What will be Dany’s justification for invading Westeros?

[JonSnow4President]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. To be honest, sometimes Dany has shown to be more reasonable than some of her fans.

And some of her detractors as well. Some people (both sides) are just blind idiots

[James Arryn]

Then I guess the only thing to hope for is her military defeat somewhere. Apparently, what we have here is a failure to communicate.Some Khaleesies you just can't reach. That is the way she wants it, so that's the way she gets it.

To be fair, though, Royal authority is founded on silly premises that don't stand up too well in the light of reasoned examination. At some level it all comes down to one of three justifications: God(s) has a preference for some families, might makes right or artifice > chaos. No one 'deserves' the right to tell others to obey or die. If you start getting into discussions about how right or wrong Jon Arryn was to oppose Aerys, that in your view is progress towards more responsible government. But in the view of anyone riding the tiger, that's letting go of one ear.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I'm not sure. Dany has (generally) been pretty reasonable, although she's shown the capacity for being ruthless to those she considers as having wronged her. I can see her realizing (privately) that the usurpers were actually doing the right thing, and I can see her screaming "This is my kingdom and I want it back!" like a child. We really just have to wait to find out.

Full disclosure, I identify as a Dany-disliker

I tend towards this scenario, too. I think she will drown the subject into silence so that neither she, or the other side, will have to acknowledge / concede / swallow anything publically, at least.

[OldGimletEye]

To be fair, though, Royal authority is founded on silly premises that don't stand up too well in the light of reasoned examination. At some level it all comes down to one of three justifications: God(s) has a preference for some families, might makes right or artifice > chaos. No one 'deserves' the right to tell others to obey or die. If you start getting into discussions about how right or wrong Jon Arryn was to oppose Aerys, that in your view is progress towards more responsible government. But in the view of anyone riding the tiger, that's letting go of one ear.

Well, of course it is. But, it takes, at times, an event to obiliterate those silly notions. It would be nice if these issues could be handled through debate. But, it might have to take a war to settle matters, unfortunately.

Also, why aren't the people of Westeros capable of reasoned examination? Does Dany really want to argue that Arryn should have murdered Robert and Ned?

[SeanF]

To be fair, though, Royal authority is founded on silly premises that don't stand up too well in the light of reasoned examination. At some level it all comes down to one of three justifications: God(s) has a preference for some families, might makes right or artifice > chaos. No one 'deserves' the right to tell others to obey or die. If you start getting into discussions about how right or wrong Jon Arryn was to oppose Aerys, that in your view is progress towards more responsible government. But in the view of anyone riding the tiger, that's letting go of one ear.

To be fair, Dany has never claimed to be the Gods' anointed, or claimed Divine Right to rule Westeros. Her justification is basically secular.

[James Arryn]

Well, of course it is. But, it takes, at times, an event to obiliterate those silly notions. It would be nice if these issues could be handled through debate. But, it might have to take a war to settle matters, unfortunately.

Sure, but if your ability to rule/control/make things 'better' was premised on those notions, I think it's unrealistic to expect you to voluntarily surrender them.

Also, why aren't the people of Westeros capable of reasoned examination?

It's not that they're not capable. It's that the train won't run without the boiler and no one's invented cars yet.

[SeanF]

Well, of course it is. But, it takes, at times, an event to obiliterate those silly notions. It would be nice if these issues could be handled through debate. But, it might have to take a war to settle matters, unfortunately.

Also, why aren't the people of Westeros capable of reasoned examination? Does Dany really want to argue that Arryn should have murdered Robert and Ned?

Sometimes, it's easier just to let go the past. A bargain along the lines of "I won't take revenge for your rebellion if you don't claim you were justified" could be the best way forward.

[Nictarion]

What did the Baratheon/Lannister Kings do that was that bad? Joffrey was a dick but he never actually did anything anywhere near what Aerys did.

Joffrey unfairly executed the warden of the north. Even Cersei was against it. That action alone was responsible for half the kingdom rebelling.

[James Arryn]

To be fair, Dany has never claimed to be the Gods' anointed, or claimed Divine Right to rule Westeros. Her justification is basically secular.

I mentioned the three to be comprehensive. I wasn't attacking Dany's platform in particular. That said, her justification doesn't really stand on it's own in a secular light unless you believe some people are rightfully born essentially the property of other people. Otherwise a birthright to power is at best an illusion.

[OldGimletEye]

Sometimes, it's easier just to let go the past. A bargain along the lines of "I won't take revenge for your rebellion if you don't claim you were justified" could be the best way forward.

For political reasons, I could see things being handled this way. Neither side wants to lose face, so each side agrees to not accuse the other of wrong doing or admiting wrong doing themselves. I could see things being handled this way.

But, if they are handled this way, then Dany can't publicly give a "pardon" because that would imply wrong doing on part of the rebels. It would be publicly insulting.

[El Guapo]

I mentioned the three to be comprehensive. I wasn't attacking Dany's platform in particular. That said, her justification doesn't really stand on it's own in a secular light unless you believe some people are rightfully born essentially the property of other people. Otherwise a birthright to power is at best an illusion.

That is exactly how it works in this world. There are no elections to decide who gets to rule, it is all based on your birthright, not just for the Iron Throne but for every lordship in the seven kingdoms.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Joffrey unfairly executed the warden of the north. Even Cersei was against it. That action alone was responsible for half the kingdom rebelling.

To be fair, that's something that only hurts nobility. You insult a noble, and the nobles call innocent peasants to fight for your pride. It's more complicated, but that's the base of it.

Joffrey actually ordered the murder of innocent citizens. He shot at beggars with his crossbow and sent his guard to the rioters. The war started when Joffrey ordered Ned to be killed, and he did it in front of the Great Sept. That's also something that the very superstitious folks of Westeros see as insulting. And that war caused again that KL was in danger, as it had been sacked 16 years ago by his Lannister grandpa. Also, remember that they remember that it was him who killed Rhaegar's babies. At least Robert got a pass on that.

So, those are the reasons the lovely folks of KL would rather a Dragon back on the throne. :dunno: Dany doesn't need more justification than say "look, I'm a Targaryen!". They would even want Aerys II back now.

[SeanF]

For political reasons, I could see things being handled this way. Neither side wants to lose face, so each side agrees to not accuse the other of wrong doing or admiting wrong doing themselves. I could see things being handled this way.

But, if they are handled this way, then Dany can't publicly give a "pardon" because that would imply wrong doing on part of the rebels. It would be publicly insulting.

I think the "pardon" (you can call it an amnesty/act of indemnity or whatever) would be essential. It may sound insulting, but it's a very public declaration that the

rebels, or their heirs, are confirmed in possession of their lands and titles. Clever lawyers could agree a satisfactory form of wording.

[SeanF]

For political reasons, I could see things being handled this way. Neither side wants to lose face, so each side agrees to not accuse the other of wrong doing or admiting wrong doing themselves. I could see things being handled this way.

But, if they are handled this way, then Dany can't publicly give a "pardon" because that would imply wrong doing on part of the rebels. It would be publicly insulting.

I think the "pardon" (you can call it an amnesty/act of indemnity or whatever) would be essential. It may sound insulting, but it's a very public declaration that the

rebels, or their heirs, are confirmed in possession of their lands and titles. Clever lawyers could agree a satisfactory form of wording.

[James Arryn]

That is exactly how it works in this world. There are no elections to decide who gets to rule, it is all based on your birthright, not just for the Iron Throne but for every lordship in the seven kingdoms.

But they premise it on the will of the Gods, as per trial by faith.

All monarchy starts from warlord-ism. But eventually the winning warlords determine that a continuation of the King of the Hill practice is tenuous security and handcuffs their foreign policy. So they need to introduce the idea that the current version of hot potatoe is the one intended to stay as such, and it's almost impossible to do that without invoking some kinda divine approval, and turning challenges to your power from the right way to do things/how your guys got power into the wrong way to do things/treason. This is why getting crowned by the Pope or equivalent marks the beginning of so many reigns/dynasties, as it does with the IT.

[OldGimletEye]

I think the "pardon" (you can call it an amnesty/act of indemnity or whatever) would be essential. It may sound insulting, but it's a very public declaration that the

rebels, or their heirs, are confirmed in possession of their lands and titles. Clever lawyers could agree a satisfactory form of wording.

I wouldn't call it a pardon though. Call it something else because "pardon" has connotations of wrong doing and it would be highly insulting. Call it something else.

[OldGimletEye]

So, those are the reasons the lovely folks of KL would rather a Dragon back on the throne. :dunno: Dany doesn't need more justification than say "look, I'm a Targaryen!". They would even want Aerys II back now.

Based on the polling in Westeros? Is Nate Silver making predictions about Dany's or the Targaryens popularity now? It seems to me that if push comes to shove, the small folk often back their local lords, at least in some places like Dorne or in the North.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

To be fair, that's something that only hurts nobility. You insult a noble, and the nobles call innocent peasants to fight for your pride. It's more complicated, but that's the base of it.

Joffrey actually ordered the murder of innocent citizens. He shot at beggars with his crossbow and sent his guard to the rioters. The war started when Joffrey ordered Ned to be killed, and he did it in front of the Great Sept. That's also something that the very superstitious folks of Westeros see as insulting. And that war caused again that KL was in danger, as it had been sacked 16 years ago by his Lannister grandpa. Also, remember that they remember that it was him who killed Rhaegar's babies. At least Robert got a pass on that.

So, those are the reasons the lovely folks of KL would rather a Dragon back on the throne. :dunno: Dany doesn't need more justification than say "look, I'm a Targaryen!". They would even want Aerys II back now.

No, I don't think it is enough.

Certainly, the Lannister regime under Cersei has almost accomplished all the chaos that Varys believed (for good reason!) as necessary in order to justify the price that the smallfolk (before everyone) would indisputably pay for a regime change. But one aspiring to get, and hold, the throne easily by winning the public support must also have good PR. Targaryen is no good enough, Aerys especially is a no-no.

(Yes, there was that old man in the Riverlands, as there was All-for-Joffrey too, but in Kings Landing no. Otherwise silly labels, like "the mad king's daughter" or "Rhaegar's sister" can make a difference in PR. We do know, from Sansa's POV, that public perception is not necessarily based on rationally examining the merit of acts and conduct.)

I believe that Arianne's thoughts on Daenerys' character and motivations might pave the ground for difficulties that Dany and her side are going to face in that department, especially in regards to another Targaryen's (seemingly) perfectly designed PR campain. I don't think it's all put in page for filler.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

The reason Roberts subjective thought process matters is because he is a king with absolute power. Thus he's unlikely to agree to the kinds of reforms you're suggesting. If JA or ned were King, that's one thing. Robert as King, quite another.

Then I guess the only thing to hope for is her military defeat somewhere. Apparently, what we have here is a failure to communicate.Some Khaleesies you just can't reach. That is the way she wants it, so that's the way she gets it.

Not really - personally I think the middle ground is "Aerys was mad and needed to go, but a legal process choosing the successor should have been followed instead of baby murder until only Robert was left"

I'd be unsurprised if Dany got to this point given that Rhaegar apparently did.

[OldGimletEye]

The reason Roberts subjective thought process matters is because he is a king with absolute power. Thus he's unlikely to agree to the kinds of reforms you're suggesting. If JA or ned were King, that's one thing. Robert as King, quite another.

I don't get the argument here. Robert's subjective process has little bearing on the question of whether Jon Arryn's rebellion was justified. Similarly, it also has little to do with the question of whether the rebels had the right to crown one of their own.

But, if Robert's dynasty had not imploded, then Westeros would probably be one step closer to recognizing that royal dynasties can be removed under certain circumstances. That principle is going to be in doubt or gone if Dany takes over and just says, "That whole Jon Arryn thing didn't count."

And who said Robert was an absolutist ruler? I sure in the hell did not. I'm not a Targ fanboy after all.

Not really - personally I think the middle ground is "Aerys was mad and needed to go, but a legal process choosing the successor should have been followed instead of baby murder until only Robert was left"

I'd be unsurprised if Dany got to this point given that Rhaegar apparently did.

What legal process? There wasn't any legal process to deal with somebody like Aerys. The Targs could have put a mechanism in place, but they didn't.

And here we go again, Robert ordered the intentional murder of Targ children. Well, no, he did not.