|
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and FireClick Here for the spoiler-free thread. |
On March 27 2012 02:57 antelope591 wrote:No Reek??? Theres gotta be a Reek. Ramsay's the most evil bastard in the whole series and thats saying a lot. Would be a huge shame if they left him out this season. Only thing thats really dissapointed me so far 
Could be that he shows up next season instead, but so far there is no actor listed for him on the cast. Perhaps they have kept it secret, but it seems unlikely. Here is a list of all the characters who have not been cast:
http://winteriscoming.net/2011/11/the-final-cut-season-two
|
On March 27 2012 02:47 Maginor wrote:
None of the Tullies die at the RW.
Right, but the wedding is Edmure Tully's. Who are they going to have as the groom if he's not involved?
|
On March 27 2012 04:52 sharkeyanti wrote:Right, but the wedding is Edmure Tully's. Who are they going to have as the groom if he's not involved?
Cat maybe since she's a widow now or maybe he just gets introduced later.
|
On March 27 2012 04:54 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 04:52 sharkeyanti wrote:On March 27 2012 02:47 Maginor wrote:
None of the Tullies die at the RW. Right, but the wedding is Edmure Tully's. Who are they going to have as the groom if he's not involved? Cat maybe since she's a widow now or maybe he just gets introduced later.
Only problem with Cat agreeing to marry a Walder is that a marriage to Cat doesn't get the Freys anything. The reason Edmure was seen as a favorable compromise was because (assuming no double crossing) his heir would inherit the Riverlands, which is a big deal to the Freys. Marrying Cat at this point doesn't really give anything. Any future kids (assuming she wasn't too old to have them at that point) wouldn't likely inherit Winterfell or Riverrun (unless if Edmure and Robb die childless and Catelyn has a son, since it is assumed that Bran and Rickon are dead).
|
On March 25 2012 23:01 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 04:53 Jaime wrote:On March 24 2012 17:22 Maginor wrote:On March 24 2012 12:50 Jaime wrote:On March 24 2012 07:45 Zeon0 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:07 Vessel wrote:i just finished the 5th book.... poor jon dont worry, he isnt dead^^ he cant focus on Jon for 4 books to kill him off when it gets interesting Not to mention that Jon is the Prince who was Promised, and his is a Song of Ice and Fire, therefore he can't stay dead, if he is dead. That quote was technically about Aegon though. At least if the scene we saw was literal. Rhaegar never got to see Jon. He also calls the baby Aegon. And I think the woman in the scene was Elia. I don't think so, Rhaegar slept with Lyanna, possibly married, in order to produce the PwwP. Now to be fair this is my opinion, including the fact that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Especially given the fact that Aegon got his head smashed in and the current "Aegon" is likely a fake. Well in the scene in the House of the Undying he calls the baby Aegon. Why would he call his second son for Aegon when he already had a son named Aegon? Rhaegar also never got to meet Jon, so unless the scene is metaphoric, it is not about Jon. What Rhaegar says is that the dragon needs three heads. I interpret that as implying that Rhaegar produced Jon as the third head to the dragon to support Aegon. If Rhaegar already had three children when that scene happened, I think he would have worded homself differently. He had to kidnap Lyanna because Elia was too weak to produce another child. There are a few options: - The Aegon from aDwD is real one. I agree that this is unlikely. - Some theorize that baby Aegon was swapped with baby Jon, and so Jon is the real Aegon. I don't think this is very likely either though. - Rhaegar was wrong about Aegon being the PwwP. We have seen many people in the series being wrong about prophecies. Aemon thinks Dany is the PwwP ('prince' is a sexless word in Valyrian). - Aegon was the PwwP, but since some idiot smashed his head in, the world has to do without its promised saviour. I think this is the most interesting solution. Then there is the whole Azor Ahai thing and whether or not Azor Ahai has to be the same person as the PwwP, but that is a different discussion.
A metaphor in a vision? Seems pretty standard for fantasy novels. I don't think Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna either, pretty sure she went willingly. Given that the title of the series is a Song of Ice and Fire, and that's the PwwP's song, it seems you kind of need him, whoever he may be, in the story. Lastly, Jon is of Ice(Lyanna Stark) and Fire(Rhaegar Targaryen).
As for Azor Ahai, I think that's Dany, and see no reason that AA and the PwwP need to be the same person.
|
I think the Aegon, is the kid on the boat, the one that came back to pwn with lord griffin, is it not ? Why would you believe varys failed to swap the babies ?
|
On March 25 2012 12:56 happyness wrote:
The interview that was posted a couple pages back Martin explicitly says "i don't like it when dead characters come back to life" so I'm thinking it's more likely that Jon is dead.
yet 2 characters die and are brought back to life + Coldhands + Sevenskins
Plus the countless ammounts of fake-deaths, half of the ppl were assumed dead at some point, baby Aegon returns etc
On March 24 2012 12:50 Jaime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 07:45 Zeon0 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:07 Vessel wrote:i just finished the 5th book.... poor jon dont worry, he isnt dead^^ he cant focus on Jon for 4 books to kill him off when it gets interesting Not to mention that Jon is the Prince who was Promised, and his is a Song of Ice and Fire, therefore he can't stay dead, if he is dead.
you tell this like a fact, yet you have precicely 0 evidence to support it, and there s a lot of evidence against it. Rhaegar and Elia stand at the cradle when Rhaegar says the words, and Aegon did turn up alive and well. You're basically saying, well Elia is just there, doesnt matter it's not her kid, and Aegon is fake because, well, he should be if Jon is tPwwp. that' so incredibly against reason it hurts. Plus Lord Griffin should know if he's fake.
On March 24 2012 08:37 ionlyplayPROtoss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 02:59 scudst0rm wrote:
How do you guys think Sallador Saan is going to come back into the picture?
Seeing screenshots of him and Davos got me thinking. He was on his way south in the narrow sea after giving Davos the boot. What if he runs into some of the golden company that got scattered by the storm and end up joining with them. Then, assuming the Lannisters are out of the way, there is a climactic clash between young Griff and Stannis and Davos is forced to kill Sallador ala Jack Bauer vs Curtis in that episode of 24 :O I dontthink stannis vs aegon will happen as stannis is suppose to be a man of justice. Since aegon is the rightful king he's more likely to help him than fight him if aegon can get over what Robert and the lannisters did.
are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings.
|
are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings.
This isn't the 21st century. There is no such thing as nationalism etc. People follow their leaders and their decisions because they believe in them. Forgiveness for allegiance? Could easily happen. The only thing that needs to be done for this is to craft a bond of need or a personal bond through forgiveness.
|
On March 27 2012 22:09 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +
are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings.
This isn't the 21st century. There is no such thing as nationalism etc. People follow their leaders and their decisions because they believe in them. Forgiveness for allegiance? Could easily happen. The only thing that needs to be done for this is to craft a bond of need or a personal bond through forgiveness.
So you say, Stannis would give up his castle (Dragonstone) his legit claim to the throne as the oldest male relative of the King, and spit on all the hard fought battles and sacrifices he made so far because.... He wants... Forgiveness ....of a Targaryan?... which he doesnt need... or want... or has regrets about rising up against them... or... anything....
Also, let's say in a completely absurd and against-all-reason world, Stannis would want to support Aegon for the throne, why would Aegon want that, if he has to hate someone he should hate the Baratheons wholeheartedly + the Lannisters i guess for wiping out pretty much his dynasty and forcing him into exile. But let's say he doesnt care about that (lol) what would he gain with Stannis? His troops are shuttered and few and a thousand leagues away from his position, he is the heir of Storm's End but Aegon and co took that already, i guess he could ask from him to give Dragonstone back, but that just got sieged by the Tyrells...
So give me one, or a half argument for Stannis allying with Aegon.
Most likely they wont meet at all, at least i dont really see why would they at current state of events.
|
are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings.
It isn't that crazy, I thought the same thing.
Stannis seems awefully obsessed with the concept of justice. Seems a bit strange that he would be so angry that people are trying to take 'his' throne form him when someone with, arguably, a better claim has come along.
If Stannis believes that might makes right, then why is he so extremely angry at the injustice of others rising up to take his throne?
You could argue that Stannis is a hypocrite, but doesn't that also go against his persona? He even punishes people that are close to him when they do wrong, which is why he is so hated (other than his awefull personality). He chopped off the Davos' fingers.
That was the ultimate display of what Stannis was all about. Nobody is exempt from justice, even those that came to his aid and saved his life.
So why would Stannis be a hypocrite and view himself differently than Aegon? He never had to consider the hypocrisy before because it was believed that the Targaryns were a dead line, or a line so close to death that restoring them to the throne would be unrealistic.
But now you have Aegon, someone with a better claim than Stannis, so how could Stannis fight Aegon? That would make him identical to the people that he is trying to fight, an usurper.
I believe that it isn't that unlikely that Stannis would try and pledge his loyalty to Aegon. He rose up against the Targaryens out of a sense of family loyalty, but he is the last of his family.
|
On March 27 2012 22:18 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 22:09 Doppelganger wrote:
are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings.
This isn't the 21st century. There is no such thing as nationalism etc. People follow their leaders and their decisions because they believe in them. Forgiveness for allegiance? Could easily happen. The only thing that needs to be done for this is to craft a bond of need or a personal bond through forgiveness. So you say, Stannis would give up his castle (Dragonstone) his legit claim to the throne as the oldest male relative of the King, and spit on all the hard fought battles and sacrifices he made so far because.... He wants... Forgiveness ....of a Targaryan?... which he doesnt need... or want... or has regrets about rising up against them... or... anything.... Also, let's say in a completely absurd and against-all-reason world, Stannis would want to support Aegon for the throne, why would Aegon want that, if he has to hate someone he should hate the Baratheons wholeheartedly + the Lannisters i guess for wiping out pretty much his dynasty and forcing him into exile. But let's say he doesnt care about that (lol) what would he gain with Stannis? His troops are shuttered and few and a thousand leagues away from his position, he is the heir of Storm's End but Aegon and co took that already, i guess he could ask from him to give Dragonstone back, but that just got sieged by the Tyrells... So give me one, or a half argument for Stannis allying with Aegon. Most likely they wont meet at all, at least i dont really see why would they at current state of events.
The onlything I was saying is that your argument denying the alliance focused on nations that don't exist in Westeros and that there have been a lot of people in history that had to swallow their pride. Nothing more and nothing less. (I also doubt Stannis WOULD do this but it is not impossible)
|
On March 27 2012 22:20 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings. It isn't that crazy, I thought the same thing. Stannis seems awefully obsessed with the concept of justice. Seems a bit strange that he would be so angry that people are trying to take 'his' throne form him when someone with, arguably, a better claim has come along. If Stannis believes that might makes right, then why is he so extremely angry at the injustice of others rising up to take his throne? You could argue that Stannis is a hypocrite, but doesn't that also go against his persona? He even punishes people that are close to him when they do wrong, which is why he is so hated (other than his awefull personality). He chopped off the Davos' fingers. That was the ultimate display of what Stannis was all about. Nobody is exempt from justice, even those that came to his aid and saved his life. So why would Stannis be a hypocrite and view himself differently than Aegon? He never had to consider the hypocrisy before because it was believed that the Targaryns were a dead line, or a line so close to death that restoring them to the throne would be unrealistic. But now you have Aegon, someone with a better claim than Stannis, so how could Stannis fight Aegon? That would make him identical to the people that he is trying to fight, an usurper. I believe that it isn't that unlikely that Stannis would try and pledge his loyalty to Aegon. He rose up against the Targaryens out of a sense of family loyalty, but he is the last of his family.
how the hell does the heir of the previous dynasty has a better claim then the heir of the current dynasty.
Also wtf " it was believed that the Targaryns were a dead line," Baratheons made sure they became a dead line, kinda failed, but it was definetly their intent
Also legitimacy of the Baratheons, they sized power, yes they were rebels, but once succeeded they became legitimate, by all standards and laws. Plus their true king at a time became unfit for ruling, since he went mad, so their rebellion was kind of justified. Nobody read mid-eval history?
On March 27 2012 23:10 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 22:18 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 27 2012 22:09 Doppelganger wrote:
are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings.
This isn't the 21st century. There is no such thing as nationalism etc. People follow their leaders and their decisions because they believe in them. Forgiveness for allegiance? Could easily happen. The only thing that needs to be done for this is to craft a bond of need or a personal bond through forgiveness. So you say, Stannis would give up his castle (Dragonstone) his legit claim to the throne as the oldest male relative of the King, and spit on all the hard fought battles and sacrifices he made so far because.... He wants... Forgiveness ....of a Targaryan?... which he doesnt need... or want... or has regrets about rising up against them... or... anything.... Also, let's say in a completely absurd and against-all-reason world, Stannis would want to support Aegon for the throne, why would Aegon want that, if he has to hate someone he should hate the Baratheons wholeheartedly + the Lannisters i guess for wiping out pretty much his dynasty and forcing him into exile. But let's say he doesnt care about that (lol) what would he gain with Stannis? His troops are shuttered and few and a thousand leagues away from his position, he is the heir of Storm's End but Aegon and co took that already, i guess he could ask from him to give Dragonstone back, but that just got sieged by the Tyrells... So give me one, or a half argument for Stannis allying with Aegon. Most likely they wont meet at all, at least i dont really see why would they at current state of events. The onlything I was saying is that your argument denying the alliance focused on nations that don't exist in Westeros and that there have been a lot of people in history that had to swallow their pride. Nothing more and nothing less. (I also doubt Stannis WOULD do this but it is not impossible)
that's absolutely true, but i did not mention nationalism, it's loyalty to your House and advancing its interests, which the middle ages were all about, swallowing pride, sure, opponents became allies and vice-versa, but never ever did a house seize power from another, then just surrender it back cuz they had the "better claim"
|
On March 27 2012 23:14 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 22:20 zalz wrote:are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings. It isn't that crazy, I thought the same thing. Stannis seems awefully obsessed with the concept of justice. Seems a bit strange that he would be so angry that people are trying to take 'his' throne form him when someone with, arguably, a better claim has come along. If Stannis believes that might makes right, then why is he so extremely angry at the injustice of others rising up to take his throne? You could argue that Stannis is a hypocrite, but doesn't that also go against his persona? He even punishes people that are close to him when they do wrong, which is why he is so hated (other than his awefull personality). He chopped off the Davos' fingers. That was the ultimate display of what Stannis was all about. Nobody is exempt from justice, even those that came to his aid and saved his life. So why would Stannis be a hypocrite and view himself differently than Aegon? He never had to consider the hypocrisy before because it was believed that the Targaryns were a dead line, or a line so close to death that restoring them to the throne would be unrealistic. But now you have Aegon, someone with a better claim than Stannis, so how could Stannis fight Aegon? That would make him identical to the people that he is trying to fight, an usurper. I believe that it isn't that unlikely that Stannis would try and pledge his loyalty to Aegon. He rose up against the Targaryens out of a sense of family loyalty, but he is the last of his family. how the hell does the heir of the previous dynasty has a better claim then the heir of the current dynasty. Also wtf " it was believed that the Targaryns were a dead line," Baratheons made sure they became a dead line, kinda failed, but it was definetly their intent Also legitimacy of the Baratheons, they sized power, yes they were rebels, but once succeeded they became legitimate, by all standards and laws. Plus their true king at a time became unfit for ruling, since he went mad, so their rebellion was kind of justified. Nobody read mid-eval history?
What are you even talking about?
You seem to be under the illusion that there is a strict concept of when someone is or is not the legitimate ruler or ruling dynasty.
It is all a matter of perception, which is what all of the books revolve around and the whole reason the war of the five kings began in the first place. Each of them believes to have a valid claim to the throne, or a throne.
But in strict terms of succesion, Aegon has a better claim than Stannis because his dynasty never died, so they are still by law the ruling family of the seven kingdoms.
Stannis, being such a man of the law, seems oddly of out place to fight Aegon. It makes sense that he would fight for his own family, but it seems peculiar that he would value his own interests (being king) as more important than his belief in the law.
And the law simply states that Aegon is the rightful ruler. The only reason he isn't ruling is because his family was overthrown.
In practicality that means he isn't the ruler, but if we stick to the law, than he should be ruler.
Stannis might very well be willing to join Aegon, perhaps marrying off his daughter so his family still has a shot at the throne. Whether Aegon would be willing to work with the Baratheons though, that is less likely.
|
On March 27 2012 05:05 Jaime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 23:01 Maginor wrote:On March 25 2012 04:53 Jaime wrote:On March 24 2012 17:22 Maginor wrote:On March 24 2012 12:50 Jaime wrote:On March 24 2012 07:45 Zeon0 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:07 Vessel wrote:i just finished the 5th book.... poor jon dont worry, he isnt dead^^ he cant focus on Jon for 4 books to kill him off when it gets interesting Not to mention that Jon is the Prince who was Promised, and his is a Song of Ice and Fire, therefore he can't stay dead, if he is dead. That quote was technically about Aegon though. At least if the scene we saw was literal. Rhaegar never got to see Jon. He also calls the baby Aegon. And I think the woman in the scene was Elia. I don't think so, Rhaegar slept with Lyanna, possibly married, in order to produce the PwwP. Now to be fair this is my opinion, including the fact that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Especially given the fact that Aegon got his head smashed in and the current "Aegon" is likely a fake. Well in the scene in the House of the Undying he calls the baby Aegon. Why would he call his second son for Aegon when he already had a son named Aegon? Rhaegar also never got to meet Jon, so unless the scene is metaphoric, it is not about Jon. What Rhaegar says is that the dragon needs three heads. I interpret that as implying that Rhaegar produced Jon as the third head to the dragon to support Aegon. If Rhaegar already had three children when that scene happened, I think he would have worded homself differently. He had to kidnap Lyanna because Elia was too weak to produce another child. There are a few options: - The Aegon from aDwD is real one. I agree that this is unlikely. - Some theorize that baby Aegon was swapped with baby Jon, and so Jon is the real Aegon. I don't think this is very likely either though. - Rhaegar was wrong about Aegon being the PwwP. We have seen many people in the series being wrong about prophecies. Aemon thinks Dany is the PwwP ('prince' is a sexless word in Valyrian). - Aegon was the PwwP, but since some idiot smashed his head in, the world has to do without its promised saviour. I think this is the most interesting solution. Then there is the whole Azor Ahai thing and whether or not Azor Ahai has to be the same person as the PwwP, but that is a different discussion. A metaphor in a vision? Seems pretty standard for fantasy novels. I don't think Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna either, pretty sure she went willingly. Given that the title of the series is a Song of Ice and Fire, and that's the PwwP's song, it seems you kind of need him, whoever he may be, in the story. Lastly, Jon is of Ice(Lyanna Stark) and Fire(Rhaegar Targaryen). As for Azor Ahai, I think that's Dany, and see no reason that AA and the PwwP need to be the same person.
I think it is more likely that Rhaegar thought Aegon was PwwP but was wrong.
To whoever said Varys must have failed to swap the babies if Aegon is not Aegon: No, in this case he probably lied about swapping the babies.
|
On March 27 2012 23:35 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:14 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 27 2012 22:20 zalz wrote:are you trolling? The Baratheons rose up against the Targaryans with the precise goal of taking power and annihilating them. Robert became the true king, thus making Stannis the true heir. How the fck can u even begin to think Stannis would side with Aegon, whose dynasty was pushed aside by the Baratheon House. It's like saying, if the next US president is righteous he will declare aligance for the United Kingdom cuz you know, they were a colony and all. Also Stannis became Lord of Dragonstone, the previous seat of the Dragon Kings. It isn't that crazy, I thought the same thing. Stannis seems awefully obsessed with the concept of justice. Seems a bit strange that he would be so angry that people are trying to take 'his' throne form him when someone with, arguably, a better claim has come along. If Stannis believes that might makes right, then why is he so extremely angry at the injustice of others rising up to take his throne? You could argue that Stannis is a hypocrite, but doesn't that also go against his persona? He even punishes people that are close to him when they do wrong, which is why he is so hated (other than his awefull personality). He chopped off the Davos' fingers. That was the ultimate display of what Stannis was all about. Nobody is exempt from justice, even those that came to his aid and saved his life. So why would Stannis be a hypocrite and view himself differently than Aegon? He never had to consider the hypocrisy before because it was believed that the Targaryns were a dead line, or a line so close to death that restoring them to the throne would be unrealistic. But now you have Aegon, someone with a better claim than Stannis, so how could Stannis fight Aegon? That would make him identical to the people that he is trying to fight, an usurper. I believe that it isn't that unlikely that Stannis would try and pledge his loyalty to Aegon. He rose up against the Targaryens out of a sense of family loyalty, but he is the last of his family. how the hell does the heir of the previous dynasty has a better claim then the heir of the current dynasty. Also wtf " it was believed that the Targaryns were a dead line," Baratheons made sure they became a dead line, kinda failed, but it was definetly their intent Also legitimacy of the Baratheons, they sized power, yes they were rebels, but once succeeded they became legitimate, by all standards and laws. Plus their true king at a time became unfit for ruling, since he went mad, so their rebellion was kind of justified. Nobody read mid-eval history? What are you even talking about? You seem to be under the illusion that there is a strict concept of when someone is or is not the legitimate ruler or ruling dynasty. It is all a matter of perception, which is what all of the books revolve around and the whole reason the war of the five kings began in the first place. Each of them believes to have a valid claim to the throne, or a throne. But in strict terms of succesion, Aegon has a better claim than Stannis because his dynasty never died, so they are still by law the ruling family of the seven kingdoms. Stannis, being such a man of the law, seems oddly of out place to fight Aegon. It makes sense that he would fight for his own family, but it seems peculiar that he would value his own interests (being king) as more important than his belief in the law. And the law simply states that Aegon is the rightful ruler. The only reason he isn't ruling is because his family was overthrown. In practicality that means he isn't the ruler, but if we stick to the law, than he should be ruler. Stannis might very well be willing to join Aegon, perhaps marrying off his daughter so his family still has a shot at the throne. Whether Aegon would be willing to work with the Baratheons though, that is less likely.
OK, i ll go from line to line since all of them are wrong:
1. Yes, in the Middle Ages Europe (which Westeros is insipred from) the King held the legitimate power, and after he died his rightful heir became the king (or had the best claim for the throne)
2. Absolutely false. Balon wanted independence and conquer a bit. Robb wanted to cut ties with the South and became independent. Renly knew his claim wasn't the strongest, but 2nd in line is good enough when you have 100k soldiers behind you, or if you want "might makes right" plus he had some ligitimacy (and could ve had the best claim if he kills Stannis). Joffrey would have had the best claim, if he trully was the son of Robert, which he thought he was and the Lannisters want everyone to believe that he was. And Stannis the rightful heir.
3. Again Aegon has no legal claim, surely he can feel as being the true heir, but as things stay he has to seize power just like everyone else. His family lost the Iron throne, but his background ensures that if he succeeds in taking it back, he would be accepted. Just the same Balon and Robb can feel they have the right to be independent, since their families were once kings over the respected regions. However, they arent anyomre, and hasnt been for 300 years.
4. Again, it's Stannis's right, unquestionable, they made a rebellion (which arguably was a legitimate one, but let's not go into that we 'd have to quote actual authors and history for that to be clear).
5. Yes, his family was overthrown, thus there is a new king, with a new heir. Previously i just threw out an example cuz it was so ridiculous i didn t think i needed a good one, now here s a more concrete: House of York was the ruling House of England, then they were defeated and House Tudor became the new ruling house with Henry VII. Now according to your logic Henry VIII his son, wasnt the true heir, but the heir of Richard III (house York) should have succeeded him. Just how stupid is that?
6. You just repeat that totally wrong line again, which I just explained why is horribly stupid.
|
On March 27 2012 23:51 Geo.Rion wrote:
Stannis might very well be willing to join Aegon, perhaps marrying off his daughter so his family still has a shot at the throne. Whether Aegon would be willing to work with the Baratheons though, that is less likely.
OK, i ll go from line to line since all of them are wrong:
1. Yes, in the Middle Ages Europe (which Westeros is insipred from) the King held the legitimate power, and after he died his rightful heir became the king (or had the best claim for the throne)
3. Again Aegon has no legal claim, surely he can feel as being the true heir, but as things stay he has to seize power just like everyone else. His family lost the Iron throne, but his background ensures that if he succeeds in taking it back, he would be accepted.
Just want to clarify some things.
Throught earth's histoy, monarchies have only worked as a government system for one reason, and one reason only, the people and their beliefs, in earth more specifically divine right.
A thing like the prophecy of the pwwp is what gives these oligarchical tyrants any sort "claim", people have a belief that there should be a "rightfull" king.
Wars and rebellions happen, when rightfullness is up for debate, and Aegon has as much claim as everyone else, as he is fully capable of making a host of man believe he is the rightfull heir.
|
If Aegon the one with Griff aka Lord Connington is shown to be fake, then I think the author made it way to complicated to straighten out the storyline.
I don't want to and I hope not Aegon is fake  .
|
On March 28 2012 00:03 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:51 Geo.Rion wrote:
Stannis might very well be willing to join Aegon, perhaps marrying off his daughter so his family still has a shot at the throne. Whether Aegon would be willing to work with the Baratheons though, that is less likely.
OK, i ll go from line to line since all of them are wrong:
1. Yes, in the Middle Ages Europe (which Westeros is insipred from) the King held the legitimate power, and after he died his rightful heir became the king (or had the best claim for the throne)
3. Again Aegon has no legal claim, surely he can feel as being the true heir, but as things stay he has to seize power just like everyone else. His family lost the Iron throne, but his background ensures that if he succeeds in taking it back, he would be accepted.
Just want to clarify some things. Throught earth's histoy, monarchies have only worked as a government system for one reason, and one reason only, the people and their beliefs, in earth more specifically divine right. A thing like the prophecy of the pwwp is what gives these oligarchical tyrants any sort "claim", people have a belief that there should be a "rightfull" king. Wars and rebellions happen, when rightfullness is up for debate, and Aegon has as much claim as everyone else, as he is fully capable of making a host of man believe he is the rightfull heir.
well said, he has some legitimacy has an army, he's a contender. But saying he has legal right to the thrown, like some people say, it's ridiculous.
If we need to speak of rights (i dont say we need to but some ppl started it) the rightful heir to a throne is the current King's rightful heir, which comes: legal sons (in order of age, bastards dont count) if he doesnt have any then brothers (in order of age) and so on... Which in our case is clearly Stannis. This could have been different if for some reason Robert accepts officially one of his bastards as his son or Stannis is killed, in which case Renly is the obvious successor. Non of those happened ofc.
Obviously a King can be declared illegitimate for several reasons. Like Robert and co did, they rose up against Aerys on the basis that he's mad and incapable of ruling. In the case of Aegon and his supportes, probably consider the entire house of Baratheon simple usurpers
btw u messed up the quoting, it looks as if i said the firt sentences :D
|
On March 28 2012 00:39 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 00:03 D10 wrote:On March 27 2012 23:51 Geo.Rion wrote:
Stannis might very well be willing to join Aegon, perhaps marrying off his daughter so his family still has a shot at the throne. Whether Aegon would be willing to work with the Baratheons though, that is less likely.
OK, i ll go from line to line since all of them are wrong:
1. Yes, in the Middle Ages Europe (which Westeros is insipred from) the King held the legitimate power, and after he died his rightful heir became the king (or had the best claim for the throne)
3. Again Aegon has no legal claim, surely he can feel as being the true heir, but as things stay he has to seize power just like everyone else. His family lost the Iron throne, but his background ensures that if he succeeds in taking it back, he would be accepted.
Just want to clarify some things. Throught earth's histoy, monarchies have only worked as a government system for one reason, and one reason only, the people and their beliefs, in earth more specifically divine right. A thing like the prophecy of the pwwp is what gives these oligarchical tyrants any sort "claim", people have a belief that there should be a "rightfull" king. Wars and rebellions happen, when rightfullness is up for debate, and Aegon has as much claim as everyone else, as he is fully capable of making a host of man believe he is the rightfull heir. well said, he has some legitimacy has an army, he's a contender. But saying he has legal right to the thrown, like some people say, it's ridiculous. If we need to speak of rights (i dont say we need to but some ppl started it) the rightful heir to a throne is the current's King rightful heir, which comes: legal sons (in order of age, bastards dont count) if he doesnt have any then brothers (in order of age) and so on... Which in our case is clearly Stannis. This could have been different if for some reason Robert accept officially one of his bastards as his son or Stannis is killed, in which case Renly is the obvious successor. Non of those happened ofc. Obviously a King can be declared illegitimate for several reasons. Like Robert and co did, they rose up against Aerys on the basis that he's mad and incapable of ruling. In the case of Aegon and his supportes, probably consider the entire house of Baratheon simple usurpers btw u messed up the quoting, it looks as if i said the firt sentences :D
Sry =p not my intention.
But yeah, its no wonder volantis is a triarchy, those government models (republics, democracies, oligarchies, etc..) are much more likely to happen in any society that doesnt have a widespread belief in divine right.
|
Well the difference in governmental setups isn't just due to Westeros having some "divine right" belief system. It's important to understand why there could be a divine right idea in the first place. And this is something Martin takes straight from our planet. In Western Europe, there was in essence a shift from Paganism to Christianity and that's about it. And Christianity (re: The Seven) became something of a single truth. This acceptance of its totality may not be in line with the original beliefs. In the "East" (Essos) there are lots of gods that people believe over one another, but there are also aspects of each god that merit worship. This doesn't mean people didn't fight over it, but it's an accepted part of society. A ritual system like Hinduism doesn't have one doctrine, and in the same way other religions develop out of a natural evolution.
This brings me to the point that Westeros' divine right model derives from it's lack of competitive religions, not because that's just how they are. It is curious that bloodlines did seem to matter before the Andals came, but there had yet been idea of one monarch to rule the whole continent. So gradually Westeros shifted from a Despotic Paganism to a Monarchical Theism.
Not saying any of the previous religion-related stuff was incorrect, I would like to add the subtlety of what the novels portray. It seems pretty clear that there are very few legitimately pious people in Westeros, so few people should really care about what the gods think about their kings. Look at Stannis, he is ready to accept - although cautiously - some new overseas god at the same time that he intends to take the throne. Well 99% of Westeros has probably never heard of R'hllor, so by what right is Stannis claiming the throne if he doesn't respect the Seven who supposedly gave him that right? In Westeros, the people in power see religion as a means to an end, whereas in Essos it's a reflection of one's life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
