What do you think of this argument that I found for why Dany isn't a good ruler?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I'm a post-Enlightenment reader and I think the only requirement for who is king should be how metal their rule would be.

It just so happens that only Victarion and Stannis qualify as the rest are barely even copper.

\m/

[E-Ro]

You can't post this shit and then complain about "lemoncake victimization" brah.

It was a preemptive strike, designed to cripple your ability to respond.

Ohhhh, E-Rizzle...... Even with your Stannis is love Stannis is life mentality I still love you.

lmao. Its pretty difficult not to love me. Many have tried and failed horribly. Its mostly a blessing, but it can be a real pain in the ass at times.

[Ziggy Targdust]

As if Victarion would even have a council.

Not to mention the chaos of naming an heir when Euron and Vic start boning each other's wives for revenge.

[Drake Heath]

Ramsay should be in that council, he probably knows how to use a Iron Maiden.

But seriously how would those three be able to bring anything good to table?

If anything the just take someone from every region and put them in the council, if we're already abolishing the monarchy altogether.

Also I find it funny how anyone could think they'd run a republic or a democracy any different than they run the Seven Kingdoms.

It would be a very metal democracy though.

Metalocracy.

[Roddy the Ruin]

As if Victarion would even have a council.

Not to mention the chaos of naming an heir when Euron and Vic start boning each other's wives for revenge.

The Dance of the Tenta- woah!!!!!

[OldGimletEye]

Something like a king, raised by "the people," with the adjacent establishment of some sort of legal authority (a constitution or a Magna Carta) is something I think might be possible for the end of this. Like, the sort of thing that would establish a social contract and render something like Robert's Rebellion "legal."

And if a King were to implement these reforms, I would have less of a problem with them taking the throne by force.

[Stormland's Fury]

As if Victarion would even have a council.

Well yeah, he would have a council but be the only one in it.

Also I find it funny how anyone could think they'd run a republic or a democracy any different than they run the Seven Kingdoms.

It would be a very metal democracy though.

Metalocracy.

This needs to be a thing.

[E-Ro]

Common people, the system in westeros is fine. Its not changing whether you like it or not.

[Ziggy Targdust]

There is no system, it's just a bunch of ppl screaming "no! I'm the king mutherfuker!"

[Stormland's Fury]

Common people, the system in westeros is fine. Its not changing whether you like it or not.

Well, not if Stannis gets the throne. But then I an fine with it anyway.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me7z3nXted1qeybv0o1_500.gif

Do I need to say more?

[butterbumps!]

And if a King were to implement these reforms, I would have less of a problem with them taking the throne by force.

Well, that's really kind of what Dany did in Meereen. But the big turning point is that once she sat that throne, she realizes she doesn't want to rule.

I'm honestly kind of wondering what sort of "claimants" we're even going to have by the time the "ultimate" monarch sits the throne. I kind of get the sense most will be out of the game before that point. Which is part of why I think we might see someone on the throne not put there through conquest, but as some sort of agreement when some of the dust settles.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Not to mention the chaos of naming an heir when Euron and Vic start boning each other's wives for revenge.

That sounds like fun.

[E-Ro]

There is no system, it's just a bunch of ppl screaming "no! I'm the king mutherfuker!"

Sounds full proof to me.

Well, that's really kind of what Dany did in Meereen. But the big turning point is that once she sat that throne, she realizes she doesn't want to rule.

I'm honestly kind of wondering what sort of "claimants" we're even going to have by the time the "ultimate" monarch sits the throne. I kind of get the sense most will be out of the game before that point. Which is part of why I think we might see someone on the throne not put there through conquest, but as some sort of agreement when some of the dust settles.

some sort of agreement? Brah brah the lords will put the person on the throne that offers them the most. They wont all of a sudden go "hey, you know what, lets all agree on the best qualified ruler and let them run things." whoever is put on the throne will not have anything to do with merit or who is most qualified. I also highly object to the idea that the lords would ask anyone to sit the throne. More likely they would just say fuck it and declare independence before they did that.

[Nictarion]

They'll probably think Dany is the fake, which would be hilariously ironic (would it be? I've never grasped how to use the word ironic rightly.)

This is already been addressed in the epilogue of ADwD, "We have tales coming from the east as well. A second Targaryen, and one whose blood no man can question. Daenerys Stormborn".

[OldGimletEye]

Well, that's really kind of what Dany did in Meereen. But the big turning point is that once she sat that throne, she realizes she doesn't want to rule.

And I wouldn't have such a problem with Dany's "reforms" had she had a clue about the monumental task she was taking on, and had understanding of what she was doing, and that it would probably take much longer than 1 or 2 years before skipping off to Westeros. If you want to be an emancipator, then fine. But, go all in or go home. Don't "dabble".

And implementing reforms successfully means ruling, or at least, finding somebody who can. Either way, you break it, you own it.

[Lyse Stark]

I agree that on a personal level, I don't like the principle that anyone who has enough force can make himself king for jollies. But I do think that a person in said position could end up the king-- I mean, if they were to win the throne that way, then they'd be king. I mean, it's the way it is in story.

But where the story is going seems to be something between force and bloodline. A major problem in the story is that people (lords and smallfolk) don't really know where to invest authority anymore. There's never been a legal body invested with authority in itself that people recognize, so it's been a struggle between blood and force.

Something like a king, raised by "the people," with the adjacent establishment of some sort of legal authority (a constitution or a Magna Carta) is something I think might be possible for the end of this. Like, the sort of thing that would establish a social contract and render something like Robert's Rebellion "legal."

It's not a return to the old order, nor is it completely a new order. Rather, it would be a reform of the current system. It's changed too far to go back, but it's also not at the point for something altogether extreme. I actually think this fits.

You can't post this shit and then complain about "lemoncake victimization" brah.

And I think Jon would be the most popular in the end; why? He chose to protect the smallfolk over squabbling like children over a chair that would in the end be meaningless. And the other claimants (Stannis, Euron, Dany, and Aegon) will pay greatly for their lack of foresight. Stannis is a kinslayer, and he won't be winning any votes among the populace because of this fact. Dany and Aegon will end up destroying each other and their support base during the DotD 2.0. The reaving ways of the Ironborn will end up killing Euron; my bet is that Samwell will kill him during his attempted siege of Oldtown.

Either way, the saying "to crown him/her is to kill him/her" may end being true. So my opinion is that the current round of claimants may end up dead, as a direct or indirect result of their attempt to get the throne before Jon get raised up as king by the people, and he may also create a Magna Carta to keep the land from being savaged by war and tyranny for a long time.

[butterbumps!]

some sort of agreement? Brah brah the lords will put the person on the throne that offers them the most. They wont all of a sudden go "hey, you know what, lets all agree on the best qualified ruler and let them run things." whoever is put on the throne will not have anything to do with merit or who is most qualified. I also highly object to the idea that the lords would ask anyone to sit the throne. More likely they would just say fuck it and declare independence before they did that.

So, brah, here's the situation as it stands: the smallfolk are getting plenty sick of the lords' game, and pretty soon, they are going to stop obeying (some have even already stopped). They will flock to the person who protects and feeds them. This goes quadruple for when winter hits.

When the people stop obeying their lords-- as they will-- then the lords no longer have power to dictate terms. Indirectly, the smallfolk actually will have some influence over this.

I think this whole system-breakdown is way more fluid than you're giving credit to here.

For the record, I didn't say someone would be chosen for merit or qualification necessarily. I think it would be based on how much said leader can offer for various interest groups-- the issues we're looking at is a king for the winter, who can rebuild and feed.

[E-Ro]

So, brah, here's the situation as it stands: the smallfolk are getting plenty sick of the lords' game, and pretty soon, they are going to stop obeying (some have even already stopped). They will flock to the person who protects and feeds them. This goes quadruple for when winter hits.

When the people stop obeying their lords-- as they will-- then the lords no longer have power to dictate terms. Indirectly, the smallfolk actually will have some influence over this.

I think this whole system-breakdown is way more fluid than you're giving credit to here.

For the record, I didn't say someone would be chosen for merit or qualification necessarily. I think it would be based on how much said leader can offer for various interest groups-- the issues we're looking at is a king for the winter, who can rebuild and feed.

And the second the people try to do anything they get butchered by men in armor with steel weapons. The very same lords they are trying to take power away from. The people of westeros don't obey their lords out of love or respect, they obey them so they don't get horribly murdered. As long as the lords have money to pay men to fight for them, the smallfolk are powerless. Knights and men at arms>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hungry pissed off smallfolk. Remember when jon first joined the watch and he was beating the shit out of everyone training? It would go like that. I dont think the commoners have enough power to make any sort of change, otherwise they most likely already would have.

[To catch a Lannister]

Ohhhh, E-Rizzle...... Even with your Stannis is love Stannis is life mentality I still love you.

But Stannis is love. And is life.

[butterbumps!]

And I wouldn't have such a problem with Dany's "reforms" had she had a clue about the monumental task she was taking on, and had understanding of what she was doing, and that it would probably take much longer than 1 or 2 years before skipping off to Westeros. If you want to be an emancipator, then fine. But, go all in or go home. Don't "dabble".

And implementing reforms successfully means ruling, or at least, finding somebody who can. Either way, you break it, you own it.

For what it's worth, that's why I like Jon for this. The guy spent an entire book trying to implement reform and rebuilding-- literally and figuratively. He even took out a food loan, and has ties to Sansa, who I suspect will become Queen Bread of the Vale.

In my opinion, he needed someone like Dany to come in and overturn some of the dead-weight inertia of the Watch's system in order to make his reforms work, while Dany needed someone like Jon to follow-through with the system overhaul she started. I think they excel at different aspects of this operation.