Neither. The strongest claim to the Iron Throne is possession of the ass that sits in it. By this logic, the strongest claim belongs to Tommen Baratheon.
Poll: Stannis vs. Daenerys - Better claim?
- Thread starter IOwnTheSpire
- Start date
Going by CK2 rules: Stannis.
Robert took the title from Whats-his-face Targaryen using what I assume would be a fabricated claim or an invasion casus belli, then he died. Assuming the Iron Throne uses Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture succession law, the title would pass to his eldest son, but since all Cersei's kids are bastards he has none. The title will then go to his next eldest brother, Stannis.
I can't remember if Dany would have a weak claim or a strong claim, but Stannis is literally the rightful heir. And this is ignoring the fact that almost everyone hates the Targaryen's guts anyways. And the fact she's a women and medieval leaders don't take kindly to that.
Robert took the title from Whats-his-face Targaryen using what I assume would be a fabricated claim or an invasion casus belli, then he died. Assuming the Iron Throne uses Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture succession law, the title would pass to his eldest son, but since all Cersei's kids are bastards he has none. The title will then go to his next eldest brother, Stannis.
I can't remember if Dany would have a weak claim or a strong claim, but Stannis is literally the rightful heir. And this is ignoring the fact that almost everyone hates the Targaryen's guts anyways. And the fact she's a women and medieval leaders don't take kindly to that.
On paper, it looks like Stannis. His brother was the last king. It's true that the Targaryens were invaders, but if you go back far enough, you'll probably find the Westerosi themselves swept some weaker peoples out of the way to establish the Kingdoms in the first place. In fact, aren't those the folk who ended up beyond the Wall? Been awhile since I read the books.
In reality, the true ruler is whoever can plant their ass in the big chair and keep it there. The one and only true right to rule is measured in the inability of others to stop you.
In reality, the true ruler is whoever can plant their ass in the big chair and keep it there. The one and only true right to rule is measured in the inability of others to stop you.
- Feb 13, 2009
- 178
- 41
- 33
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Does it really matter?
If the theory about Jon is true...then he's still a bastard, and thus has no inheritance rights, making the point completely moot. His vows to the Nights Watch don't help.LeathermanKick25 said:
its very simple stannis has the better claim but danny has shown she would be the better ruler. The reason I say that is she actually listens to advice after shes been proven wrong(albeit usually after screwing up rather epically) were as stannis flat out refuses to listen to anyone who contradicts his red headed witch. Honestly I think the fact that they are comparable at all shows how much more suited danny is as she has no real ruling experience growing up but as far as I see hasn't made any worse mistakes then stannis has and hes been ruling for 10+ years.
Well no matter how strong the claim, nothing can help the fact Stannis has a warscore of like 0% atm.Phrozenflame500 said:
Sorry I missed the point about the first book. And also I apologise for being so out of the gates aggressive. I'm a regular member of A Forum of Ice and Fire. There's nothing that hasn't extensively been debated there and they get pretty hot some times. So in ASOIAF/GOT my first response is all guns blazing.samgdawg said:
I hope you won't back out of a riveting discussion on my behalf.
I actually like or liked Dany. I just like Stannis more and it seems everyone is forced to take a side.
There's a theory Rhaegar married Lyanna, as Targs have practiced polygamy in the past.Burnhardt said:
Many believe Jon dying and being reborn negates his vows
Robert actually had a weak claim that could be pressed to usurp from the Targs. For those who don't know jack shit, Robert's grandmother was a Targ, that is why he was the one to ascend the throne after his rebellion, and not Ned or Jon Arryn. This means that Stannis has that same claim in addition to being Robert's brother and, considering all Robert's supposedly legitimate children are actually Cersei's bastards, Stannis has the best claim.Phrozenflame500 said:
Dany does have a strong claim as well, probably equally as strong in theory, though she is less than likely to garner much support as she herself doesn't really have any connections inside Westeros.
It gets even more complicated as the Great Council of 101 (and latter the Civil War known as the Dance of Dragons) established that the throne cannot pass to a woman or to a male through a female line. Which is both Danaerys and Stannis respectively.GrimTuesday said:
Edit: Or at least as long as there's a male through a male line (e.g. Viserys) they come first. It's unclear if Stannis is actually before or after Dany.
Frankly though, if he had listened to anyone but Melisandre Stannis would be sitting on Dragonstone sulking while Renly would be the competent, likable ruler of the seven kingdoms and everything would be super dandy for everyone but Stannis.ecoho said:
In clash of kings (or start of season 2) Stannis' claim is pretty much hopeless. His "kingdom" is a few rocky islands in the narrow sea. His military forces are heavily dependent on foreign mercenaries and aren't enough to accomplish anything. Melisandre is the only person who actually believes that Stannis can win, and she convinces him to go along with her even when every rational mind says otherwise. What is more, she is generally right, something which is even more evident in the TV show than the books.
Frankly, while she may be a popular hate-figure among fans, not listening to Melisandre would be incredibly foolish at this point. She's demonstrably powerful and has proved her value many times.
The thing about Westeros is that it always struck me as a land where the strong get to decide, with blood just being an added bonus when needed. Aegon the conquerer had no claim on it whatsoever, yet he became king because he was able to wipe the floor with his enemies. Same with Robert Baratheon. He had no claim on the throne, ye he managed to get it because her and his forces crushed that of the ruling family.
If you have the greater force, can take the throne and hold it from those who want to take it back from you, THAT is what makes you the ruler, not blood and not right.
If you have the greater force, can take the throne and hold it from those who want to take it back from you, THAT is what makes you the ruler, not blood and not right.
No, don't feel bad. I enjoyed it a lot actually. Anyone who can get fired up about this is exactly the guy I'd hang out with in person for great debates about just this kind of thing. I'm backing out more cause I'm only at the first few episodes of the fourth season.WolfThomas said:
Dany, I still like, but I support her in this more as she (hopefully) has potential to change.
Stannis would not be able to hold the Throne for long. His strict, grim, joyless, and all around dour atmosphere and personality would ruin any standing with the commoners as I just can't see him giving them the bread and circuses they'd need to want him as a king. That would the least of his problems though as he would quickly end up sabotaging his standing with probably every house (yay hyperbole) to where the assassins would be bumping into each other awkwardly in the Red Keep hallways. He's a great military person, that's undeniable, but his diplomatic skills are sorely lacking.
Oh, and there I go jumping in head first though I said I wouldn't.
i think it shouldnt be dany vs stannis, but jon Targaryen vs stannis.
im sure that jon snow is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen (big, dead brother of daenerys, not the cracy one) and Lyanna Stark (sister of eddard).
here is why:
its said that rhaegar gave a trophy meant for the most beautiful woman at a tournament not to his wife, but lyanna. shortly after she was "kidnapped" by him. then robert started his war to get her back. when robert and ned found them, rhaegar got killed and ned found lyanna blody and dieing, he had to promise her something.
that all screams that rhaegar secretly loved lyanna, she got pregnant, they ran away together (maybe even maried) and lyanna died while giving birth to job. ned then took him and raised him as his own, promising to protect him from robert.
that all seems way more plausible then ned CHEATING with some random girl.
the only thing in question is if jon is considered a bastard still or if rhaegar and lyanna were indeed maried.
id guess jon would be pushed to be the rightful king. he would say no, cause of his oath to the nightswatch, but he would give the throne to daenerys with tyrion as the hand of the king with him actually ruling
im sure that jon snow is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen (big, dead brother of daenerys, not the cracy one) and Lyanna Stark (sister of eddard).
here is why:
its said that rhaegar gave a trophy meant for the most beautiful woman at a tournament not to his wife, but lyanna. shortly after she was "kidnapped" by him. then robert started his war to get her back. when robert and ned found them, rhaegar got killed and ned found lyanna blody and dieing, he had to promise her something.
that all screams that rhaegar secretly loved lyanna, she got pregnant, they ran away together (maybe even maried) and lyanna died while giving birth to job. ned then took him and raised him as his own, promising to protect him from robert.
that all seems way more plausible then ned CHEATING with some random girl.
the only thing in question is if jon is considered a bastard still or if rhaegar and lyanna were indeed maried.
id guess jon would be pushed to be the rightful king. he would say no, cause of his oath to the nightswatch, but he would give the throne to daenerys with tyrion as the hand of the king with him actually ruling
Dany has better claim, but is barren. Even if she weren't her husbands house would inherit her titles and bring in a third ala Joanna the Mad bring in Hapsburg rule to Spain, with a shaky foundation unless she decided to marry a Baratheon ala the union of the Houses of Lancaster and York.
Stannis has less of a claim but can produce an heir that will inherit the Baratheon name. It's still unstable but more stable than all but one of the alternatives.
Claims did matter and no one got anywhere without even a tenuous grasp at one. It's what made pretenders so dangerous and others like rebellious nobility or the lower classes not so much - as much damage as they could cause, as much as they could reduce the power of a monarch, they couldn't remove the monarch and his families claim, but a rival of blood could.
The latter part is somewhat seen in the opening premise with the Baratheon's with their ancestral links to Targaryan blood making them the most likely candidates to inherit the throne. Even during the general break down and disorder it's still legitimate or supposedly legitimate claimants aiming for the throne with the likes of Robb and the Iron Islands trying to reassert their traditional independence.
Stannis has less of a claim but can produce an heir that will inherit the Baratheon name. It's still unstable but more stable than all but one of the alternatives.
Most fantasy is fantasy because of all the usual unrealistic fantastical crap that goes on, Martin's work is fantasy because it is so heavily cynical that it's as close a representation of the Middle Ages as The Lord of Rings is.
Claims did matter and no one got anywhere without even a tenuous grasp at one. It's what made pretenders so dangerous and others like rebellious nobility or the lower classes not so much - as much damage as they could cause, as much as they could reduce the power of a monarch, they couldn't remove the monarch and his families claim, but a rival of blood could.
The latter part is somewhat seen in the opening premise with the Baratheon's with their ancestral links to Targaryan blood making them the most likely candidates to inherit the throne. Even during the general break down and disorder it's still legitimate or supposedly legitimate claimants aiming for the throne with the likes of Robb and the Iron Islands trying to reassert their traditional independence.
It's what people don't get. The rebellion wasn't stepping beyond the pale, it was what the mountain did that forced the rest to consider completely doing away with the Targaryans being the safest course to save their skin instead of putting Vaery's on the throne only for him to later hold all the rebels accountable for their deaths when he came of age.
I would put in there something about church (and maybe a pope or four) as you cant claim divine right, its passed by the clergy. Its the way religions got so much power (esp Christians and Muslims, but Israelites as well for short time they held power). It originally came from Pharaohs being gods but the church realised you don't want god in control that cant be usurped.evilthecat said: