Jump to content

Archived

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

Harrad

Who Deserves to Rule Westeros?

Recommended Posts

Better claim? I think if the series has demonstrated anything it's that your "claim" doesn't matter. Stannis's claim comes from the fact that his brother was a usurper. Dany's father was a monster but that doesn't matter to anyone supporting her claim. Stannis has no heir (I'm not counting his daughter, Val's warning about her has me worried), Dany would be a good ruler, but she has no heir and even if she is able to have one (an uncertain prospect) it would be a Targaryen. There have only been three good Targaryen kings: Jaehaerys I, Daeron the Good, and Aegon the Unlikely (I don't count Baelor the Blessed, everything we learn about him makes him seem more like he was a foolish man with good PR). I don't see the realm being all that much better off with the Targaryen dynasty back in power. As for other claimants, I seriously doubt "Aegon" is actually Aegon but that doesn't matter. If the realm was willing to follow Joffrey, a monster they all pretty much knew was not Robert's son, and are currently fine with Tommen because it suits their political ends, then they will accept anyone provided they benefit from it.

No one "deserves" to rule Westeros. The Iron Throne goes to whoever can take it and hold it. With winter here, half the realm in ruins, and the Others on their way, I don't envy whoever does win. Provided there is a winner, which I don't think is guaranteed.

And the Targariens didn't usurped 7 kingdoms? Usurper = Little child speak for being conquested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Targariens didn't usurped 7 kingdoms? Usurper = Little child speak for being conquested.

I don't disagree. I said the Targaryens were generally terrible rulers. The difference between a Usurper and a Conqueror is really one of semantics. A foreign nation taking control of another is conquering. A domestic rebellion resulting in a regime change is a Usurpation. I doubt the small folk really care about the distinction, and neither do most of the nobles except as an excuse to legitimize their own agenda. But Robert wasn't really any better than the average Targaryen, so I don't see how Stannis derives any real or meaningful "right" to the throne from his brother as compared to the other claimants. Don't get me wrong, I like Stannis, but I don't think at this point it matters all that much what anyone's claim to the throne is. That was my point.

By the way, if we're talking about "little child speak", the word is "conquered", not "conquested".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree. I said the Targaryens were generally terrible rulers. The difference between a Usurper and a Conqueror is really one of semantics. A foreign nation taking control of another is conquering. A domestic rebellion resulting in a regime change is a Usurpation. I doubt the small folk really care about the distinction, and neither do most of the nobles except as an excuse to legitimize their own agenda. But Robert wasn't really any better than the average Targaryen, so I don't see how Stannis derives any real or meaningful "right" to the throne from his brother as compared to the other claimants. Don't get me wrong, I like Stannis, but I don't think at this point it matters all that much what anyone's claim to the throne is. That was my point.

By the way, if we're talking about "little child speak", the word is "conquered", not "conquested".

Robert wasn't that bad and neither the most of Targaryens. Robert kept the peace and everything else but the economy and even that he was holding up. People dislike Robert for any reason and suddenly he become the worst king in centuries.

And...

u·surp

[yoo-surp, -zurp]

verb (used with object)

1.

to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried tousurp the throne.

con·quer

[kong-ker]

verb (used with object)

1.

to acquire by force of arms; win in war: to conquer a foreign land.

Please, note that "foreign land" is just a exemple. Robert isn't holding by force, nobody opposed to him (except some Targaryens' younglings). And yes, he seized it by force but Targaryens too, Andals and First Men as well. Doesn't matter if it's a external or internal party.

And... hey, I'm just a old third grade child in my inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert wasn't that bad and neither the most of Targaryens. Robert kept the peace and everything else but the economy and even that he was holding up. People dislike Robert for any reason and suddenly he become the worst king in centuries.

And...

Please, note that "foreign land" is just a exemple. Robert isn't holding by force, nobody opposed to him (except some Targaryens' younglings). And yes, he seized it by force but Targaryens too, Andals and First Men as well. Doesn't matter if it's a external or internal party.

And... hey, I'm just a old third grade child in my inside.

I don't dislike Robert (at least not as a character), and I never said he was the worst king in centuries. But he was not a good king either.

Kept the peace? What about his plans to eventually invade the Summer Isles? Only laziness kept him from actually doing it. And Robert is absolutely holding by force. He said so himself "You think it's honor that keeps them in line? It's fear, fear and blood". (Not an exact quote, but I don't have the book in front of me). He certainly didn't let Pyke declare independence without a fight (not saying he should have, just saying force was employed as the method of maintaining his rule). And you can't just say "other than the economy". For all his many many many faults, the Mad King died with a full treasury. Robert died in debt to half the world. No, Robert wasn't the worst king in the world, but he wasn't a particularly good king. He took no responsibility for ruling and left it all to his Small Council. He spent most of his time bankrupting the realm with feasts and tournaments and other things to keep from getting bored. He was a drunk, a glutton, and a womanizer. I'm not at all letting Cersei off the hook, but he didn't exactly help the situation. Did he have his good points too? Yes. Was he an interesting character? Sure. Still not a good king though. Even Ned thought he was a bad king and was appalled at how Robert had changed.

No, the Targayens were not good kings. There were a ton of rebellions and civil wars, they get mentioned all the time. You don't get called Maegar the Cruel because you're a nice guy. Most of the Targaryens were either like Joffrey (dangerously insane) or Robert (good generals, bad rulers, like Daeron I) (or good priest, bad king in the case of Baelor the Befuddled), with three exceptions: Jaehaerys the Conciliator, Daeron the Good, and Aegon the Unlikely.

Also, I don't really see what point you're trying to make with the Conquering vs. Usurping. I said that they were different things, but I was agreeing with you that the distinction was not one that really mattered in the end. It all just means they used force to take power. Are you saying that conquerors do not hold by force? That they invade and then once they've won the war the people are all just happy to follow them without any kind of force making them? Or are you saying that only Robert in particular is able to do that, which you are also saying is not usurping. Perhaps I am just missing your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention he communicates with just a single word. That right there is intelligence of the highest order.

For is not brevity the soul of wit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone, in the whole series, deserves to rule it would be Jon Snow. He's actually crazy smart at points, genuinely concerned about the lives of the common folk (unlike, well, pretty much everyone else in the series save Daenerys, Asha somewhat and perhaps Varys), and unlike those others managed to put down the family hatchet to get to the business of protecting those people.

Following him closely, though, are Asha and Daenerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone, in the whole series, deserves to rule it would be Jon Snow. He's actually crazy smart at points, genuinely concerned about the lives of the common folk (unlike, well, pretty much everyone else in the series save Daenerys, Asha somewhat and perhaps Varys), and unlike those others managed to put down the family hatchet to get to the business of protecting those people.

Following him closely, though, are Asha and Daenerys.

"Asha" greyjoy as they call her in the show is still Ironborn and does not care about smallfolk. She reaves, she rapes, she's just nicer about it...

Her actual name is Yara Greyjoy and since this is the "still reading adwd" part of the forum we should probably refer to her that way. Yara could not even rule the Iron Islands let alone the seven kingdoms, the lords of the other great houses would never bend their knees to a female greyjoy.

Danaerys would make a terrible queen of the 7 kingdoms since she can't even keep Mereen in line. She said it herself something like "If I can't rule one city how can I be expected to rule 7 kingdoms?" Good question Dany!

I could easily make the case for Jon Snow if he is actually Rhaegar's son (True Heir to the 7 Kingdoms.) Otherwise he would have to usurp it and I don't see him doing anything of the sort for personal gain but if he did he probably would be the best possible king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Asha" greyjoy as they call her in the show is still Ironborn and does not care about smallfolk. She reaves, she rapes, she's just nicer about it...

Her actual name is Yara Greyjoy and since this is the "still reading adwd" part of the forum we should probably refer to her that way. Yara could not even rule the Iron Islands let alone the seven kingdoms, the lords of the other great houses would never bend their knees to a female greyjoy.

Danaerys would make a terrible queen of the 7 kingdoms since she can't even keep Mereen in line. She said it herself something like "If I can't rule one city how can I be expected to rule 7 kingdoms?" Good question Dany!

I could easily make the case for Jon Snow if he is actually Rhaegar's son (True Heir to the 7 Kingdoms.) Otherwise he would have to usurp it and I don't see him doing anything of the sort for personal gain but if he did he probably would be the best possible king.

What areyou saying? her name is Asha in the books and yara in the show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Asha" greyjoy as they call her in the show is still Ironborn and does not care about smallfolk. She reaves, she rapes, she's just nicer about it...

Her actual name is Yara Greyjoy and since this is the "still reading adwd" part of the forum we should probably refer to her that way. Yara could not even rule the Iron Islands let alone the seven kingdoms, the lords of the other great houses would never bend their knees to a female greyjoy.

Danaerys would make a terrible queen of the 7 kingdoms since she can't even keep Mereen in line. She said it herself something like "If I can't rule one city how can I be expected to rule 7 kingdoms?" Good question Dany!

I could easily make the case for Jon Snow if he is actually Rhaegar's son (True Heir to the 7 Kingdoms.) Otherwise he would have to usurp it and I don't see him doing anything of the sort for personal gain but if he did he probably would be the best possible king.

It's still the book's board. And A Dance of Dragons: she appears since acok. If someone speak something about her name in the show I would think that would be a TWOW spoiler.

I don't dislike Robert (at least not as a character), and I never said he was the worst king in centuries. But he was not a good king either.

Kept the peace? What about his plans to eventually invade the Summer Isles? Only laziness kept him from actually doing it. And Robert is absolutely holding by force. He said so himself "You think it's honor that keeps them in line? It's fear, fear and blood". (Not an exact quote, but I don't have the book in front of me). He certainly didn't let Pyke declare independence without a fight (not saying he should have, just saying force was employed as the method of maintaining his rule). And you can't just say "other than the economy". For all his many many many faults, the Mad King died with a full treasury. Robert died in debt to half the world. No, Robert wasn't the worst king in the world, but he wasn't a particularly good king. He took no responsibility for ruling and left it all to his Small Council. He spent most of his time bankrupting the realm with feasts and tournaments and other things to keep from getting bored. He was a drunk, a glutton, and a womanizer. I'm not at all letting Cersei off the hook, but he didn't exactly help the situation. Did he have his good points too? Yes. Was he an interesting character? Sure. Still not a good king though. Even Ned thought he was a bad king and was appalled at how Robert had changed.

No, the Targayens were not good kings. There were a ton of rebellions and civil wars, they get mentioned all the time. You don't get called Maegar the Cruel because you're a nice guy. Most of the Targaryens were either like Joffrey (dangerously insane) or Robert (good generals, bad rulers, like Daeron I) (or good priest, bad king in the case of Baelor the Befuddled), with three exceptions: Jaehaerys the Conciliator, Daeron the Good, and Aegon the Unlikely.

Also, I don't really see what point you're trying to make with the Conquering vs. Usurping. I said that they were different things, but I was agreeing with you that the distinction was not one that really mattered in the end. It all just means they used force to take power. Are you saying that conquerors do not hold by force? That they invade and then once they've won the war the people are all just happy to follow them without any kind of force making them? Or are you saying that only Robert in particular is able to do that, which you are also saying is not usurping. Perhaps I am just missing your point.

Woah, calm down. I was just supporting you by saying there's no syntax difference about usurping and conquering.

And I will never understand how people keep saying that Jon would be a good king by saying "he cares about"... (Rabid Jon fans, please, hold your poison)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Asha" greyjoy as they call her in the show is still Ironborn and does not care about smallfolk. She reaves, she rapes, she's just nicer about it...

Her actual name is Yara Greyjoy and since this is the "still reading adwd" part of the forum we should probably refer to her that way. Yara could not even rule the Iron Islands let alone the seven kingdoms, the lords of the other great houses would never bend their knees to a female greyjoy.

According to the wiki she's Yara in the show, actually. But details...

Anyway, perhaps I was a tad hasty in declaring her concerned about all smallfolk, but she certainly thinks about the prosperity of a wider circle of people than many of the people in the books--remember, it was she who opposed any war with the Westeros, for the overall unselfish reason of actually wanting to be worth the people's while as a ruler, to do something useful with it by ending the pointless risking of lives that the other candidates wanted to keep up.

(Hell, she wasn't even totally committed to being queen--remember the offer she made Victarion?)

As to your point about the rule not being tenable--we're talking about who deserves it here, not who'd actually be able to win it.

Danaerys would make a terrible queen of the 7 kingdoms since she can't even keep Mereen in line. She said it herself something like "If I can't rule one city how can I be expected to rule 7 kingdoms?" Good question Dany!

To be fair, though, the main reason she can't keep Mereen in line is because of her whole issue with their way of life. In Westeros, where there is no slavery...there wouldn't be as much of that going on.

I could easily make the case for Jon Snow if he is actually Rhaegar's son (True Heir to the 7 Kingdoms.) Otherwise he would have to usurp it and I don't see him doing anything of the sort for personal gain but if he did he probably would be the best possible king.

He or, now that I've thought on it more, Tywin or Kevan Lannister, but...they're somewhat on the evilish side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

And I will never understand how people keep saying that Jon would be a good king by saying "he cares about"... (Rabid Jon fans, please, hold your poison)

Hey, giving a damn about the people under you is kind of an important part of whether you deserve to rule. It's not the only issue, obviously, because you also have to be competent enough to actually be able to help them out, but...if you're smart enough to figure out how to enrich yourself at their expense, that's bad too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah, calm down. I was just supporting you by saying there's no syntax difference about usurping and conquering.

And I will never understand how people keep saying that Jon would be a good king by saying "he cares about"... (Rabid Jon fans, please, hold your poison)

Sorry, misunderstanding. It was like 2am, I wasn't firing on all cylinders, as they say.

Yeah, I agree with you about Jon. He's like Ned, he's honorable enough, he's a pretty good war leader, and his intentions are good, but that doesn't usually get you very far in Westeros. For awhile I thought Jon was more politically savvy than Ned, he certainly seemed more ruthless, and at least he had the advantage of being in a place he understood, but even in the North, Jon couldn't keep from getting Julias Caesared. I just can't see Jon ever ending up on the throne.

Of course, it's GRRM, anything could happen. Sometimes I think anyone at all could end up on the throne. Or no one.

As William Munny said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, misunderstanding. It was like 2am, I wasn't firing on all cylinders, as they say.

Yeah, I agree with you about Jon. He's like Ned, he's honorable enough, he's a pretty good war leader, and his intentions are good, but that doesn't usually get you very far in Westeros. For awhile I thought Jon was more politically savvy than Ned, he certainly seemed more ruthless, and at least he had the advantage of being in a place he understood, but even in the North, Jon couldn't keep from getting Julias Caesared. I just can't see Jon ever ending up on the throne.

Of course, it's GRRM, anything could happen. Sometimes I think anyone at all could end up on the throne. Or no one.

As William Munny said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it"

Hey, giving a damn about the people under you is kind of an important part of whether you deserve to rule. It's not the only issue, obviously, because you also have to be competent enough to actually be able to help them out, but...if you're smart enough to figure out how to enrich yourself at their expense, that's bad too.

Jon's biggest fault is trying to be like his father... (actually isn't a bad thing since Eddard was a nice respectful guy, but Eddard is dead. Eddard could've be a away better king than Robbert and Aerys if he wanted to.) but Jon won't go anywhere. Did he forgot (grammar) what happened to Eddard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon's biggest fault is trying to be like his father... (actually isn't a bad thing since Eddard was a nice respectful guy, but Eddard is dead. Eddard could've be a away better king than Robbert and Aerys if he wanted to.) but Jon won't go anywhere. Did he forgot (grammar) what happened to Eddard?

Yeah, Eddard would have ruled well. Certainly better than Robert or Aerys. He's one of the only people who understood justice, duty, and responsibility. Unlike Stannis he wasn't fanatical about those things. He's also one of the only people who seemed to get that the Iron Throne isn't just a prize you win.

The issue I have though with saying who "deserves" to rule, is that it reminds me of Renly, who went on and on about what a great king he'd make, but never did anything to show it and died before even fighting one battle. Not saying Renly wouldn't have made a good king (I personally don't think so, but there's really not enough evidence to say for sure), but no matter how much one might claim to deserve the throne (either by "right" or because they would be good at ruling) the point becomes moot when they fail to take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont laugh at me. Tyrion.



Why? Because he has the wits and knowledge to keep a realm together. He is the most underappreciated person in westeros IMHO. And the most intelligent.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×