Lord Friendzone

Speculations, news, theories for season 7. (includes leaks )

2,777 posts in this topic

Why do people assume Arya's future at end of show is either die, go west of Westeros or marry Gendry?

I think their Arya's final position will be a climax from her journey through the series, like probably most of the characters will be.

Why would a throwaway line Arya mentioned in one episode querying what's west of Westeros decide what her main purpose at the end of story will be? Also, marrying Gendry? Really, if pairing everyone off is how you think this story is going to end, you haven't paid much attention.

Arya's journey is leading her into a critical role. Exactly what form that role will take is probably hardest to predict of all the Starks, but based on her journey in the show and books it could be several things.

I am certain Badass assassin is not her final destination. It's just part of her journey.

Edited by Gaz0680

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Jon and Dany don't really parallel the War of the Roses as Dany has a very strong claim to the throne, unlike Henry Tudor.  

Why, oh why, do people keep saying this?

Dany has no legitimate claim to the throne, the bloodlines run through the Baretheons, not the Targyrians. Dany's only claim is by conquest, not birthright.

You may argue that her conquest is justified, but as it now stands, Gendry has a better claim than both Jon and Dany. And in the end, this is who I think ends up on the Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Short Claw said:

Why, oh why, do people keep saying this?

Dany has no legitimate claim to the throne, the bloodlines run through the Baretheons, not the Targyrians. Dany's only claim is by conquest, not birthright.

You may argue that her conquest is justified, but as it now stands, Gendry has a better claim than both Jon and Dany. And in the end, this is who I think ends up on the Throne.

She has 300 years of Targaryen history on her side.  You know, the people who united Westeros under one ruler.  She absolutely has a legitimate claim to the throne if Robert is a usurper, as would any other Targaryen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

She has 300 years of Targaryen history on her side.  You know, the people who united Westeros under one ruler.  She absolutely has a legitimate claim to the throne if Robert is a usurper, as would any other Targaryen.  

Uh, sorry, but no.

Usurper is a term used by Dany to give her conquest some sense of legitimacy. By this definition, the Targs themselves were Usurpers. You can use that excuse to give Danys' conquest some form of legitimacy, but the majority of the seven kingdoms where behind Roberts rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point does right of conquest cease being named usurper? Sure Aegon the conqueror "usurped" the throne, but 300 years later, you can't call the one house that killed the king, anything but usurper (Or conquer depending on what side you sit). After the throne has been taken, if the long lasting dynasty reclaims the throne, they have "blood right."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Short Claw said:

but the majority of the seven kingdoms where behind Roberts rebellion.

Well, except for all the ones who fought for the Targaryens. If the war lasted a year, there must have been quite a few of them, otherwise Robert and his cohorts would have routed the remaining Targ supporters in the first month.

Dany has a claim because her family's dynasty was fairly recently toppled . Doesn't mean anyone has to recognise it (particularly the victorious Baratheons) but she has one. Look at all the people in English history who lost their right of succession, but were still considered to have a claim e.g. Edmund Mortimer, who had support for a long time after Richard II's ouster even though he didn't really want the throne, and in a roundabout way he was successful after his death as Edward IV's claim came partly through him. Henry Tudor's claim was fairly tenuous (if not non-existent, seeing as his mother's line was specifically excluded from inheriting the crown) yet he still made one and it was accepted once he usurped the throne (by killing his rival, another usurper, in battle).

Robert IS a usurper. Henry Bolingbroke was a usurper, even though he was popular and many people rallied to his cause. He remained King, and Richard II's line of succession was no longer recognised (BY THE USURPER). Edward IV was arguably a usurper. Henry VI's son Edward of Lancaster still fought for his claim after Henry lost the throne.

The Targs were conquerors, and although technically there wasn't a single crown to usurp, they did demote all the other kings to subjects, so depending on where you're standing then yeah, they were usurpers 300 YEARS AGO. Once you've established a dynasty (for 300 years) you're not really considered usurpers anymore. Robert never did that. He took the throne by force a single generation ago, and now a bastard not of his blood is king.

Now the Lannisters have usurped the throne from the Baratheons in everything but name.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, maudisdottir said:

Well, except for all the ones who fought for the Targaryens. If the war lasted a year, there must have been quite a few of them, otherwise Robert and his cohorts would have routed the remaining Targ supporters in the first month.

Dany has a claim because her family's dynasty was fairly recently toppled . Doesn't mean anyone has to recognise it (particularly the victorious Baratheons) but she has one. Look at all the people in English history who lost their right of succession, but were still considered to have a claim e.g. Edmund Mortimer, who had support for a long time after Richard II's ouster even though he didn't really want the throne, and in a roundabout way he was successful after his death as Edward IV's claim came partly through him. Henry Tudor's claim was fairly tenuous (if not non-existent, seeing as his mother's line was specifically excluded from inheriting the crown) yet he still made one and it was accepted once he usurped the throne (by killing his rival, another usurper, in battle).

Robert IS a usurper. Henry Bolingbroke was a usurper, even though he was popular and many people rallied to his cause. He remained King, and Richard II's line of succession was no longer recognised (BY THE USURPER). Edward IV was arguably a usurper. Henry VI's son Edward of Lancaster still fought for his claim after Henry lost the throne.

The Targs were conquerors, and although technically there wasn't a single crown to usurp, they did demote all the other kings to subjects, so depending on where you're standing then yeah, they were usurpers 300 YEARS AGO. Once you've established a dynasty (for 300 years) you're not really considered usurpers anymore. Robert never did that. He took the throne by force a single generation ago, and now a bastard not of his blood is king.

Now the Lannisters have usurped the throne from the Baratheons in everything but name.

 

What?

And a year is a relatively short period of time. The only major houses not to side with the rebellion were the Tyrells, and Dorne. the Dornish alliance was shaky at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, A man has no name said:

At what point does right of conquest cease being named usurper? Sure Aegon the conqueror "usurped" the throne, but 300 years later, you can't call the one house that killed the king, anything but usurper (Or conquer depending on what side you sit). After the throne has been taken, if the long lasting dynasty reclaims the throne, they have "blood right."  

If what your saying is correct, why does Dany need an army of 100,000 Dothraki?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Short Claw said:

If what your saying is correct, why does Dany need an army of 100,000 Dothraki?

To retake the throne that was usurped from her family, isn't that obvious?  LOL.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Short Claw said:

What?

OK, I was thinking more of the books. In the show the bastard not of his blood died in the season finale and the "Baratheon" dynasty is over. Which is even more reason for Dany to try and re-assert her claim. Why does House Lannister have a better claim than her (or any at all)? This would be the time historically when a pretender mounts his or her claim, so Dany's doing exactly what any other conqueror would do - swooping in (literally) to take over when the land is in turmoil and the crown at its weakest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

To retake the throne that was usurped from her family, isn't that obvious?  LOL.  

 

To Usurp, the Usurper? That doesn't make her any more legitimate, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, maudisdottir said:

OK, I was thinking more of the books. In the show the bastard not of his blood died in the season finale and the "Baratheon" dynasty is over. Which is even more reason for Dany to try and re-assert her claim. Why does House Lannister have a better claim than her (or any at all)? This would be the time historically when a pretender mounts his or her claim, so Dany's doing exactly what any other conqueror would do - swooping in (literally) to take over when the land is in turmoil and the crown at its weakest.

Ok, and? That has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which is the legitimacy of Danys claim to the throne. If events had played out differently, and Robert Baretheon was still alive, do you think Dany still had a legitimate claim to the throne?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Short Claw said:

Ok, and? That has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which is the legitimacy of Danys claim to the throne. If events had played out differently, and Robert Baretheon was still alive, do you think Dany still had a legitimate claim to the throne?

Yes.  Maybe you should read more history.  She has a legitimate claim to the throne through her father, who was king.  The end.  Robert usurped the throne, and became king, that doesn't negate the legitimacy of her claim.....which is probably why she has a variety of supporters from Westeros.  Often, there are more than one "legitimate" claimants to a throne.

But, once she gets to Westeros she will have won the IT by right of conquest and will also have a blood claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes.  Maybe you should read more history.  She has a legitimate claim to the throne through her father, who was king.  The end.  Robert usurped the throne, and became king, that doesn't negate the legitimacy of her claim.....which is probably why she has a variety of supporters from Westeros.  Often, there are more than one "legitimate" claimants to a throne.

But, once she gets to Westeros she will have won the IT by right of conquest and will also have a blood claim. 

Not the end, because you are wrong. If she had a legitimate claim to the throne, she would not need to take it by force. Yes, whe has support in Westeros, only because Cersie is now Queen. Had Robert still been alive, that support would be nill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Short Claw said:

Not the end, because you are wrong. If she had a legitimate claim to the throne, she would not need to take it by force. Yes, whe has support in Westeros, only because Cersie is now Queen. Had Robert still been alive, that support would be nill.

Henry VI wants a word.  LOL.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Henry VI wants a word.  LOL.  

As for history that would apply specifically to this scenario, it is you that needs to do a brush up on history.

The claim of Prince Maegor), firstborn son of the deceased Crown Prince Aerion, was denied by a Great Council despite his right as firstborn son of the firstborn son of the King – why? His madness. ‘fears that the boy might have inherited his father’s cruelty and madness.’ (TWOIAF, p. 181)

 King Aerys II, known as the ‘Mad King’, unseated the Targaryen Dynasty as a result of his madness.

 

By the Great Council’s precedent of denying primogeniture on the basis of inherited insanity, all of King Aerys II’s descendants are ineligible to rule, disqualifying claims from Jon Snow, [Daenerys] Stormborn, and Aegon VI (book only).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gaz0680 said:

Why do people assume Arya's future at end of show is either die, go west of Westeros or marry Gendry?

I think their Arya's final position will be a climax from her journey through the series, like probably most of the characters will be.Why would a throwaway line Arya mentioned in one episode querying what's west of Westeros decide what her main purpose at the end of story will be?

D&D don't include much dialogue that doesn't directly advance the plot in some way, so seemingly random comments like Arya talking about west of Westeros, Tyrion mentioning that he'd like to own a winery, Jaime commenting that girls like Sansa don't tend to live very long, etc. stick out quite a bit. 

Arya's two Starks behind ending up as Lady of Winterfell, so assuming she and her siblings make it out of the books, she's going to need somewhere other than Winterfell to end up, since Arya's unlikely to want to spend her life bumming around Winterfell. Going on an expedition to see what's west of Westeros seems as good a fit as any, particularly for someone like Arya who once dreamed of traveling the world in AGOT. I don't think anyone would think anything of Arya talking about going west of Westeros if they weren't thinking about plausible endgames for Arya beyond Winterfell.

Also, GRRM has taken a lot of inspiration from LOTR. When talking about his own "bittersweet" ending in mind for ASOIAF, he specifically referenced Frodo being devastated by what he's gone through and the characters moving on with their lives. In the LOTR ending, Frodo eventually wound up sailing away and departing Middle-earth. I wouldn't be surprised if GRRM works in a "Frodo"-type ending for one character, where one character can't readjust to normal life after the war after everything they've suffered and winds up sailing elsewhere to find peace, and if so, Arya seems like a likely candidate.

 

Quote

Also, marrying Gendry? Really, if pairing everyone off is how you think this story is going to end, you haven't paid much attention.

Arya did have a friendship with Gendry, and we know Gendry's coming back this season, so it's not out of the question.

As for the pairing everyone off part...while I don't think everyone is going to get paired off, LOTR ended with a few marriages (Aragorn/Arwen, Sam/Rosie, and it was implied Eowyn/Faramir would get together).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Short Claw said:

As for history that would apply specifically to this scenario, it is you that needs to do a brush up on history.

The claim of Prince Maegor), firstborn son of the deceased Crown Prince Aerion, was denied by a Great Council despite his right as firstborn son of the firstborn son of the King – why? His madness. ‘fears that the boy might have inherited his father’s cruelty and madness.’ (TWOIAF, p. 181)

 King Aerys II, known as the ‘Mad King’, unseated the Targaryen Dynasty as a result of his madness.

 

By the Great Council’s precedent of denying primogeniture on the basis of inherited insanity, all of King Aerys II’s descendants are ineligible to rule, disqualifying claims from Jon Snow, [Daenerys] Stormborn, and Aegon VI (book only).

 

You still don't seem to understand that this passage exemplifies exactly what I am saying, there can be multiple legitimate claimants to a throne, and people will or will not support them based on an almost infinite number of variables......You are king until you aren't.  You are in the line of succession until you aren't.  Your claim is good, better, best all depending again on a huge set of variables.  But saying Dany doesn't have a legitimate claim to the throne on which her father sat is to me silly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cas Stark I have to echo you. Having a claim is nothing unless you lay claim to what you claim is yours.

Also if Jon is considered a "righful" ruler based on his Targ heritage then Dany has right too. Law of succession places him first, but that didn't stop Renly (or Joffrey for that matter) when it came to Stannis' rightful claim.

Its all moot. Everyone has some right or claim, its whoever is most popular and bloodthirsty that will win. 

Edited by Lady Ren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.