Jump to content

Darkstar is def innocent


Jadakiss

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

I think he did cut Myrcella in hopes of starting a war, but in reality, would the Iron Throne really invade Dorne if some rogue noble shunned by the rest of the realm killed her? If the Martells denied involvement and captured Darkstar there's not really much Cersei could do? She has a disorganised force, the Ironborn in the Reach, Stannis in the North and mercenaries in the Stormlands. Invading Dorne would never be a feasible option, which makes me wonder if Darkstar had a hidden motive..

Yes. Yes they would.

A ward from the crown have been killed and as the caretaker, Doran is guilty regardless of how Myrcella dies. This is what defenders of Richard III never seem to get. The princes was under his care and they died. Therefore he is responsible. Its not the rest of the world that should prove that Richard ordered the murders, its them (and Richard himself of course) who should prove that despite Richard did everything he possibly could, they still died. And this is the same situation. Myrcella is Dorans responsibility and he needs to protect her from EVERYTHING, including demonic powers, cold and random accidents. And who knows, maybe Darkstar IS Dorans patsy in secret.

In addition, it is a symbol of trust in Westeros - to place your family member under someone else care. Because if there is an issue, said ward gets executed. Myrcellas situation is very like Theons tbh. Therefore, the risk that the Iron thrones doesn´t care about the exact sequence of events and instead just see it as a declaration of war is very, very likely. Compare this with Tywin - he raids and plunders the Riverlands due to Tyrions kidnapping (at least if we are not assuming any kind of special theories) and he is completely right to do so! Tyrions catnapping is a very, very strong Casus belli - and so would the death of Myrcella be too. In fact, even if the king want to keep the tensions with Dorne down, internal pressure might force him to declare war anyway or face a rebellion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Yes. Yes they would.

A ward from the crown have been killed and as the caretaker, Doran is guilty regardless of how Myrcella dies. This is what defenders of Richard III never seem to get. The princes was under his care and they died. Therefore he is responsible. Its not the rest of the world that should prove that Richard ordered the murders, its them (and Richard himself of course) who should prove that despite Richard did everything he possibly could, they still died. And this is the same situation. Myrcella is Dorans responsibility and he needs to protect her from EVERYTHING, including demonic powers, cold and random accidents. And who knows, maybe Darkstar IS Dorans patsy in secret.

In addition, it is a symbol of trust in Westeros - to place your family member under someone else care. Because if there is an issue, said ward gets executed. Myrcellas situation is very like Theons tbh. Therefore, the risk that the Iron thrones doesn´t care about the exact sequence of events and instead just see it as a declaration of war is very, very likely. Compare this with Tywin - he raids and plunders the Riverlands due to Tyrions kidnapping (at least if we are not assuming any kind of special theories) and he is completely right to do so! Tyrions catnapping is a very, very strong Casus belli - and so would the death of Myrcella be too. In fact, even if the king want to keep the tensions with Dorne down, internal pressure might force him to declare war anyway or face a rebellion.

I disagree. 

So if Myrcella had drowned or fell off a horse would the Iron Throne be justified in declaring war? Wards die all the time in a medieval society such as this. The Princes in the Tower was much more shrouded in mystery though. This would be a clear case of many witnesses seeing a rogue knight (infamous for his ruthlessness and cruelty) cut down a defenceless child. But my question was more along the lines of would Cersei be supported in war, which I doubt. She'd probably just rant about it and do nothing. I can't see a Tyrell army invading Dorne with the Ironborn in the Reach, and the Riverlands and Stormlands in disarray. The Lannister forces are scattered and invading Dorne would make no strategical sense at all.

Theon was a hostage taking in war. Myrcella was voluntarily betrothed by the Lannisters to the Martells, allowed to bring her own personal retinue and  treated perfectly. They're not that similar. The Dornish aren't using her as a hostage I don't think. It seems unlikely that she would be executed if the Iron Throne went to war with Dorne seeing as shes betrothed to Trystane. Furthermore, its a pact to bring Dorne into the fold not keep them neutral. Theon would have been executed the second Balon raised his banners. 

Tywin was not justified in any way to invade the Riverlands? His son is kidnapped, so instead of appealing to the king and queen, he invades a neutral third party that had nothing to do with it. That is no valid casus belli. He broke the king's peace over a matter that could be settled peacefully and Ned was right to order him to KL. He should have been brought before Robert for his crimes and would have been too if it wasn't for Cersei killing him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

I disagree. 

So if Myrcella had drowned or fell off a horse would the Iron Throne be justified in declaring war? Wards die all the time in a medieval society such as this. The Princes in the Tower was much more shrouded in mystery though. This would be a clear case of many witnesses seeing a rogue knight (infamous for his ruthlessness and cruelty) cut down a defenceless child.

Haven't you seen "The Godfather"? Feudalism and mafia have much in common.

My youngest son was forced to leave this country because of this Sollozzo business. All right, now I have to make arrangements to bring him back here safely cleared of all these false charges. But I'm a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall him... if he should be shot in the head by a police officer, or if he should hang himself in his jail cell, or if he's struck by a bolt of lightning, then I'm going to blame some of the people in this room, and that I do not forgive. They all accepted that, too.

(By the way, no, it's not "a clear case" at all. "It's not my fault, and I have my daughter and my sworn guards for witnesses" is what they call implausible deniability).

56 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

But my question was more along the lines of would Cersei be supported in war, which I doubt. She'd probably just rant about it and do nothing. I can't see a Tyrell army invading Dorne with the Ironborn in the Reach, and the Riverlands and Stormlands in disarray. The Lannister forces are scattered and invading Dorne would make no strategical sense at all.

Cersei jumping into war head first, unthinking, unprepared and without allies would suit Darkstar even better, so I don't understand your objections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

I disagree. 

So if Myrcella had drowned or fell off a horse would the Iron Throne be justified in declaring war? Wards die all the time in a medieval society such as this. The Princes in the Tower was much more shrouded in mystery though. This would be a clear case of many witnesses seeing a rogue knight (infamous for his ruthlessness and cruelty) cut down a defenceless child. But my question was more along the lines of would Cersei be supported in war, which I doubt. She'd probably just rant about it and do nothing. I can't see a Tyrell army invading Dorne with the Ironborn in the Reach, and the Riverlands and Stormlands in disarray. The Lannister forces are scattered and invading Dorne would make no strategical sense at all.

Theon was a hostage taking in war. Myrcella was voluntarily betrothed by the Lannisters to the Martells, allowed to bring her own personal retinue and  treated perfectly. They're not that similar. The Dornish aren't using her as a hostage I don't think. It seems unlikely that she would be executed if the Iron Throne went to war with Dorne seeing as shes betrothed to Trystane. Furthermore, its a pact to bring Dorne into the fold not keep them neutral. Theon would have been executed the second Balon raised his banners. 

Tywin was not justified in any way to invade the Riverlands? His son is kidnapped, so instead of appealing to the king and queen, he invades a neutral third party that had nothing to do with it. That is no valid casus belli. He broke the king's peace over a matter that could be settled peacefully and Ned was right to order him to KL. He should have been brought before Robert for his crimes and would have been too if it wasn't for Cersei killing him. 

See Ferocious post above. This is not a courtroom. Noone will care if there was an accident or not. Someone will pay for said "accident". And certainly Cersei won´t be able to accomplish much due to the breakdown of the Tyrell-Lannister relationship but Dorne doesn´t know that nor to what extent. Reach and Dorne are old enemies - its assumed that they will assist her. 

I think quite frankly that you are a bit naive. The differerence between hostage and betrothal can be zero depending on climate. And a war between the Throne and Dorne is one of the best ways to risk her life. You can´t assume that all leaders think like Doran in this. Because threats are effective - if I told you that I would kill your daughter that is in my care if you declare war on me, not only will that stop you from doing so but if your daughter dies you are partly responsible too. You took the choice that led to her death. 

As for Tywin, you are completely wrong. No one utters a word against Lord Tywin's action, except of course the highly just and honorable, but in many ways so naive, Ned Stark. Tywin knew what a show of weakness can lead to. When Catelyn Stark took his son hostage any inactivity from Tywin’s part would have put his reputation at stake. And petition the king is, if not inaction, then certainly a very weak response. Can you see Trump sending a letter if Ivanka is wrongfully imprisoned by Cuba? No - he wouldn´t, since kidnapping of a familiy member is an excellent Casus belli and even more so in the medieval times (aslo - Sending a raven or something is pointless as Cat doesnt announce her actions and hopes to fool everyone into thinking she is heading to the North as opposed to the Vale. The arrest and secrecy doesn't leave Tywin with many options). In addition - it was very close that Lysa executed Tyrion, how the #&%#& can such a situation be settled peacefully after that? (apart from handing or Cat for execution that is - something Ned wouldn´t agree on) Its the same way why I personally defend Theon Starks raid on Andalos - he sent a clear signal with that raid, and so did Tywin (sidenote - people that supports Theon Stark choice, but accuses Tywin of war crimes since he is the "bad guy" are nothing but hypocritical, moronic stark fanboy with horrible ethics). The war is there to make Catelyn (by proxy) suffer for her action. 

And I doubt Tywin would have been accused. Robert was pissed on Ned over the situation, not Tywin. What did Robert do again when he had the perfect oppertunity to punish Jaime for his attack? Thats right - he ordered the attacked part (Ned) to make peace as he considered the trade-off between the two sides even enough, and he ordered Tyrions release (That is, an announcement that Cat was in the wrong) so as to not cause more conflict with Casterly Rock. Its quite frankly a very easy case of "he started it". Robert would probably just try to find some excuse to disarm this conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...