On Right of Conquest

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm not advocating Targayen rule, I'm just pointing out that it hasn't even been 2 decades of Baratheon rule yet and given such a short time I can completely understand how the Targayen claim can still be consdiered the strongest

By that token, the Seven Kingdoms should have been itching to go into devolution early in Aegon I's reign, yes?

[kittenmittens]

Power resides only where men believe it resides.

[Karmaimps]

The King is the one that Commands the loyalty of his lords and those who follow him. Stannis is only King of those who recognized him as such, the same goes for any King or monarch. A King just in name, is no King at all. If you wish to make the law, you have to have power to back it up.

[Toccs]

By that token, the Seven Kingdoms should have been itching to go into devolution early in Aegon I's reign, yes?

I have no doubt that Aegon the Conqueror had to deal with discontent from the newly conquered peoples. I wouldn't say itching to go into devoloution though because Aegon's reign appears to have been good and thus he held his conquered territories together.

It's the same way that I consider the Blackfyre claim to be at it's strongest with Daemon and his immediate sons, but by the time of Maelys is is moot because it has been 5 generations.

Dany is a part of the royal family that was defeated by Robert. But just 15 years later Robert is dead, his hiers are not his and the Baratheon family is down to Stannis.

If Targayen's end up on the throne at the end the Baratheon's 15 year reign won't be remembered as a change of ruling dynasty but will be rememberd more as a brief coup similar to the Hyksos from Ancient Egypt.

[hockema56]

I'm not advocating Targayen rule, I'm just pointing out that it hasn't even been 2 decades of Baratheon rule yet and given such a short time I can completely understand how the Targayen claim can still be consdiered the strongest

I've never seen it written anywhere that claim to the throne strengthens over time. The second the Lords of the 7 Kingdoms swore fealty to the Baratheon line, the Targaryen dynasty ended. It doesn't matter how long it lasted, it's over now. There may be living descendants, but they fled. They conceded defeat and ran accross the narrow sea, leaving their subjects to kneel to their new king.

PS: I'm really glad this has been met with a positive response and some great discussion/debate. Keep it up, I'm loving all these posts!!

[Two Towers]

By that token, the Seven Kingdoms should have been itching to go into devolution early in Aegon I's reign, yes?

They rebelled when Aegon died.

From AFFC

"The Swords and Stars troubled even the Targaryens. The Conqueror himself tread carefully with the Faith, so they would not oppose him. And when Aegon died and the lords rose up against his sons, both orders were in the thick of that rebellion. The more pious lords supported them, and many of the smallfolk. King Maegor finally had to put a bounty on them. He paid a dragon for the head of any unrepentant Warrior’s Son, and a silver stag for the scalp of a Poor Fellow, if I recall my history. Thousands were slain, but nigh as many still roamed the realm, defiant, until the Iron Throne slew Maegor and King Jaehaerys agreed to pardon all those who would set aside their swords.”

[nothatso]

By that token, the Seven Kingdoms should have been itching to go into devolution early in Aegon I's reign, yes?

Well, William the Conqueror faced rebellions when he took England. Henry VII technically won the crown of England through conquest (though he did have a claim as well), and was faced with numerous pretenders and rebellions challenging his rule. While, legally speaking, the Baratheons established a new ruling dynasty of Westeros, certainly there's something to be said for the fact that the dynasty that ruled for near-300 years and established the position was removed within the lifetime of the majority of the people who live in Westeros. i.e. They'd be more inclined to accept and support somebody with a claim to a previous (and recent) ruling dynasty than one from a family that had never ruled, if that person were to challenge the new ruling dynasty... if that makes sense.

[Mikken's Mark]

Power resides only where men believe it resides.

This. The rightful king (or queen) of Westeros is whoever is left standing at then end of it all.

Personally I'm rooting for a Magna Carta-esque resolve to it all, though that seems a little far-fetched.

[Toccs]

I've never seen it written anywhere that claim to the throne strengthens over time. The second the Lords of the 7 Kingdoms swore fealty to the Baratheon line, the Targaryen dynasty ended. It doesn't matter how long it lasted, it's over now. There may be living descendants, but they fled. They conceded defeat and ran accross the narrow sea, leaving their subjects to kneel to their new king.

PS: I'm really glad this has been met with a positive response and some great discussion/debate. Keep it up, I'm loving all these posts!!

The claim to the throne absolutley strengthens over time, especially when you took the throne from somebody else.

To put it another way, in World War 2 the germans took over Poland so that all of the governance of the country was done by the Germans, but the previous Polish government was still existsing in exile . . . who was the rightful leadership of the country?

The Targaryen's created the Throne the Baratheon's took it and look at the sitaution a mere 15 years later Robert is dead, the Iron Islands are in open rebellion, the North's rebellion has only just been put down and whether the rightiful Baratheon is Stannis or Tommen there is still a pretender king running around. Given that Dany is not some distant ancestor trying to retake a long lost kingdom but is in fact Aerys daughter and the fact that the Baratheon's have not succeeded in holding the trhone, I do not think that it has been long enough for the Targaryen claim to rendered moot especially when they created the throne in question

[BondJamesBond]

Most of you are missing the entire point, which is that there is no one "rightful king" and legitimacy is just a social construct.

People are still missing it.

[PrinceHenryris]

If a Targ shows up with viable War-Dragons, then they are the rulers.

[hockema56]

People are still missing it.

No one is missing this point, this is the most blaringly obvious statement anyone could make. ALL laws are social constuct. This conversation is taking place within the constext of Westerosi Law. That is the key here. By LAW (Westerosi law, not Earth law, in response to Noble's ramblings about WW2) Stannis is the rightful king.

[Stag's Fury]

The WW2 analogy doesn't really work here.

Targs were overthrown by a rebellion, not a foreign invading power.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

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.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I had been arguing this to the point of almost banging my head against the wall in another thread!!! It's quite simple, and is not complicated in the least!!! The Targaryens were no different than the First Men, Andals, or Baratheons. Their rule was not 'special', and they did not create the Seven Kingdoms! They built a capital, and forged a freaking chair! :bang:

Welcome to the boards! :cheers:

I do hate to disagree with you all, but Robert, Ned and Jon Arryn used the fact that he was distantly related to the Targs to justify his reign, not throughout the right of conquest, so while I doubt Stannis would ever concede a claim, The Targs would be able to use their relationship in the same way Robert did, even if Stannis did claim conquest. at least thats how i see it, feel free to point out any mistakes I have made

Either way, Robert is a Baratheon not a Targaryren.

Most of you are missing the entire point, which is that there is no one "rightful king" and legitimacy is just a social construct.

Nope, we get it, but there is still a king of Westeros at this point in the story.

[Ser Ingolf]

Personally I'm rooting for a Magna Carta-esque resolve to it all, though that seems a little far-fetched.

Not so far-fetched, I think. I've come around to the idea that Westeros as a society has outgrown the feudal/monarchist system. If there weren't some kind of magical apocalypse on the way I'd expect the series to end with the new King or Queen being forced to make accomodation with some kind of parliament. Or they could end up as a puppet of the merchant class. Hard to see that happening if the new monarch has just demonstrably saved the world from ancient evil though.

[hockema56]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I had been arguing this to the point of almost banging my head against the wall in another thread!!! It's quite simple, and is not complicated in the least!!! The Targaryens were no different than the First Men, Andals, or Baratheons. Their rule was not 'special', and they did not create the Seven Kingdoms! They built a capital, and forged a freaking chair! :bang:

Welcome to the boards! :cheers:

Thank you very much, I look forward to many though provoking discussions about my all time favorite book series ;) And I'm very glad we're on the same page. I can't tell you how happy I am to know that I'm not the only one pulling their hair out in frustration trying to explain this to people.

Also, in response to everyone who loves to quote the Spider (a lot of people just love Varys' little riddle from the TV series "Power is a curious thing.."): the fact that "power resides where men believe it resides" does not devalue Stannis' claim to the throne. We all heard the riddle, we all thought it was a clever analogy for the nature of power, but that doesn't change the fact that there are laws written down for all of these situtations, and to quote Stannis himself, he is "The rightful king, by every law of Westeros."

[geekmythologist]

Hello everyone, I find this topic very interesting. So much so that it brings me out of my lurking.

My first question goes to to Toccs based on the ff:

The claim to the throne absolutley strengthens over time, especially when you took the throne from somebody else.

To put it another way, in World War 2 the germans took over Poland so that all of the governance of the country was done by the Germans, but the previous Polish government was still existsing in exile . . . who was the rightful leadership of the country?

1. I don't agree with the WW2 analogy. As someone else mentioned before me, Robert's Rebellion was a successful rebellion, Germany was a foreign invading force. (In any case, with the latter, legitimacy comes from recognition of a government's allies, domestically and internationally.) Anyway I'm curious as to what you mean by the strengthening of a claim over time.

2. Also, doesn't Westeros under the Targaryens have patrilineal primogeniture or is it agnatic-cognatic? If it's the former, Dany has to actually win the throne by right of conquest, otherwise she doesn't have a right to inherit in the first place and the next male heir (who is, who? Robert Baratheon?) would still be King over her. If it's agnatic primogeniture, then she has to win the throne and establish her own succession rules.

[Hear Us Roar]

The Targaryens didn't win the Seven Kingdoms by right of conquest, the Targaryens created the Seven Kingdoms through conquest.

The kingdoms still existed, they were not created by Aegon

[hockema56]

Hello everyone, I find this topic very interesting. So much so that it brings me out of my lurking.

My first question goes to to Toccs based on the ff:

1. I don't agree with the WW2 analogy. As someone else mentioned before me, Robert's Rebellion was a successful rebellion, Germany was a foreign invading force. (In any case, with the latter, legitimacy comes from recognition of a government's allies, domestically and internationally.) Anyway I'm curious as to what you mean by the strengthening of a claim over time.

2. Also, doesn't Westeros under the Targaryens have patrilineal primogeniture or is it agnatic-cognatic? If it's the former, Dany has to actually win the throne by right of conquest, otherwise she doesn't have a right to inherit in the first place and the next male heir (who is, who? Robert Baratheon?) would still be King over her. If it's agnatic primogeniture, then she has to win the throne and establish her own succession rules.

The Majority of westeros (6 of the 7 kingdoms) operate uner a patrilineal primogeniture system (one in which the firstborn male of the rightful ruler inherets power, as opposed to any siblings of the rightful ruler as well as any females). Dorne is the only region where a woman can claim any sort of inheritance rights over a male descendant, and unfortunately Dornish law went out the window the instant the 7 kingoms were forged into 1.

[Paradosi]

There is only one true king and his name is HODOR.