Daenerys the betrayer

[Hajk]

There would be other people who might want Jon dead, different than Robert.

As far as I know, this has been the main justification for Ned's silence in the R+L=J theory. Ned was a paramount lord who could have protected Jon against just about any other threat with ease. Yet he went on lying even to his wife, causing considerable hardship in his life.

[The Drunkard]

Oh please, like Robert wasn't the main reason for Ned's lie?

I think the promise to Lyanna was the biggest factor. Robert's hate-boner and the potential instability of a Targ/bastard I don't think meant as much as did the promise his sister had him swear on her deathbed.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

There is no rock hard evidence to say that R+L=J, yet many beleive it...

Because there are evidences about R+L=J

Viserys knew people were after them, and without a doubt we know that Robert wanted Viserys dead...

When there are no evidences about hidden knives. But please if there were give me the quotes.

Im no fortune teller... You simply disagree with me.

I wouldn't if you had any proof about what you say. So I ask you again where is the evidence about hidden knives?

[Sansa_Stark]

Ok, I really like Robert, but seriously, if Dany, Vis and Jon were there for the taking, there's no way Robert would not have ridden the world of dragonspawn; their existence in Westeros completely undermines his rule (from his POV). I don't think he'd have personally done it, but would have approved of it's being done.

iyo

[butterbumps!]

I think the promise to Lyanna was the biggest factor. Robert's hate-boner and the potential instability of a Targ/bastard I don't think meant as much as did the promise his sister had him swear on her deathbed.

In fairness, though, we don't know exactly what this promise was. If she asked for his promise to keep Jon a secret, then you have a point, but if this promise was simply "keep Jon safe," then we can read his lie to Robert as evidence that he believed Robert would have caused the child harm.

[Hajk]

Its not infallible.

True enough. Neither is anything in science (including DNA). Everything is revisable.

But that is not the point. If my opinion of a person agrees with that of his best friends and those who know him best (Ned), agrees with his own attitude in the aftermath of such killings (Dragonspawn), agrees with what that person was willing to do until he was persuaded otherwise, then the burden of evidence is not on me.

[Sansa_Stark]

True enough. Neither is anything in science (including DNA). Everything is revisable.

But that is not the point. If my opinion of a person agrees with that of his best friends and those who know him best (Ned), agrees with his own attitude in the aftermath of such killings (Dragonspawn), agrees with what that person was willing to do until he was persuaded otherwise, then the burden of evidence is not on me.

I would hardly call it evidence regardless.

And regardless, I've argued that Robert didn't order Dany or Viserys dead when it was easy for him. If its like that, then its entirely possible that Robert may not ordered them to die if they were captured.

[Hajk]

In fairness, though, we don't know exactly what this promise was. If she asked for his promise to keep Jon a secret, then you have a point, but if this promise was simply "keep Jon safe," then we can read his lie to Robert as evidence that he believed Robert would have caused the child harm.

IIRC Ned was willing to come clean to Jon after he said his NW vows, or at least indicated that. If the promise was simply to keep Jon secret then he wouldn't have done that either but simply said nothing for ever.

[The Drunkard]

In fairness, though, we don't know exactly what this promise was. If she asked for his promise to keep Jon a secret, then you have a point, but if this promise was simply "keep Jon safe," then we can read his lie to Robert as evidence that he believed Robert would have caused the child harm.

That's always true. I just think that secrecy was likely involved, if only because I don't see Ned hiding it from Cat and causing her that pain if he hadn't given his word.

[-Winterfellian-]

I answered this already, I thought. I pointed to the idea that Dany will probably be distrusted by the heads of governments (slavers, lords, etc), but she's revered and trusted by the people. She is unequivocally seen as a great hope and someone to take up their cause by the oppressed classes.

As always I find your thoughts about Dany quite interesting. Am I wrong in thinking that you are following the train of thought from your thread from a few days ago?

While I do believe this is certainly applicable in Essos, how do you imagine it will work for Westeros? As an upsetter of systems (which she is IMO) it seems the situation can swing both ways. Leaving out the potential for better that can result from her actions, besides becoming a “champion of the people” she also has the potential to create so much destruction that the system collapses in its own weight and the first and most affected by this collapse will be the people.

This is pretty much what happens in Essos, but I think it will be felt the more in Westeros, where she will come offering more war to a continent already devastated and starved because of it and without even the promise of freedom as a palliative for the consequences of her actions. Can she truly become a “champion of the people” after such, especially considering her track record post-chaos? Or is it that you imagine her as something more akin to a fugurehead in all this?

[Hajk]

I would hardly call it evidence regardless.

And regardless, I've argued that Robert didn't order Dany or Viserys dead when it was easy for him. If its like that, then its entirely possible that Robert may not ordered them to die if they were captured.

Lets say there is a a guy named Joe.

Joe's best friends and people who love him think that he is a child molester and will take extreme measures not to let their own children alone with him. His own attitude in cases of child molestation is that he sees nothing wrong with it. He wants to molest children but has to be persuaded out of it by a father figure (whose opinion probably matters to him), and starts trying to molest them as soon as that father figure is dead.

Should I let Joe babysit my children because I would hardly call the foregoing evidence?.

And as it is apparently okay to manufacture evidence (like new reasons for Ned's silence or new forms of the promise that I have hardly ever seen before) just for this discussion, I may as well argue that he only refrained from having them killed because he had immense regard for Jon Arryn's opinion and did not want to look like he had gone back on his word to him.

[RoamingRonin]

Dany herself said that the wine seller is likely to be innocent and that the torture would be worse than useless. Then she orders it anyway.

Read the scene over and it doesn't go like this at all.

[butterbumps!]

IIRC Ned was willing to come clean to Jon after he said his NW vows, or at least indicated that. If the promise was simply to keep Jon secret then he wouldn't have done that either but simply said nothing for ever.

Yes, I strongly suspect that "promise me" = "save Jon," and that Ned's lies are manifestations of his keeping that promise. And keeping this from Robert was the primary concern.

It's hard to say how this would have played out if Robert was faced with baby Vis, Dany and Jon for the taking; Tywin has the babies killed preemptively (though Robert approved), and then years later, Robert decides to put out a hit on Dany when she looks like she could become a threat again.

We know Rober is willing to kill children he sees as a threat, simply because of the hired hit in aGoT. I'm not completely confident that he'd necessarily order infanticide of babies in front of him, and I suspect that one of his allies, like Tywin, might have stepped in and done it preemptively to curry favor. But it would all come back to Robert-- whether it was ordered by him, or done as a gesture to curry favor (which we know he approved of and was relieved by), I think it's clear that Robert is the real danger.

This is pretty much what happens in Essos, but I think it will be felt the more in Westeros, where she will come offering more war to a continent already devastated and starved because of it and without even the promise of freedom as a palliative for the consequences of her actions. Can she truly become a “champion of the people” after such, especially considering her track record post-chaos? Or is it that you imagine her as something more akin to a fugurehead in all this?

Yes, you're correct that this is following that thread I made.

Here's how I see it-- Westeros is already incredibly wartorn, but Dany's arrival there wouldn't be adding much more to the chaos that already exists. There's a veneer of calm at the moment, but the second round of players are all about to make major moves-- LF, Aegon, the Tyrells, Euron, Roose, etc. To say nothing of the damn Others. I don't think Dany really adds all that much additional war.

I don't see her taking up an administrative role. I think the smallfolk might end up being her niche market, and that they'll be stirred by her, and sort of unify to some degree-- a bit like the way people followed her in Essos as a champion. So yes, I'm seeing her as more of a figurehead than a Queen. My suspicion is that she won't be around at the end, when the smoke clears from all the fighting, but that she'll have empowered the smallfolk in some way.

[Light a wight tonight]

So you are okey with mass murder?If it is someone you label as evil then it is okey to do anything you want?I hate do this but to Hitler that evil was jews how is it any different then your point of view?

So you're equating a people who were persecuted for thousands of years for not giving up their god and culture with a crew who mutilated and otherwise abused young slaves to create super-warriors they sold for profit?

[Hajk]

For what it is worth, we may wish to note that abolishing slavery can have disastrous effects in the short term as well be a bloody affair. Yet it may still be possible to see it as a justified venture. If we discuss Dany's anti-slavery work alone, without trying to decide whether she is better than Stannis, or whether she has a claim to the throne (and I know it is hard for some to do this, but the OP's question was primarily about this and not about a summation of all of Dany's activities or comparing her with the Baratheons, although it seems like no discussion about her can avoid getting into that debate these days), then we may view it differently. To take an example from our own world, in the U.S. civil war the Union did much that would not be acceptable by our current standards (so did the other side, but they weren't the abolitionists so that is not so useful as an example). The economic condition of the South was not exactly wonderful after the war either. That does not make Licoln etc. moral monsters (and the Astaporis, from what I gather, were far worse than the American South).

[-Winterfellian-]

Here's how I see it-- Westeros is already incredibly wartorn, but Dany's arrival there wouldn't be adding much more to the chaos that already exists. There's a veneer of calm at the moment, but the second round of players are all about to make major moves-- LF, Aegon, the Tyrells, Euron, Roose, etc. To say nothing of the damn Others. I don't think Dany really adds all that much additional war.

I don't see her taking up an administrative role. I think the smallfolk might end up being her niche market, and that they'll be stirred by her, and sort of unify to some degree-- a bit like the way people followed her in Essos as a champion. So yes, I'm seeing her as more of a figurehead than a Queen. My suspicion is that she won't be around at the end, when the smoke clears from all the fighting, but that she'll have empowered the smallfolk in some way.

Oh I see. Though am not sure I can agree with this first part. Chaos notwithstanding, dragons can only add to the mix it seems to me. In fact, with their greater capacity for destruction and as major power trappings they may be sort of the drop that finally tips that balance and brings the collapse of an already frail system.

I definitely understand your point and agree to some extent. My concern about her becoming a champion of this sort is the current situation and the conquering aimed mentality she displayed in her last ADWD chapter.

I can see Dany’s actions as sort of hated and misunderstood for the present, but is future generations who might learn to see the value of them. While I do not see the whole “champion of the people” as foreseeable in the near future given the present circumstances (at least not in Westeros) there might be something to be said about her becoming one for the next generations.

[Kanye Westeros]

The Jews weren't responsible for thousands of dead babies, and castrated slave soldiers.

If borat was historically accurate

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I won't mourn the slavers at all, but I did find the massacre a very questionable act.

[Hajk]

Here's how I see it-- Westeros is already incredibly wartorn, but Dany's arrival there wouldn't be adding much more to the chaos that already exists. There's a veneer of calm at the moment, but the second round of players are all about to make major moves-- LF, Aegon, the Tyrells, Euron, Roose, etc. To say nothing of the damn Others. I don't think Dany really adds all that much additional war.

I don't see her taking up an administrative role. I think the smallfolk might end up being her niche market, and that they'll be stirred by her, and sort of unify to some degree-- a bit like the way people followed her in Essos as a champion. So yes, I'm seeing her as more of a figurehead than a Queen. My suspicion is that she won't be around at the end, when the smoke clears from all the fighting, but that she'll have empowered the smallfolk in some way.

How she will be viewed in later times depends on who writes and tells the history.

To take an example from our own times, the bloody aftermath of the French Revolution is known to everyone, but the bloody treatment given to the Paris Commune is hardly spoken of. One may think that this has much to do with who was killed in which case.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I won't mourn the slavers at all, but I did find the massacre a very questionable act.

Agree. I believe that the mass torturing and killing had to have a specific reason. They were tortured and killed because they were slavers, because they killed the kids or because they were just nobility?