To add to this, Robert's Targaryen blood through his grandmother made him legally sixth in line to the throne before the Rebellion because there were so few Targaryens at this point. During the Rebellion, the king was killed as well as all those above Robert in the line of succession (including the two children that for some reason he didn't mind had died...) apart from two - Viserys and his mother Rhaella, who then died giving birth to Dany. If Robert had succeeded in killing these two as well he would technically be the legal heir to the Targaryen throne by Targaryen law. Obviously Targaryen loyalists wouldn't have excepted him due to his violent ascension but he'd have had a much stronger claim if only he'd managed to kill another couple of children.

@@samc9516 well, real history and this story show us that it isn‘t that important how strong your claim is, but how many followers, resources and soldiers you have at your back to get to the throne, in best case quickly so others must react to your action or step back... and how good your propaganda works! The number in line actually means little... just look into the Blackfyre Rebellion! Daemon as a legalized bastard managed to rally more Westerosi around his banner than his half-brother Daeron and his 4 sons... „technically“ he was very down far a bit in the succession line and still got very close to claim the throne if it weren‘t for the Dornish

@@michelmorio8026 True, I just think it's interesting how strong his claim really was, it's not just a drop of Targaryen blood he has, he really was quite close in the order of succession. I also like how it gives another motive for Robert to condone the murder of children and partly why he fears Viserys/Dany to the current day (although granted his drive was mostly hate and revenge haha). But yeah, Robert's claim is like Prince Harry claiming the British throne opposed to someone like me claiming it - Harry would have more backers than I would lol. So sure there are other factors at play but I wouldn't say validity of a claim is "unimportant". It's true your claim alone doesn't win you the throne but it will win you some supporters. For example Ned supports Stannis' claim simply because he discovered he's the legal heir. If Ned had got the word out that Joffrey was illegitimate before Robert died there would be far fewer Joffrey supporters in the realm. In the case of Daemon Blackfyre, his supporters obviously didn't care about the line of succession and valued other things like symbolism and strength, but Daeron's supporters did care - if it wasn't for his strong valid claim he wouldn't have had any supporters at all. For Robert the continued living of Viserys and Dany is a thorn in his side because if they tried to gain support against him, they have a stronger claim, a reason for people to rally behind them. If they had died, of course some Targaryen loyalists would still oppose Robert but it becomes much more challenging to justify a rebellion with someone else - who would they support? Book only spoilers:... Another example is Aegon the sixth - he has been raised as Aegon, son of Rhaegar and makes his claim in that name because that name has a strong claim that Targaryen supporters can rally behind; he'll win far more support as Aegon than as a Blackfyre because it is stronger claim than the "Baratheon" claim under Targaryen succession.

@@samc9516 Well you see it a little bit one sided! Of course there are people/lords/knights who see it that way (like Ned with Stannis for instance) that a certain person has the best/only claim, but again, successions are always messy if the previous monarch wasn’t very specific who will follow him! There are different models/laws of succession in reality as well as in this fiction story regarding inheriting/transition of power; BUT there are also things like what is unwritten/uncodified tradition (in Daeron II‘s case not having the sword Blackfyre like every previous Targaryen monarch... or Viserys I. being the first Targaryen king without a dragon) and what interests (what can they gain/loose) will third parties have in who will ascend to the throne (not only the Great Houses but also minor ones who for example many backed Daemon or even institutions like the Citadel or Faith or even foreign powers like Braavos or some other Essosi city states who quite often interfered in Westeros‘ history). This matter will reappear and play a central role in „House of the Dragon“. The Velaryons between the First Great Council and the end of the Dance of the Dragons are a good example in that case for even switching sides several times in which claimant to support depending on how it serves their interests To put it short... most people are rather pragmatic then dogmatic or principled Regarding Joffrey... well he had just the support of the Lannisters and their minor houses and the Crownlands around Kings Landing... the rest of the realm was just slowly adapting to the circumstances that the other „claimants“ kings were dying or loosing so they were betting very late on the safe horse (or have eggs in several baskets as the Royces, the Florents, the Fossoweys, the Estermonts or the Swanns for example) In Robers case the tiniest claim is enough... he also has the right of conquest in his corner! Aegon I. didn‘t become king because of a birthright or succession, but by conquest and the other kings‘ submission! Robert was made King basically by Jon Arryn, Ned and Hoster Tully... Tywin made a safe bet in supporting the winner and Balon Greyjoy, Mace Tyrell and Doran Martell grudgingly adapted to the circumstances and new reality Don‘t understand your last point... we don‘t know yet his actual identity and who supports his claim (if he truly has one)! Young Griff is still a riddle after a decade and too many theories are mudding the water... since George gets a lot of inspiration from the Wars of the Roses, „Aegon“ reminds me more of a Lambert Simnel or perhaps even Perkin Warbeck situation Henry VII. Tudor had to deal with (who has several parallels to Daenerys... raised in exile under constant threat, unlikely claimant, invading with a foreign army and exiled lords & knights who fought on the Lancastrian side...)

​@@michelmorio8026 Thanks for the detailed reply, I appreciate the effort! Yeah it's probably true I'm being one sided, I know, but I do totally appreciate and understand the other side of the discussion that sometimes other factors in a succession dispute surpass the legal argument *in the end* - I'm just saying the legal standpoint is still relevant in succession disputes. I'm the type of person that likes following "rules" and systems, and if I were Westerosi the order of succession would probably be pretty important to me. (In reality I'm anti-monarchy in favour of what I'd regard as a truer democracy, but I put that aside for fiction like this!) My main point in this comment thread is that in Westeros there is a legal system to determine an order of succession, and when you consider only the legal order Robert is sixth in line to the Targaryen throne like Prince Harry is sixth in line. Following the laws and systems of the realm are how things are "supposed" to go in theory, and that's what I'm referring to, and considering this and assuming no disputes and all those above them in the line of succession die/abdicate/relinquish claim, they will be the new heir. The extension of my point is that the order of succession or validity of a claim to the throne is still significant in disputed succession - as you said in your original comment "[Robert] got the crown cause he had the strongest claim to the throne of all the rebels through his partly Targaryen heritage"; it plays a role in the complex politicking over disputed succession. When there is a peaceful succession the heir is usually made clear (as you rightly say), but I'm not aware of a single example in Westeros or in real history where a non-disputed succession occurred to someone who wouldn't be considered the legal heir by the laws of the land (feel free to educate me though!). In the politicking of disputed succession there are other factors to consider such as "unwritten/uncodified tradition" which I referred to as "symbolism", such as the Blackfyre sword but there is no legal basis for this established. Of course factors like this have a big impact on the arguments and outcomes of disputes - I agree with you that succession isn't determined by the law alone. The way I see it there is the law and the legal heir, and any other claimants are essentially criminals in the eyes of the law. That doesn't mean the illegal claim doesn't win and retroactively legitimise what they did, as Robert did (although I'd still dispute this because according to the law Viserys was the heir and therefore legally the new king and Robert was a criminal with an illegal and therefore illegitimate claim, and Viserys never relinquished his claim nor changed his law nor died with no heir so it stands that under Targaryen law Robert is no king. The difference with Aegon I is that his enemies either surrendered their lands/titles/thrones or died and could no longer claim it, but Robert cannot claim this due to Viserys' continued claim... but in his case, the practical realities of "right of conquest" obviously overcome this legal standpoint haha). Yes I'd certainly have to agree that people act mainly in their own self interest and that whether they use legal/rightful heir arguments or other arguments such as the sword Blackfyre it's usually just a political talking point to use as a tool to achieve what they want for themselves! Things get even more messy when you have contradictory laws such as when Viserys I died - he had always been clear who his heir was but due to the older rule that a male is favoured over a female there was enough of a window for dispute despite the king's clear ruling. In this case both factions had a legal argument behind them. As for my Young Griff point, I'm working off the assumption he's of Blackfyre descent. Of course you're right this is by no means certain but I get the impression it's the most common, supported and popular theory. My point is: in his conquest he's vying for Targaryen supporters by using the Targaryen name (I think we can at least agree he's not actually Aegon Targaryen?) - he's after those who would support the legal argument that Robert is a usurper and consequently Tommen's claim is superseded by "Aegon's" claim. If he did the same conquest under the name "Blackfyre", all other factors (strength, sellswords, personality/character) would all be the same but I'd posit he'd garner far fewer supporters, and I'd argue that's at least in some part influenced by people who care for a rightful king. This was my point, although in retrospect I think it's not a great argument because there are many other reasons someone would favour a Targaryen claimant over a Blackfyre one irrespective of the line of succession.

Maybe it also has to do with chivalry being an Andal concept. Over the time, the ideas of knighthood, valour and maidenhood spread throughout the North as well, hence Jorah being a knight, but originally, those were Andal conceptions. Maybe, just how there is no word for Thank you in Dothraki, their word for Knight is simply Andal?

Also, it's 6000 years since the Andals arrived. There are no such things as pure blood lines after that long time.

@@svetozarbubalo230 Interesting idea, I like that!

@@rogerlie4176 Yeah, you're right, that's kind of a given 🙂

none of them are pure northerners anymore they all have andal blood even the wildlings but the wildlings are more "pure" in terms of first man blood and culture and second would be the northerners and 3rd would be the southerners.

I don't know if realpolitick did him that much good lol. He had just won a rebellion, his soldiers were veterans and he had great commanders, I think he could have used that moment to cut short Lannister grip in the kingdom, lowering their influence and military power without looking like a tyrant or a new mad king. Instead, what happened is that even if he won most of the war without the Lannister, he in the end came out of it looking like he owned them the victory, the Lannister became way more powerful than before, almost everyone in Robert's own court was under Lannister influence, his coins were Lannister coins, and in the end he ended up assassinated by them, not even his throne passed to his rightful heirs.

I really want to know what happened to Aerys at Duskendale. We need Robert's Rebellion told like House of the Dragon, covering Aerys' reign and how he fell, concluding with Robert's rise and leading to his fall - War of the Penny kings, Grey joy rebellion...

@@Phizzo4real mans speaking straight fax

Yep, for the Dothraki, “Andal” basically means “white guy.”

there might be another explanation: although all the kingdoms fell exept the north, there has been thousands of years of peace since, so it's possible to find some northern lords descendants of the andals, and some southern lords descendants of the first men.

There are northern Andals like the Manderlys, but you are right, House Mormont are first men.

Inter-breeding of andals and first men is pretty wide spread, the Lannisters and Stark's bring at least near pure-bred

100%. Aegon could afford to let the fallen Kings keep most of their power because he could keep them in line with 'dragon insurance'. Once the Targaryen's lost their dragons, they had to be way more reliant on their nobility class and things like custom, law, precedence and the status quo. And Tywin was the guy keeping that all in check for Aerys.

The invaders finally got the boot. It was overdue after their hellbeasts had finally died out.

Riverlands crownlands and iron islands are not 3 kingdoms😂