The Shakespearean Tragedy of Daenerys Targaryen

[Oana_Mika]

Deleted

Edited September 27, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Oana_Mika said:

LMAO what argument is this?

How does one gets disinherited but his children don't? I showed you the quote that the kingship clearly passed from Rhaegar to Viserys and since he had no heirs, the claim passed onto Daenerys but you people refuse to see it. Anyways, I'm not surprised to see this from this fandom.

If King Aerys says that Viserys is his heir but he does not also exclude Rhaegar's children from the line of succession then they will still be in the line of succession and can still inherit when Viserys dies. Where does it say that Aerys also disinherited Rhaegar and his children as well as making Viserys his new heir?

[Oana_Mika]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

If King Aerys says that Viserys is his heir but he does not also exclude Rhaegar's children from the line of succession then they will still be in the line of succession and can still inherit when Viserys dies. Where does it say that Aerys also disinherited Rhaegar and his children as well as making Viserys his new heir?

My bad, it seems like he thought of Viserys as the heir because of the news of Rhaegar's death, not because he no longer saw him as his heir.

[chrisdaw]

lol that's stupid long and rambling.

Yes the red door is home, where she belongs. She thinks it is KL, it isn't and she'll find that out. The red door represents her passage of death through to her second life as a dragon, joining Rhaego and Drogo. A dragon as she was always meant to be, ruled by instinct, needing no justification for her actions, burning then flying away.

It can be likened to a Shakespearean tragedy in how her death unfolds but that's the lesser side of things, ultimately her emergence as a dragon will be a triumph, the biggest, baddest, hottest fire breathing dragon that will end the long night is who she has always been, it's her becoming herself, her homecoming, like the human life was just a dream.

Edited September 27, 2022 by chrisdaw

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Oana_Mika said:

My bad, it seems like he thought of Viserys as the heir because of the news of Rhaegar's death, not because he no longer saw him as his heir.

Had Aerys lived he may well have tried to disinherit Rhaegar's children, he didn't like that they were part Dornish I don't think. He definitely preferred Viserys over Rhaegar because he thought Rhaegar was conspiring against him.

[Oana_Mika]

1 hour ago, The Sleeper said:

I heard you the first time, no need to shout. 

Rhaegar died, he was never disinherited. The presumptive heir versus the chosen heir never goes uncontested. And at the time Dany was not yet born. It never became an issue, because Rhaegar's children and Aerys died at the same time and Viserys never inherited anything, but had Rhaenys and Aegon lived you can't automatically assume that Dany would have been Viserys' heir. Primogeniture favors them over Dany. 

That was my bad assuming Rhaegar was disinherited, but Viserys being named Aerys' new heir means that his children lost their claim (Aegon and Rhaenys weren't dead yet). Viserys' line was the one with a claim from Rhaegar's death onward and so Rhaegar's children are still passed over. And since Viserys has no heir, Daenerys is the next in line.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[The Sleeper]

34 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

That was my bad assuming Rhaegar was disinherited, but Vierys being named Aerys' new heir means that his children lost their claim (Aegon and Rhaenys weren't dead yet). Vierys' line was the one with a claim from Rhaegar's death onward and so Rhaegar's children are still passed over. And since Viserys has no heir, Daenerys is the next in line.

That might have been what Aerys intended, but assuming the dynasty had progressed in any normal fashion, that would have blown the succession line out of the water. It still is a moot discussion, because it was done at the last few days of a failing dynasty, had no practical effect and Aerys was essentially powerless with no way to enforce his will. Dany was Viserys's heir essentially in a vacuum. 

And that pretty much will be the framework within which Dany's versus Aegon's claims will be contested. Rhaegar's popularity and primogeniture, which is the most accepted rule, favor Aegon. But by and large these will serve as rationalizations to cover people's actual agendas. 

[The Sleeper]

@Oana_Mika

Jaehaerys passed over Rhaenys in favor of Baelon and still had to hold a great council for Baelon's son to succeed. The situation is identical with the exception of the genders being reversed. 

Viserys also had a clearly chosen heir and the result was a civil war.

[Oana_Mika]

36 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

That might have been what Aerys intended, but assuming the dynasty had progressed in any normal fashion, that would have blown the succession line out of the water. It still is a moot discussion, because it was done at the last few days of a failing dynasty, had no practical effect and Aerys was essentially powerless with no way to enforce his will. Dany was Viserys's heir essentially in a vacuum. 

And that pretty much will be the framework within which Dany's versus Aegon's claims will be contested. Rhaegar's popularity and primogeniture, which is the most accepted rule, favor Aegon. But by and large these will serve as rationalizations to cover people's actual agendas. 

I still doubt Aegon (or FAegon) will be so easily accepted, given the fact that Jon Con wants him married with Daenerys so his claim can be legitimate. Mind you that he is also expected to be her consort, not her king (i.e. : the sort of king Moros was to Nymeria , whom Martin compares with Daenerys : Nymeria had more in common with someone like Daenerys or Joan d'Arc than with Brienne or Xena the Warrior Princess.” ) :

We need the girl. We need the marriage. If Daenerys accepts our princeling and takes him for her consort, the Seven Kingdoms will do the same. Without her, the lords will only mock his claim and brand him a fraud and a pretender.  - A Dance with Dragons - The Lost Lord

Edited September 28, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[The Sleeper]

3 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

I still doubt Aegon (or FAegon) will be so easily accepted, given the fact that Jon Con wants him married with Danerys so his claim can be legitimate. Mind you that he is also expected to be her consort, not her king (i.e. : the sort of king Moros was to Nymeria , whom Martin compares with Daenerys : Nymeria had more in common with someone like Daenerys or Joan d'Arc than with Brienne or Xena the Warrior Princess.” ) :

We need the girl. We need the marriage. If Daenerys accepts our princeling and takes him for her consort, the Seven Kingdoms will do the same. Without her, the lords will only mock his claim and brand him a fraud and a pretender.  - A Dance with Dragons - The Lost Lord

The Nymeria reference is about her being a commander and a leader rather than a warrior and her relationship with Moros has no bearing. 

Aegon's problem is with him being accepted as Rhaegar's son and not an impostor not with the strength of the claim itself. They all consider it stronger. The very reason they recruited Connington to begin with is to lend validity. 

Varys refers to him as a king and they raised him to be one. Dany was not included in their original designs. The reason they want her now is the dragons not her claim. They don't intend to share power. And Connington's dream is to sit him on the throne. 

[Oana_Mika]

@The Sleeper My point was that Young Griff still needs Daenerys, as yourself admitted, to not be viewed as an impostor because without him being validated as Rhaegar's son, he has no claim. I understand your thinking that Rhaegar's children have a claim over Daenerys and the cricumstances that were at that time but as I said previously, Aerys II passed over Aegon (allegedly Young Griff) and Rhaenys. Illyrio and Varys' original plans were to "help" Viserys to reclaim the throne so I assume they thought it would be easier for Young Griff to be accepted after Viserys proving himself being his father's son, just as now Varys wants Cersei on power so Westeros can be weackened (or maybe they just hoped he would be dumb enough to get himself killed, which it did happen but I find it unlikely for them to put stock in hoping being lucky with that outcome) but their plans got a bit screwed by Dany surviving : " If truth be told, I [Illyrio] did not think Daenerys would survive for long amongst the horselords." - A Dance with Dragons - Tyrion II

Edited September 28, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[SeanF]

I expect that Aerys II thought (a) that an older child stood a better chance of survival than an infant or (b) that Elia’s children were illegitimate (one of his delusions).

If Aegon is considered legitimate, then people will consider that he has a better claim than Daenerys has.

People will most probably believe what it suits them to believe.

[the trees have eyes]

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

Not that anyone in Westeros is seriously going to argue “hang on, in Grazdan vs Hargo, you ruled differently” if she rolls up with a large army.

I want this to happen 

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I couldn't find anything definite on the subject on the wiki. I would think the bulk of the Northern army would be with Ned, who was pursuing the remnants of the loyalist army, not participating in the sack with the Lannister army as this was an action Ned almost certainly disapproved of.

I agree with this. The point I thought I made (sorry if it was unclear) was that it is debatable whether Aegon I, the king from whom all successive Targaryen (and Baratheon) rulers derive their right to rule from, had a right to rule Westeros in the first place. If he didn't then do any of his successors?

Daenerys' status as daughter of Aerys is not in dispute. Her status of Queen of the Seven Kingdoms is however, because any children of Rhaegar's would inherit before her. I don't think 'Aegon' is real either but the people of Westeros may well do. In which case they would think Daenerys could not be queen based on the established 'rule' of the succession, as Rhaegar's 'son' would come before his sister. So Daenerys would have to prove him a fraud. With Jon it depends. Bigamy was not practiced by the Targaryens for ages but is it legally acceptable or not? If it is then Jon would still inherit ahead of Daenerys.

House Targaryen as a whole abandoned Westeros. I think the example with the house and the woman was deliberately placed to make you wonder. Daenerys herself did not abandon King's Landing but the house her claim claim derives from from did.

Were the prostitutes formerly slaves owned by the woman in question? If not I don't think it can be considered compensation for servitude as the woman didn't owe them anything with regards to their service because they did not serve her, unless you look at it as the rich Ghiscari elite as a whole having to pay all the former slaves for their work and the suffering they caused them, regardless of the personal specifics.

Of course they won't, might makes right after all, but I still think it's important. If Daenerys goes against her own rulings for no reason then other than she feels entitled to then it's arbitrary and unjust.

The Yunkish slaves were compensated with all they could carry away.

IMHO, the Meereenese elite should have had most of their assets confiscated, and redistributed to the freedmen.  There does seem to have been widespread plundering of the elite, during the fight for the city.   Perhaps that was thought to be sufficient punishment of the elite.

Due process, as we would understand it, seems to exist nowhere in this world.  All rulings by people in authority are pretty ad hoc.  Jaime for example, congratulates himself, for his “justice”, while ordering the summary hanging of outlaws.  Tarly makes up punishments as he sees fit, in Maidenpool.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, SeanF said:

Due process, as we would understand it, seems to exist nowhere in this world.  All rulings by people in authority are pretty ad hoc.  Jaime for example, congratulates himself, for his “justice”, while ordering the summary hanging of outlaws.  Tarly makes up punishments as he sees fit, in Maidenpool.

Jaime and Tarly are arguably following some sort of precedent or custom though, hanging outlaws and taking the fingers from a thief are established punishments, though obviously the punishment was influenced by Tarly's interpretation of the law. And I don't expect everyone in the story to care, I myself just can't consider Daenerys just if she goes against her previous decisions and logic and punishes people who have committed the same crime as others differently because she feels like it. King Jaehaerys tried to codify the laws of Westeros. It is very unlikely but perhaps Daenerys will continue his good work.

[Daenerysthegreat]

11 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

I'm saying that Targaryens have a right to the Irone Throne and to rule Westeros for the same reasons Starks have a claim to the North and Winterfell.

Simply put

The baratheon dynasty gained the throne through murder of the previous royal family and usurpation

The Targaryen dynasty gained the throne through these factors

1) They helped the riverlands in their war of independence against the iron born and got their fealty as payment.

2) They destroyed the Reach, Westerlands and Stormlands army and got their fealt.

3) The north, the vale and the iron islands willingly submitted to their rule

They also maintained their rule through numerous rebellions and civil wars for 283 years, of which around 10 were spent in war ( I’m counting the faith militant as a insurgency than a war). The Baratheon dynasty went into civil war as soon as their original claimant died, even their allies fought them and each other.

 

it’s clear that the targaryens are legitimate, much more than the Baratheons.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

The Targaryen dynasty gained the throne through these factors

I think it's safe to say they gained the Throne through conquest using dragons. Some parts may have submitted willingly but only after they used the dragons to subjugate the rest. The only exception is the Riverlands, but the Targaryens claim rulership of all the Seven Kingdoms, which they can only do through conquest. This appears to be they way by which by which Aegon I became king, and as all Targaryens derive their right to rule from him, it follows that the rights of all Targaryens are based on right of conquest.

[Moiraine Sedai]

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

If King Aerys says that Viserys is his heir but he does not also exclude Rhaegar's children from the line of succession then they will still be in the line of succession and can still inherit when Viserys dies. Where does it say that Aerys also disinherited Rhaegar and his children as well as making Viserys his new heir?

The throne passed to Prince Viserys. Viserys became King Viserys III at the death of Aerys. Dany is his heir. The line of succession transferred to Viserys and Daenerys. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think it's safe to say they gained the Throne through conquest using dragons. Some parts may have submitted willingly but only after they used the dragons to subjugate the rest. The only exception is the Riverlands, but the Targaryens claim rulership of all the Seven Kingdoms, which they can only do through conquest. This appears to be they way by which by which Aegon I became king, and as all Targaryens derive their right to rule from him, it follows that the rights of all Targaryens are based on right of conquest.

Right of conquest is a legal term, which means you have brought a region under your military control  and you intend to rule it.  It confers both the right and the duty to administer that region.  Those who fought you can’t be deemed traitors, but must be given the option to swear fealty.

That certainly applies to Aegon I and his sisters.  Successors ruled by right of inheritance.  Likewise it applied to Robert, although any Baratheon successors would be deemed to rule by right of inheritance.

Both Dany and Aegon could opt to claim either by conquest or inheritance.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The throne passed to Prince Viserys. Viserys became King Viserys III at the death of Aerys. Dany is his heir. The line of succession transferred to Viserys and Daenerys. 

It can't unless he also disinherited Rhaegar's children. If Aerys only makes Viserys heir e.g. moves him to the top of the line of succession, then Rhaegar's children are still in that line of succession so will inherit before Daererys after Viserys dies. This is because, going by the decisions made at the Great Councils, a female cannot inherit the Throne unless she has no male relatives.

Great Council of 101 AC - Princess Rhaenys passed over in favour of male claimant.

Great Council of 233 - Princess Vaella's claim 'immediately dismissed'.

In both cases the female was skipped over in favour of male relatives, even when she was more closely related to the king, as was the case with Vaella, or the 'traditional' line of succession would favour her, as with Rhaenys.

From the wiki page on 'Customs', the section 'Inheritance of the Iron Throne':

Quote

The agnatic principle laid down in the Great Council of 101 AC was slightly modified after the Dance of the Dragons. Thereafter, according to a semi-canon source, women came after all men in the Targaryen succession,^[56] i.e., women could only succeed if the entire male line of House Targaryen became extinct.

From the source itself:

Quote

I told George that when he changed Viserys I from a son to a brother he created an error in that Baelor's sisters did not inherit the throne after him, George replied that women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD. Something interesting and neatly explains Daena and the rest not becoming queen.

So unless Aerys specifically disinherited Rhaegar's children, Daenerys did not become Queen of the Seven Kingdoms when Viserys died.