Why didn't Ser Bold tell Dany her dad was a Nut Job?

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

(1)The whole POINT of Dany's arc, (Aside from the narrative of course) is a political commentary. Dany's 'middle eastern invasion' In which she has decided that A CULTURE THAT ENCOURAGES MASS RAPE, MURDER, AND ENSLAVEMENT IS WRONG!!! and that she's going to ENFORCE her culture on them, whether they like it or not. (2)Dany attempting to make herself grand arbiter of morality on a cultural scale has led to MORE death, MORE bloodshed and MORE wrongness.

(3)So what would you suggest doing to these cultures that are morally inexcusable? There are cultures not-so different from the Dothraki on the Earth today, and (4)you are suggesting that you, as the official DECIDER!!! have assessed them as culturally wrong

and that their evils can never be excused... OK then... Glad you don't own any dragons :drunk:.

1. Really? What roving bands are wandering the Middle East raping and pillaging their way through while taking slaves? I don't agree with some parts of some of the Middle East *cultures, none of them are remotely as bad as the Dothraki.

2. Not really. I don't see her stopping the Dothraki (beyond those she can immediately see).

3. Find ways to get them to stop. Preferably peaceful ways such as economic incentives to reform. But yes, I am all for violent means if necessary if the problem is bad enough (ie mass rape, murder, and enslavement).

4. Did I say I am the judge of morality? Did I say I know everything? No. I said mass rape, murder, and enslavement is wrong. I really think that is pretty low fucking bar to set.

5. Can I be there when you tell a rape victim that she shouldn't be mad because it's part of their culture? A slave shouldn't be pissed off because it's part of the masters' culture? Seriously, I want to be watch you actually tell victims of these crimes that we should respect the culture of the of the ones committing these crimes.

Or if you don't want to face any actual victims, lets go to to LGBT-friendly forum and you can explain why it is cool for various cultures to put people to death for being gay.

6. I come from the US which has a long history of telling others what to do. Shouldn't you respect my culture and let me decide for others as my **culture does?

Or is it only wrong to say others are wrong but rape, killing, and enslavement is cool? Just don't judge?

*Note: Unlike what you apparently believe, my disagreement does not mean I think they should necessarily be punished or attacked.

**In case it is not obvious, I am being sarcastic here. Like I said before, I do believe in cultural relativism. I simply believe there is a line.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The situations are completely different, as brashcandy has already said. Only two of the great houses still supported the Targaryens when Aerys, Aegon and Rhaenys were killed.

I'm not sure that this really strengthens are your argument about the loyalty that the Targs command. Especially given that one house was the family of the queen consort and the other house was originally a family of stewards who owed the Targs their position. If anything it shows how easily Targaryen support evaporated. You should be asking yourself, "Why were there only two major houses left supporting the Targaryens if their rule was as awesome as I think it was?"

Most of the lords in the North supported the Starks right until Robb's death. Despite this, none of the Northern lords go to any great effort to help Arya.

Which ones? The ones marching to Winterfell in a blizzard for her? Or the ones at Winterfell who are surrounded by hundreds of enemy soldiers and probably couldn't do anything if they tried? Dustin says, if I remember correctly, that they're agitated about her treatment and there's only so much they can stand before they act.

"The North remembers" only shows that the Starks are needed to unite the North; it doesn't show that all of the Northern lords care about the Starks.

"The North Remembers" means, "We have long memories, we believe in vengeance and if you fuck with us, we'll get you back. It may be months or even years from now, but it will happen." And the Starks are the embodiment of the North. There's a reason that "The North Remembers" is used in conjunction with people remembering the Red Wedding and Bran and Rickon's "murder." And you're trying to tell me they don't care about the Starks? Really?

In fact, if Bran and Rickon were truly dead, then the situation would be much more similar. The Northern lords have no interest in Sansa or Arya, just as the great lords had very little interest in Viserys and Daenerys.

Then please explain to me why little Lyanna Mormont, bless her, who has every reason to believe that Bran and Rickon are dead, more or less tells Stannis to screw off, and that they will have only one king in the North and it's a Stark. All the legitimate male Starks are dead as far as they know, right?

As for Sansa, it's a known fact that she's Mrs. Tyrion Lannister. Well obviously they're not going to do too much on that end, lest Winterfell fall into Lannister control. I believe they say as much in the story and it's likely that Robb disinherits her because of this. Even if they wanted to liberate her, they don't know where she is and aren't in any good position to find out.

As for Arya, she was way down south, across a war zone, and people had every indication that she was dead before Littlefinger produced "Arya" and sent her up north. And now that she's "back in the picture," so to speak, we have northern clans marching to Winterfell with Stannis for her and people with Roose stewing over her treatment but unable to do much if anything about it for fear of giving themselves away. Once people "knew" that "Arya" wasn't dead, they took action for her.

The Stark kids, scattered and broken and presumably dead as they are, still have more love and loyalty from their vassal houses in their warging pinkies than Viserys and Dany ever had. Like I said before: People have more respect and loyalty and consideration for dead Starks than they had for live Targs.

If Stannis wasn't trying to unite the North, then I have no doubt that the Northern lords would not be planning to rebel against the Lannister/Bolton/Frey alliance.

Based on ... what? Your desire to believe that the northern lords would jump ship just because the lords dumped the Targaryens so easily? If anything, Stannis is just a means to an end for them, and without him, they'd find another way to that end. You're forgetting that Stannis' promise to restore the Starks or at least assist them has played a big role in rallying the remaining northerners. They're not there for him.

What we have here is the difference between "talk" and "action." As in, you're trying to say that the northerners don't care about the Starks, when their actions suggest that you're greatly mistaken.

[FanTasy]

Hmm ... I think the North certainly has loyalty towards the Starks.

As I said in another thread I would label this not love but loyalty.

I suspect it is rooted in respect, acceptance, tradition and maybe for the most part in that the North don't like to be ruled by the South.

A Stark Lord of Winterfell or even King of the North is an attractive option to oppose rule by southerners.

I was touched by that speech of Wylla Manderley, regarding the gratitude to what the Starks did for White Harbor.

But I like to keep in mind that Manderleys ordered quest for Rickon could be motivated by other things than pure love or loyalty for the Starks.

If Manderley gets hold of Rickon the Manderleys gain by this.

Another motivation could be Manderleys yet not fully settled accounts with the Freys and the Boltons.

ETA And now I see that this is completely off topic ... sorry! :blushing:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I was touched by that speech of Wylla Manderley, regarding the gratitude to what the Starks did for White Harbor.

But I like to keep in mind that Manderleys ordered quest for Rickon could be motivated by other things than pure love or loyalty for the Starks.

If Manderley gets hold of Rickon the Manderleys gain by this.

Another motivation could be Manderleys yet not fully settled accounts with the Freys and the Boltons.

I believe that Manderly has three different motives — revenge, his own status and loyalty — that lead to the same end. When Manderly tells Davos the plan, he places more emphasis on Rickon being his "liege lord" and the "debt" his house owes the Starks. He intimates that there'll be revenge on the Freys, but that isn't his central argument. It's about restoring the Starks. Manderly more or less has Davos by the balls; he has no good reason to hide his motives. If he's fudging anything, he might be overplaying the support he'll give Stannis.

ETA: Yeah we've kind of gone off the rails with the topic. :P I think the original point was, Aerys' madness was enough to turn people away from the Targaryens and, unlike the Starks, the Targs just didn't have the built-up good will to make people willing to suffer a nutcase. The fact that no one but Willem Darry lifted a finger to help Dany and Viserys when they were in exile and before Dany hatched her dragons shows that the love and support that Viserys tried to tell Dany they had doesn't exist.

[ShadowRaven]

The situations are completely different, as brashcandy has already said. Only two of the great houses still supported the Targaryens when Aerys, Aegon and Rhaenys were killed. Most of the lords in the North supported the Starks right until Robb's death. Despite this, none of the Northern lords go to any great effort to help Arya. Perhaps they know she's fake, but there's no indication in the text that they do know. "The North remembers" only shows that the Starks are needed to unite the North; it doesn't show that all of the Northern lords care about the Starks. In fact, if Bran and Rickon were truly dead, then the situation would be much more similar. The Northern lords have no interest in Sansa or Arya, just as the great lords had very little interest in Viserys and Daenerys.

If Stannis wasn't trying to unite the North, then I have no doubt that the Northern lords would not be planning to rebel against the Lannister/Bolton/Frey alliance.

ShadowRaven, Barristan himself believes that Aerys was always mad. It's just that his captiviy at Duskendale encouraged this madness. In hindsight, he can recognise this taint and realise that Viserys also had it.

I did not realize Barristan was a psych or a Maester for that matter.

That still does not deny the fact that before Duskendale, The Realm prospered under Aerys. Whatever 'madness' he had before that, it certainly provided peace.....

But that is a whole other discussion on its own.

[Spinebreaker]

1. Really? What roving bands are wandering the Middle East raping and pillaging their way through while taking slaves? I don't agree with some parts of some of the Middle East *cultures, none of them are remotely as bad as the Dothraki.

I said there were people in the WORLD who were almost as bad. Not Specifically as bad. Slavery still exists. Over a lot of Europe. Hell, 30 odd homeless people were freed from VERY unpleasant slavery in a Gypsy camp in the UK last year. While on the subject, the gypsy practice of 'grabbing' is essentially giving sexual assault a more acceptable name. There are places in the middle east where a Woman can be punished for being raped, by being stoned to death, and with technology as good as it is trucks are used to carry the rocks rather than people. Nigeria still hangs witches, including children.

The mention of the Middle East was PURELY because there's a clear subtext in Dany's plot about how inposing your culture on other "lesser" cultures just leads to more death and destruction.

2. Not really. I don't see her stopping the Dothraki (beyond those she can immediately see).

No, of course not, not on her ow, but she was making a SLIGHT difference to one of their rulers... It was a start.

3. Find ways to get them to stop. Preferably peaceful ways such as economic incentives to reform. But yes, I am all for violent means if necessary if the problem is bad enough (ie mass rape, murder, and enslavement).

So does the end justify the means? How much violence? To whom? Does that make you just as bad as (I hate this word in this context) "Them"?

4. Did I say I am the judge of morality? Did I say I know everything? No. I said mass rape, murder, and enslavement is wrong. I really think that is pretty low fucking bar to set.

And I said a crime is more of a crime if you KNOW it's wrong. I didn't disagree that those things are wrong, but I've benefitted from an elnlightened and modern culture...

5. Can I be there when you tell a rape victim that she shouldn't be mad because it's part of their culture? A slave shouldn't be pissed off because it's part of the masters' culture? Seriously, I want to be watch you actually tell victims of these crimes that we should respect the culture of the of the ones committing these crimes.

Bit of a kneejerk reactionary statementI haven't claimed to be able to change any of these things, I don't think this is a rational or valid argument. this is purely emotional outrage.

Or if you don't want to face any actual victims, lets go to to LGBT-friendly forum and you can explain why it is cool for various cultures to put people to death for being gay.

Where did I say it was 'cool'? Where did I even imply it was OK? Very orthodox religious cultures have a problem with homosexuality because of the words of their pretend god. I don't agree, but I understand why they think it. They are wrong, but I know why they believe they are right. You seem to think that by having a discussion about how a culture may not KNOW they are doing something wrong that I condone and endorse murder, rape and slavery...

For the record, when it comes to murderers and rapists... I very much take Vlad the Impaler and Genghis Kahn's views...

[brashcandy]

I'm just going to say one last thing on this whole issue of Stark vs Targ loyalty - it is not surprising that the North is still loyal to and feels love for the Starks. Generally, in the areas where you see a unique and definable culture separate from the rest of the realm, this kind of nationalistic fervour is evident: see Ironborn, Dorne, and the North. Still, in the North (as everywhere else), you have people like the Boltons that will seize power when they sense weakness.

When you're talking about loyalty to the Iron throne now, there's a completely different set of dynamics in place. First things first, during Robert's Rebellion, Jon Arryn was able to secure the support of powerful Houses to back their cause. He himself brought the Vale, Ned brought the North, and the Tullys came in with the marriage pacts. The Lannisters remained on the fence, as did the Greyjoys, whilst the Tyrells and Dorne supported the Iron Throne. Despite what I would consider to be immense odds on the part of Robert and co. the war still lasted for a long time. The idea that people just jumped ship and deserted the Targs when things got rough isn't true. I think the death knell for them came when KL fell, Aerys was dead, and Rhaegar's children and his wife killed. Essentially, we see the same kind of situation happened for the Starks when Winterfell was lost. Robb was mocked, his campaign in tatters and then he was slaughtered.

The reason though that ultimately these two situations are not comparable IMO is because of the aftermath. The Starks have been down and out for a while, but with the news of Rickon, and the suspicions of the Arya/Bolton marriage, they were given new reason to hope. This is simply not the case, nor could it have been the case for Viserys and Dany. With the latter, you would be talking about taking on the might of the Iron throne, with all their considerable backing and power, to oust a sitting King, and restore a Targaryen dynasty. The odds were simply stacked too high against the Targs, even for their most committed loyalists like Dorne, and who can doubt that Dorne didn't have just as much to grieve over the deaths of Elia and her children?

Perhaps that was Dorne's Red Wedding, but unlike the situation in the North where there is hope that Stark children may still be around - Arya, and now Rickon, Rhaegar's heirs were dead. The best they could hope to do with the other Targ heirs was to keep them safe in exile with Willem Darry, because unlike the case with Rickon, where no one knows he's alive and what Manderly is planning, EVERYONE knew the Targ children were still around. Tze and Apple Martini are equating that knowledge to mean that people simply didn't care that they were around, but that's ignoring the political realities of the time. It was too dangerous to attempt any direct contact with these children when the Iron throne knew they were alive and might be keeping a watchful eye on their movements. Had Viserys and Dany been thought to have died, then perhaps you might have seen a more concerted, covert effort to protect them and bring them back to power sooner by some coalition in Westeros. Indeed, this is precisely what happens with Aegon. Due to the widespread belief that he had died, Varys and his allies were able to dedicate the time and money to grooming him into a King. It's kind of similar to what Ned has to do as well with Jon (assuming R+L=J is true). Jon is probably a Targ, but absolutely no one knew about him, and that's why he's alive today. Are we going to make the argument that Ned didn't give a rat's ass about Jon's birthright, or was he simply accepting the situation as it was and doing the best to guarantee the safety of his nephew?

I would never dispute the overwhelming loyalty that the Starks inspire, but I maintain that it cannot be paralleled with any supposed lack of concern or loyalty to the Targs. The Starks were the Wardens of the North after they bent the knee, the Targs were the rulers of the entire realm of Westeros. That is very a real geographical difference that explains why the Stark power is concentrated in their region, whilst the Targs would always have had a difficult time controlling the realm, especially in the latter years with more in-fighting, and Aerys' madness.

Everyone is simply vulnerable when they are in weak positions. The Lannisters sensed the end was near for the Targs and moved in to help Robert; the Greyjoys saw the chance to get revenge against the Starks and pounced. Now that the Lannisters grasp on KL is slipping, the Tyrells are there to try to capitalise on the power vacuum. You can appreciate the extraordinary loyalty that the North still holds to the Starks, but it cannot be divorced from an understanding of why the situation is so conducive right now for a rebellion in that region. It's apples and oranges to say that the Starks have loyalty in the aftermath, and the Targs had none. Right now the North pretty much has nothing to lose. They've lost their sons and heirs in war, they've grieved for the injustice of the Red Wedding, and they want to get rid of the Boltons and have a Stark in the position of power again. No one is challenging the fact that the North consists of some stubborn buggers :)

But not getting involved in some half-cooked, desperate plot to invade the realm again probably saved the lives of Viserys and Dany, and we simply cannot say conclusively either way whether someone in Westeros - other than Varys - wasn't helping them along the way. Rickon's re-emergence might very well doom his life as well. As for people not "caring" Robert certainly cared plenty up to the point that he was willing to order Dany's death when he heard she was married to a Dothraki horselord. The Targs, poor and destitute essentially, were still able to inspire fear in the King after all these years. As for the respect and loyalty part, it's futile to judge Dany (and Aegon) on the experiences of their forefathers. Right now, they're building their own legacies, and Dany seems to achieved a rare mix of judgements in her short reign so far: she's feared, and respected, and inspires loyalty. I expect all of these to grow considerably in the next two books.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I said there were people in the WORLD who were almost as bad. Not Specifically as bad. Slavery still exists. Over a lot of Europe. Hell, 30 odd homeless people were freed from VERY unpleasant slavery in a Gypsy camp in the UK last year. While on the subject, the gypsy practice of 'grabbing' is essentially giving sexual assault a more acceptable name. There are places in the middle east where a Woman can be punished for being raped, by being stoned to death, and with technology as good as it is trucks are used to carry the rocks rather than people. Nigeria still hangs witches, including children.

The mention of the Middle East was PURELY because there's a clear subtext in Dany's plot about how inposing your culture on other "lesser" cultures just leads to more death and destruction.

No, of course not, not on her ow, but she was making a SLIGHT difference to one of their rulers... It was a start.

So does the end justify the means? How much violence? To whom? Does that make you just as bad as (I hate this word in this context) "Them"?

And I said a crime is more of a crime if you KNOW it's wrong. I didn't disagree that those things are wrong, but I've benefitted from an elnlightened and modern culture...

Bit of a kneejerk reactionary statementI haven't claimed to be able to change any of these things, I don't think this is a rational or valid argument. this is purely emotional outrage.

Where did I say it was 'cool'? Where did I even imply it was OK? Very orthodox religious cultures have a problem with homosexuality because of the words of their pretend god. I don't agree, but I understand why they think it. They are wrong, but I know why they believe they are right. You seem to think that by having a discussion about how a culture may not KNOW they are doing something wrong that I condone and endorse murder, rape and slavery...

For the record, when it comes to murderers and rapists... I very much take Vlad the Impaler and Genghis Kahn's views...

Actually, it did sound like you were condoning murder, rape, and slavery when it was part of the culture. At least to me. But I will take you at your word that you are not. Chalk it up to Internet misunderstanding.

Part of me wants to repond to your post in points, but I simply don't want to argue anymore. We have veered WAY off topic and things have gotten personal (you implying I was some sort of dick who believes he's the "decider" and my admittedly kinda dickish "knee-jerk reaction").

So, let's just stop here.

[mediocre cheese]

For the record, when it comes to murderers and rapists... I very much take Vlad the Impaler and Genghis Kahn's views...

So your fine with them as long as they fight for your army and do it your enemies?

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

But not getting involved in some half-cooked, desperate plot to invade the realm again probably saved the lives of Viserys and Dany, and we simply cannot say conclusively either way whether someone in Westeros - other than Varys - wasn't helping them along the way. Rickon's re-emergence might very well doom his life as well. As for people not "caring" Robert certainly cared plenty up to the point that he was willing to order Dany's death when he heard she was married to a Dothraki horselord. The Targs, poor and destitute essentially, were still able to inspire fear in the King after all these years. As for the respect and loyalty part, it's futile to judge Dany (and Aegon) on the experiences of their forefathers. Right now, they're building their own legacies, and Dany seems to achieved a rare mix of judgements in her short reign so far: she's feared, and respected, and inspires loyalty. I expect all of these to grow considerably in the next two books.

Just wanted to add because I'm not sure it's been mentioned, but despite all you've said, Oberyn Martell actually did raise about half of Dorne for Viserys, and that was against the wishes of the actual ruler of Dorne and caused some serious political problems for Dorne that Doran had to deal with. And of course regardless of the half-assed idiocy of his plans, Doran did also intend to bring Viserys (and then Daenerys) back to power eventually. In any case, it's obvious that the statement "no one in the seven kingdoms cared" is not true.

[Spinebreaker]

Actually, it did sound like you were condoning murder, rape, and slavery when it was part of the culture. At least to me. But I will take you at your word that you are not. Chalk it up to Internet misunderstanding.

Good god no! Let's say we have 2 boys we'll call Bob and cave boy. Bob has a 'normal' upbringing. Mum, Dad, brother, sister, dog, house, school, nearly enough money, Part of a community... Normal.

Cave Boy has exactly the same, BUT is never told not to take things. In fact In Cave boy's community people just take what they want when they want it. Other than this one detail the culture's are identical.

Now Bob and Cave Boy both go and live in a new village and they both steal some money. I believe that Bob commited a Worse crime, because he knew he was perpitrating an act that was amoral.

It's a silly extrapolation, but hopefully expresses my point...

P

We have veered WAY off topic and things have gotten personal (you implying I was some sort of dick who believes he's the "decider" and my admittedly kinda dickish "knee-jerk reaction").

Agreed, I never intended it to sound personal... I just get vehement. My apologies Ser :cheers:

So your fine with them as long as they fight for your army and do it your enemies?

bazinga! Nice retort.

[Top Notch Balanter]

Havent read the whole thread but hers my simple two cents on this matter

1) Barristan loyally served Aerys for many years and he put up with all his crap so he is too loyal to the targs to tell Dany everything about him

2)Aerys was a complete nutter he killed Brandon and Rickard Stark and all their companions bar Ethan Glover he wanted to burn down a whole city he repeatedly raped his wife and did all of other bad crap

3)Dany can easily godown this path she was born from those rapings and she has already shown signs of her father eg Crucfying her enemies

I think Dany can be saved from becoming Aerys and i think the person who will do it is Tyrion Lannister

[Evamitchelle]

I said there were people in the WORLD who were almost as bad. Not Specifically as bad. Slavery still exists. Over a lot of Europe. Hell, 30 odd homeless people were freed from VERY unpleasant slavery in a Gypsy camp in the UK last year. While on the subject, the gypsy practice of 'grabbing' is essentially giving sexual assault a more acceptable name. There are places in the middle east where a Woman can be punished for being raped, by being stoned to death, and with technology as good as it is trucks are used to carry the rocks rather than people. Nigeria still hangs witches, including children.

I'm assuming that you heard about grabbing from the show "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" because there is actually no such thing as a "grabbing tradition" in Roma culture. That show as a whole is a gross misrepresentation of the actual Roma lifestyle, and is so full of false information and negative stereotypes as to be downright offensive for genuine Roma people. I'd also like to point out that the term "gypsy" is derogatory, and that Roma/Romani or (Irish) Traveller (depending on their ethnicity) should be used instead.

[Spinebreaker]

I'm assuming that you heard about grabbing from the show "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" because there is actually no such thing as a "grabbing tradition" in Roma culture. That show as a whole is a gross misrepresentation of the actual Roma lifestyle, and is so full of false information and negative stereotypes as to be downright offensive for genuine Roma people. I'd also like to point out that the term "gypsy" is derogatory, and that Roma/Romani or (Irish) Traveller (depending on their ethnicity) should be used instead.

I'm aware of the show, but most of my 'traveller' information comes from the group (who insist on being called gypsies by the way) who come and camp in the car park opposite the pub I work in about 3 times a year. Not all groups of travellers leave a car park (And a neraby mineral spa) so full of human excrement and bodilly waste it requires £4000 worth of environmental health cleanup. That aspect doesn't feature in the show either. Or the local children (8-10) chased and terrified by laughing men with dogs.

Again, 2 aspects of, and different groups of a culture we have varied and disperate experience of.

[Spinebreaker]

I hasten to add, I don't believe all Gypsies/Travellers behave this way. Just some.

[Evamitchelle]

I'm aware of the show, but most of my 'traveller' information comes from the group (who insist on being called gypsies by the way) who come and camp in the car park opposite the pub I work in about 3 times a year. Not all groups of travellers leave a car park (And a neraby mineral spa) so full of human excrement and bodilly waste it requires £4000 worth of environmental health cleanup. That aspect doesn't feature in the show either. Or the local children (8-10) chased and terrified by laughing men with dogs.

Again, 2 aspects of, and different groups of a culture we have varied and disperate experience of.

I don't see what that has got to do with grabbing. Unless you've actually witnessed that "tradition" being practiced in that particular Traveller camp ? Otherwise everybody I know who is Roma/Traveller has told me they'd never heard about such a practice being part of their "traditions".

I find it questionable that they'd rather be called gypsies that being called by their proper names (especially since gypsy paints a picture of a monolithic group when they are in fact many different "types" like the Rroma / Irish Traveller (Pavee) / Romanichel etc.). Even if they are specifically insisting on being called gypsies, it sounds more to me like a reappropriation of a ethnic slur (like when black people use the n-word among themselves) than because they just like the word better. Or it could be because most people wouldn't understand the terms Pavee/Rroma/Traveller while Gypsy is much more recognizable. In any case I'd advise you against using the term "gypsy" unless explicitly told to do so since most Roma people I know would get quite offended by it.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Agreed, I never intended it to sound personal... I just get vehement. My apologies Ser :cheers:

Well, at least we agree on something. Sorry for my own behavior.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Just wanted to add because I'm not sure it's been mentioned, but despite all you've said, Oberyn Martell actually did raise about half of Dorne for Viserys, and that was against the wishes of the actual ruler of Dorne and caused some serious political problems for Dorne that Doran had to deal with. And of course regardless of the half-assed idiocy of his plans, Doran did also intend to bring Viserys (and then Daenerys) back to power eventually. In any case, it's obvious that the statement "no one in the seven kingdoms cared" is not true.

The Martells had personal, vindictive reasons for wanting the Targaryens back — they wanted to avenge Elia and her children. It was not necessarily because they loved the Targaryens themselves or thought that their rule was so great. We're told time and time and time and time again that they're driven by vengeance on their own behalf. They don't say, "Targaryen rule was fabulous and we're loyal to them and want them back." They say, "We want the Targs back to stick it to the Lannisters for having our sister/aunt murdered." Do you not see the difference? I consider that to be a big difference from the northerners who want to help the Starks out of actual love and loyalty, and who want vengeance for Robb, Ned, Bran, Rickon, Arya, etc. and not just for themselves and their own families.

[Spinebreaker]

I don't see what that has got to do with grabbing. Unless you've actually witnessed that "tradition" being practiced in that particular Traveller camp ? Otherwise everybody I know who is Roma/Traveller has told me they'd never heard about such a practice being part of their "traditions".

It was actually a conversation between some of the traveller's and some of the local's in the pub that started because of that TV show. I forget the details exactly, (you know how late night pub conversations go) but it was confirmed "from the horses mouth" as it were, not actually physically witnessed. I have no reason to believe they were lying.

it sounds more to me like a reappropriation of a ethnic slur (like when black people use the n-word among themselves) than because they just like the word better.

Could well be.

In any case I'd advise you against using the term "gypsy" unless explicitly told to do so since most Roma people I know would get quite offended by it.

To be fair, any travellers I talk directly to, I tend to use their name. It'd be REALLY weird if people walked into the pub and I greeted them with my assumption of their cultural role...

"Good afternoon French Tourist, how can I help you?" "Hello there second generation european."

Might ba amusing though.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

The Martells had personal, vindictive reasons for wanting the Targaryens back — they wanted to avenge Elia and her children. It was not necessarily because they loved the Targaryens themselves or thought that their rule was so great. We're told time and time and time and time again that they're driven by vengeance on their own behalf. They don't say, "Targaryen rule was fabulous and we're loyal to them and want them back." They say, "We want the Targs back to stick it to the Lannisters for having our sister/aunt murdered." Do you not see the difference? I consider that to be a big difference from the northerners who want to help the Starks out of actual love and loyalty, and who want vengeance for Robb, Ned, Bran, Rickon, Arya, etc. and not just for themselves and their own families.

The only thing I'm saying is your original statement - "no one cared about a Targaryen restoration" is untrue. That's it, go ahead and debate the details as you wish, I'm not particularly interested in this topic.