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

[bloodofthedragon1995]

Providing that MMD prophecey is true (Dany certaintly thinks it is) Dany will not be able to have children. If that is the case then why is Dany so desperate to reclaim the Iron Throne. Aside from a sense of entitlement why would she do that? Dany thinks of herself as a breaker of chains and as being the champion of the common people yet she would invade (possibly with thousands of Dothraki)  in a time of relative peace and put the people through another war. 

If she's only going to sit on the throne and not produce an heir, it will all have been for nothing. She does not know about Jon (providing R + L = J is even true) or fAegon and so is literally planning to reclaim Westeros with the knowledge that she is the only Targ claimant and that a succession crisis will certainty occur after her death.

To me, it just seems quite selfish and Dany having a sense of self-entitlement. She believes an invasion is necessary despite already being Queen of Slaver's Bay (which she could be content with). After all, her family conquered westeros and the Baratheon's similarly won the Iron throne through right of conquest, so it can be argued that she doesn't have any right to the throne. If she truly cared for the good of westeros and the small folk she would leave it be, be content in Slaver's bay and not create chaos through an other war and succession crisis.

Even if Dany is not barren, she believes herself to be. This shows how selfish she is being and she understands the consequences of what will happen of a barren leader being on the throne and is still determined to invade anyway.

 

[Young Nan]

I've always wondered about that too.  Whether or not she actually IS barren, what matters is that she believes herself to be. So she's going to start a war and take back the throne, many people will die, and she knows that her hold on the crown will be tenuous and temporary because there will be another bloody succession war as soon as she dies with no heir.  

Even if she plans to name an heir, that's pretty naive and wishful thinking if she believes that everyone is just going to accept that.  Even when a king DOES die with an heir half the time it starts a crazy war, so imagine the fallout from a non-Targaryen heir.  Everyone and their brother would contest it.  I know she's just a young girl who knows little about the ways of war, but still..seems selfish and ridiculous to me. 

[Light a wight tonight]

She wants to conquer Westeros because that's what you do if you are Blood of the Dragon. That and punish the Usurper's Dogs. She needs no other reason.

[El Guapo]

Because the Iron Throne is hers by right. That is why.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

I think it's just been so drilled into her since birth that Westeros is home, she hasn't given much thought to the fact that it's stranger to her now than the east is. 

I think she's picturing a fairy tale land where everyone will love her and she will love everything. Wait until she arrives in KL and the snow is knee deep. She's never seen anything resembling a real winter, I don't think. 

[Veloknight]

I question your premise. She is a very young woman who might live a long time - I don't think Elizabeth I was selfish for keeping the throne without a child, and her heirs were monarchs of a rival kingdom! In any case, she wound up with a rather long reign and was quite highly regarded despite her lack of a husband or child.

Beyond this, at the moment she doesn't have a concrete plan - she's focused on the immediate challenges of her rule - and can hasn't yet had a situation where thinking about heirs is relevant. Let's be honest: if she dies in Meereen, her Kingdom in Slaver's Bay dies with her, heir or no heir. In Westeros, a much more established kingdom, she has any number of distant relations she can legitimize once her lack of an heir becomes a problem. That doesn't mean the kingdom wouldn't benefit from her Restoration, and it doesn't make her more selfish for not being able to pass the throne to a direct descendant, so long as the heir is made clear.

Beyond that, she believes (and the attempt on her life and her child's life proved) that as long as she lives, she remains a threat to the Iron Throne. Seriously. She will always have a claim, and so there will always be people who consider it. That Jon Arryn and King Robert waited so long is impressive, but from Dany's perspective she's in danger until she gets the throne - so might as well make the claim anyways.

[TOM of the North]

She is 17 years old and she can give 50-70 years of peace and prosperity to Westeros. In that period of time a lot of things can happen.

The real problem is: what happens to Slaver's Bay after she leaves?

[Veloknight]

2 minutes ago, TOM of the North said:

She is 17 years old and she can give 50-70 years of peace and prosperity to Westeros. In that period of time a lot of things can happen.

The real problem is: what happens to Slaver's Bay after she leaves?

Good point! I've wondered a lot about her options in SB. As I see it, she can:

1. Rule in personal or real union between the kingdoms, with some sort of Governor-General or Lord Mayor who is appointed when she leaves. Frequent royal visits and a large police force (possibly a penal setup similar to the Night's Watch?) will probably be necessary for a few generations.
2. Create a suzerain vassal in Meereen in her will or at some point during her reign
3. Grant them self-government under Westerosi suzerainty
4. Rule in personal union for her lifetime using one of the above, with a separation of crowns on her passing.

 

[bloodofthedragon1995]

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

Because the Iron Throne is hers by right. That is why.

Hmm, maybe. But the Targ's themselves were deposed as a ruling house. All of the over 7 kingdoms officially recognise House Baratheon as the ruling house on the Iron Throne. Therefore, her right is debatable. The Baratheon's won their throne through right of conquest...

[Veloknight]

5 minutes ago, bloodofthedragon1995 said:

Hmm, maybe. But the Targ's themselves were deposed as a ruling house. All of the over 7 kingdoms officially recognise House Baratheon as the ruling house on the Iron Throne. Therefore, her right is debatable. The Baratheon's won their throne through right of conquest...

A.) Right of Conquest is not that simple, and B.) Daenerys Targaryen has no reason to believe the Baratheons won't try to murder her wherever she goes, so attempting to defeat and destroy them is pretty much survival at this point.

[Slaver's Dread]

28 minutes ago, bloodofthedragon1995 said:

Hmm, maybe. But the Targ's themselves were deposed as a ruling house. All of the over 7 kingdoms officially recognise House Baratheon as the ruling house on the Iron Throne. Therefore, her right is debatable. The Baratheon's won their throne through right of conquest...

This is a falsehood. If all of Westeros recognized House Baratheon then there would be no civil war. If you think about it, all of the claimants are just following Robert's example.

[Veloknight]

4 minutes ago, Slaver's Dread said:

If you think about it, all of the claimants are just following Robert's example.

Yup! This is a problem inherent to any non-dynastic / non-consular seizure of the throne in a feudal system.

It's also worth noting that Robert's assassination attempts indicate that he, too, thinks Dany has a strong claim to the Throne. If even he thinks she's a threat, why do people persist in denying any Targaryen right to the throne?

[WhitewolfStark]

1 hour ago, Veloknight said:

I question your premise. She is a very young woman who might live a long time - I don't think Elizabeth I was selfish for keeping the throne without a child, and her heirs were monarchs of a rival kingdom! In any case, she wound up with a rather long reign and was quite highly regarded despite her lack of a husband or child.

Beyond this, at the moment she doesn't have a concrete plan - she's focused on the immediate challenges of her rule - and can hasn't yet had a situation where thinking about heirs is relevant. Let's be honest: if she dies in Meereen, her Kingdom in Slaver's Bay dies with her, heir or no heir. In Westeros, a much more established kingdom, she has any number of distant relations she can legitimize once her lack of an heir becomes a problem. That doesn't mean the kingdom wouldn't benefit from her Restoration, and it doesn't make her more selfish for not being able to pass the throne to a direct descendant, so long as the heir is made clear.

Beyond that, she believes (and the attempt on her life and her child's life proved) that as long as she lives, she remains a threat to the Iron Throne. Seriously. She will always have a claim, and so there will always be people who consider it. That Jon Arryn and King Robert waited so long is impressive, but from Dany's perspective she's in danger until she gets the throne - so might as well make the claim anyways.

Elizabeth the I wasn't barren (that we know of) given that she chose to never marry for the reason of preserving her own right to rule the kingdom and not being put aside by her husband. She also ruled over what we'd now consider a police state, with spies and informers reporting on any citizens that were even suspected of having Popish sympathies, having the crown hold a monopoly on wool trade, and running through the treasury repeatedly by constantly having it be involved in a foreign war in the Netherlands against Spain defending a fellow Protestant ally. When James I took the throne, the kingdom was rather bankrupt due to the war and her lavish funeral. His coronation had to be done on the cheap. She was better than her sister Mary because she didn't start burning people left and right, more moderate on religion than her brother Edward, but evaluating her just for herself, Elizabeth was a mixed bag of good and bad.

The reason Shakespeare wrote those history plays about the Wars of the Roses in the first place is because history of that time period was rather popular. Similar to how the history of the American Civil War was popular between the 1960s & 1980s in America. Those plays tapped into a rather conscious fear held by the kingdom as a whole: what was going to happen when Elizabeth died? Many thought that the moment she died that they'd be embroiled in yet another war for succession like the Wars of the Roses--hence why that history was so popular as a kind of "this is the worst case scenario folks". Add to it that the playhouses had to compete with the gallows for an audience and the bloody history of the Wars of the Roses makes complete sense to adapt for a play. However there also were rather treasonous suggestions in those plays as well--particularly when a specific performance of Richard II was ordered to be performed by a nobleman. Richard II being about a King who is forced to abdicate in favor of his cousin, which was an increasingly popular sentiment as a way of preventing a potential war of succession.

In all accounts the worry was all for naught. James I took the throne rather easily and with little fuss and feathers (beyond the issue of his coronation having to be done on the cheap, as I said), and the whole of England breathed a sigh of relief.

So while the potential for there to be a war of succession is there, if the people involved are actively worried about such a succession war, it is possible that everyone not wanting said succession war is enough to prevent it from occurring, if you follow my drift. Ultimately though, I don't see the Iron Throne lasting until the end of the last book. I half expect it to be broken apart for all those swords to be used.

[WSmith84]

Who would Daenerys' successor even be if she had no children? A Velaryon or somebody?

[Leonardo]

9 minutes ago, WhitewolfStark said:

Elizabeth the I wasn't barren (that we know of) given that she chose to never marry for the reason of preserving her own right to rule the kingdom and not being put aside by her husband. She also ruled over what we'd now consider a police state, with spies and informers reporting on any citizens that were even suspected of having Popish sympathies, having the crown hold a monopoly on wool trade, and running through the treasury repeatedly by constantly having it be involved in a foreign war in the Netherlands against Spain defending a fellow Protestant ally. When James I took the throne, the kingdom was rather bankrupt due to the war and her lavish funeral. His coronation had to be done on the cheap. She was better than her sister Mary because she didn't start burning people left and right, more moderate on religion than her brother Edward, but evaluating her just for herself, Elizabeth was a mixed bag of good and bad.

The reason Shakespeare wrote those history plays about the Wars of the Roses in the first place is because history of that time period was rather popular. Similar to how the history of the American Civil War was popular between the 1960s & 1980s in America. Those plays tapped into a rather conscious fear held by the kingdom as a whole: what was going to happen when Elizabeth died? Many thought that the moment she died that they'd be embroiled in yet another war for succession like the Wars of the Roses--hence why that history was so popular as a kind of "this is the worst case scenario folks". Add to it that the playhouses had to compete with the gallows for an audience and the bloody history of the Wars of the Roses makes complete sense to adapt for a play. However there also were rather treasonous suggestions in those plays as well--particularly when a specific performance of Richard II was ordered to be performed by a nobleman. Richard II being about a King who is forced to abdicate in favor of his cousin, which was an increasingly popular sentiment as a way of preventing a potential war of succession.

In all accounts the worry was all for naught. James I took the throne rather easily and with little fuss and feathers (beyond the issue of his coronation having to be done on the cheap, as I said), and the whole of England breathed a sigh of relief.

So while the potential for there to be a war of succession is there, if the people involved are actively worried about such a succession war, it is possible that everyone not wanting said succession war is enough to prevent it from occurring, if you follow my drift. Ultimately though, I don't see the Iron Throne lasting until the end of the last book. I half expect it to be broken apart for all those swords to be used.

So who would even succeed Dany outside of a Baratheon or Martell in her mind, as no one else has a blood claim?

 

That's the issue here

[Veloknight]

4 minutes ago, WhitewolfStark said:

snip

I'm actually quite familiar with this part of English history, but thanks for the lecture. Now, if I may be so bold..was there a point? You yourself don't blame Elizabeth for ruling without a direct heir, so it's not like Dany is somehow selfish for wanting to do the same.

There is a point I think you miss, too. Elizabeth's father's obsession with a male heir and fear of weak succession makes quite a lot of sense given the legacy of both the Anarchy and the Wars of the Roses, and the religious furor of the time only made the situation worse. We can now say it was all for naught, but it's difficult to say why. One can argue that the peaceful succession of James I and VI occurred in light of this bloody history - and the Wo5K may make the lords similarly less fractious in the end.

 

3 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Who would Daenerys' successor even be if she had no children? A Velaryon or somebody?

Her closest heir is Stannis Baratheon, followed by Shireen. I've heard Selwyn Tarth mentioned as a potential Targ-descended heir for the Baratheons, so he's presumably have a similarly high position in her succession. The Plumms, Dondarrions, and Martells are also possibles, as are the Velaryons.

[Fire Eater]

Dany isn't barren as Ran mentioned that the blood flowing from her legs in her last POV was a miscarriage so she can conceive. As revealed in ACoK, deep inside she wants a stable, peaceful life, but she wants to take Westeros because she feels it is her duty to her family.  

[Leonardo]

6 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Dany isn't barren as Ran mentioned that the blood flowing from her legs in her last POV was a miscarriage so she can conceive. As revealed in ACoK, deep inside she wants a stable, peaceful life, but she wants to take Westeros because she feels it is her duty to her family.  

But if she has no family then her priority should be finding Targ descendants while also working towards the throne, or there is no point And her family dies out for naught and thousands will die.

[WSmith84]

1 minute ago, Fire Eater said:

Dany isn't barren as Ran mentioned that the blood flowing from her legs in her last POV was a miscarriage so she can conceive. As revealed in ACoK, deep inside she wants a stable, peaceful life, but she wants to take Westeros because she feels it is her duty to her family.  

I think the point is that Dany believes herself to be barren (whether she is or not is kind of irrelevant) but still wants to take the Iron Throne, thinking that she won't have any children to succeed her. Daenerys doesn't think at all about who might succeed her, and if she doesn't as she gets closer to Westeros that will become a flaw.

A bigger issue in my mind is, if she thinks she won't have any children, what the hell does she think will happen to her dragons when she's gone?

[Fire Eater]

5 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

But if she has no family then her priority should be finding Targ descendants while also working towards the throne, or there is no point And her family dies out for naught and thousands will die.

She thinks she is the last Targaryen. Again, she isn't barren, and she isn't thinking long-term. 

 

5 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

I think the point is that Dany believes herself to be barren (whether she is or not is kind of irrelevant) but still wants to take the Iron Throne, thinking that she won't have any children to succeed her. Daenerys doesn't think at all about who might succeed her, and if she doesn't as she gets closer to Westeros that will become a flaw.

A bigger issue in my mind is, if she thinks she won't have any children, what the hell does she think will happen to her dragons when she's gone?

Dany is thinking about her duty, and with no children, or she has to find some purpose (not that having children should be a woman's purpose). She isn't thinking long-term. but on the immediate goal.