• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TwiceBorn

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

476 profile views
  1. I thought there was a scene a few seasons ago with Littlefinger starring at IT and shaking and twitching until Varys jumps him and starts to mock him.
  2. If I got it right then Jamie was fired from kingsguard, so he is the legitimate heir of the House Lannister again. If not, Tyrion is the heir as long as Danny wins (nice work shooting your papa, dude!). So Lannisters still kicking. Other than that, a line can be preserved by matrilineal marriage. That is: in absence of a legitimate male heir, a woman heir carries on the family name and passes it to her children. A most suitable candidate for a husband is someone from a cadet branch, or bastard of the very family who has proper blood but no name. Else a royal bastard would do due to prestige. I think there are at least 2 precedences in the books. So house Greyjoy can continue through Yara with a suitable husband, whomever he might be (for political reasons non-Ironborn would be better). House Stark would do best by marrying Sansa or Arya to Jon or Tyrion (the latter in case Jaimie continues the Lannister line). I actually expect that Sansa-Tyrion marriage might be renewed and consumed for the sake of ending the feud between the two prominent families. And House Targaryen could continue either by Dany marrying Jon and having a child somehow or by Dany legitimizing Jon and making him her heir. Or she can marry just anyone as long as he makes her pregnant, because Targs are definitely matrilineal both in the show and in the books. As for Martel... well apparently a bad pussy can legitimize herself according to show's logic. In Dorne (according to show) anything is possible and no rules apply really. So I guess it is Royal House Bad Pussy-Martell now. Excuse me, I need a drink. As for Tyrell, we don't know. Do we care? The only house that is doomed is Baratheon unless someone finds that lonesome boat and recognizes Gendry for any reason. However if Gendry literally bumps into Dany's ship next season I will buy a shotgun and end somebody's life.
  3. The introduction of Ramsey Bolton was delayed in the show and yet nobody remembers that now. He became the archvillain of the last season. Same goes for Euron. His late introduction means nothing and he has the same sadistic aptitude (or plot armor if you like) as Ramsey. The horn might be introduced easily anytime deus ex machina. Danny is way to powerful now to be struggling whole season. WW are no match against the dragons, they cannot even fight back unless they have dragons of their own. Perhaps undead ice-dragon will be introduced after Euron makes them fight each other.
  4. Interesting option. But would work only if Euron kills Dany and her dragons.
  5. Littlefinger: "Jon Snow stands alone". Sansa: "Not alone". Littlefinger: "..."
  6. All hail Podrick the king of the West!
  7. Podrick did some risking and fighting too, does this make him suitable to be a king?
  8. 1) That is why she is an usurper. 2) This is what her opponents would say, while she might say otherwise. Which makes her an usurper in their eyes but not in the eyes of her followers. 3) But she decided to usurp the crown instead. 4) Wasting all your enemies might be considered equivalent. 5) Unlike what you think conquest doesn't need legal claim only appearances. Take Hernan Cortes as an example. 6) You saw the process, and consequences will be next season. You know what "usurper" means do you?
  9. I think you don't understand what Lord Varys have said. Cersei is an usurper. She took the crown outside of usual succession rights because all normal claimants have died. Some ask on what legal basis. Lord Varys (amongst many else) suggests that off screen she might have used the pretense of being closest person to the former dynasty. That is a weak claim obviously and some people in Westeros might consider it no claim at all. Nobody argues that. But since there is no one left standing in KL to contest this she just went on with coronation. As for the conquest part: should Cersei win somehow and have a heir of her own then she will have no problem with establishing her own dynasty just like the Aegon I did. This is why it was compared to conquest. I happen to know that in late medieval/renaissance it was called "merit".
  10. Well I've actually learned something from Scandinavians, Swedish to be exact. In their culture to lose your temper during discussion is an utter humiliation and a clear sign that someone has nothing more to say. You keep repeating yourself and throwing insults. How does it work for you in your society? To those forum users who aren't experts in medieval Europe history: The Holy Roman Emperors weren't random people or popular leaders like nowadays politicians. They were chosen from top candidates of the most prominent houses like Habsburg. Royal blood, they were already princes or sometimes even kings. They've already had divine rights to rule - even before the election. Lastly - the choice had to be approved by the local clergy and the Pope - voice of God on Earth. This means that once approved there was no recall - a choice sanctioned was no longer within human reach. This is why the above arguments about HRE are useless when discussing Jon - there is barely any comparison. It is vital to understand that a king by divine right remains a king even when he is toppled, overthrown, imprisoned, blinded, castrated, cursed or exiled. Aside form the last two, the rest is a crime actually. A king by popular vote stops being a king once he loses popular support. A king by merit stops being a king once he loses merit, however his descendants do not - their right to rule is by birth.
  11. I think I'm not making myself clear enough. When I say for example: "In Christianity Jesus Christ is the son of a God" I feel weird when people respond: "I don't think so, I think he was a man" or "I don't believe it". There is nothing to think or believe here: we discuss a dogma of particular religion. You cannot argue that Christians don't believe in divinity of Christ only because you don't. This makes no sense, opinions have no impact on facts. Same goes with the king in monarchy, which is actually a very close concept. Some men are chosen by the God to be above all else in society - this is monarchy. See this: Well of course the king who doesn't have any political support will not last long. However due to the power of birthright it's difficult to topple him over. See Aerys the Mad. Half of the kingdom was against him and the other half was with his son. Still Robert had to make up some bullshit excuses about his Targaryen descent to fortify his claim. The whole point of birthright is that you don't need someone's approval for it. Neither can it be taken away. You are born son of a king and it's done - you have the claim. No one can disagree with that, no matter what, and it doesn't matter if you are popular or not. If someone disobeys your rule, then he's an outlaw and he knows it, everyone knows it. People hated Jon Lackland and loved Robin Hood, but everybody knows who was the king and who was the outlaw. I cannot put it more simple. If one claimant has weaker claim than the other then he seeks either merit or popular support. Stannis for example had weaker claim, because he was like 4th to rule by (official) birthright. So first he tried to win over the nobles. This didn't last long as expected. Then Davos who is actually a great Hand encouraged him to seek merit. This went rather well. Merit is always better but more difficult than support and birthright is easier than merit. The problem with Jon is that he's unlegitimised bastard, so he has explicitly no birthright, and many people, myself included, believe that he did nothing worthy of a king yet. Sansa is ahead of him in line of succession, so the nobles actually (almost literally) overthrew her and by doing so terminated the Starks. This is outrageous and dangerous. Had the will of Robb been known then all would be different. As for Cersei she is the last person fit to rule in Kings Landing. She is an usurper, this is how it's called. She has no claim to the crown, but she took it anyway. It doesn't matter if people support her or not, for this is not democracy. Support or lack of support doesn't make one a legitimate ruler. She has some merit though - she did defeat all her enemies within KL. So I'd say that until legitimate claimant arrives, she is in a better position than Jon.
  12. For all I know Rhaenys was fed to the dragon not burnt to death... but clearly the Aegon II case (burns) proves that you don't need to be heat resistant to actually own or mount a dragon. Thanks.
  13. Thank God!
  14. I believe that most Stormlords are with Cersei as they switched sides after Blackwater.
  15. Without Aegon Varys makes no sense. I hated Aegon until fans developed fAegon theory and I will miss him in the show now.