Are you expecting a happy ending to ASoIaF?

The sooner Dany dies the better. Her death is of course inevitable, but the current prominance of her PoV in the books coupled with her lack of any impact directly on Westeros argues dramatic and important send off that she hardly deserves.

But I'd be as happy as an evangelical at the rapture if the next book isn't stuck with half a plot-arc dealing with only half the characters, most doing little or nothing. (Of course the next will only have half the characters, but I am hoping for a full arc without 300+ pages of useless filler)

Hmmm...no wonder this thread is here, just realized I wasn't in general chatter. Which also may be why none of you look familiar.

QUOTE (jscottnelson @ Sep 5 2006, 18.14)

I'm surprised at those that feel that Dany is going to die. To me, it's been telegraphed since the very beginning that she will return and clean up the mess that is the kingdom after everyone has killed everyone else off -- bringing her dragons with her, and in essence starting over again (history repeating itself) with her line -- except she will have learned through her travels how to be a real ruler.

It's pretty much telegraphed that she will return with her host and be some sort of pseudo-savior/conquerer, no doubt fighting the Other's with her dragons. But GRRM has a habit of destroying expectations of characters who think they're owed a power, glory, and a throne by birthright. (See the Greyjoy kid who thought the north was his by right until he got smacked around by his big sister and deposed, more or less). And considering his fatalist streak, it's not hard to envision her dying in some depserate, heroic effort to stop the invaders of Westeros. Obviously she's been given too many pages, while not being in an any of the Westeros action, for her not to have a major role in future events. I just hope one of those roles involves a painful, excrutiating death. I'd prefer a meaningless one, but that's not likely.

It is concievable that she returns a conquerer, saves Westeros, and sits on the Iron Throne ruling all of her subjects wisely and brings peace/prosperity to the land. Which would result in fever and vomiting for me, burning of all the Martin books I own, and a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the man himself.

Seriously, if the next book consisted of 2500 pages of nothing but Brienne walking and Sam whining, but the last page had Dany stabbed to death by some random mugger, some worthless, meaningless 'tragedy'...I'd hail it as the greatest novel ever written.

Double Standards: Who, How, and Why

QUOTE (Slinx @ Sep 12 2006, 22.13)

I don't think Barristan or any other Kingsguard is qualified to pass much of an opinion on Aerys. For Jamie to be told not to judge Aerys for raping his wife shows that ignoring the King's sins is a passed down event. They can't reflect too badly on the king's actions because it shows how low their character is to serve such a man.

They are the Kingsguard. Their only purpose, their only duty is to protect the king and his royal lineague. They are the secret service. The Praetorian Guard. Commanded by an oath so powerful that it prevents them from taking a wife, child, land, or titles. If that oath was simply disregarded every time there's a bad king, the entire foundation and purpose of the group would be crippled. While they may disapprove and cast judgment on a king's actions, to betray their oath would undermine the organzation potentially towards the point of irrelevance and besmirch their own honor, no matter the potential consequences of not betraying it. Jamie made a judgment call, his honor and reputation for all time, and potentially that of the whole Kingsguard, for the city and hundreds of thousands of people in Kings Landing. With that much on the line, perhaps it was the right one.

And remember, Aerys didn't start off insane.

As for Dany, when we met the Starks they already had their established rule, their land. A quaint, somewhat happy family. Firm, just upbringing. And they existed in that role for thousands of years. Dany and her kin were always usurpers and outsiders conquering from afar and using flying, firebreathing Dues Ex Machina's to do it. Her kin brought madness and instability about every third generation just so they could 'keep the bloodline pure'. She has done nothing to merit respect, shown little in the way of competence, yet feels that she's entitled to Westeros by right. Worse still, the way her story is being crafted suggests that she may actually achieve it to some degree. She is the closest thing to the stereotypical fantasy hero cliche, outside of maybe Jon.

And perhaps worst in my mind, is that she has done nothing to deserve the power and minions she currently possesses. She got dragons because Martin wanted her to have dragons. She took no great efforts reasonably calculated to achieving that end, her little death/fire/hatching birth bit worked the author wanted it too. Well, fair enough. Ok, not knowing how one would reasonably grab onto a trio of dragons, I can accept that...grudgingly.

But when she got her army of super soldiers I just wanted to vomit. What a horribly contrived set of unrealistic conveniences expedited at the author's whim to give the character something that none of her actions would ever reasonably lead too. I mean seriously, we'd have to believe that these sinister slavers and cutthroat traders are naive as little children to fall for something so silly. Or that they'd socially engineer these beasts to be the ultimate war machines and not implant a 'Don't ever attack us' suggestion in between their snipping and puppy murdering. There are too many unrealistic turns of events in this sequence that we're forced to swallow simply because Martin wanted her to have an army. So she gets dragons, an army, an apparent destiny to save Westeros and potentially rule it (or else die heroically), all through no competence of her own, and people wonder why the worthless twit is hated?

And to Ned. I think some of the criticism of him is unfair. He didn't play the game well because he never intended to. He had no ambitions beyond justice, no goal beyond truth. The only thing that trumped those ideals was the safety of his family. He is a paragon of hard justice, discipline, and sensible righteousness. This may not serve him playing cloak n dagger games in the King's Court, but don't believe for a second that it doesn't have it's uses.

This sort of example commands the respect of friends and enemies alike. Inspires fierce loyalty of those like-minded, or those who simply believe they are. (which with chivalric notions tossed around in word often enough, though not often in deed, it'd still work to similar effect). When he calls, banner-men will come. Disputing rivals in his own land will respect and obey his judgment as arbiter, never suspecting him of favoritism or bias. His honor is well known and his word better than a dozen chests of Lannister gold. He could call on reasonable aid from any house during times of peace with no doubt that the debt will be repaid. And he knew his limitations. In the 15 years since the rebellion, he rarely mingled or messed with the Byzantine politics of the court, merely seeing to his own lands and giving it strong, firm rule. He only left, and did so unwillingly, because a dear friend appealed to his sense of duty and loyalty, and he was left with little choice but to comply. He was completely out of his element, but perservered and did his best. And for that we call him 'Ned the naive dunce'? Bah!

QUOTE (oba @ Sep 13 2006, 07.44)

And the Stark kids worked so hard to get their direwolves and warging abilities. Wait, I forgot, Robb found them in the snow.

The direwolves aren't an unbalancing force that can single-handedly shatter armies and conquer kingdoms. Neither are any of the warging abilities. And just about every PoV kid character had prophetic foretellings, dreams or visions at one time or another. And to be fair, the direwolves in the snow were the idea that spawned this entire series, so better off to have them.

QUOTE (oba @ Sep 13 2006, 07.44)

You mean sort of like the sequence of events which enable Jon to become LC of the Night's Watch?

To be fair I did admit that Jon is most like Dany as far as fantasy archetype-cliches go. But while his LC election was stretching it, I don't think it pushes our suspension of disbelief quite as much as Dany and the unsullied. He is the son (even if a bastard) of the powerful, honorable, and well respected king of the north. His family's ties to the Nightwatch are long-standing and extensive. He would come in there with instant status (and a fair amount of backlash too). His general competence and intelligence would only aid that start. Alot of the old leadership were former nobles, some (Benjen, though while missing, would still have allies there) from his house or at the very least respectful to it. Essentially, it was plausible given the rational foundation that he could rise to this position. It seemed a bit overly convenient, but not quite forced. Dany and the unsullied is an entirely different story, one I've already covered.

And I generally have no problem with an author establishing his favored outcome in a book, as long as it's plausible. By that I mean the outcome is reasonable supported by an established foundation based more or less in reality. And that we're not forced to accept too many implausible propositions to get to that conclusion. I can give a 'mystical accident/destiny' pass on the dragons, but the Unsullied plot was asking us to swallow too much.

And I'll get to yours when I have more time Enguarrard.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 13 2006, 04.00)

300 years is a long time, by your logic you should move back to Europe since you clearly is an outsider in America.

It's a long time in the real world, but not respectively as far as Westeros is concerned. They have a 12,000 year (somewhat) recorded history, some of the major northern houses founded as long as 10,000 years ago, with the southern ones often at least 6k. By Westeros standards, 300 years is a drop in the bucket.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 13 2006, 04.00)

And you obviously don’t know what Deus Ex Machina is.
The Valyrians used dragons in combat for hundreds, if not thousands of years, the Targaryens didn’t pull them of their pockets when they conquered Westeros.

I'm well aware of the meaning and proper usage of the term. I used it because it fit the sentence well and the dragons have every potential to be just that. Also they present a story imbalancing plot device that has the ability to shift things to ridiculous extremes in Dany's favor with relatively little effort. One of the reasons alot of us liked this series was the very conservative use of magic and the supernatural. It existed, but was never blatant. It's effects were subtle, and while it may impact the plot, it never seemed to unbalance or overwhelm it. Huge fire breathing dragons are a direct contradiction to this concept that threaten to insert Mountain throwing, continent destroying, Erickson/Jordan extremes into a story that doesn't need it.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 13 2006, 04.00)

Real life history has plenty of kings who were unhinged without incest. It’s a position with a lot pressure.

And getting heirs by screwing your sister increases the odds. I do believe it's stated explicitly that every few generations there's a mad targ sitting the thrown. Love how they consider the welfare of 'their people' important enough to give them psychos every so often.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 13 2006, 04.00)

Rob had done nothing to merit the lordship of Winterfell, yet he claims in by right of blood and inheritance just like everyone else in Westeros.

Some people are born to power, that's reality. Presenting that doesn't come off as overly convenient or contrived. Dany's early struggles and rise to power simply feel forced and at times implausible. Martin gave her all those trials and extensive sufferings to build sympathy for her. So that we'd cheer when she finally threw off the chains and achieved her glory. Granted manipulation is present in every medium of storytelling, but her thread often came off as too conscious, too forced, and too predictable. I think alot of Dany hate stems from the fact that he's trying to hard to make us sympathize with her plight and love her. Add in her irritating sense of entitlement, an army handed to her under ridiculously unrealistic circumstances, and the issue is only compounded. He wants us to say so badly 'Poor, poor dany'...but I ain't gonna do it. Everything about her just seemed too false, I couldn't drinkt he kool-aid.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 13 2006, 04.00)

It also depends on the value of taking back the dragon, but the Astapori seems overcomed with the notion of gaining a dragon(why is not entirely clear, they don't seem expansionist and unsullied is the finished product.)

They are from the land of Old Ghis, an empire before the rise of Valyria. They were crushed and conquered by the Valyrians due to the use of dragons and the people's of the old empire because obsessed with them. Plus they're almost unique in the world and potentially immensely powerful. That aside, the way she 'duped' them was absolutely silly. And that hardened slavers and merchants would fall for something so ridiculous is absurd. The lack of a fail-safe on the unsullied is equally dumb. Yet once again she gets great power via implausible means, with very little serious thought or effort on her part. And while not as bad as the dragons, the unsullied are essentially a 10,000 man strong army of unstoppable super soliders, potentially plot unbalancing in themselves. (aka, I do agree that the concept of this is extreme and perhaps a bit misplaced in this series)

While unlikely conveniences do happen in Westeros, she seems to be the only character not operating under real world rules of cause and effect, and is the only one who gets the cool toys better suited for an Erickson novel. (Although the Horn of Dragon Control +5 stretches adds the Ironmen to this list, though noone likes them anyway)

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 13 2006, 04.00)

Still this Dany had to do things to get them. Why isn't Robb a worthless twit who despite being handed everything on a silverplatter manage to piss all away through petulance and ineptitude?

Ummm...because real characters have flaws and don't always make the right choices? I've never been a huge Robb fan, but I never hated him. I liked the whole 'won every battle and lost everything' storyline with him. Very poignant.

And as for stability and peace, the numerous conflicts under their reign have been mentioned. And who's to say the common people weren't better off under the 5-7 individual kingdoms?

QUOTE (oba @ Sep 13 2006, 11.08)

So, he trades on his family name and his bond to a perceived-as-mystical creature who's pulled his fat from the fire numerous times scores him quite a few points. How is this any better than Dany?

I'm not asking better or worse, not yet anyway. I'm looking first at plausibility. If the author can't convince me that this event could ever really happen, and I think he's writing out of his ass to achieve a particular end he has in mind, it fails right there in my mind and the right or wrong of the situation becomes irrelevant. As I already explained, his path and result were plausible, though unlikely. Her deal for the unsullied really wasn't.

QUOTE (oba @ Sep 13 2006, 11.08)

Seems pretty "nit-picky" to me, particularly as Dany's dragons have, so far, killed a lot fewer people than have the direwolves.

That's because Dany and her dragons, to this point, have really done absolutely nothing. (at least insofar as directly impacting Westeros goes). But it's not hard to see the writing on the wall, and to know that she's set to do 'HUGE' things with the beasts...and that's part of what gets unnerving.

QUOTE (Ser Greguh @ Sep 13 2006, 12.54)

What's so contrived about Dany arriving in a slaver's city, buying a slave army, and turning them on their former masters?

For the tenth time, that scheming, cunning slavers would fall for her silly little ruse. (I know third graders who could see that coming) That they would create an army of brainwashed superkillers and not implact mental safeguards. That their own weapons could be used against them, especially since they made a living selling them to any bidders, would have to be a realistic concern. Yet they could make them offer absolute obedience to anyone holding a shiny stick, but can't engineer a 'Don't attack your makers' clause in there? They obviously haven't seen Robocop. The level of naivity and idiocy on behalf of the slavers that we're forced to swallow to achieve this outcome is simply too much.

QUOTE (Ser Greguh @ Sep 14 2006, 19.16)

Okay. Never mind reasoning with you. You want to see a contrivance, so you see one. Just because you're smart and cynical enough to see her betrayal coming (because you know her, you know her attachment to her dragons, you know that she would never actually give one up, and you know what her ultimate goals are), you assume that they must, too.
......
As for your ridiculous hypothetical "don't attack your makers" clause, that's almost too laughable to respond to, but for the record: the unsullied are trained, in part, through systematic torture and abuse. This is, psychologically speaking, an extremely blunt instrument. It can teach obedience, but it is not conducive to the establishment of complex psychological clauses. Through torture you can teach someone something as simple as "obey your master", but the inclusion of if/then clauses is not exactly plausible.

You don't have to know her, her background, ambitions, or anything else about her to see this as an absolutely prudent and essential safeguard. They sell brainwashed killers who obey with absolute indifference to their own life or safety any command, no matter how extreme, so long as the commander carries the proper stick. That these machines could be turned against them is not only plausible, it'd have to be an extremely realistic concern based off simple logic and reason alone. If they could brainwash them to obey anything, it shouldn't be hard to ingrain this 'Don't attack your makers' clause into their psyche's either. I don't see how you can suggest that such hardwiring is 'beyond their capability' or an implausible possibility in any way. Seriously, where's your psychology PhD? Why would something so logical and simple be beyond the methods they employed?

As for her ruse, they're slavers, traders and cutthroat businessmen, who are (in any era, in any land) by their nature suspicious of the good faith and motives of those they do business with. They know nothing about this person. They're making the barter of a lifetime, essentially liquidating ALL of their biggest assets for 3 of the rarest objects in the world. At the very least you'd expect them to take some more serious precautions. (like not inviting her into the city, handing over an entire army, leaving them defenseless, that could turn on them with a word, before you even get your hands on a dragon). You don't trade from such a disadvantageous position if you don't have to, especially when in your own land and city. The position they put themselves in put them 100% at the mercy of Dany. Even if they had no reason to suspect her of foul play (anymore than they would a normal trading partner), they'd have to recognize the position their plight. An entire army of ten thousand within their walls, all at the absolute control of Dany, with nothing but a few slave trainers and 3 baby dragons at their disposal. They're not exactly honorable fair dealers and they'd have no reason to believe anyone they do business with is either. Why should they suspect Dany would reneg? Because she could and the position they put themselves in made it impossible for them to do anything about it but whine.

If you have no issues with this implausible, rather contrived setup thats fine. Don't ridicule the reasoning of people who do see and object to the obvious logic gaffes.

QUOTE (Antacid @ Sep 14 2006, 20.15)

I'd heard all this stuff about a realistic fantasy series and then in the first chapter the 'main character' has a magic sword

Hardly magical (though they suspect magic was used in the crafted), just really good steel. But even if it was, this is a fantasy series and magic is known to exist. My problem is when magic and the supernatural goes from subtle, background effect to in your face, world unbalancing plot device. As for wildfire, I always considered it something akin to Greek Fire often employed by the Byzantines to great effect for centuries. Some sort of medieval napalm devised by technical/chemistry means rather than magic.

QUOTE (Antacid @ Sep 14 2006, 20.15)

Just out of interest HK, what set of circumstances would be legit in your view for a character to get dragons?

My issue has always been that this was presented as (more or less) a real historical world with magical, supernatural elements sprinkled into the background. Rather than a world with fantastic fireball flinging, army destroying beings of ultimate power in a vaguely medieval setting. The realism, the armies, the politics always seemed to come first in Westeros. The magic existed, but at best it was on par with the other technical innovations in terms of effectiveness and capability. Something as big and powerful as dragons threatens to turn the entire thing on it's head. Ideally, I'd rather not have them. But since they're kind of central to the overall story, I can grudgingly accept them. And if they were the only unjust enrichment Dany got (and actually had to work by real world rules to get the rest), I could live with that.

In a typical fantasy series, the magic rules. Bakker may build and focus on the armies and give the mages a fatal flaw, but a few of them can still devastate entire ranks. With Erickson, gods pop up in every closet. Magical means destroy continents, lay waste to empires, raze cities, massacre armies. Jordan much the same, hell Rand threw a tantrum and with his magic sword +20 defeated an entire invading force much larger than his. This high use of overpowered magic has the tendency to sap alot of the real drama out of a series, often diminishing the amount of real peril our protagonists find themselves in. While it's hardly the only reason Deadhouse Gates is often cited as Erickson's strongest novel, it should be noted that it was by far (in the main storyline at least) his most limited use of magic to date. This series was supposed to be different. While it is fantasy and magic exists, it was always going to remain the exception and never the rule.

QUOTE (Lightsnake @ Sep 14 2006, 21.31)

Rhaegar abducted a maiden from the STARKS and ran off somewhere or other leaving his psychotic father to deal with the issues. Responsible. And Aerys was a murderous madman, that's undebateable

To be fair, Rhaegar fell in love and betrayed his duty and good judgment because of it. Much like Robb did. When shit like that works out, we right poetry about it. When it doesn't, we have the Trojan Wars. Was it irresponsible? Sure. But it's hardly unique, not to the real world, Westeros, or any of our historical literature.

QUOTE (Maia @ Sep 14 2006, 05.42)

The Mongols made a bit of a hobby of it and there were still people stupid/venal/fearful enough to deal with them.

The people dealing with the Mongols largely didn't have a choice. And they weren't so much as making deals as begging for mercy. Either open your doors, accept our will, or we'll raze your city. In practice, people submit to conquerers because they have a big army, and big armies tend to get pissy when they have to fight and die for their objectives. In this case the slavers had an army of 10,000, no doubt several guards and trainers, city walls, in a city they essentially ran. Dany had a few companions and three baby dragons. Definately a drastic difference in power there that should have allowed them to bargain from a more advantageous, and less risky position.

QUOTE (Maia @ Sep 14 2006, 05.42)

My recent readings of Byzantine history demonstrated to me coincidences so unlikely, stupidity so profound, that it wouldn't have been out of place in most lurid fantasy novels.....A fantasy author would be panned for such a developement, yet it happened.

That's a problem with any medium. Which is why 'inspired/based on a true story' helps the reader or viewer swallow alot of the more unlikely coincidences. But at some level, we all understand that in fiction, they're making it up as they go along. And fair or not, there will be criticisms if their events are too unlikely or too convenient. I run my little plausibility test as a bit of a bullshit detecter. Cause the alternative leads you to accepting the ridiculous simply because they printed it on the page.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 14 2006, 17.25)

Besides wouldn't prospective buyers be hesitant if their first loyalty always were to their trainers?

It isn't exactly something you put on the advertising flyer. Hell, Robocops 4th directive was classified til it came into effect.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 14 2006, 17.25)

A much better example of DEA would be the Starks direwolfs that suddenly one day just appear from nowhere and are gifted with magical powers and able to guide their owners through life.

Once more the direwolves are more in line with the concept of subtle, latent uses of magic that don't overwhelm the real world risks and consequences with it's power. The dragons, compared to what they're facing, are H-bombs times 100.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 14 2006, 17.25)

not even Rand Al'Thor wielding a mighty sangreal can raise the dead like Thoros of Myr.

Raising zombies is just something that Jordan decided was beyond the capabilities of the mages. A plot device in the making itself (since we can almost guess that someone will discover the secret), it's not necessarily associated with the 'greatest, ultimate' power in a fantasy context. And even though it's a god doing it, there are still far too many resurrections/reincarnations in Randland for my tastes. Especially since that large use of power has no real consequences on the beneficiary. (Sure the dead can come back in Martinland, but they're never 'quite right' again). There is no Martin equivilent to Balefire or crushing an entire army in minutes with teen angst, a bit of rage, and a nifty magic sword. And thank god.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 14 2006, 17.25)

I wonder have much the incest have to do with that. In real life it wouldn't increase the chance of madness. Real life has also several examples of royal dynasties that produced a great number of extraordinary individuals for good and bad.

There are many real, potential physical defects that may result from inbreeding. It's not a stretch that dealing with these disabilities may lead to mental stress or possible breakdown. At the very least, the occasional insanity of Targ rulers is largely attributed to this by other Westerosi.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 14 2006, 17.25)

When she looks at men she compares them to Drogo and finds them to be wimps.
It’s so refreshing to not run into another groin kicking progressive fantasy princess.

While she's not a sword singing Xena uber-heroine, I always kind of felt this about her when reading her chapters. That she was Martin's new age, girl power cliche. Of course that element is much more evident in Arya's storyline, but hers is more swallowable because I like Arya. And because her probable role isn't gonna include conquering all of Westeros and/or saving humanity from the others.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 14 2006, 17.25)

"One king" agreed Davos. "One king means peace."

It also means (sometimes unwilling) obedience to a distant monarch who has little or no knowledge of your local customs or concerns, and whose priorities and money likely go elsewhere, while you continue to pay your tribute and gain very little from the relationship. Even the most ardent EU supporters are reluctant to swallow a single, federal EU nation anytime in the near future. While a common history, some universal customs and practices, similar understandings and ways of thinkings may permeate the various factions of such a land (Europe or Westeros), they are still inherently different people's and cultures, many of whom wouldn't mind maintaining local autonomy to rule in the best interests of their people, rather than being subordinated to the greater good of Kings Landing. Single, large government ain't all it's cracked up to be and would be fairly hard to maintain with medieval level technology. And this is a medieval style world, not a Roman style empire that was able to do such remarkable things over such a wide stretch of land, with such limited tech.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Sep 14 2006, 17.25)

You really think that Dany is simply is going to dragon nuke Westeros into submission?

I'd be happy to simply see her nuked.

QUOTE (Slinx @ Sep 15 2006, 15.34)

Yes, she is a warmonger, otherwise she wouldn't be building an army up. I dismiss her claim on the basis that her father lost it. A bunch of people like the idea of 'might makes right', but if it was only that, then a whole bunch of people wouldn't be pressing their 'claims'. I dismiss the idea of vengeance because one person is ignorant.

Might does make right, to some extent. But the might you are able to gather is largely reliant upon the validity and strength of your claim. Shit like that, proper laws of succession, were important to people in Westeros and medieval Europe. Dany's claim is tenuous because her line no longer rules. But history is full of examples deposed lines returning to power via noble or popular support. Some of them not even actual claimants (imposters), and many of their supporters knowing it, yet the chance ride under their banner and get their cut of the spoils is too good to pass up. But they wouldn't have that source of support and power without their claim that 'I am the rightful king Inigo Montoyo, they stole my kingdom, help me kill them!!'

So her name alone, like in history, will hold significant sway. But I do agree that it is not valid. And Stannis is the only proper heir living at this point. History is also full of examples of proper, legit heirs who were too unpopular to get their rightful thrown.

QUOTE (Bazzlebane @ Sep 15 2006, 15.43)

I disagree that the Lannisters are trying to usurp the throne -- Stannis is. He may have a reason (Joffrey is not truly Robert's son), but when Robert the King died, his heir was Joffrey Baratheon. That makes Stannis the usurper. By the law of the land.

Joffrey is not the son of the king. He has absolutely no legit claim. Nor do the others. Theirs is completely a might and proximity (they're all in KL running the mechanisms of power) makes right throning. He is an invalid heir and if the rumor of incest becomes widely accepted, there will be people rising up to remove them. Their motives may be greed based, but the false claim of Cersei's children will give them legitimacy in their rebellion and more support as a result.

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II

Enguarard, generally agree with your analysis except this point.

QUOTE (Enguerrand @ Dec 11 2006, 10.16)

Robert was charismatic, well-liked, a gifted fighter and apparently an excellent field commander, had his claim, was unmarried and young enough to reign for a long time and he looked like a king. These are the reason he became the rebel pretender. They look mostly cosmetic to me.

I think these are exactly the traits that most people of such an era look for in a King. And just the type of person that can inspire the masses, raise an army, and lead it into battle. Call it cosmetic if you like, but these traits are probably equally as important as being capable and competent, if not more so. (you can always put capable people around you). For alot of people, being strong and likeable is enough. Hell, you rememer the 2000 elections, first debate. Everyone thought Gore came off much smarter and capable of answering the questions beyond the talking points, but the common consensus was that Bush won because he was more likeable and people could relate to him. (Didn't help that Gore came off as condescending at times with his routine eye-rolling) Hell, few people in Westeros are more capable (arguably) than Littlefinger, but even a moral and honorable littlefinger with a legit blood claim wouldn't be able to rally the people and get close to the thrown.

I agree with Snake in that Jon or Ned would be much less likely to be able to rally the kingdom to their cause. I don't think you can overstate the importance of having charisma and looking the part for these purposes.

ADWD release date

June 2012.....

Just being realistic.