• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Darkstream

  • Rank
    Lord Commander of the GRRMsguard
  • Birthday February 16

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,591 profile views
  1. Here you go trying to use inapplicable loopholes again. Joffery is NOT Robert's son, and to claim that he meant his son in a sense that he raised him as his own, and not meaning of his blood, is preposterous, that is not how progenitor succession works. And we certainly do have quite the good idea of what Robert would have done if he new of Joffrey's illegitimacy. Not only do we have Ned's opinion on the matter, but we also have Robert's thoughts on Joffrey becoming the King - and these are his thoughts when thinking that Joffrey is his own blood. A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII Despite Robert's wishes to not have Joffrey on the throne, and contrary to your assertion that progenitor succession laws are not all that important, he still names him his heir, as he thinks it is Joffrey's right, due to these laws that you think are just discarded on a whim.
  2. That's the issue with the argument put forth by many that Renly was this great political strategist, who had the support and love of so many. The only reason the Tyrells supported him, was because they wanted Margaery to be Queen. If they had so much confidence in Renly as a leader, they would have supported him in supporting Stannis. Instead, everyone claims that he would have lost the Tyrells if he did so. Doesn't sound like they had much respect for the authority, or faith in the decisions of their would be King.
  3. It is something that is curiously absent in the woiaf. The only instance I am aware of that touches on this is not a claim of rights by the gods, but that of the Valyrians being above that of the gods. One could say that trial by combat is a variance of such beliefs. Perhaps the same concept could be inferred to that of rebellions and wars as well. Of course there is nothing in the text to support this that I'm aware of, however, it's an interesting thought.
  4. Don't presume to tell me what I think, or what my motives are. You couldn't be further from the truth. And I'll state it again, there is no such thing as a rightful King. Those are just meaningless boasts made by those who have the might to claim so. My argument is that Robert was the legally recognized King, which is a fact according to the text. By the laws and mindset of those living in a feudal society, that gives him the ability to claim he is the rightful King, just as Aegon did - who's forbearers were just lower echelon Dragon Lords in a foreign land before he declared war on the "rightful" King's of Westeros. No, you presuppose that there is some made up international governing laws to justify Aegon's conquest, discredit Robert's rule, and support your beliefs. And I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but you are infamous on this forum for your Targaryen bias. Don't tell me that you don't argue in favor of a fictional character, I don't buy it one bit. And there you go contradicting yourself again. Aegon stole the lands and titles that belonged to the Kings of Westeros for near on eight thousand years. Just because Aegon had the might to steal what was the property of the the Kings of Westeros, doesn't make him the rightful owner. Him and his line may have certainly been in possession of these lands, and the title of King, but that does not make them the rightful owners. Too bad Aegon didn't inherit the Seven Kingdoms.
  5. What in the Seven Hells is that suppose to mean? Now, as your last line of defense, you're stooping down to an ad hominem argument. I have addressed all of the ridiculous assertions you have put forth, while you continually contradicted yourself, dodged any points I've brought up, and incessantly attempted to move the goal posts. I'll consider your post as an admission of defeat. A good day to you Ser.
  6. OK, then why are you bringing up the people who died when King's Landing was stormed? If Robert used a dragon to burn down the Red Keep, a lot more would have died than did. Only he did. Surrendering your King's cause, and selling off his heir to marry a bastard born of incest, in order to save your life, and gain lands, is treason. Oh please, the Targaryns are foreigners who have only been around for a measly three hundred years, in a society having a history of Royal lines dating back eight thousand years. This is an extremely weak argument. This is a causal fallacy. Robert did not set some sort of unheard of precedent here. Do you think he is the first person in history to take down a King and claim a throne? You are ignoring the situation, and actual motives of those who are committing these acts. I have no idea what you are going on about anymore with any of this, and fail to see any connection to the actual story being told by GRRM, or the relevancy to the discussion. If they are not enforced by a legal institution, they cannot invalidate the legality of Robert's rule. ...whatever 'they' is that you are talking about. He certainly was considered the rightful King by the Lords. This is a completely fabricated, and false claim. And that is another causal fallacy. Care to provide evidence for these ridiculous claims? The reason anyone fears, or expects an attempted Targaryen restoration is because Viserys had married Danny to a Dothroki Khal in order to gain support of his army, with the intent to invade Westeros. A claim to a throne that they lost in the same manner that they originally gained that claim. Nobody is denying that they can't attempt to reclaim what they lost. He was never accepted, or recognized as the King by ninety nine point nine percent of the realm, and was not coronated as the King. And no, it doesn't change that he was the rightful heir, it means he no longer is. There is a difference. Viserys is the heir of a King who's regime is no longer in power, or existent. Stannis is the legal heir of the current regime in power. Robert was the King. as you said, he is above the law, makes the law, and interprets the law. His rule is now legal according to the decree of the King.
  7. Cool, we haven't agreed on much, it's good we could at least find some common grounds to do so on. I'm glad you brought up what was best for Robert and his supporters, and especially the realm. A King, as well as the Lords of a Kingdom, have an obligation to do what is in the best interest of their subjects, first and foremost. I agree that placing Viserys on the throne would have just perpetuated an environment in which the stability and welfare of the realm would have been in jeopardy. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and the realm is now in quite some disarray, but that has more to do with Robert's negligent ways of ruling, than of his decision to claim the throne in the first place.
  8. Har!! You are going to have to do a lot better than listing a bunch of random names, many of whom are slaves or servants who have never stepped foot in Westeros. Let's see some actual quotes.
  9. Yes, I realize he didn't actually kill all six Kings, and a Princess. But if you want to go into the details of how he claimed his throne, and compare that to either Robert or Stannis' methods, we sure can. Why don't we start with Harren the Black, and how did you put it, he "burned with his castle?" Now, was this just some cook fire that got out of control? Or no, that's right, he was burned alive by dragon fire in his castle, along with his sons, and all of the men, women and children who occupied the castle. I'm thinking that the burning of one treason committing Hand isn't looking so bad in comparison. Should we go on, and tally up all the rest of the men that were burned alive - an act that you so vehemently criticized Stannis for - in Aegon's conquest? Well, I guess it's a good thing that Aegon had these international laws of war - of which you have still failed to provide any textual evidence for, or even answered my repeated question of who makes and regulated these rules - to justify these appalling means in by which he claimed his throne. You keep rambling on about this, but again, who makes up these rules and enforces them? That would be the King himself. What, just because Aegon proclaimed himself as a King, you think that makes him and his line untouchable? Sure, I understand the concept, but modern views or no, these are just his words in the wind, and there are men like Robert, who despite you claiming that he can't challenge a King, actual has. His actions speak louder than any claim made in hubris by some King. The facts are that he did wage war, and that he did elevate himself onto equal footing as to that of a King. If your claims had any merit at all, then Robert in his defiance of one so much higher than himself, would have been smitten down by some ancient Valaryen god. But Robert deposed of Aery's, and by the same means as Aegon had - proclaiming himself the King - elevated himself to this all mighty, and untouchable status Again, what legal institution makes and enforces these rules? I thought you said that the opinions of "half or more of Westeros" was a good enough reason to invalidate Robert's rule. Now all of a sudden, what they think doesn't matter? They gave it up by running off into exile. They were not there to oppose Robert when he proclaimed himself King, and sat his ass on that uncomfortable, ugly, Iron chair. Oh? So you're claiming that the only thing that kept him from becoming the true King, is that he heeded Aryn's advise not to have two innocent children murdered in cold blood? And once again, who makes, regulates, and enforces these laws, which are absent from the text, that you continue to go on about? And yet, Robert had as an abundance of cherries to pick from, as Renly did peaches. You are still missing the point of my comparison, what you are talking about is irrelevant and an equivalency fallacy. You can say that, I would say otherwise.
  10. Let's not waste each other's, and everyone else's time hashing up the same nonsense that we've already carried on with too long. If it actually matters to you, you're free to waste your time and search through those 30 pages to find the original quotes. I'm not interested in doing so myself. Oh, well I was just curious, as you said "Dead Kings don't get to decide what happens when they are dead," whether you agree that since the King was deposed of and dead, that Robert had the right to claim the throne he conquered, or if you think he had an obligation to put Viserys on the throne?
  11. Uh huh, just as I called it. Play the ignorance card if you must. Oh? So can I correctly assume that you agree with my argument against Lord Varys pertaining to this then?
  12. And here's three more that I didn't include, as they were already posted a while back.
  13. Yes, please do. I am curious to see what you come up with - especially the ones backing Renly. And then we can compare the character, reliability, and motives of the people making those claims against the ones that I have provided. And no quotes by Renly, Danny or Viserys themselves, as I didn't include the quotes by Stannis.
  14. I'm not sure what your point is here. You are still siting real world laws, which are in no way stated in the text, or even hinted at, while denying what should be an obvious assumption - the fact that there would be a feudal contract between a King and his subjects - for the same reason. If you refuse to except something that is obviously the case, despite not being explicitly stated, then you're dreaming if you think I'm going to accept these detailed laws that you propose are a fact in aSoIaF. Well, just you saying so doesn't make it so. And of course the government being challenged is going to consider it unlawful. But that is the whole point of a Rebellion - you are challenging the authority of the current government. If the government declares that it is illegal to rebel, it really doesn't matter, because you are disputing that government's authority. If Robert lost, then of course him and his supporters would be deemed as traitors, engaging in illegal treasonous acts. What you don't seem to understand is the fact that they won renders whether or not it was legal as irrelevant. As Robert did claim the throne through conquest, and was supported and accepted as the new King by the Lords paramount and the Faith, he is now the one in charge, and is the one making the laws. If the Lords who still dispute his authority were still resisting him, and in open rebellion, and the Faith had refused to recognize his authority, then you would have a case. But that is not the situation that is presented to us in the books. All open opposition to Robert had been crushed, or those opposing him had bent the knee. Robert has governed the realm in peace (aside from the Greyjoy rebellion, which was easily and swiftly put down) for fourteen years. And as you can see, nowhere is rebellion actually defined as an illegal, criminal act. Either way, it really doesn't matter, if you want to claim that Robert's Rebellion was illegal, then fine, you're free to think that, it doesn't change the fact that Robert was recognized as the new legal King of Westeros. Sure, and a potato isn't a potato, if you call it a poetauto. You say he can't declare war on Aerys, yet that is in fact, exactly what he did. Who says he can't? And who cares if "they" say that? The facts are that he did. Yup. Well I'm touched that you consider us friends, however I must disagree with you...my friend. If I saw your boss blatantly abusing you, and breaking the law in doing so, not only would I have a right to interfere, but I would have a moral obligation - and under many jurisdictions, a legal obligation as well - to assist you. A lot of jurisdictions consider turning a blind eye to certain acts to be unlawful negligence, and a prosecutable offense. Rules made and regulated by what institution? And who makes the laws in a feudal monarchy? That would be the factual King. If someone is factually the King, then he is the legal King, as he is the one who makes the law. By who's laws is he not the legal King? Not in a sense, it's the exact same authority and process that recognized Aegon as the legal King. And no, Aegon claimed his throne over the charred corpses of thousands of soldiers, and farmers acting as soldiers, and seven murdered King's. Well see, now I'm defending Aegon to you. The Targaryen rule may not have been completely secure untill Jaehaerys l, but Aegon was recognized as the legal King of Westeros once he was coronated as such. Well, I like to see some text to support your claim that "half the realm or more" was plotting against Robert. Although, even if you could, that would not negate the legitimacy of his rule. And this list of persons he didn't trust has nothing to do with them questioning Robert's legitamicy. That is quite the dishonest argument to make, as you are well aware of the situation and motives pertaining to Robert's mistrust, and the plotting against him. And if he wasn't the legal King, they would not need to secretly plot to get rid of him. They could simply remove him as a criminal imposter, however, as he is recognized as the legal King, they would not have any support to do so. So what? None of this invalidates the fact that they are now under the authority of a new regime. And that is not what gives any legal construct legitamicy. The will and ability of the powers that be to enforce their laws, is what gives them legitamicy. If my government passes a new law, does that mean nobody has to abide by said law until a time when nobody can remember a time when that law didn't exist? And essentially, so did Aegon. Besides, many people that reject Trump, would also claim that he cheated his way into office. Either way, that is irrelevant. The point is, just because a portion of a population doesn't agree with, or recognize one's authority, it doesn't invalidate that authority. No, they used dragons, acquired through blood magic, and recked havoc on an entire continent, killing thousands. Stannis' use of black magic saved the lifes of many thousands, at the cost of one traitorous usurpers life. And try using that argument with the Masters of Astapor, yunkai, and Mereen. I don't know what your trying to get at here, but he is the currently recognized legal King of Westeros. I hope that's a rhetorical question. But alright, the war dubbed as Robert's Rebellion ended when Aerys was deposed and his supporters laid down their arms, and bent the knee to Robert. To claim that two children running for their lives, and just trying to survive, while exiled in another continent indicates that the war isn't over yet is a preposterous assertion. Danny may start another war in the future, but Robert's Rebellion ended more than fourteen years ago. The wofk may be considered over as far as the name it was given is no longer applicable, but the actual war is still ongoing. Once all open opposition to the Crowns authority is quelled, or the current regime is deposed of, and the realm is in peace, then the war will be over. --- And aside from all of this, as we could go around in circles for ever disagreeing on these issues, the truth is that all of this is an attempt to draw attention away from the original intent of this discussion. As it pertains to the original op, the debate of who has the strongest claim between Stannis and Renly is grounded on the assumption that Robert was the legal ruling King. In this situation, there is no denying that Stannis' claim is stronger than Renly's. There shouldn't even be any debate on this, it is explicitly spelled out for us in the text. Anyone stating otherwise is belligerently denying the facts, just for the sake of arguing. If you want to deny what is actually portrayed in the books, and try to use semantics and loop holes to claim that Robert wasn't the legal King, even though throughout the Seven Kingdoms he is recognized as so, then Stannis' claim, however weak it is, is still stronger than that of Renly's. Explain to me how in any scenario, other than using the incorrect terminology of "claim" in an insincere attempt to save face, results in Renly having a stronger claim than Stannis.
  15. A Game of Thrones - Eddard XV A Clash of Kings - Prologue A Clash of Kings - Prologue A Clash of Kings - Davos II A Clash of Kings - Catelyn VI A Storm of Swords - Davos II ------ A Game of Thrones - Bran I A Game of Thrones - Eddard V A Game of Thrones - Eddard XI There you go, quotes confirming that Stannis has a stronger claim than Renly, and that Robert is the recognized legal King of Westeros. Now it's your turn. Like last time you made this absurd accusation, wherein I responded with quotes, and challenged you to do the same, I expect you won't have any quotes to back up your assertions, and just ignore it again.