If dany becomes queen, what would she change?

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

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. 

Nope. I give you the relevant passage from AGoT in full, for context:

Quote

When Joffrey turned to look out over the hall, his eye caught Sansa’s. He smiled, seated himself, and spoke. “It is a king’s duty to punish the disloyal and reward those who are true. Grand Maester Pycelle, I command you to read my decrees.”
Pycelle pushed himself to his feet. He was clad in a magnificent robe of thick red velvet, with an ermine collar and shiny gold fastenings. From a drooping sleeve, heavy with gilded scrollwork, he drew a parchment, unrolled it, and began to read a long list of names, commanding each in the name of king and council to present themselves and swear their fealty to Joffrey. Failing that, they would be adjudged traitors, their lands and titles forfeit to the throne.

The names he read made Sansa hold her breath. Lord Stannis Baratheon, his lady wife, his daughter. Lord Renly Baratheon. Both Lord Royces and their sons. Ser Loras Tyrell. Lord Mace Tyrell, his brothers, uncles, sons. The red priest, Thoros of Myr. Lord Beric Dondarrion. Lady Lysa Arryn and her son, the little Lord Robert. Lord Hoster Tully, his brother Ser Brynden, his son Ser Edmure. Lord Jason Mallister. Lord Bryce Caron of the Marches. Lord Tytos Blackwood. Lord Walder Frey and his heir Ser Stevron. Lord Karyl Vance. Lord Jonos Bracken. Lady Shella Whent. Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne, and all his sons. So many, she thought as Pycelle read on and on, it will take a whole flock of ravens to send out these commands.
And at the end, near last, came the names Sansa had been dreading. Lady Catelyn Stark. Robb Stark. Brandon Stark, Rickon Stark, Arya Stark. Sansa stifled a gasp. Arya. They wanted Arya to present herself and swear an oath…it must mean her sister had fled on the galley, she must be safe at Winterfell by now…

Sansa Stark is the only Stark who isn't attainted but that is hardly a surprise considering that she was King Joffrey's betrothed at that time. Eddard Stark had already lost everything he had when he was arrested, and later actually reinforced this when he admitted his treason in front of the Great Sept.

Some of those attainders are clearly revoked later down the road. The Martells, Royces, Tyrells, Lysa and Robert Arryn, the Freys and all the Riverlords are later forgiven after they met the Crown's demands (the last is Tytos Blackwood in the last Jaime chapter). But there is no hint that the Starks are forgiven. And whatever Sansa had she most likely lost after they decided she was involved in the murder of Joffrey.

Now, it could be that King Tommen restored Winterfell and all its incomes to 'Arya Stark' but we don't know that's the case. If Tywin wasn't more stupid than Littlefinger in the whole Gates of the Moon thing I'm reserving judgment on that one until we have it in paper and ink that 'Arya' is now the Lady of Winterfell by royal decree of King Tommen. 

Tywin had a powerful weapon against Roose in his hands with the truth about this 'Arya Stark'. Yes, it was he who gave 'Arya' to the Boltons and thus it could also badly reflect on him but if Tywin wanted to rid himself of an overly ambitious or obnoxious Roose revealing the truth about 'Arya' at an opportune moment could quickly enough led to a rebellion against the Boltons in the North, resulting in the quick downfall of House Bolton without the Lannisters having to involve themselves directly. Men like Lord Wyman could very easily use this to their advantage, and then the Lannisters could simply name the victor in that struggle the new Warden of the North.

And again, the Winterfell question is never asked in ADwD. Roose is forced to go there, this isn't the plan. Not to mention that quite a lot changes with Tywin's murder. This is what fuels both Roose's and Stannis' ambitions, making things more interesting. With Tywin still in the game everybody thought the game was as good as over, but now the pack is reshuffled. 

14 hours 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. 

Sansa and Arya's worth lies in their appearance, just as Aegon's worth lies in the fact that he pretends to be Prince Aegon, the son of Rhaegar, because that's what's going to motivate people to fight for him (assuming he isn't Rhaegar's son). As long as there is still a significant group of Northmen who believe the Starks should be the Lords of Winterfell trying to use a Stark as your pawn is going to help you if you want to control Winterfell. That's what Roose does and that's what Littlefinger apparently intends to do in the future.

And also note that the Sansa plan involves to make her the Lady of the Vale at Lord Harrold's side and have her count on the military support of the Lords of the Vale. If 20,000 men from the Vale invaded the North after a terrible winter they could install pretty much anybody as Lady of Winterfell. But it should go very smoothly for an actual Stark, of course.

But this is a separate question from whether the Starks still have a legal claim to the North or to Winterfell after Robb's rebellion, secession, and the Red Wedding.

If you think they still do then this is doubly true for the Targaryen claim to the Iron Throne because as the royal dynasty their subjects do not really have the right to take such a claim from them. Robert is a rebel and usurper and as such he is no position to take attaint the legal heirs of Aerys II. And we actually don't know whether he ever formally attainted Queen Rhaella, King Viserys III, and Princess Daenerys. But even if he did issue such decrees they would be worth as much in the eyes of Targaryen loyalists (and people who are about to remember that they want to be Targaryen loyalists) as Lord Wyman's vows of fealty to Roose Bolton and King Tommen.

There is no difference between Prince Doran's plans to restore King Viserys III and Queen Daenerys I to their throne and Lord Wyman's plans to restore his liege lord Rickon Stark to Winterfell.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope. I give you the relevant passage from AGoT in full, for context:

Sansa Stark is the only Stark who isn't attainted but that is hardly a surprise considering that she was King Joffrey's betrothed at that time. Eddard Stark had already lost everything he had when he was arrested, and later actually reinforced this when he admitted his treason in front of the Great Sept.

Some of those attainders are clearly revoked later down the road. The Martells, Royces, Tyrells, Lysa and Robert Arryn, the Freys and all the Riverlords are later forgiven after they met the Crown's demands (the last is Tytos Blackwood in the last Jaime chapter). But there is no hint that the Starks are forgiven. And whatever Sansa had she most likely lost after they decided she was involved in the murder of Joffrey.

Now, it could be that King Tommen restored Winterfell and all its incomes to 'Arya Stark' but we don't know that's the case. If Tywin wasn't more stupid than Littlefinger in the whole Gates of the Moon thing I'm reserving judgment on that one until we have it in paper and ink that 'Arya' is now the Lady of Winterfell by royal decree of King Tommen. 

Tywin had a powerful weapon against Roose in his hands with the truth about this 'Arya Stark'. Yes, it was he who gave 'Arya' to the Boltons and thus it could also badly reflect on him but if Roose wanted to rid himself of an overly ambitious or obnoxious Roose revealing the truth about 'Arya' at an opportune could quickly enough led to a rebellion against the Boltons in the North, resulting in the quick downfall of House Bolton without the Lannister having to involve themselves directly. Men like Lord Wyman could very easily use this to their advantage, and then the Lannisters could simply name the victor in that struggle the new Warden of the North.

And again, the Winterfell question is never asked in ADwD. Roose is forced to go there, this isn't the plan. Not to mention that quite a lot changes with Tywin's murder. This is what fuels both Roose's and Stannis' ambitions, making things more interesting. With Tywin still in the game everybody thought the game was as good as over, but now the pack is reshuffled. 

Sansa and Arya's worth lies in their appearance, just as Aegon's worth lies in the fact that he pretends to be Prince Aegon, the son of Rhaegar, because that's what's going to motivate people to fight for him (assuming he isn't Rhaegar's son). As long as there is still a significant group of Northmen who believe the Starks should be the Lords of Winterfell trying to use a Stark as your pawn is going to help you if you want to control Winterfell. That's what Roose does and that's what Littlefinger apparently intends to do in the future.

And also note that the Sansa plan involves to make her the Lady of the Vale at Lord Harrold's side and have count on the military support of the Lords of the Vale. If 20,000 men from the Vale invaded the North after a terrible winter they could install pretty much anybody as Lady of Winterfell. But it should go very smoothly for an actual Stark, of course.

But this is a separate question from whether the Starks still have a legal claim to the North or to Winterfell after Robb's rebellion, secession, and the Red Wedding.

If you think they still do then is doubly true for the Targaryen claim to the Iron Throne because as the royal dynasty their subjects do not really have the right to take such a claim from them. Robert is a rebel and usurper and as such he is no position to take attaint the legal heirs of Aerys II. And we actually don't know whether he ever formally attainted Queen Rhaella, King Viserys III, and Princess Daenerys. But even if he did such decrees would be worth as much in the eyes of Targaryen loyalists (and people who are about to remember that they want to Targaryen loyalists) as Lord Wyman's vows of fealty to Roose Bolton and King Tommen.

There is no difference between Prince Doran's plans to restore King Viserys III and Queen Daenerys I to their throne and Lord Wyman's plans to restore his liege lord Rickon Stark to Winterfell.

Good point!  Agree.

 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

6 hours ago, HaeSuse said:

 

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. 

King Viserys III was in exile but he was still alive.  He was crowned on Dragonstone while the Targaryens still held the island by the highest ranking member of the royal family, Queen Rhaella.  King Aerys II had already passed the line of inheritance to Viserys before he died.  At no time were the Targaryens even remotely a subject of Robert. 

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. 

Sorry, this is incorrect.  Robb already lost the North to the Ironborn.  Robb lost his life in the Red Wedding.  It was over long before then.  It was really over when Walder decided he's not going to help, but Robb didn't know.  It was over because Walder was not going to play anymore.  Robb's escapades were over without Walder and Robb never got Walder back after he betrayed the man.   Robb would never win against the Lannisters without Walder.  Robb became homeless as soon as Bran lost Winterfell to Theon.

 

[Lord Varys]

I think we can be very sure that Robb's kingdoms is not going to raise from its ashes. It was stillborn from the start, after all. Robb could never keep a united kingdom of the North and the Trident, that was insane. Keeping only the North could have worked if he had stayed up there but even then whoever won the day down in the south would eventually have come up, knocking at his door. And especially in winter there would be very effective ways to force the North to submit again. There is a lot of food in the South, after all, food the North might need to survive in 5-6-year-winter.

No pretender to the Iron Throne ever recognized Robb's kingship or his kingdom. Joffrey, Renly, Stannis - they all saw him as a rebel and a traitor, basically. Renly phrased it very nicely but he made it clear that he would force Robb to submit. He was willing to allow him to keep his crown but only under the condition that Robb become his vassal.

There is small chance that this is going to change when the Targaryen restoration plot line begins. Aegon and Daenerys will see the North as part of their Realm just as Joffrey and Stannis did (or still do).

There are quite a few Targaryen loyalists in the Riverlands - people that are most likely going to use the chance to declare for Aegon to get both moral and military support to chase the Lannisters out of their lands. They could get support from the Crownlands and the Reach and Dorne for such things after Aegon takes the Iron Throne.

The North cannot promise the Riverlords any support, neither in their continued fight against the Lannisters nor in a future war against Aegon or Daenerys should they lay claim to the Riverlands. They are very much spent and will bleed each other even more in that ridiculous civil war they are fighting right now.

Robb's will may have named Jon Snow Robb's heir under certain conditions but whether those are relevant or will take effect now in light of the fact that a significant number of Northmen must know that Bran and Rickon are alive remains to be seen. Lord Manderly is already looking for his liege lord Rickon Stark. And Sansa Stark is also still out there, too. Should she ever lay claim to Winterfell with the support of the Lords of the Vale it should be impossible to deny her.

But while Stannis lives there won't be another King in the North unless Stannis himself is going take that title.

In addition, there is the problem of the fact that Robb's last will seems to be with Howland Reed, a man who most likely knows the truth about Jon Snow's actual ancestry. If Robb's last will were to name his half-brother Jon Snow - legitimizing him as Jon Stark - his heir then Reed has the knowledge to contest or thwart that will by revealing that Jon Snow is not, in fact, Robb Stark's half-brother or Eddard Stark's son but actually Lyanna Stark's son by Rhaegar Targaryen.

Lastly, there is the problem of the Others. If Jon Snow somehow ended up in a leadership position in a coalition against the Others in the North (no unlikely scenario in the wake of Stannis' eventual demise - something that is most likely only going to occur in the more distant future, though) it would be completely against his own interests to actually declare himself 'the King in the North' and lay claim to a new kingdom of the North or to Robb's Trident territories, too. After all, it would provoke the wrath of the pretenders to the Iron Throne (or the King and Queen on the Iron Throne) and not help them in any way, shape, or form to get more support from the South to defend the Wall against the Others.

If Jon - or anyone, really - proclaimed a new Stark King in the North they could just as well cry out loud 'We don't need your help against the Others. Thank you very much.'

In light of the fact that quite a few people already know about the Others - and that it is not unlikely that many people (especially in the North) will learn more about them in the very near future such a development is simply not very likely.

It is much more likely that especially a smart guy like Jon will realize that they desperately need help from all of Westeros, so that he finally sends down men asking for help. Whether this is going to help all that much remains to be seen.

[kissdbyfire]

@Lord Varys, Tks for the quote. I didn't remember that passage. Still, funny all the names listed, including Mace Tyrell and others. But yeah, the Starks have been stripped of it all. But that's part of what I was claiming all along, I just didn't remember they had in fact been stripped of it all.

[The Commentator]

22 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

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.

I disagree with you.  The circumstances are the same.  The picture actually even looks worse for the Starks.  

The lord of Winterfell made a public admission of treason.  He was executed in public.  His heir, Robb Stark, rebelled against the crown.  And then had the audacity to call himself king in the north.  The Ironborn occupied "his" lands while he was away and you know, he never made it back home.  Robb was basically a homeless person.  Similar to King Viserys III.  

The north failed to gain independence.  It was never Robb's.  It was always a piece of the kingdom that the Targaryens built.  The ironborn occupied "his" lands and his castle.  The Boltons kicked out the ironborn and the crown granted the north to the Boltons as theirs to rule over. 

The circumstances are the same.  Daenerys Targaryen have just as much right to Westeros as the Starks do to Winterfell.  Given what the Starks, Lannisters, Greyjoys, and Baratheons have done, I think a Targaryen Restoration is just what Westeros needs.  By Targaryen, I do not mean that traitorous oath-breaker Jon Snow.  

[Yucef Menaerys]

On 24/06/2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralphis Baratheon said:

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.

No, there's no way Viserys would cut off his own sister's. Not even he would go that far. Even bat shit crazy Aerys didn't hurt his own family, he knew Rhaegar was planning to depose him but didn't do anything to punish him, he rightfully executed Brandon and his gang for threatening the very same crown prince who was planning to depose him.

On 24/06/2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralphis Baratheon said:

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

But she did it only in self defense after Viserys attempted to hurt her, it wasn't something she planned on doing. It wasn't intentional. I'm sure the Dothraki would forgive that of the khaleesi.

On 24/06/2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralphis Baratheon said:

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.

He could be recorded as king if Dany so wishes (offcourse after securing the throne) so as to cover up the disappointing episode of the usurper's reign. It would be better if people in the future never knew that the Targaryens were once defeated and exiled, that would make them seem vulnerable after all.

On 24/06/2017 at 10:24 PM, Ralphis Baratheon said:

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?

It would be the highest level of insolence and impertinence for the iron bank to demand that Dany pay for the crown's debt which Robert embezzled. It wasn't her or a member of her dynasty that requested that loan neither did they spend the money. If someone stole your car, destroyed some public property with it and then you recover the car afterwards, would you be expected to pay for the damage done by the thief? (Robert in this case) 

[Yucef Menaerys]

Many good points have been raised on this thread, I agree 100% with everything @Lord Varys @Widowmaker 811 and @Lame Lothar Frey have said, i think it has all/mostly been proven that the Targaryens are still the rightfull monarchs of westeros after all.

I'll be sure to keep this thread close by to bring up to anyone who attempts to make this argument in the future.

[Yucef Menaerys]

On 24/06/2017 at 10:39 PM, WSmith84 said:

1 - I don't recall Dany ever claiming or admitting to have usurped the pyramid of Meereen.

2 - And I'm asking why they are different. The woman's family might have lived in that house for generations, they might have even built it. What makes a throne different? At what point does something become forfeitable when you flee it? A throne, a city, a castle, a keep, a house, a sword etc.?

3 - I'd argue Aegon the Unworthy and Aerys II were both worse than Robert (which I believe George agrees with in an SSM). Also, Aerys started the war, not the Baratheons, so really it's the Targaryens who destabilized the continent.

1- She also never claimed to not have usurped it

2- But we don't know that her family had that house in the family for generations, a house is trifle compared to a throne, the Targs got the throne by blood and fire. Just can't be compared to a throne, it's irrational sorry.

3- I never claimed that Robert was the worst king, I said he was the most incompetent, there's a huge difference between worst and incompetent.

On 24/06/2017 at 10:46 PM, kissdbyfire said:

The Targs were not the most important lords (only in their own minds, as usual) once Robert won the war and was crowned king with all major high lords swearing fealty to him. So no one gives a rat's arse that two kids living in exile didn't bend the knee to him.  

But they are the most important lords, is there any lord who has a higher authority than the king? Every lord in Westeros swears fealty and obeissance to the iron throne, every lord pays taxes to the crown. That makes the Targaryens the most important lords indeed.

[WSmith84]

3 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

1- She also never claimed to not have usurped it

2- But we don't know that her family had that house in the family for generations, a house is trifle compared to a throne, the Targs got the throne by blood and fire. Just can't be compared to a throne, it's irrational sorry.

3- I never claimed that Robert was the worst king, I said he was the most incompetent, there's a huge difference between worst and incompetent.

1 - Uh-huh. So if I was to call Daenerys a usurper, you think she'd be hunky dory wearing that title, yes? She wouldn't threaten me, or burn me alive, or accuse me of treason? You think she'd happily wear the moniker that she ascribes to the man she blames for killing her family?

2 - I ask again, why can't I? What makes a throne unforfeitable, but not a house? What is the quality of a throne that imbues the family who sits on it some eternal right towards it? There seems to be plenty of 'this land/castle/sword is mine by ancient right' in Westeros, so I'm still not sure why a house doesn't come under this.

3 - Considering that Aerys managed to destroy his own dynasty, I'd say that level of incompetence is (as of yet) unmatched, but to each his own.

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

3- I never claimed that Robert was the worst king, I said he was the most incompetent, there's a huge difference between worst and incompetent.

You did, here's what you said a couple of pages back:

"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."

Unless you don't think the "most incompetent" is the worst, which would be very odd. 

 

4 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

But they are the most important lords, is there any lord who has a higher authority than the king? Every lord in Westeros swears fealty and obeissance to the iron throne, every lord pays taxes to the crown. That makes the Targaryens the most important lords indeed.

The king is not a Targaryen but an alleged Baratheon who is in reality a Lannister. So, it is to Tommen I Baratheon that all lords swear fealty to and pay taxes and generally kiss ass.

[300 H&H Magnum]

There is a distinction between a "rebel" and a "conqueror."  Allow me to explain.

Robert Baratheon was not a conqueror.  He was a rebel who won.  Robert was a subject of his Targaryen overlords.  He swore an oath of fealty to the Targaryens.  He broke that oath and rebelled.  He won the rebellion and took the throne by force.  He ruled by force, just like any other ruler.  However, because Robert was a citizen of Westeros before he won and therefore was subject to the laws of the land, he had to justify his right to sit the throne by citing his Targaryen lineage.  His grandma was part Targaryen.  Unfortunately for him, King Aerys already made Prince Viserys the heir to the kingdom.  Queen Rhaella crowned Viserys on Dragonstone and that made him King Viserys III.  Viserys was crowned on Dragonstone, a part of Westeros, that the Targaryens still held at the time of his crowning.  So there were two kings for a time.  That gives King Viserys III legitimate status as a king. 

Aegon I was a conqueror, not a rebel.  He took the kingdoms by force.  Even the ones who yielded did so because they were awed by Aegon's power.  Aegon and his sisters were not the subjects of any of those kings.  He never swore fealty to any of them and he was definitely not obligated to follow any of their laws.  A conqueror gets to start from scratch.  He or she gets to take the conquered lands any direction he or she pleases. 

What I am saying is, there never was a break in the Targaryen monarchy.  The crown passed from Aerys to Viserys and then to Dany.  We know that many powerful people outside of Westeros and within continued to believe the throne belonged to the Targaryens.  In this sense, I very much agree that Daenerys still has a strong claim on Westeros.  I also admit that the Starks still have a claim on Winterfell.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

 

7 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

No, there's no way Viserys would cut off his own sister's. Not even he would go that far.

Really? Later that night Viserys threatened to cut the babe out of Dany's belly.  Which in my opinion is going even further.

7 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Even bat shit crazy Aerys didn't hurt his own family,

Are you kidding? Aerys raped and beat his own sister-wife Rhaella over and over. We know that for a fact. She would leave his bed bloody and bruised.

7 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

But she did it only in self defense after Viserys attempted to hurt her, it wasn't something she planned on doing

But It's still breaking the laws of Vaes Dothrak by spilling blood. Just like it's against the laws to hit your King like she did. Are you saying that if one acts against the King in self defense it's justified?

7 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

He could be recorded as king if Dany so wishes (offcourse after securing the throne) so as to cover up the disappointing episode of the usurper's reign. It would be better if people in the future never knew that the Targaryens were once defeated and exiled, that would make them seem vulnerable after all.

What would they write about Viserys reign as King?  "In 290 ac King Viserys III smacked his heir, Daenerys Targaryen Princess of Dragonstone, for waking the dragon. Thus setting the first and only precedent in King Viserys reign, subjects that woke the dragon got beaten."

Unless Daenerys wants it to be recorded that Viserys was a terrible man who was killed by her own husband(which would make her look bad as well) I don't think she'll want much written about him. He spent most of his adult life beating on her physically and emotionally. 

8 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

It would be the highest level of insolence and impertinence for the iron bank to demand that Dany pay for the crown's debt which Robert embezzled. It wasn't her or a member of her dynasty that requested that loan neither did they spend the money. If someone stole your car, destroyed some public property with it and then you recover the car afterwards, would you be expected to pay for the damage done by the thief? (Robert in this case) 

The Iron Bank always gets it's do.

It won't matter who's family did what to Braavos. Braavos made a loan to the Crown of Westeros and will expect who is ever sitting on the Iron Throne to pay it back. They make no distinctions between families, they gave loans to the Crown not the Targaryens or Baratheons.

Though you yourself said Viserys was really King not Robert. So whatever loans the Crown took from Braavos Viserys was technically responsible for as the King of Westeros. So if Dany does what you suggest and removes the Baratheon reign from the histories by deeming it illegal then she would in fact be acquiring all the Crowns debt willingly.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 

Really? Later that night Viserys threatened to cut the babe out of Dany's belly.  Which in my opinion is going even further.

Are you kidding? Aerys raped and beat his own sister-wife Rhaella over and over. We know that for a fact. She would leave his bed bloody and bruised.

But It's still breaking the laws of Vaes Dothrak by spilling blood. Just like it's against the laws to hit your King like she did. Are you saying that if one acts against the King in self defense it's justified?

What would they write about Viserys reign as King?  "In 290 ac King Viserys III smacked his heir, Daenerys Targaryen Princess of Dragonstone, for waking the dragon. Thus setting the first and only precedent in King Viserys reign, subjects that woke the dragon got beaten."

Unless Daenerys wants it to be recorded that Viserys was a terrible man who was killed by her own husband(which would make her look bad as well) I don't think she'll want much written about him. He spent most of his adult life beating on her physically and emotionally. 

The Iron Bank always gets it's do.

It won't matter who's family did what to Braavos. Braavos made a loan to the Crown of Westeros and will expect who is ever sitting on the Iron Throne to pay it back. They make no distinctions between families, they gave loans to the Crown not the Targaryens or Baratheons.

Though you yourself said Viserys was really King not Robert. So whatever loans the Crown took from Braavos Viserys was technically responsible for as the King of Westeros. So if Dany does what you suggest and removes the Baratheon reign from the histories by deeming it illegal then she would in fact be acquiring all the Crowns debt willingly.

In Vaes Dothrak, a Khaleesi is surely entitled to defend herself from assault.  Indeed, you're probably putting your life on the line if you assault her.

[Yucef Menaerys]

11 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

1 - Uh-huh. So if I was to call Daenerys a usurper, you think she'd be hunky dory wearing that title, yes? She wouldn't threaten me, or burn me alive, or accuse me of treason? You think she'd happily wear the moniker that she ascribes to the man she blames for killing her family?

2 - I ask again, why can't I? What makes a throne unforfeitable, but not a house? What is the quality of a throne that imbues the family who sits on it some eternal right towards it? There seems to be plenty of 'this land/castle/sword is mine by ancient right' in Westeros, so I'm still not sure why a house doesn't come under this.

3 - Considering that Aerys managed to destroy his own dynasty, I'd say that level of incompetence is (as of yet) unmatched, but to each his own.

1. Dany took Meereen fair and square, the original rulers of Meereen have either submitted to her Rule or have been killed entirely, there's no one that's contesting her rule, we haven't had an example of someone calling Dany a usurper, until that happens I can't answer you with what Dany will do, the circumstance in which Robert seized the throne and Dany took Meereen are entirely different.

2. They're different, it's like trying to compare the value of a pencil with that of a diamond ring (A person would more vicuously defend a diamond ring compared to a pencil as they're value isin't thesame)

3. You see I don't blame Aerys for his own  supposed incompetence because I know he wasn't in his right mind, as I said earlier Aerys is a victim of his own madness, if Aerys had done all that he did while being perfectly sane then I would be giving entirely different responses, there's a reason people found to be mentally ill don't face as much consequence when they're accused of commiting a crime, there are instances where mad people are not even to account for anything wrong which they might have done. 

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

You did, here's what you said a couple of pages back:

"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."

Unless you don't think the "most incompetent" is the worst, which would be very odd. 

Most incompetent is not thesame as worse, to be incompetent means "not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully" I know enough of Westerosi history to know that Robert was not the worst king to sit the throne.

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The king is not a Targaryen but an alleged Baratheon who is in reality a Lannister. So, it is to Tommen I Baratheon that all lords swear fealty to and pay taxes and generally kiss ass.

Okay, I thought you were speaking in context of kings before the current Baratheon/Lannister regime, but didn't you say something like the Targaryens are the most important kings only in their minds and that of their fans? I'll have to go back and check again.

 

[Yucef Menaerys]

5 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 

Really? Later that night Viserys threatened to cut the babe out of Dany's belly.  Which in my opinion is going even further.

He was obviously drunk at that time, or are you now starting to hold peope accountable for what they did while being intoxicated?

5 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Are you kidding? Aerys raped and beat his own sister-wife Rhaella over and over. We know that for a fact. She would leave his bed bloody and bruised.

That's what you as a person who lives in the 21st century think. Back in midieval times they did not believe a husband could rape his wife, she was his by right, he technically owned her, and he was only taking his rights as her husband. Robert raped Cersei as well, I don't see anyone complaining about that. The women knew they had no right to complain as that would not even be regarded as 'rape' in midieval laws.

5 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

But It's still breaking the laws of Vaes Dothrak by spilling blood. Just like it's against the laws to hit your King like she did. Are you saying that if one acts against the King in self defense it's justified?

As I said, the Dothraki would make an exception for the khaleesi, this point is null I don't even know why you're insisting on it. Check @SeanF reply to you.

5 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

What would they write about Viserys reign as King?  "In 290 ac King Viserys III smacked his heir, Daenerys Targaryen Princess of Dragonstone, for waking the dragon. Thus setting the first and only precedent in King Viserys reign, subjects that woke the dragon got beaten."

Unless Daenerys wants it to be recorded that Viserys was a terrible man who was killed by her own husband(which would make her look bad as well) I don't think she'll want much written about him. He spent most of his adult life beating on her physically and emotionally. 

Nah more like 

"After the death of his grace king Aerys II the benevolent, king Viserys III was crowned after the perish of crown prince Rhaegar Targaryen in battle against a rebel lord, he reigned with decisiveness, wisdom and perseverance for 20 years before dying of natural causes, as he did not have any heirs of his own body his sister good queen Daenerys was crowned in the most ushering moment of peace and tranquility that the seven kingdoms have ever witnessed" 

5 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

The Iron Bank always gets it's do.

It won't matter who's family did what to Braavos. Braavos made a loan to the Crown of Westeros and will expect who is ever sitting on the Iron Throne to pay it back. They make no distinctions between families, they gave loans to the Crown not the Targaryens or Baratheons.

Though you yourself said Viserys was really King not Robert. So whatever loans the Crown took from Braavos Viserys was technically responsible for as the King of Westeros. So if Dany does what you suggest and removes the Baratheon reign from the histories by deeming it illegal then she would in fact be acquiring all the Crowns debt willingly.

I don't think even the iron bank would be stupid enough to demand Daenerys pay the debt of a rebel and a traitor, they won't even start, if it had been a member of her dynasty then she would have to pay that loan. The iron bank does not care that Viserys will be recorded as king, all they know is they gave loan to house Baratheon which was why they sent an envoy to Cersei since the current king (tommen) was technically a Baratheon. Dany would never pay for the usurper's expenses, and she would be right not to.

8 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

There is a distinction between a "rebel" and a "conqueror."  Allow me to explain.

Robert Baratheon was not a conqueror.  He was a rebel who won.  Robert was a subject of his Targaryen overlords.  He swore an oath of fealty to the Targaryens.  He broke that oath and rebelled.  He won the rebellion and took the throne by force.  He ruled by force, just like any other ruler.  However, because Robert was a citizen of Westeros before he won and therefore was subject to the laws of the land, he had to justify his right to sit the throne by citing his Targaryen lineage.  His grandma was part Targaryen.  Unfortunately for him, King Aerys already made Prince Viserys the heir to the kingdom.  Queen Rhaella crowned Viserys on Dragonstone and that made him King Viserys III.  Viserys was crowned on Dragonstone, a part of Westeros, that the Targaryens still held at the time of his crowning.  So there were two kings for a time.  That gives King Viserys III legitimate status as a king. 

Aegon I was a conqueror, not a rebel.  He took the kingdoms by force.  Even the ones who yielded did so because they were awed by Aegon's power.  Aegon and his sisters were not the subjects of any of those kings.  He never swore fealty to any of them and he was definitely not obligated to follow any of their laws.  A conqueror gets to start from scratch.  He or she gets to take the conquered lands any direction he or she pleases. 

What I am saying is, there never was a break in the Targaryen monarchy.  The crown passed from Aerys to Viserys and then to Dany.  We know that many powerful people outside of Westeros and within continued to believe the throne belonged to the Targaryens.  In this sense, I very much agree that Daenerys still has a strong claim on Westeros.  I also admit that the Starks still have a claim on Winterfell.

Well said. It's always interesting to see Baratheon fans trying to claim that Robert was no different than Aegon the conqueror and that he wasn't a rebel since he won and became king.

On 27/06/2017 at 5:48 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

By Targaryen, I do not mean that traitorous oath-breaker Jon Snow.  

Offcourse Jon snow is not even a real Targaryen, he's only a half-stark Targaryen bastard and not a true born scion of house targaryen, it constantly baffles me when I see Jon and Stark fans putting forth reasons to explain how Rhaegar might have married Lyanna, thereby making Jon a true born Targaryen in all the glory and prestige of having the Targaryen name, and those are the very same people who want the Targaryens to fail and beleive they're not the rightful kings and hate (or should i say are jealous?) Dany since she has a more magical (and much stronger) pet than Jon. Double hypocrisy.

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

1. Dany took Meereen fair and square, the original rulers of Meereen have either submitted to her Rule or have been killed entirely, there's no one that's contesting her rule, we haven't had an example of someone calling Dany a usurper, until that happens I can't answer you with what Dany will do, the circumstance in which Robert seized the throne and Dany took Meereen are entirely different.

2. They're different, it's like trying to compare the value of a pencil with that of a diamond ring (A person would more vicuously defend a diamond ring compared to a pencil as they're value isin't thesame)

3. You see I don't blame Aerys for his own  supposed incompetence because I know he wasn't in his right mind, as I said earlier Aerys is a victim of his own madness, if Aerys had done all that he did while being perfectly sane then I would be giving entirely different responses, there's a reason people found to be mentally ill don't face as much consequence when they're accused of commiting a crime, there are instances where mad people are not even to account for anything wrong which they might have done. 

Most incompetent is not thesame as worse, to be incompetent means "not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully" I know enough of Westerosi history to know that Robert was not the worst king to sit the throne.

Okay, I thought you were speaking in context of kings before the current Baratheon/Lannister regime, but didn't you say something like the Targaryens are the most important kings only in their minds and that of their fans? I'll have to go back and check again.

 

Yes, I said Targs are only the most important lords in their own minds. And btw, I was speaking of the present time. 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

4 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

He was obviously drunk at that time, or are you now starting to hold peope accountable for what they did while being intoxicated?

 No, being drunk is not an excuse for taking out a sword and pointing it at a pregnant women's stomach and threatening to cut the baby out of her. Viserys actually touched the tip of the blade to her body.

4 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

That's what you as a person who lives in the 21st century think. Back in midieval times they did not believe a husband could rape his wife, she was his by right, he technically owned her, and he was only taking his rights as her husband. Robert raped Cersei as well, I don't see anyone complaining about that. The women knew they had no right to complain as that would not even be regarded as 'rape' in midieval laws.

Aerys didn't just rape her in the sense he forced himself on her which is bad enough, he brutalized her in a way that Jaime wanted to protect Rhaella from Aerys. This was originally started when you said Aerys never hurt his own family right? Then I said he raped his sister-wife.

18 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Even bat shit crazy Aerys didn't hurt his own family,

But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand,Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure."Your hurting me," they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. "Your Hurting me" 

They said the Queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breast. A crowned beast, Jaime knew.

A Feast For Crows-Jaime II

4 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

As I said, the Dothraki would make an exception for the khaleesi, this point is null I don't even know why you're insisting on it. Check @SeanF reply to yo

You and @SeanF have no way of knowing if Dany would get a pass for spilling blood in Vaes Dothrak. Even when Viserys took out his sword and threatened to cut Dany's baby out Drogo handled him in a way that spilt no blood. If someone was ever justified in spilling blood Drogo would have been to protect his wife and child yet he didn't, not in Vaes Dothrak. Even when Viserys was poking Dany's belly with a sword. 

4 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

all they know is they gave loan to house Baratheon which was why they sent an envoy to Cersei since the current king (tommen) was technically a Baratheon. Dany would never pay for the usurper's expenses, and she would be right not to.

The Iron Bank did not give a loan to House Baratheon they gave it to the Iron Throne. Ignoring this doesn't change that fact. Who ever sits on the Iron Throne will owe the Iron Bank the debt, that's how Braavos sees it.

[WSmith84]

6 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

He was obviously drunk at that time, or are you now starting to hold peope accountable for what they did while being intoxicated?

Of course we hold people responsible for what they do while intoxicated. You don't not go to prison just because you were pissed when you did whatever. You can't kill a man and then say 'well, I was hammered, not my fault.'

6 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

That's what you as a person who lives in the 21st century think. Back in midieval times they did not believe a husband could rape his wife, she was his by right, he technically owned her, and he was only taking his rights as her husband. Robert raped Cersei as well, I don't see anyone complaining about that. The women knew they had no right to complain as that would not even be regarded as 'rape' in midieval laws.

People complain plenty about Robert raping Cersei. And both Robert and Jaime know that that behaviour is wrong: Jaime wants to protect his Queen from her own husband and Robert feels shame and drinks to forget.

6 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

I don't think even the iron bank would be stupid enough to demand Daenerys pay the debt of a rebel and a traitor, they won't even start, if it had been a member of her dynasty then she would have to pay that loan. The iron bank does not care that Viserys will be recorded as king, all they know is they gave loan to house Baratheon which was why they sent an envoy to Cersei since the current king (tommen) was technically a Baratheon. Dany would never pay for the usurper's expenses, and she would be right not to.

Any ruler with some sense will come to an arrangement with the Iron Bank and pay what they are owed, regardless of whether it's a Baratheon or Targaryen. I'm sure Aegon or Dany could probably get a favourable deal from the bank, where they don't need to pay everything so quickly (plus they can always take the gold from the Lannisters as punishment and pay the bank with that). But it would be deeply unwise, I think, for any ruler to reject the payments. A dragon can win you a battle, burn down a castle and kill your enemies, but it can't stop a knife in the dark or a cup of poison wine.

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Of course we hold people responsible for what they do while intoxicated. You don't not go to prison just because you were pissed when you did whatever. You can't kill a man and then say 'well, I was hammered, not my fault.'

People complain plenty about Robert raping Cersei. And both Robert and Jaime know that that behaviour is wrong: Jaime wants to protect his Queen from her own husband and Robert feels shame and drinks to forget.

Any ruler with some sense will come to an arrangement with the Iron Bank and pay what they are owed, regardless of whether it's a Baratheon or Targaryen. I'm sure Aegon or Dany could probably get a favourable deal from the bank, where they don't need to pay everything so quickly (plus they can always take the gold from the Lannisters as punishment and pay the bank with that). But it would be deeply unwise, I think, for any ruler to reject the payments. A dragon can win you a battle, burn down a castle and kill your enemies, but it can't stop a knife in the dark or a cup of poison wine.

How's that quote again, about kings who don't repay their debts to the IB and soon find there's another king in their place? Or something along those lines...