Jump to content

Best Kings/Queens in Westerosi History?


Summer Islander Prince

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

"Like their dragons, the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men" was said in the context of incestuous marriages, and it doesn't mean they literally don't follow any laws at all. Even if they wanted to, it would be impossible, because their position of power is dependent on the support of their vassals.

Not that the quote was proof that Queen A didn't abolish First Night for everyone, anyway.

Whether or not giving the land to the NW proved actually beneficial to them is irrelevant. We're debating whether Queen A was a good person or not, her political competence has nothing to do with that. The gift was an act of kindness - hence, she was a good person. We must take that at face value because there is nothing in the text to suggest otherwise.

And yes, I've seen TFL's speculation that she had ulterior motives, but their argument is full of projected motives and inaccuracies (the smallfolk painted the Queenscrown, not her). More than that, the whole thing is just makes no sense - Queen A deliberately provoked the North because...?

By me saying the Queen painted the crown, I mean she had it done, not that QA got out her trusty paintbrush and can o'goldleaf and got to work. I wasn't being literal. Sometimes the story is told by the results of actions made by such people as kings and queens. We know Ned is dead by the actions that lead up to the strike. We didn't need George to say, "and then he died."

The queen and king deliberately provoked the north because King Jaehaerys and Queen Alysanne had a septon for a hand, and also just made a pact with the Faith of the seven to give them unwavering support and to always defend the Faith/7 and for disbanding the faith militant... which the last was good, but also shows that KJ was willing and ready to shut down anything that opposed the Faith/7- High Septon... and we know the Faith/7 wanted to rid magic from Westeros. This is right before KJ and QA flew SIX dragons to the north (not just their two as has been standard in every "peaceful" occupation in the past). KJ and QA flew six dragons north and killed their culture and screwed up the NW. They killed off magic in the north.

The Faith/7 taught everyone that magic was "untested" and "not to be trusted", and these are the same people that claim gaints and CotF and Others don't exist. Boy isn't the Faith/7 gonna be red faced pretty soon :blushing:

The land was not a "gift" because QA was good, it was taken from the Starks which lead to it being unmanned, stripped barren by raiding and then the smallfolk moved away... which reduces income, production, and protection for the north as a whole. QA weakened the north to the benefit of someone else to the point that the north moved against them in the council of 101. That ain't so good.

The killing off of the original inhabitants and magic is admitted to:

The Rogue Prince

On the third day of third moon of 129 AC, Princess Helaena brought her three children to visit with the king in his chambers. The twins Jaehaerys and Jaehaera were six years old, their brother Maelor only two. His Grace gave the babe a pearl ring off his finger to play with, and told the twins the story of how their great-great-grandsire and namesake Jaehaerys the Old King had flown his dragon north to the Wall to defeat a vast host of wildlings, giants, and wargs. The children listened attentively. Afterward the king sent them away, pleading weariness. Then Viserys of House Targaryen, the First of His Name, King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, closed his eyes and went to sleep.
 
 
And then we have this at the start of the current story which shows that KJ and QA were successful in trying to kill off magic, but that it is now returning. Coincidentally, Ned and Benjen also talked of repopulating the gift (which would help the north, including smallfolk) but *spoiler* Ned dies before he can do that. Who knows where Benjen roamed off to. (just adding humor to keep it light;)) Jon talks about repopulating the gift with Stannis, which would undo the treachery of trying to kill the inhabitants and culture of the north. There is a reason why this is being undone now, because it was bad to have happened in the first place:

A Game of Thrones - Bran I

"It's no freak," Jon said calmly. "That's a direwolf. They grow larger than the other kind."
Theon Greyjoy said, "There's not been a direwolf sighted south of the Wall in two hundred years."
"I see one now," Jon replied.

A Storm of Swords - Jon XI

"My father dreamed of resettling the Gift," Jon admitted. "He and my uncle Benjen used to talk of it." He never thought of settling it with wildlings, though . . . but he never rode with wildlings, either. He did not fool himself; the free folk would make for unruly subjects and dangerous neighbors. Yet when he weighed Ygritte's red hair against the cold blue eyes of the wights, the choice was easy. "I agree."
"Good," King Stannis said,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

By me saying the Queen painted the crown, I mean she had it done, not that QA got out her trusty paintbrush and can o'goldleaf and got to work. I wasn't being literal. Sometimes the story is told by the results of actions made by such people as kings and queens. We know Ned is dead by the actions that lead up to the strike. We didn't need George to say, "and then he died."

Yes, I got what you meant, but where's the evidence that the painting of the QC was her idea?

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The queen and king deliberately provoked the north because King Jaehaerys and Queen Alysanne had a septon for a hand, and also just made a pact with the Faith of the seven to give them unwavering support and to always defend the Faith/7 and for disbanding the faith militant... which the last was good, but also shows that KJ was willing and ready to shut down anything that opposed the Faith/7- High Septon... and we know the Faith/7 wanted to rid magic from Westeros. This is right before KJ and QA flew SIX dragons to the north (not just their two as has been standard in every "peaceful" occupation in the past). KJ and QA flew six dragons north and killed their culture and screwed up the NW. They killed off magic in the north.

The Faith/7 taught everyone that magic was "untested" and "not to be trusted", and these are the same people that claim gaints and CotF and Others don't exist. Boy isn't the Faith/7 gonna be red faced pretty soon

Yeah, now we're moving into crackpot territory...

So, according your theory, QJ and QA went to the Wall at the behest of the magic-phobic Faith, to wipe out magical creatures...with their magical creatures, and then they risked their relationship with the North in order to, for some reason, weaken the NW through some convoluted plan involving re-allocating land (when all they had to do to was disband the organisation), and also to kill Northern culture. Nevermind that giants, wildlings and wargs were pushed beyond the Wall long before Aegon's Conquest, and weren't directly part of Northern culture at that point. And the biggest hole in the theory: Northern culture is clearly not lost - northmen are still living by the Old Ways, worshipping the Old Gods - so what happened? The Faith suddenly lost interest in destroying Northern culture when the King and Queen got back to KL?

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The land was not a "gift" because QA was good, it was taken from the Starks which lead to it being unmanned, stripped barren by raiding and then the smallfolk moved away... which reduces income, production, and protection for the north as a whole. QA weakened the north to the benefit of someone else to the point that the north moved against them in the council of 101. That ain't so good.

As I've already said, whether or not the gift ended up benefiting the NW doesn't matter. Her administrative skills bear no relevance to how good a person she is. Though, it should be noted that her reign with KJ was peaceful and prosperous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3-10-2016 at 6:21 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I disagree they were attacked and they had the right to protect themselves.

He didn't killed people at the Field of fire and didn't took the North, Vale, Riverland and the rest of Westeros.

He attacked people weaker than he was with WMD and took away their freedom driven only by personal gain.

I agree. I do not really believe conquerors should be defended. He is the one who attacked Westeros with his dragons. When these people started to defend themselves against an invader, those people died. The good king would have been the person who united all those kingdoms by diplomacy and by using their free will. 

The French republic during the end of the 18th century and Napoleon were actually fighting and attacking with the goal to defend the values of the French revolution, like the end of ancient regime, rights of the citizens, ... Can you really call the Spanish who fought against the invasion bad people? 

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

As I've already said, whether or not the gift ended up benefiting the NW doesn't matter. Her administrative skills bear no relevance to how good a person she is. Though, it should be noted that her reign with KJ was peaceful and prosperous.

I am not going to speak against Alysanne.

But the actions of Jaehaerys in the North was actually part of a power play. While Torrhen Stark bend his knee, the Northerners were not really happy with that decision. So the dragons decided to visit the North with as result to strengthen the bonds between the North and the dragons. By visiting the North and aiding the Wall (Deep Lake) the Targaryens were actually smart by diminishing the bond between the protection of the North/the Wall and the Starks. While before that only the Starks could have said they played a role in building the Wall and giving the gift (Bran the Builder), the Targaryens could say now they did this too. 

However the biggest problem with this gift is that it were not really the lands of the Targaryens but of the Starks. And yeah, this sucks for the Starks personally but that doesn't make it a bad decision. The problem is that it went against the Starks' advice. The advice of the family who protected the realm for centuries. And history shows this was a bad decision. 

And the Northerners were already the ones who provided and still does provide to the Wall. In the end the Wall didn't really won by getting lands, while a part of the income of those lands probably already went to them. A real smart idea would have been a collective contribution of the 7K to the Wall where every part of the realm contributes to it. The only thing the Targaryens did here was diminishing the position of the Starks. Something smart if they want to prevent a rebellion of the North but not really something good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

"Like their dragons, the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men" was said in the context of incestuous marriages, and it doesn't mean they literally don't follow any laws at all. Even if they wanted to, it would be impossible, because their position of power is dependent on the support of their vassals.

Not that the quote was proof that Queen A didn't abolish First Night for everyone, anyway.

Yet it is something that shows us what was their relationship with the laws. They never followed the laws of succession, they never followed the laws of incest so there is no reason to believe that they followed the First Night either since the text points to them doing whatever the hell they wanted and never asking for anyone's permission.

11 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Whether or not giving the land to the NW proved actually beneficial to them is irrelevant. We're debating whether Queen A was a good person or not, her political competence has nothing to do with that. The gift was an act of kindness - hence, she was a good person. We must take that at face value because there is nothing in the text to suggest otherwise.

Even if she wanted to do something good her actions were harmul for both the Starks and the NW hence no matter why she did it, her action was harmful.

I agree. I do not really believe conquerors should be defended. He is the one who attacked Westeros with his dragons. When these people started to defend themselves against an invader, those people died. The good king would have been the person who united all those kingdoms by diplomacy and by using their free will. 

The French republic during the end of the 18th century and Napoleon were actually fighting and attacking with the goal to defend the values of the French revolution, like the end of ancient regime, rights of the citizens, ... Can you really call the Spanish who fought against the invasion bad people? 

Thank you for understanding what I am trying to say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yes, I got what you meant, but where's the evidence that the painting of the QC was her idea?

Ok, just one more response and then I think it should be moved to its own thread so as not to derail someone else's topic. I would be happy to continue a discussion about this with you and anyone else, somewhere else. Seriously, no sarcasm in my voice at all.

And then Queencrown was abandoned. Why? It wasn't because they couldn't grow anything to sustain themselves:

"This is good land." Jojen picked up a handful of dirt, rubbing it between his fingers. "A village, an inn, a stout holdfast in the lake, all these apple trees . . . but where are the people, Bran? Why would they leave such a place?"

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yeah, now we're moving into crackpot territory...

Nope. Following book info and clues like other arcs such as the valyrian dagger, RLJ... maybe lemongate, but lemongate isn't concluded like this arc is, so I guess we can't count that one.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

So, according your theory, QJ and QA went to the Wall at the behest of the magic-phobic Faith, to wipe out magical creatures...with their magical creatures,

The Targaryen motto is pretty much "bow or burn". The Targs in Westeros had always had a stressed relationship with the F/7. There were certain laws that the Targs did put themselves above, such as incest and polygamy. In the story, incest is called an abomination by the old gods and the new... yet 99.9% of Targs refused to give it up. In turn, the F/7 retained most of the laws of judgement and punishment in Westeros up until KJ made his pact with them. It was a give and take on both of the two sides, and Kj and QA agreed to side with the faith and defend them. Defend them against what?

There is more about the struggles between the F/7, dragons and magic,etc, but that is best saved for its own thread. :thumbsup:

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

 

and then they risked their relationship with the North in order to, for some reason, weaken the NW through some convoluted plan involving re-allocating land (when all they had to do to was disband the organisation), and also to kill Northern culture. Nevermind that giants, wildlings and wargs were pushed beyond the Wall long before Aegon's Conquest, and weren't directly part of Northern culture at that point.

Then you have to wonder why QA closed down Nightfort with its access to north of the wall where the original inhabitants (magic peoples) can pass. Starks who are wargs, or anyone who is a warg, needs to have their paired direwolf with them to be able to spark the warg inside of them. So, part of KJ and QA cutting off access through Nightfort also cut access to the direwolves that wargs need. No direwolves, no "magic", no competition with the F/7. The quote from Theon I posted above shows that this stopped happening 200 years ago, the same time when QA had the gate closed. This is very much a retelling of actual history where Christians wiped out pagans, or tried to "integrate" the two religions in soft ways like moving Jesus' birthday to Christmas with a pagan tree, and then again further making Santa and elf-like creature instead of Odin.

And yes, in the story we do have some accounts of people going to the wall, or just past it, and having interactions with CotF. And there is the issue that there are possibly CotF on the Isle of Faces and possibly Howland visited them. And what is up with the Three Singers in Highgarden??? Magic clearly has had to stay hidden until now.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

 

And the biggest hole in the theory: Northern culture is clearly not lost - northmen are still living by the Old Ways, worshipping the Old Gods - so what happened? The Faith suddenly lost interest in destroying Northern culture when the King and Queen got back to KL?

Well, as the books say, the Starks rallied against KJ and QA to try and undo their decisions, but it didn't work because the Citadel works for the king and the citadel is also teaching that magic is not real, or atleast, not to be trusted. Think back to the times Maester Luwin tells Bran that his dreams aren't real, or the CotF and giants don't exist anymore, etc.

The more the new "sciences" spread throughout Westeros, the more and more magic is pushed back and dies. So much so that now most of the realm thinks these are fairy stories filled with grumpkins and snarks that don't exist. Hells, Bowen Marsh is more concerned with who he was taught to be the enemy, the Free Folk, instead of listening to who the real enemy is. :bang:

Again, those people are now unprepared and are about to die because this information was suppressed and lost and ignored.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

As I've already said, whether or not the gift ended up benefiting the NW doesn't matter. Her administrative skills bear no relevance to how good a person she is. Though, it should be noted that her reign with KJ was peaceful and prosperous.

Administrative skill decisions are based on personality, especially in a monarchy. While she and KJ did do some good things, as I agreed to already, it is this overriding decision they made together that negatively effected half the realm.

So, again, I wouldn't mind a nice discussion about this in its own thread, but not here. If you decide you want to start such a thread, just tag me and I'll be there :cheers:. Off for more coffee.

5 hours ago, Tijgy said:

I agree. I do not really believe conquerors should be defended. He is the one who attacked Westeros with his dragons. When these people started to defend themselves against an invader, those people died. The good king would have been the person who united all those kingdoms by diplomacy and by using their free will. 

...snipped...

I agree to all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yet it is something that shows us what was their relationship with the laws. They never followed the laws of succession, they never followed the laws of incest so there is no reason to believe that they followed the First Night either since the text points to them doing whatever the hell they wanted and never asking for anyone's permission.

No, it shows it shows the Targs' stance on ONE particular law/social norm. It doesn't follow that they disregard all laws. In fact, it's noted that the Targs adopted all Westerosi customs except where incest was concerned, so there's more logical to assume they did follow laws. They weren't absolute monarchs.

I'm not sure what you mean by succession laws. Are you referring to their skipping of female claimants? That was a decision made by the the Council. Succession laws are pretty murky, anyway, and can vary from region to region.

23 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Even if she wanted to do something good her actions were harmul for both the Starks and the NW hence no matter why she did it, her action was harmful.

Again, the debate is not about her political compliance. If she wanted to do good, then she is a good person. Motivations and personality is everything.

20 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Ok, just one more response and then I think it should be moved to its own thread so as not to derail someone else's topic. I would be happy to continue a discussion about this with you and anyone else, somewhere else. Seriously, no sarcasm in my voice at all.

And then Queencrown was abandoned. Why? It wasn't because they couldn't grow anything to sustain themselves:

"This is good land." Jojen picked up a handful of dirt, rubbing it between his fingers. "A village, an inn, a stout holdfast in the lake, all these apple trees . . . but where are the people, Bran? Why would they leave such a place?"

Yes, this really should be moved to it's own thread, so here are my parting arguments:

I asked for evidence that painting the QC was QA's idea. I don't see what the QC being abandoned has to do with anything.

20 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The Targaryen motto is pretty much "bow or burn". The Targs in Westeros had always had a stressed relationship with the F/7. There were certain laws that the Targs did put themselves above, such as incest and polygamy. In the story, incest is called an abomination by the old gods and the new... yet 99.9% of Targs refused to give it up. In turn, the F/7 retained most of the laws of judgement and punishment in Westeros up until KJ made his pact with them. It was a give and take on both of the two sides, and Kj and QA agreed to side with the faith and defend them. Defend them against what?

Defend them against abolition and decline, obviously.

What is the evidence that the Faith ever had it out for the North, specifically? If they were so against them, why had they not acted before? Why did they not continue to pursue the destruction of Northern culture? No one ever converted to Northern religions, and no one was working Northern mojo on the septons, so they were no threat to the Faith.

20 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Then you have to wonder why QA closed down Nightfort with its access to north of the wall where the original inhabitants (magic peoples) can pass. Starks who are wargs, or anyone who is a warg, needs to have their paired direwolf with them to be able to spark the warg inside of them. So, part of KJ and QA cutting off access through Nightfort also cut access to the direwolves that wargs need. No direwolves, no "magic", no competition with the F/7. The quote from Theon I posted above shows that this stopped happening 200 years ago, the same time when QA had the gate closed. This is very much a retelling of actual history where Christians wiped out pagans, or tried to "integrate" the two religions in soft ways like moving Jesus' birthday to Christmas with a pagan tree, and then again further making Santa and elf-like creature instead of Odin.

And yes, in the story we do have some accounts of people going to the wall, or just past it, and having interactions with CotF. And there is the issue that there are possibly CotF on the Isle of Faces and possibly Howland visited them. And what is up with the Three Singers in Highgarden??? Magic clearly has had to stay hidden until now.

QA didn't close down anything. The NW wasn't keen on maintaining the Nightfort, so the Queen offered them a less costly castle. Are you claiming QA and the Faith were somehow knowledgeable on the Black Gate, knowledge long lost to the NW and the North (otherwise Bran would have been familiar with it)? Let's not forget that the cotf and other magical beings were driven past the wall long before this, and were part of Northern culture only by stories, by then. A couple of people posssibly meeting cotf doesn't change that. They weren't just hiding from Southerners.

20 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Well, as the books say, the Starks rallied against KJ and QA to try and undo their decisions, but it didn't work because the Citadel works for the king and the citadel is also teaching that magic is not real, or atleast, not to be trusted. Think back to the times Maester Luwin tells Bran that his dreams aren't real, or the CotF and giants don't exist anymore, etc.

The more the new "sciences" spread throughout Westeros, the more and more magic is pushed back and dies. So much so that now most of the realm thinks these are fairy stories filled with grumpkins and snarks that don't exist. Hells, Bowen Marsh is more concerned with who he was taught to be the enemy, the Free Folk, instead of listening to who the real enemy is. :bang:

Again, those people are now unprepared and are about to die because this information was suppressed and lost and ignored.

Of course the Starks appealed to the Council; they were losing land, and the taxes that come with it. It was a pretty insignificant loss in the long run, so what does that have to do with this conspiracy to destroy Northern culture (or is it specifically Northern magic you're talking about?) Were there giants running around on that land?

If the Citadel's method of washing out magic was so successful, what on earth was the point of the land re-allocation? Don't tell me it was to weaken the NW- I've already said that there's a much simpler ways to achieve that. And again, at that point, no one fully believed in giants, etc-not even the NW. They hadn't been seen in centuries. There was no danger of the cotf suddenly returning to rebel.

20 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Administrative skill decisions are based on personality, especially in a monarchy. While she and KJ did do some good things, as I agreed to already, it is this overriding decision they made together that negatively effected half the realm.

Just supposing your theory is true, unless QA and KJ were deliberately trying to harm the realm and it's people, it doesn't detract from their goodness, or their good acts.

Okay, I'm done now. You were very pleasant to talk to...even if I think your theory is bonkers :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

...

What is the evidence that the Faith ever had it out for the North, specifically? If they were so against them, why had they not acted before? Why did they not continue to pursue the destruction of Northern culture? No one ever converted to Northern religions, and no one was working Northern mojo on the septons, so they were no threat to the Faith.

...

Okay, I'm done now. You were very pleasant to talk to...even if I think your theory is AMAZING :P

Just sent a pm with some gooood book text, most specifically on the north :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6. 10. 2016 at 11:11 AM, Tijgy said:

I agree. I do not really believe conquerors should be defended. He is the one who attacked Westeros with his dragons. When these people started to defend themselves against an invader, those people died. The good king would have been the person who united all those kingdoms by diplomacy and by using their free will. 

The French republic during the end of the 18th century and Napoleon were actually fighting and attacking with the goal to defend the values of the French revolution, like the end of ancient regime, rights of the citizens, ... Can you really call the Spanish who fought against the invasion bad people? 

I am not going to speak against Alysanne.

But the actions of Jaehaerys in the North was actually part of a power play. While Torrhen Stark bend his knee, the Northerners were not really happy with that decision. So the dragons decided to visit the North with as result to strengthen the bonds between the North and the dragons. By visiting the North and aiding the Wall (Deep Lake) the Targaryens were actually smart by diminishing the bond between the protection of the North/the Wall and the Starks. While before that only the Starks could have said they played a role in building the Wall and giving the gift (Bran the Builder), the Targaryens could say now they did this too. 

However the biggest problem with this gift is that it were not really the lands of the Targaryens but of the Starks. And yeah, this sucks for the Starks personally but that doesn't make it a bad decision. The problem is that it went against the Starks' advice. The advice of the family who protected the realm for centuries. And history shows this was a bad decision. 

And the Northerners were already the ones who provided and still does provide to the Wall. In the end the Wall didn't really won by getting lands, while a part of the income of those lands probably already went to them. A real smart idea would have been a collective contribution of the 7K to the Wall where every part of the realm contributes to it. The only thing the Targaryens did here was diminishing the position of the Starks. Something smart if they want to prevent a rebellion of the North but not really something good. 

Not to get into the larger argument, but this is factually wrong. Once Torrhen knelt to Aegon the Conqueror all the land in the North became Aegon's property. Torrhen and his heirs were no more souvereigns, but 'mere' hereditary managers/administrators of the Northern part of Aegon's kingdom. The Targaryen monarchs could dispose with that land as they wished, though of course it didn't always please their managers. That's how feudalism works. All the land in the kingdom belongs to the king. In theory, at least.

As an aside, I don't plan to follow further, I must wonder at this dedication to the Starks. TWoIaF has shown clearly they had been conquerors who united the North through war and bloodshed and forced marriages, and modern Starks themselves recognize their ancestors had been a bunch of terrible people. Until one day guys with a bigger stick had come along and this time around the Starks had been the ones who had to kneel and give up some of their privileges. Unplesant for them, but no big deal as far as Northern history goes, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, White Ravens said:

I'm pretty fond of Aegon V Targaryen for his intent to reform Westeros and give more comforts and rights to the common people.  I know he didn't achieve those goals but at least he wanted to do it. 

Yeah, got to love Egg, even if his plans didn't succeed. Perhaps he needed to stress more to his children why his reforms were so important; reforms like the ones Egg proposed usually requires generations of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Yeah, got to love Egg, even if his plans didn't succeed. Perhaps he needed to stress more to his children why his reforms were so important; reforms like the ones Egg proposed usually requires generations of work.

One big criticism of Egg, and it's a general criticism of Targaryens, is that he thought he could solve everything with dragons.  And so we get the tragedy of Summerhall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2016 at 2:43 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

No, it shows it shows the Targs' stance on ONE particular law/social norm. It doesn't follow that they disregard all laws. In fact, it's noted that the Targs adopted all Westerosi customs except where incest was concerned, so there's more logical to assume they did follow laws. They weren't absolute monarchs.

I'm not sure what you mean by succession laws. Are you referring to their skipping of female claimants? That was a decision made by the the Council. Succession laws are pretty murky, anyway, and can vary from region to region.

No it doesn't. Both the First men and the Andals are clear about it; a daughter comes after a son and before a brother and since the Dornes wasn't a part of the Realm during Jaehaerys' age there was only one law of succession. The Targs never followed the laws of succession. So when I have proofs from the books that the Targs never followed any law you cannot prove that they actually followed anything.

On 7/10/2016 at 2:43 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

Again, the debate is not about her political compliance. If she wanted to do good, then she is a good person. Motivations and personality is everything.

By your logic Cersei who did everything to protect her children since she wanted to do good is a good person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5-10-2016 at 1:14 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

I don't see why gifting land to the NW takes away from her "goodness". It was an act of kindness towards the NW. Sucks for the Starks, I guess - and I know that's, like, the ultimate evil for some people on this forum - but that doesn't make her not a good person. They got over it eventually, anyway.

At best she's an example of paving a path to hell with good intentions.

Maester Yandel reports in the world book that the Citadel had reports from Nightfort maesters about the fundaments and building. Yandel may not know himself what is below the Nightfort or he refrains from mentioning it. But we can infer the Citadel KNEW there was a magical weirwood gate beneath the Nightfort.

What does not-so-good QA do? Ah, here are my jewels to build a new fort AWAY from the Nightfort, with a normal gate and tunnel, so you can all forget about the Black Gate's existence and the NW forget why they're guarding a wall. Incidentally that was 200 years before aGoT, and direwolves haven't been seen south of the wall for the same amount of time. No direwolves, no Stark wargs.

They strongarm Stark in giving up land for the NW with their 6 dragons (that's not a visit. It's a threat). Normally land is guarded against enemies and raiders by installing bannermen on it. Those lords and warriors have as duty to protect the smallfolk, and they get food in return as tribute. But by making it NW land, the Stark bannermen have to retreat from those lands. Except the NW's job isn't to pay much attention to what happens in the New Gift, but North of the Wall, especially when their forces are dwindling because of that other detrimental Targ invention - the KG (from 10000 to 1000 in less than 300 years, and now not even that). The NW is busy ranging, repairing the Wall and manning it. Hence wildlings were able to raid the New Gift at will and pleasure. What do smallfolk do when the land is unsafe? They move out to land where there are lords to protect them. Hence in 200 years time the New Gift is practically empty of people and it doesn't do what it was supposed to do - feed the NW. 

GQA is one of the rulers who totally fucked the North and thereby Westeros, for some PR and most likely advized by a maester. Our other Queen who invented the KG gets the worst decision reward of all. And Cersei and her bastard incestuous brood are simply finishing what others already destroyed.  

ETA/ And this isn't about being Stark-fan. It's about the actual threat against humanity: the Others. Why are the Starks relevant in that? They are the first defenders. The Other's won't attack King's Landing, or the Reach or Dorne first would they? No, they'll attack the North first. Same for wildlings. In fact no king beyond the wall was ever defeated by the NW alone. It were always the Starks who dealth with that threat, sometimes with the aid of the NW, because it would be their lands or their bannermen's lands being raided. If a commander were to undermine and purposefully weaken their first defense vanguard, then they're bad commanders for the lands they proclaim to protect and defend. They gave the first row of the vanguard shiny new shields, but decreased its numbers and crippled the second and third row of the van. It's especially bad if that vanguard is truly intent on defending and doing their job, and never even looked at your command position thinking, "Hmm, I'd like to sit there."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 7:33 PM, lojzelote said:

Not to get into the larger argument, but this is factually wrong. Once Torrhen knelt to Aegon the Conqueror all the land in the North became Aegon's property. Torrhen and his heirs were no more souvereigns, but 'mere' hereditary managers/administrators of the Northern part of Aegon's kingdom. The Targaryen monarchs could dispose with that land as they wished, though of course it didn't always please their managers. That's how feudalism works. All the land in the kingdom belongs to the king. In theory, at least.

They knelt to Aegon with promise they could govern their lands. Feodality means the lords grants lands to his vasal in exchange of service, taxes, ... to him. It is a contract. By actually taking those lands away, it means they broke the contact between the Starks and them.

Even if they might not be legal owners, they are at least the economical owners of those lands. The revenu of those lands went to their family. And a part of this revenu was already given to the Wall. After the decision the complete revenu went to the Wall. However after some time the New Gift was completely abandoned and the Starks had to provide with the Wall with their lesser revenues.

But like I said this isn't the point. The main point is their solution was made going against the advice of the family who was defending the realm for ages. And the solution was indeed bad. Like sweetsunray says:

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

ETA/ And this isn't about being Stark-fan. It's about the actual threat against humanity: the Others. Why are the Starks relevant in that? They are the first defenders. The Other's won't attack King's Landing, or the Reach or Dorne first would they? No, they'll attack the North first. Same for wildlings. In fact no king beyond the wall was ever defeated by the NW alone. It were always the Starks who dealth with that threat, sometimes with the aid of the NW, because it would be their lands or their bannermen's lands being raided. If a commander were to undermine and purposefully weaken their first defense vanguard, then they're bad commanders for the lands they proclaim to protect and defend. They gave the first row of the vanguard shiny new shields, but decreased its numbers and crippled the second and third row of the van. It's especially bad if that vanguard is truly intent on defending and doing their job, and never even looked at your command position thinking, "Hmm, I'd like to sit there."

 

It is about diplomacy and good government. If they really only had the intention to protect the realm, they should have a meeting with the Starks, the NW and the rest of the North. And listened to their opinions and ensured the rest of the realm also contributed to the protection of the Wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous. Now we're blaming QA for the Others? They've been forgotten by everyone except the wildlings for centuries, long before the Conquest; no one anticipated the upcoming Long Night 2.0. Well, for the sake of fairness then, if the New Gift being empty somehow aids the war against the Others, we should praise Queen Alysanne for saving the Realm. Heck, her reign lead to Dany and Jon being born - we can credit her for saving everyone anyway. That's how this works right?

8 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

No it doesn't. Both the First men and the Andals are clear about it; a daughter comes after a son and before a brother and since the Dornes wasn't a part of the Realm during Jaehaerys' age there was only one law of succession. So when I have proofs from the books that the Targs never followed any law you cannot prove that they actually followed anything.

Wait, why is this suddenly only about the Targs up till King J's days? Way to move goalposts. You made a blanket statement about the royal family not following laws, so Dorne counts. As does the Iron Islands.

As to inheritance laws being "clear", this is what GRRM said, when asked about the Hornwood inheritance (x):

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

So there you have it, from the author himself. Inheritance laws aren't at all clear, and not everyone blindly follows them, anyway. Look at the recent conflict with the Karstarks and that of the Greyjoys. Even Mr. Law & Order, himself, Stannis, has no problems with the way the Targs handled succession - he declared his future son, as well as his brother, heir over his firstborn daughter. Moreover, as I've said, the inheritance model that the Targs follow was decided by the Great Council, and they've followed that for the most part (only Rhaenyra contested it, I think, and Viserys I was vague as to his intentions). So, if anything, the Targs' inheritance practices is evidence for the Targs being law-abiding.

9 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

By your logic Cersei who did everything to protect her children since she wanted to do good is a good person.

Not an apt comparison because Cersei isn't consistently good - far from it - whereas QA is well known for her charitable nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

This is ridiculous. Now we're blaming QA for the Others?

Strawman: nobody is blaming QA for the Others' existence. But blaming QA for weakening the first defense area, against that foe.

Quote

They've been forgotten by everyone except the wildlings for centuries, long before the Conquest; no one anticipated the upcoming Long Night 2.0.

Someone anticipated a Long Night 2.0. It's the reason a Wall was built. It's why some people scryed whatever to formulate prophecies. QA saw that wall, didn't she? When the Nightfort was still open and in use. It hasn't been "forgotten". But especially the last few centuries, especially after the Conquest, things have been "turned" into "stories of grumkins". The Others, wargs, magic being tales of grumkins is not something of the last 1000 years, but last 200-300 years especially.

Last direwolf seen south of the Wall 200 years ago. Even within a generation of that time period, Stark brothers were so against their sister marrying a "southerner" (a Royce of the Vale) they refused to attend the marriage. But a century later Rickard is suddenly fostering his son out in the Vale, and intending to marry his daughter to a man of the Stormlands. As far as "southerner" goes, a Baratheon is double southern cultured than a Royce. And Ned himself does not believe in wargs and such. In 200 years alone, Starks who actually would have had a "warg" family member once in a while ever one or two generations, suddenly say it are kid's stories.

Once you believe something is a story, you automatically assume your grandfather or great-grandfather also supposed it to be "just a story". But if that great-grandfather was a warg, and his uncle/mother/grandfather is one too, he would not just say "just stories". He would believe at least some parts of the stories may be true. Except he's the last one for 4 generations, in an age where even dragons are becoming "just stories". It doesn't take 1000 of years for people to become non-believers concerning all things magic, just 3-4 generations. 

Besides, the NW couldn't even defend Castle Black against a king beyond the wall on its own. Castle Black is their main fort. Even wildlings have become an actual threat to the North the past few hundred years in a manner they did not before. Check the king beyond the Wall stories. They ALL involve a Lord Stark defeating them, never a King Stark. In other words. Wildlings only started to cross the Wall as whole armies following a King Beyond the Wall in the past 300 years, but not before when there was a King Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Not an apt comparison because Cersei isn't consistently good - far from it - whereas QA is well known for her charitable nature.

The Tyrells were also charitable that doesn't make them good. Being charitable doesn't make someone good. What makes someone good it for example to even endanger himself to help the others. While Alysanne harmed both the NW and the North.

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Hornwood inheritance

I hope that you understand that the Hornwood case is about a bastard and a trueborn. From what we have seen and have been told a daughter comes before a son but after a sibling. While on the other hand we don't have a clue that the Targs ever followed any law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I hope that you understand that the Hornwood case is about a bastard and a trueborn. From what we have seen and have been told a daughter comes before a son but after a sibling. While on the other hand we don't have a clue that the Targs ever followed any law.

GRRM is talking about in general, not solely referring only to that one specific case. And when exactly did the Targaryens ignore succession laws anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...