On Right of Conquest

[Lord Varys]

Just turn the whole thing. Technically, the so-called 'right of conquest' makes Balon/Euron Greyjoy the King in the North. Technically, some decree signed and stamped by so-called Kings Joffrey/Tommen Baratheon disinherit the surviving members of House Stark (even those who are still alive, since all the Starks were declared traitors back in AGoT). Does this mean that a legal royal decree by King Joffrey/Tommen or the conquest of Winterfell by Theon Greyjoy unmakes/negates the claims any surviving member of House Stark still has to Winterfell and the North?

The situation of the Targaryens in exile (Dany/Viserys and Aegon) are not that different thing. It has just passed more time between Aerys's death and Eddard Stark's fall from grace.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Just turn the whole thing. Technically, the so-called 'right of conquest' makes Balon/Euron Greyjoy the King in the North. Technically, some decree signed and stamped by so-called Kings Joffrey/Tommen Baratheon disinherit the surviving members of House Stark (even those who are still alive, since all the Starks were declared traitors back in AGoT). Does this mean that a legal royal decree by King Joffrey/Tommen or the conquest of Winterfell by Theon Greyjoy unmakes/negates the claims any surviving member of House Stark still has to Winterfell and the North?

The situation of the Targaryens in exile (Dany/Viserys and Aegon) are not that different thing. It has just passed more time between Aerys's death and Eddard Stark's fall from grace.

The Stark situation is different from the Targaryren situation, but I see your point.

Maybe, I didn't explain myself thoroughly. I believe the Targaryens will always have a claim to the throne, but I do not believe they currently have a direct heredity claim that trumps Stannis' claim.

[LuisDantas]

Technically, the Baratheon dynasty is the side branch of the Targaryen dynasty which continues the royal line in Westeros. The Baratheon dynasty (i.e. Robert Baratheon) did everything he could to remain consistent with his predecessor. He did not change the throne, the royal castle, the capital of the Realm, his Small Council, his Kingsguard, etc.

A change in heraldry does not change all that much. The Baratheon regime changed nothing. Robert and Stannis stand in the tradition of the Targaryen dynasty, they are as much heirs to Aegon the Conqueror or Jaehaerys the Conciliator as Viserys and Dany.

It is a matter of how one chooses to interpret the facts, I suppose.

On the one hand, there is precedent for rival factions within the Targaryens to fight their way into the throne; it was called the Dance of the Dragons and happened some 100 years before the time of Song.

On the other, I just don't believe that a majority of the Westerosi see Robert (to say nothing of Stannis or even Renly) as a continuation of the Targaryen dinasty. Robert's self image was certainly not that of a Targaryen, at the very least.

[mcb]

Just turn the whole thing. Technically, the so-called 'right of conquest' makes Balon/Euron Greyjoy the King in the North.

You lost me. To claim "right of conquest" one needs to conquer. Kings one by one bent their knees to Aegon the Conqueror. Three hundred years later, all noble houses one by one bent their knee to Robert Baratheon. The ironborn, however, took a couple castles and lost them quite soon. That's no conquest, that's hit-and-run.

[The BlackBear]

Not really like the Eurozone, which does not have one leader or identity, it is only a political confederation of independant states. Westeros is far more similar to the United Kingdom - four countries (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) with one Queen/overarching Parliament, with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish assemblies working like Dorne within the overall system.

TBH I should have said UK, (I'm english) Eurozone was just the first one that popped into my head. I was thinking as well that it could just as well apply to the USA. The states were always there, but were unified (effectively like the conquering) so the USA was made but the states were obviously already there.

P.S If things keep going the way they look to be going, they'll be no one left in the UK but England pretty soon.

[Garlan Marius]

If I sat my happy ass on the Iron Throne, and had the power to stop any contenders, I'd be the legitimate king of the Seven Kingdoms. Legitimacy stems directly from the ability to stop outside forces from exerting their will on your holdings.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

If I sat my happy ass on the Iron Throne, and had the power to stop any contenders, I'd be the legitimate king of the Seven Kingdoms. Legitimacy stems directly from the ability to stop outside forces from exerting their will on your holdings.

:agree: I am only denying this in the case of Tommen.

[the goodyear imp]

I'm making this little post in response to what I've found to be an outrageously prevalent misconception among my fellow "Fourm of Ice and Fire" posters. Everywhere I look, every topic I get involved in, someone seems to pipe up about how Daenerys and/or Aegon are the ones with the best, or most legitimate claim to the Iron Throne. This often comes up in discussions about Stannis. I often see people wondering how Stannis will react when he hears about Deanerys and Aegon, being that Stannis is a man who believes in doing one's duty. Most posters seem to think that Stannis' claim to the throne is weakened by the existence of these Targaryens, and that Stannis himself may even relinquish his claim once he realizes that there are others out there with a better claim than he. Everyone seems to forget one simple fact: Right of Conquest cuts both ways.

The Targaryens are the lords of Westeros by RIGHT OF CONQUEST and nothing else. Aegon took the 7 Kingdoms by force, and his descendants inherited them by his decree. 300 years later, Robert Baratheon took the Iron Throne himself, by RIGHT OF CONQUEST. His conquest was every bit as legitimate as Aegon's, and when he won his war he and HIS DESCENDANTS became the rightful rulers of Westeros. Until Dany, or Aegon, or Jon or whatever other potential Targaryen takes it BACK by right of conquest, Stannis Baratheon is the rightful King and the Iron Throne belongs to him. End of story.

Agree completely with your sentiments, been bothering me through reading the series, re-reading the series, and lurking on the boards here. However, I would disagree with you on the last point (the part I bolded in your post). Stannis Baratheon is Robert's lawful and rightful heir. Joffrey and now Tommen do not have any claim to the throne as members of the Baratheon line of kings. However, they were/are kings of Westeros and sitters of the iron throne. While they may still be calling themselves "Baratheon" they have usurped the Baratheons as kings of Westeros. Thus, their branch (call it the Barannisters or simply the Lannisters) has taken the iron throne by right of conquest. While the phrase "by right of conquest" conjures up mental images of sacking cities, and bloody victories on the battlefield, to me all it really means is that you have taken and held the thing in question. The Barannisters have possession of throne and their rule is accepted by pretty much all the land. Aegon I took it from the 7 Kings of old, Robert took it from the Targs, and the Barannisters took it from the Baratheons. It annoys me to no end how Stannis and Dany go on and on about how the throne was taken from them or theirs, yet never mention how this is illegitimate while their families taking of the throne was legitimate.

[Lord Varys]

The problem with Stannis is, at least in my opinion, that he does not believe all that much in a so-called 'Right of Conquest'. In his opinion Robert Baratheon most likely was the rightful King of Westeros because he had the best legal claim after the surviving Targaryens had fled Westeros.

When confronted by Aegon and/or Daenerys he will be somewhat troubled. He cannot discard their claims the same way as he has discarded the claims of the other pretenders. He could doubt Aegon being who he says he is, and he might challenge Dany's claim because of her gender, but there is little else he could do.

He claims the Iron Throne on grounds of a law which forbids any vassal to rebel against his liege lord/king. But rebelling against his rightful liege lord was what made Robert Baratheon King, so how could Stannis be king if his brother became king in a way that is not in accordance with the law?

One could argue that Aerys somehow broke some laws as well, by demanding Robert's and Ned's heads, but as of yet we have no clue whether Aerys II Targaryen ever abused his legal rights/duties as king. I very much doubt that the king has to consult some scrolls to determine whom he considers to be a traitor...

Stannis's loyalty to Robert also has little to do with him being the loyal subject to the lawful king. He merely served his elder brother, as was his duty from the very day their parents died and Robert Baratheon became Lord of Storm's End. Stannis never hold any power/title in his own name but what Robert gave to him. He made him a Lord when he became king. He gave him Dragonstone, and appointed him to his council.

[The BlackBear]

No but you're thinking of it wrong. Stannis says himself (some conversation with Davos, after the blackwater fiasco) that he struggled with the decision to support his brother or obey his king. He had two lieges, one local, and one his king. He chose the lord of the storm lands. Conflicting vows are something GRRM writes about regularly, the most obvious example being Jaime's storyline. Whether this is right or wrong is immaterial at this stage. As the king is the supreme leader of Westeros, he pardoned those involved of all crimes. (And presumeable the high Septon did as well.) I assume that a foreign king coming over and conquering your country would be not considered in accordance withj the law as well.

They crowned Robert because out of the Rebel lords he was the closest related to the existing Targaryans, and Robert was the only one who wanted it. All claims after this point must decend from Robert, that's how inheritance works.

So if D or A/YG came over claiming they are the heirs to the throne, they'd be incorrect, as they'd be even more distantly related to Robert, than Robert was to Aerys. They can fight for it and recaim the throne, but they have no legal claim.

[Swordsaint]

You assume she'll come back with all three of them in hand. :P

No, I fully expect Drogon will die, but Drogon was still tiny compared to a fully grown dragon and managed to kill 214 in Meereen if memory serves. When her other two dragons are fully grown I expect the realm will bend the knee without much of a fight, and Cersei will flee to CR. I think her dragons will mostly be used to raise Slaver's Bay, and fight the Others. I don't expect Stannis's claim to even be an issue, because he along with many other characters will be killed in the battle of Winterfell, the Others, or the battle of Night's Watch.

[mcb]

No but you're thinking of it wrong. Stannis says himself (some conversation with Davos, after the blackwater fiasco) that he struggled with the decision to support his brother or obey his king. He had two lieges, one local, and one his king. He chose the lord of the storm lands. Conflicting vows are something GRRM writes about regularly, the most obvious example being Jaime's storyline. Whether this is right or wrong is immaterial at this stage. As the king is the supreme leader of Westeros, he pardoned those involved of all crimes. (And presumeable the high Septon did as well.) I assume that a foreign king coming over and conquering your country would be not considered in accordance withj the law as well.

They crowned Robert because out of the Rebel lords he was the closest related to the existing Targaryans, and Robert was the only one who wanted it.

Actually, Robert didn't want it, he was suckered onto the throne by Jon and Ned. He complains about it, too.

[The BlackBear]

Actually, Robert didn't want it, he was suckered onto the throne by Jon and Ned. He complains about it, too.

Ok my bad. Doesn't make much difference to my arguement about claims now decending from Robert. And implies that it wasn't a 'greedy' rebellion like most we've seen (Balon *spits*.) I think Dany should try and come to terms with her Father sparking the rebellion himself, before Stannis should try and respect her claim (which is virtually non-existant.)