Jump to content

R+L=J v. 36


Stubby

Recommended Posts

I'm sure that the Stuart parallels might be very interesting but the Stuart case is not the only one in history when a dynasty lost its throne and hardly can work as a precedens when the social order of that time already moved away from that of the time of chivalry as presented in ASOIAF, and above all, there is no textual reference in the books that would validate such a comparison, rather the contrary - if Viserys' claim was perceived as void, Doran would hardly plot to marry Arianne to him or send Quentyn to Dany when the first option was no longer available. And the fact that Doran plans this and is ready to send Dorne's support means another thing: that he expects to find allies to support the claim, as Dorne itself is not strong enough to fight the joint strength of the remaining kingdom.

Just ask yourself this: if Doran thinks that Viserys' claim still holds, how probable is it that the knights who were bound by their lives and honour to the Targaryen kings would perceive that claim as void?

You make a very good point. Viserys certainly did not think that he had abdicated, since he continued to style himself as king and was planning to return as such. And with the example of the Stuarts, James II's son (James) and grandson (Charles) both set up courts-in-exile and invaded Britain in an effort to re-take their throne.

The thread on whether Viserys had abdicated started out mainly as an effort to explain why Barristan felt comfortable switching his allegiance to Robert. I think it is possible that Barristan justified his switch on the grounds that Viserys had abandoned the throne.

That does not necessarily mean that other members of the Kingsguard would see it the same way as Barristan. The key here is that you could make a decent argument either way and that there are honorable people on both sides of that debate. This is why Barristan went one way while Willem Darry went the other.

And there may be another fun parrallel between the Stuarts and the Targaryens. James II's son, also named James, was falsely accused of being an imposter in an effort to bolster Mary's claim to the throne. Mary claimed that the real James died as an infant and that the "James" who invaded later was a fake. It will be interesting to see if this is the model for Young Griff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a very good point. Viserys certainly did not think that he had abdicated, since he continued to style himself as king and was planning to return as such. And with the example of the Stuarts, James II's son (James) and grandson (Charles) both set up courts-in-exile and invaded Britain in an effort to re-take their throne.

The thread on whether Viserys had abdicated started out mainly as an effort to explain why Barristan felt comfortable switching his allegiance to Robert. I think it is possible that Barristan justified his switch on the grounds that Viserys had abandoned the throne.

That does not necessarily mean that other members of the Kingsguard would see it the same way as Barristan. The key here is that you could make a decent argument either way and that there are honorable people on both sides of that debate. This is why Barristan went one way while Willem Darry went the other.

And there may be another fun parrallel between the Stuarts and the Targaryens. James II's son, also named James, was falsely accused of being an imposter in an effort to bolster Mary's claim to the throne. Mary claimed that the real James died as an infant and that the "James" who invaded later was a fake. It will be interesting to see if this is the model for Young Griff.

You're comparing uncomparable. Or are you seriously suggesting that if Barristan had been assigned as Viserys' personal bodyguard, he would still have abandoned him and bent knee to Robert?

Barristan bent knee because 1) he was a prisoner and couldn't possibly go anywhere, 2) he perceived Robert as a good, worthy man and 3) Viserys was taking after Aerys. Never once does he mention in his reasoning that Viserys lost any claim by fleeing to exile. Also, the last point shows that Barristan must have been highly uncomfortable with Aerys' behaviour and did judge even though he was not supposed to. On the other hand, we have Lord Commander Hightower, who (though through an unreliable PoV of another person,) did live up to the "serve, don't judge" and who claims he would have protected Aerys, terrible king as he was. None of the reasons that made Barristan abandon his vows applies to Hightower; Darry sees only 3), which, as we have witnessed time and again, is NOT perceived as a sufficient reason by itself to break a vow of fealty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm obviously not explaining the concept of a fall of a dynasty and a pretender to the throne. I can't think of any other ways to put it and obviously I can't explain it in a way you can understand. Do some research out there on it and you'll see how, whilst it wasn't exactly a common practice, it's not that rare in history. I really suggest you start with the Stuart line from Britain. It's a fairly good comparison to what's happened in Westeros. Sorry if I can't explain it well enough. Check up on it and I'm confident you'll see my point.

So you're not even going to address the fact that multiple people in the books still continue to serve pretenders to the throne? Barristan to Dany, Doran to Viserys/Dany, the Golden Company to the Blackfyre line, etc. As I asked in my previous post, why would you assume that the Kingsguard would shirk their duties to the Targaryen line, when others who have sworn oaths of fealty to that line have not?

Though I would add you seem to be a bit confused about de jure and de facto. In de jure rule it's the person who technically rules by law where as de facto means the person who actually rules. So to apply it to Westeros you get a de jure ruler in Joffrey and Tommen but the de facto ruler there is Cersei/Kevan. Equally Taiwan would be a pretender to the 'throne' of China but neither the de facto or de jure ruler. If you want a real world comparison you'd probably best off to look at the rule of Egypt around the 19th Century. The ruling family strictly speaking were ostensibly the rulers, the de jure rulers, but to all extents and purposes were ruled by the British Empire, de facto rulers. The concept doesn't really apply to Viserys, Aegon and Dany as by any stretch of the imagination they are not the rulers of Westeros. As they've lost the throne by right of conquest, in the same way that Aegon the Conqueror took the 7 kingdoms by right of conquest.

The concept of de jure and de facto rulers applies to multiple situations, not just the ones you've described. "De jure" simply refers to what the law says, and in the eyes of the people who support deposed dynasties, those dynasties are the true, lawful rulers, even if they do not actually control the territory over which they claim to rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're comparing uncomparable. Or are you seriously suggesting that if Barristan had been assigned as Viserys' personal bodyguard, he would still have abandoned him and bent knee to Robert?

Barristan bent knee because 1) he was a prisoner and couldn't possibly go anywhere, 2) he perceived Robert as a good, worthy man and 3) Viserys was taking after Aerys. Never once does he mention in his reasoning that Viserys lost any claim by fleeing to exile. Also, the last point shows that Barristan must have been highly uncomfortable with Aerys' behaviour and did judge even though he was not supposed to. On the other hand, we have Lord Commander Hightower, who (though through an unreliable PoV of another person,) did live up to the "serve, don't judge" and who claims he would have protected Aerys, terrible king as he was. None of the reasons that made Barristan abandon his vows applies to Hightower; Darry sees only 3), which, as we have witnessed time and again, is NOT perceived as a sufficient reason by itself to break a vow of fealty.

I don't know what Barristan would have done if he had been assigned to guard Viserys personally. What I am saying is that these situations are complicated. There is no how-to manual for Kingsguard, Lords and knights to follow in this kind of messy situation. In real life, when Edward VI died without issue, some argued (not without justification) that his sisters Mary and Elizabeth were bastards, and that their cousin Jane Grey should be queen. Mary's supporters, also not without justification, disagreed.

Look at Shakespeare -- for example, the scene in Henry V where King Henry is thinking of asserting a claim to the French throne. He asks Canturbury: "Can I in right and conscience make this claim?" Canturbury has a long soliliquy about Salic law that might be right or wrong but which no-one really understands, and Henry finally concludes that he has a right to the throne of France. Needless to say, the French disagree.

Or go in-universe and look at the original Dance of the Dragons. The issue was whether a daughter could inherit or if it should go to the next male heir. The kingsguard split, and two brothers who were members of the KG wound up killing each other (Arryk and Erryk, I think). Can we say one was right and the other was wrong? No, we can just say that each thought he had a reasonable justification for what he did.

Or take another example -- Stannis having to choose between his loyalty to Aerys and his loyalty to Robert. He -- very movingly -- describes how hard the choice was.

Which brings us to Aerys' KG. Barristan had a hard choice at the end of Robert's Rebellion, and it should be hard for us to judge him for it. There is a decent argument that the right thing to do was to acknowledge Robert as the new king. There is also a decent argument that he should have spat in Robert's face. He was also in a tough spot when Robert died, when Robert's will and Robert's Hand were in conflict with Robert's Queen and Robert's (apparent) heir. It is no surprise that he hesitated in those circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings us to Aerys' KG. Barristan had a hard choice at the end of Robert's Rebellion, and it should be hard for us to judge him for it. There is a decent argument that the right thing to do was to acknowledge Robert as the new king. There is also a decent argument that he should have spat in Robert's face. He was also in a tough spot when Robert died, when Robert's will and Robert's Hand were in conflict with Robert's Queen and Robert's (apparent) heir. It is no surprise that he hesitated in those circumstances.

Twinslayer, I agree 100% with the above. What I don't agree with is that Ser Barristan would have made his decision based on, all or in part, because Viserys "abandoned" the throne. He tells us why he made the decision he did, and it is as you say a very hard choice for anyone put in such a circumstance. It just doesn't seem likely, and there is no evidence for, Ser Barristan holding the fact Aerys sends his son to Dragonstone - very much a part of the Targaryen kingdom - for his safety as a reason not to do his duty by him. We don't know when Ser Barristan makes his decision to join Robert, but it is likely that he does so before the nine months transpire between the sack and Daenerys birth, but even if it isn't, the fact Ser Willam Darry takes the eight year old Viserys, and the very young Daenerys, out of danger from the mutiny on Dragonstone to the Free Cities, hardly qualifies as a statement of abdication. No, I think we know why Selmy does what he does - again he tells us - but the issue of what was the moral thing to do on Ser Barristan's part is certainly open to question. He ends up thinking he committed treason by doing as he did, but putting Viserys on the throne, if he ever had the power to do so, certainly would not be the most moral act that he could have done, even if it was in keeping with his oaths.

The way I look at it though is what difference could Ser Barristan have made in the lives of both Daenerys and Viserys if he had succeeded in getting to them and taking care of them through the decade and a half after Robert's Rebellion. Certainly Daenerys asks herself that question. Perhaps, just perhaps, Viserys isn't the violent paranoid abuser he turns out to be. Probably not, but I think he should have tried. Instead he chose the easy path and abandoned two children he had pledged to protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, given time I will create a timeline in the next week or so. What are your thoughts about when Brandon dueled with Littlefinger, the winter after Harrenhal, and when Lyanna was "abducted"?

I'm not a timeline expert by any means, I've just followed the work that others have done and saw an obvious error is yours.

I suspect, based on not very much, that the LF-Brandon duel was probably 2-3 months before Lyanna was abducted, around a year, or maybe a bit less, after Harrenhal (but that part has easily 6 months +/-).

Largely because one of my favourite "really cool but improbable, even if not ruled out" theories is that after Littlefinger recovered from his wounds enough to travel (thats where I'm giving 2-3 months, but thats totally a guess) and left Riverrun, it was he who spotted Rhaegar and Lyanna, or met them on the road, and was maybe given messages which he deliberately changed or lied to Brandon about what he saw.

I suspect Brandon kind of liked Littlefinger, or at least respected him. After all, Littlefinger fought an impossible challenge for the woman he loved and you get the sense of a typical runt fight where the little guy is getting smashed and just refuses to stay down but keeps climbing to his feet and pouring blood and staggering says "come on, I haven't finished with you yet". Except in this case, the realistic thing happens and eventually the little guy is so badly hurt he can't rise, and loses his girl (whom Brandon didn't love, remember). I think Brandon, the wild wolf, would have loved, or at least respected, that spirit.

So I imagine Brandon, the wild wolf, uncomplicated at heart, trusts Littlefinger and doesn't see the slyness, nor the hate and need for revenge, and when Littlefinger feeds him a line of bullshit about Rhaegar and Lyanna, Brandon believes him wholeheartedly. Maybe even Littlefinger said Rhaegar raped and then killed her, which explains Brandon later not actually asking for, or after, Lyanna when he goes to the Red Keep.

Now all of this has no evidence at all, although it does explain a few things, including Brandon's exceptionally pointless behaviour, the lack of any apparent messages out from Lyanna and Rhaegar and also sets the tone for Littlefinger's later MO of sowing random chaos and reaping the benefits.

So given the lack of other evidence (I think) on the timing of the duel etc, my choice, so far, is to think the duel was 2-3 months (or whatever healing time was necessary) before the abduction, and that Littlefinger witness the 'abduction' and immediately went and told Brandon, who immediately set off to sort out that murdering rapist Rhaegar (you know, the one who prevented Brandon from making a great showing at his first great tourney).

On the winter, I've seen your snowed-in passes theory, but really have no idea where it comes from.

Frankly, there is far too little known about anything between Harrenhal and Brandon showing up at the Red Keep that pretty much anything we discuss during that time period is entirely speculatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't agree with is that Ser Barristan would have made his decision based on, all or in part, because Viserys "abandoned" the throne. He tells us why he made the decision he did, and it is as you say a very hard choice for anyone put in such a circumstance. It just doesn't seem likely, and there is no evidence for, Ser Barristan holding the fact Aerys sends his son to Dragonstone - very much a part of the Targaryen kingdom - for his safety as a reason not to do his duty by him.

As SFDanny says. Barristan gives a very detailed explanation for his chosen course of action and "Viserys lost the claim" is NOT a part of his reasoning. If Barristan, who feels that his choice actually was a betrayal of his vows, thinks Viserys' claim valid, then I cannot see how the ToJ trio, backing their every single statement by claiming they are Kingsguard, could even for a second think otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're not even going to address the fact that multiple people in the books still continue to serve pretenders to the throne? Barristan to Dany, Doran to Viserys/Dany, the Golden Company to the Blackfyre line, etc. As I asked in my previous post, why would you assume that the Kingsguard would shirk their duties to the Targaryen line, when others who have sworn oaths of fealty to that line have not?

As I said I'm clearly not explaining it well enough. Check it up and you'll see what I mean.

The concept of de jure and de facto rulers applies to multiple situations, not just the ones you've described. "De jure" simply refers to what the law says, and in the eyes of the people who support deposed dynasties, those dynasties are the true, lawful rulers, even if they do not actually control the territory over which they claim to rule.

Again you still seem a little confused about what De jure and De facto refers to. Yes in the very basic terms de jure means by law. But it's always applied to actually controlling the territory. It doesn't really apply in the circumstances you describe. As I said check it out and you'll get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@corbon I like the Littlefinger sowing seeds of discord as a result of being defeated by Brandon. I think that the duel happened very close after Harrenhal, and that Littlefinger was put out of Riverrun by Hoster at the end of the winter. Brandon had Littlefinger at disadvantage seven times, and Littlefinger would not yield. In the end Brandon cut him from navel to breast deeply enough to prevent him continuing. Brandon only spared Littlefinger because of Catelyn's pleas. That all of the pain and suffering that Brandon and Rickard endured was the direct result of Littlefinger's meddling is an interesting line. I had always favored the maesters as withholding messages from Rhaegar and Lyanna to encourage the rebellion. I agree that even as wild as Brandon was, it certainly seems his reaction was strange given what we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now all of this has no evidence at all, although it does explain a few things, including Brandon's exceptionally pointless behaviour, the lack of any apparent messages out from Lyanna and Rhaegar and also sets the tone for Littlefinger's later MO of sowing random chaos and reaping the benefits.

I can see how initially lying to Brandon, and seeing the crazy outcome it had, could fuel the devious ways of LF. How he could manipulate people into unknowingly turn their world upside down, could become the thing he loves most after losing the so-called love of his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said I'm clearly not explaining it well enough. Check it up and you'll see what I mean.

So you're not going to answer the question at all? You're just going to ignore the examples that come straight from the books?

Again you still seem a little confused about what De jure and De facto refers to. Yes in the very basic terms de jure means by law. But it's always applied to actually controlling the territory. It doesn't really apply in the circumstances you describe. As I said check it out and you'll get it.

I know what de jure and de facto mean, thank you. I majored in political science, and I specifically recall one of my professors, who was an expert in international relations, using the terms exactly as I have described. And in case you don't believe me, here is how West's Encyclopedia of American Law describes a de jure government:

"A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state. For example, a government that has been overthrown and has moved to another state will attain de jure status if other nations refuse to accept the legitimacy of the revolutionary government."

I can't wait for you to explain to me how I'm still not "getting it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure this as been brought up already but I'm going to pop my forum cherry with it anyways.

In Bran III from A Dance With Dragons he is dreaming about Younger Ned praying in front of the weirwood in Winterfell. Part of Ned's prayer is ""…let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them." Close as brothers because they are actually cousins.

Again, I'm sure this has already been brought up in one of the thirty-six threads dedicated to this topic but I didn't pick up on until now and for me it removed all doubt of Jon's parentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure this as been brought up already but I'm going to pop my forum cherry with it anyways.

In Bran III from A Dance With Dragons he is dreaming about Younger Ned praying in front of the weirwood in Winterfell. Part of Ned's prayer is ""…let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them." Close as brothers because they are actually cousins.

Again, I'm sure this has already been brought up in one of the thirty-six threads dedicated to this topic but I didn't pick up on until now and for me it removed all doubt of Jon's parentage.

Welcome to the forum. The one thing that screams at us is the scene at the tower with the Kingsguard. There are three of the most honorable and skilled knights of the realm, sworn to protect and defend the king that tell Ned that they are living up to their vow when they fight to the death. They are willing to lay down their lives for what is in the tower, while Lyanna screams for Ned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twinslayer, I agree 100% with the above. What I don't agree with is that Ser Barristan would have made his decision based on, all or in part, because Viserys "abandoned" the throne. He tells us why he made the decision he did, and it is as you say a very hard choice for anyone put in such a circumstance. It just doesn't seem likely, and there is no evidence for, Ser Barristan holding the fact Aerys sends his son to Dragonstone - very much a part of the Targaryen kingdom - for his safety as a reason not to do his duty by him. We don't know when Ser Barristan makes his decision to join Robert, but it is likely that he does so before the nine months transpire between the sack and Daenerys birth, but even if it isn't, the fact Ser Willam Darry takes the eight year old Viserys, and the very young Daenerys, out of danger from the mutiny on Dragonstone to the Free Cities, hardly qualifies as a statement of abdication. No, I think we know why Selmy does what he does - again he tells us - but the issue of what was the moral thing to do on Ser Barristan's part is certainly open to question. He ends up thinking he committed treason by doing as he did, but putting Viserys on the throne, if he ever had the power to do so, certainly would not be the most moral act that he could have done, even if it was in keeping with his oaths.

The way I look at it though is what difference could Ser Barristan have made in the lives of both Daenerys and Viserys if he had succeeded in getting to them and taking care of them through the decade and a half after Robert's Rebellion. Certainly Daenerys asks herself that question. Perhaps, just perhaps, Viserys isn't the violent paranoid abuser he turns out to be. Probably not, but I think he should have tried. Instead he chose the easy path and abandoned two children he had pledged to protect.

SFDanny & Ygraine -- I obviously need to take another look at Barristan's thoughts on this. But even if we can rule out Barristan thinking that Viserys effectively abdicated I don't think we can say it is at all unlikely that someone in Barristan's position would believe what I am suggesting. As another poster in the abdication thread pointed out, Dany mediated the following dispute in Meereen:

"A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. “They can keep the clothes,” she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it."

That strikes me as a pretty good metaphor for what Vyseris did when he fled, i.e., he abandoned his kingdom.

Now, this does raise an issue of timing. The real world precedent I cited was James II and his young son, who were held to abdicate when they fled England for the Continent. I think there would be a decent argument that when Viserys went to Dragonstone, he did not flee the kingdom -- i.e., that it was not until he left Dragonstone for Essos that he abandoned his rights. Of course, the counter-argument would be that the Targaryens invaded the Seven Kingdoms from Dragonstone, so when the fled Westeros for Dragonstone, the process was reversed. So if we are looking at Barristan's decision, it's much cleaner if he went over to Robert after Vyseris fled to Essos. If Barristan went over to Robert (and became LC of Robert's Kingsguard!) while the war was still going on, it is a little harder to justify his actions on this basis.

I do think SFDanny's moral question is an interesting take on this. Of course, it raises another question -- if Barristan had refused Robert's pardon, would he have been permitted to go to Dany and Viserys? Or would he be serving on the Wall (or dead) instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure this as been brought up already but I'm going to pop my forum cherry with it anyways.

In Bran III from A Dance With Dragons he is dreaming about Younger Ned praying in front of the weirwood in Winterfell. Part of Ned's prayer is ""…let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them." Close as brothers because they are actually cousins.

Again, I'm sure this has already been brought up in one of the thirty-six threads dedicated to this topic but I didn't pick up on until now and for me it removed all doubt of Jon's parentage.

Welcome to the forum!

It is very likely your interpretation of this vision is correct. There is an alternative interpretation, however. Consider this exchange between Sansa and Arya in AGOT:

"Sansa sighed as she stitched. 'Poor Jon. He gets jealous because he's a bastard.'

'He's our brother,' Arya said, much to loudly.

...

'Our half brother,' Sansa corrected, soft and precise."

It may be that Ned was praying for his children to see it the way Arya came to see it, rather than the way Sansa came to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny & Ygraine -- I need to take another look at Barristan's thoughts on this. But even if we can rule out Barristan thinking that Vyseris effectively abdicated I don't think we can say it is at all unlikely that someone in Barristan's position would believe what I am suggesting. As another poster in the abdication thread pointed out, Dany mediated the following dispute in Meereen:

"A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. “They can keep the clothes,” she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it."

That strikes me as a pretty good metaphor for what Vyseris did when he fled King's Landing, i.e., he abandoned his kingdom.

Now, this does raise an issue of timing. The real world precedent I cited was James II and his young son, who were held to abdicate when they fled England for the Continent. I think there would be a decent argument that when Viserys went to Dragonstone, he did not flee the kingdom -- i.e., that it was not until he left Dragonstone for Essos that he abandoned his rights. Of course, the counter-argument would be that the Targaryens invaded the Seven Kingdoms from Dragonstone, so when the fled Westeros for Dragonstone, the process was reversed. So if we are looking at Barristan's decision, it's much cleaner if he went over to Robert after Vyseris fled to Essos. If Barristan went over to Robert (and became LC of Robert's Kingsguard!) while the war was still going on, it is a little harder to justify his actions on this basis.

I do think SFDanny's moral question is an interesting take on this. Of course, it raises another question -- if Barristan had refused Robert's pardon, would he have been permitted to go to Dany and Viserys? Or would he be serving on the Wall (or dead) instead?

I do think the quote in question does merit some thought, and I agree to the extent that Dany is, at the very least, a giant hypocrite in this case. While I don't think Viserys abdicated when fleeing (at the age of 8, he'd be way too young to do so without input from either his mother, or, after her death, Ser WIllem),, He certainly had to acknowledge that at the current time, is appeal to the Westerosi nobility was extremely limited.

Dany, in that particular scene, does take the cake though: Her situation with respect to Westeros directly parallels the situation of the woman in question, but she decides in a way that would mean she can't claim Westeros for herself either. Now my interpretation of this isn't that Dany has no claim any longer: she still does have it. However, her ruling in the case in question is an injustice; just because someone cannot enforce their rights of possession, that doesn't mean they lose that right; and the state should enforce these rights in those cases when people are unable to do so themselves. Dany, however, blames the victim in this case, and punishes her for saving her own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the quote in question does merit some thought, and I agree to the extent that Dany is, at the very least, a giant hypocrite in this case. While I don't think Viserys abdicated when fleeing (at the age of 8, he'd be way too young to do so without input from either his mother, or, after her death, Ser WIllem),, He certainly had to acknowledge that at the current time, is appeal to the Westerosi nobility was extremely limited.

Dany, in that particular scene, does take the cake though: Her situation with respect to Westeros directly parallels the situation of the woman in question, but she decides in a way that would mean she can't claim Westeros for herself either. Now my interpretation of this isn't that Dany has no claim any longer: she still does have it. However, her ruling in the case in question is an injustice; just because someone cannot enforce their rights of possession, that doesn't mean they lose that right; and the state should enforce these rights in those cases when people are unable to do so themselves. Dany, however, blames the victim in this case, and punishes her for saving her own life.

I think it's pretty clear that were the situation reversed, i.e. the house belonged to the slaves and the slaver moved in, her ruling would also be reversed. I believe that it is not supposed to be based on some legal precedence for losing rights, nor to establish one, but as a glaring example of injustice which should come back and bite her in her ass at a point in the future.

SFDanny & Ygraine -- I obviously need to take another look at Barristan's thoughts on this. But even if we can rule out Barristan thinking that Viserys effectively abdicated I don't think we can say it is at all unlikely that someone in Barristan's position would believe what I am suggesting.

We're not discussing "someone", we're discussing the KG, following the same set of rules as Barristan, and as I mentioned above, following them actually more precisely than Barristan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...