The Lawful Ruler of Westeros (Spoilers)

[LuisDantas]

"Paying lip service" suggests Stannis is acting contrary to law by using power, but against Renly this is not so. Stannis did parlay with Renly and try to talk sense with him. When Renly wouldn't budge, Stannis killed him. That's certainly a use of power, but it was supported by a legal claim.

Sorry, that is simply not so.

Stannis, for starters, lacks the support of the law. He is no King except by self-decree. No one with authority interpreted the laws so as to make him King. Nor is it likely to ever happen, since it would take either proof (impossible to obtain) or political support (extremely unlikely to happen until and unless he bypasses the legal system entirely and attains the throne by military means, which makes the matter moot).

Supporting Stannis instead of Renly is quite arbitrary, and Renly had no reason whatsoever to do that.

And that is before considering that kinslaying - or even plain murder- isn't supported by laws anyway. It certainly wasn't self-defense either.

Either way you slice it, Stannis can't be defended except in his own head.

Stannis isn't saying law should override the reality of power, he's saying he will use his power to make law reality.

Using power is the only way to make law reality, for Stannis or anyone else. Rest assured that the Lannisters are doing the same, and I'm pretty certain that Renly would not forget to establish his own rule as lawful either.

Stannis, however, claims that there is one true interpretation of the law that gives him some sort of inherent rights. Except that it is false, and deep down he knows that and therefore doesn't give a lot of attention to his own claim.

There's no inconsistency there. He thinks he has the legal right, but he understands (unlike Eddard Stark) that others who hold power won't simply obey the law when confronted.

And therefore he resorts to betrayal and murder, hiding behind a claim of "lawfulness"? Some king.

The real question is whether the pure law of legitimacy and right of succession matters at all, or rather, as Renly said, it's all about power.

But by murdering Renly, Stannis conceded this matter. It is all about power even for Stannis himself, and his references to the law of succession don't hold water even for him.

After that, the only people who can say to care about the law with a straight face are the Lannisters. It is surprising that so few people take notice of the conflict between Stannis original claim and his actual behavior.

I say yes to law and yes to Stannis because it's preferable (more orderly and less costly) to have rule by common adherence to principle than continual power struggle. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

Except that it just. Won't. Happen.

Nor should it, since principles are blind and don't take into account actual capability. Fortunately, no community ever follows blind principles when it comes to important matters.

And Stannis knows that all too well, almost as much so as Renly did. His claim is dripping with hypocrisy and self-importance.

[Helgar]

The matter is simple: House Targaryen's dominion on the Iron Throne ended in Robert's Rebellion. Robert left no trueborn heirs that he legitimized. Therefore, upon his death by the laws of Westeros the right of succession passed on to Stannis, whose is the true claim to the Iron Throne of Westeros.

However, law doesn't mean all that much in Westeros. People can successfully usurp the Throne, as has already been done once, and so anyone who can beat all other contenders can be considered the Lawful Ruler.

But by law, it is Stannis. It has been Stannis ever since Robert died.

[oba]

The matter is simple: House Targaryen's dominion on the Iron Throne ended in Robert's Rebellion. Robert left no trueborn heirs that he legitimized. Therefore, upon his death by the laws of Westeros the right of succession passed on to Stannis, whose is the true claim to the Iron Throne of Westeros.

According to the laws of Westeros, Robert did leave three trueborn chldren. The presumption of the law is that Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen are Robert's heirs. While the accusation of bastardy is out there and we, as readers, know the accusation to be true, that, in and of itself, doesn't change the children's legal status. We can look at Daeron II as an example of this. There were rumors of bastardy. There were accusations of bastardy. These rumors were apparently even spread by Aegon IV himself. Yet, because Aegon IV never took action to formally make the charge and/or disinherit Daeron on this basis, the crown passed to Daeron after Aegon IV's death.

However, law doesn't mean all that much in Westeros. People can successfully usurp the Throne, as has already been done once, and so anyone who can beat all other contenders can be considered the Lawful Ruler.

This, I agree with.

But by law, it is Stannis. It has been Stannis ever since Robert died.

I just can't agree with this. Cersei's children have not been legally declared bastards nor were they ever disinherited by Robert.

[MikeDC]

1. What does support of the law mean? If it means anything, it must be that an action is legal under the existing body of law. The existing body of law under Robert was that if the King died without trueborn male issue, his heir would be his eldest surviving brother. That's Stannis. Further, the king is the generally the ultimate authority on such things, and rules by decree, with consent of Lords accepted into the King's Peace. Agree to my laws, and you'll have their protection. Rebel and I'll kill you. In short, there's no change in the legal regime at all. It's a continuation of the regime.

2. Cersei's putting forth of Joffrey and Tommen as trueborn heirs is also explicitly makes legal claim to continuation of the regime, it's just a fraudulent claim. The fact it is difficult to disprove doesn't make it legal. In legal terms, it's an issue of fact (are Joff and Tommen trueborn heirs). The legal King, as the true legal authority, has every legal right to use whatever power is at his disposal to dispose of the conspiracy.

3. Renly's claim is explicitly that he's leaving the King's peace and forming a new one. Which will be exactly the same, except with him in charge. That's not an arbitrary distinction at all. He says he doesn't give a shit about the current law, he's going to replace it with his own. In doing so, he explicitly leaves the King's Peace, and it's perfectly legal for the rightful King to kill him. It's not murder, it's crushing a rebellion.

4. Argument that the government is somehow no longer legitimate for using its power to enforce its legitimacy strikes me as downright absurd. In the circumstance where subjects are outright rebelling against the existing legal system, the way for the legal claimant to "give attention" to his claim is to deal with the rebels.

[houseHB]

To me there are three legitimate choices to the Iron Throne. Dany, Stannis and possibly Jon? Would be happy with any 3 of those on the throne. Or if you want to go for shock value Tyrion could be Aerys son if Aerys raped Joanna? So Tyrion would be the oldest Targaryen so the throne would belong to him.

[MikeDC]

I just can't agree with this. Cersei's children have not been legally declared bastards nor were they ever disinherited by Robert.

Who would be the legal authority do declare this?

That seems to be the crux of the matter. As you say, Westeros has a legal system, it's just a crummy one where the generally accepted king is effectively the supreme legal authority. Which makes issues of who the King is obviously difficult to solve.

[JKeats]

Stannis is the rightful king. He is also the best of the lot.

Westeros needs to be whipped into shape, both to confront the overarching threat looming in the North, and for rooting out the more prosaic corruption running rampant across the realm. Stannis is the man to do it.

[oba]

Who would be the legal authority do declare this?

1. What does support of the law mean? If it means anything, it must be that an action is legal under the existing body of law. The existing body of law under Robert was that if the King died without trueborn male issue, his heir would be his eldest surviving brother. That's Stannis.

The essential problem is that, under the eyes of the law, Robert did leave trueborn issue. The "default" is that Cersei's children are Robert's heirs. This seems to be as true in Westeros as it is in our world. For example, I am my daughter's legal father. Her mother is my wife and my name is on the birth certificate. If I want to claim she's not my daughter and that I owe her no parental responsibility, I have to provide some proof. Otherwise, the legal presumption is that she's my kid, I'm her dad, and, if I croak, she has all the legal rights of inheritance that come with being my daughter. Similarly, the onus is on Stannis and those who support him to put forth proof that Cersei's children aren't Robert's or to take the course he's taking: win the war, take the throne, and decree that Cersei's children are whatever you say they are. As Eustace Osgrey said in "The Sworn Sword", if the black dragons had won, then those who supported Daeron II would have been remembered as men who tried and failed to keep a bastard-born usurper on the throne.

2. Cersei's putting forth of Joffrey and Tommen as trueborn heirs is also explicitly makes legal claim to continuation of the regime, it's just a fraudulent claim. The fact it is difficult to disprove doesn't make it legal. In legal terms, it's an issue of fact (are Joff and Tommen trueborn heirs). The legal King, as the true legal authority, has every legal right to use whatever power is at his disposal to dispose of the conspiracy.

She didn't just "put forth" Joffrey and Tommen as trueborn heirs. They were recognized, by Robert, as his trueborn heirs during Robert's lifetime. This isn't just something that gets dismissed because Stannis asserts it isn't the case without proof. Again, as readers, we know Stannis is telling the truth, but that's not enough.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. As you say, Westeros has a legal system, it's just a crummy one where the generally accepted king is effectively the supreme legal authority. Which makes issues of who the King is obviously difficult to solve.

I agree with this.

[LuisDantas]

1. What does support of the law mean? If it means anything, it must be that an action is legal under the existing body of law. The existing body of law under Robert was that if the King died without trueborn male issue, his heir would be his eldest surviving brother. That's Stannis.

Stannis is Robert's heir once it is established that he has no trueborn sons, true.

Which is why Stannis has no lawful claim until and unless at least Tommen either dies or is declared uneligible as Robert's heir.

Stannis is convinced that Tommen should be declared baseborn. He may well be right. For all we readers know, he is right. But he has no proof and therefore no lawful claim.

Further, the king is the generally the ultimate authority on such things, and rules by decree, with consent of Lords accepted into the King's Peace. Agree to my laws, and you'll have their protection. Rebel and I'll kill you. In short, there's no change in the legal regime at all. It's a continuation of the regime.

True enough. Too bad it causes a confused situation when the identity of the lawful King is in question.

2. Cersei's putting forth of Joffrey and Tommen as trueborn heirs is also explicitly makes legal claim to continuation of the regime, it's just a fraudulent claim. The fact it is difficult to disprove doesn't make it legal. In legal terms, it's an issue of fact (are Joff and Tommen trueborn heirs). The legal King, as the true legal authority, has every legal right to use whatever power is at his disposal to dispose of the conspiracy.

Situations are legal until proven otherwise, however. You are confusing issues here. It is Stannis who has the illegal claim and is therefore the unlawful King. He swears to deserve the protection and recognition of the law, yet the fact remains that he does not have it.

It may well be that he sincerely sees himself as justified in pursuing that path. He is still wrong and unlawful. It would be so even if he did not stoop to slaying Renly treacherously.

3. Renly's claim is explicitly that he's leaving the King's peace and forming a new one. Which will be exactly the same, except with him in charge. That's not an arbitrary distinction at all. He says he doesn't give a shit about the current law, he's going to replace it with his own. In doing so, he explicitly leaves the King's Peace, and it's perfectly legal for the rightful King to kill him. It's not murder, it's crushing a rebellion.

In the battlefield it would not be murder, correct.

By false pretense and resorting to assassination, it is murder, and a particularly shameful one at that.

4. Argument that the government is somehow no longer legitimate for using its power to enforce its legitimacy strikes me as downright absurd.

"No longer"? Stannis was never the legitimate ruler. Odds are that if he ever becomes one, it will be by strength of arms alone.

He has a legitimate claim that he can't however really enforce due to lack of proof, that much is true.

That does not lend him legitimacy, only motivation.

In the circumstance where subjects are outright rebelling against the existing legal system, the way for the legal claimant to "give attention" to his claim is to deal with the rebels.

Which is what the Lannisters are doing. They are acting on bad faith, but they are still lawful until and unless Tommen dies or his bastardy is proven. As written, the law can not support both Stannis and Tommen at the same time, and the interpretation that stands until succesfully challenged favors Tommen over Stannis. That is the plain, undeniable fact.

[Kate Poem]

What about Gendry? I'm pretty sure he's the lawful heir to the seven kingdom's if he's the oldest son. Son's come before brothers of the king from what I read in ASOIAF.

No, Gendry is'nt lawful heir. In this way Edric Storm could be lawful heir, because all nobles in Westeros know he is Robert's bastard and Edric's mother was noble, but... Robert should give Edric his name, legitimize him. Probably he could do that after dead body of Cersei he did nothing then and he was pathetic father in every way.

Stannis Baratheon become lawful king after Robert's death. It is known by us, readers.

[three-eyed monkey]

Does it matter who the lawful heir is? The game of thrones has only one rule, you win or you die. The rest is just haggeling, as Cat would have said. There are players here with various claims. There are players with no claim who still play, like Varys and Littlefinger. There are players who don't know that they're players yet. There are players who don't know that they are pawns. And then there are the freefolk, who don't care for the game.

[MikeDC]

The essential problem is that, under the eyes of the law, Robert did leave trueborn issue. The "default" is that Cersei's children are Robert's heirs. This seems to be as true in Westeros as it is in our world. For example, I am my daughter's legal father. Her mother is my wife and my name is on the birth certificate. If I want to claim she's not my daughter and that I owe her no parental responsibility, I have to provide some proof. Otherwise, the legal presumption is that she's my kid, I'm her dad, and, if I croak, she has all the legal rights of inheritance that come with being my daughter. Similarly, the onus is on Stannis and those who support him to put forth proof that Cersei's children aren't Robert's or to take the course he's taking: win the war, take the throne, and decree that Cersei's children are whatever you say they are. As Eustace Osgrey said in "The Sworn Sword", if the black dragons had won, then those who supported Daeron II would have been remembered as men who tried and failed to keep a bastard-born usurper on the throne.

She didn't just "put forth" Joffrey and Tommen as trueborn heirs. They were recognized, by Robert, as his trueborn heirs during Robert's lifetime. This isn't just something that gets dismissed because Stannis asserts it isn't the case without proof. Again, as readers, we know Stannis is telling the truth, but that's not enough.

This is a convincing argument, at least to me.

That being said, how would Stannis "legally" (in the sense of Westeros law) go about proving this? I actually tend to think he does act to make a legal claim and argument.

1. What's the venue. Since it's a legal dispute involving the king, he obviously can't rule in his own case, and it would seem to fall to the other lords of the realm to decide it. And this is exactly what Stannis does.

2. In the beginning of CoK, he has letters sent off to everyone he possibly can to make a declaration on the honor of his house that Joffrey are born of incest.

3. My understanding of law in the Middle Ages, and Westeros, is that the honor bound declaration of a noble is taken as fact. That is, in the terms of the day, he has presented evidence. 4. Further, he has Edric Storm, and I think it was made clear at various points he was collecting the evidence of incest along with Jon Arryn. So on the off chance the nobles of the realm did want more proof, it does seem that he stood ready to provide it.

Thus, Stannis actually presented a legal case before initiating hostilities. Of course, given that Joffrey is on the throne and Rob and Renly have rebelled, nobody much bothers to call for a trial or discussion, and Joff certainly wasn't going to respond to the allegations and submit to some sort of trial.

So while I agree that Joffrey is the legal trueborn heir, Stannis still has a legal right to challenge that assumption. And he does go through the otherwise pretty useless formality of doing so, and is willing to discuss the evidence when pretty much everyone else is eager to throw it out the window.

So again, I tend to think he's acting legally... or at least as legally as anyone in Westeros can.

Joffrey, on the other hand, really never make any answer to the claims or submit to to judgement. So at that point, they've stopped acting as the lawful rulers.

[Prince of Dragonstone]

I must have missed the part where every lord in Westeros declared Dany's claim to be the valid one. Or the part where she successfully overthrew Tommen and Stannis and everyone else. I thought she was still wandering aimlessly around the Dothraki Sea, talking to hallucinations. Huh. And I never made the claim that everyone recognized Stannis — obviously not all of them do. Just like not all of them recognize Joffrey, or Renly, or Robb, or Balon, or Tommen. But they have recognized the Baratheons, and Stannis is the rightful Baratheon heir. The obstacle is getting everyone else to recognize it, a threshold that, yes, you're right, Stannis has not yet met.

No one wants Stannis for their King. The Lannisters, Tyrells, Martells and Greyjoys certainly won't stand for it. The Arryns and the Tullys are now controlled by Littlefinger and the Lannisters, respectfully, so they will go where their masters go.

Stannis does have a few trump cards however. If he defeats the Bolton-Frey alliance then he'll win the support of the North. He also has the backing of the Iron Bank of Braavos which could prove to be crucial.

However, this support doesn't negate the fact that NONE of the high lords like Stannis. The mere fact that his younger brother had more supporters than him, even amongst the Storm Lords speaks volumes.

I've grown to like Stannis and he would make a decent King but there are so many factors against him, mainly the Targaryens and the coming war with the Others. I just don't see this series ending with Stannis sitting the Iron Throne. There might not even BE an Iron Throne in the end for all we know.

[Walder Waters]

The answer to the question, who the lawful ruler is depends on the constitution of the state we are talking about.

I am quite not sure, if the constituion of the Seven Kingdoms defines the ruler as the one who is "elected" by the lords paramount through "contract".

The Seven Kingdoms as an empire with statehood was founded by Aegon the Conquerer. The title "King of Westeros" or better "King of the Andals, (the Roynar) and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms" did not exist before. And I do not think, that the "right of conquest" itself is part of constitutional law. Aegon wanted to create a Targaryen ruled realm. All of the claimants or pretenders to the Irone Throne seem to see themselves as successor of the Targaryen established kingdom. They think of their state as being identical to the very same state, that Aegon founded and not as a new one. In this case the constitution of Aegon's state defines, who the lawful ruler is.

But what is actually the constitution of the Seven Kingdoms? As there seems to be nothing like the Golden Bull we may assume a constitution by tradition.

Let's analyse what the constitutional tradition in the Seven Kingdoms is.

Is the Irone Throne something that is part of the estate of a king? Is it passed to the heir by male primogeniture or by the last will of the ruler? Both? Let's have a look on Westerosi history:

1. Although Maegor I was the oldest son of Aegon the crown passed to Aenys I first. We may assume, that the primogeniture is not ius cogens.

2. Was Viserys I able to pass the Irone Throne to his daughter Rhaenyra by last will? Possibly, but we don't know, as Aegon III could have been heir of Rhaenyra as well as of Aegon II.

3. Did Aegon IV pass the Irone Throne to Daemon Blackfyre by giving him the family sword? We don't know, as no one knows what he intended by doing so.

4. Aegon V seems to have been elected by a "Great Council". How comes this? Was there ever a great council before? Why does suddenly a council decide who becomes king? Was it created by the last will of Maekar I or simpy created and proclaimed by it's members? Who was member in it at all? The lords paramount?

It seems we do not have enough information to verify a constitutional tradition, that it could even have changed serval times throughout history.