tyrion & sansa....a happy ending?

[jcmontea]

3 minutes ago, aeverett said:

Actually the point of the Tudor/York union was to unite the two competing claims, as there was nobody else alive with a better claim on either side.  As Jon is a Targaryen and a Stark, he doesn't represent the opposing claim to Daenerys'.  This is why I see Gendry and Danny ending up together.  They would merge House Targaryen with House Baratheon, leaving nobody else with a claim to the Iron Throne.   Tudor and York weren't a love match either, but they respected each other and grew to love one another.  The purpose was to stop the bloodshed, and since nobody seriously believes House Lannister has any legitimate claim to the throne, that would do it.   

John Snow's days are numbered.  He's been brought back from the dead, and once he's fulfilled some great destiny, he'll return to death forever.  Valar Morghulis.

As for Tyrion and Sansa, that would make a nice secondary pairing, as the war between the Lannisters and the Starks would be put to rest, even though it's not a war for an uncomfortable, metal chair.  It still destroys  far too many lives, so the two unions, after the army of the dead and the Night King have been dealt with, will bring peace to a war weary Westeros, 

I would argue Dany and Jon are two opposing claims. 

Jon technically is the rightful heir but not clear he can prove it and certainly does not have the power to end up on the throne. 

Dany has no questions as to her legitimacy and more importantly has the power. 

[aeverett]

1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

I would argue Dany and Jon are two opposing claims. 

Jon technically is the rightful heir but not clear he can prove it and certainly does not have the power to end up on the throne. 

Dany has no questions as to her legitimacy and more importantly has the power. 

Yes, but both claims come from the same House, Targaryen.  Anyone who prospered under Robert, Goffrey, Tommen, or even Cersei's reigns can rise up in the name of the Baratheons, particularly if Gendry is legitimized (a noble but stupid move for either Jon or Dany).  Who should rule never matters.  Jon and/or Dany would make good rulers, but those with an interest in either maintaining chaos (Baelish can't be the only noble with his perspective) or profiting from a sea change will rekindle the wars, generation after generation, massacre after massacre.  Talk about a long winter.

[jcmontea]

2 hours ago, aeverett said:

Yes, but both claims come from the same House, Targaryen.  Anyone who prospered under Robert, Goffrey, Tommen, or even Cersei's reigns can rise up in the name of the Baratheons, particularly if Gendry is legitimized (a noble but stupid move for either Jon or Dany).  Who should rule never matters.  Jon and/or Dany would make good rulers, but those with an interest in either maintaining chaos (Baelish can't be the only noble with his perspective) or profiting from a sea change will rekindle the wars, generation after generation, massacre after massacre.  Talk about a long winter.

I hear you and I certainly see your point if we were looking to make a 1 for 1 comparison with the War of the Roses.  

But I just have a hard time buying that Gendry is a legit player in this for a few reasons:

(1) He is not a legitimate son. That if of whether he is legitimized is a really big if so I don't even know if we should assume he has a good claim, certainly not one comparable to Elizabeth of York. Jon feels like he fits better here since he has the best claim and he is tied to the York's of the books as a Stark even if his claim doesn't come from the Stark line. 

(2) I agree that who should rule never matters. GRRM has said it himself. But right now Gendry has no good claim and more importantly no power to pursue a claim. And there has been no laying the groundwork that someone is agitating to fight for a Baratheon to be on the throne. Is he going to acquire a ton of power over the last 6 episodes where Dany is going to have to deal with him? Would be sort of out of left field if that were the case. But stranger things have happened, just feels unlikely.

(3) He has been a relatively inconsequential figure during the entire story. If he was really going to end up King married to Daenerys Targaryen then i think just from a  meta perspective we would have followed his story more.

(4) Not sure these is any foreshadowing for her marrying Gendry whereas there is foreshadowing for her marrying Jon (especially if you assume that his name is indeed Aegon):

"bride of fire",

"he is aegon the dragonloard come again, and you will be his queen"

"Five Aegons had ruled the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. There would have been a sixth, but the Usurper's dogs had murdered her brother's son when he was still a babe at the breast. If he had lived, I might have married him. Aegon would have been closer to my age than Viserys." etc. etc. 

[MinscS2]

1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

*text*

All good points.
Especially from a story PoV would it make no sense at all to have one of the biggest endgame characters go MIA for almost 4 seasons.
My guess is as good as any's, but I'd say the chances of Dany and Gendry ending up together are less than 1%.