Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UFT

Do the Targaryens deserve the throne back?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Daenerys Targaryen's slave said:

The best ruler for the Kingdom is probably some minor noble with an IQ of 160, but will never have the chance to rule because he doesn't have an army.

I don't know about that. I mean little finger started off as a minor noble and now look at him. 

Ambition and dedication  make a wonderful combination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't know about that. I mean little finger started off as a minor noble and now look at him. 

Ambition and dedication  make a wonderful combination

He had powerful connections, though. He was fostered at Riverun, and was the lover of the wife of a Lord Paramount. Without these circumstances, his intelligence would have been wasted.

 

Think about how many other minor nobles with incredible potential that will never get the chance to prove their worth.

 

It's why when people say that Robb Stark was a prodigy, I'm not all that impressed. He was going up against a tiny pool if talent (10 or less) who weren't even picked for their skills. It's like calling the local basketball player a prodigy when he trounces skinny 5'10 middle schoolers.

 

Had Petyr or Varys been given the same education and position as Robb, the latter wouldn't stand a chance against them in warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daenerys Targaryen's slave said:

The best ruler for the Kingdom is probably some minor noble with an IQ of 160, but will never have the chance to rule because he doesn't have an army.

It happened 1273 in HRE though. Rudolf von Habsurg got elected and he had no no army.

But as the people above said nobody deserves it. Every medieval state was created by some noble who's ancestor took goodies from weaker people with force and called himself noble. No nobles were ever different from other people and their ancestors were farmers all the same.

From point of succession Viserys was true heir, but since he didn't show up to coronation I think Robert was the right choice (there are examples from Targareyen history when children were skipped in succession. Incest is not officially proven so currently Tommen is rightful king. But in reality it is like Varys' riddle. Power is where people see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Daenerys Targaryen's slave said:

He had powerful connections, though. He was fostered at Riverun, and was the lover of the wife of a Lord Paramount. Without these circumstances, his intelligence would have been wasted.

You don't know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Daenerys Targaryen's slave said:

He had powerful connections, though. He was fostered at Riverun, and was the lover of the wife of a Lord Paramount. Without these circumstances, his intelligence would have been wasted.

But not an army He's never one a battle but so far he's been the one to most benifit from the war. Still you're right his circumstances with the tullies helped out a lot and he probably wouldn't be where he's at right now without it. But, I can't imagine him even without it moving up the social ladder.

Think about how many other minor nobles with incredible potential that will never get the chance to prove their worth.

 

It's why when people say that Robb Stark was a prodigy, I'm not all that impressed. He was going up against a tiny pool if talent (10 or less) who weren't even picked for their skills. It's like calling the local basketball player a prodigy when he trounces skinny 5'10 middle schoolers.

I wouldn't go that far but I would concede a lot of the success he awuirded was in part due to having well-experienced and very competent battle commanders.

Had Petyr or Varys been given the same education and position as Robb, the latter wouldn't stand a chance against them in warfare.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Daenerys Targaryen's slave said:

It's why when people say that Robb Stark was a prodigy, I'm not all that impressed. He was going up against a tiny pool if talent (10 or less) who weren't even picked for their skills. It's like calling the local basketball player a prodigy when he trounces skinny 5'10 middle schoolers.

I think this is a very good point in regards to the anti-meritocratic nature of aristocractic rule, and feudalism in particular. Its something which I will try to keep in mind for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I think this is a very good point in regards to the anti-meritocratic nature of aristocractic rule, and feudalism in particular. Its something which I will try to keep in mind for the future.

 

Exactly. Like I'm sure that out of the 50 odd thousand noblemen in the North, that there are plenty thousand who would be as successful as Robb if given the same education and opportunity. And many thousand who would be even more.

I mean, whose to say whether Randyll and Robert and Ned actually are competent mitary commanders? Would they be as successful if they were competing against a talent pool of 500,000 instead of 10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody deserves the stupid, ugly thing to begin with. Nobody deserves to wield power only because they were squeezed out of the right vagina  at the right time. Monarchy being a bad system is one of the central points of ASoIaF.

While the establishment of the Seven Kingdoms as a (somewhat) unified realm one dynasty being replaced by another is not unusual in a monarchy. It's called "Right by Conquest". Once the Baratheons on that ugly throne their word goes, since at the time they had the military might to back up their demands.
And the Targaryens can do the same, restoring their dynasty.

15 hours ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

AMEN.  No one deserves it.  Whether or not they'll reclaim it and would the realm be better off if they did is an entirely different question, however.  I am not a fan of another Targaryen dynasty.

Then you are reading the wrong series. Stannis is not gonna be King, and neither is Gendry with the unusually large, angry squirrel Arya as his queen.
Daenerys is coming and she has dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no one isn’t going to hand it back to them — the only way Daenerys or Aegon are getting that throne back is by conquest. Jorah was pretty frank with Dany about how there wouldn’t be any popular uprising for her or Viserys on their return because he common folk barely notice a change in rulership and the nobility still remember the cruelties of her father. Then with Aegon, well, there was a reason why the original plan was to go to Daenerys (who has dragons) and then to the Golden Company — they need a large army and some good victories to show the noble houses of Westeros that he means business.

Equally, it swings both ways as neither Daenerys nor Aegon should be judged the crimes of Aerys and previous Targaryen rulers. They need to be judged on their own merits and people should have every right to rid themselves of a bad ruler.

So, it’s not really a case of deserving the throne; it’s who is ‘ard enough to take the throne. Renly knew this and now Stannis knows this. No one is handing anything to anyone because they deserve it.

Ultimately, the kingdom would be much better off with a parliament to curb the king or queen. The Iron  Throne represents corruption and entitlement based on another person’s achievement: the Targaryens had the throne because of the achievements of three people who fought a war to unite the kingdoms, and the Lannisters now hold it because Robert won it from the Targaryens. What that Kingdom really needs is a Great Council that never ends. Not to mention a House of Commons... and the end of feudalism.

No system is perfect but it would at least be fairer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Nobody "deserves" to have a throne. 

Right? I can't, for the life of me, get immersed into the mentality of hereditary rule. I can understand that this sort of thinking would be natural for the characters in-story, but as a reader? Hell no.

10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Targ, Stark, Baratheon, whatever. It don't matter. It;s not about the surname, it's about the individual. 

^Exactly.

 

10 hours ago, Ye Shall Be As Gods said:

That logic would also apply to the Starks.  The Starks lost.  They don't deserve the north and they don't deserve Winterfell.  Roose Bolton and Walder Frey won and these two deserve all of the lands that they got.  Nobody ever said you had to win fair and square.  Winning is winning.  Victory is all according to people who believe in the right of conquest.  Walder was victorious over Robb and the Tullys, so Riverrun belongs to him by rights if we go with your way of thinking.  Roose outsmarted and defeated the Starks, so if we go with your line of thinking, the Boltons have complete rights to the north and to Winterfell.  The only thing the remaining Starks have any rights to is their own body odor.

True, and nobody is going to hand it back to them because "they deserve" it. Either the Starks or their supporters will have to fight hard to get it back, as we see them doing, actually. The real problem with the Boltons is that their intended subjects don't like them very much, and they're kinda willing to fight, if they have a chance, than to accept them as their overlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daenerys Targaryen's slave said:

Of course I do. In Westeros, you can be a genius with a 189 IQ but if you don't ha e powerful friends, it will mean nothing.

It takes 189 IQ to make powerful friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the Targaryens deserve the throne back?

 

It depends on which Targaryen.  There were and are many over the course of 300 years.  Our views are positively colored because the heroine in the story is Daenerys Targaryen.  She wants to end slavery.  She's strong and she's a very intelligent young girl.  But most of the Targaryens are not like her.  More often times than not, the average Targaryen is, aside from their over-the-top beauty, average.  Average.  With that being said, I think the Targaryens (even the average ones) are better for the realm because they can rule without bias.  The ruler needs distance and detachment before they can make fair and objective decisions.  Someone from House Stark is not going to be able to do that.  A Stark will place Stark interests ahead of everyone else.  Even if a Targaryen were to do the same at least it will be for the good of the monarchy and benefits the realm.  Much of what a ruler does is to settle disputes between the great houses.  Can a ruler who came from House Stark objectively decide in favor of another house who is in conflict with the Starks of Winterfell?  I think not.  House Targaryen is at the tip of the power triangle and so they don't compete with any other house. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ye Shall Be As Gods said:

That logic would also apply to the Starks.  The Starks lost.  They don't deserve the north and they don't deserve Winterfell.  Roose Bolton and Walder Frey won and these two deserve all of the lands that they got.  Nobody ever said you had to win fair and square.  Winning is winning.  Victory is all according to people who believe in the right of conquest.  Walder was victorious over Robb and the Tullys, so Riverrun belongs to him by rights if we go with your way of thinking.  Roose outsmarted and defeated the Starks, so if we go with your line of thinking, the Boltons have complete rights to the north and to Winterfell.  The only thing the remaining Starks have any rights to is their own body odor.

You should tell that to the Manderlys.  That family should lick their wounds and swallow the bitter pill of defeat.  The sticky problem is, Theon and Ramsay did a hack job.  Those idiots did a half-ass job and allowed two little Starks to escape.  One was the heir.  Now it depends on whether a writ of attainder was signed by the king to dispossess Bran and the Starks of all their rights and properties.  Did Tywin have enough time before his messy death to have lawyered, written, and signed the document? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ian Dunross said:

 

Someone from House Stark is not going to be able to do that.  A Stark will place Stark interests ahead of everyone else.  Even if a Targaryen were to do the same at least it will be for the good of the monarchy and benefits the realm. 

What? How does it ever make sense that Targaryen own interests are for the good of the realm while anyone else's are not? Self-serving is self-serving, period. Unless you identify the royal House with the realm itself (that's wrong IMO), in which case the same would stand for any House; when Lannisters are the royal family then Lannister interest is for the good of the monarchy and so on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The advantage of a monarchy can be stability. An absolute monarchy or dictatorship (El Presidente, or der Fuhrer, Emporer, the Orange menace, or whatever you call them) without check and balances, or rule of law, can be corrupt, and lends itself to violence, lies and threat to keep their place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Right? I can't, for the life of me, get immersed into the mentality of hereditary rule. I can understand that this sort of thinking would be natural for the characters in-story, but as a reader? Hell no.

^Exactly.

 

True, and nobody is going to hand it back to them because "they deserve" it. Either the Starks or their supporters will have to fight hard to get it back, as we see them doing, actually. The real problem with the Boltons is that their intended subjects don't like them very much, and they're kinda willing to fight, if they have a chance, than to accept them as their overlords.

You know what this is why I love Renly. Out of all the highborn characters we see he's the one that's the most honest how and a feudal society works the way it does and why. While Stannis Ned and all the rest pretend there's some sort divine/natural reason for why they should rule Renly holds no delusions, he recognizes if you want to rule first and foremost you need to be the strongest and make it so that people are better off obeying you then fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×