If dany becomes queen, what would she change?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

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

You mean before or after Dany had actively started conspiring to attack him and even married a barbarian in order to do it?

[Yucef Menaerys]

1 hour ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

According to whom they were the rightfull ruling family?

According to the Lords that swore the oath of fealty to Aegon I the conqueror when he defeated and conquered them, according to the oaths that were sworn again to every Targaryen king during their ascension. So are you telling that during the past 280 years that the Targaryens reigned they were not the ruling family? Who were then?

 

1 hour ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Right of conquest.

I have explained this more than a dozen times already in this forum but for your sake I'll explain again. 

Right of conquest means that the defeated party has to admit that they have been defeated and acknowledge the conquer as the new rightful king just like all the other kings who surrendered to Aegon the conqueror did, that's what is called right of conquest. But in the usurper robert baratheon's case that isint what happened, after the defeat of the targaryens they never acknowledged Robert as king and the rightful conquer, they never swore any oaths to him instead they fled to build up their power base and take back what was stolen from them. So right of conquest does not apply in this case (I hope I wouldn't have to explain this again)

1 hour ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

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

Please go and check the meaning of the word 'usurp' before commenting on this. According to google usurp "To take the place of someone in a position of power illegally". Before the time of Aegon there was no one king of all of the 7 kingdoms combined, he was the first king of the 7 kingdoms, he didn't illegally take/usurp that position from anyone. And if you try to point out that he usurped the position of the kings that were already in Westeros he didn't, because they acknowledged him as their rightful king and swore fealty to him a la right of conquest. And if you still insist that he did well then those kings were also usurpers who usurped the power of the petty lords they defeated in their kingdoms e.g say the Starks taking the power of the Boltons after they defeated them and becoming the kings of the north.

 

1 hour ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

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.

The Westerosi 'accepted' him because there was nothing they could do, or because starting a new rebellion would be too costly, the Tyrells certainly did not accept him nor the the Dornish, they only surrendered after realizing the cause was pointless at the time, and my point will be proven when Winds of Winter finally comes out and you see the many lords that will be declaring for Faegon be living him to be a legitimate targaryen.

Whatever you will say the Baratheons are usurpers, they illegally took the position of power from the Targaryens who it must be said never acknowledged robert heck even Robert was too embarrassed to have the Targaryen dragon skulls looking down on him upon his stolen throne, he was in a dragon's chair, in a castle built by dragons and for dragons, in a city built by dragons, styling himself in titles concocted by dragons meant for the use of dragons. The man is a usurper by every definition of the word.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

According to the Lords that swore the oath of fealty to Aegon I the conqueror when he defeated and conquered them, according to the oaths that were sworn again to every Targaryen king during their ascension. So are you telling that during the past 280 years that the Targaryens reigned they were not the ruling family? Who were then?

Those Lords who had bend the knee to Aegon are long dead and they don't matter anymore. They lost the Throne and by the right of conquest the Baratheons are the new dynasty. That is how it works.

2 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

I have explained this more than a dozen times already in this forum but for your sake I'll explain again. 

Right of conquest means that the defeated party has to admit that they have been defeated and acknowledge the conquer as the new rightful king just like all the other kings who surrendered to Aegon the conqueror did, that's what is called right of conquest. But in the usurper robert baratheon's case that isint what happened, after the defeat of the targaryens they never acknowledged Robert as king and the rightful conquer, they never swore any oaths to him instead they fled to build up their power base and take back what was stolen from them. So right of conquest does not apply in this case (I hope I wouldn't have to explain this again)

I have no idea where you get those ideas from. Let me guess from the fact that you are a Baratheon hater and a Targ fan. Boring.

3 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Please go and check the meaning of the word 'usurp' before commenting on this. According to google usurp "To take the place of someone in a position of power illegally". Before the time of Aegon there was no one king of all of the 7 kingdoms combined, he was the first king of the 7 kingdoms, he didn't illegally take/usurp that position from anyone. And if you try to point out that he usurped the position of the kings that were already in Westeros he didn't, because they acknowledged him as their rightful king and swore fealty to him a la right of conquest. And if you still insist that he did well then those kings were also usurpers who usurped the power of the petty lords they defeated in their kingdoms e.g say the Starks taking the power of the Boltons after they defeated them and becoming the kings of the north.

To quote someone who has explained perfectly why the Targs were usurpers;

From Dictionary.com:

Usurpation 

noun

1. an act of usurping; wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure.

2. illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.

Conquer

verb (used with object)

1. to acquire by force of arms; win in war: to conquer a foreign land.

2. to overcome by force; subdue: to conquer an enemy.

3. to gain, win, or obtain by effort, personal appeal, etc.: conquer the hearts of his audience.

4. to gain a victory over; surmount; master; overcome: to conquer disease and poverty; to conquer one's fear.

Aegon I laid claim to all of Westeros when he had zero claim to any of it, and took over the land on top of a dragon. He retroactively claimed right of conquest. Usurper and conqueror. He had taken the 7 kingdoms from 7 rightful kings, and said that now he is top dog.

Robery I, after Aerys II broke the feudal contract with him and gave him every right to wage war against an unjust king (crown prince took his soon to be wife, the king murders lords and sends for Robert's head though he has done nothing wrong...), deposed the ruling monarchy and then took the throne by right of conquest, after having been chosen by the bulk of the realm (the rebel regions of the North, Vale, Iron Isles, Westerlands, Stormlands) to be king. Conqueror, not usurper, he took nothing illegally. Joffrey was an usurper because he was not of Robert's blood yet was claimed to be so.

Aegon usurped 7 kingdoms and was called king on on the Iron Throne, ruler of the realm with the unimaginative name of... the 7 kingdoms. Robert conquered said realm and did not bother to change the title. That does not make the first a conqueror and the latter an usurper. Robert at least had the support of all but 2 regions in the end. More than Aegon could ever say about the legality of his actions.

 

5 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

The Westerosi 'accepted' him because there was nothing they could do, or because starting a new rebellion would be too costly, the Tyrells certainly did not accept him nor the the Dornish, they only surrendered after realizing the cause was pointless at the time, and my point will be proven when Winds of Winter finally comes out and you see the many lords that will be declaring for Faegon be living him to be a legitimate targaryen.

By your logic the Westerosi accepted Aegon because there was nothing that they could do. At the end of the day the fact is that only Dany and her supporters call Robert an usurper, something she was planning to be herself when she was planning to usurp Viserys' throne, when the vast majority of the Westerosi have accepted him as their King.

7 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Whatever you will say the Baratheons are usurpers, they illegally took the position of power from the Targaryens who it must be said never acknowledged heck even Robert was too embarrassed to have the Targaryen dragon skulls looking down on him upon his stolen throne, he was in a dragon's chair, in a place built by dragons and for dragons, in a city built by dragons, styling himself in titles concocted by dragons meant for the use of dragons. The man is a usurper by every definition of the word.

Another rant by an Baratheon hater and a Targ fan *Yawning*

[Yucef Menaerys]

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

You mean before or after Dany had actively started conspiring to attack him and even married a barbarian in order to do it?

My point still stands, you said Robert wouldn't kill the Targaryen kids and I just presented to you a quote from none other than Robert himself demonstrating he is very much willing to do just that. And Robert would have tried to kill them regardless of whether Dany was conspiring against him or not. No he has actually tried to do just that! Dany keeps mentioning fleeing one step ahead of the usurper's hired knives. Better stop this obviously failing effort of trying to white wash the 'hero' Robert Baratheon.

And did Robert really expect that at some point the Targaryens wouldn't try to take what he stole from them? He would be deluding himself at best if he thought the Targaryens were done with.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

5 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

My point still stands, you said Robert wouldn't kill the Targaryen kids and I just presented to you a quote from none other than Robert himself demonstrating he is very much willing to do just that. And Robert would have tried to kill them regardless of whether Dany was conspiring against him or not. No he has actually tried to do just that! Dany keeps mentioning fleeing one step ahead of the usurper's hired knives. Better stop this obviously failing effort of trying to white wash the 'hero' Robert Baratheon.

And did Robert really expect that at some point the Targaryens wouldn't try to take what he stole from them? He would be deluding himself at best if he thought the Targaryens were done with.

 According to Dany's own standards she wasn’t a kid anymore, she was an enemy and enemies are fair game. Tywin on the other hand had told that Robert would have never killed a kid.

As for the “knives” there were no knives no matter what Viserys had told or what Dany felt.

5 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Better stop this

Why I should stop saying what I believe that is true? Because you said so?

[Yucef Menaerys]

7 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Those Lords who had bend the knee to Aegon are long dead and they don't matter anymore. They lost the Throne and by the right of conquest the Baratheons are the new dynasty. That is how it works.

Please go and check my reply to sweetsunray where I mentioned that during the ascension of a new king all major lords of the realm have to swear fealty to him and renew their oaths, similar to how the Reeds renewed their oaths to Bran in winterfell. And also most of the Lords that rebelled against Aerys II were probably present for his coronation and they must have sworn  oaths of fealty to him at that time, so they were oath breakers, no doubt about it.

And are you still trying to mention that the Baratheons are kings by right of conquest despite the long post I made about how it didn't apply in Robert's case? Do you even read what I'm writing? I give up trying to correct your unerstanding  of right of conquest I'm not going to force you to understand even though I have clearly spelled out and I believe even a child would get it by now.

16 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

By your logic the Westerosi accepted Aegon because there was nothing that they could do. At the end of the day the fact is that only Dany and her supporters call Robert an usurper, something she was planning to be herself when she was planning to usurp Viserys' throne, when the vast majority of the Westerosi have accepted him as their King.

Stop putting words into to my mouth, I mentioned that the Tyrells accepted Robert because he had defeated the targaryens and they couldn't fight against him then, not in the sense that they thought he was now legitimimately the rightfull king.

Now...to address your point about Aegon I being a usurper, that entire post is mostly wrong, Aegon legitimately conquered that land by right of conquest which means he defeated the kings and they accepted him as the new king and swore fealty to him, he also points out that Aegon I had zero claim to the land and let me just say here and now that every king also had zero claim to the lands they ruled, they also took those lands from other petty lords, by his logic the Starks usurped the lands of the Boltons, Dustins, Umbers and all the other lords of the north which they defeated and became there overlords even though they had zero claim to said lands, thesame applies to the lannisters and all the other kings of the 7k. So that point is null.

He also mentions that 

Quote

He had taken the 7 kingdoms from 7 rightful kings, and said that now he is top dog.

Well my question is isn't this what all the other kings also did before they became kings? They basically fought he other lords of their region and after defeating them claimed they they were also now the top dogs! 

The poster also mentions that Robert took the throne by right of conquest which I have proved is wrong at least in relation to the Targaryens because they never formally acknowledged the usurpation, and he mentions that Robert took nothing illegally! Did he he build the iron throne? Did he build kings landing? Or did the Targaryens somehow related stated they have formally given the IT and Kingslanding to Robert as a charitable gift? I don't remember that. 

I hope I have debunked that post, the bottom line is if Aegon I was a usurper then so was every king of Westeros as I mentioned above. And no matter how hard anyone tries they can never prove that Robert was  not a usurper, even the war is known as the 'usurper's war' or Robert's Rebellion even Robert mentions that people call him usurper, many peopel in Westeros also call him a usurper.

[Yucef Menaerys]

38 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

 According to Dany's own standards she wasn’t a kid anymore, she was an enemy and enemies are fair game. Tywin on the other hand had told that Robert would have never killed a kid.

As for the “knives” there were no knives no matter what Viserys had told or what Dany felt.

Why I should stop saying what I believe that is true? Because you said so?

So you belive that a thirteen year old girl is not a kid? And I mentioned that Dany was fleeing one step ahead of the usurper's hired knives, that happened way before the events of AGOT, when she was very little, before according to you 'dany admitted by her own standards that she was no longer kid'. Your claim doesn't stand.

Tywin is not Robert, Robert just admitted he would kill every Targaryen he could get his hands on, and he was pleased with the death of baby Aegon  and Rhaenys, he probably would have done it himself if Tywin hadn't.

Offcourse there were knives why else does Dany keep reiterating it? And why were they moving from city to city.

It was just an advice against an argument that's doomed to fail

[Jon's Queen Consort]

7 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Please go and check my reply to sweetsunray where I mentioned that during the ascension of a new king all major lords of the realm have to swear fealty to him and renew their oaths, similar to how the Reeds renewed their oaths to Bran in winterfell. And also most of the Lords that rebelled against Aerys II were probably present for his coronation and they must have sworn  oaths of fealty to him at that time, so they were oath breakers, no doubt about it.

What you haven't understood is that Aerys broke that contract so he was a fair game.

7 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

And are you still trying to mention that the Baratheons are kings by right of conquest despite the long post I made about how it didn't apply in Robert's case? Do you even read what I'm writing? I give up trying to correct your unerstanding  of right of conquest I'm not going to force you to understand even though I have clearly spelled out and I believe even a child would get it by now.

I have read it. I have found it hilarious and have dismissed it since it was nonsense. Also “correct your unerstanding”? Are you some kind of genius? Because if you are not you have no way or power of correcting other people understanding. Also words like that makes you look bad. The fact that this is your opinion doesn’t make you right.

7 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Stop putting words into to my mouth, I mentioned that the Tyrells accepted Robert because he had defeated the targaryens and they couldn't fight against him then, not in the sense that they thought he was now legitimimately the rightfull king.

At the end of the day they had bent the knee and that is what mattered. 

7 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Now...to address your point about Aegon I being a usurper, that entire post is mostly wrong, 

I just love how you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong. 

7 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Well my question is isn't

Well your opinion is your opinion. The Westerosi don't obviously don't agree with you and in asoiaf they matter more.

1 minute ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

So you belive that a thirteen year old girl is not a kid?

Are the 12 years old males from Slaver's Bay children?

2 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

And I mentioned that Dany was fleeing one step ahead of the usurper's hired knives, that happened way before the events of AGOT, when she was very little

That has never happened. That is just what Viserys had told her and even she has told that she had never seen anyone.

3 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Tywin is not Robert, Robert just admitted he would kill every Targaryen he could get his hands on, and he was pleased with the death of baby Aegon  and Rhaenys, he probably would have done it himself if Tywin hadn't.

What Tywin thinks means more than what a Robert hater thinks. So I will keep believing Tywin when he said that Robert wouldn't had killed a child.

3 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

It was just an advice against an argument that's doomed to fail

Again, your opinion about what fail means.

[El Guapo]

I have to laugh at the Aegon was a usurper too nonense. It really is one of the lamest arguments around.  Even if one were to agree that he was a usurper, so what?  It happened nearly 300 years ago.  Aegon ruled and died and then the throne passed to his son who passed it on to his son, etc, etc, for nearly 300 years. That is where the Targaryen legitimacy comes from.  That is why people in Westeros refer to him as Aegon the Conqueror and not Aegon the Usurper. 

There is however no question that Robert Baratheon is a usurper.

[Yucef Menaerys]

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

What you haven't understood is that Aerys broke that contract so he was a fair game.

He may or may not have broken the feudal contract that's still open to interpretation, but that's beside the point, I wasn't speaking about whether Aerys broke the contract or not I was addressing your point about right of conquest and how you were boldly claiming that by right of conquest the Baratheons are now the new rightfull  dynasty as if it was a fact

1 hour ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

 They lost the Throne and by the right of conquest the Baratheons are the new dynasty

This ^ is what i was trying to a address. 

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

I have read it. I have found it hilarious and have dismissed it since it was nonsense. Also “correct your unerstanding”? Are you some kind of genius? Because if you are not you have no way or power of correcting other people understanding. Also words like that makes you look bad. The fact that this is your opinion doesn’t make you right.

Yes your understanding/perception  of right of conquest is flawed and i was trying to state out the correct meaning of the term, is it wrong if I try to correct you on something that's not correct? And that isn't my opinion, this is how it works, I didn't invent that just now.

 

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

At the end of the day they had bent the knee and that is what mattered. 

Again I was not speaking of whether they bent the knee or whether it mattered, my point was that the Tyrells accepted Robert because there was no point in not doing not because the believed he was the real deal, the rightfull ruling family had been deposed, the king brutally murdered, the silver prince of the realm had been cut down by a rebel lord and his children slaughtered like pigs by an egoistic and war criminal lord.

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

I just love how you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong. 

Contrary to what you think I do not belive that I'm always right and that everyone's wrong, but if someone is wrong I wil try to point it out, and if I was wrong I welcome anyone to call me out and out and disprove me.

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

 Well your opinion is your opinion. The Westerosi don't obviously don't agree with you and in asoiaf they matter more.

That was a rational question, why don't you try answering it instead of stating some thing irrelevant to what I was saying. 

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Are the 12 years old males from Slaver's Bay children?

Who's talking of slavers bay? We weren't speaking of slaver's bay, stop trying to deflect and change the subject.

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

That has never happened. That is just what Viserys had told her and even she has told that she had never seen anyone.

Never is a strong word to use about something that hasn't being flat out stated by the author, or are you GRRM? How do you know it has never happened? 

39 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

What Tywin thinks means more than what a Robert hater thinks. So I will keep believing Tywin when he said that Robert wouldn't had killed a child.

Offcourse you will keep believing Tywin because what he said aligns to your own wishful thinking, it's like wharever Bobby B does you will always try to find some obscure thing to defend him with in the face of gigantic evidence of the child killing tendencies of the usurper.

[Yucef Menaerys]

24 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I have to laugh at the Aegon was a usurper too nonense. It really is one of the lamest arguments around.  Even if one were to agree that he was a usurper, so what?  It happened nearly 300 years ago.  Aegon ruled and died and then the throne passed to his son who passed it on to his son, etc, etc, for nearly 300 years. That is where the Targaryen legitimacy comes from.  That is why people in Westeros refer to him as Aegon the Conqueror and not Aegon the Usurper. 

There is however no question that Robert Baratheon is a usurper.

I second this, and as I've said, if Aegon was a usurper then EVERY single Westerosi king and very single lord that has vassals is also a usurper, by that logic even the lords that don't have vassals and rule only their smallfolk are usurpers, because who gave them the right to rule those smallfolk anyway? They are usurping the power and freedom of the smallfolk as well! It really is a laughable argument.

Lets allow the people of Westeros to judge themselves, everyone calls Aegon a conqueror, no one in Westeros calls him a usurper, only Targ haters and even then only the staunchest Targ hater believes that Aegon was a usurper, meanwhile there are many poeple in Westeros that call Robert a usurper and no one calls him a a conqueror.  A quote from Robert himself 

Quote

The king shifted uncomfortably in his saddle. "Perhaps. There are ships to be had in the Free Cities, though. I tell you, Ned, I do not like this marriage. There are still those in the Seven Kingdoms who call me Usurper. Do you forget how many houses fought for Targaryen in the war? They bide their time for now, but give them half a chance, they will murder me in my bed, and my sons with me. If the beggar king crosses with a Dothraki horde at his back, the traitors will join him."

And he also admits that many houses support the Targaryens unlike what some Targ haters claim that the Targaryens are universally hated, were supported by the majority, broke feudal contract blah blah blah. The Nobles  and many smallfolk still remember their real kings

[WSmith84]

Here's Daenerys view on the subject of ownership:

Quote

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. "They can keep the clothes," she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

The house was no longer hers when she fled it, eh Dany? So Westeros no longer belongs to the Targaryens, since they fled it, according to Dany's own standards. Personally, I think that idea is nonsense, but Dany would be hypocritical not to hold herself to her own standards, no?

46 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

So you belive that a thirteen year old girl is not a kid?

I certainly believe a 13 year old girl is a child and should not be killed (and I was cheering Ned on in his magnificent speech), but here are Daenerys' own words on the subject:

Quote

"Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see."

Apparently, Daenerys considers 13 year old boys and girls fair game to kill, so I don't see why she should be exempt from it.

49 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Offcourse there were knives why else does Dany keep reiterating it? And why were they moving from city to city.

From AGoT:

Quote

Lord Renly shrugged. "The matter seems simple enough to me. We ought to have had Viserys and his sister killed years ago, but His Grace my brother made the mistake of listening to Jon Arryn."

There, from the Small Council itself. Jon Arryn convinced Robert to leave the Targs in peace. There may have been spies following them or whatever (on Robert's orders or Varys') but Robert didn't try to have Dany killed.

[WSmith84]

10 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

I second this, and as I've said, if Aegon was a usurper then EVERY single Westerosi king and very single lord that has vassals is also a usurper, by that logic even the lords that don't have vassals and rule only their smallfolk are usurpers, because who gave them the right to rule those smallfolk anyway? They are usurping the power and freedom of the smallfolk as well! It really is a laughable argument.

I agree it's a silly argument. What I don't understand though, is why certain posters find the idea of usurping the throne so revolting as opposed to the original Targaryen conquest.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

17 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Yes your understanding/perception  of right of conquest is wrong, and was trying to state out the correct meaning of the term, is it wrong if I try to correct you on something that's not correct? And that isn't my opinion, this is how it works, I didn't invent that just now.

This is getting boring or rather more boring than usual. The fact that you cannot see it doesn't mean that you are right.

17 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Who's talking of slavers bay? We weren't speaking of slaver's bay, stop trying to deflect and change the subject.

We are talking about ages. Ar or aren't 12 years old children?

17 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Never is a strong word to use about something that hasn't being flat out stated by the author, or are you GRRM? How do you know it has never happened? 

Because we know that from the books. Robert had told that he had never sent anyone, Dany has told that she has never seen anyone. Only Viserys who was mad said that there were people while there is no proof about it.

17 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Offcourse you will keep believing Tywin because what he said aligns to your own wishful thinking, it's like wharever Bobby B does you will always try to find some obscure thing to defend him with in the face of gigantic evidence of the child killing tendencies of the usurper.

*yawning* Again a character's opinion matters more than the opinion of a hater. Robert has proved that he was a cruel man and for many years he had never attacked them. He only did that when Dany actively conspired against him.

4 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

I certainly believe a 13 year old girl is a child and should not be killed (and I was cheering Ned on in his magnificent speech), but here are Daenerys' own words on the subject:

Quote

"Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see."

Apparently, Daenerys considers 13 year old boys and girls fair game to kill, so I don't see why she should be exempt from it.

4 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

The house was no longer hers when she fled it, eh Dany? So Westeros no longer belongs to the Targaryens, since they fled it, according to Dany's own standards. Personally, I think that idea is nonsense, but Dany would be hypocritical not to hold herself to her own standards, no?

Exactly, the Targs left so according to Dany they lost their rights.

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Dany keeps mentioning fleeing one step ahead of the usurper's hired knives.

There were no assassins or knives sent after Dany nor Viserys until they tried to get a Dothraki army.

Dany says that Viserys always said there were usurper's assassins after them, but she never saw any. And Robert tells Ned while still in the North, how Jon Arryn had always been against it, and Robert didn't press the matter.

[Jon Ice-Eyes]

8 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Right of conquest means that the defeated party has to admit that they have been defeated and acknowledge the conquer as the new rightful king just like all the other kings who surrendered to Aegon the conqueror did, that's what is called right of conquest.

So your whole argument about 'right of conquest' centres on this definition you have here. Can you support it in any way? It has absolutely no historical merit whatsoever. And as far as I know, there's nothing in the books that supports it either. So anything you can do to show that you didn't just pull it out of thin air would be great. 

And there's this: 

6 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

second this, and as I've said, if Aegon was a usurper then EVERY single Westerosi king and very single lord that has vassals is also a usurper, by that logic even the lords that don't have vassals and rule only their smallfolk are usurpers, because who gave them the right to rule those smallfolk anyway? They are usurping the power and freedom of the smallfolk as well! 

You realise, I hope, that this is literally true.

You think that one man has any 'right' to rule another? Where would that right come from? Please elaborate.

It's kind of the whole point. Words like 'usurper' and 'right of conquest' are just interpretations that people have after the fact. Words are wind, my friend. It's all just names people put on a guy who will kill them if they disobey. How do you think the world works, man?

[Yucef Menaerys]

10 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Here's Daenerys view on the subject of ownership:

The house was no longer hers when she fled it, eh Dany? So Westeros no longer belongs to the Targaryens, since they fled it, according to Dany's own standards. Personally, I think that idea is nonsense, but Dany would be hypocritical not to hold herself to her own standards, no?

I certainly believe a 13 year old girl is a child and should not be killed (and I was cheering Ned on in his magnificent speech), but here are Daenerys' own words on the subject:

I was waiting for someone to bring this up, there's a difference between a house and a throne, they're  incomparable, and there's a difference between owning a house and owning a throne which you took and gained by blood and war and which you have held since for 300 years! A house is trivial compared to that. So let me ask you this, do you believe that the Starks lost winterfell and that the Boltons are now the rightfull and legitimate lords of the north since the Starks also abandoned/fled it?

10 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

There, from the Small Council itself. Jon Arryn convinced Robert to leave the Targs in peace. There may have been spies following them or whatever (on Robert's orders or Varys') but Robert didn't try to have Dany killed.

 

9 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

There were no assassins or knives sent after Dany nor Viserys until they tried to get a Dothraki army.

Dany says that Viserys always said there were usurper's assassins after them, but she never saw any. And Robert tells Ned while still in the North, how Jon Arryn had always been against it, and Robert didn't press the matter.

You still can't deny that the Targaryen kids still faced a huge danger from opportunists who might want to kill them and get reward from Robert, you know how Tywin butchered Aegon and Rhaenys then Robert ended up rewarding with a royal marriage? Who wouldn't kill them for such huge rewards! If Robert had openly declared that he doesn't want the kids dead then he has no blame, but if someone had killed them in the hopes of getting rewarded by him then he still would've been responsible.

10 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

I agree it's a silly argument. What I don't understand though, is why certain posters find the idea of usurping the throne so revolting as opposed to the original Targaryen conquest.

It's actually more like the other way around with certain users viciously trying to do deny that Robert was a usurper,  if Robert had come out and said that he was a usurper and he openly admits that he had  deposed the rightfull kings and has now taken the throne for himself and say that the reason was because the rightfull rulers fled and people could call him anything they liked usurper or not but he would still take throne, if Robert had said this I would actually respect him a lot mor and wouldn't bother much with his usurpation, instead what did he do? He tried claiming the throne because his grandmother was a targaryen? Why was he desperately trying to link himself to the targaryens  anyway? Even he knew that they were the rightfull monarchs which was why he was desperately trying to establish a link with them, he justified taking the throne by having Targaryen blood as the basis for his usurpation, why take the throne because his grandmother was a targaryen when he could actually crown a full blooded Targaryen, he should have executed Tywin for killing the rightfull heir Aegon and then immediately crown Viserys as king and make sure he teaches him good morals as his regent so he wouldn't turn out like his father did. 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

55 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

snip

By your logic didn't Dany usurp King Viserys? Is she not guilty of treason? She supported the men who murdered her rightful King Viserys. Instead of executing everyone involved in killing King Viserys' she made them her top advisers. 

[Yucef Menaerys]

4 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

So your whole argument about 'right of conquest' centres on this definition you have here. Can you support it in any way? It has absolutely no historical merit whatsoever. And as far as I know, there's nothing in the books that supports it either. So anything you can do to show that you didn't just pull it out of thin air would be great. 

Okay here we go, well you see there are different interpretations of the right of conquest and what it means, there is an interpretation which states that the defeated party doesn't have to recognise the new conqueror and this has been used many times in the real world as well, certainly if we go by this interpretation then the Targs are rebels and Robert is a legitimate king.....however there's another interpretation which says that the defeated party has to acknowledge the conqueror, different places use different types of these interpretations but I believe that in Westeros the interpretation used is the latter whereby the defeated party has to recognise and acknowledge the conquering party, why do I believe so? Well why did Aegon the conqueror insist on receiving the oath of fealty of the foes he defeated? Furthermore why on earth would anyone in Westeros call Robert a usurper if right of conquest means the new conqueror doesn't have to be acknowledged? And here are clues from the book, I have provided a quote where Robert himself admits that people call him a usurper, I also 100% believe that if the Westerosi interpreted right of conquest as not requiring the acknowledgement of the defeated party then the Targaryens (Viserys and Dany) would never call Robert a usurper and as we know that isn't the case, even Jorah Mormont calls Robert a usurper. 

4 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

You realise, I hope, that this is literally true.

You think that one man has any 'right' to rule another? Where would that right come from? Please elaborate.

It's kind of the whole point. Words like 'usurper' and 'right of conquest' are just interpretations that people have after the fact. Words are wind, my friend. It's all just names people put on a guy who will kill them if they disobey. How do you think the world works, man?

Exactly where did I say that one man has the right to rule another? What are you trying to get at?

[Yucef Menaerys]

19 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

By your logic didn't Dany usurp King Viserys? Is she not guilty of treason? She supported the men who murdered her rightful King Viserys. Instead of executing everyone involved in killing King Viserys' she made them her top advisers. 

How did she usurp Viserys II ? Did she claim the IT whilst he was still alive? She only claimed it after he died and after realizing that she's the last Targaryen. She didn't exactly support them, context is all that matters here, if you go back and read that chapter you will see that Viserys II was attempting to cut out the baby inside her and thereby killing her, whatever happened it's not Dany's fault, it's Viserys himself who instigated what happened. She was only a bystander, she neither supported nor condemned the killing of Viserys II. If those people had murdered him in cold blood without him having done anything to warrant that, I'm sure she'd punish them as well.