Targaryen Morality

[Lord Varys]

21 hours ago, Targaryen Restoration said:

I doubt the nobles would go for this.  After all, if a king can be removed so can every lord in the kingdom.  The power flows downwards from the ruler down to the nobles and on down to the common folk.  Right to rule in their world is not determined by competency otherwise a dick like Brandon would have been barred from inheriting.  Right to rule is simply a right because of birth and lineage.  Change that and every nobleman and noblewoman alive would face the threat of being removed from their positions of authority.  A threat to the king's authority is a threat to every lord's and lady's authority to command.

That is true in a medieval monarchy but not necessarily in a constitutional monarchy. The monarch usually also serves as this center or symbol of the state and government from which all power flows. But you are true that without royal authority the power of the lords would be worth much less - and would not even exist in same cases like, say, the Tyrells or the Tullys.

3 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Yes, that was my thinking as well. The minute a King can be deposed legally, there's not much to stop it happening to a lord. Lord Varys' suggestion of removing mad heirs from the line of succession is theoretically sound, at least.

Lords can be unmade legally. The king can attaint them. The problem with any successful coup against or the deposition of a ruling king - especially one done by a younger brother or son - is that it sets a very bad precedent that also affects the power base of the lords. A son usurping the place of his father is especially problematic there. That is just against the order of things in a patriarchal society.

You see this happening when Robert's successful rebellion is encouraging not only Balon Greyjoy but also, later, Renly and Stannis. And one could say even Robb. And the mess of the War of the Five Kings weakened central authority and its legitimacy even further. That's why now even a man like Euron Greyjoy can dream to take the Iron Throne.

You can have some sort of peaceful transition of power, by making your son Hand - or even Protector of the Realm as Daeron II did with Baelor Breakspear - but a son staging a coup against a father is always bad. There is most likely a reason why George doesn't have this scenario in the entire history of the Seven Kingdoms. We only have (half-)siblings or cousins try to steal another man's throne or lordship, but never sons. It lacks a certain realism because we have this sort of thing happening in the real world middle ages but it can be seen, I think, as a testament of the power fathers have over their sons in this world.

[867-5309]

On 4/26/2017 at 3:56 AM, Damsel in Distress said:

The Targaryens left behind many of the darker customs of their homeland.  They stopped the practice of slave ownership at some point in their history on Dragonstone.  Aegon fought against the slave-owning state of Volantis and burned their fleet.  Many readers believe the making of Valyrian Steel involve the sacrifice of humans.  Even knowing the value of the metal, the Targaryens themselves did not make attempts to manufacture the weapons for themselves. Prominent Targaryens like Rhaegar settled for regular steel.  Having possession of the last dragons, the Targaryens could have taken advantage and enslaved the Free Cities, made themselves very rich, but instead chose to unify an unruly land in the west.  Allyssane stopped the brutal practice of the lord's right to the first night.  Every family will have its share of asses but I think the Targaryens were pretty good people when compared to most noble families.

Yes.  Asses exists in every family.  The Targaryens' just smell a little nicer than any others'.  I would not trust any other family to rule over the realm.  For a family that had so much power they actually were quite moral. 

[Spilledguts]

You should all look up The White Man's Burden. 

The fact that you say they are moral is actually quite hilarious and the opposite of how I see them. So far, the so called ''good'' Targs are the exception, not the other way around.  

I like the Targaryens for the same reason I like the badasses in all stories where they exist. The same reason I like the Ironborn, the Boltons,  the Scylvendi or most Orcs and such factions in fantasy settings. The same reason I liked Voldermort, Darth Vader, Jorg Ancrath, the Bloody Nine , Cnaiur urs Skiotha or Tywin Lannister. The same reason I find the Mongols, the Romans, the Viking Age and Norman Conquests fascinating. Same reason I would choose the Horde in Warcraft or Destruction in Warhammer. 

They are dangerous, ambitious and have no qualms about destroying peoples, families and cities. 

I like my Targs crazy, riding dragons and burning people alive. Bonus points for them looking damn good doing it. 

Only a few of them gave two bits about the Smallfolk. Very few did anything about it. 

Still not sure why people say that the 7 Kingdoms has been safer since the conquest. Minor Lordlings, landed knights and High Lords still fight the same as before. Have you not read Dunk and Egg or heard of the Reynes? Very few families were extinguished from the invasion of the Andals to the invasion of Aegon, which seems a very long time. The map has barely changed from towns, cities to lordships and borders. Riverlands was being pooped on, this time by the Ironborn... not very different from present day Westeros, switch Kraken for Wolves and Lions. 

The fact that people try and paint the Targs as great ''benefectors'' and ''above'' any other familly, trying to make them some sort of elves, is quite frankly sad and missing the point entirely. Those most remembered or that have accomplished the most did so through war, burning people or being just plain crazy. 

Those considered ''good '' as kings are considered good because they changed nothing, did not invade anyone and did no go crazy... so boring and I thought, part of the point the author was trying to make. 

 

[The Commentator]

The Targaryens built the lands into one kingdom and ended the perpetual fighting among the small kingdoms that existed before the conquest.  So yes they brought about periods of peace and prosperity that would not have been possible when the kingdoms are separate.  The former "kings" got demoted to "great lords" and their egos were certainly bruised a lot but it was better for everyone else.  

[867-5309]

On 7/10/2017 at 6:48 PM, Targaryen Restoration said:

I doubt the nobles would go for this.  After all, if a king can be removed so can every lord in the kingdom.  The power flows downwards from the ruler down to the nobles and on down to the common folk.  Right to rule in their world is not determined by competency otherwise a dick like Brandon would have been barred from inheriting.  Right to rule is simply a right because of birth and lineage.  Change that and every nobleman and noblewoman alive would face the threat of being removed from their positions of authority.  A threat to the king's authority is a threat to every lord's and lady's authority to command.

 

On 7/11/2017 at 1:12 PM, WSmith84 said:

Yes, that was my thinking as well. The minute a King can be deposed legally, there's not much to stop it happening to a lord. Lord Varys' suggestion of removing mad heirs from the line of succession is theoretically sound, at least.

A threat to anyone's heredity right to rule anywhere is a threat to everyone's hereditary right to rule everywhere.  We saw the consequences of that with the Baratheon transfer of power.  Renly was thinking exactly as his older brother.  He thought right to rule is not absolute and got the notion to challenge Stannis.  Robert set a dangerous precedent and he ended up paying for it. 

[Myrish Lace]

2 hours ago, Lady Whitesnake said:

Robert set a dangerous precedent

Robert would be a few centuries late for that. Maegor has usurped the throne on the grounds of him wanting to be King, after previous King died under his mother Visenya's ministrations.

The entire succession implosion is nothing unprecedented for Targaryens either, so I don't see it as a sign that Robert broke something in the realm's spirits. If anything, that's the problem with artificial nature of the realm Targaryens have built - the countryside is controlled by the Lords unchecked by the Crown, any time those Lords fracture and splinter, the Crowns' ability to rule vanishes. United Westeros as an idea was born as a vanity project of one man and has no solid foundation in reality. There is no economical center which could dominate the Seven Kingdoms, no strong state with bureaucrats and soldiers to hold it by force, no outside threat to hold it together, no ideology which could bind it. It is inherently unstable - even with dragons - so the realm ends up with at least one  big civil war that spans the continent every century.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

Robert would be a few centuries late for that. Maegor has usurped the throne on the grounds of him wanting to be King, after previous King died under his mother Visenya's ministrations.

Maegor was the son of the Conqueror, not some distant cousin of the ruling branch of the royal dynasty. And Maegor never said he 'won' his throne with his war hammer (or other crap like that), he simply took it after his brother's death.

Prince Aegon was never a real rival of his, and neither Queen Alyssa nor any of Aenys' other children effectively challenged Maegor's claim. Alyssa, Viserys, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne even attended Maegor's wedding in KL.

Robert is the guy making the concept that the strongest should rule popular. Balon mimics him during his lifetime, and Renly mimics Robert after his death. Even Stannis and Robb seem to be influenced by Robert's usurpation (with the Greatjon seeing the end of Targaryen rule as being a prerequisite that the North (and the Riverlands) can now rule themselves again). 

It is also pretty clear that none of the other Targaryen succession wars led to a secessionist/independence movement prior to Robert's rule.

10 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

The entire succession implosion is nothing unprecedented for Targaryens either, so I don't see it as a sign that Robert broke something in the realm's spirits. If anything, that's the problem with artificial nature of the realm Targaryens have built - the countryside is controlled by the Lords unchecked by the Crown, any time those Lords fracture and splinter, the Crowns' ability to rule vanishes. United Westeros as an idea was born as a vanity project of one man and has no solid foundation in reality. There is no economical center which could dominate the Seven Kingdoms, no strong state with bureaucrats and soldiers to hold it by force, no outside threat to hold it together, no ideology which could bind it. It is inherently unstable - even with dragons - so the realm ends up with at least one  big civil war that spans the continent every century.

That is actually not true. Only the periphery and the borderlands of the Realm have any intention of breaking away from the central rule - the Iron Islands, and Dorne, basically. There is no indication whatsoever that the Westerlands, the Reach, the Stormlands, the Riverlands, or the Vale don't like the fact that they are part of a larger realm.

And even the North has made its peace with the concept - Robb's kingdom is little more than a stillborn project of the nobility. It is a brainchild of pissed nobles, not something based on deep cultural differences (Iron Islands), or a popular movement against foreign rule (Dorne). The average Northman or Riverlander doesn't really have any issues with the fact that their king sits in KL. Which is why the Riverlords and Northmen didn't really have any issues bending the knee to King Joffrey after the Red Wedding (or join Stannis in his fight against the Boltons/Freys).

If you look in ACoK/ASoS nobody outside the Riverlands and the North is really taking Robb's kingdom seriously as a political entity. And Robb himself realizes quickly enough that his project is doomed due to the fact that he couldn't forge any alliances outside his 'kingdom'.

[Myrish Lace]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Maegor was the son of the Conqueror, not some distant cousin of the ruling branch of the royal dynasty. And Maegor never said he 'won' his throne with his war hammer (or other crap like that), he simply took it after his brother's death.

Prince Aegon was never a real rival of his,

Oh, you are not even trying. Aegon was King's firstborn son and would go ahead of Maegor under any system of inheritance practiced in Westeros. The only thing Aegon lacked compared to Maegor in was brute strength and seizing power through brute strength is the very definition of usurpation.

What's perhaps more entertaining is the fact that no matter how you try to split hairs (turns out King's bragging makes a difference between lawfulness and usurpation), your interpretation would make Robert just as lawful as Maegor was. Maegor and Robert were both related to a past King, both smashed the "regular" heirs on the field, both profited of the current King's death (although Robert's mother didn't drive Aerys II into the grave), both tried to suppress other claimants. There is no objection to Robert's ascension that could not be equally applied to Maegor, so the idea that Robert broke something that wasn't already broken by Maegor doesn't work.

At very least Robert had a recognizable reason to abandon Aerys - the King betrayed him and tried to have him murdered for no fault of Robert's but Mad King's own insanity. Aenys never overstepped his bounds with Maegor and Aegon didn't do anything to Maegor at all.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is actually not true. Only the periphery and the borderlands of the Realm have any intention of breaking away from the central rule - the Iron Islands, and Dorne, basically. There is no indication whatsoever that the Westerlands, the Reach, the Stormlands, the Riverlands, or the Vale don't like the fact that they are part of a larger realm.

You know, trying to wave away facts you don't like works no more with rebellious kingdoms than with murdered princes. We have Iron Islands, Dorne, North, Stormlands, Riverlands fighting for independence at one point or another. At the moment, Iron Islands are in open rebellion, Riverlands, Dorne, Vale and North have powerful parties on the move working against the Iron Throne and ready to strike soon, Reach bites Lannister ankles under the rug... the future of "larger realm" is very, very questionable. The Kingdom of Westeros is one or two wrong moves from completely collapsing on itself, even before any ice demons invade.

Unlike stable, functional Kingdoms of the old that had regional identity and obvious center of power, united Westeros has nothing of the sort. Targaryens held out for a century after the death of last dragon and even that was a close run with a dose of luck. There is just no substance behind Aegon's idea.

[The Commentator]

On 10/1/2017 at 9:28 PM, Lady Whitesnake said:

I would not trust any other family to rule over the realm. 

I share your opinion.  The Baratheons, Jon Arryn, and their Stark allies had their chance, and failed miserably.  It's time to bring back the true owner of The Seven Kingdoms and let her dragons cleanse the land of the remainders of the former Usurper's loyal supporters.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

Oh, you are not even trying. Aegon was King's firstborn son and would go ahead of Maegor under any system of inheritance practiced in Westeros. The only thing Aegon lacked compared to Maegor in was brute strength and seizing power through brute strength is the very definition of usurpation.

There are usurpations and usurpations. Historically, Maegor is counted as a rightful King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, not as a usurper and pretender. Nobody counts Prince Aegon as 'King Aegon, the Second of His Name'.

Another point to be counted here is that Maegor, unlike Robert, didn't actually steal or try to steal the throne of a crowned and anointed monarch, he simply put forth his claim and seized power during a time of crisis and uncertainty.

If you aren't there you can come back and complain, but this doesn't mean that many people have to care about your complaints. In Aegon's case, the lords and people clearly did not.

And Prince Viserys never even made an attempt to claim his uncle's crown.

There is also the questionable status of King Aenys at the time of his death. The man had effectively been denounced by the High Septon as an abomination and a tyrant, subsequently fleeing KL and abandoning the Iron Throne. Did Aenys die as king, or had effectively abdicated, giving up the Realm his father, mother, and aunt had conquered with blood and fire? One surely could make such a case.

Just as one can make a case that the Seven favoring Maegor in the Trial of Seven is more important than late Aenys' opinion on the matter of the royal succession.

All those factors likely figure into the canonical historical judgment that Maegor the Cruel is counted as a rightful king rather than a pretender or usurper.

5 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

What's perhaps more entertaining is the fact that no matter how you try to split hairs (turns out King's bragging makes a difference between lawfulness and usurpation), your interpretation would make Robert just as lawful as Maegor was. Maegor and Robert were both related to a past King, both smashed the "regular" heirs on the field, both profited of the current King's death (although Robert's mother didn't drive Aerys II into the grave), both tried to suppress other claimants. There is no objection to Robert's ascension that could not be equally applied to Maegor, so the idea that Robert broke something that wasn't already broken by Maegor doesn't work.

Sure it does. Maegor was as much a son of Aegon the Conqueror as Aenys was - perhaps even more, considering that Aenys may have been a bastard fathered by some singer or mummer - whereas Robert Baratheon was simply the oldest scion of a female cadet branch of the royal dynasty.

That isn't the same. And it wasn't seen as the same. Maegor's victory didn't lead to a fragmentation of the Realm, unlike Robert's victory.

We are talking about the effects Robert's victory had on the history of the Realm. Maegor's rise and fall didn't affect the unity of the Realm. It perhaps even strengthened said unity because the people united against Maegor, using Jaehaerys as their figurehead.

George himself tells us that Balon's Rebellion was caused by Robert's success. Balon thought the lords wouldn't be as loyal to Robert as they would be to a Targaryen king because Robert was a usurper. He was wrong there, in the end, but had he rebelled in 298 AC he may have been right. Robert's death clearly was the end of any pretense of unity in the Seven Kingdoms, to an unprecedented degree. That is simply a historical fact. The Baratheon dynasty splits up between three pretender lines - Joffrey and siblings, Stannis, and Renly - while two secessionist movements take form, with Dorne only not going its separate ways, too, because Doran Martell is cautious (and has a plan for a Targaryen restoration).

5 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

At very least Robert had a recognizable reason to abandon Aerys - the King betrayed him and tried to have him murdered for no fault of Robert's but Mad King's own insanity. Aenys never overstepped his bounds with Maegor and Aegon didn't do anything to Maegor at all.

Maegor didn't rebel against King Aenys. He just seized an empty throne when he could. From the point of an 'Aegon loyalist' this might be usurpation but the fact is that Prince Aegon was never crowned or anointed. The man died a prince, not a king.

Rebelling against an unjust king is one thing, seizing a throne when you have as weak a claim as Robert Baratheon is a different matter entirely. There is a reason why Robert is known as 'the Usurper' and Maegor is not. Maegor had a much stronger claim.

Killing Rhaegar and ignoring Viserys III is pretty problematic in this regard since in a proper and established monarchy (which the Targaryens clearly were in 283 AC) lords unhappy with their mad/tyrannical king might have a right to rebel but not necessarily to put anybody of their choosing on the throne.

In the real middle ages there were many rebellions and wars between kings and their lords, etc., yet it is actually a very rare thing that such rebellions resulted in the deposition of entire dynasties - at least in proper medieval monarchies (the Roman and Byzantine Empires were state with different power structures).

5 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

You know, trying to wave away facts you don't like works no more with rebellious kingdoms than with murdered princes. We have Iron Islands, Dorne, North, Stormlands, Riverlands fighting for independence at one point or another. At the moment, Iron Islands are in open rebellion, Riverlands, Dorne, Vale and North have powerful parties on the move working against the Iron Throne and ready to strike soon, Reach bites Lannister ankles under the rug... the future of "larger realm" is very, very questionable. The Kingdom of Westeros is one or two wrong moves from completely collapsing on itself, even before any ice demons invade.

This entire paragraph actually backs my point. Things are the way they are because of Robert's successful usurpation. The history of the Targaryen reign up until Robert's Rebellion is no history of lords rebelling and trying to topple or supplant their kings, nor is it a history of the conquered Seven Kingdoms trying to regain their independence. Once Aenys and Maegor deal with the last rebels, people accept the inevitable.

The main cause of trouble for the Targaryens were the Targaryens themselves - and that includes the Blackfyres, of course. Even Robert sort of fits in that framework, considering that he is as much a Targaryen as Harrold Hardyng is an Arryn. He could even have called himself 'Targaryen' if he had wanted to.

5 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

Unlike stable, functional Kingdoms of the old that had regional identity and obvious center of power, united Westeros has nothing of the sort. Targaryens held out for a century after the death of last dragon and even that was a close run with a dose of luck. There is just no substance behind Aegon's idea.

Sorry, that's just not true. King's Landing as the largest city in the Realm is very much its center, especially since not only the Iron Throne stands there, but also the Great Sept of Baelor (including the Voice of the Seven on Earth).

[Texas Hold Em]

On 1/29/2018 at 5:59 PM, Lady Whitesnake said:

 

A threat to anyone's heredity right to rule anywhere is a threat to everyone's hereditary right to rule everywhere.  We saw the consequences of that with the Baratheon transfer of power.  Renly was thinking exactly as his older brother.  He thought right to rule is not absolute and got the notion to challenge Stannis.  Robert set a dangerous precedent and he ended up paying for it. 

And the Baratheons are getting their just desserts now.  Robert bought it from a wild boar.  Renly got sliced by his brother's shadow.  Stannis is in trouble.  Selise is not so right upstairs.  They rebelled against a Targaryen king and are now getting the payback that they deserve.

[Myrish Lace]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are usurpations and usurpations.

And every point you are trying to make is equally applicable to Maegor and Robert. From being counted as rightful King, to other pretender not being there for dispute, to other claimants not even attempting to fight Robert. I think even climbing the empty throne is true. It's all the same and your attempts to split hairs lead you to outright bizarre results when you are trying to make case for "being denounced by High Septon makes one a rightful King no longer" while talking in the same post about Maegor as the rightful King.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Maegor's victory didn't lead to a fragmentation of the Realm, unlike Robert's victory.

Unlike Robert, Maegor and his successor had dragons.

The fact that said successor is hailed as the best King Westeros ever had also helped.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Once Aenys and Maegor deal with the last rebels, people accept the inevitable.

Really? So Dornishmen rebelling after conquest of Dorne, cutting down their newly-minted King Daeron I was what - fake news? Or maybe the rebellion of Laughing Storm - one designated as "bloody" by the good maester - was a figment of everyone's imagination?

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, that's just not true. King's Landing as the largest city in the Realm is very much its center, especially since not only the Iron Throne stands there, but also the Great Sept of Baelor (including the Voice of the Seven on Earth).

Oh, but it is.

King's Landing is a center of power, like Oldtown or Lannisport are centers of power, but it is not the obvious the center of power for the entire Westeros. People controlling Winterfell managed to dominate the North for millenia. People controlling Storm's End managed to dominate Stormlands for millennia. And so on, and so forth - obvious centers of power dominated respective Kingdoms. None of them had the pull to ensure dominance over more than one Kingdom, though.

King's Landing may dominate Crownlands, but it provides nowhere near the pull to dominate the continent of Westeros, as evidenced by the recent three centuries of history. Whoever controls KL can't impose his power upon the rest of the continent the same way, say, the person controlling the Rock-Lannisport conglomerate can impose his power over Westerlands.

[Lord Varys]

On 31.1.2018 at 1:58 PM, Myrish Lace said:

And every point you are trying to make is equally applicable to Maegor and Robert. From being counted as rightful King, to other pretender not being there for dispute, to other claimants not even attempting to fight Robert. I think even climbing the empty throne is true. It's all the same and your attempts to split hairs lead you to outright bizarre results when you are trying to make case for "being denounced by High Septon makes one a rightful King no longer" while talking in the same post about Maegor as the rightful King.

Robert had to kill the previous king to take the throne. Maegor did not such thing. That is a difference.

And it is also a difference that King Aenys abandoned his throne and his people for the safety of Dragonstone. That can be seen as a deposition/abdication. Aenys was effectively no longer the King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men when he died. 

The High Septon and his minions ruled the Seven Kingdoms at that point. And Maegor reclaimed the throne of his father. If Maegor hadn't returned, the Faith Militant would have put down all the abominations.

At this point it wasn't clear who was the ultimate authority in Westeros. The High Septon made and unmade King Aenys. King Maegor later broke the Faith. But they weren't broken yet in 41-42 AC.

On 31.1.2018 at 1:58 PM, Myrish Lace said:

Unlike Robert, Maegor and his successor had dragons.

But it isn't just that. Maegor had a much stronger claim to the Iron Throne than Robert. Robert had to kill Rhaegar and Aerys II and Rhaegar's children and drive Viserys III and Daenerys into exile to be accepted as king. Maegor just took the throne. Very few people objected to his ascension, and eventually even Alyssa Velaryon and her younger children favored Maegor over Aegon.

On 31.1.2018 at 1:58 PM, Myrish Lace said:

The fact that said successor is hailed as the best King Westeros ever had also helped.

There is no causal link between those two things, actually. We don't know when exactly Jaehaerys I acquired that reputation. Chances are not that great that the 14-year-old who didn't even rule in his own right yet (unlike the Young Dragon who didn't have to suffer a regency) was more than a figurehead.

On 31.1.2018 at 1:58 PM, Myrish Lace said:

Really? So Dornishmen rebelling after conquest of Dorne, cutting down their newly-minted King Daeron I was what - fake news? Or maybe the rebellion of Laughing Storm - one designated as "bloody" by the good maester - was a figment of everyone's imagination?

We are not talking about Dorne here. Dorne wasn't part of the Seven Kingdoms conquered by Aegon the Conqueror, or was it? Those kingdoms conquered by Aegon never rose again in rebellion after Aenys and Maegor.

On 31.1.2018 at 1:58 PM, Myrish Lace said:

Oh, but it is.

King's Landing is a center of power, like Oldtown or Lannisport are centers of power, but it is not the obvious the center of power for the entire Westeros.

Sure it is. It is the capital and the largest city. It is the center of the Seven Kingdoms.

On 31.1.2018 at 1:58 PM, Myrish Lace said:

People controlling Winterfell managed to dominate the North for millenia. People controlling Storm's End managed to dominate Stormlands for millennia. And so on, and so forth - obvious centers of power dominated respective Kingdoms. None of them had the pull to ensure dominance over more than one Kingdom, though.

Those castles aren't center of power, at least not in comparison to KL and the other great cities. Cities are cities and castles are castles.

On 31.1.2018 at 1:58 PM, Myrish Lace said:

King's Landing may dominate Crownlands, but it provides nowhere near the pull to dominate the continent of Westeros, as evidenced by the recent three centuries of history. Whoever controls KL can't impose his power upon the rest of the continent the same way, say, the person controlling the Rock-Lannisport conglomerate can impose his power over Westerlands.

That is obviously false. After all, the people founding and controlling KL were able to impose their power on the rest of the continent, weren't they? Even Robert could do that, right?

[Big P]

On 1/30/2018 at 10:43 AM, Myrish Lace said:

Oh, you are not even trying. Aegon was King's firstborn son and would go ahead of Maegor under any system of inheritance practiced in Westeros. The only thing Aegon lacked compared to Maegor in was brute strength and seizing power through brute strength is the very definition of usurpation.

What's perhaps more entertaining is the fact that no matter how you try to split hairs (turns out King's bragging makes a difference between lawfulness and usurpation), your interpretation would make Robert just as lawful as Maegor was. Maegor and Robert were both related to a past King, both smashed the "regular" heirs on the field, both profited of the current King's death (although Robert's mother didn't drive Aerys II into the grave), both tried to suppress other claimants. There is no objection to Robert's ascension that could not be equally applied to Maegor, so the idea that Robert broke something that wasn't already broken by Maegor doesn't work.

At very least Robert had a recognizable reason to abandon Aerys - the King betrayed him and tried to have him murdered for no fault of Robert's but Mad King's own insanity. Aenys never overstepped his bounds with Maegor and Aegon didn't do anything to Maegor at all.

You know, trying to wave away facts you don't like works no more with rebellious kingdoms than with murdered princes. We have Iron Islands, Dorne, North, Stormlands, Riverlands fighting for independence at one point or another. At the moment, Iron Islands are in open rebellion, Riverlands, Dorne, Vale and North have powerful parties on the move working against the Iron Throne and ready to strike soon, Reach bites Lannister ankles under the rug... the future of "larger realm" is very, very questionable. The Kingdom of Westeros is one or two wrong moves from completely collapsing on itself, even before any ice demons invade.

Unlike stable, functional Kingdoms of the old that had regional identity and obvious center of power, united Westeros has nothing of the sort. Targaryens held out for a century after the death of last dragon and even that was a close run with a dose of luck. There is just no substance behind Aegon's idea.

There is a wide difference between Maegor and Robert.  For one, the Targaryens were still in the process of establishing their legacy and their custom.  Maegor was the son of the former king.  Move forward to Robert's time.  The Targaryens have established the process for succession and built a 3-century legacy.  Robert was not the son of a king but distant cousin, who looked nothing at all like a Targaryen.  The rightful king was already crowned before Robert took office.  Westeros already had a king, Viserys. 

[Nowy Tends]

2 hours ago, Bwana said:

The rightful king was already crowned before Robert took office.  Westeros already had a king, Viserys. 

Viserys crowned? By whom, where, when?

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Viserys crowned? By whom, where, when?

By his mother Rhaella, on Dragonstone with her own crown, after they learned of the death of King Aerys II.

[Myrish Lace]

21 hours ago, Bwana said:

There is a wide difference between Maegor and Robert.  For one, the Targaryens were still in the process of establishing their legacy and their custom.  Maegor was the son of the former king.  Move forward to Robert's time.  The Targaryens have established the process for succession and built a 3-century legacy.  Robert was not the son of a king but distant cousin, who looked nothing at all like a Targaryen.  The rightful king was already crowned before Robert took office.  Westeros already had a king, Viserys. 

Of course there is a wide difference between Maegor and Robert.

Maegor usurped the throne after his mother murdered a crowned and acclaimed King Aenys - nn actual rightful King still supported by nobility. And the talk of "establishing custom" won't change the fact that there was simply no legal system in Westeros under which Maegor would become first in line. Not Targaryen on Dragonstone, not Andal, not First Men, not Ironborn, not Dornish - none. Him being son to a King is just as irrelevant as Robert not looking like a Targaryen: being deceased King's second son doesn't place a prince ahead of everyone else in the line of succession and unless some foul play with adultery is involved, the looks don't matter to one's place in line of succession either.

Robert on the other hand defended himself from a madman of King whose vassals refused to acclaim him any longer. Of eight Great Houses, only one actually committed itself to Crown's cause - Martells; Tyrells just sat around Storm's End for most of the war and others either sat out or fought against Targaryens. In the end, the lords of the realm backed Robert and acclaimed him as King. For the same reason, Viserys' coronation didn't make him rightful King - without acclaim of bannermen he purported to rule, Viserys was just another pretender.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

Of course there is a wide difference between Maegor and Robert.

Maegor usurped the throne after his mother murdered a crowned and acclaimed King Aenys - nn actual rightful King still supported by nobility. And the talk of "establishing custom" won't change the fact that there was simply no legal system in Westeros under which Maegor would become first in line. Not Targaryen on Dragonstone, not Andal, not First Men, not Ironborn, not Dornish - none. Him being son to a King is just as irrelevant as Robert not looking like a Targaryen: being deceased King's second son doesn't place a prince ahead of everyone else in the line of succession and unless some foul play with adultery is involved, the looks don't matter to one's place in line of succession either.

That isn't true. The lordship of Dragonstone passed from Maegon to his brother Aerys, and from Aelyx to his brother Baelon and then to their brother Daemion.

We have no idea whether Maegon, Aelyx, and Baelon had any sons or daughters of their own. Could be. Or not. If they had sons, then those sons did not inherit, setting a good enough precedent for Maegor to claim his father's throne.

There is also no proof that King Aenys was murdered - and even if he was murdered, this has no bearing on the claim of Prince Aegon. King Aenys was effectively deposed by the time of his death, anyway. He died the King of Dragonstone, not the King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men. He abandoned the Iron Throne of his royal father and his loyal subjects when he left his castle and city to the Faith Militant.

Maegor took that all back. And the Seven themselves made him king during the Trial of Seven.

[Myrish Lace]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no idea whether Maegon, Aelyx, and Baelon had any sons or daughters of their own.

We have no idea whether they were little green men worshiping the Old Gods either. Your idea that you can just invent stuff solely on the basis of "but it could be!" is ridiculous. When you have proof of those sons and daughters, you can come back and use them as an argument. Until then...

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

and even if he was murdered, this has no bearing on the claim of Prince Aegon

Indeed it does not. Prince Aegon was ahead of Maegor in the line of succession regardless of how his father, King Aenys I, died.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

King Aenys was effectively deposed by the time of his death, anyway. He died the King of Dragonstone, not the King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men. He abandoned the Iron Throne of his royal father and his loyal subjects when he left his castle and city to the Faith Militant.

This is just nonsense. A King that at some point lost control of Iron Throne, Red Keep or even King's Landing doesn't suddenly seize to be a King. Aegon II lost control of King's Landing for some time - in fact, he never controlled large swaths of the Kingdom at all, yet he is still considered King by maesters and noblemen alike.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

We have no idea whether they were little green men worshiping the Old Gods either. Your idea that you can just invent stuff solely on the basis of "but it could be!" is ridiculous. When you have proof of those sons and daughters, you can come back and use them as an argument. Until then...

It still sets three precedents for Targaryen brothers seizing power after their brothers were dead. Perhaps some of them killed their brothers and the families of those brothers to seize power? We don't know that yet.

5 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

This is just nonsense. A King that at some point lost control of Iron Throne, Red Keep or even King's Landing doesn't suddenly seize to be a King. Aegon II lost control of King's Landing for some time - in fact, he never controlled large swaths of the Kingdom at all, yet he is still considered King by maesters and noblemen alike.

King Aegon II was deposed by Rhaenyra and then later restored to the throne after he had killed his half-sister. That's why he died a king. Had he died on Dragonstone or in exile in Essos, he would have died a deposed king and a pretender. His reign would have ended in 130 AC when Rhaenyra took the city, not in 131 AC when he died in the Red Keep.

King Aenys died after he had lost his Iron Throne, his castle, and the kingdoms his father had conquered. Pretty much nobody saw him as the real ruler of Westeros by the time of his death. That was the High Septon of Oldtown. And a king without a kingdom has nothing he can pass on to his heirs, or does he?

There is a reason why Maegor is counted as a rightful monarch and Aegon is not.