Lineage of the Pandavas and Kauravas

Hey...i'm greatly interested in Indian mythology and have been researching about Mahabharat. I was reading an article in which I came across the fact that Dhritarashtra and Pandu weren't fathered by Shantanu's sons, but by Rishi Vyasa, who was Satyavati's illegitimate son born from another father. Considering this, I do not understand how the children of someone other than King Shantanu, and that too illegitimate, were allowed to rule over Hastinapur. Because Satyavati only agrees to marry Shantanu on the condition that their children will rule, as opposed to Devratt. Seeing that Pandu and Dhritarashtra are not even from King Shantanu's lineage, how is it legal for them to be accepted as princes of Hastinapur. And then isn't it wrong to cheat Devratt/Bheeshm from what is rightfully his? Shouldn't the kingdom have been returned to him?

To me that has been the crux of entire story...

same here frnd even m interested in all mythology so read dis also...
sage vyasa was satyavati third sons from another sage before her marriage to shantanu, who left all worldly pleasure n became sage in search of truth, n her daughter-in-laws ambika n ambalika had royal blood though vyasa didn't so it was acceptable in those days n vidura d 3rd child born was not eligible to b king coz none out of one parent had royal blood nor vyasa neither maid...(dis is what explained I think so) but here even m confused as becoming mean leaving everypleasure of life... n if m not he had wife also along with whom he had a child

would just like to say, this is not 'mythology'.

@ dramacrazy12- I agree wid u, wen her both son died she cud have made bhishma as king n asked him to marry her sons widow by dis way both side parent wud have had royal linkage...bhishma fulfilled his oath but his stepbrothers died he was not responsible for dat... he took celibacy for his brother but wen they r no more den...
at those time it was patriarchal society (well it still is) so fathers blood dat is shantanu's blood linkage shud have becum king not mother's as sage vyasa was satyavati son but not shantanu whereas bhishma was shantanu son n not satyavati...can any one answer dis queries m confused there must b some explanation which may b I missed

Originally posted by: napster

would just like to say, this is not 'mythology'.

I didn't got frnd what u meant?

Originally posted by: SOLACEofEYES

I didn't got frnd what u meant?

Duplicate thread - this has already been discussed here

Originally posted by: dramacrazy12

To me that has been the crux of entire story...

Lusting after something that was not your due or compromising with an unfair decision and the consequences of that lust/compromise.

Satyavati lusted after the kingdom of Hastinapur for her progeny and tried to snatch in from its rightful heir...It led to a situation where her progeny got completely destroyed eventually. Bhishma in his fillial sentiments decided to accept an unfair preposition ...he spend a life seeing the great kingdom of Hastinapur chip away slowly.

BTW from that perspective Kauravas should have been the rulers of the kingdom and never the Pandavas since they came from Gods and not Pandu's bloodline.

In those times, royalty used to practice the custom of niyoga. If the king is dead or is unable to have children, his wife or wives could have children from either a worthy Brahmin or from the king's male relative.