Rhaenyra: Traitor or legitimate heir?

[Lord Varys]

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

I have no idea how that contradicts what I have said. Or addresses the point about Rhaenyra never trying to get any position in her father's government.

I didn't address that point because that point is, quite frankly, irrelevant. There is no precedent for a woman serving on the Small Council or as King's Hand. Queen Tyanna was the first Mistress of Whisperers but that was before Jaehaerys I had established the Small Council as a formal institution.

And, quite frankly, most royal heirs never served their fathers or brothers in any formal capacity. Aenys, Prince Aegon, Jaehaerys I, Prince Aemon, Viserys I, Daeron I, Baelor I, Aegon IV, Daeron II, Aerys II, Prince Rhaegar (we don't know anything about Maekar, Egg, or Jaehaerys II) didn't serve their royal fathers or brothers in any official capacity.

I don't see any reason why Rhaenyra should have done this, or why her not doing that makes her less equipped an heir than any of the others.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

That's rather questionable claim you are making. While Dragonstone may prepare its Lord/Lady on how to rule, it does nothing to train the next King about royal government or to make connection with future bannermen or navigate the politics of Great Houses. Sure it is some training - if one takes the opportunity - but the best? That's rather doubtful.

Daeron II and Prince Rhaegar also permanently resided on Dragonstone, playing no part in the governments of their royal fathers. Others, like Maegor the Cruel, served as King's Hand only to turn out to be among the worst kings ever. 

And it is not that Rhaenyra didn't travel the Realm or interact with members of the great houses. Far to the contrary, actually. The days of the royal progresses were over, but she still attended some tourneys in the Riverlands and the West, not to mention that the party king Viserys I seems to have forced half the Realm or more to constantly attend him in his capital.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

There is not even a hint of any of this in the text - instead what we have Rhaenyra who ignores the matter all together. Which fits perfectly well with her previous lack of even attempts to assume an office in the government.

It is a speculation that she consciously ignored the matter. The truth is that we don't know what she did or thought about the vacancy of the position of Hand in the wake of Lord Lyonel's death.

It is not that we have a detailed account on all her actions during the reign of her father, right?

But again - as a woman, she may not have been able to assume an office in the government of the Realm.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

You do not need to look to the person who produces obvious bastards. There is no shortage of Valyrian-looking people in the world, starting with Rhaenyra's own uncle with whom she had a good relationship. And also eventually had two Valyrian-looking children.

As it stands, Rhaenyra and Laenor are the only instance in canon of two Valyrian-looking (alleged) parents producing decidedly non-Valyrian looking offspring. And that was Rhaenyra's choice, not anyone else's. She could have thought about it in advance - she did not. She could have taken steps once her eldest was born - and she didn't take the hint. There is no one but Rhaenyra to blame for the results.

Who do you think you are to judge the paternity of royal children? In a monarchy it is not your business to doubt the paternity of royal children that have been born in wedlock. Unless their father doubts the fidelity of his wife - which Laenor never did, instead he acknowledged them as his children - or the king ruled on the matter and declared Rhaenyra and adulteress and her children bastards such children are legitimate by default.

All children born in wedlock are the children of the husband unless proven otherwise. And there is simply no proof that Rhaenyra's sons are not Laenor's. Nor is there any way this could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in this society (assuming Viserys I was willing to conduct such a trial - which he was not).

That doesn't mean it is not very likely that Laenor wasn't the biological father. But the thing - that's not anyone's business. The man acknowledged his children as his children and that's the end of that. Especially if the king says that it is the end of it. Which Viserys I made very clear.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

Execution requires trial. Without a trial it is a murder - a murder of a nobleman, no less. Even obviously unjust decree of Viserys commanded tongues to be removed for saying self-evident truth about Rhaenyra's three eldest children, not having people murdered and fed to a dragon. Rhaenyra managed to take one step beyond the unjust law. She managed to violate the command that Viserys laid down specifically to protect her.

That isn't true. Vaemond Velaryon isn't necessarily sentenced to death for claiming that Laenor's children are not Laenor's children. He also unlawfully lays claim to Driftmark, a fact that could be seen as treason or attempted rebellion.

And even if this wasn't the case - there is no reason to believe Rhaenyra didn't have jurisdiction over Vaemond and his family. She was the Princess of Dragonstone. Corlys Velaryon himself was her vassal, sworn to Dragonstone. It would be her duty and right to sit in judgment over Vaemond. And it is certainly not impossible that execution is a proper punishment in this case.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

If a ruler faces 100% popular rebellion rate in every fiefdom ruled, it is a very good reason to question ruler's ability.

Not in this broad sense. It depends on the situation at hand. If you are forced to rule a kingdom or take over a government in a crisis the chances that you have to deal with rebellions and uprisings are pretty high, never mind whether you are capable or incapable.

The head of a government cannot make war, starvation, plagues, or economical crises go away. But he is usually blamed if he cannot do that. And then people are pissed.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

Well, first of all, we again see the necessity to play politics and engage in governance - the Greens did and ended up with treasury.

That is irrelevant for the topic at hand. Rhaenyra could and would have ruled differently had she had more money at her disposal. That she could have had more money at her disposal had she secured the treasury is a completely separate issue.

Rhaenyra's ability as a ruler is independent from her securing the assets with which she could have ruled better. She was the Heir Apparent. She had no reason to assume she would have to fight for her throne.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

Secondly, was Rhaenyra forced to fight a war? Her leal bannermen certainly did. Northmen, Reachmen, Riverlanders, Crownlanders... But Rhaenyra raised no armies of her own, hired no mercs by herself (Aegon II did at least try), nor did she provide any financial support to the people who actually did those things for her cause.

Rhaenyra had men-at-arms of her own. Her Dragonstone and Velaryon men, making up most of the contingent that actually took KL. Daemon only came with his dragon and the City Watch joined her, but she had men of her own. That's why Dragonstone was pretty much deserted after she left for the capital.

Her loyalists also joined her at KL. There were Manderlys and men from the Vale in the capital, and she would have been forced to pay and feed them for their service. In addition, we do know that 10,000 Vale men fought for Rhaenyra. We don't know the battles they fought and died it, but that's the number according to Ran.

Wars are costly and tedious affairs. Just think what Tyrion and Cersei have to do to prepare KL for Renly and Stannis in ACoK.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

And the only expenditure mentioned in the text is.... a big party for Joffrey. That's it. This is an astonishing example of egoism and delusion rolled into one - people of King's Landing were bled for coin so that Rhaenyra could have a party for her obviously bastard son getting the honors to which he had no right by the virtue of being obvious bastard.

See above. Joffrey Velaryon died as the Prince of Dragonstone. He wasn't a bastard. But aside from that - the whole thing was merely a plan. It never happened. At least not according to the text. Any great celebration of Joff's investiture in the middle of the war wouldn't have been a grand affair at all. It would have been as glorious and costly as Joff's nameday tourney in ACoK.

But then - showing off your power and splendor (and the legitimacy that comes with it) is very important in a monarchy. You can see that in the splendor of contemporary royal coronations weddings, funerals, births, birthday celebrations, etc. I watch Trooping the Colour as often as I can, never mind the money that's burned in stupid affairs like that.

Blaming a queen for stuff like that in a medieval monarchy like Westeros is pretty much insane.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

About "putting down the traitors": Rhaenyra entered the city that was well-disposed toward her:

"Neither Aegon nor his brother Aemond had ever been much loved by the people of the city, and many kingslanders had welcomed the queen’s return"

However public opinion turns as Rhaenyra's rule progresses:

"Yet as fresh heads began appearing daily upon the spikes above the city gates"

Whut? There are seven gates in the city. To have heads, we'll take the barest minimum - two heads. This barest, most generous minimum for half a year would result in 2 * 7 * 180 = 2520 people. This barest minimum of Rhaenyra's reign of terror is over two thousands of people. Where do all these "traitors" come from, exactly? There is no mention in the text of some vast multi-thousand strong Green conspiracy in the city - would have been very useful, actually, but never comes up.

Sorry, that really doesn't make any sense. There is no indication that this 'reign of terror' started on the first day of her rule (although there were quite a few executions on that day) nor that we are supposed to take that literally.

But even if it was true - do you know that those 2520 people you list there were all innocent? Isn't it possible that 2520 Green agents were hiding in a city where hundreds of thousands of people lived?

Since we don't know anything about the reasons why those people were executed we simply don't know whether they were innocent or guilty.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

Rhaenyra was not "putting down traitors" - whatever few people who could be legitimately considered traitors were executed/imprisoned swiftly once she took the city - she was ruling through terror by murdering thousands of people. In a friendly city. This is Aerys II level of stupid evil.

We see that she was surprising lenient in the end. She could have mounted Syrax and burned the city. She could have laid fire to the city meticulously so that the mad rabble attacking the Dragonpit was trapped up Rhaenys' Hill, burning with the dragons. Instead, she left the city and allowed the people to live.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

The problem is not with Quince or Broome - the problem is the garrison. Dragonstone's garrison, in overwhelming numbers - otherwise radio silence would never work - supported a beaten cripple of a King who was losing the war, quite badly. So unless Stannis was ISOTed into Aegon II as he lied half dead among the fish, providing Mannis-level inspirational ability, this says volumes about Rhaenyra's rule over Dragonstone. The people most exposed to her are ready to jump the ship en masse at first opportunity, even when the chances of the garrison soldiers are rather slim and prospects of Green victory are hardly inspiring at the time.

You seem to make a mistake about the size of the garrison of Dragonstone. It wasn't all that strong to begin with:

Quote

Thirty knights, a hundred crossbowmen, and three hundred men-at-arms made up the rest of Dragonstone’s garrison. That had always been deemed sufficient for a fortress of such strength.

As to the situation on Dragonstone after Rhaenyra's departure for KL we have this:

Quote

The queen had taken her best men with her to King’s Landing. On its island, protected by the Sea Snake’s ships and its high Valyrian walls, Dragonstone seemed unassailable, so the garrison Her Grace left to defend it was small, made up largely of men judged to be of little other use: greybeards and green boys, the halt and slow and crippled, men recovering from wounds, men of doubtful loyalty, men suspected of cowardice. Over them Rhaenyra placed Ser Robert Quince, an able man grown old and fat.

Quince was a steadfast supporter of the queen, all agree, but some of the men under him were less leal, harboring certain resentments and grudges for old wrongs real or imagined. Prominent amongst them was Ser Alfred Broome. Broome proved more than willing to betray his queen in return for a promise of lordship, lands, and gold should Aegon II regain the throne. His long service with the garrison allowed him to advise the king’s men on Dragonstone’s strengths and weaknesses, which guards could be bribed or won over, and which must need be killed or imprisoned.

That makes it pretty clear how Dragonstone fell. Aegon II's men around Marston Waters (the Toms, etc.) contacted and recruited Broome. He knew the garrison and recruited other like-minded people to his cause. That way they could quickly deal with the few honest men in the garrison, either killing or imprisoning them.

There is really no mystery to all this.

The reason why nobody learned of what had transpired there is pretty obvious, too: Dragonstone is an island and the traitors took the castle in less than an hour. Shortly thereafter a raven arrived from Rhaenyra that she was coming back home.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

No surprise, given Rhaenyra's tenure in King's Landing.

Broom could be scum. His pals could be scum. Half the garrison could be scum. But when you have the entire garrison of a big castle and almost everyone becomes "scum"... Well, either Rhaenyra was running a penal colony for a garrison which doesn't speak well for her ruling ability, or she was just as horrible Lady of Dragonstone as she was the Queen.

Indeed, they were pretty much all scum. They were no longer a garrison of thirty knights, a hundred crossbowmen, and three hundred men-at-arms.

If I had to guess it is likely that the garrison were under a hundred men. Perhaps only as few as fifty. Dragonstone isn't all that large a castle.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

In The Princess and the Queen, Daemon does all the work during the fall of King's Landing - or rather his Goldcloaks. They sever communications, they seize loyalists and change sides - out of loyalty that Daemon instilled into them back in the day. Rhaenyra just flies over a city that was captured without her doing anything.

The City Watch defects to Rhaenyra thanks to Daemon but she brings the dragonriders and the men - from Dragonstone and Driftmark - who would have burned or stormed the city if the Goldcloaks hadn't handed it to her on a silver platter.

57 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said:

Daemon fights in the Riverlands and takes out the biggest asset the Greens still have as well as another Green claimant. Daemon is fine - for the war effort at least, it's Rhaenyra who starts reign of terror in friendly capital, presses people for coin that seems not to go anywhere but to the party, ignores Corlys' sensible advice which could win her the war, drags Corlys and Mooton to the Green side, pushes away loyal dragonseeds and generally makes absolute mess of other people's attempts to save her rule. For the Blacks Rhaenyra is what Joffrey was for the Lannisters, only much, much worse. For all his attempts, Joffrey didn't manage to spark a revolt large enough to overrun the capital.

Daemon is the one who arranges Blood and Cheese. Daemon is the one who urges his wife to extinguish houses as noble and ancient as the Baratheons and Lannister and hand their castles over to scum like Hugh and Ulf.

It is not Rhaenyra who pushes Rhaenyra to be suspicious of Addam Velaryon. Her loyal counselors mistrust him and Nettles. And Nettles simply is a traitor. She apparently seduced and slept with the prince consort. That is treason.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What he could have done or how he could have proven who he is is pretty moot

I have to disagree. It should be an important factor in his decision to travel all the way across the world to meet a royal family if he has no proof he's related to them.

He should put himself in their shoes. The Starks were part of the alliance that took their home away from them and killed their family. He has been known as Eddard Stark's bastard his entire life and looks a lot like him. Then he shows up claiming he's not Ned Stark's bastard but their royal nephew? Two people that couldn't trust anyone for most their lives?  Would he expect them to believe him and bring him in as one of their own? 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For Ned Benjen is still his brother, right?

Only in name and blood. Had Benjen ever tried to flee the Wall while Ned was Warden of the North then it would be Ned's duty to catch him and send him back for execution, or take his head himself. It would depend on what the protocol is for Northern executions of NW deserters when it involves kinslaying. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is different. Aerys II most likely had some pretext as to why he wanted Ned and Robert dead. Some pretext connected to them as a real and immediate danger to his rule. Like, them avenging Brandon or Rickard or something of that sort. In the case of innocent children such a danger is blatantly not existent. Robert commanding Jon Snow's death would be a monstrous crime.

How is it different? It would be a King demanding the death of someone he saw as a future threat and danger to his rule. Robert could fear that Jon Snow would one day want to avenge Rhaenys and Aegon the same way Aerys feared Eddard and Robert would want to avenge Rickard and Brandon. And like you said above Jon Snow could be used as a pretender and threat to Robert or his children's claim. Robert and Tywin already have shown they don't care how old the threat is and have no qualms about killing children, or ordering the death of children.

Also as you mentioned The North/Riverlands and possibly the Vale could rebel against Robert if he ordered Ned to give him Rhaegar's babe in order to kill him. Just like Jon Arryn decided to rebel against Aerys when he demanded that he kill Eddard and Robert. So it's similar in that sense too.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Robert actually commanded the execution/murder of child he would put himself in a very bad light/position. It could easily be the beginning of the quick end of his rule.

He already started off his rule by pardoning the murderers of Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon and made his feelings known about their deaths. I believe the word "dragonspawn" was used. One could argue his rule was always going to be seen in a bad light by the way he came into it. I believe he even says so himself that some people will always call him a usurper. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

My point there is that nobody would have had any reason to keep such a marriage a secret. If Lyanna and Rhaegar married they would have done so openly and publicly - or Rhaegar would at least have later revealed what he did when he returned to court and took command of the Targaryen army.

 

I find it curious that Robert, Ned, Catelyn, Cersei nor anyone else ever mentions that such a mock ceremony ever happened. It's a moot point anyway as the marriage would be seen as a fraud. Rhaegar was already married to Elia. Elia gave him heirs. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are precedents for royal polygamy in Westeros.

A precedent for a Prince who is already married with children? To marry another girl without the permission of the High Septon, the permission of his father the King and the permission from the father of the girl he's marrying? 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And never got a trial. That was simply murder. The boy wasn't heard nor did he get a proper trial.

He never asked for a proper trail either. After the incident he and Arya ran away and hid for days instead of going to her father the Hand of the King or the King to tell their side of the story. While Joffrey went immediately to the Queen and told her his version of the story. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And it was a false accusation. Arya attacked Joffrey, not Mycah.

It was Arya's word against the Crown Prince's word. Arya who ran away right after the incident and Joffrey who went straight to the authorities. Mycah also ran away instead of going to tell a lord his side of the story. Which you can't really blame Mycah for as he is a commoner and sadly they usually are the ones to suffer when Noble's squabble with each other. 

Now we as readers know what happened and Ned Stark might know Joff was lying but he had no proof when Sansa didn't confirm Arya's story. It became the word of the Crown Prince vs the word of Arya who instead of going straight to her father with her version of the truth, hid for days. Which didn't make her or Mycah look innocent. When you consider all this you realize Ned doesn't have much grown to stand on when seeking justice for Mycah, especially from Robert and Cersei. If Robert wasn't going to call for the heads of the Mountain and Lorch for killing a Princess of Dorne, Rhaenys and Aegon. It's reasonable for Ned to assume that demanding Sandor Clegane be killed for hunting a fugitive,  accused of maiming Robert's son, would be futile. It wasn't Ned's hill to die on.

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2018-1-7 at 7:24 AM, Lord Varys said:

It is, however, naiveté and stupidity to the highest degree to not keep in mind that Jon Snow's and Eddard Stark's own kinship to the Viserys III and Daenerys influenced Ned's own decision-making process in relation to the assassination plans.

Are you talking about the Jon Snow who Ned sent off to join the Nights Watch, where one must give up all previous rights and claims, as well all ties to your family? Again, Ned's actions would suggest the exact opposite of what you are asserting. 

Quote

Ned would likely oppose any plan to murder children - but again: Viserys III Targaryen is no child.

He was a child during Robert's rebellion, and the key here is that he was innocent and had not wronged Robert. As well, despite having a claim to the Iron Throne, was not considered to be a threat or concern should he not have the means to forcefully take the throne from Robert.

Quote

And political assassination isn't something that doesn't happen in this world. If Viserys III had the means he would kill Robert, his wife, his children, and his brothers - most likely in addition to Jaime, Tywin, and Ned himself. And Ned must have known this.

Sure he knows this, and he makes it clear that he doesn't see this threat as very viable. As is supported by the text - as well as you having just made a point in support of - the threat posed by Viserys is not due to his claim, but that of an invasion by someone who has a motive to take Robert's throne, and exact revenge on him.

Quote

If Ned hadn't been kin by marriage to the Targaryens he would have likely not reacted as principled as he did act. He may have still opposed the murder of Daenerys and her unborn child but not with the same words - and certainly not also the murder of Viserys III.

Heh, where do you get this stuff from?

Quote

Ned actually goes out of his way to dissuade Robert from seeing the whole thing as a threat to his kingship and dynasty - despite the fact that it clearly poses such a threat.

Lol. No, Ned was right. What threat posed by Viserys, and him marrying his sister off to some Dothraki Khal, did you read about coming to fruition?

This is just more evidence against your position. For fifteen years, Robert had no concerns over Viserys' claim as a threat to his kingship and dynasty. Only when Viserys looked to be acquiring an army, in which to take the throne from Robert through force, did he concern himself with this potential threat.

Quote

As Hand it is Ned's most important duty to defend his king against all enemies. A proper and correct assessment of the dangers Robert is facing is part of his job. Ned doesn't have to urge Robert to assassinate the Targaryens but he should also not downplay the potential danger the Dothraki wedding is posing to him. 

Who's downplaying anything? Again, Ned's assessment was correct. Without Daenerys' dragons, Viserys and his Dothraki hoard were not a serious or likely threat, and if by some mischance this army had found a way to cross the Narrow Sea, they would have been thrown right back into that menacing salt water.

Ned was making a proper and correct assessment of the dangers facing Robert, and not letting emotions and an irrationally mad hatred of the Targaryns cloud his judgement, as was Robert.

Quote

Do you see Ned trying to get any justice for the murder of the innocent boy Mycah? Nope. 

What's going on here? Are you trying to set a world record for most diverse types of argumentative fallacies used in a single debate?

This, of course, is an equivalency fallacy, and in no way is comparable to the topic at hand. First of all, Mycah was accused of assaulting the Crown Prince, a treasonous crime punishable by death. Secondly, and more importantly, he had already been murdered without Ned's knowledge. I can assure you had the Hound brought him back alive, Ned would have advocated against his execution.

Quote

If you read his chapters closely you realize the man isn't a complete political moron. He knows how to play people, he knows how question people, he knows how to manipulate people (Robert, for instance), and he knows how to stage a coup. He made certain crucial mistakes but those didn't have to do with political stupidity but rather with empathy and kindness.

Yes, I actually agree with your assessment here. Although many will argue that his tendency to be influenced by his empathy and kindness is what makes him a political moron. 

Quote

The single political error he made was insisting on Stannis' coronation - but that was most likely done because he didn't really know the man. Had he understood how unpopular Stannis was he would have not made that mistake.

Uh no, he knew Stannis and his reputation well enough. Again, you are just ignoring what the text and Ned himself states, and making things up out of thin air.

Quote

See above. The whole Jon Snow thing is an integral part of the entire conception of the story. The idea that this didn't play into Ned's decision-making process simply doesn't make sense. We don't need people to spell it out for us to know that. Just as we didn't need Tywin to tell us that he was very afraid of what Aerys and Jaime might do during the Sack. It is pretty obvious that the man must have been afraid for the life of his favorite son while Tywin was betraying the king his son was sworn to protect...

Again, where are you getting this from? What makes no sense is that Ned would take this into consideration in regards to this matter. There is no relevance here unless you subscribe to these thoughts and motivations by Ned that you have made up. You are just doubling down on a fallible argument, and turning it into circular reasoning while you are at it.

On the bright side, that world record is certainly within your grasp.

Quote

Again, you can use that innocent routine with Daenerys and her unborn child, but not Viserys III.

Actually, it's Ned and GRRM that uses this routine, not me. I am just reiterating what the text tells us.

Quote

The man is an adult and sure as hell 'a traitor' and 'rebel' in the eyes of the Baratheon regime who deserves to be killed. After all, didn't he constantly plot to invade Westeros in the last decade or so? Didn't he try to recruit the Golden Company to invade Westeros? Wouldn't that be more than enough to sentence him to death?

Did he? Was he in any position to implement any of these plots? Was Robert aware of any of this? You would think Robert would have been more determined these past fifteen years in putting a stop to the plotting and scheming of Viserys' had he known this, and not only became concerned once his sister was to be married.

Funny how his and Ned's focus drifts to Daenerys' - the one with the lesser claim - and her marriage to a man with the means to threaten Robert with might, rather than on Viserys, this rebelling traitor with the best claim.

---

Well, I am getting quite tired here, and as I gaze down, I see that there is a whole wall of text that I haven't addressed yet. I'm sure that I won't be in agreement with you on the majority of it, but that will have to wait for another time.

[Myrish Lace]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no precedent for a woman serving on the Small Council or as King's Hand.

There was no precedent for a woman being named an heir either. When Viserys considers next Hand, he doesn't dismiss her as candidate on the grounds of being a woman, but rather that it would disturb his calm life.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't see any reason why Rhaenyra should have done this

Neither did Rhaenyra, and at the moment of succession she ended up with zero power in the capital, with all that entails. With half the realm disputing her claim and overwhelming support against her precedent amongst the nobility as evidenced by the last Great Council, Rhaenyra needed to be involved in politics and governance more than any other royal heir.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And it is not that Rhaenyra didn't travel the Realm or interact with members of the great houses. Far to the contrary, actually. The days of the royal progresses were over, but she still attended some tourneys in the Riverlands and the West, not to mention that the party king Viserys I seems to have forced half the Realm or more to constantly attend him in his capital.

Rhaenyra makes contact while still under father's guidance. Then it all ceases, with predictable results. As for what it "seems", once again you are trying to patch Rhaenyra's failings present in the text with offscreen juggling.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is a speculation that she consciously ignored the matter.

Consciously or not, it is not a speculation that Rhaenyra ignored the matter because in the text, Rhaenyra ignores the matter. And no, I don't care for offscreen juggling here either. When you have that detailed account that exonerates Rhaenyra, you can come back and argue on the grounds of that one. Until then, we have only two sources and they paint another picture entirely.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Who do you think you are to judge the paternity of royal children? In a monarchy it is not your business to doubt the paternity of royal children that have been born in wedlock.

"Who do you think you are" is a stupid attitude that cost Rhaenyra her head, and not only in the matter of bastard sons. Feudal monarch can not allow himself to brazenly disregard considerations of his/her vassals, if he/she does, it ends up rather poorly - as evidenced by the contents of the book. A vassal is not a bitch that jumps when King whistles, that's not how feudal relationship works. Rhaenyra's potential bannermen are expected to swear themselves to her - shoving bastards into the line of succession makes her guilty of treason (as stated in the text) and her heirs - illegitimate, without any rights to the throne. This is indeed bannerman's business whether he'd like to serve a traitor and a bunch of future usurpers.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nor is there any way this could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in this society

Yes there is. Rhaenyra and Laenor are both Valyrian-looking people. Their supposed sons are the first and only instance of two such people producing a non-Valyrian looking heirs.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Vaemond Velaryon isn't necessarily sentenced to death for claiming that Laenor's children are not Laenor's children. He also unlawfully lays claim to Driftmark, a fact that could be seen as treason or attempted rebellion.

First - yes, Vaemond is obviously murdered (there is no sentencing or trial involved) for saying the truth. Second, you claims about unlawful claims amounting to treason and/or attempted rebellion once again have no basis in text. In fact, we have a counter-example - Daemon tries to lay claim to his dead wife's seat, goes through arbitration of Lady Paramount, loses. Daemon isn't even Lady Royce's relative. Nowhere in the text is there any evidence to this bizarre idea that saying "I have a claim to the seat of X" is anything remotely resembling treason or rebellion - or that such innocent action merits being murdered without a trial.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is irrelevant for the topic at hand.

Considering we see directly the price of detaching oneself from royal governance and politics - yes it is quite relevant. Unless you are now claiming that treasury is irrelevant asset to Rhaenyra. Which, to be honest, it very well might be, since she never spends coin on anything productive. Aegon II may have been a mediocre ruler, but even he knew better.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra had men-at-arms of her own. Her Dragonstone and Velaryon men, making up most of the contingent that actually took KL. Daemon only came with his dragon and the City Watch joined her, but she had men of her own. That's why Dragonstone was pretty much deserted after she left for the capital.

Her loyalists also joined her at KL. There were Manderlys and men from the Vale in the capital, and she would have been forced to pay and feed them for their service. In addition, we do know that 10,000 Vale men fought for Rhaenyra. We don't know the battles they fought and died it, but that's the number according to Ran.

You are naming either levies raised by others (Manderleys, Valemen, Velaryons), or taking Rhaenyra's garrrison of Dragonstone which somehow functioned on Dragonstone without a giant city to bleed for coin. If there were some new soldiers raised or hired, that would make sense, but there weren't.

And of course there is no mention of Rhaenyra paying anything to any soldier ever in the text. Or even planning to do so.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Just think what Tyrion and Cersei have to do to prepare KL for Renly and Stannis in ACoK.

Exactly! Tyrion and Cersei have something to show for their efforts. They do something to prepare the city. Rhaenyra doesn't, she only murders people and presses them for coin that at best landed on preparation for a party.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that this 'reign of terror' started on the first day of her rule (

There is no indication that "heads" is restricted to two heads either, I merely assumed so to get some lower estimate, and that alone threatens to blow up Rhaenyra's body count as a balloon. The quote is very much top-open in regards to actual number of victims, but no matter how you stretch or press it together, the it still indicates large numbers of murdered well beyond the scope of Green presence given in the city. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But even if it was true - do you know that those 2520 people you list there were all innocent? Isn't it possible that 2520 Green agents were hiding in a city where hundreds of thousands of people lived?

I know that there is no evidence of their guilt in text. "Isn't it possible" is a bad argument. Isn't it possible that those people were all orphans raised by the Faith whom Rhaenyra dragged out of the septs and then ate their bodies, leaving only heads to be placed on spikes? Isn't it possible they were champions of Khorne preparing the city for daemonic summoning?

No it isn't. There is not even a hint of hundreds or thousands of Green agents/devoured orphans/priests of Blood God anywhere in the text. Absence of evidence doesn't make them Green agents.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We see that she was surprising lenient in the end. She could have mounted Syrax and burned the city. She could have laid fire to the city meticulously so that the mad rabble attacking the Dragonpit was trapped up Rhaenys' Hill, burning with the dragons. Instead, she left the city and allowed the people to live.

Whut?

Not engaging in Aerys II-level of massacre in a city that was friendly to her and which she herself drove to ruin doesn't make Rhaenyra lenient, just like not beating people on the street doesn't make one kind.

Here is the quote:

“Or the dragons will kill them,” his mother said, unmoved. “Let them burn. The realm will not long miss them.”

“Mother, what if they kill Tyraxes?” the young prince said.

The queen did not believe it. “They are vermin. Drunks and fools and gutter rats. One taste of dragonflame and they will run.”

Rhaenyra drops her window of opportunity not because she is gentle, kind-hearted ruler guided by mercy - she is too stupid and arrogant to realize that giant mob gathering to kill dragons is a threat. And when the scope of the problem becomes apparent even to her, she has no dragons anymore - not in Red Keep and not in Dragonpit - because Joffrey hijacks her own Syrax, rendering her dragonless.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That makes it pretty clear how Dragonstone fell. Aegon II's men around Marston Waters (the Toms, etc.) contacted and recruited Broome. He knew the garrison and recruited other like-minded people to his cause. That way they could quickly deal with the few honest men in the garrison, either killing or imprisoning them.

How come the wounded, the old, the green and the cowards almost all decided to defect to Aegon II when the war turned against him? That's not exactly winning proposition, to join a cripple of a King on a crippled dragon who is losing the war to boot.

if Rhaenyra's loyalists are so few, then whether hundred of fifty, either she did and atrocious job picking her men (every forth of the original number is a traitor?) or made a horrible impression on the crew. Neither speaks for her ability.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. Joffrey Velaryon died as the Prince of Dragonstone. He wasn't a bastard. But aside from that - the whole thing was merely a plan. It never happened. At least not according to the text. Any great celebration of Joff's investiture in the middle of the war wouldn't have been a grand affair at all. It would have been as glorious and costly as Joff's nameday tourney in ACoK.

First, he was an obvious bastard. The party is described as "lavish", so take it as you will. However this is the only article of expenses mentioned in the text. If she spent no coin in preparation to that party, she just bled city for half a year for no good reason, which isn't exactly helping Rhaenyra's cause as good ruler. Quite the contrary actually.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The City Watch defects to Rhaenyra thanks to Daemon but she brings the dragonriders and the men - from Dragonstone and Driftmark - who would have burned or stormed the city if the Goldcloaks hadn't handed it to her on a silver platter.

"Would have" - a rather costly and uncertain one to boot - is no concern of mine. Daemon and Goldcloaks did all the work, which was my point.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not Rhaenyra who pushes Rhaenyra to be suspicious of Addam Velaryon.

Rhaenyra orders murder of a boy who fought bravely and gave his life for her ungrateful scummy ass. It is Rhaenyra who surrounded herself with utter scum ready to turn on loyal men at moment's notice and it is Rhaenyra who made a decision to betray said loyal man. The decision is wrong legally, morally and strategically, losing Addam and Corlys with his cash, fleets and army. It is stupid and evil and there is no other person who carries responsibility for this decision but Rhaenyra.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And Nettles simply is a traitor. She apparently seduced and slept with the prince consort. That is treason.

Is it? I know the Queen consort sleeping around is treason (see Aegon IV). The reason is quite obvious - this undermines the succession. Maybe it is treason for Daemon, I don't know. But for Nettles... she isn't wed to Daemon. She isn't noble. Her potential children wouldn't enter the succession line unless legitimized by Rhaenyra herself.

But even if it was formally a treason for Nettles, which is a huge if, the priorities are askew. Rhaenyra desperately needs dragons to win the war, to survive, and Nettles, no matter legal formalities about fucking a consort, shows no signs of disloyalty to Rhaenyra's cause. To murder Nettles for sleeping with Daemon on principle would be evil. To attempt to do so in such a glaring and brazen manner was stupid and evil, losing Rhaenyra Maidenpool (again, feudal relationship!) and a perfectly usable dragonrider.

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

There was no precedent for a woman being named an heir either. When Viserys considers next Hand, he doesn't dismiss her as candidate on the grounds of being a woman, but rather that it would disturb his calm life.

The king can do what he want. He could have made a child or his dog his new Hand, just as he could have abolished the entire Small Council with a word, creating new offices, or none at all.

But Rhaenyra wasn't the king. Perhaps she never thought she herself could be the Hand or sit on the Small Council?

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Neither did Rhaenyra, and at the moment of succession she ended up with zero power in the capital, with all that entails.

That is factually wrong. Rhaenyra and Daemon had their people at court, even in the Small Council (Lyman Beesbury, and another agent, likely the Grand Maester). She couldn't use those men to her advantage because Alicent, Otto, and Cole kept the death of the king a secret and arranged the arrest of all those men before any of them was in a position to act.

That's why this whole thing was a coup.

And it is not that only a few or insignificant people are arrested in the process of this. Far to the contrary, actually, considering that even the High Septon complains about this whole thing.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

With half the realm disputing her claim and overwhelming support against her precedent amongst the nobility as evidenced by the last Great Council, Rhaenyra needed to be involved in politics and governance more than any other royal heir.

No disagreement about that. But then - her own royal father prevented her from doing that. It isn't her fault.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Rhaenyra makes contact while still under father's guidance. Then it all ceases, with predictable results. As for what it "seems", once again you are trying to patch Rhaenyra's failings present in the text with offscreen juggling.

Rhaenyra is no longer under the active guidance of her father in her teens and early twenties. That stops very early on. She is her own woman with her own appetites very early on. She certainly didn't make out with Daemon, Cole, and Harwin Strong under the guidance of her father, nor was she under his guidance when she opposed the Velaryon marriage.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Consciously or not, it is not a speculation that Rhaenyra ignored the matter because in the text, Rhaenyra ignores the matter.

No, in the text Rhaenyra does not ignore the matter. If Rhaenyra had ignored the text in the matter the author of the text - GRRM - would have had the historian Gyldayn write that Rhaenyra (for some (unknown?) reasons) failed to put forth her own candidate to replace Lord Lyonel as Hand. But the text doesn't say that.

It is possible that she ignored the whole thing. But it isn't confirmed.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

"Who do you think you are" is a stupid attitude that cost Rhaenyra her head, and not only in the matter of bastard sons. Feudal monarch can not allow himself to brazenly disregard considerations of his/her vassals, if he/she does, it ends up rather poorly - as evidenced by the contents of the book. A vassal is not a bitch that jumps when King whistles, that's not how feudal relationship works. Rhaenyra's potential bannermen are expected to swear themselves to her - shoving bastards into the line of succession makes her guilty of treason (as stated in the text) and her heirs - illegitimate, without any rights to the throne. This is indeed bannerman's business whether he'd like to serve a traitor and a bunch of future usurpers.

That is wrong, too. Rhaenyra sons are her sons. And as queen she could legitimize them all if they were bastards. She could even name a bastard she has no legitimized as of yet her heir (as King Aegon IV threatened to do to rid himself of Daeron).

In addition, it is well-known that bastards - regardless whether they have been legitimized or not - do have claims. Not necessarily the best of claims but claims still.

In addition, the matter of the parentage of Rhaenyra's children was settled by King Viserys I himself. He decreed that they weren't bastards, so this matter is settled.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Yes there is. Rhaenyra and Laenor are both Valyrian-looking people. Their supposed sons are the first and only instance of two such people producing a non-Valyrian looking heirs.

LOL, that is not proof of anything. If we had evidence that Rhaenyra's sons resembled any Strongs we know could we assume they were fathered by Ser Harwin. But we don't know how the Strongs looked like. 

And both Rhaenyra and Laenor Velaryon have non-Valyrian ancestors. Rhaenyra's children could resemble her Arryn grandfather, Lord Rodrik, Corlys Velaryon's non-Valyrian ancestors, or whatever non-Valyrian blood Princess Rhaenys inherited from her Baratheon and Durrandon ancestors.

We don't even know whether Aemma Arryn had Valyrian features. Perhaps she looked her paternal grandfather, and her grandsons inherited those looks?

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

First - yes, Vaemond is obviously murdered (there is no sentencing or trial involved) for saying the truth.

This isn't a democracy. If you insult the king or his family in word or deed there is no need for a trial. Just as there is no need for a trial when you are caught red-handed committing a crime. In our modern societies this is different but there is no reason to doubt that anyone attacking or insulting the king and his family is met with immediate retribution. And that can easily enough also include mortal violence.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Second, you claims about unlawful claims amounting to treason and/or attempted rebellion once again have no basis in text. In fact, we have a counter-example - Daemon tries to lay claim to his dead wife's seat, goes through arbitration of Lady Paramount, loses. Daemon isn't even Lady Royce's relative. Nowhere in the text is there any evidence to this bizarre idea that saying "I have a claim to the seat of X" is anything remotely resembling treason or rebellion - or that such innocent action merits being murdered without a trial.

There is a difference between the brother of the king and some (landless) knight. Rank, title, and breeding come with privileges lesser men don't get. This isn't an equal society, either. Some people are more equal than others.

Tyrion only gets his trial-by-combat in the Eyrie because he is a Lannister of Casterly Rock and the brother of the queen. If he was a mid-tier noblemen or a mere knight accused by the Lady Dowager of the Vale with murdering the Lord Jon Arryn of the Vale he would be quickly deposed of.

Many people in those world don't get trials. Gared of the Night's Watch doesn't get a trial. Rickard Karstark doesn't get a trial (he is just sentenced to death and then beheaded).

And as to Daemon's claim to Runestone:

Widows and widowers of childless spouses actually do have claims. That's brought up by George himself in the succession SSM and evident in the series in the cases of Lady Donella Hornwood (whose claim-by-marriage Ramsay and the Boltons later control by virtue of Ramsay's marriage to Lady Donella) and Lady Barbrey Dustin.

Presuming you are the heir of a lordship - the richest one at that, at this time - the grandsons of the king lay also claim to is a very dangerous and stupid endeavor. And claiming the king's grandsons are bastards is obviously treason.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Considering we see directly the price of detaching oneself from royal governance and politics - yes it is quite relevant. Unless you are now claiming that treasury is irrelevant asset to Rhaenyra. Which, to be honest, it very well might be, since she never spends coin on anything productive. Aegon II may have been a mediocre ruler, but even he knew better.

LOL, it isn't the duty of the Heir Apparent to take steps that she can take possession of the treasury when she comes into her throne. That could actually be seen as treason against the king and his officials if she did that. After all, as heir she only comes into power when the king dies. Prior to that she only has a role in the government if she has a role in the government. Which she didn't have.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

You are naming either levies raised by others (Manderleys, Valemen, Velaryons), or taking Rhaenyra's garrrison of Dragonstone which somehow functioned on Dragonstone without a giant city to bleed for coin. If there were some new soldiers raised or hired, that would make sense, but there weren't.

Feeding and paying the soldiers of those houses that lived in the city would have cost her. Feeding and paying the City Watch, too. Apparently the treasury was pretty much gone/out of her reach when she took the city. The City Watch liked Daemon but they most likely liked food and gold dragons, too.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

And of course there is no mention of Rhaenyra paying anything to any soldier ever in the text. Or even planning to do so.

LOL, if George would give us the books of the Masters of Coin we could see who paid whom. But we don't have them. If you are assuming that the expenses of a monarch - never mind what he or she actually does - drop during a war you are not making sense.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Exactly! Tyrion and Cersei have something to show for their efforts. They do something to prepare the city. Rhaenyra doesn't, she only murders people and presses them for coin that at best landed on preparation for a party.

That isn't the complete picture. But even if it was, I'd not see much wrong with that. Subjects have to pay their taxes, and it is not up to them to decide how much they have to pay. Again, this is not a democracy. And she doesn't murder people - she executes traitors. People might not like to see heads on spikes but that in and of itself doesn't prove those people were innocent or murdered.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

There is no indication that "heads" is restricted to two heads either, I merely assumed so to get some lower estimate, and that alone threatens to blow up Rhaenyra's body count as a balloon. The quote is very much top-open in regards to actual number of victims, but no matter how you stretch or press it together, the it still indicates large numbers of murdered well beyond the scope of Green presence given in the city. 

You simply don't know that. You don't know who was executed nor why they were executed. They could all have been guilty of treason. And even if some of them were innocent, so what? This was a war, and this isn't a society where people have a right for due procedure or crap like that. In war you shoot first and ask questions later. It wouldn't be war if only guilty people were killed.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

I know that there is no evidence of their guilt in text. "Isn't it possible" is a bad argument. Isn't it possible that those people were all orphans raised by the Faith whom Rhaenyra dragged out of the septs and then ate their bodies, leaving only heads to be placed on spikes? Isn't it possible they were champions of Khorne preparing the city for daemonic summoning?

Those are ridiculous possibilities. The possibility that a person who is actually executed for treason actually did something which caused the people executing them believing they committed treason isn't all that low. And that's really all there is to this kind of thing here. This isn't a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty. People charged with a crime have to prove that they are innocent. And if the monarch's authorities accuse you of treason they don't have to prove that to an impartial judge or jury who assess the evidence. They just condemn you and execute you.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

No it isn't. There is not even a hint of hundreds or thousands of Green agents/devoured orphans/priests of Blood God anywhere in the text. Absence of evidence doesn't make them Green agents.

But it doesn't mean they weren't Green agents, either. Or other kinds of traitors. We don't even know what crimes those people committed. A lot of things can be treason.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Rhaenyra drops her window of opportunity not because she is gentle, kind-hearted ruler guided by mercy - she is too stupid and arrogant to realize that giant mob gathering to kill dragons is a threat. And when the scope of the problem becomes apparent even to her, she has no dragons anymore - not in Red Keep and not in Dragonpit - because Joffrey hijacks her own Syrax, rendering her dragonless.

LOL, leniency isn't kindness. It is the approach a monarch takes against people he or she sit in judgment over. I can despise you and consider you vermin, etc. and still refrain from commanding that you are put to death.

Rhaenyra left it to the dragons to kill the rebels. That was a mistake, of course, but 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

How come the wounded, the old, the green and the cowards almost all decided to defect to Aegon II when the war turned against him? That's not exactly winning proposition, to join a cripple of a King on a crippled dragon who is losing the war to boot.

Aegon II and his dragon were on Dragonstone. And the war wasn't exactly turning against him at that point.

But, quite frankly, we don't really understand the motivations of those people. What we do know is that not all of the garrison joined Broome. But Broome and his cabal knew those men and killed them - along with Robert Quince - when they took the castle.

You don't need many men to pull that off if nobody is expecting treason from your side. Just look how efficiently thousands of Northmen were butchered at the Red Wedding. Broome could have pulled off his stunt with ten determined men.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

if Rhaenyra's loyalists are so few, then whether hundred of fifty, either she did and atrocious job picking her men (every forth of the original number is a traitor?) or made a horrible impression on the crew. Neither speaks for her ability.

Nope. Those men just decided the dragon in their backyard was a better chance to reap rewards than the queen who left them on Dragonstone to rot.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

First, he was an obvious bastard. The party is described as "lavish", so take it as you will. However this is the only article of expenses mentioned in the text. If she spent no coin in preparation to that party, she just bled city for half a year for no good reason, which isn't exactly helping Rhaenyra's cause as good ruler. Quite the contrary actually.

Well, we don't know what expenses she had. But what we do know is that this celebration never happened - if it had happened we would know about it.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

"Would have" - a rather costly and uncertain one to boot - is no concern of mine. Daemon and Goldcloaks did all the work, which was my point.

Your point was the claim that Daemon took the city - which is wrong. As well as the claim that Rhaenyra led no men of her own to the city - which is wrong, too. The Dragonstone and Driftmark were her own men. And the latter were making up half of the forces she had in KL later on.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Rhaenyra orders murder of a boy who fought bravely and gave his life for her ungrateful scummy ass. It is Rhaenyra who surrounded herself with utter scum ready to turn on loyal men at moment's notice and it is Rhaenyra who made a decision to betray said loyal man. The decision is wrong legally, morally and strategically, losing Addam and Corlys with his cash, fleets and army. It is stupid and evil and there is no other person who carries responsibility for this decision but Rhaenyra.

It isn't wrong to, well, take care of a potential traitor before he can turn against you. Ulf and Hugh did betray Rhaenyra, did they not? And a dragon is a very dangerous weapon, one you do not leave in the hands of people you don't trust. It wasn't wise to mistrust Addam Velaryon, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

If you half-siblings try to murder you I do not wrong you that you don't go out of your way to trust some bastard of your father-in-law.

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Is it? I know the Queen consort sleeping around is treason (see Aegon IV). The reason is quite obvious - this undermines the succession. Maybe it is treason for Daemon, I don't know. But for Nettles... she isn't wed to Daemon. She isn't noble. Her potential children wouldn't enter the succession line unless legitimized by Rhaenyra herself.

Usually the people fucking the consort are seen as traitors, too. Daemon's own loyalties are questionable, too, if he sleeps around. And Nettles may have seduced him to lead him away from his lawful wife and queen. Her behavior indicates that she was not all that different from people like Hugh and Ulf. A person sleeping with the monarch's consort is capable of anything, no?

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2018-1-7 at 7:24 AM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. I'm pointing out those people do know who the rightful king is - Joffrey Baratheon, in that case, because they don't know (and later don't believe) that Cersei's children aren't Robert's - and still support another. They know they are all traitors and they don't care. But they do know that by the laws and customs of the land they live in they are all traitors because Joffrey has done nothing to deserve that the Stormlands and the Reach rise up in rebellion against him.

In this blatant way this is a child of Robert's success, just as Balon's Rebellion was. Balon thought that no-claim Robert wouldn't have the authority to marshal the strength to end his rebellion. He was wrong, but only because Robert could still count on the loyalty of the men who helped him win his throne six years ago. When Robert dies no one cares about laws and traditions anymore because Robert himself shit on the proper succession laws when he took the throne. If Robert can take the throne in the place of Viserys III, Daenerys, and Rhaella, Renly can also lay claim to the throne in place of Joffrey or Stannis. Stannis can declare Robert's children bastards born of incest without any evidence, and the Iron Islands and the North can rebel and secede on the grounds that their royal houses originally bent the knees to a Targaryen, not a Baratheon.

This is hilarious!

So essentially, you are attributing Robert's rebellion as being responsible for establishing Westeros as a society that functions as a feudal system; Despite the fact that this is exactly how it has been for thousands of years, since the First Men migrated West and established the Seven Kingdoms using their superior might to oust the CotF.

Quote

Sure, if the Naathi gave him a lot of money or other means to help his invasion of the Seven Kingdoms.

So you admit that Robert has no need to worry about Viserys being out there with a claim to the Iron Throne, unless he has the means to press that claim through the use of might?

Quote

But this is a diversion. It is pretty clear that the Targaryens - Viserys III, Daenerys, and Drogo's unborn son by Daenerys - are a danger for Robert and his heirs because of their rightful claim. That's why Robert wants to kill them. He wouldn't care about some no-name adventurer entering into a marriage alliance with the Dothraki.

Sure he would, if he had killed all of the no-name adventure's family, and been responsible for said no-name's exile and loss of everything he once had.

Quote

He doesn't want them gone because he hates them, he wants them gone because he fears them. That's why he gets so angry.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but this is just you strait up ignoring the text again. It is quite blatantly obvious that it is the thought of Rhaegar supposedly raping Lyanna that induces Robert's fit of rage, and what is the catalyst that manifests his hatred onto all Targaryns.

Quote

Ned doesn't have to be always right.

This isn't some intricately complex matter to assess. Ned is Robert's best friend, and has known him since they were young childern. You are free to discard this piece of information given to us by the author if you choose, however, I see no reason to suspect that Ned is making a faulty assumption here. I mean, it's quite obvious just from what we see of Robert on page up to this point, that this is the case.

Quote

What do you think? Would Robert have taken Lyanna Stark's son to dash his head against a wall if Ned had delivered 'Jon Snow' to him? I honestly don't think so. Ned feared that Robert might do something like that - that's why he disguised the boy as his bastard son. But that doesn't mean Ned was correct in his assessment of his friend there. Robert not punishing Jaime, Tywin, and their goons doesn't mean he would repeat their actions.

The thing is, I don't know, and neither do you. And yeah, Ned doesn't know whether Robert would do that to a new born baby either. But he knows Robert a lot better than most people do, and he felt that the possibility of something like that happening was substantial enough that he compromised his marriage and honor, as well as lied to Robert in order to ensure that it wouldn't happen.

Quote

If you truly hate someone you have no issue with them being killed at your command, right? Robert apparently did.

What are you talking about? He commanded the assassination of two innocent people, Viserys and Daenerys, just because they were dragon spawn.

Quote

Apparently not. At least no on his deathbed. But again - dynastic reasons are the main reasons why Robert wants the Targaryens gone. 

This doesn't make sense. Unless it was due to him letting go of his hatred, why would he decide not to have Daenerys assassinated still? Are you suggesting that on his death bed he decided that he didn't give a fuck about his dynasty, and wanted his son's rule to be in question and plagued by these "rightful" claimants attempting to dethrone him?

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2018-1-8 at 5:47 AM, Lord Varys said:

He clearly did let go of that anger. Or else Viserys III and Daenerys wouldn't have been able to leave Braavos alive, let alone travel all the Free Cities unmolested for years.

Did he now? That's not what the text would imply. And Robert also regrets listening to Jon.

Your reasoning is just as applicable to your assertion as to why Robert would want the dragon spawn murdered. Why would he let Viserys and Daenerys travel all of the Free Cities unmolested if their claim was such a threat to his rule? I'll tell you why, it's because the claim of a deposed heir is meaningless and worthless if you don't have the might and means to make good on that claim by force.

A Game of Thrones - Eddard II

Quote

"Nonetheless," Ned said, "the murder of children … it would be vile … unspeakable …"

"Unspeakable?" the king roared. "What Aerys did to your brother Brandon was unspeakable. The way your lord father died, that was unspeakable. And Rhaegar … how many times do you think he raped your sister? How many hundreds of times?" His voice had grown so loud that his horse whinnied nervously beneath him. The king jerked the reins hard, quieting the animal, and pointed an angry finger at Ned. "I will kill every Targaryen I can get my hands on, until they are as dead as their dragons, and then I will piss on their graves."

A Game of Thrones - Eddard I

Quote

"In my dreams, I kill him every night," Robert admitted. "A thousand deaths will still be less than he deserves."

A Game of Thrones - Eddard II

Quote

Ned knew better than to defy him when the wrath was on him. If the years had not quenched Robert's thirst for revenge, no words of his would help. "You can't get your hands on this one, can you?" he said quietly.

The king's mouth twisted in a bitter grimace. "No, gods be cursed. Some pox-ridden Pentoshi cheesemonger had her brother and her walled up on his estate with pointy-hatted eunuchs all around them, and now he's handed them over to the Dothraki. I should have had them both killed years ago, when it was easy to get at them, but Jon was as bad as you. More fool I, I listened to him."

 

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2018-1-9 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

This isn't even a matter of debate. Robert's claim is a Targaryen claim, through his Targaryen grandmother. His grandmother was a princess and his great-grandfather a king because they were Targaryens. And Robert himself has a claim to the throne because he is a Targaryen descendant.

You can rattle on about this rather weak claim of Robert's all you want, it doesn't change the fact that his ascension to the throne was the result of him leading a rebellion that deposed of the Targaryn King, and placed his Baratheon butt on the Iron Throne. It certainly wasn't because his claim had enough validity to press through proper and diplomatic means.

Quote

Nope. A man as honorable as Ned actually betrayed the truth and his dead friend and king when Cersei threatened the life and well-being of his daughters.

So you don't think it's honorable to sacrifice your own principles and honor in order to spare the lives of your family, and innocent childern?

And just how did he betray his dead friend and King? Please don't tell me you are referring to the minor altering to the wording of Robert's will or his attempt to put Robert's true heir on the throne while attempting to bring justice to the family that cuckolded and committed treason against him?

Quote

We actually do know why Ned ended up backing Stannis instead of Joffrey. He tells both Littlefinger and the reader when they discuss the alternatives to Stannis. Ned refuses to back Joffrey because of the crimes of the Lannisters - the alleged murder of Jon Arryn, the two attempts on Bran's life, the murder of Jory and the others.

Nope, that's not why he backs Stannis. He backs him because he knows Robert's childern are not actually his own, making Stannis Robert's heir.

Quote

If Ned truly cared about 'honor and a sense of right' he would have crowned Viserys III after the deaths of Rhaegar, Aerys II, and the children. Instead he supported Robert. The man isn't exactly fixed in his beliefs and principles. Even Mr. Law Stannis betrayed his king and cousin in favor of the brother he never truly liked.

Really, you are now asserting that Ned doesn't care about honor and a sense of right? Really?? 

And another deductive fallacy, by the way.

A Game of Thrones - Arya II

Quote

"It was right," her father said. "And even the lie was … not without honor." He'd put Needle aside when he went to Arya to embrace her. Now he took the blade up again and walked to the window, where he stood for a moment, looking out across the courtyard. When he turned back, his eyes were thoughtful. He seated himself on the window seat, Needle across his lap. "Arya, sit down. I need to try and explain some things to you."

 

Quote

Then I suggest you reread the relevant passages. I suggest Ned's thoughts immediately prior to his decision to talk to Cersei about the incest, the dream about the tower of joy he has after he has quarreled with Ned over the Targaryen assassinations, his thoughts in the black cell, etc.

Yeah, no thanks. You expect me to go through certain passages looking for evidence to back your erroneous claims?  Sorry, but if you want to make these outlandish assertions, it's on you to provide your own evidence to back your arguments.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

This is hilarious!

So essentially, you are attributing Robert's rebellion as being responsible for establishing Westeros as a society that functions as a feudal system; Despite the fact that this is exactly how it has been for thousands of years, since the First Men migrated West and established the Seven Kingdoms using their superior might to oust the CotF.

There is an SSM by George where he explains that Balon rebelled because he thought the lords of the Seven Kingdoms wouldn't follow the usurper Robert the same way they would have followed a Targaryen. That is just a fact. He was wrong back then, but he is pretty right in his assessment of Robert's death.

The Baratheons are pretty much destroying the Seven Kingdoms as a united Realm. Robert's success damaged the monarchy, and after his death everybody wants a piece of the cake. Never before was there are war between the king's children and his two brothers while secessionist kings raised their ugly heads, too.

5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

So you admit that Robert has no need to worry about Viserys being out there with a claim to the Iron Throne, unless he has the means to press that claim through the use of might?

Certainly not. Because you don't seem to understand that such people are more than just people. They are the rightful kings by their mere existence. They don't need obvious strong support. For all we know Viserys III's mere presence in Dorne or some other Targaryen-friendly region could have marked the beginning of an uprising against Robert. And he knew that. He expected that to happen should Viserys III ever come.

He would have become even more dangerous with the Dothraki at his back but he is a danger all by himself.

5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but this is just you strait up ignoring the text again. It is quite blatantly obvious that it is the thought of Rhaegar supposedly raping Lyanna that induces Robert's fit of rage, and what is the catalyst that manifests his hatred onto all Targaryns.

Can you perhaps start to correctly spell the name 'Targaryen'? Or is this some kind of fancy personal spelling of yours. It is somewhat irritating?

Again, if Robert had been so obsessed with his hatred of all Targaryens then why didn't he kill Viserys III and Daenerys years ago? How could Jon Arryn's weirdo arguments (which were actually not beneficial for the Baratheon dynasty) win against Robert's mad hate?

You can't have it both ways.

5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

This isn't some intricately complex matter to assess. Ned is Robert's best friend, and has known him since they were young childern. You are free to discard this piece of information given to us by the author if you choose, however, I see no reason to suspect that Ned is making a faulty assumption here. I mean, it's quite obvious just from what we see of Robert on page up to this point, that this is the case.

You have to see things in context here. Ned and Robert no longer were friends after the Sack. They had a severe quarrel over the way Robert 'dealt' with the murder of Aerys and the other Targaryens. Ned left the city in a cold rage, and Ned isn't the kind of guy who gets really angry easily. Ned didn't denounce Robert as the new king or anything, but their friendship was pretty much over.

It was in that mindset that Ned rode down south, eventually reaching the tower. It was in this mindset that heard Lyanna's pleas, and it was in this mindset that he made his promise. And once the promise was made, the Jon Snow plan took shape. Ned's previous anger with Robert over the Sack as well in combination with Lyanna's own fears would have been what caused him to disguise her child as his bastard son.

Ned and Robert only reconciled after Ned's eventual return to KL when their shared grief for Lyanna brought them back together. At that point Ned may have realized that Robert may not be as bad as he thought the man was back when they had their falling-out. They were never as close as they had been in their youth, but it is clear that Ned thinks of Robert as his best friend in the first half of AGoT. He is his best buddy and he is genuinely glad that he sees him again after all those years.

5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

The thing is, I don't know, and neither do you. And yeah, Ned doesn't know whether Robert would do that to a new born baby either. But he knows Robert a lot better than most people do, and he felt that the possibility of something like that happening was substantial enough that he compromised his marriage and honor, as well as lied to Robert in order to ensure that it wouldn't happen.

See above. I find that take on the whole thing pretty convincing. Ned does later indeed fear that Robert would go down the path of Jaime and Tywin Lannister. That is what he tries to prevent with his insistence to spare the Targaryens in exile. If Robert can kill them, he would likely also kill Jon Snow if he ever found out the truth. And that's not something Ned truly wants to believe the man would actually want to do.

He would have to be insane to be close friends with a man who was capable of murdering his nephew.

5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

What are you talking about? He commanded the assassination of two innocent people, Viserys and Daenerys, just because they were dragon spawn.

No, because they were threatening his throne and children and clearly were plotting to stage an invasion.

5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

This doesn't make sense. Unless it was due to him letting go of his hatred, why would he decide not to have Daenerys assassinated still? Are you suggesting that on his death bed he decided that he didn't give a fuck about his dynasty, and wanted his son's rule to be in question and plagued by these "rightful" claimants attempting to dethrone him?

The point I'm making here is that Robert shows on his deathbed that he isn't the man Ned feared he was. He doesn't have to pushed there. He thinks about Daenerys himself and cancels the assassination. A man really obsessed with hate wouldn't have left go of the thing on his deathbed.

4 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Did he now? That's not what the text would imply. And Robert also regrets listening to Jon.

Yes, when he finally realizes that Viserys III could become a real threat, as he has feared all along. But in the end Robert isn't obsessed with either fear or hate.

4 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Your reasoning is just as applicable to your assertion as to why Robert would want the dragon spawn murdered. Why would he let Viserys and Daenerys travel all of the Free Cities unmolested if their claim was such a threat to his rule? I'll tell you why, it's because the claim of a deposed heir is meaningless and worthless if you don't have the might and means to make good on that claim by force.

You are not making any sense here. The Blackfyres were traveling the Free Cities for decades, and they brought forth a number of pretenders that threatened generations of Targaryen kings. And the Blackfyres never even sat on the Iron Throne. Viserys III father and grandfather did. If lords of the Realm flocked to the Blackfyre banner as late as 236 AC, forty years after Daemon Blackfyre's demise on the Redgrass Field, then Viserys III was clearly a very real danger to Robert Baratheon, never mind whether he had an army of his own or not.

It is also both childish and stupid to not realize that such people could easily become the pawns of ambitious and wealthy people who could give them the means to make good of their claims. And that's exactly what happens with Viserys III when Illyrio helps him make his deal with Khal Drogo.

3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

You can rattle on about this rather weak claim of Robert's all you want, it doesn't change the fact that his ascension to the throne was the result of him leading a rebellion that deposed of the Targaryn King, and placed his Baratheon butt on the Iron Throne. It certainly wasn't because his claim had enough validity to press through proper and diplomatic means.

Who had said he rose to the throne in a proper and legal way? Nobody has said that. But he still only got the throne because of his paternal grandmother and great-grandfather. If Robert hadn't been a Targaryen descendant himself, his ass would have never been placed on the Iron Throne.

Because this isn't a society where people bow down to people who don't have royal blood. If some guy with no Targaryen ancestors had presumed to rule over his (former) peers those people would have looked at each other and asked themselves: 'What makes him different? Why should Casterly Rock or Highgarden ever bend the knee to an Arryn or Stark? What right have those men to rule over us?'

Pretty much none.

Deposing a tyrant is one thing. Finding a new king that is acceptable to all is another. Robert was acceptable because he was a Targaryen descendant, too - and pretty much the presumptive heir should Aerys II's descendants all die. But if no such person had been around the rebels would have been pretty much fucked.

Either they would have been forced to accept Viserys III as their king or there would have been another civil war which the united Realm might not have survived.

You have to keep in mind that the Targaryens were the ones who knit the Seven Kingdoms together. It was their authority, and their status as impartial (and very powerful) outsiders that did this. The idea that any of the native noble bloodlines could take up their torch doesn't make a lot of sense. The Lannisters, Arryns, and Starks have no right to rule over their peers. And the Tyrells and Tullys even less so.

People already got very jealous and pissed when one of their peers - like Tywin Lannister or Otto Hightower - grew haughty and aloof while serving as Hand of the King. The idea that any of those people would actually not begrudge somebody the kingship if they were to try to take it is very unlikely indeed.

3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

So you don't think it's honorable to sacrifice your own principles and honor in order to spare the lives of your family, and innocent childern?

That is not honorable, no. That is pretty much what any common father would do. He would sacrifice his honor to save his children or other family members. Honorable people would stand by their principles and not allow emotions to rule their decisions. They would say that duty, vows, and principles are much more important than family.

That is what honor is usually about. It is an artificial set of rules that can - and often does go - against basic human emotions. It is honorable to swear, say, the vow of the Night's Watch and then keep it while your family is slaughtered by their enemies down south. 

Vice versa, Jaime Lannister dishonored himself in the highest possible degree when he broke his Kingsguard vows and murdered his king.

3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And just how did he betray his dead friend and King? Please don't tell me you are referring to the minor altering to the wording of Robert's will or his attempt to put Robert's true heir on the throne while attempting to bring justice to the family that cuckolded and committed treason against him?

I actually think Ned betrayed his friend Robert by not telling him the truth about Cersei's children and by altering his will. But that's not the betrayal I'm talking about here.

The betrayal is that Ned spat on Robert's memory when he publicly acknowledged Joffrey and his siblings as Robert's trueborn children and heirs. It is an understandable betrayal, but still a betrayal. And there are characters in this series who wouldn't have betrayed their principles this easily.

3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Nope, that's not why he backs Stannis. He backs him because he knows Robert's childern are not actually his own, making Stannis Robert's heir.

Here Littlefinger lays out his plan for Ned and himself:

Quote

“Now look at the other side of the coin. Joffrey is but twelve, and Robert gave you the regency, my lord. You are the Hand of the King and Protector of the Realm. The power is yours, Lord Stark. All you need do is reach out and take it. Make your peace with the Lannisters. Release the Imp. Wed Joffrey to your Sansa. Wed your younger girl to Prince Tommen, and your heir to Myrcella. It will be four years before Joffrey comes of age. By then he will look to you as a second father, and if not, well…four years is a good long while, my lord. Long enough to dispose of Lord Stannis. Then, should Joffrey prove troublesome, we can reveal his little secret and put Lord Renly on the throne.”
“We?” Ned repeated.
Littlefinger gave a shrug. “You’ll need someone to share your burdens. I assure you, my price would be modest.”
“Your price.” Ned’s voice was ice. “Lord Baelish, what you suggest is treason.”
“Only if we lose.”
“You forget,” Ned told him. “You forget Jon Arryn. You forget Jory Cassel. And you forget this.” He drew the dagger and laid it on the table between them; a length of dragonbone and Valyrian steel, as sharp as the difference between right and wrong, between true and false, be tween life and death. “They sent a man to cut my son’s throat, Lord Baelish.”
Littlefinger sighed. “I fear I did forget, my lord. Pray forgive me. For a moment I did not remember that I was talking to a Stark.” His mouth quirked. “So it will be Stannis, and war?”
“It is not a choice. Stannis is the heir.”

Ned claims that it is not a choice. But it is, of course, a choice, and Ned makes it there. He wouldn't have given his reasons why it was impossible for him to support the Lannisters if he wasn't considering that possibility at all.

3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Really, you are now asserting that Ned doesn't care about honor and a sense of right? Really?? 

And another deductive fallacy, by the way.

I'm pointing out that Ned clearly didn't care about 'the rightful heir' back when he chose Robert over Viserys III. If the 'laws of succession' were some kind of fetish for Ned he would never have supported Robert. Even Stannis - who supposedly is all about the law - didn't care enough about the law to support his king against his brother.

3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Yeah, no thanks. You expect me to go through certain passages looking for evidence to back your erroneous claims?  Sorry, but if you want to make these outlandish assertions, it's on you to provide your own evidence to back your arguments.

Those are not outlandish assertions but visibly there in the text:

Quote

Time was perilously short. The king would return from his hunt soon, and honor would require Ned to go to him with all he had learned. Vayon Poole had arranged for Sansa and Arya to sail on the Wind Witch out of Braavos, three days hence. They would be back at Winterfell before the harvest. Ned could no longer use his concern for their safety to excuse his delay.
Yet last night he had dreamt of Rhaegar’s children. Lord Tywin had laid the bodies beneath the Iron Throne, wrapped in the crimson cloaks of his house guard. That was clever of him; the blood did not show so badly against the red cloth. The little princess had been barefoot, still dressed in her bed gown, and the boy…the boy…
Ned could not let that happen again. The realm could not withstand a second mad king, another dance of blood and vengeance. He must find some way to save the children.

That's immediately before Ned goes into the godswood and asks Cersei to join him there.

I guess I don't have to give you the time line before the tower of joy dream? The council session discussing the assassinations, Ned's resignation, Littlefinger immediately convincing him to join him in the brothel to see Barra, and then the subsequent attack by Jaime and his men on the way back.

Ned's memories of Lyanna and the tower are triggered by a number of events in those two chapters. The discussions about the assassinations. The sight of Barra and her mother which trigger memories of Rhaegar. And then the confrontation with Jaime which, of course, brings the Lannister atrocities back into mind.

[AlaskanSandman]

Traitor along with Daemon Targaryen the Rogue Prince, who likely knew it as he visited the God's Eye for guidance

the-reason-we-dance-to-rhaenyra-and-daemon/

 

[Myrish Lace]

On 1/10/2018 at 2:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

You don't know who was executed nor why they were executed. They could all have been guilty of treason.

And therein lies the crux of the argument - in methodology.

I take what is stated in the text and follows directly from the text. It is stated in the text that fresh heads appeared over city gates. It is stated in the text that there are seven gates. Ergo, I conclude that over 14 people were killed daily. However it is no stated in the text that any of those heads were heads of traitors/Greens or such. There is also no mention of vast Green support network in the text. Ergo, I reject your attempts to advocate Rhaenyra's repressions on the basis "but they could have been".

You, on the other hand, invent something that never was in the text and shove it right in the narrative as long as there is no direct denial of your invention in the text. You invent hordes of Greens in King's Landing, then try to justify Rhaenyra's actions with your invention on the grounds of the fact that nowhere in the text is it stated "There were no hordes of Greens in King's Landing, They could have been guilty".

Now, I find this line of thinking completely ridiculous. With the same basis one can argue that Aegon II was Faceless Man in disguise - you don't know that he wasn't. He could have been fooling everyone for years. But with such vast difference on what constitutes a proper argument we won't come to common denominator.

Returning to the argument about Rhaenyra's as a ruler however, I take her as presented in the text and it is both awful and repulsive. But the most curious part is, that after you have filled all the cracks of canon, real or imagined, with rosy foam of purely your own making - laws you have invented and the customs you have created and unfortunate circumstances you have proclaimed, after you have cut out things clearly stated in the text - like the fact that it were Daemon's Goldcloaks who took King's Landing or the fact that Dragonstone's garrison had a healthy dragon with a healthy rider backing them when Aegon II appeared - after all of this photoshopping of canon, Rhaenyra still stands a tyrant, a traitor and a betrayer to her own, a Queen who creates problems of herself, by herself, for herself.

That's quite damning for an attempt to prove Rhaenyra's ability to rule.

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2018-1-11 at 7:13 AM, Lord Varys said:

There is an SSM by George where he explains that Balon rebelled because he thought the lords of the Seven Kingdoms wouldn't follow the usurper Robert the same way they would have followed a Targaryen. That is just a fact. He was wrong back then,

Perhaps so, but that doesn't correlate with your assertion being accurate. I mean, you just admitted that Balon was wrong.

I don't suppose you would be able to provide a link? I would be interested in reading this SSM, and forgive me if I don't trust that your interpretation would be on par with my own.

Quote

but he is pretty right in his assessment of Robert's death.

What assessment? That the realm wouldn't support Robert as their King while he's dead?

Quote

The Baratheons are pretty much destroying the Seven Kingdoms as a united Realm. Robert's success damaged the monarchy, and after his death everybody wants a piece of the cake. Never before was there are war between the king's children and his two brothers while secessionist kings raised their ugly heads, too.

Yeah sure, of course it had nothing to do with Robert's neglectful rule, nor the fact that those who were left in power after his death were treasonous frauds tyrannically running the Kingdom into the ground while murdering people left and right.

You don't think that Joffrey's antics and the belief by some that he was a bastard not of Robert's blood had a part to play in the Kingdom being divided and in turmoil?

If Joffrey is Robert's true born son and rightful heir, and Cercei isn't murdering people in order to cover up her treason, there wouldn't have been a war of five Kings, or anybody fighting for a piece of the cake. 

You are just ignoring the facts of what we know caused the war of five Kings, as well as the motivations and reasons those vying for power were doing so, and attempting to attribute it to some made up theory of yours.

Quote

Certainly not. Because you don't seem to understand that such people are more than just people. They are the rightful kings by their mere existence. They don't need obvious strong support. For all we know Viserys III's mere presence in Dorne or some other Targaryen-friendly region could have marked the beginning of an uprising against Robert. And he knew that. He expected that to happen should Viserys III ever come.

Yet Robert wasn't worried until Viserys was acquiring an army. Viserys sure seemed like he was seen as more than just a mere person while he spent fifteen years living like a bum, struggling to survive, and earning the moniker of the Beggar King.  

If he didn't need strong support, what in Seven Hells has he been doing all this time roaming the free cities and selling all of his possessions just to survive?

Quote

He would have become even more dangerous with the Dothraki at his back but he is a danger all by himself.

No, that's the whole point here, he was nothing without the Dothraki, or Varys and Illyrio's support.

Quote

Can you perhaps start to correctly spell the name 'Targaryen'? Or is this some kind of fancy personal spelling of yours. It is somewhat irritating?

Lol, well I'll consider it. However, the fact that something so trivial irritates you so, makes me want to start doing it on purpose now.

Quote

Again, if Robert had been so obsessed with his hatred of all Targaryens then why didn't he kill Viserys III and Daenerys years ago? How could Jon Arryn's weirdo arguments (which were actually not beneficial for the Baratheon dynasty) win against Robert's mad hate?

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not so sure where you get this assumption that Jon's arguments were weirdo from, and that they were not beneficial to the Baratheon dynasty is just your assertion based upon, in my opinion, your flawed interpretation of the text. But yes, as Robert himself confirms, Jon's arguments are exactly why he didn't kill them years ago. It's easier to talk someone out of something that they know deep down inside is irrational and unnecessary, than from something that is a known and accepted reality by everyone.

It seems you are the one who is trying to have it both ways here. If your claim was true, Robert wouldn't have received opposition to his desire to have the remaining Targaryens killed, and would in fact have had support for it. So I'll ask you again, if their existence was such a threat, why weren't they taken out at some point in all of these years, instead of being forgotten about until they had an army? Why would Jon be against it if it was a rational necessity to secure Robert's rule?

Quote

You have to see things in context here. Ned and Robert no longer were friends after the Sack. They had a severe quarrel over the way Robert 'dealt' with the murder of Aerys and the other Targaryens. Ned left the city in a cold rage, and Ned isn't the kind of guy who gets really angry easily. Ned didn't denounce Robert as the new king or anything, but their friendship was pretty much over.

It was in that mindset that Ned rode down south, eventually reaching the tower. It was in this mindset that heard Lyanna's pleas, and it was in this mindset that he made his promise. And once the promise was made, the Jon Snow plan took shape. Ned's previous anger with Robert over the Sack as well in combination with Lyanna's own fears would have been what caused him to disguise her child as his bastard son.

Ned and Robert only reconciled after Ned's eventual return to KL when their shared grief for Lyanna brought them back together. At that point Ned may have realized that Robert may not be as bad as he thought the man was back when they had their falling-out. They were never as close as they had been in their youth, but it is clear that Ned thinks of Robert as his best friend in the first half of AGoT. He is his best buddy and he is genuinely glad that he sees him again after all those years.

What does this have to do with anything? It doesn't change the fact that Ned has known Robert since they were children, and that he knows him as well as anybody would. In fact, having been through all of these experiences with Robert would only give his opinion on the matter more validity.

Quote

No, because they were threatening his throne and children and clearly were plotting to stage an invasion.

Good to see you have finally admitted the real reason he wanted them assassinated.

Quote

The point I'm making here is that Robert shows on his deathbed that he isn't the man Ned feared he was. He doesn't have to pushed there. He thinks about Daenerys himself and cancels the assassination. A man really obsessed with hate wouldn't have left go of the thing on his deathbed.

Bull, that is in fact when many people would let go of something such as this. As it is the last chance to do so, and when staring death in the face it will often give one the perspective of what is really important, and how stupid it is to hold onto something as pointless and destructive such as hate.

Quote

Yes, when he finally realizes that Viserys III could become a real threat, as he has feared all along. But in the end Robert isn't obsessed with either fear or hate.

You just said it yourself, when he finally realizes that Viserys III could become a real threat.

Quote

You are not making any sense here. The Blackfyres were traveling the Free Cities for decades, and they brought forth a number of pretenders that threatened generations of Targaryen kings. And the Blackfyres never even sat on the Iron Throne. Viserys III father and grandfather did. If lords of the Realm flocked to the Blackfyre banner as late as 236 AC, forty years after Daemon Blackfyre's demise on the Redgrass Field, then Viserys III was clearly a very real danger to Robert Baratheon,

And what do the Blackfyres and Viserys have in common? A motive to attack and dethrone the current ruling King. And why has their claims not resulted in them achieving their goals? Because they did not have sufficient might to make good on these claims.

Quote

never mind whether he had an army of his own or not.

Never mind that without an army of his own he was a bum wandering the streets in a foreign land posing no threat to anybody, never mind the King of the Seven Kingdoms.

Quote

It is also both childish and stupid to not realize that such people could easily become the pawns of ambitious and wealthy people who could give them the means to make good of their claims. And that's exactly what happens with Viserys III when Illyrio helps him make his deal with Khal Drogo.

Again, an example of a claim being worthless without the backing of someone with no claim to make that claim a legitimate threat.

Quote

Who had said he rose to the throne in a proper and legal way? Nobody has said that. But he still only got the throne because of his paternal grandmother and great-grandfather. If Robert hadn't been a Targaryen descendant himself, his ass would have never been placed on the Iron Throne.

Well, as you know, we don't agree on that.

Quote

Because this isn't a society where people bow down to people who don't have royal blood.

Only they all did when the Targaryens were nobodies and came a knocking with dragons saddled beneath them.

Quote

If some guy with no Targaryen ancestors had presumed to rule over his (former) peers those people would have looked at each other and asked themselves: 'What makes him different? Why should Casterly Rock or Highgarden ever bend the knee to an Arryn or Stark? What right have those men to rule over us?'

Sure they would say that, just as they would have said the same when the Conquerer presumed to have the right to rule over all of the Kings in the Seven Kingdoms. Guess what changed their minds. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't his divine blood.

Quote

That is not honorable, no. That is pretty much what any common father would do. He would sacrifice his honor to save his children or other family members. Honorable people would stand by their principles and not allow emotions to rule their decisions. They would say that duty, vows, and principles are much more important than family.

That is what honor is usually about. It is an artificial set of rules that can - and often does go - against basic human emotions. It is honorable to swear, say, the vow of the Night's Watch and then keep it while your family is slaughtered by their enemies down south. 

Vice versa, Jaime Lannister dishonored himself in the highest possible degree when he broke his Kingsguard vows and murdered his king.

Fair enough, I see your point there.

Quote

I actually think Ned betrayed his friend Robert by not telling him the truth about Cersei's children and by altering his will. But that's not the betrayal I'm talking about here.

I don't consider that a betrayal. Ned had every intention of telling Robert prior to his "accident", and Ned makes his reasons for not telling him clear. If anything this was a sacrifice on Ned's part, as it would have been beneficial to his own cause had he told him.

Quote

The betrayal is that Ned spat on Robert's memory when he publicly acknowledged Joffrey and his siblings as Robert's trueborn children and heirs. It is an understandable betrayal, but still a betrayal. And there are characters in this series who wouldn't have betrayed their principles this easily.

I'm not sure how it is that you consider that sacrificing your principles easily.

Quote

Here Littlefinger lays out his plan for Ned and himself:

Ned claims that it is not a choice. But it is, of course, a choice, and Ned makes it there. He wouldn't have given his reasons why it was impossible for him to support the Lannisters if he wasn't considering that possibility at all.

Those weren't his reasons for not supporting the Lannisters, those were his reasons for not making peace with them as Littlefinger was urging him to do.

Ned makes it perfectly clear why he supports Stannis. I'm not sure how you think this is even a debatable issue.

Quote

I'm pointing out that Ned clearly didn't care about 'the rightful heir' back when he chose Robert over Viserys III. If the 'laws of succession' were some kind of fetish for Ned he would never have supported Robert. Even Stannis - who supposedly is all about the law - didn't care enough about the law to support his king against his brother.

That's hardly a convincing argument considering the situation, and just goes to show that Robert's ascension wasn't solely based on his Targaryen ancestry, and was primarily due to the rebels placing a new King of their choice on the throne.

You are contradicting your argument here as you assert the only reason Robert was made King was because he had a rightful claim, and then state that the people responsible for putting him there didn't care about who was the rightful heir.

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2018-1-11 at 7:13 AM, Lord Varys said:

Those are not outlandish assertions but visibly there in the text:

Quote

Time was perilously short. The king would return from his hunt soon, and honor would require Ned to go to him with all he had learned. Vayon Poole had arranged for Sansa and Arya to sail on the Wind Witch out of Braavos, three days hence. They would be back at Winterfell before the harvest. Ned could no longer use his concern for their safety to excuse his delay.
Yet last night he had dreamt of Rhaegar’s children. Lord Tywin had laid the bodies beneath the Iron Throne, wrapped in the crimson cloaks of his house guard. That was clever of him; the blood did not show so badly against the red cloth. The little princess had been barefoot, still dressed in her bed gown, and the boy…the boy…
Ned could not let that happen again. The realm could not withstand a second mad king, another dance of blood and vengeance. He must find some way to save the children.

That's immediately before Ned goes into the godswood and asks Cersei to join him there.

I guess I don't have to give you the time line before the tower of joy dream? The council session discussing the assassinations, Ned's resignation, Littlefinger immediately convincing him to join him in the brothel to see Barra, and then the subsequent attack by Jaime and his men on the way back.

Ned's memories of Lyanna and the tower are triggered by a number of events in those two chapters. The discussions about the assassinations. The sight of Barra and her mother which trigger memories of Rhaegar. And then the confrontation with Jaime which, of course, brings the Lannister atrocities back into mind.

I'm sorry, you've totally lost me here. What does any of this have to do with Ned having a feeling of kinship with the Targaryens?

[Lord Varys]

@Blackwater Revenant

You really don't understand monarchies based on dynastic inheritance, do you? A deposed monarch - or the heir of such a monarch, or a pretender with a good claim - is always a danger to you. It is always stupidity to allow such people to live.

Viserys III doesn't have to have armies to be a danger - he could get them in time, and him living and working towards that goal is a danger in itself. Daemon II Blackfyre never had an army of his own, but he still came to Westeros and was dangerously close to start a rebellion that could have toppled King Aerys I.

You also don't seem to understand that the chance to start an uprising with your mere presence - as Daemon II Blackfyre did and Viserys III could have tried to do - is no guarantee for lasting military success. Viserys III obviously was afraid that he would not prevail had he come to Westeros without an army of his own. But he could have still won. Just as Prince Aegon is likely going to win now.

The Blackfyres were a pretty serious threat to the Targaryen rule not because they the support of the Golden Company (you cannot conquer the Seven Kingdoms with 10,000 men) but because there were always people willing to support when they came.

The same is true for Viserys III - and to a much higher degree considering that he was the rightful king in pretty much anybody's view, unlike the Blackfyres.

Jon Arryn and Eddard Stark show little to no political acumen (or interest in the permanent establishment of the Baratheon dynasty). The Targaryens have to go, permanently, if the Baratheons want to rule. Robert and Renly know this. Jon and Ned apparently don't want to hear this. 

Nobody knows about Doran Martell's plans with Viserys III but those plans would have gone nowhere if Robert had commanded Viserys III's assassination immediately after he had taken the throne.

Within a dynastic mindset the idea that Viserys III was no danger while he had no army is simply ridiculous. Brandon and Rickon are mortal dangers to the Bolton regime, too. Stannis and Shireen are a danger to King Tommen, whether they have an army or not. Theon and Asha are a danger to King Euron, Edmure and the children of Catelyn and Lysa are a danger to Emmon Frey and Genna Lannister's rule of Riverrun, etc. If you don't understand that, you are not understanding the rules of this society.

You also don't seem to understand the concept between medieval succession wars (like the Wars of the Roses or the Hundred Years War in reality, and the Dance of the Dragons, Robert's Rebellion, or the War of the Five Kings in Martinworld) and wars (of conquest) between sovereign nations.

In war, territories can be conquered and even governments and dynasties can be crushed. That's what war is all about, even today. And there were always special rules about that. Sometimes nations only cease territories and pay reparations when they lose wars, sometimes such nations are destroyed (like it was done repeatedly with Poland during its history).

Aegon the Conqueror conquered the Seven Kingdoms in this manner. He was the sovereign ruler of his own Dragonstonian kingdom, and he declared war on all his Westerosi neighbors and conquered most of them.

When the succession or right of monarch to rule or inherit a crown is questioned then a war isn't so much about gaining territory or conquering a nation but about the legitimacy of the government (of the nation) you are attacking. That is simply a different issue. Robert is a rebel, not a sovereign monarch. He cannot declare war on his king. He can only rebel. He is never on the same legal level as his king, nor can he have the same rights and privileges as his king.

If you were American, you could rebel against Trump, too. But you can never properly declare war on the name - and 'conquer' the United States as a private citizen gathering an armed mob around you. You could perhaps still depose Trump and establish some military dictatorship instead - or some other crazy system - but it would never be seen as a 'conquest'. In fact, no successful rebellion or revolution in history is seen as a conquest or a war of conquest.

In that sense you are comparing apples to oranges here.

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'm sorry, you've totally lost me here. What does any of this have to do with Ned having a feeling of kinship with the Targaryens?

It is pretty obvious. The children that spring into Ned's head when he thinks about Robert the potential child murderer are always Targaryens. They are Rhaenys and Aegon and Lyanna's son. That is not a coincidence. He warns Cersei because her children remind him of Rhaenys and Aegon and Jon Snow.

And that is also the reason why Ned does not want Viserys III and Daenerys killed. And Ned doesn't have to feel a kinship to the Targaryens - he is their kin-by-marriage whether he wants it or not. His own nephew is a Targaryen. The fact that the world doesn't know that is irrelevant. He knows the truth.

On 11.1.2018 at 3:29 PM, Myrish Lace said:

I take what is stated in the text and follows directly from the text. It is stated in the text that fresh heads appeared over city gates. It is stated in the text that there are seven gates. Ergo, I conclude that over 14 people were killed daily. However it is no stated in the text that any of those heads were heads of traitors/Greens or such. There is also no mention of vast Green support network in the text. Ergo, I reject your attempts to advocate Rhaenyra's repressions on the basis "but they could have been".

Okay, if you want to go down that route then it is not clear at all why those people whose heads showed up on the walls were killed at all - nor that they were even executed. All we know is that heads showed up there. Could have been the heads of common criminals or looters or only the heads of people who had died of natural causes.

The fact that people did not like that sight is understandable, but that doesn't make the person who put them up there bad.

On 11.1.2018 at 3:29 PM, Myrish Lace said:

You, on the other hand, invent something that never was in the text and shove it right in the narrative as long as there is no direct denial of your invention in the text. You invent hordes of Greens in King's Landing, then try to justify Rhaenyra's actions with your invention on the grounds of the fact that nowhere in the text is it stated "There were no hordes of Greens in King's Landing, They could have been guilty".

I never insisted that those people all had to be Green agents. They could have just been all traitors, you know. People guilty of treason. Or other crimes. I don't claim I know why they were killed. But I also don't claim the fact that they were killed means they were - for the most part - innocent. Because we have no evidence for that.

On 11.1.2018 at 3:29 PM, Myrish Lace said:

Now, I find this line of thinking completely ridiculous. With the same basis one can argue that Aegon II was Faceless Man in disguise - you don't know that he wasn't. He could have been fooling everyone for years. But with such vast difference on what constitutes a proper argument we won't come to common denominator.

This is a completely different case. Aegon II is actually a character in this (greatly abridged) text of 'The Death of the Dragons' we have read. Those heads are no characters. We don't know who they were. We might find more about Rhaenyra condemning people to death. If we do we can make a more informed decision on the matter. Right now we can't.

On 11.1.2018 at 3:29 PM, Myrish Lace said:

Returning to the argument about Rhaenyra's as a ruler however, I take her as presented in the text and it is both awful and repulsive. But the most curious part is, that after you have filled all the cracks of canon, real or imagined, with rosy foam of purely your own making - laws you have invented and the customs you have created and unfortunate circumstances you have proclaimed, after you have cut out things clearly stated in the text - like the fact that it were Daemon's Goldcloaks who took King's Landing or the fact that Dragonstone's garrison had a healthy dragon with a healthy rider backing them when Aegon II appeared - after all of this photoshopping of canon, Rhaenyra still stands a tyrant, a traitor and a betrayer to her own, a Queen who creates problems of herself, by herself, for herself.

LOL, you think Baela was a healthy dragonrider with a healthy dragon? She was a child with a dragon hardly large enough to ride. And female at that. She didn't have the power to reward Broome and company for their services. Aegon II could, if he was restored to the throne. And again - Daemon didn't take the city. Rhaenyra and her people did because they came from Dragonstone to KL and took it. It wasn't Daemon flying Caraxes to KL, having the City Watch depose the Green regime there, and then Daemon calling Rhaenyra to take her throne.

On 11.1.2018 at 3:29 PM, Myrish Lace said:

That's quite damning for an attempt to prove Rhaenyra's ability to rule.

Actually, no. Rhaenyra had the ability to rule. She may not have had the ability - or been properly trained - to deal with treason and betrayals from her own family and closest friends, but that's what she had to do. She had to fight one of the worst wars in the history of her world.

And quite frankly - if you find yourself waging such a war with such high stakes you are acting wisely if you kill first and ask questions later. The important thing is not to shine and look good and play the magnanimous monarch (which is a role, anyway) but to survive and destroy your enemies. She made some mistakes there, to be sure, but she was still surprising lenient as her mercy towards Alicent and Helaena shows.

Pretty much any other monarch had acted similarly and made similar mistakes.

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2018-1-13 at 9:11 AM, Lord Varys said:

You really don't understand monarchies based on dynastic inheritance, do you? A deposed monarch - or the heir of such a monarch, or a pretender with a good claim - is always a danger to you. It is always stupidity to allow such people to live.

OK, now we're just going in circles, and have ended up right where we began. Please try to refrain from insulting my intelligence and knowledge just because I don't agree with you. I understand how a monarchial society works, and know the importance of dynastic inheritance and succession laws, and all that in such a society.

And yes, I understand that Viserys' claim is a threat to Robert... to an extent. This discussion has seemed to repeatedly gone off the rails, and admittedly I often find myself arguing a stance to a more extreme extent than I intend, just in an attempt to make a point. You are very prone to, and good at avoiding and distracting from the topic at hand, and from when you are called out on your outlandish claims and unsubstantiated speculation; Which frankly, is just you denying the text and making up a bunch of fan fiction that adheres to the direction you think or wish the story has and is going. You constantly deny direct thoughts and statements by character's because you seem to think you know their feelings and motives better than they do, and that they all should think and see things as you do.

I don't have an issue with your assertion that Viserys' claim is a concern for Robert, as much as I do, the extent to which you seem to think this influences everyone's thoughts, beliefs, motives and actions in a manner that adheres to how you think things are and should be. You clearly don't understand these characters, how they think, and what their motives are, and only want to impose your biased, pro-Targaryen views onto them.

Yes, Westeros for the most part functions as you put forth, however what you don't seem to understand is it's not as strait forward and clear cut as you seem to think it is. You don't seem to understand that what is important to someone, doesn't always remain important when it is not beneficial to them and their interests. 

Nobody from the winning side of Robert's rebellion gives a rat's ass that a Targaryen, the true "rightful" rulers, are not on the throne, and they don't care whether or not Robert has Targaryen blood, or that he rebelled instead of conquering as a soverign state. The only ones that think as you do, and deny his legitimacy are the losers. The ones who have lost something, either power, or status, or lands etc. The only reason that they care about deposing of Robert and placing the previous dynasty back on the throne is because they have something to gain from it. They surely don't care about a Targaryen returning because of their divine blood, or the fact that three hundred years ago Aegon I conquered the Seven Kingdoms in compliance with these real world international laws of war that you are trying to impose into the world of Ice and Fire.

So yes, Viserys' claim was a threat to Robert, but as the text confirms, it really wasn't a foremost and pressing concern as long as he didn't have the means to make good on that claim through the same methods that the throne was taken from his father. And his claim posed no more of a threat to Robert than did him having a treasonous and scheming wife such as Cercei, or having men such as Littlefinger and Varys plotting behind the scenes, nor was Viserys a greater threat than Balon was, or a man such as Euron - whom had no claims to speak of - potentially would have been, should he have invaded Westeros when Robert was alive.

On 2018-1-13 at 9:11 AM, Lord Varys said:

It is pretty obvious. The children that spring into Ned's head when he thinks about Robert the potential child murderer are always Targaryens. They are Rhaenys and Aegon and Lyanna's son. That is not a coincidence. He warns Cersei because her children remind him of Rhaenys and Aegon and Jon Snow.

And that is also the reason why Ned does not want Viserys III and Daenerys killed. And Ned doesn't have to feel a kinship to the Targaryens - he is their kin-by-marriage whether he wants it or not. His own nephew is a Targaryen. The fact that the world doesn't know that is irrelevant. He knows the truth.

Are you serious here? This is a ludicrous connection to make, even for you. Seriously, are you just messing with me now? I don't even know how to make a rebuttal to this claim, it's so absurd. You really don't have any understanding at all of Ned's character if you think this means what you claim it does.

I mean, what other children that were brutally murdered as a result of Robert's rebellion is Ned supposed to associate with him not wanting to happen again?

 

[Big Daddy]

I blame Viserys I entirely. Once he had a male heir in Aegon he SHOULD have named him his new legitimate heir. It was shortsighted that he assumed his will would simply be uncontested after his death. I can see him naming his daughter on early on, but after he remarried and started producing legitimate male heirs, he had a responsibility to the realm to name Aegon and start training him for the job. 

[Lord Varys]

@Blackwater Revenant

The issue here simply is what makes a claimant/pretender or rebel a serious threat to somebody's throne or lordship. This has nothing to do with the Targaryens, by the way. I repeatedly cited the Starks as an example for that, too, and I can add the Tullys, Darrys, etc. On the royal level this kind of thing is most powerful, of course, but even on the lordly level it is going to take a lot of time and effort to convince people that Emmon Frey and Genna Lannister are the rightful rulers of Riverrun instead of Edmure Tully. Or that Lancel Lannister and Amerei Frey are the rightful rulers of Darry.

Even when a king decrees that this or that lord and his heirs are now attainted, this doesn't make the whole thing sink in the minds of the people at once. Although a royal decree is worth more in that regard than nothing.

The way you argued in the past indicated that you actually buy Robert's fantasy about him winning his throne with his warhammer. That is simply not true.

When I say you don't understand how things go then I mean that you don't seem to get the mental framework of the people in this story. They think in families and dynasties, not in people and their personal abilities or accomplishments. You have to be born to the purple to sit in a throne, just as you have to be of noble birth to become a lord yourself (except for the very few instances when commoners are made lords by a king).

This world is ruled by the aristocratic principle of blood nobility. No commoner has ever sat a throne in the Seven Kingdoms, nor is there any precedent known where some commoner overthrow a lord, extinguished his line, and set himself up as the new lord, founding a new house (people can marry heirs and dominate them, like Bronn does with Lollys). Stuff like that may have happened during the days of the Hundred Kingdoms and the Andal invasions, but today that kind of thing is unthinkable. Even the obscure Teagues had a family name when they rose to the crown of the Riverlands after decades of anarchy there.

We have no precedent for some lord usurping the place of a king he was not related to. And it is not that George couldn't have included such precedents - many a lord could have temporarily ousted the ancient royal families of the Seven Kingdoms, including the Gardeners, Starks, Lannisters, Arryns, etc. If that kind of thing had happened - if lords and kings had to fear that their bannermen would jump on the chance to seize power then you would have a point here. But that's not the case. Even an utterly incapable man like Tytos Lannister can rule the West simply by right of blood and birth. And even when the Reynes and Tarbecks finally rebel they do not lay claim to Casterly Rock or the entire West - they just assert their independence from Casterly Rock.

In that sense - everybody running around saying that winning a rebellion or civil war means you can seize a throne or take possession of a lordship and/or you are seen as 'the legitimate ruler' after you do something like that is clearly wrong.

That would be a different society, governed by different rules. It would be more like the society of the wildlings or the Dothraki where raw strength is really everything that counts. The fact that you have to prove your worth and ability as ruler constantly among the wildlings very effectively prevents the gestation of dynasties and houses. Men have sons, but those sons do not necessarily inherit authority from their fathers. If the people of the Seven Kingdoms were following similar principles no royal or noble bloodline would have survived more than 3-4 generations. We wouldn't look at a world where unbroken royal and noble bloodlines date back thousands of years.

The idea that even the winners of the Rebellion - Robert himself, Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark, etc. - would suddenly forget who the rightful rulers were is pretty much insane. The same goes for the Starks. They did not lose all their claims in the aftermath of the Red Wedding nor do only their friends and follower consider their claims to be valid. In fact, both the Sansa-Tyrion and the 'Arya'-Ramsay match are based on the fact that the daughters of Eddard Stark do have legitimate claims to Winterfell.

It is the same with the exiled Targaryens. And really everybody knows this.

The fact that Robert didn't do anything about Viserys III for fourteen years doesn't mean the man did underestimate the threat. In fact, the only political threat/issue Robert recognizes or cares about are the Targaryens and their claims. He doesn't care about the ambitions and schemes of his wife and father-in-law, he doesn't gives a rat's ass about the fact that his younger brothers have amassed far too much power and wealth, he doesn't care about Littlefinger and Varys, etc.

It is pretty clear that Viserys III was the greatest threat to the Baratheon dynasty. He had the better claim. He had the name to call upon the help of every lord and knight of the Realm to cast down the usurper. Balon, Euron, the Lannisters, etc. do not have that. And they know it. That is why Euron Greyjoy wants to marry Daenerys Targaryen.