direpupy Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: I have already proved it from the book. It doesn't matter of you wish not to see it, it is still there. No you did not thats why nobody on the tread agreed with you. You can not see something that is not there to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 DP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, direpupy said: No you did not thats why nobody on the tread agreed with you. People chose to close their eyes when a favorite character is to blame. I have proved it from the books that I am right if I was wrong you would had been able to show me one case when a Prince of Dragonstone being succeeded by his younger brother rather than his daughter before Jaehaerys. 2 minutes ago, direpupy said: You can not see something that is not there to see. That is you wishing not to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said: People chose to close their eyes when a favourite character is to blame. I have proved it from the books that I am right if I was wrong you would had been able to show me one case when a Prince of Dragonstone being succeeded by his younger brother rather than his daughter before Jaehaerys. That is you wishing not to see it. I wish you and your dillussion good luck, because you proved nothing, again this is why nobody agreed with you, and i mean nobody. That should be a big hint for you but apparently you are the one who does not wish to see something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 Just now, direpupy said: I wish you and your dillussion good luck, because you proved nothing, again this is why nobody agreed with you, and i mean nobody. That should be a big hint for you but apparently you are the one who does not wish to see something. Again, people chose not to close their eyes when a favorite character is wrong and it has happened numberless times around here but nevertheless you are again wrong I know for a fact that there are people agreeing with me in that thread because unlike you I actually read the thread. In any case turning it into a personal passive aggressive personal attack is childish is silly and proves how you are unable to support your claim from the book. Since you claim that I have been proved wrong I will not stop asking you to show me one case when a Prince of Dragonstone was being succeeded by his younger brother rather than his daughter before Jaehaerys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Again, people chose not to close their eyes when a favorite character is wrong and it has happened numberless times around here Actually i don't like Jaehaerys and think he was a shit king, but a usurper, no. So you are dead wrong about my motives here. 3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Since you claim that I have been proved wrong I will not stop asking you to show me one case when a Prince of Dragonstone was being succeeded by his younger brother rather than his daughter before Jaehaerys. Since there where only two princes of dragonstone before Jaehearys came to the throne, there being no case before this means nothing. Hell the first prins of Dragonstone was Maegor until he was replaced after his second marriage with prins Aegon his nephew, and Maegor named Aerea his heir but not princes of Dragonstone. As a matter of fact with the exeption of Rhaenyra al the rulers of Dragonstone have been male. So there is no case of a daughter succeding to Dragonstone without it leading to a war of succesion. 11 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: but nevertheless you are again wrong I know for a fact that there are people agreeing with me in that thread because unlike you I actually read the thread. I did read the tread and actively participated in it, so i know how many people agreed with you in they end when al possible points and angles where discussed namely 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: Since there where only two princes of dragonstone before Jaehearys came to the throne, there being no case before this means nothing. Hell the first prins of Dragonstone was Maegor until he was replaced after his second marriage with prins Aegon his nephew, and Maegor named Aerea his heir but not princes of Dragonstone. As a matter of fact with the exeption of Rhaenyra al the rulers of Dragonstone have been male. So there is no case of a daughter succeding to Dragonstone without it leading to a war of succesion. If you claim that there were not enough Targaryen Princes of Dragonstone how you can claim that the non Targaryen Westerosi Queen Regnant precedence is a sign about the Targaryen line of succession. Let me guess because this is what you chose to see. Yet as you said the Targ are not Andals hence the existence or not or pre conquest Westerosi Queen Regnant has nothing to do with the Targaryen line of succession. 10 minutes ago, direpupy said: I did read the tread and actively participated in it, so i know how many people agreed with you in they end when al possible points and angles where discussed namely 0. You are wrong but that is nothing new and off topic also nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: You know what i think the argument we are having has overheated, i still believe you are dead wrong but lets leave it at this before it turns into a flamewar. If you felt insulted by anything i said i appoligise that was not my intension. I do hope that in the future we may have productive discussions in other treads, like this one that did produce good points and many things to think about. I wish you well Sweet Lady and many more happy and enjoyable hour's on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.