If dany becomes queen, what would she change?

[Crona]

On 5/28/2017 at 5:33 AM, Boarsbane said:

She may try to change a lot of things, but I don't see anything major sticking. Without the dragons, the nobility are stronger than the Targaryens so once she and her dragons were gone, some Hand of the King will just undo whatever pleases him as Tywin did with Aegon V's reforms that tried to give the smallfolk more rights. 

I think it would be something like this.

Unless she ends the line of succession and brings democracy. Or puts something in place that would allow a council to have the right to dethrone someone if they are tyrants.

But again the hand or the council itself can become corrupt 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

20 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Yeah the lannisters were responsible and the Baratheon were please d that babies were murdered in a most brutal way, and let's be honest what do you think Robert would do to baby aegon and rhaenys assuming he captured them alive? I wouldn't put anything past that wannabe child killer, he'd have had them executed as they were a threat to his usurpation of their birthright, so don't blame the lannister alone, and if tywin knew that Robert didn't want children killed and will be furious with him he'd never have done what he did, but he knew Robert for the killer he was and anticipated that he will be pleased with the death of babies, let's not forget this drunken killer also tried repeatedly to have dany and Viserys assassinated. Had Robert punished tywin for killing aegon and rhaenys I will not have chastised him for this.

Elia and aegon and rhaenys were innocent too, they had nothing to do with the killing of Rickard and Brandon Stark,  nothing to do with aerys' insult to house lannister, nothing to do with killing Jon arryn's heir, why did they have to die? You don't even sound apologetic one bit for the murder of these innocent people you are too busy trying to defend your hero Jon arryn and his allies.

You kep mentioning Aerys' crimes and I'm not going to defend him, he was a madman, I don't even understand why people criticize Aerys' I never do, because I know that he was not in his right mind and that he was insane, it's like you have a dog and one day they smash your phone or something you value, you can't blame them, they don't know the worth of that thing to you. Aerys is a victim of his own madness, he should have been deposed and something enter to the Westerosi equivalent of a nursery and get special care, the real younger aerys will never have done what the mad aerys did, the real aerys want to be called aerys the wise, he had gradiose plans to build new cities and upgrade the infrastructure of Westeros.  

I partially agree with your last point but i believe dany must carry out some punitive measures against those houses or she will look weak, she must send a message or else in the future anyone can think he can contest the crown and survive unscathed.

 

 

So because Aerys was a mad man all his crimes should be excused and the realm and Jon Arryn should let him murder everyone he wants until Rhaegar decides to try and take his power away from him? That's a ridiculous idea. 

The Targaryen children were not the topic of discussion, it was always about Aerys and his murder of Rickard Stark and Jon Arryn's heir and the order for Jon Arryn to murder his innocent foster children. Why didn't Rhaegar think more about his children and wife instead of leaving them with his mad father while he's miles and miles away with his 14 year old Lyanna Stark? I mean Aerys already threatened Elia to get the 10,000 Dornish spears and Rhaegar says and does nothing about Aerys and leaves Elia and his children with Aerys after Aerys threatened them. Aerys was going to burn Elia and her children alive along with everyone else in King's Landing. Though in your mind he's just an old kooky grandpa and his actions should be excused because he once wanted to build an underwater canal in Dorne to make the deserts bloom.

Robert was happy yes but we have no idea what he would have ordered, it's speculation at this point. Viserys' mom had crowned him "the true King of Westeros" and he was running around Essos telling anyone who would listen that he was going to get an army and kill Robert his children and the usurpers dogs as well. Robert was basically protecting himself against any feature attacks against himself and the Innocent people of Westeros. If Viserys had his way he would have lead 40,000 Dothraki to rape and pillage Westeros. All the innocent small folk who didn't have Castles to hide in would be victims of the savage Dothraki.

Let's not forget Dany sat back and did nothing while the "true King" Viserys was murdered by her husband and his men. Does that make her a usurper since she didn't try and help him?

Then Dany needs to murder Tyrion, Arya, Jon Snow ect. ect. or in your mind she will look weak. Having a Lannister or Stark as a feature ally would look weak to you.

[WSmith84]

Presumably, she'd want to centralise power somewhat to enact reforms similar to that of Aegon V (over a long reign, if she's smart) and to reduce the likelihood of future rebellions. With dragons (and allies) she could do it. How good the latter will be for Westeros will depend on what she intends to do to ensure that future monarchs don't abuse the power that they will hold. After all, Aerys II with a dragon would have been terrifying; Aerys II with a dragon and weakened nobility would have been an unstoppable monster.

[Knight of the Red Tree]

Not only she doesn't know the people she wants to rule, she would always feel vindictive towards them. Half of them "betrayed" her House and the others submitted to the former when they won the war. Her first act would probably be to want to kill the Baratheons, the Starks, the Arryns, the Tullys, the Lannisters et al. There would be massive rebellions. After she was through there wouldn't be much left for the Others.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 28/5/2017 at 3:17 PM, Yucef Menaerys said:

e also ordered the death of dany in GOT who was a child at the time

I love how 13 years old Dany was a child but 12 years old Meereenese males were not children.

On 28/5/2017 at 3:17 PM, Yucef Menaerys said:

Really? Well stop criticizing dany because it also made sense when she ordered the death of the masters because they were her enemies.

Sure obviously now killing children is ok.

On 28/5/2017 at 3:17 PM, Yucef Menaerys said:

Rhaegar was busy trying to save the world by getting lyanna with child.

If a criminal's child become a great man and saves the world it is the criminal's achievement?

Rhaegar was a coward who chose to have sex while he had abandoned his wife and children than facing the consequences of his actions.

On 28/5/2017 at 3:17 PM, Yucef Menaerys said:

For a man who was supposed to have kidnapped and raped ned's sister I'd say that seems like having a high opinion of him. And we never not once see Ned being critical of Rhaegar

He never thought of him in a possitive way either. He just thought that he wasn't visiting brothels.

[Yucef Menaerys]

On 06/06/2017 at 9:44 PM, The Doctor's Consort said:

I love how 13 years old Dany was a child but 12 years old Meereenese males were not children.

Sure obviously now killing children is ok.

If a criminal's child become a great man and saves the world it is the criminal's achievement?

Rhaegar was a coward who chose to have sex while he had abandoned his wife and children than facing the consequences of his actions.

He never thought of him in a possitive way either. He just thought that he wasn't visiting brothels.

You chose to interpret it this way. I always though that her command to not kill children under 12 meant that only teenagers and not kids were to be killed, how can the unsullied even know how old all the children were? Dany was speaking figuratively that no children were to be killed.

First off I don't like or understand why you are labelling Rhaegar as a criminal because he did not break any laws. And yes if that child managed to save Westeros it is because of the father, because the father knew what he was doing when he decided to have that child and he had them only with the intention of having a child who might one day save the world.

Saying someone doesn't visit brothels is definitely speaking of them in a positive way. And IIRC Ned was at that time criticizing Robert's constant whoring. And it is quite telling that Ned never thinks of him in a negative way giving how it is believed he abducted and raped his sister....quite telling.

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

13 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

You chose to interpret it this way. I always though that her command to not kill children under 12 meant that only teenagers and not kids were to be killed, how can the unsullied even know how old all the children were? Dany was speaking figuratively that no children were to be killed.

I pity those robust younger than 12 years old who look older. The point is that you cannot blame Robert for sending an assassin after 13 years old Dany, even if he cancel the order, when you support Dany killing 12 years old children.

13 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

First off I don't like or understand why you are labelling Rhaegar as a criminal because he did not break any laws. And yes if that child managed to save Westeros it is because of the father, because the father knew what he was doing when he decided to have that child and he had them only with the intention of having a child who might one day save the world.

Actually Rhaegar was a coward and a criminal. In the books there is no proof that Rhaegar knew what he was doing, he eloped with Lyanna to save the world or that he is Jon's father. He has been wrong before thinking he was TPTWP, then he changed his mind and thought that Aegon was TPTWP. Also Ned is Jon's father, Rhaegar is the sperm donor. If or when Jon ends up saving the world would be because of how Ned raised him. Nurture over nature.

13 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Saying someone doesn't visit brothels is definitely speaking of them in a positive way. And IIRC Ned was at that time criticizing Robert's constant whoring. And it is quite telling that Ned never thinks of him in a negative way giving how it is believed he abducted and raped his sister....quite telling.

Ned only thought about Rhaegar when he was thinking about how he wasn't visiting brothels, when he had already said much more possitive things about Robert.

[Wm Portnoy]

On 5/21/2017 at 4:43 PM, aventador577 said:

How would she change the seven Kingdoms and would she be successful?

I believe, she would try to centralize more power to insure that something like the rebellion does not happen again. But I'm not sure if she could be successful. It all depends on the dragons.

 

She has the best chance of any.  She has a better chance of reforming Westeros than she has of ending the slave trade.  While I am confident that she will stop the main channels where slaves are traded, there will always be pockets of small operators who will traffic in slaves.  Essos is just too big for one woman and three dragons to police.  Making slavery illegal will be a historic step that will put Essos on the right path to progress and we can credit Dany for that.  She has already broken the chains from 250 thousand former slaves in Mereen alone.  That is quite an accomplishment.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

17 hours ago, Wm Portnoy said:

She has the best chance of any.  She has a better chance of reforming Westeros than she has of ending the slave trade.  While I am confident that she will stop the main channels where slaves are traded, there will always be pockets of small operators who will traffic in slaves.  Essos is just too big for one woman and three dragons to police.  Making slavery illegal will be a historic step that will put Essos on the right path to progress and we can credit Dany for that.  She has already broken the chains from 250 thousand former slaves in Mereen alone.  That is quite an accomplishment.

How she could stop slavery when she makes money from slavery and people sell themselves to slavery in order to escape from her rule?

[SeanF]

It depends how she comes to power.  If she's offered the Iron Throne by most of the nobility, she'll probably want to govern in consensual manner.  If she takes it by force, she'll probably govern in a more autocratic manner.

If the latter, I think there are ways she'd make things better, and ways she'd make things worse.  She'd very likely want to renew her great-grandfather's reforms, in order to benefit the Smallfolk.  At the same time, she'd probably resort to violence to smash opposition to her reforms.  So, I'd expect her to centralise power, maintain both a large standing army and a secret police force, and deal harshly with opponents.

[The Commentator]

On 6/6/2017 at 4:44 PM, The Doctor's Consort said:

I love how 13 years old Dany was a child but 12 years old Meereenese males were not children.

Sure obviously now killing children is ok.

If a criminal's child become a great man and saves the world it is the criminal's achievement?

Rhaegar was a coward who chose to have sex while he had abandoned his wife and children than facing the consequences of his actions.

He never thought of him in a possitive way either. He just thought that he wasn't visiting brothels.

So you don't think Robb's Rebellion killed many men, women, children, the old, the sick, etc?  Sure it did.  Did it stop Robb?  Did Robb say, "hey guys, my war is killing children.  I will bend my knee to Queen Cersei.  I will surrender and take what comes."  No one in the master class at Astapor was innocent. Sure you can say there were some little fish but when you read carefully how the slaves were treated you realize there were no little fish.  Cruelty was everywhere.  From killing newborn babes to murdering puppies.  

There were many who died in Robb's war with Tywin that were completely innocent.  None of the ones who died in Meereen were innocent.  Alright, I suppose ,maybe you had someone just passing by and was a tourists in the city who happened to just be wearing a tokar and of the right age.  Sure, that is possible.  Wearing the tokar is a sign that somebody belonged to the Master class.  

Robert's Rebellion killed innocents of every age.  If saving lives were the priority then Jon Arryn should have turned Ned and Robert over.  Two young men whose families were conspiring against the king are not worth the thousands that died.  Tywin's attack on the Reynes killed children.  Do you believe only the strong and the guilty would have died if Stannis had succeeded in taking King's Landing?  War is hell and innocents die.  One question you should be asking is if the war was justified.  In the case of Astapor, I say YES.  Over 8000 Unsullied are now free and many more in training are free.  

[sweetsunray]

On 28/5/2017 at 2:00 PM, Yucef Menaerys said:

Why wouldn't dany be born? Queen Rhaella was pregnant with dany before the rebellion started as she gave birth just immediately after she fled kings landing, that was just after the trident.

Wrong. Rhaella was not pregnant of Dany before the rebellion started. Dany was conceived shortly before Rhaella was sent away from KL to Dragonstone, as the rebel marched from their victory at the Trident to KL, shortly before the sack of KL, and thus the END of rebellion. Aerys raped Rhaella sometime in the last month of the rebellion. The rebellion ceased to be a rebellion once they sacked KL and crowned Robert. And about 8-9 months after the sack of KL, Dany is born on Dragonstone, long after Robert is already seated on the throne. The siege of Dragonstone may have taken place months after the rebellion was over and finished and won. The Targaryens were not king nor queens anymore. They were only holders of Dragnstone, and in the process of being ousted from that too. Once Robert sat the IT, pregnant Rhaella and Viserys on Dragonstone who do not submit to Robert's rule are the rebels.

[sweetsunray]

On 29/5/2017 at 11:32 AM, Yucef Menaerys said:

Yes Arryn did fight but he and his allies over stepped their position by removing the targaryens from power, they broke their oaths of fealty that they swore to Aegon the conqueror, if Aegon had wanted he could've replaced all the kings of Westeros with others of his choosing but because of his generosity he allowed them to keep their title and this is how they pay him by slaughtering his descendants and removing them from power, they are criminals and oathbreakers who should be punished.

The feudal contract doesn't work that way. Oaths are made for each new king. An oath sworn by a forefather 280 years ago to a king of 280 years ago, while both are dead, is over and done with, and means nothing anymore, except a notation in the history books. New lords and new kings -> new oaths. That is why Joffrey decrees a list of names of lords and ladies to come to KL and swear fealty to him. He is the new king, and nobody is sworn to him personally yet. That is why a region's lord is so powerful in the feudal system, why a king in RW history had little to no effective power beyond the actual lands he possessed in his own name. The feudal king has no absolutist power, not practically, not legally, only in the name of a god (who is no more than a figment of imagination).

A king only has absolute power if he or she can enforce it with a standing army and/or dragons, if rule over local regions and houses ceases to be hereditary, taxes can be lifted straight from the peasants without the intermediate lord.

[SeanF]

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 1:03 PM, The Doctor's Consort said:

There is no proof about that. He sent Stannis to arrest them, not kill them. Heck even Tywin had told that Robert wouldn't had killed children.

It made sence to feel relief when your enemy and his family die it wasn't a good thing but it made sense.

I don't have to do anything. And no I don't think that using wmd, collective punishment, genocide and torture is a good thing.

Seeing how he ordered the deaths of Robert and Ned for no reason it doesn't take much to see how he would had done it. Also Rhaegar was no where to be found.

How do you know that?

Ned thought that Rhaegar wasn't going to brothels that doesn't mean that he had a high opinion about him.

They were "dragonspawn".

Rhaella, Viserys, and Dany would have been given very short shrift, if they had been captured.  Even if they weren't murdered on the spot, they woudl never have been heard of again.

[HaeSuse]

• Immediately be assassinated by someone or another.

[The Commentator]

44 minutes ago, SeanF said:

They were "dragonspawn".

Rhaella, Viserys, and Dany would have been given very short shrift, if they had been captured.  Even if they weren't murdered on the spot, they woudl never have been heard of again.

Yup, the usurper's dogs would have murdered them.  That is the reason why I would have no problem whatsoever with Dany roasting Stannis when she takes back the throne.  They would not have given her mother, brother, and her any compassion.  There is no reason for her to give them and theirs any when she takes back Westeros.  

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 19/6/2017 at 6:31 PM, SeanF said:

They were "dragonspawn".

Rhaella, Viserys, and Dany would have been given very short shrift, if they had been captured.  Even if they weren't murdered on the spot, they woudl never have been heard of again.

That is your opionion. I don't agree that Robert would had killed them. At least not during their childhood.

On 19/6/2017 at 4:59 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

snip

Point me where exactly I said that what Robb did was the right thing.

[Yucef Menaerys]

On 19/06/2017 at 4:01 PM, sweetsunray said:

Wrong. Rhaella was not pregnant of Dany before the rebellion started. Dany was conceived shortly before Rhaella was sent away from KL to Dragonstone, as the rebel marched from their victory at the Trident to KL, shortly before the sack of KL, and thus the END of rebellion. Aerys raped Rhaella sometime in the last month of the rebellion. The rebellion ceased to be a rebellion once they sacked KL and crowned Robert. And about 8-9 months after the sack of KL, Dany is born on Dragonstone, long after Robert is already seated on the throne. The siege of Dragonstone may have taken place months after the rebellion was over and finished and won. The Targaryens were not king nor queens anymore. They were only holders of Dragnstone, and in the process of being ousted from that too. Once Robert sat the IT, pregnant Rhaella and Viserys on Dragonstone who do not submit to Robert's rule are the rebels.

I'm not sure what your point is? I was wrong about the time of Dany birth but that are you trying to point it? Does it disprove anything I've said even she was born at the end of the usurper's war?

How can they be rebels when they are the rightfull ruling family? By what right is Robert king? Did his family unite the seven kingdoms? Did they build kings landing? Did they make the iron throne? Robert has zero right to sit the Iron throne! I refuse to recognise Robert as a legitimate king he was a usurper and a rebellious traitor who caused a war that lead to thousands of people getting killed. Even Robert himself admits that people call him 'the usurper' so there's no way Rhaella and Viserys were rebels.

On 19/06/2017 at 2:59 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

So you don't think Robb's Rebellion killed many men, women, children, the old, the sick, etc?  Sure it did.  Did it stop Robb?  Did Robb say, "hey guys, my war is killing children.  I will bend my knee to Queen Cersei.  I will surrender and take what comes."  No one in the master class at Astapor was innocent. Sure you can say there were some little fish but when you read carefully how the slaves were treated you realize there were no little fish.  Cruelty was everywhere.  From killing newborn babes to murdering puppies.  

There were many who died in Robb's war with Tywin that were completely innocent.  None of the ones who died in Meereen were innocent.  Alright, I suppose ,maybe you had someone just passing by and was a tourists in the city who happened to just be wearing a tokar and of the right age.  Sure, that is possible.  Wearing the tokar is a sign that somebody belonged to the Master class.  

Robert's Rebellion killed innocents of every age.  If saving lives were the priority then Jon Arryn should have turned Ned and Robert over.  Two young men whose families were conspiring against the king are not worth the thousands that died.  Tywin's attack on the Reynes killed children.  Do you believe only the strong and the guilty would have died if Stannis had succeeded in taking King's Landing?  War is hell and innocents die.  One question you should be asking is if the war was justified.  In the case of Astapor, I say YES.  Over 8000 Unsullied are now free and many more in training are free.  

Very good point, I agree 100%.

 

On 19/06/2017 at 5:17 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Yup, the usurper's dogs would have murdered them.  That is the reason why I would have no problem whatsoever with Dany roasting Stannis when she takes back the throne.  They would not have given her mother, brother, and her any compassion.  There is no reason for her to give them and theirs any when she takes back Westeros.  

I hear ya, I am also absolutely convinced that the Usurper would have murdered the targaryen kids in cold blood, imagine how he was pleased with the butchery of baby Aegon, that's a very good indication of what he might do. Well as Jon Connington said:

"...Time enough to cross the sea, to see Griffin's Roost again. To end the Usurper's line for good and all, and put Rhaegar's son upon the Iron Throne."

The Baratheons will get what is coming for them, as I said they must be punished preferably exiled from Westeros and storms end being seized by the crown, and this will actually be a mercy since they aren't all getting killed like Rhaegar's children. 

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

10 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

How can they be rebels when they are the rightfull ruling family?

According to whom they were the rightfull ruling family?

10 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

By what right is Robert king?

Right of conquest.

10 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Did his family unite the seven kingdoms? Did they build kings landing? Did they make the iron throne?

You mean the way the Targs were usurping the Seven Kingdoms? 

10 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

 I refuse to recognise Robert as a legitimate king he was a usurper and a rebellious traitor

You can do whatever you want, the Westerosi are those who matter and they accepted him. Heck even Dany has told that once someone leaves his house he lost his rights.

[Yucef Menaerys]

2 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

That is your opionion. I don't agree that Robert would had killed them. At least not during their childhood.

Oh really? You really don't beleive that your special snowflake Robert Baratheon would murder the Targaryen children? Allow me to present a quote that will utterly annihilate and eviscerated your argument

Quote

The king jerked the reins hard, quieting the animal, and pointed an angry finger at Ned. "I will kill every Targaryen I can get my hands on, until they are as dead as their dragons, and then I will piss on their graves."

 

On 19/06/2017 at 4:13 PM, sweetsunray said:

The feudal contract doesn't work that way. Oaths are made for each new king. An oath sworn by a forefather 280 years ago to a king of 280 years ago, while both are dead, is over and done with, and means nothing anymore, except a notation in the history books. New lords and new kings -> new oaths. That is why Joffrey decrees a list of names of lords and ladies to come to KL and swear fealty to him. He is the new king, and nobody is sworn to him personally yet. That is why a region's lord is so powerful in the feudal system, why a king in RW history had little to no effective power beyond the actual lands he possessed in his own name. The feudal king has no absolutist power, not practically, not legally, only in the name of a god (who is no more than a figment of imagination).

A king only has absolute power if he or she can enforce it with a standing army and/or dragons, if rule over local regions and houses ceases to be hereditary, taxes can be lifted straight from the peasants without the intermediate lord.

Okay, fair enough. Well the Lords that participated in the rebellion did break the feudal contract, you made a point of mentioning that the oaths sworn to Aegon I no longer stand and they they must be renewed and sworn to the new king just like Joffrey wanted, well then I suppose that all the Lords of the realm did swear fealty to Aerys II when he was first crowned which makes them criminals who have broken the oath that they swore to their rightfull king and rebelled against him.