The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game Of Thrones Jon Snow Shirt
Game Of Thrones Jon Snow Shirt
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Drogo the kingslayer


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Seņor de la Tormenta

Seņor de la Tormenta

    Sellsword King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,590 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:24 AM

I just dont get it; Daenerys claims the throne because she is next in line right? Because she is viserys only heir... But she is lovely married to the guy who killed him? And plans to use his army to be sit with him as king consort in the IT...

Uhmmm lets see, "its right to kill the crazy king cause he is crazy" dont know why but it sounds familar...

I do think viserys diserved what he got, but after this you just cant claim the throne girl! Your husband killed the king and put you next in line! And you are blaming robert and his dogs for doing the same ?

You got to chose girl, the right to the throne or the khal. But if you chose the khal you are in bobs level.

What Im trying to say in my poor english is that planing to sit drogo and using his army just equals her to roberts. Bad or not, right is no longer in her side.

Edited by Mr Monopoly, 25 August 2013 - 08:49 AM.


#2 Marco

Marco

    This one was only the watcher...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:45 AM

Thats 'one of the' reasons i don't like Dany, everything about her is dilemma.

#3 danm_999

danm_999

    Hoofsoldier in Borroq's Pig Army

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:49 AM

You can go further than this. She actually plans implicitly to pass over Viserys in succession even before his death. When they first arrive at Vaes Dothrak, she has a chat with Jorah which comes to this:

Ser Jorah snorted. “Viserys could not sweep a stable with ten thousand brooms.”

Dany could not pretend to surprise at the disdain in his tone. “What … what if it were not Viserys?” she asked. “If it were someone else who led them? Someone stronger?


The idea takes root quickly. Later in the chapter, she reflects on the future;

Yet they were bound to Drogo for life and death, so Daenerys had no choice but to accept them. And sometimes she found herself wishing her father had been protected by such men. In the songs, the white knights of the Kingsguard were ever noble, valiant, and true, and yet King Aerys had been murdered by one of them, the handsome boy they now called the Kingslayer, and a second, Ser Barristan the Bold, had gone over to the Usurper. She wondered if all men were as false in the Seven Kingdoms. When her son sat the Iron Throne, she would see that he had bloodriders of his own to protect him against treachery in his Kingsguard.


Even before Viserys has died, and before she has a reason to consider him irrelevant to the succession, Daenerys has already accepted the idea she and her children will usurp his Kingship.

#4 Seņor de la Tormenta

Seņor de la Tormenta

    Sellsword King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,590 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:50 AM

You can go further than this. She actually plans implicitly to pass over Viserys in succession even before his death. When they first arrive at Vaes Dothrak, she has a chat with Jorah which comes to this:



The idea takes root quickly. Later in the chapter, she reflects on the future;



Even before Viserys has died, and before she has a reason to consider him irrelevant to the succession, Daenerys has already accepted the idea she and her children will usurp his Kingship.

omg I didnt remember this!

#5 The Dornishman's Wife

The Dornishman's Wife

    Forero

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,734 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:03 AM

[...] Uhmmm lets see, "its right to kill the crazy king cause he is crazy" dont know why but it sounds familar...

I do think viserys diserved what he got, but after this you just cant claim the throne girl! Your husband killed the king and put you next in line! And you are blaming robert and his dogs for doing the same ? [...]


Valid points. It does bear keeping in mind two things though:

1) Robert & "dogs" didn't just remove the one crazy king and then said "ok, as I'm next in line it's my turn now", they removed the king, killed the heirs they could get (Aegon & Rhaenys) and left the heirs they couldn't get exiled and hunted (Vis & Dany) instead of calling them back. While there is a certain rationale behind that (fear for revenge), it's quite different from just taking out the crazies.

2) Dany has an extremely biased view of Robert's rebellion. Basically there was the big bad Bob who wanted to grab power and to forcefully steal Rhaegar's woman and poor noble valiant Rhaegar got crushed by senselessly evil and unprovoked traitors.

This lopsided view can be seen as her own fault, not so much at the time of the events we're talking about, but much more so later when she leaves her source of info (Barristan) untapped for the time being as soon as it becomes clear that she's not going to like everything she hears.

One way or another she'll not be able to remain oblivious forever, and it's interesting to see how she'll react then.

Edited by The Dornishman's Wife, 25 August 2013 - 09:07 AM.


#6 Seņor de la Tormenta

Seņor de la Tormenta

    Sellsword King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,590 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:16 AM

Valid points. It does bear keeping in mind two things though:

1) Robert & "dogs" didn't just remove the one crazy king and then said "ok, as I'm next in line it's my turn now", they removed the king, killed the heirs they could get (Aegon & Rhaenys) and left the heirs they couldn't get exiled and hunted (Vis & Dany) instead of calling them back. While there is a certain rationale behind that (fear for revenge), it's quite different from just taking out the crazies.

2) Dany has an extremely biased view of Robert's rebellion. Basically there was the big bad Bob who wanted to grab power and to forcefully steal Rhaegar's woman and poor noble valiant Rhaegar got crushed by senselessly evil and unprovoked traitors.

This lopsided view can be seen as her own fault, not so much at the time of the events we're talking about, but much more so later when she leaves her source of info (Barristan) untapped for the time being as soon as it becomes clear that she's not going to like everything she hears.

One way or another she'll not be able to remain oblivious forever, and it's interesting to see how she'll react then.

It also rings a bell, ser barristan turns coats again knowing viserys was as mad as arys...I can understand it in ser jorah cause he is in love but barristan has enough clues to know that even if daenerys is sane (and I think she isnt) theres something really fxxed up in targaryen blood...

Edited by Mr Monopoly, 25 August 2013 - 09:28 AM.


#7 Le Dragone

Le Dragone

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:20 AM

It doesn't really matter at this point. If Dany wins, then the throne is hers by right of conquest.

#8 Le Dragone

Le Dragone

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:25 AM

Also, Drogo is not a kingslayer because Viserys was not King. Cart-King yes, but not King.

#9 Seņor de la Tormenta

Seņor de la Tormenta

    Sellsword King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,590 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:27 AM

It doesn't really matter at this point. If Dany wins, then the throne is hers by right of conquest.

as roberts. "the usurper".

#10 SkaggCannibal

SkaggCannibal

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:28 AM

She's still the only remaining child King Aerys, that gives her a claim. It's not the best one out there, but she's in her right to fight for it.

#11 MotherAnduin

MotherAnduin

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 754 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:29 AM

Also, Drogo is not a kingslayer because Viserys was not King. Cart-King yes, but not King.

Also, Roose is not a kingslayer because Robb was not king. Southron-King Yes, but not King.

#12 Marco

Marco

    This one was only the watcher...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:30 AM

And yes, for crime of 'Kingslaying' some should make oath. Drogo didn't accept Viserys's kingship.


Also, Roose is not a kingslayer because Robb was not king. Southron-King Yes, but not King.


It doesn't matter which region's king, important thing 'accepting'. Roose accepted Robb as king, so this makes him 'Kingslayer'.

Edited by Marco, 25 August 2013 - 09:32 AM.


#13 Seņor de la Tormenta

Seņor de la Tormenta

    Sellsword King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,590 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:33 AM

She's still the only remaining child King Aerys, that gives her a claim. It's not the best one out there, but she's in her right to fight for it.

If her husband kills the guy before in line I think she kinds of loses her right.

#14 Grip

Grip

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,173 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:34 AM

In the end Dany will need her army to win the throne, just as Robert did. I don't see much of a difference between her or any other claimant at this point, though I prefer Stannis.

#15 MotherAnduin

MotherAnduin

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 754 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:37 AM

And yes, for crime of 'Kingslaying' some should make oath. Drogo didn't accept Viserys's kingship.




It doesn't matter which region's king, important thing 'accepting'. Roose accepted Robb as king, so this makes him 'Kingslayer'.

The flames of Melisandre called Viserys king. Dany herself insist on calling him king. Viserys was as much king as any other fool calling themselves Kings or queens.

#16 Frozentree

Frozentree

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:37 AM

Since when does killing a king remove one from line of succession?

#17 Marco

Marco

    This one was only the watcher...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:38 AM

The flames of Melisandre called Viserys king. Dany herself insist on calling him king. Viserys was as much king as any other fool calling themselves Kings or queens.


So ? Dany or Jorah didn't kill him. Drogo did.

#18 Consigliere

Consigliere

    Green and Gold

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,666 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:42 AM

as roberts. "the usurper".


Dany is more like Robert than she would like to admit. She is the "usurper" in this case and as we see from her adventures in Meereen she is more suited to conquest than rule.

#19 Seņor de la Tormenta

Seņor de la Tormenta

    Sellsword King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,590 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:43 AM

So ? Dany or Jorah didn't kill him. Drogo did.

she is married to him. They are a combo. He is going to be kind of king consort. An all this because he killed viserys.
Either the claim or the"usurper" khal. You cannot use drogos army and drogos himself to support a "rightful" claim.

Edited by Mr Monopoly, 25 August 2013 - 09:44 AM.


#20 Le Dragone

Le Dragone

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:46 AM

Also, Roose is not a kingslayer because Robb was not king. Southron-King Yes, but not King.


The North including Roose accepted Robb as King and crowned him KitN. Viserys was a beggar cart king at the edge of the world with no significant supporters in Westeros, even his little sister did not want him king.

If her husband kills the guy before in line I think she kinds of loses her right.


No she doesn't. But it doesn't matter as I said, right now Stannis is the rightful heir to Robert. If Dany conquers Westeros and becomes Queen (which I doubt), then she's no different than Aegon the conqueror who became the legitimate king by right of conquest not by line of succession.