Was Stannis going to Dragonstone to kill Vis/Dany; did he let them go?

[total1402]

Certainly from Danys POV he was and Stannis certainly felt the rebellion against Aerys was just in his mental prism. But does that mean he was going to do what Tywin would have done? Or was he planning on just capturing them and bringing them back to KL? To me I've always assumed that the actual usurpers (Rob, Arryn, Stark) only intended to bring the King to trial in the same way that Bad King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in English history. The Lannisters prevented this by hijacking the rebellion and forcing the issue in killing the rest of the Targs. So, was Stannis planning to bring them back and it was actually the man who stole them away in the hope of getting land that prevented the Targs being restored; with various caviats ala Magna Carta of course?

ps. This only concerns lil Stannis before he was declared AA and therefore divine legitimization means that he would never accept Dany as a legitimate ruler. God hath (quite literally) given him a sword.

[Winter's Knight]

Robert wanted all the Targs dead I believe. He was pleased with the slaughter of Elia and her children. There is nothing in text to indicate that they were merely trying to contain/remove Aerys from the throne.

[total1402]

Robert wanted all the Targs dead I believe. He was pleased with the slaughter of Elia and her children. There is nothing in text to indicate that they were merely trying to contain/remove Aerys from the throne.

So you think Stannis was being hypocritical in being involved in this. Fighting against the mad king for your brother is one thing. Going to an island to kill children and innocents isn't. it just doesn't seem to mesh wel

ps. Well actually, Robert had no right to make that decision since it was Ned Starks family against whom the primary crime had been commited. Ergo its was Ned Starks decision to make and he would never have let Robert do it. In fact wasn't Ned Stark in charge of the campaign? He was certainly at KL and the first to enter the city of the usurpers. Ergo, had the Lannisters not been there the outcome would have been different because Ned was there. Ned wanted his family honour satisfied. He may well have hacked of the Mad Kings head after a trial. Robert having them all killed like the Lannisters would have robbed him of that true satisfaction; hence why he spits on Jamie arguing that murdering the Mad King was justice.

[StannisBamfatheon]

Robert wanted all the Targs dead I believe. He was pleased with the slaughter of Elia and her children. There is nothing in text to indicate that they were merely trying to contain/remove Aerys from the throne.

It's true. I see only Dragonspawn... I don't think Stannis harbored any extensive hatred for the Targs, though he did think Aerys quite mad. In the books he states quite clearly that he had a crisis of conscience between duty to the realm and duty to his brother.

Also what makes Dany the legitimate ruler and why should Stannis except her? She's half a world away and her line was deposed and the lords of Westeros recognize the Baratheon dynasty, even Tommen, as the royal family. Until Daenerys comes back and conquers Westeros and the lords pledge her fealty then and only then are the Targaryens legitimate again.

ETA: to answer your question I think Stannis was ordered to capture/kill the remaining Targs, but even if he captured them and brought them back to KL they were prolly dunzo cause of Robert.

[Winter's Knight]

So you think Stannis was being hypocritical in being involved in this. Fighting against the mad king for your brother is one thing. Going to an island to kill children and innocents isn't. it just doesn't seem to mesh wel

Stannis is talking of killing Joff in ACoK when the boy was only thirteen so yes I think he'd kill the children. He'd have burnt Edric Storm as well.

He judges everyone who opposes him as a usurper when he himself is a traitor.

ps. Well actually, Robert had no right to make that decision since it was Ned Starks family against whom the primary crime had been commited. Ergo its was Ned Starks decision to make and he would never have let Robert do it. In fact wasn't Ned Stark in charge of the campaign? He was certainly at KL and the first to enter the city of the usurpers. Ergo, had the Lannisters not been there the outcome would have been different because Ned was there. Ned wanted his family honour satisfied. He may well have hacked of the Mad Kings head after a trial. Robert having them all killed like the Lannisters would have robbed him of that true satisfaction; hence why he spits on Jamie arguing that murdering the Mad King was justice.

You're mixing the show with the books I think.

[SerStinger]

Stannis is talking of killing Joff in ACoK when the boy was only thirteen so yes I think he'd kill the children. He'd have burnt Edric Storm as well.

Joff is different though. He has committed many crimes already. Plus, 13 is not really a child.

[andrewside]

Aerys would have still been dead if Ned got to Kingslanding before Tywin, because Jaime would have killed Aerys and his fire masters to save the city. Ned probably would have captured the rest of the royal family and presented them to Robert for him to decide his Robert was the new king. Ned was against killing children and would not have killed them himself.

[total1402]

It's true. I see only Dragonspawn... I don't think Stannis harbored any extensive hatred for the Targs, though he did think Aerys quite mad. In the books he states quite clearly that he had a crisis of conscience between duty to the realm and duty to his brother.

Also what makes Dany the legitimate ruler and why should Stannis except her? She's half a world away and her line was deposed and the lords of Westeros recognize the Baratheon dynasty, even Tommen, as the royal family. Until Daenerys comes back and conquers Westeros and the lords pledge her fealty then and only then are the Targaryens legitimate again.

ETA: to answer your question I think Stannis was ordered to capture/kill the remaining Targs, but even if he captured them and brought them back to KL they were prolly dunzo cause of Robert.

Well I added a disclaimer distinguishing the present and the past.

Again, Ned wouldn't have let Robert do it.

You are aware that the Beratheons are only the royal family and not the Starks or Arryns because they were a bastard lineage under Aegon and technically had the closest claim among the usurpers. Renly notes that this is bull and everyone knows it but that was their line of reasoning. If military force and right of conquest were considered then Ned Stark would have been King and Robert probably wouldn't have said no. In other words the Beratheons claim is hypocritical because it rests on acknowledging the importance of Targ blood whilst at the same time arguing that the legit line or Blackfyres have less of a claim.

[Winter's Knight]

Joff is different though. He has committed many crimes already. Plus, 13 is not really a child.

Except that, as of ACoK, all he did was order the execution of a confessed traitor-Stannis has no knowledge of anything else he might have done.

[total1402]

Sorry, but I can't quite remember. Was Robert even in charge of the rebellion? Its called Roberts Rebellion but is that just simply looking back on events and calling it that because Rob killed Rhaegar, became King and it makes a better song? Surely John Arryn by seniority who only said to bring the Mad King to call for his crimes and Ned Stark in terms of the moral claim to rebel. Would they really let Roberts childish rage over being cock-blocked by Rhaegar cause him to murder the mans children. I'am sorry, but if somebody murdered my father and brother I'd be hacked off by somebody else claiming they had the right to decide what happened to the murderers family for that pathetic a reason; even if he was my friend. Also wasn't Robb only made King much later? Wasn't Ned his equal as ruler of one of the Seven Kingdoms?

[Mulled Wino]

Stannis is talking of killing Joff in ACoK when the boy was only thirteen so yes I think he'd kill the children. He'd have burnt Edric Storm as well.

He judges everyone who opposes him as a usurper when he himself is a traitor.

Not a fair comparison. Joff is a psychopath/horrible king/born or treasonist incest on the king.

Much different than going to Dragonstone to claim their new island fortress of the enemies they just defeated.

[Mulled Wino]

Except that, as of ACoK, all he did was order the execution of a confessed traitor-Stannis has no knowledge of anything else he might have done.

Why do you assume Stannis knows nothing else?

Stannis was in KL when Joff was growing up, and I think its fair to guess he knows the story behind Ned's exectution. He knows what Joff is like and Id bet Stannis gets some info from KL.

He knows Joff was born of incest and can probably deduce why they beheaded Ned, not to mention he thinks the Lannisters killed JA.

[SerStinger]

Except that, as of ACoK, all he did was order the execution of a confessed traitor-Stannis has no knowledge of anything else he might have done.

I honestly don't know about that.... so I'll take your word for it.

It seems that Stannis thinks Joff/Tommen/Myrcella deserve to die simply because they are boron of incest. Which is disgusting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Winter's Knight]

I honestly don't know about that.... so I'll take your word for it.

It seems that Stannis thinks Joff/Tommen/Myrcella deserve to die simply because they are boron of incest. Which is disgusting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The incest or his opinion?

[The Frosted King]

I honestly don't know about that.... so I'll take your word for it.

It seems that Stannis thinks Joff/Tommen/Myrcella deserve to die simply because they are boron of incest. Which is disgusting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Stannis never says Tommen and Myrcelle deserve to die.

He realises that they NEED to die, for the realm to have any chance after the horror the lannister twins have wrought on it.

As long as they exist, they can be rallied around, and thats unthinkable for a man who saw good men die to defeat a decayed dynasty.

Tommen and Mercy don't deserve to die, but the truth doesn't deserve its death either.

The court must be scourged, and rebuilt on truths and honor. Only way such an institution can be worthy of defending.

[Lykos]

Stannis was okay with Joffrey being killed, but he didn´t ask for Tommen or Myrcella to be killed. And though Joffrey was not a man, he was the age of a squire and they go into battle. Furthermore Stannis knew how deranged Joffrey was.

"I suppose not." The king ran his fingers across the table. "Joffrey ... I remember once, this kitchen cat ... the cooks were wont to feed her scraps and fish heads. One told the boy that she had kittens in her belly, thinking he might want one.

Joffrey opened up the poor thing with a dagger to see if it were true. When he found the kittens, he brought them to show to his father. Robert hit the boy so hard I thought he'd killed him."

The king took off his crown and placed it on the table. "Dwarf or leech, this killer served the kingdom well. They must send for me now."

Storm, Chapter 63 Stannis

ETA: Wasn´t Stannis sent to Dragonstone to guard the Blackwater bay, so Robert was save in Kings Landing from Targaryen loyalist attacks by sea? I never thought he was sent to kill Viserys and the pregnant Rhaella.

[SerStinger]

The incest or his opinion?

His opinion. I have always defended incest as a human right and I will continue to do so.

[StannisBamfatheon]

Well I added a disclaimer distinguishing the present and the past.

Again, Ned wouldn't have let Robert do it.

You are aware that the Beratheons are only the royal family and not the Starks or Arryns because they were a bastard lineage under Aegon and technically had the closest claim among the usurpers. Renly notes that this is bull and everyone knows it but that was their line of reasoning. If military force and right of conquest were considered then Ned Stark would have been King and Robert probably wouldn't have said no. In other words the Beratheons claim is hypocritical because it rests on acknowledging the importance of Targ blood whilst at the same time arguing that the legit line or Blackfyres have less of a claim.

hah...I love phrases like "you are aware" ....the condescension is strong in this one Obi-wan. But why yes I am aware, at the time that was why they selected Robert as a figurehead for the rebellion, that and because of Lyanna and his badass soldiering. But once the Targs were deposed and sent away in bitter exile then they have no greater claim to the throne than moonboy. The lords of Westeros pledged fealty to the Baratheons making them the new royal family, it's in the text I don't see how this is debatable. Now if Daenerys comes back and takes the iron throne with FIRE AND BLOOD AND CAPS LOCK!!!! then good for her, you earned it champ, all hail Daenerys, first of her name, 50 million other silly titles etc.... But until then she's just a girl starring in my favorite romance novel "A Dance with Daario"

[Two Towers]

You are aware that the Beratheons are only the royal family and not the Starks or Arryns because they were a bastard lineage under Aegon and technically had the closest claim among the usurpers. Renly notes that this is bull and everyone knows it but that was their line of reasoning. If military force and right of conquest were considered then Ned Stark would have been King and Robert probably wouldn't have said no. In other words the Beratheons claim is hypocritical because it rests on acknowledging the importance of Targ blood whilst at the same time arguing that the legit line or Blackfyres have less of a claim.

Robert's claim to throne was because his grandmother was the daughter of Aegon V, not because of the bastard lineage. Once you take out Aerys, his children, and his grandchildren, Robert has the best claim to the throne.

[Rhaegar Targaryen's Ghost]

Robert's claim to throne was because his grandmother was the daughter of Aegon V, not because of the bastard lineage. Once you take out Aerys, his children, and his grandchildren, Robert has the best claim to the throne.

that was put very simply, and easy to follow. I was trying to figure out the best way to say it, but you hit it right on the head. kudos.