Jon has NO CLAIM TO THE THRONE

Seriously, the idiot writers and even most of the fans just sort of gloss over the fact that BEING A TARGARYEN MEANS NOTHING.

They WERE DEPOSED. Their rule was OVERTURNED. Robert was crowned rightful king and the Baratheons became the new royal line.

That's why it was a REBELLION, you fucks. The old monarchs were overthrown and replaced. Jon had no claim to the throne because the king was DEPOSED, he didn't simply die.

This idea that everyone would support Jon because he was fucking TARGARYEN is retarded. The people currently in power in Westeros are the SAME ONES WHO DEPOSED THE TARGARYEN(or their direct lineage), they have no loyalty to them.

Attached: bad2f44b-001d-4ca4-bad7-08b4296586d9-jon-snow.jpg (1200x630, 127K)

Dany is asserting that the throne is hers.

If she has a claim then logically her older brother has a better claim.

This honestly. He never was, nor will be, the "heir", rightful or otherwise. Now to be fair he has a claim to the throne, a very weak one that requires oodles of outside support, that literally just makes him a better candidate than the average lordling, but still shit-tier.

Part of Robert's claim to the throne was that the Baratheon's are descendants of Targaryen, hence making him heir to the throne.

Except she's not asserting that she has a political claim to it. she's simply asserting that she is the "rightful" ruler. She was still completely aware of the fact she'd need to take it by force, it was just her justifying it to herself.

Nobody would give Dany shit simply for being who she was.

no one has a claim to anything #Socialism2020

Robert Baratheon would be the rightful heir after Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys, Rhaenys, and Daenerys

But yes, as is pointed out several times in the show, nobody actually gives a shit about the proper line of succession, they care about who can gather the stronger army to put him on the throne

baratheon is full of fail though, they couldn't rule for 20 years much less 300

The rebellion was against the mad king. Once overthrown, the mad king would have been replaced by his heir, but since it was thought he had no heir, Robert took the throne as he had some loose ties to the Targs

However, Jon is revealed to be the heir to the throne, meaning that he should have been the king of the seven kingdoms. If Ned revealed Jons lineage to Robert he would have to stand aside and let Jon take the throne, technically

Basically, you're wrong

They rulled for thousands of years.
Roberts was a rebllion that was successful and he's dead.

No shit? At the end of the day bigger army diplomacy reigns supreme. Robert had little to no claim to the throne but he still took it. Aegon the Conquerer had no claim to the seven kingdoms but he took them. Dany at least has the justification that he family ruled for 300 years before the stags overthrew them.

>thousands
*hundreds

Aegon was the first king of the seven kingdoms, he simply abolished the kingdoms within Westeros and made one which he ruled. He was the first to be king of the seven kingdoms. As a result, his heirs are their rightful rulers of the seven kingdoms.

Fucking dipshit

How do you think Henry VII became king of England?

>That's why it was a REBELLION, you fucks. The old monarchs were overthrown and replaced.

It's a fantasy show you retard.

He had no claim to any of the seven kingdoms. It's like if some asian showed up in Europe and said that even though he doesn't have a claim on any bit of land in Europe, he does have a claim on Europe as a whole. Aegon only got his claim because he had 3 massive dragons

And then the targaryen started a new rebellion and had all the houses on its side and overthrowned the baratherons. Therfore new claim to the throne

Problem?

Their rules are not as same as real life

In their world the one with most power and support gets to be the king/queen

*thousands
the time line is garbage in the show.

Is this caps shit some new form of bait? I can't tell if you're baiting or if the subhuman seriously trying to agree with OP is genuinely OP. That's not how loyalty works you absolute mouthbreather, tenuous blood relations are more than enough for the average peasant, and the more history behind them the better

Taken from the Game of Thrones (not ASOIAF) wiki:
>In Vaes Dothrak, Daenerys Targaryen and Ser Jorah Mormont discuss Aegon's invasion of Westeros and how he unified six of the Seven Kingdoms (the seventh, Dorne, was not added to the realm until some time later) some three hundred years ago. Jorah points out that Aegon had no "right" to the Seven Kingdoms, and never made any legal claim for his conquest: he conquered most of Westeros because he could.

The whole reason Bobby B was a good candidate to the throne was bc his grandma was targaryen(also the founder of the house was a bastard targaryen/bff with aegon).You need to make peace with all sides of the nobles to be able to rule properly.

The current claimant to the throne is based on how good of a story their life has been.

Who has the better story, Bran or Jon?

Robert sent Stannis to Dragonstone to knife Daenerys and Viserys to death. He wasn't gonna let the Targs rule.

Even in the books Bran's story is one of the more boring parts.I personally dont like Jon's POV that much either,but bran's are when i take my breaks from reading.