Robert was never the rightful King?

[Lord Joker Of FunLand]

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.

Exactly.

Power resides only where men believe it resides.

[Jasta11]

Right ro rule is basically sugar coating conquests. The Targaryens became Kings because they conquered everyone else. Before them, the Andals forged new kingdoms on top of the First Men's bodies. Before that the First Men drove the COTF out and established their own kingdoms. Maybe the Children themselves genocided the White Walkers to build they own kingdoms too, for what we know.

Sure, if you go strictly by the Targaryen brand of law that was established after Aegon and his dragons made everyone submit, Robert is an usurper because Viserys is next in line to the throne. And if you go strictly by the Baratheon brand of law that was established after Aerys bought the farm and Bob took the throne, Joffrey/Tommen are usurpers and Stannis is next in line. Thing is, nobody in-universe cares about those laws save for a few Maesters. Your claim ain't worth a penny if nobody supports it.

[Kahl Trollo]

The purpose of the claim is to solidify the post conquest forces, not so much the conquered dynasty. Post rebellion your going to have a lot of different political groups who no longer have a single rallying cause. Many may think perhaps THEY did the lions share of the work in the struggle and perhaps they should put their lord on the throne. Robert having best legitimate claim, backed up by the maesters, gives them point of they can agree upon and lessens the chance of a post-rebellion civil war.

If someone else wants the throne, they have to do the same thing - this is why Dany is putting together an army and not a team of lawyers.

[Lord Damian]

Look, Robert made "an offer to the realm" by asserting a claim in order to "depose a Tyranical dynasty". We are not talking utter bullshit reasons for usurpation like Henry IV in England and Richard III. We are talking that he was next in line after Aerys II and his offspring which had called for Robert's head FOR NO APPARENT REASON. Robert won and his "offer fo the realm" was accepted. That is how it needs to be looked upon. He became the Rightful King when they all bent the knee. Does anyone really think that the original Kingdoms WANTED TO BEND THEIR KNEES TO AEGON AND HIS SISTERS? Aegon made then "an offer they could not refuse", fire and blood by dragons. Robert was the rightful king

[Alester Florent]

Look, Robert made "an offer to the realm" by asserting a claim in order to "depose a Tyranical dynasty". We are not talking utter bullshit reasons for usurpation like Henry IV in England and Richard III.

Deposing a tyrannical king was pretty much exactly the reason given by Henry IV.

[MasterJack]

Whoever is strong enough to win the IT and hold it, is the rightful king. Blood and linage dont matter.

Blood is only a tool to give you followers, as Money/Strenght/Dragons/Nuclear Nuke/etc are.

If the Iron Bank decides to take Westeros by themself , buy every sellswords in the world and conquer the IT, they are the rightful King(s)

[Nictarion]

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.

Exactly

[Nictarion]

Imo, Robert was always just a usurper. He was just keeping the throne warm for Viserys or Daenerys, who were the rightful heirs as long as they are alive. I also find in funny that some refer to the Baratheon "Dynasty" , less than 20 years consisting of one ruler is not a dynasty.

[Toxspecific]

It isn't about whether he was rightful King or not; he was rightful in his deposing of Aerys after which the Throne was vacant and he happened to be the one to take it.

Imo, Robert was always just a usurper. He was just keeping the throne warm for Viserys or Daenerys, who were the rightful heirs as long as they are alive. I also find in funny that some refer to the Baratheon "Dynasty" , less than 20 years consisting of one ruler is not a dynasty.

That's laughable. The guy who kills their family keeping the throne warm for them?

[IRON BANK]

In westeros might makes right. Roberts Kings hip was legit, however very short lived. who ever can claim the throne now that it is up for grabs will be the next sovreign.

[Nictarion]

That's laughable. The guy who kills their family keeping the throne warm for them?

Well considering he failed to kill all of the family, yes in the end I believe he was just small disruption in the Targaryen dynasty. I believe when the story ends a Targaryen will be back on the throne, be it Dany or Jon.

[Knight Of Winter]

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.

That it sometimes didn't work like this in practice doesn't really matter, since this is a moral topic due to it being about what is "rightful".

Ok, so let's discuss legal and moral claim Targs and Bob had.

1)moral claim

Here, Robert's situation is very simple. He led massively popular rebellion which overthrew previous dynasty and then established himself as king after all the lords swore fealty to him. Just these simple facts give him much moral claim to begin with - he had support of many lords during the rebellion, and the rest of them swore to him after the war is over. Noone objected to him being the king, in fact he IS king because all lords supported it or at least okeyed it. He wants to rule, and his subjects are OK with it - that's where his moral claim comes for.

Targs, on the other hand, began their demise by breaking their vows to their vassals and demanding their heads for little to no reason. This enraged many lords who started open rebellion, which Targ dynasty lost. So, as far as "moral" claim goes, Targs a) broke "social contract" with their bannermen and b ) provoked greater part of the realm into rebelling against them. So, you could say that Targs ruled unjustly and that many (if not most) people in realm wanted them deposed. So, what exactly is their moral claim to Iron Throne? If you asked Dany of Vis why they think they should rule Westeros they would probably answer "Because it's mine by right and my dad ruled it." Sorry, that's no moral claim.

2)legal claim

Here's the question whether Bob broke the law by rebeling against Targs and putting himself on the throne. I'll ask - which law? Because in Westeros there are no laws about rebellions, no laws about dethroning kings or dynasties. Sure, Westerosi had couple of rules, customs and mores which dictated rules of succession, judicial system and other stuff. That eldest son interhits his father's lands is in Westerosi's rules, customs and mores i.e. Westerosi's way of thinking. That daughers come before uncles is also in Westerosi's way of thinking. That uncles might dispute their claim if they have enough support is part of Westerosi's WOT, too. And here's the catch - as Westeros is martial society, rebellions and wars are also part of their WOT, and in that sense, are as much as legal as usual intererherence rules are. In that sense, you could say that rebellions and right of conquest are "legitimate" ways of dethroning previous dynasties.

[King Robert's Warhammer]

Targ family supporters will always use the name Usurper. This was no coup however and was a legitimate uprising against a despot. It was just then that the military commander of the rebels take the throne upon victory.

[Erkan12]

Right to rule is basically sugar coating conquests. The Targaryens became Kings because they conquered everyone else. Before them, the Andals forged new kingdoms on top of the First Men's bodies. Before that the First Men drove the COTF out and established their own kingdoms. Maybe the Children themselves genocided the White Walkers to build they own kingdoms too, for what we know.

Sure, if you go strictly by the Targaryen brand of law that was established after Aegon and his dragons made everyone submit, Robert is an usurper because Viserys is next in line to the throne. And if you go strictly by the Baratheon brand of law that was established after Aerys bought the farm and Bob took the throne, Joffrey/Tommen are usurpers and Stannis is next in line. Thing is, nobody in-universe cares about those laws save for a few Maesters. Your claim ain't worth a penny if nobody supports it.

I agree. (Even if we accept robert's conquer, aegon conquered with own power, on the other hand robert has big supporters and partners like north, east and riverlands.)

Thats why i said, after the defeat of targ. they should divide the kingdoms... Not only Robert.

Ned, Hoster and Jon Arryn has fault on this too.

http://asoiaf.wester...6-why-one-king/

[Tommen]

A person who sits on the Iron Throne and whose subjects call him "King" is rightfully the King. Full stop.

I agree. There is no objective measure of "rightfulness". History is written by the winners.

[Alester Florent]

In westeros might makes right. Roberts Kings hip was legit, however very short lived. who ever can claim the throne now that it is up for grabs will be the next sovreign.

The thing is, might doesn't automatically make right. This is why so few people supported Renly, even though he was by some distance the most powerful of the Five Kings in military terms. The blood claims of both Stannis and Joffrey were held to be superior in most parts, and three regions chose to secede rather than get involved in the dispute. In order for Renly to become the rightful king the claims of Stannis and Robert's children would need to be nullified, either through death, submission or disinheriting. Renly's "claim" was based on a combination of military application and a quasi-elective nomination without precedent in Westeros, and it wasn't widely accepted.

[viking warrior]

The thing is, might doesn't automatically make right. This is why so few people supported Renly, even though he was by some distance the most powerful of the Five Kings in military terms. The blood claims of both Stannis and Joffrey were held to be superior in most parts, and three regions chose to secede rather than get involved in the dispute. In order for Renly to become the rightful king the claims of Stannis and Robert's children would need to be nullified, either through death, submission or disinheriting. Renly's "claim" was based on a combination of military application and a quasi-elective nomination without precedent in Westeros, and it wasn't widely accepted.

Renly was never a king, just a contester, if he had taken kings landing an the other lords bent the knee the he would be king. At first Robert didn't either have the full support of the lords, but he made king.

[Nictarion]

The thing is, might doesn't automatically make right. This is why so few people supported Renly,

Renly had all the support he needed. He had 100k men and the support of the Reach. If not for assassin shadow baby Stannis he would have almost certainly won the war.

[mormont]

The thing is, might doesn't automatically make right. This is why so few people supported Renly, even though he was by some distance the most powerful of the Five Kings in military terms.

Er, surely Renly was by some distance the most powerful of the Five Kings precisely because so many people supported him? If 'few' had supported him, he wouldn't have that enormous army. ;)

The blood claims of both Stannis and Joffrey were held to be superior in most parts

Joffrey, yes. But hardly anyone cared about Stannis' blood claim except Stannis.

[SeanF]

As in real history, the "Rightful King" (or Queen) needs to have a more or less plausible claim, and the ability to back it up by force.