Jump to content

Is Daenerys justified in wiping out House Lannister/Baratheon since they tried to do the same to House Targaryen?


Mario Seddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2021 at 9:35 PM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The Baratheons would have killed her and Viserys if Stannis had caught them on Dragonstone.  Tywin and Hoster would have done the same thing.  Daenerys is absolutely justified in executing Stannis and any remaining rebel.  She should choose to give Shireen and Tommen a chance to bend the knee though.  They are young enough to foster away. 

See there’s no indication that they’d be killed though. Tywin’s killing of Rhaenys and Aegon was specifically to show his loyalty because he had sat out of the f get for so long. Be waited to take a side, and had to make up for that to get what he wanted (his daughter as queen). I have no doubt that he was planning it from the moment the battle turned towards the Baratheon faction.

But Tywin wasn’t really influential on Robert. He was around, but the power behind the throne was really Jon Arryn. If the Baratheon alliance managed to capture the baby and Viserys, Jon would potentially have the political foresight to immediately bind them to the throne. Betroth Dany to Joffrey or Renly immediately and do something with Viserys as well. Keep him close to the throne as a hostage, somewhat like Theon, send him to the wall, or marry him to a close ally who can be trusted with a claimant to the throne.

IMO the wall one seems most likely, especially since they could time it with when Benjen took his vows so there’s someone watching over the kid. After a few years in the north, he’d be all both forgotten. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

See there’s no indication that they’d be killed though. Tywin’s killing of Rhaenys and Aegon was specifically to show his loyalty because he had sat out of the f get for so long. Be waited to take a side, and had to make up for that to get what he wanted (his daughter as queen). I have no doubt that he was planning it from the moment the battle turned towards the Baratheon faction.

But Tywin wasn’t really influential on Robert. He was around, but the power behind the throne was really Jon Arryn. If the Baratheon alliance managed to capture the baby and Viserys, Jon would potentially have the political foresight to immediately bind them to the throne. Betroth Dany to Joffrey or Renly immediately and do something with Viserys as well. Keep him close to the throne as a hostage, somewhat like Theon, send him to the wall, or marry him to a close ally who can be trusted with a claimant to the throne.

IMO the wall one seems most likely, especially since they could time it with when Benjen took his vows so there’s someone watching over the kid. After a few years in the north, he’d be all both forgotten. 

Leaving aside any ethical issues, what would have been the practical point of keeping them alive? Once dead, any potential threat to the new regime would be ended.   Robert made his views about the matter very plain when he saw the corpses of Rhaenys and Aegon.  I expect they would have just vanished, like the Princes in the Tower. Who would have cared (apart from Ned, who would be a thousand miles away)?  Or, just say they died from a chill.  Chills are good for removing unwanted children. 

 

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Leaving aside any ethical issues, what would have been the point

In-universe, you can’t just leave aside ethical issues though. The Westerosi do have a legal system and a moral code. And that code would generally be against killing children, even if they have a claim to a royal title.

but even if you do have no morals, there’s a very valid reason for not killing them: assurance that you have them. After the princes in the tower disappeared, multiple pretenders led rebellions claiming to be one of them. We’ve already seen this used in Westeros: Jeyne Poole as Arya is a pretender and potentially Aegon. Alys Rivers of Harrenhal seems poised to claim her child is Aemond’s and that it’s the rightful heir to the throne and there’s an indication in Fire and Blood that there will be pretenders later on claiming to be Daeron the Daring or Maelor.

As long as Robert has possession of the Targaryen children, they won’t be a threat to his reign. But the minute he loses them or they die, suddenly the realm is rife with pretenders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StarksInTheNorth said:

In-universe, you can’t just leave aside ethical issues though. The Westerosi do have a legal system and a moral code. And that code would generally be against killing children, even if they have a claim to a royal title.

 

Granted, but Westeros also has a might makes right attitude and Robert had the might. 

Probably if he captured them, he should've sent Viserys to the Wall and kept Dany to marry to his heir. 

2 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

As long as Robert has possession of the Targaryen children, they won’t be a threat to his reign. But the minute he loses them or they die, suddenly the realm is rife with pretenders. 

Alternate male claimants to the throne are a fairly large threat. All they need to do is have some smuggle them out, and they declare themselves Viserys III or Daenerys I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

In-universe, you can’t just leave aside ethical issues though. The Westerosi do have a legal system and a moral code. And that code would generally be against killing children, even if they have a claim to a royal title.

but even if you do have no morals, there’s a very valid reason for not killing them: assurance that you have them. After the princes in the tower disappeared, multiple pretenders led rebellions claiming to be one of them. We’ve already seen this used in Westeros: Jeyne Poole as Arya is a pretender and potentially Aegon. Alys Rivers of Harrenhal seems poised to claim her child is Aemond’s and that it’s the rightful heir to the throne and there’s an indication in Fire and Blood that there will be pretenders later on claiming to be Daeron the Daring or Maelor.

As long as Robert has possession of the Targaryen children, they won’t be a threat to his reign. But the minute he loses them or they die, suddenly the realm is rife with pretenders. 

The point about the Princes in the Tower was that they left behind them a mother and a sister, and other relations, who were able to intrigue with Henry Tudor. The problem with killing Elia and her children was that they left behind a lot of angry Martell relatives.  But, there are no relatives that would be left to care about Daenerys or Viserys.

Once it becomes clear that Viserys and Dany are dead, through "natural causes", then any pretender will be known to be just that.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Leaving aside any ethical issues, what would have been the practical point of keeping them alive?

Not having to kill them. 

Killing children is rather unpopular and there were just as effective ways to completely nullify their dynastic threats without having to kill them.

Westeros has penal colonies and forced nunnery as de facto ways of ending dynastic disputes. Arguing for their killing is simply being blood thirsty for the sake of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Alternate male claimants to the throne are a fairly large threat. All they need to do is have some smuggle them out, and they declare themselves Viserys III or Daenerys I

Considering the Maesters legitimized Robert through his grandma’s claim, it does increase Dany’s threat level, at to the lawyers. And an ambitious loyalist like Mace could see a baby Dany I as a spouse for one of his three sons to become the king. If she’s “dead,” all it would take is a Valyrian look-alike as Ms. Tyrell and the act is sold. Someone like Doran might say the same, and we know he actually did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/25/2021 at 10:16 PM, CamiloRP said:

it was a joke about her claim. 

No, it's not justified, or else what she did in Slaver's Bay was an abomination. What she did there, and Robert's Rebellion where justified because they where using violent menas, yes, but their goal was to improve the world. Waging war because you are entitled to rule is wrong, in Westeros too, and the themes of the story reveal as much.

Is t better now?

So when the Starks will put Leaf or any other children of the forest at the seat of Winterfell?

Edited by Oana_Mika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

The app isn't the books. Are there any actual quotes from the books where MMD admits that she did it?

"You knew what I was buying, and you knew the price, and yet you let me pay it."
"It was wrong of them to burn my temple," the heavy, flat-nosed woman said placidly. "That angered the Great Shepherd."

"A Game of Thrones" - Daenerys IX


And if Martin,the author of the books,gave information about things in the app I think it's definitely worth to take it as canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Oana_Mika said:
"You knew what I was buying, and you knew the price, and yet you let me pay it."
"It was wrong of them to burn my temple," the heavy, flat-nosed woman said placidly. "That angered the Great Shepherd."

"A Game of Thrones" - Daenerys IX


And if Martin,the author of the books,gave information about things in the app I think it's definitely worth to take it as canon.

So you admit that she never admits that she killed Rhaego. Noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

So you admit that she never admits that she killed Rhaego. Noted.

The what is this line?
"It was wrong of them to burn my temple," the heavy, flat-nosed woman said placidly. "That angered the Great Shepherd."

Or this?
"No," Mirri Maz Duur promised. "Not your death, Khaleesi."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

The what is this line?
"It was wrong of them to burn my temple," the heavy, flat-nosed woman said placidly. "That angered the Great Shepherd."

Or this?
"No," Mirri Maz Duur promised. "Not your death, Khaleesi."

Did she said that she did? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

You don't have to say : "Yes,I did it" in order to admit something.It's just as easy as to show your bitterness.

She was gloating over Rhaego's death, and she was right to do so. But she never admitted anything. She had told that Dany shouldn't enter the tend, she did and Rhaego died. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

She was gloating over Rhaego's death, and she was right to do so. But she never admitted anything. She had told that Dany shouldn't enter the tend, she did and Rhaego died. 

Beside that you have no qualms about people gloating over the death of an unborn baby,the fact that she told Dany to not enter the tent does not prove she did not intended to use him as a sacrifice giving that Dany enters in labour immediately as Mirri starts the ritual.

[...]Mormont grunted, stumbled. Dany felt a sharp pain in her belly, a wetness on her thighs. Qotho shrieked triumph, but his arakh had found bone, and for half a heartbeat it caught.[...]

[...]Mirri Maz Duur wailing inside the tent like nothing human, Quaro pleading for water as he died. Dany cried out for help, but no one heard. Rakharo was fighting Haggo, arakh dancing with arakh until Jhogo's whip cracked, loud as thunder, the lash coiling around Haggo's throat. A yank, and the bloodrider stumbled backward, losing his feet and his sword. Rakharo sprang forward, howling, swinging his arakh down with both hands through the top of Haggo's head. The point caught between his eyes, red and quivering. Someone threw a stone, and when Dany looked, her shoulder was torn and bloody. "No," she wept, "no, please, stop it, it's too high, the price is too high."[...]

"A Game of Thrones" - Daenerys VIII

I showed you quotes that prove that someone's death was intended,plus Martin's notes that you refuse to aknowledge.

Edited by Oana_Mika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...