Would you like a Targ back on the Throne?

[Winter Crow]

So, at the threat of starting a gigiantic apacolyptic thread of doom, I'm here to ask you guys would you like a Targ (every theory included) back on the Iron Throne at the end?

Personally I really wouldn't like it. Sure, Dany has a lot of good qualities as a regent, but think about it; The Targs have a baaaaad reputation for madness, so it's only a matter of time before any of the potential Targ heirs would crack up and history would repeat itself. Besides, I really can't take them and all their "Usurper" curses seriously, seing that they themselves were usurpers in the beginning. Seems awfully whiny to me. I know, a very bad augument, but I thought I would mention it.

But what would you guys prefer? And by all means feel free to explain why you would be for/against a Targ regent.

[Rinso]

No, I don't. They don't deserve it any more than everybody else in Westeros and I'm not really fond of their "I'm so special" ideology. They are outsiders who became kings only because they had the strongest weapon in the world. They won the Throne because they were strongest and lost it because others became stronger and smarter. Seems fair to me. Personally, I'd prefer it if their House dies with Dany.

[Kimera757]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1608707' date='Dec 4 2008, 08.45']So, at the threat of starting a gigiantic apacolyptic thread of doom, I'm here to ask you guys would you like a Targ (every theory included) back on the Iron Throne at the end?[/quote]

Absolutely, positively not.

The only two living Targs that I know about are Dany and (maybe) Jon.

Jon is needed at the Wall, unless the Others threat is broken. Somehow I doubt that.

As for Dany, she (and other contenders for the throne) need to realize that doing something good doesn't always get you a reward. Look how much of a reward Stannis got for basically saving Westeros from the Others (indirectly) -- nothing! (If the wildlings had broken through the wall, the Others may have followed.) This is assuming that Dany brings her dragons north and starts toasting Others.

Also, [b]unlike[/b] Jon (this assumes Jon has the descent lines, hidden or otherwise) she was raised as a Targ and would continue the tradition of [url="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RoyallyScrewedUp"]creating insane offspring.[/url]

Assuming she can even produce offspring. If she can't, there would be more problems. (Bigger than with a male ruler, who could at least hire a man to sleep with his wife and pass the kid off as his.)

Even following the logic of the setting (eg you rule because of who your ancestors were) then Stannis should be king, as his brother Robert won the right to rule Westeros through right of conquest, [b]exactly[/b] the same way the Targaryens came to rule Westeros in the first place.

[Lord Varys]

Absolutely yes. Who else is an option? Stannis maybe, but I don't think he is going to survive the series. Shireen most likely is not fit for the role. There are no living Baratheons left. And except for Euron Greyjoy no one is right now contending for the Iron Throne.

[Winter Crow]

I fully agree with you guys. I've always seen all Dany's "Usurper" talk as freaking annoying. I mean, that was how the Targ's got the power in the first place with their Dragons and all. Some years whent by, the Dragons died and someone else got stronger than them and took the Throne. Just the way things work.
And I can't stand that she keeps calling Ned for a "dog"- What would she do in his place maybe? After having both your father and brother [b]burned alive[/b], wouldn't you go to war?

But I guess the entire insanity thing, plus the fact that Dany is infertile, is the main reason to why a Targ should never sit on the Throne again. Ever.

[Maia]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1608739' date='Dec 4 2008, 08.14']I fully agree with you guys. I've always seen all Dany's "Usurper" talk as freaking annoying. I mean, that was how the Targ's got the power in the first place with their Dragons and all.[/quote]

It is how everybody got their power in the first place. By force. Starks aren't any more entitled to return according to this logic either. I mean, they had their 8K run and now they'll be coming back for more?!

Personally, I think that Targs did a pretty good job as kings on the whole - much better than the Baratheons or anybody else so far. Their reputation for insanity is a bit exaggerated, given that we have a lot of examples of crazy folks from other families - Lysa, Gregor, Euron, etc. And weak and incapable is as bad crazy if history is any judge.

Stannis would be the worst king ever, given that he wants to force a change of religion, doesn't understand people and is devoid of any personal charisma. A recipe for the blood bath that would make Aerys's antics seem like peanuts.

So, yes, I want the Targs back.

[VorianGR]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1608739' date='Dec 4 2008, 15.14']I fully agree with you guys. I've always seen all Dany's "Usurper" talk as freaking annoying. I mean, that was how the Targ's got the power in the first place with their Dragons and all. Some years whent by, the Dragons died and someone else got stronger than them and took the Throne. Just the way things work.
And I can't stand that she keeps calling Ned for a "dog"- What would she do in his place maybe? After having both your father and brother [b]burned alive[/b], wouldn't you go to war?

But I guess the entire insanity thing, plus the fact that Dany is infertile, is the main reason to why a Targ should never sit on the Throne again. Ever.[/quote]


Dany stands at the exactly opposite side of Robert and Ned. Did you expect her to call him Robert and chuckle with his character like Baristan does?
Plus, she didn't even know that her father was mad and possibly that he roasted alive Rickard. From what she has heard, her father was a benevolent ruler and her brother eloped with the woman he loved, leading to a war from the vile Usurper and his dogs.

It's why I love these books.

[Winter Crow]

I seem to recall that Baristan told her that Aerys had... Issues... At some time. But maybe I'm wrong (I think it was at the end of SoS).

And Maia, did you not see me writing "[b]That's just how things work[/b]"? I've never complained about the situation that the Starks or the Baratheons are in. At least they don't whine about it all the time.

And I understand that Dany has been filled with false stories by Viserys, but she's not so stupid as that. She might ask herself why they went to war in the first place.

[Matarreyes]

Not a question of whether the actual Targaryen contenders are fit for the rule, as far as I understand it. It´s a question of why do they supposedly deserve it? They don´t. I want them to have no special privileges, nor do I see how they can have any kind of "right" to it. They lost the Throne the same way the seven ancient kings of Westeros did 300 years ago: being the weaker force. If anything, they deserve it less than any other house. Daenerys knows virtually nothing of the continent she so single-mindedly wants to conquest and rule, being an outsider raised under different cultural and ethical values. GRRM made a fine point to show us how little she knows of the truth of Westeros (begining with her father and ending with how beautiful she expects the land to be -> does she even know about Big Winters?).

[Vrana]

I'm surprised at how many disliked the Targs, but I agree wholeheartedly, that is the main reason to why Dany is nowhere near my favourite character. Her lack of logic when she contemplates her future rule in Westeros is infuriating. She has never seen Westeros, knows very little about her family or of the country in general, except from scewered views from an insane brother and what few (albeit truthful) thing Jorah chose to tell her.

The whole "Ursurper! Ursurper! I'm the RIGHTFUL heir." Is going to have to end soon or I'm hoping one of her dragons becomes a T. Pratchett swamp dragon and blows itself, including her, up.

That was ranting a bit, but in general I don't think I'd wanna see any Targ ever as a leader if I was in westeros, the thought of having a leader that sees themselves as so superior that they'd only do their own siblings is pretty no-way-in-seven-hells as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to see the Tully's or what's left of them (especially the Blackfish), rule, that'd be fun to see.

[bodhi]

[quote name='Vrana' post='1608808' date='Dec 4 2008, 10.07']I'm surprised at how many disliked the Targs, but I agree wholeheartedly, that is the main reason to why Dany is nowhere near my favourite character. Her lack of logic when she contemplates her future rule in Westeros is infuriating. She has never seen Westeros, knows very little about her family or of the country in general, except from scewered views from an insane brother and what few (albeit truthful) thing Jorah chose to tell her.

The whole "Ursurper! Ursurper! I'm the RIGHTFUL heir." Is going to have to end soon or I'm hoping one of her dragons becomes a T. Pratchett swamp dragon and blows itself, including her, up.

That was ranting a bit, but in general I don't think I'd wanna see any Targ ever as a leader if I was in westeros, the thought of having a leader that sees themselves as so superior that they'd only do their own siblings is pretty no-way-in-seven-hells as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to see the Tully's or what's left of them (especially the Blackfish), rule, that'd be fun to see.[/quote]

If LF and Tyrion don't take the throne then I wouldn't mind Dany. Wouldn't it be great if Tyrion joins Dany, steals her Dragons, comes back to Westeros and in combination with LF (they have a common interests besides Sansa: the whole whoring business one as a pimp and one as a trick) they beat the others and introduce a republic of sorts.

Therafter all the kings (be they targs or clones) are send into exile to the summer islands and were last seen sipping margaritas on the beach and whining about their lost estates.

[bodhi]

double post but just in case: no kings above us except LF the 1st

[Krafus]

I'd like the Targaryens to reclaim the Iron Throne, yes. A few major wars happened during their rule, true, but generally the Seven Kingdoms prospered, as evidenced by the demographic increase since the Conquest (the Kings of Reach and Rock together fielded only 50k men at the Field of Fire, whereas the Tyrells alone can field 80k now). Of their successors, Robert bankrupted the realm, and Cersei through her sons... well, we all know what a disaster she is.

But even more than seeing the Targaryens regain the throne, I want the Lannisters to lose it. As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve it, period.

[Lampmonster]

Sam the Slayer for king. How about a little wisdom and humility on the throne?

[VorianGR]

Without Targaryens there can't be a united Westeros since sooner or later some house will question why it needs to obey to his equals. Targaryens kept the nobles at check cause they were foreign and neutral, see Highgarden and Dorne relationships.

[Bolton Bastard]

Theoretically no. If you include all the pros and cons of having a line of Targs on the throne the inherent madness will always be a problem.

Looking at the world as it is, ehh. They're a choice, no better or no worse than the Tyrells or a broken kingdom.

[Rinso]

[quote name='VorianGR' post='1608917' date='Dec 4 2008, 11.33']Targaryens kept the nobles at check cause they were foreign and [b]neutral[/b][/quote]
No more. Not after the War of the Usurper and all the events around it. Too much bad blood on all sides here

[Arakano]

I am really puzzled that apparently NONE here is able to grasp the main difference between the Targaryen Conquest and Robert's Rebellion: The Targaryens were, as has been pointed out, OUTSIDERS, they owed allegiance to NO ONE, and conquered Westeros fair and square. ROBERT, however, was a SUBJECT of the Targaryen dynasty, and was bond to them by ties of oath, tradition, law, custom, etc. etc. So, yes, HE is an usurper, while Aegon was a conqueror. THat's the difference between the two in a nutshell.

Now, I grant you that it can well be argued that Robert was JUSTIFIED in rebelling, seeing as he would have lost his life otherwise without having done anything to deserve death, and Ned was even more justified in rebelling... still, they are rebels, and Robert an usurper.

Oh, as for the topic: No. No, I don't want a Targaryen back, I believe. Then again, what is the alternative? Hm. If we say NO TARG, and Jon should be a Targ, then he is out. So is Littlefinger, the creep, SERIOUSLY, who would accept HIM as king? :rolleyes: Tyrion is, for all purposes, a kingslayer and, worse, a kinslayer. AND Lannisters are rather unpopular.

I say Willas Tyrell! :thumbsup:

[Shewoman]

I don't think a Targaryen should be on the throne unless he or she is capable of uniting the 7 Kingdoms and being the kind of ruler Westeros needs.

The Targaryens gained Westeros through warfare (more specifically, through dragons). They lost it fair and square through warfare as well and can hardly complain about that since it was the source of their own power. They now have no more right to the throne than anyone else.

[Maia]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1608762' date='Dec 4 2008, 09.35']And I understand that Dany has been filled with false stories by Viserys, but she's not so stupid as that. She might ask herself why they went to war in the first place.[/quote]

You say it as if people always need a good reason to go to war or execute a coup, when more often than not they don't. It is usually a combination of ambition and opportunity and opportunity isn't necessarily the government's fault.
I remember that during the Byzantine history there were several incidents when a decent Emperor was removed and replaced with some crazy bloodthirsty tyrant who made the realm bleed for a decade or more. And it has to be noted, that there was very little dynastic continuity in Byzantium and new rulers usually were outsiders and social climbers, as landed magnates effectively blocked each other from the throne. So, not inbred at all - but they sure had their share of madmen nevertheless. For that matter, don't forget the great mad tyrants of 20th century. All sons of the people, right?

Again, being an outsider is not a bad thing. Quite a few historical kingdoms were successfully ruled by foreign dynasties. Outsider often can see the things more clearly than a native, because natives wouldn't question many things that they are accustomed to, and has an advantage - as long as s/he is also able and willing to learn and respect the local culture.

One thing that needs to be understood is that splitting back into 7 kingdoms would be a negative change for Westeros at this point of social development. And republic is an impossibility ditto. "King in the North"! may sound cool, but that would be nothing but return to the Dark Ages.