Why Targaryen?

[Pharnavaziani]

It had more to do about the dragons, they united the kingdoms because no one/no combination of forces could defeat the dragons at that time. The dragons were the ones that forged the 6 kingdoms (Dorne resisted the Dragons and never succumbed to them) just as they foged the Iron Throne itself.

This actually strengthens the Targaryen case for me. Not only did these foreign monarchs rule after their dragons died - in spite of the huge death toll involved in the Dance and their own refusal to abandon incest - but they actually grew their kingdom following this. This tells me that they'd built a nation appealing enough to be worth joining for Dorne. Daeron II sealed the deal, but building that kingdom wasn't the product of any one great Targ king, but the combined works of all of them.

[Morienthar]

This actually strengthens the Targaryen case for me. Not only did these foreign monarchs rule after their dragons died - in spite of the huge death toll involved in the Dance and their own refusal to abandon incest - but they actually grew their kingdom following this. This tells me that they'd built a nation appealing enough to be worth joining for Dorne. Daeron II sealed the deal, but building that kingdom wasn't the product of any one great Targ king, but the combined works of all of them.

:agree:

But this still doesn''t give them a claim on the Throne now,They won it by conquest and lost it by conquest....

If anything the Starks have a better claim.

[Nudu]

The Targaryans are the reason the "Seven Kingdoms" exist as we know it. Before they arrived, Westeros was full of rival kings who waged war against each other for petty glories.

Everyone remembers how crazy the Targaryans went and how awful the Mad King was. They forget that the Targaryans presided over centuries of peace and prosperity....more or less.

Actually Targaryens are the ones who remove seven kingdoms and make it one. :D

[Roadside Rose]

I think if you have read the Dunk & Egg novels you will be more sympathetic to the Targs.

ASOIAF has only one Targ POV, and that is Dany's.

And to be honest the Targs seem much better than some Lannisters, Boltons & Greyjoys.

[Nictarion]

I think if you have read the Dunk & Egg novels you will be more sympathetic to the Targs.

ASOIAF has only one Targ POV, and that is Dany's.

And to be honest the Targs seem much better than some Lannisters, Boltons & Greyjoys.

I completely agree. Read the Dunk and Egg novellas, and tell me that Baelor Breakspear and Aegon V are not some of the most noble and great characters. To many people only think about Viserys or Aerys ll. I think the amount of bad Targaryens are a very small minority, which could be said of any family.

[Andrés Garcia]

For some of us this is a non-issue since we believe that there is no such thing as a rightful ruling in the first place. Kings cannot be legitimized by violence and conquest, the grace of God, or even (and this is likely to rustle some jimmies) a majority vote.

[mindchap]

I completely agree. Read the Dunk and Egg novellas, and tell me that Baelor Breakspear and Aegon V are not some of the most noble and great characters. To many people only think about Viserys or Aerys ll. I think the amount of bad Targaryens are a very small minority, which could be said of any family.

:bowdown:

I disliked the Targs before reading D&E because Dany is the only one who isn't kind of nutty for most of the novels. All the ones you hear about are the bad ones, but then you read Dunk and Egg and realize there are more great Targs than bad ones. IMHO Baelor Breakspear would have made the best King of anyone in the entire series.

[FuriousGeorge]

For some of us this is a non-issue since we believe that there is no such thing as a rightful ruling in the first place. Kings cannot be legitimized by violence and conquest, the grace of God, or even (and this is likely to rustle some jimmies) a majority vote.

Preach!

[Prince of Dragonstone]

Of course this is a complicated matter but I've argued it half a hundred times before and have lost the will...so I'll just sum it up as "The Targaryens created the Iron Throne and thus only a Targaryen has a true right to sit upon it." Westeros as a united kingdom cannot exist without the Targaryens or their dragons. It was only a short 19 years after the last Dragon King of Westeros died before the Seven Kingdoms descended into civil war.

[Rhaegarsjoy]

I completely agree. Read the Dunk and Egg novellas, and tell me that Baelor Breakspear and Aegon V are not some of the most noble and great characters. To many people only think about Viserys or Aerys ll. I think the amount of bad Targaryens are a very small minority, which could be said of any family.

I agree, 300 years of rule I only count 3 bad kings, maegor was a king FOR that time. The tunnels thing of killing the workers i don't agree with but I get why, or his wives but does two deeds define him, Aerys started as a good king, I can't blame him, I just picture a guy with dementia it's hard to judge him, I think the only bad king that had NO excuse was Aegon 4, viserys doesn't count he was never a king.

[JonisHenryTudor]

They have shiny hair?

In all seriousness, I don't think there was anything particularly great about the Targaryens at all; even their dragons were not unique to them among Valyrians. In fact, given what we've been told about their history, they seem to have a proclivity towards madness, sadism, violence and infra-familial conflict. While there have been one or two almost unimpeachable Targs, such as Jaehaerys I, for the most part they don't seem to be anything particularly praiseworthy. If the current generation is any indication of what they have to offer, then the world is better off without them.

Well this certainly suggests that the Boltons, especially Ramsey, are a secret Targ branch. :devil:

[unSonofStannis]

They had dragons, and they're from Valyria which was a major empire. And they're not the rightful rulers of Westeros anymore, the Baratheons are when they took it by right of conquest which is legal.

[TheCrannogDweller]

They had dragons, and they're from Valyria which was a major empire. And they're not the rightful rulers of Westeros anymore, the Baratheons are when they took it by right of conquest which is legal.

And they will lose it the same way. Not to mention that they are basically almost an extinct House.

I like the Baratheons (in a way) - but for all intents and purposes, they are Usurpers.

[Nictarion]

And they will lose it the same way. Not to mention that they are basically almost an extinct House.

I like the Baratheons (in a way) - but for all intents and purposes, they are Usurpers.

Glad to see some people understand that.

[danm_999]

And they will lose it the same way. Not to mention that they are basically almost an extinct House.

I like the Baratheons (in a way) - but for all intents and purposes, they are Usurpers.

Bit of an odd point to bring up when discussing Targaryens and Baratheons. Even assuming Daenerys isn't infertile, Jon is legit and is excused from his vows, and Aegon isn't a fake, there are still more Baratheons (Stannis, Shireen), and potential Baratheon heirs (Mya Stone, Gendry, Barra, Edric Storm) than Targaryens.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Bit of an odd point to bring up when discussing Targaryens and Baratheons. Even assuming Daenerys isn't infertile, Jon is legit and is excused from his vows, and Aegon isn't a fake, there are still more Baratheons (Stannis, Shireen), and potential Baratheon heirs (Mya Stone, Gendry, Barra, Edric Storm) than Targaryens.

I don't think Stannis or Shireen will survive the series. Even if they do, I don't see either of them climbing the Iron Throne or having progeny. Of the bastards you named, only Edric is a viable choice. The others are unacknowledged and baseborn.

[mormont]

They had dragons, and they're from Valyria which was a major empire. And they're not the rightful rulers of Westeros anymore, the Baratheons are when they took it by right of conquest which is legal.

In a sense. And that sense is the most circular logic possible: if you win, you get to say what's legal and what's not. If you take the throne by conquest, it's legal because you say so. To say 'right of conquest is legal' tells us nothing interesting or useful about the validity of a claim at all: it's just another way of saying, 'I won'. It certainly doesn't suggest that it's impossible to dispute the validity of that claim.

[danm_999]

I don't think Stannis or Shireen will survive the series. Even if they do, I don't see either of them climbing the Iron Throne or having progeny. Of the bastards you named, only Edric is a viable choice. The others are unacknowledged and baseborn.

I mean, if we get into the speculation game, Daenerys, Aegon and Jon might not survive the series either (Jon may already be dead), climb the Iron Throne, and Daenerys at this point may not be able to procreate.

And if we add the filter of 'unacknowledged' or 'baseborn', we're left with Daenerys and Aegon, vs. Stannis, Shireen and Edric Storm. And that's being pretty generous to Aegon who already has the stigma of maybe being a 'feigned boy'.

Not that I'm pretending I know how events will shake out (Stannis and Shireen may die early WoW, Daenerys may prove still fertile early WoW), but as we have it at the moment, House Targaryen seems more likely to go extinct than House Baratheon.

[raegal_targaryen]

sorry to say but baratheons dont hold the throne anymore lannisters and tyrell does under a baratheon name yeah still doesnt mean jack.

[Jon Wat]

I can't believe I found a thread where Dany isn't bashed left and right by 99% of the people involved. Where am I, paradise?