If Stannis was Aware of Daenerys...

[TheStarkInWinterhell]

Well I know that, I was answer his question as if no one cared about the bigamy thing. If they looked if Rhaegar as another Aegon or Maegor. In which case Jon would fall behind his elder brother.

[El Guapo]

Unlike Jaehaerys, Dany cannot control her dragons. She only acquired partial control* over Drogon as of the end of ADwD.

* By partial control, I mean Drogon suffers her presence as long as she does not annoy him.

Wishful thinking on your part.

[Warrewal Halfaxe]

First Dany would need to win back the throne

[Kaibaman]

What is it with the fandom and the inability to understand simple inheritance?

Targs created kingly dynasty by right of conquest

Targs lost kingly dynasty by right of conquest to Baratheons

Dany only has a claim to the throne nothing more

Here is the breakdown of the people who are true heirs to the Iron Throne after Robert's death:

Stannis - Shireen - Jon (if Raegar & Lyanna were married) - Aegon (if real) - Dany

So pull your fanboy heads out of your asses and just accept that Stannis is the true heir to the Iron Throne, everyone else only has a claim at best

Tell that to the House of Lancaster and their supporters. When Edward of York deposed of King Henry VI and took the English crown, he won by right of conquest and had a stronger claim to it than Robert did with the Iron Throne. And yet throughout his reign he had to face Lancastrian rebels who still thought Henry VI was the rightful king. If he was truly the king for taking the throne by force, then why is it that nine years later when the Lancastrians returned more people rallied to them than to Edward? Shouldn't all those Lancastrian loyalists be thinking to themselves "why are we supporting the old king Henry? Edward won by right of conquest so the Lancastrian line should be behind the Yorks"? Inheritence doesn't work that way. If it did then the Tullys have absolutely no right to Riverrun because they were technically conquered when the Freys smashed them at the Twins and when Brynden surrendered Riverrun to them. Therefore we must accept that the Freys are the true rulers of Riverrun and the Riverlands by extension.

[Mithras]

Well no, because bigomy is illegal in Westeros. So a marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna would be illegal (as his wife was still alive) and Jon still a bastard. But that stop Henry Tudor from taking the throne.

Where does it say that bigomy is illegal?

[Kyoshi]

^The Faith doesn't allow it. And I don't think it's been practiced in a really long time. Didn't Maegor have to kill his wives to get new ones? [genuine question]

[Mithras]

^The Faith doesn't allow it. And I don't think it's been practiced in a really long time. Didn't Maegor have to kill his wives to get new ones? [genuine question]

No, he didnot. And it was never illegalized.

[Kyoshi]

But the Faith still doesn't allow it.

This from the Wiki page:

House Targaryen was known to flout convention and openly practice polygamous marriages. Aenar Targaryen took multiple wives with him when he left Valyria for Dragonstone. Aegon I Targaryen was married to two women who were also his full sisters, Visenya and Rhaenys. When Aegon married his sisters, this was considered unusual although there was precedent for it.

Aegon's son Maegor is the last Targaryen known to have had multiple wives. His second marriage to Alys Harroway upset the Faith and led king Aenys to exile him to Pentos for a time. With the death of their dragons House Targaryen lost the clout that they needed to be able to get away with committing the sin of polygamy in Westeros. According to George R. R. Martin,

“Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.”

[a boy and his wolf]

this is a very interesting question i have considered a lot, and for all that consideration i cant say whether Stannis is more likely to oppose Dany or fight for her, but of all possible claimants to the throne if any would be willing to stand aside for Dany, it would be Stannis in my opinion

[Mithras]

But the Faith still doesn't allow it.

This from the Wiki page:

How can you conclude "Faith doesn't allow it" from the passage you provided?

Because that passage clearly means that if you can get away with it, you can do whatever you want.

Technically, the Faith does not consider the marriages done in front of the trees legitimate but no one considers half of Westeros as illegitimate bastards.

[Mithras]

Sin =/= Crime.

The Faith might consider polygamy as a sin but it is upto the kings to decide whether it is a crime or not.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

What is it with the fandom and the inability to understand simple inheritance?

Targs created kingly dynasty by right of conquest

Targs lost kingly dynasty by right of conquest to Baratheons

Dany only has a claim to the throne nothing more

Here is the breakdown of the people who are true heirs to the Iron Throne after Robert's death:

Stannis - Shireen - Jon (if Raegar & Lyanna were married) - Aegon (if real) - Dany

So pull your fanboy heads out of your asses and just accept that Stannis is the true heir to the Iron Throne, everyone else only has a claim at best

Simple, you say.

One, you seem not to notice that the Targaryen claim isn't just conquest. It's conquest and three hundred years of continued rule. While three hundred years don't seem that long relatively, it's also the entire history of the Iron Throne. And time gives legitimacy, just like it worked for the Starks of Winterfell, the Lannisters of Casterly Rock and the Arryns of the Eyre. Baratheon "dynasty" has lasted fifteen years so far.

Two, Robert's claim to the Iron Throne was not just conquest, either. Targaryen blood in his veins was what made him, not another of the rebel lords, the king. "You had the better claim, Your Grace".

Three, the losers' claim doesn't vanish, the winners acknowledge that, even if they don't like it. Tywin Lannister and Roose Bolton consider Stark blood the key to the North. Why should winners concern themselves with that? Genna Lannister insisted on killing off the Tullys still left alive, to strengthen her husband's claim to Riverrun. Tywin Lannister had Rhaegar's children murdered to future proof Robert's claim to the throne, and Robert was grateful for that little favor.

Four, while you're right that, as per normal rules of business, Robert would be succeeded by the eldest of his brothers should he lack for legitimate offspring himself, you should have noticed that it didn't actually happen, and it's no use pretending otherwise. Joffrey sat on the Iron Throne, put on a crown, collected oaths of fealty from lords of the realm. After Joffrey, there was Tommen. Now, Stannis can keep saying "It all doesn't count, I'm still the next of the royal blood, Joffrey was an usurper, Tommen is an usurper, that huge-ass battle my side lost doesn't count, either, that the realm swore fealty to usurpers is meaningless, the throne is mine by rights". That's the very same thing Viserys Targaryen had been saying for his entire life, though. And "someone who has a claim at best" and "true heir" are two descriptions of the same thing, if said "true heir" isn't acknowledged by the realm (nor, truthfully, by anyone else except for a small bunch of his closest coworkers).

All in all, if you consider the issue "simple inheritance", I think you might be the fanboy performing that impressive contortionistic trick you accuse others of doing.

[The Sleeper]

Stannis was the one who was sent to capture Dany and Viserys in Dragonstone, where Darry spirited them away. After that he sat on the small council for fifteen years receiving regular reports on their movements. What do you mean if he was aware of Daenerys?

[Zachhulsey11]

Do you think that because the faith has an army, they could kill Dany? because of the incest?

[Slowpoke Martin]

Simple, you say.

One, you seem not to notice that the Targaryen claim isn't just conquest. It's conquest and three hundred years of continued rule. While three hundred years don't seem that long relatively, it's also the entire history of the Iron Throne. And time gives legitimacy, just like it worked for the Starks of Winterfell, the Lannisters of Casterly Rock and the Arryns of the Eyre. Baratheon "dynasty" has lasted fifteen years so far.

Need to stop you right there. Not sure if you clearly understand but, Targ dynasty overthrew kingly dynasties that were around for thousands of years. Clearly how long the Targ dynasty has been around is absolutely nothing compared to the other families. So when the Targs were overthrown, their 300 years of rule went down the drain with them.

There will always be people who have claims over something that belonged to their family but was lost to others. The history of the world they're living in is written by the winners.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Need to stop you right there. Not sure if you clearly understand but, Targ dynasty overthrew kingly dynasties that were around for thousands of years.

I do. You do not. Again: it is the Iron Throne we are talking about now, is it not? It did not exist before Aegon I. Not the world. The Iron Throne. King's Landing. One place ruling over almost the entire continent of Westeros. There was no such a thing before Aegon I.

And I recall a Stark, an Arryn, and a Lannister quite recently walking around and claiming sovereignty over their respective families' domains, so it is not very accurate to call them "overthrown".

Clearly how long the Targ dynasty has been around is absolutely nothing compared to the other families.

We are talking about the Iron Throne here. House Targaryen held it for three hundred years, Robert Baratheon held it for fifteen, then Joffrey and Tommen between them have something like two years and that is it. That is the entire history of unified Westeros. Compared to the other families, there are no other families. Keeping the Iron Throne, I mean, because we are talking about the Iron Throne. I hope I am not too ambiguous regarding the subject of this discussion. It is the Iron Throne.

And if you believe that a centuries-old claim disappears completely if somebody else manages to sit his ass on your seat even for a single second, I honestly do not see us reaching any kind of agreement. My impression of that feudalism and heredity business from the books (and history) is very different for yours.

So when the Targs were overthrown, their 300 years of rule went down the drain with them.

That's a perfectly valid argument... as long as you do not try to weasel in Stannis into it, who so far did not have it for a single second. Which is very short. Zero is so small, it is not even a positive number.

There will always be people who have claims over something that belonged to their family but was lost to others. The history of the world they're living in is written by the winners.

Surprisingly, I agree with you here. Right now, Tommen is the winner, and other claimants, like Stannis and Dany, are losers, all they have is a claim to the throne held by someone else.

[Mithras]

I do. You do not. Again: it is the Iron Throne we are talking about now, is it not? It did not exist before Aegon I. Not the world. The Iron Throne. King's Landing. One place ruling over almost the entire continent of Westeros. There was no such a thing before Aegon I.

And I recall a Stark, an Arryn, and a Lannister quite recently walking around and claiming sovereignty over their respective families' domains, so it is not very accurate to call them "overthrown".

A hypothetical question: what would happen if Aerys succeeded in burning the KL and the IT?

[exigez]

Probably the kingdom would have been divided again, no?

[El Guapo]

It would have been the biggest fire the south has ever seen.

[exigez]

Stannis was the one who was sent to capture Dany and Viserys in Dragonstone, where Darry spirited them away. After that he sat on the small council for fifteen years receiving regular reports on their movements. What do you mean if he was aware of Daenerys?

Since Robert's death and us starting to get glimpses of Stannis via Davos, Mel, Jon and Sam, we never hear him talking about her. He also has tons to deal with and seems he has very little interest in whats happening out side the realm. He didn't even know what was going on at the Wall until Davos came across an old letter by accident.

Maybe it's just me, but a man that is trying to hatch a dragon and even considers murdering his nephew for it, would have had something to say about a girl he tried to kill sometime earlier actually hatching them.

He is aware of her, but I don't think he knows what's going on with her at this moment. He is totally blind and self absorbed.