A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings II / Dany - the bitch

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Feb 1st 11:28 AM
The previous one is broken, so I'll try it here with the visible posts.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Feb 1st 11:30 AM
Maeglin wrote:

What buissness does Dany have invading the seven kingdoms and claiming herself to be the rightful ruler, it was her father who brought this punishment apon her and the rest of the Targaryen family with his insanitity and reckless rule. She also claims she loves or craves the love of the people of westoros but was quite happy to endorse the rape and pillage of the entire country just so they can have a different (not neccesaraly(sp) better ruler. I think Dany is possibly the most evil character in the book

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Feb 1st 11:30 AM
Zer0hour wrote:

Arguably she could proove to be the antagonist. It'll be interesting to see if she'll be good or evil toward the end

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Feb 1st 11:31 AM
Street Prophet wrote:

That's an interesting point Maeglin, I hadn't thought of it in that way. But I do think she would be a good ruler. She seems to show mercy to those beneath her and rewards those her serve her well. You could do a lot worse.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Feb 1st 12:03 PM
In Danys defense, I think its unlikely that she knew of all of her father's misdeeds. What she does know is that his sworn lords betrayed him, killed her brother and his wife, and then smashed in the heads of two babies. Given that knowledge, I can see why she might be inclined to restore "rightful" Targaryen rule and bring "justice" to the wrongdoers.

It will be interesting to see how she reacts when/if Arstan/Barristan tells her the true story behind the War.

labor
User ID: 0798784 Feb 1st 12:10 PM
Maeglin, the Seven Kingdoms are being torn apart by a civil war as a direct result of Robert's reckless rule, Cersei's incest and machinations of Varys and Littlefinger. I'd say that Dany has at least as much business trying to take the Iron Throne as anyone else (including Stannis) does.

BTW, she didn't endorse the rape and pillage of entire country. After she saw what a war lead by Dothraki is really like, she thought that it isn't how she would like to take Westeros.

Anyway, Dany's motivations aren't IMHO much different from Ned's and Robert's during the War of an Usurper or Robb's now (well, Robb was defending Riverlands from Lannister rampage too, I'll give him a bit of slack).
_She_ doesn't know what Aerys was like. She still thinks that her House ruled well and was overthrown by treasion and treachery. She wants to avenge her family and restore the rightful rule.

And anyone would have taken the dragons for the sign from the gods that they are destined to rule the Seven Kingdoms. After all, only the dragons (human too) managed to unite all Westeros and keep it united for 300 years.

Padraig
User ID: 9461303 Feb 1st 1:43 PM
I don't think it matters to Dany that Robert was a bad king and Joffrey could be worse if not controlled. She things what was rightfully hers was taken away from her so she is going to do her best to get it back whether everyone is against her or nobody is.

aCoK saw Dany in a more sympathic light than the end of aGoT. But that's because nobody seriously opposed her. I am not at all convinced she will give mercy to those people. From what I read in aGoT she could make a very dangerous enemy. I really wonder what side the Starks end up on.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Feb 1st 2:38 PM
Danys had believed that her family was justified in recovering the throne even before she learned of Robert's fall and the civil war, so those events cannot justify her actions.

labor
User ID: 0798784 Feb 1st 2:42 PM
Does Robb fight the Lannisters because Joff is a bad king and Lord Tywin would be a bad Hand or because Joff ordered execution of his father and Lannisters attacked his maternal relatives?

Would Ned, Jon Arryn and Robert rebel if Aerys hadn't murdered their relatives/Rhaegar hadn't supposedly abducted and raped Lyanna?

IMHO it is unfair to judge Dany by different standards than any of the above, especially since she is even younger than Robb and was constantly told that Westerosi await the return of their rightful rulers. Even if she only half-believed it, that's some serious brainwashing.

IMHO, Dany began to think a bit further than her "rightful claim" in ACOK.

.
User ID: 8882983 Feb 1st 2:43 PM
.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Feb 1st 3:18 PM
Obviously, Robb thinks that Joffrey is a bad king and that the Lannisters are, in general, a bad lot. That he was willing to countenance having Tommen sit on the throne after Joffrey's removal is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that that's essentially why it all started.

Would Ned, Jon, Robert, and Hoster fight if it wasn't their relatives? Hrm, good question. What if it was a Tyrell woman who was abducted and the Tyrells went to war over it? Where would they stand? Well, I've my suspicion that Jon might possibly have stayed out of it, as well as Hoster, but Robert would probably have thrown in with the Tyrells and Ned would probably follow his lead.

It's important to note, of course, that Robb isn't claiming the crown of all of Westeros.

Renly did, but he's dead, and in any case he admitted that there was no real legal right for him to claim the crown.

Stannis, on the other hand, does:

Robert, while a bad king, wasn't a terrible king who committed illegitimate acts or took the throne because of illegitimate acts, so that one could be led to believe that he had failed the legal requirements of his kingship (being a bad king doesn't fit -- wasting money is only terrible when people are out to get you for it.)

That Aerys, by his illegal murders and tortures and demands, and Rhaegar, by his elopement/kidnapping of a woman betrothed to someone else, left open the kingship can't really be denied justifiably. They failed their legal obligations (I presume we all agree that the loyalty and submission of the various lords to the king is reciprocated by promises of justice, etc.)

Joffrey, on the other hand, was put on a throne because of treachery, deceit, and assassination, and seems minded to continue on that line.

So by coming up in that way Joff and the Lannisters have, like Aerys and Rhaegar, left open the kingship for someone else.

Of course, Joff's also an illegitimate, incest born child, and so are his siblings, but that only really impacts Stannis' claim. Robb began fighting and continued fighting before such things were revealed (and, as far as anyone but Stannis is concerned, with little proof.)

In any case, this long-winded thing is to say that ... technically, Dany doesn't have "the right." She's not really aware of this, however, because of what Viserys kept spouting about treachery and so on. She doesn't have a clear picture of what happened. Will that stop her from invading? No. But she'll take the throne by right of conquest or right of superior might, more than anything else.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Feb 1st 3:33 PM
Interesting point, labor. I suppose Robb went to war because of his father and sisters were being held captive. Can't say that I blame him 'cause I'd have done the same. Once his father was murdered, I can see why he wouldn't want to remain part of the Kingdom if that's how the ruler treats his lords. I can't fault him for his right to take the actions he did.

labor
User ID: 0798784 Feb 1st 5:12 PM
Actually, Robb contemplated going to war if Ned died of that broken leg, too.

BTW, I am really somewhat bothered by the fact that no one pays Ned's "confession" any mind. We know that he is really innoncent, but it seems that no one could care less if he _was_ guilty...

As to Dany - well, to her Robert and Ned are together with Tywin responsible for murder of Aerys, whom she was taught to think of as a good benign king, of her sister-in-law, of her little niece and baby nephew, Sack of King's Landing and for death of her gallant brother Rhaegar, who did nothing wrong except (probably) marry a woman (well, as a second wife, but still...) who was as much in love with him as he with her... There is also a question of "hired knives" who may or may not have been after her and Viserys for all of Dany's life and of one murder attempt ordered personally by Robert, that we know of. And, Dany was taught to think that the populace actually waits for and wants the return of Targaryens. One can hardly fault Dany for wanting to take the Seven Kingdoms away from such people and under such conditions.

In her own mind, Dany's reasons are as good as Robert's, Ned's, Hoster Tully's, Jon Arryn's and Robb's ever were. And please, remember our argument about Catelyn here... Also, again, Dany is younger than even Robb. She should get some slack for that.

As to Tyrells - IMHO if it was one of their own maids who eloped with Rhaegar they wouldn't have rushed in heedless like Brandon, but tried to learn the facts, first.
IMHO, it is one of the besetting sins of Starks and Tullys that they tend to accept the unproven information as a fact and immediately and decisively act on it.

Also, a chance to make one of theirs a Queen, by however curved route, would have likely mollified if not attracted the Tyrells (i.e. plans for Margaery and Robert).

BTW, how is it, that when Robert carries off a Florent girl and takes her maidenhood right under the nose of her family, it is not considered a breach of the social contract, but when Rhaegar elopes with Lyanna then it is? Only because the Starks are more powerful than the Florents?

And really, beggaring one's realm and selling it out is as much a breach of a social contract as unjustified killings. They weren't yet out to get Robert for it, but in a few more years, with taxes going ever up and the main creditors remaining unsatisfied, they well might have.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Feb 1st 5:20 PM
I think no-one paid Ned's confession any mind because no-one believed it. I think it was generally accepted (implicitly) by most Westerosi nobles that Ned Stark was not a "traitor", at least in any manner that could be considered perjorative. Most probably viewed it as some sort of power play -- perhaps suspecting foul play in Robert's death or some other factor.

I think Rhaegar deserves a lot of the blame for the war. Running of with Lyanna was bad enough, but doing it without any explanation and with complete disregard for the consequences was inexcusably reckless. Brandon and Rickard rightfully wanted someone to say where Lyanna was and why -- a very reasonable request -- and the Targaryens basically told them to get lost.

labor, I disagree a bit about equating beggaring the realm with uunjustified killings. One is a sign of incompetence - the other a sign of malevolence.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Feb 1st 5:33 PM
labor,

I was never bothered by folk not thinking that of Ned. He was the kind of man who had that reputation because it was true. I wouldn't be surprised if, even in his own life time, smallfolk would say, 'As honest as Ned Stark' as a byphrase for complete honesty.

It's clear there were no hired knives after Viserys and Dany. Maybe there were one or three attempts from men who figured they could bring Robert their heads and get a reward, but Robert stated outright that Jon had convinced him not to do it (and Robert isn't exactly the kind of man who'd lie about it.)

But even if there were, what of it? That's a king protecting the realm. The Targaryens storming in again would only divide the realm and lead to more bloodshed. I think you're trying to draw a clean black-and-white morality, and you really can't.

I have of course made allowance for what Dany's been told and what she believes. I'm not sure if, learning the truth, she suddenly stop her ideas of taking back her father's throne. And, in any case, whatever she believes, it still doesn't give her the legal right to take the throne. "In her own mind" isn't exactly good enough to create legal right.

The Tyrell example was drawn at random. Tully would have served better, I suppose. But I'm obviously figuring that some group of peoples, lords and heirs and such, are killed in the course (ala Brandon and co. and their fathers.) It's not a fair comparison if you leave it to, 'Such and such has their daughter taken by Rhaegar. What happens next?'

In other words, yes, there would have been houses that, under those conditions, would have fought.

The Florent girl wasn't betrothed. That makes an important distinction. Further, the Florents dealt with it in a different way, obviously. Brandon decided to challenge Rhaegar to a duel to the death, and we've never been told that such things are illegal. He certainly wasn't 'conspiring' to kill the crown prince -- if he was, he wouldn't have loudly yelled for Rhaegar to come out and face him.

As to beggaring one's kingdom ... 'but really' doesn't exactly work. Again, it's not a clear cut issue. A king can go so far, and no one will really lift a finger. He'll be a bad king, but people won't rush out to rebel. But when he crosses the line, when the magnates have decided that he's irrevocably broken the social contract, then he's left open the kingship to attack.

As an aside, I'm not so certain it would have continued under Ned, if Ned and Robert had survived. Jon was old, vexed with marital problems, and probably felt rather too fondly fatherly to Robert to strongly put his foot down. Ned, on the other hand, didn't have these problems -- his friendship with Robert certainly extended to an utter inability to be dishonest (so far as not being able to agree with Robert that he was a good king.)

But the aside has no real bearing on the issue. If in a few years he so beggared the kingdom that the relationship between king and realm was irrevocably changed from what was part of the social contract, then folk would have a right to rebel. But it's sort of a moot point.

Moreta
User ID: 0701364 Feb 2nd 0:58 AM
There's something that bothers me. Dany idealizes Rhaegar too much. Obviously Viserys brainwashed her, but still...

It doesn't change the fact that her supposedly gallant brother was an adulterer. (I do think that Rhaegar was honorable until he met Lyanna) Does she condone that? If she thinks that he was entitled because he was the crown prince, then I have a problem.

Actually if you think about it, some Targaryens weren't bad at all. Baelor Breakspear, Maester Aemon, Daeron (the guy who brought Dorne into the realm), Egg, so and on. It seems like the Targaryens are either extremely good or nuts. Genetic flaws, no doubt.

It remains to be seen which way Dany leans to. At any rate, she has as much right as any to take the Westeros by conquest. Only Robb could give her a good run and he might die anyway.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Feb 2nd 4:34 AM
Ran, does the breaking of the social contract on Aerys and Rhaegar's part really have any bearing on Viserys and Dany?

Isn't the usurping of Viserys' throne a matter of 'might makes right' vis a vis him?

I'm not sure how it works the other way, but I do not think I've seen any automacy in the sons of rebelling vasals losing their inheritance because of it?

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Feb 2nd 5:57 AM
Sure, they can lose the inheritance. Tywin utterly destroyed two powerful, old rebel families in the westerlands, and not a word of reproach. When a vassal or a king breaks the social contract, he risks utter destruction for himself and disinheritance for his children.

It's all up to what the victors decide to do. When Aerys and Rhaegar break things open by crossing the line, they're at the mercy of the winners. They could have decided to let Viserys sit on the throne with a strong Regent, or they could have gone off and made sure he was killed (rather than letting him stay in exile.)

So, while it's sort of an issue of "might makes right" against Viserys, it's all because of Aerys and Rhaegar's inability to keep up their end of the bargain with the lords of the Seven Kingdoms. If they hadn't done that, it wouldn't be an issue.
Since the great magnates decided to put Robert on the throne . . . well, obviously they have the option to do whatever they please to set up a new social contract.

Padraig
User ID: 2052144 Feb 3rd 12:31 PM
Some random thoughts on what was said.

a) The difference between Robb and Dany is that the Targaryens caused their downfall by doing what was wrong, Ned cauased his downfall by trying to do what was right. Dany is unaware of this at the moment and but my current high opinoin of her will depend largely on her reactions to what has gone before when she learns the truth.

b) I don't blame Robert totally for the poor state of the kingdom financially. What Westeros needed was someone to stop the money draining away. Nobody did. Instead you had people like Littlefinger making himself very rich.

c) IMO what sullied his reign far more was that he did nothing to Tywin after Elia�s and her children�s death. Politics got in the way. And bringing Tywin to justice would very likely risk another war, which Westeros really could not afford.

d) Ned's confession, which could have been a very big deal, was totally cancelled out by Ned's subsequent death. A far bigger deal.

e) As for poor Brandon. He was right. Rhaegar had absconded with his sister who was supposed on her way to marry Robert. To be heartless even if Brandon knew she loved Rhaegar it didn't matter. Princes are not supposed to do that.

f) I wonder does Dany know who this woman Rhaegar loved is?

g) What I really liked about the Hedge Knight was the way the Targaryens were portrayed. At their best I mean (some of them anyhow).

labor
User ID: 0798784 Feb 3rd 1:51 PM
Padraig, no money was draining away until Robert became king. Despite the war Aerys's treasury was overflowing with gold, even by lower taxes and far smaller revenues (IIRC Littlefinger raised the revenues 10x or some such). Financial ruin of the kingdom squarely rests on Robert's and partly on Jon Arryn's shoulders. And looking after Littlefinger was their job too. Remember how Tyrion controlled Littlefinger's accounting books? That's what any responsible monarch/Hand should have done long ago.

As to the bit that princes aren't supposed to elope with (and marry?) other men's betrothed - says who? Betrothal can be broken. IMHO, if Brandon didn't believe that it was a kidnapping and a rape, his behaviour was even more stupid than it seems.

BTW,I really don't recall any challenge to a duel from Brandon - IIRC he and his companions just shouted for Rhaegar to "come out and die" which can be construed as a threat of murder. And the crown princes don't fight duels anyway. I don't think that even a responsible king would have let Brandon go unchastened. Something milder though - the black or maybe exile.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Ran User ID: 0867924	Feb 1st 11:28 AM The previous one is broken, so I'll try it here with the visible posts.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Feb 1st 11:30 AM Maeglin wrote: What buissness does Dany have invading the seven kingdoms and claiming herself to be the rightful ruler, it was her father who brought this punishment apon her and the rest of the Targaryen family with his insanitity and reckless rule. She also claims she loves or craves the love of the people of westoros but was quite happy to endorse the rape and pillage of the entire country just so they can have a different (not neccesaraly(sp) better ruler. I think Dany is possibly the most evil character in the book
Ran User ID: 0867924	Feb 1st 11:30 AM Zer0hour wrote: Arguably she could proove to be the antagonist. It'll be interesting to see if she'll be good or evil toward the end
Ran User ID: 0867924	Feb 1st 11:31 AM Street Prophet wrote: That's an interesting point Maeglin, I hadn't thought of it in that way. But I do think she would be a good ruler. She seems to show mercy to those beneath her and rewards those her serve her well. You could do a lot worse.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Feb 1st 12:03 PM In Danys defense, I think its unlikely that she knew of all of her father's misdeeds. What she does know is that his sworn lords betrayed him, killed her brother and his wife, and then smashed in the heads of two babies. Given that knowledge, I can see why she might be inclined to restore "rightful" Targaryen rule and bring "justice" to the wrongdoers. It will be interesting to see how she reacts when/if Arstan/Barristan tells her the true story behind the War.
labor User ID: 0798784	Feb 1st 12:10 PM Maeglin, the Seven Kingdoms are being torn apart by a civil war as a direct result of Robert's reckless rule, Cersei's incest and machinations of Varys and Littlefinger. I'd say that Dany has at least as much business trying to take the Iron Throne as anyone else (including Stannis) does. BTW, she didn't endorse the rape and pillage of entire country. After she saw what a war lead by Dothraki is really like, she thought that it isn't how she would like to take Westeros. Anyway, Dany's motivations aren't IMHO much different from Ned's and Robert's during the War of an Usurper or Robb's now (well, Robb was defending Riverlands from Lannister rampage too, I'll give him a bit of slack). _She_ doesn't know what Aerys was like. She still thinks that her House ruled well and was overthrown by treasion and treachery. She wants to avenge her family and restore the rightful rule. And anyone would have taken the dragons for the sign from the gods that they are destined to rule the Seven Kingdoms. After all, only the dragons (human too) managed to unite all Westeros and keep it united for 300 years.
Padraig User ID: 9461303	Feb 1st 1:43 PM I don't think it matters to Dany that Robert was a bad king and Joffrey could be worse if not controlled. She things what was rightfully hers was taken away from her so she is going to do her best to get it back whether everyone is against her or nobody is. aCoK saw Dany in a more sympathic light than the end of aGoT. But that's because nobody seriously opposed her. I am not at all convinced she will give mercy to those people. From what I read in aGoT she could make a very dangerous enemy. I really wonder what side the Starks end up on.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Feb 1st 2:38 PM Danys had believed that her family was justified in recovering the throne even before she learned of Robert's fall and the civil war, so those events cannot justify her actions.
labor User ID: 0798784	Feb 1st 2:42 PM Does Robb fight the Lannisters because Joff is a bad king and Lord Tywin would be a bad Hand or because Joff ordered execution of his father and Lannisters attacked his maternal relatives? Would Ned, Jon Arryn and Robert rebel if Aerys hadn't murdered their relatives/Rhaegar hadn't supposedly abducted and raped Lyanna? IMHO it is unfair to judge Dany by different standards than any of the above, especially since she is even younger than Robb and was constantly told that Westerosi await the return of their rightful rulers. Even if she only half-believed it, that's some serious brainwashing. IMHO, Dany began to think a bit further than her "rightful claim" in ACOK.
. User ID: 8882983	Feb 1st 2:43 PM .
Ran User ID: 0867924	Feb 1st 3:18 PM Obviously, Robb thinks that Joffrey is a bad king and that the Lannisters are, in general, a bad lot. That he was willing to countenance having Tommen sit on the throne after Joffrey's removal is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that that's essentially why it all started. Would Ned, Jon, Robert, and Hoster fight if it wasn't their relatives? Hrm, good question. What if it was a Tyrell woman who was abducted and the Tyrells went to war over it? Where would they stand? Well, I've my suspicion that Jon might possibly have stayed out of it, as well as Hoster, but Robert would probably have thrown in with the Tyrells and Ned would probably follow his lead. It's important to note, of course, that Robb isn't claiming the crown of all of Westeros. Renly did, but he's dead, and in any case he admitted that there was no real legal right for him to claim the crown. Stannis, on the other hand, does: Robert, while a bad king, wasn't a terrible king who committed illegitimate acts or took the throne because of illegitimate acts, so that one could be led to believe that he had failed the legal requirements of his kingship (being a bad king doesn't fit -- wasting money is only terrible when people are out to get you for it.) That Aerys, by his illegal murders and tortures and demands, and Rhaegar, by his elopement/kidnapping of a woman betrothed to someone else, left open the kingship can't really be denied justifiably. They failed their legal obligations (I presume we all agree that the loyalty and submission of the various lords to the king is reciprocated by promises of justice, etc.) Joffrey, on the other hand, was put on a throne because of treachery, deceit, and assassination, and seems minded to continue on that line. So by coming up in that way Joff and the Lannisters have, like Aerys and Rhaegar, left open the kingship for someone else. Of course, Joff's also an illegitimate, incest born child, and so are his siblings, but that only really impacts Stannis' claim. Robb began fighting and continued fighting before such things were revealed (and, as far as anyone but Stannis is concerned, with little proof.) In any case, this long-winded thing is to say that ... technically, Dany doesn't have "the right." She's not really aware of this, however, because of what Viserys kept spouting about treachery and so on. She doesn't have a clear picture of what happened. Will that stop her from invading? No. But she'll take the throne by right of conquest or right of superior might, more than anything else.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Feb 1st 3:33 PM Interesting point, labor. I suppose Robb went to war because of his father and sisters were being held captive. Can't say that I blame him 'cause I'd have done the same. Once his father was murdered, I can see why he wouldn't want to remain part of the Kingdom if that's how the ruler treats his lords. I can't fault him for his right to take the actions he did.
labor User ID: 0798784	Feb 1st 5:12 PM Actually, Robb contemplated going to war if Ned died of that broken leg, too. BTW, I am really somewhat bothered by the fact that no one pays Ned's "confession" any mind. We know that he is really innoncent, but it seems that no one could care less if he _was_ guilty... As to Dany - well, to her Robert and Ned are together with Tywin responsible for murder of Aerys, whom she was taught to think of as a good benign king, of her sister-in-law, of her little niece and baby nephew, Sack of King's Landing and for death of her gallant brother Rhaegar, who did nothing wrong except (probably) marry a woman (well, as a second wife, but still...) who was as much in love with him as he with her... There is also a question of "hired knives" who may or may not have been after her and Viserys for all of Dany's life and of one murder attempt ordered personally by Robert, that we know of. And, Dany was taught to think that the populace actually waits for and wants the return of Targaryens. One can hardly fault Dany for wanting to take the Seven Kingdoms away from such people and under such conditions. In her own mind, Dany's reasons are as good as Robert's, Ned's, Hoster Tully's, Jon Arryn's and Robb's ever were. And please, remember our argument about Catelyn here... Also, again, Dany is younger than even Robb. She should get some slack for that. As to Tyrells - IMHO if it was one of their own maids who eloped with Rhaegar they wouldn't have rushed in heedless like Brandon, but tried to learn the facts, first. IMHO, it is one of the besetting sins of Starks and Tullys that they tend to accept the unproven information as a fact and immediately and decisively act on it. Also, a chance to make one of theirs a Queen, by however curved route, would have likely mollified if not attracted the Tyrells (i.e. plans for Margaery and Robert). BTW, how is it, that when Robert carries off a Florent girl and takes her maidenhood right under the nose of her family, it is not considered a breach of the social contract, but when Rhaegar elopes with Lyanna then it is? Only because the Starks are more powerful than the Florents? And really, beggaring one's realm and selling it out is as much a breach of a social contract as unjustified killings. They weren't yet out to get Robert for it, but in a few more years, with taxes going ever up and the main creditors remaining unsatisfied, they well might have.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Feb 1st 5:20 PM I think no-one paid Ned's confession any mind because no-one believed it. I think it was generally accepted (implicitly) by most Westerosi nobles that Ned Stark was not a "traitor", at least in any manner that could be considered perjorative. Most probably viewed it as some sort of power play -- perhaps suspecting foul play in Robert's death or some other factor. I think Rhaegar deserves a lot of the blame for the war. Running of with Lyanna was bad enough, but doing it without any explanation and with complete disregard for the consequences was inexcusably reckless. Brandon and Rickard rightfully wanted someone to say where Lyanna was and why -- a very reasonable request -- and the Targaryens basically told them to get lost. labor, I disagree a bit about equating beggaring the realm with uunjustified killings. One is a sign of incompetence - the other a sign of malevolence.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Feb 1st 5:33 PM labor, I was never bothered by folk not thinking that of Ned. He was the kind of man who had that reputation because it was true. I wouldn't be surprised if, even in his own life time, smallfolk would say, 'As honest as Ned Stark' as a byphrase for complete honesty. It's clear there were no hired knives after Viserys and Dany. Maybe there were one or three attempts from men who figured they could bring Robert their heads and get a reward, but Robert stated outright that Jon had convinced him not to do it (and Robert isn't exactly the kind of man who'd lie about it.) But even if there were, what of it? That's a king protecting the realm. The Targaryens storming in again would only divide the realm and lead to more bloodshed. I think you're trying to draw a clean black-and-white morality, and you really can't. I have of course made allowance for what Dany's been told and what she believes. I'm not sure if, learning the truth, she suddenly stop her ideas of taking back her father's throne. And, in any case, whatever she believes, it still doesn't give her the legal right to take the throne. "In her own mind" isn't exactly good enough to create legal right. The Tyrell example was drawn at random. Tully would have served better, I suppose. But I'm obviously figuring that some group of peoples, lords and heirs and such, are killed in the course (ala Brandon and co. and their fathers.) It's not a fair comparison if you leave it to, 'Such and such has their daughter taken by Rhaegar. What happens next?' In other words, yes, there would have been houses that, under those conditions, would have fought. The Florent girl wasn't betrothed. That makes an important distinction. Further, the Florents dealt with it in a different way, obviously. Brandon decided to challenge Rhaegar to a duel to the death, and we've never been told that such things are illegal. He certainly wasn't 'conspiring' to kill the crown prince -- if he was, he wouldn't have loudly yelled for Rhaegar to come out and face him. As to beggaring one's kingdom ... 'but really' doesn't exactly work. Again, it's not a clear cut issue. A king can go so far, and no one will really lift a finger. He'll be a bad king, but people won't rush out to rebel. But when he crosses the line, when the magnates have decided that he's irrevocably broken the social contract, then he's left open the kingship to attack. As an aside, I'm not so certain it would have continued under Ned, if Ned and Robert had survived. Jon was old, vexed with marital problems, and probably felt rather too fondly fatherly to Robert to strongly put his foot down. Ned, on the other hand, didn't have these problems -- his friendship with Robert certainly extended to an utter inability to be dishonest (so far as not being able to agree with Robert that he was a good king.) But the aside has no real bearing on the issue. If in a few years he so beggared the kingdom that the relationship between king and realm was irrevocably changed from what was part of the social contract, then folk would have a right to rebel. But it's sort of a moot point.
Moreta User ID: 0701364	Feb 2nd 0:58 AM There's something that bothers me. Dany idealizes Rhaegar too much. Obviously Viserys brainwashed her, but still... It doesn't change the fact that her supposedly gallant brother was an adulterer. (I do think that Rhaegar was honorable until he met Lyanna) Does she condone that? If she thinks that he was entitled because he was the crown prince, then I have a problem. Actually if you think about it, some Targaryens weren't bad at all. Baelor Breakspear, Maester Aemon, Daeron (the guy who brought Dorne into the realm), Egg, so and on. It seems like the Targaryens are either extremely good or nuts. Genetic flaws, no doubt. It remains to be seen which way Dany leans to. At any rate, she has as much right as any to take the Westeros by conquest. Only Robb could give her a good run and he might die anyway.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Feb 2nd 4:34 AM Ran, does the breaking of the social contract on Aerys and Rhaegar's part really have any bearing on Viserys and Dany? Isn't the usurping of Viserys' throne a matter of 'might makes right' vis a vis him? I'm not sure how it works the other way, but I do not think I've seen any automacy in the sons of rebelling vasals losing their inheritance because of it?
Ran User ID: 0867924	Feb 2nd 5:57 AM Sure, they can lose the inheritance. Tywin utterly destroyed two powerful, old rebel families in the westerlands, and not a word of reproach. When a vassal or a king breaks the social contract, he risks utter destruction for himself and disinheritance for his children. It's all up to what the victors decide to do. When Aerys and Rhaegar break things open by crossing the line, they're at the mercy of the winners. They could have decided to let Viserys sit on the throne with a strong Regent, or they could have gone off and made sure he was killed (rather than letting him stay in exile.) So, while it's sort of an issue of "might makes right" against Viserys, it's all because of Aerys and Rhaegar's inability to keep up their end of the bargain with the lords of the Seven Kingdoms. If they hadn't done that, it wouldn't be an issue. Since the great magnates decided to put Robert on the throne . . . well, obviously they have the option to do whatever they please to set up a new social contract.
Padraig User ID: 2052144	Feb 3rd 12:31 PM Some random thoughts on what was said. a) The difference between Robb and Dany is that the Targaryens caused their downfall by doing what was wrong, Ned cauased his downfall by trying to do what was right. Dany is unaware of this at the moment and but my current high opinoin of her will depend largely on her reactions to what has gone before when she learns the truth. b) I don't blame Robert totally for the poor state of the kingdom financially. What Westeros needed was someone to stop the money draining away. Nobody did. Instead you had people like Littlefinger making himself very rich. c) IMO what sullied his reign far more was that he did nothing to Tywin after Elia�s and her children�s death. Politics got in the way. And bringing Tywin to justice would very likely risk another war, which Westeros really could not afford. d) Ned's confession, which could have been a very big deal, was totally cancelled out by Ned's subsequent death. A far bigger deal. e) As for poor Brandon. He was right. Rhaegar had absconded with his sister who was supposed on her way to marry Robert. To be heartless even if Brandon knew she loved Rhaegar it didn't matter. Princes are not supposed to do that. f) I wonder does Dany know who this woman Rhaegar loved is? g) What I really liked about the Hedge Knight was the way the Targaryens were portrayed. At their best I mean (some of them anyhow).
labor User ID: 0798784	Feb 3rd 1:51 PM Padraig, no money was draining away until Robert became king. Despite the war Aerys's treasury was overflowing with gold, even by lower taxes and far smaller revenues (IIRC Littlefinger raised the revenues 10x or some such). Financial ruin of the kingdom squarely rests on Robert's and partly on Jon Arryn's shoulders. And looking after Littlefinger was their job too. Remember how Tyrion controlled Littlefinger's accounting books? That's what any responsible monarch/Hand should have done long ago. As to the bit that princes aren't supposed to elope with (and marry?) other men's betrothed - says who? Betrothal can be broken. IMHO, if Brandon didn't believe that it was a kidnapping and a rape, his behaviour was even more stupid than it seems. BTW,I really don't recall any challenge to a duel from Brandon - IIRC he and his companions just shouted for Rhaegar to "come out and die" which can be construed as a threat of murder. And the crown princes don't fight duels anyway. I don't think that even a responsible king would have let Brandon go unchastened. Something milder though - the black or maybe exile.