Why is Daenery's reconquering Westeros if she's barren

[Demonking1381]

Well it could be the fact that the usurpers murdered her entire family and robbed her of a childhood, and there also has to be a reason for daenerys to be in westoros with her dragons when the white walkers get beyond the wall.

[bloodofthedragon1995]

14 hours ago, khal drogon said:

Then she has to give up her rights and kill herself because her life will be pointless as her womb won't work? I have already explained how she could legally name a heir and stop a sucession crisis.

Who told Dany she has to kill herself?

[RainGhost]

18 hours ago, khal drogon said:

Then she has to give up her rights and kill herself because her life will be pointless as her womb won't work? I have already explained how she could legally name a heir and stop a sucession crisis.

So what you're saying is that if a person can't be a monarch, then their life is pointless and they might as well kill themselves? Interesting. Dany can live a perfectly full life without becoming Queen of the Seven Kingdoms and without having children. She wouldn't be giving up her rights - she has no right to the Iron Throne, she only has a claim. She does not have to pursue that claim. Stannis is currently the rightful king, so if Shireen were to accidentally get burned, then he would have to name an heir but naming an heir is a risky business with no guarantee of a smooth transition. Dany could name an heir, yes, but she does not have to take that risk, she does not have to put herself (and Westeros) in that position.

[JRose1989]

Then she has to give up her rights and kill herself because her life will be pointless as her womb won't work? I have already explained how she could legally name a heir and stop a sucession crisis.

So what you're saying is that if a person can't be a monarch, then their life is pointless and they might as well kill themselves? Interesting. Dany can live a perfectly full life without becoming Queen of the Seven Kingdoms and without having children. She wouldn't be giving up her rights - she has no right to the Iron Throne, she only has a claim. She does not have to pursue that claim. Stannis is currently the rightful king, so if Shireen were to accidentally get burned, then he would have to name an heir but naming an heir is a risky business with no guarantee of a smooth transition. Dany could name an heir, yes, but she does not have to take that risk, she does not have to put herself (and Westeros) in that position.

And what a satisfying end to her story arc that would be.

'And Dany thought, 'nah screw the iron throne. I'll stay in the grass sea with my dragon eating horses for the rest of my days. It's not as if Westeros might need a huge black fire breathing dragon in the immediate future.

Now. Where did I put that grass hat...' '

[khal drogon]

6 hours ago, RainGhost said:

So what you're saying is that if a person can't be a monarch, then their life is pointless and they might as well kill themselves? Interesting. Dany can live a perfectly full life without becoming Queen of the Seven Kingdoms and without having children. She wouldn't be giving up her rights - she has no right to the Iron Throne, she only has a claim. She does not have to pursue that claim. Stannis is currently the rightful king, so if Shireen were to accidentally get burned, then he would have to name an heir but naming an heir is a risky business with no guarantee of a smooth transition. Dany could name an heir, yes, but she does not have to take that risk, she does not have to put herself (and Westeros) in that position.

No I am saying being infertile/barren should not stop someone from pursuing their life's ambition. 

Again you are implying the same "A person should give up his/her rights if he/she cannot have children to inherit". Then a question rises why? if after all she could ensure a smooth succession. There are ways to do that like calling a Great Council to name a heir. When there are ways to ensure a smooth succession why she has to give up? And Dany has as much rights to the throne as Stannis. Why did Stannis risk a war when he had the weakest army and there are risks associated with his ascension to the throne? By your logic he should have given up as he is generally disliked and his winning chances are less and it is RISKY. There is something called Self preservation. That's why Stannis is   still fighting in the Snow, that's why Robert and Ned rebelled. That's why Dany shouldn't give up.

[Gertrude]

Again, I think naming a hand-picked dragon rider as her heir is a pretty decent way to guarantee an acceptable heir. As someone said above, if Stannis were to lose Shireen before taking the throne, does anyone think he would be dissuaded from pursuing it? He's only had one child, whose to say if the issue lies with him or Selyse. If he were responsible, he'd make sure he wasn't the one who had weak boys by having another kid before securing the throne.

Hell, Stannis is probably Dany's closest known relative, right? If Stannis could be shown that he can't win against dragons, he might be named heir, or Shireen after him. See, she does have a reasonable heir.

[khal drogon]

3 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Again, I think naming a hand-picked dragon rider as her heir is a pretty decent way to guarantee an acceptable heir. As someone said above, if Stannis were to lose Shireen before taking the throne, does anyone think he would be dissuaded from pursuing it? He's only had one child, whose to say if the issue lies with him or Selyse. If he were responsible, he'd make sure he wasn't the one who had weak boys by having another kid before securing the throne.

Hell, Stannis is probably Dany's closest known relative, right? If Stannis could be shown that he can't win against dragons, he might be named heir, or Shireen after him. See, she does have a reasonable heir.

My favourite ending involves Shireen riding a dragon and Dany naming Shireen as heir. By this way Targaryen line would continue through Shireen while some of her kids would inherit Storm's End taking Baratheon name.

[bloodofthedragon1995]

14 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Again, I think naming a hand-picked dragon rider as her heir is a pretty decent way to guarantee an acceptable heir. As someone said above, if Stannis were to lose Shireen before taking the throne, does anyone think he would be dissuaded from pursuing it? He's only had one child, whose to say if the issue lies with him or Selyse. If he were responsible, he'd make sure he wasn't the one who had weak boys by having another kid before securing the throne.

Hell, Stannis is probably Dany's closest known relative, right? If Stannis could be shown that he can't win against dragons, he might be named heir, or Shireen after him. See, she does have a reasonable heir.

But the whole premise of Dany invading Westeros is that she is reclaiming what is rightfully hers the Iron Throne ruled by House Targaryen. This 'hand-picked dragon rider' will  not be a Targaryen and so I doubt the people of Westeros would accept this new ruler who has no blood claim to the throne. 

Yeah, Dany has potentially two heirs Aegon and Jon. But she does not know of either of them and is willing to invade anyway, thats why I am saying that she is quite selfish...

[Protagoras]

If I believe something is mine, I will take it back from the person who stole it, regardless of the fact that I have no hiers and that something with my death will cease to be in my or my family´s control. 

That is not seen as selfishness, neither in Westeros nor today - that is seen as just. 

[khal drogon]

18 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

If I believe something is mine, I will take it back from the person who stole it, regardless of the fact that I have no hiers and that something with my death will cease to be in my or my family´s control. 

That is not seen as selfishness, neither in Westeros nor today - that is seen as just. 

Apparently selfishness has something to do with the ability to have children I guess.

[Knute]

31 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

If I believe something is mine, I will take it back from the person who stole it, regardless of the fact that I have no hiers and that something with my death will cease to be in my or my family´s control. 

That is not seen as selfishness, neither in Westeros nor today - that is seen as just. 

I don't get how she can claim the throne is hers? It's like some overthrown Norwegian king having offspring that come back in two centuries and say that the throne is theirs simply because their father sat it. Kings and queens and noble houses change all the time, and it seems pretty ridiculous to me for someone to claim that the throne is their "birthright".

[khal drogon]

1 minute ago, Knute said:

I don't get how she can claim the throne is hers? It's like some overthrown Norwegian king having offspring that come back in two centuries and say that the throne is theirs simply because their father sat it. Kings and queens and noble houses change all the time, and it seems pretty ridiculous to me for someone to claim that the throne is their "birthright".

Because you know monarchy works like that. Anyone who claim the throne do it on the basis that their father sat on it.

[Minuteman]

MMDs didn't say that Dany would never have children. She said that Dany would see Drogo recover when, among other things, her womb quickens and she bears a living child. So, given that Drogo is dead this may be that she dies in childbirth. It's also possible that she sees Drogo in some form of an afterlife vision after she gives birth. After all, Theon saw Lyanna and other Starks who he could never have known in life while he was in Winterfell so there is already foundation for this. I don't think that what MMD said means that Dany is barren at all. In fact I take it to mean the exact opposite.

[Protagoras]

16 minutes ago, Knute said:

I don't get how she can claim the throne is hers? It's like some overthrown Norwegian king having offspring that come back in two centuries and say that the throne is theirs simply because their father sat it. Kings and queens and noble houses change all the time, and it seems pretty ridiculous to me for someone to claim that the throne is their "birthright".

Not at all. The conquering was not so long ago and the new tradition isn´t rooted hard enough yet. We have multiple dynasty claims to the same throne. However, what you fail to get is the concept about time and its effect on a claim. You have to become the new tradition. You can´t simply waltz in and expect it to be yours directly. You need time. 

Just like in England with the Norman conquest and the establishment of the ruling family, the claim to the Iron Throne derives from them, simply because they have held it for centuries. Same things about the Starks and Winterfell. Danys (as well as other Targaryen claimers) claim didn´t disappear just because Robert won the rebellion. Its very much still there, but will get weaker simply due to the passing of time. What the Baratheons needed to do was to found a dynasty who could hold the throne so long that it becomes the new standard. Setting such a tradition is hard but can be done - William the bastard (also know as the conqueror) did it.

At this point in the book series it is very obvious that Baratheons have failed with this. Their 15 year kingly dynasty is already wrecked by problems and are simply at this point not old enough to do more than slightly weaken the Targaryen claim. Both dynasties have claims, but traditionwise the Baratheon claim is the weak one. This is not a claim strengthened by centuries of holding the power and becoming the true owner. Therefore Daenerys claim is fundamentaly legit. 

To go with your example, its like I would argue that Vidkun Quisling was the true ruler of Norway since he held power for a couple of years and therefore it is pretty ridiculous to claim that the king should be reinstated. Your example fail to get that this was not 2 centuries ago, but a short period of time - still fresh in many memories. 

[Knute]

3 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Not at all. The conquering was not so long ago and the new tradition isn´t rooted hard enough yet. We have multiple dynasty claims to the same throne. However, what you fail to get is the concept about time and its effect on a claim. You have to become the new tradition. You can´t simply waltz in and expect it to be yours directly. You need time. 

Just like in England with the Norman conquest and the establishment of the ruling family, the claim to the Iron Throne derives from them, simply because they have held it for centuries. Same things about the Starks and Winterfell. Danys (as well as other Targaryen claimers) claim didn´t disappear just because Robert won the rebellion. Its very much still there, but will get weaker simply due to the passing of time. What the Baratheons needed to do was to found a dynasty who could hold the throne so long that it becomes the new standard. Setting such a tradition is hard but can be done - William the bastard (also know as the conqueror) did it.

At this point in the book series it is very obvious that Baratheons have failed with this. Their 15 year kingly dynasty is already wrecked by problems and are simply at this point not old enough to do more than slightly weaken the Targaryen claim. Both dynasties have claims, but traditionwise the Baratheon claim is the weak one. This is not a claim strengthened by centuries of holding the power and becoming the true owner. Therefore Daenerys claim is fundamentaly legit. 

To go with your example, its like I would argue that Vidkun Quisling was the true ruler of Norway since he held power for a couple of years and therefore it is pretty ridiculous to claim that the king should be reinstated. Your example fail to get that this was not 2 centuries ago, but a short period of time - still fresh in many memories. 

I get it now; although the throne was originally won by conquest in itself. The Mad King deserved to be overthrown but perhaps should've been replaced by Rhaegar. I still don't believe it's Daenarys's by right or whether or not the common folk would even support her if she was to come to Westeros, or whether they'd agree that she's the rightfull queen.

[Protagoras]

1 minute ago, Knute said:

I get it now; although the throne was originally won by conquest in itself. The Mad King deserved to be overthrown but perhaps should've been replaced by Rhaegar. I still don't believe it's Daenarys's by right or whether or not the common folk would even support her if she was to come to Westeros.

Well, if person A is allowed to overthrow a ruler, shouldn´t person B be allowed to do the same? It does feel pretty dishonest (as well as setting up a massive double standard) to say that Aerys should be deposed but somehow Daenerys is as fault for doing the exact same thing towards others that happened toward her own family and that somehow suddenly deposing is WRONG (with capital W). I get that the situation is not ideal, but Daenerys isn´t the one to blame. Why should she fold her stronger claim (300 years beats 15 years) in order to create peace? It is extremely unfair. Reminds me of the bully in school who hurt people yet whined when he was struck back and claimed abuse. 

Please have some tit-for-tat perspective here. 

 

[Veloknight]

21 hours ago, RainGhost said:

9 minutes ago, Knute said:

I get it now; although the throne was originally won by conquest in itself. The Mad King deserved to be overthrown but perhaps should've been replaced by Rhaegar. I still don't believe it's Daenarys's by right or whether or not the common folk would even support her if she was to come to Westeros, or whether they'd agree that she's the rightfull queen.

So what you're saying is that if a person can't be a monarch, then their life is pointless and they might as well kill themselves? Interesting. Dany can live a perfectly full life without becoming Queen of the Seven Kingdoms and without having children. She wouldn't be giving up her rights - she has no right to the Iron Throne, she only has a claim. She does not have to pursue that claim. Stannis is currently the rightful king, so if Shireen were to accidentally get burned, then he would have to name an heir but naming an heir is a risky business with no guarantee of a smooth transition. Dany could name an heir, yes, but she does not have to take that risk, she does not have to put herself (and Westeros) in that position.

Again, attempts have been made on her life because of her claim. She has no way to know (nor do we) that some future Westerosi ruler won't try and assassinate her again due to her claim, and it's difficult to simply disavow that claim.

15 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Again, I think naming a hand-picked dragon rider as her heir is a pretty decent way to guarantee an acceptable heir. As someone said above, if Stannis were to lose Shireen before taking the throne, does anyone think he would be dissuaded from pursuing it? He's only had one child, whose to say if the issue lies with him or Selyse. If he were responsible, he'd make sure he wasn't the one who had weak boys by having another kid before securing the throne.

Hell, Stannis is probably Dany's closest known relative, right? If Stannis could be shown that he can't win against dragons, he might be named heir, or Shireen after him. See, she does have a reasonable heir.

Yeah, her succession tree is Legit!Jon -> Stannis -> Shireen -> Other Female Line Targaryen Descendant.

1 hour ago, Protagoras said:

If I believe something is mine, I will take it back from the person who stole it, regardless of the fact that I have no hiers and that something with my death will cease to be in my or my family´s control. 

That is not seen as selfishness, neither in Westeros nor today - that is seen as just. 

Excellent point.

9 minutes ago, Knute said:

I get it now; although the throne was originally won by conquest in itself.

The Riverlanders freely chose Aegon after being liberated. The Arryns and Starks freely bent the knee rather than face destruction, and legally acknowledged Aegon as king. After the Field of Fire, so did the Lannisters. The Gardeners were extinct, but the stewards of Highgarden and the lords of Hightower (as well as the High Septon) freely chose to accept Aegon, and even crowned him.

Aerys II never abdicated, nor did Viserys. There was no pretense of a legal process. "Right of Conquest" is not a valid legal argument while the people whose throne you usurped are still alive and kicking. It's an after-the-fact acknowledgement and legitimization of something that was initially accomplished through pure force.

9 minutes ago, Knute said:

The Mad King deserved to be overthrown but perhaps should've been replaced by Rhaegar. I still don't believe it's Daenarys's by right or whether or not the common folk would even support her if she was to come to Westeros, or whether they'd agree that she's the rightfull queen.

Again, why do we need to pretend that legal reality is somehow separate and 'above' political reality? This is not going to be a case resolved by a lawyer. Dany has claim because people feel she has claim, owing to her descent from King Aerys. Robert has claim because people feel he has claim, owing to his charisma, power, and descent from King Aegon. Daenerys now also has charisma and power, knows that she may be in danger as long as she is seen to have a claim (something she cannot easily control, since as long as a few of the right people believe she does, she will). Why, exactly, shouldn't she press that claim?

 

Also, at the risk of sounding repetitive, why is this a significant issue? She's not forging headlong, recklessly into Westeros - the reason many of us are frustrated with her arc in the first place! She's found another cause that matters to her, which dovetails nicely with her long-term goals (or so she thought). The fundamental premise of this thread is off - she has taken very little action of any kind towards Westeros, but we (who know that she must arrive soon based on the number of books to be written) are treating her like she is. Some action may make Westeros more pressing in her mind, at which point these considerations become more appropriate - but right now, she has no urgency to act on her claim, so this particular criticism of Dany is, at best, putting the cart before the horse.

[Walda]

She is actually taking the typical path for a childless woman: When she first finds out, she resorts to desperate measures: 

Quote

The birth had left her too raw and torn to take him inside of her, as she would have wanted, but Doreah had taught her other ways. Dany used her hands, her mouth, her breasts. She raked him with her nails and covered him with kisses and whispered and prayed and told him stories, and by the end she had bathed him with her tears. Yet Drogo did not feel, or speak, or rise.(AGoT, Ch.68 Daenerys IX)

  Then she becomes a disturbingly devoted pet parent:

Quote

The cream-and-gold dragon was suckling at her left breast, the green-and-bronze at the right. Her arms cradled them close. The black-and-scarlet beast was draped across her shoulders, its long sinuous neck coiled under her chin. (AGoT,Ch.72 Daenerys X)

Then she looks to the stars:

Quote

It is the herald of my coming, she told herself as she gazed up into the night sky with wonder in her heart. The gods have sent it to show me the way.(ACoK, Ch.12 Daenerys I)

Starts seeking:

Quote

 “What shall we seek, Khaleesi?” asked Jhogo.
“Whatever there is,” Dany answered. “Seek for other cities, living and dead. Seek for caravans and people. Seek for rivers and lakes and the great salt sea. Find how far this waste extends before us, and what lies on the other side.(ACoK,Ch.12 Daenerys I)

befriend other barren freaks interesting singles:

Quote

tell me your names.”
The pale man with the blue lips replied in guttural Dothraki, “I am Pyat Pree, the great warlock.”
The bald man with the jewels in his nose answered in the Valyrian of the Free Cities, “I am Xaro Xhoan Daxos of the Thirteen, a merchant prince of Qarth.”
The woman in the lacquered wooden mask said in the Common Tongue of the Seven Kingdoms, “I am Quaithe of the Shadow. (ACoK,Ch.12 Daenerys I)

Take a cruise:

Quote

Balerion’s sails hung limp, drooping forlorn from the masts. Yet even so, as she stood upon the forecastle watching her dragons chase each other across a cloudless blue sky, Daenerys Targaryen was as happy as she could ever remember being.(ASoS, Ch.08 Daenerys I)

Fight for a cause, become a concious consumer, stage a protest:

Quote

 “Unsullied!” Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. “Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” She raised the harpy’s fingers in the air … and then she flung the scourge aside. “Freedom!” she sang out. “Dracarys! Dracarys!”(ASoS, Ch.27 Daenerys III)

Become everyone's mother:

Quote

The freed slaves parted before her. “Mother,” they called from a hundred throats, a thousand, ten thousand. “Mother,” they sang, their fingers brushing her legs as she flew by. “Mother, Mother, Mother!”(ASoS, Ch.42 Daenerys IV)

Learn from her mistakes, knuckle down and get serious about her job:

Quote

how can I rule seven kingdoms if I cannot rule a single city?...My children need time to heal and learn. My dragons need time to grow and test their wings. And I need the same. I will not let this city go the way of Astapor. I will not let the harpy of Yunkai chain up those I’ve freed all over again.” She turned back to look at their faces. “I will not march.”
“What will you do then, Khaleesi?” asked Rakharo.
“Stay,” she said. “Rule. And be a queen.””(ASoS, Ch.71 Daenerys VI)

Maybe having a workplace affair with someone totally inappropriate:

Quote

She found herself thinking of Daario Naharis once again, Daario with his gold tooth and trident beard, his strong hands resting on the hilts of his matched arakh and stiletto, hilts wrought of gold in the shape of naked women.(ADwD, Ch.11 Daenerys II)

Maybe learn to fly:

Quote

The black wings cracked like thunder, and suddenly the scarlet sands were falling away beneath her. (ADwD, Ch.52 Daenerys IX)