On Right of Conquest

[hockema56]

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

And by extension Bran ;)

[Knight Of Winter]

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."

Would that not be a contradiction? The Targaryens were also "rightful" kings by every law of Westeros until Robert's Rebellion deposed them. The remaining Targ heirs can protest all they want about how throne is still theirs "by right", but the fact remains that noone recognizes them as king/queen at the moment. In a similar fashion, Stannis is indeed "rightful" heir of ruling Baratheon dynasty, but his claim was usurped by Lannisters/Tyrells who are now recognized as rulers of 7K. Just as Baratheons deposed Targs (by war) - Lannisters deposed Baratheons (by deception/adultery).

Of course, welcome to the forum and congrats on your first post which I wholeheartedly support.

[Pope Killdragon]

I'd always thought that the medieval concept of governance was pretty simple. Claims mean nothing. The only time they come to matter is when throne passes from father to child. If I have the support and will to take your throne do you think not having a "claim" will give me pause? Piss on your claims. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Once you've been killed or detained and your lords have sworn me fealty your claim means next to nothing. You may have sympathizers. They are rebels. You took an oath, you swore me fealty under the law, setting aside your former king. That's done, I'm king now and if you want to make a claim you damn well better having a big fucking army to convince me. DidBritain have a claim to Ireland? No, they took it and the Irish acknowledge them as sovereign. Did Rome have a claim to any of the lands they took? Hell no, but they were acknowledged as rulers of darn near all the ancient world. So just quite it with the Targaryen claim crap.Since they lost the throne, Stannis is the lawful king. The lawful king. But ultimately the rightful king is the one who can take and hold the throne. Whether that is Daenerys Stannis or Euron, we shall see.

[geekmythologist]

I've always wondered how Daenerys believes the Iron Throne to be her birthright when under Westerosi laws, she can't even inherit. It would have been different had Rhaego lived, as she can claim the throne for him. Anyway, the only legitimate claim she has if she successfully conquers the Seven Kingdoms, so right of conquest it is.

(Btw, I'm all for absolute primogeniture, before anyone claims I'm being unfair to women.)

[Ghiscari]

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.

There's an interesting piece in the Citadel about this.

[hockema56]

Would that not be a contradiction? The Targaryens were also "rightful" kings by every law of Westeros until Robert's Rebellion deposed them. The remaining Targ heirs can protest all they want about how throne is still theirs "by right", but the fact remains that noone recognizes them as king/queen at the moment. In a similar fashion, Stannis is indeed "rightful" heir of ruling Baratheon dynasty, but his claim was usurped by Lannisters/Tyrells who are now recognized as rulers of 7K. Just as Baratheons deposed Targs (by war) - Lannisters deposed Baratheons (by deception/adultery).

Of course, welcome to the forum and congrats on your first post which I wholeheartedly support.

Therein lies the key difference. Deception/adultery does not play into the right of Conquest. According to Westerosi law, a show of military strength in the form of a legitmate conquest of a region affords right of dominion to the conquerers. The lannisters are tricking the realm into believeing that their wholey Lannister offspring are Baratheons. Not one person in the realms recognizes the Lannisters as the rightful rulers of the 7 kingdoms (besides the Lannisters themselves), they simply believe Tommen to be a legitimate son of Robert Baratheon, which would make him the rightful king.

[hockema56]

I'd always thought that the medieval concept of governance was pretty simple. Claims mean nothing. The only time they come to matter is when throne passes from father to child. If I have the support and will to take your throne do you think not having a "claim" will give me pause? Piss on your claims. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Once you've been killed or detained and your lords have sworn me fealty your claim means next to nothing. You may have sympathizers. They are rebels. You took an oath, you swore me fealty under the law, setting aside your former king. That's done, I'm king now and if you want to make a claim you damn well better having a big fucking army to convince me. DidBritain have a claim to Ireland? No, they took it and the Irish acknowledge them as sovereign. Did Rome have a claim to any of the lands they took? Hell no, but they were acknowledged as rulers of darn near all the ancient world. So just quite it with the Targaryen claim crap.Since they lost the throne, Stannis is the lawful king. The lawful king. But ultimately the rightful king is the one who can take and hold the throne. Whether that is Daenerys Stannis or Euron, we shall see.

This is absolutely true, but as I have pointed out before, this conversation is taking place within the context of Westerosi Law. We all know the law doesn't mean shit in Westeros, that has been made clear throughout the entire series. This is simply a discussion about who has the most legitimate (as in most lawful) claim to the throne. That man is, as of this moment, Stannis Baratheon.

[hockema56]

There's an interesting piece in the Citadel about this.

Thank you for this, it's actually quite enlightening.

[Toccs]

The kingdoms still existed, they were not created by Aegon

The nation state The Seven Kingdoms and the instituion of the Iron Throne were created by the Targaryens

[The BlackBear]

Tommen is believed(rightfully) to be baseborn, and an abomination of twincest

Hate to be pedantic, but Tommen isn't Baseborn, he's bastard born. Both his parents are highborn so he's highborn. This is discussed in one of the Dunk stories, possibly the last two?

The kingdoms still existed, they were not created by Aegon

To add to what Toccs said: The Targs took 7 (actually 6 really) Kingdoms and turned them into 1.

[Toccs]

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.

Ok different analogy then. Who is the rightful Lord of Winterfell? The exact same logic and conditions by which the Baratheons are the rightful heirs to the throne make Ramsay Bolton the rightful Lord of Winterfell.

It doesn't really feel right though does it? Ramsay and the Boltons have only held it for such a short time and they gained it under dubious circumstances, plus there's still Stark kids running around surely they have a stronger claim to the lordship of Winterfell the Ramsay Bolton . . . but no.

If we were talking about Ramsay Bolton's great great grandson ruling Winterfell however, the great great great grandson of Ned Stark doesn't seem as important anymore because the Bolton's have been ruling for generations and the Stark's haven't ruled within living memory. That is what I mean by a claim strengthening over time.

[The BlackBear]

There seems to be a difference between views of the ruler people want, and who has the Right to rule. Stannis has the right to rule. But most people in the kigdoms don't want him to rule. Most of the lords would jump to join a Targ with dragons. If the previous dynasty had ruled for a longer time, it would increase the lords loyalty yes, which is probably more important than the right to rule. But it has no legal effect on the claims.

[Fantôme]

Ok different analogy then. Who is the rightful Lord of Winterfell? The exact same logic and conditions by which the Baratheons are the rightful heirs to the throne make Ramsay Bolton the rightful Lord of Winterfell.

It doesn't really feel right though does it? Ramsay and the Boltons have only held it for such a short time and they gained it under dubious circumstances, plus there's still Stark kids running around surely they have a stronger claim to the lordship of Winterfell the Ramsay Bolton . . . but no.

If we were talking about Ramsay Bolton's great great grandson ruling Winterfell however, the great great great grandson of Ned Stark doesn't seem as important anymore because the Bolton's have been ruling for generations and the Stark's haven't ruled within living memory. That is what I mean by a claim strengthening over time.

I don't think this is a good analogy.

Ramsey didn't conquer anything. Ramsey is "rightful" lord of winterfell supposedly because he married the last heiress . But since Bran , Rickon and Sansa are alive and Jeyne isn' Arya , that makes his claim actually non-existant.

[hockema56]

There seems to be a difference between views of the ruler people want, and who has the Right to rule. Stannis has the right to rule. But most people in the kigdoms don't want him to rule. Most of the lords would jump to join a Targ with dragons. If the previous dynasty had ruled for a longer time, it would increase the lords loyalty yes, which is probably more important than the right to rule. But it has no legal effect on the claims.

^^This^^ I've been drinking so my thoughts are getting harder and harder to articulate, but this is essentially what I'm trying to say. Thanks for the help ;)

[Pope Killdragon]

Yeah, Ramsay is only rightful lord because he married a Stark.

[hockema56]

Ok different analogy then. Who is the rightful Lord of Winterfell? The exact same logic and conditions by which the Baratheons are the rightful heirs to the throne make Ramsay Bolton the rightful Lord of Winterfell.

It doesn't really feel right though does it? Ramsay and the Boltons have only held it for such a short time and they gained it under dubious circumstances, plus there's still Stark kids running around surely they have a stronger claim to the lordship of Winterfell the Ramsay Bolton . . . but no.

If we were talking about Ramsay Bolton's great great grandson ruling Winterfell however, the great great great grandson of Ned Stark doesn't seem as important anymore because the Bolton's have been ruling for generations and the Stark's haven't ruled within living memory. That is what I mean by a claim strengthening over time.

I know this is a discussion of the books and not the TV show, but let us look to HBO for a little help here. When Theon takes Winterfell he gives a direct order to Maester Luwin to send ravens to Pyke infroming Ashyara of his victory, and Luwin hesitates to obey. Theon then addresses Luwin in a much more stern tone, informing Luwin that he is a maester of the Citadel, sworn to serve the Lord of Winterfell. Having just conquered Winterfell by force, Luwin is forced to concede that Theon is the rightful Lord, and therefore has to do what he says. This is a perfect example of a wise and honorable man conceding to the law despite his own personal feelings. Certainly Luwin may have had ulterior motives for keeping himself alive, such as assuring Bran and Rickon's safety, but it is very clear in this scene that Westerosi law allows for a new Lord to adopt power unquestioningly, despit how long it's been since his "conquest".

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

Who is the rightful Lord of Winterfell? The exact same logic and conditions by which the Baratheons are the rightful heirs to the throne make Ramsay Bolton the rightful Lord of Winterfell.

Yes? Everyone believing Jeyne Poole to be Arya Stark acknowledges Ramsay Bolton as Lord of Winterfell. They might not be happy about it, but that's because Ramsay is a sadistic creep, not because the Starks are "supposed" to be the rightful rulers of Winterfell.

I get your idea about "claim strengthening over time," but you're talking about tradition, habit, and human psychology. OP is talking about Westerosi laws. Imagine that everybody in Westeros were suddenly to believe that Aegon is actually Rhaegar's long lost son, and that Cersei's kids are also Jaime's. In this scenario, and by Westerosi law, that would make Stannis the rightful king.

ETA: Now, Ramsay's claim to Winterfell might suffer if people knew the truth about Tommen's parentage, since he would then be Ramsay Snow again. I'm not sure Westerosi law really covers this situation, but I imagine that many would claim the marriage to be void.

[NotYetRegistered]

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

We don't know how big the rebellion of the Faith was, but I think that in comparison to the current conflict there wasn't much difference in size.

[Chaircat Meow]

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.

I've no idea what 'right of conquest' means specifically in Westeros.

In RL it has often been distinguished from the 'right of resistance' or from 'rebellion.' Many people argued, for centuries, that the heirs of William the Conqueror ruled England through 'right of conquest' (despite a claim from Edward the Confessor) but William was not a vassal or a subject of Harold Godwinson. Similarly William III's right to rule was often equated to 'right of conquest' but his subjects in England were held, by the Whigs at least, to have 'rebelled' against James II, an action that everyone, including Locke, thought was in need of a different form of justification.

In Westeros Robert, Ned etc were all sworn vassals of Aerys Targaryen and rose in arms when he pursued policies with which they disagreed. Aegon was not a subject or vassal of any of the kings of Westeros whom he 'conquered.' Ergo, he was a real conqueror not a rebellious subject.

It's true lots of people in Westeros like to point out that Aegon's claim was ultimately based on power in the same way as Robert's or Reny's. But there is an important difference in the situation of the supposed 'conquerors.' I've never heard this stated as important specifically, but then the books don't go into a great deal of detail about Westerosi law. It might be the case though that Stannis is only legitimate if the rebellion was 'legitimate' and Dany may be within her rights to say it was not.

It is of crucial significance though that in RL the 'right of conquest' and the 'right of rebellion' have not always been regarded as the same thing.

As others have pointed out, the rebels muddied the waters by basing Robert's kingship on his descent from an ancestor of Aegon I. In other words, they also acknowledge that legitimacy flows from a connection to the original conqueror of Westeros. Legally, they never seem to have made a clean break with the right to rule of the Targ dynasty, despite the more pragmatic statements that are made about possession being nine tenths of the law.

PS The situation is vaguely analogous to the Bolton claim to WF. Obviously this is partly through marriage but Bolton did kill the old lord of WF and believes his son killed his heirs. Does that give Roose a title by conquest to WF. No, not only because he rebelled against his liege but also because he was acting as a vassal of someone else at the time, or at least immediately afterwards, i.e. Joffrey.

Edit: So, to sum up, we don't know exactly what the legal situation is and different maesters may have different views. It is at least plausible though, that in order for Dany to not be the legitimate Queen, Aerys would have had to forfeit the right to rule of the Targ dynasty by absolving his subjects of their duties of obedience through his actions, thus allowing them to erect a new dynasty founded on conquest. So it boils down to one's views, not on conquest, but on rebellion.

And yeah, I think Dany is the more legitimate ruler.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

PS The situation is vaguely analogous to the Bolton claim to WF. Obviously this is partly through marriage but Bolton did kill the old lord of WF and believes his son killed his heirs. Does that give Roose a title by conquest to WF. No, not only because he rebelled against his liege but also because he was acting as a vassal of someone else at the time, or at least immediately afterwards, i.e. Joffrey.

Roose doesn't claim Winterfell, Ramsay does. In any case, anyone who considers their king to be Tommen Baratheon won't care that Roose rebelled against his liege. At the time, the Ned had been executed as a traitor, and Robb had declared himself King in the North, leading a rebellion to break out from the Seven Kingdoms. Your average Tyrell, or Tarly, or other Tommen supporter would (officially) state that Roose Bolton served his true liege, the rightful king of Westeros, quite well.

ETA: As for the difference between "right of conquest" and "right of rebellion," what does it matter? When enough powerful people agree that some lines on a map divide our kingdom from the rest, and they say that these are the laws of our kingdom, and that guy is the king --- we have a kingdom and its rightful king. As someone said up-thread, it is a social construct. But so are nations in general, and democracy, and laws. (Not implying that the issue of the rightful king has anything to do with democracy, just that many different things are social constructs...)