Why stannis baratheon has zero claim to the iron throne

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, FictionIsntReal said:

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.

Just read what you quoted. I didn't talk about Ned recognizing Viserys III as king. I said: 'Clearly the rebels hadn't started to view the Targaryens as people who lost every claim to royalty.'

And that means exactly what it means.

If the Targaryens had lost every claim to royalty due to Aerys' actions, his tyranny, Rhaegar's crimes, and the physical destruction of the royal family left in KL during the Sack ... then there would have been no need to avenge them or punish their murderers as criminals. If they were no longer royalty, then it wouldn't matter how they were treated by the rebels.

It is the royalty of Aerys II, Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys that makes Ned want to punish their murders. Ned doesn't bother avenging the Kingslanders of low birth who were raped, injured, or murdered by the Lannisters, or does he?

And it is the same with Cregan and Aegon II. It is Aegon II's status as anointed monarch - his kingship which sets him above nobility and commoners alike - which makes his craven murder a monstrous crime and causes him to want to punish the cravens who murdered their king.

This is the magic of kingship - a magic that rules even those people who want to depose a cruel or unjust king.

[WhatAnArtist!]

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

And Ned didn't think Robert killing Rhaegar was something requiring revenge

It's not Rhaegar whose death that Ned and other people were angry about, it's Elia Martell and her children.

4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It was rather HOW they were killed that was the problem rather than WHO was killed

People would have been angry regardless of how Elia and her children were murdered. The fact that they died at all is the problem. 

[Daeron the Daring]

3 hours ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

People would have been angry regardless of how Elia and her children were murdered. The fact that they died at all is the problem. 

Elia and her children wouldn't have died in front of a legal court. 

[WhatAnArtist!]

26 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Elia and her children wouldn't have died in front of a legal court. 

Yes, and....? I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

Yes, and....? I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment.

I'm not sure how else Elia and her children could've been murdered. In case they don't kill them during the sack, they don't get killed. That's why they were killed when they were. The Mountain didn't have to rape Elia to make the Martells furious. 

[FictionIsntReal]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If the Targaryens had lost every claim to royalty due to Aerys' actions, his tyranny, Rhaegar's crimes, and the physical destruction of the royal family left in KL during the Sack ... then there would have been no need to avenge them or punish their murderers as criminals. If they were no longer royalty, then it wouldn't matter how they were treated by the rebels.

Nonsense. When Brandon Stark thought Lyanna's kidnapping required Rhaegar being challenged to a fight to the death, it wasn't because he thought Lyanna was a queen or princess. When Rickard & Brandon were burned to death without trial, the rebels didn't regard it as kosher because they were merely lord & heir rather than royalty. The Targaryens can be part of the noble class even if they aren't still regarded as rightful kings anymore.

Quote

Ned doesn't bother avenging the Kingslanders of low birth who were raped, injured, or murdered by the Lannisters, or does he?

We don't know the names of any of them. But smallfolk do have bad things happening to them without Ned doing anything, like when Mycah was killed by the Hound. However, when lords like Tullys demand redress for their lands being ravaged, Ned doesn't say "You're not kings, so tough".

18 hours ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

It's not Rhaegar whose death that Ned and other people were angry about, it's Elia Martell and her children.

People would have been angry regardless of how Elia and her children were murdered. The fact that they died at all is the problem. 

If Elia had put on armor like Brienne and fought at the Trident, would Ned feel the same?

14 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Elia and her children wouldn't have died in front of a legal court. 

Agreed. Though if it was proved that her children were actually bastards born of incest (a la Cersei), it would have been acceptable.

[Gravity Grave]

On 10/3/2021 at 11:31 AM, 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

This comes down to interpretation of when a King is deposed. Stannis is the true King at the very least up until Blackwater. But unless he’s dead he can’t be considered deposed imo, that’s why rivals were killed, to rub out their claim completely. Stannis was defeated in one battle but he still has an army so isn’t defeated in the war. 

[Lord Varys]

On 10/8/2021 at 1:07 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Nonsense. When Brandon Stark thought Lyanna's kidnapping required Rhaegar being challenged to a fight to the death, it wasn't because he thought Lyanna was a queen or princess. When Rickard & Brandon were burned to death without trial, the rebels didn't regard it as kosher because they were merely lord & heir rather than royalty. The Targaryens can be part of the noble class even if they aren't still regarded as rightful kings anymore.

You are talking nonsense here. Nobody said that Brandon was pissed at Rhaegar because his sister was a princess. As usual, you compare apples and oranges. Aerys II and his family are held in so high esteem because they were royalty betrayed and murdered by men pretending to be their friends and/or had sworn to defend them with their lives. That is why Ned wants to avenge them/punish their murderers.

Brandon wants to duel Rhaegar because he apparently believes that Rhaegar dishonored his sister. That kind of thing also entitles you, as a nobleman, to demand satisfaction. But it has nothing to do how the people of Westeros view their royal family.

On 10/8/2021 at 1:07 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

We don't know the names of any of them. But smallfolk do have bad things happening to them without Ned doing anything, like when Mycah was killed by the Hound. However, when lords like Tullys demand redress for their lands being ravaged, Ned doesn't say "You're not kings, so tough".

Ned did literally nothing to right the wrong that was done to Mycah. At the same time, he nearly cut his ties with his best friend and king over the corpse of the Mad King, a dead Dornishwoman, and two little children he planned to disinherit, anyway.

And, of course, the whole thing also sort of extends to the high nobility. Nobody gives a rat's ass about the miller's children Theon murdered, but that he apparently murdered Bran and Rickon Stark is viewed as a horrible crime, even by his own sister.

To come back to the point I made:

Aerys II and his daughter-in-law and grandchildren were viewed as royalty by the rebels, which is why they were murdered and why Eddard Stark wanted to avenge them. And as royalty they, of course, still had a claim to the throne.

[WhatAnArtist!]

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned did literally nothing to right the wrong that was done to Mycah

What exactly could he have done? Execute Sandor Clegane? That would have never been allowed. Execute or imprison Cersei and/of Joffrey for ordering it done? That DEFINITELY wouldn't have been allowed. Ned was honourable but he was still realistic; he knew that this wasn't an issue he could ever win on.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, WhatAnArtist! said:

What exactly could he have done? Execute Sandor Clegane? That would have never been allowed. Execute or imprison Cersei and/of Joffrey for ordering it done? That DEFINITELY wouldn't have been allowed. Ned was honourable but he was still realistic; he knew that this wasn't an issue he could ever win on.

Demand that Sandor be accused of murder and be tried for that. Robert could have done that, he could have even executed him for it, since no royal command by him, King Robert, was given to actually kill the boy.

[WhatAnArtist!]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

Demand that Sandor be accused of murder and be tried for that. Robert could have done that, he could have even executed him for it, since no royal command by him, King Robert, was given to actually kill the boy.

Ned would have known that Clegane only killed the boy on orders from Cersei or Joffrey. Executing Clegane for something he was expressly ordered to do by the queen or the heir to the throne would have been, in his eyes, somewhat unjust. 

[Daenerysthegreat]

Just now, WhatAnArtist! said:

Ned would have known that Clegane only killed the boy on orders from Cersei or Joffrey. Executing Clegane for something he was expressly ordered to do by the queen or the heir to the throne would have been, in his eyes, somewhat unjust. 

Correct that can lead to extremely serious political ramifications. 

There was a way to kill the hound though, just have him murdered in his sleep or in the woods. But that path ned stark wouldn't take. 

The usurper may have pretended to be strong but he still wouldn't have had Sandor Clegane executed. Sandor is the brother of gregor and the usurper I think likes gregor for doing his dirty work. 

[Lord Varys]

Just now, WhatAnArtist! said:

Ned would have known that Clegane only killed the boy on orders from Cersei or Joffrey. Executing Clegane for something he was expressly ordered to do by the queen or the heir to the throne would have been, in his eyes, somewhat unjust. 

I don't think so. And for what it's worth - we have no idea whether Cersei explicitly commanded Sandor to murder Mycah. But even if she did - that would have clearly been an illegal order.

Sandor himself says that he killed Mycah because he allegedly attacked the Crown Prince ... which justifies his actions only to a point. If Mycah had actually injured Joffrey - which he didn't -, the Targaryen laws would justify him being maimed, i.e. losing the hand that struck the prince. Even under those laws it wouldn't have been okay to just murder Mycah.

[WhatAnArtist!]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

I don't think so. And for what it's worth - we have no idea whether Cersei explicitly commanded Sandor to murder Mycah. But even if she did - that would have clearly been an illegal order.

Sandor himself says that he killed Mycah because he allegedly attacked the Crown Prince ... which justifies his actions only to a point. If Mycah had actually injured Joffrey - which he didn't -, the Targaryen laws would justify him being maimed, i.e. losing the hand that struck the prince. Even under those laws it wouldn't have been okay to just murder Mycah.

High nobles and their lackey dogs don't abide by laws when they don't suit them. That's one of the main points of the series' depiction of nobility. This was not a world of legalism. You think any one of the high nobles would care that the law was technically violated in the case of a prince - the heir to the throne - being "attacked" by a random peasant boy? The Targaryens violated laws too when it didn't suit them. That's.... just how nobles are.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

High nobles and their lackey dogs don't abide by laws when they don't suit them. That's one of the main points of the series' depiction of nobility. This was not a world of legalism. You think any one of the high nobles would care that the law was technically violated in the case of a prince - the heir to the throne - being "attacked" by a random peasant boy? The Targaryens violated laws too when it didn't suit them. That's.... just how nobles are.

Ned dropping the issue of Mycah while never dropping the issue of Aerys II and Elia and her children - and many other lords also not dropping those issues - shows how royalty is treated differently in the minds of people than others. And that goes down to the peasants who accuse Sandor of being involved in Gregor raping and killing Elia and murdering her children.

As for legalism - we know the nobility have the power to get away with a lot, but not with everything, especially not around the king. Robert is a rotten and ineffective king ... but look how much different things were under Daeron II with Baelor Breakspear serving as Hand.

Dunk did more or less the same thing as Mycah stands accused of doing ... he got a trial, Mycah was just butchered.

[Daenerysthegreat]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned dropping the issue of Mycah while never dropping the issue of Aerys II and Elia and her children - and many other lords also not dropping those issues - shows how royalty is treated differently in the minds of people than others. And that goes down to the peasants who accuse Sandor of being involved in Gregor raping and killing Elia and murdering her children.

As for legalism - we know the nobility have the power to get away with a lot, but not with everything, especially not around the king. Robert is a rotten and ineffective king ... but look how much different things were under Daeron II with Baelor Breakspear serving as Hand.

Dunk did more or less the same thing as Mycah stands accused of doing ... he got a trial, Mycah was just butchered.

Well the usurper loves gregor for killing prince aegon and princesses and elia

[BlackLightning]

On 10/6/2021 at 5:27 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Agreed.

After Cersei, Renly did the most damage to the Baratheon dynasty.

What Robert should've did is punish Tywin and his brutes and strike some sort of a deal with Queen Rhaella.

 

That said, Stannis Baratheon has the best claim to the Iron Throne if we are strictly talking the Baratheon dynasty.

 

[FictionIsntReal]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Aerys II and his family are held in so high esteem because they were royalty betrayed and murdered by men pretending to be their friends and/or had sworn to defend them with their lives. That is why Ned wants to avenge them/punish their murderers.

Partially true. Jaime swore a sacred oath he then violated. This is like some of Aegon II's KG being punished after he was killed. However, Gregor Clegane & Amory Lorch never swore such oaths (although the basic knightly ones do have some bits about protecting the defenseless generally). If Thoros of Myr had done it, without any Westerosi political connections & obligations, it would still be regarded as a horrendous crime (I suppose also a violation of his host's hospitality).

Quote

Brandon wants to duel Rhaegar because he apparently believes that Rhaegar dishonored his sister. That kind of thing also entitles you, as a nobleman, to demand satisfaction. But it has nothing to do how the people of Westeros view their royal family.

Wrongs against the nobility generally demand satisfaction, whereas ones against smallfolk often slide. I'm arguing that the Targaryens, as well as Elia and her children, were considered nobles, and that's why crimes against them would still be considered crimes even by their enemies.

Quote

At the same time, he nearly cut his ties with his best friend and king over the corpse of the Mad King, a dead Dornishwoman, and two little children he planned to disinherit, anyway.

To me that "planned to disinherit" means Ned no longer viewed them as royals. He had already acclaimed Robert as king. Ned just doesn't approve of the killing of children (though, we agree, he doesn't do anything about Mycah).

Quote

but that he apparently murdered Bran and Rickon Stark is viewed as a horrible crime, even by his own sister

An excellent example. This would not establish that Asha viewed them as "royalty", just nobility.

Quote

Aerys II and his daughter-in-law and grandchildren were viewed as royalty by the rebels, which is why they were murdered

Aerys II wasn't murdered by a "rebel", he was murdered by Jaime. And the reason Jaime murdered him wasn't because the very rebels trying to overthrow Aerys regarded him as "royalty", it's because Aerys was ordering Jaime to kill Tywin while Aerys himself was trying to kick off his wildfire scheme. Elia wasn't killed as any sort of political scheme, Gregor is simply a rapist & murderer who does that for his own reasons. Her children WERE killed to clear the way for Robert on the throne, but this wasn't because "the rebels" regarded them as still royal. It's because LOYALISTS would still support remaining Targaryen claimants (as Oberyn tried to do with Viserys). Similarly, when Stannis Baratheon burns leeches to kill three "usurpers", it isn't because he recognizes their kingship but because they are heads of rival factions (just as Renly had been) and he thinks he'll be more likely to take the throne after they die.

[FictionIsntReal]

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Dunk did more or less the same thing as Mycah stands accused of doing ... he got a trial,

Dun claimed a right to a trial by combat as a knight. There's plenty of reason to believe he's not really a knight, but Baelor Breakspear had just permitted him to compete in the tourney as one.

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Partially true. Jaime swore a sacred oath he then violated. This is like some of Aegon II's KG being punished after he was killed. However, Gregor Clegane & Amory Lorch never swore such oaths (although the basic knightly ones do have some bits about protecting the defenseless generally). If Thoros of Myr had done it, without any Westerosi political connections & obligations, it would still be regarded as a horrendous crime (I suppose also a violation of his host's hospitality).

The Lannisters and their bannermen pretended to be loyal to the Mad King when they came to KL. They are not exactly as vile traitors as Jaime Lannister, but they are still traitors and turncloaks.

14 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Wrongs against the nobility generally demand satisfaction, whereas ones against smallfolk often slide. I'm arguing that the Targaryens, as well as Elia and her children, were considered nobles, and that's why crimes against them would still be considered crimes even by their enemies.

But you are wrong there. Elia and her children were royalty, and noble folk as such are not revered in this manner, especially not by people who are not beholden to them. Elia Martell should be nothing to Eddard Stark. Nobody in the Reach or Dorne gives two cents about the Red Wedding, for instance.

14 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

To me that "planned to disinherit" means Ned no longer viewed them as royals. He had already acclaimed Robert as king. Ned just doesn't approve of the killing of children (though, we agree, he doesn't do anything about Mycah).

Ned still viewed Aerys II as the king until he was dead. If he was no longer a king, then Jaime didn't commit a crime when he killed him. But in Ned's opinion he committed a crime.

14 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

An excellent example. This would not establish that Asha viewed them as "royalty", just nobility.

LOL, no, since nobody ever said that Asha would view the Stark children as royalty.

14 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Aerys II wasn't murdered by a "rebel", he was murdered by Jaime. And the reason Jaime murdered him wasn't because the very rebels trying to overthrow Aerys regarded him as "royalty", it's because Aerys was ordering Jaime to kill Tywin while Aerys himself was trying to kick off his wildfire scheme. Elia wasn't killed as any sort of political scheme, Gregor is simply a rapist & murderer who does that for his own reasons. Her children WERE killed to clear the way for Robert on the throne, but this wasn't because "the rebels" regarded them as still royal. It's because LOYALISTS would still support remaining Targaryen claimants (as Oberyn tried to do with Viserys). Similarly, when Stannis Baratheon burns leeches to kill three "usurpers", it isn't because he recognizes their kingship but because they are heads of rival factions (just as Renly had been) and he thinks he'll be more likely to take the throne after they die.

It is completely irrelevant why the men did what they did. The point is why Aerys II and his family were important enough for the rebels so that their murders were viewed as crimes.

For Ned, Jaime murdered Aerys II because he was scum who helped his scum father to betray his king and old friend.

17 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Dun claimed a right to a trial by combat as a knight. There's plenty of reason to believe he's not really a knight, but Baelor Breakspear had just permitted him to compete in the tourney as one.

Dunk got a trial. As an alleged knight he also had the right of a trial-by-combat. If he hadn't been a knight, Baelor would have still given him a normal trial, something he could have also had as a knight but chose not to have.