11084 réponses à ce sujet

[TheJester000]

Not really no.

 

She has a legitimate claim to the throne, but she'd still need to get the support of the people that she wants to rule. or as is more likely (with her whole "breaking the wheel" crap) kill them all and rule over the ruins. Since Drogon was wounded (possibly extensively) it's highly likely that the only thing you'd need to kill a dragon would be at least five balistas per dragon.

 

Yes but we weren't debating about the support of the people, we were talking going only by the customs and laws of Westeros, by which I believe she does have a true claim to the throne.

[Dermain]

Yes but we weren't debating about the support of the people, we were talking going only by the customs and laws of Westeros, by which I believe she does have a true claim to the throne.

 

Having a claim to the throne does not mean that she will instantly get it by passing go and collecting two hundred dollars. Since the Targaryen dynasty was overthrown she has to fight for her claim, and by doing so gaining the support of/killing the people she wants to rule. 

 

She may have a de jure claim on the throne, but she will not be the de facto ruler unless she fights for it.

[TheJester000]

Having a claim to the throne does not mean that she will instantly get it by passing go and collecting two hundred dollars. Since the Targaryen dynasty was overthrown she has to fight for her claim, and by doing so gaining the support of/killing the people she wants to rule. 

 

She may have a de jure claim on the throne, but she will not be the de facto ruler unless she fights for it.

 

I agree. No one is debating that. I think you might have missed what started this discussion. Someone said that Stannis has the rightful claim to the throne by all the laws and customs of Westeros, where I disagree and believe that Daenerys does and was giving my points why. Either one will have to work hard at getting the proper support of the people.

[TheBlackBaron]

I agree. No one is debating that. I think you might have missed what started this discussion. Someone said that Stannis has the rightful claim to the throne by all the laws and customs of Westeros, where I disagree and believe that Daenerys does and was giving my points why. Either one will have to work hard at getting the proper support of the people.

In this case the Targaryens have lost their claim to the Iron Throne by right of conquest - much as it only existed in the first place by right of conquest. Dany might reclaim the Iron Throne, if she ever gets around to directing her flying WMD's to Westeros. But until then by the laws of primogeniture it's Stannis'.

Some have argued that Stannis has now lost his claim to the throne by right of conquest to the Lannisters ... but it's important to remember that while we know the truth of the kids' parentage, and think of them as Lannisters, legally speaking (and basically until somebody actually boots them out of King's Landing) they're Baratheons. And that is what the the Lannister-Tyrell alliance claims as their legal basis for ruling. Not right of conquest.

It's a bit different from Robert's Rebellion, as that one was masterminded by Jon Arryn after the initial bout of bloodshed at the Red Keep and with Rhaegar and Lyanna. And it didn't really turn into a plan to overthrow the Targaryens completely until Rhaegar was killed at the Trident and everything went ****** up. Robert emerged as the figurehead of the revolution, and was placed on the throne because of his grandmother (Egg's youngest daughter), but he wasn't claiming the Iron Throne by right of his Targaryen descent, he was claiming it by right of conquest. Visereys was still alive, at the time, so it would have been moot anyway. 

Moreover, Targaryen precedent is like the Franks, in that women are essentially barred from inheriting the Iron Throne in their own right. The Great Council of 101 AC and later the Dance pretty much coded that. So Dany's only in line because she is literally the last of the Targaryens, as far as most people know (R+L=J not yet being confirmed and Varys and Illyrio's pawn is of uncertain parentage).

Spoiler

And since all male candidates apparently come before female candidates, that means that Jon, as Rhaegar's only living son, is #1 in line by primogeniture if we take it that the Targaryens still have a claim to the Iron Throne. And if, say, Rhaegar and Lyanna weren't ever actually married and Aegon VI is actually a Blackfyre, then even by Targaryen rules Stannis is next in line, since succession can still go through matrilineal descent (the precedent being Aegon II being succeeded by his half-sister Rhaenyra's son, Aegon III).

[God]

Not true, because those were individual kingdoms which operated under a different set of rules. Each of the seven kingdoms still technically has their own royal bloodline. The Martells still rule Dorne and though they are not given title of king of that kingdom, there bloodline is the royal bloodline of that land. The Targaryens were the first to bring the kingdoms under one rule and are the true kings of the seven kingdoms, a position that did not exist without them. There blooldine is the royal bloodline for that title. The two fall under different rule sets.

 

That's not true at all. There is no 'separate kingdom', and there is no royal bloodline for each region. They lost the royal bloodline when Aegon conquered them, be it through annihilation, like the Riverlands and the Reach, battlefield defeat, as it was for the Westerlands, peaceful submission, as it was for the North, or diplomatic parley and reconciliation, as it was for Dorne. If it was, then who the hell is the royal family of the Reach? The Tyrells? They were the stewards of the previous Kings of the Reach, House Gardener. 

 

House Gardener was wiped out in Aegon's Conquest. The Tyrells were named the lords of the Reach in return for their fealty to the Targaryens. Same with Harren Hoare and House Hoare. They were the Kings of the Isles and the Rivers (aka the Iron Islands and the Riverlands). They were wiped out when Aegon rode his dragon on Harrenhal (you know, the big burned out castle) and destroyed the entire house. That's were the Greyjoys were elected as the lords of the Iron Islands, and where House Tully was named the Lords of the Riverlands.

 

The reason any of the houses still rule their respective regions is because they submitted to the Targaryens and were named the Lord Protectors of their region of the realm. They aren't 'royalty' anymore, they're nobility. Dorne is the only house that omits the Lord/Lady titles for the Prince/Princess titles because they were the only region of Westeros to not technically be conquered by the Targaryens (and were able to negotiate their own submission to the Crown on their own terms, one of which was the right to retain the Princely title that they had always used.)

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

you guys ever heard of Polema the wolf queen of Solitude in Skyrim? Shes basically cersei.

[God]

Yes but we weren't debating about the support of the people, we were talking going only by the customs and laws of Westeros, by which I believe she does have a true claim to the throne.

 

By laws and customs of Westeros, she lost that right when the Targaryens were completely ousted from the continent. 

 

She acknowledges those rules in Meereen, telling a noblewoman to essentially get lost since she lost her holdings due to not being able to keep it or defend it from invasion, saying that she isn't the true ruler if she can't keep it and was forced to flee.

 

Then the hypocrisy sets in when she almost immediately after claims that she is still the rightful heir of the Seven Kingdoms, despite having her house lose their holdings in conquest, and thus, by her standards, any true claim to her heritage. It's no longer her birthright. Especially since she fled.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

By laws and customs of Westeros, she lost that right when the Targaryens were completely ousted from the continent. 

 

She acknowledges those rules in Meereen, telling a noblewoman to essentially get lost since she lost her holdings due to not being able to keep it or defend it from invasion, saying that she isn't the true ruler if she can't keep it and was forced to flee.

 

Then the hypocrisy sets in when she almost immediately after claims that she is still the rightful heir of the Seven Kingdoms, despite having her house lose their holdings in conquest, and thus, by her standards, any true claim to her heritage. It's no longer her birthright. Especially since she fled.

til: God watches Game of thrones

[God]

Actually, I read A Song of Ice and Fire.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

Actually, I read A Song of Ice and Fire.

ever thought about releasing a sequel to the Bible?

[Dark Helmet]

you guys ever heard of Polema the wolf queen of Solitude in Skyrim? Shes basically cersei.

 

That is a massive insult to Potema.

 

She started out hella competent.

 

Cersei has ALWAYS been **** tier.

[Lulupab]

Book Cersei seems like an outright psychopath, at least in the show her human side is explored a bit as well.

 

Regardless I enjoyed the bich fights between Margery and Cersei. But Margery > Cersei, if they end up killing Margery or Loras I will seriously rage.

 

Tommen, why you so useless 

[Melra]

[Dread-Reaper]

[Dermain]

I agree. No one is debating that. I think you might have missed what started this discussion. Someone said that Stannis has the rightful claim to the throne by all the laws and customs of Westeros, where I disagree and believe that Daenerys does and was giving my points why. Either one will have to work hard at getting the proper support of the people.

 

They both have a "rightful" claim to the throne, but Dany's claim is slightly weaker than Stannis' simply because her side lost the war.

 

you guys ever heard of Polema the wolf queen of Solitude in Skyrim? Shes basically cersei.

 

No.

 

Potema (outside of the Skyrim quest) is probably one of the only necromancers to even get close to having the same amount of power as Mannimarco (outside of Oblivion). Potema actually was competent up until her son Uriel III died, which was the technical end of the war. Potema then holed up for ten years in Solitude before that was finally overrun leading to her death.

 

On the other hand, Cersei thinks she's the smartest person in Kings Landing, and that she's also the most powerful. Neither of which are even remotely true. Like Uwe Boll, Cersei is a prime example of the Dunning-Krueger effect (where unskilled individuals think they are more skilled than they actually are).

 

Book Cersei seems like an outright psychopath, at least in the show her human side is explored a bit as well.

 

Regardless I enjoyed the bich fights between Margery and Cersei. But Margery > Cersei, if they end up killing Margery or Loras I will seriously rage.

 

Tommen, why you so useless 

 

Because Cersei didn't have her evil claws in him like she did with Joffery. If Tywin had survived Tommen actually could have been taught how to be a good king, instead of having Cersei making him think that he's powerless.

[TheJester000]

That's not true at all. There is no 'separate kingdom', and there is no royal bloodline for each region. They lost the royal bloodline when Aegon conquered them, be it through annihilation, like the Riverlands and the Reach, battlefield defeat, as it was for the Westerlands, peaceful submission, as it was for the North, or diplomatic parley and reconciliation, as it was for Dorne. If it was, then who the hell is the royal family of the Reach? The Tyrells? They were the stewards of the previous Kings of the Reach, House Gardener. 

 

My bad I worded that wrong, I couldn't think of the word "noble" when I was writing that. They are noble bloodlines. 

 

That's not really true either. I mean, going by your argument, several lines that resisted Aegon's Conquest (and survived to the modern day, most notably, the Martells and the Lannisters) would imply that the entire Targaryen dynasty was illegitimate since members of those families survived.

 

The Targaryens didn't need to wipe out all former royal or noble bloodlines to have a legitimate claim to the iron throne. They were the first to ever bring the seven kingdoms under one rule, they started the iron throne and the title of king of the seven kingdoms was created after their conquest. You can not apply the rules of something to the time before it existed.

 

Some have argued that Stannis has now lost his claim to the throne by right of conquest to the Lannisters ... but it's important to remember that while we know the truth of the kids' parentage, and think of them as Lannisters, legally speaking (and basically until somebody actually boots them out of King's Landing) they're Baratheons. And that is what the the Lannister-Tyrell alliance claims as their legal basis for ruling. Not right of conquest.

 

That's interesting, if Tommen is considered a Lannister, Stannis lost his claim by right of conquest. If he is still considered Baratheon, then he is the direct next of kin to Robert. Either way he has a more rightful claim than Stannis does.

[Han Shot First]

About Dany's break the wheel speech...

 

I didn't notice it the first time, but she includes her own house in that speech. Initially I just took it be her usual bluster and about breaking all the houses responsible for the fall of House Targaryen, but on a second viewing I noticed she names her own house as well as being part of the problem she intends to break. I wonder then if that wasn't just bluster and she's got something specific in mind regarding the way Westeros is governed. 

 

Westerosi Magna Carta?

[Shechinah]

*snip*

 

Surprise ending; Daenerys introduces democracy!
 

[Iakus]

 

Spoiler

And since all male candidates apparently come before female candidates, that means that Jon, as Rhaegar's only living son, is #1 in line by primogeniture if we take it that the Targaryens still have a claim to the Iron Throne. And if, say, Rhaegar and Lyanna weren't ever actually married and Aegon VI is actually a Blackfyre, then even by Targaryen rules Stannis is next in line, since succession can still go through matrilineal descent (the precedent being Aegon II being succeeded by his half-sister Rhaenyra's son, Aegon III).

a problem is that

 

Spoiler

Jon is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  And as such cannot inherit any titles.  This came up when Stannis offered to legitimize Jon as a Stark and make him the new lord of Winterfell

[TobiTobsen]

Surprise ending; Daenerys introduces democracy!
 

 

Heh... her house is done for anyway*, so why not ruin the fun for the other great houses?

 

* it is, isn't it? Leaving theories and Mirri Maz Duur's prophecy about her infertility aside: With her as the last, female, member of House Targaryen, whatever kids she will have are of the fathers dynasty, right? Or did I understood something wrong in the "Westerosi Inheritance 101"?

[Bison]

a problem is that

 

Spoiler

Jon is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch.  And as such cannot inherit any titles.  This came up when Stannis offered to legitimize Jon as a Stark and make him the new lord of Winterfell

This is a book spoiler, so if you haven't finished ADWD don't read this

Spoiler

Well, if Mel raises Jon from the dead (all Beric Dondarrion like), and the Night's Watch serves for life, technically Jon has served for life, and if I were him, I would not want to go back to my 'brothers' who stabbed me 4 times, ja feel? Of course there is the possibility that Jon just wont come back at all. Would it be so surprising?

[Han Shot First]

This is a book spoiler, so if you haven't finished ADWD don't read this

Spoiler

Well, if Mel raises Jon from the dead (all Beric Dondarrion like), and the Night's Watch serves for life, technically Jon has served for life, and if I were him, I would not want to go back to my 'brothers' who stabbed me 4 times, ja feel? Of course there is the possibility that Jon just wont come back at all. Would it be so surprising?

 

That is actually a good point.

[Display Name Owner]

 

Infinity billion renegade points to Stannis.

[Malanek]

This is a book spoiler, so if you haven't finished ADWD don't read this

Spoiler

Well, if Mel raises Jon from the dead (all Beric Dondarrion like), and the Night's Watch serves for life, technically Jon has served for life, and if I were him, I would not want to go back to my 'brothers' who stabbed me 4 times, ja feel? Of course there is the possibility that Jon just wont come back at all. Would it be so surprising?

That has been discussed a lot. It would be a rules lawyering way of getting out of it though. 

 

Spoiler

I would be absolutely shocked if Jon was permanently dead. Although Martin has a habit of killing important characters, I genuinely believe Jon is much more important than anyone Martin has killed or can afford to kill at this point. Note that Jon had already decided to break his oath to go rescue who he thought was Arya before his "death". I think the fact that he is probably the heir to the iron throne and didn't know it when he took his vows to be more relevant. Or even the fact the nights watch could soon cease to exist if the others decide to turn up. But I suspect he will largely stay true to his oath in trying to defeat the others above pretty much everything else except Arya. If the others were permanently defeated though...

[CrutchCricket]

That's interesting, if Tommen is considered a Lannister, Stannis lost his claim by right of conquest. If he is still considered Baratheon, then he is the direct next of kin to Robert. Either way he has a more rightful claim than Stannis does.

Tommen didn't conquer anything. Stannis lives and has rebuilt his forces.