Best Kings/Queens in Westerosi History?

[The Answer]

On 10/4/2016 at 10:30 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

I can't tell if you're misinterpreting my question on purpose or not. You don't think Alyssane is good - so list the reasons.

Yeah, I feel like I'm being trolled. Is there another Alysanne that's kicking direwolf puppies or something?

She was a tremendous queen.  Let jons queen consort wonder in her own world! 

[Hodor the Articulate]

15 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Strawman: nobody is blaming QA for the Others' existence. But blaming QA for weakening the first defense area, against that foe.

Yes, that's what I meant. And it's ridiculous. It's not like she knew the Others were coming back two centuries later.

15 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Someone anticipated a Long Night 2.0. It's the reason a Wall was built. It's why some people scryed whatever to formulate prophecies. QA saw that wall, didn't she? When the Nightfort was still open and in use. It hasn't been "forgotten". But especially the last few centuries, especially after the Conquest, things have been "turned" into "stories of grumkins". The Others, wargs, magic being tales of grumkins is not something of the last 1000 years, but last 200-300 years especially. [snip]

I think it's pretty clear, from the context of my post, I was talking about the people living during the time that the Queen visited the Wall, not 6000 years ago, when the Wall was constructed. By that time, the NW had already dwindled (and not just because of the IT) because the threat of the Others was long forgotten. Nobody during that period (or no significant number of people, if you want to be pedantic) was expecting there to be another Other attack, even if they believed the Others once existed.

Okay, this is getting really off-topic, but...why do you assume Starks "would have had a warg family member once in a while ever one or two generations"? My impression is that skinchangers aren't all that common, even among the wildlings, and wargs are even rarer.

12 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The Tyrells were also charitable that doesn't make them good. Being charitable doesn't make someone good. What makes someone good it for example to even endanger himself to help the others. While Alysanne harmed both the NW and the North.

Yeah, this conversation is going around in circles. I'm just going to point you to the responses you got the last time you made this exact argument.

12 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I hope that you understand that the Hornwood case is about a bastard and a trueborn. From what we have seen and have been told a daughter comes before a son but after a sibling. While on the other hand we don't have a clue that the Targs ever followed any law.

See TSV's post. Re-read my previous post. And maybe read what GRRM has to say about inheritance again, especially the "there are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims." part. I have given you at least three examples where your supposed clear-cut inheritance laws were ignored by non-Targs. Targs, meanwhile have been near-consistent in their inheritance practices, which were decided by Great Councils (Oh, look! A law they've followed!).

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I think it's pretty clear, from the context of my post, I was talking about the people living during the time that the Queen visited the Wall, not 6000 years ago, when the Wall was constructed. By that time, the NW had already dwindled (and not just because of the IT) because the threat of the Others was long forgotten. Nobody during that period (or no significant number of people, if you want to be pedantic) was expecting there to be another Other attack, even if they believed the Others once existed.

I also pointed out that there still was the wildling threat, and that the title of the Starks (Lords) who dealt with these king beyond the walls points to wildlings managing to be a real threat and menace in the past 300 years alone, and plenty of them apparently. At minimum the New Gift idea only benefited the wildlings. House Stark wrote letters to the Citadel to argue this point especially at the time. It was ignored. 

I would also not make the assertion that everyone had forgotten. Jeor Mormont's conversation to Tyrion in his solar at the Wall, early in aGoT, suggests that the LC does believe and fear the return of the Others. The prologue reveals that Gared and Will as rangers are knowledgeable and experienced enough to fear the existence of strange things beyond the Wall. The NW brothers instantly urge Mormont to "burn" Othor and Jafer Flowers when they notice their blue eyes and non-decomposing. And since the wildlings do have several skinchangers amongst them, the Haunted Forest was never without magical occurrences. Ditto for Bloodraven and the weirwood veneration. It are mostly the southerners like Tyrion and Waymar and a partially southernized Ned Stark who are dismissive of Others. 

Quote

Okay, this is getting really off-topic, but...why do you assume Starks "would have had a warg family member once in a while ever one or two generations"? My impression is that skinchangers aren't all that common, even among the wildlings, and wargs are even rarer.

Wargs are not rare with the Starks. When Starks are skinchangers they are wargs, because of the direwolves. The fact that the Citadel and/or Faith of the 7 got QA and Jahaerys on board to move the NW away from the Black Gate and saw the need to come down to WF with 6 dragons suggests there were enough reports and hints that Starks warged, and regularly enough. We know the Citadel wants to get rid of magic. There is little point in believing you need 6 dragons to overpower Starks, unless you fear or believe them to be wargs. And in order to believe that, there must be wargs regularly enough. And indeed when the King tells stories of Targ kings to his children, such as Jahaerys "wargs" are mentioned as what he and QA fought. As @The Fattest Leech already pointed out with quotes.

 

 

 

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I have given you at least three examples where your supposed clear-cut inheritance laws were ignored by non-Targs. Targs, meanwhile have been near-consistent in their inheritance practices, which were decided by Great Councils (Oh, look! A law they've followed!).

The Great Council of 101 decided that always placed a man above a woman. Yet, only eight years later we get this:

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Viserys I

For King Viserys, the matter was long settled; Rhaenyra was his heir, and he did not wish to hear arguments otherwise—despite the decrees of the Great Council of 101, which always placed a man above a woman.

This was a direct catalyst for the Dance of Dragons.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

On 9/29/2016 at 7:32 PM, Bright Ancalagon said:

Viserys II. 

Seconded. I came to the thread to see if his name was there  

[The Grey Wolf]

40 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The Great Council of 101 decided that always placed a man above a woman. Yet, only eight years later we get this:

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Viserys I

For King Viserys, the matter was long settled; Rhaenyra was his heir, and he did not wish to hear arguments otherwise—despite the decrees of the Great Council of 101, which always placed a man above a woman.

This was a direct catalyst for the Dance of Dragons.

Hence, why Viserys I is IMO one of the worst (and possibly the stupidest) of the Targaryens to sit the Iron Throne, lucking out only in that he followed Jaehaerys I of all kings.

11 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Seconded. I came to the thread to see if his name was there  

He doesn't get enough appreciation, especially in-verse. Seriously, his life sucked and yet no other king was more dutiful or capable. Except when it came to family but then again that seems to be a running theme in RL history as well. Great rulers seldom raise great successors sadly.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

7 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Hence, why Viserys I is IMO one of the worst (and possibly the stupidest) of the Targaryen to sit the Iron Throne, lucking out in that he followed Jaehaerys I of all kings.

Agreed. I mean, I think he was quite good at the administration part of it, but completely blinded to the tension clearly brewing between his daughter and wife's factions.

7 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

He doesn't get enough appreciation, especially in-verse. Seriously, his life sucked and yet no other king was more dutiful or capable. Except when it came to family but then again that seems to be a running theme in RL history as well. Great rulers seldom raise great successors sadly.

Yeah. He reminded me of some mix of Stannis/Tywin  - took his responsibilities very seriously, while his brothers were total fools. However, it seemed like he paid very little attention to his own family. Overall he's way better than some other nutjobs though, who were lost in the world of religion, war, prophecy or something else.

ETA: Maekar I seems to be have been an okay king as well.

[The Grey Wolf]

24 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Agreed. I mean, I think he was quite good at the administration part of it, but completely blinded to the tension clearly brewing between his daughter and wife's factions.

Yeah. He reminded me of some mix of Stannis/Tywin  - took his responsibilities very seriously, while his brothers were total fools. However, it seemed like he paid very little attention to his own family. Overall he's way better than some other nutjobs though, who were lost in the world of religion, war, prophecy or something else.

ETA: Maekar I seems to be have been an okay king as well.

For me the big reason why I despise Viserys I is that he single-handedly created the Dance with his bone-headed decisions and then put his head in the sand rather than deal decisively with the situation he created. Honestly, I can't help but feel sympathetic to Alicent for having to put up with how he treated her like a a glorified mistress.

As for Maekar I'd easily say he is one of the top five Targaryen kings. He ruled for twelve years that was preceded by plague, drought, Ironborn reaving, and two Blackfyre Rebellions yet that whole period (apart from the fall of the Lothstons and the Peake Uprising) was peaceful. Not to mention Maekar was energetic, possibly the most dutiful monarch to sit the Iron Throne, and, unlike his father and son, didn't drag the continent into civil war with any controversial reforms. 

Seriously, if one wants to imagine what Stannis's reign would be like without TWo5K look to Maekar, only with far more legal changes obviously.  

[Goldhands]

I like Viserys I, he looks like a cool dude on the pictures.

[Hodor the Articulate]

Just now, The Fattest Leech said:

The Great Council of 101 decided that always placed a man above a woman. Yet, only eight years later we get this:

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Viserys I

For King Viserys, the matter was long settled; Rhaenyra was his heir, and he did not wish to hear arguments otherwise—despite the decrees of the Great Council of 101, which always placed a man above a woman.

This was a direct catalyst for the Dance of Dragons.

Yeah, I pointed that out. That seems to be the exception to the rule though.

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

I also pointed out that there still was the wildling threat, and that the title of the Starks (Lords) who dealt with these king beyond the walls points to wildlings managing to be a real threat and menace in the past 300 years alone, and plenty of them apparently. At minimum the New Gift idea only benefited the wildlings. House Stark wrote letters to the Citadel to argue this point especially at the time. It was ignored.

The wildlings were said to be a threat only when there was a King Beyond the Wall. And when it did get too much for the NW to handle, I assume they would appeal to the King, who would send some people up. It's not a bad system, because there are obviously quiet streches, so overmanning the NW would just be a waste resources. Of course, it's also flawed, because the you might get a King/Queen who doesn't help, like Cersei, but you expect most Kings to not want an invasion of wildlings.

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

I would also not make the assertion that everyone had forgotten. Jeor Mormont's conversation to Tyrion in his solar at the Wall, early in aGoT, suggests that the LC does believe and fear the return of the Others. The prologue reveals that Gared and Will as rangers are knowledgeable and experienced enough to fear the existence of strange things beyond the Wall. The NW brothers instantly urge Mormont to "burn" Othor and Jafer Flowers when they notice their blue eyes and non-decomposing. And since the wildlings do have several skinchangers amongst them, the Haunted Forest was never without magical occurrences. Ditto for Bloodraven and the weirwood veneration. It are mostly the southerners like Tyrion and Waymar and a partially southernized Ned Stark who are dismissive of Others. 

Well, I did say no significant number of people believe in the return of the Others. As in, it's understandable that people ignore the threat. The books say the NW's objective changed from protecting the Realm against the Others to keeping out wildlings. I see no reason not to take that at face value.

I think knowing about the Others and believing they exist and will return are two different things. Probably everyone would be able recognise them because of stories, but that doesn't mean they would fear another Long Night, until confronted with contrary evidence (i.e. seeing a wight).

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Wargs are not rare with the Starks. When Starks are skinchangers they are wargs, because of the direwolves. The fact that the Citadel and/or Faith of the 7 got QA and Jahaerys on board to move the NW away from the Black Gate and saw the need to come down to WF with 6 dragons suggests there were enough reports and hints that Starks warged, and regularly enough. We know the Citadel wants to get rid of magic. There is little point in believing you need 6 dragons to overpower Starks, unless you fear or believe them to be wargs. And in order to believe that, there must be wargs regularly enough. And indeed when the King tells stories of Targ kings to his children, such as Jahaerys "wargs" are mentioned as what he and QA fought. As @The Fattest Leech already pointed out with quotes.

I just don't think that's strong enough evidence to suggest wargs were as common as you say in the Stark family. It's a big leap to go from "it's suspicious that KJ brought 6 dragons to Winterfell" to "the Starks must be wargs!". I mean, there are a myriad of other reasons as to why they had 6 dragons - it may be that he wanted to intimidate Lord Stark into agreeing with whatever they were discussing, or it may be as innocent as them wanting to bring a spectacle to the North. Moreover, the existence of Stark wargs is never mentioned; there's not even stories about awesome warg Starks. Also, wouldn't that sort of thing would be common knowledge for the wildlings?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 hours ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

GRRM is talking about in general, not solely referring only to that one specific case. And when exactly did the Targaryens ignore succession laws anyway?

When Jaehaerys named Viserys his heir and not the daughter of his crown prince, when Aegon's daughters were set aside, when Daenora, Vaella and Maegor were set aside. 

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yeah, this conversation is going around in circles. I'm just going to point you to the responses you got the last time you made this exact argument.

By your logic the Tyrells were the best family in Westeros.

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

See TSV's post. Re-read my previous post. And maybe read what GRRM has to say about inheritance again, especially the "there are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims." part. I have given you at least three examples where your supposed clear-cut inheritance laws were ignored by non-Targs. Targs, meanwhile have been near-consistent in their inheritance practices, which were decided by Great Councils (Oh, look! A law they've followed!).

Your examples show how the Targs never followed any law. 

[TheSovereignGrave]

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

When Jaehaerys named Viserys his heir and not the daughter of his crown prince, when Aegon's daughters were set aside, when Daenora, Vaella and Maegor were set aside.

Your examples show how the Targs never followed any law. 

Viserys was named Jaehaerys' heir because the Great Council decided that. Same with Vaella and Maegor; the Targaryens didn't pass over them, it was the Great Council. Do you hate the Targaryens so much that you're going to blame them for the decision of the Westerosi Lords?

How? For the most part Targaryen succession was pretty consistent and in line with the precedents set by the Great Councils. With, you know, the exception of Viserys I.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

33 minutes ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

Viserys was named Jaehaerys' heir because the Great Council decided that. Same with Vaella and Maegor; the Targaryens didn't pass over them, it was the Great Council. Do you hate the Targaryens so much that you're going to blame them for the decision of the Westerosi Lords?

Yet there was no need for a Great Council. If the King had followed the laws Rhaenys and later Daena, her sisters, Daenora, Vaella and Maegor would had taken the Crown.

34 minutes ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

How? For the most part Targaryen succession was pretty consistent and in line with the precedents set by the Great Councils. With, you know, the exception of Viserys I.

 Again, there was no reason for a Great Council since there is a law about those situations; A daughter after a son but before a sibling.

[TheSovereignGrave]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yet there was no need for a Great Council. If the King had followed the laws Rhaenys and later Daena, her sisters, Daenora, Vaella and Maegor would had taken the Crown.

 Again, there was no reason for a Great Council since there is a law about those situations; A daughter after a son but before a sibling.

 

Once again you're ignoring the words of the author himself, who said that succession is not just some clear-cut thing. And besides, I don't think there was ever even a reigning Queen in history. No Queen in the North, no Queen of the Rock, no Queen of the Trident, no Queen of Mountain and Vale, no High Queen/Iron Queen, no Queen of the Reach, and no Storm Queen (unless one counts Argella Durrandon). Heck, when Gerold III Lannister died without a male heir his daughter didn't ascend to the throne, her husband took the name Joffrey Lannister and became King. By all means, it seems like skipping over daughters in succession was typical of pre-Conquest Westerosi Kings anyway.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

16 minutes ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

Once again you're ignoring the words of the author himself, who said that succession is not just some clear-cut thing

And you seem to ignoring the fact that he most probably talking about the inheritage when it comes to the bastards.

17 minutes ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

And besides, I don't think there was ever even a reigning Queen in history.

What you think isn't the same with what is in the books, we only know about the North while there is at least one Queen of her own right at the Stormlands.

18 minutes ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

By all means, it seems like skipping over daughters in succession was typical of pre-Conquest Westerosi Kings anyway.

Yet in the books it is proven that a Lady is able to rule in her own right and that sons are followed by daughters not by brothers.

[TheSovereignGrave]

21 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

And you seem to ignoring the fact that he most probably talking about the inheritage when it comes to the bastards.

What you think isn't the same with what is in the books, we only know about the North while there is at least one Queen of her own right at the Stormlands.

Yet in the books it is proven that a Lady is able to rule in her own right and that sons are followed by daughters not by brothers.

We've been given a pretty long list of ruling monarchs for all the major Kingdoms in Westeros, not just the North. None of them were women. Not one. And while a Lady can rule, at present there's no proof that the succession laws were the same for Kingdom itself.

And you do realize that Viserys wasn't Jaehaerys' brother, right? He was his grandson.

EDIT: Eh, you know what don't bother replying. This is off-topic and it's clogging up space.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

And you do realize that Viserys wasn't Jaehaerys' brother, right? He was his grandson.

I also realise that Jaehaerys' heir was Aemon the fact that he died doesn't mean that his daughter comes after his brother and nephew.

1 minute ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

We've been given a pretty long list of ruling monarchs for all the major Kingdoms in Westeros, not just the North. None of them were women. Not one. And while a Lady can rule, at present there's no proof that the succession laws were the same for Kingdom itself.

If we had all the rulers you would had been right. But we don't and we have at least one Queen of her own right and examples of Ladies of their own right. 

[sweetsunray]

12 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The wildlings were said to be a threat only when there was a King Beyond the Wall. And when it did get too much for the NW to handle, I assume they would appeal to the King, who would send some people up. It's not a bad system, because there are obviously quiet streches, so overmanning the NW would just be a waste resources. Of course, it's also flawed, because the you might get a King/Queen who doesn't help, like Cersei, but you expect most Kings to not want an invasion of wildlings.

And QA made them a bigger threat, even when there was no King Beyond the Wall. But here are the Kings Beyond the Wall in the past 300 years: Bael the Bard, Raymun Redbeard and Mance Rayder.

And they were ALL too much for the NW to handle, including Gendel and Gorne 3000 years ago (when the NW was +10k big) and the Horned Lord.

Here's what we have for the KbtW:

Joramun: joined forces with the Starks against the Night's King

Gendel and Gorne: evaded the NW and were defeated by the Stark KitN who awaited them. Gorne killed the KitN, but was killed by the KitN's heir. Only as the battle already raged the NW came to the aid of the Starks.

The Horned Lord passed to the South of the Wall. Nothing much is known, but if he passed then the NW failed and it was again up to the Starks to halt him.

Bael the Bard also succeeded in leading his army south of the Wall. The LORD Stark had no son, only a daughter and her child was Bael's. The NW failed again. And Bael was killed by his own son who was Lord Stark of WF. Since we are talking about a Lord Stark, this happened DURING the Targ dynasty.

Raymun Redbeard puts the NW to complete shame. The LC was nicknamed Sleepy Jack ever after for failing his watch. Raymun was killed by Lord Stark in 226 AC at Long Lake. The NW was too late even to come to the aid during the battle. The sole task left to them was to bury the dead. As for "overmanning the wall is a waste of resources as you claim": Raymun noted the decline of the NW and used it to his advantage. That by then the Gift and the New Gift is already a deplorable issue is proven by the fact that Raymun managed to get as far as Long Lake.

So, your assumption that the NW would appeal to the king is wrong. The major force that both in ancient history as well as recent ones dealt with the KbtW were the Starks, except for Mance. That's the sole time a southern army came to the aid and actually stopped an attack North of the Wall.

13 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I just don't think that's strong enough evidence to suggest wargs were as common as you say in the Stark family. It's a big leap to go from "it's suspicious that KJ brought 6 dragons to Winterfell" to "the Starks must be wargs!". I mean, there are a myriad of other reasons as to why they had 6 dragons - it may be that he wanted to intimidate Lord Stark into agreeing with whatever they were discussing, or it may be as innocent as them wanting to bring a spectacle to the North. Moreover, the existence of Stark wargs is never mentioned; there's not even stories about awesome warg Starks. Also, wouldn't that sort of thing would be common knowledge for the wildlings?

It's inferred by logic. 2 dragons is strong arming already, but not without precedent. 6 dragons is plain overkill. Combine it with the closing of the NIghtfort and Black Gate, the disappearance of the direwolves south of the Wall and the stories that Targs tell their children of Jahaerys going to fight wargs up North and we get a picture of intent to rid WF and the North of Stark wargs.

Why would it be common knowlege with the wildlings how many Starks can be wargs? They live North of the Wall, not South of it.

[Hodor the Articulate]

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And QA made them a bigger threat, even when there was no King Beyond the Wall. But here are the Kings Beyond the Wall in the past 300 years: Bael the Bard, Raymun Redbeard and Mance Rayder.

And they were ALL too much for the NW to handle, including Gendel and Gorne 3000 years ago (when the NW was +10k big) and the Horned Lord.

Here's what we have for the KbtW:

Joramun: joined forces with the Starks against the Night's King

Gendel and Gorne: evaded the NW and were defeated by the Stark KitN who awaited them. Gorne killed the KitN, but was killed by the KitN's heir. Only as the battle already raged the NW came to the aid of the Starks.

The Horned Lord passed to the South of the Wall. Nothing much is known, but if he passed then the NW failed and it was again up to the Starks to halt him.

Bael the Bard also succeeded in leading his army south of the Wall. The LORD Stark had no son, only a daughter and her child was Bael's. The NW failed again. And Bael was killed by his own son who was Lord Stark of WF. Since we are talking about a Lord Stark, this happened DURING the Targ dynasty.

Raymun Redbeard puts the NW to complete shame. The LC was nicknamed Sleepy Jack ever after for failing his watch. Raymun was killed by Lord Stark in 226 AC at Long Lake. The NW was too late even to come to the aid during the battle. The sole task left to them was to bury the dead. As for "overmanning the wall is a waste of resources as you claim": Raymun noted the decline of the NW and used it to his advantage. That by then the Gift and the New Gift is already a deplorable issue is proven by the fact that Raymun managed to get as far as Long Lake.

So, your assumption that the NW would appeal to the king is wrong. The major force that both in ancient history as well as recent ones dealt with the KbtW were the Starks, except for Mance. That's the sole time a southern army came to the aid and actually stopped an attack North of the Wall.

That doesn't prove my assumption wrong. It just shows the Northern lords could stop wildlings by themselves, so it works. Well, for the Realm as whole, anyway. IIRC, Jon appealed to all the Northern lords as well as the Kings, I don't see why it would be any different for former LCs.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

It's inferred by logic. 2 dragons is strong arming already, but not without precedent. 6 dragons is plain overkill. Combine it with the closing of the NIghtfort and Black Gate, the disappearance of the direwolves south of the Wall and the stories that Targs tell their children of Jahaerys going to fight wargs up North and we get a picture of intent to rid WF and the North of Stark wargs.

Why would it be common knowlege with the wildlings how many Starks can be wargs? They live North of the Wall, not South of it.

They don't all live beyond the wall. Also, raiders.

I still think it's big leap, and there are too many holes, assumptions and alternative explanations, but I can't really be bothered arguing about it any further. Maybe if it had it's own thread.

[Drogonthedread]

Aegon the conqueror and visenya

Jahaerys and alysanne

Egg 

Nymeria 

Torrehn stark and theon stark

When has GRRm been so obvious and straighyforward in his titles . lets see 

Aegon the conqueror

Aegon the unlikely

Aegon the unworthy

Daenys the Dreamer

Mother of DRagons 

Stormborn 

Young dragon

Young wolf 

Baelor the blessed 

Mad king

I guess its enough or should i go on..so in that order 

Good Queen Alysanne