Would you like a Targ back on the Throne?

[The Garlic Knight]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1608707' date='Dec 4 2008, 05.45']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?

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.[/quote]

i do not want to be seeing a targaryen back upon the iron throne. the targaryen curse is to madness and in time they would go madd and then the history would be repeated but i think you have made the mistake in mentioning them as the usurpers and it is because when they were coming to power it was not by the usurping of a ruler but by the conquering of several.

[Lord Varys]

The only known Targaryen alive is Daenerys Targaryen. And she is believed to be barren. So if Daenerys succeeds in claiming her father's Throne, the Targaryen dynasty still is doomed. Dany will have no children of her own. So no one needs to be afraid of mad Targaryens anymore.

[DomDayne]

I would like to see a Targ on the throne at the end of the series. I don't think the Targs deserve the throne anymore than anyone else, but if they can take it then good on them, be it Dany or Jon. They lost the throne, not through general incompetance, but through the actions of one completely nuts Ruler. But Dany is Barren, and I personally can't see Jon being Ruler of anything so... whether or not they keep the throne is a different question, there will always be oppertunistic people and enemies of the monarch who want it for themselves...

[The Garlic Knight]

[quote name='Lord Varys' post='1609121' date='Dec 4 2008, 10.14']The only known Targaryen alive is Daenerys Targaryen. And she is believed to be barren. So if Daenerys succeeds in claiming her father's Throne, the Targaryen dynasty still is doomed. Dany will have no children of her own. So no one needs to be afraid of mad Targaryens anymore.[/quote]

excepting for the one that is barren and seems to be maybe becoming madd also and who has currently three large dragons to command and a serious grudge against just about all of the kingdoms and will maybe also want to be killing any who do not instantly love her and want for her to rule them?

[the silent speaker]

[quote]Sam the Slayer for king. How about a little wisdom and humility on the throne?[/quote]
Black Sam is sworn to the Night's Watch and thus ineligible. All hail Rodrik I Harlaw.

[Lampmonster]

[quote name='the silent speaker' post='1609165' date='Dec 4 2008, 11.41']Black Sam is sworn to the Night's Watch and thus ineligible. All hail Rodrik I Harlaw.[/quote]

After Sam gets done with the others there won't be any need for a NW.

[Arakano]

[quote name='Lampmonster' post='1609179' date='Dec 4 2008, 18.47']After Sam gets done with the others there won't be any need for a NW.[/quote]

So what? They serve for LIFE. If there is no need anymore for the NW, they would all have to be slaughtered, to maintain the noble traditioN! :thumbsup:

[nya across the narrow sea]

Would I like to see a Targ back on the throne?

NO. God NO. My Dany-hate aside, I always viewed Targs as foreign invaders from Valyria who came and kicked everyone's ass into submission because they had the huge mcguffin known as dragons. Bah, go away you damn sisterfucking Targs!

[DomDayne]

[quote name='Arakano' post='1609220' date='Dec 4 2008, 18.09']So what? They serve for LIFE. If there is no need anymore for the NW, they would all have to be slaughtered, to maintain the noble traditioN! :thumbsup:[/quote]


Hmmmm

[Lampmonster]

[quote name='Arakano' post='1609220' date='Dec 4 2008, 12.09']So what? They serve for LIFE. If there is no need anymore for the NW, they would all have to be slaughtered, to maintain the noble traditioN! :thumbsup:[/quote]

Tradition doesn't mean what it used to. These days even the KG are knocking up their sisters. I see your point though.

[Too Good To Be True]

I don't mind who claims the throne, as long as they're interesting and cause shitloads of problems that need rectifying.

Littlefinger would be a good call, he'd actually make quite a good autocrat, until someone killed him 20 years down the line (Or stabbed in the coronation by Queen Sansa, eh?!)

[Winter Crow]

You make a pretty good point Maia, and indeed a lot of coups are injustified (the Byzantine Empire was a good example).
But this also frustrates me since it shows how little she actually knows of Westeros, the land she aparently is destined to rule in her eyes. The Starks are known for their stubborness toward honor and tradition, and I would certainly suspect them the least for making a coup for personal gain. But of course she can't be blamed for not knowing Westeros. I blame that brat to Viserys for that.

But, as several people have already pointed out, they have a nasty habbit for creating mad offspring. I actually think that a Targ would be able to set Westeros straight, but after some years a new mad king (or queen) would arise and we'd have it all over again.

And yes, the Targs are conquerers, not Usurpers. I'm just saying that they lost their power through military defeat, just as they gained it through military conquest (which was pretty cheat, seeing as they had dragons). Fair game for everyone. And if anyone doesn't agree to these rules, then I strongly suggest that you [b]don't start burning innocent people alive[/b]. A very bad foreign policy.

[Tywin's bastard]

[quote name='Bolton Bastard' post='1608922' date='Dec 4 2008, 16.36']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.[/quote]
It doesn't have to. If they stopped marrying their own they could probably get rid of it since the inherent madness is surely an effect of their inbreeding.

[Grumpygoat]

Littlefinger's a vile, treacherous bastard who is directly or indirectly the cause of woe for many, many, many of the characters in the books.

Also, creepy.

A Targaryen sitting the throne, though? No, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. First off, the whole wails of madness thing? Oh, come off it. Yes, there were a few nutters, like Aerys, but it didn't seem to afflict them to a man. More to the point, Dany is highly unlikely to take another Targaryen as husband - so some of the troubles of inbreeding will go away.

And, yeah, she occasionally chatters on about the Usurper and his dogs. This is what happens when you have someone nattering on about it 24/7 for 13 years - and you know what? She's slowly coming to realize that Viserys was full of it, thanks in part to Barristan Selmy. By the time she actually reaches Westeros, most of those stupid ideas should be a bit more rational. Actually meeting a Stark or Snow or, hell - even Stannis - should help her even further.

Thus far? She's proved herself an apt ruler, one who actually cares for the needs of the smallfolk without being so blind to politics that it becomes her undoing. And, in part, she doesn't want to rule, anyway - she's instead been pushed forward. Namely by, gee, Robert Baratheon, who attempted to murder the baby in her belly. She would have been perfectly content in a house with a red door or life on the Dothraki sea, but other forces have conspired to push her where she is.

Of the various candidates that might sit the Iron Throne? I think Stannis could do decently, in part with Davos at his side, but that's never going to happen. Otherwise...? Well, who do we have left? The Greyjoys? Please. Tommen, obviously not, though Margaery might make for a fine queen. Littlefinger? Ugh, no. Who am I missing? Regardless, I don't think any of them would make near as apt a ruler as Dany would. And as for her ancestors? Well, she's not likely to marry a Targaryen and, hey. That a nutter might sit the throne is just one of the problems with hereditary rulership, no matter what family may sit the throne.

[Winter Crow]

Who specifically said that the "Taint" as it is called was passed down through the inbreeding? Psycologic problems can be passed down from a single parent as well as two easily. And I know that it is rarity that they become "Tainted", but think about it: All it takes to botch up all of Westeros once again is one insane king, and since the chance is there, I'd rather not have a Targ king/queen.
And I strongly doubt her morals.
Apparantly she was willing to let a freaking Dothraki horde run amok across Westeros, raping and killing, just so she could become regent. So much for the merciful queen I say.

But I'd definitely don't want LF either! Man, who came up with that?! He's scheming, manipulating, doesn't care about [b]anything[/b] except himself (and perhaps Cat/Sansa). The very things a regent should never be.

[Bolton Bastard]

[quote name='Maia' post='1609107' date='Dec 4 2008, 13.04']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?[/quote]

If you're thinking of the events I am, then you are either referring to single position based coup's in which one tyrant with few supporters overthrows with minimal bloodshed. That did not happen

The other events of a rebellion in the Byzantine and Roman era involved coups by military leaders that promise their soldiers something to get them to back them in fighting. This generally happened if one of two things occurred 1 the current leader was a tyrant or at least a poor ruler in their own regard (or at least perceived as such by the population) or 2 the old ruler died causing a power rift.

This of course changed when every single Byzantine Emp was deposed in a row (I want to say somewhere around 6 different emperors all got deposed) which was more a result of a cultural phenomenon and bares little resemblance to what happened to the Targs.

[DomDayne]

[quote name='Tywin's bastard' post='1609506' date='Dec 4 2008, 21.35']It doesn't have to. If they stopped marrying their own they could probably get rid of it since the inherent madness is surely an effect of their inbreeding.[/quote]



We can't think that it is only the Targs that are plauged with madness, sure their inbreeding has some adverse side effects, but, like Grumpygoat said before me, they aren't affected to a man, so i don't think that would be any bigger a probalem than say, jofferey sitting on the Iron Throne, or Littlefinger, or even Stannis and Mel. Stannis seems increasingly dependant on Ryllor, almost fanatically; regard less of whether or not Mels techniques workd, giving his life to Mel so she can work her magics seems more than a little mad to me...

[DomDayne]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1609522' date='Dec 4 2008, 21.54']Who specifically said that the "Taint" as it is called was passed down through the inbreeding? Psycologic problems can be passed down from a single parent as well as two easily.[/quote]

I think that it's generally accepted, at least in today's world that inbreeding casue many advers effects. I believe more phycological like depression, meglomania, bi-polar etc, rather than physical like being born four fingers or what have you... that said, the effects we see could be passed down from a single parent, i think the inbreeding helps more than a little.

[Grumpygoat]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1609522' date='Dec 4 2008, 16.54']And I strongly doubt her morals.
Apparantly she was willing to let a freaking Dothraki horde run amok across Westeros, raping and killing, just so she could become regent. So much for the merciful queen I say.[/quote]

Up until Drogo died, Dany wasn't really the ruler of her own destiny, anyway. And even up until that point, she tried tempering some of the Dothraki's baser urges, such as when she ordered they stopped raping the villagers and taking wives rather than slaves.

And since then, she's taken more care for the smallfolk than just about anyone else in the series. She's also willing to listen to sound advice, which is another trait she has and others in the series lack.

[Winter Crow]

What about Edmure sheltering his smallfolk? What about Ned Stark keeping perfect peace in the North?
Both of them even listen to sound advice (although, given, Ned don't always heed it). Stannis also keeps almost complete control over his men, and he certainly listens to the Onion Knight.

I'm not saying that any of them should be regent, but they're just examples of characters possessing the same merciful traits that Dany have.

I'm almost positively sure that Dany would make a good regent, but face it, there's just to much trouble after the rebelion for the people to accept a Targ ruler (among the Nobles that is, since the smallfolk seem to like the idea of a Targ ruler).
And don't forget the Taint. A very bad trait for regent to have.

And you're right that she couldn't really do anything about her life with Drogo, but it was her who installed the very idea into his head from the first place. She certainly knew what the Dothraki was capable of, so she's still guilty of that in my eyes.