Unpopular opinions III

[mediocre cheese]

I'm not in favor of any hereditary leadership, but on the whole, it sounds like the Starks have been better stewards of their lands and people than the other feudal dynasties we see in the books. The Targs established a dynasty, but fell prey to their own shortcomings a lot sooner than they might have. When a man does the things that Aerys did, there's no reason to believe in any inherent right of his children to continue ruling when he's dead.

At the current moment perhaps, but there is no indication this is a long term thing. There are plenty of starks who appear to have been bad rulers. Brandon the Bad for one. The targs didn't fall prey to their shortcomings, they lost a war. Had Rhaegar been a better warrior or Jon Connington been a more ruthless commander they would have remained in power.

The same thing happens to the tullys and starks, by the way. Both groups pissed off the some of their bannerman, and those bannermen proved to be better at war then they did so they lost their lands and titles. Its not like there was an election where the people of westeros voted for Robert and not for Aerys. If anything it appears that the targaryens had more popular support, but less skill at arms.

[ARYa_Nym]

That's interesting, but I don't think we have enough info.

My understanding is that when Ned arrived in KL Rhaegar's children were already dead - and Tywin is the only one to blame for that, so it's not like the rebels had any choice at that point.

So I ask again: what were they supposed to do?

The Targaryens were usurpers too, by the way.

You agreed that the killing of Rhaegar's children was awful. There you go. It's a necessary act if you want power for yourself. Tywin wanted his daughter to be a Queen and now she can. Robert hated Rhaegar and now his children are dead.

Westeros wasn't united before they came. They were the ones who made the Seven Kingdoms.

[JKeats]

That's interesting, but I don't think we have enough info.

My understanding is that when Ned arrived in KL Rhaegar's children were already dead - and Tywin is the only one to blame for that, so it's not like the rebels had any choice at that point.

I suppose the question is: what were the rebels' objectives? Killing Aerys for a certainty. Killing Rhaegar as well since he is 1) an enemy commander intent to killing or capturing them and 2) the guy who supposedly kidnapped and raped Lyanna.

Okay, so far so good. Robert may have wanted Rhaegar's children dead as well, but we know not all the rebels did, certainly not Robert's second in command Ned Stark. So what would have happened if Ned Stark arrived at King's Landing before Tywin Lannister. Rhaenys, Aegon, and Elia would almost certainly survive. Would the rebels have accepted Aegon as king, with some high lord as regent till he turned 16 or whatever age? I'm not sure the text supports that.

[Alexia]

"Your servants Eladon Goldenhair and Loyal Spear were poisoned at a wineshop where they were accustomed to stop each night upon their rounds."

"Have any of the murderers been captured?"

"Your servants have arrested the owner of the wineshop and his daughters. They all plead their ignorance and beg for mercy."

"Give them to the Shavepate. Skahaz, keep each apart from the others and put them to the question."

"It will be done, Your Worship. Would you have me question them sweetly or sharply?"

"Sweetly, to begin with. Hear what tales they tell and what names they give you. It may be they had no part in this. Nine, the noble Reznak said. Who else?

"Three freedmen, murdered int heir homes. A moneylender, a cobbler and the harpist Rylona Rhee. They cut her fingers off before they killed her."

"We have no captives but this wineseller?"

"None, this one grieves to confess. We beg your pardon."

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon's mercy.

"Skahaz, I have changed my mind. Question the man sharply."

"I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him."

"Do as you think best, but bring me names."

I could mention Masha Heddle, Tywin, or even Cersei, but why not just let the dragon speak for herself?

As a matter of fact, didn't Gregor have someone's daughter tortured to wring information from the parent?

She cruxified slavers who had just done the same thing to innocent children. Some people would call that an eye for an eye.

Some would call it collective punishment without any attempt to ascertain guilt.

[ZacharyB]

She has some crazy ideas, maybe, but that's the extent of her craziness. Walking into a fire and trying to end slavery may be a little crazy, but they're also bold and honourable acts that have made her who she is.

I think all Targaryens are two different kinds of crazy. Aerys crazy and Rhaegar crazy. Aerys crazy is just bat shit crazy. Rhaegar crazy is paranoia. Obsession over prophecies, for example. Dany seems to be going down the Rhaegar crazy path, which seems like a better path than the Aerys path, but still...crazy.

That said, paranoia can't be too harmful in a ruler, right?

[mediocre cheese]

I see that you're a subscriber to the philosophy of divine right of kings. ;)

Well yeah. Clearly the ideal system is a democracy or something like that, but if your going to have a king its better to have the dynastic line be set in stone than not. It seems weird to the modern eye to allow a clearly bad king like to aerys rule, but if you say a king can be overthrown for executing leading lords without trial, whats to stop someone from saying the king can be overthrown in he bankrupts the realm (ala robert) or from there saying a king can be overthrown if one guy personally thinks he can do a better job.

A bizarre tyrant like Caligula gets a lot of attention, but he never for a moment threatened the long term stability of the roman empire. By contrast the later empire falls because it constantly divided by civil wars and unable to cope with outside threats.

That indicates that Robert was the leading rebel candidate for kingship even before Aerys' death. There must have been some decision among the rebels to seat Robert there

Of the three Ned can't be king because the high septon wouldn't anoint him (aegon dated his realm to being anointed by the high septon) as he's not a believer in the faith of the seven, whereas Jon is a middle aged man whose childless, making him a really poor candidate in terms of establishing succession. Realistically Robert is the only one of the three they could have chosen, and it isn't hurt by the fact that he's the great warrior who personally killed rhaegar whereas neither ned nor jon seem to have been known for being great swordsmen.

[ARYa_Nym]

I think all Targaryens are two different kinds of crazy. Aerys crazy and Rhaegar crazy. Aerys crazy is just bat shit crazy. Rhaegar crazy is paranoia. Obsession over prophecies, for example. Dany seems to be going down the Rhaegar crazy path, which seems like a better path than the Aerys path, but still...crazy.

That said, paranoia can't be too harmful in a ruler, right?

Or they can be like Maester Aemon. I found him to be completely rational and sane.

[oba]

One thing I'd really like to know is when exactly Robert and his allies decided not just to rebel against Aerys, but to actually claim the throne itself. Robert was the military commander of the rebel forces, but he was a ward of Jon Arryn when the mess started. Perhaps Lord Jon was just too old to be a field commander, while Robert was famed for his martial skill.

I seem to recall several years back someone posting that Martin answered this at either a convention or book signing, and that he said Robert declared from the crown at some point after the Battle of the Bells but before the Battle of the Trident.

[Raksha the Demon]

:bowdown:

Thanks for bringing sanity back to the ASOIAF fandom, Raksha. I've been saying this forever.

The man was the original Walder Frey - violates the guest right by trying to kill a kid.

As for loving his sister - please please gimme a break. It was sexual obsession - plain and simple. If he loved her his ass would have been back in KL to help her.

He's also a neglectful father - at least Robert's bastards have a memory of him.

And umm, anyone who's not suicidal would have tried to stop Aerys - even Barristan Selmy

I think many fans love Jaime because he's gorgeous and charismatic and has a few good lines. Personally, I have always been distrustful of the combo of arrogance and physical beauty; unless mitigated by other qualities or the arrogance is tempered and kept under control. And there's a late-adolescent arrogance about Jaime; possibly because, in my opinion, Jaime did not grow up much between his killing of Aerys and the loss of his arm. He is quite well-written as a character. But I deplore his attitude towards his children; also his lack of remorse about his crippling Bran.

Jaime is often excused for shoving a nine-year-old out a high window to kill him because of the potential consequences of letting a witness to his incest with Cersei live. I am not sure that ethically you can excuse the attempted killing of an innocent in the name of self-preservation, particularly a child. Jaime and Cersei should have known that the day would come when their incest would be witnessed; and they should have planned for a quick escape with the children and several loyal men should they be discovered (or at least one of the twins escaping with the kids) .

Yes, others might have tried to stop Aerys from blowing up King's Landing; but Barristan would not have later acted as if stabbing a madman in the back was a noble deed. Stopping Aerys, either by killing or imprisoning/immobilizing him, was necessary; it was not a great feat of arms. Jaime acts later as if he killed Aerys solely out of concern for the people of King's Landing. I am still unsure why Jaime could not have subdued Aerys, bound and gagged him, and then run off to stop the pyromancers.

[brashcandy]

"Your servants Eladon Goldenhair and Loyal Spear were poisoned at a wineshop where they were accustomed to stop each night upon their rounds."

"Have any of the murderers been captured?"

"Your servants have arrested the owner of the wineshop and his daughters. They all plead their ignorance and beg for mercy."

"Give them to the Shavepate. Skahaz, keep each apart from the others and put them to the question."

"It will be done, Your Worship. Would you have me question them sweetly or sharply?"

"Sweetly, to begin with. Hear what tales they tell and what names they give you. It may be they had no part in this. Nine, the noble Reznak said. Who else?

"Three freedmen, murdered int heir homes. A moneylender, a cobbler and the harpist Rylona Rhee. They cut her fingers off before they killed her."

"We have no captives but this wineseller?"

"None, this one grieves to confess. We beg your pardon."

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon's mercy.

"Skahaz, I have changed my mind. Question the man sharply."

"I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him."

"Do as you think best, but bring me names."

Again, please tell me how this shows that Dany is going crazy or prone to craziness? All it shows to me is that she desperate to find out about murderous criminals and she's had to put mercy aside in order to find out information that will save countless lives.

[Marcus Cicero]

My personal opinion is that while Aerys committed crimes and they were justified in revolting against him, but that doesn't give the baratheons the right to steal king's landing and dragonstone from the targaryens and murder rhaegar's children (the heir to the throne). The king should be subject to the law, and doesn't have the right kill anybody he wants, but his grandchildren can't be killed and have their birthright stolen from them on that account. Ned and Robert would have been the right to fight aerys and kill him if need be, but they were not in the right to take the throne and condone the murder of children.

Bah. Nobody has the 'right' to rule. Those who can exert power do so. The Targaryens weren't strong enough to hold onto the kingdom and defeat a rebellion. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing wrong with their removal. Also, you're kind of contradicting yourself. You're basing your argument on the notion that the Targaryens, above all others, have a right to rule Westeros. Yet you also say that they should be subject to law. It seems to me that if someone has an inborn right to be King, thus making them 'better' then other humans, then why should they be "subject" to the same law? You're mixing a divine right doctrine with the idea that monarchs should be bound to the same laws. This kind of contradictory arrangement has played out before. Charles I of England considered himself a divinely appointed monarch. Parliament disagreed and thought that the King should be bound to the constitution. The result was civil war. Nobody who thinks that they have an innate right to rule and dominate a group of people is going to think that they should all be subject to the same law.

[Alexia]

Again, please tell me how this shows that Dany is going crazy or prone to craziness? All it shows to me is that she desperate to find out about murderous criminals and she's had to put mercy aside in order to find out information that will save countless lives.

You mean that she's taken up torturing the children of bystanders in front of their parents to force the parents and/or said daughters to say names that they may or may not know, so that more people who may or may not be guilty can be taken in for torture? No, this is nothing like the Blue Bard offering up the name of Loras Tyrell, Ser Tallad, and Co, no siree Bob!

It certainly shows a bent for cruelty, though we already saw that in the crucifixions and burnings that she's presided over. It definitely shows similarity to Aerys. Although the final chapter of ADWD is when she really starts to lose it.

[ZacharyB]

Or they can be like Maester Aemon. I found him to be completely rational and sane.

Mostly. I think there may have been a bit of Rhaegar under the surface that only came out in his death bed (The sphinx is the riddle not the riddler).

ADWD spoilers

Aegon seems to be an exception as well, but I'm willing to shove that aside from him not being a Targaryen. On the chance that he is a Targaryen (I don't want to turn this to a spoilered Aegon debate), I attribute it to him not being born of incest.

[Geddus]

You agreed that the killing of Rhaegar's children was awful. There you go. It's a necessary act if you want power for yourself. Tywin wanted his daughter to be a Queen and now she can. Robert hated Rhaegar and now his children are dead.

It wasn't necessary to kill them (they could have been exiled for example), just safer. Anyway, what I meant was that the rebels couldn't stop until they either lost or managed to overthrow the Targaryens.

[brashcandy]

You mean that she's taken up torturing the children of bystanders in front of their parents to force the parents and/or said daughters to say names that they may or may not know, so that more people who may or may not be guilty can be taken in for torture? No, this is nothing like the Blue Bard offering up the name of Loras Tyrell, Ser Tallad, and Co, no siree Bob!

It certainly shows a bent for cruelty, though we already saw that in the crucifixions and burnings that she's presided over. It definitely shows similarity to Aerys. Although the final chapter of ADWD is when she really starts to lose it.

A bent for cruelty.. I'd argue it shows a bent for justice.. which sometimes involves cruelty sad to say. Dany has tried as much as possible to do the right thing, and I just don't think it's fair to pull out two incidents that occurred over the space of 2 books and use them to blacklist a character that is one of one the few people actually trying to some good.

And she didn't lose it in that last chapter, she actually gained a great deal. Self awareness not the least of it. But I know people have wildly different readings of this, so it's up to interpretation, that's just my opinion at least.

Burnings? Are you speaking about Mirri Maz Duur? If someone had just killed my husband and unborn child after I saved them, yeah I'd burn them too.

[ARYa_Nym]

It wasn't necessary to kill them (they could have been exiled for example), just safer. Anyway, what I meant was that the rebels couldn't stop until they either lost or managed to overthrow the Targaryens.

Right. That doesn't make them not rebels though. It doesn't mean that the Targaryens can't see them as Usurpers. How will Jon feel about being essentially cheated out of his birthright? GRRM can write a way around it but still. Ned should have told Jon exactly what he was giving up before he went to the wall. He didn't imo because he felt that the Baratheons were the ones who should rule now.

[Sevumar]

At the current moment perhaps, but there is no indication this is a long term thing. There are plenty of starks who appear to have been bad rulers. Brandon the Bad for one. The targs didn't fall prey to their shortcomings, they lost a war. Had Rhaegar been a better warrior or Jon Connington been a more ruthless commander they would have remained in power.

Yes, that's possible. And there's a chance that a reformed Targaryen dynasty might have been the way to a more stable future in Westeros, but the whole point of the story is that we can't and won't have that. There were bad Stark rulers, undoubtedly, but I think it really says something that a lot of the Northern lords are still willing to risk open rebellion against the Iron Throne out of loyalty to and affection for the Starks.

[Alexia]

A bent for cruelty.. I'd argue it shows a bent for justice.. which sometimes involves cruelty sad to say.

In that case...

Tywin was just for hanging Masha Heddle

Cersei was just for maiming the puppeteers and their audience

Gregor was just for having the smallfolk woman's daughter tickled

I am so glad that I don't live in a country where I can be tortured because I might be an eyewitness to a crime -- or worse yet, be forced to watch my daughters tortured. I am so glad that I don't come from a worldview that sees the torture of random bystanders and possible witnesses as justice.

Burnings? Are you speaking about Mirri Maz Duur? If someone had just killed my husband and unborn child after I saved them, yeah I'd burn them too.

Well, hopefully you wouldn't sack their city, see them gang raped as part of the process, and then enslave them and expect them to be grateful to you for personally enslaving them. You wouldn't... would you? :uhoh:

[mediocre cheese]

Bah. Nobody has the 'right' to rule. Those who can exert power do so. The Targaryens weren't strong enough to hold onto the kingdom and defeat a rebellion. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing wrong with their removal.

I don't object to this perspective. But it has to be consistent. The same posters often claim that the targaryens removal was justifiable and yet the starks and tullys have had winterfell and riverrun unjustly stolen from them and stannis is the "rightful king" (as opposed to Joffrey). Stannis wasn't strong enough to hold on to the seven kingdoms and thus lost, making him not king. The Tullys weren't strong enough to hold riverrun and the riverlands, therefor there is nothing wrong with their removal. If you believe might makes right that's fine, just apply the principle consistently. I don't believe the targaryen's have any inherent right to rule the 7 kingdoms, but I think that a system where one family is the sole dynasty and all rule springs from their blood right is a better one than a system where anyone can claim the right to rule, on the basis of being a popular figure or a strong warrior. I think the former system will lead to fewer civil wars and a more peaceful realm. But again I'm not objecting to what your saying, I think its a perfectly acceptable line of logic to use.

Also, you're kind of contradicting yourself. You're basing your argument on the notion that the Targaryens, above all others, have a right to rule Westeros. Yet you also say that they should be subject to law. It seems to me that if someone has an inborn right to be King, thus making them 'better' then other humans, then why should they be "subject" to the same law? You're mixing a divine right doctrine with the idea that monarchs should be bound to the same laws. This kind of contradictory arrangement has played out before. Charles I of England considered himself a divinely appointed monarch. Parliament disagreed and thought that the King should be bound to the constitution. The result was civil war. Nobody who thinks that they have an innate right to rule and dominate a group of people is going to think that they should all be subject to the same law.

No, perhaps I wasn't clear. Saying that the targaryens as the only family who have ever ruled the 7 kingdoms should be the sole source of claim to rule, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want, they still have to obey the law.

A good example is Charles's son James. He is the rightful heir to being the king of England, but he has to obey the law and follow the Anglican faith. He refuses to do so and is thus overthrown (the glorious revolution). But that doesn't mean his whole line loses legitimacy, its means the throne passes to his nearest Anglican relative (his daughter Mary). The same should be the case with Aerys, his failure to obey the law can cause him to be overthrown, but then the throne should pass to his nearest relative.

Both Charles I and parliament (before pride's purge at least) agreed Charles I was the monarch, the divine right or whatever other term you want to use.

[brashcandy]

In that case...

Tywin was just for hanging Masha Heddle

Cersei was just for maiming the puppeteers and their audience

Gregor was just for having the smallfolk woman's daughter tickled

I am so glad that I don't live in a country where I can be tortured because I might be an eyewitness to a crime -- or worse yet, be forced to watch my daughters tortured. I am so glad that I don't come from a worldview that sees the torture of random bystanders and possible witnesses as justice.

Well, hopefully you wouldn't sack their city, see them gang raped as part of the process, and then enslave them and expect them to be grateful to you for personally enslaving them. You wouldn't... would you? :uhoh:

Ah boy, ok no. We cannot compare what Dany did to people like the Tickler, Tywin and Cersei. Dany is not trying to torture people to get them to cover up her crimes. Nor is she going about selecting random citizens to torture to find out information so that she can continue her exploitative measures. We actually know that Dany is trying to do the right thing in Meereen. She was in a desperate time, and this is why she resorted to this. It was not about protecting herself but her own people depending on her. This is what separates her from the Tywins of the world.

As for Mirri Maz Duur - I'm constantly amazed that people feel sympathy for this woman. She was a victim, and then she made Dany into one too. Not cool, especially since Dany genuinely tried to help her.