Stannis and Aegon

[The Marquis de Leech]

Well too bad the Targaryen point of view is no longer relevant, because the oaths to house Baratheon have already been sworn.

Again: I am talking the Targaryen point of view. Who is actually sitting the throne is irrelevant (in much the same way as you can look at the Jacobite succession for the UK, even though Liz isn't actually going anywhere).

[Darth Rivers]

I meant to say Roose Bolton's (the poster) point. The Targs don't give a shit about that.

Yes, exactly. If they can get the nobility to swear allegiance, they're legit. Might makes right.

@Pet Leech The Targaryen point of view doesn't apply, unless a Targaryen takes the throne again, and even then we must expect thorough alterations depending on who exactly gets the throne, because the succession is derived from the founder of the dynasty.

[LuisDantas]

She is an usurper, because she failed. If she had won, the nobles would have sworn allegiance to her, and she would be legitimate.

Except that in the context of Stannis' talk with Davos in ACOK, Rhaenyra supposedly must pay because she is an usurper.

So either Stannis is stating that Aegon II's claim was inherently more legit than Rhaenyra (despite our knowing otherwise), perhaps because regards Andal succession tradition over the King's stated desire, or his understanding of the word "usurper" is somewhat flawed. Or both.

[The Marquis de Leech]

@Pet Leech The Targaryen point of view doesn't apply, unless a Targaryen takes the throne again, and even then we must expect thorough alterations depending on who exactly gets the throne, because the succession is derived from the founder of the dynasty.

For the umpteenth time it is irrelevant as to whether or not the Targaryen POV is the accepted one in Westeros. No-one bothers with Jacobitism in the UK either. What we are dealing with is hypotheticals.

[Buried Treasure]

I've never accepted that the Targaryen's modified succcession laws offer a strong precedent for the Baratheons succeeding ahead of Dany. In the 200 or so years that this system has been in place it has resulted in a women being bypassed I think only once - Visery II instead of a daughter of Aegon II (Aegon V was given a crown but that bypassed a nephew as well as a niece). The time the modified succession law was acted upon it was an uncle bypassing a niece - and he was already a member of House Targaryen.

Robert and Stannis are a full two generations removed from being Targaryens. If Robert's Rebellion hadn't happened (ie the situation was still stable, and law not wars were dictating who became king) and Dany was for some reason still the last living Targaryen she probably would not have been bypassed in favour of Robert. It would be more destabilising on the kingdom to have a non-Targaryen as monarch than a woman (especially as that non-Targ was already a Lord Paramount of a region) and the past cases for men bypassing nieces does not offer much of a legal precedent for men bypassing their second cousins.

[StannisBamfatheon]

We have no citation that suggests men from a female line come before women in the line of succession.

Daenerys is the mother of dragons. If she wants to inherit, she can inherit.

It's true, Daenerys is the mother of a plot device that allows her to be important even though she is a moronic ruler running her little starter kingdom in slaver's bay into the ground.

Also to people earlier in the thread, saying the Targs are still legitimate and all this stuff. They were deposed. The whole Targaryen grandmother thing was just a means to select Robert as the leader of the rebellion, it was for appearances. Once the rebellion succeeded the lords of Westeros swore fealty to House Baratheon making them the royal family by right of conquest. The Targs can only become legitimate again should they retake the Iron Throne and the Lords swear fealty to them. As of right now any supposed Targaryens or Targaryens in exile have as much claim to the throne as moonboy.

[Darth Rivers]

Except that in the context of Stannis' talk with Davos in ACOK, Rhaenyra supposedly must pay because she is an usurper.

So either Stannis is stating that Aegon II's claim was inherently more legit than Rhaenyra (despite our knowing otherwise), perhaps because regards Andal succession tradition over the King's stated desire, or his understanding of the word "usurper" is somewhat flawed. Or both.

He is saying that in hindsight. She lost a war of succession, thus she is considered an usurper.

FYI, the Dance of the Dragons is based on a real life succession dispute in England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy

[RedBean]

Robert Baratheon won the throne by right of conquest, just like Aegon I did before him. Why would Stannis bow down to Aegon when the Targaryen dynasty is basically over? After all, Robert didn't give the throne to Viserys when he was alive. Stannis wouldn't just step aside for Aegon either, especially with no real proof that the boy is really Rhaegar's son.

[Darth Rivers]

Right of conquest or no right of conquest. When the nobles swear allegiance to a rebel king, the heir is determined by applying the standard laws of succession to said king.

A real life example of the relativity of usurpation: Richard of Gloucester was a direct descendant of Richard III. His claim to the Plantagenet throne was far better than that of the Welsh Henry VII, a descendant of Lancaster's legitimatized bastard through his mother's line. Yet it is still house York, and not house Tudor, whom we call usurpers to this day. Why? Because the Tudors won in the end, and the victor writes history.

ETA: Stupid mistake, I accidentally wrote John of Gaunt because of a brain fart.

[Maia]

4. That Stannis calls Rhaenyra Targaryen an usurper with a flat face a full seventeen decades after the fact shows that there is little hope for anyone actually being convinced to the other side on matters of succession law. It has been well established that Viserys I's will specified her as his successor, and Aegon II's rebellion was the true usurpation was Aegon II's claim, launched by the Lord Command of the Kingsguard of the time. Of course, I don't trust Stannis' sanity, but we know that the first Dance of Dragons did split Westeros.

Well, Stannis also said that the Stormland were "his by right", didn't he? So, of course he identifies with Aegon II, as their situations are so similar - a king giving away to another sibling what they feel and tradition decrees should have been theirs. OTOH, in both cases the kings were also completely within their rights to do as they did.

I'll also note that when Stannis parlays with Renly, he suggests _making_ Renly his heir before Shireen. I.e. By this point it is not seen as a given that a man's claim to the Iron Throne would trump a woman's. Stannis's heir is Shireen, not Renly, but Stannis offers to change that as an enticement.

Re: Targaryen inheritance, IIRC there are 2 cases when women's claims were disregarded:

daughter of Aegon II, ironically, who was a young child and was married to Rhaenyra's son Aegon III, who was also still a minor, but older.

Daughters Of Aegon III in favor of their uncle Viserys II.

Yet by the time of the Great Council, the claim of Daeron the Drunken's daughter was considered _before_ that of her male relatives and her feeble-mindness was named as a reason for disqualification, so...

I'd say that rules of succession to the Iron Throne are extremely unclear, where women are concerned.

Andal inheritance doesn't exclude women, BTW - on the contrary, it is the basis for "daughters before uncles" rule.

[LuisDantas]

He is saying that in hindsight. She lost a war of succession, thus she is considered an usurper.

FYI, the Dance of the Dragons is based on a real life succession dispute in England: http://en.wikipedia....iki/The_Anarchy

In the context of that speech, it doesn't really work. Stannis says that Rhaenira must be punished because she is an usurper, and that will only make sense if she is an usurper even if succesfull.

ETA: Of course, there is the matter that Robert was a succesfull usurper by any reasonable standard, yet Stannis isn't going the full mile and saying that his rule was illegitimate.

[LuisDantas]

Well, Stannis also said that the Stormland were "his by right", didn't he? So, of course he identifies with Aegon II, as their situations are so similar - a king giving away to another sibling what they feel and tradition decrees should have been theirs. OTOH, in both cases the kings were also completely within their rights to do as they did.

How much weight can tradition have against a heir apparent that has long been presented and explicitly named in the King's will?

I'll also note that when Stannis parlays with Renly, he suggests _making_ Renly his heir before Shireen. I.e. By this point it is not seen as a given that a man's claim to the Iron Throne would trump a woman's. Stannis's heir is Shireen, not Renly, but Stannis offers to change that as an enticement.

One more reason to wonder how he can call Rhaenira an usurper... and yet other piece of evidence of his lack of honesty on matters of succession.

Re: Targaryen inheritance, IIRC there are 2 cases when women's claims were disregarded:

daughter of Aegon II, ironically, who was a young child and was married to Rhaenyra's son Aegon III, who was also still a minor, but older.

Daughters Of Aegon III in favor of their uncle Viserys II.

Yet by the time of the Great Council, the claim of Daeron the Drunken's daughter was considered _before_ that of her male relatives and her feeble-mindness was named as a reason for disqualification, so...

I'd say that rules of succession to the Iron Throne are extremely unclear, where women are concerned.

Agreed!

Andal inheritance doesn't exclude women, BTW - on the contrary, it is the basis for "daughters before uncles" rule.

[Captain QWO]

Well if Robert said he has the best claim to the throne because of his Targaryen blood, that could be easily used against Stannis if he attempts to fight. He wouldn't have more claim then Daenerys by Robert's logic.

[RedBean]

Robert didn't believe what he said about his Targaryen blood, though. If he really cared about "Targ" blood, he would have just handed the realm over to Viserys. Robert's claim was his warhammer. Stannis' claim is that he's Robert's brother. Targaryen blood doesn't really come into it...

[LuisDantas]

Robert did have Targaryen blood, as does Stannis. It may even have been significant for some people to accept his rule.

That he himself did not think much of Targaryen blood, however, is plenty evident from his speeches in AGOT.

[Darth Rivers]

In the context of that speech, it doesn't really work. Stannis says that Rhaenira must be punished because she is an usurper, and that will only make sense if she is an usurper even if succesfull.

ETA: Of course, there is the matter that Robert was a succesfull usurper by any reasonable standard, yet Stannis isn't going the full mile and saying that his rule was illegitimate.

She would not be called a usurper 200 years later if she had won. Darius the Great, for example - do we call him an usurper? What about Constantine? William the Conqueror? Henry Tudor?

[LuisDantas]

The point is that Stannis' statement about her is self-contradictory, unless he somehow believes that she would be an usurper even if succesfull.

[Darth Rivers]

The point is that Stannis' statement about her is self-contradictory, unless he somehow believes that she would be an usurper even if succesfull.

No, it is not. He is looking in hindsight, by the standards of his day, with the prejudices of his time. That's the same as people here saying that the people who have sex with maidens under the age of 18 or whatever should be punished, even if the Westerosi laws don't forbid it and actually encourage such action under certain circumstances.

[LuisDantas]

No, it is not. He is looking in hindsight, by the standards of his day, with the prejudices of his time. That's the same as people here saying that the people who have sex with maidens under the age of 18 or whatever should be punished, even if the Westerosi laws don't forbid it and actually encourage such action under certain circumstances.

Uh, sorry, no. You are confusing the matters.

He is saying, quite directly, that Rhaenyra should suffer because she was an usurper. That makes no sense whatsoever without some pretext to call her an usurper while also excusing Aegon II who was the true usurper.

Even if what you mean is that the loser is automatically the usurper, that would only make Stannis' statement an example of circular logic: Rhaenyra is an usurper because she lost, and she deserved to be brought down and chastised because she was an usurper. That robs the word of any meaning at all. Stannis can't use her as an example of the need to bring down usurpers while also implying that winners earn the right not to be called usurpers.

Unless he is a hypocrite or insane, that is. Which he is, but we are trying to work with the assumption that he is not, aren't we?

[Maia]

How much weight can tradition have against a heir apparent that has long been presented and explicitly named in the King's will?

Renly had been Lord of Stormlands for more than a decade, by a _living_ king's decree, yet Stannis still claimed that they were his "by right" and that Storm lords were traitors because they wouldn't follow him over Renly.

I am sure that there was some pretext used to claim that Viserys I' will was invalid. Maybe that he was no longer in posession of his senses when he signed it or that he was lied to, or that it was falsified... Possibilities are endless. I was under impression that he made the will not long before his death and that before that the situation was in a bit of limbo.