Restoration Rights?

[Nictarion]

:agree:

Dany is fighting for a claim she lost, a kingdom she's never set foot in and subjects who don't want her.

You can not definitely say this until she's in Westeros, and we see what kind of support she gets. Until then your just making assumptions.

[C0bR]

:agree:

Dany is fighting for a claim she lost, a kingdom she's never set foot in and subjects who don't want her.

The Starks are fighting for a claim they still have, a kingdom they've been raised in and subjects who want them.

this, the thread should be locked after with this :bowdown:

[Lady of Long Lake]

That would be oppression. it's a fine line.

Hence why dragonlords are equated with slave-master/slavery..

[Jasta11]

I think Martin has made it very clear that oaths and lineages and birthrights may matter, but less than swords, at least as far as the Iron Throne is concerned. Renly was in no way, shape or form right in his bid for the throne, but he had many swords and that was enough. Right serves to put sugar coating on your victories but ultimately what matters is that you win the war. So yeah, if Dany wants the throne, she will certainly have to take it, fire and blood, excetera. Arguing that there's a right of restoration seems kinda pointless to me at this juncture since nobody will grant it to her; in any event, the Targaryens lost all legitimacy in the eyes of most of Westeros when Aerys broke the social contract binding him to his vassals and was then defeated in war. Only way to undo this is of course to win her war and force her surely magnificient arse on that silly chair, because nobody will simply give it to her, doubly so because Aegon can also claim to restore the dynasty.

However I think it's different in the individual kingdoms, which are much more tid to their ruling family.Best example is of course the Starks, where the situation is different; they weren't deposed, but betrayed and nearly wiped out. But Ramsay still needs to marry a (fake) Stark to justify his dad's rule (Robert never had to do that, for example). Officialy, the Starks are still Lords of Winterfell, their title wasn't really usurped, their family hasn't broke the social contract.

[Pikachu101]

You can not definitely say this until she's in Westeros, and we see what kind of support she gets. Until then your just making assumptions.

I'm not making assumptions, the text clearly shows no kingdom wants Dany. Dorne only wants revenge, they're not die hard Targ loyalists.

North: Starks

Vale: Starks

Reach: Tommen

Westerlands: Tommen

Riverlands: Starks

Iron Islands: Greyjoys

Stormlands: Stannis

Dorne: revenge

The Starks have 3/7 of Westeros behind them. Dany can't even secure one, especially if they find out about Quentyn

[Nictarion]

I'm not making assumptions, the text clearly shows no kingdom wants Dany. Dorne only wants revenge, they're not die hard Targ loyalists.

North: Starks

Vale: Starks

Reach: Tommen

Westerlands: Tommen

Riverlands: Starks

Iron Islands: Greyjoys

Stormlands: Stannis

Dorne: revenge

The Starks have 3/7 of Westeros behind them. Dany can't even secure one, especially if they find out about Quentyn

The Ironborn are going to help Dany.

[AegonTargaryen]

I'm not making assumptions, the text clearly shows no kingdom wants Dany. Dorne only wants revenge, they're not die hard Targ loyalists.

North: Starks

Vale: Starks

Reach: Tommen

Westerlands: Tommen

Riverlands: Starks

Iron Islands: Greyjoys

Stormlands: Stannis

Dorne: revenge

The Starks have 3/7 of Westeros behind them. Dany can't even secure one, especially if they find out about Quentyn

North: would accept a new Targaryen king with a Stark mother

Riverlands: would accept a new Targaryen king if the north does

Vale: would accept a new Targaryen king if the north does

Dorne: Targaryen

Reach: would take a Targaryen if they married marge

Stormlands: are already in the process of accepting a Targaryen

[Melisandre's Shadow]

Vale isn't necessarily Stark as of yet. I think LF might be trying to bide his time for Dany. (And I hope that the Reach is too LF+QoT=madgeniuses)

[Mulled Wino]

The Ironborn are going to help Dany.

they are actually trying to rule dany I think.

[Melisandre's Shadow]

You can not definitely say this until she's in Westeros, and we see what kind of support she gets. Until then your just making assumptions.

That's some people's favorite style of arguing, taking personal assumptions and guesses and presenting them as fact. :bang:

[AegonTargaryen]

It's a been a good discussion, but it seems like we're going to have to agree to disagree. To answer OP, I think Dany is justified in wanting the iron throne, I think the Starks are justified in wanting Winterfell, and I even think Stannis is justified in wanting the iron throne. This story isn't meant to be black and white, and that's why I don't understand why people can't concede a pretty obvious reality, that the Targaryens were wronged, are justified in wanting their throne back, and still have a claim, as does Stannis. But it's just that, it's a claim.

The thing with "right of conquest" is that the damn thing is an oxymoron. It's essentially lawless, no one has rights to anything unless they can hold it by force. It's the law of the jungle and can be invoked when it's convenient and rejected when it's not.

"Hey guys, but Stannis got his ass kicked on the Blackwater, he has never sat the throne, literally no one likes him, not a single kingdom has declared for him, even his own region only reluctantly followed him after he killed his little brother with black magic, and at the first chance they got, they all turned to Joff, even though they knew he was a bastard"... "Yea but whatever, he might not of conquered anything, but he still has right of conquest as Robert's heir, c'mon, right of conquest dude."

"Hey guys, the Starks got annihilated, the Boltons took Winterfell, the Stark banners have sworn fealty to the Boltons. Isn't that right of conquest? ...Nah, we don't like the Boltons, they're pricks, no right of conquest here."

"Hey guys, what about the Freys, they pretty much conquered the riverlands, took Riverrun and all, right of conquest? Nah Freys are pricks.

"What about the Targaryens though guys?... RIGHT OF CONQUEST, they have no right to the throne."

"But guys, despite Robert's deep deep hatred for the Targaryens, he needed to stress his Targaryen grandmother to legitimize his rule. I mean even Ned concedes Robert became king 'because of he had a better claim,' in other words because he was the most "Targaryen" of the rebels. Right? ...Nooooo man RIGHT OF CONQUEST."

"But guys, Robert was super relieved when the Targaryens babes were murdered, in fact he wanted to chase down a young teenage girl and murder her. Why should he care about baby Aegon and Daenerys, I mean, the throne was his by right of conquest, why would he so fear these random people who have no claim to the throne? ... you're an idiot, RIGHT OF CONQUEST"

And say what you will about the Targaryens, but the almost two decades since they've gone hasn't exactly seen enlightened rule. The first Baratheon king was drunk, a whore, he plunged the kingdom into debt, and condoned the murder of children. The current Baratheon pretender might be the least liked dude in all of Westeros. The guy is a kinslayer, killed his little brother with a shadow like a coward, and even wanted to burn his own nephew for fuck sake. No offence folks but the Baratheon "dynasty" reads like a who's who of drunks, outcasts, and maniacs.

The irony in all of this is that Robert Baratheon is one of favourite characters in the whole story. and I actually like Stannis. But seriously you guys gotta stop pretending like the Targaryens are the root of all evil and the Baratheons are the saviours of Westeros and its people.

[C0bR]

North: would accept a new Stark king with a Targaryen father, a man that is a Stark through and through (and we are not even sure if they would accept him, if his identity was known)

Riverlands: would accept a new Stark king if the north does

Vale: would accept a new Stark king if the north does

Dorne: Targaryen, but half Martell, they would not support Daenerys and only use her as an instrument of revenge

Reach: would take a Targaryen king not queen if they married marge

Stormlands: are already in the process of accepting a Targaryen – totally depleted by war, they just go where the wind blows

kinda fixed

[AegonTargaryen]

kinda fixed

Haha touche. Will write up something soon gotta grab food.

As an aside, this has been my favourite thread since being on this board. Kudos to OP and all who have contributed

[Jasta11]

North: would accept a new Targaryen king with a Stark mother

Riverlands: would accept a new Targaryen king if the north does

Vale: would accept a new Targaryen king if the north does

Dorne: Targaryen

Reach: would take a Targaryen if they married marge

Stormlands: are already in the process of accepting a Targaryen

Wishful thinking. Jon will never want to be king, ever (unless he does a 180 as a character), so that rules out 3. Dorne doesn't give a shit about the Targaryens themselves, they want vengeance is all, but could certainly be persuaded. The Stormlands are being conquered by Aegon, not really won over, Griffin's Roost notwhistanding. The Lannisters want only the Lannisters. The Iron Islanders want to use Dany, not be ruled by her. The Reach could be persuaded via marriage but couldn't give a rat's arse over who's on the throne as long as they're the grey eminence behind it.

So that's 2 kindgoms out of 7 that could want the Targs back, and even then it's only to serve their own interests. Maybe make it 3 if Littlefinger marries Sansa to Aegon. The rest will have to be beaten into submission or would bend the knee to overwhelming force. That's hardly a pretty picture for peaceful reunification.

And even if you re-establish the Targaryens somehow, so what? We're simply back to the pre-Aerys days, with winter coming and a lot of ruins and corpses more besides. The series has kinda demonstrated that not a lot of people in Westeros had any attachement to the Targaryens in particular; it's not like the Starks in the North which are pretty much seen as de facto rulers no matter what happens. Sure, as long as the Targs don't run around burning people it's gonna be fine, but as soon as a King pisses off the wrong Lords, here comes another big rebellion, potentially another deposed Targ dynasty (or maybe the rebels will finish the job this time?) ad nauseum. Jeor Mormont has the right of it; who cares about whose arse sits on the throne when dead men walk against the Realm? I'd say put an end to that silly chair anyway. Sorry for the ramble but it just doesn,t seem important right now to absolutely get Dany or Aegon on the throne.

And anyway I maintain that this ''right of restoration'' talk is moot. If a Targaryen is going to rule the seven kingdoms, it will be by conquest and nothing more, as Aegon I did, as Robert did. Let's not have any delusions otherwise.

[Lord Damian]

this, the thread should be locked after with this :bowdown:

I agree, perfect

[Addam of Hull]

It's a been a good discussion, but it seems like we're going to have to agree to disagree. To answer OP, I think Dany is justified in wanting the iron throne, I think the Starks are justified in wanting Winterfell, and I even think Stannis is justified in wanting the iron throne. This story isn't meant to be black and white, and that's why I don't understand why people can't concede a pretty obvious reality, that the Targaryens were wronged, are justified in wanting their throne back, and still have a claim, as does Stannis. But it's just that, it's a claim.

The thing with "right of conquest" is that the damn thing is an oxymoron. It's essentially lawless, no one has rights to anything unless they can hold it by force. It's the law of the jungle and can be invoked when it's convenient and rejected when it's not.

"Hey guys, but Stannis got his ass kicked on the Blackwater, he has never sat the throne, literally no one likes him, not a single kingdom has declared for him, even his own region only reluctantly followed him after he killed his little brother with black magic, and at the first chance they got, they all turned to Joff, even though they knew he was a bastard"... "Yea but whatever, he might not of conquered anything, but he still has right of conquest as Robert's heir, c'mon, right of conquest dude."

"Hey guys, the Starks got annihilated, the Boltons took Winterfell, the Stark banners have sworn fealty to the Boltons. Isn't that right of conquest? ...Nah, we don't like the Boltons, they're pricks, no right of conquest here."

"Hey guys, what about the Freys, they pretty much conquered the riverlands, took Riverrun and all, right of conquest? Nah Freys are pricks.

"What about the Targaryens though guys?... RIGHT OF CONQUEST, they have no right to the throne."

"But guys, despite Robert's deep deep hatred for the Targaryens, he needed to stress his Targaryen grandmother to legitimize his rule. I mean even Ned concedes Robert became king 'because of he had a better claim,' in other words because he was the most "Targaryen" of the rebels. Right? ...Nooooo man RIGHT OF CONQUEST."

"But guys, Robert was super relieved when the Targaryens babes were murdered, in fact he wanted to chase down a young teenage girl and murder her. Why should he care about baby Aegon and Daenerys, I mean, the throne was his by right of conquest, why would he so fear these random people who have no claim to the throne? ... you're an idiot, RIGHT OF CONQUEST"

And say what you will about the Targaryens, but the almost two decades since they've gone hasn't exactly seen enlightened rule. The first Baratheon king was drunk, a whore, he plunged the kingdom into debt, and condoned the murder of children. The current Baratheon pretender might be the least liked dude in all of Westeros. The guy is a kinslayer, killed his little brother with a shadow like a coward, and even wanted to burn his own nephew for fuck sake. No offence folks but the Baratheon "dynasty" reads like a who's who of drunks, outcasts, and maniacs.

The irony in all of this is that Robert Baratheon is one of favourite characters in the whole story. and I actually like Stannis. But seriously you guys gotta stop pretending like the Targaryens are the root of all evil and the Baratheons are the saviours of Westeros and its people.

I'd agree that right of conquest is a very flexible and ill-defined term, but I think you're mistaken in suggesting that people believe the Targaryens are the root of evil and the Baratheons are the saviors of Westeros. The situation is more nuanced than that. The reason people suggest that the Targaryens are conquerors while the Boltons, the Freys, the Baratheons and others aren't has everything to do with perception. Conquest implies lands that have been won through warfare by an invading group or culture. It involves subjugating the people there and the regime that currently rules. The Boltons have yet to subjugate most of the noble houses and they're using the Starks legitimacy to try and force the North to recognize them as legitimate rulers. Similarly, the Baratheons deposed the Targaryen regime and used their tenuous connection to them to give their claim legitimacy. Despite having beaten the Targaryens, though, they definitely aren't conquerors; usurpers, certainly, rebels, most definitely, but they aren't conquerors. The Freys face a similar problem. They never won anything in combat. They assassinated and took their liege lord prisoner, but they hold the Riverlands in name only. None of their subordinate houses recognize them in anything but name. I don't think I need to really touch the story of the Targaryens and how they fit the definition of conquerors.

I think the major problem with the Targaryens - and why most houses would reject any claim they have - is that they never really integrated in to Westeros. They kept a number of their traditions - ones that nobody else held in Westeros - and seldom married outside their family. There was nothing tying Westeros to Targaryen after the last of the dragons died and that was ultimately a big problem. Because like any government, the Targaryens only held power as long as the people willed it. In this case, the people is short-hand for the various Lords Paramount, but it stands. The whole situation was a powder keg waiting to blow because of that. All it would take was one bad king and a few lords who'd had enough and the whole regime would topple over... which is exactly what happened. Aerys believed that he had a right to do as he wished. He ignored customs, illegally seized lords, and murdered them in cold blood with the flimsiest justification. Had Rhaegar handled the situation with Lyanna differently, he may have very well been king and there would have been no rebellion. I think the realm would probably be better off if that happened.

It didn't, though. Rhaegar appeared to have kidnapped and raped the daughter of Lord Rickard and the bride of Lord Robert. The thing is, even if that isn't the case, Westeros as a whole has customs. You can ignore them - as the Targaryens were wont to do - but doing so can cause problems and lords feeling that they were denied their rights is always going to be a big issue. Rhaegar likely would have been a better king than either Aerys or Robert, but he dug his grave.

So were the Baratheons the saviors of Westeros? It's highly doubtful. The newness of their reign and the lack of a clear heir thanks to Cersei's and Robert's infidelity ensured that a massive civil war of succession was bound to happen. Robert bankrupt the realm - even Aerys kept the realm's treasury full - and Joffrey's thoughtless and malignant nature ensured that there would be those who didn't want him as their king. So the Baratheons were definitely bad for Westeros, which might be the point, narratively. That while the Targaryen's were conquerors and starting to become prone to madness, they kept the realm stable; the heroic men that defeated them ensure that it would become the chaotic place we currently know it as.

But I don't think that this means Robert was wrong to overthrow the Targaryens or replace them. Even though it caused a lot of instability, Aerys did things that are unacceptable for a king. Rhaegar was irresponsible at best and criminal at worst. And imagine yourself in that position, knowing that the king had unjustly murdered one of your peers and his son, called for the death for two more Lords for no real reason, and his son had purportedly kidnapped and raped the daughter of the man he'd killed. Could you really risk putting another of his sons on the throne? Or a grandson? I doubt it. I doubt anyone really had many problems with them being deposed, to be honest, save for the Martells.

As for whether they still have rights, that's an even murkier field. Unlike our society, there is no piece of paper where the basic rights of people are recorded on, which means that rights are almost entirely decided by the culture and the people with power. Individuals and houses may think they have certain rights, but if nobody recognizes that right, then functionally, no right exists. The only recourse beyond that is to use force to try and ensure that your rights are recognized and enforce them. So do the Targaryens have any rights left in Westeros? I think if you asked most people, the answer would be no. The right to vengeance is definitely an exception - at least in the north - but beyond that, I doubt there's anyone left who will acknowledge Dany's claim to anything without some force to back it up.

[Morienthar]

At this point the North will not settle for anything less than a Stark.....

Even if Jon is revealed and all that happens he would have to take the Stark name to rule in the North or stay with the NW.

[Melisandre's Shadow]

I'd agree that right of conquest is a very flexible and ill-defined term, but I think you're mistaken in suggesting that people believe the Targaryens are the root of evil and the Baratheons are the saviors of Westeros. The situation is more nuanced than that. The reason people suggest that the Targaryens are conquerors while the Boltons, the Freys, the Baratheons and others aren't has everything to do with perception. Conquest implies lands that have been won through warfare by an invading group or culture. It involves subjugating the people there and the regime that currently rules. The Boltons have yet to subjugate most of the noble houses and they're using the Starks legitimacy to try and force the North to recognize them as legitimate rulers. Similarly, the Baratheons deposed the Targaryen regime and used their tenuous connection to them to give their claim legitimacy. Despite having beaten the Targaryens, though, they definitely aren't conquerors; usurpers, certainly, rebels, most definitely, but they aren't conquerors. The Freys face a similar problem. They never won anything in combat. They assassinated and took their liege lord prisoner, but they hold the Riverlands in name only. None of their subordinate houses recognize them in anything but name. I don't think I need to really touch the story of the Targaryens and how they fit the definition of conquerors.

I think the major problem with the Targaryens - and why most houses would reject any claim they have - is that they never really integrated in to Westeros. They kept a number of their traditions - ones that nobody else held in Westeros - and seldom married outside their family. There was nothing tying Westeros to Targaryen after the last of the dragons died and that was ultimately a big problem. Because like any government, the Targaryens only held power as long as the people willed it. In this case, the people is short-hand for the various Lords Paramount, but it stands. The whole situation was a powder keg waiting to blow because of that. All it would take was one bad king and a few lords who'd had enough and the whole regime would topple over... which is exactly what happened. Aerys believed that he had a right to do as he wished. He ignored customs, illegally seized lords, and murdered them in cold blood with the flimsiest justification. Had Rhaegar handled the situation with Lyanna differently, he may have very well been king and there would have been no rebellion. I think the realm would probably be better off if that happened.

It didn't, though. Rhaegar appeared to have kidnapped and raped the daughter of Lord Rickard and the bride of Lord Robert. The thing is, even if that isn't the case, Westeros as a whole has customs. You can ignore them - as the Targaryens were wont to do - but doing so can cause problems and lords feeling that they were denied their rights is always going to be a big issue. Rhaegar likely would have been a better king than either Aerys or Robert, but he dug his grave.

So were the Baratheons the saviors of Westeros? It's highly doubtful. The newness of their reign and the lack of a clear heir thanks to Cersei's and Robert's infidelity ensured that a massive civil war of succession was bound to happen. Robert bankrupt the realm - even Aerys kept the realm's treasury full - and Joffrey's thoughtless and malignant nature ensured that there would be those who didn't want him as their king. So the Baratheons were definitely bad for Westeros, which might be the point, narratively. That while the Targaryen's were conquerors and starting to become prone to madness, they kept the realm stable; the heroic men that defeated them ensure that it would become the chaotic place we currently know it as.

But I don't think that this means Robert was wrong to overthrow the Targaryens or replace them. Even though it caused a lot of instability, Aerys did things that are unacceptable for a king. Rhaegar was irresponsible at best and criminal at worst. And imagine yourself in that position, knowing that the king had unjustly murdered one of your peers and his son, called for the death for two more Lords for no real reason, and his son had purportedly kidnapped and raped the daughter of the man he'd killed. Could you really risk putting another of his sons on the throne? Or a grandson? I doubt it. I doubt anyone really had many problems with them being deposed, to be honest, save for the Martells.

As for whether they still have rights, that's an even murkier field. Unlike our society, there is no piece of paper where the basic rights of people are recorded on, which means that rights are almost entirely decided by the culture and the people with power. Individuals and houses may think they have certain rights, but if nobody recognizes that right, then functionally, no right exists. The only recourse beyond that is to use force to try and ensure that your rights are recognized and enforce them. So do the Targaryens have any rights left in Westeros? I think if you asked most people, the answer would be no. The right to vengeance is definitely an exception - at least in the north - but beyond that, I doubt there's anyone left who will acknowledge Dany's claim to anything without some force to back it up.

:agree: :agree: :drool: :bowdown: :drool: :bowdown: :drool: :agree: :agree: <===this should be the mix of reactions to your post from anyone following this topic

[Rhaegarsjoy]

^^ There are really great posts TY everyone for contributing to the discussion, great posts by Aegon Targaryen and The Wolfwood.

[C0bR]

I'd agree that right of conquest is a very flexible and ill-defined term, but I think you're mistaken in suggesting that people believe the Targaryens are the root of evil and the Baratheons are the saviors of Westeros. The situation is more nuanced than that. The reason people suggest that the Targaryens are conquerors while the Boltons, the Freys, the Baratheons and others aren't has everything to do with perception. Conquest implies lands that have been won through warfare by an invading group or culture. It involves subjugating the people there and the regime that currently rules. The Boltons have yet to subjugate most of the noble houses and they're using the Starks legitimacy to try and force the North to recognize them as legitimate rulers. Similarly, the Baratheons deposed the Targaryen regime and used their tenuous connection to them to give their claim legitimacy. Despite having beaten the Targaryens, though, they definitely aren't conquerors; usurpers, certainly, rebels, most definitely, but they aren't conquerors. The Freys face a similar problem. They never won anything in combat. They assassinated and took their liege lord prisoner, but they hold the Riverlands in name only. None of their subordinate houses recognize them in anything but name. I don't think I need to really touch the story of the Targaryens and how they fit the definition of conquerors.

I think the major problem with the Targaryens - and why most houses would reject any claim they have - is that they never really integrated in to Westeros. They kept a number of their traditions - ones that nobody else held in Westeros - and seldom married outside their family. There was nothing tying Westeros to Targaryen after the last of the dragons died and that was ultimately a big problem. Because like any government, the Targaryens only held power as long as the people willed it. In this case, the people is short-hand for the various Lords Paramount, but it stands. The whole situation was a powder keg waiting to blow because of that. All it would take was one bad king and a few lords who'd had enough and the whole regime would topple over... which is exactly what happened. Aerys believed that he had a right to do as he wished. He ignored customs, illegally seized lords, and murdered them in cold blood with the flimsiest justification. Had Rhaegar handled the situation with Lyanna differently, he may have very well been king and there would have been no rebellion. I think the realm would probably be better off if that happened.

It didn't, though. Rhaegar appeared to have kidnapped and raped the daughter of Lord Rickard and the bride of Lord Robert. The thing is, even if that isn't the case, Westeros as a whole has customs. You can ignore them - as the Targaryens were wont to do - but doing so can cause problems and lords feeling that they were denied their rights is always going to be a big issue. Rhaegar likely would have been a better king than either Aerys or Robert, but he dug his grave.

So were the Baratheons the saviors of Westeros? It's highly doubtful. The newness of their reign and the lack of a clear heir thanks to Cersei's and Robert's infidelity ensured that a massive civil war of succession was bound to happen. Robert bankrupt the realm - even Aerys kept the realm's treasury full - and Joffrey's thoughtless and malignant nature ensured that there would be those who didn't want him as their king. So the Baratheons were definitely bad for Westeros, which might be the point, narratively. That while the Targaryen's were conquerors and starting to become prone to madness, they kept the realm stable; the heroic men that defeated them ensure that it would become the chaotic place we currently know it as.

But I don't think that this means Robert was wrong to overthrow the Targaryens or replace them. Even though it caused a lot of instability, Aerys did things that are unacceptable for a king. Rhaegar was irresponsible at best and criminal at worst. And imagine yourself in that position, knowing that the king had unjustly murdered one of your peers and his son, called for the death for two more Lords for no real reason, and his son had purportedly kidnapped and raped the daughter of the man he'd killed. Could you really risk putting another of his sons on the throne? Or a grandson? I doubt it. I doubt anyone really had many problems with them being deposed, to be honest, save for the Martells.

As for whether they still have rights, that's an even murkier field. Unlike our society, there is no piece of paper where the basic rights of people are recorded on, which means that rights are almost entirely decided by the culture and the people with power. Individuals and houses may think they have certain rights, but if nobody recognizes that right, then functionally, no right exists. The only recourse beyond that is to use force to try and ensure that your rights are recognized and enforce them. So do the Targaryens have any rights left in Westeros? I think if you asked most people, the answer would be no. The right to vengeance is definitely an exception - at least in the north - but beyond that, I doubt there's anyone left who will acknowledge Dany's claim to anything without some force to back it up.

This post should be framed in gold and linked in every discussion of this kind :bowdown: :bowdown: