Blaming the Starks!

[Modelex]

^That line I quoted is from Dance. And the "do not presume" thing was not at all about her father or the Rebellion. It was about Daario trying to "teach" her that as Queen, she should be a butcher, with her angrily refusing that

[BastardlyRock]

They had the right to demand an apology after Aerys executed Brandon and Rickard (and even then that is shaky). They have zero right to demand anything from her now except her Grace's leniency. The Starks already executed their right to try and kill Daenerys, when Ned's rebel associates chased her to Dragonstone. And "he never actually attempted to kill her or her family"? Do you think if Ned reached the capital before Tywin he would have given Aerys a garland of roses? And I love that Ned is a hero for displaying pseudo-conscientous regrets when it was his actions in part, that led to Aegon and Rhaenys being killed. He rebelled and if he did not know that if he wins, the royal family would be killed than he is an even bigger idiot than I already believe him to be. And Dany/Viserys were not Eddard's concern, that's right they were Stannis'

I always took it to believe Ned would have imprisoned them had he arrived first, and what to do what have been sorted out later rather than what the Mountain had in mind. In his mind I'm sure a planned execution of the king would have been vastly more honorable and preferred over what happened. (This is, of course, just from Ned's POV, having seen it from Jaime's I'm solidly behind his decision to act and save KL.)

Ned didn't do her any favors whatsoever. Did he help make Dany's life better in any way? No. Was he even successful in stopping Robert from trying to assasinate her? No

I think the problem here is that if Dany remains shortsighted she'll never even realize that not all of the Rebel dogs are/were viscous killers out for "her throne" - Ned may not have been successful in stopping the attempt on her life, but he did try, and he was horrified by what happened to her family, which is something I can't see her admitting anytime soon.

Stark children won't be treated badly. Living in the nobleman's home is not a bad life at all (it'd probably be better than Winterfell the burnt ruin). This is standard fare for the children of rebels, they won't have to go around the Free Cities and have to sell Ned's sword to make ends meet.

I'm sorry, but the Stark children deserve a helluva lot more than "living in the nobleman's home." The Starks ruled in the north long before the Targ conquest. Winterfell is a burnt ruin, but that doesn't mean it should stay that way.

And her father was betrayed by all the laws of Westeros

To my mind he gave up his right to be treated fairly by these laws when he ceased treating his citizens fairly by them.

"So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.”

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Stark children won't be treated badly. Living in the nobleman's home is not a bad life at all (it'd probably be better than Winterfell the burnt ruin). This is standard fare for the children of rebels, they won't have to go around the Free Cities and have to sell Ned's sword to make ends meet. And her father was betrayed by all the laws of Westeros

Tell that to Sansa... In her mind, she will be perfectly justified to plot against her captor (a good old assassination will do, and you know what, dragons and armies can't protect you from something like this). She won't be the 11 years old little naive girl anymore, either.

Similarly for all Stark kids. Bran in particular has a lot of potential for highly imaginative ways to do harm.

ETA: the bolded... I know of one who is currently around one Free City and has to sell her own self to make ends meet. And it's all about revenge for the harm done to her family. I bet she would include a certain someone in a certain list if her family was to be treated this way again.

[OldGimletEye]

They had the right to demand an apology after Aerys executed Brandon and Rickard (and even then that is shaky). They have zero right to demand anything from her now except her Grace's leniency. The Starks already executed their right to try and kill Daenerys, when Ned's rebel associates chased her to Dragonstone. And "he never actually attempted to kill her or her family"? Do you think if Ned reached the capital before Tywin he would have given Aerys a garland of roses? And I love that Ned is a hero for displaying pseudo-conscientous regrets when it was his actions in part, that led to Aegon and Rhaenys being killed. He rebelled and if he did not know that if he wins, the royal family would be killed than he is an even bigger idiot than I already believe him to be. And Dany/Viserys were not Eddard's concern, that's right they were Stannis'

She is reforming Meereen to stop slavery, which is an abuse of human rights moreso than that of power. It strikes a personal chord with her because she was sold. And Eddard, Robert and Jon Arryn did much more than pull down one tyrant, they contributed to the destruction of her entire house which is much more than just "the pure just rebels taking down the evil Mad King"

And it is common sense that no one is going to forgive some stranger who helped make your life miserable. Life isn't Stark biased like these novels are

Ned didn't do her any favors whatsoever. Did he help make Dany's life better in any way? No. Was he even successful in stopping Robert from trying to assasinate her? No

Stark children won't be treated badly. Living in the nobleman's home is not a bad life at all (it'd probably be better than Winterfell the burnt ruin). This is standard fare for the children of rebels, they won't have to go around the Free Cities and have to sell Ned's sword to make ends meet. And her father was betrayed by all the laws of Westeros

Ok, fine. Let Dany come to Westeros with a shitty, rotten, and unreasonable attitude. We will get to see her true colors. Let her go after the Lannisters, the Starks, the Tullys, the Baratheons, and the Arryns. She will be the great uniter of Westeros, except it won't be done the way she expects. She will unite most of Westeros against her.

And don't assume the Starks will come to her begging her forgiveness. I know she has Dragons and the next two books will be about Dany's glorious conquest of Westeros, yada, yada,yada.

Finally, I would submit that Aerys broke his legal obligations first, thus justifying the rebellion.

[Mikkel]

And her father was betrayed by all the laws of Westeros

That one is a no-starter. Aerys deserved no protection whatsoever under the law, given his own blatant disregard for it.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

She is reforming Meereen to stop slavery, which is an abuse of human rights moreso than that of power. It strikes a personal chord with her because she was sold. And Eddard, Robert and Jon Arryn did much more than pull down one tyrant, they contributed to the destruction of her entire house which is much more than just "the pure just rebels taking down the evil Mad King"

Funny how she gains profit from slavery. Basically slavery is illegal only if the Meereenese get the profit, when the profits go to her pocket then it's all right no big deal.

What the Rebels did was taking down a family of tyrants.

Modelex, on 14 Jul 2014 - 4:11 PM, said:

And her father was betrayed by all the laws of Westeros

Betrayed? Is this serious? Aerys killed people because he wanted it and when the people tried to defend themselves it was a betrayal? I hate to listen what they should do. My money go to cutting their heads and sent them to Aerys in boxes.

[LordStoneheart]

Yeesh. The most I'm willing to defend Aerys is by saying Jaime probably could have taken him hostage and he could've faced trial since many people here like justice, but there is no way even the biggest Targ supporter has any ground to stand on when defending Aerys' actions in regards to the Starks.

[Modelex]

I always took it to believe Ned would have imprisoned them had he arrived first, and what to do what have been sorted out later rather than what the Mountain had in mind. In his mind I'm sure a planned execution of the king would have been vastly more honorable and preferred over what happened. (This is, of course, just from Ned's POV, having seen it from Jaime's I'm solidly behind his decision to act and save KL.)

I think the problem here is that if Dany remains shortsighted she'll never even realize that not all of the Rebel dogs are/were viscous killers out for "her throne" - Ned may not have been successful in stopping the attempt on her life, but he did try, and he was horrified by what happened to her family, which is something I can't see her admitting anytime soon.

I'm sorry, but the Stark children deserve a helluva lot more than "living in the nobleman's home." The Starks ruled in the north long before the Targ conquest. Winterfell is a burnt ruin, but that doesn't mean it should stay that way.

To my mind he gave up his right to be treated fairly by these laws when he ceased treating his citizens fairly by them.

"So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.”

Doesn't matter what Ned would have done. After the Trident, Rhaenys and Aegon were dead. No way would they live if they wished to keep Robert on the Throne

She may or may not come to sympathize with Ned and his Usurper friends, I'm just saying that if she didn't, she would be completely right

Tons of noble hostages deserve better, or to live and rule in their ancestral homes. Doesn't mean that is what they will get. And the Stark children don't really "deserve" anything, nobody in this series "deserves" any power

So Aerys is exempt from the law if he exercises his right to execute who he believes to be traitors? He had the full backing of the law to do what he did, doesn't mean it was morally right but it was legal. What Robert and his friends did was truly illegal

Ok, fine. Let Dany come to Westeros with a shitty, rotten, and unreasonable attitude. We will get to see her true colors. Let her go after the Lannisters, the Starks, the Tullys, the Baratheons, and the Arryns. She will be the great uniter of Westeros, except it won't be done the way she expects. She will unite most of Westeros against her.

And don't assume the Starks will come to her begging her forgiveness. I know she has Dragons and the next two books will be about Dany's glorious conquest of Westeros, yada, yada,yada.

Finally, I would submit that Aerys broke his legal obligations first, thus justifying the rebellion.

I'm not willing to speak to what sort of attitude Dany will have when she comes to Westeros, just trying to say that certain treatment towards these rebellious houses would be more than justified. And the Stark/Tullys (non-existent houses as it stands btw), Baratheons, Lannisters and Arryns (sole member is a sniveling shaking child) will never unite against anyone after everything that has happened. She could decide to destroy them all and I doubt she would be unsuccessful. I bet instead that she will help these ungrateful wretches, which is very generous of her imo

I don't think the forgiveness of a bunch of children is something Dany will be interested in. Nor will she go looking for their forgiveness in turn.

Aerys didn't break any legal obligations. Nothing is stated to be such in this entire series as I can recall. However Stannis himself, a lawful man knows that he betrayed Aerys and admits it. If he knows it was a betrayal, then it was one

That one is a no-starter. Aerys deserved no protection whatsoever under the law, given his own blatant disregard for it.

Please show me where the law states that the King doesn't deserve protection if he executes who he percieves to be traitors and calls for more would be traitors to die. This is completely wihin his rights as King, little as you like it

Funny how she gains profit from slavery. Basically slavery is illegal only if the Meereenese get the profit, when the profits go to her pocket then it's all right no big deal.

What the Rebels did was taking down a family of tyrants.

Betrayed? Is this serious? Aerys killed people because he wanted it and when the people tried to defend themselves it was a betrayal? I hate to listen what they should do. My money go to cutting their heads and sent them to Aerys in boxes.

She concedes to some slavery because it was for the greater good of her city and the peace she wishes to achieve.

So everyone in House Targaryen is a tyrant?

It was a betrayal, by the text book definition of the term.

[Jasta11]

So Aerys is exempt from the law if he exercises his right to execute who he believes to be traitors? He had the full backing of the law to do what he did, doesn't mean it was morally right but it was legal. What Robert and his friends did was truly illegal

Hm, you DO remember the Rebellion started after he called for the heads of Ned and Robert with absolutely no evidence whatsoever apart from their last names? Being King doesn't mean you get to execute your vassals for no reason. If Aerys was too mad to remember it, well, though luck. I sure as hell don't expect any Lord to just roll over and present their necks because some lunatic tells them to.

You seem to believe Westeros is an absolute monarchy where the King can do anything he pleases and never suffer any consequences. Even a cursory reading of the books show it is definitely not so, little as you may like it.

[BastardlyRock]

Hm, you DO remember the Rebellion started after he called for the heads of Ned and Robert with absolutely no evidence whatsoever apart from their last names? Being King doesn't mean you get to execute your vassals for no reason. If Aerys was too mad to remember it, well, though luck. I sure as hell don't expect any Lord to just roll over and present their necks because some lunatic tells them to.

You seem to believe Westeros is an absolute monarchy where the King can do anything he pleases and never suffer any consequences. Even a cursory reading of the books show it is definitely not so, little as you may like it.

:agree:

The Targs conquered Westeros, they spawned two civil wars and ultimately were deposed of their throne. I like Dany, but her incessant feeling that she has a right to sit the Iron Throne, well ... I liked her more when she just wanted to go back to Bravos.

[Mikkel]

Please show me where the law states that the King doesn't deserve protection if he executes who he percieves to be traitors and calls for more would be traitors to die. This is completely wihin his rights as King, little as you like it

You know as well as I do that there's no such thing is "The Law of Westeros" written down anywhere for us to read, possibly there's no such thing even in-story, either.

His rights as King are not "kill whoever you like and expect no retribution" however. The King is required to uphold his part of the pledge of fealty, and nobody in their right mind can argue that Aerys did that with regards to Rickard, based on the facts as they're stated. It's just conceivable that Aerys had grounds to prosecute Brandon, as he threatened the life of the Crown Prince, and who knows what else. Even so, it's still the product of a tyrant and/or a madman to execute people on those grounds. In any case, burning Rickard alive falls so far outside the realms of what a King can do and yet claim to uphold the law that it's frankly absurd to say he was "within his rights as King".

[Modelex]

Hm, you DO remember the Rebellion started after he called for the heads of Ned and Robert with absolutely no evidence whatsoever apart from their last names? Being King doesn't mean you get to execute your vassals for no reason. If Aerys was too mad to remember it, well, though luck. I sure as hell don't expect any Lord to just roll over and present their necks because some lunatic tells them to.

You seem to believe Westeros is an absolute monarchy where the King can do anything he pleases and never suffer any consequences. Even a cursory reading of the books show it is definitely not so, little as you may like it.

The King does not need evidence, he can summon nobles to the capital for anything he wants to. I never said Lords are expected to present their necks, but if they don't they are doing something illegal. That's how it works

Yes Westeros is an absolute monarchy, please show me where in the books it says Aerys broke a law by calling for Ned and Robert's heads. I am very interested to see where this notion comes from

[Mikkel]

her incessant feeling that she has a right to sit the Iron Throne, well ... I liked her more when she just wanted to go back to Bravos.

Amen to that! I'd even come a long way towards respecting her if she realized she'd fucked up Slaver's Bay really badly, but decided to dedicate however long it took to fixing it. Instead she acts like an idiot child that has grown tired of a toy, decides she doesn't want to "plant trees" (ie, deal with the consequences).

[LordStoneheart]

Come on. We both know that she is the blood of the dragon. Do not presume to teach her lessons. She is unwilling to hear the truth because she thought that what she would hear would be how heroic her family was and how terrible and treacherous the Rebels were.

The Targs killed people because Rhaegar couldn't keep his pants on. No sympathy or empathy for almost none of them.

Well, I think it's obvious we'd be at an impasse in any discussion of this, but as noted by at least one other, the "do not presume" like was not about the rebellion or her father. It was about Daario trying to teach her to be a more ruthless Queen. It was more of a fit of passion speech than anything. Notice she didn't say this to Barristan. She said:

"Do I want to hear this now?"

Ser Barristan considered a moment. "Perhaps not. Not now."

"Not now," she agreed. "One day. One day you must tell me all. The good and the bad. There is some good to be said of my father, surely?"

She also gives him a kiss after this, and a little before has a line about Barristan knowing more than her or Viserys ever knew.

I know from your posts that you are no fan of Daenerys and never will be. And I actually don't want to try and convince you otherwise. We all have our dislikes. I'll never like or forgive Jaime, for instance. But at the very least, I ask you to take these quotes in their context and rethink Dany, at least about this issue. She is more self-aware than many give her credit for. She is aware that she knows little about her past, and that Viserys gave her a skewed version. She knows about the madness and that her father had it. She is willing to hear it, just not at the moment when Barristan first told her. In Dance, she doesn't make many strides to that affect, but she is at least willing. I won't go into detail, but trust me when I say it is quite disheartening to learn bad things about a parent's past, things you just want to turn away from and not hear. I couldn't imagine the level that Dany will have to deal with.

It could definitely go the other way. She very well may never accept the truth about Eddard's role and why it was justified, but she has the potential to. cheers? pwease?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

There is always lovely to wake up and see that there is one more thread people can use to vent about how Dany is an irrational fool who will end up as a maniac tyrant ready to kill everybody and everything because FYRAAH AND BLAAAAD.

BLAAAAAAHDDD.

[Mikkel]

The King does not need evidence, he can summon nobles to the capital for anything he wants to.

He can, and he does, and Rickard does come as summoned. So Aerys can have no grounds for complaints whatsoever.

I never said Lords are expected to present their necks, but if they don't they are doing something illegal. That's how it works

If the King is calling for their heads unprovoked, he has failed to uphold his part of the pledge of fealty, rendering the lords in question free of any obligation to obey said King.

Yes Westeros is an absolute monarchy, please show me where in the books it says Aerys broke a law by calling for Ned and Robert's heads. I am very interested to see where this notion comes from

It may be an absolute monarchy, but the monarch's power is only absolute in so far as he maintains relatively cordial and peaceful relations with his Lords Paramount, something Aerys blatantly and repeatedly failed it, with no provocation beyond the shouting of a hotheaded young man.

[sj4iy]

Depends on what she will think when she learns the truth about everything...including the reasons for the rebellion and who Jon Snow is. I don't think she will be able to hold the same grudges she has when she learns the truth. "To go forward you must go back" to me means that she must find out what REALLY happened before she can move on and claim her destiny.

[Modelex]

You know as well as I do that there's no such thing is "The Law of Westeros" written down anywhere for us to read, possibly there's no such thing even in-story, either.

His rights as King are not "kill whoever you like and expect no retribution" however. The King is required to uphold his part of the pledge of fealty, and nobody in their right mind can argue that Aerys did that with regards to Rickard, based on the facts as they're stated. It's just conceivable that Aerys had grounds to prosecute Brandon, as he threatened the life of the Crown Prince, and who knows what else. Even so, it's still the product of a tyrant and/or a madman to execute people on those grounds. In any case, burning Rickard alive falls so far outside the realms of what a King can do and yet claim to uphold the law that it's frankly absurd to say he was "within his rights as King".

What we do have is Stannis, a lawful man knowing what he did by rebelling with Robert was a hard choice exactly because it was not within the law to do so. It is not as cut and dry as "yeah we decide the King is crazy so we can rebel". They broke the law

His rights as King allow him to kill whoever he wants and expect no legal retribution, if he percieves said people as being guilty of a capital offence such as treason. Rickard was charged, and was given his right to a trial by combat as he desired. Was it a fair judgement or a moral one? No. Was it a sane judgement for someone who wishes to keep good relations with their vassals? No. Was it illegal? No. And there is also no law stating that the King has to set about executing traitors by a certain means. Him burning them to death was a choice he was well-authorized to make. If what Aerys did was illegal someone should have spoken out about it during this entire incident. Did they? No. Not then, and not anytime afterwards.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

She concedes to some slavery because it was for the greater good of her city and the peace she wishes to achieve.

The best for the city is for her pockets to fill with money?

So everyone in House Targaryen is a tyrant?

Most of them. Were everyone in Houses Hollard and Darklyn guilty?

It was a betrayal, by the text book definition of the term.

Don't think so. The king has some obligations to his subjects and Aerys betrayed that so they had every right to fight him.

[BastardlyRock]

Well, I think it's obvious we'd be at an impasse in any discussion of this, but as noted by at least one other, the "do not presume" like was not about the rebellion or her father. It was about Daario trying to teach her to be a more ruthless Queen. It was more of a fit of passion speech than anything. Notice she didn't say this to Barristan. She said:

She also gives him a kiss after this, and a little before has a line about Barristan knowing more than her or Viserys ever knew.

I know from your posts that you are no fan of Daenerys and never will be. And I actually don't want to try and convince you otherwise. We all have our dislikes. I'll never like or forgive Jaime, for instance. But at the very least, I ask you to take these quotes in their context and rethink Dany, at least about this issue. She is more self-aware than many give her credit for. She is aware that she knows little about her past, and that Viserys gave her a skewed version. She knows about the madness and that her father had it. She is willing to hear it, just not at the moment when Barristan first told her. In Dance, she doesn't make many strides to that affect, but she is at least willing. I won't go into detail, but trust me when I say it is quite disheartening to learn bad things about a parent's past, things you just want to turn away from and not hear. I couldn't imagine the level that Dany will have to deal with.

It could definitely go the other way. She very well may never accept the truth about Eddard's role and why it was justified, but she has the potential to. cheers? pwease?

For what it's worth I'll give you a cheers! :cheers:

I'm not the world's biggest Dany fan, (or Cat fan, as you know, lol) but I do admit she's not blind to her father's past or her brother's telling of it.