Does anyone feel that the Targaryens don't belong in Westeros?

[Cayrouse]

Especially in any position of leadership?

Does might make right?

Geographical reasons aside it seems that the Targaryens had no motive for being in Westeros aside from a desire to exploit the native first men and the 'native' Andals. I call the Andals native because living somewhere for 7,700 years gives you significantly more claim to being there than ruling for 300.

I don't know if any of you read Martins recent extract from TWOIAF about Aegons conquest but it seems increasingly clear to me that the Targaryens were merely more advanced people with a feeling of moral superiority than people who deserve any part in Westerosi politics. The Valyrians relied on Dragons to subdue the Westerosi in the same way that the British, the French and the other European powers used firearms.

From the Aegon the Conqueror extract we see that Aegon had visited the Citadel, the city of Lannisport, was in contact with Argilac the Arrogant. In short he had realised that Westeros had its own culture(s) all whilst sitting pretty on Dragonstone for years. This makes for a worse form of colonialism than the one that existed in our universe because the Targaryens were aware of the existence of other cultures and therefore did not even have the paper-shield excuse of a 'civilizing mission' to use as justification. They even adopted the gods of the people they subdued!

I suppose I'm asking if being a supporter of a Targaryen Monarchy means being an advocate or, at the very least, an apologist for Colonialism.

Does Britain having ruled over chunks of Africa for several hundred years make them more legitimate rulers of African countries than the descendants of those who ruled beforehand ? Once expelled from the continent should any descendant from the Hanoverian or the Windsor line be able to claim Egypt or Kenya?

[Panos Targaryen]

But the Targaryens didn't exploit the people of Westeros, and they certainly did not destroy their culture. Hell, they themselves adopted the dominant religion, and switched from Valyrian to the Common Tongue. They inter-married with the locals and the lords, and kept the same system of rule that they had before (feudal monarchy). The Targaryen concquest is in no way "colonialism". Even then, they let the (surviving) Houses continue to rule the lands they ruled before, only they call them Lords Paramount instead of kings now.

[Cayrouse]

But the Targaryens didn't exploit the people of Westeros.

I don't know.about that isn't taxing people for hundreds of years whilst using their population to fight your wars what led to the American revolution?

and they certainly did not destroy their culture. Hell, they themselves adopted the dominant religion, and switched from Valyrian to the Common Tongue.

I guess you're right on this count but this is as I said because they didn't have a perceivable 'superior' form of culture to impose. I

They inter-married with the locals and the lords, and kept the same system of rule that they had before (feudal monarchy). The Targaryen concquest is in no way "colonialism". Even then, they let the (surviving) Houses continue to rule the lands they ruled before, only they call them Lords Paramount instead of kings now.

hardly. There's a reason Aerys was called the Mad King and Viserys had delusions of Grandeur. marrying outside of the family seems almost more surprising to me than keeping it in the family when dealing with Valyrians.Didn't Aegon One refuse Argilac the Arrogants Daughter because he had two Targaryen wives already? Didn't the same guy refuse to accept lady Arryns offer to marry and make her son his heir?

You are my most able servant, Tywin, but a man does not marry his heir to his servant's daughter.

The Targaryen concquest is in no way "colonialism". Even then, they let the (surviving) Houses continue to rule the lands they ruled before, only they call them Lords Paramount instead of kings now.

Wasn't keeping the existing ruling groups with a lesser amount of power part of the very colonial strategy of 'Divide and Rule' used in colonial empires? Like the use of Tutsis by German colonialists or the more or less complete revamping (if you accept Edward Said's views) of the Indian Caste system in India?

PS. The 4th quotation box was supposed to have panos swapped in for Aerys II and the time and date for 276 AL but that didn't work out.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Hell, they themselves adopted the dominant religion,

Wrong they used the Faith as a façade but they commited monstrous sins.

They inter-married with the locals and the lords,

That's a joke right?

The Targs were the worst thing that happened to Westeros after the LN1.0 and they should be exiled for good.

[Stormland's Fury]

They only get sympathy points from me for introducing Orys. Even though that wasn't really necessary either.

[Panos Targaryen]

Wrong they used the Faith as a façade but they commited monstrous sins.

That's a joke right?

The Targs were the worst thing that happened to Westeros after the LN1.0 and they should be exiled for good.

But they did marry into other families. Baratheons, Arryns, Hightowers, Westelings, Martells, etc. Why would it be a joke? Actually, if look at it closely, not THAT many Targ kings married their siblings.

Oh, and the rest of the native Westerosi people who believe in the Seven don't do things that are considered forbidden by their religion? Everybody else is pious and saintly? It's only a facade for the Targs?

[Panos Targaryen]

I don't know.about that isn't taxing people for hundreds of years whilst using their population to fight your wars what led to the American revolution?

I guess you're right on this count but this is as I said because they didn't have a perceivable 'superior' form of culture to impose. I

hardly. There's a reason Aerys was called the Mad King and Viserys had delusions of Grandeur. marrying outside of the family seems almost more surprising to me than keeping it in the family when dealing with Valyrians.Didn't Aegon One refuse Argilac the Arrogants Daughter because he had two Targaryen wives already? Didn't the same guy refuse to accept lady Arryns offer to marry and make her son his heir?

Wasn't keeping the existing ruling groups with a lesser amount of power part of the very colonial strategy of 'Divide and Rule' used in colonial empires? Like the use of Tutsis by German colonialists or the more or less complete revamping (if you accept Edward Said's views) of the Indian Caste system in India?

PS. The 4th quotation box was supposed to have panos swapped in for Aerys II and the time and date for 276 AL but that didn't work out.

Why are the Andals, who seized half of Westeros from the First Men, more legitimate than the Targs? At least the Targs let them keep their religion, the Andals imposed the Faith of the Seven on everyone and burned the weirwood tress. And yeah, monarchs tax their subjects. That's how monarchies work. Why, didn't the original Seven kings tax their subjects? And that Aerys quote is out of spite, not perceived superiority. He hated Tywin, not because he believed him inferior due to being an Andal, but because he was jealous of his political abilities etc. In fact, he married his son to a Martell later, so that throws the "Targs are Valyrian Nazis who consider the Westerosi subhumans" argument out.

[Cayrouse]

They only get sympathy points from me for introducing Orys. Even though that wasn't really necessary either.

That's not really answering the question. But yeah Baratheon could pretty simply have been Durrendon.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Other than Jon, yes. That is an opinion more or less based on my absolute disgust for the self proclaimed mother of dragons, or dragon "queen". So disregard my opinion.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

But they did marry into other families. Baratheons, Arryns, Hightowers, Westelings, Martells, etc. Why would it be a joke? Actually, if look at it closely, not THAT many Targ kings married their siblings.

Not that many Targs married their siblings that is correct. But they did married their Targs cousins ot uncles and many Targseeds even with a different name.

Oh, and the rest of the native Westerosi people who believe in the Seven don't do things that are considered forbidden by their religion? Everybody else is pious and saintly? It's only a facade for the Targs?

People in Westeros did not, at least openly, married their kin which btw is a monstruous sin only the Targs.

Other than Jon, yes. That is an opinion more or less based on my absolute disgust for the self proclaimed mother of dragons, or dragon "queen". So disregard my opinion.

I kinda agree.

[Stormland's Fury]

That's not really answering the question. But yeah Baratheon could pretty simply have been Durrendon.

Well, it was implied that I don't really think they belong in Westeros, but attribute something positive to them.

[To catch a Lannister]

Entitlement is my biggest Targaryen turn-off. Daenerys spends half the series saying the throne is her birth right, and that she'll take what's hers with fire and blood and caps lock and yet she's never even set foot in Westeros. She doesn't even know what she's aspiring to. It makes her look ridiculous.

[Cayrouse]

Why are the Andals, who seized half of Westeros from the First Men, more legitimate than the Targs? At least the Targs let them keep their religion, the Andals imposed the Faith of the Seven on everyone and burned the weirwood tress. And yeah, monarchs tax their subjects. That's how monarchies work. Why, didn't the original Seven kings tax their subjects?

I imagine they did but with greater legitimacy. The longer you live in a place the more you are assimilated into it. Surely you'd agree that the descendants of the franks Franks(andals) who ruled current day France from the 6th century after taking it from the native Gauls (First Men) have a greater right to France (and thus to tax the French) than the Wehrmacht(Valyrians) who came in much much later and obliterated the descendants of the Franks due to superior weaponry but only held onto power for a short time?

But this is beside the point I guess what i want to find out is whether Denarys and Viserys' 'house' was lost when they 'abandoned' it?

[Panos Targaryen]

Entitlement is my biggest Targaryen turn-off. Daenerys spends half the series saying the throne is her birth right, and that she'll take what's hers with fire and blood and caps lock and yet she's never even set foot in Westeros. She doesn't even know what she's aspiring to. It makes her look ridiculous.

Stannis is entitled too. All kings are entitled, otherwise they wouldn't be kings, they'd just say "ok poor peasants, I'll only be your king if you want me, otherwise, oh well".

[Stormland's Fury]

Why are the Andals, who seized half of Westeros from the First Men, more legitimate than the Targs?

Not sure, but that's like comparing comparing the Saxons to the Normans. Both invaded Britain, but those very different times and mindsets.

[Cayrouse]

Stannis is entitled too. All kings are entitled, otherwise they wouldn't be kings, they'd just say "ok poor peasants, I'll only be your king if you want me, otherwise, oh well".

made me think of that peasant from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Why are the Andals, who seized half of Westeros from the First Men, more legitimate than the Targs?

You just reminded me an old discussion that sprouts every October 12th: "Let's condemn Colombus and the Spanish invasion because they butchered the Incas!!!".

The Incas were the real butchers. The Spanish almost look soft and bland compared.

[Panos Targaryen]

Not sure, but that's like comparing comparing the Saxons to the Normans. Both invaded Britain, but those very different times and mindsets.

Only the Andals ENFORCED their religion on the native population with fire and sword, the Targs ADOPTED it. I still don't see what makes them so damn evil.

[To catch a Lannister]

Stannis is entitled too. All kings are entitled, otherwise they wouldn't be kings, they'd just say "ok poor peasants, I'll only be your king if you want me, otherwise, oh well".

Did I say anything about Stannis? But either way their situations are entirely different. Stannis actually, ya know, lives in Westeros, took part in its governance, has experience with its people, is actively fighting for the throne, believes it's a duty not a right, is that enough? Should I keep going? Yelling at people half a world away that something is yours because LOLTARGARYENS is a much greater sense of entitlement especially since she's not doing anything to achieve that goal anymore.

[Cayrouse]

Guys be nice to each other I didn't intend to have a Stannis vs Dany War this forums seen enough of those.