|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 11, 2017 5:55:52 GMT
One is through inheritance and the other is through right of conquest *. I have seen people make childish arguments that Robert changed the rule so there was no successor after him. That's nonsense. Robert didn't change any rule. He became a true king after he usurped the crown by force. Now when he became king he would have wanted his kid (Joffrey) to become king. He wouldn't have said that I changed the rule so anyone can become the king next. He never changed any rule. Most new dynasties first come to power through usurping. That's how Aegon the conqueror became a king too.
It's totally fine to believe that someone can be a good king or someone deserves to be a king. It's based on your personal subjective opinion. But it is totally wrong to say that a person was a king merely because that person wanted to be a king. And it is equally absurd to believe that a king through inheritance is not king because you find him incompetent. Sure he may be a bad king but he is still a king.
* The third way is when many people in your territory agree to make you king. That was the case of Robb Stark. But I take it as a form of becoming a king through right of conquest . Also, there is question regarding legitimacy of this type of king. But still such a person can be considered a king if he is able to maintain independence of his territory and is able to derives taxes from his subjects and is accepted by the lords and people of his area as a sovereign ruler.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Aug 11, 2017 6:04:07 GMT
Huh?
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 983
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Aug 11, 2017 6:07:32 GMT
#notmyking
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 11, 2017 6:23:40 GMT
It was mainly directed at this comment.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 6:49:29 GMT
* The third way is when many people in your territory agree to make you king. That was the case of Robb Stark. But I take it as a form of becoming a king through right of conquest . Also, there is question regarding legitimacy of this type of king. But still such a person can be considered a king if he is able to maintain independence of his territory and is able to derives taxes from his subjects and is accepted by the lords and people of his area as a sovereign ruler. This is actually the first and original way of becoming king. It had nothing to do with the " right of conquest" fools keep mentioning without understanding what it is (check it out, Aj June, you might learn something for a change). Acclamation by warriors is how Germanic tribes made their kings in the 5th century (I'm not sure we have older testimonies. I'm just referring to Gregory of Tours because I read it but there might be older Roman texts mentioning it). Not everyone could be king, it was not an election and the word itself is explicit in that it means "from the kin". Kings were therefore only chosen amongst a "royal" family but it was often a matter of confirming a new alpha amongst the brothers or children of the previous king. It appears several children of a king could be made king after their father's death. They would simply divide their father's holdings amongst themselves, swear peace and friendship to each other, then plot how best to forget about it and go at each other's throats with their respective armies. This is basically what makes most of western Europe's history from the 5th to the 9th century. Note that the word " King" is different in meaning from it's Latin equivalent "Rex", the latter meaning "ruler" without hereditary implication. Indeed, the dynastic principle was never strong in Roman society.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 6:53:30 GMT
I have seen people make childish arguments that Robert changed the rule so there was no successor after him. That's nonsense. We agree about this. It is seldom enough to be worth a mention.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 11, 2017 7:00:56 GMT
* The third way is when many people in your territory agree to make you king. That was the case of Robb Stark. But I take it as a form of becoming a king through right of conquest . Also, there is question regarding legitimacy of this type of king. But still such a person can be considered a king if he is able to maintain independence of his territory and is able to derives taxes from his subjects and is accepted by the lords and people of his area as a sovereign ruler. This is actually the first and original way of becoming king. It had nothing to do with the " right of conquest" fools keep mentioning without understanding what it is (check it out, Aj June, you might learn something for a change). Acclamation by warriors is how Germanic tribes made their kings in the 5th century (I'm not sure we have older testimonies. I'm just referring to Gregory of Tours because I read it but there might be older Roman texts mentioning it). Not everyone could be king, it was not an election and the word itself is explicit in that it means "from the kin". Kings were therefore only chosen amongst a "royal" family but it was often a matter of confirming a new alpha amongst the brothers or children of the previous king. It appears several children of a king could be made king after their father's death. They would simply divide their father's holdings amongst themselves, swear peace and friendship to each other, then plot how best to forget about it and go at each other's throats with their respective armies. This is basically what makes most of western Europe's history from the 5th to the 9th century. Note that the word " King" is different in meaning from it's Latin equivalent "Rex", the latter meaning "ruler" without hereditary implication. Indeed, the dynastic principle was never strong in Roman society.
I am not talking about that right of conquest that you have linked. I am only giving my opinion based on the world of Ice and Fire. The right of conquest term was somewhere used by Iron Islanders and how they made a claim to make a king of their own. In world of Ice and Fire, very few kings have come to become kings through the third way I mentioned. Since 1000 of years, there have been many changes in rulers (even of isolated regions) and most of those changes resulted from someone becoming a king by conquering an area.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 7:17:17 GMT
I am not talking about that right of conquest that you have linked. I am only giving my opinion based on the world of Ice and Fire. The right of conquest term was somewhere used by Iron Islanders and how they made a claim to make a king of their own. In world of Ice and Fire, very few kings have come to become kings through the third way I mentioned. Since 1000 of years, there have been many changes in rulers (even of isolated regions) and most of those changes resulted from someone becoming a king by conquering an area. The term "right of conquest" does not appear in The World Of Ice And Fire. I didn't find it. Its use by the Iron Islanders to justify their conquest of parts of Westeros, however, would match its true meaning in that it refers to the conquest of an area outside of their own borders, outside of a previously agreed system of allegiances. So you are actually using the term I have linked, even though you don't see it. This was not the case for Robert since he was going against his former liege lord. This is usually called civil war, not conquest, and his beating him did not give him any rights. His being able to ensure peace afterwards through acceptance by the strongest party did.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 11, 2017 7:33:33 GMT
I am not talking about that right of conquest that you have linked. I am only giving my opinion based on the world of Ice and Fire. The right of conquest term was somewhere used by Iron Islanders and how they made a claim to make a king of their own. In world of Ice and Fire, very few kings have come to become kings through the third way I mentioned. Since 1000 of years, there have been many changes in rulers (even of isolated regions) and most of those changes resulted from someone becoming a king by conquering an area. The term "right of conquest" does not appear in The World Of Ice And Fire. I didn't find it. It's use by the Iron Islanders to justify their conquest of parts of Westeros, however, would match its true meaning in that it refers to the conquest of an area outside of their own borders, outside of a previously agreed system of allegiances. So you are actually using the term I have linked, even though you don't see it. This was not the case for Robert since he was going against his former liege lord. This is usually called civil war, not conquest, and his beating him did not give him any rights. His being able to ensure peace afterwards through acceptance by the strongest party did. It depends on how you look at it. If you remove Targaryen's then there is no unified westeros and in that sense Baratheon was crossing his territory when he proclaimed himself the king of regions that are not Strom's End. In fact Baratheons were not even the rulers back in the day when Starks and Lannisters ruled their respective areas. I guess his 1/16th or whatever part Targaryen blood did help him. That said, because Robert had significant support of people of various regions of westeros you may be right in saying it was more akin to civil war. The exact word "right of conquest" might not have been used but something similar. I do like apologize for mixing the terminologies. I will try to get the exact word used by the Iron Islanders when I revise the books.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 7:49:02 GMT
The term "right of conquest" does not appear in The World Of Ice And Fire. I didn't find it. It's use by the Iron Islanders to justify their conquest of parts of Westeros, however, would match its true meaning in that it refers to the conquest of an area outside of their own borders, outside of a previously agreed system of allegiances. So you are actually using the term I have linked, even though you don't see it. This was not the case for Robert since he was going against his former liege lord. This is usually called civil war, not conquest, and his beating him did not give him any rights. His being able to ensure peace afterwards through acceptance by the strongest party did. It depends on how you look at it. If you remove Targaryen's then there is no unified westeros and in that sense Baratheon was crossing his territory when he proclaimed himself the king of regions that are not Strom's End. No, it does not depend. Robert Baratheon was a lord who had sworn allegiance in the unified, Targaryen ruled Westeros. He was not coming to conquer Aerys' lands from an independent place outside of it. He did not claim the Crownlands only but succession to the whole realm of the "Seven Kingdoms". It was a change of dynasty, not a conquest. He got the crown, by the way, because his relation to the Targaryen family made him more acceptable than Jon Arryn or Ned Stark (Robert had a Targaryen grandmother). He wasn't even there when King's Landing fell. Jaime sat on the Iron Throne and Ned, that rude northern dog, bullied him down. This choice of Robert amongst other candidates is what made him legitimate. The Starks had been the offended party, rebellion started when Rickard and Brandon died. Robert was only in to help his friends and get his promised bride back. Choosing Robert was not an act of violence but one of agreement amongst a larger party than that which led the rebellion. Daenerys, incidentally, is leading a war of conquest, very much like William the Conqueror who claimed Harold the Confessor had promised him the crown of England after his death (or was it another one, I don't remember). She's come to take what she thinks is hers just because she wants it.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 11, 2017 8:03:03 GMT
It depends on how you look at it. If you remove Targaryen's then there is no unified westeros and in that sense Baratheon was crossing his territory when he proclaimed himself the king of regions that are not Strom's End. No, it does not depend. Robert Baratheon was a lord who had sworn allegiance in the unified, Targaryen ruled Westeros. He was not coming to conquer Aerys' lands from an independent place outside of it. He did not claim the Crownlands only but succession to the whole realm of the "Seven Kingdoms". It was a change of dynasty, not a conquest. He got the crown, by the way, because his relation to the Targaryen family made him more acceptable than Jon Arryn or Ned Stark (Robert had a Targaryen grandmother). He wasn't even there when King's Landing fell. Jaime sat on the Iron Throne and Ned, that rude northern dog, bullied him down. This choice of Robert amongst other candidates is what made him legitimate. The Starks had been the offended party, rebellion started when Rickard and Brandon died. Robert was only in to help his friends and get his promised bride back. Choosing Robert was not an act of violence but one of agreement amongst a larger party than that which led the rebellion. Daenerys, incidentally, is leading a war of conquest, very much like William the Conqueror who claimed Harold the Confessor had promised him the crown of England after his death (or was it another one, I don't remember). She's come to take what she thinks is hers just because she wants it. Perspective vary by people. For example, the person who edited the awoiaf wiki says here: Robert I Baratheon, however, acceded the Iron Throne by right of conquest,[59] chosen as claimant by the rebels due to his Targaryen descent,[60] as he was the grandson of Princess Rhaelle Targaryen, the youngest daughter of King Aegon V Targaryen, [61] which gave him the better claim. I believe the writer has based his arguments on basis of this comment by Renly. Renly shrugged. "Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?" He did not wait for an answer. "Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer." He swept a hand across the campfires that burned from horizon to horizon. "Well, there is my claim, as good as Robert's ever was.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 8:22:38 GMT
No, it does not depend. Robert Baratheon was a lord who had sworn allegiance in the unified, Targaryen ruled Westeros. He was not coming to conquer Aerys' lands from an independent place outside of it. He did not claim the Crownlands only but succession to the whole realm of the "Seven Kingdoms". It was a change of dynasty, not a conquest. He got the crown, by the way, because his relation to the Targaryen family made him more acceptable than Jon Arryn or Ned Stark (Robert had a Targaryen grandmother). He wasn't even there when King's Landing fell. Jaime sat on the Iron Throne and Ned, that rude northern dog, bullied him down. This choice of Robert amongst other candidates is what made him legitimate. The Starks had been the offended party, rebellion started when Rickard and Brandon died. Robert was only in to help his friends and get his promised bride back. Choosing Robert was not an act of violence but one of agreement amongst a larger party than that which led the rebellion. Daenerys, incidentally, is leading a war of conquest, very much like William the Conqueror who claimed Harold the Confessor had promised him the crown of England after his death (or was it another one, I don't remember). She's come to take what she thinks is hers just because she wants it. Perspective vary by people. For example, the person who edited the awoiaf wiki says here: Robert I Baratheon, however, acceded the Iron Throne by right of conquest,[59] chosen as claimant by the rebels due to his Targaryen descent,[60] as he was the grandson of Princess Rhaelle Targaryen, the youngest daughter of King Aegon V Targaryen, [61] which gave him the better claim. So someone who edits the ASOIAF wiki doesn't know what "right of conquest" is. That's all there is to it. And of course, Renly grasped at justification for his own claim.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 11, 2017 8:35:08 GMT
Perspective vary by people. For example, the person who edited the awoiaf wiki says here: Robert I Baratheon, however, acceded the Iron Throne by right of conquest,[59] chosen as claimant by the rebels due to his Targaryen descent,[60] as he was the grandson of Princess Rhaelle Targaryen, the youngest daughter of King Aegon V Targaryen, [61] which gave him the better claim. So someone who edits the ASOIAF wiki doesn't know what "right of conquest" is. That's all there is to it. And of course, Renly grasped at justification for his own claim. As I have said I totally get your objection to the incorrect use of the term but the person who used the term may not be using the term in the way it is used in your link and is assigning a more common meaning to it based on the politics of the world of Ice and Fire. There is some truth in what Renly is claiming though I don't agree with Renly. I believe Robert had fair enough support of various people. To me it was more of a civil war than a conquest of outsider.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 9:04:06 GMT
So someone who edits the ASOIAF wiki doesn't know what "right of conquest" is. That's all there is to it. And of course, Renly grasped at justification for his own claim. As I have said I totally get your objection to the incorrect use of the term but the person who used the term may not be using the term in the way it is used in your link and is assigning a more common meaning to it based on the politics of the world of Ice and Fire. There is some truth in what Renly is claiming though I don't agree with Renly. I believe Robert had fair enough support of various people. To me it was more of a civil war than a conquest of outsider. When people read the term "right of conquest", they wrongly understand "might makes right" because it is what the words seem to imply. It is a very common occurrence in discussions. I would call it a common misunderstanding rather than a common meaning, especially amongst uneducated fans whose "understanding" of history is just one big unchecked fantasy. Renly is an example of a biased point of view, which is the core of the writing technique GRRM is using. I keep making the point that right is essentially opposed to civil war since its very purpose is to be at the basis of a widely accepted enforcement of known and reliable rules, or laws (legitimate is just another word for rightful, of Latin origin instead of Germanic). Therefore, the choice of Robert, in its ability to end civil war, legitimised him. Of course nothing ever convinces everyone so a few who were at a disadvantage kept calling him a usurper the same way every regime has its fringe of violent opponents. Peace had more supporters than Robert and they were those who agreed to accept whatever choice provided it would be a stable one. This is what made Robert king. This is also what made Joffrey a legitimate king.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 11:04:07 GMT
I'm not sure too many people say this about Robert.
I think the true statement is there are any number of ways to become king and while inheritance rights are the tradition, ambition plus opportunity has always been the way to a kingship.
The easiest opportunity would be inheritance but, as Robert proved when condoning the slaughter of every challenger (Apparently this would include a baby bastard that had no shot at being king...), usurping is definitely another.
Another opportunity would be the people rallying behind you as in the case of Renly or Jon.
Yet another one is simply not paying attention to the standard as in the case of the Lannisters. Incest bastard Joffrey was king whether he was legitimate or not. Heck, Robert named him king before he died & Ned changed the wording.
There are many paths to a kingship and the silliest thing is people who insist that it has to be a particular way. They are perfectly fine with Robert trying to wipe out all Targaryens, but then champion inheritance rights when discussing Stannis, a person no one but Davos likes and who is actively being resisted or dismissed by every house he's supposed to be ruling over.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 12:07:36 GMT
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king, king
Down with the king for years, about ten of 'em Recruiting suckers, Mac and Mike, and makin' men of 'em Tears and fears for my peers, they rippin' You think that it is, it is, if not it isn't Race for the border my daughter, 'cause beats you're bangin' out Jeeps rockin' beats in the streets when there's time for hangin' out Gather, or rather form a circle around a loud 'cause brothers or others could never ever rock a crowd Is it because he's runnin' off with the mouth Or was he really clearly tryin' to play a nigga out Nope, shut him down, the king with a crown 'Cause all you want to be is dicky down
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king, king
Two years ago, a friend of mine Asked me to say some MC rhymes So I said this rhyme I'm about to say The rhyme was meeca, and it went this way Wrecka lecka mecca mic check on the windmill skills Mac distracts, wearing Godfather hats It's okay to parlay to fortee better Tell 'em my nigga made a sweater tougher than leather Swing another Rodney King thing in our right But just like the white one I get no respect Money stay awake, 'cause them other niggas are fake From Hollis to the Becon, now your dumb ass is leakin' C.L. and Run DMC so rush it Big time way before Hammer got to touch it Remember the faces in all types of places Look Ma, no shoelaces And I'm
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king, king
I'm takin' the tours, I'm wreckin' the land I keep it hardcore because it's dope man These are the roughest toughest words I ever wrote down Not mean for a hoe like a slow jam, check it Sucka emcees could never swing with D Because of all the things that I bring with me Only G-O-D could be a king to me And if the G-O-D be in me, then the king I be The microphone is granted when it's handed to me I was planted on this planet and I plan to emcee The emcee fiends only seem to agree That I rock all the world and the society I rages on the stages with a tune of verse I get praises from these pages to the universe My voice is raw, my lyrics is law I keep it hardcore like you never saw
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king, king
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 12:08:51 GMT
According to this ^, there is a third way to be a king: If the G-O-D be in you.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 11, 2017 12:09:01 GMT
Robert didn't change the rules so much as rally the people. Had he not been as good a fighter and had the King not been as Mad, the status quo would probably not have changed.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 12:43:53 GMT
… while inheritance rights are the tradition, ambition plus opportunity has always been the way to a kingship. Not true. Actually, I can't think of many who went this way. William the Conqueror was one. He took England by storm and declared he was the new king because he'd been promised the crown. He had no right to it and didn't even bother recognise the right to the vanquished to acclaim him as king. He must have thought they had no right to an opinion on the matter and devastated most of northern England in retaliation for resistance. He was quite a thug. Cnut the Great was another. Son of a king of Denmark, he conquered most of England and made peace with its king (Edmund) that they would share the place with the Thames as divide and he would succeed Edmund when he died, which happened within weeks, in 1017. Before that, the Anglo-Saxon kings past the darkest times of the Heptarchy had all been somehow descended from one another. From the Norman conquest to this day, succession has followed some hereditary path. Henry VII Tudor might have had the most adventurous looking claim of all but all in all, Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of William the Conqueror. Barbarian kings of the 5th to 7th centuries were all somehow "of royal blood", descended from ruling families of their tribal past. I cannot remember any rich man or powerful administrator making himself king anywhere. Dukes and counts were administrators in those times, holding their titles from kings on a temporary basis - not hereditary - think of them as some local Hand of the King for a particular region. The first of those "officials" history tells us became king was Pepin the Short, who deposed the last Merovingian to take the crown with the blessing of the Pope in 751. I believe this is all a forgery, a legend created later (in the 10th century), inspired from the example of the last Roman emperors and tweaked in order to give Popes an additional authority through fake testimony. If the early Carolingians existed (and I believe at least some of them did), they were likely minor kings living in parallel to the last real Merovingians but anything before Charles the Simple (the one who gave Rollo Normandy) is very dodgy. The end of the 9th century sees the gradual rise of the Robertians with the election of Odo Count of Paris as king of the Franks after the famous siege by the vikings in 888. This "irregular" making of a king would be followed by several others in the 10th century, when the title became more related to the ruling of a country than the leading of a tribe. It is a century in which we see various kings (of the Franks, of Arles, of Provence) being made, appointed or elected by diets of bishops and high lords. Charles the Simple was deposed and replaced by Robert, Odo's brother, who was followed by Rudolph, formerly Duke of Burgundy and without hereditary claim. Rudolph appears to have been chosen for being the former king's son in law but I am just speculating. 64 years later, another election would take place and cause a final change of dynasty without bloodshed, when Hugh Capet, a descendant of the Robertian line, succeeded the last Carolingian in West Francia. He would then secure the dynastic principle by having his son crowned and associated to the royal function the following year, a "trick" their successors would keep going for a while and which bears witness that the title was no longer considered hereditary. The present French royal line is descended from Hugh Capet (through males only, as opposed to the British royal line). One day, I'll go through German history again and revisit how all these kingdoms which made that Messy Germanic Roman Empire came up and were passed on. There will likely be the occasional upgrade from lord to king somewhere ( Henry the Fowler is one of those) but it's definitely not a common event. Edit: looking at the Family tree of the German monarchs I can immediately see it's a complete mess, with quite a few kings popping out of nowhere or descended of various dukes. No wonder I never could remember it.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 12:59:22 GMT
Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king Get down with the king, king Traitors
|
|