Unpopular opinions III

[Sevumar]

There are different degrees of mental instability. It doesn't affect everyone the same. I don't consider Dany or Rhaegar to be completely sane. Modeling your life around a prophecy seems unstable yet it was said that he would have made a great king.

I think there are signs that Dany is heading down the road toward mental illness, but I'm not sure where she's going to end up. I'm not sure any city or kingdom should hold its breath waiting to find out. The thing with Rhaegar is that he may have been great, but we'll never know. It's a lot easier to speculate about the potential of someone who has never had to prove himself. I just don't think there's anything particularly or inherently special about Targs that gives them a right to rule.

[Geddus]

Ia but that was years before. I'm referring to what he did in AGoT.

Ned? He was quite dumb in AGoT but not treasonous, on the contrary it was his unwillingness to go against the rules that cost him everything.

As for Robert, well, he really didn't do anything in AGoT other than eating, drinking, screwing and dying.

[ARYa_Nym]

Ned? He was quite dumb in AGoT but not treasonous, on the contrary it was his unwillingness to go against the rules that cost him everything.

As for Robert, well, he really didn't do anything in AGoT other than eating, drinking, screwing and dying.

He considered Stannis to be the rightful ruler when Robert died. I believe that Jon is Rhaegar's heir. Ned let him join the NW.

[mediocre cheese]

Yeah many of the great figures of antiquity would be considered "insane" by modern standards. Scipico Africanus believed he was in direct communication with the gods and that he had prophetic dreams, and he defeated Hannibal and saved the roman republic. Of course Constantine brought in Christianity because he dreamed about it.

Also not sure if this is a positive or a negative but there was a czar who was mentally retarded as well. Fyoder bellringer.

I just don't think there's anything particularly or inherently special about Targs that gives them a right to rule.

Well clearly in the overall sense, but thats true of the starks and the tullys and everyone else. There is nothing special about the tullys that gives them the right to rule the riverlands (as opposed to Maasha heddle). The targaryens have a right to rule in that they forged the iron throne, built king's landing and have been the only family in history to rule all of westeros.

[Alexia]

I think Dany is going to turn out to be batshit crazy. IIRC, Aerys was pretty normal when he was young. Dany has already started in on the Targaryen way of having people burnt to death, and she's even begun dabbling in crucifixion and having innocents tortured.

[ARYa_Nym]

I think there are signs that Dany is heading down the road toward mental illness, but I'm not sure where she's going to end up. I'm not sure any city or kingdom should hold its breath waiting to find out. The thing with Rhaegar is that he may have been great, but we'll never know. It's a lot easier to speculate about the potential of someone who has never had to prove himself. I just don't think there's anything particularly or inherently special about Targs that gives them a right to rule.

Yes, and Barriston said that she wasn't tainted. She passed the test. I think she's still kind of crazy though but she's just not in Viserys or Aerys territory. I don't think she'll go down that road though.

[mediocre cheese]

Yeah, Ned and Robert should definitely have let Aerys kill them for no reason other than his own madness. Dishonorable assholes.

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.

[Sevumar]

Well clearly in the overall sense, but thats true of the starks and the tullys and everyone else. There is nothing special about the tullys that gives them the right to rule the riverlands (as opposed to Maasha heddle). The targaryens have a right to rule in that they forged the iron throne, built king's landing and have been the only family in history to rule all of westeros.

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.

[Geddus]

Bah, browser screwed up. Sorry.

[Alexia]

My personal opinion is that while Aerys committed crimes and they were justified in revolting against him, but that 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 the 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.

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

As for Stannis, in AGoT he actually was the rightful heir.

Joffrey was the rightful heir; he was Robert's acknowledged son borne in holy matrimony.

[ARYa_Nym]

The Targaryens hold no claim on the iron throne, it was stripped from them the same way they took it, by force - and for a much better reason. So, even if Jon is Rhaegar's (trueborn) son, he has no rights on the kingdom.

As for Stannis, in AGoT he actually was the rightful heir.

GRRM said that Robert used his Targaryen lineage as the reason to take the throne. Robert said that Ned won the war so as Cersei said then he should have took the throne if we are just going to go by right of conquest. He didn't in part because he had no link to the Targaryens.

[Verboten]

AverageCheese, the Tullys were never the original rulers of the riverlands. The Riverlands and Iron Islands were ruled by King Harren the Black until Aerys and his sisters killed everyone in that house and burned their fortress. The Tully's were made one of the great houses by the Targaeryens, much like the Tyrells.

[JKeats]

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.

When Ned finds Jaime sitting on the throne, there is that tense moment before Jaime steps down and says "it's cool bro, I was just keeping it warm for your man Bob." 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, such that even if Gregor and Armory Lorch didn't kill Prince Rhaegar's children, they would still have been disinherited.

[Geddus]

Joffrey was the rightful heir; he was Robert's acknowledged son borne in holy matrimony.

Yes but that was because everyone thought Joff to be Robert's son; Ned knew he wasn't, so he was supporting the one who was, in his eyes, the lawful heir. My point is that he wasn't trying to be deceitful in trying to make Stannis king, quite the contrary.

GRRM said that Robert used his Targaryen lineage as the reason to take the throne. Robert said that Ned one the war so as Cersei said then he should have took the throne if we are just going to go by right of conquest. He didn't in part because he had no link to the Targaryens.

It's true that Robert was chosen because his Targ lineage made him easier to accept but I don't think that's relevant, the Targaryens were overthrown because Aerys had to be stopped. Now, I think that the murder of Rhaegar's children was awful and should have been avoided, even if it was a strategically sound move, but there was no way they could have left the Targs in power at that point.

[brashcandy]

I think Dany is going to turn out to be batshit crazy. IIRC, Aerys was pretty normal when he was young. Dany has already started in on the Targaryen way of having people burnt to death, and she's even begun dabbling in crucifixion and having innocents tortured.

So I guess we can put Stannis, Tywin, Cersei, Mel, and maybe a few others on the list as going crazy... Dany did not have innocents tortured. She had one girl "questioned sharply". She cruxified slavers who had just done the same thing to innocent children. Some people would call that an eye for an eye.

And let's just ignore her campaign to end slavery, her kindness to those in need, her attempt to be a fair ruler, in our quest to see her as Aerys reborn. I hope those chapter rereads will change your opinion Alexia.

[Woman of War]

Unpopular?

I deeply pity Lysa.Actually I don't like her I find her annoying but:

Not only is she married to a man she despises and gets killed by the man she loves

I am definitely PRO CHOICE, which means a woman has a right to have a child she wants even if it is "inconvenient", as much as she has the right to abort a child she does not want.

What Hoster Tully did to his daughter was an act of incredible cruelty and abuse. A forced abortion can be as traumatic as rape (obscene comparison - would you like to be hanged or shot...) this shows how little even so called good characters cared about their daughters' feelings when it comes to marriage pacts and honor. In fact it shows how invalid the whole white - grey - black character description can be.

[Sevumar]

Yes, and Barriston said that she wasn't tainted. She passed the test. I think she's still kind of crazy though but she's just not in Viserys or Aerys territory. I don't think she'll go down that road though.

I trusted his judgment at the time, but now that we've seen more of Barristan and had a peek inside his head, I'm not so sure that he's right after all. Some kinds of mental illness don't surface until adulthood, or they may require environmental triggers to bring them on. It may be that she's not free of the potential for madness yet.

[brashcandy]

Yes, and Barriston said that she wasn't tainted. She passed the test. I think she's still kind of crazy though but she's just not in Viserys or Aerys territory. I don't think she'll go down that road though.

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.

[ARYa_Nym]

It's true that Robert was chosen because his Targ lineage made him easier to accept but I don't think that's relevant, the Targaryens were overthrown because Aerys had to be stopped. Now, I think that the murder of Rhaegar's children was awful and should have been avoided, even if it was a strategically sound move, but there was no way they could have left the Targs in power at that point.

Yes, it is a strategically sound move for Usurpers.

[Geddus]

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.

When Ned finds Jaime sitting on the throne, there is that tense moment before Jaime steps down and says "it's cool bro, I was just keeping it warm for your man Bob." 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, such that even if Gregor and Armory Lorch didn't kill Prince Rhaegar's children, they would still have been disinherited.

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.

Yes, it is a strategically sound move for Usurpers.

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

The Targaryens were usurpers too, by the way.