If dany becomes queen, what would she change?

[Yucef Menaerys]

11 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

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

The fact that you refuse to believe it in the face of mounting evidence doesn't mean you are right. Check my post to Jon Ice-Eyes above where I have explained in detail how right of conquest works in Westeros.

 

11 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

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

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

I suppose so (I know where you're trying to go with this but anyways ☺)

 

11 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

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.

I concede, but check my post where I also mentioned that the situation was still dangerous for the Targaryen kids even though Robert could easily have nullified that danger by declaring that he doesn't want them dead.

11 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

*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.

Just because a character has stated something doesn't make it corect, many characters have been wrong lots of times.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

1 hour ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

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.

Drogo backed out of his promise to give Viserys his army. That's treason. If King Aerys had the right to murder innocents without repercussions then King Viserys does as well. Murdering a King is treason, Dany not punishing them would be the same as her not punishing the usurper and his dogs, if not then it's a double standard. 

[Yucef Menaerys]

58 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Drogo backed out of his promise to give Viserys his army. That's treason. If King Aerys had the right to murder innocents without repercussions then King Viserys does as well. Murdering a King is treason, Dany not punishing them would be the same as her not punishing the usurper and his dogs, if not then it's a double standard. 

No that's not treason because drogo is not a subject of Viserys. Dany didn't punish them because she knew that Viserys was the one at fault, that's what a smart ruler does.

[Sydney Mae]

1 hour ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Drogo backed out of his promise to give Viserys his army. That's treason. If King Aerys had the right to murder innocents without repercussions then King Viserys does as well. Murdering a King is treason, Dany not punishing them would be the same as her not punishing the usurper and his dogs, if not then it's a double standard. 

Viserys was in Vaes Dothrak where the laws of the Targaryens and the 7 Kingdoms have no authority.  I like Viserys but he pulled a blade and threatened a Khaleesi.  Drogo had to do what he did.  Daenerys is acting as the khaleesi and in that formal role she had to let Viserys suffer the consequences of his actions.  They were under Dothraki laws and not the laws of Westeros.

So you want to compare this to Aerys.  Drogo had the same authority to carry out the execution that Aerys did.  No khal (king) can tolerate the kind of disregard for authority demonstrated by Brandon and Viserys. 

[The Fattest Leech]

23 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

No that's not treason because drogo is not a subject of Viserys. Dany didn't punish them because she knew that Viserys was the one at fault, that's what a smart ruler does.

Drogo is the brother-king to his wife. What do you think Viserys would be to Drogo and his men had the plans kept track and they all went to Westeros with 50k Dothraki screamers to try and take over? 

If Aerys can burn people without reason or reprocussions, then so can King Viserys. 

Especially at this point in the game, the Dothraki are glorified sellswords that were bought to fight for Viserys, not to play house with a juvenile girl.

[Sydney Mae]

16 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Drogo is the brother-king to his wife. What do you think Viserys would be to Drogo and his men had the plans kept track and they all went to Westeros with 50k Dothraki screamers to try and take over? 

If Aerys can burn people without reason or reprocussions, then so can King Viserys. 

Especially at this point in the game, the Dothraki are glorified sellswords that were bought to fight for Viserys, not to play house with a juvenile girl.

Aerys can burn people in Westeros.  He had the right to execute the Starks.  Aerys cannot burn people in the Dothraki Sea b/c Aerys was not a Khal.  Viserys being the rightful king and heir to Westeros can burn people in his kingdom.  He would be right to burn Robert.  Viserys cannot burn people in the Dothraki Sea b/c he was not a Khal. 

[The Fattest Leech]

Just now, Sydney Mae said:

Aerys can burn people in Westeros.  He had the right to execute the Starks.  Aerys cannot burn people in the Dothraki Sea b/c Aerys was not a Khal.  Viserys being the rightful king and heir to Westeros can burn people in his kingdom.  He would be right to burn Robert.  Viserys cannot burn people in the Dothraki Sea b/c he was not a Khal. 

So a traveling king cannot punish a disloyal servant unless he is in his own chair?

The Dothraki were paid to serve Viserys' needs, but the affairs of the heart got in the way of that honor.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

36 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

No that's not treason because drogo is not a subject of Viserys

Then who is? You made it obvious that you see Viserys as King and don't recognize Robert as one. If Viserys has no subjects, even the Dothraki who promised to fight for his claim then who is he the King over? His sister?

 

42 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

that's what a smart ruler does.

It's smart to ignore Kingslaying? Dany is setting a dangerous precedent for herself.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

13 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So a traveling king cannot punish a disloyal servant unless he is in his own chair?

Exactly. If a King visits Braavos and one of his Kingsguard murder him it's still a crime even though they aren't in Westeros. 

[Yucef Menaerys]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Drogo is the brother-king to his wife. What do you think Viserys would be to Drogo and his men had the plans kept track and they all went to Westeros with 50k Dothraki screamers to try and take over? 

If Aerys can burn people without reason or reprocussions, then so can King Viserys. 

Especially at this point in the game, the Dothraki are glorified sellswords that were bought to fight for Viserys, not to play house with a juvenile girl.

As the user Sydney Mae pointed out, that was not the domain of Viserys, the Dothraki sea is not Westeros, neither Viserys nor Dany has the authority to punish Drogo.

Aerys never attempted to burn the leader of another people that were not Westerosi, Aerys couldn't burn the sea lord of Bravos, since he isin't king there.

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So a traveling king cannot punish a disloyal servant unless he is in his own chair?

The Dothraki were paid to serve Viserys' needs, but the affairs of the heart got in the way of that honor.

But khal drogo was not a servant of Viserys, as you've said, more like a sellsword.

 

58 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Then who is? You made it obvious that you see Viserys as King and don't recognize Robert as one. If Viserys has no subjects, even the Dothraki who promised to fight for his claim then who is he the King over? His sister?

 

It's smart to ignore Kingslaying? Dany is setting a dangerous precedent for herself.

The Dothraki are NOT the subjects of Viserys, they are not even Westerosi,  the subjects of Viserys are the people of Westeros. And yes Robert was a false usurper king.

I don't see any kinslaying here, Dany did not kill Viserys 

49 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Exactly. If a King visits Braavos and one of his Kingsguard murder him it's still a crime even though they aren't in Westeros. 

Drogo was not a member of Viserys kingsguard nor was he part of his retinue, Westerosi laws do not apply to him. It was purely a business relationship as partners, not master/servant. For example Dany does not consider the stormcrows as her subjects.

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

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.

There was no reward for the kids obviously. And if you think about how many dwarfs have been killed in a few months time for Cersei, and the total lack of reports of people trying to present Robert with children's heads, then it's quite obvious how they were not hunted at all.

The sole danger and true mysery that Dany had to live through as a child was the abuse of her brother. Everythign else is very very relative. The commoner refugees in the Riverlands don't have jewelry and crowns to sell, and they don't get invited to sit at a lord's table at every castle they go to. Sure, the archon's tables and the merchant princes and the magisters of Tyrosh, Lys, Qohor and Myr (and Pentos) don't make for a home, but whenever Dany thinks of how "harsh" she had it, I imagine what the guy hung at the wall in a prison cell in the Life of Brian would have to say to that.

 

[The Fattest Leech]

40 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

As the user Sydney Mae pointed out, that was not the domain of Viserys, the Dothraki sea is not Westeros, neither Viserys nor Dany has the authority to punish Drogo.

Aerys never attempted to burn the leader of another people that were not Westerosi, Aerys couldn't burn the sea lord of Bravos, since he isin't king there.

But khal drogo was not a servant of Viserys, as you've said, more like a sellsword.

And what do you think sellswords are? Besides the ones who betray their contracts, that is.

There is probably a reason why George first described the return of Dany and the Dothraki to Westeros as an invasion.

Quote

 

The Dothraki are NOT the subjects of Viserys, they are not even Westerosi,  the subjects of Viserys are the people of Westeros. And yes Robert was a false usurper king.

Well, this is not accurate because Westeros is rather multicultural in many areas, especially Kings Landing. So being Westerosi doesn't mean anything in this case. Drogo and his men were hired to serve Viserys and his needs and they were to go to Westeros to continue the, as George puts it, the invasion.

Quote

I don't see any kinslaying here, Dany did not kill Viserys 

Dany stayed silent while Drogo killed her brother and her king. Being silent is being complacent and part of the problem. Dany had no problem speaking up to Drogo and his men when they were raping girls, why not now with her brother who is the king of Westeros?

Quote

Drogo was not a member of Viserys kingsguard nor was he part of his retinue, Westerosi laws do not apply to him. It was purely a business relationship as partners, not master/servant. For example Dany does not consider the stormcrows as her subjects.

The Stormcrows are Darrio's, and Darrio swore an oath to Dany, so the Stormcrows are Dany's to use at her pleasure.

[The Fattest Leech]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

There was no reward for the kids obviously. And if you think about how many dwarfs have been killed in a few months time for Cersei, and the total lack of reports of people trying to present Robert with children's heads, then it's quite obvious how they were not hunted at all.

This is a very good point.

 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

41 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

The Dothraki are NOT the subjects of Viserys, they are not even Westerosi,  the subjects of Viserys are the people of Westeros.

But Dany is, and the fact she did not punish them for murdering her King means punishing anyone who removed her Mad father is a double standard.

41 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

I don't see any kinslaying here, Dany did not kill Viserys

Read what I wrote again. I said Kingslaying not Kinslaying. Which the Dothraki that Dany rewards are guilty of if Viserys is a King.

Anyone who commits a crime against a King is guilty of that crime no matter what or where they are or else he was never a King in the first place. Dany herself considers Viserys her King while they are in Vaes Dothraki where he was murdered.

"He was still her King, after all, and her brother"

This is where Dany should lose a hand as punishment for when she struck King Viserys with a belt. That's treason twice over, for shedding blood in Vaes Dothrak and for striking her King. 

41 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Drogo was not a member of Viserys kingsguard nor is he part of his retinue, Westerosi laws do not apply to him.

So if Aegon I had went to Myr on his Dragon and was killed by a merchant would that merchant not be guilty of Kingslaying?  If a Dothraki went to Westeros and murdered Aerys II would that not be the crime of Kingslaying?

[sweetsunray]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

This is a very good point.

 

Dwars and two very recognizable children - could there be any easier targets? And yet Dany can't even remember any dangerous threatening moment. Anybody could have picked them up, taken them prisoner or kill them and gift them to Robert for 8 years if they even suspected it would earn them a reward or a favor. That never happened, and I doubt that Viserys's "cunning" had anything to do with that.

All that moving around, doors closing and staying closed, and losing their money I suspect to be entirely Viserys's fault. The guy's a troublemaker. Initially he's just a kid, but once he's a man waving swords, picking fights over imagined slights and lusting after a woman or girl, would any sane parent with heirs and daughters even want that guy in their house? No way. Some might be tempted out of pity for the younger abused sister, but not once it becomes evident that this Beggar King might get their son killed with his paranoid antics and entitlement, or their daughter deflowered... Well, there would be the request of leaving and the offer to get them passage to the next nearest town.  So, then they're forced to go on the move more and more, and that means haggling with captains and caravans to make the trips to far away Free Cities. Now how often would Viserys have been ripped off on those occasions? I'd say every time.

[The Fattest Leech]

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Dwars and two very recognizable children - could there be any easier targets? And yet Dany can't even remember any dangerous threatening moment. Anybody could have picked them up, taken them prisoner or kill them and gift them to Robert for 8 years if they even suspected it would earn them a reward or a favor. That never happened, and I doubt that Viserys's "cunning" had anything to do with that.

rgA <<<---- Arrrgghhh!

Anyway, agreed. Not only would the two kids be recognizable and without adult protection (easy targets), but the fact that Viserys sold Rhaella's crown would have tipped a number of people off who these kids were if there was a bounty on their heads.

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

4 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

snip

Against my better judgment I was thinking that talking with you it would lead somewhere. It didn't. I am sorry but from what you say about how the right of conquest works proves that you either don't know what you are talking about, which would be fine you could read about it and see how it really works, or that you are willfully ignorant and you chose to close your eyes. In either case it’s not funny or interesting anymore and I am bored. Since I don’t care about your opinion and you are just a hater ignore list is the best choice, I would asked you to never quote or mention me again in any way but I know that you will never do it. So ignore list.

A small advice tho, before you claim to say that others don’t know and you know best read something to know what you are talking about and don’t conduct yourself like some kind of expert when the others are always wrong, the fact that you are a biased hater and fan it’s clear enough and by behaving like an arrogant expert predispose the others to not take you seriously.

[Yucef Menaerys]

30 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Against my better judgment I was thinking that talking with you it would lead somewhere. It didn't. I am sorry but from what you say about how the right of conquest works proves that you either don't know what you are talking about, which would be fine you could read about it and see how it really works, or that you are willfully ignorant and you chose to close your eyes. In either case it’s not funny or interesting anymore and I am bored. Since I don’t care about your opinion and you are just a hater ignore list is the best choice, I would asked you to never quote or mention me again in any way but I know that you will never do it. So ignore list.

A small advice tho, before you claim to say that others don’t know and you know best read something to know what you are talking about and don’t conduct yourself like some kind of expert when the others are always wrong, the fact that you are a biased hater and fan it’s clear enough and by behaving like an arrogant expert predispose the others to not take you seriously.

This ^ is always what happens at the end of an argument when the other party obviously has nothing concrete to offer and when their points have been debunked and they can not get back in any other way, just admit that you were wrong, simple! Hating Targs ain't gonna get you nowhere.

I have clearly explained how right of conquest works in relation to Westeros and since you don't like the fact that your favourite character is a usurper you just refuse to accept it and believe it's wrong. Having a rational discussion with people that have such attitude is very difficult. Next time you go on another thread and start bashing Targaryens try to make an effort in making sure what you're saying is balanced and unbiased, ignore me all you like. 

[Yucef Menaerys]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

There was no reward for the kids obviously. And if you think about how many dwarfs have been killed in a few months time for Cersei, and the total lack of reports of people trying to present Robert with children's heads, then it's quite obvious how they were not hunted at all.

The sole danger and true mysery that Dany had to live through as a child was the abuse of her brother. Everythign else is very very relative. The commoner refugees in the Riverlands don't have jewelry and crowns to sell, and they don't get invited to sit at a lord's table at every castle they go to. Sure, the archon's tables and the merchant princes and the magisters of Tyrosh, Lys, Qohor and Myr (and Pentos) don't make for a home, but whenever Dany thinks of how "harsh" she had it, I imagine what the guy hung at the wall in a prison cell in the Life of Brian would have to say to that.

 

Yes there was no rewArd offered for their death but who knows what Robert might decide? He was obviously pleased with the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys, a betting man would go with he would also be pleased with the deaths of Dany and Viserys. 

Compared to other noble kids Dany has certainly had a tough life, offcourse you cant try to compare her life with that of the smallfolk, that's too much.

[Yucef Menaerys]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And what do you think sellswords are? Besides the ones who betray their contracts, that is.

There is probably a reason why George first described the return of Dany and the Dothraki to Westeros as an invasion.

Well, this is not accurate because Westeros is rather multicultural in many areas, especially Kings Landing. So being Westerosi doesn't mean anything in this case. Drogo and his men were hired to serve Viserys and his needs and they were to go to Westeros to continue the, as George puts it, the invasion.

Dany stayed silent while Drogo killed her brother and her king. Being silent is being complacent and part of the problem. Dany had no problem speaking up to Drogo and his men when they were raping girls, why not now with her brother who is the king of Westeros?

The Stormcrows are Darrio's, and Darrio swore an oath to Dany, so the Stormcrows are Dany's to use at her pleasure.

Okay so by your logic, the bloody mummers became the subjects of Tywin Lannister after he hired them during WOT5K? 

Being Westerosi means you are from and live in westeros and thus a subject of the king of Westeros, race doesn't matter. Drogo can't be considered a subject of Viserys, he has never even been to Westeros.

Dany was just a little girl at the time, and she didn't support his killing besides he had just tried to kill her, what would you have done in her position?

"The stormcrows are Dany's to use at her pleasure" doesn't mean they are her subjects, there's a big difference.