When would Stannis lose his right to the throne?

[SkaggCannibal]

Dany maybe, not Stan, as his claim was based on Bob's and was basically right-by-might logic with a paper thin excuse that granny had been a Targ. Bob still feared Dany enough despite that he was firmly in power, as he knew that she had a better claim then him. But if Aegon and/or Jon step up to the plate and enough people believe their claims (regardless if its true or not) then they both trump Dany in terms of claim.

I completely disagree. Firstly, Bob's claim was by Right of Conquest, not a right written on paper, but the same right that got the Targaryens the Iron Throne in the first place. With that into mind, we can say that Targaryens (Dany) and Baratheons (Stannis) now have an equal claim to the throne. If you disagree because Baratheons haven't been on the throne for 300 years like the Targaryens, please tell me what's the minimum time that must have passed since occupying the throne. Now since there obviously isn't a fixed time to this, I assume 16 years is as good as 300 years. Furthermore, all the kingdoms are sworn to Baratheons now, not Targaryens. Yes the Targaryens still have a decent cliam, but so do the Baratheons (an even better one if you look at the reality).

Secondly you say Aegon and/or Jon have a more legitimate claim than Dany. Now that is true for Aegon should he be truely the son of Rhaegar (which he is not, but doesn't matter), but not for Jon. Jon is a bastard even if his mother is a high-born lady. He is still born out of marriage and furthermore never legitimased by anyone. Look at Edric Storm, he's born from a high-born lady and a king and even acknlowledged by that king, still doesn't give him any claim to the throne. Jon is a bastard, whoever was his mother/father. It's the same as saying Gendry has a decent claim.

Now what could happen is that queen Dany legitimases Jon in orde to have an heir. It's the only way Jon the bastard can end up on the throne.

[Dolan Baratheon]

When he dies. I hope Davos survives.

[Faint]

So, per your definition, the Iron Throne has neither a claim on the North nor the Iron Islands?

That logic doesn't follow. It does suggest that a follower of the Old Gods or the Drowned God would necessarily have to convert to the Faith of the Seven to be viable though.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That logic doesn't follow. It does suggest that a follower of the Old Gods or the Drowned God would necessarily have to convert to the Faith of the Seven to be viable though.

By what argument could the Faith claim the authority to legitimise the Iron Throne ruling over cultures not tied to the Seven?

[Erkan12]

He lost long ago. (Blackwater)

[The Ghost of Winter]

If Dany (or anyone else) legitimized Jon, Dany would then be behind Jon in being the heir. Ladies fall behind the men.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

A quick question for all you brahs, brosephs and StanStans out there. I hear a lot of Stannis supporters claim that the Targaryens lost all right to the Iron Throne when Robert won the rebellion, so I was wondering, in the hypothetical event of Dany conquering the 7 kingdoms at what point would Stannis stop being the rightful king?

1) When Dany takes King's Landing

2) When all the other Lord Paramounts are forced to bend the knee

3) When Stannis is defeated in battle

4) When Stannis is forced to flee the realm

5) When Stanis dies

6) Some other point

7) Never

Don't worry if you think the situation could never occur, that Stannis is unstopable or that Dany is never gonna leave Essos. I'm talking purely hypothetically here ;)

2

1. Stannis doesn't even have King's Landing. It's an important piece, but not a board game where the person who takes a certain piece auto-wins.

2. Considering this how the Targs lost it, yes.

3. Stannis has been defeated in battle. It did little good. He is recovering. Losing a battle is not an auto-lose. Tywin lost a shitload against Robb and the Lannisters are still kicking even if they won't be at the end of the series. Reversely, Robb won every battle but still lost the war.

4. This would result in 2, so I stick by my answer.

5. Depends on your definition. Stannis's claim is just as valid. It goes to his heir, Shireen Baratheon. However, technically, being dead, he would not longer have a right to the Throne as it has passed to his daughter.

[Maegor the Cuddly]

He has his right forever, but if it is conquered by another family (or taken by deceit, ala Lannisters) then he isn't King until he makes good on his right. If Viserys had led an army on Robert after the Targs were overthrown, he'd be well within his rights to do so, but he wasn't King, because he didn't have an army and he couldn't press his claim.

[Alistair's Pantaloons]

He has his right forever, but if it is conquered by another family (or taken by deceit, ala Lannisters) then he isn't King until he makes good on his right. If Viserys had led an army on Robert after the Targs were overthrown, he'd be well within his rights to do so, but he wasn't King, because he didn't have an army and he couldn't press his claim.

Correct. As long as he's alive and contesting it, he has as much right to the metal seat as anyone else. Can he take it? That's another matter.

[Faint]

By what argument could the Faith claim the authority to legitimise the Iron Throne ruling over cultures not tied to the Seven?

Why would they need an argument? This isn't about whether anybody has an intrinsic or inherent right to anything. The point is that Aegon I himself converted to the Faith of the Seven when he assumed the Iron Throne, thereby tying one institution with the other. This was further cemented over the centuries when the Targaryens were forced into repeated concessions with the Faith in order to maintain peace, thereby further acknowledging that their rule, at least partially, stemmed from whatever rights the religion vested in them.

Stannis, hypocrite that he is, maintains the only reason he seeks the throne is because it is his just right according to very laws that he has knowingly violated by committing kinslaying and adopting a new religion. I am simply exposing how ridiculous his argument truly is and that he is no different from the other pretender kings seeking the throne. Whatever claims and rights he may have had at one time, while perhaps superior to those of others, have long since vanished, and his current right to the throne is no better or worse than those of his enemies.

None of this is to say that Stannis would not make the best king of the lot, he might at that, or that he cannot gain the throne and retroactively impose his own laws, but his current legal based arguments smell worse than the stench emanating from Flea Bottom.

[SkaggCannibal]

Stannis, hypocrite that he is, maintains the only reason he seeks the throne is because it is his just right according to very laws that he has knowingly violated by committing kinslaying and adopting a new religion. I am simply exposing how ridiculous his argument truly is and that he is no different from the other pretender kings seeking the throne. Whatever claims and rights he may have had at one time, while perhaps superior to those of others, have long since vanished, and his current right to the throne is no better or worse than those of his enemies.

Stannis would not force the religion on anyone, so no one should judge him on the matter. Religion is a personal choice, it's not his fault some people in the realm think otherwise. If he comes into power, religion will be a free choice and that is a very noble thing to persue. On the matter of kinslaying, what should a father do when a son kills another son? Is Tyrion beyond redemption for killing his father? Renly was gonna fight Stannis, risking his brothers life for a claim that wasn't his. Renly tried to steal Stannis' birthright. It's not making good on the kinslaying, but it does explain it. Now, Stannis the King Who Cared saved the realm of a wildling invasion, which puts him on the top of my list of best claims on the Iron Throne.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

His right? He lost that long ago. Certainly since committing kinslaying, and probably as far back as when he began worshipping R'hllor. Readers seem to forget that Aegon I dates the beginning of his reign to when the High Septon crowned him in Oldtown. The institution is tied to the Faith of the Seven.

That is not to say that someone cannot overthrow this state of affairs, but if we are going by rights and claims, then Stannis has already disqualified himself.

There is no law stating that the must follow the Seven. Crowning by the Faith is just a ceremony thing. When kings in medieval times decided to say fuck you to the Church and turn to Protestantism/start their own religion, they didn't lose their crowns. The Iron Throne is not a Seven created institution, nor does it submit to the Seven. This is why Aegon laughed when the issues of polygamy and incest were brought up. Because he was king and if he wanted marry his sisters, he could.

As far as kinslaying goes, again, does not matter. Plenty of Targ kings killed their own relatives and did not lose claim to the Throne.

[Kolantero]

Normally I would say (4) but since we are talking about Stannis I say (7)

[Éadaoin]

Sure it does, I don't think the people of Westeros would approve of killing a beloved member of the royal family with dark magic from a foreign witch.

Would the people of Westeros approve of killing a member of the royal family with a boiling pot of gold from a foreign barbarian?

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Would the people of Westeros approve of killing a member of the royal family with a boiling pot of gold from a foreign barbarian?

about as much as they approve smashing babes against walls