"Lordaeron Is Ours" - Does Anduin Have Any Right To Claim This? *SPOILERS*

[Cradyz]

Eh? That's not how it works. When Sylvanas conquered Lordaeron for the Forsaken, she became its rightful ruler, and all previous lines of succession went out of the window. That's how even our world worked until fairly recently.

So for Calia to actually claim anything, she'd have to conquer it first.

You ignore what I said before that. The kingdom of lordaeron is defunct. It became so before Sylvanas conquered the area. Sylvanas isn't Queen of Lordaeron, she is the Banshee Queen of the Forsaken. She didn't conquer the kingdom of lordaeron, she established a successor state.

[Clone]

He has more rights to it then an undead Elf.
The Forsaken are, in case you missed it, DEAD, meaning they technically have no rights for anything. The still-living inhabitants of Lordaeron are the ones who has the right for Lordaeron, not the dead ones.

Dead people not having rights only apply in real life.

[Deleted]

I believe it was originally just called "the capital" or something along those lines; vague enough for your interpretation of it to work. However, in the pre-scenario quest, Anduin specifically says the Alliance is going to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

This part by comparison I feel can definitely be disputed because he says this long before they made their way into the throne room and victory was from certain. For the remaining Forsaken who were former Lordaeron humans, and are now fighting against him here, this land (and therefore city) is theirs just as much as his, so surely he has no right in this context to outright claim it is "ours" - as in Alliance's and not Forsaken - so categorically. Or am I missing something else here too?

[LanToaster]

In the Battle of Lordaeron, in that critical scene in the throne room where the Alliance confront Sylvanas, Anduin says "Lordaeron is ours" and it got me wondering this as a critical question:

Does Anduin have any right to claim this? Is he right?

As I understand the lore, the Forsaken were former humans of Lordaeron who fought for the Alliance against the Scourge and they still are now as Forsaken. Being undead does not change their heritage or their history or the land they fought and died for. So as far as I can tell, Lordaeron was their's in life and is still in death now. Just because they are now firmly aligned with the Horde, it does not change anything about their rightful ownership and connection to that land just because it is inconvenient and offensive to the Alliance for the Forsaken to exist at all.

On the other hand, was Anduin merely stating it in the context that (as far he knew) the Alliance had won the battle of Lordaeron purely as a battle in of itself, and not making any cultural, heritage-based claim to the land itself? How do other people interpret this statement?

I would say, he conquered it, so not its his.

[Jonsse]

This isn't a question. There's no "right" to speak of. In warcraft you take what the opposition can't hold.

In the eyes of the Forsaken, Lordaeron is their home. They took it, it's theirs. Whether some of them were part of the Kingdom of Lordaeron in life or not is irrelevant.

In the eyes of the Alliance, the forsaken are squatters. They're a group of scourge that broke off from Arthas and are now occupying the ruins of Lordaeron. Lordaeron belongs to the humans of the Alliance.

The "Peace" that they speak of in the Vanilla cinematic is a stalemate. The reason the Forsaken joined to the horde was to gain power through allies so they could hold Undercity. The alliance would have tried to take it back had they not been part of the Horde.

[Pandragon]

He isn't saying they have any heritage rights to it. He was saying "you lost the war. This land belongs to us now"

[RobertMugabe]

The second one... it was actually pretty clear that he was saying that.

[CasualNoob]

That's not how monarchy works. Calia is rightful heir. Sylvanas usurper. Anduin - depends from kinship to Terenas Menethil II.

[Lollis]

The only thing Anduin has to do is say that he’s acting on behalf of Calia, who has more rights to Lordaeron then Sylvanas ever did. But that’s legally speaking. How many actual people of Lordaeron want Calia as their ruler?

Not how monarchies work.

Lordaeron rightly belongs to Calia Menethil, what the people want is irrelevant.

[ls-]

That's not how monarchy works. Calia is rightful heir. Sylvanas usurper. Anduin - depends from kinship to Terenas Menethil II.

Kek.

We actually dunno if Calia was considered a heir even when Terenas was alive. Moreover, in BtS even Anduin called Calia a would-be-usurper, Sylvanas was its rightful ruler until 3 days ago :P

[Lollis]

Kek.

We actually dunno if Calia was considered a heir even when Terenas was alive. Moreover, in BtS even Anduin called Calia a would-be-usurper, Sylvanas was its rightful ruler until 3 days ago :P

Calia is Terenas' only 'living' descendent. Arthas is dead, the crown passes to her. Sylvanas has zero claim by law to the kingdom of Lordaeron, none whatsoever.

[HavokHeart]

Calia is Terenas' only 'living' descendent. Arthas is dead, the crown passes to her. Sylvanas has zero claim by law to the kingdom of Lordaeron, none whatsoever.

What kingdom of Lordaeron? Who's law?

[Adramalech]

He doesn't need to have a right to the throne at all. The Alliance conquered Lordaeron. Just like Sylvanas did when she took Lordaeron from Balnazzar, who in turn had stolen the territory from Arthas when he left for Northrend. Or at least if my memory doesn't fail me, that's the order in which things happened.

[Dalheim]

Calia is Terenas' only 'living' descendent. Arthas is dead, the crown passes to her. Sylvanas has zero claim by law to the kingdom of Lordaeron, none whatsoever.

Says who? That's how It'd work irl, I assume, but maybe not in WoW.

[Barnabas]

In the Battle of Lordaeron, in that critical scene in the throne room where the Alliance confront Sylvanas, Anduin says "Lordaeron is ours" and it got me wondering this as a critical question:

Does Anduin have any right to claim this? Is he right?

As I understand the lore, the Forsaken were former humans of Lordaeron who fought for the Alliance against the Scourge and they still are now as Forsaken. Being undead does not change their heritage or their history or the land they fought and died for. So as far as I can tell, Lordaeron was their's in life and is still in death now. Just because they are now firmly aligned with the Horde, it does not change anything about their rightful ownership and connection to that land just because it is inconvenient and offensive to the Alliance for the Forsaken to exist at all.

On the other hand, was Anduin merely stating it in the context that (as far he knew) the Alliance had won the battle of Lordaeron purely as a battle in of itself, and not making any cultural, heritage-based claim to the land itself? How do other people interpret this statement?

if he wants to claim a toxic cesspool that is unusable for a very long then grats to him.

[ls-]

Calia is Terenas' only 'living' descendent. Arthas is dead, the crown passes to her. Sylvanas has zero claim to the kingdom of Lordaeron, none whatsoever.

She is, but we dunno if females were considered legit heirs in the kingdom.

Sylvanas claimed it when she conquered it, when that happened the new government was established and all prev lines of succession became void.

So Calia would need to conquer it to claim it as hers. It doesn't matter how, she could do it herself, she could ask Anduin to help her and then assign her as the new ruler, whatever, but the current government, Sylvanas & Co., needed to be removed from power. Which happened recently, so Anduin claimed Lordaeron, or whatever is left of it, what he'll do w/ it now is up to him.

[Lollis]

What kingdom of Lordaeron? Who's law?

You do know that Lordaeron is more than just Undercity right? The Undercity is just the capital.

And sucession laws exist without them being directly set in any game accessible medium.

She is, but we dunno if females were considered legit heirs in the kingdom.

In every other system that we know of they are, even if it requires that every man is dead first, why is it be wrong to assume that since there are no living male members of the Menethil line that it wouldn't go to Calia?

[Dalheim]

You do know that Lordaeron is more than just Undercity right? The Undercity is just the capital.

And sucession laws exist without them being directly set in any game accessible medium.

And she's dead. She's an Undead like the majority of Lordaeronians, so her claim should be gone as well then.

[Cinnamilk]

Calia is Terenas' only 'living' descendent. Arthas is dead, the crown passes to her. Sylvanas has zero claim by law to the kingdom of Lordaeron, none whatsoever.

The Kingdom of Lordaeron doesn't exist. It stopped existing as a state sometime after the heir apparent shish-kababed the ruling monarch and went to get a hat on a glacier.

It's like saying you have claim to the throne of Prussia as a descendant of the last emperor. That's nice and all, but Prussia doesn't exist anymore. Your claim is void.

[Aydinx2]

Yes he had the right, considering he had taken over the city by force.