Drogo the kingslayer

[Mad Monkey]

I thought Kingslaying was only bad if you were in the Kingsguard. That is, if Robert killed Aerys instead of Jaime, no one would call Robert Kingslayer. Usurper, maybe, but not Kingslayer. Drogo didn't have that relationship with Viserys, and I think it's a stretch to argue that Daenerys is somehow at fault because of a domestic dispute that Viserys started with her husband. What is she supposed to do, just give up her life's work because Viserys couldn't get it together? No one in Westeros would reasonably expect that.

No! Either Garlan does something with his wife or he steps off. They cannot continue happily married and become lords of highgarden.

Viserys's murder was avenged. Daenerys hired a witch to destroy his mind and then put him to death with a pillow to the face -- what other punishment could she have inflicted?

Sure, that's not the reason why she did it, but then again if we're ignoring her reasons for the Viserys affair then we can ignore her reasons here too and create a false implication.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I thought Kingslaying was only bad if you were in the Kingsguard. That is, if Robert killed Aerys instead of Jaime, no one would call Robert Kingslayer. Usurper, maybe, but not Kingslayer. Drogo didn't have that relationship with Viserys, and I think it's a stretch to argue that Daenerys is somehow at fault because of a domestic dispute that Viserys started with her husband. What is she supposed to do, just give up her life's work because Viserys couldn't get it together? No one in Westeros would reasonably expect that.

Viserys's murder was avenged. Daenerys hired a witch to destroy his mind and then put him to death with a pillow to the face -- what other punishment could she have inflicted?

Sure, that's not the reason why she did it, but then again if we're ignoring her reasons for the Viserys affair then we can ignore her reasons here too and create a false implication.

hummmm interesting.... But she must start to talk shit abot drogo from now on ok??

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I thought Kingslaying was only bad if you were in the Kingsguard. That is, if Robert killed Aerys instead of Jaime, no one would call Robert Kingslayer. Usurper, maybe, but not Kingslayer. Drogo didn't have that relationship with Viserys, and I think it's a stretch to argue that Daenerys is somehow at fault because of a domestic dispute that Viserys started with her husband. What is she supposed to do, just give up her life's work because Viserys couldn't get it together? No one in Westeros would reasonably expect that.

Viserys's murder was avenged. Daenerys hired a witch to destroy his mind and then put him to death with a pillow to the face -- what other punishment could she have inflicted?

Sure, that's not the reason why she did it, but then again if we're ignoring her reasons for the Viserys affair then we can ignore her reasons here too and create a false implication.

hummmm interesting.... But she must start talking shit about drogo from now on ok??

[Erkan12]

I thought Kingslaying was only bad if you were in the Kingsguard. That is, if Robert killed Aerys instead of Jaime, no one would call Robert Kingslayer. Usurper, maybe, but not Kingslayer. Drogo didn't have that relationship with Viserys, and I think it's a stretch to argue that Daenerys is somehow at fault because of a domestic dispute that Viserys started with her husband. What is she supposed to do, just give up her life's work because Viserys couldn't get it together? No one in Westeros would reasonably expect that.

I think more important thing is rebelling openly or not. Robert and Ned rebelled to Aerys openly, so they are simply fighting for another king.

But if other lord of his (like Tywin or Pycelle) do this with sneaky and back stabbing way, we should call it. KG sure important, but if Jaime rebelled openly and go to Robert for fighting his side, even after killing Aerys, then i don't think it would be big problem.

[Dany Girl]

she is married to him. They are a combo. He is going to be kind of king consort. An all this because he killed viserys.

Either the claim or the"usurper" khal. You cannot use drogos army and drogos himself to support a "rightful" claim.

so then Sansa is kingslayer because she's married to Tyrion who was found guilty of murdering King Joffery

[Dany Girl]

Stannis does not bases his claim on renly. Its a huge difference to kill the guy before you in the line to the throne than to kill the one who is after you by right but wants your place.

quote says kinslayer, not kingslayer. Stannis is actually a kinslayer while Dany just turned a blind eye to a situation that she had no control over. Visaerys committed suicide by Dothraki.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

so then Sansa is kingslayer because she's married to Tyrion who was found guilty of murdering King Joffery

Since you bring sansa up, thats a great example of what Im traying to say.

Lannisters (drogo) got ned and robb killed (viserys) and by this way pretend tyron (drogo) to be lord of wf with sansa (dany). How do you feel about sansa claming wf with the support of lannisters armys?

[PatrickStormborn]

Viserys broke the sacred law of Vaes Dothrak. If Drogo hadn't killed him, one of the other khals certainly would have. And, if Dany had tried to defend him, it may have caused a serious conflict between Drogo and the other khals.

Even before Viserys has died, and before she has a reason to consider him irrelevant to the succession, Daenerys has already accepted the idea she and her children will usurp his Kingship.

She doesn't plan to pass over Viserys, as is proven by the fact that she continues to refer to him as her king. She just knows that he will never be King of Westeros. When he fails to assimilate into the Dothraki culture, she realises that he's a dead man walking. And she was absolutely right.

[The Don Dadda]

I thought Kingslaying was only bad if you were in the Kingsguard. That is, if Robert killed Aerys instead of Jaime, no one would call Robert Kingslayer. Usurper, maybe, but not Kingslayer. Drogo didn't have that relationship with Viserys, and I think it's a stretch to argue that Daenerys is somehow at fault because of a domestic dispute that Viserys started with her husband. What is she supposed to do, just give up her life's work because Viserys couldn't get it together? No one in Westeros would reasonably expect that.

Viserys's murder was avenged. Daenerys hired a witch to destroy his mind and then put him to death with a pillow to the face -- what other punishment could she have inflicted?

Sure, that's not the reason why she did it, but then again if we're ignoring her reasons for the Viserys affair then we can ignore her reasons here too and create a false implication.

No not really - this is one of the central themes of ASOIAF i.e. it's treatment of historical truth and how history is created from subjective points of view. Say hypothetically if the Targaryens had been able to quash the rebellion but Robert killed Aerys or Rhaegar when he was the king, Robert would be named kingslayer. He is not a kingslayer because he won, not because he rebelled in a way that was seen as somehow acceptable.

[Dany Girl]

Since you bring sansa up, thats a great example of what Im traying to say.

Lannisters (drogo) got ned and robb killed (viserys) and by this way pretend tyron (drogo) to be lord of wf with sansa (dany). How do you feel about sansa claming wf with the support of lannisters armys?

A- I don't think Sansa is remotely responsible for kingslaying, just as I don't think Dany is responsible for Visaerys incredibly stupid acts, one after another, that disrespected a proud culture that he's been warned against multiple times.

B- Tyrion is a reasonably good leader and a Stark would be in WF again. Bolton wouldn't have taken over, Ramsey would not be torturing Jeyne Poole. Theon would still most likely be lost though. All in all, as much as it would suck to have a Lannister in WF, it might be better than what's currently going on.

C- Dany, no matter which way you slice it, would 150% be a better learder/ruler than Visaerys ever would be. Visaerys was cruel and crazy. Dany is kind and compassionate most of the time. She cares a great deal for the small folk and gets upset over needless death.

D- Dany had already saved Visaerys multiple times. At the time of his death he was not just being cruel to Dany, which she could handle, but was actively trying to KILL her UMBORN child. Honestly, if she had spoken up for him at that point and tried to save him, I would hate her. As a mother you do not allow ANYONE, even you king brother, to threaten your child. I would see her as a weak and useless person had she forgiven that. And, she does mourn his death, she hasn't laughed in weeks since his death. She's torn about what happens, but she chooses to move on and set right the wrongs she sees have been committed against her family.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Dany girl I get your points but Im not talking about who diserves the throne, or who would be a better ruler. Im talking about who has the right to the throne.

And in both scenarios neither tyron and sansa, nor drogo and daenerys hold the right of wf or the IT.

[Le Dragone]

And in both scenarios neither tyron and sansa, nor drogo and daenerys hold the right of wf or the IT.

Sansa does.

Edit: Why does my avatar keep changing??

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Sansa does.

Edit: Why does my avatar keep changing??

In the example Sansa (Dany) gets WF (IT) with Tyron as husband kind of lord-consort (Drogo) and because of lannister troops (dothraki) and because lannisters (drogo) got ned and robb killed (viserys). I feel nobody in the north would be happy with this.

[Le Dragone]

You said Sansa does not have the right to WF. She does, whatever army she takes it with.

Edit: This is assuming that Bran and Rickon are dead, which is what Sansa believes. Eitherway, she has more right to it than Ramsay.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

You said Sansa does not have the right to WF. She does, whatever army she takes it with.

Ok. With a lannister as husband and co ruler?

The original statment is she has to chose, either the khal or the righteous claim.

[yomi]

I think more important thing is rebelling openly or not. Robert and Ned rebelled to Aerys openly, so they are simply fighting for another king.

But if other lord of his (like Tywin or Pycelle) do this with sneaky and back stabbing way, we should call it. KG sure important, but if Jaime rebelled openly and go to Robert for fighting his side, even after killing Aerys, then i don't think it would be big problem.

Ah, but Jaime put his golden armor on! That's showing totally openly that he's rebelling against Aerys, right? ;)

Ok. With a lannister as husband and co ruler?

The original statment is she has to chose, either the khal or the righteous claim.

Yeah, it seems she has the right to it, even if it does feel wrong.

[Mad Monkey]

hummmm interesting.... But she must start talking shit about drogo from now on ok??

Fair enough, but it won't do much good since he's dead.

I think more important thing is rebelling openly or not. Robert and Ned rebelled to Aerys openly, so they are simply fighting for another king.

But if other lord of his (like Tywin or Pycelle) do this with sneaky and back stabbing way, we should call it. KG sure important, but if Jaime rebelled openly and go to Robert for fighting his side, even after killing Aerys, then i don't think it would be big problem.

Ah, that makes sense. I guess I was just thinking about how people freaked out over Brienne for "killing" Renly, even people who didn't consider him the king. While I definitely agree with what you're saying here, I do think that the Kingsguard especially have an extra-special duty to stand by their king no matter what. Though I get what you're saying -- it's similar to the structure of guest right; if the Freys had killed the Starks in the middle of a battle, no one would call them dishonorable, but the fact that it was a sneak attack at a wedding made it a horrible crime even in the eyes of people who were fighting against the Starks.

As far as Sansa goes, the only reason why her claim would be inferior is if Bran and Rickon reappear or if Robb disinherits her.

[valtolin]

The OP is right and wrong at the same time. Right, because it's true, Viserys' death delegitimises every claim by Dany to restore the Targaryen dinasty, given that she and her husband killed the legitimate heir. Wrong, because this is exactly GRRM's point: Viserys' death is a step forward in Dany's path to learn that dinasty doesn't mean shit, that not everyone is a dragon only for having dragon blood, that kingship is not given by birth but must be deserved. What does she say when Viserys dies? "He wasn't a true dragon". She will not take the IT for being Aerys' heir, but for right of conquest and by proving herself to be a worthy queen (and that is the point of the whole Meerenese arc).

[Señor de la Tormenta]

The OP is right and wrong at the same time. Right, because it's true, Viserys' death delegitimises every claim by Dany to restore the Targaryen dinasty, given that she and her husband killed the legitimate heir. Wrong, because this is exactly GRRM's point: Viserys' death is a step forward in Dany's path to learn that dinasty doesn't mean shit, that not everyone is a dragon only for having dragon blood, that kingship is not given by birth but must be deserved. What does she say when Viserys dies? "He wasn't a true dragon". She will not take the IT for being Aerys' heir, but for right of conquest and by proving herself to be a worthy queen (and that is the point of the whole Meerenese arc).

but she keeps thinking bobert as "the usurper" ... As if he or his dogs are "usurping" her rights...

[TheMysteriousOne]

but she keeps thinking bobert as "the usurper" ... As if he or his dogs are "usurping" her rights...

Although, she has realized to an extent that kingship is deserved, it's kind of hard to lose/forget 14 years of being told that Robert was a usurper (which he was), and that Ned and the rest were his Dogs, and that the throne is forever House Targaryen's.