Though it is far from surprising, you are being dishonest again. Granada was the smallest and last of the Moorish kingdoms to fall. Most of Spain had been retaken in the 1200s. In your original post you suggested that the events in Granada in 1492 represented the entirity of the Reconquista - something that an unsuspecting observer would have easily missed, hence your deceptive intent proven.
Legitimate by whose standards?
Primogeniture.
The Goths invaded Iberia in the 5th century
Actually the Visigoths (a western tribe of the goths) were granted the Roman province of Aquataine in the Pyrenees by Honorius, the Roman Emporer. Part of the deal also allowed them to settle further south in Iberia in exchange for controlling some of the nomadic tribes that had moved into the region as Rome pulled out.
So if you're going to look for a legitimate predecessor to the Visigoths, it would be the Roman Empire. Since Rome abandoned it though, the land went up for grabs and of the tribes that went grabbing the Visigoths had the strongest sanction from its previous rulers via Honorious.
The expulsion of the Moors came some seven centuries after the last "foreign invader" started pushing up daisies.
You're being dishonest again. The first expulsion of the Moors happened in Asturias only 11 years after they arrived. They were expelled kingdom by kingdom over the next several centuries. Only a tiny fragment of the Moorish invaders' offspring, holed up in the smallest and last of their kingdoms, even remotely resembles your original description for the entire Reconquista.
If the unsuspecting observer is an idiot and doesn't know a single thing about the Reconquista, thus rendering him susceptible to the misreading you ascribe to him, then I would say he has either lost interest in this debate or has no business following it.
The fact is, the Moors expelled from Granada at the tail end of the 15th century had far deeper roots in that land than the Visigothic claimants ever did.
Primogeniture.
It is presumptuous at best to assume that the bloodline of a 7th century king, transmitted by male descendants, continued unbesmirched for seven centuries.
Part of the deal also allowed them to settle further south in Iberia in exchange for controlling some of the nomadic tribes that had moved into the region as Rome pulled out.
You're being dishonest again. Rome "withdrew" from Iberia as its power waned and that of the Vandals and Alans waxed. But if Rome had "pulled out" as you say, what rights did they have to cede to the Visigoths? And what's more, the Romans, who first came to Iberia as conquerors in 219 BC, enjoyed a shorter rule over Andalusia (Granada, at least) than the Moors.
Only a tiny fragment of the Moorish invaders' offspring, holed up in the smallest and last of their kingdoms, even remotely resembles your original description for the entire Reconquista.
I described the Reconquista in no such terms and only an idiot would read my description in such a way. You're being dishonest again.
The fact is, the Moors in Granada had a much stronger claim to the territory than any alleged desscendant of a Visigothic placeholder king.