Hypothetical question regarding Robb's Will

[manting]

I don't agree. 1. the Targs lost any claim when they lost the throne, 2. why explicitly name him his father's son when everyone know who Jon Snow is

So if you murder the King than his living children have no claim? That makes ZERO sense. Of course the Targs still have a claim, why the hell do you think Robert wants Dany assasinated? Its not just because he hates the Targs, its because she may have a son. As long as she is alive Robert knows he is a usurper.

[manting]

In the will he legitizmizes Jon and names him heir as the the oldest living son of Eddard stark. In the will he also attains Sansa since she is married to the imp. He discusses this with Catelyn in detail and he clearly intends to remove Sansa from the line of succession.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

So if you murder the King than his living children have no claim? That makes ZERO sense. Of course the Targs still have a claim, why the hell do you think Robert wants Dany assasinated? Its not just because he hates the Targs, its because she may have a son. As long as she is alive Robert knows he is a usurper.

what makes zero sense is what the Targs themselves decided, a woman will never be able to take the throne. So Dany can never be the queen because guess what, she is a woman

also it was a war and they lost. Lost the throne lost the claim.

[Lala]

So if you murder the King than his living children have no claim? That makes ZERO sense. Of course the Targs still have a claim, why the hell do you think Robert wants Dany assasinated? Its not just because he hates the Targs, its because she may have a son. As long as she is alive Robert knows he is a usurper.

As long as she is alive Robert knows that there is someone else who might come back and attempt to reclaim the 7K through right of conquest.

A quick cheat sheet on why the Targaryens have no claim to the 7K:

The right of Conquest is very simple. You win the Throne, it`s yours. Your predecessors have no right on the throne, and you do with it whatever you want until someone basically overthrow you. Aegon won Westeros by conquering it, and Kings before him had no right anymore, now Robert had won the Throne from Targaryens, so they don`t have any right anymore. Nice and simple. The power is in the might.

There are two types of people on this board, those who follow right of conquest and those who dont. Either way the targs have no right to westeros. If you follow right of conquest the baratheons are the ruling house. If you dont the targs have no right to rule westeros and should live on dragonstone, and if you go farther back then that I am sure those islands were taken from someone and the targs should go back to valyria to live in a wasteland. I am tired of people saying the targs are rightful kings and the baratheons are usurpurs, house baratheon usurped one king, aegon stole the crowns of seven. But, but robert stole the throne! it is danys! No, it is not you either follow right of conquest or you dont, either way targs dont belong. You cant have it both ways.

I'm making this little post in response to what I've found to be an outrageously prevalent misconception among my fellow "Fourm of Ice and Fire" posters. Everywhere I look, every topic I get involved in, someone seems to pipe up about how Daenerys and/or Aegon are the ones with the best, or most legitimate claim to the Iron Throne. This often comes up in discussions about Stannis. I often see people wondering how Stannis will react when he hears about Deanerys and Aegon, being that Stannis is a man who believes in doing one's duty. Most posters seem to think that Stannis' claim to the throne is weakened by the existence of these Targaryens, and that Stannis himself may even relinquish his claim once he realizes that there are others out there with a better claim than he. Everyone seems to forget one simple fact: Right of Conquest cuts both ways.

The Targaryens are the lords of Westeros by RIGHT OF CONQUEST and nothing else. Aegon took the 7 Kingdoms by force, and his descendants inherited them by his decree. 300 years later, Robert Baratheon took the Iron Throne himself, by RIGHT OF CONQUEST. His conquest was every bit as legitimate as Aegon's, and when he won his war he and HIS DESCENDANTS became the rightful rulers of Westeros. Until Dany, or Aegon, or Jon or whatever other potential Targaryen takes it BACK by right of conquest, Stannis Baratheon is the rightful King and the Iron Throne belongs to him. End of story.

ETA: ninja'd by Jon's Consort <3

[Pikachu101]

It doesn't really matter what Robb wrote in the will, as as soon as Rickon and/or Bran turn up, the rules of succession point to them.

:agree:

People seem to be ignoring the fact that:

A) Sansa's coming down with the Vale

B ) Manderly knows Rickon's alive

C) Jon would never take their inheritance

[Glenn of House Patrick]

As long as she is alive Robert knows that there is someone else who might come back and attempt to reclaim the 7K through right of conquest.

A quick cheat sheet on why the Targaryens have no claim to the 7K:

ETA: ninja'd by Jon's Consort <3

:bowdown:

The above quotes sum the whole 'Targs are rightful rulers' debate up quite nicely. They have no claim. If Aegon or Dany want the throne, they have to usurp the current regime, with their own 'dogs' doing much of the dirty work.

[manting]

That cheat sheet makes total sense. The targs conquered and took the kingdom by force. They lost the kingdom by force. The difference being the targs never bent the knee. So they have never relinquished their claim to the throne. When the Aegon the Conquerer took the seven kingdoms by force many simply bent the knee rather than fight. Those that fought bent the knee after they were defeated. Torren Stark for example he bent the knee and by doing so reliquished his claim to the kingship of the North. The remaining Targs never bent the knee (Dany and her brother) so they still have a claim. Perhaps it is a technicality but it seems correct. Yes, no?

Yes Westeros has no ruling queens (except Dorne) but if you read my post the fear was that she was pregnant and could father a son.

[manting]

also there were 7 different kingdoms until the conquest. The Targs are the founding dynasty of the 7 kingdoms. Before them, there were 7 kings and seven kingdoms. So, as the founding dynasty they would still be the rightful rulers until they are dead or have bent the knee and reliquished all claim. Since they are alive and have not bent the knee then they are still the rightful heirs.

[Glenn of House Patrick]

That cheat sheet makes total sense. The targs conquered and took the kingdom by force. They lost the kingdom by force. The difference being the targs never bent the knee. So they have never relinquished their claim to the throne. When the Aegon the Conquerer took the seven kingdoms by force many simply bent the knee rather than fight. Those that fought bent the knee after they were defeated. Torren Stark for example he bent the knee and by doing so reliquished his claim to the kingship of the North. The remaining Targs never bent the knee (Dany and her brother) so they still have a claim. Perhaps it is a technicality but it seems correct. Yes, no?

Yes Westeros has no ruling queens (except Dorne) but if you read my post the fear was that she was pregnant and could father a son.

Bent knees or not, they still lost their claim, IMO. Bending the knee is just a show of acceptance. Just because the Targs didn't accept the reality of the situation doesn't mean that it isn't true. In Grease (bear with me here for a second), Craterface lost his car to Danny because they were racing for pinks' (pinkslips, ownership of the car or what have you). Craterface didn't bend the knee to Zucko, but he still lost his car. Roberts Rebellion was a war for theoretical pinkslips (especially when the rebels realized they could win), and the losers lost their property, all 7 Kingdoms of it.

And yes, I was dead serious with the grease reference.

[manting]

I like your Grease reference but I still think that the surviving Targs have the best/rightfull claim. If Aerys had not been killed by Jamie but had been taken by Ned and then bent the knee and reliquished his rights and the rights of all his heirs to the throne than I would agree of course. Because they were the ruling family and never bent the knee they still have a right to the throne. No one is just going to give it to them though.

It will come down to who has the biggest army at some point either way, but I believe the smallfolk and the faith will back a Targ since they were the ruling dynasty that forged the seven kingdoms into one and the Barthenons held the throne for like 20 years after taking the thone from the Targs.

[hardhome]

That cheat sheet makes total sense. The targs conquered and took the kingdom by force. They lost the kingdom by force. The difference being the targs never bent the knee. So they have never relinquished their claim to the throne. When the Aegon the Conquerer took the seven kingdoms by force many simply bent the knee rather than fight. Those that fought bent the knee after they were defeated. Torren Stark for example he bent the knee and by doing so reliquished his claim to the kingship of the North. The remaining Targs never bent the knee (Dany and her brother) so they still have a claim. Perhaps it is a technicality but it seems correct. Yes, no?

Yes Westeros has no ruling queens (except Dorne) but if you read my post the fear was that she was pregnant and could father a son.

:agree: But let me get back to the original question. How will this be reconciled, Robb whose family bent the knee to the Targaryen family 300 years ago as "King of the North" a title that their family relinquished then legitimizes someone who would then hold a position higher than himself. But Dany will challenge his claim based on Robb did not have the right to legitimize him. Aegon won't care as he would be older anyway (assuming he is legitimate).

what makes zero sense is what the Targs themselves decided, a woman will never be able to take the throne. So Dany can never be the queen because guess what, she is a woman

also it was a war and they lost. Lost the throne lost the claim.

I don't recall this event. Although we heard a bit about the story of the kingmaker, we don't know all the details and defiance of the previous king's wishes, a TARGARYEN King to be sure who WANTED his daughter to serve as queen.

[Lala]

:agree: But let me get back to the original question. How will this be reconciled, Robb whose family bent the knee to the Targaryen family 300 years ago as "King of the North" a title that their family relinquished then legitimizes someone who would then hold a position higher than himself. But Dany will challenge his claim based on Robb did not have the right to legitimize him. Aegon won't care as he would be older anyway (assuming he is legitimate).

I don't recall this event. Although we heard a bit about the story of the kingmaker, we don't know all the details and defiance of the previous king's wishes, a TARGARYEN King to be sure who WANTED his daughter to serve as queen.

Distinction:

Robb legitimizes Jon as a Stark. If R+L=J is true, then Jon is already legitimate, because the popular assumption is that R+L were secretly married prior to the birth of Jon. Hence there is no need for legitimization.

[Glenn of House Patrick]

I like your Grease reference but I still think that the surviving Targs have the best/rightfull claim. If Aerys had not been killed by Jamie but had been taken by Ned and then bent the knee and reliquished his rights and the rights of all his heirs to the throne than I would agree of course. Because they were the ruling family and never bent the knee they still have a right to the throne. No one is just going to give it to them though.

It will come down to who has the biggest army at some point either way, but I believe the smallfolk and the faith will back a Targ since they were the ruling dynasty that forged the seven kingdoms into one and the Barthenons held the throne for like 20 years after taking the thone from the Targs.

I agree with your last point. In the end, it's who has the biggest army and the most support in the right places. Right now, Aegon has the advantage over Dany and Stannis, but that won't be the only thing that matters in the long run. Regardless, as far as actual claims go in relation to succession, the only one with a claim is Stannis, as he's the rightful surviving heir of Robert, the former king, who's regime is still in power (although in name only). Dany, Aegon, and Jon snow all have as much claim as we do, regardless of them bending the knee or not. If all of the descendents were killed, it'd have the same effect.

[manting]

good points hardhome. Whomever eventually gets the Iron Throne will follow the Stannis mentality that the seven kingdoms must have one and only one ruler.

Why wouldnt Robb have the right to legitmize Jon? You mean because Dany wouldnt recognize the King in the North or because Jon is actually a Targ?

[hardhome]

I like your Grease reference but I still think that the surviving Targs have the best/rightfull claim. If Aerys had not been killed by Jamie but had been taken by Ned and then bent the knee and reliquished his rights and the rights of all his heirs to the throne than I would agree of course. Because they were the ruling family and never bent the knee they still have a right to the throne. No one is just going to give it to them though.

It will come down to who has the biggest army at some point either way, but I believe the smallfolk and the faith will back a Targ since they were the ruling dynasty that forged the seven kingdoms into one and the Barthenons held the throne for like 20 years after taking the thone from the Targs.

But they were not killed (except Rheagar) by Robert or his direct subordinates they were killed by Tywin or his subordinates. But Tywin's family made no direct claim to the throne. Their family's claim to it is through Cersei's marriage and obviously there are problems with it if one considers lineage the only basis for claim. Yet Cersei, Tommen or whoever is their next hand sits there with no real right of lineage or conquest (unless Cersei is actually Aerys illegitimate daughter, and even then) Ned's claiming of Jon was to avoid a war with his best friend and to increase the likely longevity of his nephew. (Assuming J= L+R)

[manting]

If this is the case that why does R+L=J even matter than? If he has no claim. This theory makes Jon's parentage only important for the prophecy's and the same with Dany and Aegon. Since they have no claim as some on here state than why would Griff fuck his whole life up for a decade and why would the Halfmaester and Duck and the septa all spend all that time and effort if Aegons claim was no better than some kid born in flea bottom? Makes ZERO sense.

[manting]

Harhome - Robert killed the heir in single combat - but the lannisters took KL. Why did Robert get the throne? Because he had THE BEST CLAIM. It was a matter of how much Targ blood he had. The Barthenons claim to the throne is seen as a continuation of the Targ dynasty. I need the books in front of me to qoute from but that seems right to me. So if that is correct than I was right in saying that Dany does have a claim as do Jon and possibly Aegon (if he is real - hes not - he is the mummers dragon)

[Glenn of House Patrick]

If this is the case that why does R+L=J even matter than? If he has no claim. This theory makes Jon's parentage only important for the prophecy's and the same with Dany and Aegon. Since they have no claim as some on here state than why would Griff fuck his whole life up for a decade and why would the Halfmaester and Duck and the septa all spend all that time and effort if Aegons claim was no better than some kid born in flea bottom? Makes ZERO sense.

Because, for Dany and aegon at least, they've been told their whole life that the Iron Throne was theirs by right. And they believe that. Despite the fact that if they ever sit the IT (and I'm sure at least Aegon will, for a little while at least) they will have done so by right of conquest. They will be usurpers to the current regime, just like Robert and his 'dogs.' They won't admit it, of course, but that's the only way it'll happen. They'll spout off about their "claim" to whomever will listen and give them support, but the actualy deed will be done by usurpation.

As far as the case for Jon Snow, if he's legit, I doubt he'll sit the Iron Throne and I doubt he would believe he has any claim to anything in the south. He's a northerner through and through.

Harhome - Robert killed the heir in single combat - but the lannisters took KL. Why did Robert get the throne? Because he had THE BEST CLAIM. It was a matter of how much Targ blood he had. The Barthenons claim to the throne is seen as a continuation of the Targ dynasty. I need the books in front of me to qoute from but that seems right to me. So if that is correct than I was right in saying that Dany does have a claim as do Jon and possibly Aegon (if he is real - hes not - he is the mummers dragon)

The 'claim' was an issue the maesters came up with to make it seem legitimate. He had more Targ blood than Ned and Jon Arryn, and was probably the only one of the 3 to actually want the job. It mattered little in the long run if he had any targ blood at all, as Renly pointed out when he called himself king.

[aedalia]

The will will never surface. Not that the show is cannon, but it never showed up there. Therefore, it doesn't have an impact on the endgame of the books. I would be very surprised if it is ever mentioned again.

[Glenn of House Patrick]

The smoking gun theory suggests that we will see it agin, at least in the books.