|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 13:31:32 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 but it's definitely not a common event. 1. I was discussing Game of Thrones
2. I'm not sure how your examples discredit what I said even in real history
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 13:42:29 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. To me, William's claim was only slightly more dubious than Harold's. And if Harold Godwinson hadn't had to fight off Hardrada immediately preceding William's invasion, the world could be a very different place. Regardless, I don't know that William was any more of a thug than Godwinson could have been, had he not been handed the keys to the kingdom by the Witenaġemot. For that matter, anyone taking a country by force is a thug by that definition. Right of conquest is a reality throughout history, whether the conquerors called themselves kings or not. And to your second bolded point, of course the farther back in history you go, the fewer written accounts you have-- which are almost always written by someone with an agenda. I've changed my mind about you, Leo. You're one of the better posters on this board. Even if I disagree with your allegiance to Cersei. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 13:53:08 GMT
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 but it's definitely not a common event. 1. I was discussing Game of Thrones
2. I'm not sure how your examples discredit what I said even in real history
Sometimes you have to let us history nerds get it out of our system. There isn't much to do with this knowledge. Your options are: 1. Excel at trivia 2. Bore people in conversations 3. Teach history (See option #2, but on a schedule) |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 14:49:08 GMT
1. I was discussing Game of Thrones
2. I'm not sure how your examples discredit what I said even in real history
My point is that ambition and opportunity were seldom the making of kingship. Most of it really was genealogy. I am only interested in Game Of Thrones in that it reflects realities of our world, past or present. Since the story makes a big deal of legitimacy and the validity of claims, causing a lot of extrapolated fantasies to be discussed, I like to go back to the real thing to show how things were. Especially the notion that the middle ages were a time of the rule of the strongest is wrong for most of its duration. This can only be said for the first centuries after the migration period. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 11, 2017 15:00:52 GMT
To me, William's claim was only slightly more dubious than Harold's. And if Harold Godwinson hadn't had to fight off Hardrada immediately preceding William's invasion, the world could be a very different place. Regardless, I don't know that William was any more of a thug than Godwinson could have been, had he not been handed the keys to the kingdom by the Witenaġemot. For that matter, anyone taking a country by force is a thug by that definition. Right of conquest is a reality throughout history, whether the conquerors called themselves kings or not. And to your second bolded point, of course the farther back in history you go, the fewer written accounts you have-- which are almost always written by someone with an agenda. Harold Godwinson had the merit of having been made king by a relevant, traditionally recognised institution. I would be inclined to give it more weight than the promises of both Harold, even in case they were actually made, which is quite likely. Did the king have the right to name a foreign successor without backing of the Witenaġemot? William brutalised England after the conquest, taking personal possession of the country, replacing the Anglo-Saxon nobility by Franco-Normans and changing the rules to match his own culture. Even the clergy was replaced, Harold would not have done any of this. Written accounts for the 5th and 6th centuries are richer than for the following ones, which is where the anomaly is most visible. The archeological record is almost nil for the 7th to 9th centuries too. Something very fishy appears to have taken place. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 15:50:44 GMT
To me, William's claim was only slightly more dubious than Harold's. And if Harold Godwinson hadn't had to fight off Hardrada immediately preceding William's invasion, the world could be a very different place. Regardless, I don't know that William was any more of a thug than Godwinson could have been, had he not been handed the keys to the kingdom by the Witenaġemot. For that matter, anyone taking a country by force is a thug by that definition. Right of conquest is a reality throughout history, whether the conquerors called themselves kings or not. And to your second bolded point, of course the farther back in history you go, the fewer written accounts you have-- which are almost always written by someone with an agenda. Harold Godwinson had the merit of having been made king by a relevant, traditionally recognised institution. I would be inclined to give it more weight than the promises of both Harold, even in case they were actually made, which is quite likely. Did the king have the right to name a foreign successor without backing of the Witenaġemot? William brutalised England after the conquest, taking personal possession of the country, replacing the Anglo-Saxon nobility by Franco-Normans and changing the rules to match his own culture. Even the clergy was replaced, Harold would not have done any of this. Written accounts for the 5th and 6th centuries are richer than for the following ones, which is where the anomaly is most visible. The archeological record is almost nil for the 7th to 9th centuries too. Something very fishy appears to have taken place. Godwinson would obviously not have replaced the nobility with foreigners because it wouldn't have been necessary, as he himself was not a foreigner. The question is how long and peaceful would his reign would have been, considering he didn't trust his own nobles, for the most part. And again William only did what most conquerors throughout history have done; replace the standing leadership of the newly acquired lands with trusted allies who helped you acquire it in the first place. And we all know the reason behind this:  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 16:19:24 GMT
1. I was discussing Game of Thrones
2. I'm not sure how your examples discredit what I said even in real history
My point is that ambition and opportunity were seldom the making of kingship. Most of it really was genealogy. I am only interested in Game Of Thrones in that it reflects realities of our world, past or present. Since the story makes a big deal of legitimacy and the validity of claims, causing a lot of extrapolated fantasies to be discussed, I like to go back to the real thing to show how things were. Especially the notion that the middle ages were a time of the rule of the strongest is wrong for most of its duration. This can only be said for the first centuries after the migration period. From the examples given, it would appear that opportunity &/or ambition were missing in the first place.
By definition, the traditional standard would be the thing that happens nearly all the time so I'm not in any way disagreeing.There's no particular reason for there to be an uprising every time unless there's a conquest.
Even in reference to Game of Thrones, things largely stayed the same until a conquest happened. There would not have been a Robert's Rebellion without the king planning to kill Robert & Ned in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 17:11:48 GMT
My point is that ambition and opportunity were seldom the making of kingship. Most of it really was genealogy. I am only interested in Game Of Thrones in that it reflects realities of our world, past or present. Since the story makes a big deal of legitimacy and the validity of claims, causing a lot of extrapolated fantasies to be discussed, I like to go back to the real thing to show how things were. Especially the notion that the middle ages were a time of the rule of the strongest is wrong for most of its duration. This can only be said for the first centuries after the migration period. From the examples given, it would appear that opportunity &/or ambition were missing in the first place.
By definition, the traditional standard would be the thing that happens nearly all the time so I'm not in any way disagreeing.There's no particular reason for there to be an uprising every time unless there's a conquest.
Even in reference to Game of Thrones, things largely stayed the same until a conquest happened. There would not have been a Robert's Rebellion without the king planning to kill Robert & Ned in the first place.
The Mad King didn't plan on killing Robert and Ned until they rebelled. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 17:31:13 GMT
From the examples given, it would appear that opportunity &/or ambition were missing in the first place.
By definition, the traditional standard would be the thing that happens nearly all the time so I'm not in any way disagreeing.There's no particular reason for there to be an uprising every time unless there's a conquest.
Even in reference to Game of Thrones, things largely stayed the same until a conquest happened. There would not have been a Robert's Rebellion without the king planning to kill Robert & Ned in the first place.
The Mad King didn't plan on killing Robert and Ned until they rebelled. Not really.
Ned's brother and father were killed after Rhaegar "kidnapped" Lyanna and the Mad King demanded Jon Arynn to deliver them (Or their heads...I can't remember) to King' Landing which Jon refused and started the Rebellion.
So at best the Rebellion only occurred because they didn't want to die in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 17:41:35 GMT
At best the rebellion occurred because they demanded Lyanna be released by Rhaegar. I suppose we're splitting hairs here, but ultimately the King would not have wanted them dead had they just kept their mouths shut. Given the circumstances, I would've done exactly what they did.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 17:49:32 GMT
At best the rebellion occurred because they demanded Lyanna be released by Rhaegar. I suppose we're splitting hairs here, but ultimately the King would not have wanted them dead had they just kept their mouths shut. Given the circumstances, I would've done exactly what they did. I don't see how that's even a rebellious thing to ask, so we are on different wavelegths.
Ned and Robert were sitting in the Vale which was the house that rebelled against the throne although it made perfect sense for Ned & Robert to join considering the alternative.
If you think a king can do whatever they want and then blame victims for being upset about dying for no reason, then we will just disagree on how rebellion is defined.
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 981
Likes: 152
 
|
Post by pk9 on Aug 11, 2017 17:56:04 GMT
Isn't this thread about kingship and inheritance rights?
If the rightful king (Aerys) ordered that everyone in their entire kingdom commit seppuku, any one that refused would be in rebellion to the Crown. The only distinction now is whether one would consider such a rebellion justified or not.
A king can do whatever he wants, that's the definition of a king.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 18:05:43 GMT
At best the rebellion occurred because they demanded Lyanna be released by Rhaegar. I suppose we're splitting hairs here, but ultimately the King would not have wanted them dead had they just kept their mouths shut. Given the circumstances, I would've done exactly what they did. I don't see how that's even a rebellious thing to ask, so we are on different wavelegths.
Ned and Robert were sitting in the Vale which was the house that rebelled against the throne although it made perfect sense for Ned & Robert to join considering the alternative.
If you think a king can do whatever they want and then blame victims for being upset about dying for no reason, then we will just disagree on how rebellion is defined.
I agree with you. However, I'm not the Mad King. Once more, I would've done exactly what the Starks, Arryns and Baratheons did. But that doesn't change the fact that if they had simply accepted Lyanna's fate (whatever that may be), there would not have been a war. Hey man, I'm American. The only kings I respect are entertainers. Elvis (rock 'n roll), Michael (Pop), Howard Stern (All Media), etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 11, 2017 18:14:39 GMT
Isn't this thread about kingship and inheritance rights? If the rightful king (Aerys) ordered that everyone in their entire kingdom commit seppuku, any one that refused would be in rebellion to the Crown. The only distinction now is whether one would consider such a rebellion justified or not. A king can do whatever he wants, that's the definition of a king. Exactly. But a king, like anything else, is a construct. A man only has power if the people agree he has power. Roman Emperors often played by their own rules, but more than one was killed by the Praetorian Guard. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 18:36:43 GMT
Isn't this thread about kingship and inheritance rights? If the rightful king (Aerys) ordered that everyone in their entire kingdom commit seppuku, any one that refused would be in rebellion to the Crown. The only distinction now is whether one would consider such a rebellion justified or not. A king can do whatever he wants, that's the definition of a king. Argh.
Point is being missed. Ned & Robert started the rebellion before the king wanted to kill them which is entirely incorrect.
However, I added that it isn't even rebellion that they didn't want to die on the basis of Lyanna's kidnapping.
That has nothing to do with the inheritance rights although you seem to think everyone should have been OK with dying just because the king commanded it.
Someone having the right to be king has NO correlation to a person wanting to die at the kings hand and especially if that king is crazy. That isn't rebellion any more than allowing the king to kill you for a crazy reason is a sign of loyalty. If you want to think this is rebellion, so be it since the main thing is it would be completely and totally justified.
This is not about people following the orders of the king. If Jon was on the losing side, it would be totally expected that he would pay for his rebellion.
Now let's get back on track which is what I've been saying all along and you may have missed:
Usurping is a perfectly valid way to become king and avoiding death at the hands of a crazy king is a perfectly valid reason to attempt a good usurping.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 18:42:22 GMT
I don't see how that's even a rebellious thing to ask, so we are on different wavelegths.
Ned and Robert were sitting in the Vale which was the house that rebelled against the throne although it made perfect sense for Ned & Robert to join considering the alternative.
If you think a king can do whatever they want and then blame victims for being upset about dying for no reason, then we will just disagree on how rebellion is defined.
I agree with you. However, I'm not the Mad King. Once more, I would've done exactly what the Starks, Arryns and Baratheons did. But that doesn't change the fact that if they had simply accepted Lyanna's fate (whatever that may be), there would not have been a war. Hey man, I'm American. The only kings I respect are entertainers. Elvis (rock 'n roll), Michael (Pop), Howard Stern (All Media), etc. Ned & Robert didn't have a choice but to accept the fate at least as far as we know.
They weren't the ones who threatened the throne so the only way they would have been responsible is in the sense that they should have died on the basis of Lyanna's kidnapping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 12, 2017 0:55:23 GMT
A king can do whatever he wants, that's the definition of a king. You need to work on your knowledge of definitions. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 13, 2017 9:50:37 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. No one is saying that there are not many ways of becoming a king but I mentioned the two (or three) main ways. I already covered the case of 'people rallying behind you' as in case of Robb Stark. Robert trying to finish off Targaryens is no reason to not call him a king. That would just make Robert a morally reprehensible person but he was still a king because he ruled over the 7 kingdoms. So was the person who claimed true inheritance from him. Joffrey in case you believe Ned's story was false and Stannis in case you believed Ned. Renly is not in line of inheritance either way. Renly was simply not a king from inheritance law of Westeros. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2017 12:10:55 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. No one is saying that there are not many ways of becoming a king but I mentioned the two (or three) main ways. I already covered the case of 'people rallying behind you' as in case of Robb Stark. Robert trying to finish off Targaryens is no reason to not call him a king. That would just make Robert a morally reprehensible person but he was still a king because he ruled over the 7 kingdoms. So was the person who claimed true inheritance from him. Joffrey in case you believe Ned's story was false and Stannis in case you believed Ned. Renly is not in line of inheritance either way. Renly was simply not a king from inheritance law of Westeros. I'm not that interested in how one becomes king since I think my statement covers the reasons. Here are the people I think have been legitimate kings at the beginning of the story Robert Joffrey Tommen Cercei Either Stannis or Renly could have had a basis for being king because both of them would have taken it from the last guy who wasn't giving it up just like Robert. Then the process would start over...Either by inheritance rights or another usurping. |
|
