Why did George give daenerys everything

[Amris]

51 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Ser Jorah the Pedobear.

Maybe you guys should check what you are talking about. Here is the definition from the Wikipedia: Pedophilia, or paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.^[

Was Dany prepubescent when the story started? no

Do we know that Drogo (or Jorah) experienced a primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescent children? no

If you have ethical problems with Drogo's or Jorah's being attracted by Dany that's one thing and absolutely your right. But please note that the characters are not pedophiles. By throwing around that term you are demeaning a story that is a quite extraordinary work of fantasy literature and I don't much care for that.

[The Sunland Lord]

7 minutes ago, Amris said:

Maybe you guys should check what you are talking about. Here is the definition from the Wikipedia: Pedophilia, or paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.^[

Was Dany prepubescent when the story started? no

Do we know that Drogo (or Jorah) experienced a primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescent children? no

If you have ethical problems with Drogo's or Jorah's being attracted by Dany that's one thing and absolutely your right. But please note that the characters are not pedophiles. By throwing around that term you are demeaning a story that is a quite extraordinary work of fantasy literature and I don't much care for that.

If you are offended by it, sorry. 

I wouldn't pay this matter too much attention. In good faith, I'll even edit my post. 

 

[Lollygag]

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting anyone, but I want to clarify that questions about age-appropriate behavior and attitudes stem from the books, not just from the readers. 

I'm not sure how the technical terminology applies here or even if there is any technical terminology, but the implication is that there's variations and degrees of inappropriate sexual attraction and sexual relations to children on the part of adults who are sexually mature, even if the child has technically reached puberty. It's not just a matter of any reader's perception or modern definitions. The questions are part of the books as written. Viserys directly connects Drago's taste to technical pedophilia and bestiality. Dany's and Sansa's situations are not technical pedophilia, but it's also the case that a significantly older and experienced man sleeping with them is not suddenly ok the moment she first bleeds. There's a gray area in between which should be and is called out. 

AGOT Daenerys I

"She's too skinny," Viserys said. His hair, the same silver-blond as hers, had been pulled back tightly behind his head and fastened with a dragonbone brooch. It was a severe look that emphasized the hard, gaunt lines of his face. He rested his hand on the hilt of the sword that Illyrio had lent him, and said, "Are you sure that Khal Drogo likes his women this young?"

"She has had her blood. She is old enough for the khal," Illyrio told him, not for the first time. "Look at her. That silver-gold hair, those purple eyes … she is the blood of old Valyria, no doubt, no doubt … and highborn, daughter of the old king, sister to the new, she cannot fail to entrance our Drogo." When he released her hand, Daenerys found herself trembling.

"I suppose," her brother said doubtfully. "The savages have queer tastes. Boys, horses, sheep …"

"Best not suggest this to Khal Drogo," Illyrio said.

 

ASOS Tyrion III

"Why, do you plan to mistreat her?" His father sounded more curious than concerned. "The girl's happiness is not my purpose, nor should it be yours. Our alliances in the south may be as solid as Casterly Rock, but there remains the north to win, and the key to the north is Sansa Stark."

"She is no more than a child."

"Your sister swears she's flowered. If so, she is a woman, fit to be wed. You must needs take her maidenhead, so no man can say the marriage was not consummated. After that, if you prefer to wait a year or two before bedding her again, you would be within your rights as her husband."

 

ASOS Tyrion IV

So the talk has reached even him. "I have, thank you. It's that piece of furniture between the window and the hearth, with the velvet canopy and the mattress stuffed with goose down."

"I am pleased you know of it. Now perhaps you ought to try and know the woman who shares it with you."

Woman? Child, you mean. "Has a spider been whispering in your ear, or do I have my sweet sister to thank?" Considering the things that went on beneath Cersei's blankets, you would think she'd have the decency to keep her nose out of his. "Tell me, why is it that all of Sansa's maids are women in Cersei's service? I am sick of being spied upon in my own chambers."

 

 

[Jeeves]

22 hours ago, Buell Rider said:

If you believe this then you also have to believe that the Boltons now are the rightful holders of the north.  Or do we have another case of the double-standards?

The implications are severe.  If the Baratheons are the rightful rulers by the right of conquest it is logical to conclude that the Boltons are the rightful lords of the north because of the same reason.  Nobody ever said you had to win fair and square.  I don't doubt for a second that the Starks used an unfair advantage during their fight for supremacy in the north.  

21 hours ago, Starkz said:

Look at my second response. The Targaryens failed their promise to protect the realm and overall to put in simple terms to be a “good” ruler. The Starks never betrayed the Bolton’s, nor did they kill their family members nor ask for their heads nor were they mad or stealing and raping someone’s bride. The Bolton’s took over the North through murder and treachery. The Targaryens betrayed their people, the Starks didn’t. It’s called the Right of Revolution, take a peek at it.

Talk about failure!  The Starks failed the north because they went south to start a war and left the north exposed to the Ironborn.  That is failure.  If failure is an excuse to be relieved of power then surely the Starks deserved to lose theirs more than the Targaryens.  

[Starkz]

1 hour ago, The First Bloodrider said:

The implications are severe.  If the Baratheons are the rightful rulers by the right of conquest it is logical to conclude that the Boltons are the rightful lords of the north because of the same reason.  Nobody ever said you had to win fair and square.  I don't doubt for a second that the Starks used an unfair advantage during their fight for supremacy in the north.  

Talk about failure!  The Starks failed the north because they went south to start a war and left the north exposed to the Ironborn.  That is failure.  If failure is an excuse to be relieved of power then surely the Starks deserved to lose theirs more than the Targaryens.  

Coronation of a King is when he swears to uphold the laws of the land and to protect its people which Aerys and Rheager weren’t doing.  Robert was chosen and accepted by the 7K to be King. Failure at one particular thing isn’t cause to be overthrown but the Targaryens were failing at everything. The majority of the Northerns don’t accept the fact that the Bolton’s are in charge of the North now and killed their own people nor did they choose them to lead them.

[Starkz]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not that easy. For one, conquest and war usually take place between different nations and sovereigns. If you are a subject or a vassal of a king you can only rebel and depose him, you cannot 'conquer' the country. That's why people winning civil usually don't conquer anything - they are already part of the land they want to control.

But that's not the only problem with Robert taking power - Aerys II may have been mad and a tyrant, and Rhaegar definitely wronged the Starks and Robert, but that has nothing to do with the laws of succession and inheritance. Aerys II and Rhaegar did have heirs, heirs that had nothing to do with the wars their elders fought.

Aegon III took no part in the Dance, and succeeded both his mother and his uncle. Jaehaerys I also succeeded his father and uncle, and not Lord Rogar Baratheon, the actual grown-up leader of the rebellion.

There is no question that the lords unjustly attacked by Aerys II had a right to defend themselves and even depose/kill the man, but it is not right to then just place one of their own on the throne, a man whose legal claim also goes back to his Targaryen blood.

And the Stark case is complex, too:

Roose Bolton never acknowledged Robb Stark as his liege, nor did he do him homage as king. It was war and he decided to not side with the pretender Robb but King Joffrey. That doesn't change the fact that he feigned loyalty to Robb and cruelly murdered him, but he isn't the kind of traitor he would have been if he had actually be one of the men who proclaimed Robb their king and did him homage afterwards.

From the moment Robb is proclaimed king he is a pretender and a rebel for the entire rest of Westeros. He no longer fights against an unjust/tyrannical king (Joffrey) but for his own petty little kingdom which he had no right to even found. Any former Baratheon/Targaryen subject has the right to say 'Wait a minute, that's not right. We are subjects to the Iron Throne, not Winterfell.' and then act accordingly.

Robb lost his war and House Stark was attainted. Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya would have as much right to Winterfell now than Viserys III and Daenerys and Aegon have to the Iron Throne - absolutely none.

But that's not what people believe. They still believe a Stark should sit in Winterfell, just as they believe a Targaryen should sit on the Iron Throne. There is no Baratheon tradition of kingship in Westeros, and in comparison to a Targaryen claimant a Baratheon - be he Stannis, Renly, Joffrey, or Tommen - will all look not very good.

Robert was the one who knew and understood that. He knew he would face very severe problems should Viserys III ever invade Westeros with a sizable host. His only hope to counter that was a massive marriage alliance and friendship pact with many great houses of the Realm. Without that, the Baratheon dynasty stood no chance at surviving such an invasion.

Who believes a Targaryen should sit on the IT? Dorne? Dorne didn’t even initially want a Targaryen to be King it’s ironic they’re the only kingdom left wanting one. No other kingdom wants a Targaryen on the IT. 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Who believes a Targaryen should sit on the IT? Dorne? Dorne didn’t even initially want a Targaryen to be King it’s ironic they’re the only kingdom left wanting one. No other kingdom wants a Targaryen on the IT. 

The people from Dorne to the Wall know that the Targaryens are their rightful royal dynasty. The whores of White Harbor know it, the acolytes of the Citadel drink to Dany's health, the old Riverlanders idolize King Aerys II, the Kingslanders look forward to a dragon hatching and devouring the presumptuous lions, the Crackclaw Point people are dragon men to the bone, etc.

Nobody truly thinks the Baratheons are their new and rightful royal dynasties. They were there and one grudgingly made peace with them, but now they are mostly gone, and those Lannister fraud on the Iron Throne won't stand a fortnight against a Targaryen - even if that Targaryen happened to be an impostor, too.

A Targaryen will give the people their hope back. That's the power of both nostalgia and legend - people thought they were gone and would never come back - and now they are there: a miracle!

And if you ask the lords - from Dorne to the Wall every lord would say you that a Targaryen has a better claim to the Iron Throne than Robert Baratheon and his brothers and 'children'. Robert Baratheon himself believed that, too. That's why he was afraid of both Viserys III and of Daenerys' son by a Dothraki savage.

The fact that some Targaryen cousin briefly prevented the rightful king from taking the throne doesn't mean people have forgotten who the real king was. If Robert had ruled for thirty or forty years - or if he had been the son of the Baratheon who drove the Targaryens into exile - things might be different.

But they are not.

And again:

If one doubts 'the right' of the Targaryens to return and lay claim to their birthright and inheritance then one has also to doubt 'the right' of the deposed Starks to do the same. After all, they were not only crushed in war but also duly and rightfully attainted by the King on the Iron Throne - and on that view Kings Joffrey, Stannis, and Renly were of the same mind. King Robb was a rebel and a traitor. No Baratheon acknowledged him as King in the North and King of the Trident. Renly demanded he bend the knee to him, and Stannis outright declared to Catelyn that his time would come, too - meaning that Stannis planned to kill Robb.

One could even say that the claim of the Starks is weaker than that of the Targaryens, since it is actually the right of the king to grant and take lordship, whereas there is no right that some rebel takes away the lawful inheritance (i.e. the crown and the throne) from a royal prince. Nobody made the Targaryens kings - they conquered Westeros. But the Starks and all the other lords are lords only because Aegon the Conqueror granted them those lordships. They can be taken away again.

There may be a right to rebel against and a depose a tyrant, but that isn't the same as taking the throne yourself in place of the rightful heir of the king - which, upon the time of the death of Aerys II, was Prince Viserys Targaryen. And it is doubly problematic if the legal claim of the rebel supplanting the rightful king is actually a cousin of that prince and his legal claim coming from the same kings the prince is also descended from.

It is obvious that Robert's blood claim through his Targaryen grandmother is weaker than Viserys' claim. The fact that Robert's kinship to the Targaryens played into his kingship is ample evidence that blood claims played a huge role there. Robert wasn't seen as a man who 'conquered' a throne or established a completely new dynasty unrelated to the old one. Far to the contrary, actually.

Robert is just another Daemon Blackfyre, basically. Daemon was of a bastard cadet branch of the royal line, and Robert is from an older bastard cadet branch of House Targaryen as well as from a female cadet branch.

[Jeeves]

30 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Coronation of a King is when he swears to uphold the laws of the land and to protect its people which Aerys and Rheager weren’t doing.  Robert was chosen and accepted by the 7K to be King. Failure at one particular thing isn’t cause to be overthrown but the Targaryens were failing at everything. The majority of the Northerns don’t accept the fact that the Bolton’s are in charge of the North now and killed their own people nor did they choose them to lead them.

The Targaryens were successful.  The land was prosperous.  The treasury was full and the economy was good.  They have held the kingdom intact for three centuries.

It doesn't matter what the northerners accept or do not accept.  King Tommen and his advisers gave the north to the Boltons.  

[Starkz]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The people from Dorne to the Wall know that the Targaryens are their rightful royal dynasty. The whores of White Harbor know it, the acolytes of the Citadel drink to Dany's health, the old Riverlanders idolize King Aerys II, the Kingslanders look forward to a dragon hatching and devouring the presumptuous lions, the Crackclaw Point people are dragon men to the bone, etc.

Nobody truly thinks the Baratheons are their new and rightful royal dynasties. They were there and one grudgingly made peace with them, but now they are mostly gone, and those Lannister fraud on the Iron Throne won't stand a fortnight against a Targaryen - even if that Targaryen happened to be an impostor, too.

A Targaryen will give the people their hope back. That's the power of both nostalgia and legend - people thought they were gone and would never come back - and now they are there: a miracle!

And if you ask the lords - from Dorne to the Wall every lord would say you that a Targaryen has a better claim to the Iron Throne than Robert Baratheon and his brothers and 'children'. Robert Baratheon himself believed that, too. That's why he was afraid of both Viserys III and of Daenerys' son by a Dothraki savage.

The fact that some Targaryen cousin briefly prevented the rightful king from taking the throne doesn't mean people have forgotten who the real king was. If Robert had ruled for thirty or forty years - or if he had been the son of the Baratheon who drove the Targaryens into exile - things might be different.

But they are not.

And again:

If one doubts 'the right' of the Targaryens to return and lay claim to their birthright and inheritance then one has also to doubt 'the right' of the deposed Starks to do the same. After all, they were not only crushed in war but also duly and rightfully attainted by the King on the Iron Throne - and on that view Kings Joffrey, Stannis, and Renly were of the same mind. King Robb was a rebel and a traitor. No Baratheon acknowledged him as King in the North and King of the Trident. Renly demanded he bend the knee to him, and Stannis outright declared to Catelyn that his time would come, too - meaning that Stannis planned to kill Robb.

One could even say that the claim of the Starks is weaker than that of the Targaryens, since it is actually the right of the king to grant and take lordship, whereas there is no right that some rebel takes away the lawful inheritance (i.e. the crown and the throne) from a royal prince. Nobody made the Targaryens kings - they conquered Westeros. But the Starks and all the other lords are lords only because Aegon the Conqueror granted them those lordships. They can be taken away again.

There may be a right to rebel against and a depose a tyrant, but that isn't the same as taking the throne yourself in place of the rightful heir of the king - which, upon the time of the death of Aerys II, was Prince Viserys Targaryen. And it is doubly problematic if the legal claim of the rebel supplanting the rightful king is actually a cousin of that prince and his legal claim coming from the same kings the prince is also descended from.

It is obvious that Robert's blood claim through his Targaryen grandmother is weaker than Viserys' claim. The fact that Robert's kinship to the Targaryens played into his kingship is ample evidence that blood claims played a huge role there. Robert wasn't seen as a man who 'conquered' a throne or established a completely new dynasty unrelated to the old one. Far to the contrary, actually.

Robert is just another Daemon Blackfyre, basically. Daemon was of a bastard cadet branch of the royal line, and Robert is from an older bastard cadet branch of House Targaryen as well as from a female cadet branch.

I don’t doubt the “rights” that Dany or another Targaryen could come back and lay claim to the IT but then they would be doing the same thing Robert did. Majority of the Houses don’t want a Targaryen back on the Throne so I’m not sure how you’re imagining the people want her. Just because people don’t like the Lannisters doesn’t mean they want just any Targaryen to pop up and take the IT. If that were the case then Dany wouldn’t need 3 dragons or a huge army to bring to Westeros to lay claim. Jorah pretty much hits the spot for the commoners when he tells her all they pray for, rain,healthy children and summer. In regards to the Starks they were Kings before Aegon came and they bent the knee and in return he named them Wardens of the North. The Starks were Kings long long before any Targaryen came to Westeros saying that he could of taken their lordship is ridiculous.

[Starkz]

2 hours ago, The First Bloodrider said:

The Targaryens were successful.  The land was prosperous.  The treasury was full and the economy was good.  They have held the kingdom intact for three centuries.

It doesn't matter what the northerners accept or do not accept.  King Tommen and his advisers gave the north to the Boltons.  

King Aerys was hardly a successful King nor was Rheager seemingly going to be a good one. “King Tommen” didn’t do anything. It was Tywin who gave them the North for murdering Robb, effectively ending the rebellion. Let’s not forget who Tommen’s real father is. He’s no claim to the IT at all.

[dmfn]

On 8/22/2018 at 6:04 AM, teej6 said:

I’m not making any predictions as to how the story will end just stating the obvious fact that the Stark are the good guys, which even a blind person can see. Besides the author himself confirmed this.

Doesn’t matter if the title was abandoned, the author’s intent was clear and I suspect hasn’t changed. The title of last book was meant to imply it would be a time for wolves to rise. Although he changed the title (which I suspect was done as it gave too much away), the Starks are still going to rise in some way or the other, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. And could you provide me with quotes to these “multiple occasions” where GRRM expressed his dislike for this title? To my knowledge, I don’t think there was any reason provided by GRRM as to why he abandoned the title, just that he did. Anyway, anyone who thinks the Starks are the villains of the story must be doing some really biased subjective fanfic reading of the books. 

Really?

I read about Southron ambitions. I read about Old Gods and human sacrifice. I read about faceless men and indiscriminate murder. I read about the abomination of supressing another human consciousness to possess their body. And good ole oathbreaking, and complicity in others' crimes. 

I like the Starks, but a careful reader might notice that we're being given sympathy for the devil.

Protagonist ≠ good guy

[Bernie Mac]

On 8/21/2018 at 11:04 PM, teej6 said:

I’m not making any predictions as to how the story will end just stating the obvious fact that the Stark are the good guys, which even a blind person can see. Besides the author himself confirmed this.

The format of the series is a series of chapters told from a POV perspective, the majority of them (at least at one point) being Stark affiliated, of course they are going to be the 'good guys' of their story. We are all the good guys of our stories, whether the character is a Stark, Lannister or Seaworth. Even the wretched Merett was the 'hero' of his brief story. 

 

Obviously the Starks are the heroes of their story, but that does not mean they are right. Afterall from histories perspective there was no real 'good' or 'bad' side in the War of the Roses but if you told a story from the perspective of one side their will be clear bias into who is right and wrong.

 

 

[dmfn]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The people from Dorne to the Wall know that the Targaryens are their rightful royal dynasty. The whores of White Harbor know it, the acolytes of the Citadel drink to Dany's health, the old Riverlanders idolize King Aerys II, the Kingslanders look forward to a dragon hatching and devouring the presumptuous lions, the Crackclaw Point people are dragon men to the bone, etc.

Nobody truly thinks the Baratheons are their new and rightful royal dynasties. They were there and one grudgingly made peace with them, but now they are mostly gone, and those Lannister fraud on the Iron Throne won't stand a fortnight against a Targaryen - even if that Targaryen happened to be an impostor, too.

A Targaryen will give the people their hope back. That's the power of both nostalgia and legend - people thought they were gone and would never come back - and now they are there: a miracle!

And if you ask the lords - from Dorne to the Wall every lord would say you that a Targaryen has a better claim to the Iron Throne than Robert Baratheon and his brothers and 'children'. Robert Baratheon himself believed that, too. That's why he was afraid of both Viserys III and of Daenerys' son by a Dothraki savage.

The fact that some Targaryen cousin briefly prevented the rightful king from taking the throne doesn't mean people have forgotten who the real king was. If Robert had ruled for thirty or forty years - or if he had been the son of the Baratheon who drove the Targaryens into exile - things might be different.

But they are not.

And again:

If one doubts 'the right' of the Targaryens to return and lay claim to their birthright and inheritance then one has also to doubt 'the right' of the deposed Starks to do the same. After all, they were not only crushed in war but also duly and rightfully attainted by the King on the Iron Throne - and on that view Kings Joffrey, Stannis, and Renly were of the same mind. King Robb was a rebel and a traitor. No Baratheon acknowledged him as King in the North and King of the Trident. Renly demanded he bend the knee to him, and Stannis outright declared to Catelyn that his time would come, too - meaning that Stannis planned to kill Robb.

One could even say that the claim of the Starks is weaker than that of the Targaryens, since it is actually the right of the king to grant and take lordship, whereas there is no right that some rebel takes away the lawful inheritance (i.e. the crown and the throne) from a royal prince. Nobody made the Targaryens kings - they conquered Westeros. But the Starks and all the other lords are lords only because Aegon the Conqueror granted them those lordships. They can be taken away again.

There may be a right to rebel against and a depose a tyrant, but that isn't the same as taking the throne yourself in place of the rightful heir of the king - which, upon the time of the death of Aerys II, was Prince Viserys Targaryen. And it is doubly problematic if the legal claim of the rebel supplanting the rightful king is actually a cousin of that prince and his legal claim coming from the same kings the prince is also descended from.

It is obvious that Robert's blood claim through his Targaryen grandmother is weaker than Viserys' claim. The fact that Robert's kinship to the Targaryens played into his kingship is ample evidence that blood claims played a huge role there. Robert wasn't seen as a man who 'conquered' a throne or established a completely new dynasty unrelated to the old one. Far to the contrary, actually.

Robert is just another Daemon Blackfyre, basically. Daemon was of a bastard cadet branch of the royal line, and Robert is from an older bastard cadet branch of House Targaryen as well as from a female cadet branch.

Was it not Jon Arryn who deposed Aerys, and he who put Robert as a claimant?

It's obviously a poor claim, but that shit happens.

[The Sunland Lord]

6 hours ago, The First Bloodrider said:

The Targaryens were successful.  The land was prosperous.  The treasury was full and the economy was good.  They have held the kingdom intact for three centuries.

 

6 hours ago, The First Bloodrider said:

It doesn't matter what the northerners accept or do not accept.  King Tommen and his advisers gave the north to the Boltons.  

What you wrote in two paragraphs in one post doesn't make any sense. 

So who has the right to the throne?

Targaryens or 'King Tommen'?

[The Sunland Lord]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One could even say that the claim of the Starks is weaker than that of the Targaryens, since it is actually the right of the king to grant and take lordship, whereas there is no right that some rebel takes away the lawful inheritance (i.e. the crown and the throne) from a royal prince. Nobody made the Targaryens kings - they conquered Westeros. But the Starks and all the other lords are lords only because Aegon the Conqueror granted them those lordships. They can be taken away again.

This bit contradicts the rest of the points you made.

So the Baratheons are rightful rulers because they conquered Westeros? Nobody made Robert king, he took it. 

This is right by the Ironborn of old and now. Robert and the Boltons paid the iron price. Starks and Targs need to pay the iron price like they once did, and take their seats by force. 

[Julia H.]

Regarding the right of conquest: I don't think the Boltons claim to rule the North through the right of conquest. They officially deny their part in bringing down the Starks, and Roose is Warden of the North because "King Tommen" gave him that title. Essentially, that's his claim. Everyone knows why he was given that title, but the fact remains that the Boltons do not dare to claim that they have deposed the Starks the way Robert deposed the Targaryens. They are backed by the power and authority of the Iron Throne, which can be seen in two ways (depending on where you stand):

a) The North declared independence, so the Iron Throne / Lannisters must be regarded as a foreign power now, and the Boltons are collaborators. They did not conquer the North, they simply helped the enemy (a foreign power) conquer it, and they do not even dare to admit what they did, but they are receiving favours now.  

b) The Starks were rebels against the rightfully ruling Iron Throne, so they were removed from power, and the Iron Throne simply replaced one Warden of the North with another, more reliable one.  Bolton was chosen for his services, but, in theory, the Iron Throne could have chosen some other lord as well, it seems that technically he didn't even have to be from the North (in AGoT, Robert admits that he is planning to give the position of Warden of the East to Jaime Lannister). Now, there is a reason why the Boltons, not someone else, received the title, but it's not their right of conquest, they received it as a reward for their loyal service. 

Whichever way you look at it, in neither of these cases can the Boltons be seen as ruling the North through the right of conquest. It is very different from the way Robert won his throne, because Robert openly deposed the Targaryens and he was not instated by a foreign / superior authority.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Starkz said:

I don’t doubt the “rights” that Dany or another Targaryen could come back and lay claim to the IT but then they would be doing the same thing Robert did. Majority of the Houses don’t want a Targaryen back on the Throne so I’m not sure how you’re imagining the people want her. Just because people don’t like the Lannisters doesn’t mean they want just any Targaryen to pop up and take the IT. If that were the case then Dany wouldn’t need 3 dragons or a huge army to bring to Westeros to lay claim. Jorah pretty much hits the spot for the commoners when he tells her all they pray for, rain,healthy children and summer. In regards to the Starks they were Kings before Aegon came and they bent the knee and in return he named them Wardens of the North. The Starks were Kings long long before any Targaryen came to Westeros saying that he could of taken their lordship is ridiculous.

Try to think within the framework of a feudal society for a moment, think as if you were part of a world where power was exclusively in the hands of a few families many of which ruled for hundreds or thousands of years.

Aegon the Conqueror made the Iron Throne and conquered the Seven Kingdoms (and his descendant Daeron II brought Dorne into the Realm, too). As long as there are Targaryens they are the rightful owners of that chair and the Realm their forged into one. The fact that some cousin of theirs stole their throne doesn't change that.

Thrones and crowns are not given or taken by popular vote.

Right of conquest means you declare a war and then you defeat your enemies and they accept your rule or are all killed. That's how Aegon did it - the Hoares and Gardeners were destroyed, the Lannisters, Starks, and Arryns bent the knee.

The Targaryens went into exile. Viserys III, Daenerys, Aegon, etc. did not give up their claims. They never recognized Robert as the true king unlike, say, Prince Duncan or Maester Aemon gave up his claim to the Iron Throne.

No Targaryen is going to come to Westeros as 'a foreign conqueror' - they will come as the true kings returning from across the water to reclaim their birthright. Just as Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, or Arya Stark won't come as 'foreign conquerors' - assuming they come.

This doesn't mean they won't have to fight their enemies - but it is not that there is a majority consensus in the North now that the Starks are history, just as there is no majority consensus in all of the Seven Kingdoms that the Targaryens are history.

While Robert lived and had a powerful coalition of great houses to support his claim nobody was brave enough to actually invite Viserys III but Robert himself was very aware that people would rise for Viserys III if he came in strength because he was still seen - and quite correctly at that - as usurper.

Jorah is not wrong that you need strength and success to inspire loyalty - but Prince Aegon has just a few thousand men and no dragons. Yet it is very likely that he'll win the Iron Throne because Westeros will look to him as savior and rightful king simply because he looks like a Targaryen. And that's something nobody else could do. Because nobody else but the Targaryens are the family that united and ruled all the Seven Kingdoms.

This idea that the Targaryens some how 'lost their claim' because Robert took the throne is nonsense cooked up by the readers. Nobody in the books actually ever says something along those lines. Robert stresses the fact that the deciding factor of him becoming king was his war hammer - but that's just a celebration of his prowess as a warrior and his personal victory over Rhaegar. It has nothing to do with his claim (he would have just as well become king by the choice of the rebels if some common archer had brought down Rhaegar) nor has it any bearing on the claim of Viserys III.

3 hours ago, dmfn said:

Was it not Jon Arryn who deposed Aerys, and he who put Robert as a claimant?

It's obviously a poor claim, but that shit happens.

Sure, and it is not that Robert has no claim. He has a pretty strong claim, actually, a stronger claim than anyone else in Westeros - but the descendants of Aerys II. They have a stronger claim. And the proper way to deal with the issue would have been to make one of the Targaryen children the new king, with the rebels setting up a regency government. There was no need to make Robert king. And the wounds of war and the madness of Aerys II would have healed if the men murdering Aerys II and his family members would have been punished and a King Viserys III or a Queen Rhaella or Queen Daenerys would have ruled in Robert's stead.

Robert ascended the throne over the corpses of women and children and made it a point to reward/not punish the men who did that. This is the festering wound that leads directly to the War of the Five Kings - remember, what is the reason why Ned loathes the Lannisters originally? Because they got away with murdering Aerys and his family. Not to speak of the Martells, etc.

1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

This bit contradicts the rest of the points you made.

So the Baratheons are rightful rulers because they conquered Westeros? Nobody made Robert king, he took it. 

This is right by the Ironborn of old and now. Robert and the Boltons paid the iron price. Starks and Targs need to pay the iron price like they once did, and take their seats by force. 

Nobody in Westerosi but the Ironborn follow the ridiculous rules of the Ironborn. But even the Ironborn only pay 'the iron price' when they deal with outsiders. Since iron and blood ended the whole Kingsmoot nonsense, the Ironborn have hereditary right to the kingship - meaning that you don't have the right to march in your king's hall, slay him, and then steal his throne. As a member of his family you might be able to get away with it - because you, too, have a claim - but if some random dude did that, he would not last for a second.

Brute strength and the like prevail only among the wildlings or the Dothraki (and even there sons follow fathers if they have the strength to do so), the Seven Kingdoms follow different rules.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Regarding the right of conquest: I don't think the Boltons claim to rule the North through the right of conquest. They officially deny their part in bringing down the Starks, and Roose is Warden of the North because "King Tommen" gave him that title. Essentially, that's his claim. Everyone knows why he was given that title, but the fact remains that the Boltons do not dare to claim that they have deposed the Starks the way Robert deposed the Targaryens. They are backed by the power and authority of the Iron Throne, which can be seen in two ways (depending on where you stand):

Robert didn't depose the Targaryens in any meaningful way. He just slew Prince Rhaegar in battle. Jaime removed Aerys II and Robert just took an empty throne since Viserys III was on Dragonstone and never came back to drive Robert away.

You are right about Roose not publicly admitting that he killed Robb with his own hand and played as large a role in the Red Wedding as Walder Frey, but it is pretty obvious that him being named Warden of the North is a reward for his role in putting down the pretender, rebel, and traitor 'King Robb'.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

a) The North declared independence, so the Iron Throne / Lannisters must be regarded as a foreign power now, and the Boltons are collaborators. They did not conquer the North, they simply helped the enemy (a foreign power) conquer it, and they do not even dare to admit what they did, but they are receiving favours now.  

That is a view nobody outside the rebel faction ever held. Renly, Stannis, Joffrey, and Tommen all viewed 'King Robb' as a rebel, traitor, and pretender.

Roose Bolton and all the Northmen originally with him never acknowledged or did homage to Robb as their king - as such they were never truly his subjects. They didn't break any vows nor did they commit any treason when they turned against him (Roose was the only major lord to turn against him, of course, but the Manderlys, Hornwoods, Glovers, Tallharts, etc. with Roose also had no say nor took any part in proclaiming Robb king.

As such, we cannot say these people were beholden to a 'King Robb' in any way as per the rules the society they live in.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Whichever way you look at it, in neither of these cases can the Boltons be seen as ruling the North through the right of conquest. It is very different from the way Robert won his throne, because Robert openly deposed the Targaryens and he was not instated by a foreign / superior authority.

A right of conquest implies the conquered actually do acknowledge the fact that they have been conquered (see Aegon's Conquest, etc.).

From a legal POV the Manderlys are right now indeed rebels and traitors since they actually did bent the knee to both King Tommen and Lord Roose Bolton. I actually like Wyman the Cannibal feeding people to their kin, but from a moral point of view this behavior is utterly disgusting and on the same level as the Red Wedding. An honorable and honest man would not pretend to support Roose. He would fight with an open visor and declare either for Stannis or at least defy the Boltons and Tommen openly.

[The Sunland Lord]

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Roose Bolton and all the Northmen originally with him never acknowledged or did homage to Robb as their king - as such they were never truly his subjects. They didn't break any vows nor did they commit any treason when they turned against him (Roose was the only major lord to turn against him, of course, but the Manderlys, Hornwoods, Glovers, Tallharts, etc. with Roose also had no say nor took any part in proclaiming Robb king.

So everyone who did not proclaim Aegon king could've work for deposing him and bring the status of Kingdom for a region back. This would take entire realm declaring "for" or "against" something. 

Does this mean that whenever Roose called Robb king, he lied? Then why didn't he join the lannister regime's forces on field the moment Robb was declared king? 

It was a matter about keeping the usurped Stark seat, which could've been supported by the usurped Iron Throne at the time. Legality has nothing to do with, on the opposite.

[Banjo]

On 8/21/2018 at 6:45 AM, Aline de Gavrillac said:

This reads like it's coming from a bitter and jealous Jon-fan (and Dany-hater).  George didn't give Dany everything.  Dany earned all of the goodness that she has. 

1. Do you expect somebody like Sansa Stark to have the guts to lead a khalasar through the desert?  No way, right.  Three minutes into the hike and Sansa Stark would demand for her butt to be carried.  
2. Dany gave up her lover in order to marry a man she didn't love, for the good of the people.  Can you expect Robb Stark to do the same?  No.
3. Is King Joff brave enough to walk into fire to hatch dragon eggs?  Joffrey is not brave enough to do that.  
4. Dany gave mercy to her cupbearers even if their families might be involved in terrorism, because the hostages had nothing to do with it.  Would Stannis show the same mercy?  I don't think so.  He didn't show any to his starving men.

Dany spent a lot of her childhood in the streets.  She was forced to marry a barbarian.  She made the best of  it and earned the man's respect.  She is a genius and a very resourceful young girl.  She earned her gifts.  

One single question about Dany and the name calling and personal attacks starts. Every single character is discussed online, criticized sometimes hated. But say one word against Dany and some of her fans descend on you with almost anime fan girls level of obsession. And i love someone who calls others haters has no qualm saying stuff about other beloved characters in the same post. Hypocrisy

[Julia H.]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert didn't depose the Targaryens in any meaningful way. He just slew Prince Rhaegar in battle. Jaime removed Aerys II and Robert just took an empty throne since Viserys III was on Dragonstone and never came back to drive Robert away.

OK, the rebels (not Robert single-handedly) deposed the Targaryens. (Jaime joined them when he killed Aerys and so courteously allowed Ned access to the Iron Throne.) The rebels fought battles and defeated the Targaryen army, killed some members of the ruling family and forced others into exile, chose a new, sovereign king among them, took over the government and the resources of the country, had the various lords bend the knee to the new king (or removed them from power) and so on. I call this deposing the earlier dynasty. Whatever else you call it, the question is whether you agree that this is different from what the Boltons did in the North. My point is not so much Robert's right to the IT but that the Boltons are not ruling the North through the right of conquest. (You may compare the Boltons with Aegon I if you want to.) Do you agree or not?

Quote

You are right about Roose not publicly admitting that he killed Robb with his own hand and played as large a role in the Red Wedding as Walder Frey, but it is pretty obvious that him being named Warden of the North is a reward for his role in putting down the pretender, rebel, and traitor 'King Robb'.

My point exactly. Bolton received the North as a reward. From an authority above him. He didn't conquer it. 

Quote

That is a view nobody outside the rebel faction ever held. Renly, Stannis, Joffrey, and Tommen all viewed 'King Robb' as a rebel, traitor, and pretender.

Roose Bolton and all the Northmen originally with him never acknowledged or did homage to Robb as their king - as such they were never truly his subjects. They didn't break any vows nor did they commit any treason when they turned against him (Roose was the only major lord to turn against him, of course, but the Manderlys, Hornwoods, Glovers, Tallharts, etc. with Roose also had no say nor took any part in proclaiming Robb king.

As such, we cannot say these people were beholden to a 'King Robb' in any way as per the rules the society they live in.

I said "depending on where you stand", and I meant not only the characters in-world but also the readers. What's this anyway, I only say there are two possible ways to look at the situation, and you instantly start arguing how few people see it in one of the ways... What do you want to prove? 

Look, if not even one person held the first view (which is not so, BTW), my point would still stand: The Boltons are not ruling through the right of conquest.  

(Beside the point now, but since you have mentioned that Bolton never did homage to Robb Stark as his king, I suddenly remember that Robb Stark never bent the knee to Joffrey and never took a vow of loyalty to him or to the IT. It should mean he never was truly Joffrey's subject, so, by your logic, he can't be a rebel or a traitor.) 

Quote

A right of conquest implies the conquered actually do acknowledge the fact that they have been conquered (see Aegon's Conquest, etc.).

Where is this rule from?

So if any of the heirs of the Westerosi kings deposed by Aegon I managed to flee to Essos, where he told everyone that he was the rightful king of this or that kingdom, then we should conclude that Aegon et al didn't conquer that particular kingdom?

Robert was recognized as king in the Seven Kingdoms by every lord who had survived the Rebellion and wanted to stay in power. Those who go into exile in a situation like this have no incentive to recognize the new dynasty, but that does not mean the conquest did not take place.  

Quote

1) From a legal POV the Manderlys are right now indeed rebels and traitors since they actually did bent the knee to both King Tommen and Lord Roose Bolton. 2) I actually like Wyman the Cannibal feeding people to their kin, but from a moral point of view this behavior is utterly disgusting and on the same level as the Red Wedding. An honorable and honest man would not pretend to support Roose. He would fight with an open visor and declare either for Stannis or at least defy the Boltons and Tommen openly.

1) Just being curious here... If we accept that Robert was never the rightful king (as per your opinion), then Tommen, obviously, isn't the rightful king either, as his claim comes from Robert, but even that claim is false. From a legal POV, what is the validity of bending the knee technically to the heir of the false heir of a non-rightful king? Is it legally binding?  

Also, just to explore the legal / moral aspects a bit more: How about the lie that Lord Wyman is told about his son's death? They tell him it was his liege lord (Robb Stark) who killed Wendel (turning into  a wolf, attacking old Walder and what not). But it's not true. Suppose Lord Wyman believes the lie (I know in reality he doesn't, but let's imagine it now) and that's a factor in his decision to bend the knee to Tommen. But then (let's suppose) he finds out that it was the Lannister-Frey-Bolton alliance that was responsible for his son's death and that his former liege lord never changed into a wolf and never attacked Walder Frey. Is he morally obligated to uphold his vow of loyalty now to those who killed his son and then lied to him? Could he say if he had been told the truth right away, he would never have bent the knee to Tommen, so his vow of loyalty to them is simply not valid?

Once again, I'm not claiming that Manderly believed these lies for a moment - I'm just curious if people think breaking a vow of loyalty given in good faith to a bunch of liars would be morally justifiable?

2) Yes, as Robb Stark did...

But it's again love / family versus honour (Manderly wanted to save his son).

Forcing people to bend the knee to you always includes the risk that their old loyalties do not die so easily - and the Boltons don't even have the charisma of the young Robert.  

Lord Wyman calls the situation "the mummer's farce", while Lady Dustin explains to Theon that to Roose Bolton everything is but a game, and that he is aware of the dubious nature of Manderly's loyalty:

"You think Roose does not know? Silly boy. Watch him. Watch how he watches Manderly. No dish so much as touches Roose's lips until he sees Lord Wyman eat of it first. No cup of wine is sipped until he sees Manderly drink of the same cask. I think he would be pleased if the fat man attempted some betrayal. It would amuse him. Roose has no feelings, you see. Those leeches that he loves so well sucked all the passions out of him years ago. He does not love, he does not hate, he does not grieve. This is a game to him, mildly diverting. Some men hunt, some hawk, some tumble dice. Roose plays with men. You and me, these Freys, Lord Manderly, his plump new wife, even his bastard, we are but his playthings." 

My impression is that these Northmen know each other pretty well and can mutually see through the "mummer's farce" (which both of them are putting on), and it is rather like a new phase of the power game (or the war) to them than real peace or truce.