[BOOK SPOILERS] What your non-reader friends/family thought and their predictions

[Colonel Green]

you make a really good point with the Right of Conquest,,,,but it should not apply when the children of the previous King are still alive

Why? Robert conquered Westeros and took the throne. It doesn't matter if the king he deposed still has children out there.

imo, last Targ kings trueborn children has much stronger claim than Robert's siblings

The absence of children doesn't matter. The Targaryens were deposed, and a Baratheon regime installed. Stannis was previously designated heir before Robert's own (supposed) children were born, and Robert was entitled as king to enact his own succession laws.

[SerArthurHeath]

Yep. But then Dany's own claim will be one of conquest!

[Seneti]

[...] a friend of mine who just started S1 last week was asking if he should write down their names to try to remember them...i didn't want to make the watching harder for him, so just assured that he'd be fine after a few more episodes... :dunno:

Actually, writing them down might be a good idea. Everybody structures information differently, so putting the names into your own little chart of characters might help.

[Kenyatta]

My friend was immediately like "I can't wait to see Tyrion name Oberyn as his champion after Cersei names Gregor". But he assumes that Oberyn is gonna win

That's gonna hurt. I love it!!

[Lady Blue Rose]

Actually, writing them down might be a good idea. Everybody structures information differently, so putting the names into your own little chart of characters might help.

Agreed! I watch the show every week with 6 unsullied. One of them does this and he is always the one who constantly clears everything up for them. He's the only one to catch up to stuff even before it happens, and the only one with whom I'll talk show. The rest, I just listen and laugh at their fair weathered theories and blunders!

[Annara Snow]

My mother only ever remembers Arya, I can't even really watch with her because it turns into me having to explain who everyone is, how they're related, what's going on and that takes longer than the show itself.

For once I watched a bit of the show with my Dad, and of course it was the first part with all the boobs.

The thing with right of conquest is that it completely negates the previous dynasty. That's just how it works. When conquest happens and a new king is crowned via right of conquest (ie. Robert Baratheon) it doesn't matter how many Targs are still alive, they have no right to the throne whatever they may believe. Dany has no right to the throne. fAegon has no right to the throne. Stannis has the rightful claim, it's that simple. That's just how it works, it's pretty black and white.

Of course, if you leave members of the previous dynasty alive they're going to be pissed and want win back the throne via conquest, as we've seen. That's why you need to kill off the previous dynasty.

I don't think it's that simple.

If your claim is based on the right of conquest...what if you aren't holding the throne and those who are have beaten you in battle? Do you still have that right to the throne? Stannis lost at Blackwater. Doesn't he need to win his throne, if his claim is based on the right of contest? Does anyone who wins the throne have the right to it? If, say, Euron Greyjoy won the throne in battle, would that negate Stannis' claim? If you had a system based on the right of conquest, anyone with enough military force could hope to be the ruler, and there would probably be constant wars.

On the other hand, strictly by hereditary rules, the Targaryen dynasty has most right to the Iron Throne, which they founded in the first place. But their rule of Westeros and the IT itself are based on a conquest 300 years ago. The Tullys ruling the Riverlands and the Tyrells ruling the Reach is also a consequence of the Targ conquest. Before that, the Riverlands were ruled by the Ironborne, who had conquered them. The Andals were conquerors once, as we're the First Men before them.

GRRM wrote it in such a way that we have multiple people who legitimately believe that they are the rightful monarch, but the "rightfulness" is relative.

As for Aegon, I believe that he is fake, but he believes he is real. I also think he may be a Blackfyre. But it's also possible that the Blackfyre claim was legitimate, since Daeron may have been Aemon's biological son - it's something no one can ever know for sure.

And does it really matter? Aerys was the "rightful" king, but he was a mad tyrant. Robert won the throne, and he was a pretty awful king.

[Lady Blue Rose]

I don't think it's that simple.

If your claim is based on the right of conquest...what if you aren't holding the throne and those who are have beaten you in battle? Do you still have that right to the throne? Stannis lost at Blackwater. Doesn't he need to win his throne, if his claim is based on the right of contest? Does anyone who wins the throne have the right to it? If, say, Euron Greyjoy won the throne in battle, would that negate Stannis' claim? If you had a system based on the right of conquest, anyone with enough military force could hope to be the ruler, and there would probably be constant wars.

On the other hand, strictly by hereditary rules, the Targaryen dynasty has most right to the Iron Throne, which they founded in the first place. But their rule of Westeros and the IT itself are based on a conquest 300 years ago. The Tullys ruling the Riverlands and the Tyrells ruling the Reach is also a consequence of the Targ conquest. Before that, the Riverlands were ruled by the Ironborne, who had conquered them. The Andals were conquerors once, as we're the First Men before them.

GRRM wrote it in such a way that we have multiple people who legitimately believe that they are the rightful monarch, but the "rightfulness" is relative.

As for Aegon, I believe that he is fake, but he believes he is real. I also think he may be a Blackfyre. But it's also possible that the Blackfyre claim was legitimate, since Daeron may have been Aemon's biological son - it's something no one can ever know for sure.

And does it really matter? Aerys was the "rightful" king, but he was a mad tyrant. Robert won the throne, and he was a pretty awful king.

It really is that simple. Whoever wins the throne by right of conquest, wins it for their line of succession. If Euron gets enough military power to fight and conquer then yes, it negates the power and rights of whoever he defeats. Yes, ANY person who can achieve enough military power and supporters can start a war and take the throne.

That is the definition of right of conquest- not an interpretation. If you were not a good enough ruler to maintain the support of your subjects and not a good enough strategist to maintain the most force, you lose. This is the reason why the person sitting on the throne has to guarantee allegiance through marriages and concession so that he may retain enough supporters to maintain the largest military regime and therefore cannot be challenged.

[SerArthurHeath]

Only if the lords decide to follow that line of succession...

[Neumond]

On the Daenerys making the wrong decision thing ...

I watched an unsullied review of the episode that basically said the same thing, but they did not believe the crucifixions were right either. They basically saw it as Daenerys painting herself into a corner by acting so rashly without heeding council. It tied into the whole "let me pay three times the value of your flock" to the sheepherder bit. She acts impulsively, without thinking her actions all the way through. Hizdar put her in an impossible position. Agree with him, and she looks weak, but refuse him and she looks like a callous monster. It was a lose lose situation.

So ... give the unsullied some credit. I've actually heard from more unsullied that they think Daenerys is inexperienced than anything else. They do not see her as this bad ass savior. They recognize that she's had it good because all she's done is conquered and liberated so far, but that just means a fall is coming ...

(...)

As a book reader Im of a very similar opinion.

I also think it was a mistake to give in into Hizdahrs plead, not because I think the crucification was righteous but because it doesnt matter at this point. It really doesnt matter if she was right or not.

Now she has to stand up to her own decision because this is what a ruler is supposed to do. If she doesnt, it will be nearly impossible for her to rule in the future. She has to be consistent and as an absolute ruler her decisions have to be unquiestionable...

[The Dames do Moan]

I read into it that they were BF and GF (or GF and GF) or FWB and the Indian friend threatened to withhold sex if the poster didn't talk about the champions

Correct, Good Intterpretation

[trgryn-strk-lnstr-mrtell]

Why? Robert conquered Westeros and took the throne. It doesn't matter if the king he deposed still has children out there.

The absence of children doesn't matter. The Targaryens were deposed, and a Baratheon regime installed. Stannis was previously designated heir before Robert's own (supposed) children were born, and Robert was entitled as king to enact his own succession laws.

I must grudgingly agree with you...i dunno why, i just cant help feel Dany's claim to the Throne is higher than Stannis'...even if it is by a small margin

Actually, writing them down might be a good idea. Everybody structures information differently, so putting the names into your own little chart of characters might help.

i'll suggest it once he's covered some more eps and if he's still confused...this is probably why they chose to rename Asha as Yara :laugh:

[Annara Snow]

It really is that simple. Whoever wins the throne by right of conquest, wins it for their line of succession. If Euron gets enough military power to fight and conquer then yes, it negates the power and rights of whoever he defeats. Yes, ANY person who can achieve enough military power and supporters can start a war and take the throne.

That is the definition of right of conquest- not an interpretation. If you were not a good enough ruler to maintain the support of your subjects and not a good enough strategist to maintain the most force, you lose. This is the reason why the person sitting on the throne has to guarantee allegiance through marriages and concession so that he may retain enough supporters to maintain the largest military regime and therefore cannot be challenged.

No, it's really not that simple, because Westerosi laws of succession are based on hereditary rights. Even Robert used his Targaryen grandma to justify his accession to the throne. Or else nobody would need to use blood and heritage to justify their kingship, Tywin Lannister would have made himself king, or the Tyrells would say: "Screw you, Lannisters, we don't need Tommen "Baratheon", we will just crown one of us.. how about Garlan?" And the Targaryens would have been deposed shortly after they lost their dragons. Nobody would follow child kings. And you'd probably have civil wars all the time, or something akin to military dictatorship- because, if the right of conquest trumps everything, why wouldn't everyone try to use it to get power, and why would anyone obey a ruler who can't crush them militarily at every time?

[binga]

I agree it is not simple and a combination of ancestry and conquest secure the throne. Ancestry is needed to bring some stability to the process or conquest would keep going on forever. There is a reason Euron wants Dany and Ramsay has a fake Arya with him. From Stannis's perspective he made a difficult choice between blood and loyalty to his king and he chose blood but after he made that choice it was set in stone for him. Stannis will forever see Robert and his heirs as the rightful rulers of Westeros.

[Inv1ctus]

Come on now you Dany people, it's not like the Targaryens assembled the kingdoms peacefully. So truth of the matter is really that no one has the "right" claim to be the king/queen. Obviously the lords would follow anyone if such a person would have a great army which would subdue Westeros. There is almost no loyalty, only survival. Ancestry is really not needed if one would have strength in numbers. But since there isn't a house who would have overwhelmingly powerful army, of course people follow the bloodlines. Not because of the laws but because of survival and the status quo of society at hand, cause can't let them peasants think they are something they're not.

[trgryn-strk-lnstr-mrtell]

Come on now you Dany people, it's not like the Targaryens assembled the kingdoms peacefully. So truth of the matter is really that no one has the "right" claim to be the king/queen. Obviously the lords would follow anyone if such a person would have a great army which would subdue Westeros. There is almost no loyalty, only survival. Ancestry is really not needed if one would have strength in numbers. But since there isn't a house who would have overwhelmingly powerful army, of course people follow the bloodlines. Not because of the laws but because of survival and the status quo of society at hand, cause can't let them peasants think they are something they're not.

Targs ruled for nearly 300 years...i want return of Targ and Dragon rulers :frown5:

[Inv1ctus]

I wouldn't mind Targs on the throne even though I'm not a fan, but I don't want them to win the throne with dragons. Come on, that's like a cheat mode in a video game (IDDQD) :D

[HouseJimjam]

Earlier today, some of my classmates were discussing who the champions for Tyrion's trial by combat would be. I told them I wouldn't confirm or deny it so they would tell me their thoughts, as I was obviously intrigued by their speculations. Here are some of their guesses for Tyrion's champion:

Bronn

Jon Snow

Tywin

Jamie

One of them actually guessed Oberyn, and I managed to keep a straight face for that.

[SerArthurHeath]

Earlier today, some of my classmates were discussing who the champions for Tyrion's trial by combat would be. I told them I wouldn't confirm or deny it so they would tell me their thoughts, as I was obviously intrigued by their speculations. Here are some of their guesses for Tyrion's champion:

Bronn

Jon Snow

Tywin

Jamie

One of them actually guessed Oberyn, and I managed to keep a straight face for that.

Jon Snow?!

Admittedly, Tywin is only marginally less ridiculous. Maybe even more. Did they name every single character they could remember? Did they name Ned?

[Tixu Oty]

On the episode:

I don't watch with Unsullied anymore these days but I thought Hizdahr was brilliant. I loved that they turned him into a character we can care about.

About Unsullied:

Earlier today, some of my classmates were discussing who the champions for Tyrion's trial by combat would be. I told them I wouldn't confirm or deny it so they would tell me their thoughts, as I was obviously intrigued by their speculations. Here are some of their guesses for Tyrion's champion:

Bronn

Jon Snow

Tywin

Jamie

One of them actually guessed Oberyn, and I managed to keep a straight face for that.

Oh man, you guys should totally have a sort of competition like write down their guesses for main events like the trial by combat, then see who got it right! Have some sort of a bet or reward or something :) Wish I could do that.

Also whoever suggested it, I think writing down charts and stuff would be great to watch with Unsullied. I might do that.

About Stannis and the claim:

imo, last Targ kings trueborn children has much stronger claim than Robert's siblings...a 17 or so year reign should not give all the Baratheon heir's (no matter how distant) more claim to the Throne than the trueborn child of the previous king, whose family ruled for centuries...just IMO

You make an interesting point. I'll even forgive you your unpronounceable name :-p

GRRM wrote it in such a way that we have multiple people who legitimately believe that they are the rightful monarch, but the "rightfulness" is relative.

And does it really matter?

Totally agree with you. These endless discussions on who has the better claim sometimes cruelly lack perspective. Everybody believes what they want to believe. Or what suit them best. No not you guys, I meant the characters in the story.

I could see Stannis considering whether Daenerys or Aegon have a better claim and if he should bend the knee. I mean that guy does care a lot about law and justice and what's right and whatnot. Except Dany and Stannis are rivals in more ways than one. They both got Rhllor priests rooting for them and waiting for them to save the world. Stannis has Melisandre convincing him that he's Azor Ahai reborn, that he's got a destiny and a duty to fulfill it, he's meant to do great thing and his people need him.

So for that reason, I have a hard time believing Stannis could possibly side with Aegon. Now Daenerys, I would think not, but I'm not entirely sure.

[titanx5]

The only unsullied that watches with me is my mother (both me and my brother have read the books), it is rather annoying because she asks so many dam questions that keep on having to pause. Anyways what she thinks about certain characters

She only cares about Tyrion, "poor little guy"

Dany: Kinda a bitch, doesnt like her at all, especially after this episode "seems she is finally learning that its harder to rule, than just sacking cities"

Arya: Rude, disrespectful

Keeps on getting Stannis and LF's name confused (I dont know how that is humanly possible, but she has managed to)

Keeps thinking that if Tommen dies, the throne will pass to Jamie, keep on having to remind her Stannis is the rightful heir

Absolutely hates Cersei, even more than Joffrey, just wishes she would die a painful death

Ramsey sick crazy torturer guy

Hates Shae know "why does she betray him, I thought she loved him"

She is impartial to the rest cause she forgets most of them every week, you could put her in the lazy viewer category, she says their are to many characters