Why Targaryen?

[TheCrannogDweller]

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.

Most of what we're saying here is speculation, I don't pretend otherwise. :D I'm just sharing my point of view with you.

Sure, the Targaryens are in a bad spot, too, but they still have a huge role to play in the plot, whereas the Baratheons are almost done, IMO.

And you have to admit, the possibility that Dany may still be fertile is bigger than Stannis having another heir or Shireen surviving the series. Which leaves you with Edric Storm, who cannot hold the title, unless legitimized by a king.

Btw, how awesome would it be if Aegon turns out to be the real deal, befriends Edric and legitimizes him? :D

[mindchap]

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?

Give them time it'll start soon enough, fortunately I think the bulk of them are hashing it out on another thread.

[Buried Treasure]

Aegon the Conqueror overthrow kings to claim his throne, but none of them were kings he was sworn to. So even though he had no right to go to war with those kings, he was not in the wrong by doing so - as I see it that is the best argument for saying that him winning his war of conquest gave him the right to his throne. Somebody going to war with their king is committing treason, so even if they win the war they do not have right of conquest because their conquest was illegitimate.

Never mind that 300 years may be nothing in the scale of Westerosi history, they could have ruled for a lot less than that and the Targ claim is still valid. The moment Torrhen swore an oath to Aegon and his heirs, Aegon was king. If Torrhen had seen an opportunity to fight against Aegon the very next year, he would have still been fighting a rebellion against his king - it doesn't matter that the Targaryens would have held a crown a year and Torrhen's ancestor's had been kings for 8000. Torrhen might have had an argument that oaths sworn at swordpoint don't count (though even Jaime who said that later tries to honour the oaths he made at swordpoint) but Torrhen's descendants have no such claim, the same for all the rest of the lords of Westeros. That is the Targaryen claim to right.

The counter is that when Aerys called for the heads of men that had committed no crime he broke the feudal contract with them. They thus no longer owed fealty to him and arguably it was not treason to go to war with him - thus when Robert won the throne he claimed it legitmately as his war was a legal one (in contrast to Renly for example, who as he still owed fealty to the throne was a traitor to go to war and could not have sat the throne legitmately).

[Theda Baratheon]

It's a tricky business, the Targaryen's united the Seven Kingdoms into one, the Targaryen's, before Robert 'usurped' the Throne had a Dynasty, they had heirs, their line would carry on. As of now, we have Stannis to carry on the Royal Baratheon line, but will he even make it alive?

I don't believe in 'rights' I'm not even sure if I believe in the idea of an Iron Throne at all, but I can't help but wonder, if the Iron Throne was destroyed, how long would it take for Lords and Kings of their own provinces to fight for extra land?

If there must be an Iron Throne, I believe it should be the place for a family line, one that can continue, one that is started by a fair ruler. As of now, it is implied that Dany is infertile, this means that if she becomes a Queen, who will come after? Will there be fighting after or even during her reign for the ''rightful'' heirs.

All this talk of ''rightful'' is half of the problem.

If there needs be a monarchy, there must be one that can survive, and one that starts with a fair ruler.

Sorry if none of that made sense, I'm a bit out of it today, haha.

[Ser Duncan of Flea Bottom]

Because House Targaryen was the first house to unit the Kingdoms, before this happened Westeros was several kingdoms

the Iron Throne is for the Targaryens, they made the Iron Throne and they built KL and the RK

and they conquered the Kingdoms and made them just one

House Targaryen FTW :bowdown:

[Dagon Greyjoy]

If there must be an Iron Throne, I believe it should be the place for a family line, one that can continue, one that is started by a fair ruler. As of now, it is implied that Dany is infertile, this means that if she becomes a Queen, who will come after?

If House Targaryen goes extinct? Either to her closest kin (which would be Houses Martell, Baratheon or Arryn, which intermarried with Targaryens most often) or to her husband's House. House Arryn is near extinct and House Baratheon rose up against the Targaryens, so it'd be most likely House Martell.

[Nictarion]

It's a tricky business, the Targaryen's united the Seven Kingdoms into one, the Targaryen's, before Robert 'usurped' the Throne had a Dynasty, they had heirs, their line would carry on. As of now, we have Stannis to carry on the Royal Baratheon line, but will he even make it alive?

I don't believe in 'rights' I'm not even sure if I believe in the idea of an Iron Throne at all, but I can't help but wonder, if the Iron Throne was destroyed, how long would it take for Lords and Kings of their own provinces to fight for extra land?

If there must be an Iron Throne, I believe it should be the place for a family line, one that can continue, one that is started by a fair ruler. As of now, it is implied that Dany is infertile, this means that if she becomes a Queen, who will come after? Will there be fighting after or even during her reign for the ''rightful'' heirs.

All this talk of ''rightful'' is half of the problem.

If there needs be a monarchy, there must be one that can survive, and one that starts with a fair ruler.

Sorry if none of that made sense, I'm a bit out of it today, haha.

I have never understood why so many think going backwards, and having separate kingdoms again would somehow be a good thing. It would go from an occasional rebellion every once in a great while to constant never ending wars between the separate kingdoms fighting for land and power.

[Dagon Greyjoy]

What's better, frequent skirmishes and small scale wars between two of the Kingdoms, or occassional massive wars between the whole continent?

[Nictarion]

What's better, frequent skirmishes and small scale wars between two of the Kingdoms, or occassional massive wars between the whole continent?

In the 300 years the realm was united as one there was only what, 3 or 4 wars? Compared to before when there were constant wars that I wouldn't consider small skirmishes. Yes I still say one kingdom is a far better option.

[Buried Treasure]

In the 300 years the realm was united as one there was only what, 3 or 4 wars? Compared to before when there were constant wars that I wouldn't consider small skirmishes. Yes I still say one kingdom is a far better option.

3 or 4 wars that guys like Brynden and Barristan fought in. War of Ninepenny kings, Roberts rebellion, Balons rebellion, Wo5K. Thats before getting into smaller skirmishers like Duskendale or the Kindswood Brotherhood.

On the other hand what is the justification for saying there was constant war? The Stark-Arryn wars for the sisters supposedly lasted 3 or 4 hundred years but if it is anything like RL history not nearly that many years saw fighting. The 100 year war of England and France lasted longer than that, but was broken up by treaties and a couple of peaces that themselves lasted years

[Visen]

I find House Targaryen interesting mostly because they are so diverse. They start with Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys creating the Iron Throne, then follow with good kings, awful kings and crazy kings. They practice deviant sexual relations, they backstab, they fight, they go to war with each other, hell one even feeds his sister to his dragon.

Pretty interesting family are those Targ's.

[Nictarion]

3 or 4 wars that guys like Brynden and Barristan fought in. War of Ninepenny kings, Roberts rebellion, Balons rebellion, Wo55K. Thats before getting into smaller skirmishers like Duskendale or the Kindswood Brotherhood.

Yeah I was going to put under the Targaryen dynasty. A couple of the ones you listed were under the inept Baratheon reign,

[WildBlood]

The only 'rightful' ruler right now IMO would be Stannis. But since I, and most of Westeros hate him, the rest of the folks that want to plop their ass on the IT will have it by right of conquest. So anyone that takes has it by rights.

[Nictarion]

I find House Targaryen interesting mostly because they are so diverse. They start with Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys creating the Iron Throne, then follow with good kings, awful kings and crazy kings. They practice deviant sexual relations, they backstab, they fight, they go to war with each other, hell one even feeds his sister to his dragon.

Pretty interesting family are those Targ's.

Yeah, even if you don't like them, you cant deny that.

[HouseHarrison]

In our modern perceptions it seems like the whole concept of "right to rule" is silly.

But in term of the politics of the time, when feudalism and hereditary monarchism was still strong, the Targs indeed have the best claim.

[yushkevsh]

I have a hard time believing that the people from the North would be happy with silver-haired, dragon-riding, inbreds ruling over them.

From the POV of a commoner, would you more likely want a North warrior like Robert or Ned on the throne, someone who you likely have some deep ties to (as in you may have fought beside him) or someone from a far away and mostly unknown (for simple folk) land?

If you compare what a rancher in Texas thinks about a Democrat for president, what would a hardened man from the North think of someone like Viserys, even without the benefit of cable TV? So it may be that the Targs have a valid claim to the throne I can't imagine the people of Westeros would prefer them over a "local".

[Light a wight tonight]

. If these novels carry any sort of historical accuracy (and they do), most of the people in Westeros would agree. And, the realm has fallen to pieces in just 15 years since the rebellion. Not a reach that some small folk yearn for the Pax Targaryan.

Most of the people of Westeros don't give a mummer's fart about who occupies the Iron Throne or whether that even exists. The commoners in King's Landing, the capital city, mistake Ned for King Bob. All most of the people want is peace, a good harvest, and healthy kids.

[Pharnavaziani]

I have never understood why so many think going backwards, and having separate kingdoms again would somehow be a good thing. It would go from an occasional rebellion every once in a great while to constant never ending wars between the separate kingdoms fighting for land and power.

A fantastic question.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the two biggest winners without an Iron Throne are the North and Dorne, two of the most sympathetic and frequently-depicted factions....

If you're the Westerlands, the Reach, the Crownlands, or especially the Riverlands, you would probably hate the idea of no IT. These regions are profoundly vulnerable and have a history of both being invaded and squabbling over territory. Dorne and the North have some of the most formidable natural defenses and distinct local cultures - but the rest of Westeros would probably suffer without an Iron Throne.

[mrunderhill]

Most of the people of Westeros don't give a mummer's fart about who occupies the Iron Throne or whether that even exists. The commoners in King's Landing, the capital city, mistake Ned for King Bob. All most of the people want is peace, a good harvest, and healthy kids.

Where do you get this from? From Jorah, who really knows what a commoner wants? If Ser Duncan the Tall is anything to go by the people do care, who sits on the throne and it has always been the case. They may not care about how the king looks like, but they care that the natural order of things are progressing. The Targaryens were viewed as almost divine and I would imagine many people blame their current suffering on throwing them out.

[Jasta11]

I have never understood why so many think going backwards, and having separate kingdoms again would somehow be a good thing. It would go from an occasional rebellion every once in a great while to constant never ending wars between the separate kingdoms fighting for land and power.

We don't know that. We have little Westerosi history before Aegon's conquest, but the fact that both borders and ruling Houses seemed quite static suggests that it really wasn't a war-torn wasteland. We know the Riverlands suffered from frequent Ironborn attacks, but these guys have been more or less defanged over time. Other than that? Yeah, some conflicts and internal rebellions because that's the lot of a pseudo-feudal system, but those also happened under ''stable'' Iron Throne rule (Tarbecks and Reynes, Balon's first rebellion, Blackfyre rebellion, Dance of the Dragons).

Contrast with the fact that, in 15 years, no less than two massive, continent-spanning wars for the IT have happened, and Dany and her dragons haven't even landed in Westeros. Nor has Young Griff's campaign begun in earnest. And Stannis certainly won't stop at taking Winterfell, if he even manages it. Lots of blood has been shed for that silly uncomfortable chair, and the series is still far from over.

So I doubt that the IT existing really means less wars. It arguably lead to more, in fact.