Not A Big Fan Of Targs...

[TheMadMaid]

she was probably in shock from the little weirdo threatening to carve her kid out of her...

[SD Stark]

How did Dany humiliate her brother?

She tried to do him honor, even though he had always been abusive to her and was obviously insane. He was the one who insisted on making demands on Drogo and insulting him, so he brought his fate upon himself.

The first humiliation was when she took his horse from him and made him walk, knowing full well what that meant to the Dothraki. She intentionally shamed him in a way that every one around would be aware of, and things only got worse from there. He was terrible and likely deserved his fate, but his sister's treatment of him further pushed him over the edge and led to his ultimate demise. It's rather hypocritical of her to rage over those who stole her throne, when she in essence did the exact same thing to her own kin. Kinslayers are cursed by the gods, and as a result Dany is doomed, in my opinion.

I'm starting to not mind her that much, but my dislike for her started seven years ago and it'll probably take a lot for my opinion of her to completely change. My opinion of Jaime has changed, but unlike Jaime, all the detestable things she's done have been through her perspective, so it'll take a lot for me to view her differently.

[Lord Mord]

Your saying Aegon was lawful king because all the people of the realm knelt and swore fealty to him.

All the people of the realm knelt and swore fealty oaths to Robert aswell.

Quite alot of the realm has now knelt and is sworn to Tommen.

The Kings of Westeros did not give up their thrones and crowns to Aegon, you need to re-read. ONLY the Starks knelt and gave up their throne and crown, Aegon killed the rest and gave their lands to others.

The Saxons did not give up their claims to the throne, the Conquerer took the throne.

The Tudors took the throne from the Plantegents on the Field of Battle.

The Hanoverians took the throne from the Stuarts.

You need to understand, that you cannot support Aegon's and therefore Dany's current claim over Robert.

They were taken the same way.

Same way were they taken.

Taken way same were they.

Both of them gained the throne with force, not through goddam laws. Force not Laws. Laws? nope by Force.

Will you please stop looking at this through the eyes of a 21st Century person obessed with legality.

This is "the GAME of Thrones" not "the Legal Acts of Throne Swapping page 3, subsection d, paragraph 4, line 5, word 55.".

Aerys shattered and pissed on the feudal contract, he then lost the throne.

End of Story, the House of Baratheon won and became the Royal House. Legalitys doesn't matter when you a) are sat on the throne and have more support than any other contender.

By your logic, I can quite frankly doubt any European Monarchs are the legal ones of their respective countries. As a previous poster said Queen Elizabeth, can claim the thrones of Germany, France, Russia, and probably most of the others aswell by your "laws".

Xanrn,

You're quite correct. Aegon and Robert took their thrones through war, and cared not a whit for the law. I disagree about your interpretation of my logic.

Also you can argue Dany is legal Queen of Westeros till the cows come home, but infact certain facts that are up in the air at this time need to land the right way for her.

A) Aegon, son of Rhaeger is not confirmed dead. Yes its likely his is, but Martin confirmed Rhaenys was killed but wouldn't confirm Aegon. Aegon's claim supercedes Dany.

Any Offspring of R+L who is maybe called Jon, who may not be a bastard or maybe have been legitmized( and no not by Robb). Would also supercede Dany.

So Dany maybe aslow as 3rd in line for the throne, if you add the chance of twins from R+L then 4th+.

All of which is irrelevant, inasmuch as even if those people are around, they are not pressing their claims to the throne. If the claim by Jon or the presumed-dead Aegon were substantiated, that person would, indeed, supersede Dany in stature. Such is unproved, but we know for certain that Daenerys herself superseded Robert, and thereby Stannis, too.

No matter how many people are complicit in an illegal act, that does not perforce make it legal. If a man's entire country should be complicit in his enslavement, that does not justify their cruelty. If everyone looks the other way when a woman's pension fund is drained, that does not absolve her employer of theft. It merely makes everyone who took part or knowingly did nothing to prevent it culpable.

Yes so Robert used his Targ blood in his "claim" but frankly that was only for certain people (read: the Tyrells) the Arryn and majority of their Bannermen, the Starks and all their Bannermen, majority of Robert's own Bannermen, Tully's and the majority of their Bannermen, didn't give a flyin monkey wether Robert had Dragon blood or not. Also you can bet Tywin Lannister and his bannermen didn't care much either.

So thats 5 out of 8, well thats a majority all nice and legal.

Okay, now please explain. I thought your argument was supposed to be that Aegon and Robert both got their thrones illegally, and I was willing to accept that. Now you're saying Robert got his throne legally. Which do you mean?

[Enguerrand]

Lord Caspen,

You say that the Baratheons might have been legitimized in time -- I would argue that they'd never be legitimate until Daenerys dies childless, or else abdicates, or else produces an heir who subsequently abdicates.

Now, your argument appears to be one of empiricism -- "This is how power works, deal with it." This is very well, but regarding your views on power, is this how things ought to be?

I tried to explain how I think it works. From my own cultural viewpoint it’s hard to tell people how a feudal monarchy should be run.

If we look at the exemples of the law of inheritance in the books, Daenerys claim should be the strongest. Yet, Stannis, who I gather knows more about westerosi law then anybody on this board, has no difficulty dismissing her claim even though he thinks rebelling against Aerys was dishonorable.

I assume that Westeros works pretty much like medieaval Europe. There is no constitution, few hardcoded laws and large body of traditions that has more or less the force of law, depending on their enforcement.

In real life it was very difficult to forswear your heir’s birthright. In Westeros we see several fiefs forfeited when the lord deemed to have committed a crime. That seems to go for the heirs as well. But I know to little to say if this can extrapolated to the throne.

The grand council can apparently make a verdict. Both Rhaegar and Catelyn speaks of this. According to Rhaegar a grand council has the power to declare a king unfit for office. Exactly how this could be accomplished is uncertain. If anyone believed there was a chance that Aerys would keep the confidence. few would dare to oppose him. So I imagine this would more be a rubberstamp for a coup by Rhaegar.

Then it’s attaintment. Apparantly Stannis is the closest relation Daenerys but from that viewpoint he is also a traitor in arms. So he could hardly inherit her, but perhaps Shireen could or would she be passed over too?

theFastPenguin,

Obviously, Aegon and his sisters managed to conquer an entire continent with just a symbolic force of soldiers and three dragons. If you've got a dragon on your side, you've pretty much won.

Not necessarily, while the dragon’s apparantly can wipe out any army, you would need people to consolidate your hold and if the natives switch too small scale warfare your dragons will not make much difference.

Grant Dempsey,

The way the scene was written, she seemed to feel personally guilty for what was going to happen to him. I can only assume the mysterious exchange she had with her husband was a request to have him killed.

Why? I doubt even an appeal to madness could saved Visery from the consequences of his sacriliege. Then he compounded it with making a demand on Khal Drogo in front of his Kos. Even though both Jorah and Illyrio had tried to explain why that was a bad idea.

Dany just got tired of keeping Viserys on lifesupport so she did what her brother commanded and translated what he said.

SD Stark,

It's rather hypocritical of her to rage over those who stole her throne, when she in essence did the exact same thing to her own kin.

It could be argued that a woman’s first duty is to her husband. Drogo was never in any vassalage to Viserys.

[Faceless Man]

I think she tells herself that she couldn't have saved him, no matter what she had done. She's still a cheap hooker though.

[Devil Hanzo]

I'm starting to not mind her that much, but my dislike for her started seven years ago and it'll probably take a lot for my opinion of her to completely change. My opinion of Jaime has changed, but unlike Jaime, all the detestable things she's done have been through her perspective, so it'll take a lot for me to view her differently.

JAIME

The difference I personally saw from Jaime and Dany is that, Jaime feels bad about everything he has done, thinks about it constantly. In SoS he thought to himself that he wanted to be like Dayne, but became the smiling knight.

The only thing he did not regret was murdering Aerys(the guy shit himself )

And ironically, the one crime he does not regret, he gets in the most trouble for(kinglsayer, kingslayer, kingslayer)

DANY

She has not once really shown any long term regret for...anything she has done.

Including that Harpy kid.

[SD Stark]

It almost seems like you're saying she did anything other than react to his asinine behavior. She didn't set him up for anything, and she could have had him killed.

Say what you will, but I think she was more trying to teach him a lesson than support any selfish feelings on her part.

It's the difference between a frustrated parent hitting a child for punishment, and beating him.

Of course, it was doomed to failure, I suspect, because Viserys had been spoiled too long, and might well have had a predisposition to insanity anyway.

Are you saying she was the frustrated parent punishing him, or was she beating him? I can't see it as punishment because I would never humiliate my son so horribly no matter how frustrated I was with him. I'm sorry, but you don't teach someone a lesson by stripping them of their self worth and making others think of them as completely worthless. It was pure vindictiveness on her part; a characteristic she has shown throughout the series. He deserved what he got, but that doesn't excuse her from the part she played in his demise.

[Devil Hanzo]

Yeah.

He was nuts, because he was raised with this Dragon pride, he always had the Targ madness.

It was just compounded by him having to act as a begger.

And i think the Dotharki pushed him over the edge.

I really dont like the dotharki. It is awsome that they got schooled by the Unsullied.

[Ser Vlad]

Devil Hanzo,

She has not once really shown any long term regret for...anything she has done.

Daenerys did feel a great deal of guilt -or rather felt a pang of her conscience- when she visited the good masters she had essentially crucified in Mereen. She also felt guilty for what happened in Astapor after she left. The reason why Daenerys doesn't regret the majority of her actions, however, is rooted in the reason that Jaime does not feel regret for his kingslaying - both feel morally justified in doing what they did.

So feeling regret is subjective, in that one would have to demonstrate to how Daenerys has commited regretable crimes.

Are you saying she was the frustrated parent punishing him, or was she beating him? I can't see it as punishment because I would never humiliate my son so horribly no matter how frustrated I was with him. I'm sorry, but you don't teach someone a lesson by stripping them of their self worth and making others think of them as completely worthless. It was pure vindictiveness on her part; a characteristic she has shown throughout the series. He deserved what he got, but that doesn't excuse her from the part she played in his demise.

Vyserys was, to the Dothraki, worthless scum. The Khaleesi of Khal Drogo was not, however. Daenerys could have let Vyserys walk away after what he had done to her in the Dothraki sea, but you have to remember this man had been abusive to Daenerys for her entire life. Vyserys thought he was a god-incarnate, and it was that delusion that Daenerys shattered. If he was less of an idiot, he would never have gotten himself killed at the hands of Drogo.

Daenerys did not actively seek to humiliate Vyserys, and even tried to help him in his dealings with the Dothraki by giving him traditional Dothraki clothing. She was not at fault becuase Vyserys spurned her offers.

As for her vindictiveness, look at the people she dealt with: slavers and murders. While certain perceived saints advocate forgiveness even for the blackest sins, most humans don't have it in them to forgive. If anything, Daenerys is guilty of being human, in terms of her vindictiveness, which wasn't really shown with Vyserys.

[Devil Hanzo]

Vyserys was, to the Dothraki, worthless scum. The Khaleesi of Khal Drogo was not, however. Daenerys could have let Vyserys walk away after what he had done to her in the Dothraki sea, but you have to remember this man had been abusive to Daenerys for her entire life. Vyserys thought he was a god-incarnate, and it was that delusion that Daenerys shattered. If he was less of an idiot, he would never have gotten himself killed at the hands of Drogo.

Daenerys did not actively seek to humiliate Vyserys, and even tried to help him in his dealings with the Dothraki by giving him traditional Dothraki clothing. She was not at fault becuase Vyserys spurned her offers.

As for her vindictiveness, look at the people she dealt with: slavers and murders. While certain perceived saints advocate forgiveness even for the blackest sins, most humans don't have it in them to forgive. If anything, Daenerys is guilty of being human, in terms of her vindictiveness, which wasn't really shown with Vyserys.

Yeah, if Viserys was a dick.

If Dany ever became an extrmist in her beliefs, she would be like him.

[Kingslayer]

The Kings of Westeros did not give up their thrones and crowns to Aegon, you need to re-read. ONLY the Starks knelt and gave up their throne and crown, Aegon killed the rest and gave their lands to others.

The Arryns and Lannisters were kings that took off their crowns. Later, the royal Martells bent the knee as well.

[Ser Vlad]

Yeah, if Viserys was a dick.

If Dany ever became an extrmist in her beliefs, she would be like him.

I'd say that Daenerys passed the point of extremist a long while ago - she believes in her own righteousness with a fenvor that even the Sparrows would be hard pressed to match. What sets Daenerys appart from Vyserys is her actions, especially her lack of random fits of violence and her concern for the suffering.

The Arryns and Lannisters were kings that took off their crowns. Later, the royal Martells bent the knee as well.

The Martells joined the Iron Throne through marriage and retained their title of "Prince", so I don't know if we should count them in the same category as the Starks and co.

[SD Stark]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it as spiteful or vindictive. If she'd decided to take an ear, or have him whipped, that would be one thing. But just saying "Well, you'll have to walk home" and hoping it would teach him a little restraint? Sorry, but it doesn't reach the threshold for that kind of conduct.

And given her attempt to butter him up shortly afterward, I wouldn't even say she was angry.

As to the actual act itself, you might dispute its effectiveness, and it certainly didn't work for Viserys, but well, it's not an unknown practice in human conditioning and management. See the thread on the new Tennessee DUI Law. That's really a seperate issue though, and mostly irrelevant, since it didn't work on Viserys, and that's that. I don't know what she could have done better though.

I think you're downplaying the incident a little too much. Here's what the book says about it:

"Let my brother walk behind us back to the khalasar." Among the Dothraki, the man who does not ride was no man at all, the lowest of the low, without honor or pride. "Let everyone see him as he is."

That shows that she intentionally meant to dishonor him and she was fully aware of the ramnifications. To the Dothraki, that act was one of the worse things she could do to him. She might have been teaching him a lesson, but it wasn't to behave. She was proving to Viserys that she was in charge, and no longer subject to his abuse. While he deserved everything he got, things like that irked me.

I have to agree with you that I don't know what she should have done, but this was the start of my dislike for her and it's remained ever since. It's also compounded by the fact that I don't like the Dothraki, and she assimilated rather quickly. In her defense, she probably had little choice, but I still didn't like that. At first I felt sorry for her, but afterwards I thought she turned into a little bitch. Just my opinion.

[Devil Hanzo]

It IS strange though, just how quickly she grew to like the dotharki culture.

[SD Stark]

Well, gee, and here I was thinking she was honoring him and making him happy.

Sarcasm and condescension duly noted. However, I posted that section of the book in regards to your allusion that her action wasn't that serious. I simply pointed out that it was significant and to the Dothraki was probably considered worse than losing an ear or being killed.

Needless to say, we obviously disagree and I'll leave it at that.

[Ser Vlad]

It IS strange though, just how quickly she grew to like the dotharki culture.

Not really. She had no choice but to accept their culture - her life depended on it. As for liking the dothraki culture, that's certainly not the case, and its emphasized in the chapter where Dany meets Mirri Maz Durr where she attempts to stop the rapes and the brutalizations. If she implicitly accepted all facets of Dothraki life, she wouldn't have tried to stop the rapes, following Jorah. If she liked Dothraki culture, she may have had some form of perverted appreciation for the rapes. She has neither, however. Just honest disgust and distain, including forcing her vassals to take actions completely outside of their culture.

SD Stark,

Sarcasm and condescension duly noted. However, I posted that section of the book in regards to your allusion that her action wasn't that serious. I simply pointed out that it was significant and to the Dothraki was probably considered worse than losing an ear or being killed.

To the Dothraki, but not to Vyserys, who would much rather have his ear and his life than his "honour" among the Dothraki, which he didn't respect to begin with. And again, I pointed out that the years of abuse that Daenerys suffered at the hands of Vyserys played some minor role in her decision to shame him, and if she was vindictive she would have done much worse, including repaying his abuse with much more drastic forms of punishment.

[SD Stark]

SD Stark,

To the Dothraki, but not to Vyserys, who would much rather have his ear and his life than his "honour" among the Dothraki, which he didn't respect to begin with. And again, I pointed out that the years of abuse that Daenerys suffered at the hands of Vyserys played some minor role in her decision to shame him, and if she was vindictive she would have done much worse, including repaying his abuse with much more drastic forms of punishment.

I pretty much agree with you, except I think her intent was more relevant than how Viserys took it. But, you're probably right about her vindictiveness; she could have done much worse if she'd desired. I don't know, all of Dany's chapters when she was with the Dothraki just rubbed me the wrong way and it's hard to lose those initial impressions. I'm going to re-read the series and see if I view her any differently now that I know how things turn out.

[Ser Vlad]

I pretty much agree with you, except I think her intent was more relevant than how Viserys took it. But, you're probably right about her vindictiveness; she could have done much worse if she'd desired. I don't know, all of Dany's chapters when she was with the Dothraki just rubbed me the wrong way and it's hard to lose those initial impressions. I'm going to re-read the series and see if I view her any differently now that I know how things turn out.

Any particular feature that was particularly appaling, besides the Vyserys saga? Just curious.

[SD Stark]

Any particular feature that was particularly appaling, besides the Vyserys saga? Just curious.

To be honest, a lot of it dealt with Viserys, and the funny thing is I couldn't stand the little bastard. Another thing that bothered me was her pregnancy, because I didn't like Khal Drogo or the Dothraki. Sadly, I was glad when she lost the child and Drogo died. I also didn't like her treachery against the slavers.

Not much really bothers me anymore. I'm not too thrilled with the prospect of her reclaiming the throne, but as it stands she's a much better candidate than some of the others that remain. I actually started to like her a little in ASOS, and I'd like to see her accept the truth about her family and the events that led to Robert's rebellion.

[Red Rex]

Okay, now please explain. I thought your argument was supposed to be that Aegon and Robert both got their thrones illegally, and I was willing to accept that. Now you're saying Robert got his throne legally. Which do you mean?

Lord Caspen,

The mind shutters at your inability to interpret a SIMPLE concept; the legality of an act is determined in retrospect after the result of the action is decided. Both Aegon and Robert acted LEGALLY abtaining the throne, elsewise theyd not have been successful