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

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, frenin said:

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

Sure, but nobody actually believes those attainders are worth anything - just as nobody believes Robert sitting the Iron Throne means nobody believes or thinks the Targaryens are the rightful rulers of Westeros.

These people think in the legal category of the noble house or the dynasty, not in modern categories like states, governments, or bureaucracies.

A scion of an ancient house who has owned a property for centuries is not going to lose his claim to that just because somebody else takes it from him. And nobody would say that just because somebody wrote a documents *means* he has lost such a claim. Those blood claims are much stronger than written parchment or legal prattle.

Not a single character in the books walks around and says just because somebody was attainted he or she no longer has a claim. In fact, the guy who walks around with a written grant signed and sealed by King Tommen (Emmon Frey) is actually supposed to seen as a caricature by the audience (and is ridiculed for doing that by his own wife).

If a Targaryen tells any person in Westeros that the Iron Throne of Aegon the Conqueror is theirs by right then they will agree. Just as anybody talking to Bran and Rickon would agree that they are the rightful heirs of Winterfell and the North. Or anyone would agree that the Lannisters, Arryns, Baratheons, etc. would be the rightful heirs/owners of Casterly Rock, the Vale, Storm's End, etc.

Those are simply the rules of the culture they live in.

For anybody to lose such a claim decades or even centuries have to pass. The Starks have the advantage of time on their side, and the Targaryens the advantage of the greatest feat of Westerosi history. They made Seven Kingdoms into one, nobody else ever pulled that off. And anybody ever sitting on Aegon's throne would remember him and his descendants as the rightful rulers of this kingdom - even after all the entire Targaryen bloodline had long died out (assuming that ever happens).

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but nobody actually believes those attainders are worth anything - just as nobody believes Robert sitting the Iron Throne means nobody believes or thinks the Targaryens are the rightful rulers of Westeros.

More like nobody actually cares  of what the IT might say on the matter which is very different.

The last part is confusing, i'd say that most people believed the Targ weren't anymore the rightful heirs, at least there are 5 Kingdoms that didn't believe it anymore.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

These people think in the legal category of the noble house or the dynasty, not in modern categories like states, governments, or bureaucracies.

A scion of an ancient house who has owned a property for centuries is not going to lose his claim to that just because somebody else takes it from him. And nobody would say that just because somebody wrote a documents *means* he has lost such a claim. Those blood claims are much stronger than written parchment or legal prattle.

Are they?? There are many many houses  that have lost lots of lands, castles if they were not outright attaintd over the course of centuries because those legal prattles, of attaintment wasn't a effective way of ending claims, it wouldn't have made it to the current time.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not a single character in the books walks around and says just because somebody was attainted he or she no longer has a claim. In fact, the guy who walks around with a written grant signed and sealed by King Tommen (Emmon Frey) is actually supposed to seen as a caricature by the audience (and is ridiculed for doing that by his own wife).

Rohanne Webber would like to have a long chat with you then, Eustace Osgrey is as caricature as you can get and  he like you still think that he has a right to those lands and  castles even if the written parchment says otherwise, he didn't want to hear  a hard truth, he still thinks he's a lord and keeps rambling about past glories and little lions, that oesn't mwan he's a lord or that river is his, even if said river was his familes for a thousand years.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If a Targaryen tells any person in Westeros that the Iron Throne of Aegon the Conqueror is theirs by right then they will agree. Just as anybody talking to Bran and Rickon would agree that they are the rightful heirs of Winterfell and the North. Or anyone would agree that the Lannisters, Arryns, Baratheons, etc. would be the rightful heirs/owners of Casterly Rock, the Vale, Storm's End, etc.

Do you think that of the Targ said to any of the rebels that the IT is them by rights would agree??  I dont think Lady Dustin thinks the Starks are the rightful rulers but yet again She's buthurt for not being one so who knows.

JonCon still hangs over that dream even when he was disowned by two different Kings and  i don't think many would agree to that.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For anybody to lose such a claim decades or even centuries have to pass. The Starks have the advantage of time on their side, and the Targaryens the advantage of the greatest feat of Westerosi history. They made Seven Kingdoms into one, nobody else ever pulled that off. And anybody ever sitting on Aegon's throne would remember him and his descendants as the rightful rulers of this kingdom - even after all the entire Targaryen bloodline had long died out (assuming that ever happens).

Nah, decades  or centuries have to pass  so people don't care, not to lose a claim because one imagines that the aggrieved party  would never stop puhing for their claim.

The rest is you treating your opinion as fact, i'm pretty sure that Ned didn't think of them as rightful rulers, i'm pretty sure Robb didn't do either, or Edmure, or...

As Rohanne says, the Mander was called  after the Manderlys and  yet they are long gone from the Reach and  Casterly Rock is named after House Casterly and  yet there is none to be found under that Rock but it's full of Lannisters.

[shadeofthemorning]

Yes and no. Targs are enemies of the state to Robert, if not legally then by implication, so surely any Targ that Robert didn’t already give the OK to that sets foot in Westeros is probably an enemy of the state and whoever takes them in is probably also branded as a traitor. Although it seems like it can’t be that bad, given Robert has no real power over the exiled Viserys and Danerys. I don’t know, it’s hard to tell. Robert’s Rebellion was a mess that destroyed a royal system built around a 300 year old dynasty and screwed up the entire political infrastructure of Westeros. It’s a special case, and a relatively young power, so the rules are ill defined at best. 

[frenin]

9 hours ago, shadeofthemorning said:

Robert’s Rebellion was a mess that destroyed a royal system built around a 300 year old dynasty and screwed up the entire political infrastructure of Westeros.

Did they?? I don't know how could Robert reign 14 years in peace if his rebellion just make people confuse up from down.

[Quoth the raven,]

They were the enemy of Robert Baratheon.  Call it a deadly feud over the right to own the seven kingdoms.  The state itself has no enemies.  King Viserys III would be slaughtered on sight if he were foolish enough to return home without an army to back him.  Likewise, King Robert I would be killed if he were foolish enough to visit Vaes Dothrak after Dany became the Khaleesi. 

Viserys will be killed any number of ways.  That would depend on who got to him first.  Beheading and then his head will be brought to Robert. 

Robert's execution will be interesting.  Tied to the back of Viserys' horse and made to march until he gives out.  The Dothraki will make him wear armor to make the affair more cute and treat their children to the rattle of his armor.  They might even put stones inside his helmet to increase the sound effects.

Individuals in Westeros will have their private opinions on who is the real monarch.  But this is about might.  Those who disagreed with Robert call him Usurper to his back.