SeanF

I have not heard that argument. I agree, the Iron Islands have nothing in common with the Confeseracy.

The Salic Law was an invented tradition, to keep first Joan of Navarre, then Edward III, from the throne.

A precedent which works against that, however, is the Succession Law of Jaehaerys and Alysanne of 52AC. Children of first marriages inherit ahead of children of second marriages. While that does not deal specifically with succession to the Iron Throne, it does enshrine that a daughter can inherit in priority to a son in that particular situation.

Steven Attwell has pointed out that the Sons of the Harpy actually resemble the original KKK far more than any Middle Eastern terror movement. They brutalise the "uppity" ex-slaves in order to resubjugate them. The only resemblance that Meereen has to Iraq is that it's hot and arid. Religiously and socially, they have nothing in common. The foreign imperial powers, intervening in Slavers Bay are Volantis, New Ghis, and Qarth,

It can be quite blackly funny to compare/contrast, the arguments in favour of Ghiscari masters with the arguments in favour of the Confederacy. Usually, it's along the lines of slavery is their culture/way of life, the masters feed and shelter their slaves, whereas they'd just starve to death as free people, and emancipation/reconstruction just made things worse for everyone.

I agree. I found myself so disliking the Starks, Tyrion & co., by the end of the show, that I did find myself wondering if the Night King ought to have won. He was male, a native, and a warrior, everything the people of the Seven Kingdoms wanted in their ruler.

I’ve come across people on Quora who root for the slavers. They tend to be people who post on the same site about The War of Northern Aggression. I haven’t encountered any supporters of the Others.

Realistically not.

Jon's judgement was both humane and sound. Dead wildlings mean fresh wights. And, starving women and children to death is not the mark of a great leader. Attempting to save them is. Mance was not Jon's prisoner to execute, any more than the Lannister squires were Karstark's to execute. Slynt was a mutineer, who was given ample opportunity to fulfill his duties, but refused. Granted, Jon certainly took pleasure from his execution, but it was just by the standards of their time and place. Bowen Marsh's decision did absolutely nothing to help the situation, and a great deal to inflame it. There is every likelihood of fighting breaking out now, at Castle Black. Marsh had picked a side in the fight for the North, namely the Boltons. Jon had picked Stannis. That's why Marsh slew him. Marsh simply took the view that Stannis' cause was doomed, and it was best to stay on good terms with the Lannister regime.

Ditto Walder Frey, after Arya feeds him his children.

“Ramsay, Violet and Myranda geld and torture Theon” could be a popular set.

At the Doylist level, if it wasn’t dragons, it would have been something else.

It's the fact that the marriage is bigamous that would cause the argument. No Targaryen married bigamously for 250 years.

The business of men coming before women has to be limited in scope, I think. It would be absurd to claim that Stannis, Brown Ben, Lord Selwyn, or Sweetrobin come before Dany, just because they have Targaryen ancestry. Aegon’s claim would rank higher than Dany’s if he was truly, Rhaegar’s. I expect that Dorne will proclaim his legitimacy, along with supporters in the Reach, Stormlands, and Crownlands. The Tyrells, Baratheons, Lannisters and their supporters will proclaim him an impostor. I think Jon’s claim would rank equivalent to Dany’s if Rhaegar married Lyanna. He would surely enjoy widespread support in the North and Vale. The argument would be that if Rhaegar had survived, Jon would have been formally legitimised and placed in the line of succession, so why disqualify him on a technicality? As against that, the argument would be simply he was illegitimate, whereas Dany is not.

Right of conquest is a legal term, which means you have brought a region under your military control and you intend to rule it. It confers both the right and the duty to administer that region. Those who fought you can’t be deemed traitors, but must be given the option to swear fealty. That certainly applies to Aegon I and his sisters. Successors ruled by right of inheritance. Likewise it applied to Robert, although any Baratheon successors would be deemed to rule by right of inheritance. Both Dany and Aegon could opt to claim either by conquest or inheritance.

If Laenor or the king denounced them as bastards, that would indeed be serious. But neither does. Another real world example is Jochi, eldest son of Genghis Khan. He was likely the product of rape, when Borte was kidnapped, but Genghis Khan acknowledged him as legitimate. His brother Chagatai denounced him as a bastard, but was ridiculed over it.

The Yunkish slaves were compensated with all they could carry away. IMHO, the Meereenese elite should have had most of their assets confiscated, and redistributed to the freedmen. There does seem to have been widespread plundering of the elite, during the fight for the city. Perhaps that was thought to be sufficient punishment of the elite. Due process, as we would understand it, seems to exist nowhere in this world. All rulings by people in authority are pretty ad hoc. Jaime for example, congratulates himself, for his “justice”, while ordering the summary hanging of outlaws. Tarly makes up punishments as he sees fit, in Maidenpool.

I expect that Aerys II thought (a) that an older child stood a better chance of survival than an infant or (b) that Elia’s children were illegitimate (one of his delusions). If Aegon is considered legitimate, then people will consider that he has a better claim than Daenerys has. People will most probably believe what it suits them to believe.

He feels obliged to tell Robert. It would still be Robert’s decision whether or not to proclaim them as bastards.

If a father acknowledges the children as his, that’s the end of the matter. Robert would have been so enraged at being made a cuckold, he’d have killed Cersei’s children. Laenor was unbothered.

Rhaenyra *might* have executed Alicent and her children on ascending the throne (but, I see no evidence that it was her intention). But, that could be used as a justification for rebelling against any ruler. Every ruler has subjects they don’t like/ potentially have rival claims, but that’s no reason to pre-emptively strike against that ruler.

Ser Jorah, who was with the Northern army, was present at the sack. He describes it in some detail. I don’t think he ever says whether he or they participated. As to the throne, nobody claims that Seven independent kingdoms were restored on Aerys II’s death (apart from the Greatjon, at the end of AGOT). The throne passed to a man who had killed his cousin and rival, and whose ally had killed his rival’s children, but who based his claim on his descent from Aegon I. The Baratheon claim is dependent upon the Targaryens being legitimate rulers of all Seven Kingdoms. As to Dany’s claim, it’s the only Targaryen claim that is not open to dispute. No one claims she is not Aerys’ daughter by Rhaella. Aegon is almost certainly not Rhaegar’s son, and if Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna’s, he’s either illegitimate or the product of bigamy. By the time Dany returns to Westeros, there will be no legitimate Baratheons left, so their rival claim will have vanished. As to the rich woman, Daenerys herself never abandoned Kings Landing (she was not alive at the time and was raised in exile ) so that last point doesn’t really apply as a precedent. In any case, there’s no good solution to the problem of the rich woman and the slaves. Either the slaves are thrown out of the house, or the woman loses it. She splits the difference by awarding her the jewels. The house should be considered as compensation for servitude. Not that anyone in Westeros is seriously going to argue “hang on, in Grazdan vs Hargo, you ruled differently” if she rolls up with a large army.

I fear it will just be Jon having wacky adventures with Tormund.

Sure. Tyrion persuaded Jon to do his wet work for him, and then he kicked him to the kerb. It was absurd that he wasn’t killed on the spot, but his end was wretched. He was cast into the wilderness, barred from marrying, treated as a criminal. At the end, no one cared about Jon’s claim to the throne. For Bran, Sam, Sansa, it was a pretext to strike at Daenerys, not something they wished to pursue for Jon’s sake. Jon’s usefulness to them was at an end.