On Right of Conquest

[Chaircat Meow]

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...)

I never said the situation was the same. I know Roose doesn't claim WF by conquest (as Robert seems not to claim the seven kingdoms by conquest). The point was that in certain circumstances, given the RW he could and that this shows the importance of the prior rights and duties between lords to evaluating a claim to 'right of conquest.'

The second point has already been refuted by other posters.

[Knight Of Winter]

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...)

This.

To draw parallels with real medieval history, being "rightful heir" was at best good pretext for trying to claim a throne, for true heirs as well as imposters. You could gain support from powerful nobles or foreign rulers and attempt to win throne back from "usurper", but if you lost a battle, your claim was as good as any peasant's. Ultimately, it was battles and wars that won the crown, not your "birthright". Let me provide some examples:

What right did Duke of Normandy Wiliam have on English throne? Absolutely none. Still, he conquered it and was recognized as undisputed King of England.

In 16th century French kings tried to conquer some Italian city-states and subject them to his rule. They based their "right" on precisely nothing but right of conqueror.

Come to think of it, these same Italian city-states - Venice, Milano, Genova, Savoy, Pisa, Lucca, Florence, Siena and others- warred and conquered each other all the time.

At the end of 11th century Hungarian King Coloman tried to claim Croatian throne by stating he was closest cousin to late Croatian King (which was true). However, most of Croatian nobles ignored his claim and elected new king. Ultimately, Coloman won Croatian throne - by battle and document, signed by Croatian nobles, which recognized him as the king (though the authencity of said document is disputed, in which case he won the throne solely by conquest).

In the dynastic dispute over French throne in early 14th century, one of the contestants - Edward, King of England - recognized his rival - Phillip - as rightful King of France. However, when few years later Edward needed an excuse to start 100 years war, he suddenly started to dispute Phillip's claim.

"Rightful" King of Sicily Manfred lost his claim, along with his life, when foreign usurper defeated him in battle.

And I imagine digging deeper would result in many more examples.

EDIT: grammar

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

I never said the situation was the same. I know Roose doesn't claim WF by conquest (as Robert seems not to claim the seven kingdoms by conquest). The point was that in certain circumstances, given the RW he could and that this shows the importance of the prior rights and duties between lords to evaluating a claim to 'right of conquest.'

The second point has already been refuted by other posters.

What? I get that you're trying to distinguish conquering a nation from rebelling against someone to whom you're a sworn vassal. I'm saying, that at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Aerys was disposed by Robert and his allies, and all the people who had sworn fealty to Aerys, and fought in his name then swore their fealty to Robert. Hence, Robert = King of Westeros.

You said earlier that Dany might claim the rebellion was not 'legitimate,' and I'm saying that since there is no natural or generally agreed upon unit by which to measure legitimacy of rebellions, she would have to gather support from people and win back the throne if she wants it. Right by conquest.

[Chaircat Meow]

This.

To draw parallels with real medieval history, being "rightful heir" was at best good pretext for trying to claim a throne, for true heirs as well as imposters. You could gain support from powerful nobles or foreign rulers and attempt to win throne back from "usurper", but if you lost a battle, your claim was as good as any peasant's. Ultimately, it was battles and wars that won the crown, not your "birthright". Let me provide some examples:

What right did Duke of Normandy Wiliam have on English throne? Absolutely none. Still, he conquered it and was recognized as undisputed King of England.

In 16th century French kings tried to conquer some Italian city-states and subject them to his rule. They based their "right" on precisely nothing but right of conqueror.

Come to think of it, these same Italian city-states - Venice, Milano, Genova, Savoy, Pisa, Lucca, Florence, Siena and others- warred and conquered each other all the time.

At the end of 11th century Hungarian King Coloman tried to claim Croatian throne by stating he was closest cousin to late Croatian King (which was true). However, most of Croatian nobles ignored his claim and elected new king. Ultimately, Coloman won Croatian throne - by battle and document, signed by Croatian nobles, which recognized him as the king (though the authencity of said document is disputed, in which case he won the throne solely by conquest).

In the dynastic dispute over French throne in early 14th century, one of the contestants - Edward, King of England - recognized his rival - Phillip - as rightful King of France. However, when few years later Edward needed an excuse to start 100 years war, he suddenly started to dispute Phillip's claim.

"Rightful" King of Sicily Manfred lost his claim, along with his life, when foreign usurper defeated him in battle.

And I imagine digging deeper would result in many more examples.

EDIT: grammar

Aside from numerous factual inaccuracies, like William the Bastard having no right or claim to the English throne (he had the approval of the Pope for a start) this is all irrelevant.

The premise of the OP is who has the better claim to the throne in Westerosi law.

That's it. Why are you bringing up examples of how city states and rulers actually behave.

[Chaircat Meow]

What? I get that you're trying to distinguish conquering a nation from rebelling against someone to whom you're a sworn vassal. I'm saying, that at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Aerys was disposed by Robert and his allies, and all the people who had sworn fealty to Aerys, and fought in his name then swore their fealty to Robert. Hence, Robert = King of Westeros.

You said earlier that Dany might claim the rebellion was not 'legitimate,' and I'm saying that since there is no natural or generally agreed upon unit by which to measure legitimacy of rebellions, she would have to gather support from people and win back the throne if she wants it. Right by conquest.

Ah, you don't understand what 'right of/by conquest means.' I suggest you read the OP's posts.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

Ah, you don't understand what 'right of/by conquest means.' I suggest you read the OP's posts.

You mean like this one:

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.

[Chaircat Meow]

What? I get that you're trying to distinguish conquering a nation from rebelling against someone to whom you're a sworn vassal. I'm saying, that at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Aerys was disposed by Robert and his allies, and all the people who had sworn fealty to Aerys, and fought in his name then swore their fealty to Robert. Hence, Robert = King of Westeros.

You said earlier that Dany might claim the rebellion was not 'legitimate,' and I'm saying that since there is no natural or generally agreed upon unit by which to measure legitimacy of rebellions, she would have to gather support from people and win back the throne if she wants it. Right by conquest.

'Right of Conquest' is a legal or moral concept. It's not a statement about the 'real' nature of politics dressed up as a 'rights' claim. It was taken perfectly seriously by many prominent political philosophers in previous centuries.

The argument of the OP, as I understood it, goes like this.

Aegon's claim to the throne was via conquest. This makes the Targ's 'legitimate' i.e. 'rightful rulers.'

But Robert can claim exactly the same thing so Dany is not 'rightful' Queen of Westeros unless she conquers it again. Clearly, this is not what Dany thinks. The reason this was being discussed is because people are interested in what Stannis (all about law and duty) will think of Dany's claim. Stannis takes law very seriously, why does he think he is the legitimate king and not Dany?

Neither Stannis or Dany think 'might' makes right and Stannis thinks in terms of Westerosi law and that's what we're discussing.

I think you've misunderstood the whole premise of this thread.

[Chaircat Meow]

You mean like this one:

Yes, because he/she is talking about 'right of conquest' as a legal concept not a statement about political reality.

[master]

having a claim to a throne is simple. if you can convivne one person that you are king you have a claim. the more people you can convince the greater your claim is. the person with strongest claim has the right to the throne.

but the thing is that bloodline does give legitimacy to a claim. becuase having a right to the iron throne is legally supposed to be derived from bloodlines, many people would be convinced only by the fact that the law says you do. there are other ways to convince people you have a claim, the best is beating them up and threatening them. Its just a lot easier to convince people you have a legal right [through bloodlines] than going to war with them.

so in other words saying the targs have a right to the iron thrones becuase they are targs does have legal merit. but they'd only have a claim if they convince people they do. the legal aspect would make it easier for them to convince people, but it doesn't make their claim strong if that is all they have.

of course this is very simplified. but it is the basic political situation of westeros.

[hockema56]

Yes, because he/she is talking about 'right of conquest' as a legal concept not a statement about political reality.

Bran gets it.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

But Robert can claim exactly the same thing so Dany is not 'rightful' Queen of Westeros unless she conquers it again. Clearly, this is not what Dany thinks. The reason this was being discussed is because people are interested in what Stannis (all about law and duty) will think of Dany's claim. Stannis takes law very seriously, why does he think he is the legitimate king and not Dany?

But Robert was declared king of Westeros, and the various lords of the land swore their fealty. It's written in the annals of history. It's recognized by the dominant church. It's considered that the rebellion was successful, the Targaryen's were vanquished. It's Westerosi law.

Those examples brought up by Knight Of Winter was (I presume) to show that the rules governing inheritance, rulership, right of conquest, and such, are not laws of physics or mathematical axioms. You're trying to argue that by looking at how these laws worked historically, Dany has a better claim than Stannis. But Stannis, OP, and I disagree. That's the reason why I brought up the "'real' nature of politics."

The point in time where Robert Baratheon, by Westerosi law, was declared king has come and gone. Dany isn't claiming that she should sit on the iron throne because Stannis has misunderstood some legal concept, but because she's the blood of the fucking dragon and the throne should belong to the Targaryens and that she's right damn it.

[Knight Of Winter]

Aside from numerous factual inaccuracies, like William the Bastard having no right or claim to the English throne (he had the approval of the Pope for a start) this is all irrelevant.

The premise of the OP is who has the better claim to the throne in Westerosi law.

That's it. Why are you bringing up examples of how city states and rulers actually behave.

Because this is what matters. In real medieval world, as well as in Westeros, laws are 1) vague and 2) of little importance in matters of succession. Being backed by law meant little to nothing. If you want GRRM's opinion on this, read this link where he says (emphasis mine):

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power

Secondly, what are numerous factual inaccuracies in examples I provided? William based his claim on promise by late King Edward the Confessor (very vague claim to the throne, I believe), but ultimately - he won the throne by battle, not because of his "right". In fact, "right" was of little use to more "rightful" pretender to the throne - Edgar. And as history fan who wants to get better at history, I ask you to please tell me of other inaccuracies, here or better via PM.

[Chaircat Meow]

Because this is what matters. In real medieval world, as well as in Westeros, laws are 1) vague and 2) of little importance in matters of succession. Being backed by law meant little to nothing. If you want GRRM's opinion on this, read this link where he says (emphasis mine):

Secondly, what are numerous factual inaccuracies in examples I provided? William based his claim on promise by late King Edward the Confessor (very vague claim to the throne, I believe), but ultimately - he won the throne by battle, not because of his "right". In fact, "right" was of little use to more "rightful" pretender to the throne - Edgar. And as history fan who wants to get better at history, I ask you to please tell me of other inaccuracies, here or better via PM.

I just find this baffling.

I agree that who wins the battle rather than who has the better claim is 'what's important' if by 'importance' you mean who wins the throne or who gets the most support.

I just don't understand why you feel the need to tell me this.

It doesn't relate to the premise of the OP. Stannis thinks he is the rightful king and Dany thinks she is the lawful Queen. These are moral judgments. You may think the morality of past ages is not very important in determining the course of political events but that doesn't matter. The thread was about whether there is any substance to Dany's belief she has the best claim and whether Stannis would be likely, based on his beliefs, to concede this. Undeniably, they both do think in terms of the moral superiority of their claim, on very vague notions of right for Dany, on 'all the laws of westeros' for Stannis. So I was merely suggesting there was a problem with the equivalence between Aegon's Conquest and Robert's Rebellion in terms of establishing the same kind of legitimacy, because it was a point that was relevant to the previous discussion.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

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: :agree: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Finaly someone said it! I can stand the fact the Targaryens have been maniacs about the throne but they actually lost it. Stannis (because he is a Baratheon) and Tommen (because he is legally a Baratheon) are the rightful candidates for the throne.

However I thing that at the end Jon will be on the throne after saving the Realm (I don't know if there is a "Winner/savior's right") from the Others since he is AA

[Mulled Wino]

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

This makes no sense.

Where do you find the info on the length of rule that validates a claim? Or did you just make it up?

[Chaircat Meow]

But Robert was declared king of Westeros, and the various lords of the land swore their fealty. It's written in the annals of history. It's recognized by the dominant church. It's considered that the rebellion was successful, the Targaryen's were vanquished. It's Westerosi law.

Those examples brought up by Knight Of Winter was (I presume) to show that the rules governing inheritance, rulership, right of conquest, and such, are not laws of physics or mathematical axioms. You're trying to argue that by looking at how these laws worked historically, Dany has a better claim than Stannis. But Stannis, OP, and I disagree. That's the reason why I brought up the "'real' nature of politics."

The point in time where Robert Baratheon, by Westerosi law, was declared king has come and gone. Dany isn't claiming that she should sit on the iron throne because Stannis has misunderstood some legal concept, but because she's the blood of the fucking dragon and the throne should belong to the Targaryens and that she's right damn it.

So the argument of the first para appears to be a restatement of the 'right of conquest' line. Fine. I've said why I think Dany can at least say something against it. There appears to be a bit of legitimacy by consent mixing in there and I don't know whether anyone bases claims on that in the strict sense.

I think the second para is very confused and I don't understand it. I'm doing the same thing as the OP. You're trying to say (or at least you were) the whole notion of legitimacy is bunk (as its a social construct) and I think this is not relevant. No one said anything about the laws governing the succession, or moral judgements about the legitimacy of rulers, were comparable, in a relevant way, to the laws of mathematics or physics. I just don't even...I've no idea what that is all about at all.

Third para. Dany says Robert is a usurper and therefore she is the Queen. Blood of the Dragon obviously refers to her being a Targ, the daughter of the old king. I'm sure Dany would not phrase her disagreement with Stannis in such a prosaic fashion, no.

Last point. You might find it useful to think in terms of king de jure and de facto. Afterall, if you don't, you have to say Tommen is every bit as legitimate a king as Stannis. He is certainly acknowledged as a king, its written in the histories, the laws etc.

[Sepiroth]

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.

E.g The Beggar King

[Dondarria]

Anyway I'm curious as to what you mean by the strengthening of a claim over time.

Perception, I think.

The reason there is a question over whether the Targaryen claim is the legitimate one is because Robert's rebellion is so recent. Targaryens were kings in within living Westerosi memory, which means that the Baratheon claim to throne has not really solidified. There are still Targaryen loyalists within the realm, willing to proclaim the Targaryen claim as valid, who regard Stannis as brother to a usurper, not the rightful heir.

However, had five generations elapsed people would have stopped thinking of Baratheons as usurpers and the perception of their claim would be stronger. A Targaryen claimant would then be perceived as a usurper.

[Knight Of Winter]

It doesn't relate to the premise of the OP. Stannis thinks he is the rightful king and Dany thinks she is the lawful Queen. These are moral judgments. You may think the morality of past ages is not very important in determining the course of political events but that doesn't matter. The thread was about whether there is any substance to Dany's belief she has the best claim and whether Stannis would be likely, based on his beliefs, to concede this. Undeniably, they both do think in terms of the moral superiority of their claim, on very vague notions of right for Dany, on 'all the laws of westeros' for Stannis. So I was merely suggesting there was a problem with the equivalence between Aegon's Conquest and Robert's Rebellion in terms of establishing the same kind of legitimacy, because it was a point that was relevant to the previous discussion.

Let me say :agree: with everything here except I would substitute "moral" for "legal".

And about the premise of OP - yes, it's about who is the "lawful" KIng / Queen of Westeros. I have drifted from the point in my previous posts by pointing out it doesn't matter, so I'll stick to this point here. I may have not stated this well enough, but I think whole concept of lawfulness and rightness is too vague and shady. Yes, Dany has claim and there IS substance to it. But then again, so does Stannis. And Aegon. And Tommen. And also Myrcella, since she is in Dorne. And if by some chance Sealord of Braavos attacked and conquered Westeros, he would also have claim backed by substance. The whole point of which claim has more substance to it i.e. who is more lawful ruler - really depends more on your interpretation and opinion than set of rules written in stone (or better said, abstract rather then concrete elements).

[mcb]

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.

Considering how the war's going, right now the Iron Throne belongs to Tommen by RIGHT OF CONQUEST.