Daenerys’ Refusal to Acknowledge…

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

Her family’s past will be one of her major challenges when she gets to Westeros. If she refuses to compromise and learn from her family’s past the only way she could rule Westeros is with an iron fist supported by her army and navy of savages and her 3 WMDs. If she can acknowledge that her family deserved to be deposed and that Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn were completely in the right, she’ll have grown enough to have a possibility to develop into a good queen for Westeros.

[EggBlue]

5 minutes ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Her family’s past will be one of her major challenges when she gets to Westeros. If she refuses to compromise and learn from her family’s past the only way she could rule Westeros is with an iron fish supported by her army and navy of savages and her 3 WMDs. If she can acknowledge that her family deserved to be deposed and that Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn were completely in the right, she’ll have grown enough to have a possibility to develop into a good queen for Westeros.

were they though ? 

don't get me wrong , I'm not talking about deposing Aerys . but were they in the right to end Targaryen dynasty? 

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

24 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

were they though ? 

don't get me wrong , I'm not talking about deposing Aerys . but were they in the right to end Targaryen dynasty? 

Kinda, since the Targaryens had violated the feudal contract, seemingly abducted Lyanna and thus openly slighted the Starks, Baratheons and Martells, and cruelly murdered Rickard and Brandon Stark but also Erbert Arryn, Jon's nephew and heir, and ordered Jon to betray and execute his innocent wards and break guest right. 

They were totally in the right to rebel against Aerys and Rhaegar, who could have done nothing to make up for his and his father's actions. 

And after Rhaegar's death there was no point of return for the Targaryen rule.

[EggBlue]

8 minutes ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

Kinda, since the Targaryens had violated the feudal contract, seemingly abducted Lyanna and thus openly slighted the Starks, Baratheons and Martells, and cruelly murdered Rickard and Brandon Stark but also Erbert Arryn, Jon's nephew and heir, and ordered Jon to betray and execute his innocent wards and break guest right. 

They were totally in the right to rebel against Aerys and Rhaegar, who could have done nothing to make up for his and his father's actions. 

And after Rhaegar's death there was no point of return for the Targaryen rule.

how about Aegon, Viserys, Rhaella, Rhaenys, and Elia? I suppose they could raise a king and a regent between them. the problem with Robert's rule (with the power of hindsight) is that he didn't change anything at all. besides, in 15 years 2 civil wars happened in Westeros, one of which is ongoing still. and not to forget, even Aerys with his extravagant wildfire project and throwing favors at his favorites couldn't empty the treasury, despite a Blackfyre rebellion that happened right before his reign.   

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Her family’s past will be one of her major challenges when she gets to Westeros. If she refuses to compromise and learn from her family’s past the only way she could rule Westeros is with an iron fish supported by her army and navy of savages and her 3 WMDs. If she can acknowledge that her family deserved to be deposed and that Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn were completely in the right, she’ll have grown enough to have a possibility to develop into a good queen for Westeros.

It’s asking *a lot* of anyone to accept that her family deserved to be massacred and that she deserved to be assassinated.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, EggBlue said:

how about Aegon, Viserys, Rhaella, Rhaenys, and Elia? I suppose they could raise a king and a regent between them.

Yes, theoretically they could have done so, but with Aerys hunkered down in KL and the sole adult heir Rhaegar dead, I see they felt the need to prop up an adult alternative.

Aerys had shown himself dangerously mad, and while the lords may have had hope for the notoriously melancholic Rhaegar, his choices of seemingly kidnapping other men's betrotheds without repercussion, I'm not surprised they didn't go for "Oh let's install a regent and wait how Viserys or Aegon turns out". And the lords are mysognistic when it comes women on the throne. So, Rhaenys or Rhaella wasn't going to happen. 

A rebellion that included all 7 kingdoms getting involved somehow hadn't been seen since the Dance. They ended up with a regency after that, and that was pretty chaotic. I understand that wasn't palateable to most, as all knew it would make them all turn on each other faster than they could get to KL.

Toppling of the dynasty seemed inevitable. Of course Robert wasn't much of a good king and his brother is into prophecy, fire and magic swords as much as Rhaegar was it seems. But I get why they would opt for what seemed to be the most stable option at the time.

[Craving Peaches]

3 hours ago, EggBlue said:

don't get me wrong , I'm not talking about deposing Aerys . but were they in the right to end Targaryen dynasty? 

The Targaryens sans Aerys didn't deserve to be killed off but I don't think they deserved to just continue being rulers like nothing had happened either. The rebels had no obligation to ensure a Targaryen was kept on the throne, given a Targaryen on the throne had caused all the trouble in the first place.

[Corvo the Crow]

4 hours ago, EggBlue said:

were they though ? 

don't get me wrong , I'm not talking about deposing Aerys . but were they in the right to end Targaryen dynasty? 

I dunno, Viserys didn’t seem so stable either and as for rhaegar, kidnapping maidens of the highest birth who are betrothed to other lords sure doesn’t sound like someone in his right mind will do.

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Toppling of the dynasty seemed inevitable. Of course Robert wasn't much of a good king and his brother is into prophecy, fire and magic swords as much as Rhaegar was it seems. But I get why they would opt for what seemed to be the most stable option at the time.

Well, at least he isn’t going around raping highborn maidens so that’s a change for the better, for all the Others care, he may swing around that flaming sword as much as he likes.

[Daena the Defiant]

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I dunno, Viserys didn’t seem so stable either and as for rhaegar, kidnapping maidens of the highest birth who are betrothed to other lords sure doesn’t sound like someone in his right mind will do.

emphasis added - now, now. That's the Baratheon-centric version of events. There is also a competing narrative that Lyanna willingly eloped with Rhaegar.  Certainly Ned's own private thoughts don't carry any especial hatred for Rhaegar if he supposedly kidnapped his sister and raped her to death. 

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

6 hours ago, EggBlue said:

how about Aegon, Viserys, Rhaella, Rhaenys, and Elia? I suppose they could raise a king and a regent between them. the problem with Robert's rule (with the power of hindsight) is that he didn't change anything at all. besides, in 15 years 2 civil wars happened in Westeros, one of which is ongoing still. and not to forget, even Aerys with his extravagant wildfire project and throwing favors at his favorites couldn't empty the treasury, despite a Blackfyre rebellion that happened right before his reign.   

After the death of Aerys and Rhaegar their right to rule would be extremely fragilized even if the rebels decided to be merciful. And the danger of them seeking revenge would remain here, hence why they would have been sent to the Silent Sisters and Night's Watch in the best scenarios. 

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Daena the Defiant said:

That's the Baratheon-centric version of events. There is also a competing narrative that Lyanna willingly eloped with Rhaegar.  Certainly Ned's own private thoughts don't carry any especial hatred for Rhaegar if he supposedly kidnapped his sister and raped her to death. 

That's true, but either way it still doesn't pain a picture of the Targaryens being stable. It would be easier for the dynasty to carry on if they could say Aerys was just a bad egg but if the crown prince is also acting strangely it makes it more likely people will think the whole line is irrecoverably mad.

[Corvo the Crow]

2 hours ago, Daena the Defiant said:

emphasis added - now, now. That's the Baratheon-centric version of events. There is also a competing narrative that Lyanna willingly eloped with Rhaegar.  Certainly Ned's own private thoughts don't carry any especial hatred for Rhaegar if he supposedly kidnapped his sister and raped her to death. 

Little difference in a feudal society. Only difference it makes is Lyanna was responsible as well.

[EggBlue]

5 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, theoretically they could have done so, but with Aerys hunkered down in KL and the sole adult heir Rhaegar dead, I see they felt the need to prop up an adult alternative.

Aerys had shown himself dangerously mad, and while the lords may have had hope for the notoriously melancholic Rhaegar, his choices of seemingly kidnapping other men's betrotheds without repercussion, I'm not surprised they didn't go for "Oh let's install a regent and wait how Viserys or Aegon turns out". And the lords are mysognistic when it comes women on the throne. So, Rhaenys or Rhaella wasn't going to happen. 

A rebellion that included all 7 kingdoms getting involved somehow hadn't been seen since the Dance. They ended up with a regency after that, and that was pretty chaotic. I understand that wasn't palateable to most, as all knew it would make them all turn on each other faster than they could get to KL.

Toppling of the dynasty seemed inevitable. Of course Robert wasn't much of a good king and his brother is into prophecy, fire and magic swords as much as Rhaegar was it seems. But I get why they would opt for what seemed to be the most stable option at the time.

 

5 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The Targaryens sans Aerys didn't deserve to be killed off but I don't think they deserved to just continue being rulers like nothing had happened either. The rebels had no obligation to ensure a Targaryen was kept on the throne, given a Targaryen on the throne had caused all the trouble in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

After the death of Aerys and Rhaegar their right to rule would be extremely fragilized even if the rebels decided to be merciful. And the danger of them seeking revenge would remain here, hence why they would have been sent to the Silent Sisters and Night's Watch in the best scenarios. 

sure sure. but still, especially after what happened with Elia and her children, it was a more nuanced situation than "Robert, Ned and Jon A were in the right and Dany must accept it ". Robert's regime was the same as Targaryens and it allowed for mad kings to go unchecked on the throne, hence, Joffrey. the rebellion emboldened the likes of Renly who think by having an army and blood ties to the deceased monarch they can call themselves the king. and the new regime made it possible for the Iron Born to declare independence, something they wouldn't have done if the old dynasty was in charge; sure , they would have started raiding the west seeing a toddler on the throne, but it wouldn't have been in the same scale as an independence war.

[James Arryn]

Completely intrigued by the idea of ruling with an iron fish. 

[Daena the Defiant]

14 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Completely intrigued by the idea of ruling with an iron fish. 

Oh man, you just know that GRRM is sitting somewhere kicking himself for not creating some historical baddass Tully warlord called the "Iron Fish."   "Lord Bradfell Tully, the Iron Fish" or something. 

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

59 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Completely intrigued by the idea of ruling with an iron fish. 

Lol I need to spell check before I post anything

[kissdbyfire]

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The Targaryens sans Aerys didn't deserve to be killed off but I don't think they deserved to just continue being rulers like nothing had happened either. The rebels had no obligation to ensure a Targaryen was kept on the throne, given a Targaryen on the throne had caused all the trouble in the first place.

There’s also the fact that Aerys’s mental health had been declining for years and years, and no one did anything. And by no one I mean Rhaegar, who was an adult and the heir. I know, we get rumours about his planning to do something, but at that point it was already pretty late in the game, and he never did a thing. Is it possible/credible that he was totally unaware of how Daddy Dearest was treating his own mother? Still, nothing. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

10 hours ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Her family’s past will be one of her major challenges when she gets to Westeros. If she refuses to compromise and learn from her family’s past the only way she could rule Westeros is with an iron fist supported by her army and navy of savages and her 3 WMDs. If she can acknowledge that her family deserved to be deposed and that Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn were completely in the right, she’ll have grown enough to have a possibility to develop into a good queen for Westeros.

The rebellion was wrong. Assuming the Starks and the Baratheons were NOT planning to overthrow the Targaryens then they could remove Aerys after he executed Rickard, but they don’t have the right to take Westeros away from Prince Viserys. What sin Aerys may have committed was not his fault. 
If the Starks were in any way planning against the Targaryens then Aerys had the right to execute Rickard. Any intentions to harm the Targaryens make what Aerys did to Rickard justified. Rickard was a traitor to his king and the royal Targaryen family.  

[Craving Peaches]

18 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

they don’t have the right to take Westeros away from Prince Viserys

And what right does 'Prince' Viserys have to Westeros?

19 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

What sin Aerys may have committed was not his fault. 

Yes it was. He knew what he was doing when he gave the order to burn the city. He knew what he was doing when he killed Rickard and Brandon. He knew what he was doing when he hurt Rhaella.

20 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

If the Starks were in any way planning against the Targaryens then Aerys had the right to execute Rickard. Any intentions to harm the Targaryens make what Aerys did to Rickard justified.

There's almost no proof that the Starks were plotting against anyone. And what Aerys did made a mockery of trial by combat. The whole point is that the gods will judge who's innocent. But Aerys just used it to torture and execute people.

22 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The rebellion was wrong.

The rebellion was right.