Best Claim to the Iron throne

[Daemrion]

Not King Jaime i'm shocked

As much as I like Jaime as a character, he would make a horrible King, he's too emotionally messed up to say the least. And given the fact that he isn't all that morally good yet... (Jaime is messed up and starts of morally bad and then is put on the path to being morally good). But by all means he isn't the morality King is he?

LOL he would be Prince Consort to Queen Brienne, but really he should be there for decoration rather than actually ruling.

Brienne on the other hand, is a person who still holds to good morals and values throughout.

In what you regard as Roberts council, the lords that happened to be in King's Landing decided what the rest should swallow as legal. To all intents and purposes, that's making laws at swordpoint

But is that popular swordpoint or not? If one does accept them as the majority, then popular sovereignty says that they are legally correct regardless of how they bully the rest of the people into accepting it. (if we import modern standards). In Egg's great Council, the reason why Aemon went to the Wall was to stop anyone from claiming that Aemon should be King instead and getting support for that notion and overthrowing his younger brother.

Since we don't know exactly how the Council decided, but there would have been proponents of Aemon ascending rather than Egg who did not have their wish satisfied, I doubt there was a 100% approval of Egg and those who wanted Aemon basically had it forced upon them anyway. Maybe things would have gone differently if Aemon had been Crowned instead.

[Antonius Pius]

But is that popular swordpoint or not? If one does accept them as the majority, then popular sovereignty says that they are legally correct regardless of how they bully the rest of the people into accepting it. (if we import modern standards).

That's my point: modern standards have no place in the succession/rebellion theme.

In Egg's great Council, the reason why Aemon went to the Wall was to stop anyone from claiming that Aemon should be King instead and getting support for that notion and overthrowing his younger brother.

Correct, but I would like to emphasize that it was Aemon's choice to go to the Wall, to pre-empt attempts to use him as a figurehead for rebellion against Egg.

Since we don't know exactly how the Council decided, but there would have been proponents of Aemon ascending rather than Egg who did not have their wish satisfied, I doubt there was a 100% approval of Egg and those who wanted Aemon basically had it forced upon them anyway. Maybe things would have gone differently if Aemon had been Crowned instead.

I don't understand your point completely, but I'm sure you're right that Egg didn't get 100% of the votes. Only African of Middle-Eastern dictatorships attain such figures .

You are missing the point about the Council (as I see it, and I have always acknowledged that we lack the details) is that the lords were summoned (as Rhaegar intended before riding off to the Trident) to give their opinion or to endorse their candidate. I.e.: they were invited to come to help sort matters out. Those that did not agree, were still given a say, and because they were all summoned, they could not claim that they had been cheated because all were given a chance to have their say. The difference with what happened at King's Landing is that: Robert, Ned, Tywin and Jon Arryn arranged affairs, and told the rest of the realm to swallow it. The other lords were never a part of the decisionmaking.

[Guest Other-in-law]

sure. but in Great Britain there was the Magna Carta, outlining a whole lot of rights and duties. There was also a parliament with representatives from all over the country. Sure, they were all nobility in one form or another, but they still voted on things, including how much money the king was allowed to spend.

My point was not what the origin of such a law of disposession would have been (it would have been Robert and his councillers, not some parliament) but what it's legal pretext would have been (you can't be king if you run away and abandon the country). That Westeros has no parliamentary history does not mean that it doesn't have legislation, and legal novelties introduced by an accepted Baratheon King are just as binding as those introduced under accepted Targaryen Kings. For as long as Robert's (nominal) line has possession of the crown, Dany's rights are forfeit.

I believe that they did legislate something along those lines, disinheriting Viserys in the aftermath of the rebellion. If they bothered going through the motions of "pardoning" Varys, Pycelle, Ser Barristan, and Jaime, they can hardly have left a loose end like Targaryen pretenders overseas unadressed.

[Daemrion]

You are missing the point about the Council (as I see it, and I have always acknowledged that we lack the details) is that the lords were summoned (as Rhaegar intended before riding off to the Trident) to give their opinion or to endorse their candidate. I.e.: they were invited to come to help sort matters out. Those that did not agree, were still given a say, and because they were all summoned, they could not claim that they had been cheated because all were given a chance to have their say. The difference with what happened at King's Landing is that: Robert, Ned, Tywin and Jon Arryn arranged affairs, and told the rest of the realm to swallow it. The other lords were never a part of the decisionmaking.

My point was that since they (the Lords Baratheon, Arryn, Stark, Tully and Lannister) were already the majority anyway, the probably did not bother having a Great Council when the outcome was probably already a forgone conclusion.

That's probably a reasonable explanation, but it would definitely been better if they had had a "Great Council" to just officially confirm that Vis and Dany were gone, even though everyone by then knew that it was rather a forgone conclusion that Vis and Dany would not ascend without force to take the throne back (harking back to a procedure vs substance debate). A Great Council would have probably been a sham anyway, since Five of the Seven were already going in with a preconceived answer to the question as to who should ascend. LOL

I mean if there was a Great Council it would have probably gone like this.

Lord Arryn: I propose that Robert become King. Not Viserys or Daenarys due to insanity of Aerys.

Lord Martrell: I disagree, Lord Lannister has murdered my sister and my niece and nephew. Grrr etc. etc. etc.

Lord Lannister: So what, that has no relevance to the question of who should be King. I support Robert. Let's vote on this.

High Septon (playing the mediating role/ceremonial role): All right, all in favour of crowning Robert over Dany and Viserys, please raise your appendage.

(Lords Arryn, Stark, Tully, Lannister raise their appendages (and their bannerman follow), after a bit of grumbling, Lord Tyrell follows suit (to be with the majority) and his bannermen follow, Lord Martrell of course does not raise his appendage, and Lord Baratheon does not vote, the rest of the Storm Lords do vote in favour.)

High Septon: There majority votes for Robert to become King, I don't need to vote, as the minority cannot possibly win, Lord Baratheon had no vote as it concerned him. Done. The Great Council has officially decided that Robert should be crowned King Robert I. I declare the Great Council over.

Correct, but I would like to emphasize that it was Aemon's choice to go to the Wall, to pre-empt attempts to use him as a figurehead for rebellion against Egg.

Though of course there is the unlikely off chance that he would change his mind.

And the bit about popular swordpoint was a joke. Just to make some fun, instead of all this dour debate about succession.

LOL...this is the umpteenth time that I have clashed/had a verbal stoush/basically tried to rip each other's arguments to shreds etc... with Enguerrand over ascension matters.

But I do eagerly await any reply by anyone who wants to weigh in.

[cybroleach]

Granted, we don't really know what the Great Council's powers and boundaries were... But it seems eminently fair that it was called into being because of hopelessly confused inheritence issues. So that's why it could be called upon again. The difference with the Great Council as it was, and Robert/Ned/Jon Arryn/Tywins decision, is that the latter was a decision already reached and forced down the throats of the other lords. For Egg's council the lords were invited to say their piece. In what you regard as Roberts council, the lords that happened to be in King's Landing decided what the rest should swallow as legal. To all intents and purposes, that's making laws at swordpoint (a bit like Sulla proclaiming that he would like to become dictator if they couldn't find someone else, when he holds all the power in Rome and has just demonstrated that he was quite ready to kill any opponent).

And because of Egg's council, there was precedent. Which is exactly why I think Rhaegar wanted to hold one. Imo it would have to be made up of more that just the seven great lords, but that's purely speculation. By the way, I fail to see why the first Great Council would make Egg a usurper, or why you think I argued that.

I was making a point that the two are simalar situations since both were further down the line and both won by being more popular than the other claiments regardless of wheither it was a 'great council' or a majority coalishion and since there was no precedent for the great council to make it legal there was no need for a precedent for the majority coalishion that put Robert on the throne.

I also like to hear you define who you figured would comprise the Great council then? It seems pretty irrelivant though since there was so much support for Robert it makes little and less difference who else had a say just like no one cares what the minority does in a majority government.

Also with Egg things were unclear who should be king but Robert was the clear choice so there was no need for a council.

[Daemrion]

Just thought I should add that from the accounts we have of the Kingswood Brotherhood, there was at least one Peasant rebellion in the history of the Seven Kingdoms. Not widespread, perhaps, but still there.

But were the Kingswood Brotherhood peasants or attained knight(s)?

Toyne and the Smiling Knight were certainly both knights, though I suppose the others were not, but then again all of the BwB are supposed to be knights (in the sense that Beric did dub them all).

[Jon Targaryen]

Whoever proclaimed him King, of course.

So, you oppose popular choice as a way of forming a kingship?

Ok, King of Hodor's Bedroom I can understand, with him being a vassal to Vayon Poole and Eddard in turn.

[Enguerrand]

Your view of the law is flawed, it isn't so much about values and morals and what one thinks is right. Law has separated from values and morals. I might think that homosexuality is wrong (being religious), but that does not make it the law just because I think it is.

Your view seems to be heavily invested in morals and values, under modern neoliberalism and globalisation, law is becoming less value laden.

I don't know where you get this from. You continuously claim that this and that is legal. Jaime serving his bastard get, that Daenerys should stop harping about her claim because Robert and buddies has dismissed it.

TO YOU the law is normative. Despite knowing that serving Tommen is the morally wrong choice, by the prevalent ethics of Westeros, Jaime is excused in your view because some people have cheated the system. Daenerys has no case because she was booted out of their inheritance by force.

Basically what you say it that the strongest decide goes, is the law. Which make the concept meaningless to me. Force is a respectable argument in a conflict but in the long run it’s very difficult to sustain without some appeal to the collective norm.

I can make a law that say you have to wear pink briefs at all times. It is the LAW I have written so comply! Even if I could compel you by force chances are that you would feel that you are not legally obligated to follow it. It’s the same thing with Daenerys claim. She doesn’t buy Robert and his cronies decisions. why should she?

My example about Aegon dealt with your example of the military dictator (it seems to be directly analogous in my view). If your view that the military dictator is wrong in persecuting me, then you would have to say that Aegon was wrong in exiling all the old Riverlords to the Iron Islands, and the Tully's etc... are all usurpers that need to be removed.

Whether a law is respected has to do with collective norms. There is no absolute morality that you can appeal to. Yeah, mine and most peoples sympathizes goes to the to those who are victims of unmotivated aggression, but somewhere along the road it stops. The Andals took the land once too. 300 years later this isn’t a problem any longer in Westeros. The Targaryen dynasty was the recognized rulers of the land not simply because they had overwhelming force but because they had managed to convince the people of Westeros that this was as it should be. In a couple of generations the Baratheons might have accomplished that too, but Robert ruled through ability, he wasn’t ordained like the Targaryens.

But of course, your hypothetical military dictator is probably not legally ruler and thus what he does to me is not legal, but if he were, and it was legal, I would have no choice but to comply and then probably move away to another country and I would be a good citizen by complying (in the eyes of the valid government/general population), whatever the personal cost to me.

Once again legal is all about perspective. The Nazis killed a lot of people that didn’t comply with their occupation, the resistance punished those that did. You can't win them all.

She is unfairly picking on people who do have a grievance, she's basically taken away their rights to justice. So under your view, she is wrong. And this is my personal view as well (that she was wrong), but my personal view is not the legal view.

Huh? Daenerys dispense justice as she see fit. If the Mereense find this unjust I find it perfectly understandable. Yet this decision was consistent. If she revoke her blanket pardon in individual cases no one would trust it.

Take a less extreme example than a military dictator legislating to take away all your rights, say the government that you didn't want legislates more taxes on you, taking away some of your possessions or possible stuff that you can buy b/c you have less money. Your view would see that it is bad bad bad, and that you aren't a good citizen unless you try to avoid paying tax, and that good citizens don't pay tax because they lose some of their possessions. You would say that if I did pay the full tax I would be a bad citizen

With government you didn’t want; do you mean a military dictator or simply a government I disagree with?

It’s all about if I buy the package. Do I believe that these people have the right to tell us what to do? If you collaborate with our fascists overlords I would most likely consider you a bad citizen.

Medieval rule and democracy are different things. But certainly 5 of the 7 Kingdoms supported the Rebellion actively in their actions (and they are the majority).

Few wanted Aerys for king. Thats not the same thing as supporting a new dynasty. I suspect the legal aspect was pretty far down the order of importance at Robert ascendance.

High Septon: There majority votes for Robert to become King, I don't need to vote, as the minority cannot possibly win, Lord Baratheon had no vote as it concerned him. Done. The Great Council has officially decided that Robert should be crowned King Robert I. I declare the Great Council over.

You confuse the Great council with a democratic assembly. They don’t CHOSE who will be king. They are empowered to dismiss claims if the claimant despite their bloodright is seriously unsuitable for kingship. In a great Council Robert would have to prove that both Viserys and Daenerys are insane bedwetters, to be in contention.

[Daemrion]

I don't know where you get this from. You continuously claim that this and that is legal... TO YOU the law is normative. Despite knowing that serving Tommen is the morally wrong choice, by the prevalent ethics of Westeros, Jaime is excused in your view because some people have cheated the system. Daenerys has no case because she was booted out of their inheritance by force.

How do we decide what is best/right etc...? What methods are you using in coming up with your decisions and arguments? Through your posts I feel as if you are making decisions and arguments based on your own feelings of right and wrong, moral and immoral. I'm pointing out that that is a very dangerous to assume that everyone else has the same morals and values that you have. I'm interested in the process that you go through to arrive at your decision and what you take into consideration in making such a decision.

Okay, so the question is who has the best claim to the Iron Throne. What are the ways that we can answer the question, by legal means, by moral means, by random means or a combination thereof. I just happen to think that law is the best way of answering the question without the contamination of personal feelings.

If i wanted to pick morals I would pick Brienne. (as I stated before).

Okay, so how would you answer this question (using your way of reasoning): X, a girl and Y a boy have sex. X honestly and truly thinks that she was raped, Y honestly and truly believes that X consented to the sex and thus was not raped. Is Y guilty of rape/doing something bad or not?

Law does have its own answer for that question, but I'm curious as to what you would think, do you just defer to the law, in which case you are also assuming that law is normative, or do you think of something else.

Force is a respectable argument in a conflict but in the long run it’s very difficult to sustain without some appeal to the collective norm

Yes, and obviously Robert does appeal to the collective norm, if Robert and Cersei had a happy marriage, and many children I don't think it would have been that great a stretch that people would start to see that Dany's claim is extinguished, after a while.

Dany was booted out by force, (that is ignoring the fact that Aerys probably broke the feudal contract precluding her rights anyway). But such force that started off as illegal has over the time become legal. Whether or not this is right or not to do this is another matter.

I can make a law that say you have to wear pink briefs at all times. It is the LAW I have written so comply! Even if I could compel you by force chances are that you would feel that you are not legally obligated to follow it. It’s the same thing with Daenerys claim. She doesn’t buy Robert and his cronies decisions. why should she?

She does not have to, but we can't take her view, and we can't take Robert's view as absolute. What we can do is sit back and observe and make our own view, sitting as judges. So I chose to take a legal view, as I felt that it would be the one that would be least influenced by feelings and emotions.

Of course, there is also a couple of problems with your 'law'. It isn't a law because it offends the notion of rule of law and secondly, what legally recognised right do you have to make law that affects me? Knowing that force in itself is not enough to found that right according to Fiji v Prasad. Of course, that is an Adversarial Legal system decision, you may live in a country that uses Civil Law, in which case I don't know the equivalent case. But if I did allow and consent for you to make laws that bind me, why should I not listen to it when I said that I would listen to whatever you said in the first place?

Once again legal is all about perspective. The Nazis killed a lot of people that didn’t comply with their occupation, the resistance punished those that did. You can't win them all.

You misunderstood that point, the Nazis weren't actually legally rulers of the territories they occupied, (because they don't meet the Constitutional law criteria set out in cases like Fiji v Prasad), they coerced the people into complying. I'm saying that if the new military dictator was actively supported by the majority, which was not the case in the territories that Nazi Germany took over, and maybe not even in Germany itself.

Huh? Daenerys dispense justice as she see fit. If the Mereense find this unjust I find it perfectly understandable. Yet this decision was consistent. If she revoke her blanket pardon in individual cases no one would trust it.

She should have never granted it in the first place. Actually, her law does specifically target the privileged in the previous regime under the guise of being objective.

With government you didn’t want; do you mean a military dictator or simply a government I disagree with? It’s all about if I buy the package. Do I believe that these people have the right to tell us what to do? If you collaborate with our fascists overlords I would most likely consider you a bad citizen.

The latter, eg. if you were GRRM and George W Bush was the gov't.

Few wanted Aerys for king. Thats not the same thing as supporting a new dynasty. I suspect the legal aspect was pretty far down the order of importance at Robert ascendance.

But we are talking about who has the best claim (legally). So legality actually does matter. I mean we could always go, I feel that X deserves the throne and leave it at that, but we should consider legality.

You confuse the Great council with a democratic assembly. They don’t CHOSE who will be king. They are empowered to dismiss claims if the claimant despite their bloodright is seriously unsuitable for kingship. In a great Council Robert would have to prove that both Viserys and Daenerys are insane bedwetters, to be in contention.

How else will they make their decision?? By super-majority, unanimous vote or what? Okay, so Lord Arryne claims that Vis and Dany are both insane, how do you get the declarationt taht they are legally insane? By taking a vote of course, after reading and discussing all the evidence. What else can they do, flip a coin?

[wutru]

Who has the most rights to it?

In the eyes of the Westerosi;

A. Baratheon

or

B. Targaryen

And who would be the best?

TBD (To be determined)

[Antonius Pius]

Why? You seem to be thinking that the Great Council was an established body with rules and precedents to follow, with some sort of explicit authority.

It seems logical to me that the lords were invited to say their piece about a certain situation... Imo, they could not repeal some hunting-laws since they were all there anyway. I assume they were invited to speak on the matter at hand, which was which prince/princess should succeed Maekar. The lords were invited to seek out the way to go, for once possibly sidelining the normal boundaries of Westerosi laws. Therefore, I think it's logical that the Great Council did have certain limitations, and was established for a one-time purpose. A set of rules which were to be followed, probably defined in the invitations, which I assume were issued by Maekar's small council, or the regent, or whoever held power when Maekar died.

Cybroleach:

The way I see how the Great Council would be comprised: the seven great lords, with each of them an equal number of their own lords (just the seven great lords seems too little a number of lords to me), with possibly the high septon and grand maester.

[Enguerrand]

Why? You seem to be thinking that the Great Council was an established body with rules and precedents to follow, with some sort of explicit authority.

The books give me that impression. Why else would people defer to it in succession matters?

Through your posts I feel as if you are making decisions and arguments based on your own feelings of right and wrong, moral and immoral.

No, when discussing right and wrong in Westeros, only the point of view of the locals have any explanatory power.

Law does have its own answer for that question, but I'm curious as to what you would think, do you just defer to the law, in which case you are also assuming that law is normative, or do you think of something else.

What I think has very little impact on series but since you ask. My concepts are of course colored by culture and upbringing. But I use my own judgement from case to case to me that seem to be the best because people seldom buys the excuse “every body else does it†or “I was only following ordersâ€.

Yes, and obviously Robert does appeal to the collective norm,

Yes that’s why you can make case of usurpation against him.

But such force that started off as illegal has over the time become legal.

Not yet, the Baratheons are still not established. That’s why the kingdom falls apart at Robert death. He ruled by ability not right so in the succession people looks to power rather then law. That why you have parts seceding. The GreatJon’s “why should they rule us from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne “

What we can do is sit back and observe and make our own view, sitting as judges. So I chose to take a legal view, as I felt that it would be the one that would be least influenced by feelings and emotions.

Yes but you don’t judge the westerosi law as it is. My point is that if there were a neutral pious judge that followed the body of westerosi succession law, the throne would go Daenerys.

According to you Daenerys has forfeited her claim because her father mismanaged the kingdom There is nothing in the book that to my knowledge support this. And she obviously doesn’t believe it. None of Roberts people make that argument either. Stannis the most law obsessed player deem the rebellion as honorless.

You misunderstood that point, the Nazis weren't actually legally rulers of the territories they occupied, (because they don't meet the Constitutional law criteria set out in cases like Fiji v Prasad), they coerced the people into complying.

They were as legal as Aegon the conqurerer or Robert or Daenerys in Meeren. The concept of law predates constitutions by a wide margin. Incidentally Westeros haven’t got one.

But we are talking about who has the best claim (legally). So legality actually does matter. I mean we could always go, I feel that X deserves the throne and leave it at that, but we should consider legality.

That is what I believe I do, what you do I have no idea.

How else will they make their decision?? By super-majority, unanimous vote or what? Okay, so Lord Arryne claims that Vis and Dany are both insane, how do you get the declarationt taht they are legally insane? By taking a vote of course, after reading and discussing all the evidence. What else can they do, flip a coin?

The point is that the Great council doesn’t pick the one claimant they like the most but the one with the best claim, which wouldn’t be Robert. Sure it’s possible that he could strongarm the council into dismissing Vis and Danys claims, but that would matter little. Daenerys is obviously capable and Robert wanted to be king. And his best claim is force of arms not law.

[Daemrion]

No, when discussing right and wrong in Westeros, only the point of view of the locals have any explanatory power. What I think has very little impact on series but since you ask. My concepts are of course colored by culture and upbringing. But I use my own judgement from case to case to me that seem to be the best because people seldom buys the excuse “every body else does it†or “I was only following ordersâ€.

Views of the locals - so okay, how do we determine what the views of the locals are? Yes, we do to a certain extent by reading the books, but it is the interpretation of the books that leads you to such decisions. In fact, the views of the locals are that Tommen is actually really the son of Robert, that the Targ's are in the past, it is only when things are starting to look really bad because of Cersei's mismanagement that they hark back to the past which any civilisation would do. But there is no talk of open active rebellion is there? And Dorne is the minority.

How about, "if I don't do it, he'll kill me", "if I don't do it, I'll be charged with treason," have you even a basic understanding of the criminal law defence of duress??

Not yet, the Baratheons are still not established. That’s why the kingdom falls apart at Robert death. He ruled by ability not right so in the succession people looks to power rather then law. That why you have parts seceding. The GreatJon’s “why should they rule us from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne “

That has as much to do with Joffrey and Cersei's folly rather than the fact that Robert was a bad King. Parts secede not because the Baratheon line is bad, it is because of the claim that Joffrey was not actually of the Baratheon line (ala Stannis and Renly). If Robert and Cersei had had a legitimate child none of this would have happened, there would be no secession at all. The imaginary kid would have gone on to father more kids etc...

Also notice he does not say King's Landing. It is precisely because Ned has been put to death and accused of treason that the secession occurs. This can be argued as yet another breaking of the feudal contract, thus allowing them to secede. Has nothing to do with the legality of the Baratheon line.

In the end if the Lannister's had been defeated and Cateyn's Great Council had come to pass there would be no secession at all.

Yes but you don’t judge the westerosi law as it is. My point is that if there were a neutral pious judge that followed the body of westerosi succession law, the throne would go Daenerys.

According to you Daenerys has forfeited her claim because her father mismanaged the kingdom There is nothing in the book that to my knowledge support this.

Feudal law, since Westeros is based on feudal society, high chance that feudal law applies. Even feudal law would have had mechanisms within it to work out what happens when the ruler is unfit and decides to act insane.

Explain your reasoning as to why the unbiased neutral pious judge would choose baby Dany. Not older Dany, baby Dany because he would have made his decision when she was a baby.

And she obviously doesn’t believe it.

She blinds herself to the truth, or has been blinded to the truth (as has everyone really, except Jaime of course).

Stannis the most law obsessed player deem the rebellion as honorless.

Stannis has very weird notions of honour. He is formalistic to a fault, and not in any way substantivist. I would not actually agree with his notion of honour, and I don't think that everyone would agree with his notions of honour in the case of the rebellion.

They were as legal as Aegon the conqurerer or Robert or Daenerys in Meeren. The concept of law predates constitutions by a wide margin. Incidentally Westeros haven’t got one.

So you are saying that Aegon ain't legal, Robert ain't legal and Dany ain't legal either? or are you saying that they are all legal.

Magna Carta (which was a basic form of Constitution) was around for a long while, dates from the 12th/13th century. A Constitution does not have to be written, neither does a feudal contract. You might of course believe that Westeros mirrors 9th and 10th century real world (in which case there is nothing but rule by force anyway), but I think the 14th, 15th century is a bit closer to the mark. There is definitely some sort of feudal contract there.

That is what I believe I do, what you do I have no idea.

And yet you keep on quoting ethics, morals and stuff like that at me, as if that is making your decision for you. You aren't using the law. Your notions of the law seem to be infused with morals and values rather than treating the law as a separate sphere of thinking and reasoning.

The point is that the Great council doesn’t pick the one claimant they like the most but the one with the best claim, which wouldn’t be Robert. Sure it’s possible that he could strongarm the council into dismissing Vis and Danys claims, but that would matter little. Daenerys is obviously capable and Robert wanted to be king. And his best claim is force of arms not law.

Was Dany capable at the time of the decision? Once there is a declaration of her incapablility that's it isn't it.

Who says that she is capable?

Who has the best claim? Obviously not someone who is incapable like Aerion's infant son and Daeron's lackwit daughter. So they picked Egg. The whole point of the Great Council was to look past the whole tradition rule. If there was no Aemon and no Egg, who would they have chosen? Would they have ascended Daeron's lackwit or insane Brightflame's son or someone else?

To me, in Robert's case he came third in line and the first two were incapable, and the Great Council would have had express power to declare so just like they did in the previous case with Egg. They disqualified Aerion's infant son because of Aerion's known insanity, so there is precedent for disqualifying Dany and Viserys because of Aerys insanity.

His best claim may be force of arms, but he also has the legal claim as well. It makes his kingship stronger.

Oh and BTW, answer my hypothetical please(about X and Y). Perhaps then you'll understand why importing personal views is such a dangerous assumption when talking about legality.

[Machiavelli]

Daemrion, why don't you define exactly what you mean by "law." You keep referring to this so called mystical force that is separate from ethics and value judgements. Ultimately law has to made by people. People have beliefs, values, and opinions.

My view is that fundamentally law is supposed to be an expression of what is "right" as opposed to "wrong." Ideally law would be discovered via an expression of the general will of the sovereign (the people).

However, in Westeros it seems to me that "law" is perceived either as "might makes right" or "tradition". However traditions have often been broken and "might makes right" ensures little long term stabilily. No wonder civil war breaks out in Westeros.

Feudal law and the right of kings in the middle ages derives its legitimacy generally from a theory of divine right. Kings were supposively placed there by God. They ruled in his name. This seems like an absurd concept to us, but this is what many theorists of legitimacy used back then. It doesn't seem that religion has played much of role in Kings justifying their rule in Westeros, but maybe that will change as feast for crows seems to indicate.

Also, Why do you keep quoting this court case Fiji v Prasad. Its not like one court case from one country, by a group of judges, and from one moment in time binds everything and everyone else in the world. Unless there is somesort of fundamental logic/argument involved in the case that can be extrapolated out.

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll answer it anyways. In terms of the rape scenerio, if the women really didn't consent, then it is rape and the man is guilty. Simple. The hard part is determining if she actually did or did not consent.

Finally, I'll declare that I think Stannis to have the best claim to the throne. We know he is Robert's legitimate heir (even if most don't).

[Daemrion]

Daemrion, why don't you define exactly what you mean by "law." You keep referring to this so called mystical force that is separate from ethics and value judgements. Ultimately law has to made by people. People have beliefs, values, and opinions.

My view is that fundamentally law is supposed to be an expression of what is "right" as opposed to "wrong." Ideally law would be discovered via an expression of the general will of the sovereign (the people).

The sphere of the world inhabited by law - that is legislation, precedent and regulations. It defines the absolute minimum standards in the way that we have to act towards each other. I agree with your paragraph beginning with "my view". We of course don't live in an ideal world, as Habermas says we don't have enough mechanisms to pass through our popular will into law, public debate about critical issues is often muted, Cabinet in representative democracy rarely listens to the public except around election time...

Taking a Weberian analysis - he argues that law has separated itself out from other social spheres, even though it may be informed by people's beliefs, values and opinions. Law has developed a logic of its own, its own way of thinking and reasoning.

However, in Westeros it seems to me that "law" is perceived either as "might makes right" or "tradition". However traditions have often been broken and "might makes right" ensures little long term stabilily. No wonder civil war breaks out in Westeros.

Yep, tradition under a Weberian analysis would normally underpin the power of the King, but in some circumstances tradition does not work. It is a fluke that we have two instances where tradition does not work so close together. After Aegon the Conqueror we had the rebellion against Maegor by the Sword and Stars, the Dance of Dragons, the Blackfyre rebellion, and then Robert's rebellion and then the War of the Five Kings/Three Queens.

But in between all that there is tradition - they have not often been broken, it is just that the kinks in the tradition system have been exposed firstly with Aerys and then with Joffrey.

Also, Why do you keep quoting this court case Fiji v Prasad. Its not like one court case from one country, by a group of judges, and from one moment in time binds everything and everyone else in the world. Unless there is somesort of fundamental logic/argument involved in the case that can be extrapolated out.

The judges in that case did enunciate principles in determining if a new authority that had replaced the old was valid or not, it was a way of deciding how armed revolution could become valid in the modern context. I just thought that it would be a nice tool for legal analysis of the Westerosi problem of legtimate replacement of an old dynasty and the ascension of the new .

It is not a binding case per se, but it is persuasive authority. It is useful.

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll answer it anyways. In terms of the rape scenerio, if the women really didn't consent, then it is rape and the man is guilty. Simple. The hard part is determining if she actually did or did not consent.

So you don't believe in the doctrine of mistaken belief, or mistaken identity defence or anything like that. Isn't it a bit dangerous that you could be convicting an innocent person who truly and honestly and reasonably believes that the other person said yes?

In my scenario I actually said that she believed that she did not consent but he did believe that she consented, both of them being honest and reasonable. In a real life case, of course the hard part is determining if she actually did consent (thus a lot of the he said/she said).

But aside from that, I was actually more interested in what process/reasoning/values you drew from in order to make your answer. It's more like why and how you arrived at your conclusion.

And hopefully, I will get Enguerrand's reasoning process next time.

For me, I feel that the law and the legal doctrines of mistaken belief and identity, provide the lesser of two evil answers, and so I stick with that. I believe that convicting an innocent person is most heinous, that's a value which is not law but has been legally enunciated, so it is basically now an underpinning of the law.

Finally, I'll declare that I think Stannis to have the best claim to the throne. We know he is Robert's legitimate heir (even if most don't).

Yep, legally Stannis is the one with the only legal claim to the throne, once the truth about Tommen's bastardy comes out. But in Westerosi eyes Tommen's claim is superior as everyone still thinks and he is still legally Robert's son. But once that erroneous fiction gets thrown out than Stannis has the best claim legally.

But if we did not know or that Tommen actually by some miracle was actually Robert's, no one would argue that it would not be Tommen.

[Jon Targaryen]

But if we did not know or that Tommen actually by some miracle was actually Robert's, no one would argue that it would not be Tommen.

Except Dany and her supporters of course.

[Child of the Forest]

Yep, legally Stannis is the one with the only legal claim to the throne, once the truth about Tommen's bastardy comes out. But in Westerosi eyes Tommen's claim is superior as everyone still thinks and he is still legally Robert's son. But once that erroneous fiction gets thrown out than Stannis has the best claim legally.

But if we did not know or that Tommen actually by some miracle was actually Robert's, no one would argue that it would not be Tommen.

If Tommen is invalidated, then yes, Stannis is next. If the Stannis dies in the Other War, if you pass over his daughter somehow, then we're out of Baratheons. If we assume that Dany's return and presumed victory using the dragons would restore her right, then she's the rightful queen as the last *known* Targ. If Jon *is* Rhaegar's son, then as a bastard he's either behind Dany or out of the picture entirely as unacknowledged (as much so as Gendry is). Speculation that R might have married Lyanna so far has no textural basis, other than people wondering why three KG are guarding her.

[Grumpygoat]

Speculation that R might have married Lyanna so far has no textural basis

Neither is there textual basis for him not marrying Lyanna. It's just this side of ludicrous to get hung up on whether he's Rhaegar's legitimate son or illegitimate one when all that matters is whether folk acknowledge him as Rhaegar's to begin with. That's the hurdle. Nothing else.

And just as Robert killing his way to "legal" rule is apparently valid, so is the Lannisters deceiving their way to it. With the exception of Mace, the Tyrell's almost certainly think Tommen's Jaime's bastard. Littlefinger does. Lysa likely believes it and so, too, do the Vale lords. Kevan does. Cersei obviously knows. Almost all the Houses that still support Tommen almost certainly think he's a bastard of Jaime.

So trying to say that Stannis is the rightful heir, yet Dany isn't, is silly, because by that logic, Stannis has also been legally ousted, as most of the bannermen sworn to Tommen likely give some credence to the claims of incest these days.

Particularly since the idea that the Baratheons are legal because they say so also applies to the Lannisters: Tommen's legal because the Lannsiters say so.

Now, it's true that the Targaryens set up their rule by force. But I'll give force, followed by 300 years of tradition, a stronger claim than force followed by less than 20 years (or intrigue followed by even less yet).

[Jon Targaryen]

If Tommen is invalidated, then yes, Stannis is next. If the Stannis dies in the Other War, if you pass over his daughter somehow, then we're out of Baratheons. If we assume that Dany's return and presumed victory using the dragons would restore her right, then she's the rightful queen as the last *known* Targ.

Except that Dany isahead of Robert, Stannis and Shireen in the Targaryen succession, what everyone is still basing claims to the throne on.

Neither is there textual basis for him not marrying Lyanna. It's just this side of ludicrous to get hung up on whether he's Rhaegar's legitimate son or illegitimate one when all that matters is whether folk acknowledge him as Rhaegar's to begin with. That's the hurdle. Nothing else.

People may get hung up on him being a bastard if he is one. If Jon were released from his vows and Dany dies, they may just have a Great Council where Jon is one of the contenders, but not the obvious choice.

[Diva]

Except that Dany isahead of Robert, Stannis and Shireen in the Targaryen succession, what everyone is still basing claims to the throne on.

actually, all claims are based on *Baratheon* succession, not Targaryen (except Dany). The Targaryen bit was thrown in after the war was won, and was never the reason for the war.