Jump to content
BigBoss1

Renly winning would have been a disaster.

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

In legal terms its not, its quite clear cut. 

I could argue that from my perspective I'm the king of England, that is not going to make it so.

Legally Viserys was king?

Id be willing to have that conversation. How is your claim better then Elizabeth's, do you have Parliaments blessing, how many soldiers are under your command in England? If your answers please me I may be a kingmaker for you Bernie.

You can argue, if your argument is the heir, ruled approximately as long as the usurper, coronated in kl, and son follows, ill take it as a legal case

27 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The appendix is a state of play of how things start at the beginning of the books,  legally they are regarded as Robert's children. 

True. 

Im not even disagreeing with you, if Aegon II wasnt king then the 3rd would be the 2nd and Egg is the 4th and Young Griff the 5th. That just gets confusing. 

Im just saying its a matter of perspective and a good precedent for Dany.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Anyone can start a rebellion, a legal claim to the throne is not needed to do so.  

Sure. My point was Bittersteel didnt care about the laws of Targs after the 4th, like the Greens and Blacks wouldnt care if the Dance lasted past one generation. 

37 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Can I ask how do you know the Blackfyres are related to the Targaryens? You don't trust the Maesters and the written history of Westeros but the Maesters are the only reason we know of the Blackfyre. 

Egg. He tells Dunk through the book. Dunk'nEgg is POV, we don't need history.

38 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Same goes for Rhaenyra being made heir by her father. We only have the Maesters written account that happened, we only have the Maesters written account that she thought a rebellion to be made Queen.

You are under the assumption that nothing the Maesters said can be trusted, and that is your prerogative, but how can you argue about any event that occured 100 before the events of this series given all that information comes from the Maesters. 

Im not trying to give off like a fake news vibe, Luwin confirmed Old Nans tale of the passway to Alyssans tower, they dont just all lie all the time. And Maesters cant just totally rewrite history, many Lords and smallfolk lived through history and would verify the crazy moments.

But really you belive F&B? Most of it sure, but the rest? Like, they got quotes by Dalton Greyjoy? Maesters are grey rats and do have an agenda, the Mage confirmed it. Maybe hes not the best juge of character, better then Lady Dustin, but I believe them.

52 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure, but only once they legally become monarch, not before. 

We only have the Maesters word that she was crowned. How can you argue that the Maesters can't be trusted yet take that as gospel? 

You think when young Henry was sailing to fight Stephen his men didnt call him your grace?

We only have, maybe the church's word that Matilda didnt get crowned.

Other people were there, some peasents gonna notice a queen getting crowned. And if you dont like the word of a peasent from two to eight hundred years ago then it is what it is.  We gotta take what they give us.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Exactly, as I said in my first response on the subject; Kings choosing their heirs is the exception rather than the rule. 

 

 

Ive got no real issues with that. I don't think theres really a rule, and if there is it can just get wripped up like Roberts last testimony

Share this post


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

Legally Viserys was king?

 

Yes. Between the death of Aerys and Robert's Coronation there was a period when Viserys was King. 

 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Id be willing to have that conversation. How is your claim better then Elizabeth's, do you have Parliaments blessing, how many soldiers are under your command in England? If your answers please me I may be a kingmaker for you Bernie.

Excellent, that's my point, you can't argue from perspective. A person is either legally the monarch or not, immaterial of how many people call them king/queen. 

It does not matter about soldiers, it matters about legality. 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

You can argue, if your argument is the heir, ruled approximately as long as the usurper,

Legally she didn't.  It's actually something she was aware of;

“Let us together summon a great council, as the Old King did in days of old,” said the Dowager Queen, “and lay the matter of succession before the lords of the realm.” But Queen Rhaenyra rejected the proposal with scorn. “Do you mistake me for Mushroom?” she asked. “We both know how this council would rule.”

 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

coronated in kl,

No, that was Aegon II, Rhaenyra, when hearing about it did the same on Dragonstone.

 Then the prince laid his own strategies before the black council. Rhaenyra must have a coronation of her own, to answer Aegon’s. 

Of the four people calling themselves monarch, Aegon, Rhaenyra, Trystane and Gaemon, during the Dance of the Dragons she is the  only one not coronated in Kings Landing

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

and son follows,

Aegon III inherited the throne from his uncle, not his mother.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

ill take it as a legal case

Excellent. 

Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92, then discoursed at length about Aegon the Conquerer and his sisters, and the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter. 

Westeros law strongly favors Aegon in this debate. The Master of Law went to his death pointing this out.

 Ironrod followed him to the block, still insisting that by law a king’s son must come before his daughter.

 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Sure. My point was Bittersteel didnt care about the laws of Targs after the 4th, like the Greens and Blacks wouldnt care if the Dance lasted past one generation. 

Certainly, but rebels not caring about the laws don't change the laws. 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Egg. He tells Dunk through the book. Dunk'nEgg is POV, we don't need history.

Egg was not alive during the first Blackfyre war.  All his information is second hand. 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Im not trying to give off like a fake news vibe,

But that's how it comes across in this debate. 

All our information about the Dance of the Dragons comes from the Maesters, yet you are happy to argue that some of their claims are true the others lies. It is not a consistent argument. 

 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

And Maesters cant just totally rewrite history, many Lords and smallfolk lived through history and would verify the crazy moments.

Excellent.  Why do you not think anyone can verify Aegon II's decree? 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But really you belive F&B?

It does not matter if I believe it, its the recognized official history of the land. 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

You think when young Henry was sailing to fight Stephen his men didnt call him your grace?

I'm sorry, but that has never been my argument. I can call you President of the US, you can do the same, it does not make it so.

At the start of ACOK there are 2 people claiming to be King of Westeros and later 4 people claiming to be king of the North. all of them claiming the others as pretenders. They can't all be right. 

History and law dictates who is considered a legal ruler and who is considered a pretender and a traitor. Rhaenyra has been branded the pretender and traitor by the laws and history of Westeros. 

She's not alone in this, Aenys I oldest son is also considered a pretender. 

 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

We only have, maybe the church's word that Matilda didnt get crowned.

Legally and historically she's not considered a real ruler of England. 

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Other people were there, some peasents gonna notice a queen getting crowned. And if you dont like the word of a peasent from two to eight hundred years ago then it is what it is.  We gotta take what they give us.

Plenty of people saw Ryman wearing Robb's crown, was Ryman King of the North?

Rhaenyra was forced to sell her crown to raise the coin to buy passage on a Braavosi merchantman, the Violande.

Wearing a crown is immaterial. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. Between the death of Aerys and Robert's Coronation there was a period when Viserys was King. 

 

Excellent, that's my point, you can't argue from perspective. A person is either legally the monarch or not, immaterial of how many people call them king/queen. 

It does not matter about soldiers, it matters about legality. 

I'm sorry, but that has never been my argument. I can call you President of the US, you can do the same, it does not make it so.


So Danys legally queen? And Matilda was legally Queen in between Henrys death and Stephens coronation?

No, I dont know much about British Civics, but Im decent at American. Theres no doubt who my president is, and if there will be it still can't be us. America has a constitution built with checks and balances, its all very legal, Westeros is not. Theon became Prince of Winterfell by having his soldiers in Winterfell. The right of conquest Tywin called it. And America did that too, the Queen of Hawaii, the King of Spains claim on Puerto Rico, the countless indigenous tribes. Things are legally one way until swordpoint, then its another way.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Legally she didn't.  It's actually something she was aware of;

“Let us together summon a great council, as the Old King did in days of old,” said the Dowager Queen, “and lay the matter of succession before the lords of the realm.” But Queen Rhaenyra rejected the proposal with scorn. “Do you mistake me for Mushroom?” she asked. “We both know how this council would rule.

 

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

No, that was Aegon II, Rhaenyra, when hearing about it did the same on Dragonstone.

 Then the prince laid his own strategies before the black council. Rhaenyra must have a coronation of her own, to answer Aegon’s. 

Of the four people calling themselves monarch, Aegon, Rhaenyra, Trystane and Gaemon, during the Dance of the Dragons she is the  only one not coronated in Kings Landing

Aegon III inherited the throne from his uncle, not his mother.

Excellent. 

 Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92, then discoursed at length about Aegon the Conquerer and his sisters, and the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter. 

Westeros law strongly favors Aegon in this debate. The Master of Law went to his death pointing this out.

 Ironrod followed him to the block, still insisting that by law a king’s son must come before his daughter.

For some reason I thought she had a second coronation in KL, maybe not, thanks for the clarification. But yeah the law says no women (or alluded to it) so Rhaenyra used more dragons diplomacy to override that law. At the time of Ironrods death, she was the Queen of Westeros as the master of laws found out.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Certainly, but rebels not caring about the laws don't change the laws. 

Egg was not alive during the first Blackfyre war.  All his information is second hand. 

It does for the rebals. Theres a law that says no Blackfyre money is to be used, they used it anyway. At the tournament in Sworn Sword they raise their cups for their blackfyre king of westeros, its all perspective man

Second hand from like his dad and uncles. Word of mouth from family members who play the game, much more believable then the Citadel.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

But that's how it comes across in this debate. 

All our information about the Dance of the Dragons comes from the Maesters, yet you are happy to argue that some of their claims are true the others lies. It is not a consistent argument. 

 

Excellent.  Why do you not think anyone can verify Aegon II's decree? 

It does not matter if I believe it, its the recognized official history of the land. 


I agree. Im not disputing the maesters call on the decree or pretty much anything in this debate. You asked why these 2 books would say she wasnt a queen, I said because of reasons, none of which were grey rats

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

At the start of ACOK there are 2 people claiming to be King of Westeros and later 4 people claiming to be king of the North. all of them claiming the others as pretenders. They can't all be right. 

Why not? The Wall asked for help from the 5 kings not the one.

 

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

History and law dictates who is considered a legal ruler and who is considered a pretender and a traitor. Rhaenyra has been branded the pretender and traitor by the laws and history of Westeros. 

She's not alone in this, Aenys I oldest son is also considered a pretender. 

 

Legally and historically she's not considered a real ruler of England. 

Legal and Historical are not universal truths, this isnt mathematics or physics, laws can be interpreted and disregarded. All perspective baby

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Plenty of people saw Ryman wearing Robb's crown, was Ryman King of the North?

Rhaenyra was forced to sell her crown to raise the coin to buy passage on a Braavosi merchantman, the Violande.

Wearing a crown is immaterial. 

 

If him and his family called him king then sure, imagine a few hundred years in the future we find the Pink Letter, it could be argued that Ramsay is the trueborn lord of Winterfell, all perspective
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 10:02 AM, BigBoss1 said:

Westeros never had a rebellion against the ruling dynasty until Robert though. If a precedent is set, whose royal arse sit on the throne doesn't matter anymore leading to instability. Westeros would have double the wars ocurring than the previous 3 centuries

Indeed this is what happened.  Westeros broke apart under the rule of the Baratheons.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. Between the death of Aerys and Robert's Coronation there was a period when Viserys was King. 

 

 

So your argument hinges on there not being 2 ruling kings/Queens at once ?

 

If Viserys stopped being king simply because Robert was crowned then the same is true of Aegon II and Rhaeynra when she took the Iron Throne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

So your argument hinges on there not being 2 ruling kings/Queens at once ?

 

If Viserys stopped being king simply because Robert was crowned then the same is true of Aegon II and Rhaeynra when she took the Iron Throne. 

That’s not the same scenario though. One was a contested throne (Aegon/Rhaenyra) and the other one was a few hundred people against the entire realm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

That’s not the same scenario though. One was a contested throne (Aegon/Rhaenyra) and the other one was a few hundred people against the entire realm

We dont know the exact moment Viserys was crowned, but at the time of Aerys' death itself, Viserys would have had the backing of the Reach, Dorne,a few houses in the Vale and parts of the riverlands and Crownlands

 

By contrast, Aegon II had The Stormlands,Westerlands, part of the Reach, some of the crownlands, and a few houses in the Riverlands. 

Remember, those Houses didnt bend the knee when Aerys fell, they did so when Ned marched on Storm's End. 
 

But your logic just supports mine. If he ever sees Viserys as king with so few followers and clearly being defeated, then Rhaenyra should also be considered a Queen in his eyes.

Edited by dsjj251

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×