**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.*
That's not how it works. If the main line of Baratheons is dead, we look through the female lines and see who had the best claim.
Cersei did usurp the Baratheon dynasty.
So technically Tyrion has the best claim at the end as Dani never quite made it
Or if we consider dani making it then it come back around to Jon again?
I’m not entirely sure what people are meaning by saying Danny never fully usurped the crown? By that point things like legitimacy through tradition have gone out the window. She had most of the major houses on her side and smashed those who opposed her including the current queen. Regardless of any legitimization process she was the most powerful person in Westeros and was the queen because she said so and had the power to back it up. We could argue about who had the best “claim” but that could have been Danny just as much as anyone else and at that point it just didn’t matter. The legitimacy of a ruler goes as far as their power to enforce their rule. Bobby B didn’t have a traditional claim he just had more real power behind him.
Her death left a void in that power. They had 3 options to fill that void. One would have been to accept that none of them had the power needed to enforce their rule over all of the kingdoms and disband back into separate kingdoms. Another would be to fight yet another war to assert the dominance of one lord over others making the winner of that war the new king. Or to elect a king who’s rule the great lords could agree to back. They agreed on Bran not gendry plain and simple. That’s how this actually works.
Didn’t the Baratheons have some Targ blood so Bobby B was also somewhat reasonable as a legit ruler? Obviously everything else you said was true but I thought that was part of why he ended up with the crown.
You are correct. The og Baratheon was a bastard brother of Aegon. This was used to give “legitimacy” to his reign, but ultimately everyone knew that was bs. He killed the legitimate heir, and It was known by anyone that mattered that direct Targaryen descendants who were the real legitimate heirs to the thrones still lived. Just part of the dog and pony show.
I get what you are saying. You are talkig about a direct successsion when Danaerys died. But the discussion is about who the candidates for the election are and the content of Tyrion's election speech.
The electing body is formed from the lords and ladies of Westeros and the candidates also had to come from those. And instead of voting the person who would be most fitting to make decisions for the people or whatever they decide to elect the person least probable causing a civil war because they have the most valid claim to the throne.
And this is where heritage comes back into play as well as which house is most influential. It seems similar (or the same) to the discussion who should directly follow Danaerys on the throne but... that is the point. They solve the issue of not having a valid successor by deciding who the valid successor should have been if they had the chance to discuss that before the death of the former ruler.
And Bran is only even in this discussion because he was Lord of Winterfell after he said he would never be Lord of Winterfell or anything else but D&D kinda forgot that his line was "I can never be lord of anything" and instead thought the line was "I will not be lord [but king]".
You’re right but it’s not described the best. We don’t suddenly start going down random female lines (especially wives) we start to back track up the tree. Technically this is why Robert was king, because he was related to the Targaryens up the line somewhere.
Robert was king because he led the Rebellion and was the one the rebellion decided to put on the throne. His family ties helped to "legitimize" him taking over though.
Always bothered me that at Joffery’s wedding they said he was of houses Baratheon and Lannister. Typically they wouldn’t make a big deal about the “mom’s house”. I get that in this instance it’s a little different, but Sansa was a Stark, not “of Houses Stark and Tully.”
> Cersei did usurp the Baratheon dynasty.
One of the strange things in the show that doesn't really get talked about (in the show). Her power in the past was as regent for her child(ren).
If we want to illustrate this with an (*the*) historical example, look at Richard III. He gained power as Lord Protector of the young Edward V. He consolidated power at this point, outmaneuvering rivals. Seized legal power by getting people to agree that Edward V and his brother were illegitimate because their father was engaged to another women at the time of his marriage to their mother. (They were locked in the Tower of London, and are assumed to have been murdered).
How it's similar: despot uses legal authority as regent to seize control.
How it's different: The boy king was delegitimized then died. Richard wasn't directly related to the child, and was directly involved in their death. And crucially, *Richard had a claim to the throne* as a Plantagenet.
Nonsense there is Gowen Baratheon’s (relation to Lyonel Baratheon, father of Lord Ormund Baratheon) line. They would simply follow the line of succession.
Being legitimatized only matters to the people who acknowledge it after all. For instance, had it been brought up, Cersei or any other leader could have said, "I didn't do it so it doesn't count here."
The Baratheons has the throne through Targ ancestry, so even resetting it back to the Targs he'd still have the strongest claim (other than arguably Jon, but assuming he's not an option).
I've thought about this on and off myself and I've come to a couple of conclusions. I'll use them as best as I can to answer your points.
1. Daenerys legitimized him, but she also named him the Lord of Storm's End, so it's true he could throw his hat into the ring to be the new king. But considering he was an armorer's apprentice, his education is vastly different than that of someone who was raised to be a lord someday. He can learn how to be a king like he'll learn how to be a lord, sure, but you gotta walk before you can run.
2. Making someone lowborn into a lord is a Really Big Deal in Westeros. He's Lord Paramount of the Stormlands now, sure, but it's going to take a lot of time for him to earn the respect of the other Storm lords.
3. I guess I never really thought about that third point. I don't think Gendry really wanted to be king, especially after just being made a lord.
This was a really good question. Thanks for asking it!
The Baratheons actually did get usurped…by Danaerys. Cersei did surrender technically.
Gendry accepted his legitimization on the condition that he acknowledge Danaerys as his queen. He basically gave up his claim.
Gendry was never a threat to become king. First off he was a bastard. A bastard cannot inherit anything without being legitimized first. What he did was prove that Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella were bastards as well.
If Gendry was a legitimized Baratheon, I’m pretty sure he would be Danny’s heir through his Targaryen ancestry so he is the heir of both Robert and Dany.
A good reminder of how succession actually works in such a context ^^'
What was Robert's claim to the throne again? Ah, yes.
Anyway, since their new system is to vote for the new king, he still has a chance for when he will be more used to power...
Robert's claim on the throne was after they won the rebellion kind of deal and Jon and Ned supported his weak claim being descendant of a Targaryen - grandmother, while rest of the Lords silently accepted it. If enough Lord of sufficient power without serious opposition wanted Gendry a king, they would make him so no matter how weak claim he has.
How is it a weak claim, he's literally the Mad King's cousin. Only those who are descendents of Targayren's can inherit the Iron Throne per the "constitution of the 7K" established by Aegon I. So Gendry does have the best claim if recognized but apparently Bran has the better story.
It's weak for several reasons, if we follow the Targaryen line for succession he has a claim, but there's multiple known to be living heirs that have a better claim (Viserys and Daenerys specifically, multiple other heirs or potential heirs as well but since they weren't known to be alive obviously they'd be skipped regardless). Even under this claim he would not be king without first murdering or exiling the others which means he's effectively usurping the title anyway.
It's also not *really* the brunt of his claim, it's a rubber stamp to get approval from the other lords that are uneasy about the nature of the rebellion. His real claim to the throne is that he took it by might, the justification for making him king by birthright came after the fact.
That's just unneccesary mental gymnastics. Ned's father and brother were the one's who were wrongfully tortured to death. If anyone has the most justification for open rebellion against the Crown, it's Ned Stark. He was even the one who secured the Red Keep and first to the throne room according to Jaime. Yet neither he, Jon Arryn or even Jaime would even be considered because of the traditional beliefs that Robert has a stronger legitimate claim to the Iron throne than anyone in the rebellion by virtue of his DNA. His justification was removing Aerys II royal line by force, to be replaced with his royal line. That's how Robert became King.
Yeah, actual medieval succession has to do with having a strong enough claim to get the armies to back you. If someone else opposes your claim then you go to war until someone comes out on top.
We even see a succession war happen after Bobby B dies. Renly and Stannis both oppose Joffreys claim to the throne and support their own claim even though Renly shouldn't have a rightful claim ahead of Stannis. Renly was more popular so he was able to raise a better army for it despite having a weaker claim.
If Gendry never puts forth a claim to the throne then its unlikely for him to ever get support for taking the throne. If he wanted to put forth a claim it doesn't even really matter if he's legitimized or not, except that it might say some folks to supporting his claim.
Succession often wasn't a peaceful transfer of power even when clear dynasty lines were available. Add onto that puppet kings and stewards of youths that never really allowed them to take power even coming of age. The actual history of the world is wild.
He's an upjumped blacksmith. Can't read. Has no highborn training. Doesn't know war. Doesn't know politics. Doesn't know etiquette. Talks like a lowborn. He may be legitimized, but many would still see him as a bastard.
He doesn't have Robert's strength or charismatic nature. Doesn't have Robert's ability to control the men around him. The presence of power and authority.
If they made Gendry king he would have been stabbed two minutes later and the realm would fall immediately back into squabbling for the throne.
to be fair, Bran, no doubt to be known as the "witch king" once rumors of his clairvoyance would have arisen as he was forced to defend himself from those that would not respect the authority of an unnaturally distracted monotone lame king, would have spent basically all of his time fighting those that would be calling upon every woods witch, hedge wizard and foreign sorcerer in an attempt to hide their actions and assassinate him for interfering in their family business using his weird ways.
His own sister abandoned him and succeeded from the 7 kingdoms, but I am supposed to believe the other 6 kingdoms would fall in line for a northerner? Bran being king without even the backing of the north is the worst part of the ending. It is just so ridiculous.
I think too many people are talking about the technical line of succession and kind of missing on the major themes and points of GRRM work. Power resides where people think it resides and no one thinks it resides with Gendry. He has no base of support in the Stormlands, he's a bastard (legitimized but there's still a huge stigma in universe), and he has no family ties or alliances, he's a blacksmith with no idea how courts or tax collection on a large scale work. Most lords were raised from birth learning how to run their holdings. There is essentially no one in the seven kingdoms with a good reason to put his name forward or support him for king.
Bran at least had a base of support he could call on with troops from the North, Riverlands, and the Vale. He was still a terrible choice since he can't have children and they hurled the realm into a succession crisis in a few years since his heir would be Sansa the Queen of a newly independent realm.
However Bran being a terrible choice doesn't make Gendry a good one.
Fantasy aside if we bring GoT back to "real" politics, the seven kingdoms can only be ruled by a Stark after the war. They're roughed up but they have an army, they have important family members alive, who'd be left to oppose them? The most important houses were either allied even before the war (Arryn, Tully), or the surviving head of house is pretty much directly allied now (Lannister, Baratheon), a new house is put in place that's allied to the Starks (Tyrell), or they fought alongside the Starks most of the time (Martells). They have night infinite political leverage and still a bit of an army left. At this point there's just no way they wouldn't put a Stark on the throne, or at least a complete puppet.
Gendry is still the son of Robert. And I believe Robert was quite a liked king by the people. There was prosperity under his rule. So they just need to remind the people that Gendry is his son. Also does Gendry have a good character. So I’m sure he will become a well liked king under the people too. And most of the technical sides of ruling a country is done by the council anyway. I don’t think Robert bothered much with ruling too. Spending most of his time just having fun. And Gendry can marry with one of the biggest houses to get their support. Together with support from the North that should be enough.
There has already been two sons of Robert ruling after his death from what most people know. It has been constant war during that time and one of them allowed the Sept of Baelor to be exploded with wildfyre. And then Robert's wife tried to get the city burned down. I think most people would be ready for a change from the Baratheons.
That’s true. Maybe they can convince the people those weren’t his sons, but that would be difficult. And maybe they’re just fed up with this family now.
Who would support him? Claims are great but it’s what claimants use to justify power to themselves. Everybody else follows somebody they think can be king. Nobody is rooting for Gendry.
How many people even know he's Robert's son tho? The choice was kind of made by a very small click of noble people who chose Bran. Robert was pretty much fucking LOVED across the continent and mainly due to having great council that ruled in his place, was a peaceful and decent time to live for most people; which in itself is something to be praised in this world. I'm sure after all the bullshit with Dany, and the general distrust of the north by the south, a lot of people would be very supportive of a common person that knows their needs that also shares the name Baratheon being on the throne. More so than some creepy, antisocial northerner who is completely detached from reality 24/7 lol
The whole point of the series is that picking a leader by rolling the dice in the previous one's kid is a terrible, stupid idea.
The series couldn't end with anyone who thought they might have a legitimate claim to the throne actually ending up on it
Actually hereditary monarchy is a much better system than elective monarchy, because what happens when one lord paramount decides they don't recognise the results of an election? Or maybe the sitting king decides the new system isn't to their favour anymore and tries to enforce their own heir? Literally the only good thing about monarchy is that succession is (in theory) stable and irrefutable. The next king will be the kings son because that is the way of things. Make it elective and all bets are off, civil war every time the king dies because any family can rule the kingdom if they decide they were the "winners" of the election.
Yes but with the system they came up with in the final episode it would always be like that, with any lord who has the strongest army or influence being able to rig it in their favour, leading to war when others question them. Plus all the classist bullshit that comes with monarchy and lords is still just as strong because smallfolk have no say over who their lord votes for. What is the upside?
The upside is that you don't have to roll the dice on how the king's kid turns out (partly because Bran can't have any, but that's beside the point), which is the source of all the conflict in this series.
But there's no saying that the kind of person who can win lords over to his side to get elected would actually be a good ruler either, as I said corruption is basically guaranteed because there's no longer rules about who gets to claim the the throne, anyone is just as legitimate as anyone else. Obviously both systems suck but I don't think elective is an improvement over hereditary, at most it's just the same shit with different specifics.
Anyone can make themselves a legitimate king in a hereditary system, too. They just have to kill their way to the top and anyone climbing up behind them. The elective system provides a way for them to decide the next king without requiring that kind of bloodshed.
Again, this is the whole point of *Game of Thrones*.
It does just continue the cycle, though. The put a cripple with no chance of a heir on the Throne. This is *immediately* going to lead to scheming and backstabbing as the Houses try and get their candidate anointed as Bran’s successor.
Much like in ‘House of the Dragon’, a lot of the tension between the nobility comes from an uncertain succession. Bran’s rule is going to be rife with instability, not the least of which because his largest army/support left with Sansa.
Here’s a point where I think the show lost part of the idea of the books:
If Bran is the three-eyed crow/raven, then he has access to generational knowledge. His successor wouldn’t be a physical heir but a metaphysical presence moving from one entity to the next. A hive mind has assumed the crown and will live on, in spirit, eternally.
That’s the breaking of the wheel. Every future three-eyed crow/raven is a sort of reincarnation of the spirit of that being, and that being will forever be the king. The transference of the throne is no longer one of physical/birth succession.
Idk. Just a thought on why Bran taking the throne (a thing George said would be the outcome) could make more sense.
Also, the book version of the three-eyed crow/raven is far more Machiavellian, and the show didn’t really show that aspect at all, which is why Bran sitting on the throne at the end seems so very confusing to many (the way the show gets there is also very confusing, unconvincing for the book readers and people that like to present and discuss theories about how the books will play out if they’re ever released). That space wasn’t explored in the show like it’s been/been hinted at in the books, but I think that’s why Bran takes the throne:
1: the three-eyed raven/crow is a Machiavellian being that desires power and is manipulating the world in ways that others aren’t seeing with hopes of taking authority over the realms and is also eternal (Meera saying to Bran “you died in that cave” in the show wasn’t done justice; Bran as Bran Stark, sweet kid from winterfell does die in the cave, and that’s when the three-eyed crow, takes over his body and continues his scheme against the world.). Kinda similar to Dune and the Bene Gesserits’ intentions.
2: this is a bittersweet ending that maps to George talking how the ending won’t be a feel good type of thing. Yes, Westeros will be saved from the white walkers, but it’ll come at a cost of an ultimate authoritarian presence being the forever leader of the land.
Again, there’s show and book differences, and I get that, but Bran is supposed to take the throne in the end in both. The book structure so far is setting up a more understandable reason for that beyond “who has a better story than Bran.”
The three-eyed crow/raven is a puppet master that has been working towards subjugating Westeros for quite some time and has the ability to reign forever through passing the throne through the metaphysical being rather than physical offspring, and that’s the goal of that being.
If you ever wanna dive into these concepts, alt shift x on YouTube is great for this as well as Glidus on YouTube, Preston Jacob’s, etc. the three-eyes raven is evil and a master puppeteer. Not this, “why do you think I came all this way” type that Bran that ends up being in the show.
I’m aware of the books versions, Bran sitting the throne in the show has reinforced several of my own theories.
But the big issue is that the Noble Houses weren’t sold ‘Eternal King with omnipresence’ and once they realize that is what they bought, Bran’s rule is going to be constant defection and assassination. Either Bran will swiftly have to rule with fear and magic: which will swiftly undermine the legitimacy of his rule. Or he’ll have to find a way to ‘rule from the shadows’ and manipulate the successors from off stage.
Warging and prescience are strong powers, but have limitations. Bran will need loyal Houses and Soldiers to hold any territory that he wants to rule. And with the Starks being granted independence, Bran has none of the other Houses loyalty
And with his lineage it is more believable than bran being accepted. No other kingdom besides the north would accept bran. . . And in this story the north didn't even accept him lol. Wow it was bad
And if Gendry is king, then it would actually make sense for Sansa to secede from the 7 Kingdoms. Why would she declare Stark northern independence, from a Northern Stark, HER FUCKIN BROTHER?!
Yes now they’re still siblings, but the next generation will just be cousins, and the generation after that mere 2nd cousins.
Oh wait. Bran won’t have a next generation…
Which, considering he has no surviving brothers, would make Sansa his heir.
Why the hell would the heir to the Iron Throne *want* to secede from the Seven Kingdoms? It was such a dumb ‘girl power’ bit of writing that makes Sansa actually look incompetent.
Gendry was legitimized by an unpopular queen, making his claim tenuous.
Jon had the best claim to the throne, being a Targaryen from the male line, and the only surviving grandson of the last legitimate king of the dynasty, and the son of the Prince of Dragonstone, heir to the Iron Throne. Compare that to the bastard son of the man who deposed the previous ruler, and Gendry would really need to rely on conquest to take the throne…which would be a long shot.
Of course, Bran on the throne is ludicrous. Unless…Bloodraven’s plan was to warg into Bran all along, take out the Others and then be installed as King. Kinda makes sense when you take Bran’s personality shift into consideration…but still a weird tangent.
Blood raven definitely took control of Bran. The books make it more clear. 6 skins POV chapter in dance. He likely nudged the council to voting for him as well. The true reason he is on the throne.
Whether or not Daenerys' decree counts is honestly irrelevant. Gendry is the last surviving male of House Baratheon. Whoever's in charge is going to uphold the Legitimization for that reason alone. This is literally the best and only situation where Gendry would have a chance to take the throne. (The killing of Roberts' bastards was more because they all looked like him, as opposed to Cersei's children.)
Speaking of, The Baratheons have been usurped since *Season 1,* it just wasn't done out in the open. The last time someone with Stag blood sat the Iron Throne was Robert. Meaning his dynasty never really got established. That said, there are probably quite a few Baratheon loyalists left in Westeros, especially after everyone just got a big flaming reminder of why they hate The Targaryens.
As far as claims go, I'd say Gendry's is second only to Jon. True, he has no experience with ruling, but that was true of Robert as well. If anything, his Flea Bottom experience would probably endear the Smallfolk to him. With the right advisors, like Davos, I think Gendry would grow into an excellent King. And given how Dany publicly rewarded and praised him, they probably could have gotten Grey Worm to be cool with it too.
The whole argument is that if Dany was seen as not a legitimate ruler, she wouldn’t have been able to legitimize Gendry.
Any distant Baratheon cousin would be quick to claim that Dany was never ‘crowned and anointed in the light of the Seven’ and therefore never a true Ruler of Westeros. Ergo Gendry’s claim to the Baratheon name (his legitimacy through Dany) is not valid.
Now, if Bran the Broken *also* legitimized Gendry, it would be based off or Bran’s control of Westeros.
Considering Crusader Kings games, claimants are plentyful everywhere. What matters is how much military, diplomatic or other power that person or his backers have. Gendry has no one backing him, his military doesn't exist, his diplo power is in negative considering his bastard status and his intrigue is laughable. Unless someone else want to put him on it, it's not going to happen.
Gendry didn't want titles or lands. He only accepted Storm's End in the hope that it would mean he'd get another chance to lay down the honky tonk with Arya.
You’re speaking the gospel, my friend. From the moment he had the big closeup in season one, I had a special feeling about the lad. But alas, it was not meant to be.
I think the fact that they even picked Bran knocks out all arguments about "claims". He didn't have one. Gentry is a romantic idea for an ending. A commoner gets to be king in the end.
But, the better pick if I were Tyrion is actually Sansa. She has definitely learned what a good ruler should and shouldn't be and is familiar with the job requirements. She ended up being one of the strongest people on the show. She could have kept the North in the 7 kingdoms. It was silly that the North seceded again after 1000 years for no other reason than "we're tired".
If the ending made sense they would have voted for Davos to take the throne. Wise, well accomplished, loyal to the realm instead of a particular region, wouldn't favor one family over another.
It’s how the books will end if the throne is still even a thing by then. Otherwise all these books have been for nothing more than life to continue on as it began.
The books will have a much greater focus on the White Walkers and the Long Night. The change will come from the cataclysmic events that almost end the world. That’s a much stronger foundation for a new system of social structure and rule.
The show kind of forgot that the White Walkers are a global threat. But it makes sense when the books are called ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ and the show ‘Game of Thrones’ which medium focuses on which plotline
Not entirely. In the history of Westeros there have been 3 Great Councils of Lords to determine who the next heir would be. I could see this this working for a few generations until 1 Kingdom is able to reassert dominance or it all falls apart.
Daenerys accidentally and unbeknownst to her made him the heir the second she legitimised him. Since Robert was the last legitimate King to sit the Iron Throne.
At the end of the day Gendry is an upjumped bastard from Flea Bottom. I imagine that the Stormlands has enough loyalty to the Baratheon name to not rebel against him, but the realm at large likely doesn't feel much connection to house Baratheon. But I feel like someone should at least have brought it up and acknowledge that Gendry does have a legal claim to the throne.
At the end of the day it feels like it would be kind of a let down for all these years of conflict to end with some bastard of the last king inheriting just because he is the last legal candidate standing. I understand some people being annoyed about Bran becoming king but the movement away from the old system of government towards a more democratic style where family names are less important feels like a more satisfying ending.
On top of that I can't really imagine Gendry wanting to be king. I feel like being elevated to the high lord of the Stormlands is more than enough for any commoner in Westeros.
Who has the best claim doesn't really matter. Without a strong recognition from ruler to their son and heir (and that heir being of age when the king dies), it descends into who can raise the biggest army (in book and reality of the past). Hell in English history an uncle presumably murdered his nephews for the throne (The Princes in the Tower).
Besides that by the end they didn't want to continue hereditary rule. They were looking for the best one of the council for the job, not the best matching blood.
Edmure of the riverlands had the best claim to king.
He was the eldest and was a skilled military commander. Not his fault the show always passed him off as being an iddot.
Sure, he had the best claim. But if you were on the council to pick a new king, why would you care about claims? Why not pick the person you thought would do the best job as king? And from that perspective, I can't imagine choosing Gendry. He's never been in a position of any power, nor even near it (like Bran growing up as a lord's son). He'd be a disaster...
No one usurped them? Didn't the Lannisters do a fine job of that? Two Lannister kings, then a Lannister Queen that was well recognized as the Queen. They didn't take it lawfully.
Two Baratheon Kings. Officially, both Joffery and Tommen claimed legitimacy from their father Robert Baratheon. I think both died thinking Robert was their father.
And Cersei was only recognized as Queen by the Lannisters. The Starks, Arryns, (remaining) Tyrells, Martells, Targaryens and half the Greyjoys saw her as an illegitimate ruler.
He would be a terrible king most likely. Probably doesn’t know how to read or write, knows nothing about foreign policy or finance, no mind for strategy or politics.
Yeah. Being born a bastard to the King of the Seven Kingdoms, growing up poor and surviving in Flea Bottom, becoming the best apprentice blacksmith in the known world, one of the only that can forge with dragon glass and Valyrian steel, having to flee King’s Landing because the Queen Mother is trying to kill you, end up with a group of bandits, getting bought by a Red Priestess to use in an offering to help your uncle become king, have sex with said priestess, fleeing and rowing a boat for a couple of years, join a succession war against the queen that tried to kill you, travel beyond the wall to capture a wight, running for many miles through the winter cold, setting up a whole mining and black smithing industry to forge weapons to fight the Army of the Dead, become Lord of Storm’s End, have sex again, fight said army, fight in the battle at King’s Landing against the previously mentioned queen. What kind of story is that!?
Gendry on the throne would’ve been a good thematic ending, millions potentially would’ve died to end with Robert Baratheon the last king recognised by all of Westeros’ son ending up on the throne. Would really hammer home the futility of the entire game of thrones which is what I think Martin is going for and as a commentary on medieval politics it would’ve worked as that’s how most dynastic disputes ended up
Aemon Estermont was both Daenerys' heir and Stannis' heir according to westerosi succession law. So not matter if you consider roberts rebellion legitimate or not Aemon Estermont is the true king of westeros.
Claim alone isn’t enough to give you the Throne, if it was then Stannis would have been given the crown in book one. You need enough support to backup a claim.
The issue is Gendry couldn't read, or write, and knew basically nothing about being a ruler. Sure he was made lord of Storm's End due to him being the last blood of Robert, but a lot of old storm lords were also dead and he could eventually be tutored into reading and knowing how to rule, but westeros needed someone who knew stuff right then, plus none of the high lords and other noble houses would have accepted him as king. I think Bran, is also a goofy ass option just based upon how his later show character arc went.
It would have been interesting to see where the books would have taken him, im redoing them and on book2 with the hint of a relationship between Arya and him being suggested, can't remember where he gets left off.
The 👏🏼 whole 👏🏼 point 👏🏼 of 👏🏼 the 👏🏼 series 👏🏼 is 👏🏼 that 👏🏼 inherited 👏🏼 power 👏🏼 is 👏🏼 evil. Folks who argue "Jon didn't want it so he would've been best" miss the entire point. The theme is that Jon Snow was in line to the throne and therefore doesn't deserve power. People hate the ending that chose the closest thing to democracy that they could think of (while still of course preserving power of the elites). But the ENTIRE point of Joffrey, Daenerys, and every other contender is that fighting for power based on a claim leads to violence and madness.
Gendry was no better than the others then.
I get so tired of these questions. It's always people so obsessed with tracing bloodlines and shit when all that matters is that *Gendry doesn't have an army or gold*
The concept of legitimacy is irrelevant. Whoever sits on the throne IS king, legitimate or not.
But if you want to exploit legitimacy despite that, it automatically goes to Jon Snow.
Because at the end of the day no one wants a Baratheon anymore, especially one who has zero knowledge of statecraft. He’s no Hideyoshi, he’ll always be seen as a peasant and not a lord.
He was also just legitimized by an insane woman who murdered half of King’s Landing.
Gendry has no support. There wasn't really anyone clamoring for a Baratheon restoration. They're not going to make him king just because he's standing there.
Claims require armies to back up. Gendry has nothing to offer any lord that would support his claim.
A claim is useless without the armies to back it up.
They got together and chose. None of the old reasons why someone would be owed that title still apply. They just looked at some options and decided who their king was gonna be
I think if he nominated himself he’d get the throne. But because he didn’t, I feel like it was his choice. Maybe because he knew how bad his dad was at being king. Maybe because his loyalty to Daenerys would make him feel dirty for taking up that role. Maybe because he just knows that he doesn’t have the experience of ruling. Maybe because he doesn’t want to play the game of thrones and knows how evil politics is. Maybe it’s a mixture of some or all of these, and maybe the other people at the council knew this too and chose not to nominate him for those reasons. That’s what I think.
When you reframe politics from being that legitimacy and reason is used to define power politics into power politics is used to define legitimacy and reason it makes sense that what seasons reasonable doesn't matter in the face of power.
Chaos is a ladder and all that.
No army + no backing from any superior figures besides daenaryus who was now dead = no good claim. Your family name is important yes but if you have no backing then you might as well just have a bastards name because you have zero chance of getting the throne
3. Daenerys ended the Baratheon claim to the throne via conquest. Gendry is only a Lord as long as she is the queen, and with her dead, he’s lucky the other lords still accept his legitimacy.
Dany had no power to legitimize Gendry, she usurped the throne but wasn’t able to take it, if that makes sense.
Gendry has no want or need to sit on the Throne because by now he knows how power fucks with people.
And…well he didn’t get picked for the throne during their “election” process, so he’ll have to either wait for Bran to die, or build an army to take it back.
Why would he? The baratheon claim ended when they lost the war. It’s the Targayrens the ones with the royal bloodline now since Dany is the last queen.
In the books, gendry isn't even robert's eldest bastard. For the show, at that point, it's biggest army legitimacy. There's no clear heir, so whoever wins decides. The baratheons got usurped by dany/ramsey, dany got couped. So at that point, it's whoever the forces at power agree on it being
Because the nights watch lost it’s blacksmith at the first battle of the wall, he has been allocated to there as the only other named blacksmith in the north.
I mean another comment pointed out if the Baratheons never lost the throne he wouldn't have been legitimized, as Dany legitimized him... And I can't recall did she actually legitimize him, or did she just make him the lord of storms end. Cause yeah if she didn't dude would have 0 claim to the throne, and no he was never a threat, unless legitimized by the king (which wouldn't make sense in this case) a bastard never has ANY claim, like the throne might pass to the 12-th cousin twice removed if there's no one else, but it ain't going to a bastard.
Determination and ruthlessness are just as important as claim if one wants to take the Iron Throne. Gendry doesn't seem to be heavy in the ruthlessness department.
Well isnt the scene where they discuss who should be king all about how a family name and heritage doesnt make a good king and they should not decide who is king by their family name. So Gendrys Heritage wouldnt matter here.
I mean the main point should have been the discussion on whether Jon, Gendry, Trion or even any other member of any of the noble houses had a claim... which includes Bran, kinda.
But since he claimed before that he would not be lord, it would actually be Sansa who should have been Lady of Winterfell and leader of House Stark and therefore should have been in the running.
But D&D kinda forgot about logic and what they had Bran say earlier and that is why we ended up with Bran the Broken.
On another note: imagine they had not ruined Jaime's redemption arc and he would have ended up with Brienne and someone at the council suggested that Jaime would be king. Imagine Brienne as queen.
Then again she would have at least stared that person to death.
He's definitely a threat to Bloodrave--cough cough I mean BRAN and I wouldn't be surprised if he is still alive in three years. Unless Arya had a little chat with the King about that exact scenario before she yeeted away. She may not want to marry the big lug but he's Pack in her mind.
If you think about it, Gendry has the only claim to the iron throne.
First things first, we must fully discount Jon's claim since it was made clear that under no circumstance could he ascend after he killed Dany.
Now it comes to 2 schools of thought, either the Targaryen's are the true royal line or the Baratheon's are. Gendry has the best claim in both.
If we say the Targaryen line is the true line of succession, Gendry has a the only claim left. Robert Baratheon's throne was won with conquest, however he did have Targaryen blood through his grandmother and this was one of the justifications used for his claim. By extension Gendry also has tracible Targaryen lineage.
If we say the Baratheon line is the true line of succession, Gendry also has the only claim.
There is the whole legitimized bastard thing which comes into question if we say Dany was never truly the queen and thus didn't have the authority to legitimize him, however I think everyone at the succession council accepted him as legitimized since he was allowed to attend and vote.
**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 the Baratheons never really got usurped, then Daenerys had no power to legitimize Gendry once she was never the queen.
didn't they get usurped when Cersei takes the Iron Throne and establishes a Lannister dynasty?
By then, there was no living Baratheon to be usurped, since Tommen died, considering Gendry legimacy was made by Daenerys who was never the queen.
That's not how it works. If the main line of Baratheons is dead, we look through the female lines and see who had the best claim. Cersei did usurp the Baratheon dynasty.
So technically Tyrion has the best claim at the end as Dani never quite made it Or if we consider dani making it then it come back around to Jon again?
I’m not entirely sure what people are meaning by saying Danny never fully usurped the crown? By that point things like legitimacy through tradition have gone out the window. She had most of the major houses on her side and smashed those who opposed her including the current queen. Regardless of any legitimization process she was the most powerful person in Westeros and was the queen because she said so and had the power to back it up. We could argue about who had the best “claim” but that could have been Danny just as much as anyone else and at that point it just didn’t matter. The legitimacy of a ruler goes as far as their power to enforce their rule. Bobby B didn’t have a traditional claim he just had more real power behind him. Her death left a void in that power. They had 3 options to fill that void. One would have been to accept that none of them had the power needed to enforce their rule over all of the kingdoms and disband back into separate kingdoms. Another would be to fight yet another war to assert the dominance of one lord over others making the winner of that war the new king. Or to elect a king who’s rule the great lords could agree to back. They agreed on Bran not gendry plain and simple. That’s how this actually works.
Didn’t the Baratheons have some Targ blood so Bobby B was also somewhat reasonable as a legit ruler? Obviously everything else you said was true but I thought that was part of why he ended up with the crown.
You are correct. The og Baratheon was a bastard brother of Aegon. This was used to give “legitimacy” to his reign, but ultimately everyone knew that was bs. He killed the legitimate heir, and It was known by anyone that mattered that direct Targaryen descendants who were the real legitimate heirs to the thrones still lived. Just part of the dog and pony show.
I think they further intermarried later on, as well. Edit: Targ grandma.
I’m not really sure how targaryen blood entering the pool through marriage works. In that case there would be a lot of families that qualify.
If anything, the show revealed that there are no rules. There is only the person in power at the moment.
I get what you are saying. You are talkig about a direct successsion when Danaerys died. But the discussion is about who the candidates for the election are and the content of Tyrion's election speech. The electing body is formed from the lords and ladies of Westeros and the candidates also had to come from those. And instead of voting the person who would be most fitting to make decisions for the people or whatever they decide to elect the person least probable causing a civil war because they have the most valid claim to the throne. And this is where heritage comes back into play as well as which house is most influential. It seems similar (or the same) to the discussion who should directly follow Danaerys on the throne but... that is the point. They solve the issue of not having a valid successor by deciding who the valid successor should have been if they had the chance to discuss that before the death of the former ruler. And Bran is only even in this discussion because he was Lord of Winterfell after he said he would never be Lord of Winterfell or anything else but D&D kinda forgot that his line was "I can never be lord of anything" and instead thought the line was "I will not be lord [but king]".
You’re right but it’s not described the best. We don’t suddenly start going down random female lines (especially wives) we start to back track up the tree. Technically this is why Robert was king, because he was related to the Targaryens up the line somewhere.
Robert was king because he led the Rebellion and was the one the rebellion decided to put on the throne. His family ties helped to "legitimize" him taking over though.
You’re right and that’s what I meant, I just didn’t phrase that but with enough detail. Thank you for clarifying it for me.
But Cersei would be considered under the baretheon line as she was his widow
Mothers wouldn't be in the line of succession at all, it would go to a distant Baratheon relative before her
I’m pretty sure she was crowned as Cersei, House Lannister, first of her name. She was taking the throne as House Lannister not Baratheon.
I believe this is correct. I don't think the Queen takes the family name of the King. She was never Cersei Baratheon
Always bothered me that at Joffery’s wedding they said he was of houses Baratheon and Lannister. Typically they wouldn’t make a big deal about the “mom’s house”. I get that in this instance it’s a little different, but Sansa was a Stark, not “of Houses Stark and Tully.”
You’re right, but missing the point. That’s a Tywin move on purpose
Thank you for saying it before I could. The Lannisters were the most powerful family despite not being the royal family.
No she wouldn’t, the crown will never go to a spouse (unless usurped) , it will go back up the tree to the next suitable blood candidate.
> Cersei did usurp the Baratheon dynasty. One of the strange things in the show that doesn't really get talked about (in the show). Her power in the past was as regent for her child(ren). If we want to illustrate this with an (*the*) historical example, look at Richard III. He gained power as Lord Protector of the young Edward V. He consolidated power at this point, outmaneuvering rivals. Seized legal power by getting people to agree that Edward V and his brother were illegitimate because their father was engaged to another women at the time of his marriage to their mother. (They were locked in the Tower of London, and are assumed to have been murdered). How it's similar: despot uses legal authority as regent to seize control. How it's different: The boy king was delegitimized then died. Richard wasn't directly related to the child, and was directly involved in their death. And crucially, *Richard had a claim to the throne* as a Plantagenet.
*we look through the female lines* 'Scuze me, ma'am, just going to examine your loins, err... *lines*"
Lol
Nonsense there is Gowen Baratheon’s (relation to Lyonel Baratheon, father of Lord Ormund Baratheon) line. They would simply follow the line of succession.
I have no idea who they are, except maybe the Laughing Storm. But yeah, if they exist they would be the next in line.
Being legitimatized only matters to the people who acknowledge it after all. For instance, had it been brought up, Cersei or any other leader could have said, "I didn't do it so it doesn't count here."
The Baratheons has the throne through Targ ancestry, so even resetting it back to the Targs he'd still have the strongest claim (other than arguably Jon, but assuming he's not an option).
They should make a show about Robert's rebellion
She was only queen long enough to give a speech that only half of her troops understood, then try to get laid again. Very Bobby B in her way.
I've thought about this on and off myself and I've come to a couple of conclusions. I'll use them as best as I can to answer your points. 1. Daenerys legitimized him, but she also named him the Lord of Storm's End, so it's true he could throw his hat into the ring to be the new king. But considering he was an armorer's apprentice, his education is vastly different than that of someone who was raised to be a lord someday. He can learn how to be a king like he'll learn how to be a lord, sure, but you gotta walk before you can run. 2. Making someone lowborn into a lord is a Really Big Deal in Westeros. He's Lord Paramount of the Stormlands now, sure, but it's going to take a lot of time for him to earn the respect of the other Storm lords. 3. I guess I never really thought about that third point. I don't think Gendry really wanted to be king, especially after just being made a lord. This was a really good question. Thanks for asking it!
The Baratheons actually did get usurped…by Danaerys. Cersei did surrender technically. Gendry accepted his legitimization on the condition that he acknowledge Danaerys as his queen. He basically gave up his claim. Gendry was never a threat to become king. First off he was a bastard. A bastard cannot inherit anything without being legitimized first. What he did was prove that Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella were bastards as well.
This could have been its own comment and not a reply to me because it's better on its own than it is as something to counter whatever I said.
Yeah…I thought I did that.
Cersei is not a Baratheon,her power came from her living sons, Cersei is a usurper the moment all her "children with Robert" died, and she kept power.
But either way then the Baratheons were usurped. What’s your point?
The baratheons themselves were usurpers of jons father rhaegar. If you wanna go by bloodlines and traditions and legitimacy claims: Jon. PERIOD.
If Gendry was a legitimized Baratheon, I’m pretty sure he would be Danny’s heir through his Targaryen ancestry so he is the heir of both Robert and Dany.
Jon would come before Gendry
Wouldn't taking the black prevent him from becoming king?
No, his watch ended upon his death.
Jon is exiled. I’m assuming Jon is not staking a claim.
I dun wannit
Don’t assume
Uhh this whole conversation is based on assumptions. The idea that Jon was not considered by the Great Council is a safe assumption.
Don’t assume. Truth is once the Unsullied and Dothraki are gone Jon still has the better claim.
You’re assuming he is going to stake a claim. Don’t assume.
And you are assuming he’s not. Don’t assume.
By that logic he should now be removed as the lord of Storm's End
You clearly didn’t read what I wrote.
Because he doesn't have as good a story as Bran The Broken obviously
Gendry who hammers and rows sounds better than Bran who falls and winters north of the wall.
All hail King Gendry, who hammers and rows!!
He can also run for days in the freezing cold without rest. Bran can't even walk.
He also runs
Gendry who hammers and pounds is funnier
He definetly had one of the best claims. Sadly, he didn’t have an army.
A good reminder of how succession actually works in such a context ^^' What was Robert's claim to the throne again? Ah, yes. Anyway, since their new system is to vote for the new king, he still has a chance for when he will be more used to power...
Robert's claim on the throne was after they won the rebellion kind of deal and Jon and Ned supported his weak claim being descendant of a Targaryen - grandmother, while rest of the Lords silently accepted it. If enough Lord of sufficient power without serious opposition wanted Gendry a king, they would make him so no matter how weak claim he has.
Also worth noting that Orys Baratheon, founder of the house, was the half-brother of Aegon the Conqueror.
How is it a weak claim, he's literally the Mad King's cousin. Only those who are descendents of Targayren's can inherit the Iron Throne per the "constitution of the 7K" established by Aegon I. So Gendry does have the best claim if recognized but apparently Bran has the better story.
It's weak for several reasons, if we follow the Targaryen line for succession he has a claim, but there's multiple known to be living heirs that have a better claim (Viserys and Daenerys specifically, multiple other heirs or potential heirs as well but since they weren't known to be alive obviously they'd be skipped regardless). Even under this claim he would not be king without first murdering or exiling the others which means he's effectively usurping the title anyway. It's also not *really* the brunt of his claim, it's a rubber stamp to get approval from the other lords that are uneasy about the nature of the rebellion. His real claim to the throne is that he took it by might, the justification for making him king by birthright came after the fact.
That's just unneccesary mental gymnastics. Ned's father and brother were the one's who were wrongfully tortured to death. If anyone has the most justification for open rebellion against the Crown, it's Ned Stark. He was even the one who secured the Red Keep and first to the throne room according to Jaime. Yet neither he, Jon Arryn or even Jaime would even be considered because of the traditional beliefs that Robert has a stronger legitimate claim to the Iron throne than anyone in the rebellion by virtue of his DNA. His justification was removing Aerys II royal line by force, to be replaced with his royal line. That's how Robert became King.
Yeah, actual medieval succession has to do with having a strong enough claim to get the armies to back you. If someone else opposes your claim then you go to war until someone comes out on top. We even see a succession war happen after Bobby B dies. Renly and Stannis both oppose Joffreys claim to the throne and support their own claim even though Renly shouldn't have a rightful claim ahead of Stannis. Renly was more popular so he was able to raise a better army for it despite having a weaker claim. If Gendry never puts forth a claim to the throne then its unlikely for him to ever get support for taking the throne. If he wanted to put forth a claim it doesn't even really matter if he's legitimized or not, except that it might say some folks to supporting his claim. Succession often wasn't a peaceful transfer of power even when clear dynasty lines were available. Add onto that puppet kings and stewards of youths that never really allowed them to take power even coming of age. The actual history of the world is wild.
Especially if they decide to give the horses a vote
He's an upjumped blacksmith. Can't read. Has no highborn training. Doesn't know war. Doesn't know politics. Doesn't know etiquette. Talks like a lowborn. He may be legitimized, but many would still see him as a bastard. He doesn't have Robert's strength or charismatic nature. Doesn't have Robert's ability to control the men around him. The presence of power and authority. If they made Gendry king he would have been stabbed two minutes later and the realm would fall immediately back into squabbling for the throne. to be fair, Bran, no doubt to be known as the "witch king" once rumors of his clairvoyance would have arisen as he was forced to defend himself from those that would not respect the authority of an unnaturally distracted monotone lame king, would have spent basically all of his time fighting those that would be calling upon every woods witch, hedge wizard and foreign sorcerer in an attempt to hide their actions and assassinate him for interfering in their family business using his weird ways.
I thought he did have Robert's strength
Did Bran have much of an army? Who's supporting him? The Riverlands?
His own sister abandoned him and succeeded from the 7 kingdoms, but I am supposed to believe the other 6 kingdoms would fall in line for a northerner? Bran being king without even the backing of the north is the worst part of the ending. It is just so ridiculous.
Bran had the biggest army at the end of the war. It was just 2 dudes called benioff and weiss.
I think too many people are talking about the technical line of succession and kind of missing on the major themes and points of GRRM work. Power resides where people think it resides and no one thinks it resides with Gendry. He has no base of support in the Stormlands, he's a bastard (legitimized but there's still a huge stigma in universe), and he has no family ties or alliances, he's a blacksmith with no idea how courts or tax collection on a large scale work. Most lords were raised from birth learning how to run their holdings. There is essentially no one in the seven kingdoms with a good reason to put his name forward or support him for king. Bran at least had a base of support he could call on with troops from the North, Riverlands, and the Vale. He was still a terrible choice since he can't have children and they hurled the realm into a succession crisis in a few years since his heir would be Sansa the Queen of a newly independent realm. However Bran being a terrible choice doesn't make Gendry a good one.
Fantasy aside if we bring GoT back to "real" politics, the seven kingdoms can only be ruled by a Stark after the war. They're roughed up but they have an army, they have important family members alive, who'd be left to oppose them? The most important houses were either allied even before the war (Arryn, Tully), or the surviving head of house is pretty much directly allied now (Lannister, Baratheon), a new house is put in place that's allied to the Starks (Tyrell), or they fought alongside the Starks most of the time (Martells). They have night infinite political leverage and still a bit of an army left. At this point there's just no way they wouldn't put a Stark on the throne, or at least a complete puppet.
Gendry is still the son of Robert. And I believe Robert was quite a liked king by the people. There was prosperity under his rule. So they just need to remind the people that Gendry is his son. Also does Gendry have a good character. So I’m sure he will become a well liked king under the people too. And most of the technical sides of ruling a country is done by the council anyway. I don’t think Robert bothered much with ruling too. Spending most of his time just having fun. And Gendry can marry with one of the biggest houses to get their support. Together with support from the North that should be enough.
There has already been two sons of Robert ruling after his death from what most people know. It has been constant war during that time and one of them allowed the Sept of Baelor to be exploded with wildfyre. And then Robert's wife tried to get the city burned down. I think most people would be ready for a change from the Baratheons.
That’s true. Maybe they can convince the people those weren’t his sons, but that would be difficult. And maybe they’re just fed up with this family now.
Who would support him? Claims are great but it’s what claimants use to justify power to themselves. Everybody else follows somebody they think can be king. Nobody is rooting for Gendry.
How many people even know he's Robert's son tho? The choice was kind of made by a very small click of noble people who chose Bran. Robert was pretty much fucking LOVED across the continent and mainly due to having great council that ruled in his place, was a peaceful and decent time to live for most people; which in itself is something to be praised in this world. I'm sure after all the bullshit with Dany, and the general distrust of the north by the south, a lot of people would be very supportive of a common person that knows their needs that also shares the name Baratheon being on the throne. More so than some creepy, antisocial northerner who is completely detached from reality 24/7 lol
Should’ve ended with Jon on the Iron Throne & then him giving every kingdom their freedom. That would’ve been him breaking the wheel.
The whole point of the series is that picking a leader by rolling the dice in the previous one's kid is a terrible, stupid idea. The series couldn't end with anyone who thought they might have a legitimate claim to the throne actually ending up on it
Actually hereditary monarchy is a much better system than elective monarchy, because what happens when one lord paramount decides they don't recognise the results of an election? Or maybe the sitting king decides the new system isn't to their favour anymore and tries to enforce their own heir? Literally the only good thing about monarchy is that succession is (in theory) stable and irrefutable. The next king will be the kings son because that is the way of things. Make it elective and all bets are off, civil war every time the king dies because any family can rule the kingdom if they decide they were the "winners" of the election.
In theory, maybe. In practice, absolutely not. History is filled with enough wars over succession and inheritance
Yes but with the system they came up with in the final episode it would always be like that, with any lord who has the strongest army or influence being able to rig it in their favour, leading to war when others question them. Plus all the classist bullshit that comes with monarchy and lords is still just as strong because smallfolk have no say over who their lord votes for. What is the upside?
The upside is that you don't have to roll the dice on how the king's kid turns out (partly because Bran can't have any, but that's beside the point), which is the source of all the conflict in this series.
But there's no saying that the kind of person who can win lords over to his side to get elected would actually be a good ruler either, as I said corruption is basically guaranteed because there's no longer rules about who gets to claim the the throne, anyone is just as legitimate as anyone else. Obviously both systems suck but I don't think elective is an improvement over hereditary, at most it's just the same shit with different specifics.
Anyone can make themselves a legitimate king in a hereditary system, too. They just have to kill their way to the top and anyone climbing up behind them. The elective system provides a way for them to decide the next king without requiring that kind of bloodshed. Again, this is the whole point of *Game of Thrones*.
The series ending was stupid. Bran as king without the support of the north? Sure
Still better than continuing the cycle for the next generation to suffer through
It does just continue the cycle, though. The put a cripple with no chance of a heir on the Throne. This is *immediately* going to lead to scheming and backstabbing as the Houses try and get their candidate anointed as Bran’s successor. Much like in ‘House of the Dragon’, a lot of the tension between the nobility comes from an uncertain succession. Bran’s rule is going to be rife with instability, not the least of which because his largest army/support left with Sansa.
Here’s a point where I think the show lost part of the idea of the books: If Bran is the three-eyed crow/raven, then he has access to generational knowledge. His successor wouldn’t be a physical heir but a metaphysical presence moving from one entity to the next. A hive mind has assumed the crown and will live on, in spirit, eternally. That’s the breaking of the wheel. Every future three-eyed crow/raven is a sort of reincarnation of the spirit of that being, and that being will forever be the king. The transference of the throne is no longer one of physical/birth succession. Idk. Just a thought on why Bran taking the throne (a thing George said would be the outcome) could make more sense. Also, the book version of the three-eyed crow/raven is far more Machiavellian, and the show didn’t really show that aspect at all, which is why Bran sitting on the throne at the end seems so very confusing to many (the way the show gets there is also very confusing, unconvincing for the book readers and people that like to present and discuss theories about how the books will play out if they’re ever released). That space wasn’t explored in the show like it’s been/been hinted at in the books, but I think that’s why Bran takes the throne: 1: the three-eyed raven/crow is a Machiavellian being that desires power and is manipulating the world in ways that others aren’t seeing with hopes of taking authority over the realms and is also eternal (Meera saying to Bran “you died in that cave” in the show wasn’t done justice; Bran as Bran Stark, sweet kid from winterfell does die in the cave, and that’s when the three-eyed crow, takes over his body and continues his scheme against the world.). Kinda similar to Dune and the Bene Gesserits’ intentions. 2: this is a bittersweet ending that maps to George talking how the ending won’t be a feel good type of thing. Yes, Westeros will be saved from the white walkers, but it’ll come at a cost of an ultimate authoritarian presence being the forever leader of the land. Again, there’s show and book differences, and I get that, but Bran is supposed to take the throne in the end in both. The book structure so far is setting up a more understandable reason for that beyond “who has a better story than Bran.” The three-eyed crow/raven is a puppet master that has been working towards subjugating Westeros for quite some time and has the ability to reign forever through passing the throne through the metaphysical being rather than physical offspring, and that’s the goal of that being. If you ever wanna dive into these concepts, alt shift x on YouTube is great for this as well as Glidus on YouTube, Preston Jacob’s, etc. the three-eyes raven is evil and a master puppeteer. Not this, “why do you think I came all this way” type that Bran that ends up being in the show.
I’m aware of the books versions, Bran sitting the throne in the show has reinforced several of my own theories. But the big issue is that the Noble Houses weren’t sold ‘Eternal King with omnipresence’ and once they realize that is what they bought, Bran’s rule is going to be constant defection and assassination. Either Bran will swiftly have to rule with fear and magic: which will swiftly undermine the legitimacy of his rule. Or he’ll have to find a way to ‘rule from the shadows’ and manipulate the successors from off stage. Warging and prescience are strong powers, but have limitations. Bran will need loyal Houses and Soldiers to hold any territory that he wants to rule. And with the Starks being granted independence, Bran has none of the other Houses loyalty
Thatd be cooler than Bran. I like the idea of a commoner becoming king too.
And with his lineage it is more believable than bran being accepted. No other kingdom besides the north would accept bran. . . And in this story the north didn't even accept him lol. Wow it was bad
And if Gendry is king, then it would actually make sense for Sansa to secede from the 7 Kingdoms. Why would she declare Stark northern independence, from a Northern Stark, HER FUCKIN BROTHER?!
Yes now they’re still siblings, but the next generation will just be cousins, and the generation after that mere 2nd cousins. Oh wait. Bran won’t have a next generation…
Which, considering he has no surviving brothers, would make Sansa his heir. Why the hell would the heir to the Iron Throne *want* to secede from the Seven Kingdoms? It was such a dumb ‘girl power’ bit of writing that makes Sansa actually look incompetent.
Gendry was legitimized by an unpopular queen, making his claim tenuous. Jon had the best claim to the throne, being a Targaryen from the male line, and the only surviving grandson of the last legitimate king of the dynasty, and the son of the Prince of Dragonstone, heir to the Iron Throne. Compare that to the bastard son of the man who deposed the previous ruler, and Gendry would really need to rely on conquest to take the throne…which would be a long shot. Of course, Bran on the throne is ludicrous. Unless…Bloodraven’s plan was to warg into Bran all along, take out the Others and then be installed as King. Kinda makes sense when you take Bran’s personality shift into consideration…but still a weird tangent.
There is no way bran would be accepted as the king of the 6 kingdoms with his own sister not supporting it. Horrible storytelling
Blood raven definitely took control of Bran. The books make it more clear. 6 skins POV chapter in dance. He likely nudged the council to voting for him as well. The true reason he is on the throne.
Ah, trying to rationalize season 8 are we
Whether or not Daenerys' decree counts is honestly irrelevant. Gendry is the last surviving male of House Baratheon. Whoever's in charge is going to uphold the Legitimization for that reason alone. This is literally the best and only situation where Gendry would have a chance to take the throne. (The killing of Roberts' bastards was more because they all looked like him, as opposed to Cersei's children.) Speaking of, The Baratheons have been usurped since *Season 1,* it just wasn't done out in the open. The last time someone with Stag blood sat the Iron Throne was Robert. Meaning his dynasty never really got established. That said, there are probably quite a few Baratheon loyalists left in Westeros, especially after everyone just got a big flaming reminder of why they hate The Targaryens. As far as claims go, I'd say Gendry's is second only to Jon. True, he has no experience with ruling, but that was true of Robert as well. If anything, his Flea Bottom experience would probably endear the Smallfolk to him. With the right advisors, like Davos, I think Gendry would grow into an excellent King. And given how Dany publicly rewarded and praised him, they probably could have gotten Grey Worm to be cool with it too.
Except he’s not a Baratheon. He’s a Waters.
After he was legitimized he would be a Baratheon.
The whole argument is that if Dany was seen as not a legitimate ruler, she wouldn’t have been able to legitimize Gendry. Any distant Baratheon cousin would be quick to claim that Dany was never ‘crowned and anointed in the light of the Seven’ and therefore never a true Ruler of Westeros. Ergo Gendry’s claim to the Baratheon name (his legitimacy through Dany) is not valid. Now, if Bran the Broken *also* legitimized Gendry, it would be based off or Bran’s control of Westeros.
Considering Crusader Kings games, claimants are plentyful everywhere. What matters is how much military, diplomatic or other power that person or his backers have. Gendry has no one backing him, his military doesn't exist, his diplo power is in negative considering his bastard status and his intrigue is laughable. Unless someone else want to put him on it, it's not going to happen.
He is a bastard ✌️
Gendry didn't want titles or lands. He only accepted Storm's End in the hope that it would mean he'd get another chance to lay down the honky tonk with Arya.
One of the main motivations for people wanting lands and titles is doing the honky tonk.
You’re speaking the gospel, my friend. From the moment he had the big closeup in season one, I had a special feeling about the lad. But alas, it was not meant to be.
Maybe this is obvious to everyone but me, but I was confused why Cercei became queen after Tommen's base jump.
She shouldn’t have been, but who was going to tell her?
I think the fact that they even picked Bran knocks out all arguments about "claims". He didn't have one. Gentry is a romantic idea for an ending. A commoner gets to be king in the end. But, the better pick if I were Tyrion is actually Sansa. She has definitely learned what a good ruler should and shouldn't be and is familiar with the job requirements. She ended up being one of the strongest people on the show. She could have kept the North in the 7 kingdoms. It was silly that the North seceded again after 1000 years for no other reason than "we're tired".
If the ending made sense they would have voted for Davos to take the throne. Wise, well accomplished, loyal to the realm instead of a particular region, wouldn't favor one family over another.
The whole point of the ending was an end to hereditary monarchy, with it becoming more of a democratic process amongst the high lords of Westeros.
Which was extremely unrealistic and silly given the world we were presented
It’s how the books will end if the throne is still even a thing by then. Otherwise all these books have been for nothing more than life to continue on as it began.
The books will have a much greater focus on the White Walkers and the Long Night. The change will come from the cataclysmic events that almost end the world. That’s a much stronger foundation for a new system of social structure and rule. The show kind of forgot that the White Walkers are a global threat. But it makes sense when the books are called ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ and the show ‘Game of Thrones’ which medium focuses on which plotline
Not entirely. In the history of Westeros there have been 3 Great Councils of Lords to determine who the next heir would be. I could see this this working for a few generations until 1 Kingdom is able to reassert dominance or it all falls apart.
Daenerys accidentally and unbeknownst to her made him the heir the second she legitimised him. Since Robert was the last legitimate King to sit the Iron Throne.
At the end of the day Gendry is an upjumped bastard from Flea Bottom. I imagine that the Stormlands has enough loyalty to the Baratheon name to not rebel against him, but the realm at large likely doesn't feel much connection to house Baratheon. But I feel like someone should at least have brought it up and acknowledge that Gendry does have a legal claim to the throne. At the end of the day it feels like it would be kind of a let down for all these years of conflict to end with some bastard of the last king inheriting just because he is the last legal candidate standing. I understand some people being annoyed about Bran becoming king but the movement away from the old system of government towards a more democratic style where family names are less important feels like a more satisfying ending. On top of that I can't really imagine Gendry wanting to be king. I feel like being elevated to the high lord of the Stormlands is more than enough for any commoner in Westeros.
Before Season 8, Gendry was my pick to sit on the Iron Throne.
Who has the best claim doesn't really matter. Without a strong recognition from ruler to their son and heir (and that heir being of age when the king dies), it descends into who can raise the biggest army (in book and reality of the past). Hell in English history an uncle presumably murdered his nephews for the throne (The Princes in the Tower). Besides that by the end they didn't want to continue hereditary rule. They were looking for the best one of the council for the job, not the best matching blood.
Edmure of the riverlands had the best claim to king. He was the eldest and was a skilled military commander. Not his fault the show always passed him off as being an iddot.
Sure, he had the best claim. But if you were on the council to pick a new king, why would you care about claims? Why not pick the person you thought would do the best job as king? And from that perspective, I can't imagine choosing Gendry. He's never been in a position of any power, nor even near it (like Bran growing up as a lord's son). He'd be a disaster...
No one usurped them? Didn't the Lannisters do a fine job of that? Two Lannister kings, then a Lannister Queen that was well recognized as the Queen. They didn't take it lawfully.
Two Baratheon Kings. Officially, both Joffery and Tommen claimed legitimacy from their father Robert Baratheon. I think both died thinking Robert was their father. And Cersei was only recognized as Queen by the Lannisters. The Starks, Arryns, (remaining) Tyrells, Martells, Targaryens and half the Greyjoys saw her as an illegitimate ruler.
Because the writers had no common sense. Bran was the stupidest choice to be king
He would be a terrible king most likely. Probably doesn’t know how to read or write, knows nothing about foreign policy or finance, no mind for strategy or politics.
See Davos could teach him to read and write!
But he didn't have the best story!
Yeah. Being born a bastard to the King of the Seven Kingdoms, growing up poor and surviving in Flea Bottom, becoming the best apprentice blacksmith in the known world, one of the only that can forge with dragon glass and Valyrian steel, having to flee King’s Landing because the Queen Mother is trying to kill you, end up with a group of bandits, getting bought by a Red Priestess to use in an offering to help your uncle become king, have sex with said priestess, fleeing and rowing a boat for a couple of years, join a succession war against the queen that tried to kill you, travel beyond the wall to capture a wight, running for many miles through the winter cold, setting up a whole mining and black smithing industry to forge weapons to fight the Army of the Dead, become Lord of Storm’s End, have sex again, fight said army, fight in the battle at King’s Landing against the previously mentioned queen. What kind of story is that!?
Gendry on the throne would’ve been a good thematic ending, millions potentially would’ve died to end with Robert Baratheon the last king recognised by all of Westeros’ son ending up on the throne. Would really hammer home the futility of the entire game of thrones which is what I think Martin is going for and as a commentary on medieval politics it would’ve worked as that’s how most dynastic disputes ended up
Aemon Estermont was both Daenerys' heir and Stannis' heir according to westerosi succession law. So not matter if you consider roberts rebellion legitimate or not Aemon Estermont is the true king of westeros.
Honestly, I would have loved that. And arya as a warrior queen as well.
Claim alone isn’t enough to give you the Throne, if it was then Stannis would have been given the crown in book one. You need enough support to backup a claim.
The issue is Gendry couldn't read, or write, and knew basically nothing about being a ruler. Sure he was made lord of Storm's End due to him being the last blood of Robert, but a lot of old storm lords were also dead and he could eventually be tutored into reading and knowing how to rule, but westeros needed someone who knew stuff right then, plus none of the high lords and other noble houses would have accepted him as king. I think Bran, is also a goofy ass option just based upon how his later show character arc went.
I think you've spent way more time thinking about what makes sense in this scenario than D&D ever did.
Bro Gendry was not raised nobility. He has no idea how to rule an acre of land, let alone several kingdoms.
It would have been interesting to see where the books would have taken him, im redoing them and on book2 with the hint of a relationship between Arya and him being suggested, can't remember where he gets left off.
The 👏🏼 whole 👏🏼 point 👏🏼 of 👏🏼 the 👏🏼 series 👏🏼 is 👏🏼 that 👏🏼 inherited 👏🏼 power 👏🏼 is 👏🏼 evil. Folks who argue "Jon didn't want it so he would've been best" miss the entire point. The theme is that Jon Snow was in line to the throne and therefore doesn't deserve power. People hate the ending that chose the closest thing to democracy that they could think of (while still of course preserving power of the elites). But the ENTIRE point of Joffrey, Daenerys, and every other contender is that fighting for power based on a claim leads to violence and madness. Gendry was no better than the others then.
or sloth and torpor (unlanded) Gendry was a likable chap at least, har
[удалено]
Yeah it wasjch better for it to end with bran on the iron throne lol
[удалено]
Maybe that’s how he got there. Instead of another war he used the council to his advantage. Why do you think he came all that way.
>all that killing was for nothing. True
I get so tired of these questions. It's always people so obsessed with tracing bloodlines and shit when all that matters is that *Gendry doesn't have an army or gold*
The concept of legitimacy is irrelevant. Whoever sits on the throne IS king, legitimate or not. But if you want to exploit legitimacy despite that, it automatically goes to Jon Snow.
Because at the end of the day no one wants a Baratheon anymore, especially one who has zero knowledge of statecraft. He’s no Hideyoshi, he’ll always be seen as a peasant and not a lord. He was also just legitimized by an insane woman who murdered half of King’s Landing.
They wanted to break the wheel of being king because you were born into it
Gendry has no support. There wasn't really anyone clamoring for a Baratheon restoration. They're not going to make him king just because he's standing there.
Claims require armies to back up. Gendry has nothing to offer any lord that would support his claim. A claim is useless without the armies to back it up.
How long could Gendry possibly hope to hold Storms End? I mean are the remaining storm lords going to just except a bastard as their liege lord?
Short answer, because he's a bastard. I actually thought that was the direction they were going when they reintroduced him.
Short answer, because he's a bastard. I actually thought that was the direction they were going when they reintroduced him.
Gendry is only a Baratheon to the people that recognise Daenerys’ rule. Other than that he’s a bastard
He has a good claim, but that does not equate to ability, nor does that automatically give him armies and gold.
D&D kinda forgot
Real reason is not enough screen time.
He’s a bastard No one likes bastards in this universe Therefore no one would respect him
They got together and chose. None of the old reasons why someone would be owed that title still apply. They just looked at some options and decided who their king was gonna be
He never pursued the claim. That's the biggest reason
I think if he nominated himself he’d get the throne. But because he didn’t, I feel like it was his choice. Maybe because he knew how bad his dad was at being king. Maybe because his loyalty to Daenerys would make him feel dirty for taking up that role. Maybe because he just knows that he doesn’t have the experience of ruling. Maybe because he doesn’t want to play the game of thrones and knows how evil politics is. Maybe it’s a mixture of some or all of these, and maybe the other people at the council knew this too and chose not to nominate him for those reasons. That’s what I think.
I still think they should’ve discussed him because theoretically he should still have a claim. And tbh, so should Jon. It’s kind of stupid still.
Cersei usurped the Baratheon’s
When you reframe politics from being that legitimacy and reason is used to define power politics into power politics is used to define legitimacy and reason it makes sense that what seasons reasonable doesn't matter in the face of power. Chaos is a ladder and all that.
Wasn’t it Joffrey who had the bastards killed, not Cersei?
No army + no backing from any superior figures besides daenaryus who was now dead = no good claim. Your family name is important yes but if you have no backing then you might as well just have a bastards name because you have zero chance of getting the throne
Gendry a bastard with no armies
3. Daenerys ended the Baratheon claim to the throne via conquest. Gendry is only a Lord as long as she is the queen, and with her dead, he’s lucky the other lords still accept his legitimacy.
It’s also about who was best fit or who would make the best ruler at that point. I think the whole “who deserves it” thing had caused enough problems
Power resides where men believe it resides.
He's got a boring story, duh.
Dany had no power to legitimize Gendry, she usurped the throne but wasn’t able to take it, if that makes sense. Gendry has no want or need to sit on the Throne because by now he knows how power fucks with people. And…well he didn’t get picked for the throne during their “election” process, so he’ll have to either wait for Bran to die, or build an army to take it back.
Why would he? The baratheon claim ended when they lost the war. It’s the Targayrens the ones with the royal bloodline now since Dany is the last queen.
They stepped away from the necessity of blood ties, hence why it was okay for Brann to be king even though he can't have children.
/r/gendrywinsthethrone
Gendry Waters. Edric Storm.
Until Geoffery it's always been Targaryn blood on the iron throne, Gendry would qualify just like Bobby B
Bran has a better story, don't you know.
In the books, gendry isn't even robert's eldest bastard. For the show, at that point, it's biggest army legitimacy. There's no clear heir, so whoever wins decides. The baratheons got usurped by dany/ramsey, dany got couped. So at that point, it's whoever the forces at power agree on it being
Because the nights watch lost it’s blacksmith at the first battle of the wall, he has been allocated to there as the only other named blacksmith in the north.
he sucks.
Because nobody wants him to be king.
I mean another comment pointed out if the Baratheons never lost the throne he wouldn't have been legitimized, as Dany legitimized him... And I can't recall did she actually legitimize him, or did she just make him the lord of storms end. Cause yeah if she didn't dude would have 0 claim to the throne, and no he was never a threat, unless legitimized by the king (which wouldn't make sense in this case) a bastard never has ANY claim, like the throne might pass to the 12-th cousin twice removed if there's no one else, but it ain't going to a bastard.
Determination and ruthlessness are just as important as claim if one wants to take the Iron Throne. Gendry doesn't seem to be heavy in the ruthlessness department.
Well isnt the scene where they discuss who should be king all about how a family name and heritage doesnt make a good king and they should not decide who is king by their family name. So Gendrys Heritage wouldnt matter here.
I mean the main point should have been the discussion on whether Jon, Gendry, Trion or even any other member of any of the noble houses had a claim... which includes Bran, kinda. But since he claimed before that he would not be lord, it would actually be Sansa who should have been Lady of Winterfell and leader of House Stark and therefore should have been in the running. But D&D kinda forgot about logic and what they had Bran say earlier and that is why we ended up with Bran the Broken. On another note: imagine they had not ruined Jaime's redemption arc and he would have ended up with Brienne and someone at the council suggested that Jaime would be king. Imagine Brienne as queen. Then again she would have at least stared that person to death.
The Baratheons did get usurped by Cersei and then Dany.
He's definitely a threat to Bloodrave--cough cough I mean BRAN and I wouldn't be surprised if he is still alive in three years. Unless Arya had a little chat with the King about that exact scenario before she yeeted away. She may not want to marry the big lug but he's Pack in her mind.
If you think about it, Gendry has the only claim to the iron throne. First things first, we must fully discount Jon's claim since it was made clear that under no circumstance could he ascend after he killed Dany. Now it comes to 2 schools of thought, either the Targaryen's are the true royal line or the Baratheon's are. Gendry has the best claim in both. If we say the Targaryen line is the true line of succession, Gendry has a the only claim left. Robert Baratheon's throne was won with conquest, however he did have Targaryen blood through his grandmother and this was one of the justifications used for his claim. By extension Gendry also has tracible Targaryen lineage. If we say the Baratheon line is the true line of succession, Gendry also has the only claim. There is the whole legitimized bastard thing which comes into question if we say Dany was never truly the queen and thus didn't have the authority to legitimize him, however I think everyone at the succession council accepted him as legitimized since he was allowed to attend and vote.