Jump to content
Mario Seddy

Were the Targaryens considered enemy of the state after Robert's Rebellion ?

Recommended Posts

Were the Targaryens considered enemy of the state after Robert's Rebellion ? Would Viserys and Danerys be executed if they ever reach Westeros ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is difficult to say. They were children. Children are not criminals, not even by the standards of this shitty world.

In addition, considering the dynastic categories this people think in, there is simply nobody around who can judge or disinherit Viserys III. He is the rightful king. He could give up his claim/abdicate himself, of course, but Robert and his government do not really have the right or the power to take away his legal right to the Iron Throne.

If they could - and people cared about stuff like that - then they wouldn't live in the feudal monarchy they live. People are loyal to dynasties and bloodlines and families in Westeros, not to abstract concepts like states or governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

Were the Targaryens considered enemy of the state after Robert's Rebellion ? Would Viserys and Danerys be executed if they ever reach Westeros ? 

Considered by whom?  Remember this, Robert proudly claimed his Targaryen lineage to argue his right to rule.  The only people who considered them enemies are the Baratheons.  Last we heard, the Baratheons aren't doing too good.  Their reign is a minor footnote in history while the three century dynasty of the Targaryens will be remembered for a long time.  Right now, it is the Baratheons and the Starks who are enemies of the state.  And both of them homeless at that.  The stag and the direwolves have suffered humiliating defeats.  Robb is a failed rebel and a known oathbreaker.  Jon is known as a treasonous commander at the wall.  Father Ned is a confessed traitor.  If there is a family who is disgraced and lost its lustre, it is the Starks and the Tullys.  

Edited by Moiraine Sedai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something of the sort. If they are not, then Viserys and Daenerys wouldn't have been in exile. 

It's a bit more complicated than that tho. Robert's claim is based on him having Targaryen blood. If that wasn't the case then other rebel leaders like Ned or Jon Arryn could've sit on the Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Considered by whom?  Remember this, Robert proudly claimed his Targaryen lineage to argue his right to rule.  The only people who considered them enemies are the Baratheons.  Last we heard, the Baratheons aren't doing too good.  Their reign is a minor footnote in history while the three century dynasty of the Targaryens will be remembered for a long time.  Right now, it is the Baratheons and the Starks who are enemies of the state.  And both of them homeless at that.  The stag and the direwolves have suffered humiliating defeats.  Robb is a failed rebel and a known oathbreaker.  Jon is known as a treasonous commander at the wall.  Father Ned is a confessed traitor.  If there is a family who is disgraced and lost its lustre, it is the Starks and the Tullys.  

The Baratheons are in KL right now, or at least their stag is.:dunno:

The rest...:bang:

Share this post


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

Baratheons aren't doing too good.  Their reign is a minor footnote in history while the three century dynasty of the Targaryens will be remembered for a long time

A regime that overthrew the greatest dynasty in westerosi history isn’t a minor footnote in history. Yes Roberts reign was a shamble, but what he did during the rebellion and his following reign won’t be a minor footnote in history. Unlike the Blackfyres, the baratheons were pretenders that succeeded at overthrowing the dragons. If Daemon took the throne and lasted just 5 years before he was overthrown by a Targaryen, I don’t think his short reign of 5 years would be a minor footnote in history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were considered as such by the new regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Targaryens are the state.  Robert was just a temporary occupant.  He was keeping the iron throne warm with his ample bum.  The Targaryens cannot be seen as the enemy of the state because Westeros belongs to them.  They built that kingdom and it is theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Finley McLeod said:

The Targaryens are the state.  Robert was just a temporary occupant.  He was keeping the iron throne warm with his ample bum.  The Targaryens cannot be seen as the enemy of the state because Westeros belongs to them.  They built that kingdom and it is theirs.

Actually Robert gained IT bc he had huge hammer and so he did not need any lizards to wipe out his enemies. Or in Westeros might makes right and only way Targs could get IT back is via reconquest. After all in a way wars are mean how gods tell people who is right and who is wrong. And so winners are favored by gods and losers are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Finley McLeod said:

The Targaryens are the state.  Robert was just a temporary occupant.  He was keeping the iron throne warm with his ample bum.  The Targaryens cannot be seen as the enemy of the state because Westeros belongs to them.  They built that kingdom and it is theirs.

A family should own a whole continent because their ancestors once conquered it?

What a sad worldview...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

A family should own a whole continent because their ancestors once conquered it?

What a sad worldview...

It is the prevalent worldview in Westeros. In fact, it is the only legal concept the people of the Seven Kingdoms seem to know. A noble dynasty conquers some lands and then they are theirs forever. And while you can steal it again - you do need the brute strength to keep it from the true owners to take it back. You can give up a crown and do homage to somebody else - but if you don't nobody is going to say you are not the rightful ruler.

Else Bran and Rickon would be rightfully dispossessed nobodies right now, and not the rightful heirs of the North and Winterfell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

A family should own a whole continent because their ancestors once conquered it?

What a sad worldview...

The Starks believe that half a continent is theirs because their ancestors took it with fire and blood.

Daenerys and Viserys believe that the whole continent is theirs because their ancestors took it with fire and blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand that the Starks, or the Targaryens believe that.

What surprises me is that a poster, from outside this medieval-like world, writing today, supports the same thesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I can understand that the Starks, or the Targaryens believe that.

What surprises me is that a poster, from outside this medieval-like world, writing today, supports the same thesis.

Well, I'd never do that. And the OP is how the Targaryens were considered in-world after the Rebellion.

In fact, modern categories simply do not apply. Even in modern monarchies it would be ridiculous to assume the subjects and rabble monarchs rule over can decide what belongs to the monarchs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is the prevalent worldview in Westeros. In fact, it is the only legal concept the people of the Seven Kingdoms seem to know. A noble dynasty conquers some lands and then they are theirs forever. And while you can steal it again - you do need the brute strength to keep it from the true owners to take it back. You can give up a crown and do homage to somebody else - but if you don't nobody is going to say you are not the rightful ruler.

Else Bran and Rickon would be rightfully dispossessed nobodies right now, and not the rightful heirs of the North and Winterfell.

Brandon and  Rickon are not the rightful heirs of the North., they were deposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, frenin said:

Brandon and  Rickon are not the rightful heirs of the North., they were deposed.

Not insofar as the people of Westeros are concerned, no. Not even the Lannisters think it matters what the Iron Throne decrees on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not insofar as the people of Westeros are concerned, no. Not even the Lannisters think it matters what the Iron Throne decrees on the matter.

The fact that people don't give a shit about the Iron Throne only speaks about the power the IT has right now,  that doesn't mean that the Starks legally have right of a quiet life right now.  The Starks have as many rights to the North as the Tullys and Florents to Riverrun and Brighwater Keep.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, frenin said:

The fact that people don't give a shit about the Iron Throne only speaks about the power the IT has right now,  that doesn't mean that the Starks legally have right of a quiet life right now.  The Starks have as many rights to the North as the Tullys and Florents to Riverrun and Brighwater Keep.

That's just in your head, not the way the characters in the books think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's just in your head, not the way the characters in the books think.

Last time i red the books the Starks were as attainted as them.

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

×