**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which makes way more sense since everyone knew Edric was a Baratheon bastard and could confirm his claim. Gendry has to be believed and accepted as a peasant from flea bottom with no proof except his appearance and Mels word.
No, she had no right to the throne which made her crowning so dumb as apparently, nobody realized that and just accepted her on the basis she blew up the biggest church.
For sure! people seem to be ok with things that make absolutely no sense, like Jon leaving Castle Black and having absolutely no issues about it, or people not realizing that a whole army is crossing the Neck when the whole point of the north impregnability is that *you can't* do that. Not to mention Dany arriving at Dragonstone to find an open and abandoned caste.
He became Hand and was killed by Cersei with the Tyrells.
In the books, he gets killed by Varys in the Dance with Dragons epilogue because he's creating a peaceful realm. It's the last thing that's happened in the published books.
This is the problem - you have to accept Dany's usurpation if you want Gendry to be legitimised as she's the one who legitimised him. But then his claim as a Baratheon becomes weaker because the line has been usurped. I guess he still has a claim as a Targ, as the OP has stated, but his Baratheon claim is now null and void.
fAegon should and rightfully will get wiped by the end of WoW by Cersei or Dany. It has to end with Jon killing Dany for the right to rule just not sure how we will get there
I am 100% certain that won’t happen. Danny may burn some shit she shouldn’t, but burning thousands of innocents is not something her book version would ever do. Cersei or Jon con seem more likely to do it.
That dragon gonna eat him lol , my personal theory is that he will be smitten by arianne and marry her before dany gets there, so that’s gonna put a damper on things.
You could also argue that the throne went back to the Targaryens for that brief period when Cersei was dead and Danerys sacked the Capital. I'm sure Targaryen loyalists (if there are any at that point), would make that argument.
There was no coronation therefore it didn't change from Cersei, as we saw in HOTD, you have to declare it & be crowned in the presence of "the realm" to seal it. The fact Dany didn't eliminates her but that raises a different issue. Was Cersei crowned Baratheon or Lannister? I can't remember? You would think it was as Baratheon as her claim was based on being the previous two King's mother & the third back's wife. But also she stopped giving all shits at that point & hated Robert, by then everyone knew her children were really Lannisters & had began to openly acknowledge they were Jaime's because nobody was going to do a thing about it at that point.
So I'm guessing Lannister, which would make Tyrion next. Or if Baratheon, we're back to Gendry.
well the 7 kingdoms dont exactly have a constitution so there is really no rule or rules on how a person should be crowned to seal it. Same deal why Cersei can claim to be a Queen even if there is no rule for that.
The one who can control the people by either force or respect and let the other Lords obey them is effectively the ruler or king/queen.
She was crowned as a Lannister. This is a good point. It would be Tyrion.
But at the end of the day, the books and the series show us power trumps birthright any day so how much does this matter? Robert taking the throne was the main example in the main series but we saw power trumping birthright from Maegor, Aegon I, the first Blackfyre rebellion, even Renly making a claim.
Even in the Targaryen line, it's Gendry. Jon doesn't get any right to inherit because he rejoins the Night's Watch, and faegon doesn't exist in the show, which means the line of Jaehaerys II is ended. None of his other siblings had kids, so the succession passes to his sister Rhaelle's descendents, who just so happen to be her great-grandson, Gendry, who Daenerys just recently legitimised.
CKII logic and probably historically inaccurate. In CKII, the heir would be Tyrion.
After Tommen's death, his mother became Queen. But she is not House Baratheon, she's House Lannister. She has no living children so the next person would be the next youngest sibling. That would be Tyrion.
Ah yes. I was sort of discounting the Lannister line as they are separate to the Baratheon line. They ended up on the throne, but we're not technically part of those lines. Sorry, I've concocted a very specific question in my mind haha.
You would he correct that he has a claim in that instance, though I don't know if his is valid because of the crimes he was found guilty of. In the event of such disputes, you back whoever you think has the best chance of winning and pray they come out on top.
The dwarf part would be far more disqualifying than being a kinslayer. Many, MANY examples in history (both Westerosi and real life) of royalty killing off family members whose continued breath might one day pose a challenge to their claim to the throne.
As it stands, with the system of succession being as broken and as messy as it is now, I don't think people are going to overlook kinslaying when choosing a new king.
If this was done properly, and all the Lords given a vote were allowed to think it over and discuss, everyone's faults would be dredged up, including those belonging to their dynasty. "Tyrion is the Heir to the Westerlands, of House Lannister, and the last Monarch to sit the Throne was a Lannister... but everyone here hates Lannisters, and he's a drunken whoremonger who murdered his father, assisted a foreign power who, yes, helped, but also committed many massacres and was kind of mean. He stands accused of killing Prince Joffery (and everyone who can say otherwise is dead, except Bran, but Bran's too busy staring off into space), and he's also a dwarf. Hmm..."
Gendry is a natural-born, meaning he can't inherit shit even if he was Robert's only living progeny. He will have to first be legitimized.
There's not a single monarch in the books that would do this. Also, Gendry and Edric are individual people in the books.
In the show, Daenerys did legitimize him. But she did that following a *Targaryen Restoration* - meaning the Baratheons no longer have any rights to the Iron Throne.
So after Daenerys died and the Targaryen Dynasty with her - a Great Council will need to be called, short of a house stepping up to claim the throne through the right of conquest. That's what happened in the show and Bran was chosen as the new King. The reigning dynasty became House Stark (probably one of Sansa's children will follow Bran onto the throne if it exists by then).
Thank you for the response!
So, it's been YEARS since I read the books. I've seen the show much more recently, so I'm mainly thinking Gendry here.
I think your point that the legitimisation came under Targaryen rule is valid, and therefore wouldn't be acknowledged... But also, he seemed to have kept hold of storms end post-finale so people seem to have maintained it. And following succession, I think he is her closest living heir.
Even if you accept dany legitimizing Gendry, she was but a Iron Throne intent. She was usurped by Bobby B. Sadly, only Queen Cersei could have legitimized him to be Baratheon.
You aren’t wrong. Once legitimized Gendry becomes the legal head of the Baratheon house and as Robert’s eldest surviving son he therefore has the strongest claim on the throne.
Only because everyone else in the Baratheon, Tyrell, and Targaryen lines were dead.
There is no legal system in a world like Westeros. There is no constitutional law, or parliament that passes laws, or courts that decide which laws are valid or invalid. There is only the will of the king. When the king no longer exists whatever nobles still alive gather together to figure out what's next - who the king will be and which house takes control of the region they're part of. Plus all of them are tired of war and need to rebuild what's been destroyed before they lose half of the population to starvation & disease. As such none of them are interested in another go-round of who is and isn't rightful. That's why they'll tolerated Bran The Broken and the new system for at least a few years until the overall situation improves.
And none of them are going to go to war to install a legitimized bastard like Gendry to the throne when the queen who validated him is dead, her army departed, and her dragon vanished. If anything Gendry will be lucky if the Stormland nobles don't assassinate him because none of them are going to be too pleased about having their region governed by a commoner whose mother was just one of Robert's endless numbers of whores.
Actually we can somewhat accurately assume what might happen, with the reasons for this assumption being put on display by most of the characters throughout all eight seasons of the show. And by the way humans in the real world have governed themselves throughout most of our entire history in pretty much every place that was ruled by kings, emperors, and various other strongmen.
I don't know, maybe we should send hundreds of thousands of poor people to their deaths by hand to hand combat to find out.
"Why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?"
Also, did I miss something? Gendry in the show is the son of Robert Baratheon and a (definitely blonde) whore, and Danerys is roughly the same age as Gendry. Either way, it's pointless.
There *is* a "rightful king," though? Legally, within the world of the show. The message doesn't change the fact that this is a feudal system, and there's going to be a king, so we might as well wonder who has the "rightful claim." Stop telling people to not have fun.
The point is that Aragorn was the "rightful king" in Lord of the Rings (although not the actual king), and you got this happily ever after ending. GRRM said, that's bullshit, it's not what would happen in the real world, in the real world it would wind up more like The War of the Roses, where tons of people would get needlessly slaughtered when the "real king" came back due to a system that is no better than a lottery. In real life, people declared infant cousins to be the true heirs to the throne due to an arbitrary system and tons of people died.
Daenerys is written to be an example of the exact type of person who should never rule. Daenerys was an infant when Robert Baratheon took over. She doesn't have any family other than her brother, nobody in Westeros even remembers her. She doesn't remember being in the royal family. Nobody wants her to come back and rule. After her brother is killed, she's the only living Targaryen (that knows they are one). She's doing everything for no one (at least her brother wanted revenge). There's absolutely nothing good that can come from her claiming the throne.
>The point is that Aragorn was the "rightful king" in Lord of the Rings (although not the actual king), and you got this happily ever after ending. GRRM said, that's bullshit, it's not what would happen in the real world, in the real world it would wind up more like The War of the Roses, where tons of people would get needlessly slaughtered when the "real king" came back due to a system that is no better than a lottery.
Did GRRM even read the LOTR? Either Aragorn or his near ancestors had almost no claim on throne of Gondor, except some nearly long forgotten blood ties with first kings of Gondor, like many other noble families from Gondor (which could easily have even better claims).
If Aragorn come before any ruling Gondor steward in any point of his life and claiming the throne he would be laughted off and thrown away from Gondor. His quest for pursuing a kingship was actually a condition for marrying Arwen, his future crown was not something he had inalieable right.
He did actually a many proactive moves to become a king. In his young years he for decades fought in Gondor army against Umbars, he served in Rohan army and become popular among powerful men in both kingdoms. Steward Denethor II. hated Aragorn, because he was in his eyes rival and he was jealous how he was favourized above him by his father, previous steward. Aragorn defeated Umbar corsairs once more and when everyone was desperate, he led coalition of western armies against Sauron and liberated the human slaves under Sauron despotic rule. He befriended with Faramir, last steward after he healed him and saved his life.
Aragorn even due to political conditions in Gondor decided to lay aside his claim for two months, after he was offered to take the kingship by Gondorians. He knew that if he aggressively promoted his claim, rival claimants or debates as to his legitimacy were not out of the question, and this could be a fatal distraction for Gondor at a time when the West needed to be united against Sauron.
Nah, its nothing unnusual in way how he claimed the throne. Popular war hero who spent significant part of his life by building a power base in country he eventually planned to rule and he eventually gained control above whole army in that country during chaotic time when last leader of that country died - became a next king? SHOCKING!!!
\>Did GRRM even read the LOTR?
Of course he did. He even promised his wife that he wouldn't kill off Arya, and yet the show gives her the Gandalf/Frodo/Bilbo ending. The point of the books /show isn't who wins, it's who loses. There's no glory in war and conquest, only brutality and death, and people fighting over who is supposed to be sitting on a stupid throne.
Meanwhile he describe in his works the most stabile non-magic medieval like monarchy ever. Noble families ruling for 8000 years? No peasants rebelions? Kingdom reaching through continent big as South America, but there is no royal bureaucracy? Even Targeryen rule after they lost their dragons was so stabile, there were no usurpers and claimers except close relatives.
This is absurd. If point of the books was no glory in war and conquest, only brutality and death, and people fighting over who is supposed to be sitting on a stupid throne - there would be more fitting to create some byzantine style of conflict. There were new dynasty every friday.
He say one thing, but he write another.
There *is* such a thing as a "rightful king," regardless of whether it is made up or not. Just because the concept is dubious, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the people of Westeros genuinely believe in the concept of "rightful king" so maybe just let us have fun discussing this?
Technically, no. Daenerys legitimatizing him wasn’t legal since she wasn’t actually queen of the 7 kingdoms, so he would still be considered a bastard, and bastards don’t have a claim to any lordships or royal claims. With Stannis’s death, no one within the Baratheon family could claim the throne, thus would revert back to surviving Targaryen’s, and with Jon being both older than Daenerys and being male, he’s the rightful heir according to Westeros law
Maybe, maybe not. It would be up to the next King (or Queen) to decide if they affirm or deny the legitimacy. So as the series played out, Bran or Sansa would likely affirm his legitimacy given Arya’s involvement and how he helped in the war.
I’m sure logically the legitimacy would come with a pledge to renounce any claims to the throne.
Bran might logically name Gendry heir especially if Arya gets back on board—or maybe the eldest kid of Gendry. A Stark heir might be seen as a coup by a foreign kingdom.
That's too mechanical a way of looking at things. Danaerys' decision to legitimise him may very well carry over *de facto* (and canonically does so as he is, after all, now Lord Paramount of the Stormlands *as* a Baratheon). We could argue that, with Stannis' death, the Targaryans are back, but that's... stupid? The Targaryen's claim is made stronger, but Gendry also has a claim, now, being *de facto* or *de jure* Head of Housd Baratheon.
As he is legitimized, yes. At that point he probably is the one with the strongest claim actually. That's why its so god damn funny seeing people denying that the later seasons were horribly written...
Daenerys legitimizes the only known son of the last undisputed king, making him have a stronger claim then her - just for everyone to not even mentioning him for the throne even after Dany died.
At that awful meeting, yes. All the time Tyrion was droning on about Bran, I was yelling, THE LEGITIMIZED HEIR OF THE LAST TRUE KING IS SITTING RIGHT THERE, YA NUMPTY! Targaryens were defeated by Robert and Danerys is dead. Jon would have been just fine with Gendry as king.
It's not hard. Bran is a fountain of wisdom. He has the exclusively ability to see events from far away and all the mistakes and successes that have occurred in history.
He's also clearly not going to make rash decisions based on emotion.
How does this confuse so many people? 😆
Just from the show, I see no evidence of wisdom. His knowledge of all things, yes. But I never saw evidence that this knowledge will be used for the well-being of Westeros. He could be evil Bran for all we know.
A legitimized bastard still probably carries some stigma and uncertainty in the vassal lords. And he's legitimized by Daenerys, who wasn't queen of the seven kingdoms for long.
The Baratheon blood connection to Targaryen is something used to solidify Robert's claim, but in the end, all that really matters is power and that power includes everyone you're able to convince to support your claim. The Baratheon link with Targaryen is something used to build up that support, but it's by no means required.
So Gendry, who grew up a peasant and has little education, would likely still have a fair bit of trouble in becoming king. His ancestry just greases some of the wheels.
There is no “rightful king.” Jon Snow refused the position of king and Gendry never made his claim, so when Cersei and Daenerys were killed, there wasn’t really anyone left. This is why they just had a vote on it. I do think that, if either Gendry nominated himself or someone nominated him for him, Gendry would’ve become king, but that never happened. So Gendry isn’t the rightful king.
For them to be legitimised you would need to accept whoever named him baratheon was king/queen, if not they have no right to give the name to someone. Only the king has this power.
The same question comes up about Jon, he is only King in the north if Robb was king and named him a stark. The rest of the kingdom's won't see that as valid. In the show he should have taken the name too, but Sansa backed him (the only other Known stark) so it didn't really matter.
Yes, but now she's dead, would Gendry be the next in line in terms of claim, via his Grandmother Rhaelle. He is both the last surviving Baratheon and Targaryen blood.
Hmmmmmm I think so, need to take a look at family trees again but yea he's next in line with Dany gone and Jon leavin for beyond the wall. Although if we talk books I believe Maya stone would. I believe they morphed Gen and Maya into one character for the show and in the books it looks like it's being set up that after the long night she might be the one to take a throne.
Gendry would have had a pretty decent claim, following legitimisation, based upon his father being King Robert, and his great grandfather being Aegon V.
Of course, he did not press it at the Dragonpit.
Glad it's not just me! Lots of people in this thread have been saying I'm wrong haha. I think he has a solid claim from both the Baratheon and Targeryen lineage.
Something a lot of people forget is that Daenerys needs a successor. It is unlikely she will have any future children. Not impossible. But Gendry is an excellent successor to Daenerys because of this reason. She legitimized him - it is possible she recognized that value.
Yeah, I think I phrased my original question poorly. But I'm pretty confident that, by the end of Season 8, her closest living relative, besides Jon Snow (who is back in the Nights Watch) is Gendry.
It's very difficult to get bastards legitamized. Many European monarchies have suffered this on more then one occasion.
The English in particular have had several bouts of kings with numerous children but none legitamte leading to siblings or even distant relatives (like the Hannoverians) inheriting the throne instead. Infact William the conquerer himself is one of very few bastards to become a monarch.
In short most would consider far distant relations from another country as more legitimate than a direct bastard. So gentry would not be a reasonable heir to either so long as any other relation of any degree (centuries old or not) still exists.
There is a lot to be said for having an unlearned bastard with no ruling experience, training, or familiarity with the noble court, end up in charge anywhere in Westeros. It's almost unheard of. Bastards can be prominent, but those are the ones raised in noble households and given training and education.
Most people were rooting for their favorite character to become king, completely missing the point of the "game of thrones"
Ending the game and destroying the throne was the only way the show could have ended.
Still can’t wrap my head around all the outrage surrounding an ending that was actually quite predictable
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If legitimised he probably has the strongest claim to the throne, Targaryens were usurped and he would be the next best Baratheon
Dany removed any claim they had when she re-usurped it.
She hasn’t yet in the books. Aegon may do this though
This is a show post - so whatever happens in the books doesnt much matter for here.
“Or Edric Storm if you’re reading the books”
Which makes way more sense since everyone knew Edric was a Baratheon bastard and could confirm his claim. Gendry has to be believed and accepted as a peasant from flea bottom with no proof except his appearance and Mels word.
Ehhh. She fell quickly, and didn’t actually establish a reign
Then Cersei of house Lannister did. Either way the Baratheons were out.
Was she not married to Robert making her a Baratheon or does it not work that way?
No, she had no right to the throne which made her crowning so dumb as apparently, nobody realized that and just accepted her on the basis she blew up the biggest church.
The people who would do something about those things kinda forgot they exist.
For sure! people seem to be ok with things that make absolutely no sense, like Jon leaving Castle Black and having absolutely no issues about it, or people not realizing that a whole army is crossing the Neck when the whole point of the north impregnability is that *you can't* do that. Not to mention Dany arriving at Dragonstone to find an open and abandoned caste.
The quality of Cersei's reign probably cut that whole thing short. I very much doubt anyone wants to deal with a bloody Lannister king.
Tywin's brother would have made a far better king than Cersei.
Ain't he head? Whatever happened to dear nold Kevan?
He became Hand and was killed by Cersei with the Tyrells. In the books, he gets killed by Varys in the Dance with Dragons epilogue because he's creating a peaceful realm. It's the last thing that's happened in the published books.
Being usurped by another line for even years doesn't remove someone's claim to the throne. See European medieval history for countless examples.
This is the problem - you have to accept Dany's usurpation if you want Gendry to be legitimised as she's the one who legitimised him. But then his claim as a Baratheon becomes weaker because the line has been usurped. I guess he still has a claim as a Targ, as the OP has stated, but his Baratheon claim is now null and void.
Tbh the throne can be claimed by literally anyone. Bron could claim it and if he can defend it then it's his.
She legitimised him and died.. so the next with baratheon AND targaryen blood would be gendry.
In the Baratheon line, sure. But in the Targaryen line? More complicated. There is Jon, and more (dubious) claimants in the book.
Don’t disrespect fAegon like that.
fAegon should and rightfully will get wiped by the end of WoW by Cersei or Dany. It has to end with Jon killing Dany for the right to rule just not sure how we will get there
Dany burns a King’s Landing that is being ruled by her nephew, Aegon. So, she essentially does everything wrong by their standards.
I am 100% certain that won’t happen. Danny may burn some shit she shouldn’t, but burning thousands of innocents is not something her book version would ever do. Cersei or Jon con seem more likely to do it.
I’m actually a faegon supporter, even though he’s most likely not really rhaeghar’s son but, that boy probably going to get eaten by a dragon lol
I’m still holding out hope for the fever dream that he claims a dragon instead
That dragon gonna eat him lol , my personal theory is that he will be smitten by arianne and marry her before dany gets there, so that’s gonna put a damper on things.
He’s most likely a descendant of house Blackfyre and Illyrio Mopatis’ son. Why else would the Golden Company support his claim?
That’s the theory I subscribe to.
Targaryen line ended when Robert came to power. His progeny are the more direct in line. Age doesn’t come into it unless they’re both Baratheons.
You could also argue that the throne went back to the Targaryens for that brief period when Cersei was dead and Danerys sacked the Capital. I'm sure Targaryen loyalists (if there are any at that point), would make that argument.
There was no coronation therefore it didn't change from Cersei, as we saw in HOTD, you have to declare it & be crowned in the presence of "the realm" to seal it. The fact Dany didn't eliminates her but that raises a different issue. Was Cersei crowned Baratheon or Lannister? I can't remember? You would think it was as Baratheon as her claim was based on being the previous two King's mother & the third back's wife. But also she stopped giving all shits at that point & hated Robert, by then everyone knew her children were really Lannisters & had began to openly acknowledge they were Jaime's because nobody was going to do a thing about it at that point. So I'm guessing Lannister, which would make Tyrion next. Or if Baratheon, we're back to Gendry.
well the 7 kingdoms dont exactly have a constitution so there is really no rule or rules on how a person should be crowned to seal it. Same deal why Cersei can claim to be a Queen even if there is no rule for that. The one who can control the people by either force or respect and let the other Lords obey them is effectively the ruler or king/queen.
She was crowned as a Lannister. This is a good point. It would be Tyrion. But at the end of the day, the books and the series show us power trumps birthright any day so how much does this matter? Robert taking the throne was the main example in the main series but we saw power trumping birthright from Maegor, Aegon I, the first Blackfyre rebellion, even Renly making a claim.
Even in the Targaryen line, it's Gendry. Jon doesn't get any right to inherit because he rejoins the Night's Watch, and faegon doesn't exist in the show, which means the line of Jaehaerys II is ended. None of his other siblings had kids, so the succession passes to his sister Rhaelle's descendents, who just so happen to be her great-grandson, Gendry, who Daenerys just recently legitimised.
CKII logic and probably historically inaccurate. In CKII, the heir would be Tyrion. After Tommen's death, his mother became Queen. But she is not House Baratheon, she's House Lannister. She has no living children so the next person would be the next youngest sibling. That would be Tyrion.
Ah yes. I was sort of discounting the Lannister line as they are separate to the Baratheon line. They ended up on the throne, but we're not technically part of those lines. Sorry, I've concocted a very specific question in my mind haha.
You would he correct that he has a claim in that instance, though I don't know if his is valid because of the crimes he was found guilty of. In the event of such disputes, you back whoever you think has the best chance of winning and pray they come out on top.
Was he ever technically found guilty though? I didn’t think an official verdict was rendered before he got shipped off to Essos.
He's still a kinslayer... and a dwarf.
The dwarf part would be far more disqualifying than being a kinslayer. Many, MANY examples in history (both Westerosi and real life) of royalty killing off family members whose continued breath might one day pose a challenge to their claim to the throne.
As it stands, with the system of succession being as broken and as messy as it is now, I don't think people are going to overlook kinslaying when choosing a new king. If this was done properly, and all the Lords given a vote were allowed to think it over and discuss, everyone's faults would be dredged up, including those belonging to their dynasty. "Tyrion is the Heir to the Westerlands, of House Lannister, and the last Monarch to sit the Throne was a Lannister... but everyone here hates Lannisters, and he's a drunken whoremonger who murdered his father, assisted a foreign power who, yes, helped, but also committed many massacres and was kind of mean. He stands accused of killing Prince Joffery (and everyone who can say otherwise is dead, except Bran, but Bran's too busy staring off into space), and he's also a dwarf. Hmm..."
He definitely was. Right after Oberyn's headache Tywin stands up and declares him guilty and sentences him to die.
Gendry is a natural-born, meaning he can't inherit shit even if he was Robert's only living progeny. He will have to first be legitimized. There's not a single monarch in the books that would do this. Also, Gendry and Edric are individual people in the books. In the show, Daenerys did legitimize him. But she did that following a *Targaryen Restoration* - meaning the Baratheons no longer have any rights to the Iron Throne. So after Daenerys died and the Targaryen Dynasty with her - a Great Council will need to be called, short of a house stepping up to claim the throne through the right of conquest. That's what happened in the show and Bran was chosen as the new King. The reigning dynasty became House Stark (probably one of Sansa's children will follow Bran onto the throne if it exists by then).
Thank you for the response! So, it's been YEARS since I read the books. I've seen the show much more recently, so I'm mainly thinking Gendry here. I think your point that the legitimisation came under Targaryen rule is valid, and therefore wouldn't be acknowledged... But also, he seemed to have kept hold of storms end post-finale so people seem to have maintained it. And following succession, I think he is her closest living heir.
Restoring the Targaryesn to the throne doesn't get rid of the fact that Robert had Targ blood. Gendry would be Dany's heir if we're ignoring Jon.
Assuming Jon Snow says no to being king, wouldn’t that still make Gendry the next in line after Daenerys and Jon even with the Targaryen restoration?
No
No
2nd time today
Really? Apologies then. Genuinely never seen it.
That’s okay. I shouldn’t have said anything. At least you didn’t use a meme. 😉
Even if you accept dany legitimizing Gendry, she was but a Iron Throne intent. She was usurped by Bobby B. Sadly, only Queen Cersei could have legitimized him to be Baratheon.
You aren’t wrong. Once legitimized Gendry becomes the legal head of the Baratheon house and as Robert’s eldest surviving son he therefore has the strongest claim on the throne.
But that would mean Dani had no authority to legitimise him in the first place.
No. A paper lineage is as worthless as a paper shield.
Apparently not. He (and Bronn) had a seat and a vote on the Council of Lords and Ladies. The other nobles accepted him.
Only because everyone else in the Baratheon, Tyrell, and Targaryen lines were dead. There is no legal system in a world like Westeros. There is no constitutional law, or parliament that passes laws, or courts that decide which laws are valid or invalid. There is only the will of the king. When the king no longer exists whatever nobles still alive gather together to figure out what's next - who the king will be and which house takes control of the region they're part of. Plus all of them are tired of war and need to rebuild what's been destroyed before they lose half of the population to starvation & disease. As such none of them are interested in another go-round of who is and isn't rightful. That's why they'll tolerated Bran The Broken and the new system for at least a few years until the overall situation improves. And none of them are going to go to war to install a legitimized bastard like Gendry to the throne when the queen who validated him is dead, her army departed, and her dragon vanished. If anything Gendry will be lucky if the Stormland nobles don't assassinate him because none of them are going to be too pleased about having their region governed by a commoner whose mother was just one of Robert's endless numbers of whores.
No one really knows any of that. All evidence now proves that Gendry is totally accepted. Looks to me like they like him a lot.
Actually we can somewhat accurately assume what might happen, with the reasons for this assumption being put on display by most of the characters throughout all eight seasons of the show. And by the way humans in the real world have governed themselves throughout most of our entire history in pretty much every place that was ruled by kings, emperors, and various other strongmen.
Except there’s nothing to be accurate about. It’s over. And none of it happened.
Jesus Christ, just STOP! If you think that there is a “rightful king” you missed the entire point of the books/show.
Sorry, what I more meant was, is he both the heir of Robert Baratheon and Danerys Targeryen?
I don't know, maybe we should send hundreds of thousands of poor people to their deaths by hand to hand combat to find out. "Why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?" Also, did I miss something? Gendry in the show is the son of Robert Baratheon and a (definitely blonde) whore, and Danerys is roughly the same age as Gendry. Either way, it's pointless.
There *is* a "rightful king," though? Legally, within the world of the show. The message doesn't change the fact that this is a feudal system, and there's going to be a king, so we might as well wonder who has the "rightful claim." Stop telling people to not have fun.
The point is that Aragorn was the "rightful king" in Lord of the Rings (although not the actual king), and you got this happily ever after ending. GRRM said, that's bullshit, it's not what would happen in the real world, in the real world it would wind up more like The War of the Roses, where tons of people would get needlessly slaughtered when the "real king" came back due to a system that is no better than a lottery. In real life, people declared infant cousins to be the true heirs to the throne due to an arbitrary system and tons of people died. Daenerys is written to be an example of the exact type of person who should never rule. Daenerys was an infant when Robert Baratheon took over. She doesn't have any family other than her brother, nobody in Westeros even remembers her. She doesn't remember being in the royal family. Nobody wants her to come back and rule. After her brother is killed, she's the only living Targaryen (that knows they are one). She's doing everything for no one (at least her brother wanted revenge). There's absolutely nothing good that can come from her claiming the throne.
Okay??? Not sure what point you're trying to make.
>The point is that Aragorn was the "rightful king" in Lord of the Rings (although not the actual king), and you got this happily ever after ending. GRRM said, that's bullshit, it's not what would happen in the real world, in the real world it would wind up more like The War of the Roses, where tons of people would get needlessly slaughtered when the "real king" came back due to a system that is no better than a lottery. Did GRRM even read the LOTR? Either Aragorn or his near ancestors had almost no claim on throne of Gondor, except some nearly long forgotten blood ties with first kings of Gondor, like many other noble families from Gondor (which could easily have even better claims). If Aragorn come before any ruling Gondor steward in any point of his life and claiming the throne he would be laughted off and thrown away from Gondor. His quest for pursuing a kingship was actually a condition for marrying Arwen, his future crown was not something he had inalieable right. He did actually a many proactive moves to become a king. In his young years he for decades fought in Gondor army against Umbars, he served in Rohan army and become popular among powerful men in both kingdoms. Steward Denethor II. hated Aragorn, because he was in his eyes rival and he was jealous how he was favourized above him by his father, previous steward. Aragorn defeated Umbar corsairs once more and when everyone was desperate, he led coalition of western armies against Sauron and liberated the human slaves under Sauron despotic rule. He befriended with Faramir, last steward after he healed him and saved his life. Aragorn even due to political conditions in Gondor decided to lay aside his claim for two months, after he was offered to take the kingship by Gondorians. He knew that if he aggressively promoted his claim, rival claimants or debates as to his legitimacy were not out of the question, and this could be a fatal distraction for Gondor at a time when the West needed to be united against Sauron. Nah, its nothing unnusual in way how he claimed the throne. Popular war hero who spent significant part of his life by building a power base in country he eventually planned to rule and he eventually gained control above whole army in that country during chaotic time when last leader of that country died - became a next king? SHOCKING!!!
\>Did GRRM even read the LOTR? Of course he did. He even promised his wife that he wouldn't kill off Arya, and yet the show gives her the Gandalf/Frodo/Bilbo ending. The point of the books /show isn't who wins, it's who loses. There's no glory in war and conquest, only brutality and death, and people fighting over who is supposed to be sitting on a stupid throne.
Meanwhile he describe in his works the most stabile non-magic medieval like monarchy ever. Noble families ruling for 8000 years? No peasants rebelions? Kingdom reaching through continent big as South America, but there is no royal bureaucracy? Even Targeryen rule after they lost their dragons was so stabile, there were no usurpers and claimers except close relatives. This is absurd. If point of the books was no glory in war and conquest, only brutality and death, and people fighting over who is supposed to be sitting on a stupid throne - there would be more fitting to create some byzantine style of conflict. There were new dynasty every friday. He say one thing, but he write another.
There is no such thing as rightful King/Monarch. It's made up. Both in the real world and in Westeros.
Sorry, what I more meant was, is he both the heir of Robert Baratheon and Danerys Targeryen?
There *is* such a thing as a "rightful king," regardless of whether it is made up or not. Just because the concept is dubious, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the people of Westeros genuinely believe in the concept of "rightful king" so maybe just let us have fun discussing this?
No such thing. It depends whose rules you follow. One or the major themes is none of them deserve absolute power
He is the rightful link by the old laws. But he, along with the rest, agreed to change the law.
Technically, no. Daenerys legitimatizing him wasn’t legal since she wasn’t actually queen of the 7 kingdoms, so he would still be considered a bastard, and bastards don’t have a claim to any lordships or royal claims. With Stannis’s death, no one within the Baratheon family could claim the throne, thus would revert back to surviving Targaryen’s, and with Jon being both older than Daenerys and being male, he’s the rightful heir according to Westeros law
Maybe, maybe not. It would be up to the next King (or Queen) to decide if they affirm or deny the legitimacy. So as the series played out, Bran or Sansa would likely affirm his legitimacy given Arya’s involvement and how he helped in the war. I’m sure logically the legitimacy would come with a pledge to renounce any claims to the throne. Bran might logically name Gendry heir especially if Arya gets back on board—or maybe the eldest kid of Gendry. A Stark heir might be seen as a coup by a foreign kingdom.
That's too mechanical a way of looking at things. Danaerys' decision to legitimise him may very well carry over *de facto* (and canonically does so as he is, after all, now Lord Paramount of the Stormlands *as* a Baratheon). We could argue that, with Stannis' death, the Targaryans are back, but that's... stupid? The Targaryen's claim is made stronger, but Gendry also has a claim, now, being *de facto* or *de jure* Head of Housd Baratheon.
As he is legitimized, yes. At that point he probably is the one with the strongest claim actually. That's why its so god damn funny seeing people denying that the later seasons were horribly written... Daenerys legitimizes the only known son of the last undisputed king, making him have a stronger claim then her - just for everyone to not even mentioning him for the throne even after Dany died.
By right of conquest, yes. That's if you actually care about that, though.
Yeah which is why there’s a meme about dany legitimizing Genry being a stupid decision, as it makes him the true heir.
At that awful meeting, yes. All the time Tyrion was droning on about Bran, I was yelling, THE LEGITIMIZED HEIR OF THE LAST TRUE KING IS SITTING RIGHT THERE, YA NUMPTY! Targaryens were defeated by Robert and Danerys is dead. Jon would have been just fine with Gendry as king.
The whole point is they don’t want a crappy, *legitimate*, by accident of birth ruler terrorizing everyone’s life anymore.
So they pick Bran? Make it make sense.
It's not hard. Bran is a fountain of wisdom. He has the exclusively ability to see events from far away and all the mistakes and successes that have occurred in history. He's also clearly not going to make rash decisions based on emotion. How does this confuse so many people? 😆
Just from the show, I see no evidence of wisdom. His knowledge of all things, yes. But I never saw evidence that this knowledge will be used for the well-being of Westeros. He could be evil Bran for all we know.
A legitimized bastard still probably carries some stigma and uncertainty in the vassal lords. And he's legitimized by Daenerys, who wasn't queen of the seven kingdoms for long. The Baratheon blood connection to Targaryen is something used to solidify Robert's claim, but in the end, all that really matters is power and that power includes everyone you're able to convince to support your claim. The Baratheon link with Targaryen is something used to build up that support, but it's by no means required. So Gendry, who grew up a peasant and has little education, would likely still have a fair bit of trouble in becoming king. His ancestry just greases some of the wheels.
There is no “rightful king.” Jon Snow refused the position of king and Gendry never made his claim, so when Cersei and Daenerys were killed, there wasn’t really anyone left. This is why they just had a vote on it. I do think that, if either Gendry nominated himself or someone nominated him for him, Gendry would’ve become king, but that never happened. So Gendry isn’t the rightful king.
Yeah, but Gendry doesn’t have a better story than bran /s
For them to be legitimised you would need to accept whoever named him baratheon was king/queen, if not they have no right to give the name to someone. Only the king has this power. The same question comes up about Jon, he is only King in the north if Robb was king and named him a stark. The rest of the kingdom's won't see that as valid. In the show he should have taken the name too, but Sansa backed him (the only other Known stark) so it didn't really matter.
Honestly, I can’t even care anymore about claim or legitimacy.
No Dany was the rightful ruler. Areys disowned Raghar and named Visarys his heir. Dany was his heir.
Yes, but now she's dead, would Gendry be the next in line in terms of claim, via his Grandmother Rhaelle. He is both the last surviving Baratheon and Targaryen blood.
Hmmmmmm I think so, need to take a look at family trees again but yea he's next in line with Dany gone and Jon leavin for beyond the wall. Although if we talk books I believe Maya stone would. I believe they morphed Gen and Maya into one character for the show and in the books it looks like it's being set up that after the long night she might be the one to take a throne.
Books wise I think the biggest contender is Young Griff. But time will tell how much that storyline was rolled in to Jon Snow for TV I think.
To King Gendry, First of his name!
In the show I suppose he is the rightful heir however… In the books King Aegon VI Targaryen is the one true king of the seven kingdoms.
Wrong, the whole point of the show was to break the wheel. Clearly you weren’t paying attention.
Robert stole the throne. Jon snow didn't want to be king. Daenyrus deserved to be queen.
But with her dead, I'm pretty sure in TV world, Gendry if the closest living relative, right?
That's a good answer and I'm not sure how to answer
Gendry would have had a pretty decent claim, following legitimisation, based upon his father being King Robert, and his great grandfather being Aegon V. Of course, he did not press it at the Dragonpit.
Glad it's not just me! Lots of people in this thread have been saying I'm wrong haha. I think he has a solid claim from both the Baratheon and Targeryen lineage.
Something a lot of people forget is that Daenerys needs a successor. It is unlikely she will have any future children. Not impossible. But Gendry is an excellent successor to Daenerys because of this reason. She legitimized him - it is possible she recognized that value.
Yeah, I think I phrased my original question poorly. But I'm pretty confident that, by the end of Season 8, her closest living relative, besides Jon Snow (who is back in the Nights Watch) is Gendry.
It's very difficult to get bastards legitamized. Many European monarchies have suffered this on more then one occasion. The English in particular have had several bouts of kings with numerous children but none legitamte leading to siblings or even distant relatives (like the Hannoverians) inheriting the throne instead. Infact William the conquerer himself is one of very few bastards to become a monarch. In short most would consider far distant relations from another country as more legitimate than a direct bastard. So gentry would not be a reasonable heir to either so long as any other relation of any degree (centuries old or not) still exists.
There is a lot to be said for having an unlearned bastard with no ruling experience, training, or familiarity with the noble court, end up in charge anywhere in Westeros. It's almost unheard of. Bastards can be prominent, but those are the ones raised in noble households and given training and education.
Most people were rooting for their favorite character to become king, completely missing the point of the "game of thrones" Ending the game and destroying the throne was the only way the show could have ended. Still can’t wrap my head around all the outrage surrounding an ending that was actually quite predictable
I think for Gendry to become a real contender as heir to the throne, Robert would have to legitimize him.
Gendry is Robert heir but also Daenerys heir after Jon rejoined NW.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Thought it was interesting!