Not A Big Fan Of Targs...

[Bran's Muffin]

Robert's cause was right, but I don't see why it was necessary for him to claim the throne . But I'm open to any suggestions...

It wasn't really right. Robert was very over the top. He did everything to extremes. It was only really necessary in his own mind I think. He didn't just want to kill Rhaeger, he wanted to wipe out his whole family. It was only on his deathbed that he let go of his anger toward the Targaryens.

[Yana]

The Prince of Dragonflies, in AGOT it is clearly shown that Robert hated all Targaryens, no matter who they were. He accepted murder of Rhaegar's children, because they were Targs. He wanted to kill Dany and her unborn baby because they're Targs. You know how much Ned tried to talk him out of it. Robert would never let any Targ live, let alone marry his child to one, or crown one. It was blind hatred of anything Targaryen.

As for his claim to the throne, I think that he was put on the throne by his lords, because he was thought to deserve it the most. I don't believe his initial intention was to seize it for himself. It just happened.

[The Prince of Dragonflies]

Thanks Yana and Strangerface. I guess I'm just gonna have to accept that. It is a pivotal plot point that Robert is on the throne, after all. I just can't believe that they expected Viserys, Dany and their descendants to disappear, and never challenge the Baratheon claim. I mean, granted, Robert later on decides to have them killed, but why wait until then? Why not do the deed while they were in braavos? I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to have found two kids running around with silver hair.

Then again, maybe it would. It is mentioned that the Targs had friends in the Free Cities, including Illyrio.

[Must_Not_Be_Named]

On the train of thought that Robert was an Usurper, I'm afraid I have to agree. I like Robert a lot, but his claim to the throne just doesn't make sense to me.

I get that he fought for vengeance for Lyanna. I get that he deposed a terrible king. Thats all well and good, but he then goes and claims the crown when he could have simply proclaimed himself regent and crowned Viserys. Viserys was young and could have been easily controlled, thus staying any repercussions for deposing Aerys. Or, Robert could have crowned himself and married his daughter/son to Viserys/Dany, thereby strengthening his claim.

Robert's cause was right, but I don't see why it was necessary for him to claim the throne . But I'm open to any suggestions...

I would agree with you if Tywin hadn't been in King's Landing with an army. He's the one who really wanted the Targaryens erased. Robert didn't want to be king at all - he simply wanted to drink, fuck, and fight, in no particular order. Since dragon-power, at that time, was no longer relevant, Jon Arryn probably convinced Robert to assume the crown (with his Targaryen blood) and marry Cersei in order to stop the war, which would have continued if Lannister's pride hadn't been appeased.

[Caligula_K]

As to why Viserys and Dany weren't killed in Braavos, or anywhere else, well, according to Viserys, they did try, but it's apparent Doran, Varys, and possibly Illyrio were protecting tbem.

Its clear that Viserys made this up, however, or that someone was feeding him false information. Robert states that Jon Arryn, throughout Robert's reign till his death, convinced him to leave Dany and Viserys alone. The first action he takes against them is when Ned is Hand, when he offers the reward of Lordship for whoever kills Dany and her unborn child.

[The Prince of Dragonflies]

Since dragon-power, at that time, was no longer relevant, Jon Arryn probably convinced Robert to assume the crown (with his Targaryen blood) and marry Cersei in order to stop the war, which would have continued if Lannister's pride hadn't been appeased.

Okay, that makes sense. That appeases my need for a logical reason for Robert taking the throne. Thanks.

[Bran's Muffin]

As to why Viserys and Dany weren't killed in Braavos, or anywhere else, well, according to Viserys, they did try, but it's apparent Doran, Varys, and possibly Illyrio were protecting tbem.

This was probably an instance of "out of sight, out of mind" for Robert and a "Don't kill children" policy by Jon Arryn.

It sounded like Willem Darry had them pretty well protected until he died.

[Green Apple Fossoway]

Or somebody. It could have been a way to curry favor with somebody.

Sounds like the type of thing that Tywin Lannister would do. He'd certainly want to ensure that his daughter remained the queen, and quietly letting others do his dirtywork is not something he is unfamiliar to.

[Three Dog Knight]

Was Aerys really mad?

I have a suspicion GRRM is going to pull a Rhaegar (or Jaime, for that matter) on us and start to show him in a different light. He clearly did mad things towards the end of his reign, unquestionably...but it's been noted by some that it didn't really start until Varys showed up.

Did Varys poison Aerys? Did he use some kind of magic on him? I have a hunch something like this is going to come up. Once we find out what the hell Varys is all about it may become clearer.

[Original Ned's Bones]

I don't really have a problem with the Targs. I think they're fascinating characters, and like a few other Westeros families, you take the good with the bad.

However, Dany has always rubbed me the wrong way. I can't pin it on a particular incident, I just think it's her general demeanor. I get a little tired of her, "I am the blood of the Dragon, I do not (insert verb here)". People bow down to her and she lets them and thinks nothing of it. There's a certain arrogant naivity that just bothers me. I think I won't be able to judge her character until I see what her finished plot line is. I like seeing her as a sad story, or a doomed hero. I don't like seeing her as the triumphant queen. If Westeros does have 1 king (or queen) at the end of the series, I want it to be someone unexpected (as of AGOT). In other words, if someone told me when I started reading AGOT that Dany would be queen, I would be like, "oh, OK". I would rather someone tell me it was Jaime Lannister or Gendry or someone that I would be like "are you serious? How the hell did that happen?!" Before you jump on me, I am not saying I think Jaime or Gendry will be king, I'm just using them as an example.

Hodor,

I think Aerys was quite mad, and Martin isn't going to pull a Rhaegar on us with this one. If anything, we keep learning a little more how sick and twisted he really was. In AFFC we get descriptions of his appearance (scraggly hair, long fingernails) and we hear about how he would bite the Queen, injuring her, in his love making.

[Caligula_K]

Was Aerys really mad?

I have a suspicion GRRM is going to pull a Rhaegar (or Jaime, for that matter) on us and start to show him in a different light. He clearly did mad things towards the end of his reign, unquestionably...but it's been noted by some that it didn't really start until Varys showed up.

Did Varys poison Aerys? Did he use some kind of magic on him? I have a hunch something like this is going to come up. Once we find out what the hell Varys is all about it may become clearer.

I doubt its something like that. Barristan says that Aerys always had a bit of madness in him. He simply got more paranoid and mad later on in his reign, probably after the Defiance of Duskendale.

[Kingslayer]

The best solution to the succession matter would have been to crown baby Aegon, while appointing Jon Arryn as Hand and Protector of the Realm.

[Enguerrand]

Must_Not_Be_Named

Westeros isn’t a meritocracy. Your occupation is determined by your birth, that’s just the way things are. But this is true for everyone. Who asked Eddard to be lord of Winterfell? Who does he think he is to execute people? Who asked Tywin? Yet somehow it’s only the Targaryens that are arrogant to cling to the position they were born to assume.

Of course, the Lannisters were kings of Casterley Rock for thousands of years, the Starks were Kings of the North since Bran the Builder (eight thousand years, give or take a day), and the Arryns were heirs of the first Andal Kings in Westeros.

The difference being that the Targaryen created the iron throne and the united kingdom of Westeros. That’s why the Greyjoys and the Starks so easily can seccede. They feel they have the traditional right to their own nations but not to the iron throne. And they really don’t understand why they should bend their knees to one of their peers, like the Baratheons or the Lannisters, that never have commanded their allegiance.

Yes, he does. And we have learned from Jaime that some oaths are impossible.

Huh? Nothing is forcing Jorah to swear his sword to Viserys.

Does Targaryen blood exempt Dany from being honest in trading for the Unsullied? Does she have the queenly prerogative of lying, betraying her word, and then murdering whomever she pleases?

Once again you confuse what she does with what she is. What she is, is the heir too the iron throne and what she does never change that. Daenerys exalted birth leaves really only two options; to rule, or to die.

Is Targaryen puss so incredibly fine that she can sell it to a savage for an army?

Apparently. But that is the same for every lady of noble birth. They are all sold to gain the family resources.

I would agree with you if Tywin hadn't been in King's Landing with an army. He's the one who really wanted the Targaryens erased.

Tywin killed Rhaegar’s children as a show of faith. As he explain to Tyrion: “As stupid as he(Robert) was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure.â€Tywin’s reward was a marriage alliance with the Baratheons.

The Prince of Dragonflies,

Robert's cause was right, but I don't see why it was necessary for him to claim the throne.

The simplest reason is of course that no rebel would have been easy with Viserys ascending the throne after they had killed most of his family. Even sane kings would remember that.

I just can't believe that they expected Viserys, Dany and their descendants to disappear, and never challenge the Baratheon claim.

If Barristan is to be believed, Viserys was psychologically dysfunctional even as a child. Robert Arryn probably judged it unlikely that someone would champion his cause in a hurry. But I agree, eventually they where bound to cause trouble. Whenever a lord fealt belligerent the Targaryens would be a convinient excuse for a fight.

[Green Apple Fossoway]

The best solution to the succession matter would have been to crown baby Aegon, while appointing Jon Arryn as Hand and Protector of the Realm.

That would have worked well, especially since the sticky blood/brain mixture would have helped keep the big crown on his head.

[Kingslayer]

Assuming that the Usurper's dogs didn't get to him, of course.

[Kingslayer]

Too late, Gregor and Tywin took care of that.

See my last post.

Besides, exactly how good of an idea is it to crown someone whose father and grandfather you've already killed?

An excellent one, in this case. Aegon was a baby and would have been highly pliable. Being raised by Arryn, he wouldn't have harbored any ill feelings against him.

[Kingslayer]

[Red Rex]

I hate to say, although I love dragons I find myself not liking the Targaryens all that much. For one they seem so arrogant and have this high and mighty opinion about themselves that makes me dislike them even more than the Lannisters. Also they were nothing more than invaders that conquered through tyranny, Aegon was no better than Robert really. ALso I find myself surprised that Dany doesn't realize that or perhaps that it should be brought to her attention.

Anyway am I the only one who feels this way or what?

this is just the dumbest thing ive ever heard

[Lord Mord]

I am not indifferent to the Targs as a whole family, but it's difficult to judge them as a whole beyond being a sum of the actions of the individual members, and in terms of uniting the realm and quashing wholesale reaving and the various justices of the few good Targaryen kings, I am inclined to favor them as a dynasty.

There's some bad-mouthing of Daenerys here, but mostly what people seem to dislike is her pride. Firstly, pride is important -- it is the result of and a necessary condition for integrity. Insofar as she has maintained her integrity, she is entitled to considerable pride; insofar as she has failed, she cannot afford to be weighed down with guilt.

When she says, "I am the blood of the dragon," she is pointing out the proposed course of action not only is beneath her, but should have already been understood as being beneath her; it is a reminder and a warning for the future: "Remember to whom you are speaking, and do not propose anything which will compromise my pride." Why should she do otherwise and suffer fools? If her courtiers have pride, too, and integrity, then when something which she won't like really needs to be heard, anyway, they will say it, in spite of the rebuke. In the meantime, they learn that only wisdom will be tolerated.

People should operate proudly. Humility is only for those who've got nothing else going for them.

[ActRight05]

Well put Lord Caspen.