Dany and Stannis: a Comparative Look

[sillent]

Love Dr. Peppers post.

I think it should be noted that Davos is really loyal to Stannis because he feels like he is a just ruler. Stannis also had very little power initially, and after Blackwater was back to having very little power yet the few people he does have stay true to him and follow him to the Wall and through the blizzard to Winterfell. He isn't the nicest leader in that he executes the people that partake in cannibalism but his army is still very loyal to him. He likes choosing his advisers based on merit and is willing to admit his mistakes / change his plans (Davos and Jon).

Dany on the other hand has gotten most of her followers because of her dragons. They saw the power and wonder she possessed through these WMDs and they wanted to be part of it. Jorah is in love with her, her handmaids were slaves, and bloodriders were bound by oath. No one is really drawn to her because of her claim / her skills as a leader. Barristan only came to Dany after-the-fact, he got fired and then conveniently remembered all the wrongs he had done and flocked to Dany (after making sure she wasnt exceedingly crazy).

I will agree that Stannis is power hungry. He uses "right" as an excuse but really he has suffered tons because of the law and he sucked it up because it was the law and so when the law finally dictates that he gets a break he wants to collect on it cause well his life has sucked tons up to this point.

[Sevumar]

I'm curious as where in the books its ever said that the Lords Paramount can 'legitimize' a new line or house as the royal line.

Mace recognized Renly as king, not Stannis and that doesn't mean Stannis was not rightfully king of the Reach, certainly not in the eyes of his supporters on these boards.

So, I'm a bit confused.

The consensus of the Lords Paramount in accepting the reality of the way Robert's Rebellion ended (helped by the fact that there were no surviving Targaryen heirs of age to assume the Iron Throne) is what put the seal on the results of Robert's conquest of Westeros. Some houses acceded to it, even though they didn't like it (Martell, Tyrell), but they realized they had few other viable options. The Martells continued to plot in secret, but all seemed to agree that it was pointless to continue the war.

Mace realized that war was likely and decided to become a player in the battle for (an essentially open) throne by backing the claimant who'd empower him and his House. House Tyrell has shown that they don't care about legitimacy, only results. They'll do anything and ally with anyone who will give them a connection to the Throne.

Calling her a pretender implies that she is someone like Aegon, purporting to be a true Targ descendant who would have been eligible for the throne. As I noted, she has a right to try to reclaim the throne that she views as being usurped by Robert Baratheon. She plans on doing so by conquest and isn't naive like her brother to believe the realm will rise for it's "rightful" ruler.

A pretender is simply somebody who presents themselves as the heir to a throne or other inherited position without having a legal right to make that claim. Dany's view of events denies the reality of what has happened in the last 15 years in the realm she wants to rule. That's not a great start for someone who wants to be a queen there.

[Chaircat Meow]

The consensus of the Lords Paramount in accepting the reality of the way Robert's Rebellion ended (helped by the fact that there were no surviving Targaryen heirs of age to assume the Iron Throne) is what put the seal on the results of Robert's conquest of Westeros. Some houses acceded to it, even though they didn't like it (Martell, Tyrell), but they realized they had few other viable options. The Martells continued to plot in secret, but all seemed to agree that it was pointless to continue the war.

I know this. Thanks. But what's the point? If someone steals my lollipop and all my friends won't help me get it back because the thief is really big and mean its still my lollipop.

Mace realized that war was likely and decided to become a player in the battle for (an essentially open) throne by backing the claimant who'd empower him and his House. House Tyrell has shown that they don't care about legitimacy, only results. They'll do anything and ally with anyone who will give them a connection to the Throne.

Which is exactly what he did as regards the initial Baratheon succession too as far as I can see.

[Garlan Marius]

I know this. Thanks. But what's the point? If someone steals my lollipop and all my friends won't help me get it back because the thief is really big and mean its still my lollipop.

And when everyone who agreed with you was beaten into submission, and they all state "yeah, it's his lollipop now," it isn't yours anymore.

[Dr. Pepper]

Love Dr. Peppers post.

I think it should be noted that Davos is really loyal to Stannis because he feels like he is a just ruler. Stannis also had very little power initially, and after Blackwater was back to having very little power yet the few people he does have stay true to him and follow him to the Wall and through the blizzard to Winterfell. He isn't the nicest leader in that he executes the people that partake in cannibalism but his army is still very loyal to him. He likes choosing his advisers based on merit and is willing to admit his mistakes / change his plans (Davos and Jon).

I perhaps should have noted in my previous post that Stannis hasn't been without disloyal subjects. There was a Florent (I believe, someone may need to correct me) who tried to go behind Stannis' back to negotiate a peace surrender with the Lannisters. There were also some who bent the knee when captured during the Blackwater and there's that family (Celtigar? Someone else?) who simply refused to keep fighting. But there's still a considerable amount of subjects who remain unwaveringly loyal.

Dany on the other hand has gotten most of her followers because of her dragons. They saw the power and wonder she possessed through these WMDs and they wanted to be part of it. Jorah is in love with her, her handmaids were slaves, and bloodriders were bound by oath. No one is really drawn to her because of her claim / her skills as a leader. Barristan only came to Dany after-the-fact, he got fired and then conveniently remembered all the wrongs he had done and flocked to Dany (after making sure she wasnt exceedingly crazy).

I forgot about Jorah. This was a guy who didn't come loyally to her service. He wasn't even unwaveringly loyal after her dragons hatched. He was still sending info to KL. Is there anyone who has come to Dany of their own free will who has remained unwaveringly loyal? Does her khalasar count?

[Sevumar]

I know this. Thanks. But what's the point? If someone steals my lollipop and all my friends won't help me get it back because the thief is really big and mean its still my lollipop.

The point is that the kingdom and the Iron Throne stopped belonging to the Targaryens when Robert was crowned King of the Seven Kingdoms without opposition. The Targaryen dynasty ended, along with all serious claims to the lollipop.

As I mentioned in another thread, Dany's going to have to let this "usurper" thing go. People are over that view and that argument. If she manages to conquer the kingdoms and gain recognition of her rule, she's welcome to write her denial of reality into the history books, but I think her views might change once she knows the truth of her father's reign.

[Chaircat Meow]

And when everyone who agreed with you was beaten into submission, and they all state "yeah, it's his lollipop now," it isn't yours anymore.

I guess if the same situation occurred with something a bit more important it would be pointless to go the police in your view then, given I would have already lost possession of whatever it was.

[sillent]

I wouldnt call Dany a pretender. I mean, the Tyrells and Martells were Targ supporters but essentially gave up cause they had no choice. Ofcourse we cant realy know if they were Targ supporters because they thought they could gain from it or whether they genuinely wanted what was 'just' for the realm. The point is, if Dany invades and enough people decide they like her more than the other rulers and pledge their fealty to her she will become Queen of Westeros.

I think this whole 'it is mine by rights' business is mostly crap anyway. The Mad King's rule was only deemed horrible because he executed a few VIPs and so pissed a few important people off. The common folk really didnt care and they're the ones suffering the most over this Game of Thrones. The Iron Throne is the peoples by rights and all these guys are just making the realm bleed for their own selfish reasons.

[ARYa_Nym]

Legally Tommen and Myrcella are still recognized as Robert's heirs.

Anyways, I believe that the throne will go back to the Targaryens before Dany gets there through Aegon. A Blackfyre is still a Targaryen.

They're both entitled. I don't see Stannis as less entitled. He's extremely annoying with talking about what he feels is owed to him. Dany is entitled too.

They both burn people alive.

Many see Dany as becoming a villain but I see Stannis as becoming one as well. He fits a lot of the criteria

Harvey Dent quote:

“You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain."

He has outlasted all the other kings from the WOT5K.

[LuisDantas]

I don't see how Daenerys' claim could be seen as legitimate, myself. The Targaryens have been thrown out of power in a very decisive way.

She may conceivably retake it much like her ancestor did, but that would be a terrible idea for everyone. Besides, she does not even truly want it.

A slightly better case can be made for Stannis' claim. But even before he tainted it with Renly's blood, there was the important matter of lack of proof. For all his talk, his claim is as military as anyone else's except the Lannisters'.

[Chaircat Meow]

The point is that the kingdom and the Iron Throne stopped belonging to the Targaryens when Robert was crowned King of the Seven Kingdoms without opposition. The Targaryen dynasty ended, along with all serious claims to the lollipop.

As I mentioned in another thread, Dany's going to have to let this "usurper" thing go. People are over that view and that argument. If she manages to conquer the kingdoms and gain recognition of her rule, she's welcome to write her denial of reality into the history books, but I think her views might change once she knows the truth of her father's reign.

Sign. I still don't understand why you think all the lords paramount acknowledging someone else as king changes anything. You keep stating it, but its a fact and you haven't shown the fact has any bearing on the moral/legal issue at stake. The LP have no power to make or unmake kings, as you agree Mace Tyrell doesn't.

Could you tell me how many setbacks Stannis has to suffer before his claim is bunk too and based on a delusion?

After all, if the king depends on the choice of the LP then Tommen, bastard or no, can easily be made the 'legitimate' king.

[Garlan Marius]

I guess if the same situation occurred with something a bit more important it would be pointless to go the police in your view then, given I would have already lost possession of whatever it was.

And that's where the parallel falls apart, since there is no higher authority to appeal to for a kingdom.

[Sevumar]

Sign. I still don't understand why you think all the lords paramount acknowledging someone else as king changes anything. You keep stating it, but its a fact and you haven't shown the fact has any bearing on the moral/legal issue at stake. The LP have no power to make or unmake kings, as you agree Mace Tyrell doesn't.

I'm making these statements from the point of view of practicality. The victory of Robert and his allies in the war was a fact. By surrendering and ending their siege of Storm's End, the Tyrells signaled that they accepted that fact and its consequences. Note that Robert was exceedingly generous in his terms toward those who recognized his rule, even going so far as to restore parts of what had been taken by Aerys from Hands who'd "failed" him in the war. It is not said that he demanded hostages from those who opposed him, as the Lannisters have done in the current war.

I'm not making an argument based in the morality of the actions of the Lords Paramount, but in the facts of how events played out. The transition of power happened rather quickly and peacefully after the death of Aerys II and when it became clear that there were no Targaryens of age to continue the dynasty. Had Rhaegar not died, it's possible Robert may not have ended up king, or that Targaryen loyalists could have continued fighting in his name. Instead, they laid down their arms and gave their consent to be ruled by Robert from the Iron Throne.

Anyway, this is beginning to derail the thread. It's clear nobody is going to be convinced by the other side. My view is that legal succession determines the heir, but when there is a war, might often trumps the judgment of the law.

[butterbumps!]

A slightly better case can be made for Stannis' claim. But even before he tainted it with Renly's blood, there was the important matter of lack of proof. For all his talk, his claim is as military as anyone else's except the Lannisters'.

Not for nothing, but having Renly killed doesn't take away Stannis' legal right for the throne.

I would say that Stannis is the de jure king- he is the legal king as he is Robert's heir ("legitimate"). Joffrey/ Tommen are de facto kings; Tommen is recognized as king, but his claim is not legal, as he is not Robert's heir. Dany is not the "legitimate" queen of Westeros; she does not have a legal right to rule unless one completely dismisses the transfer of power that comes with force. If using force doesn't yield legitimacy as it pertains to the power to rule, then I would question how Targs were "legitimate" in the first place.

[sillent]

I perhaps should have noted in my previous post that Stannis hasn't been without disloyal subjects. There was a Florent (I believe, someone may need to correct me) who tried to go behind Stannis' back to negotiate a peace surrender with the Lannisters. There were also some who bent the knee when captured during the Blackwater and there's that family (Celtigar? Someone else?) who simply refused to keep fighting. But there's still a considerable amount of subjects who remain unwaveringly loyal.

I guess no one can have a perfect record but given his situation I'd say its a pretty significant point if he still has these many loyal supporters.

I forgot about Jorah. This was a guy who didn't come loyally to her service. He wasn't even unwaveringly loyal after her dragons hatched. He was still sending info to KL. Is there anyone who has come to Dany of their own free will who has remained unwaveringly loyal? Does her khalasar count?

I mean her khalasar are the only ones who have been loyal to her but upon closer inspection even that is a bit iffy. I could be mistaken on this point but weren't most of the people that stayed behind with her the weak and old? Furthermore, I'd argue that they flocked more to her dragons than they did to her.

One thing to note is that you can argue that most of Danys followers come to her BECAUSE of her dragons, where as with Stannis they almost go to him INSPITE of his affiliations with Mel. They both have magical elements that have helped them, though I feel like its been a bigger hindrance to Stannis in terms of rallying men (apart from the army he got from killing Renly but those guys mostly died/fled at Blackwater.)

[Chaircat Meow]

And that's where the parallel falls apart, since there is no higher authority to appeal to for a kingdom.

No it doesn't, or rather, it only does so if you make a bunch of other assumptions.

But there is no reason to think everybody else saying x has this lollipop now, seeing as he stole, makes it his. Those other people are not an authority either. There is no reason to think they are remotely relevant.

[Chaircat Meow]

Not for nothing, but having Renly killed doesn't take away Stannis' legal right for the throne.

I would say that Stannis is the de jure king- he is the legal king as he is Robert's heir ("legitimate"). Joffrey/ Tommen are de facto kings; Tommen is recognized as king, but his claim is not legal, as he is not Robert's heir. Dany is not the "legitimate" queen of Westeros; she does not have a legal right to rule unless one completely dismisses the transfer of power that comes with force. If using force doesn't yield legitimacy as it pertains to the power to rule, then I would question how Targs were "legitimate" in the first place.

I'm pleased someone brought up the de jure/de facto point. It might clear up a lot of confusion.

[Chaircat Meow]

I'm making these statements from the point of view of practicality. The victory of Robert and his allies in the war was a fact. By surrendering and ending their siege of Storm's End, the Tyrells signaled that they accepted that fact and its consequences. Note that Robert was exceedingly generous in his terms toward those who recognized his rule, even going so far as to restore parts of what had been taken by Aerys from Hands who'd "failed" him in the war. It is not said that he demanded hostages from those who opposed him, as the Lannisters have done in the current war.

I'm not making an argument based in the morality of the actions of the Lords Paramount, but in the facts of how events played out. The transition of power happened rather quickly and peacefully after the death of Aerys II and when it became clear that there were no Targaryens of age to continue the dynasty. Had Rhaegar not died, it's possible Robert may not have ended up king, or that Targaryen loyalists could have continued fighting in his name. Instead, they laid down their arms and gave their consent to be ruled by Robert from the Iron Throne.

Anyway, this is beginning to derail the thread. It's clear nobody is going to be convinced by the other side. My view is that legal succession determines the heir, but when there is a war, might often trumps the judgment of the law.

I guess I think calling Dany a pretender with no right or legal claim to the throne, based on the practicality of the situation, is a bit rich if you are sticking up for Stannis' claim. They are both standing on legality and if Mace and co don't have any legal authority to make a new king, the fact they surrendered when the situation was hopeless doesn't necessarily mean Dany's point of view is wrong.

I also think Westerosi political theory is so vague its a bit unfair to say one of them has a better claim than the other.

[Garlan Marius]

No it doesn't, or rather, it only does so if you make a bunch of other assumptions.

But there is no reason to think everybody else saying x has this lollipop now, seeing as he stole, makes it his. Those other people are not an authority either. There is no reason to think they are remotely relevant.

You are proving my point. The closest to authority in the kingdom situation is the Lords Paramount. There is no higher authority akin to the police, so the example of "stolen property" does not hold.

You will not be able to provide a property dispute example that applies for a kingdom, so realize that power and winning a war is sufficient for legitimacy.

[Été]

No it doesn't, or rather, it only does so if you make a bunch of other assumptions.

But there is no reason to think everybody else saying x has this lollipop now, seeing as he stole, makes it his. Those other people are not an authority either. There is no reason to think they are remotely relevant.

So where does the buck stop? Who does have the power to arbitrate?