Jump to content

If dany becomes queen, what would she change?


aventador577

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, the Roose Bolton is Warden of the North b/c he was appointed to the position by the crown, which I clearly stated in my post. 

The Boltons with their Frey allies whooped Stark ass.  So if you believe Robert was a legitimate king and the Baratheons have the right to rule, then you have to admit that the Boltons now have the rights to Winterfell.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Boltons with their Frey allies whooped Stark ass.  So if you believe Robert was a legitimate king and the Baratheons have the right to rule, then you have to admit that the Boltons now have the rights to Winterfell.  

I think you're struggling to understand me. YES, ROOSE BOLTON IS LEGALLY THE WARDEN OF THE NORTH. 

Get it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think you're struggling to understand me. YES, ROOSE BOLTON IS LEGALLY THE WARDEN OF THE NORTH. 

Get it now?

And legally the owner of Winterfell?  And the Starks have been dispossessed and have no rights to anything?

Now, this may surprise you, but this issue can be debated both ways.  We can say the Baratheons were never the rightful rulers, Stannis is not a rightful heir, and the Starks retained ownership of Winterfell, the Targaryens remain the rightful rulers of Westeros, and Westeros belongs to Daenerys.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Widowmaker 811 said:

And legally the owner of Winterfell?  And the Starks have been dispossessed and have no rights to anything?

Now, this may surprise you, but this issue can be debated both ways.  We can say the Baratheons were never the rightful rulers, Stannis is not a rightful heir, and the Starks retained ownership of Winterfell, the Targaryens remain the rightful rulers of Westeros, and Westeros belongs to Daenerys.  

Wrong. Roose receives the wardenship and legitimacy for Ramsay for his role in the RW.

ASoS, Jaime

“This grants said lands, incomes, and castle to Ser Emmon Frey and his lady wife, Lady Genna.” Ser Kevan presented another sheaf of parchments to the king. Tommen dipped and signed. “This is a decree of legitimacy for a natural son of Lord Roose Bolton of the Dreadfort. And this names Lord Bolton your Warden of the North.” Tommen dipped, signed, dipped, signed. “This grants Ser Rolph Spicer title to the castle Castamere and raises him to the rank of lord.” Tommen scrawled his name.”

And because he has no claim whatsoever to Winterfell, he also gets fArya. With the newly legitimised Ramsay marrying fArya, Ramsay then becomes Lord of Winterfell. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Starks are attainted traitors. They no longer have a claim to anything if you recognize King Tommen (or King Stannis who also considered Robb as a pretender and a traitor he intended to put down due to the fact that the man crowned himself) as the rightful King on the Iron Throne.

If you argue Robert somehow became 'the rightful king' because he says so and made himself an accomplice in the murders of the rightful king and royal women and children and the Targaryens lost all rights to the Iron Throne because of that then the Starks did lose those, too. First when Theon made Robb 'the king who lost the North' by taking his seat away from him and then at the Red Wedding when the attainders King Joffrey had issued against Robb and his family were finally very effectively realized by the Freys and Boltons.

Ramsay's wedding to 'Arya Stark' has the same function as Lancel's marriage to Amerei Frey. It's purpose is the lend additional legitimacy to his claim to Winterfell but it is neither a prerequisite that he becomes Lord or Winterfell nor really necessary. The king creates and unmakes lords at his pleasure. Aegon the Conqueror gave Highgarden and the Reach to Harlan Tyrell despite the fact that the man did not really have a claim to any of that. It is the same with Edmyn Tully. He also had no claim to the Riverlands. 

If King Tommen wanted he could just as well have given Winterfell to Ramsay without also arranging a Stark marriage for him but as it happens it looks like Roose and Tywin preferred to play it that way so that there is an appearance of continuity in blood and not just the taking over of a great seat simply by royal decree. But it is quite clear that it could have been done without the marriage.

But the truth is that as long as members of a deposed royal house or an ancient noble lineage remains their claims to this or that ancestral seat remain a very real thing. A royal dynasty cannot be deposed in any legal fashion in this world and it is part of the self-image of an old noble family that they are the lord of this or that castle and the adjacent lands, even if those are taken from them. It takes some time for that to take root in the minds of the people and the descendants of such lords. Ser Eustace Osgrey is an example where this process of acceptance is nearing its end. Another would be the Blackfyres. Nobody seems to think in the series that the Blackfyres were the rightful kings or that any obscure descendants through the female line who might be still out there have better claims to the Iron Throne than, say, the Baratheons or the Targaryens in exile.

But the Targaryens and Starks are in a completely different category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could have been done w/o the marriage IF Winterfell had been granted to the Boltons w/ all its lands and incomes etc etc. Only it wasn't granted, and the marriage is what makes Ramsay the current Lord of Winterfell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

You're the one trying to have it both ways.  

Jaime murdered the king he was sworn to protect.  That is not legitimate.  

The fact is, those anti-Targaryens who believe Robert is the legitimate ruler because of right of conquest and also believe the Starks retained rights to Winterfell are wrong.  You cannot have it both ways.  

 

I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. Let's say Jaime hadn't murdered Aerys. Aerys's reign was still at an end. Robert would still have been king. Maybe Aerys would've burned 99% of King's Landing to the ground. Robert still would've been king. The war was over, and RR had won, via might. 

 

This is not remotely true in the Young Wolf's rebellion. His prospects were looking dim, for sure, but it was not over, by any means. If Frey had instead committed his entire force to Robb, and, say, maybe Lysa granted her Knights of the Vale to Robb.... There was still a chance. The war was ended by the Red Wedding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It could have been done w/o the marriage IF Winterfell had been granted to the Boltons w/ all its lands and incomes etc etc. Only it wasn't granted, and the marriage is what makes Ramsay the current Lord of Winterfell. 

We also have no reason to believe 'Lady Arya' was granted Winterfell, either. It is somewhat obscure how things stand there. It may even be that the matter was not yet settled in light of the fact that Winterfell was still a ruin back when this was settled. And it still is. Roose originally had no intention to take possession of Winterfell or celebrate the wedding there. They were planning to crush Stannis at the Dreadfort.

In that sense it might be that Ramsay's talk of being 'the (trueborn) Lord of Winterfell' might very well be just talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We also have no reason to believe 'Lady Arya' was granted Winterfell, either. It is somewhat obscure how things stand there. It may even be that the matter was not yet settled in light of the fact that Winterfell was still a ruin back when this was settled. And it still is. Roose originally had no intention to take possession of Winterfell or celebrate the wedding there. They were planning to crush Stannis at the Dreadfort.

In that sense it might be that Ramsay's talk of being 'the (trueborn) Lord of Winterfell' might very well be just talk.

ADwD, The Prince of Winterfell

“By that time, the rest of Bolton’s army had arrived. They raised King Tommen’s stag and lion above the walls of Winterfell as the wind came howling from the north, and below it the flayed man of the Dreadfort. Theon arrived in Barbrey Dustin’s train, with her ladyship herself, her Barrowton levies, and the bride-to-be. Lady Dustin had insisted that she should have custody of Lady Arya until such time as she was wed, but now that time was done. She belongs to Ramsay now. She said the words. By this marriage Ramsay would be Lord of Winterfell. So long as Jeyne took care not to anger him, he should have no cause to harm her. Arya. Her name is Arya.”

ADwD, The Turncloak

“Dressing her in grey and white serves no good if the girl is left to sob. The Freys may not care, but the northmen … they fear the Dreadfort, but they love the Starks.”
“Not you,” said Theon.
“Not me,” the Lady of Barrowton confessed, “but the rest, yes. Old Whoresbane is only here because the Freys hold the Greatjon captive. And do you imagine the Hornwood men have forgotten the Bastard’s last marriage, and how his lady wife was left to starve, chewing her own fingers? What do you think passes through their heads when they hear the new bride weeping? Valiant Ned’s precious little girl.”
No, he thought. She is not of Lord Eddard’s blood, her name is Jeyne, she is only a steward’s daughter. He did not doubt that Lady Dustin suspected, but even so …
“Lady Arya’s sobs do us more harm than all of Lord Stannis’s swords and spears. If the Bastard means to remain Lord of Winterfell, he had best teach his wife to laugh.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We also have no reason to believe 'Lady Arya' was granted Winterfell, either. It is somewhat obscure how things stand there. It may even be that the matter was not yet settled in light of the fact that Winterfell was still a ruin back when this was settled. And it still is. Roose originally had no intention to take possession of Winterfell or celebrate the wedding there. They were planning to crush Stannis at the Dreadfort.

In that sense it might be that Ramsay's talk of being 'the (trueborn) Lord of Winterfell' might very well be just talk.

ADwD, The Prince of Winterfell

“By that time, the rest of Bolton’s army had arrived. They raised King Tommen’s stag and lion above the walls of Winterfell as the wind came howling from the north, and below it the flayed man of the Dreadfort. Theon arrived in Barbrey Dustin’s train, with her ladyship herself, her Barrowton levies, and the bride-to-be. Lady Dustin had insisted that she should have custody of Lady Arya until such time as she was wed, but now that time was done. She belongs to Ramsay now. She said the words. By this marriage Ramsay would be Lord of Winterfell. So long as Jeyne took care not to anger him, he should have no cause to harm her. Arya. Her name is Arya.”

ADwD, The Turncloak

“Dressing her in grey and white serves no good if the girl is left to sob. The Freys may not care, but the northmen … they fear the Dreadfort, but they love the Starks.”
“Not you,” said Theon.
“Not me,” the Lady of Barrowton confessed, “but the rest, yes. Old Whoresbane is only here because the Freys hold the Greatjon captive. And do you imagine the Hornwood men have forgotten the Bastard’s last marriage, and how his lady wife was left to starve, chewing her own fingers? What do you think passes through their heads when they hear the new bride weeping? Valiant Ned’s precious little girl.”
No, he thought. She is not of Lord Eddard’s blood, her name is Jeyne, she is only a steward’s daughter. He did not doubt that Lady Dustin suspected, but even so …
“Lady Arya’s sobs do us more harm than all of Lord Stannis’s swords and spears. If the Bastard means to remain Lord of Winterfell, he had best teach his wife to laugh.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kissdbyfire

Sorry, this doesn't really help. The beliefs of the people in Winterfell are independent from the decrees of King Tommen. Ramsay could only become Lord of Winterfell by right of his wife if Tommen actually had named 'Arya' Lady of Winterfell. And there is no evidence for this.

If he did, it happened without being mentioned in the text, and while they don't know what has happened to Sansa Tywin would have been pretty stupid doing this. After all, if Sansa was captured again - a true Stark, not some impostor - they could use her marriage to Tyrion to claim Winterfell and the North for the Lannisters or marry her again to another Lannister.

They never wanted to go with this Bolton plan. The plan for Tyrion and Sansa was to take possession of Winterfell after winter had dealt with the people up there, and Roose was just supposed to a tool in the whole affair. A tool that would eventually be discarded. Sansa's disappearance thwarted that plan but not necessarily for good. After all, Tywin and his gang know that Jeyne is an impostor. It should be quite easy to take Winterfell from her and Ramsay in light of that. But they would look very foolish if they had actually named or confirmed 'Lady Arya' as the Ruling Lady of Winterfell in light of all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

@kissdbyfire

Sorry, this doesn't really help. The beliefs of the people in Winterfell are independent from the decrees of King Tommen. Ramsay could only become Lord of Winterfell by right of his wife if Tommen actually had named 'Arya' Lady of Winterfell. And there is no evidence for this.

If he did, it happened without being mentioned in the text, and while they don't know what has happened to Sansa Tywin would have been pretty stupid doing this. After all, if Sansa was captured again - a true Stark, not some impostor - they could use her marriage to Tyrion to claim Winterfell and the North for the Lannisters or marry her again to another Lannister.

They never wanted to go with this Bolton plan. The plan for Tyrion and Sansa was to take possession of Winterfell after winter had dealt with the people up there, and Roose was just supposed to a tool in the whole affair. A tool that would eventually be discarded. Sansa's disappearance thwarted that plan but not necessarily for good. After all, Tywin and his gang know that Jeyne is an impostor. It should be quite easy to take Winterfell from her and Ramsay in light of that. But they would look very foolish if they had actually named or confirmed 'Lady Arya' as the Ruling Lady of Winterfell in light of all that.

I disagree. After all, it was the Lannisters who provided "Arya Stark".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Boltons with their Frey allies whooped Stark ass.  So if you believe Robert was a legitimate king and the Baratheons have the right to rule, then you have to admit that the Boltons now have the rights to Winterfell.  

People can have varying opinions about Robert's "rights" to the throne I suppose. But for me the answer is simple: Aerys was an asshole and needed to go. Jon Arryn, in my estimation, did the right by telling Aerys to simply go to hell. After conflict broke out, because of largely of Aerys' actions, I don't see really why the rebels should have gone out of their way to restore Targaryen rule.

And I think there can be little doubt, that whatever legitimacy the Targs had in Westeros as the "rightful" rulers, Aerys pissed a good deal of it away. Before Aerys, it would seem to me that the idea of being the "rightful" rulers of Westeros was probably nearly unanimous. After Aerys, well, uh not so much.

And it would seem to me, that the Starks maintain a high degree of legitimacy in the North despite losing the seat at the WF to the Boltons.

Now, naturally, within Westeros itself, opinions about who is the "rightful" ruler of Westeros will differ. Some will say the Targs. Others the descendants of Robert. But it seems to me our hypothetical Targ supporters in Westeros would need to answer some questions like: Was Aerys a flamin' lunatic or not? Should kings and monarchs be able to whatever they please? And if not, what should result. And if they can't give an answers that would pass the smell test, I really wouldn't give a damn what their final opinion is if it's based on a bunch frickin' nonsense.

It's kind of like our political disputes today. One group believes one thing and another group believes another. Should both opinions be treated equally valid? Nope, cause one side might be completely talkin' out its ass.

If you're a Targ supporter, within Westeros, your highest value might be having a Targ on the throne. However, if you think no society should have to brook a tyrant like Aerys, then you might arrive at a very different conclusion, then the Targ supporter in Westeros.

Dany, I suppose, can have whatever opinion, she likes about her "right" to sashay right on in into the throne room as the "rightful" ruler of Westeros. But, I and others as third party observers,are surely entitled to take issue with Dany's opinions and point out there is seemingly a huge intellectual disconnect between Dany's war in Slaver's Bay, which was presumably done to protect people's "rights", and her seeming failure to extend those notion of rights to the victims of her father. If Dany simply holds the Joffrey Baratheon  view of the monarchy, I'm simply not really all that high on her taking the IT back and certainly not very enthused about her claiming "rights" over the North.

The entire question of this thread is what will change if she becomes queen of Westeros. And based on what I know of the books at this juncture, and what I know of Dany's very simplistic, uninformed, and not too well thought out views about the events that led to her family's downfall and the nature of the Westerosi Monarchy, I'd venture a guess that her legacy will likely be to take Westeros down the road to despotism. It will be the rule of dragons, rather than the rule of law. And from what I know of the real world state development literature, I'd venture to say that rule by dragons will likely be harmful to Westeros in the long run. Martin can of course write what he pleases, but I'd be extremely skeptical that rule by dragons would actually lead to Westeros, in the long run, becoming a more progressive place.

It seems to me whenever these discussions about the Boltons and Robert becoming the rulers of the North and Westeros, respectively, certain people would like to act as if their were no different set of factual circumstance, which might make a few of us distinguish between the two cases.

In sum, I'd say the argument that "but, but, but you can't distinguish between the Boltons and Robert Baratheon" doesn't hold an ounce of water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I disagree. After all, it was the Lannisters who provided "Arya Stark".

Sure, but that doesn't mean Tywin must also have named her Lady of Winterfell through Tommen. After all, he knew she is a fake and if Tommen did that it could only reflect badly on him should it ever come out. Littlefinger also could have Lord Robert sign the grant giving the Gates of the Moon to Lord Nestor Royce. But he did not, and there is a reason for that.

@OldGimletEye

It is pretty clear that Aerys II is no 'special case'. Half the Realm or more stood with him (Rhaegar had more men at the Trident than Robert, after all), half of them against him. It was similar during the Dance, and even more men took up arms against King Maegor at the end of his reign. But back then the crown remained the royal dynasty and went to an immediate heir of the king.

Nobody ran around and said that this Jaehaerys guy, being the nephew of King Maegor, should not get the crown because he might grow to be as worse as his uncle. They did make Jaehaerys I king and not, say, a Velaryon or Baratheon. Nor did they cut the Realm back into seven pieces,

And after the Dance the crown went to Rhaenyra's eldest surviving son, not to some distant Velaryon cousin. Aegon II and Rhaenyra both pretty much sucked as kings yet nobody said that this justified the deposition of the entire dynasty in favor of a distant cousin. Corlys Velaryon would have been a much better king than Aegon III, and perhaps his (grand-)son and heir, Alyn Velaryon, would have been even better still. We don't know.

There is ample evidence that the rebellion against Aerys II was as justified as the various rebellions against Maegor but this doesn't mean that the entire dynasty can be deposed. That's not monarchies work. If you do that you risk destroying the entire system. What the rebels should have done is to depose and/or execute/kill Aerys II (and Rhaegar, too, perhaps) to then put one of his immediate heirs on the throne. Either Prince Viserys or Prince Aegon. That way they could have still held power and dominated the Realm during the minority of the new king while not antagonizing the Targaryen loyalists too much. They would also not have destroyed or at least dealt a severe blow to monarchy of the Seven Kingdoms.

And Robert made the whole thing worse by tolerating the spilling of innocent royal blood and the murder of the king himself. Back when Aegon II was murdered in a similar situation as Aerys II Cregan Stark punished those murderers harshly, never minding the fact that he, too, wanted to kill that king. That way you can make a new beginning of sorts, but Robert not punishing the murderers of Elia and the children and keeping Jaime in his Kingsguard was the original sin of the Baratheon dynasty.

Robert's way of taking the throne leads directly to the Greyjoy Rebellion. It is seen as destruction/weakening of the monarchy and strengthens those forces in the Seven Kingdoms who want (more) independence. He could defeat Balon because of his personal charisma and the lasting friendship with his old buddies. But the man Ned meets again in 298 AC is essentially a walking corpse. A fat drunkard who inspires neither respect nor awe or (gods be good) love in the young generation. Sansa and Jon are more than underwhelmed by the great Robert Baratheon.

Such man is not likely to be able to rally the entire Realm against Viserys III or another Targaryen pretender if the man came with a sizable army, calling on all loyal men to defend his ancient rights.

And once Robert is dead everything goes to hell, basically. Stannis is the evil uncle, loved by no one, Robert's children are not his and either cruel pricks or too young to make an impact. The only truly royal Baratheon, Robert's true heir, was Renly. He is everything Robert was when he won the throne. And he knows how to win the love and devotion of the people, especially the young generation.

But Renly dies pretty quickly.

And the Targaryen myth has not yet died. A lot of people still alive who remember Aerys II and Rhaegar (and the older people Jaehaerys II and Aegon V), and they idealize the golden days of the reign of Aerys II (when Tywin gave them twenty years of peace and prosperity). There are quite a few Targaryen loyalists biding their time, and others are sharpening their knives to avenge the injustice and murders of the Rebellion. And there are people all over the place - in cities as different as White Harbor and Oldtown, not to mention KL itself - which toast their exiled rightful rulers and look forward to their return.

A Targaryen telling a the Realm that he or she is the rightful king or queen is going to be in a better position than any of Robert's ilk. Everybody knows that this is the case.

Aerys II didn't wage a war against the smallfolk (like Maegor). Some nobles and people at court suffered from his cruelty but the majority of the people didn't mind all that. If he had killed every person living in Duskendale after the Defiance it would have been somewhat different. But he just had all the Darklyns killed. Perhaps those even a score or two score people but hardly something the entire Realm should be fretting about. Especially not the commoners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys, it's the other way about. Winterfell belongs to the Starks, and it will remain in their possession until such time as the crown bestow it on another family. Therefore, Tommen doesn't have to grant Winterfell to any Stark - it's already theirs. And that is why they pull fArya out of a hat - whoever marries her will become Lord of Winterfell. Tywin knows the northerners won't be too pleased w/ the appointment of Roose as Warden, so he gives fArya to the Boltons and w/ the marriage Ramsay becomes Lord of Winterfell and having a "Stark" there will appease the northerners some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

@Lord Varys, it's the other way about. Winterfell belongs to the Starks, and it will remain in their possession until such time as the crown bestow it on another family. Therefore, Tommen doesn't have to grant Winterfell to any Stark - it's already theirs. And that is why they pull fArya out of a hat - whoever marries her will become Lord of Winterfell. Tywin knows the northerners won't be too pleased w/ the appointment of Roose as Warden, so he gives fArya to the Boltons and w/ the marriage Ramsay becomes Lord of Winterfell and having a "Stark" there will appease the northerners some.

That doesn't make any sense. We know that both Ned and Robb were attainted as traitors in AGoT. Since then Winterfell is technically in the possession of the Crown.

Now, it may help to restore a lordship to an innocent female relative of a traitor you have married to one of your allies but that isn't necessary. From the day of Eddard's downfall the Starks owned nothing. They claim they still do but outside their own circles nobody agrees with them.

And that doesn't just extend to the Lannisters and Joffrey but also to Stannis and Renly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make any sense. We know that both Ned and Robb were attainted as traitors in AGoT. Since then Winterfell is technically in the possession of the Crown.

Now, it may help to restore a lordship to an innocent female relative of a traitor you have married to one of your allies but that isn't necessary. From the day of Eddard's downfall the Starks owned nothing. They claim they still do but outside their own circles nobody agrees with them.

And that doesn't just extend to the Lannisters and Joffrey but also to Stannis and Renly.

Why then the Lannister produce "Arya" Stark? We will have to agree to disagree on this.

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Except most of the people living in the North, it would seem.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

@Lord Varys, it's the other way about. Winterfell belongs to the Starks, and it will remain in their possession until such time as the crown bestow it on another family. Therefore, Tommen doesn't have to grant Winterfell to any Stark - it's already theirs. And that is why they pull fArya out of a hat - whoever marries her will become Lord of Winterfell. Tywin knows the northerners won't be too pleased w/ the appointment of Roose as Warden, so he gives fArya to the Boltons and w/ the marriage Ramsay becomes Lord of Winterfell and having a "Stark" there will appease the northerners some.

Hmmm. Isn't this the same argument made to Tyrion from people like Tywin? Marry the girl to get the claim to Winterfell. Even Uncle Creepyfinger knows that Sansa is the key to get Winterfell and that is why he is trying to get her into whatever weird marriages he has arranged for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Hmmm. Isn't this the same argument made to Tyrion from people like Tywin? Marry the girl to get the claim to Winterfell. Even Uncle Creepyfinger knows that Sansa is the key to get Winterfell and that is why he is trying to get her into whatever weird marriages he has arranged for her.

Yup. The crown could have stripped all remaining Starks of Winterfell and its lands and incomes. Key words: could have. But the crown never did it, and until they do, it still belongs to the Starks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...