, and thus he lost his headstart to Aegon.

So, euhm, let the best man win ... In that sense it's interesting that George bended Stannis towards a man who now fights for the realm and the people, by defending the realm against a wildling army, rescuing lands from Ironborn serfdom and attempting to get rid of House Bolton where the heir is a sadistic man hunting maniac, AND that I expect Aegon having a chance to drive off mad Cersei.

 

When I first replied here I was not talking about the IT specifically, but rather, if Westeros is to have “one ‘king’ to rule them all”, who would it be, Stannis or Aegon? So, given the parameter of the OP - ruler of Westeros, Stannis or Aegon- (no mention of the IT), I stick by what I said earlier: Stannis, b/c the Baratheon ousted the Targs, and Stannis is Robert's heir. 

[frenin]

On 3/22/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is just speculation. We have no way of knowing Viserys III would have gotten less or more support than Aegon will now. In fact, it might very well be that Aegon gets less since vast regions of Westeros are indeed wartorn.

We have no way of knowing that Robert would not have forgiven Cersei and acknowledged Cersei's kids out of love... but common sense. the only thing those vast regions of wartorn to do if they want to support is... not oppose his ascencion in any meaningful way...

What it's not speculation is that alligiances and loyalties change due circumstances, that's why the Reach was posed to destroy the Lannister regime at the beginning of ACOK and they are now their only meaningful support. So the very idea of Viserys  having the same support Aegon and Dany may have is indeed just wishful thinking. It's not the same facing a  toddler and a wartorn country with all the houses that would theoretically challenge you all but done and with very few competent commanders and rallying person on their side than facing a well... what Viserys would, be it Renly, Robert, Stannis or Tywin.

On 3/22/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

 I'd say it is utter ridiculousness to assume that Robert could have maintain a strong anti-Targaryen alliance if the twincest and the brewing Stark-Lannister civil war along with Balon Greyjoy's ambitions had flown into his face during such a campaign.

There would be no Stark Lannister civil war during such campaign and Balon would not act until he saw he was not facing retributions, the incest would indeed be a problem, with or without the twincest the North, the Stormlands, the Vale and the Riverlands are on Robert's side and so are the Lannisters, so without proves it could be tossed around as calumny or indeed it could mean infighting with their faction.

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

 How could Robert have forged a united power bloc when the Lannisters were invading the Riverlands, the Starks were mistrusting and loathing the Lannisters, and Lysa Arryn would help King Robert the same way she helped King Robb?

The Lannisters weren't invading the Riverlands while Robert was alive, Ned has fought with the Lannisters before and Lysa's bannermen have more reason to follow their King and Ned than they have to follow Robb.

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

 Do we really believe that Ned and Tywin and Jaime could have ever fought side by side in an army led by Robert? I don't think so.

What did they do during Balon's rebellion then if not fighting side by side in an army led by Robert??

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is democracy, not monarchy. In a medieval monarchy no peasant a field hand ever agreed to be ruled by a king or lord, yet that's how things were.

There were monarchies where kings were elected or confirmed or otherwise installed by some of their most powerful subjects ... but Westeros is no such monarchy. The King on the Iron Throne is not elected or proclaimed by any of his subjects.

Except for Robert who indeed was elected by Ned and Jon and hailed by the rest of the rebels and soon enough the loyalists.  And that's why the Targs were ousted. Or the Great Councils...

It has nothing to do with being a democracy or not. The lords choose to whom they want to swear loyalty and the one with most support becomes the King,  if the lords decide they don't want you around anymore for x reasons, unless you have superweapons/external more powerful force to overcome them... you're done, what you think you're owed or what you think of "your" lords should do it's irrelevant. You're confusing royal power with the entitlement of royal power. There are still pretenders for a lot of former European kingdoms that become republics, their entitlement will never leave so what??

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, this didn't happen with the Iron Throne, did it? If Viserys III had formally abdicated/given up his claim to the Iron Throne in favor of Robert Baratheon you might have a point. But that never happened, did it?

It did, whether Viserys gave up his claim or not, Westeros at whole swore fealty to Robert and House Baratheon and Robert was accepted by the Faith, so for all intent and purposes, Robert indeed made everyone accept that the Throne he had stolen was now his. 

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

 It might be hard to accept, but kings do not treat their subjects as their equals. They are not entitled/allowed rule on royal affairs. This is not a democracy, and the opinions of the Westerosi subjects of the Targaryrens simply do not count in relation to the claims they have.

It's indeed diffcult to accept that you believe for a second that Targ entitlement is relevant at all. It has nothing to do with being king that with being dellusional, it's not difficult, if the Targs aren't viewed by those they don't treat as equals then they  rule over nothing and they are rightful rulers of nothing, ofc it may pass a thousand years and they could still feel entitled to the Iron Throne but that's completely irrelevant. 

If the Starks are not considered the northern overlords anymore, they simply aren't, never mind they have been around since forever.

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

 And this kind of thing is confirmed by the fact that Robert and his ilk are not seen as 'the rightful rulers' of Westeros by the people of Westeros. They still view the Targaryens as those people - despite the fact that this doesn't cause them go to Essos in droves to offer their services to them.

Ilk

How do you know that Robert and his ilk aren't seen as the rightful rulers of Westeros??  I'm pretty sure that the Stormlands indeed consider the Baratheons their rightful rulers, i'm pretty sure Stannis, Ned (and his children) the northmen, Jon Arryn etc etc do consider them their righfulr rulers. In fact most of the problems  Robert's children are having is due to them not being actually Robert's or people considering them more Lannister than Baratheon or outright them don't consider Baratheon at all. And what an incredible, convenient and undying loyalty right?? For 15 years everyone believed them the righful rulers... but seldom gave a damn to interest for them...  

But sure there are still those who consider the Targs the righful rulers, assesing they are the majority of Westeros is bold however. 

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

The point simply is that it makes no sense to retake what was stolen from you and frame that as 'a conquest'. It is the reclamation of stolen property.

But it is a conquest, you lost it for a reason.

The fact that you consider it your property has no bearing in it.

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

The difference here is that there is a significant difference between somebody taken something back that belongs to him and somebody taking something/stealing something that was never his to begin with - the latter is a proper conquest, the former not so much.

Again, no ousted monarch ever framed a campaign to win back his throne as a conquest. And it makes no sense to do that for Westeros, either.

Both are the same tho, there is no proper conquest,

 

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robert would have never been put forth as a pretender by the rebels if he hadn't been Aegon V's great-grandson, nor would anyone accepted him as king after the Trident if that had been the case. Beating a prince to pulp does not make you king in this world. The Targaryen loyalists could accept Robert as their king because he was a Targaryen descendant himself. If he had been just some dude then, at this point, there is no reason why Tywin, Mace, Hoster, Ned, etc. could not also be King on the Iron Throne.

His claim would be as valid as Ned's and Jon's but i do agree that without his blood there is really no reason for the rebels to crown him and not the others besides the fact that he was clearly the face of the rebellion. Whether people would have not bent the knee is wishful thinking, neither Tywin nor Mace cared much about his blood, Tywin knew he could not, Mace wasn't eager to fight Robert.

 

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

In fact, we can be very sure that Ned and Jon and Hoster would have never agreed to bend the knee to Robert and do him homage as their king because the Baratheons of Storm's End had no right whatsoever to rule over the North or the Riverlands or the Vale.

??? No we cannont be very sure of that.

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

Instead, they would have put some other Targaryen cousin on the Iron Throne, assuming they wouldn't have offered the throne to Viserys III in such a scenario.

Yeah right, there was no other Targ cousin and the point was to crown a rebel, there is no reason for them to make king someone they don't know they can trust and no the rebels weren't about putting any descendant of Aerys on the throne.

 

 

 

On 3/22/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is not entirely accurate. For one, the society is set up in a way that something like that would never, ever happen, because no knight or noblemen would ever follow lowborn scum like that. Second, strength alone isn't enough in the Seven Kingdoms. You have to have the right breeding, the right birth, the right family background. This is very well illustrated during the Dance of the Dragons were Hugh and Ulf are vilified in the extreme despite the fact that they rode two of the largest dragons alive (and were only a tidbit worse than Aemond Targaryen who used Vhagar to terrorize the Riverlands). If you are lowborn scum the highborn lords don't allow you in their circle ... and they definitely don't allow you to sit on a throne.

1. And if the lowborn scum like that got other fellow scum ot follow them it can easily happen.
2. Dragons is not the same than support.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Maybe not but having the support of the majority of the 7K is enough to take the throne, with or without Targ blood. 

I'm not suggesting beating a prince is enough. Beating 100 princes isn't enough, neither is having a drop of Targ blood. What it all came down to is Robert & his supporters ability to overthrow the Targaryen Dynasty. Remove the Targ blood from Robert & leave everything else the same (he has the same support, the same allies, the same strength) he still gets the throne. 

Now you put the cart before the horse. The reason why Robert ends up becoming the leader and eventual the pretender king of the rebels is because he is a Targaryen descendant. If he would have had different blood, he wouldn't have been their pretender. They would have put forth somebody else ... or they would have tried to install some Targaryen child king as puppet to rule in his name.

They couldn't hope to install anyone but a Targaryen descendant on the Iron Throne. If they had tried that, the Seven Kingdoms would have split up after the Sack ... because a Baratheon simply had no right to rule over any of the Seven Kingdoms nor had he ever conquered them nor would even the rebels bend the knee to Robert in this whole thing.

Westeros isn't the kind of society where dynasties are easily replaced by brute force. That literally never happens (aside from the ancient Riverlands which are the exception which proves the rule).

The lords of the Realm would never accept one of their own peers as their overlord - meaning a peer who didn't have any Targaryen blood.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I understand who would or wouldn't have supported him with out Targ blood is arguable but I disagree that Ned & Co wouldn't have bent the knee if he didn't. The man on the throne was calling for Ned's head. He didn't have a lot of options there. 

Sure, they would have still rebelled against the tyrant Aerys the Mad, but you can overthrow a king without putting forth a pretender of your own, no? That's what they would have done then. The Faith Militant also tried to overthrow Maegor without installing another king in his place.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The Baratheons would have the right of conquest by which to rule. It made it easier for him to have some distant Targ relative, because it allowed the Targ loyalists to give him support & while still supporting "Targaryens" but he was no heir to the throne, he had no right to rule even with his Targ blood. He had to take it by force & having done that there is not a single thing the remaining loyalists could do about it. 

Robert took the throne and people accepted this because he was effectively the heir to the family he ousted anyway. That is a rather important fact and likely the reason why the Targaryen loyalists could accept him and did bend the knee. They wouldn't have done that if Robert had just been some Baratheon thinking he could rule the Reach or Dorne or the West if he never actually conquered those lands ... which he didn't.

In fact, he also didn't conquer the North or the Vale or the Riverlands - they made him their king because of his blood, not because he was such a great chap to be with.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Viserys was a child. If all they wanted was Targ blood they would have put him on the throne. They wanted someone loyal to them on that throne. Robert having some gave them the opportunity to break the line while still adhering to it in a small part. It was nothing more than a propaganda of sorts. They clearly aren't concerned with the line of succession or they would have put Viserys on the throne right? 

Robert had the blood he had and he was charismatic - that's why they thought he could sit the throne. Sort of like people thought Viserys was a better king than Laenor, or Aegon V a better king than little Maegor.

Robert didn't have the best claim - but he had a pretty strong claim all things considered. If Rhaegar and Aerys II had died of in a freak accident and a Great Council had settled the succession then Robert would have had a very good chance to win. Viserys was a young child, and Rhaegar's children were just infants and toddlers - but Robert was a very popular, charismatic adult warrior lord with royal blood. He could have won the crown in council the very same way he won it in battle.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Under my scenario this low born man has gathered the support needed. I made that clear. I understand it wouldn't happen irl but if by some miracle it did, that person would rule blood be damned. 

But that is an unrealistic scenario in this world. It would never happen.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well, obviously having large dragons didn't equate to having the most strength then right? Again, how will these high-borns stop him from sitting in their circles or on the throne if they have no means by which to eject him?

Oh, but they had the strength, alright. They had to be murdered to lose it. And they were murdered by a cabal of the highborn establishment. Even if, for the sake of the argument, we accepted the idea that some lowborn fellow could raise a great army perfectly loyal to him - the noble class would find a way to do away with him. Aside from the Two Betrayers we also see how Septon Moon - another scum warlord - is done away with by the establishment.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Which doesn't exist & would have no power to do anything. 

Which is totally irrelevant when you talk about the powers and rights of kings. They are not affected by the talk and actions of their own subjects. Basically, you can murder and imprison a king ... but you can never depose him without his consent (at least within the constructs of medieval
monarchy which includes the inviobility of the royal person, etc., something that's also part of Westerosi kingship with anointing by the gods).

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

You are mincing words now. I didn't say anything about it being stated in the books that the Targ's lost their claim to the throne. 

Well, but that is my point. And basically the main point I'm making - Robert stole the throne but it belongs to the Targaryens by right because they never gave up their claims.

That goes against the falacious case made by many readers that the Targaryens 'lost their claim' because of Robert's victory and thus have to 'regain it' by means of conquest - which isn't supported by any textual evidence at all.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

There is every indication that according to the laws of Westeros Robert is the legal, rightful, King. First indication being he had his arse on that throne. He rules the realm, his word is law, the people, high born & low born alike follow his word & law & call him King. What other indications could there be? 

The idea is that even Robert himself knows that he is a usurper and that he has stolen the throne he sits on. That may make him king, but not the rightful king - that's the guy Robert stole the throne from: Viserys III.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm sure they remember right & well that the Targ's were once their rightful Kings. Now, however, they bend the knee to the Baratheons & pay homage to them as their rightful Kings. 

No, they don't do them homage as 'their rightful kings'. They do them homage as the kings they have to bend the knee to because they have stolen the throne and force them to obey them.

Your line of argument leads to ridiculous condemnations of people who, for a time, yielded to force. Alyssa Velaryon and Jaehaerys and Alysanne also did do Maegor homage as their king on multiple occasions, but does this mean they were ever of the opinion that Maegor was 'their rightful king'?

Most definitely not - else we would have to condemn all as hypocrites and turncloaks and traitors when they finally made their move to seat Jaehaerys I on the Iron Throne.

It is also like saying every Northman bending the knee to Roose acknowledged him as 'the rightful Warden of the North'.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well, he knew they could potentially, one day, challenge his rule, yes. But he clearly didn't think it was that much of a threat because he doesn't order them killed until Dany is 13 or so. 

If they were not the rightful rulers of Westeros and weren't seen as such by essentially all of the people of the Seven Kingdoms (even if not all of them would stand by them if they invaded, of course) then Robert would have no reason to be afraid of them.

But he very much is.

And he acts the moment Viserys III and Daenerys became a real threat. The moment they forge alliances to prepare for an invasion. He could also have tried to kill them before but before the Dothraki deal there was no indication they would make a move.

[Lord Varys]

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

There would be no Stark Lannister civil war during such campaign and Balon would not act until he saw he was not facing retributions, the incest would indeed be a problem, with or without the twincest the North, the Stormlands, the Vale and the Riverlands are on Robert's side and so are the Lannisters, so without proves it could be tossed around as calumny or indeed it could mean infighting with their faction.

How do you figure? The war had already started when Viserys III was murdered in Vaes Dothrak. If that didn't happen and things turn out in favor for the Targaryens with the Dothraki and Drogo doesn't die, either, they might be able to launch their invasion a couple of months, or perhaps only a year later.

In the meantime there would have been a civil war in the Seven Kingdoms. No War of the Five Kings with Robert still alive, but some war in the Riverlands which would leave deep and bleeding wounds.

We have no way of figuring out how the effect of that would have been on the Starks-Tullys-Lannisters, but we can be reasonably certain they would no longer be friends thereafter. And the same might go for Robert and Ned - especially if said war were ended by Robert by favoring his wife's family over his old friend and his wife's family (which is reasonably likely).

The idea that Ned and his kin (the Tullys) would then stand beside King Robert and his family and in-laws against Viserys III is a pretty big stretch.

And if the incest comes out then, everything would explode. And that would come out, if nobody else would reveal it, Varys would see to it that it came out.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

The Lannisters weren't invading the Riverlands while Robert was alive, Ned has fought with the Lannisters before and Lysa's bannermen have more reason to follow their King and Ned than they have to follow Robb.

A claim based on hot air. Littlefinger and Lysa's plans to keep the Vale out of the fighting would be build on sand if they thought Lysa could not prevent the Lords of the Vale from staying out of the war.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

What did they do during Balon's rebellion then if not fighting side by side in an army led by Robert??

LOL, man, I mean in 298-300 AC, not back when things weren't that bad between them all.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

Except for Robert who indeed was elected by Ned and Jon and hailed by the rest of the rebels and soon enough the loyalists.  And that's why the Targs were ousted. Or the Great Councils...

Robert was made a pretender because he was a Targaryen descendant himself. He did not oust a dynasty, he continued the same dynasty under a different name.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

It has nothing to do with being a democracy or not. The lords choose to whom they want to swear loyalty and the one with most support becomes the King,  if the lords decide they don't want you around anymore for x reasons, unless you have superweapons/external more powerful force to overcome them... you're done, what you think you're owed or what you think of "your" lords should do it's irrelevant. You're confusing royal power with the entitlement of royal power. There are still pretenders for a lot of former European kingdoms that become republics, their entitlement will never leave so what??

Apples and oranges ... if the government system of a state changes (or said state no longer exists) then things break apart. But within the legal framework of a feudal monarchy like Westeros such claims do not disappear just because a family loses some battles.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

It did, whether Viserys gave up his claim or not, Westeros at whole swore fealty to Robert and House Baratheon and Robert was accepted by the Faith, so for all intent and purposes, Robert indeed made everyone accept that the Throne he had stolen was now his. 

Like Viserys I made all of Westeros accept that Princess Rhaenyra was the future queen of the Seven Kingdoms, I take it?

And it is quite clear that there is no indication that the lords and knights of the Realm actually all did homage to Robert as their king. Balon Greyjoy didn't do Robert homage or swore a vow of fealty to him until after his rebellion was crushed. He may not have been the only one.

I'm sure Doran Martell never bend the knee to Robert Baratheon, either - Robert never visited Dorne, and Doran never went to KL during Robert's reign as far as we know.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

How do you know that Robert and his ilk aren't seen as the rightful rulers of Westeros??  I'm pretty sure that the Stormlands indeed consider the Baratheons their rightful rulers, i'm pretty sure Stannis, Ned (and his children) the northmen, Jon Arryn etc etc do consider them their righfulr rulers. In fact most of the problems  Robert's children are having is due to them not being actually Robert's or people considering them more Lannister than Baratheon or outright them don't consider Baratheon at all. And what an incredible, convenient and undying loyalty right?? For 15 years everyone believed them the righful rulers... but seldom gave a damn to interest for them...  

Because nobody ever speaks of the Baratheons as the rightful rulers of Westeros, ever. The Stormlanders may see them as the rightful lords of the Stormlands, as the descendants of the old Storm Kings, but that's not the same as seeing them as the rightful rulers of the Seven Kingdoms.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

His claim would be as valid as Ned's and Jon's but i do agree that without his blood there is really no reason for the rebels to crown him and not the others besides the fact that he was clearly the face of the rebellion. Whether people would have not bent the knee is wishful thinking, neither Tywin nor Mace cared much about his blood, Tywin knew he could not, Mace wasn't eager to fight Robert.

No textual basis for any of this. We don't know why Mace or Tywin accepted Robert - and definitely not that they would have accepted him had he not been effectively a Targaryen himself.

Robert was also only the face of the Rebellion because his blood, too. That's what made him special. He one a couple of battles, sure, but he was the weakest of the rebel lords and had the least troops at the Trident (having lost most of his men at Ashford and being permanently cut from his homeland by the Tyrells).

If he hadn't had his blood claim nobody would have put him forth as a pretender. And nobody of the great lords would have sworn him fealty. That would be like Edmure doing fealty to Brynden because he was such a great general. That would never happen.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

??? No we cannont be very sure of that.

LOL, of course we can be sure of that because those men were not looking for a needing an overlord. If they hadn't had a Targaryen (descendant) in their midst they might have been happy enough to depose Aerys II and then go back home. The North and the Vale could work perfectly well without some King on the Iron Throne.

If they had still wanted to make a new king then, without Robert's blood claim, there would have been strife and fighting like there was in the Green army at Tumbleton because none of those great lords would have felt a deep need to submit to Robert Baratheon - who would have just been a pretty good general dude ruling a very small portion of the Seven Kingdoms.

Friendship among noble peers is fine ... but kings do not have any friends. Robert had the advantage of being of royal descent. If that hadn't been the case he would have been just a presumptuos lord overreaching himself. And they would have slapped him down.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

Yeah right, there was no other Targ cousin and the point was to crown a rebel, there is no reason for them to make king someone they don't know they can trust and no the rebels weren't about putting any descendant of Aerys on the throne.

Evidence for that? Ned even raised a descendant of Aerys II in his own household, by the way. They had Robert, so they didn't need to look elsewhere. If they hadn't had Robert they would have likely settled on Viserys III or some other Targaryen descendant because one of them trying to claim the throne would have continued the civil war - or caused a new one.

You have to keep in mind that it is one thing for the Tyrells and the Martells to accept that a great-grandson of Aegon V replaces a grandson of Aegon V and quite another that some presumptuous lord with no claim to the Iron Throne presumes to rule over them now ... when he did never even conquer their lands or defeat them in battle.

On 3/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, frenin said:

And if the lowborn scum like that got other fellow scum ot follow them it can easily happen.

Dragons is not the same than support.

See above - they had support. That didn't save them or Septon Moon.

There is essentially no social mobility in Westeros - yes, scum like Bronn can marry into a house of minor nobility under the right circumstances, and he could even rise as high as the Small Council or the Kingsguard, but such people cannot possibly acquire real lasting feudal power in a single lifetime. That needs centuries.

Just look at the Tyrells or the Freys - they are still looked down on by the peers even after centuries of wealth and power. They almost made it but not completely.

Anyone with Bronn's background (or Hugh and Ulf's) trying to become a great lord or king would not get very far.

[frenin]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

How do you figure? The war had already started when Viserys III was murdered in Vaes Dothrak. If that didn't happen and things turn out in favor for the Targaryens with the Dothraki and Drogo doesn't die, either, they might be able to launch their invasion a couple of months, or perhaps only a year later.

What war had already started?? How do i figure what??

 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In the meantime there would have been a civil war in the Seven Kingdoms. No War of the Five Kings with Robert still alive, but some war in the Riverlands which would leave deep and bleeding wounds.

There would no war in the Riverlands as there was no war in the Riverlands while Robert and Ned were still alive and in power, both the Lannisters and the Tullys wanted war but both of them wanted the backing of the crown and made sure everyone understood the other attacked first.  The Tullys accepedt Ned's mandate and did not seek retribution,  they only acted when the Lannisters invaded them regardless.

 

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no way of figuring out how the effect of that would have been on the Starks-Tullys-Lannisters, but we can be reasonably certain they would no longer be friends thereafter. And the same might go for Robert and Ned - especially if said war were ended by Robert by favoring his wife's family over his old friend and his wife's family (which is reasonably likely).

The idea that Ned and his kin (the Tullys) would then stand beside King Robert and his family and in-laws against Viserys III is a pretty big stretch.

And if the incest comes out then, everything would explode. And that would come out, if nobody else would reveal it, Varys would see to it that it came out.

Since there would be no war in the Riverlands i find this unnecesary to refute. 

Ofc that Varys would reveal the twincest but he has the same evidence Stannis have, that is fairly easy to quell.

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

A claim based on hot air. Littlefinger and Lysa's plans to keep the Vale out of the fighting would be build on sand if they thought Lysa could not prevent the Lords of the Vale from staying out of the war.

How is that a claim based on hot air?? Martin himself says that Robert and Ned had a lot of ties there and during the war many of them wanted to join either the Starks or the Baratheons, in  Lysa's wedding we see there is some resentment to Lysa because she did not help Robb.

If the lords decided to march... how could they prevent it?? Robert could perfectly name other people regent of sweetrobin anyway.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, man, I mean in 298-300 AC, not back when things weren't that bad between them all.

I know what you meant, it's irrelevant, neither of them are idiots and there is an enemy on their doors who aim to kill them all, sure as hell Ned never thought he would need to bribe the Golden Cloaks, necessity is a thing.

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert was made a pretender because he was a Targaryen descendant himself. He did not oust a dynasty, he continued the same dynasty under a different name.

Sure as hell that's not how anyone sees it.  That's a post hoc argument, you know it, Robert was made pretender because that would smooth things over, but it's not like people were blind.

 

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Apples and oranges ... if the government system of a state changes (or said state no longer exists) then things break apart. But within the legal framework of a feudal monarchy like Westeros such claims do not disappear just because a family loses some battles.

No, green apples to red apples. Within the feudal framework of a feudal monarchy like Westeros, such claims disappear as soon the majority of Westeros stop to give them any value, because regardless of the entitlement such claims may produce, those claims are simply nothing without a strong support. 

That is why there is a difference so stricking between the First Blackfyre rebellion and the Foutrh. Whether the Blackfyre believed that their claims could never disappear is irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant what the Targs, Yronwoods, Florents,  Starks or Stannis think about it. The opposite is also true, while there are strong contingency of people that spouse to their so called rights, that's when their claims have any value.

You're not arguing the legal framework in Westeros, you're arguing that the noble entitlement has any legal relevance, that's ludicrous.

 

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Like Viserys I made all of Westeros accept that Princess Rhaenyra was the future queen of the Seven Kingdoms, I take it?

He made all of Westeros accept that Rhaenrya was his heir over Daemon, he never made an attempt to make all of Westeros accept Rhaenrya over Alicent children, no his court isn't all Westeros,  and that's one of the reason things went south.

If you're arguing that some, many, or even all, swore those oaths without the intention of fullfilling them, then i'd agree. They swore those oaths however.

 

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And it is quite clear that there is no indication that the lords and knights of the Realm actually all did homage to Robert as their king. Balon Greyjoy didn't do Robert homage or swore a vow of fealty to him until after his rebellion was crushed. He may not have been the only one.

I'm sure Doran Martell never bend the knee to Robert Baratheon, either - Robert never visited Dorne, and Doran never went to KL during Robert's reign as far as we know.

We know the  rebels accepted him as Kings, we know the Lannisters swore him fealty, we know the Reach lords did the same, we know... I don't see Ned pooping, i'm sure he had to do it once a year.

Doran does not need to bend the knee personally to Robert, to bend the knee to him and  House Baratheon. 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because nobody ever speaks of the Baratheons as the rightful rulers of Westeros, ever. The Stormlanders may see them as the rightful lords of the Stormlands, as the descendants of the old Storm Kings, but that's not the same as seeing them as the rightful rulers of the Seven Kingdoms.

Nobody ever speaks of the Martells as the righful rulers of Dorne and the Yronwoods still bitch about it, i'm to suppose that no one  in Dorne see them as their righful rulers?? I suppose not, since there a things that are pretty much obvious, it's pretty much obvious that neither Ned nor the Stormlanders, for example,  see Robert as a usurperor not their righful ruler. Ned himself makes that clear when he sticks to Stannis.

 

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 No textual basis for any of this. We don't know why Mace or Tywin accepted Robert - and definitely not that they would have accepted him had he not been effectively a Targaryen himself.

 

When Ned appeared, Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead, and Viserys fled. There was no one left to fight for, and the war was clearly lost anyway.

The modern concept of "total war" really didn't exist in the medieval period. Armies were personal, as were loyalties. The leader who wanted to fight on till the last drop of blood might well have found himself fighting on alone, since his vassals were likely to have better sense, and their levies were more likely to follow their own lord than the "general." Tyrell's surrender was pretty much warfare as usual. If he had =tried= to give battle to Ned in a lost cause, he might well have found his more opportunistic bannermen deserting to the other side.

 

This applies whether Robert is Targ or not, the war would not be any less lost in their eyes if Robert wasn't a Targaryen. And twi can play the same game, since as you say, there is no tetxtual basis for this, where is the textual evidence that says that Tyrell and co, decided to accept Robert, not out of  common sense but because he is a dragonspawn, lmao, himself?? Where it's said that he was decided by such justification??

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 Robert was also only the face of the Rebellion because his blood, too. That's what made him special. He one a couple of battles, sure, but he was the weakest of the rebel lords and had the least troops at the Trident (having lost most of his men at Ashford and being permanently cut from his homeland by the Tyrells).

That's false, when people talk about Robert in the war they rarely talk about his ancestry, they talk about his looks, his prowess in battle, his prowess as a commander, his leadership and so on. Making Robert the face of the Rebellion made much more sense that Ned or old Jon... I mean that much is evident.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 If he hadn't had his blood claim nobody would have put him forth as a pretender. And nobody of the great lords would have sworn him fealty. That would be like Edmure doing fealty to Brynden because he was such a great general. That would never happen.

Sure, had it not been for his blood, the rebels would not have had any reason to place him before Ned and Jon, so he might or might not be chosen, i'm sure it would've been a lot harder pill to swallow for the loyalists. The idea that nobody of the great lords would've sworn him fealty is bold, without any base and against common sense.

If the rebels chose him as pretender, is out of the question they would stick with him (4 Great Lords), Mace saw the war lost and bent knee (5 Great Lords), Tywin saw that the rebels would win and jumped the ship (6 Great Lords), Doran would be as cornered as he was (7 Great Lords), Balon would be stomped regardless (8 Great Lords).

I've argued in this very thread that blood and claims are indeed very important, but they are not as important as common sense.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, of course we can be sure of that because those men were not looking for a needing an overlord. If they hadn't had a Targaryen (descendant) in their midst they might have been happy enough to depose Aerys II and then go back home. The North and the Vale could work perfectly well without some King on the Iron Throne.

Your headcanon is going wild.

- We don't know what they objectives of the Robellion were at the very beginning besides the very obvious (Rhaegar and Aerys had to go, Lyanna needed to be rescued)

- We don't know those plans changed or even if they changed.

- We don't know what they thought about the Targs noe when and why they decided they had to g.

- The fact that the North or the Vale could work without the IT does not mean that they wanted to do it.

 

Overall, you say that we can be sure of that and then you just start a circular argument. It's unlikely that any of the rebels ever gave a damn about Robert's blood besides the obvious implications, they supported him because they personal ties they had with each other, those ties would not disappear with Robert's blood.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 If they had still wanted to make a new king then, without Robert's blood claim, there would have been strife and fighting like there was in the Green army at Tumbleton because none of those great lords would have felt a deep need to submit to Robert Baratheon - who would have just been a pretty good general dude ruling a very small portion of the Seven Kingdoms.

That's what you want to believe for sure, not the reality, since we don't have a reason to believe the leaders of the Robellion were like the Caltrops an co, in fact we know that they weren't, i would not answer the last part, is just laughable.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Evidence for that? Ned even raised a descendant of Aerys II in his own household, by the way. They had Robert, so they didn't need to look elsewhere. If they hadn't had Robert they would have likely settled on Viserys III or some other Targaryen descendant because one of them trying to claim the throne would have continued the civil war - or caused a new one.

That there is no Targ among the rebels leaders besides Robert?? Or that there is no Targ relative they could trust as they trusted the Baratheons??

They would not have settled off with Viserys or some Targ descendant, that's again what you want to believe. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You have to keep in mind that it is one thing for the Tyrells and the Martells to accept that a great-grandson of Aegon V replaces a grandson of Aegon V and quite another that some presumptuous lord with no claim to the Iron Throne presumes to rule over them now ... when he did never even conquer their lands or defeat them in battle.

Ofc, I bet Doran said to Dorne, "yes Rober condoned the murder of Elia and her children, yes the man beat us badly in the Trident, no worries tho because Robert is a Targ descendant.!!!"

Honestly is ludicrous,  Mace did not bend the knee because Robert was a Targ descendant or because he gave a single damn about that, he surrendered because the Targ cause was a lost one. Doran did the same because he saw no point in fight a war he didn't think he could win. 

As everything in life i'm pretty sure that there were those who were stupid enough to be swayed for that, the Great lords weren't among them however.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

See above - they had support. That didn't save them or Septon Moon.

There is essentially no social mobility in Westeros - yes, scum like Bronn can marry into a house of minor nobility under the right circumstances, and he could even rise as high as the Small Council or the Kingsguard, but such people cannot possibly acquire real lasting feudal power in a single lifetime. That needs centuries.

Just look at the Tyrells or the Freys - they are still looked down on by the peers even after centuries of wealth and power. They almost made it but not completely.

Anyone with Bronn's background (or Hugh and Ulf's) trying to become a great lord or king would not get very far.

Who were their support?? Were them big enough to overcome that?? The very fact that they had to be murdered as they were show otherwise. Septon Moon was killed in the middle of the night, people that are murdered have no support now??

 

The Tyrells are only looked down by the Florents and sure as hell that if Hugh had lived he would've imposed Westeros whatever the hell he wanted. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, they would have still rebelled against the tyrant Aerys the Mad, but you can overthrow a king without putting forth a pretender of your own, no? That's what they would have done then. The Faith Militant also tried to overthrow Maegor without installing another king in his place.

And the Faith denounced all the Targs and Septon Moon wanted them all gone for good. The only most important factor when discussing what the rebels may have done in the so many ifs is simply how fed up were they with the Targs.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If they were not the rightful rulers of Westeros and weren't seen as such by essentially all of the people of the Seven Kingdoms (even if not all of them would stand by them if they invaded, of course) then Robert would have no reason to be afraid of them.

A very fallacious logic,  Robert that some people still loved them and see them as rightful, what he does not know, because in fact that's never said, essentially all of the people of the Seven Kingdoms  see them as rightful, that is simply false,  he is afraid of the threat a combianation of 40k dothrakis and some of the people that would join Viserys may present. That has nothing to do with how Westeros at whole see them, but that Viserys could actually have an army and can become a problem. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea is that even Robert himself knows that he is a usurper and that he has stolen the throne he sits on. That may make him king, but not the rightful king - that's the guy Robert stole the throne from: Viserys III.

But even Robert himself does not know that he is a usurper and that he is not the righful king. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is totally irrelevant when you talk about the powers and rights of kings. They are not affected by the talk and actions of their own subjects. Basically, you can murder and imprison a king ... but you can never depose him without his consent (at least within the constructs of medieval
 monarchy which includes the inviobility of the royal person, etc., something that's also part of Westerosi kingship with anointing by the gods).

They pretty much are, you can Egg about that matter. Without their own subjects they have no power and therefore no rights except the ones that exist in their heads.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, but that is my point. And basically the main point I'm making - Robert stole the throne but it belongs to the Targaryens by right because they never gave up their claims.

That goes against the falacious case made by many readers that the Targaryens 'lost their claim' because of Robert's victory and thus have to 'regain it' by means of conquest - which isn't supported by any textual evidence at all.

There is no textual evidence that there is a ritual/tradition/ in which you can properly lose your claim, what we're shown is that claims are worth what people believe they worth, Daemon Blackfyre's claim did not worth the same his Daemon's 3 did.  the way you talk it would seem that claims and blood are something magical and were not subjected to people's opinions.

Btw you have been preaching about how conquest is but Feudal contract is a thing "in a proper medieval world like Westeros".

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

There would no war in the Riverlands as there was no war in the Riverlands while Robert and Ned were still alive and in power, both the Lannisters and the Tullys wanted war but both of them wanted the backing of the crown and made sure everyone understood the other attacked first.  The Tullys accepedt Ned's mandate and did not seek retribution,  they only acted when the Lannisters invaded them regardless.

LOL, read the books. Eddard Stark had no intention to ever release Tyrion Lannister from capture or forgive Jaime Lannister for murdering his men. He wouldn't have let this thing go, and neither would Tywin or Jaime.

And the fat drunkard went hunting. He wouldn't have resolved this to anyone's satisfaction.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Ofc that Varys would reveal the twincest but he has the same evidence Stannis have, that is fairly easy to quell.

LOL, again. What makes you believe Varys has the same evidence that Stannis has? Or that 'evidence' is really needed to poison Robert against Cersei and her family if you know how to properly poison him against someone?

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

How is that a claim based on hot air?? Martin himself says that Robert and Ned had a lot of ties there and during the war many of them wanted to join either the Starks or the Baratheons, in  Lysa's wedding we see there is some resentment to Lysa because she did not help Robb.

If the lords decided to march... how could they prevent it?? Robert could perfectly name other people regent of sweetrobin anyway.

LOL again. Robb is not Robert - the fat drunkard king who spat in the face of House Arryn and all the Vale when he refused to name Jon Arryn's son and heir the Warden of the East. There is not the slightest indication that anyone from the Vale would want to go to war for King Robert. Even the Royces, who got their asses to KL for the Tourney of the Hand, very quickly disappeared from court after Robert's death.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

I know what you meant, it's irrelevant, neither of them are idiots and there is an enemy on their doors who aim to kill them all, sure as hell Ned never thought he would need to bribe the Golden Cloaks, necessity is a thing.

LOL again. Nobody ever said the Targaryens would have to kill them all. If Ned stood aside and let the Lannisters and Robert fight their own war nobody would trouble him. The same goes for the Vale or the Riverlands.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Sure as hell that's not how anyone sees it.  That's a post hoc argument, you know it, Robert was made pretender because that would smooth things over, but it's not like people were blind.

LOL, you are making an entirely post hoc argument since Robert was first a Targaryen descendant and only a charismatic warrior much later in life.

And Robert always continued the same dynasty under a different name since he is a Targaryen through the female line himself. If Harry the Heir can, perhaps, take the Arryn name, then Robert could just as well have ruled as Robert Targaryen without anyone considering this out of the ordinary.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

No, green apples to red apples. Within the feudal framework of a feudal monarchy like Westeros, such claims disappear as soon the majority of Westeros stop to give them any value, because regardless of the entitlement such claims may produce, those claims are simply nothing without a strong support. 

Nothing of that sort did happen for the Targaryens.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

That is why there is a difference so stricking between the First Blackfyre rebellion and the Foutrh. Whether the Blackfyre believed that their claims could never disappear is irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant what the Targs, Yronwoods, Florents,  Starks or Stannis think about it. The opposite is also true, while there are strong contingency of people that spouse to their so called rights, that's when their claims have any value.

LOL again. The Blackfyres never had any actual legitimacy from the start. They never sat the Iron Throne and only enacted a fantasy that their founder was somehow the 'chosen heir' of his corrupt father.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

You're not arguing the legal framework in Westeros, you're arguing that the noble entitlement has any legal relevance, that's ludicrous.

There is no legal framework in relation to the validity of royal claims.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

He made all of Westeros accept that Rhaenrya was his heir over Daemon, he never made an attempt to make all of Westeros accept Rhaenrya over Alicent children, no his court isn't all Westeros,  and that's one of the reason things went south.

If you're arguing that some, many, or even all, swore those oaths without the intention of fullfilling them, then i'd agree. They swore those oaths however.

LOL again. There is no evidence that anyone even swore vows of allegiance, etc. to Robert Baratheon. But even they did - they wouldn't be worth all that much, would they? I mean, even Alyssa Velaryon and Jaehaerys did homage to King Maegor, no?

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

We know the  rebels accepted him as Kings, we know the Lannisters swore him fealty, we know the Reach lords did the same, we know... I don't see Ned pooping, i'm sure he had to do it once a year.

Doran does not need to bend the knee personally to Robert, to bend the knee to him and  House Baratheon. 

LOL again. You actually do need to do that in a feudal monarchy. Loyalty and allegiance are personal things. You accept somebody as liege personally. You take possession of your fief or lordship personally, etc.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Nobody ever speaks of the Martells as the righful rulers of Dorne and the Yronwoods still bitch about it, i'm to suppose that no one  in Dorne see them as their righful rulers?? I suppose not, since there a things that are pretty much obvious, it's pretty much obvious that neither Ned nor the Stormlanders, for example,  see Robert as a usurperor not their righful ruler. Ned himself makes that clear when he sticks to Stannis.

LOL again. The Yronwoods do not see themselves as 'rightful rulers of Dorne' since they never ruled all of Dorne. They keep their ancient titles, yes, but they do not see themselves as the Martells instead of the Martells.

The Martells are not only the rightful rulers of Dorne - they are the only rulers Dorne ever had. They united it into one principality.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

This applies whether Robert is Targ or not, the war would not be any less lost in their eyes if Robert wasn't a Targaryen. And twi can play the same game, since as you say, there is no tetxtual basis for this, where is the textual evidence that says that Tyrell and co, decided to accept Robert, not out of  common sense but because he is a dragonspawn, lmao, himself?? Where it's said that he was decided by such justification??

LOL again. I'm talking about the Robert we get in the books, not a hypothetical non-Targaryen Robert.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

That's false, when people talk about Robert in the war they rarely talk about his ancestry, they talk about his looks, his prowess in battle, his prowess as a commander, his leadership and so on. Making Robert the face of the Rebellion made much more sense that Ned or old Jon... I mean that much is evident.

We know that Ned and Jon agreed to support Robert in a bid for the Iron Throne because he had the better claim.

They gave him their men. And they controlled essentially all the men Robert had since Robert's Stormlanders were stuck in the Stormlands. Robert's charisma and prowess in battle wouldn't have been worth anything if Ned and Jon had decided to take their levies home on the eve of the Trident ... and had told Hoster to do the same.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Sure, had it not been for his blood, the rebels would not have had any reason to place him before Ned and Jon, so he might or might not be chosen, i'm sure it would've been a lot harder pill to swallow for the loyalists. The idea that nobody of the great lords would've sworn him fealty is bold, without any base and against common sense.

LOL, no. It makes no sense to assume a great lord for the North or the Vale or the Riverlands - or anyone in the Seven Kingdoms - would be ruled from some Stormlander with no blood claim either to the Iron Throne or the Vale or the North, etc.

That is like saying there is 'good reason' to assume lords from everywhere in Westeros would fall over themselves to swear allegiance to Tywin because he was such a great Hand and lord. That would never happen.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

If the rebels chose him as pretender, is out of the question they would stick with him (4 Great Lords), Mace saw the war lost and bent knee (5 Great Lords), Tywin saw that the rebels would win and jumped the ship (6 Great Lords), Doran would be as cornered as he was (7 Great Lords), Balon would be stomped regardless (8 Great Lords).

I've argued in this very thread that blood and claims are indeed very important, but they are not as important as common sense.

Without Robert's blood claim nothing of that would have happened. It is as simple as that.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Your headcanon is going wild.

- We don't know what they objectives of the Robellion were at the very beginning besides the very obvious (Rhaegar and Aerys had to go, Lyanna needed to be rescued)

LOL again. That is nowhere stated. We don't know whether Ned wanted to kill Rhaegar - he died in battle, I doubt Ned would have slain him if he had him captured. All we can say is that the rebels in the Vale rose against the Mad King.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

- We don't know those plans changed or even if they changed.

LOL again. We know they changed because Robert was only put forth as a pretender at the end of the war not the start. That makes it clear things changed.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Overall, you say that we can be sure of that and then you just start a circular argument. It's unlikely that any of the rebels ever gave a damn about Robert's blood besides the obvious implications, they supported him because they personal ties they had with each other, those ties would not disappear with Robert's blood.

LOL again, no basis for any of that.

Without his blood claim, nobody would even think Robert could be king - much less put him forth as a pretender. Especially not men descended from great kings themselves - the Starks and Arryns were much more powerful kings than the Durrandons of Storm's End.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

That's what you want to believe for sure, not the reality, since we don't have a reason to believe the leaders of the Robellion were like the Caltrops an co, in fact we know that they weren't, i would not answer the last part, is just laughable.

LOL, it is an analogy. They wouldn't necessarily kill each other the way the Greens there did, but they would not be able to agree on a pretender. In fact, without Robert's blood he would not even have the right to lead their forces. He had the least men, was the weakest great lord of the rebels.

Back during the Conquest King Mern commanded the army because he had more troops than King Loren. Robert could fight and command the van and all that ... but he wouldn't be the king or overlord of the rebels.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Ofc, I bet Doran said to Dorne, "yes Rober condoned the murder of Elia and her children, yes the man beat us badly in the Trident, no worries tho because Robert is a Targ descendant.!!!"

Honestly is ludicrous,  Mace did not bend the knee because Robert was a Targ descendant or because he gave a single damn about that, he surrendered because the Targ cause was a lost one. Doran did the same because he saw no point in fight a war he didn't think he could win. 

As everything in life i'm pretty sure that there were those who were stupid enough to be swayed for that, the Great lords weren't among them however.

Sure, that was not the only reason. But no (great) lord of the Seven Kingdoms could bend the knee to some dude who had no right to rule over him and his bannermen and keep face. If Robert hadn't been effectively a Targaryen and was thus acceptable for his rebel friends he would have never had the power to threaten the other kingdoms ... meaning he would have never had the strength to invade or subdue the Reach or Dorne.

Taking the Iron Throne only 'decided the war' if you care about it. If Mace and Doran had decided he no longer answered to the Iron Throne Robert would have been fucked.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Who were their support?? Were them big enough to overcome that?? The very fact that they had to be murdered as they were show otherwise. Septon Moon was killed in the middle of the night, people that are murdered have no support now??

Man, don't you understand. If the aristocratic club don't want you to join them they find a way to rid themselves of you. Everybody can be murdered ... but you don't murder people you consider worthy enough to rule over you. That's why kings and pretenders from proper royal families are usually not murdered by a broad coalition of all their lords.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Tyrells are only looked down by the Florents and sure as hell that if Hugh had lived he would've imposed Westeros whatever the hell he wanted. 

The Tyrells are mainly looked down by the Florents, but they are seen as upjumped stewards because they are upjumped stewards. They are not even remotely in the same league as the great houses of the Realm - especially not the Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

A very fallacious logic,  Robert that some people still loved them and see them as rightful, what he does not know, because in fact that's never said, essentially all of the people of the Seven Kingdoms  see them as rightful, that is simply false,  he is afraid of the threat a combianation of 40k dothrakis and some of the people that would join Viserys may present. That has nothing to do with how Westeros at whole see them, but that Viserys could actually have an army and can become a problem. 

LOL, the very fact that they are Targaryens means that they are the rightful kings. They are the ones who made the Iron Throne, built KL and the Red Keep, united the Realm, etc. Everybody knows that - even Robert and his family. Even Cersei and Jaime basically think that the Targaryens are the rightful kings. They are special. They can marry their sisters. The Lannisters can't, despite the fact that they now control the Iron Throne.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

But even Robert himself does not know that he is a usurper and that he is not the righful king. 

Sure, that's why he is so afraid of Viserys III and Dany.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

They pretty much are, you can Egg about that matter. Without their own subjects they have no power and therefore no rights except the ones that exist in their heads.

Who cares about the applause of the rabble?

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

There is no textual evidence that there is a ritual/tradition/ in which you can properly lose your claim, what we're shown is that claims are worth what people believe they worth, Daemon Blackfyre's claim did not worth the same his Daemon's 3 did.  the way you talk it would seem that claims and blood are something magical and were not subjected to people's opinions.

That is how they are seen in a monarchistic framework. You might not get that, but that's how it is.

It is of course not a one-way street. People believe their kings are their kings and support and serve them because they tell them they are their kings. But both sides also know they never chose their kings nor do their kings not need their permission or consent to rule or exploit them - that's why they are kings and not elected officials.

Robert is a usurper. He stole the throne. The Rebellion was justified insofar as a tyrant was overthrown - but that does not extend to the Mad King's children and grandchildren.

Westeros is shitty, but only thugs punish children for the crimes of their parents in this world. And the guiding principle is that a son or brother follows his father or brother. Deposing Aerys II was right ... crowning Robert was wrong.

[frenin]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, read the books. Eddard Stark had no intention to ever release Tyrion Lannister from capture or forgive Jaime Lannister for murdering his men. He wouldn't have let this thing go, and neither would Tywin or Jaime.

And the fat drunkard went hunting. He wouldn't have resolved this to anyone's satisfaction.

I did read the books, that's why i know that once Robert came back from hunting, he would've Ned to do the same thing, he would onlny have acted against Ned only if Ned refused him, which btw he never did. Ned wanted to go after Jaime, Robert forbade it and Ned obliged, he did not summon Jaime back or acted against him in anyway.  

If Tyrion was freed, what would Tywin and Jaime's demands be?? Thing is that in the books there is no war going on while Ned and Robert are alive and kicking, so there is absolutely no reason to expect a war if they remain alive and kicking... especially if Tyrion is simply released.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, again. What makes you believe Varys has the same evidence that Stannis has? Or that 'evidence' is really needed to poison Robert against Cersei and her family if you know how to properly poison him against someone?

What makes you believe he has any better evidence?? We can go for the classic because he is Batman  Varys but that is simply a non argument, Varys himself says that after he saw how all Robert's bastards looked like and how blond were the kids Cersei were whelping he put two and two together... That's exactly  Stannis evidence.

Without evidence or conclusive evidence Robert may or may not turn against the Lannisters,  with Viserys already on his kitchen the odds lower interestingly, you know, priorities and the likes.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. Robb is not Robert - the fat drunkard king who spat in the face of House Arryn and all the Vale when he refused to name Jon Arryn's son and heir the Warden of the East. There is not the slightest indication that anyone from the Vale would want to go to war for King Robert. Even the Royces, who got their asses to KL for the Tourney of the Hand, very quickly disappeared from court after Robert's death.

... Sigh, The Vale lords were angry for the Warden of the East thing, but i think you can understand that being angry at someone does not equate to renege their fealty to them or you won't help them if needed be.

Quote

Martin himself says that Robert and Ned had a lot of ties there and during the war many of them wanted to join either the Starks or the Baratheons, in  Lysa's wedding we see there is some resentment to Lysa because she did not help Robb.

Starks and Baratheons. Now, why would they want to go to war for a dead King i wonder??

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. Nobody ever said the Targaryens would have to kill them all. If Ned stood aside and let the Lannisters and Robert fight their own war nobody would trouble him. The same goes for the Vale or the Riverlands.

 So, the Lannisters, Baratheons, Arryns, Tullys and Starks overthrew a dynasty that now i coming back, Ned is one of the leaders of the Robellion and he would think that maybe, maybe, maybe, the Targs are a bit upset at him. The Arryns and Tullys would not think that maybe thinks may not go  very well for them if they allow the dynasty they overthrew get back in power?? Wow, that's ludicrous.

The nobody would trouble them is once again what you want to believe so... Regardless, thanks god we have Ned pov and we can tell that he would not Robert on his own, if not this nonsense could be dragged on for who knows how long.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, you are making an entirely post hoc argument since Robert was first a Targaryen descendant and only a charismatic warrior much later in life.

And Robert always continued the same dynasty under a different name since he is a Targaryen through the female line himself. If Harry the Heir can, perhaps, take the Arryn name, then Robert could just as well have ruled as Robert Targaryen without anyone considering this out of the ordinary.

I don't even understand the first thing. 

 

Robert continued House Baratheon dynasty, that's true, House Targaryen however not so much, i doubt that people would not consider out of the ordinary someone of a Great House taking the name of a Royal House. People don't see Robert as a Targ, they see him as a stag anyway.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nothing of that sort did happen for the Targaryens.

What happened for the Targaryens is that Westeros accepted a new overlord.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 LOL again. The Blackfyres never had any actual legitimacy from the start. They never sat the Iron Throne and only enacted a fantasy that their founder was somehow the 'chosen heir' of his corrupt father.

The Blackfyres believed they were chosen by Aegon 4 and they believed that Aemon fathered Daeron, that's their legitimacy and their claim. And that's why half Westeros rallyied around the Black Dragon.

What do you think a claim is i'm curious.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no legal framework in relation to the validity of royal claims.

No, there is only a believe and entitlement, that's ludicrous.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. There is no evidence that anyone even swore vows of allegiance, etc. to Robert Baratheon. But even they did - they wouldn't be worth all that much, would they? I mean, even Alyssa Velaryon and Jaehaerys did homage to King Maegor, no?

There is no evidence that  Ned went to the sump either, Maybe he never took a shit, there is no limit for what we can imagine. 

I don't know how and why a solemn oath cannot worth much, the whole purpose of it is to bind someone.  Ofc Alyssa Velaryon and Jaeharys paid homage to Maegor, which makes them traitors when they rose up, as much as Ned-Robert-old Jon were traitors when they rose up, both of them rose up against a bloodyhanded tyrant and ofc they both won so it's their narrative and perspective what we get. 

But i don't really see the difference between Aegon 1 making the kings he submitted to do him fealty and Maegor or Jaime and Aerys or any for that matter, were they crossing their fingers  when they pronounced said oaths?? In a world where oaths are pretty much legal accords.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. You actually do need to do that in a feudal monarchy. Loyalty and allegiance are personal things. You accept somebody as liege personally. You take possession of your fief or lordship personally, etc.

No,  you don't. It's ofc better if you do it personally but it's not necessary to do it not in rl and neither in Westeros. 

On top of my mind, Sharra Arryn bent the knee to Visenya in Aegon's name,  Rhaenys demanded to bend the knee in the name of Aegon, Steffon Sunderland bent the knee to Visenya,   Corlys bent the knee to Alicent in the name of Aegon 2, Royce Caron bent the knee to Aegon 3 in her daughter's name and more importantly in Olyver's Baratheon name, Mace Tyrell  swore to bent the knee to Ned and swore fealty to Robert when he dipped his banners to Ned etc.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. The Yronwoods do not see themselves as 'rightful rulers of Dorne' since they never ruled all of Dorne. They keep their ancient titles, yes, but they do not see themselves as the Martells instead of the Martells.

The Martells are not only the rightful rulers of Dorne - they are the only rulers Dorne ever had. They united it into one principality.

  Do the Yronwoods see their overlords as their righful ones?? Have someone ever said that the Martells are their rightful overlords?? Nope. The rest still applies.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. I'm talking about the Robert we get in the books, not a hypothetical non-Targaryen Robert.

????
They bent the knee to the Robert we get in the books for the same reason they would to a non Targ Robert. Because keep fighting was pointless.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know that Ned and Jon agreed to support Robert in a bid for the Iron Throne because he had the better claim.

They gave him their men. And they controlled essentially all the men Robert had since Robert's Stormlanders were stuck in the Stormlands. Robert's charisma and prowess in battle wouldn't have been worth anything if Ned and Jon had decided to take their levies home on the eve of the Trident ... and had told Hoster to do the same.

We know that Ned and Jon agreed to make Robert king for his claim, we don't know that in another scenarion the outcome would not have been the exact same. You said that he was only made the face of the Rebellion for his blood, which is false.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. It makes no sense to assume a great lord for the North or the Vale or the Riverlands - or anyone in the Seven Kingdoms - would be ruled from some Stormlander with no blood claim either to the Iron Throne or the Vale or the North, etc.

That is like saying there is 'good reason' to assume lords from everywhere in Westeros would fall over themselves to swear allegiance to Tywin because he was such a great Hand and lord. That would never happen.

So, your entire evidence is a great circular argument??

If those some of those lords are gained to Tywin's cause, other's were beaten into submission and others saw that there was no reason but to bend the knee.

We are not talking about randoms Great lords, we're talking about Robert's surrogate father and best friend, if they believed Robert worthy of being King, they would pledge fealty.

You're not making any argument not bothering to even, you're saying that it would not happen because it would not happen. 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Without Robert's blood claim nothing of that would have happened. It is as simple as that.

Ofc not. Without Robert's blood, Jon and Ned could not have possibly ever come to believe that Robert could be King, wthey would never let presumptuous Robert to overreach himself at so on.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. That is nowhere stated. We don't know whether Ned wanted to kill Rhaegar - he died in battle, I doubt Ned would have slain him if he had him captured. All we can say is that the rebels in the Vale rose against the Mad King.

Robert wanted to kill Rhaegar from the get go, ergo Rhaegar had to go, Lyanna needed to be rescued and Aerys had to go.

I wonder why would Ned want to spare Rhaegar but that's completely irrelevant.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. We know they changed because Robert was only put forth as a pretender at the end of the war not the start. That makes it clear things changed.

No, we know Robert only procclaimed that at the end of the war, we know next to nothing about when the trio decided to go big or go home.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again, no basis for any of that.

Without his blood claim, nobody would even think Robert could be king - much less put him forth as a pretender. Especially not men descended from great kings themselves - the Starks and Arryns were much more powerful kings than the Durrandons of Storm's End.

This is just nonsense.  

Not only you argue in bad faith, you keep demanding basis and evidence but you have no problem in keep presenting your headcanon as a fact,  but it's just bad nonsense. The Starks and Arryns were much more powerful Kings than the Durrandons?? I'm curious, how do you even quantify that??

The trio at some point came into the conclussion that the Targ had to go, they chose Robert because he was the option that best suit their needs, had they not had that someone they would've chosen someone likely worst, but they would've chosen nontheless. If the rebels cared so much about the blood, instead of it just being the pretense they needed it to be, they would've crowned a Targ. The idea that nobody would've thought in the most obvious choice is simply laughable.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, it is an analogy. They wouldn't necessarily kill each other the way the Greens there did, but they would not be able to agree on a pretender. In fact, without Robert's blood he would not even have the right to lead their forces. He had the least men, was the weakest great lord of the rebels.

Back during the Conquest King Mern commanded the army because he had more troops than King Loren. Robert could fight and command the van and all that ... but he wouldn't be the king or overlord of the rebels.

Again, without a solid argument you're just telling me your wishes. The idea that they would not agree on a pretender, giving how well the rebels relationship between most of them were it's ludicrous, The trio spearheaded the robellion for something.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that was not the only reason. But no (great) lord of the Seven Kingdoms could bend the knee to some dude who had no right to rule over him and his bannermen and keep face. If Robert hadn't been effectively a Targaryen and was thus acceptable for his rebel friends he would have never had the power to threaten the other kingdoms ... meaning he would have never had the strength to invade or subdue the Reach or Dorne.

This is your claim, baseless and as far as i can see  headcanon, Robert didn't have the right to rule over them,  he did it regardless while your righful rulers were left on their own in Essos. I see absolutely no reason why Ned's bannermen or Jon's would do it. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Taking the Iron Throne only 'decided the war' if you care about it. If Mace and Doran had decided he no longer answered to the Iron Throne Robert would have been fucked.

If Martin was Stephen King, we would've had ADOS years ago. It decided the war because everyone understood if was done

They all made their minds then and Robert's ancestry was not relevant there.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Man, don't you understand. If the aristocratic club don't want you to join them they find a way to rid themselves of you. Everybody can be murdered ... but you don't murder people you consider worthy enough to rule over you. That's why kings and pretenders from proper royal families are usually not murdered by a broad coalition of all their lords.

Because they don't get to be murdered, you can tell you that to Alysanne.

I understand your argument, i don't have a reason to share, entitlement is a thing and very difficult to overcome, it's not imposiblt to overcome and less so so with a big ass dragons, there is a reason they killed them when they were vulnerable and not when they had gathered momemtum.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Tyrells are mainly looked down by the Florents, but they are seen as upjumped stewards because they are upjumped stewards. They are not even remotely in the same league as the great houses of the Realm - especially not the Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns.

By the Florents, i don't remember no one saying that the Tyrells blood was not worthy enough after the conquest.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, the very fact that they are Targaryens means that they are the rightful kings. They are the ones who made the Iron Throne, built KL and the Red Keep, united the Realm, etc. Everybody knows that - even Robert and his family. Even Cersei and Jaime basically think that the Targaryens are the rightful kings. They are special. They can marry their sisters. The Lannisters can't, despite the fact that they now control the Iron Throne.

You should not get your bias get in the way. Yes, the Targs dis¡d shit and they lost it,  you're arguing that they still own it because they are Targs, that's a non argument.

Jaime looked up to Rhaegar and his pals and Jaime hates Robert with passion and is bitter for him not receiving the shit he thinks he should receives etc, Cersei was in love with Rhaegar and ofc hates Robert enough to cuckold him with her brother. You say that Robert and his family see them as rightful  rulers. Ned himself does not recognize them as such, his kids idem.

They are special... Anyway, you're not arguing why people see them as rightful rulers, you're pretty much telling me why you liked them and why you think people should see them as rightful kings.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that's why he is so afraid of Viserys III and Dany.

If he was so terrified of them, Viserys would not have made it ti adulthood and i doubt that Dany would have grown enough to speak. Armies set to come after you kind of make someone sleep worse.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Who cares about the applause of the rabble?

What kind of argument is this?? 

Btw, Egg did care. Cared enough to burn himself and his family for it.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is how they are seen in a monarchistic framework. You might not get that, but that's how it is.

No, they aren't. That's how it's seen by entitled people and their cheerleaders and i it's  completely  ludicrous regardless.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 It is of course not a one-way street. People believe their kings are their kings and support and serve them because they tell them they are their kings. But both sides also know they never chose their kings nor do their kings not need their permission or consent to rule or exploit them - that's why they are kings and not elected officials.

You can't be serious. They accept their kings and  their kings very much need their consent to rule or exploit them or they better be gods. That's why kings that don't have the implicit or explicit consent or support of their people are either deposed or forced to damn long campaigns of repression.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Robert is a usurper. He stole the throne. The Rebellion was justified insofar as a tyrant was overthrown - but that does not extend to the Mad King's children and grandchildren.

I know you believe this, good for you. I would say something more but i don't see the reason why, this is not the first time we have this chat.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Westeros is shitty, but only thugs punish children for the crimes of their parents in this world. And the guiding principle is that a son or brother follows his father or brother. Deposing Aerys II was right ... crowning Robert was wrong.

If you say so, the rebels had no problem with it, most of Westeros are ok as long they are left on their own. I myself have no problem with it, i know you do, that's fine but honestly, the guiding principle bit is ludicrous, the rebels were not planning on punish the children, they would simply not rule.  The idea that the rebels should stick with a dynasty they clearly were fed up with and to which  they no longer felt any loyalty is stupid.

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Now you put the cart before the horse. The reason why Robert ends up becoming the leader and eventual the pretender king of the rebels is because he is a Targaryen descendant. If he would have had different blood, he wouldn't have been their pretender. They would have put forth somebody else ... or they would have tried to install some Targaryen child king as puppet to rule in his name

The point I'm making here is that Robert got to be King because he had the support to do so. Some of that support has arisen from the fact that he has Targaryen blood but that doesn't have to be true. There are other ways in which to gain support. Surely, you don't mean to suggest that a King has never been overthrown except by some relative of his? 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They couldn't hope to install anyone but a Targaryen descendant on the Iron Throne. If they had tried that, the Seven Kingdoms would have split up after the Sack ... because a Baratheon simply had no right to rule over any of the Seven Kingdoms nor had he ever conquered them nor would even the rebels bend the knee to Robert in this whole thing

There is no evidence for this. There is no guarantee the 7K would not have accepted Robert without his Targ blood. Because he had some, he used it to make things a little easier for him but there really isn't a whole lot the opposing Lords could have done if there were any. The loyalists were defeated, the crown overthrown, & Robert named King. 

The idea that the Targ loyalists were A-OK with the current Targ King & his heir killed, prince & princess in exile, all because Robert had a little Targ blood but lacking that they would have rebelled is preposterous to me. 

If there was something for the loyalists to be unhappy about it is the fact that their King & his heir were killed & overthrown. To say 'but it was ok with them because Robert had some Targ blood - but if he did not they would war' just doesn't ring true.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Westeros isn't the kind of society where dynasties are easily replaced by brute force. That literally never happens (aside from the ancient Riverlands which are the exception which proves the rule)

Yet this is exactly what happened, albeit not easily. Do you think anybody in the 7K see Robert as a Targaryen? Do they believe this is still the Targaryen Dynasty? Surely not. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The lords of the Realm would never accept one of their own peers as their overlord - meaning a peer who didn't have any Targaryen blood

I just don't think this is true. The Targ blood gave him a reason to be presented as King in front of the other rebels but he is clearly no Targaryen. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, they would have still rebelled against the tyrant Aerys the Mad, but you can overthrow a king without putting forth a pretender of your own, no? That's what they would have done then. The Faith Militant also tried to overthrow Maegor without installing another king in his place

Yeah, they could have but they needed someone loyal to them. They essentially had to present their own. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert took the throne and people accepted this because he was effectively the heir to the family he ousted anyway

He absolutely was not the heir to the family he ousted. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a rather important fact and likely the reason why the Targaryen loyalists could accept him and did bend the knee. They wouldn't have done that if Robert had just been some Baratheon thinking he could rule the Reach or Dorne or the West if he never actually conquered those lands ... which he didn't

It isn't a fact at all. He was not the Targ heir anyway you look at it. 

Some Baratheon not only thought he could, but actually did rule the reach & Dorne, along with the rest of the realm. He doesn't have to conquer every single place separately. He conquered enough to show he was strong enough & had enough support & could not be easily stopped. Much like the Targs did not conquer the North separately, yet they bent the knee & called Aegon King. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

fact, he also didn't conquer the North or the Vale or the Riverlands - they made him their king because of his blood, not because he was such a great chap to be with

No, the North & the Vale made him their King because the current King was a tyrant calling for Robert & Neds head. It isn't as if they searched the realm for someone with Targ blood to replace Aerys. They rebelled against the Targ's & decided to present Robert as King (rather than one of the other rebels) because he had a slightly better reason to claim it. If that did not exist Robert still may have been the one they chose to put on the throne, or maybe it would have been Jon or Ned. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert didn't have the best claim - but he had a pretty strong claim all things considered. If Rhaegar and Aerys II had died of in a freak accident and a Great Council had settled the succession then Robert would have had a very good chance to win. Viserys was a young child, and Rhaegar's children were just infants and toddlers - but Robert was a very popular, charismatic adult warrior lord with royal blood. He could have won the crown in council the very same way he won it in battle

I highly doubt it. Robert & Joff die & we don't see a great council being held to find the next King because Tommen is young. Viserys would have ruled with a regent most likely, just like Tommen. 

If the Targ blood Robert held is so important, why is it, when Robert & Joff die we don't see every Tom, Dick, & Harry with a little Targ blood pop out of the woodwork & make their claim? Why is it the people making claim to the throne are either trying to do so via conquest, or through the Baratheon blood line? 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But that is an unrealistic scenario in this world. It would never happen

Indeed, but only because a low-born could not muster the support. Not because they don't have Targ blood. If we remove that stipulation & say he does, by some miracle, have that support then he sits the throne. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, but they had the strength, alright. They had to be murdered to lose it. And they were murdered by a cabal of the highborn establishment. Even if, for the sake of the argument, we accepted the idea that some lowborn fellow could raise a great army perfectly loyal to him - the noble class would find a way to do away with him. Aside from the Two Betrayers we also see how Septon Moon - another scum warlord - is done away with by the establishment

I didn't say they didn't have any strength. They clearly didn't have the most strength or they couldn't have been murdered. 

Part of the low-borns support would be some of the noble class. Support is not only the greatest army. 

My point is, gathering enough support (a big army, support of the majority of the lords) anyone can rule because might is right. If they cannot be removed from the throne by force, they cannot be removed. 

Of course, overtime, things change & someone who initially had the strength to hold the throne may lose it & get overthrown by someone stronger with more support. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is totally irrelevant when you talk about the powers and rights of kings. They are not affected by the talk and actions of their own subjects. Basically, you can murder and imprison a king ... but you can never depose him without his consent (at least within the constructs of medieval
monarchy which includes the inviobility of the royal person, etc., something that's also part of Westerosi kingship with anointing by the gods

Viserys literally has no power. Zero, none, nada, zilch. How is that not relevant when talking about the powers & rights of Kings? 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, but that is my point. And basically the main point I'm making - Robert stole the throne but it belongs to the Targaryens by right because they never gave up their claims

Well, which way is it then? Robert is essentially the Targ heir & is only able to rule because of that, making him part of the Targ Dynasty or he stole it from the Targs, as a Baratheon, & is a pretender King keeping the seat warm for the next Targ? It can't be both. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That goes against the falacious case made by many readers that the Targaryens 'lost their claim' because of Robert's victory and thus have to 'regain it' by means of conquest - which isn't supported by any textual evidence at all

They haven't lost their claim, they have lost the throne. The only way for them to regain it, presently, is by right of conquest. 

Their claim does nothing for them in regards to regaining the throne. It may lend them some support of some of the Lords but those Lords would have to help the Targ to regain the throne via right of conquest in order for them to effectively rule. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea is that even Robert himself knows that he is a usurper and that he has stolen the throne he sits on. That may make him king, but not the rightful king - that's the guy Robert stole the throne from: Viserys III.

According to what is he not the rightful King? 

Again, if he is essentially the Targ heir how is he not the rightful King? (I disagree he is the Targ heir but this is what you said)

If Bob is King of the realm of Bobland, as were his ancestors before him for hundreds of years, but Dave comes along & musters enough support to kill Bob & his heir & remove him from the throne & becomes King himself & Dave's decendants sit the throne after him, for hundreds of years, at what point does Dave's family become the rightful owners of the throne? Are they never considered the rightful Dynasty? Does it forever remain Bob's throne, even though Bob nor any of his family have had possession of or ruled in any capacity in the last hundred years? 

Point being, at what point does the the Baratheon Dynasty start? At what point is Robert & those who come after him the rightful rulers of Westeros? If not upon Robert ruling, from that throne, then when? 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, they don't do them homage as 'their rightful kings'. They do them homage as the kings they have to bend the knee to because they have stolen the throne and force them to obey the

And how is this any different than Aegon creating the throne to begin with? Was he not paid homage because they have been forced to bend the knee & obey them? 

Did Aegon not do the exact same thing to the previous named rulers as Robert did to the Targ's? By your reasoning the people Aegon removed from ruling are still the rightful rulers & he was never the rightful rulers either. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Your line of argument leads to ridiculous condemnations of people who, for a time, yielded to force. Alyssa Velaryon and Jaehaerys and Alysanne also did do Maegor homage as their king on multiple occasions, but does this mean they were ever of the opinion that Maegor was 'their rightful king

Ok then the people that Aegon conquered were only yielding to force, for the time being. Biding their time until they could ride up & remove the Targ's right? 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

is also like saying every Northman bending the knee to Roose acknowledged him as 'the rightful Warden of the North

Well, they are, aren't they? They are acknowledging him as the warden of the North, whether or not their personal feelings are that they shouldn't be. Unless & until they remove him from his position he is the rightful Warden of the North, according to all the laws of Westeros. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If they were not the rightful rulers of Westeros and weren't seen as such by essentially all of the people of the Seven Kingdoms (even if not all of them would stand by them if they invaded, of course) then Robert would have no reason to be afraid of them

You have no evidence to suggest the Targ's are seen as the rightful rulers by all of the 7k. The entire realm follows Robert's word & law, not the Targaryens. Yes, there are those who still "call me usurper" to quote Robert but that doesn't mean the entire realm. Those is a very vague term but I would imagine there are those who still remain loyal to the Targ's in their hearts, if not their actions. That doesn't mean that if Dany presents herself to Westeros the entire realm will support her. They won't. There are plenty who are loyal to the Baratheons & the Lannisters & she will not obtain that throne without fire & blood. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And he acts the moment Viserys III and Daenerys became a real threat. The moment they forge alliances to prepare for an invasion. He could also have tried to kill them before but before the Dothraki deal there was no indication they would make a move.

But that is my point. They are not a threat merely by existing - which would be the case, if as you say, the entire realm sees them as their rightful rulers. They become a threat upon obtaining some strength. Let us not forget either, that in the end, Ned's cool head prevailed & Robert wanted to remove the price on Dany's head. Him wanting to kill them had much more to do with his hatred of the Targaryens & much less to do with any real, tangible, threat (at that point) that they may have been. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Now you put the cart before the horse. The reason why Robert ends up becoming the leader and eventual the pretender king of the rebels is because he is a Targaryen descendant. If he would have had different blood, he wouldn't have been their pretender. They would have put forth somebody else ... or they would have tried to install some Targaryen child king as puppet to rule in his name

The point I'm making here is that Robert got to be King because he had the support to do so. Some of that support has arisen from the fact that he has Targaryen blood but that doesn't have to be true. There are other ways in which to gain support. Surely, you don't mean to suggest that a King has never been overthrown except by some relative of his? 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They couldn't hope to install anyone but a Targaryen descendant on the Iron Throne. If they had tried that, the Seven Kingdoms would have split up after the Sack ... because a Baratheon simply had no right to rule over any of the Seven Kingdoms nor had he ever conquered them nor would even the rebels bend the knee to Robert in this whole thing

There is no evidence for this. There is no guarantee the 7K would not have accepted Robert without his Targ blood. Because he had some, he used it to make things a little easier for him but there really isn't a whole lot the opposing Lords could have done if there were any. The loyalists were defeated, the crown overthrown, & Robert named King. 

The idea that the Targ loyalists were A-OK with the current Targ King & his heir killed, prince & princess in exile, all because Robert had a little Targ blood but lacking that they would have rebelled is preposterous to me. 

If there was something for the loyalists to be unhappy about it is the fact that their King & his heir were killed & overthrown. To say 'but it was ok with them because Robert had some Targ blood - but if he did not they would war' just doesn't ring true.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Westeros isn't the kind of society where dynasties are easily replaced by brute force. That literally never happens (aside from the ancient Riverlands which are the exception which proves the rule)

Yet this is exactly what happened, albeit not easily. Do you think anybody in the 7K see Robert as a Targaryen? Do they believe this is still the Targaryen Dynasty? Surely not. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The lords of the Realm would never accept one of their own peers as their overlord - meaning a peer who didn't have any Targaryen blood

I just don't think this is true. The Targ blood gave him a reason to be presented as King in front of the other rebels but he is clearly no Targaryen. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, they would have still rebelled against the tyrant Aerys the Mad, but you can overthrow a king without putting forth a pretender of your own, no? That's what they would have done then. The Faith Militant also tried to overthrow Maegor without installing another king in his place

Yeah, they could have but they needed someone loyal to them. They essentially had to present their own. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert took the throne and people accepted this because he was effectively the heir to the family he ousted anyway

He absolutely was not the heir to the family he ousted. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a rather important fact and likely the reason why the Targaryen loyalists could accept him and did bend the knee. They wouldn't have done that if Robert had just been some Baratheon thinking he could rule the Reach or Dorne or the West if he never actually conquered those lands ... which he didn't

It isn't a fact at all. He was not the Targ heir anyway you look at it. 

Some Baratheon not only thought he could, but actually did rule the reach & Dorne, along with the rest of the realm. He doesn't have to conquer every single place separately. He conquered enough to show he was strong enough & had enough support & could not be easily stopped. Much like the Targs did not conquer the North separately, yet they bent the knee & called Aegon King. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

fact, he also didn't conquer the North or the Vale or the Riverlands - they made him their king because of his blood, not because he was such a great chap to be with

No, the North & the Vale made him their King because the current King was a tyrant calling for Robert & Neds head. It isn't as if they searched the realm for someone with Targ blood to replace Aerys. They rebelled against the Targ's & decided to present Robert as King (rather than one of the other rebels) because he had a slightly better reason to claim it. If that did not exist Robert still may have been the one they chose to put on the throne, or maybe it would have been Jon or Ned. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert didn't have the best claim - but he had a pretty strong claim all things considered. If Rhaegar and Aerys II had died of in a freak accident and a Great Council had settled the succession then Robert would have had a very good chance to win. Viserys was a young child, and Rhaegar's children were just infants and toddlers - but Robert was a very popular, charismatic adult warrior lord with royal blood. He could have won the crown in council the very same way he won it in battle

I highly doubt it. Robert & Joff die & we don't see a great council being held to find the next King because Tommen is young. Viserys would have ruled with a regent most likely, just like Tommen. 

If the Targ blood Robert held is so important, why is it, when Robert & Joff die we don't see every Tom, Dick, & Harry with a little Targ blood pop out of the woodwork & make their claim? Why is it the people making claim to the throne are either trying to do so via conquest, or through the Baratheon blood line? 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But that is an unrealistic scenario in this world. It would never happen

Indeed, but only because a low-born could not muster the support. Not because they don't have Targ blood. If we remove that stipulation & say he does, by some miracle, have that support then he sits the throne. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, but they had the strength, alright. They had to be murdered to lose it. And they were murdered by a cabal of the highborn establishment. Even if, for the sake of the argument, we accepted the idea that some lowborn fellow could raise a great army perfectly loyal to him - the noble class would find a way to do away with him. Aside from the Two Betrayers we also see how Septon Moon - another scum warlord - is done away with by the establishment

I didn't say they didn't have any strength. They clearly didn't have the most strength or they couldn't have been murdered. 

Part of the low-borns support would be some of the noble class. Support is not only the greatest army. 

My point is, gathering enough support (a big army, support of the majority of the lords) anyone can rule because might is right. If they cannot be removed from the throne by force, they cannot be removed. 

Of course, overtime, things change & someone who initially had the strength to hold the throne may lose it & get overthrown by someone stronger with more support. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is totally irrelevant when you talk about the powers and rights of kings. They are not affected by the talk and actions of their own subjects. Basically, you can murder and imprison a king ... but you can never depose him without his consent (at least within the constructs of medieval
monarchy which includes the inviobility of the royal person, etc., something that's also part of Westerosi kingship with anointing by the gods

Viserys literally has no power. Zero, none, nada, zilch. How is that not relevant when talking about the powers & rights of Kings? 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, but that is my point. And basically the main point I'm making - Robert stole the throne but it belongs to the Targaryens by right because they never gave up their claims

Well, which way is it then? Robert is essentially the Targ heir & is only able to rule because of that, making him part of the Targ Dynasty or he stole it from the Targs, as a Baratheon, & is a pretender King keeping the seat warm for the next Targ? It can't be both. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That goes against the falacious case made by many readers that the Targaryens 'lost their claim' because of Robert's victory and thus have to 'regain it' by means of conquest - which isn't supported by any textual evidence at all

They haven't lost their claim, they have lost the throne. The only way for them to regain it, presently, is by right of conquest. 

Their claim does nothing for them in regards to regaining the throne. It may lend them some support of some of the Lords but those Lords would have to help the Targ to regain the throne via right of conquest in order for them to effectively rule. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea is that even Robert himself knows that he is a usurper and that he has stolen the throne he sits on. That may make him king, but not the rightful king - that's the guy Robert stole the throne from: Viserys III.

According to what is he not the rightful King? 

Again, if he is essentially the Targ heir how is he not the rightful King? (I disagree he is the Targ heir but this is what you said)

If Bob is King of the realm of Bobland, as were his ancestors before him for hundreds of years, but Dave comes along & musters enough support to kill Bob & his heir & remove him from the throne & becomes King himself & Dave's decendants sit the throne after him, for hundreds of years, at what point does Dave's family become the rightful owners of the throne? Are they never considered the rightful Dynasty? Does it forever remain Bob's throne, even though Bob nor any of his family have had possession of or ruled in any capacity in the last hundred years? 

Point being, at what point does the the Baratheon Dynasty start? At what point is Robert & those who come after him the rightful rulers of Westeros? If not upon Robert ruling, from that throne, then when? 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, they don't do them homage as 'their rightful kings'. They do them homage as the kings they have to bend the knee to because they have stolen the throne and force them to obey the

And how is this any different than Aegon creating the throne to begin with? Was he not paid homage because they have been forced to bend the knee & obey them? 

Did Aegon not do the exact same thing to the previous named rulers as Robert did to the Targ's? By your reasoning the people Aegon removed from ruling are still the rightful rulers & he was never the rightful rulers either. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Your line of argument leads to ridiculous condemnations of people who, for a time, yielded to force. Alyssa Velaryon and Jaehaerys and Alysanne also did do Maegor homage as their king on multiple occasions, but does this mean they were ever of the opinion that Maegor was 'their rightful king

Ok then the people that Aegon conquered were only yielding to force, for the time being. Biding their time until they could ride up & remove the Targ's right? 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

is also like saying every Northman bending the knee to Roose acknowledged him as 'the rightful Warden of the North

Well, they are, aren't they? They are acknowledging him as the warden of the North, whether or not their personal feelings are that they shouldn't be. Unless & until they remove him from his position he is the rightful Warden of the North, according to all the laws of Westeros. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If they were not the rightful rulers of Westeros and weren't seen as such by essentially all of the people of the Seven Kingdoms (even if not all of them would stand by them if they invaded, of course) then Robert would have no reason to be afraid of them

You have no evidence to suggest the Targ's are seen as the rightful rulers by all of the 7k. The entire realm follows Robert's word & law, not the Targaryens. Yes, there are those who still "call me usurper" to quote Robert but that doesn't mean the entire realm. Those is a very vague term but I would imagine there are those who still remain loyal to the Targ's in their hearts, if not their actions. That doesn't mean that if Dany presents herself to Westeros the entire realm will support her. They won't. There are plenty who are loyal to the Baratheons & the Lannisters & she will not obtain that throne without fire & blood. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And he acts the moment Viserys III and Daenerys became a real threat. The moment they forge alliances to prepare for an invasion. He could also have tried to kill them before but before the Dothraki deal there was no indication they would make a move.

But that is my point. They are not a threat merely by existing - which would be the case, if as you say, the entire realm sees them as their rightful rulers. They become a threat upon obtaining some strength. Let us not forget either, that in the end, Ned's cool head prevailed & Robert wanted to remove the price on Dany's head. Him wanting to kill them had much more to do with his hatred of the Targaryens & much less to do with any real, tangible, threat (at that point) that they may have been. 

Basically it's the old question that plagued England during and after the Civil War. Where does political legitimacy stem from? The people or God and blood. The english at the end decided that legitimacy stems from the people, and their choice to have a constitutional monarchy subservient to the people (not the other way around). Before that Charles I claimed that his legitimacy stems from God and his royal blood, and as such he could not be held accountable for all the stuff he did. Way before that Edward the Conqueror claimed legitimacy by right of conquest (sure he had some very weird pretext, concerning some promises, but all that was so thin that it didn't matter).

In Westeros these 3 types of legitimacy all clash. There is legitimacy by blood, as the one Stannis, Tommen, Aegon and Dany claim, legitimacy by right of conquest as Euron, Renly and Aegon I claim. Westeros as of yet has no form of legitimacy that stems from the people. So by Westerosi standards, the question of legitimacy comes in the form of legitimacy by blood or by conquest, often mixed. In Westeros as of yet the peoples choice of king doesn't matter One of the few cases of legitimacy stemming from the people comes in the form of the KL rebellion in the Dance and we all know how that ended. For now all legitimacy comes from the point of a sword, as the unfortunate conclusion of Robert's Rebellion. Legitimacy by conquest is the type of legitimacy that brings about the worst bloodshed (obviously).

It is my belief that the end of the story will bring this reform in which while inheritance might still be dynastic, the King's legititmacy I think will stem from the people in the form of Westeros's first constitution. The seeds of this are already there in the Sparrow movement, which while religious in nature does not claim legitimacy from the Gods as the rest of the church does, but from the people and their customs and wishes. The Sparrow movement will likely play a crucial role in establishing Aegon as king, by rising up against Cersei. After he is killed by Dany, and Dany becomes the ultimate representation of legitimacy by conquest, then for the first time people will be in outrage at the system that promotes blood and conquest over the people. After Dany eventually dies and the Long Night is done and dusted with, then the people of Westeros will for the first time be given a small measure of control over their rulers. It will be little at first, just a constitution and some rights, maybe even a little representation if they are lucky. But those will be the seeds that in time will turn Westeros into a true constitutional Monarchy, ad finally legitimacy will stem not from conquest, but from the people (blood will still matter, but the King will not be the absolute measure of the kingdom, but rather the people and as such legitimacy will stem from them rather then from the king).

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Basically it's the old question that plagued England during and after the Civil War. Where does political legitimacy stem from? The people or God and blood. The english at the end decided that legitimacy stems from the people, and their choice to have a constitutional monarchy subservient to the people (not the other way around). Before that Charles I claimed that his legitimacy stems from God and his royal blood, and as such he could not be held accountable for all the stuff he did. Way before that Edward the Conqueror claimed legitimacy by right of conquest (sure he had some very weird pretext, concerning some promises, but all that was so thin that it didn't matter).

In Westeros these 3 types of legitimacy all clash. There is legitimacy by blood, as the one Stannis, Tommen, Aegon and Dany claim, legitimacy by right of conquest as Euron, Renly and Aegon I claim. Westeros as of yet has no form of legitimacy that stems from the people. So by Westerosi standards, the question of legitimacy comes in the form of legitimacy by blood or by conquest, often mixed. In Westeros as of yet the peoples choice of king doesn't matter One of the few cases of legitimacy stemming from the people comes in the form of the KL rebellion in the Dance and we all know how that ended. For now all legitimacy comes from the point of a sword, as the unfortunate conclusion of Robert's Rebellion. Legitimacy by conquest is the type of legitimacy that brings about the worst bloodshed (obviously).

It is my belief that the end of the story will bring this reform in which while inheritance might still be dynastic, the King's legititmacy I think will stem from the people in the form of Westeros's first constitution. The seeds of this are already there in the Sparrow movement, which while religious in nature does not claim legitimacy from the Gods as the rest of the church does, but from the people and their customs and wishes. The Sparrow movement will likely play a crucial role in establishing Aegon as king, by rising up against Cersei. After he is killed by Dany, and Dany becomes the ultimate representation of legitimacy by conquest, then for the first time people will be in outrage at the system that promotes blood and conquest over the people. After Dany eventually dies and the Long Night is done and dusted with, then the people of Westeros will for the first time be given a small measure of control over their rulers. It will be little at first, just a constitution and some rights, maybe even a little representation if they are lucky. But those will be the seeds that in time will turn Westeros into a true constitutional Monarchy, ad finally legitimacy will stem not from conquest, but from the people (blood will still matter, but the King will not be the absolute measure of the kingdom, but rather the people and as such legitimacy will stem from them rather then from the king).

I agree mostly but when you get down to the nitty gritty of the issue - whether it is believed a claim stems from God, bloodline, conquest, or the people, all depends on what the people believe right?

For instance, let's say the true right to rule stems from the God/s. If the majority of the people believe the right to rule comes from a bloodline, it won't matter that the true right to rule comes from the Gods because no one believes that. In essence the true right to rule is decided by what the people believe in right? So, in the end, power still resides where people think it resides. 

The people's "choice" of King doesn't matter in that they don't get to vote for who they think would be the best King but if the majority of the realm support (as in are allied with, lend their strength to, etc) then unless that can be contested by a stronger force, that person, that is most supported will be King, at least if & until he loses support & can be removed right? So, at the end of the day the choice of the people  does matter. 

 I think, while people do put some stock in bloodlines in Westeros, there is always going to be the potential for the right of conquest to win out. For instance, if America was invaded & the invaders conquered the American government, army, & people they would then be ruling by right of conquest regardless of the fact that the American people put no belief in such thing. And while the American people would call the invaders, invaders if they had the strength we would follow their rule none-the-less because we wouldn't have a choice. 

I think it all boils down to who has the most strength in the end. Strength not only meaning physical ability of course, although that would play a large role, but also meaning support that adds to your own strength. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

34 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

For instance, let's say the true right to rule stems from the God/s. If the majority of the people believe the right to rule comes from a bloodline, it won't matter that the true right to rule comes from the Gods because no one believes that. In essence the true right to rule is decided by what the people believe in right? So, in the end, power still resides where people think it resides. 

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the main hurdle for Westeros is to realize that power resides where people believe it resides. Legitimacy has always and will always stem from the people, cause without the people there can be no realm, or at least no legitimacy. In such cases the truth is what people agree it is. The moment of true reform will be when the people realize that they always had power over their king.

37 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think, while people do put some stock in bloodlines in Westeros, there is always going to be the potential for the right of conquest to win out. For instance, if America was invaded & the invaders conquered the American government, army, & people they would then be ruling by right of conquest regardless of the fact that the American people put no belief in such thing. And while the American people would call the invaders, invaders if they had the strength we would follow their rule none-the-less because we wouldn't have a choice. 

I think it all boils down to who has the most strength in the end. Strength not only meaning physical ability of course, although that would play a large role, but also meaning support that adds to your own strength. 

Strength matters in the case of who rules. Not in the case of legitimacy. A government as you described would not have a shred of legitimacy. In order to have legitimacy you need the support of the people. That's one of the major problems of Westeros (and almost all of the world of ice and fire), that however sits the Iron Throne, no matter how he aquired it, becomes in the eyes of most the legitimate ruler. The Targs legitimacy by strength died with their dragons, however by that point they had gained legitimacy of blood. For almost 200 years afterwards, while there was some war, there was no question that the Targaryens were the rightful monarchs. However when Robert usurped the Throne, despite the mumbling, he became a legitimate king in the eyes of many. While Robert was a better ruler then Aerys, it doesn't remove the fact that Westeros gave a legitimacy to a man for no reason other then right of conquest. And that revealed something dangerous, that no matter how illegitimate, you can still claim the Iron Throne. Legitimacy by blood is dangerous, as when people can't agree who is the rightful monarch, then blood is spilled. The problem however gets way, way worse when anybody can claim the Throne as long as he has the strength. Now there is no longer a war every time the King leaves no clear heir (ie Blackfyres and Dance) but basically every time the king dies.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

 

 

5 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the main hurdle for Westeros is to realize that power resides where people believe it resides. Legitimacy has always and will always stem from the people, cause without the people there can be no realm, or at least no legitimacy. In such cases the truth is what people agree it is. The moment of true reform will be when the people realize that they always had power over their king.

Agreed

5 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Strength matters in the case of who rules. Not in the case of legitimacy. A government as you described would not have a shred of legitimacy. In order to have legitimacy you need the support of the people

I get what you are saying but if they are forced to show support (by following their order & laws) & have no means by which to denounce them without putting their own lives or livelihood in danger, how can we tell the difference? 

5 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

In order to have legitimacy you need the support of the people. That's one of the major problems of Westeros (and almost all of the world of ice and fire), that however sits the Iron Throne, no matter how he aquired it, becomes in the eyes of most the legitimate ruler

Yeah, I agree. This is basically my point. 

7 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The Targs legitimacy by strength died with their dragons, however by that point they had gained legitimacy of blood. For almost 200 years afterwards, while there was some war, there was no question that the Targaryens were the rightful monarchs. However when Robert usurped the Throne, despite the mumbling, he became a legitimate king in the eyes of many. While Robert was a better ruler then Aerys, it doesn't remove the fact that Westeros gave a legitimacy to a man for no reason other then right of conquest. And that revealed something dangerous, that no matter how illegitimate, you can still claim the Iron Throne. Legitimacy by blood is dangerous, as when people can't agree who is the rightful monarch, then blood is spilled. The problem however gets way, way worse when anybody can claim the Throne as long as he has the strength. Now there is no longer a war every time the King leaves no clear heir (ie Blackfyres and Dance) but basically every time the king dies.

Yeah, I wouldn't contest anything here. The problem is I don't see anyway of avoiding it. How were the people of Westeros to not allow a man legitimacy via right of conquest when they could not oppose him ya know? 

[frenin]

10 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Strength matters in the case of who rules. Not in the case of legitimacy. A government as you described would not have a shred of legitimacy. In order to have legitimacy you need the support of the people. That's one of the major problems of Westeros (and almost all of the world of ice and fire), that however sits the Iron Throne, no matter how he aquired it, becomes in the eyes of most the legitimate ruler. The Targs legitimacy by strength died with their dragons, however by that point they had gained legitimacy of blood. For almost 200 years afterwards, while there was some war, there was no question that the Targaryens were the rightful monarchs. However when Robert usurped the Throne, despite the mumbling, he became a legitimate king in the eyes of many. While Robert was a better ruler then Aerys, it doesn't remove the fact that Westeros gave a legitimacy to a man for no reason other then right of conquest. And that revealed something dangerous, that no matter how illegitimate, you can still claim the Iron Throne. Legitimacy by blood is dangerous, as when people can't agree who is the rightful monarch, then blood is spilled. The problem however gets way, way worse when anybody can claim the Throne as long as he has the strength. Now there is no longer a war every time the King leaves no clear heir (ie Blackfyres and Dance) but basically every time the king dies.

I agree with this to an extent, it's very true that with the right of conquest bid, you end up with a constant anarchy amongst warlords. I doubt that the problem of Robert's rule comes from that, certainly that's not the problem of his kids.

His kids main problem is that, again, they lack of the legitimacy by being bastards and not Robert's seed, which inevitably alienates the Starks, the Arryns and the Stannis. With Tywin invasion of the Riverlands and Ned's murder, the Starks and the Riverlords are forced to break his ties  with the Baratheons, who them see as rightful rulers anyway Robb himself wanted desperately a solution that did not forced him to become a traitor in his words, cough Stannis you're an idiot cough, and with all this comes the only one who is indeed affected by Robert's actions and the "might makes right" believe. Balon  sees  unstability and ofc rebels.

I fail to see how the war after Robert's death comes down to might makes right mindset when its very root  is lack  of legitimacy in the eyes of very important actors.

Only the Renly and the Tyrells to an extent are moved by the mentality of everyone can be King, But all the pretenders  of the Iron Throne are Baratheons.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

16 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, I wouldn't contest anything here. The problem is I don't see anyway of avoiding it. How were the people of Westeros to not allow a man legitimacy via right of conquest when they could not oppose him ya know? 

They can oppose them through all out popular revolt, something that Cersei, the ultimate embodiment of the legitimacy by blood, will find out to her sorrow, when the population rebels against her for Aegon.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Only the Renly and the Tyrells to an extent are moved by the mentality of everyone can be King, But all the pretenders  of the Iron Throne are Baratheons.

The North too. They would never have declared independence while the Targs were on the Throne. Tywin is also probably of the same mentality, it's just that his family is already on the Throne. While I do agree that blood still matters a little bit, it no longer matters as it did. A five way civil war would have been impossible in the time of the Targs. Don't get me wrong, legitimacy by blood has a lot, and I mean a lot of problems and it does often result in war, but it's a lot better then legitimacy by conquest. The best way is legitimacy from the people (I do know that all legitimacy ultimately stems fromt he people, but you also need the people to be aware of that, something which they still don't realize, yet) as it involves the least amount of game of thrones-ing.