#legtime | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lives4lovesworld · 1 year

Text

A response to @stargareed's comments, he has deleted (or don't show up anymore because he has me block lol) and his response to @theblackqveen's post.

His comments:

First off all, what an absolute clown do you have to be to come here, guns a-bazing, snippy and condescendingly insinuate that I would block you or erase a hypothetical "refutation" of yours when you not only have i) spammed my comment section without adressing any of the arguments and facts in my reblog contradicting your bending and rewriting of the laws of inheritance so they might support your wish of a) Jon having any claim whatsoever to the Iron Throne and b) Daenerys having none, but then proceed to ii) delete your comments and/or block me ? Excuse me??

@lives4lovesworld If I reply to your long response to me, are you gonna leave it up or block me so people can't see it?

Before I begin to yet again refute all this nonsense, I have to say; I have never seen a person writing so much nonsensical fallacious bullshit that does i) neither adressed the points I have made prior ii) nor support their own nor iii) matter in the discussion to begin with and then iv) continues to write a response in which he contradicts himself??

So besides you not even addressing, let alone try and disassembled all the facts (such as the laws of inheritance, the workings of absolute monarchy and validity of king regardless of his mental state) that refute your brazen inaccurate statements of Jon (as a secret bastard) to have any claims, and Daenerys supposedly losing her claim for further rewriting how laws of inheritance work and your (deliberate, dare I say so) misunderstanding of Daenerys and her position in AGoT, you also did not answer any of my previous questions: What purpose Robb's declare than has (besides removing Sansa from the succession) if a bastard has claims regardless if he legitimized or not? Or if Sansa, by your logic, has lost all her claims to Winterfell as well, because she had "alllowed" her betrothal to kill her father? if Catelyn by your incredibly flawed preception has "allowed" her brother's father-in-law to murder her son?

@theblackqveen Dany was complicit in Viserys's death. She didn't even try to stop her husband through Viserys was begging her to. A Westerosi lord might say, "So your husband killed Viserys, and you didn't even try to stop him? That's pretty convenient, isn't it? Almost like you're unfairly profiting from your brother's death."

Yeah... Viserys was also threatening Daenerys not mere seconds ago. If you argue Daenerys should have fought harder for her king, than Viserys should have protected and respected her as person, as his sister and as his heir. If you argue Aerys's valdity as king can be dismissed (so you can and everbody else should dismiss his decree) because he was obviously not of sound mind than Daenerys can dismiss Viserys as her king too, because he was obviously not sound of mind too.

Fortunatly, this is NOT HOW INHERITANCE WORKS (for the chaos that would be legtimized that way would out to TWot5K). All heirs "profit" from their testator's death, so one can accuse them all for "unfairly profiting" from them. But no one does, beacuse that's not the world ASoIaF is. And even if there would be lords to share your opinion, these lords could not argue that Daenerys has lost her claim on a legislative level, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW THEIR LAWS WORK. I don't know how somebody has to articulate it to you that a person's reaction and actions surrounding AND to his testator's death is not of concern when it comes to his position as heir, when a person can literally murder his testator without losing his rights as said testator's lawful heir.

It's your personal opinion that a person should not inherited from someone if they fail to prevent the testator's death or are in your eyes a "complict" or fail grieve them a certain way. THAT'S YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, NOT THE LAW. Although given the fact that Daenerys tried to prevent his deathh by pleaded Viserys to sheath his sword, and offered him her dragon eggs (her most prized property) it is apparent that you want to disinherited Daenerys soley because she did not meet YOUR expectations on how she "should" have acted.

@music-of-dragons It could depend on why the Mad King made Viserys his "new heir". If he did so because he was pissed at Dorne…then his rationale might not apply to non-Dornish Jon. And we know he was very pissed at Dorne: "When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone. . . ." (TWOIAF)

AGAIN as already stated you have yet to adress and try to disassembled the stated facts from my reblog that stated that JON as unknown secret bastard DOES NOT HAVE ANY CLAIM. For Jon to have a claim he would have needed to publicly acknowledged and then legitimized by a royal decree. There is no tHen hIs raTionAle mIght nOt aPply tO non-D0rnIsh JoN.

JON DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY HAVE A CLAIM BECAUSE HE IS RHAEGAR'S SON AND A DECREE TO DISINHEIRT THE TRUEBORN HEIRS DOES NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY GRANT ANYONE ELSE/A UNKNOWN BASTARD CLAIMS.

The royal decree to disinherit Aegon and Rhaenys Targaryen and apppointment of Viserys as new heir is alo sure as hell not phrased that "ONLY Rhaegar's line that is part dornish is hereby disinherited" because it would make no sense. The disinheritance is not against Rhaegar's children's dornish heritage, it is about the preventation of Rhaegar's line to ascend the Throne and Visery's ascend (and it being made as secured as legally possible) PERIOD. And most imporantly, why would the decree be written in this specific way (worded to prevent only Rhaegar's DORNISH heirs), when no one thought he even had any other children??? (children with indisputable claims!) That would be a explicitness no one would have ever come to in this scenario.

Even if it WAS, JON AS UNKNOWN NON-ACKNOWLEDGED, NON-LEGITIMIZED BASTARD HAS NO CLAIMS. That is trueborn siblings lost theirs doesn't suddenly grant him ones.

@theblackqveen First, there were instances of Dany telling Drogo "no" or defying Dothraki custom and Drogo allowed her to do so even if he disagreed at first. So he definitely listened to her.

You deliberately continue to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Daenerys and Drogo's relationships.

Drogo listens to her in some instances because he wanted to. Like when she try to persuade him to do different sex positions or claiming the Lhazareen women for herself. And even in the later instance, Daenerys fears if she had dared to much. In none of these instances Drogo listened to Daenerys because she had the authority to bend him to her will.

And whether her protests worked with Viserys is not important. The important thing is that she at least try to protect her king. But she didn’t. And so others may naturally conclude that she unfairly profited from his death and shouldn't inherit from her.

You are just repeating yourself, bringing up an supposed "argument" that doesn't disinherit Daenerys as Viserys’s heir. AGAIN there could be as many as they want that can "naturally conclude that she unfairly profited from his death and and shouldn't inherit from her". It still doesn't change the law. But given the fact that NO ONE in 6 books have mused anything of this sort, refutes your hypothesis that there will be any to argue (like this).

The only one to speculate in a similar manner about the circumstances of Viserys’s death are Arianne Martell and Daemon Sand;

The secret pact that Prince Doran had made all those years called for Arianne to be wed to Prince Viserys, not Quentyn to Daenerys. It had all come undone on the Dothraki sea, when he was murdered. Crowned with a pot of molten gold. "He was killed by a Dothraki khal," said Arianne. "The dragon queen's own husband." "So I'veheard. What of it?" "Just… why did Daenerys let it happen? Viserys was her brother. All that remained of her own blood." "The Dothraki are a savage folk. Who can know why they kill? Perhaps Viserys wiped his arse with the wrong hand." Perhaps, thought Arianne, or perhaps Daenerys realized that once her brother was crowned and wed to me, she would be doomed to spend the rest of her life sleeping in a tent and smelling like a horse. "She is the Mad King's daughter," the princess said. "How do we do know -- " "We cannot know," Ser Daemon said. "We can only hope." - Arianne I, TWoW

And even here, the focus lays only on whenever or not Daenerys might be "her father's daughter". Not a word about Daenerys not being Viserys's heir due to the circumstances around his death is muttered here. And mind you this from a women that envisioned herself as Viserys's queen.

excerpts of @stargareed's response to @theblackqveen post:

GRRM made the rightful claimant issue a clusterfuck of ambiguity so that Stannis/Shireen, Dany, (f)Aegon, and Jon all have colorable claims to the Iron Throne.

i) Robert Baratheon justifys is claim to the Iron Throne through his great grandmother Rhaelle Targaryen (although we all know Robert's won/stole the Iron Throne with his war hammer (x)). Even Stannis, who derives his claim to the Iron Throne from him being Robert's brother, states that Robert IS an usurper.

ii) If we collectively disregard Aerys's decree as you do it, then yes the unquestionable son of Elia Martell and Rhaegar Targaryen would have indeed a better claim than Daenerys. But Young Griff/"Aegon" and his kingmakers know, should they fail to match a marriage between him and Daenerys, he will forever be mocked as a pretender (x). Therefore debating how the claim of the true, indisputable Aegon would still out trump Daenerys, despite there being a royal decree that says otherwise, is redundant because the circumstances demand from this boy to resign himself as only her mere consort, because otherwise no one will believe "Aegon" is who he says he is.

iii) FOR THE 100TH TIME; NO PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NO LEGITIMIZATION BY OFFICIAL ROYAL DECREE MEANS NO CLAIM FOR SECRET BOI JON.

It’s almost like a law school exam where you can easily argue why multiple characters have the strongest claims. So when someone posts in the Jon tag that Dany has a 100% better claim than Jon, I’m gonna push back (in a civil manner of course).

You have yet to "easily argue", adress and try to disassembled the laws of inheritance I have quoted from AWoIaF. So how exactly have you "push[ed] back"? You have yet to refute anything.

I agree that Drogo had the ultimate authority in their relationship. And that though Drogo listened to Dany in some things (e.g. allowing Dany to have some control over their sex life or prevent Dothraki warriors from taking certain Lhazareen women), there’s a very good chance Drogo would have killed Viserys despite Dany’s pleas because Viserys threatened Drogo’s unborn son.

Here you start to contradict yourself. First you say Daenerys should have prevented Viserys’s death (insinuating that she has that kind of power over Drogo to begin with because Drogo indulge a few pleas od her) and now you (finally) admit Drogo would have done as he pleased, regardless of Daenerys's pleas.

Which doesn't matter anyway, because you still insist on trying to pass off your personal opinion on inheritance as the law:

But to the extent Dany wants to inherit from Viserys, she should have at least tried to prevent the death of her supposed king. Instead, she was complicit in his death. After Dany translated Viserys’s words to her husband, the following occurred: [excerpt of Daenerys V, AGoT] So, Dany translates Viserys’s ill-fated words to her husband, knows her husband is about to kill Viserys, puts her arm around Drogo in a sign of approval, and then ignores Viserys’s pleas to intervene on his behalf.

Firstly, as already said, Daenerys's behavior does not change her position as Viserys's heir, and she did try " to prevent the death of her supposed king.

Secondly, you continue to force your personal interpretation as objective truth; "puts her arm around Drogo in a sign of approval" Daenerys's action to put her arm around Drogo could just as easily be a sign of her seaking his proximity for protection.

I’m not saying Viserys didn’t deserve to die. It’s also understandable that Dany didn’t intervene on Viserys’s behalf considering he just threatened her unborn child. But as understandable as Dany’s actions are, they also could be used against her to prevent her from inheriting from Viserys.

Again, no one does so other than you (and probably your friends).

Let’s do a hypo: Let’s take Season 8 Dany and Jon, but change it so that instead of being the rightful heir, Jon is just a Targaryen bastard. So, there’s no question that Dany is the rightful queen, while Jon is just her heir (as there are no trueborn folks with Targ blood remaining in this hypothetical).

I refuse to even adress a hypo in which one of the most nonsensical show is being used as gateway. (One of the many reasons of it being nonsensical is the fact that D&D tried to pass off the secret, dusty dairy entry of an unknown generic maester talking about "annulling" the Crown Prince's lawful, fruitful marriage to his highborn wife and "marrying" Rhaegar Targaryen to bethrothed Lyanna Stark in SECRET, which supposedly makes their secret child the "rightful heir" WITH NO WITNESSES, TWO DECADES AFTER EVERYONE IS DEAD as a lawfully-binded FACT, which everbody will unquestionable believe.) But hey, at least you are consistent in your fuckery, to say s8Jon should be allowed to inherited shit from s8 Daenerys (from a moral stand point)

Now, I’ve caught a lot of grief because, as much as I don’t like Season 8 Jon, I think he was justified in killing Season 8 Dany after she murdered 100,000 people and implied that she’d continue killing, including Jon’s own family. However, though I think S8 Jon was ethically justified in killing Dany, a strong argument could be made that he should not inherit from her because he killed her and would be unfairly profiting from her death.

Again, totally your personal opinion, stop passing yours off as ASoIaF's legislature.

If you agree that S8 Jon shouldn’t inherit from S8 Dany, why should book!Dany inherit from Viserys when there was even less justification for Viserys’s death? The only difference is that Drogo did the actual killing in the books, but it was with Dany’s full blessing.

The hereditary feudalistic laws of inherintance, espescially if there is one only one "trueborn" close relative left, is not a matter of arguments. If the laws of inheritance allow Tyrion Lannister to murder his father and still remain his heir, than s8!Jon is s8!Daenerys's heir the same way Daenerys is Viserys's heir. The succession of the Starks is currently a matter of arguments because no one know were Jon Snow as legitmimized bastard stands in this line (before or after Brandon and Rickon?), not the Iron Throne's. She is even more so because she did not kill him. Her acting as translater is not of concern, because his fate was sealed the minute he started to threatened a khalessi with steel in the Dothraki's sacred city.

Ultimately, I don’t think Dany being complicit in Viserys’s death is dispositive of Dany’s lack of claim. However, it is one argument that could reasonably be used to invalidate her claim. Just as Jon’s bastardy and (f)Aegon’s identity could be used to invalidate their claims.

i) AGAIN, it's only YOU to argue like that, ii) AGAIN, Jon's bastardy (explicitly the fact that he was never acknowledged as Rhaegar's bastard and never legitimized by a royal decree as Targaryen) is the fact why he doesn't have any claim to begin with iv) (f)Aegon's dubious identity is the reason why the vast majority of people will doubt that he is who he says he is. These people won't grant him a claim to the Iron Throne for that uncertaintiy. And for those that acknowledge Aerys's decree, (f)Aegon could be indeed Rhaegar and Elia's son, he still won't have a claim in their eyes.

AGAIN, he needs the marriage to Daenerys (possible one to Arianne Martell may sufficient as well) to not be seen as a pretender.

As for the matter of @brideoffires being a "white racist" (ilamo) I share @theblackqveen already summerized my feelings. And the fact that you compare "white dany stans' denial over [her] blatant racism" to fucking 13 year old sex slave child bride stockholm syndrom suffering Dany and her raping, warmongering owner tops every generalizing comments from @brideoffires

@lives4lovesworld @theblackqveen Lmao, when did @brideoffires ever "destroy" me in an arguement? Show me receipts!!!

As for the "receipts", unfortunately tumblr search does show me your discourse with her since you have blocked me, I will not spent further hours on you scrolling through multiple blogs to find these posts (about a matter I frankly do not care)

#asoiaf #asoiaf meta #✨vent time✨#daenerys targaryen #viserys targaryen #jon snow #aerys ii targaryen #rhaegar targaryen #young griff #“aegon vi targaryen”#aegon vi targaryen (son of rhaegar)#arianne martell #daemon sand #this dude has got to be troll

50 notes · View notes