Daenerys’ Refusal to Acknowledge…

[kissdbyfire]

The Targaryens took Westeros by right of conquest. And 300 years later, they lost it by right of conquest w/ the cherry on top of removing a vile murderous mad man who had committed atrocities against members of his own family & his vassals.

It is that simple.

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

The rebellion was legitimate.  The atrocities were not.

In all likelihood, at least two innocent children will die when the Dornish take revenge for the earlier atrocities.

When Dany arrives, there will be two factions, the Dornish/fAegon and Lannisters/Tyrells eager for revenge on the other.

[Aldarion]

5 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. 

True, but how many people would have known that?

46 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

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. 

Uh, if they were going to keep Targaryen on the throne, then that would have been either Rhaegar or Aegon at the time of the Rebellion. But Rhaegar was the one who kicked off the whole crapstorm, and then showed up leading Aerys' army for him. And from what I recall of Barristan Selmy's words, Viserys was mad as a hatter even as a child. Hardly person anyone would look to when they decided on who will lead the kingdoms next.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

. Rickard was a traitor to his king and the royal Targaryen family.  

Strictly speaking, possibly not. Feudal treason =/= nationalist treason. There’s no innate obligation of duty/service/loyalty. Feudal loyalty is very personal, and it rests almost entirely on oaths given in person or occasionally by proxy, though the latter was always considered less valid and often used as a hedge. But the point is, the only way you can be a traitor in feudal society is to break your oath of fealty without first retracting it.

Which was something you could do. So for Rickard to be a traitor, we have to assume he travelled to KL and swore fealty to Aerys, and then did not retract it before his ‘trial’.

Now, much like modern day police will often try to act like you don’t have the rights you do have if you let them or aren’t wealthy enough to make them pay for doing so, feudal lords were wont to call their enemies traitors regardless of how valid it was or was not. William Wallace famously demanded to know how he could possibly be charged with treason to a king he had never sworn fealty to. Of course his trial was just a show trial, he never had any chance, and they found him guilty anyways, but the very fact that he pointed out the inapplicability of the charge tells us a lot about how feudal society saw this issue. And his death tells us that power often overwhelms the law/justice. 

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, EggBlue said:

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.

My understanding only extends to the moment when Rhaegar was defeated, and to Jaime killing Aerys. The murder of Elia, Aegon or pisswater prince and Rhaenys was an awful crime and contrary to the arguments some pick up from Tywin Lannister, completely unnecessary. And yes, Robert's response to this showed he would never be a great king, sowed the seeds for what followed. I even disagree with the idea that either the baby or Rhaenys would have needed to be sent to be a maester or septon, septa or NW. Though sadly enough, Elia would have still been separated from her children - they would have ended up as "wards".

Quote

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.

Not the rebellion itself emboldended Renly. The corruption that Robert allowed, his utter neglect to state matters, currying favours for the Lannisters even though he despised them each and favouring his youngest brother. And Renly himself of course who never tried or did anything to put things more to right when Robert lived.

Quote

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.

The Iron Born actually sided with Robert's rebellion, after Rhaegar's defeat. Quellon then sent his sons to raid the Reach and got himself killed. Aside from Asha, the Greyjoys don't excel in intelligence and would seek independence to go reaving the Reach or the North or the Westerlands as soon as the power in KL seems weakened or divided, such as a 16 year long regency.

[James Arryn]

The Rebellion did not embolden Renly, it was an actual, factual precedent. ‘Enbolded’ implies it was inherently wrong, an impossible argument to make for anyone supporting anyone but another Targaryen, and even then it’s playing ostrich with the last 20 odd years of factual history. 

[SeanF]

The precedent established by the rebellion is that if you want the throne, you absolutely must kill anyone who stands in your way, and anyone who could avenge them.  The women and children of your enemies must be destroyed.

 

[James Arryn]

44 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The precedent established by the rebellion is that if you want the throne, you absolutely must kill anyone who stands in your way, and anyone who could avenge them.  The women and children of your enemies must be destroyed.

 

Well, that’s one precedent. Another is that whoever has a claim and the most power to back it is king. That’s…kind of what feudalism means. Succession laws are, again, more scorecard than rule book. Moreover, IF you are concerned with legality and precedent and want to be selective about it enough to call Renly a usurper, the only ‘true’ king in the books is Joffrey (then Tommen.)

Stannis is absolutely and entirely a rebel trying to usurp his nephews rightful throne from a strictly legal POV. For one thing, about the twincest, he knows nothing. He has suspicions based on hair colour and Jon Arryn’s death, only one of which ends up being true. But he has not read the books, he doesn’t actually know anything and has no proof whatsoever. So if you’re arguing against Renly but for Stannis on the basis of law or rightfulness, you are adopting the comical position that it’s fine to supersede at least 2 Baratheons based on the Baratheon usurpation, but to do that to the 3rd in line is just plain wrong because, well, usurpation* is wrong, because reasons. It’s always fun to watch the rhetorical and ethical gymnastics required to proffer this, though…especially as Stannis supporters tend towards either ‘competitive’ debate style or just bald assertions of subjective ‘truth’ with a side order of hilariously hypocritical moralism. 
 

*except, obviously, the last one. 

[Angel Eyes]

5 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

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.  

I take it you're fine with burning people alive.

[SeanF]

52 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Well, that’s one precedent. Another is that whoever has a claim and the most power to back it is king. That’s…kind of what feudalism means. Succession laws are, again, more scorecard than rule book. Moreover, IF you are concerned with legality and precedent and want to be selective about it enough to call Renly a usurper, the only ‘true’ king in the books is Joffrey (then Tommen.)

Stannis is absolutely and entirely a rebel trying to usurp his nephews rightful throne from a strictly legal POV. For one thing, about the twincest, he knows nothing. He has suspicions based on hair colour and Jon Arryn’s death, only one of which ends up being true. But he has not read the books, he doesn’t actually know anything and has no proof whatsoever. So if you’re arguing against Renly but for Stannis on the basis of law or rightfulness, you are adopting the comical position that it’s fine to supersede at least 2 Baratheons based on the Baratheon usurpation, but to do that to the 3rd in line is just plain wrong because, well, usurpation* is wrong, because reasons. It’s always fun to watch the rhetorical and ethical gymnastics required to proffer this, though…especially as Stannis supporters tend towards either ‘competitive’ debate style or just bald assertions of subjective ‘truth’ with a side order of hilariously hypocritical moralism. 
 

*except, obviously, the last one. 

The rebels went almost all the way (but from their point of view) not far enough.

The Martells should have been wiped out and Dany and Viserys hunted down.

if you’re going to go down the path of murdering innocents, you have to be entirely thorough about it, and leave no one alive who can avenge them.

[James Arryn]

Just now, SeanF said:

The rebels went almost all the way (but from their point of view) not far enough.

The Martells should have been wiped out and Dany and Viserys hunted down.

if you’re going to go down the path of murdering innocents, you have to be entirely thorough about it, and leave no one alive who can avenge them.

Certainly that’s one realpolitik perspective, but there are other valid ones.

 

I’d argue that going after the Martells is likely grossly overextending yourself into decades of guerrilla warfare at the very least, leaving yourself open to other, less enthusiastic supporters taking advantage to press other claims and/or independence. Realistically the options should have either been putting Viserys on the throne, putting Aegon on the throne, putting either on the throne but reducing royal authority to a ceremonial position and giving actual authority to a Regent/Shogun or at worst killing all Targs but leaving Martells completely alone. 

[Angel Eyes]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The rebels went almost all the way (but from their point of view) not far enough.

The Martells should have been wiped out and Dany and Viserys hunted down.

if you’re going to go down the path of murdering innocents, you have to be entirely thorough about it, and leave no one alive who can avenge them.

I think the show touched on that point "Leave one wolf alive and the sheep are never safe".

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Certainly that’s one realpolitik perspective, but there are other valid ones.

 

I’d argue that going after the Martells is likely grossly overextending yourself into decades of guerrilla warfare at the very least, leaving yourself open to other, less enthusiastic supporters taking advantage to press other claims and/or independence. Realistically the options should have either been putting Viserys on the throne, putting Aegon on the throne, putting either on the throne but reducing royal authority to a ceremonial position and giving actual authority to a Regent/Shogun or at worst killing all Targs but leaving Martells completely alone. 

Agreed.  The Martells either had to be destroyed or mollified, by sending them Clegane and Lorch.

They were just fed a pack of lies that left them seething.

[Craving Peaches]

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

if you’re going to go down the path of murdering innocents, you have to be entirely thorough about it, and leave no one alive who can avenge them.

How far do you take this though? Presumably they want people left alive to actually rule over in Dorne.

[Angel Eyes]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Agreed.  The Martells either had to be destroyed or mollified, by sending them Clegane and Lorch.

They were just fed a pack of lies that left them seething.

I always wondered how Jon Arryn bought peace with the Martells, considering how similar overtures in canon work as well as a screen door on a submarine.

[frenin]

15 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.   

Could they? Sure.

Did they fancied the risk of getting Mortimer'd once Aegon or Viserys reach adulthood?  Also yes.

Without taking into account that they hated the very idea of a Targ as king, they couldn't really take that chance.

 

7 hours ago, EggBlue said:

but it wouldn't have been in the same scale as an independence war.

They were already doing that under Aerys I...

 

9 hours ago, Daena the Defiant said:

There is also a competing narrative that Lyanna willingly eloped with Rhaegar. 

That narrative does not exist in the books. Although is prevalent in the fan community.

Both rebels and loyalists believe Rhaegar took Lyanna on swordpoint.

 

7 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

I always wondered how Jon Arryn bought peace with the Martells, considering how similar overtures in canon work as well as a screen door on a submarine.

Because Doran is a coward and has the timing of an ass.

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

How far do you take this though? Presumably they want people left alive to actually rule over in Dorne.

They’re in a cleft stick.  Tywin murdered Elia and her children, which is disgraceful, but also solved a problem for Robert, and satisfied his desire for vengeance.

But that leaves Elia’s brothers furious.  They’re bound to want revenge.  Tywin, I accept, is untouchable.  The two minions, however, could surely have been sacrificed.

There were no good options, but the rebels chose the worst.

[frenin]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

The two minions, however, could surely have been sacrificed.

Tywin protected them and honestly, the Dornish would have seen it as an insult, giving them the minions and not Tywin.

But they did choose the worst options.

[astarkchoice]

10 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

I always wondered how Jon Arryn bought peace with the Martells, considering how similar overtures in canon work as well as a screen door on a submarine.

I think a younger more energetic jon arryn may have worked with a sort of 'good cop bad cop routine'

While a semi  honourable man even ned fears  roberts anger, once roused into war he loves it too much esp when he was young and strong like an ox.

Jon would have tried to of course kiss up to them as much as possible and offer various titles BUT also warned them  that if they dont pledge fealty robert will come to dorne..they can bleed his army yes but he will eventualty whatever the cost batter down their doors and when he does everyone must remember stannis, tywin and the seemingly cold ned stark are at his back thus mercy seems out of the question!

[astarkchoice]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

They’re in a cleft stick.  Tywin murdered Elia and her children, which is disgraceful, but also solved a problem for Robert, and satisfied his desire for vengeance.

But that leaves Elia’s brothers furious.  They’re bound to want revenge.  Tywin, I accept, is untouchable.  The two minions, however, could surely have been sacrificed.

There were no good options, but the rebels chose the worst.

The issue is tywin has no good reason to sacrifice his loyal men , the deaths of the kids at ser gregors etc hands is just a rumour and as 'sers' they have a right to challenge anyone who openly slurs their 'good  names'

 If the martells defy robert its war and one they can drag out and bleed the realm with guerilla tactics but ultimately cant win (esp with the ruthless stannis and tywin  in his ear)