Jump to content

Daenerys’ Refusal to Acknowledge…


King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Adelstein said:

You'll have to ask Jaime.

I would guess that he was shellshocked by the enormity of what he had done - and the general situation - and wasn't really thinking clearly - and that he was so focussed on Aerys that by the time he registered that Rhaegar's kids might be in danger that he reckoned it was too late. But that is a complete guess.

Obviously it didn't happen, but it's not implausible that it could have. It's just one of a number of potential scenarios that sees Aegon survive until Ned's arrival, and perhaps the one that requires least change to the "real" course of events.

I don't think his memory of welcoming his father's men into the throne room and then after have Ned Stark judge him for planting his ass on the IT shows Jaime was shell shocked.

We do know that Aerys preferred to keep Jaime close, and therefore he was not used to guard anyone but Aerys, except for the occasional guarding of Rhaella (who wasn't in the keep anymore). Elia and her children had lived on Dragonstone until then. They were recent hostages and more than likely usually guarded by her brother, before Rhaegar took him along to confront the rebellion. And Aerys would not have allowed Jaime near them either. Jaime didn't think of them, because they were never part of his responsibility to guard before, and he was still a young hothead bitter about why Aerys chose him and how he ended up in the whole mess.

So, it was a responsibility he never had yet and he was a typical adolescent pouting about the unfairness of it all and not having a mature mind yet that could foresee the myriad of responsibilities that lay on his shoulders all at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Why did Jaime just "forget" about the kids? If there's anything to know about Tywin, don't trust him to treat children of enemy combatants well, just ask the Tarbeck kid who got thrown down a well by Amory Lorch (and something Robb conveniently forgot since he never tried to ensure Sansa's safety).

Robb couldn't have done anything to ensure Sansa's safety while she was captive of the Lannisters in King's Landing, and he wasn't naïve about the fact that the Lannisters wouldn't want to get rid of what they see as the key to get control of the North and he was right because even Tyrion had no intention of giving Sansa back and that Tywin wasted no time marrying her to Tyrion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Adelstein said:

At that point, claiming to be acting on behalf of Aegon would have been a nonsense,

Why?

It's neither rare nor uncommon to rebel against a King on behalf of his most suitable for your interests heir. It's one of most foolproof methods actually. It actually makes transition easily since the losing side still believes their monarchs will keep the throne.

 

7 hours ago, Adelstein said:

The war is still very much in the balance and Robert doesn't have himself crowned, even in an informal, impromptu crowning, like Robb's, until after the sack of King's Landing. Exactly what happens at the end of the war remains up in the air.

  1. We do not know the first. For all we know, Robert was crowned at Riverrun by his partisans.
  2. Even agreeing with your premise, his case would be no different than Young G, who still goes by the name of Prince until he is crowned at King's Landing.
  3. Btw, we know around  which time in which Robert and the rest of the rebels declared that they were aiming for the throne... That doesn't mean however they make that decision. It could have been made as early as the trrio got the news about the defenestration at King's Landing and prepared for war.

 

7 hours ago, Adelstein said:

Imagine then a situation where the rebels take KL and both Aerys and Rhaegar have died in the manner they actually did, but Aegon is still alive. Let's say that Jaime, having killed Aerys, remembers about Rhaegar's kids, goes to the tower and manages to protect them. The rebel leaders are left with a lawful king (Aegon), actually in the Red Keep, and over whom they have full control. Suddenly, the opportunity for a regency presents itself, which might appeal more to Ned than having the baby king killed. And Ned is first on the scene.

The situation is neither crown the baby or kill the baby. That is a false dichotomy.

Ned perfectly can seize the baby, keep him under custody, secure the city for Robert and then take the child to the North where he's almost guaranteed not to come back again, kinda what he did with Jon. 

Again, there is absolutely no reason to believe Eddard wanted or trusted a Targaryen in power more than Robert, by that time Eddard had already pledged support to Robert's bid and he is not one to go back on his words.

Just because Ned does not want to kill babies it means he'll suck it up and allow a claimant he does not agree with on power. We have the proof of that in book 1.

 

 

7 hours ago, Adelstein said:

What's more, Robert has no real aptitude for or interest in ruling. It probably wouldn't take a lot to talk him out of actually claiming the throne once you start showing him the amount of paperwork necessary.

Robert doesn't want a Targaryen ruling over him, he hates them all.

And what makes you think Jon Arryn would agree to that as well?

 

7 hours ago, Adelstein said:

I think the key here might be that not only does Aegon have to survive but Lyanna too. If she survives, then Robert gets her back and can go back to Storm's End with his war aims achieved and having taken his revenge on Rhaegar, feeling as pleased as punch, and perhaps more inclined to be generous towards Rhaegar's blameless kids.

Or try and have it all.

 

7 hours ago, Adelstein said:

Remember also the conversation Ned and Robert have in AGoT about the war. Ned remembers it as a rebellion to rid the realm of a tyrant; Robert to rid the realm of Targaryens.

Ned is saying that to sway him from killing children, he'll say whatever there.

 

Honestly, I have never seen any of the rebels inclined of serving under a Targaryen in case of their victory and it matches perfectly with their personalities too.

Your regency scenario only works if, and only if, Jon Arryn and Ned want it to happen but there is little to claim they did and they had to know that by making Robert claim the throne they were marking Rhaegar's children.

If they ever wanted to become regents, they would have announced so. It made thinks incredibly simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Why?

It's neither rare nor uncommon to rebel against a King on behalf of his most suitable for your interests heir. It's one of most foolproof methods actually. It actually makes transition easily since the losing side still believes their monarchs will keep the throne.

 

  1. We do not know the first. For all we know, Robert was crowned at Riverrun by his partisans.
  2. Even agreeing with your premise, his case would be no different than Young G, who still goes by the name of Prince until he is crowned at King's Landing.
  3. Btw, we know around  which time in which Robert and the rest of the rebels declared that they were aiming for the throne... That doesn't mean however they make that decision. It could have been made as early as the trrio got the news about the defenestration at King's Landing and prepared for war.

 

The situation is neither crown the baby or kill the baby. That is a false dichotomy.

Ned perfectly can seize the baby, keep him under custody, secure the city for Robert and then take the child to the North where he's almost guaranteed not to come back again, kinda what he did with Jon. 

Again, there is absolutely no reason to believe Eddard wanted or trusted a Targaryen in power more than Robert, by that time Eddard had already pledged support to Robert's bid and he is not one to go back on his words.

Just because Ned does not want to kill babies it means he'll suck it up and allow a claimant he does not agree with on power. We have the proof of that in book 1.

 

 

Robert doesn't want a Targaryen ruling over him, he hates them all.

And what makes you think Jon Arryn would agree to that as well?

 

Or try and have it all.

 

Ned is saying that to sway him from killing children, he'll say whatever there.

 

Honestly, I have never seen any of the rebels inclined of serving under a Targaryen in case of their victory and it matches perfectly with their personalities too.

Your regency scenario only works if, and only if, Jon Arryn and Ned want it to happen but there is little to claim they did and they had to know that by making Robert claim the throne they were marking Rhaegar's children.

If they ever wanted to become regents, they would have announced so. It made thinks incredibly simpler.

I agree that a rebellion in favour of an heir is a possibility.  The overthrow of Edward II is one example.  So, nobody wanted Aegon or Viserys on the Iron Throne.  The aim was to place Robert on the throne.

I think we disagree about what that meant in terms of Aegon's, Rhaenys', and Viserys' (and their mothers' ) prospects of survival.  Their survival would depend on  Ned taking them into his custody.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Adelstein said:

Imagine then a situation where the rebels take KL and both Aerys and Rhaegar have died in the manner they actually did, but Aegon is still alive. Let's say that Jaime, having killed Aerys, remembers about Rhaegar's kids, goes to the tower and manages to protect them. The rebel leaders are left with a lawful king (Aegon), actually in the Red Keep, and over whom they have full control. Suddenly, the opportunity for a regency presents itself, which might appeal more to Ned than having the baby king killed. And Ned is first on the scene.

Book 1 makes very clear that Ned backed Robert to be king over any Targ baby or child, especially if you take R + L = J into consideration and a regency opportunity already presents itself. It did not appeal to Ned, not even when it concerned his own nephew and he could very much claim regency himself as uncle. It is only at the end of Robert's own life that Ned first admits that Robert wasn't a good king and made just as much a mess of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Aegon is too much of a liability to be allowed to continue living in Westeros after Robert takes the throne. He still has significant partisans, and he's a ready-made rebellion any time a great lord has an issue with Robert. Nor will raising him in anonymity necessarily work. It only really works with Jon because nobody knows that Rhaegar's son with Lyanna (assuming that is Jon's true identity) even exists. 

I don't think that Aegon VI and Edward III are really comparable. Edward was 14 when that rebellion happened, with his own opinions, mindset and circle of friends capable of forming a powerbase. He may already have been knighted (I can't wasily find a record of when this was). Aegon is an infant, and can be moulded from birth to fill the role.

Nor do I think a regency necessarily has to be a death sentence for a "hostile" regent once the king reaches the age of majority; indeed, Mortimer was something of an exception there. Henry III retained his regents as chief ministers once he attained majority. Richard II didn't like John of Gaunt, but didn't go after him directly. Henry VI's later regents, the Earl of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort, survived well into his majority, and Gloucester was brought down by court intrigue rather than the king's disfavour. Edward VI never made it out of regency but what survives of the documents suggest that he was working happily with Northumberland, rather than his puppet. 

And in Westeros, while Aegon III sacked his regents, he didn't persecute them that we know of, despite some of them hving fought on the wrong side of the war and personal enmity towards some of them. 

The main reasons Mortimer bit the dust were not the overthrow and killing of Edward II, because his sons always knew he was a useless twat (and the killing itself was and is somewhat opaque anyhow), but the unfavourable peace with Scotland and the unjust execution of the Earl of Kent: Edward was seeking vengeance for things that had been done in his name and he had been forced to sign off on despite his own feelings. Again, of course, Edward was already a formidable adolescent/young man from the outset of his regency, and although he wasn't at the age of legal majority, he resented Mortimer hanging onto power when he was fully capable of doing the job himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think we disagree about what that meant in terms of Aegon's, Rhaenys', and Viserys' (and their mothers' ) prospects of survival.  Their survival would depend on  Ned taking them into his custody.

Eh.

There wasn't a rebel leader who had the guts to actually call for their heads, hence why Tywin did since he believed that even Robert wanted them dead he'd never dared to give the order himself. It takes an army of Dothraki coming after for Robert to finally take the step.

 

9 minutes ago, Adelstein said:

He still has significant partisans, and he's a ready-made rebellion any time a great lord has an issue with Robert.

That's what the Wall is for.

Whereas i think that the rebels may have fear a future reprisal if they accepted a regency i think the main reason why they did not go down that route was because... they did not want to.

In their eyes House Targaryen had burned too many bridges and the regency offered no significant upside for them to consider. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Adelstein said:

I think Aegon is too much of a liability to be allowed to continue living in Westeros after Robert takes the throne. He still has significant partisans, and he's a ready-made rebellion any time a great lord has an issue with Robert. Nor will raising him in anonymity necessarily work. It only really works with Jon because nobody knows that Rhaegar's son with Lyanna (assuming that is Jon's true identity) even exists. 

I don't think that Aegon VI and Edward III are really comparable. Edward was 14 when that rebellion happened, with his own opinions, mindset and circle of friends capable of forming a powerbase. He may already have been knighted (I can't wasily find a record of when this was). Aegon is an infant, and can be moulded from birth to fill the role.

Nor do I think a regency necessarily has to be a death sentence for a "hostile" regent once the king reaches the age of majority; indeed, Mortimer was something of an exception there. Henry III retained his regents as chief ministers once he attained majority. Richard II didn't like John of Gaunt, but didn't go after him directly. Henry VI's later regents, the Earl of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort, survived well into his majority, and Gloucester was brought down by court intrigue rather than the king's disfavour. Edward VI never made it out of regency but what survives of the documents suggest that he was working happily with Northumberland, rather than his puppet. 

And in Westeros, while Aegon III sacked his regents, he didn't persecute them that we know of, despite some of them hving fought on the wrong side of the war and personal enmity towards some of them. 

The main reasons Mortimer bit the dust were not the overthrow and killing of Edward II, because his sons always knew he was a useless twat (and the killing itself was and is somewhat opaque anyhow), but the unfavourable peace with Scotland and the unjust execution of the Earl of Kent: Edward was seeking vengeance for things that had been done in his name and he had been forced to sign off on despite his own feelings. Again, of course, Edward was already a formidable adolescent/young man from the outset of his regency, and although he wasn't at the age of legal majority, he resented Mortimer hanging onto power when he was fully capable of doing the job himself. 

I agree, Mortimer would not have been attainted had he not forced Kent's execution, and had he just peacefully handed power over to Edward III.  He got greedy and arrogant.

IMHO, a Regency for Aegon VI would have been a viable option.  Once it was ruled out, well, there were alternatives to killing him.  But, I think Ned is one of the few people who would favour such alternatives.  I don't think Aegon, Viserys, Rhaenys, and their mothers would have been publicly executed.  I expect they'd have been packed off to some fortress or prison island, and would have contracted a fatal illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Eh.

There wasn't a rebel leader who had the guts to actually call for their heads, hence why Tywin did since he believed that even Robert wanted them dead he'd never dared to give the order himself. It takes an army of Dothraki coming after for Robert to finally take the step.

 

 

There's no need to do anything publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There's no need to do anything publicly.

It's not a matter of doing anything publicly but doing it at all.

I don't think that they would have ordered the children to bekilled, quietly or not, unless they proved to be an existential threat. The hands off approach to both Dany and Viserys backs that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 10:24 PM, 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.

That's hilarious.  The people of Westeros could care less about that part of history.  What they want is relief from the misery brought on them by Robert and his Enablers (Stark, Arryn).  The Baratheons could not even hold the kingdom together through one succession.  The inept Hands, Arryn and Stark, could not stop the kingdoms from breaking away.  Hell, one of the Starks is responsible for trying to break the kingdom.  And the bastard son of the house broke the night watch. 

The shortcomings of Aerys will not be remembered.  The thing for Daenerys to do is move forward and leave the past behind.  There is work ahead.  The previous administrations left her kingdom of Westero in shambles.  I don't have a problem with reasonable compromises as long as Daenerys is the monarch running the show.  I wouldn't mind letting the north have their independence.  The six other kingdoms are better off without the Starks.  It is the Starks who sparked the last two rebellions.  Good riddance.  Banish them and confine them to the north. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, frenin said:

It's not a matter of doing anything publicly but doing it at all.

I don't think that they would have ordered the children to bekilled, quietly or not, unless they proved to be an existential threat. The hands off approach to both Dany and Viserys backs that.

And Ned’s concern to keep Jon’s identity secret suggests that the children were in danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

And Ned’s concern to keep Jon’s identity secret suggests that the children were in danger.

How so? There are far more issues than Robert killing Jon for Ned to decide to keep his identity secret.

From protecting Jon from crazy loyalists, to protecting House Stark of reprisals for treason to protecting his friendship with Robert.

Even if Robert does not kill Jon, there's nothing positive that can come from that for anyone involved, it's silly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

Robb couldn't have done anything to ensure Sansa's safety while she was captive of the Lannisters in King's Landing, and he wasn't naïve about the fact that the Lannisters wouldn't want to get rid of what they see as the key to get control of the North and he was right because even Tyrion had no intention of giving Sansa back and that Tywin wasted no time marrying her to Tyrion.

Couldn't he have? He should have been more wary after Ned was executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 11:26 AM, Craving Peaches said:

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

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.

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.

The rebellion was right.

Last I checked no act no matter how wrong can take away the claims of your children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 3:04 PM, 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.

 

Also that you can be king by killing those ahead of you in the line of succession in battle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, kingDaemonI said:

Last I checked no act no matter how wrong can take away the claims of your children. 

Okay. So Viserys right to the throne comes from his father's claim, which comes from his father's claim and so on until you get to Aegon the Conquerer. What was Aegon's claim? Right of Conquest. What has Robert done? Taken the Throne by conquest. So what the Targaryens got through conquest they lost through conquest. If Viserys wants the Throne back he has to take it.

Edit: To clarify I'm not saying Viserys had no claim whatsoever, clearly he does as people think so in the story, I just that I don't think he has a right to the throne just by existing, this automatic 'right' to the throne was lost when the dynasty was deposed, but he still has a claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Couldn't he have? He should have been more wary after Ned was executed.

There was nothing more he could have done for her aside from ordering for her release and return in his negociation terms, which he did and he had no spy or mole to try to infiltrate King's Landing and try to free her, and it would have most likely failed anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Okay. So Viserys right to the throne comes from his father's claim, which comes from his father's claim and so on until you get to Aegon the Conquerer. What was Aegon's claim? Right of Conquest. What has Robert done? Taken the Throne by conquest. So what the Targaryens got through conquest they lost through conquest. If Viserys wants the Throne back he has to take it.

Edit: To clarify I'm not saying Viserys had no claim whatsoever, clearly he does as people think so in the story, I just that I don't think he has a right to the throne just by existing, this automatic 'right' to the throne was lost when the dynasty was deposed, but he still has a claim.

Except Aegon didn't "conquer" and take over an existing throne, he created a new one and abolished to old ones.  Robert did not create a wholly new throne and did base his claim on relationship to previous monarchs.  That's why Robert was king out of all the other rebel leaders.  He didn't start the rebellion, jon Arryn did.  He didn't bring the largest army, Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn did.  He didn't take the capital, Tywin did.  He didn't kill the previous king, Jaime did.  He didn't mop up the last resistance, Ned did.  He was the only one with targ blood that is why he became king.  He essentially jumped ahead in the line of succession only by a few spots.  "Right of conquest" comes when either you eliminate an entire house root and stem or the heirs bend the knee.  Aegon eliminated all the scions of house Hoare and Gardener.  The other houses had the heirs or current leaders bend the knee.  The targaryen heirs neither died nor knelt to Robert. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...