Jump to content

Why did George give daenerys everything


manchester_babe

Recommended Posts

Just to be clear:

I'm not arguing that Robert and the other Baratheons have no claims or anything, or that Robert wasn't the king.

I'm pointing out that Robert being king did not suddenly invalidate or erase the claims of the Targaryens in exile. They continue to have claims because that's the rules of the culture they are living in. Just as real royalty in our world continues to bear titles of kingdoms that no longer exist or consider themselves to be pretenders to a throne that no longer exists (in monarchies that turned to republics).

The idea that the moment Robert took the throne means that suddenly there are different rules for Viserys III and Daenerys makes no sense.

Of course it means they have to press their claim through force of arms, but they are also not foreign invaders. They are members of the rightful dynasty trying to take back the throne that's theirs by right, and if/when they come back Targaryen loyalists will rally to their banners. There are even lords plotting for their eventual return like Doran Martell.

And it should be the same for the Starks. The North belongs to the Starks like Winterfell belongs to them. They ruled that place for thousands of years. They are not just becoming pariahs because they have been ousted. They still have to show their mettle, of course, and give the people willing to fight for them a reason to do so (which is sort of a problem right now due to the state Bran is in and the youth of Rickon, but in a couple of years Rickon Stark should have little to no trouble to oust the Boltons after showing up suddenly and revealing his identity).

It is also the same with Stannis vs. Cersei's children. Stannis has the better claim against those frauds, and everybody in Westeros believing his story would acknowledge this - even Renly and Cersei do acknowledge this. Yet this still means he has to gather support to his cause to press his claim. And that's something he cannot really do because he is a singularly unpopular and unpleasant character. People just don't like him very much and he doesn't have the looks or the manners or the charisma to inspire loyalty in people he has just met.

We also have this thing with the Great Councils and Maegor's usurpation - Maegor sitting the throne and disinheriting Aenys' sons didn't destroy their claims, Laenor Velaryon losing to Viserys I in 101 AC didn't completely invalidate the Velaryon claim (else people wouldn't have brought up said claim when Laena and Laenor were considered as royal consorts), Rhaenyra's son Aegon the Younger continued to have a claim even after his mother had been fed to Sunfyre, and later on there are people expecting that the passed over Prince Maegor might have challenged his uncle Aegon V later in life - all that is only possible if such claims actually live on, no matter what's actually done. Even the Osgreys still sort of have a claim to Coldmoat, just as the Manderlys think they still have a claim to their ancestral lands along the Mander, etc.

In relation the Baratheon regime - it doesn't seem to have been the case that most lords of the Realm ever did homage or swear vows to King Robert, or else Balon Greyjoy could not have said to Robert that he didn't break a vow when he rebelled against him. Doran and Oberyn Martell also never publicly did homage to Robert in KL (nor did Robert ever visit Dorne to demand that they publicly bend the knee to him). 

My point in relation to 'right of conquest' and the Boltons is that the Boltons actually have a stronger claim to the North because it has been given to them by the Iron Throne. Conquest is something that is connected to war and war breaks the usual rules - you can say that that what somebody couldn't protect is now the property of the person who took it with force, but that's not worth much in this world if the people you stole it from (or their children, who inherit the claim to that piece of land, lordship, crown) survive, raise an army, and come back to put you down.

Conquest only works properly if there is some sort of peace agreement at the end - which was there after Aegon's Conquest but not during the First Dornish War or Daeron's Conquest - they tried to conquer Dorne, and the Martells even submitted to the Young Dragon, but they rose again and they broke the shackles.

If some 'rightful royal line' is forced to remain in exile as long as the Blackfyres their star will inevitably sink, of course. Facts eventually change the view how people see those things. But in a world like Westeros that's not going to happen quickly. It will take decades - and perhaps even centuries.

For the Targaryens or the Starks to be forgotten as the true rulers of their domains one would imagine Winterfell and the Iron Throne, the Red Keep and KL would have to be destroyed. Until that happens, songs and stories of the true rulers of those places would survive, and even if their lines had been extinguished their successors would have to face impostors and pretenders coming out of the grass, using their names and looks as 'proof' that they are Targaryens or Starks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dmfn said:

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

GRRM specifically said the Starks were the good guys when he compared them to the NYG one of his favorite NFL teams. Either NYG or Jets are his favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Starkz said:

GRRM specifically said the Starks were the good guys when he compared them to the NYG one of his favorite NFL teams. Either NYG or Jets are his favorite.

New York Giants https://www.google.com/amp/s/winteriscoming.net/2016/01/02/george-r-r-martin-compares-the-new-england-patriots-to-white-walkers/amp/

I have to say he looks good in the hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

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.

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.

First, Robert didn’t “steal” the throne. The 7K rebelled against the Tyranny of Aerys/Targaryens and overthrew them and Robert was chosen to be King. Thrones and crowns can be taken and given by the people and it has happened quite often in history where Kings/Queens were removed and their families stayed removed permanently. Dany, the perhaps last Targaryen was born at Dragonstone and hasn’t set a foot in Westeros or even been there or knows much about  Westeros or her families history. I believe that’s what you call a foreigner when they’re not from or belonging to a certain place, i.e Westeros. She’s spent her whole life in Essos, not Westeros. But then again the Targaryens have always been foreigners to Westeros as they’ve only been there for about 300 years or abouts whereas the Starks have been there for 10000+ years so I imagine this will be a problem for her gathering support as it will be a nice piece of propaganda for the Lannisters and their supporters. Viserys and Dany going into exile is them religuishing their claim to the 7K. The simple act of leaving Westeros therein their throne and claim is them giving up their right to the throne. Imagine if Dany and Viserys had just  left and never shown any interest in retaking the throne and never planned to. We wouldn’t even be discussing that they were the rightful King/Queen. Now they’re coming to reclaim the throne and reinstall the Targaryen name, despite the fact that Dany supposedly can’t have children which is a problem for another time. The situation with the Starks is a bit more grey and difficult to decipher as they weren’t rebelled against and removed by their people but rather by a lord who feigned loyalty and murdered their King and was installed Warden by the very “King” they were rebelling against, of course as readers we know none of Cersei’s children have any right to the throne and shouldn’t be King which makes the conundrum even worse. Of course no Stark then rose up to challenge the Bolton’s and reclaim the North and it doesn’t look like one is or will. It still stands to be seen how Aegon and Dany’s campaign will be in Westeros. Of course with 3 dragons the 7K should fall in line fairly quickly, but that won’t mean they want her to rule them or be Queen. Which then begs the question would  they have fallen in line if she didn’t have dragons? Probably not. She’ll have to prove herself but the dragons will be what kickstarts her campaign and gives her the chance to. It still stands to be seen though how her campaign goes but she definitely will be seen as a foreign conquerer. Her whole army and subjects are foreigners and so is she. Perhaps the Houses will be tired of the Lannisters ruling and will support her regardless of her dragons and army as it still stands to be seen, however unlikely it is.

 

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. “They can keep the clothes,” she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Starkz said:

First, Robert didn’t “steal” the throne. The 7K rebelled against the Tyranny of Aerys/Targaryens and overthrew them and Robert was chosen to be King. Thrones and crowns can be taken and given by the people and it has happened quite often in history where Kings/Queens were removed and their families stayed removed permanently. Dany, the perhaps last Targaryen was born at Dragonstone and hasn’t set a foot in Westeros or even been there or knows much about  Westeros or her families history. I believe that’s what you call a foreigner when they’re not from or belonging to a certain place, i.e Westeros. She’s spent her whole life in Essos, not Westeros. But then again the Targaryens have always been foreigners to Westeros as they’ve only been there for about 300 years or abouts whereas the Starks have been there for 10000+ years so I imagine this will be a problem for her gathering support as it will be a nice piece of propaganda for the Lannisters and their supporters. Viserys and Dany going into exile is them religuishing their claim to the 7K. The simple act of leaving Westeros therein their throne and claim is them giving up their right to the throne. Imagine if Dany and Viserys had just  left and never shown any interest in retaking the throne and never planned to. We wouldn’t even be discussing that they were the rightful King/Queen. Now they’re coming to reclaim the throne and reinstall the Targaryen name, despite the fact that Dany supposedly can’t have children which is a problem for another time. The situation with the Starks is a bit more grey and difficult to decipher as they weren’t rebelled against and removed by their people but rather by a lord who feigned loyalty and murdered their King and was installed Warden by the very “King” they were rebelling against, of course as readers we know none of Cersei’s children have any right to the throne and shouldn’t be King which makes the conundrum even worse. Of course no Stark then rose up to challenge the Bolton’s and reclaim the North and it doesn’t look like one is or will. It still stands to be seen how Aegon and Dany’s campaign will be in Westeros. Of course with 3 dragons the 7K should fall in line fairly quickly, but that won’t mean they want her to rule them or be Queen. Which then begs the question would  they have fallen in line if she didn’t have dragons? Probably not. She’ll have to prove herself but the dragons will be what kickstarts her campaign and gives her the chance to. It still stands to be seen though how her campaign goes but she definitely will be seen as a foreign conquerer. Her whole army and subjects are foreigners and so is she. Perhaps the Houses will be tired of the Lannisters ruling and will support her regardless of her dragons and army as it still stands to be seen, however unlikely it is.

Daenarys was born in dragonstone. That is literaly part of the continent of Westeroes and recognized as being apart of the domain of the 7 kingdoms. Shes not a forieghner to Westeroes and She's been educated on the country's history pressumably as any noblewoman should be.

The Targyens were at Dragonstone over a century prior to Aegon's conquest.

The big justification for why it's ok to secede from the 7 Kingdoms by the north was because they owe no alliegence to the "stags", the "dragons" they were the rightful rulers.

The Targyens are missed; especially with the chaos of the Baratheon regime has brought many people would want the good ole days. 

The fact Robert and his followers were successful in running off any Targyen from the land doesn't mean the Targyen  claims to the throne goes away.

Like people have left their country in times of war before for whatever, and were still seen as having a claim to be the monarch/lord/ whatever. Seriously, if by virtue leaving the country meant not having a claim anymore, someone would have brought it up, but no one does. 

The feudal society of Westeroes isn't wildling society where if you fled your home out of fear of danger, by law your stuff(your women, your cattle, etc) is theirs.

Honestly, the whole "she wasn't born in Westeroes(which she was) so she can't rule it" being a major thing kinda reeks of show.

Dorne is Daenarys' off the bat. Many of the riverland lords should be happy to fight and get revenge if Daenarys has the military might to suceed, Pyke will be won over if Daenarys gets the fealty of Victorien or Euron(though I bet on Victorian), both of which wants her-she needn't even marry Victorien as much promise him vegence against Euron.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Like people have left their country in times of war before for whatever, and were still seen as having a claim to be the monarch/lord/ whatever. Seriously, if by virtue leaving the country meant not having a claim anymore, someone would have brought it up, but no one does. 

The feudal society of Westeroes isn't wildling society where if you fled your home out of fear of danger, by law your stuff(your women, your cattle, etc) is theirs.

Funny you bring this up. Here’s the part from ADWD where Dany is meting out justice on the issue you raise:

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. “They can keep the clothes,” she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

Dany thinks the rich woman couldn’t claim her house as she abandoned it, although the men in her family had died defending their house. Granted, Dany was still in the womb and Viserys was a child, but Rhaella’s situation is similar to that of the Meereenese rich woman. I imagine GRRM didn’t have this example in there for kicks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Starkz said:

GRRM specifically said the Starks were the good guys when he compared them to the NYG one of his favorite NFL teams. Either NYG or Jets are his favorite.

He said theyre heroes, thats not the same as good guys. Obviously Odell Beckham is a hero, but a good guy? He just catches a ball with one hand

The Starks are our heroes but not good guys. Arya is a murderer while Bran harasses Hodor. Rickon is wild and Robb plunged Westeros into chaos

The Lannisters are bad guys though, as are the Pats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Daenarys was born in dragonstone. That is literaly part of the continent of Westeroes and recognized as being apart of the domain of the 7 kingdoms. Shes not a forieghner to Westeroes and She's been educated on the country's history pressumably as any noblewoman should be.

The Targyens were at Dragonstone over a century prior to Aegon's conquest.

The big justification for why it's ok to secede from the 7 Kingdoms by the north was because they owe no alliegence to the "stags", the "dragons" they were the rightful rulers.

The Targyens are missed; especially with the chaos of the Baratheon regime has brought many people would want the good ole days. 

The fact Robert and his followers were successful in running off any Targyen from the land doesn't mean the Targyen  claims to the throne goes away.

Like people have left their country in times of war before for whatever, and were still seen as having a claim to be the monarch/lord/ whatever. Seriously, if by virtue leaving the country meant not having a claim anymore, someone would have brought it up, but no one does. 

The feudal society of Westeroes isn't wildling society where if you fled your home out of fear of danger, by law your stuff(your women, your cattle, etc) is theirs.

I’m not saying they don’t have a claim but they gave it up when they lost/left and will have to reclaim the throne now it won’t just be handed back to them. Dragonstone is historically not part of the 7K and is an island outside of it. Dragonstone wasn’t considered a part of Westeros until after Aegon became King and regardless of where she was born she will still be considered a foreigner because of where she’s lived. Jon was born in the south, yet he has the last name Snow and is considered a Northern regardless of where he was born as he’s lived there his whole life for example.  When has Dany been educated on Westeros or of its customs?  She’s spent her whole life in Essos. She knows nothing of her family besides the biased things Viserys has told her and he’s not exactly the best source of information. Barristan tried to tell her a bit but she didn’t want to hear it unless it was positive and favorable. She knows hardly anything of the history of Westeros and believes every house is a usurper dog because they saved the 7K from the mad king. She was never taught anything about Westeros so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. The people probably do want the days before the mad king to return but how do they know Dany will be any different? From what they’ve heard she certainly isn’t. Also it’s technically the Lannisters regime at this point not the Baratheon regardless of which it seems to be turning out to be worse than the mad king when Cersei eventually becomes fully in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Honestly, the whole "she wasn't born in Westeroes(which she was) so she can't rule it" being a major thing kinda reeks of show.

Dorne is Daenarys' off the bat. Many of the riverland lords should be happy to fight and get revenge if Daenarys has the military might to suceed, Pyke will be won over if Daenarys gets the fealty of Victorien or Euron(though I bet on Victorian), both of which wants her-she needn't even marry Victorien as much promise him vegence against Euron.

 

In regards to your edited in part, I’m just stating what the people of Westeros will think/believe. I’ve never said she can’t rule because she wasn’t born or hasn’t lived in Westeros all I’ve said is these things will make it a lot harder for her to state her claim on the throne and garner support as it would be for anyone. She’s in a tough position is all I’m saying. She leads a foreign army and the people may consider her to be a foreigner as she wasn’t raised in Westeros. This in no way me saying she can’t have the throne because of this but rather hurtles she will have to jump through to convince houses to follow her and propaganda she will have to deal with. With Quentyns death and if she kills Aegon or doesn’t support him, she loses Dorne. So no, it’s not hers right off the bat. Also Euron sent Vic to take a dragon and Vic isn’t the smartest tool in the box and will probably end up getting killed at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Funny you bring this up. Here’s the part from ADWD where Dany is meting out justice on the issue you raise:

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. “They can keep the clothes,” she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

Dany thinks the rich woman couldn’t claim her house as she abandoned it, although the men in her family had died defending their house. Granted, Dany was still in the womb and Viserys was a child, but Rhaella’s situation is similar to that of the Meereenese rich woman. I imagine GRRM didn’t have this example in there for kicks. 

This exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Daenarys was born in dragonstone. That is literaly part of the continent of Westeroes and recognized as being apart of the domain of the 7 kingdoms. Shes not a forieghner to Westeroes and She's been educated on the country's history pressumably as any noblewoman should be.

The Targyens were at Dragonstone over a century prior to Aegon's conquest.

The big justification for why it's ok to secede from the 7 Kingdoms by the north was because they owe no alliegence to the "stags", the "dragons" they were the rightful rulers.

The Targyens are missed; especially with the chaos of the Baratheon regime has brought many people would want the good ole days. 

The fact Robert and his followers were successful in running off any Targyen from the land doesn't mean the Targyen  claims to the throne goes away.

Like people have left their country in times of war before for whatever, and were still seen as having a claim to be the monarch/lord/ whatever. Seriously, if by virtue leaving the country meant not having a claim anymore, someone would have brought it up, but no one does. 

The feudal society of Westeroes isn't wildling society where if you fled your home out of fear of danger, by law your stuff(your women, your cattle, etc) is theirs.

Honestly, the whole "she wasn't born in Westeroes(which she was) so she can't rule it" being a major thing kinda reeks of show.

Dorne is Daenarys' off the bat. Many of the riverland lords should be happy to fight and get revenge if Daenarys has the military might to suceed, Pyke will be won over if Daenarys gets the fealty of Victorien or Euron(though I bet on Victorian), both of which wants her-she needn't even marry Victorien as much promise him vegence against Euron.

 

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. “They can keep the clothes,” she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

He said theyre heroes, thats not the same as good guys. Obviously Odell Beckham is a hero, but a good guy? He just catches a ball with one hand

The Starks are our heroes but not good guys. Arya is a murderer while Bran harasses Hodor. Rickon is wild and Robb plunged Westeros into chaos

The Lannisters are bad guys though, as are the Pats

Heroes are usually the good guys. He compares the Starks to heroes and the bad Lannisters to the patriots so. Bran is a 9 year old who just lost his ability to walk and his family and it was the war of the 5 kings, not the Robb chaos war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Starkz said:

First, Robert didn’t “steal” the throne. The 7K rebelled against the Tyranny of Aerys/Targaryens and overthrew them and Robert was chosen to be King. Thrones and crowns can be taken and given by the people and it has happened quite often in history where Kings/Queens were removed and their families stayed removed permanently.

Robert was only the king of the rebels, not the king of all Westeros. He didn't move a finger to actually do proper justice after he had taken power, nor did he make any move to get the Targaryen loyalists on board or reconcile them to his rule.

In addition, there is also no intention that people do choose their own kings in Westeros (the First Men electorate kingdom in Dorne aside). Crowns and lordships are inherited - they remain within a family and a bloodline, the people have no say in who their lord or king is going to be.

Aerys II wasn't brought down by a popular uprising or anything, but by war and treason.

1 hour ago, Starkz said:

Dany, the perhaps last Targaryen was born at Dragonstone and hasn’t set a foot in Westeros or even been there or knows much about  Westeros or her families history. I believe that’s what you call a foreigner when they’re not from or belonging to a certain place, i.e Westeros. She’s spent her whole life in Essos, not Westeros. But then again the Targaryens have always been foreigners to Westeros as they’ve only been there for about 300 years or abouts whereas the Starks have been there for 10000+ years so I imagine this will be a problem for her gathering support as it will be a nice piece of propaganda for the Lannisters and their supporters.

That is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Blood claims and crowns are not bound to something as ridiculously modern as being an inhabitant or citizen of a country. They follow dynastic rules, and those go through blood, not through looks, manners, language skills, etc. The Westerosi don't have a say in the question who rules them.

But then - all Targaryens we know are still alive actually do look like they have always looked and do actually speak the Common Tongue of Westeros. So this is really a non-issue.

1 hour ago, Starkz said:

Viserys and Dany going into exile is them religuishing their claim to the 7K. The simple act of leaving Westeros therein their throne and claim is them giving up their right to the throne. Imagine if Dany and Viserys had just  left and never shown any interest in retaking the throne and never planned to. We wouldn’t even be discussing that they were the rightful King/Queen. Now they’re coming to reclaim the throne and reinstall the Targaryen name, despite the fact that Dany supposedly can’t have children which is a problem for another time. 

That is also irrelevant. In a world such as Westeros the subjects do not rule on the claims of their rulers. Only the Targaryens themselves could give up their claims to their rightful property - which is something neither Viserys III, Daenerys, or Aegon did.

The problem with Robb is that he did not only rebel against King Joffrey but also Tommen (who he actually sees as the rightful heir to the throne immediately before his moronic followers proclaim him king), Stannis, and Renly. He rebels against the entire royal House Baratheon, and there is simply no justification or excuse for that aside from 'Well, we can do that, why not?'

25 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Funny you bring this up. Here’s the part from ADWD where Dany is meting out justice on the issue you raise:

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. “They can keep the clothes,” she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

Dany thinks the rich woman couldn’t claim her house as she abandoned it, although the men in her family had died defending their house. Granted, Dany was still in the womb and Viserys was a child, but Rhaella’s situation is similar to that of the Meereenese rich woman. I imagine GRRM didn’t have this example in there for kicks. 

This is a ridiculous example that makes no sense within the framework of Westerosi history, and you should be well aware of that.

If this was true then Aegon II lost all claim to the Iron Throne when he fled the city, the Blackfyres lost their claim when they went into exile, the Starks lost their claim to Winterfell and the North when Brandon Stark fled beyond the Wall, Stannis lost his claim to the Iron Throne when he fled after the Blackwater (and his claim to Dragonstone when he fled to the Wall), etc.

There is no indication that any of those people (or the people following and supporting and dying for them) see it this way.

And there are special rules for common people and nobility besides. Nobility and royalty have long family trees and property that's theirs and that they can even reclaim when it was taken from them. Normal people don't have such a luxury, even less so in a city conquered by foreigners.

Not to mention that many people in Westeros still adore and worship the Targaryens. They will declare for them and run to their banners when they finally return - never mind that they fled into exile once. They do not hate them like many of the slaves in Meereen hated their masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Heroes are usually the good guys. He compares the Starks to heroes and the bad Lannisters to the patriots so. Bran is a 9 year old who just lost his ability to walk and his family and it was the war of the 5 kings, not the Robb chaos war.

Usually. Luke Skywalker and Mickey Mouse can do no wrong (except when Mickey tries to kill his nephew for a split second because of his awesome power) Asoiaf is not disney. The Starks are our heroes, not the smallfolks in Lannisport. In WWI there was a German named the Red Baron, he was their hero, not the Allies.

Robbs war created chaos in the lands his family sought to protect. His father had a regal price on his head that caused him to rebal, Robb didn't have that excuse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert was only the king of the rebels, not the king of all Westeros. He didn't move a finger to actually do proper justice after he had taken power, nor did he make any move to get the Targaryen loyalists on board or reconcile them to his rule.

In addition, there is also no intention that people do choose their own kings in Westeros (the First Men electorate kingdom in Dorne aside). Crowns and lordships are inherited - they remain within a family and a bloodline, the people have no say in who their lord or king is going to be.

Aerys II wasn't brought down by a popular uprising or anything, but by war and treason.

That is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Blood claims and crowns are not bound to something as ridiculously modern as being an inhabitant or citizen of a country. They follow dynastic rules, and those go through blood, not through looks, manners, language skills, etc. The Westerosi don't have a say in the question who rules them.

But then - all Targaryens we know are still alive actually do look like they have always looked and do actually speak the Common Tongue of Westeros. So this is really a non-issue.

That is also irrelevant. In a world such as Westeros the subjects do not rule on the claims of their rulers. Only the Targaryens themselves could give up their claims to their rightful property - which is something neither Viserys III, Daenerys, or Aegon did.

The problem with Robb is that he did not only rebel against King Joffrey but also Tommen (who he actually sees as the rightful heir to the throne immediately before his moronic followers proclaim him king), Stannis, and Renly. He rebels against the entire royal House Baratheon, and there is simply no justification or excuse for that aside from 'Well, we can do that, why not?'

This is a ridiculous example that makes no sense within the framework of Westerosi history, and you should be well aware of that.

If this was true then Aegon II lost all claim to the Iron Throne when he fled the city, the Blackfyres lost their claim when they went into exile, the Starks lost their claim to Winterfell and the North when Brandon Stark fled beyond the Wall, Stannis lost his claim to the Iron Throne when he fled after the Blackwater (and his claim to Dragonstone when he fled to the Wall), etc.

There is no indication that any of those people (or the people following and supporting and dying for them) see it this way.

And there are special rules for common people and nobility besides. Nobility and royalty have long family trees and property that's theirs and that they can even reclaim when it was taken from them. Normal people don't have such a luxury, even less so in a city conquered by foreigners.

Not to mention that many people in Westeros still adore and worship the Targaryens. They will declare for them and run to their banners when they finally return - never mind that they fled into exile once. They do not hate them like many of the slaves in Meereen hated their masters.

Robert wasn’t a good king, but he still was king and at least his rule was peaceful. Aerys certainly was brought down by popular uprising the majority of the 7K wanted him off the Throne. Dorne was fighting for Elia and Rheager, not Aerys. All of those things I stated before where she was born and where’s she lived and her army are not things that I’m saying mean that she can’t have the throne, but rather obstacles to her gathering support, or do you believe her bringing over a bunch of eunuchs and rapers and pillagers aren’t going to cause some problems for her? The Targaryen dynasty ended when Robert became king and she now has to reclaim the throne for House Targaryen, simple as that. Their claims were taken from them and they accepted that when they left Westeros into exile. In regards to the example he provided its hardly a ridiculous example. It shows Dany mindset that when you leave your “house” you’re abandoning your claim to it which can be easily transcended to some people’s view of the Targaryens leaving Westeros. The Starks too have to reclaim Winterfell and the North, but as I said before it doesn’t look like they’re.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Usually. Luke Skywalker and Mickey Mouse can do no wrong (except when Mickey tries to kill his nephew for a split second because of his awesome power) Asoiaf is not disney. The Starks are our heroes, not the smallfolks in Lannisport. In WWI there was a German named the Red Baron, he was their hero, not the Allies.

Robbs war created chaos in the lands his family sought to protect. His father had a regal price on his head that caused him to rebal, Robb didn't have that excuse

Robb losing created chaos. I do believe it was dumb of him to accept the mantle of King. He should of threw in with Stannis if he was planning on marching south and worked with him as Warden and both Robb and Stannis could have had a better ending in the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Aerys certainly was brought down by popular uprising the majority of the 7K wanted him off the Throne. 

Half. 4 out of 8 kingdoms rebelled, you add Dragonstone and Crownlands and Aerys has thr advantage. Targaryen did not lost the mandate of heaven. He put a hit out on Robert and Ned, it was one big noble family trying to save their skins

11 minutes ago, Starkz said:

All of those things I stated before where she was born and where’s she lived and her army are not things that I’m saying mean that she can’t have the throne, but rather obstacles to her gathering support, or do you believe her bringing over a bunch of eunuchs and rapers and pillagers aren’t going to cause some problems for her? 

I dont. Westeros is used to eunuchs rapers and pillagers, just look at the small council. If wildlings can kneal and Ironborn can shout Asha, then the unsullied and dothraki will get on swimmingly in the sunset kingdom.

Dany has an education too, she knows about different houses and the 1 god encompassing the 7, what else is there to know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In relation the Baratheon regime - it doesn't seem to have been the case that most lords of the Realm ever did homage or swear vows to King Robert, or else Balon Greyjoy could not have said to Robert that he didn't break a vow when he rebelled against him. Doran and Oberyn Martell also never publicly did homage to Robert in KL (nor did Robert ever visit Dorne to demand that they publicly bend the knee to him). 

I've always had the impression that Balon and the Iron Islands were somehow overlooked by Robert and his advisors, and that's how he managed to avoid the vow of loyalty - but then they did reach an agreement and he did take a vow eventually. I would understand why Dorne would be left alone, so perhaps Dorne wasn't properly conquered. Yet, the Lords Paramount of the North, the Riverlands, the Westerlands, the Stormlands and the Vale must have done Robert homage, and he obviously had the Crownlands, too. The Tyrells bent the knee. I don't think it's realistic to gather every single member of the nobility (not to mention the rest of the people) to give homage to the king personally (even Aegon couldn't be given homage and a vow of loyalty by every single Westerosi person), but as long as the king has the loyalty of the Lords Paramount and the Lords Paramount have the loyalty of their vassals, it should be all right - otherwise Jon Arryn must have thought of the problem and arranged for further homage.

By the way, is there a tax system in the Seven Kingdoms? Do the various regions pay tax to the king? If they do, that's another way of acknowledging the king - or not.  

Quote

My point in relation to 'right of conquest' and the Boltons is that the Boltons actually have a stronger claim to the North because it has been given to them by the Iron Throne. Conquest is something that is connected to war and war breaks the usual rules - you can say that that what somebody couldn't protect is now the property of the person who took it with force, but that's not worth much in this world if the people you stole it from (or their children, who inherit the claim to that piece of land, lordship, crown) survive, raise an army, and come back to put you down.

But there was a war involved, only not between the Starks and the Boltons, and rules were broken, too (Red Wedding), and despite the support of the IT, the Boltons have to hide behind blatant lies and deception (Winterfell was destroyed and the Stark kids were killed by Theon Turncloak, the Red Wedding "just happened" when Robb Stark turned into a wolf, Jeyne Poole is Ary Stark etc.) to try to consolidate their power and to make themselves (grudgingly) accepted by the Northern families. 

Quote

Conquest only works properly if there is some sort of peace agreement at the end - which was there after Aegon's Conquest but not during the First Dornish War or Daeron's Conquest - they tried to conquer Dorne, and the Martells even submitted to the Young Dragon, but they rose again and they broke the shackles.

 

How did this agreement happen and what did it include? I can't recall it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Robb losing created chaos. I do believe it was dumb of him to accept the mantle of King. He should of threw in with Stannis if he was planning on marching south and worked with him as Warden and both Robb and Stannis could have had a better ending in the war.

Robb was winning every battle while Ramsay torched his house, there was chaos no matter what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a ridiculous example that makes no sense within the framework of Westerosi history, and you should be well aware of that.

If this was true then Aegon II lost all claim to the Iron Throne when he fled the city, the Blackfyres lost their claim when they went into exile, the Starks lost their claim to Winterfell and the North when Brandon Stark fled beyond the Wall, Stannis lost his claim to the Iron Throne when he fled after the Blackwater (and his claim to Dragonstone when he fled to the Wall), etc.

There is no indication that any of those people (or the people following and supporting and dying for them) see it this way.

And there are special rules for common people and nobility besides. Nobility and royalty have long family trees and property that's theirs and that they can even reclaim when it was taken from them. Normal people don't have such a luxury, even less so in a city conquered by foreigners.

Not to mention that many people in Westeros still adore and worship the Targaryens. They will declare for them and run to their banners when they finally return - never mind that they fled into exile once. They do not hate them like many of the slaves in Meereen hated their masters.

I wasn’t commenting on whether Dany lost her claim to the IT or not because Rhaella fled, just pointing to the fact that in Dany’s weird sense of justice she herself lost her claim to the IT owing to the fact that her mother and brother abandoned their home. Let’s get this straight, I’m not arguing that anyone who fled/abandoned their home for fear of their lives cannot reclaim their homes or lands in the future. I was remarking more on your favorite character’s hypocrisy and this instance is a classic example of it. She doesn’t have the foresight to see that the rich woman’s case is similar to her situation before she makes her unjust and arbitrary pronouncement. I also strongly believe there’s a reason why GRRM has this example. Of all the cases he could have shown, he shows us one similar to Dany’s situation and her passing judgement on herself in a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...