If dany becomes queen, what would she change?

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

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.

If anyone even remotely believed they'd have pleased Robert with it, they'd be dead already, official declaration of reward or no official declaration of reward. That was my main point. Them being such easy targets in the first place and there never actually being any threat made to their lives that Dany recalls makes very clear that NOBODY in Essos, no common thief, no corsair, no slaver, no mercenary 2nd brother of an archon or magister believed that they'd make Robert Baratheon happy with their heads. None. Your whole "he puts them in hypothetical danger" is utter nonsense.

[Yucef Menaerys]

1 hour ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

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.

I agree, but still think Dany should punish the houses that fought against house targaryen, for the purpose of cementing her reputation as a strong ruler, she would look weak if she took the throne without punishing the rebels that attempted to exterminate her family, and not punishing the rebels will set a dangerous precedent, it means you can rebel against the crown and not expect any retribution whatsoever.

 

1 hour ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

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. 

So you expect Dany to punish the Dothraki for killing Viserys? And how exactly would she do that? She was in no position of power to punish khal drogo.

The punishment for losing a hand if a person strikes a person of royal blood is for peasants and lords i.e non-royals, it doesn't apply in this case since Dany herself is a member of the royal family. The law was meant to protect the Targaryens against other non-Targs not the other way.

1 hour ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 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?

Yes, but he wouldn't be prosecuted under Westerosi law since that's not Westeros. Killing a person is a crime, king or not. So that merchant would still be arrested, but it doesn't mean the Westerosi can do with him as they like. And the merchant did not commit treason since Aegon I is not his king, at least according to any non-Westerosi definition.

[Yucef Menaerys]

27 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

If anyone even remotely believed they'd have pleased Robert with it, they'd be dead already, official declaration of reward or no official declaration of reward. That was my main point. Them being such easy targets in the first place and there never actually being any threat made to their lives that Dany recalls makes very clear that NOBODY in Essos, no common thief, no corsair, no slaver, no mercenary 2nd brother of an archon or magister believed that they'd make Robert Baratheon happy with their heads. None. Your whole "he puts them in hypothetical danger" is utter nonsense.

Okay let's try to make sense here, this man was pleased with the deaths of two targaryen children (Aegon and Rhaenys) it's no secret that he hates the Targaryens and wants them dead, it's probably the reason why Ned told everyone Jon was his bastard instead of openly admitting that he's a Targaryen bastard, it was to protect him against Robert which might want to kill him for being dragonspawn, having said all this, would it not be easy for any potential opportunist out there to surmise he might get rewarded by Robert if he killed the last living Targaryens who are a big threat to Robert and his progeny? 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

6 hours 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. 

She not only supported Viserys’ murder, making her a kinslayer or the next best thing at the eyes of the Westerosi, but she also was planning to usurp Viserys’ Throne before that, she was planning to make her son the King when the rightful King for the Targ supporters would had been Viserys and his descendants.

[sweetsunray]

18 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Okay let's try to make sense here, this man was pleased with the deaths of two targaryen children (Aegon and Rhaenys) it's no secret that he hates the Targaryens and wants them dead, it's probably the reason why Ned told everyone Jon was his bastard instead of openly admitting that he's a Targaryen bastard, it was to protect him against Robert which might want to kill him for being dragonspawn, having said all this, would it not be easy for any potential opportunist out there to surmise he might get rewarded by Robert if he killed the last living Targaryens who are a big threat to Robert and his progeny? 

Okay let's try to make sense there: regardless of the man's hatred for Targs, apparently all those potential opportunists which have been proven to exist in Essos taking heads of any dwarf they can get their hands on never made a move on two kids as recognizable as anything with their purple eyes and silver-blonde hair.

It's very simple. Whatever Robert's personal feelings are about it, it's quite evident that the logic of "well that put those 2 in danger when kids" utterly fails, as there never was any actual threat or danger. Hence, the opportunistist did NOT know killing the Targ kids would please Robert, and they might actually even believe it would displease Robert.

How much of Robert's reaction to Aegon and Rhaenys was public common knowledge? How much of the fight that Ned and Robert had over it was public knowledge? Think of Robb back in Riverrun dealing with Karstark, his mother and Edmure. Robb manages to congratulate Edmure in public, to then guilt trip his uncle into marrying Roslin Frey behind closed doors. We were privy over Ned's private relation with Robert, but it doesn't make it "public knowledge". Robert's "dragonspawn" comments are made in private, away from the rest of the caravan back to KL, and within the small council once, when we actually do have a decision to have them assassinated.

You're confusing what YOU know and what those closest to Robert know in his government with "it not being a secret". It's not a secret to some of those closest to the throne. But it sure is not something that was common knowledge, and certainly not in Essos. If it had been common knowledge, Viserys and Dany would have been long dead.  

[kissdbyfire]

Know who understands right of conquest pretty well? Tywin Lannister. And here's what he had to say.

ASoS, Tyrion III

“Ser Kevan Lannister cleared his throat. “As regards the Starks . . . Balon Greyjoy, who now styles himself King of the Isles and the North, has written to us offering terms of alliance.”
“He ought to be offering fealty,” snapped Cersei. “By what right does he call himself king?”
“By right of conquest,” Lord Tywin said. “King Balon has strangler’s fingers round the Neck. Robb Stark’s heirs are dead, Winterfell is fallen, and the ironmen hold Moat Cailin, Deepwood Motte, and most of the Stony Shore. King Balon’s longships command the sunset sea, and are well placed to menace Lannisport, Fair Isle, and even Highgarden, should we provoke him.”

And there were no Starks accepting his victory or swearing fealty to him or any of that. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Know who understands right of conquest pretty well? Tywin Lannister. And here's what he had to say.

ASoS, Tyrion III

“Ser Kevan Lannister cleared his throat. “As regards the Starks . . . Balon Greyjoy, who now styles himself King of the Isles and the North, has written to us offering terms of alliance.”
“He ought to be offering fealty,” snapped Cersei. “By what right does he call himself king?”
“By right of conquest,” Lord Tywin said. “King Balon has strangler’s fingers round the Neck. Robb Stark’s heirs are dead, Winterfell is fallen, and the ironmen hold Moat Cailin, Deepwood Motte, and most of the Stony Shore. King Balon’s longships command the sunset sea, and are well placed to menace Lannisport, Fair Isle, and even Highgarden, should we provoke him.”

And there were no Starks accepting his victory or swearing fealty to him or any of that. 

Pff what does a Westerosi knows about how right of conquest works in Westeros?

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Pff what does a Westerosi knows about how right of conquest works in Westeros?

And one that was Hand for more than 20 years! Clearly, he knows nothing!

 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

56 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

The punishment for losing a hand if a person strikes a person of royal blood is for peasants and lords i.e non-royals, it doesn't apply in this case since Dany herself is a member of the royal family. The law was meant to protect the Targaryens against other non-Targs not the other way.

No she struck a king. A prince or princess still serves at the pleasure of a king as his subjects. That's why Viserys tells her she'll regret hitting him when he comes into his Kingdoms. He as King Viserys tells her she'll regret it implying punishment as is his right as her King. She broke the King's laws by breaking open the King's face.

 

59 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Yes, but he wouldn't be prosecuted under Westerosi law since that's not Westeros. Killing a person is a crime, king or not. So that merchant would still be arrested, but it doesn't mean the Westerosi can do with him as they like. And the merchant did not commit treason since Aegon I is not his king, at least according to any non-Westerosi definition.

 Aegon is still a King even in Essos as you believe Viserys to still be one while he's in Essos. Does Illyrio not refer to Viserys as Your Grace? Illyrio is not Westerosi. So how can it not be Kingslaying? You slay a King your a Kingslayer.

58 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

She not only supported Viserys’ murder, making her a kinslayer or the next best thing at the eyes of the Westerosi, but she also was planning to usurp Viserys’ Throne before that, she was planning to make her son the King when the rightful King for the Targ supporters would had been Viserys and his descendants.

Good point. Daenerys was also ordering around Ser. Jorah who swore himself to King Viserys. Dany undermines her King by giving his man Jorah orders. That seems like borderline treason in itself.
 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

40 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

No she struck a king. A prince or princess still serves at the pleasure of a king as his subjects. That's why Viserys tells her she'll regret hitting him when he comes into his Kingdoms. He as King Viserys tells her she'll regret it implying punishment as is his right as her King. She broke the King's laws by breaking open the King's face.

That is true. A King comes before anyone else. That is why the KG never helped Rhaella and had allowed the King to harm her. That is why Aemon the Dragonknight allowed Aegon to do whatever he wanted with Naerys.

40 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 Aegon is still a King even in Essos as you believe Viserys to still be one while he's in Essos. Does Illyrio not refer to Viserys as Your Grace? Illyrio is not Westerosi. So how can it not be Kingslaying? You slay a King your a Kingslayer.

True. People in Westeros will see Dany and a kinslayer or the next best thing too.

Spoiler

Arianne's

chapter at TWOW

Spoiler

show us what they have started to believe about Dany.

40 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Good point. Daenerys was also ordering around Ser. Jorah who swore himself to King Viserys. Dany undermines her King by giving his man Jorah orders. That seems like borderline treason in itself.

Again true. Dany is just as much of an usurper as Robert or even worse since as a woman after the Targ laws in the eyes of the many as a woman, she never had a right to the Throne to begin with.

[WSmith84]

9 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

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?

Why is there a difference between a house and a throne? The pyramid Dany conquered and occupied presumably belonged to a family for several centuries. The house of that woman may have been in her family for generations. Seriously, a sword, a house, a throne; why can some be forfeited if you abandon them but some not? As for the bolded, just go back and reread the thing you quoted. Here it is:

20 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Personally, I think that idea is nonsense, but Dany would be hypocritical not to hold herself to her own standards, no?

I think the idea that you forfeit the right to something just because you flee it is nonsense. I'm simply asking that Daenerys holds herself to the same standards she holds to everyone else.

[sweetsunray]

50 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Good point. Daenerys was also ordering around Ser. Jorah who swore himself to King Viserys. Dany undermines her King by giving his man Jorah orders. That seems like borderline treason in itself.

I'd say that Jorah betrayed his vows to Viserys there mostly. No surprise there with Jorah of course, the man who sells poachers as slaves for money, and calling Ned Stark the evil guy who stole his lordship and castle.

If Dany ever comes into power and orders Bear Island to be given back to Jorah, I hope Lyanna Mormont writes a very to the point, short and succinct letter back and says "No" - dragons or no dragons.

But yeah, while Jorah and Dany have a profitable khaleesi - knight relation going there, they both turn against Viserys.

Viserys's problem is that he somehow believes that being a king magically will make people behave as ought, especially abroad on a continent with people who aren't technically his vassals (except for Dany and Jorah). Nobody does of course, not unless you have an army standing behind you (or a dragon). His own sworn knight and sister betray him, because they don't think he's much of a king.

Ultimately it all comes down to Varys's riddle - where does power reside?

[Ralphis Baratheon]

24 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

where does power reside?

Not much with Viserys obviously, that's why I think considering him a King during Robert's reign is silly. I don't think the histories will consider him a King either even if a Targaryen ends up back on the Throne.

[Yucef Menaerys]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Know who understands right of conquest pretty well? Tywin Lannister. And here's what he had to say.

ASoS, Tyrion III

“Ser Kevan Lannister cleared his throat. “As regards the Starks . . . Balon Greyjoy, who now styles himself King of the Isles and the North, has written to us offering terms of alliance.”
“He ought to be offering fealty,” snapped Cersei. “By what right does he call himself king?”
“By right of conquest,” Lord Tywin said. “King Balon has strangler’s fingers round the Neck. Robb Stark’s heirs are dead, Winterfell is fallen, and the ironmen hold Moat Cailin, Deepwood Motte, and most of the Stony Shore. King Balon’s longships command the sunset sea, and are well placed to menace Lannisport, Fair Isle, and even Highgarden, should we provoke him.”

And there were no Starks accepting his victory or swearing fealty to him or any of that. 

Tywin stating Balon is using the excuse of right of conquest doesn't mean he recognises that it is being applied properly, loads of people claim right of conquest even though the proper procedures by rights of conquest aren't being properly followed. And any fool can go and take something and claim it is his by right of conquest, but do the people actually recognise him as the legitimate authority? Do you think the people of the north recognise Balon as the true lord of winterfell? NO people still regard the Starks as the true lords of the north, just like people still regard the Targaryens as the rightfull ruling monarchs of Westeros.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Tywin stating Balon is using the excuse of right of conquest doesn't mean he recognises that it is being applied properly, loads of people claim right of conquest even though the proper procedures by rights of conquest aren't being properly followed. And any fool can go and take something and claim it is his by right of conquest, but do the people actually recognise him as the legitimate authority? Do you think the people of the north recognise Balon as the true lord of winterfell? NO people still regard the Starks as the true lords of the north, just like people still regard the Targaryens as the rightfull ruling monarchs of Westeros.

I'm sorry but no. Sure, in Balon's case it won't go very far b/c no one is very likely to acknowledge him as king of anything. Robert's case is different because the high lords of Westeros acknowledged him and swore him fealty. He is recognised as the king of the 7K outside Westeros as well. He doesn't need any surviving Targs to bend the knee to him. 

Heres a link to a very good post about it, and the thread it was made on a few years ago:

 

 

[Yucef Menaerys]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Okay let's try to make sense there: regardless of the man's hatred for Targs, apparently all those potential opportunists which have been proven to exist in Essos taking heads of any dwarf they can get their hands on never made a move on two kids as recognizable as anything with their purple eyes and silver-blonde hair.

It's very simple. Whatever Robert's personal feelings are about it, it's quite evident that the logic of "well that put those 2 in danger when kids" utterly fails, as there never was any actual threat or danger. Hence, the opportunistist did NOT know killing the Targ kids would please Robert, and they might actually even believe it would displease Robert.

How much of Robert's reaction to Aegon and Rhaenys was public common knowledge? How much of the fight that Ned and Robert had over it was public knowledge? Think of Robb back in Riverrun dealing with Karstark, his mother and Edmure. Robb manages to congratulate Edmure in public, to then guilt trip his uncle into marrying Roslin Frey behind closed doors. We were privy over Ned's private relation with Robert, but it doesn't make it "public knowledge". Robert's "dragonspawn" comments are made in private, away from the rest of the caravan back to KL, and within the small council once, when we actually do have a decision to have them assassinated.

You're confusing what YOU know and what those closest to Robert know in his government with "it not being a secret". It's not a secret to some of those closest to the throne. But it sure is not something that was common knowledge, and certainly not in Essos. If it had been common knowledge, Viserys and Dany would have been long dead.  

Okay....apparently I mixed up Robert's personal feelings with what other people think of his views because I as a reader have the benefit of knowing what his real beliefs are. But it still has to be said, the Targaryen kids were still facing a huge danger, anyone could have sold them out to Robert regardless of whether they know what he belives or not, if they are as safe as you claim then they might as well have stayed in one place and openly flaunt themselves so that everyone in planetos knows the exact place and location of the last living Targaryens, there's a reason why they kept moving around, kept hiding, and never openly flaunted themselves.

2 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

No she struck a king. A prince or princess still serves at the pleasure of a king as his subjects. That's why Viserys tells her she'll regret hitting him when he comes into his Kingdoms. He as King Viserys tells her she'll regret it implying punishment as is his right as her King. She broke the King's laws by breaking open the King's face.

What are you trying to get at? so do you really belive that Viserys would have cut off his own sister's hand if he could? I don't see that happening sorry.

2 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Aegon is still a King even in Essos as you believe Viserys to still be one while he's in Essos. Does Illyrio not refer to Viserys as Your Grace? Illyrio is not Westerosi. So how can it not be Kingslaying? You slay a King your a Kingslayer.

Yes Viserys was still a king whilst in Essos but his authority does not extend there, he's king of Westeros not Essos, he doesn't have any real power there. The real power at that place belonged to Khal Drogo, those were his domains and he executed Viserys because he threatened to cut open his wife's stomach and be foul a hy city where the shedding of blood is forbidden, you still have to respect the laws of another land even if you're a king. Illyrio calling Viserys your Grace doesn't mean anything, if the British queen travelled to Mexico she would still be called your majesty.

[Yucef Menaerys]

1 hour ago, WSmith84 said:

Why is there a difference between a house and a throne? The pyramid Dany conquered and occupied presumably belonged to a family for several centuries. The house of that woman may have been in her family for generations. Seriously, a sword, a house, a throne; why can some be forfeited if you abandon them but some not? As for the bolded, just go back and reread the thing you quoted.

Yeah but Dany never claimed to not have usurped the great pyramid, that's the point, meanwhile Robert deluded himself into thinking he was a legitimate king and some posters here are trying to defend that, if Robert admitted that he was a traitorous usurper then I wouldn't hate him much

1 hour ago, WSmith84 said:

I think the idea that you forfeit the right to something just because you flee it is nonsense. I'm simply asking that Daenerys holds herself to the same standards she holds to everyone else.

And I'm simply telling you that you can't compare the ownership of a mere house with that of a throne, which the Targaryens made themselves and have owned for 300 years. Anyway I can't defend Dany on every point as I do not beeline she's perfect and I'm more accepting of her mistake than that of other characters since she's just a small girl who's only just being exposed to politics, with time she will learn, she's learning quite well as of now.

 

54 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Not much with Viserys obviously, that's why I think considering him a King during Robert's reign is silly. I don't think the histories will consider him a King either even if a Targaryen ends up back on the Throne.

The victor writes history, Dany can command for Robert's reign to be scrapped from every book, record or paper. Similar to how Aegon II declared that his traitorous half-sister must be removed from records and not recognised, even though she was a queen who had real power unlike Viserys. That would be fitting end to the usurperous Baratheons who destabilised the continent and gave Westeros the most incomptent king to ever sit the iron throne.

[Yucef Menaerys]

24 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'm sorry but no. Sure, in Balon's case it won't go very far b/c no one is very likely to acknowledge him as king of anything. Robert's case is different because the high lords of Westeros acknowledged him and swore him fealty. He is recognised as the king of the 7K outside Westeros as well. He doesn't need any surviving Targs to bend the knee to him. 

Heres a link to a very good post about it, and the thread it was made on a few years ago:

 

 

The highlords accepted Robert because there was no longer any Targaryen claimant availabl, Viserys and Dany were missing at the time. But the most important highlords (the Targaryens) did not recognize him, which still makes his right by conquest claim not complete. And some of those very highlords were conspiring against Robert like the Martells. 

Let me give this another turn, do you belive that the Boltons are the legitimate lords of the north? Many lords of the north swore fealty to them as well, but many people don't accept them, a lot of the lords are also against them but they played along with the mummers farce. Words are wind. The people that recognised Robert did so because they had to, and some of them will rebel against Robert in a heartbeat. 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

14 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

What are you trying to get at? so do you really belive that Viserys would have cut off his own sister's hand if he could? I don't see that happening sorry.

Yes. I fully believe Viserys would have taken Dany's hand and/or have her severely beaten. He ordered Ser. Jorah to have Dany beaten once before. Viserys is not a good person if you haven't noticed. He beats his 13 year old sister and used her maidenhead as currency. He would have took it himself if he wasn't planning on using it to buy an army. 

16 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

where the shedding of blood is forbidden, you still have to respect the laws of another land

Dany broke this law when she struck her King and made him bleed his own blood in Vaes Dothrak.

 

18 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

he doesn't have any real power there

Then he was never a King because he never ruled in Westeros. Your making my point for me. Viserys was only a King to Daenerys. That's the only subject he ever ruled over. Robert ruled over all of Westeros while Viserys ruled over a girl until she turned 13.

 

7 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

The victor writes history, Dany can command for Robert's reign to be scrapped from every book, record or paper. Similar to how Aegon II declared that his traitorous half-sister must be removed from records and not recognised, even though she was a queen who had real power unlike Viserys. That would be fitting end to the usurperous Baratheons who destabilised the continent and gave Westeros the most incomptent king to ever sit the iron throne.

Viserys never sat the Throne and never ruled so how can he be recorded as a King? Like you said he lived his adult life in Essos where he had no power and was not considered a King there. Again you make my point.

When Braavos demands Dany pay back the debt the Crown owes them do think she'll tell them "but Robert wasn't really a King" and Braavos will except this?

[sweetsunray]

42 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

But it still has to be said, the Targaryen kids were still facing a huge danger, anyone could have sold them out to Robert regardless of whether they know what he belives or not, if they are as safe as you claim then they might as well have stayed in one place and openly flaunt themselves so that everyone in planetos knows the exact place and location of the last living Targaryens, there's a reason why they kept moving around, kept hiding, and never openly flaunted themselves.

Sorry but living with archons, merchant princes, magisters and going to parties is hardly "hiding". I gave a more reasonable explanation for their moving given the fact that both Robert, Renly and Dany confirm they were never actually hunted: Viserys was a troublemaker and not long welcome with his hosts because of the direct harm he might inflict their sons and daughters himself.

Living in either Westeros and Essos is dangerous for anyone, Targ or no Targ. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Robert didn't hunt the Targ kids, and they were never in any danger until they joined the Dothraki and Varys made sure the council would be one swayed to have a majority pro-assassination.

So your argument how Robert was a danger to their lives prior to their alliance with Dothraki is moot.