Robert was never the rightful King?

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

but the rebels didn't abandon the law. they made robert king based on the fact that he had targ blood. if they just made stark, arryan or robert king just because they won then yeah it would be right of conquest, but they used the targ bloodline excuse.

I didn't say abandon. As was usually the case in real history, new dynasties tried (sometimes comically) to claim some sort of ties to the older dynasties for continuity, but they clearly changed the rules of the game without abandoning the social order altogether. You win a war; you get to change the rules. That's all I'm saying. Abandoning the old order altogether can lead to chaos, so this is rarely done.

Edit:

Think of it like this Carsai: Imagine that Robert didn't lead (or join) the rebellion at all. Imagine that he sat on the sidelines and had no army. Now imagine that after the rebellion was over, he said "hey, I've got Targ blood, so I'm the new king!" The result: laughter, laughter, and more laughter. No one thought that his blood was his sole claim to the throne, or even his best claim. You're trying to shoehorn his claim into that model, but the truth of the matter was that he had POWER. The blood was a bonus, but POWER got him the iron thron.

[WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive]

So does that make joffrey a rightful king? NO. He is king based on a lie that he is a Baratheon. Robert became king based on having Targ blood, but there were others with targ blood ahead of Robert in line. Robert is a usurper.

There is no such thing as rightful king. You either are a king or you are not, and Joffrey was a king, even though he was not the rightful heir. Some people really know nothing about feudalism...

[Chaircat Meow]

Think of it like this Carsai: Imagine that Robert didn't lead (or join) the rebellion at all. Imagine that he sat on the sidelines and had no army. Now imagine that after the rebellion was over, he said "hey, I've got Targ blood, so I'm the new king!" The result: laughter, laughter, and more laughter. No one thought that his blood was his sole claim to the throne, or even his best claim. You're trying to shoehorn his claim into that model, but the truth of the matter was that he had POWER. The blood was a bonus, but POWER got him the iron thron.

And you're confusing a causal explanation with a legal/moral claim.

We all know Robert only got to sit on the throne because he won the war. It is in dispute whether, 'in-world,' he was thought to have the 'right,' according to law, to sit on it because he won the war.

'

And the answer to that is no.

[Cersai's Son]

I didn't say abandon. As was usually the case in real history, new dynasties tried (sometimes comically) to claim some sort of ties to the older dynasties for continuity, but they clearly changed the rules of the game without abandoning the social order altogether. You win a war; you get to change the rules. That's all I'm saying. Abandoning the old order altogether can lead to chaos, so this is rarely done.

Edit:

Think of it like this Carsai: Imagine that Robert didn't lead (or join) the rebellion at all. Imagine that he sat on the sidelines and had no army. Now imagine that after the rebellion was over, he said "hey, I've got Targ blood, so I'm the new king!" The result: laughter, laughter, and more laughter. No one thought that his blood was his sole claim to the throne, or even his best claim. You're trying to shoehorn his claim into that model, but the truth of the matter was that he had POWER. The blood was a bonus, but POWER got him the iron thron.

but robert got the power because he had targ blood. his own army was stuck in stormlands, the battle of trident was won by northern army. they chose robert to lead them because he had targ blood so can claim the throne. or else any one of tullys, stark, arryan could have become king, they made the original alliance in rebellion, robert joined later.

[lady m]

but the rebels didn't abandon the rules. they made robert king based on the fact that he had targ blood. if they just made stark, arryan or robert king just because they won then yeah it would be right of conquest, but they used the targ bloodline excuse.

Ned explicitly says he did not want the throne, so he was out. Jon Arryn is old and still childless at this point, which meant he had a high probability of being sterile. Putting an older, heirless man on a throne for a new dynasty is stupid. You're asking for instability. Which is the opposite of what a new dynasty needs.

Robert might have had Targ blood, but he was also the most logical person amongst the rebels to assume the throne. And he did NOT rule in any way, shape or form through the Targaryens. He used a a crowned stag sigil, that of House Baratheon, not the three headed dragon of House Targaryen, and he got rid of the dragon skulls that adorned the throne room as symbols of Targaryen power when people came to court. Robert won his throne with his war hammer, not because he had Targaryen blood running in his veins.

but robert got the power because he had targ blood. his own army was stuck in stormlands, the battle of trident was won by northern army. they chose robert to lead them because he had targ blood so can claim the throne. or else any one of tullys, stark, arryan could have become king, they made the original alliance in rebellion, robert joined later.

That is incorrect, Robert was always part of the rebels and one of the rebel leaders. He, like Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn didn't have the full backing of his vassals.

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

And you're confusing a causal explanation with a legal/moral claim.

We all know Robert only got to sit on the throne because he won the war. It is dispute whether, 'in-world,' he was thought to have the 'right,' according to law, to sit on it because he won the war.

'

And the answer to that is no.

Winning a war gives you the right to change the laws. In this world, and in ASOIAF. When the social order is battered by war, causal reality and legal rights become almost indistinguishable.

[Frey Pie]

Robert has as much right to the throne as any. Aegon conquered Westeros, and set up a dynasty. So did Robert. No difference

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

Ned explicitly says he did not want the throne, so he was out. Jon Arryn is old and still childless at this point, which meant he had a high probability of being sterile. Putting an older, heirless man on a throne for a new dynasty is stupid. You're asking for instability. Which is the opposite of what a new dynasty needs.

Robert might have had Targ blood, but he was also the most logical person amongst the rebels to assume the throne. And he did NOT rule in any way, shape or form through the Targaryens. He used a a crowned stag sigil, that of House Baratheon, not the three headed dragon of House Targaryen, and he got rid of the dragon skulls that adorned the throne room as symbols of Targaryen power when people came to court. Robert won his throne with his war hammer, not because he had Targaryen blood running in his veins.

:agree:

Exactly. New sigil. New house. New dynasty.

[Chaircat Meow]

Winning a war gives you the right to change the laws. In this world, and in ASOIAF. When the social order is battered by war, causal reality and legal rights become almost indistinguishable.

Nonsense. There are plenty of nations that have preserved a sense of 'right' or 'just' government despite being battered by the vicissitudes of war. Take England under Cromwell and the Republicans. No could doubt they won the war, but it was still seen as an illegal regime, despite the fact according to its own 'laws' it was in the right.

Laws, btw, don't have to equate strictly to the will of the current ruler; that's not really the medieval idea of law at all.

[James Arryn]

It's not really considered conquest if it's done by virtue of rebellion. Bollingbroke, etc. It's a slight difference; outright conquest needs no other claim. You simply took it. But rebellion includes significant support from within, and is therefore usually supported by other kinds of claim, whether that be acclaim, some blood claim, w/e. Usually a mixture. So, Robert's claim is as valid or invalid as anyone's; he had the might, he had the acclaim, and he had some blood claim. People seem to assume the latter is preeminent, and in some clearly defined line, but if that were true feudal succession wouldn't have been the adventure it often turned out to be.

[lady m]

Absolutely spot on. This is why he is called the Usurper.

Because he was a usurper. And he usurped the throne. The throne that belongs to Dany.

^ Is enough to make a mutual friend weep in sorrow. ^

[Ser Not Appearing]

All I know is that you can't weild supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

... I'd say Robert was the rightful King as far as "right" goes for that sort of thing. The fealty of those who he ruled makes it so. Rightful rule is an understood agreement between the ruler and his/her subjects - for whatever reason. By that same logic, though, I'm not certain that there has been a rightful King since shortly after his death.

In times of civil war is it rule over the capital city that makes one King? The iron throne? The crown? The strongest army? No. "Rightful King" in such instances is something that will only be determined when a semblance of peace returns and history is written by those who came out on top.

"The history of the world is the greatest lie ever told."

- Guy X in a book I'll never get around to writing

[Thendel]

From wikipedia:

"The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms."

Here's the definition of conquering:

conquer (third-person singular simple present conquers, present participle conquering, simple past and past participle conquered)

1. to defeat in combat; to subjugate In 1453, the Ottoman Empire conquered Istanbul.
   
2. to overcome an abstract obstacle Today I conquered my fear of flying by finally boarding a plane.
   
3. to gain, win, or obtain by effort
   
4. to acquire by force of arms, win in war
   

Does this apply to what Robert did? Yes, absolutely. Ergo Robert was a conqueror, and he thus claimed the throne by right of conquest. Whether it was through rebellion or not simply does not bleeding matter, what matters is that he took the throne by force, and the lords of Westeros all acknowledged his claim, thus affirming him as king.

So no, Targaeryen loyalists: If Daenerys or Aegon wants that throne for their house, they have to win it back. Or as Daenerys once put it: "The house was lost when [random Meereenese woman] abandoned it".

[Baelor's Bastard]

Whenever I see these threads involving a "rightful king," I always think the following. I understand that many believe that throughout the series there has always been a rightful king, but in my mind within this world there is no rightful king. The Iron Throne is for the taking and it has been since Aegon the Conqueror forged it with the breath of Balerion the Black Dread. Aegon had absolutely no right to invade Westeros and conquer the six kingdoms he conquered, he did so simply because he wanted to and he possessed the power and the might to do so. The throne will belong to the most powerful family/individual in most situations.

[Visen]

[

From wikipedia:

"The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms."

Here's the definition of conquering:

conquer (third-person singular simple present conquers, present participle conquering, simple past and past participle conquered)

1. to defeat in combat; to subjugate In 1453, the Ottoman Empire conquered Istanbul.
   
   
2. to overcome an abstract obstacle Today I conquered my fear of flying by finally boarding a plane.
   
   
3. to gain, win, or obtain by effort
   
   
4. to acquire by force of arms, win in war
   

Does this apply to what Robert did? Yes, absolutely. Ergo Robert was a conqueror, and he thus claimed the throne by right of conquest. Whether it was through rebellion or not simply does not bleeding matter, what matters is that he took the throne by force, and the lords of Westeros all acknowledged his claim, thus affirming him as king.

So no, Targaeryen loyalists: If Daenerys or Aegon wants that throne for their house, they have to win it back. Or as Daenerys once put it: "The house was lost when [random Meereenese woman] abandoned it".

Whenever I see these threads involving a "rightful king," I always think the following. I understand that many believe that throughout the series there has always been a rightful king, but in my mind within this world there is no rightful king. The Iron Throne is for the taking and it has been since Aegon the Conqueror forged it with the breath of Balerion the Black Dread. Aegon had absolutely no right to invade Westeros and conquer the six kingdoms he conquered, he did so simply because he wanted to and he possessed the power and the might to do so. The throne will belong to the most powerful family/individual in most situations.

:agree: Bingo. The "right" to rule has always been by conquest going back to the First Men, they all take it and have for as long as they can hold it.

[Chaircat Meow]

From wikipedia:

"The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms."

Here's the definition of conquering:

conquer (third-person singular simple present conquers, present participle conquering, simple past and past participle conquered)

1. to defeat in combat; to subjugate In 1453, the Ottoman Empire conquered Istanbul.
   
   
2. to overcome an abstract obstacle Today I conquered my fear of flying by finally boarding a plane.
   
   
3. to gain, win, or obtain by effort
   
   
4. to acquire by force of arms, win in war
   

Does this apply to what Robert did? Yes, absolutely. Ergo Robert was a conqueror, and he thus claimed the throne by right of conquest. Whether it was through rebellion or not simply does not bleeding matter, what matters is that he took the throne by force, and the lords of Westeros all acknowledged his claim, thus affirming him as king.

So no, Targaeryen loyalists: If Daenerys or Aegon wants that throne for their house, they have to win it back. Or as Daenerys once put it: "The house was lost when [random Meereenese woman] abandoned it".

So if someone does something that can be described as conquest, that means they must claim the leadership through conquest as part of some sort of natural process. This is therefore a valid extrapolation from the evidence ..?

Urr.

Fact is, if the claim was based on conquest people would not mention the Targ blood. People mention the Targ blood, ergo the claim was not based on conquest.

And despite the redoubtable authority of wikipedia I think it is accepted that being in a relation of vassalage and subjection to the person you overthrow changes things. It raises the question of whether the war was done with right, and if it was not that can be taken as delegitimizing any consequences that flow from it. No government, or legal profession would ever want to rest a claim purely on the successful application of force if they had other options, as that destroys any notion that obedience is required to the king.

[Alester Florent]

Nonsense. There are plenty of nations that have preserved a sense of 'right' or 'just' government despite being battered by the vicissitudes of war. Take England under Cromwell and the Republicans. No could doubt they won the war, but it was still seen as an illegal regime, despite the fact according to its own 'laws' it was in the right.

Well, that's an interesting one. I suspect that a large part of the reason that regime is now seen (mostly) as a quasi-legal interlude in the legitimate line of government is because of the events that happened during and after its collapse; specifically, the return of the monarchy in direct succession to that which the Commonwealth displaced, and the confirmation of supremacy of Parliament (or King-in-Parliament) thirty years later. That informs our whole judgment of the situation, especially since it was a critical time in the formation of modern British political thought and the "winning" theorists (specifically, Hobbes and Locke) seem to point away from the Commonwealth. Thus the military (especially post-Purge) Cromwell regime can be cast as a usurper of the real fount of authority in Britain at the time. However, had the Comonwealth survived Cromwell and gone on to form a lasting state, it's likely that our ideas of what constitutes legitimate legal authority would be informed by that, and constitutional monarchy would seem an entertaining frivolity or whatever. Sure, it was widely seen as illegal at the time, but then all states are to a greater or lesser degree.

Westeros is at a relatively primitive stage of constitutional development. It seems that it's been decided that the fount of legal authority is the king, but there isn't a sufficiently good formula in place for selecting the king. They don't even seem to have developed the concept of divine right. England is a peculiar example, because succession law was sufficiently woolly for sufficiently long (until the mid-16th century, really, and only properly resolved in the early 18th) that successions could be legitimately disputed on legal grounds and not just practical ones. But even France, which nailed its colours to the agnatic mast at a relatively early stage, has a few odd blips. Had Henry VI of England managed to hold onto the French throne, then cognatic succession and some form of tanistry would have worked its way into the putative French constitution, rather than his being brushed aside with a slight cough and not given a proper numeral in the French succession. The elective systems in Germany and Denmark resulted in plenty of civil wars.

The problem is sort of circumvented by the introduction of the parliament and thus statute as the overriding source of legal authority, and incorporating the office of kingship into it. The king is whoever statute says he is. Even that has its flaws, though; it's a slightly circular reasoning for designating it the fount of legal authority (divine right was a great idea, when you think about it), to start with. Moreover, it only operates so long as people recognise it. In the eyes of the Jacobites, the English/British parliament was/is itself a usurper of the true authority held by the Stuarts, so has no binding legal force. The supremacy of Parliament is further being eroded by international law, specifically the EU, and in any case lasts only as long as the people en masse accept it as supreme. Moreover, Westeros doesn't appear to have even the most primitive form of parliament, only the Small Council, so it hasn't even got that far. Constitutionally, Westeros looks alarmingly like it's stuck in the Dark Ages*, even if in other areas it's really quite developed.

*Yeah, yeah, I know.

[Bretwalda]

The concept of "Rightful King" was never an absolute one in Medieval times and was more of a variable idea depending who was making the argument. In real terms the basis of "right" is a three-sided stool of bloodline, military strength and recognition. Not everyone can be King so some claim to "royal" blood is necessary for any ruler which is why Roberts descent from King Aegon V does matter. He did win the throne by force and Aerys lost, you could argue that Aerys failed in his duty as King to "Protect the Realm" which also justifies disinheriting his children and grandchildren. Robert ceased to be a rebel the moment all high lords recognised him as King. A king that is strong on all three factors is King undisputed. A King that is weak on one or two factors will face rival claimants to his right to rule. Which is just as well since most of the story is about who should rule Westeros. An undisputed king would make for a very dull story. :drunk:

[unSonofStannis]

It doesn't matter if he had Targ blood or not he took it because he had the freaking armies. Would someone please tell me who would've and could've kicked Robert off the throne because he had no Targ blood? My point is there really is no law in Westeros, its whoever has the most soldiers, and wins the battles.

[Lord Joker Of FunLand]

Nobody is ever the rightful king.

They become a king because people call them a king.