Game of Thrones Discussion: Who should sit on the Iron Throne?

[AesSedaiGuy]

Who do I think should be on the Throne? Stannis the mannis Baratheon, of course. He has the the most realistic claim to the throne, being the late king's brother. (Implying we are still going by the Baratheon line of succession here) And of all the people after the Throne, he seems like the only one willing to take his job as king seriously, and is doing it for the sake of duty, not personal greed or desire. (A path that he seems aware will lead to his demise, as proven by good ol' Ned, but a path he follows anyway 'cos he's gotta do what he's gotta do.) Who do I want on the throne? Roose Bolton. Would be hilarious. Nah, seriously though, Little Finger. Even though He doesn't want it. Who do I think will be on the throne at the end? Nobody. The throne will be destroyed.

I kind of agree with Tyler (except the Bolton piece). I like Littlefinger a lot, but I also wonder if the throne won't be destroyed.

 

 

 

I think Jon and Dany will unite the whole "fire and ice" thing, but not sure what to do with Aegon V.

 

 

[AesSedaiGuy]

I think that Jon is going to get it. Plus I hope he does since he is the most forward thinking of anyone.

 

Also by Westerosi law Dany cannot be Queen as in full command. The Dornish play on this when they declare Myrcellas claim in Dorn by Dornish law that women can rule

 

 

I don't think that is an accurate description. The Dornish/Westerosi difference is not on women being Queen in their own right it's about primogeniture, and whether a younger brother supersedes an older sister.

 

[Zanarky]

Targs do't ALWAYS marry other Targs, it's just common. Rhaegar was engaged to that Princess from Dorne and even Dany and her douchebag brother didn't follow that tradition. It just happened more times that not, but it wasn't strictly brother and sister each and everytime.

 

Rhaegar was with Elia of Dorne because he had no siblings. Daenerys was born after Rhaegar died. Viserys couldn't marry Dany because he needed to sell her to the Dothraki in order for him to gain an army to take Westeros back. In both situations, if things were different, Dragon would have married Dragon.

 

 

True, but when it comes to their society, only the offspring, of a married couple, regardless of their line, and tradition of incest is the legitimate heir. The bastards are just that.. Bastards, they are tolerated because they are blood, seen as lesser lords. Never the rulers. 

 

Weren't the Karlstarks for instance, a line of bastards that broke off from the Starks?

 

 

The Karstarks were not a line of bastards. From the wiki:

 

Their founder was Karlon Stark, who put down a rebellion of the Boltons and was granted lands for his valor.^[2] The castle he built was named Karl’s Hold, but that soon became Karhold, and over the centuries the Karhold Starks became Karstarks.

 

Given what I've read so far in the books...

 

 

I think it's likely that Aegon could take the throne. In the end, I see a huge battle between Lannister and Dany's camp, but neither side coming out on top.

 

It's also possible that Bran or Sansa come to it, although Sansa's success would have to do a lot with whether or not Littlefinger intends to put her there. She's his puppet.

 

 

I think it would be badass if Barristan Selmy became king! He's wise, strong, kind, and I'd say he's still young enough to plant his seed. Even for mid 60s, he's pretty spry.

[SinisterDeath]

 

The Karstarks were not a line of bastards. From the wiki:

 

Their founder was Karlon Stark, who put down a rebellion of the Boltons and was granted lands for his valor.^[2] The castle he built was named Karl’s Hold, but that soon became Karhold, and over the centuries the

Huh, Coulda swore there was some bastard line that became a minor lord-line in the north.

[MasterAblar]

Who would I want most out of the possible candidates? Probably Stannis. He sure isn't likeable, but he seems like he actually takes the job seriously and is driven neither by vengance nor personal glory or ambition. He's just doing his job, even if everyone hates him for it. He also came to the aid of the Nightwatch when everyone else turned their backs on them. I guess Jon could be ok, but both he and Dany are really young. Not that there' haven't been some good young monarchs, but ideally you want someone with a little more experience.

 

Who has the best claim? Well...

 

 

If Aegon is legit than he does as Rhaegar's eldest son. If he isn't then it's Dany, UNLESS Jon is Rhaegar's son and is somehow legitimized. But that's if the Targaryen's regain the throne somehow. Otherwise obviously it's Stannis. He's got his work cut out for him, and the thing is while the other parties might relent before the Targaryens, there's no chance that he will. He'll fight to the very end

 

 

Who do I think will win it?

 

Gendry all the way!

[SinisterDeath]

 

Don't discount the Rose families ambitions to the throne. They've all but taken it for themselves in the last book.

 

[MasterAblar]

 

Don't discount the Rose families ambitions to the throne. They've all but taken it for themselves in the last book.

 

 

 

The Tyrells? I think they might have their hand full with the Ironborn, and I expect Aegon's assault to take them completely by suprise, combined with a dornish incursion from the South.

 

[SinisterDeath]

 

 

Don't discount the Rose families ambitions to the throne. They've all but taken it for themselves in the last book.

 

 

 

The Tyrells? I think they might have their hand full with the Ironborn, and I expect Aegon's assault to take them completely by suprise, combined with a dornish incursion from the South.

 

 

 

They definitely have their hands full, but they aren't stupid either. They are more likely to garner allies to defend such an attack, or even turn the three pronged attack against them, against each other... The dornish for instance, would probably go apeshit over Aegon's Assault.. And the ironborn couldn't help but take them both up the rear.

 

[MasterAblar]

 

 

 

Don't discount the Rose families ambitions to the throne. They've all but taken it for themselves in the last book.

 

 

 

The Tyrells? I think they might have their hand full with the Ironborn, and I expect Aegon's assault to take them completely by suprise, combined with a dornish incursion from the South.

 

 

 

They definitely have their hands full, but they aren't stupid either. They are more likely to garner allies to defend such an attack, or even turn the three pronged attack against them, against each other... The dornish for instance, would probably go apeshit over Aegon's Assault.. And the ironborn couldn't help but take them both up the rear.

 

 

 

 

Allies are sort of in a short supply. Stannis is still causing trouble in the North and seems to have the Freys and Boltons tied up over there. The Lanisters and riverlands are exhausted by war at this point, not to mention leaderless. That just leaves Littlefinger in the Vale with as of yet unbloodied armies. If I'm Littlefinger, I know whose side I'm taking. Considering the whole plot between the dornish and Viserys, I'd be suprised if the dornish and Aegon didn't end up working together. After all they have the goal. There's the ironborn, but Victarion took the Iron Fleet to Mereen, so Euron would be a fool to attack the dornish. There might be a way out of it for the Tyrells, but at the moment there situation isn't looking good.

 

[SinisterDeath]

 

Plot between Visery's and Dornish? Was almost certain that the Dornish had some kind of blood fued with Danny's blood line. (or was that just the viper?)

 

 

Man. I need to reread the series again..

[MasterAblar]

 

Plot between Visery's and Dornish? Was almost certain that the Dornish had some kind of blood fued with Danny's blood line. (or was that just the viper?)

 

 

Man. I need to reread the series again..

 

 

Rhaegar was married to Elia, Oberyn and Doran's sister The dornish wanted the heads of those who had killed Elia and her children. So Gregor and that other Lannister dude whose name I can quite recall but who I believe got eaten by a bear. Tywin also if possible since he gave the order. So the Dornish don't like the Lannisters, but If I recall correctly they mostly have a feud with the Tyrells.

 

There was a plan for Visery's to marry Arianne Martell, Doran's daughter. But when Visery's died, that went to hell. Then they decided to have Dany marry Quentyn Martell, Arianne's brother. Then that went to hell because Quentyn's an idiot and went and freed the dragons who proceeded to burn him alive. I don't know if the dornish know about Aegon. I don't think so. In any case I believe Aegon was supposed to meet up with his aunt Dany. But instead he followed Tyrion's advice and went straight for Westeros. At this point an alliance between Aegon and Dorne seems likely.

 

[BFG]

 

 

 

The sun rising in the west and setting in the east could have been Quinton (i think his name is) being a prince of Dorne (sun symbol) dying in the eastern continent (setting in the east)

 

 

 

vels beat me to it - this was what I thought.

 

But

 

 

 

I don't think Dany believes this though, so as far as she's concerned she's the last Targ.  If she takes over the Iron Throne then she believes she'll be leaving behind a succession war.  I'm not sure this makes her the best choice.

 

 

 

I think commoners would do best under Stannis, but nobles would have to walk on eggshells.

[Nolder]

I don't understand why people think the Targaryeans have a better claim to the Iron Throne than the Baratheons.

The Targaryeans only claimed the Seven Kingdoms through conquest right? Was it rightfully theirs?

In feudalism I think those who have the power to hold their lands are the "rightful owners".

If Danaerys can take it back then by all means but until she does I'd say the Baratheons have the actual best claim.

[SinisterDeath]

I don't understand why people think the Targaryeans have a better claim to the Iron Throne than the Baratheons.

The Targaryeans only claimed the Seven Kingdoms through conquest right? Was it rightfully theirs?

In feudalism I think those who have the power to hold their lands are the "rightful owners".

If Danaerys can take it back then by all means but until she does I'd say the Baratheons have the actual best claim.

The one who had the rightful claim, by your definition, was Robert, and his Heirs. 

He has no rightful Heirs.

His brothers don't count. Nor His bastards. (his brothers Didn't take it, Robert Did.)

So... That basically means we are right back to conquest..

 

The fact that Dany Is still alive, and Roberts Heirs aren't actually his, from the commoners point of view... Might show that the Targes should rightfully have the throne, since the conquerer is dead, and left no heirs. Mind you, he 'had them killed' to prevent 'future' claims to the throne...

[TylerRVG]

He has no rightful Heirs.

 

 

His brothers don't count. Nor His bastards. (his brothers Didn't take it, Robert Did.)

So... That basically means we are right back to conquest..

Yes they do.

 

 

If they didn't count, Tommen wouldn't be on the throne right now.

 

[Nolder]

 

I don't understand why people think the Targaryeans have a better claim to the Iron Throne than the Baratheons.

The Targaryeans only claimed the Seven Kingdoms through conquest right? Was it rightfully theirs?

In feudalism I think those who have the power to hold their lands are the "rightful owners".

If Danaerys can take it back then by all means but until she does I'd say the Baratheons have the actual best claim.

The one who had the rightful claim, by your definition, was Robert, and his Heirs. 

He has no rightful Heirs.

His brothers don't count. Nor His bastards. (his brothers Didn't take it, Robert Did.)

So... That basically means we are right back to conquest..

 

The fact that Dany Is still alive, and Roberts Heirs aren't actually his, from the commoners point of view... Might show that the Targes should rightfully have the throne, since the conquerer is dead, and left no heirs. Mind you, he 'had them killed' to prevent 'future' claims to the throne...

 

Bro, do you even Stannis?

 

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Siege_of_Storm%27s_End

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dragonstone#War_of_the_Usurper

 

If you want to be technical about who took the Iron Throne then it was the Lannisters, who relinquished it to the Baratheons anyway.

 

Edit:

 

heir  

/e(ə)r/

Noun

A person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person's death.

A person inheriting and continuing the legacy of a predecessor.

You do not have to be a child of the deceased to be their heir.

 

 

Note that Robb has no children but names Jon Snow as his heir before he dies iirc

 

[SinisterDeath]

Didn't the lannisters simply hold out on fighting either side to join the winner?

 

And the point prior, was that as far as claim of thrones go. It belonged to Robert, and his descendants. Not his brothers. In another words., his bastards would have more right to the throne, than his brothers. But no ones going to recognize the bastards.

 

So who has the stronger claim. The brothers, or the Targaryen's heirs? The Usurper is Dead, leaving behind no real descendants.  IN cases like this, the previous rulers have just as much claim, as the Usurpers brothers do. And it boils down, not to who has more claim, but who has more military power to take it.

 

In both cases, that's Dany.

[AesSedaiGuy]

Didn't the lannisters simply hold out on fighting either side to join the winner?

 

And the point prior, was that as far as claim of thrones go. It belonged to Robert, and his descendants. Not his brothers. In another words., his bastards would have more right to the throne, than his brothers. But no ones going to recognize the bastards.

 

So who has the stronger claim. The brothers, or the Targaryen's heirs? The Usurper is Dead, leaving behind no real descendants.  IN cases like this, the previous rulers have just as much claim, as the Usurpers brothers do. And it boils down, not to who has more claim, but who has more military power to take it.

 

In both cases, that's Dany.

There is truth in here, but it really depends if one is a Targ Loyalist or not. To a Targ Loyalist, they will always have the better claim, DESPITE losing the Throne to the Usurper, who did win it by Conquest.

 

Robert SHOULD have done something similar to William the Conqueror and intermarried the old Family into his. Instead of "killing" Rhaegar's children, and/or Arys. He should have fostered them at Court and married them off to noble allies or created new Lordhsips for them and made sure at least his two sons had Targ brides, then the 3rd generation ... All the heirs would be in common. That's how I would have played it. He probably could/should even have taken Arys or Rhaegar's widow to wife instead of Cersei. The ideal thing would have been for HIM to marry one of the Targ girls, but since they were both LITTLE children, that was probably unlikely ... And Robert was a Warlord ... He wasnt made for politics and "king-ing" ....but I'm not sure either Ned nor Jon Arryn were especially good at politicking either, but maybe Ned would have been more influenced by a "Queen" Cat (who is exceptional at it--until she kidnapped Tyrion and started a war; and let the best POW go with a promise ...hmmmm, maybe she isn't so good ... ) .

[TylerRVG]

And the point prior, was that as far as claim of thrones go. It belonged to Robert, and his descendants. Not his brothers. In another words., his bastards would have more right to the throne, than his brothers. But no ones going to recognize the bastards.

 

*Sigh* Whenever a king dies with no children, the heir is almost always the brother next in age. Not just in real life, but also in this universe too.

 

 

 

It has happened on several separate occasions, first being from Maegor I to his brother Aenys I, then from Daeron I to his brother Baelor I, then from him to his uncle Viserys II, later from Aerys I to his brother Maekar I, and most recently from Joffery to Tommen.

 

Sorry for the crude image, but It's the best I can find:

 

 

 

So please tell me what makes this any different? Heck, when it went from Maegar I - Aenys I, the Targaryens were still pretty fresh to the throne, did that make them any less worthy of it?

[SinisterDeath]

Not one of those, was a completely different line of kings, that took the throne by force. And even if they did, they were still "blood", where as robert wasn't.

 

To put this in perspective... it be like stalin killing the queen of england. And when stalin died, with no heirs, her kids, had just as much right to it, as his brothers. It all falls back, not on legal right, but by military strength... that's why its a War of Succession.

[AesSedaiGuy]

But Robert DOES have heirs ... Nominally Joffrey, Tommen and Marcella ...Truthfully, Stannis.

 

The issue with the succession does present an opportunity for upheaval and a revival of the Loyalists claim, (as has been seen), but it is just that "an opportunity", not necessarily a foregone conclusion. Even with a designated successor there is often war and bloodshed and rival claimants .. Stephen, Edward III, Richard II, Edward IV were all examples from English Monarchy where the was strife and turmoil despite legitimate successions. William I and Henry VII are examples where the legitimacy may have been in doubt and .conquest prevailed.

[Agitel]

It wasn't the strongest claim, but Robert had a blood claim to the throne. As much as he despised the Targaryens, he used the fact that his grandmother was Jaehaerys II's sister to support his claim.

 

And I'm not sure what you're getting at with brother's having no claim, Sinister. Of course they do. They're next in line in the absence of legitimate sons.

[TylerRVG]

^ What ASG said. Even with "his" supposed children aside, Robert still had an heir; Stannis.

 

Your logic would be sound if the only way to be someone's heir were if you were their child, but listen to what me, Nolder, and everyone else have been saying a million times throughout: you don't have to be someone's child to be their heir.

 

Also, why would Stalin want to be a part of any kind of Monarchy? He was a communist, and that's pretty much the exact opposite political belief.

[AesSedaiGuy]

*fist bumps Tyler

What Tyler said as well. :)

 

It wasn't the strongest claim, but Robert had a blood claim to the throne. As much as he despised the Targaryens, he used the fact that his grandmother was Jaehaerys II's sister to support his claim.

 

And I'm not sure what you're getting at with brother's having no claim, Sinister. Of course they do. They're next in line in the absence of legitimate sons.

I think most of the successful conquests also claimed some sort of blood relation. Both Will the C and Henry VII did. Very rarely is the Conquest a True outsider, most of those are slaughters and annihilations, not necessarily conquests. :)

[Nolder]

SD I already posted the definition of heir but maybe you missed it. Look up and you'll see that heirs are not always children. Your brother can be your heir. In the absence of legitimate children, and being the eldest surviving Baratheon, Stannis is Robert's heir.

 

You can dispute that the Baratheons have any rightful claim to the Iron Throne but you cannot dispute that Stannis is heir to the lordship of his House.