Restoration Rights?

[Nictarion]

If the lords don't flock to Dany because of the horrendous way her father treated them, then she needs to find another way onto the IT.

She already did, it was in the last chapter of AGOT.

[tydides]

She already did, it was in the last chapter of AGOT.

well then she has a fair chance of getting back what was hers, in fire and blood. She will need to rely more on her family words than her family name. This is the result of many lords disliking the Targaryens.

[Nyrhex]

I dont think I said the Targaryens deserved the sacking of KL. They did deserve to be usurped, because of the way they treated their citizens. They believed (or at least Aerys, Viserys, and sometimes Dany) that since they are Targaryens, they can do whatever they wanted to. This is what I meant by the "fire and blood" thing, I wasn't referring to conquest. It doesn't matter if they are mad, or the rightful kings. When you are in a leadership position and you fail, you need to fall. Yes, supporting Rhaegar would be logical, and probably a better decision than letting Ned or Robert take the throne. But how could the rebels take the chance of meeting with Rhaegar, when they knew they would probably be executed? The logistics of finding Rhaegar and communicating with him without any loyalists knowing was simply too hard, especially with Robert leading a lot of the war. Rickon should have the right to go back to his seat, and dany should have a home in westeros. They both have been usurped, but I don't think either of them deserve free rides. If the Stark bannermen flock to Rickon, then obviously, in ruling, the Starks did a good job and Rickon will get Winterfell. If the lords don't flock to Dany because of the horrendous way her father treated them, then she needs to find another way onto the IT.

Rhaegar kidnaps a daughter of a lord paramount, then meets the rebel's army with his own army, and instead of offering parlay and try and explain himself, he simply charges at them. Clearly he thinks he is either in the right, and how dare they rebel against us of the blood of the dragon?! The dragon can do as he likes! Or he knows he is in the wrong and refuses to suffer the consequences. Rhaegar is very far down in the list of people who should be kings, and I include Butterbumps and Qyburn in this list as well.

[Morienthar]

She can make allies the same way Aegon the conqueror did, with dragons.

And still you ask why people don't think a Targ on the throne is a good idea.

[tydides]

Rhaegar kidnaps a daughter of a lord paramount, then meets the rebel's army with his own army, and instead of offering parlay and try and explain himself, he simply charges at them. Clearly he thinks he is either in the right, and how dare they rebel against us of the blood of the dragon?! The dragon can do as he likes! Or he knows he is in the wrong and refuses to suffer the consequences. Rhaegar is very far down in the list of people who should be kings, and I include Butterbumps and Qyburn in this list as well.

I wouldn't put him that far down. Rhaegar was an idiot, but he would be a certainly passable king. And like I said, how could he stop and explain himself? Look at Robert's descriptions of him. Robert was more of an idiot than Rhaegar, and would have abandoned hope for peace and killed Rhaegar.

[Nictarion]

well then she has a fair chance of getting back what was hers, in fire and blood.

She came to this exact realization at the end of ADWD.

[Nictarion]

And still you ask why people don't think a Targ on the throne is a good idea.

What's the difference between using dragons or armies, I argue the dragons can dissuade people from fighting at all, like the north during Aegon's conquest.

[Pikachu101]

She can make allies the same way Aegon the conqueror did, with dragons.

But that's not the same thing as the Starks making allies because of their lineage. Do you see my point? Dany and the Stark kids can't be compared because how they fight and what they're fighting for is completely different :)

[Pikachu101]

What's the difference between using dragons or armies, I argue the dragons can dissuade people from fighting at all, like the north during Aegon's conquest.

You're right, if Dany has weapons of mass destruction her ability to rule and govern has nothing to do with it. They bend or she destroys them, simple.

That won't mean people actually want her on the throne though

[Nictarion]

But that's not the same thing as the Starks making allies because of their lineage. Do you see my point? Dany and the Stark kids can't be compared because how they fight and what they're fighting for is completely different :)

Yeah, I understand you keep playing up the Starks as good guys aspect, but there were many good Targs to, that were well loved. Thats why half the realm chose to support them during the Blackfyre rebellion, and Roberts Rebellion. Things could have gone very different if Rhaegar won at the Trident, instead of Robert.

[AegonTargaryen]

Davos is not swearing fielty, he had in the past, but the quote I brought was to show as many examples of the feudal contracts in Westeros as I could. Davos is already sworn to Stannis, and now swears a new oath that adds certain responsibilities and benefits to the older one (the one which tades service for justice, help and protection). Aerys broke the feudal contract, and so the larger responsibility and larger benefit of being a lord paramount goes away with it. At no point do we see someone swear fielty to the heir of his feudal lord. This is exactly the reason one needs to renew his oath of fielty when one lord dies. You don't start out sworn to thier entire line for ever and ever. While the king lives, his family is royalty. If that king is deposed, you don't need to look for a reason to break your conrtact with every single member of his family, that is absurd. You depose a king in favor of someone. If you wish it was someone of the royal family, so be it. If you depose and claim right of conquest - so be it. Aerys broke his feudal contract with three lords paramount. and jeopardized all the other lords. Once Aerys was deposed all the lords bent the knee and swore to Robert.

I like where you're going with this, and I think we may able to reach some consensus soon. I think we're on the same page on Aerys. I agree Aerys broke his feudal contract and that he was rightfully deposed. However, my point is that when the kings of westeros removed their crowns and swore fealty to Aegon the conqueror, the oath was not a personal contract between the lords and Aegon. In other words the feudal contract was not an elective monarchy, it was implicitly (perhaps explicitly, we don't know) understood that the kingdoms were "from this time, to the end of time" beholden to Aegon's throne. Once Aegon dies they cannot simply change their minds or appoint someone else to sit the throne in his place.

It's certainly implicitly understood that his infant heirs cannot be butchered like animals with impunity.

The "Promise" of the Manderlys is something else. The Greatjon said the dragons - as in real dragons. No dragons alive - no power to force this foriegn leige arbitrarily. The whole point of the field of fire and the king who knelt was that Westeros did not choose the Targs, but it was taken by right of conquest. Once the Targs could no longer hold the realm by force of arms - no reason to keep swearing fielty.

Greatjon said dragons as in Targaryens. The Starks continued to bow to the Targaryens long after all the dragons had died. Aegon took the kingdoms by conquest, but he didn't usurp the sitting lords, which is important. He did not sit on the Stark throne in Winterfell, or the seastone chair, or the throne of the rock etc etc. He created his own throne, but the lords were allowed to keep their seats and rule as lords paramount over their own region. Fast-forward 300 years, and Aegon's infant heir has his head smashed in by the lords paramount, who place themselves on Aegon's throne. Very different.

Who cares what happened to the royal family? I don't care if it was worse then the red wedding or not, the principle remains the same - The Targs lost legitimacy when Aerys was deposed, and there is zero legitimacy for Dany or Aegon (Blackfyre or no) to lay claim to the Iron Throne. They want it - they need to take it by right of conquest, not by right of birth. The field of fire and the burning of Harenhall were a hell of a lot worse then either Elia and her children or the RW combined. Saying Targaryens and moral justification in the same sentence is an oximoron.

Yea sure, they have to take it by force, I'm not saying people will just give it to them.

And you can hate Targaryens as much as you want, but your last sentence is just unfounded. Robert's rule was built on the corpses of innocent children. Dany's nephew and niece. Robert didn't punish cold blooded murder, but instead married the murderer's daughter, whose son now sits the throne the Targaryens forged, in the castle they built, and in the city they founded. I'd say Dany has pretty good reason to be pissed.

[Lady Nastja]

Dany's family deserved to be removed. The Starks are believed dead, that is why the Boltons slipped in as "wardens" .The Starks were betrayed by "sellouts" who cared nothing about oaths and honor and duty. Dany is carrying a banner that half of the realm despised due to injustices done to them by said house. the other half that supported the Targs simply had not yet received their injustice from them by the time the Rebellion started.

So Dany has no right to reclaim or seek revenge because her ancestors may have done others an injustice? Hardly fair.

Most of the Northerners want the Starks back, as they find the Boltons to be an arbitrary liege placed upon them (murdered thier declared king and most of thier men), and refuse to give him legitimacy.

Most of Westeros deposed Danny's family, and follow a Baratheon, of sorts, as they found the Targaryens to be an arbitrary liege placed upon them (dragons), and refused to give them legitimacy.

Seems simple enough to grasp.

I think you're missing the fact that many people in the Seven Kingdoms still remember the dragons fondly and would welcome their return.

Nope. Aerys, deserved to be removed. The rest of the Targs were just as innocent as the Starks, and did not deserve what happened to them.

:agree:

If you argue they were Usurped I could argue they were the usurpers first.

They lost the throne exactly the way they had won it conquest.

But there was no Iron Throne before the Targaryens, therefore they hadn't usurped it.

[Nictarion]

And you can hate Targaryens as much as you want, but your last sentence is just unfounded. Robert's rule was built on the corpses of innocent children. Dany's nephew and niece. Robert didn't punish cold blooded murder, but instead married the murderer's daughter, whose son now sits the throne the Targaryens forged, in the castle they built, and in the city they founded. I'd say Dany has pretty good reason to be pissed.

If only everyone would understand this.

[Morienthar]

But there was no Iron Throne before the Targaryens, therefore they hadn't usurped it.

6 kings,6 thrones.Every conqueror is a usurper.

[Nictarion]

6 kings,6 thrones.Every conqueror is a usurper.

He didn't take their thrones, they still sat in them, and they still controlled the exact amount of land they did before. They just have to call Aegon king, and pay tax.

[Pikachu101]

6 kings,6 thrones.Every conqueror is a usurper.

Not really those kings bent the knee, Robert on the other hand literally kicked the Targaryens off the throne

[Addam of Hull]

I'd agree that the Targaryen children, as well as Elia of Dorne, didn't deserve what happened to them, but I think you're fooling yourselves if you don't believe that the Targaryen regime deserved to be ousted. It was a grave they dug themselves. In attempting to keep the bloodlines pure, they isolated themselves from the rest of Westeros and failed to cement their loyalty in the oldest traditional manner of the nobility of Westeros. One of the reasons that Ned's marriage to Catelyn is such a big deal is that traditionally, the Starks married other families from the North. Similarly, the Lannisters married themselves to their vassels and the Tulleys to theirs and so on and so forth. The Targaryens, for the most part, failed to do that. And in the instances where they did, it was only ever to the Martells and smaller families. In other words, the Targaryens never managed to bind the Lords Paramount of each region to them in anything but name. After the dragons all died out, they maintained their allegiances because it was convenient and the later half of the Targaryen reign was relatively peaceful, save for the Blackfyre affair.

Unfortunately, by marrying brother to sister, the Targaryens further isolated themselves by establishing that, despite the universal belief by every group in Westeros that incest was sinful and unlawful, they were above and beyond the laws of normal men. This normally worked to their advantage because it gives them a mythic status, but when the ruler starts to show signs of madness and his heir flounces more customs and traditions by appearing to have abducted the daughter of a major lord, that starts to work against them. They are no longer mythic, but outsiders who don't respect the culture and the ways of the people. And with the recent bouts of perceived madness - King Scab, Aerion Brightflame, the rumors about the tragedy of Summerhall - it's not really a surprise or even unfounded that a sizable portion of Westeros would find their line unfit to rule.

The deaths of Aegon, Rhaenys, and Elia are terrible, and Robert is a horrible person for not punishing Tywin and Gregor, but that doesn't mean that it was wrong to usurp the Targaryen regime. Aerys's madness and Rheagar's lack of responsibility in the Lyanna Stark affair alongside their lack of respect for the cultural traditions and their obsession with keeping their bloodline pure ensured that once the realm rose in rebellion, it wasn't going to simply end with Aerys death.

[Nyrhex]

I like where you're going with this, and I think we may able to reach some consensus soon. I think we're on the same page on Aerys. I agree Aerys broke his feudal contract and that he was rightfully deposed. However, my point is that when the kings of westeros removed their crowns and swore fealty to Aegon the conqueror, the oath was not a personal contract between the lords and Aegon. In other words the feudal contract was not an elective monarchy, it was implicitly (perhaps explicitly, we don't know) understood that the kingdoms were "from this time, to the end of time" beholden to Aegon's throne. Once Aegon dies they cannot simply change their minds or appoint someone else to sit the throne in his place.

It's certainly implicitly understood that his infant heirs cannot be butchered like animals with impunity.

I disagree that there was a point in time where lords swore in the name of thier decendants that they shall always be Targ-men. It would make the whole repeating the oath irrelevent. Since people still repeat the oath of fielty, it is simply giving legitimacy to the new king for the lack of a better option. Up until Aerys the king had the power to enforce his will. The dragons are dead, and the lords of Westeros have little but tradition to stop them from deposing the Targs if they wished. Aerys and Rhaegar were the catalyst, four lords paramount rose up in rebellion to depose them, and they won. The Targs were deposed, there was no reason to swear fielty to a nerw Targ, Tywin made sure no pretender will try and cause problems later on, but it was'nt the legal right he was afraid of, it was the point that he feared that some will still back them. I have said that Dany and Aegon have yet to see if they have much support in Westeros. If there are as many Targ loyalists as people here keep claiming, it may be that the Targs (or Blackfyres) will recieve legitimacy for thier rule once again. Untill then, most of Westeros still considers the Baratheons as the ruling Dynasty. The murder of Elia and her children was murder, but it was not something special because they used to be royalty, it was simply murder of has beens.

Greatjon said dragons as in Targaryens. The Starks continued to bow to the Targaryens long after all the dragons had died. Aegon took the kingdoms by conquest, but he didn't usurp the sitting lords, which is important. He did not sit on the Stark throne in Winterfell, or the seastone chair, or the throne of the rock etc etc. He created his own throne, but the lords were allowed to keep their seats and rule as lords paramount over their own region. Fast-forward 300 years, and Aegon's infant heir has his head smashed in by the lords paramount, who place themselves on Aegon's throne. Very different.

"Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the

dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!"

Clearly the actual fire-breathing dragons. Dany is still alive, and IIRC, it still isn't known that Viserys is dead, so at least two "dragons" are still alive. The point is that after the dragons were dead, people had gorwn used to the Targs being the ruling family. Aerys and Rhaegar were the reasons the lords (Well, 5 out of 7...) of Westeros decided to depose them.

Yea sure, they have to take it by force, I'm not saying people will just give it to them.

And you can hate Targaryens as much as you want, but your last sentence is just unfounded. Robert's rule was built on the corpses of innocent children. Dany's nephew and niece. Robert didn't punish cold blooded murder, but instead married the murderer's daughter, whose son now sits the throne the Targaryens forged, in the castle they built, and in the city they founded. I'd say Dany has pretty good reason to be pissed.

I am not hating Targsaryens more then is required in that last sentance. They did take that land they built a city on from someone. They took the entire realm, and yes they did userp the kings of Westeros, who were once indepndent and are now subjects, no longer kings, rather "lords paramount". Not to mention the Tullys and the Tyrells are new families after the two earlier ones were destroyed. They did kill thousends in Harenhall and in the field of fire, so saying that because Tywin ordered the killing of a woman and two children that gives Dany the moral right is absurd. The Iron Throne was created by violence and death, and that is how the Targs lost it. The only two options Dany and/or Aegon have to become king/queen are right of conquest, or if somehow there are enough loyalists to help them take the crown and restore thier house. At the end of the day, they need to get some legitimacy, either from thier subjects, or by having enough muscle to force the lords of Westeros to accept thier will.

[Lady Nastja]

6 kings,6 thrones.Every conqueror is a usurper.

He didn't take their Thrones. He controlled their lands, they paid him taxes and bowed to him but he never took their thrones, they kept them. They were then known as seats of course, but they were still Great Lords.

[Nyrhex]

He didn't take their Thrones, he merely controlled their lands. They still had their thrones, they just had to pay him taxes and bow to him.

Do you seriously not see the inherent problem in what you just wrote?

So Dany has no right to reclaim or seek revenge because her ancestors may have done others an injustice? Hardly fair.

Why should Dany, or Aegon, or Vyserys or a legitimate Jon Targaryen have a right for the Throne? Thier family was deposed, and they lost any and all lands, titles and incomes that come with the gig. The point is that Dany has no moral highground. Her ancestors killed thousends ( and I'm not even counting the smallfolk who probably died) to creat the Throne. Robert failed to punish three murderers after taking the Throne. Dany can go and seek revenge, but she is not. She will not go back to Westeros, ask Stannis for justice for her family. She wants to take Westeros. That is not revenge.

I think you're missing the fact that many people in the Seven Kingdoms still remember the dragons fondly and would welcome their return.

Nope. If there were enough loyalists, they would not have been deposed in thefirst place. The majority of westeros rejected them, and everyone bent the knee to the new king. It's as simple as that. If somehow there are former loyalists popping up everywhere, that's nice but it can't be the majority of Westeros, it would make no sense. Most followed Robert. Dany and Aegon could use the remaining loyalists to retake the Throne, but it would still be right of conquest. Most of the people still consider the Baratheons the ruling family.