Why stannis baratheon has zero claim to the iron throne

[Daenerysthegreat]

38 minutes ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Yes, Stannis has one of the strongest claims to IT. He was dynastically next in line for the current dynasty, the Baratheon dynasty. Aegon and Dany are invalidated because the Targaryens lost their claim to the IT because they were subdued. Stannis should be the next king but he will not. It will most likely be either Daenerys, Jon or Bran.

Ok I’ll explain this for the last time, Joffrey and house Lannister won the battle of the black water they subdued Stannis, so how does he have a claim anymore.

On 9/29/2021 at 8:36 PM, Daenerysthegreat said:

 

1)Targaryens got the seven kingdoms through right of conquest. The targaryens were the rightful kings until king aerys ii

2)The usurper got the iron throne through right of conquest.The usurper's line are the rightful kings.

3)Joffrey  usurped the iron throne and held in the battle of the blackwater(It s in the second book) and thus he is the king by right of conquest. His line meaning tommen and myrcella are the rightful heirs

Refer to this please

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Thats exactly what I have been trying to say. Stannis lost the blackwater his claim is as strong as that of the random blackfyre descendant.

Yes, we see how weak he is with his 1,500 men at the Wall. Stannis is scarcely more than a rebel lord at this point. He is not a pretender to the throne anyone takes all that seriously.

8 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Wont matter if he takes the throne, and rids himself of Tommen. People will still follow him because he is next in line after tommen. Plus their wont be anyone else to make king (pretending aegon and dany are nowhere to be seen).

After Tommen there would come Myrcella. Only if she is gone could Stannis have a chance to gain the throne. But even then ... folks are not beholden to bend the knee to a king they do not like even if he seems to have the best claim now. Stannis is very unpopular, and there are bastards of King Robert running around.

If all of Cersei's children were dead - and we were not talking a scenario where the Targaryens are coming back - a majority of the lords would likely agree to invite Edric Storm to be king than to bow to a man who is likely to be very vindictive and whose rise would face a strong opposition from the Faith and the pious in general.

[Daenerysthegreat]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, we see how weak he is with his 1,500 men at the Wall. Stannis is scarcely more than a rebel lord at this point. He is not a pretender to the throne anyone takes all that seriously.

After Tommen there would come Myrcella. Only if she is gone could Stannis have a chance to gain the throne. But even then ... folks are not beholden to bend the knee to a king they do not like even if he seems to have the best claim now. Stannis is very unpopular, and there are bastards of King Robert running around.

If all of Cersei's children were dead - and we were not talking a scenario where the Targaryens are coming back - a majority of the lords would likely agree to invite Edric Storm to be king than to bow to a man who is likely to be very vindictive and whose rise would face a strong opposition from the Faith and the pious in general.

If edric storm dies there is still that bastard girl in the vale. 

[FictionIsntReal]

On 10/1/2021 at 7:10 AM, Lord Varys said:

He is not a pretender to the throne anyone takes all that seriously.

The Iron Bank does.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The Iron Bank does.

Only because the Iron Throne messed with them first. If Cersei had continued to pay them the money they were owed they wouldn't have looked in Stannis' direction at all.

And they still might to cut their ties with him if Tommen's next regent(s) were to come to an understanding with them. If Nestoris were to return at a point when the Iron Throne and the Iron Bank had to come to an understanding, the leaders of the bank might decided to not honor Stannis' contract.

[Gravity Grave]

Nah. Robert Baratheon was the King by right of conquest. He had no trueborn children and thus the throne passes to the eldest of his younger brothers as per the established rules of succession. It's that simple. 

[Daenerysthegreat]

7 hours ago, Gravity Grave said:

Nah. Robert Baratheon was the King by right of conquest. He had no trueborn children and thus the throne passes to the eldest of his younger brothers as per the established rules of succession. It's that simple. 

If right of conquest is the case isn't tommen the king by right of conquest. 

You cant apply right of conquest selectively

[The Young Maester]

2 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

If right of conquest is the case isn't tommen the king by right of conquest. 

You cant apply right of conquest selectively

He is not applying it selectively. Robert took the throne and from that time onward any child he sires will legally be in the line of succession.

Most of the people believe tommen to be the rightful king and stannis a jealous uncle. 

[JonSnow4President]

9 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

If right of conquest is the case isn't tommen the king by right of conquest. 

You cant apply right of conquest selectively

Because Joffrey/Tommen have never subdued Stannis. They won a battle, but the war is still on, even if one side doesn't believe so.  They hold the iron throne, with their legitimacy driven by the public perception that they are Robert's trueborn children, who himself derived his legitimacy through both blood and conquest.  

[Daeron the Daring]

This isn't a dispute over Robert's claim to the Throne, I'd just like to point out that most people (as George himself as well) use this 'by the right of conquest' claim and whatsoever in a wrong way. Robert was part of a rebellion, a rebellious faction, that fought against the tyranny of Aerys II, and from the minute they decides to held a Great Council of some sort, to overthrow the ruling monarch as well. That's not conquest. Conquest would be what Aegon I did. Or Queen Nymeria, or House Hoare to the Riverlands. The Lord Paramount/Reaver of the Iron Islands holds a claim to this day to the Riverlands by the right of a past conquest and occupation. Robert Baratheon might have held a week claim to the throne as the next in line after Daenerys (she was back then the last Targaryen in line, I suppose), and that was a factor that helped him being elected the leader of the faction, the king, etc... He didn't have a right of conquest since his ancestor, Aegon I, was an ancestor to Aerys II as well. And what he did isn't conquest either. It's a rebellion, that's why it's called a rebellion. Conquest can't happen between liege and vassal, that makes it a rebellion. It can happen between independent people or people who are equal on a feudal three, which condition is filled when one isn't a liege to the other. That's how Edward III held half of France by the right of conquest (since he conquered those lands as an independent opponent) on the casus belli of the right of blood trough his mother Queen Isabelle. He wasn't de facto king of France, tho. That would've required the occupation of the entirety of France.  

Had he been a vassal to King Philip VI (which he was for a long time, but not at the beginning of The Hundred Years War) , and 'rebeled' that way (since he only could have rebeled that way), he would've not held any art of France by the right of conquest, and in case of acquiring any land in the process of claiming the Kingdom of France himself, he would've had no right to it, since that would not have been conquest. 

Robert Baratheon as a rebel had the option to fight for independence, liberty, for another claimant or himself, for overthrowing the current ruler (which would've made Rhaegar king), etc, but he was a rebel, and no conqueror. He did not conquer the Seven Kingdoms, he usurped it. 

That being said, he had every right to rebel, had every right to fight as a claimant or as an elected claimant, etc.. Which makes Stannis have all the claims required to justly rebel against Joffrey/Tommen Waters, or rebel simply the way Renly did, as a claimant. 

[Daenerysthegreat]

12 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

Because Joffrey/Tommen have never subdued Stannis. They won a battle, but the war is still on, even if one side doesn't believe so.  They hold the iron throne, with their legitimacy driven by the public perception that they are Robert's trueborn children, who himself derived his legitimacy through both blood and conquest.  

They captured dragonstone. Their allies the boltons have killed stannis(not proven though). Storms end is lost. I think so that stannis had lost. 

 

[CamiloRP]

Stannis aims to take the throne by conquest tho, the thing about him being Robert's rightful heir is said to give him legitimacy and get him allies, allies he would use to take the throne by conquest.

[El Guapo]

On 10/1/2021 at 1:04 AM, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Yes, Stannis has one of the strongest claims to IT. He was dynastically next in line for the current dynasty, the Baratheon dynasty. Aegon and Dany are invalidated because the Targaryens lost their claim to the IT because they were subdued. Stannis should be the next king but he will not. It will most likely be either Daenerys, Jon or Bran.

Um no, You don't lose your claim to the throne. it is still there.  The only question is are you powerful enough to claim it.

And no, Dany was never subdued. lol. or FAegon for that matter

[Thandros]

The problem with legitimacy is that it's all kind of finicky about what is actually the case. Arguably if you accept that Robert had a right to make a legitimate claim (e.g. The Iron Throne can pass through the female line) then the legitimate King wasn't Robert. It was Phillip Plumm. He's got seniority on his side since he can claim descent through Aegon III while Robert can only claim descent through Viserys II and the junior line. This assumes both Aegon is a fake (Very Likely) and that Jon Snow can't prove R+L=J and gather sufficient evidence to prove he's 100% legitimate (Highly Likely he can't but not impossible). 

The reality is that Legitimacy belongs like power to those people believe have it. As long as Joffrey/ Tommen can convince people they are Robert's sons then they have all the legitimacy they need since Robert was able to convince people sufficiently to accept him as king on paper (possibly using similar logic to remove Viserys as was used to remove Maegor son of Aerion from the line of succession). If Stannis can convince people that Tommen isn't the son of Robert which people appear to taking note of. The High Sparrow makes note of his accusations against Cersei and presents them as charges against her. He would clearly prefer them to be false but even so he does consider the possibility they are true. 

Daenerys would only be Queen legitimately by forcing dozens of people in front of her to decline their claims or kill them to make herself Queen. Females in the succession of the Iron Throne are right at the back. Behind lines who can claim female descent. If she ends up as Queen it's by force because she has dragons. Technically even Aegon as a Blackfyre could argue he's in front of her in the line of succession.

[Daenerysthegreat]

1 hour ago, Thandros said:

The problem with legitimacy is that it's all kind of finicky about what is actually the case. Arguably if you accept that Robert had a right to make a legitimate claim (e.g. The Iron Throne can pass through the female line) then the legitimate King wasn't Robert. It was Phillip Plumm. He's got seniority on his side since he can claim descent through Aegon III while Robert can only claim descent through Viserys II and the junior line. This assumes both Aegon is a fake (Very Likely) and that Jon Snow can't prove R+L=J and gather sufficient evidence to prove he's 100% legitimate (Highly Likely he can't but not impossible). 

The reality is that Legitimacy belongs like power to those people believe have it. As long as Joffrey/ Tommen can convince people they are Robert's sons then they have all the legitimacy they need since Robert was able to convince people sufficiently to accept him as king on paper (possibly using similar logic to remove Viserys as was used to remove Maegor son of Aerion from the line of succession). If Stannis can convince people that Tommen isn't the son of Robert which people appear to taking note of. The High Sparrow makes note of his accusations against Cersei and presents them as charges against her. He would clearly prefer them to be false but even so he does consider the possibility they are true. 

Daenerys would only be Queen legitimately by forcing dozens of people in front of her to decline their claims or kill them to make herself Queen. Females in the succession of the Iron Throne are right at the back. Behind lines who can claim female descent. If she ends up as Queen it's by force because she has dragons. Technically even Aegon as a Blackfyre could argue he's in front of her in the line of succession.

Technically dany has one of the strongest claims. She is the mother of dragons the last targaryen. 

 

Females are allowed to inherit the iron Throne I believe that the first aerys named his niece as his heir. 

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

11 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Females are allowed to inherit the iron Throne I believe that the first aerys named his niece as his heir.

A good deal of Fire and Blood deals with this issue. Definitely worth a read.

[Thandros]

14 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Technically dany has one of the strongest claims. She is the mother of dragons the last targaryen. 

 

Females are allowed to inherit the iron Throne I believe that the first aerys named his niece as his heir. 

A Strong implicit claim because she can just say proclaim me queen or I burn you alive and most people won't be able to do much about it. Dragons are great at burning your enemies. They don't help you win legal arguments about where you lie in the line of succession. Viserys the First named his daughter Queen. Doesn't stop our 'modern' sources from stating Aegon II was king instead. Equally when Baelor died if females could inherit then Daena should have become queen. Instead the throne went to Viserys II. 

The Great Council of 101 makes this quite explicit. Rhaenys was quickly excluded from the discussions based on her sex but her son Laenor was considered a strong enough candidate to make it to the final vote. He then lost to Viserys I in the final vote. Establishing by precedent that male decedents of a female line after the male line but before any female in any line. Daenerys has a claim by virtue of having the right last name and for a few die hards that may even be enough but legally she doesn't have a leg to stand on. The Martells have a stronger claim (not clear which Martell since Dornish succession law might include females above them so it could get complicated) than Daenerys.

Of course what actually happens could be quite different. Legal precedent seems to be meaning less and less in the Seven Kingdoms in the current period.

[Lord Varys]

The legal issue is pretty simple.

In a (fantasy) monarchy setting the scions of a royal dynasty do not lose their claims just because they lose this or that war. Just as in the real world a deposed or exile government isn't no longer recognized as the legitimate government. Eventually, this might change, of course.

But royalty is royalty in such a setting. It is not something that can be taken from them by majority vote, committee or the whims of a usurper. Incidentally, only royalty themselves can give up their claims. If Viserys III and/or Daenerys had recognized Robert as the rightful king, doing him homage as their rightful liege and king then this would affected their claims and how they would be viewed by the world. But while they still maintain that they are the rightful kings of Westeros pretty much everybody who knows something about recent Westerosi history would agree with them.

The Targaryens remain the rightful kings of Westeros, just as the Starks remain the rightful Lords of Winterfell.

Eventually, after centuries or millennia come and go those things might no longer matter (just think how long the heirs of Isildur were still considered viable claimants for the throne of Gondor). But the point isn't now. It has been barely fifteen years since Viserys III went into exile.

The Targaryens just lost a battle with the Trident and the Sack. The dynasty survived, apparently, and they might come back and retake what was taken from them. Just as the Starks only lost a battle at Winterfell and the Red Wedding. They did not lose the war. They won't as long as there are members of the house left who are willing to fight.

You can also compare that to the Blackfyres. They never sat on the Iron Throne, of course, but their war for the Iron Throne only ended with Maelys the Monstrous on the Stepstones. The war did not end on the Redgrass Field, not at Whitewalls, not during the Third Rebellion, and not at the Wendwater Bridge.

As time passes, people are not unlikely to view the new regime as legitimate - just as it took the Targaryen decades to actually establish themselves as the rightful rulers of Westeros. Remember, the Conqueror ruled nearly forty years, but when King Aenys took the throne quite a few lords thought 'Bugger the dragons, we are going to be kings again.'

[Lord Varys]

The Baratheon dynasty has quite a few problems:

1. Robert is a usurper who actually justifies his own claim to the throne with his Targaryen ancestry. That reinforces the idea that the Targaryen claim is the really valid claim, meaning Viserys and Daenerys have the better claim. And Robert's own fears of a Targaryen invasion/restoration reinforce this. If Robert had been a king from a dynasty with no blood ties to the Targaryens and his ascension had been justified with the idea that the old regime had completely lost legitimacy and credibility and the right to rule because the last Targaryen king had been a madman and a tyrant then things would be different. But that is not the case. In fact, Robert's most loyal supporter, Eddard Stark, actually wanted to avenge the Mad King and the members of his family who were killed during the Sack (or at least punish the people who murdered them). Clearly even the rebels hadn't started to view the Targaryens as people who had lost every claim to royalty.

2. Robert failed to father legitimate heirs of his own body, further undermining his dynasty. The infighting within House Baratheon prevents them from forming a united front, regardless whether Stannis accuses Cersei of adultery or Cersei claims that her children are Robert's trueborn heirs. Most damaging, I think, was Renly's delusion to be king because his only claim was that his brother had been a king, but he completely dismissed primogeniture or seniority and reduced kingship completely to the idea that the strongest/most popular should rule. That is not only damaging to the Baratheon dynasty but to hereditary monarchy itself.

[FictionIsntReal]

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, Robert's most loyal supporter, Eddard Stark, actually wanted to avenge the Mad King and the members of his family who were killed during the Sack (or at least punish the people who murdered them). Clearly even the rebels hadn't started to view the Targaryens as people who had lost every claim to royalty.

Wanting to punish the people responsible for a murder doesn't mean still recognizing a claim to royalty. Eddard had joined the other rebels in acclaiming Robert king around the time of the Trident, so he clearly can't view Aerys as his king. And Ned didn't think Robert killing Rhaegar was something requiring revenge. It was rather HOW they were killed that was the problem rather than WHO was killed. Similarly, during the Hour of the Wolf Aegon II's betrayers were put on trial by someone who had been marching to fight the very person they'd poisoned.