Between Sansa and Daenerys, who would make the better ruling Queen?

[ShadowCat Rivers]

7 minutes ago, sia345 said:

[...] For Sansa's case, she has Jon Snow at the moment. [...]

This is the book forum. Jon is dead or dying, at the moment.

Btw, wellcome!

(Just keep in mind that show discussion belongs to the designated subforum and not here.)

[Kaibaman]

4 hours ago, sia345 said:

Sansa. I think she is intelligent. She learns quickly. She has learned how to manipulate people. She will work well with the nobles. She has the best connection to the biggest houses in Westeros. People easily like her. She is kind-hearted. Like rest of the Starks she does have a noble heart, so she might not want to mix with smelly butcher's son but she also wouldn't want them to suffer either. She has no military experience but Dany is not a military commander either. They both have men they can trust. For Sansa's case, she has Jon Snow at the moment. 

I think Sansa lacks the charisma. She doesn't inspire people like Dany sitting on top of a dragon, but she is logical. She has the ability to say the right things that make people join her cause. 

Are you kidding me. Sansa is a snob. Maybe her time in the South has somewhat humbled her that self centered bratty teenager who saw the world through fantasy lenses. But I doubt her attitude towards the lowborn has changed all that much. I mean we have seen people like Arya, Tyrion and Jorah going through poverty and even slavery and learning how hard life is for the lowest of the lows. Dany who has gone through hardships her whole life understands this better than most and is constantly thinking about how she can improve the quality of life for her ex slaves. Hell even Margaery who grew up in greater splendor and luxury activity engages in charity and constantly interacts with poor folks. Can we really say the same about Sansa? When has she ever really shown to give a damn about people who are below her station or a desire to make a difference in their lives? In fact when Joffrey was being a dick to the butcher's son. Sansa was pretty apathetic towards him and thought he was in the wrong because Joffrey was her handsome 'prince charming' while the other guy was just a dirty son of a butcher.

 

[Magnar of Skagos]

With any luck, neither of them will ever get to become Queen. Neither of them have what it takes, in my opinion. Not like it's their fault or anything, because I personally cannot see any character sitting the Iron Throne and actually doing a half descent job of it. Tyrion might be sufficient, or Davos. Other than that, no thank you.

[khal drogon]

On Saturday, September 03, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Lord Wraith said:

 

My bad, she is trying to fix things but she is failing becausshe doesn't understand economics well or the cultures of the regions that she is trying to change. That is what I meant to say. Most of the Essos survives because of the slade trade and smashing the epicenter of that trade and then expecting that people will still want to work with you is insane.

The economic condition of Slaver's Bay is in direct action to her conquest. My point is her failings if because she doesn't take the time to understand others. She does what she thinks is right without considering others. Don't get me wrong slavery is bad and I am glad she is trying to get rid of the vile institution but she has burned the bridges with basically all of Essos sans Braavosi and the Far East then acts surprised about it

So you are a status quoist(I don't know the right word..). The economic condition of slavers bay that is the exact condition to be expected if you remove slavery. The other option is not acting on the slavery. She understand enough economics to run and she would have run the city way better if the blockade didn't happen. The city would have slowly improved if the Qartheen and Volantene and the Yunkaii let Meereen to remain a free city. But if they didn't want a slave free city in the midst of their region that will cause slave revolts in their cities. 

Smashing slave trade or the other option is letting slave trade continue which is the worst. She can't expect slavers to work with her but she can't let slaves to be slaves just because slavery is what runs the city. 

Yes she had burned bridges with most of Essos because she is against slavery. That won't change unless she changes her stance. So you think that's her problem. No it is the problem of the slave states. They don't want slavery to be banned and also don't want a slave free city in the middle of the region so they want that idea to succeed. It is purely political reasons that Meereen can't succeed not because Dany showed lack of economic knowledge. 

[khal drogon]

The answer to the topic question. Sansa will make a good Queen to a King. She can aid him with her political skills. But as a Queen Regnant I can't see her. Dany is fit for Queen Regnant position. In fact of all the female candidates I see only her as fit for Queen Regnant. 

[khal drogon]

On Sunday, September 04, 2016 at 1:40 AM, teej6 said:

The point is she tried and failed and as of her last chapter in ADWD, she's given up on peace and society building in favor of fire and blood, doom and destruction for all that oppose her, not a very good trait for a good ruler, wouldn't you say. 

Yeah but we don't know the resolution of what that line meant. It is silly to argue that that meant she turned to mindless destruction without any further source material. So your judgement of her depends on your faulty hypothesis not on established material and that makes your's a poor argument.

[superninja76]

23 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Yeah but we don't know the resolution of what that line meant. It is silly to argue that that meant she turned to mindless destruction without any further source material. So your judgement of her depends on your faulty hypothesis not on established material and that makes your's a poor argument.

So,then how would you interpret her saying that she will take what is hers (lol no it isn't) with fire and blood?

Maybe she'll go camping and talk things out with all the slavers and she'll somehow use blood to fix meereens economy,which she fucked up horribly by getting rid of basically the only thing it made money from?

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, superninja76 said:

So,then how would you interpret her saying that she will take what is hers (lol no it isn't) with fire and blood?

Maybe she'll go camping and talk things out with all the slavers and she'll somehow use blood to fix meereens economy,which she fucked up horribly by getting rid of basically the only thing it made money from?

I think she'll be very ruthless, which is not quite the same things as saying she'll exterminate and destroy everything in sight.

I would expect her to spare cities that submit to her, and abolish slavery, and to sack those that resist.

[Nocturne]

Margery, and yeas i've read the thread title.

[superninja76]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I think she'll be very ruthless, which is not quite the same things as saying she'll exterminate and destroy everything in sight.

I would expect her to spare cities that submit to her, and abolish slavery, and to sack those that resist.

That seems about right.

Still though,abolishing slavery isn't the greatest of ideas,there's nothing around to supplement (is that the right word?) the vast majority of the income of the cities that comes from slavery. Best case scenario,she'd have to do it over years,which would prevent her from sailing off to westeros.

 

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Sansa. 

Daenerys is mad, and evil.

[teej6]

5 hours ago, khal drogon said:

Yeah but we don't know the resolution of what that line meant. It is silly to argue that that meant she turned to mindless destruction without any further source material. So your judgement of her depends on your faulty hypothesis not on established material and that makes your's a poor argument.

No, my judgement of her future actions are based on what the writer himself indicates are her thoughts about her future. I'm not conjecturing or making "faulty hypothesis" here as you state. I'm basing my statement on textual evidence. I've seen some of your fanfic assumptions and defense of Dany's arc, and based on that I'd say my argument is much sounder and backed by textual evidence than the nonsense you sometime espouse. 

[teej6]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think she'll be very ruthless, which is not quite the same things as saying she'll exterminate and destroy everything in sight.

I would expect her to spare cities that submit to her, and abolish slavery, and to sack those that resist.

In Westeros there's no slavery to abolish, so then her arc becomes that of a conquerer, at least initially. Perhaps eventually she will end up fighting the WWs as Dany fans constantly argue, although in this case they require very little textual evidence to make said argument.

But based on her thoughts in her last chapter in ADWD, she's decided to give up on peace and dialogue for all that oppose her in favor of war and conquest. You are right, she'll spare cities that submit to her but what do you think will happen to Dorne if they decide to back Aegon, or KL if Aegon decides to keep the throne? What will happen to Stannis and his men? She'll take back what she thinks is rightfully hers by fire and blood. And that's how her arc is set up. Now can things happen in the interim that could neutralize her threat, quite possible, but I doubt her fire and blood conquering arc is going away, especially considering how GRRM set it up.

Dany, based on her thoughts IMO has decided to show no mercy to all that oppose her. In this respect, she's not different from say Stannis but then again Stannis does not have WMD as Dany does and the amount of destruction he can inflict is thus limited. 

[teej6]

5 hours ago, superninja76 said:

So,then how would you interpret her saying that she will take what is hers (lol no it isn't) with fire and blood?

Maybe she'll go camping and talk things out with all the slavers and she'll somehow use blood to fix meereens economy,which she fucked up horribly by getting rid of basically the only thing it made money from?

Yeah she's going to have a picnic and invite Aegon, Stannis, Euron, Cersei and they'll all debate and then decide to call a great council to select the person who gets to sit the IT.

[Bowen Marsh]

Daenerys.  Sansa is not queen material.  Daenerys is getting all the right experiences necessary to rule a large kingdom.

[khal drogon]

8 hours ago, superninja76 said:

So,then how would you interpret her sayling thcontinuatiotake what is hers (lol no it isn't) with fire and blood?

Maybe she'll go camping and talk things out with all the slavers and she'll somehow use blood to fix meereens economy,which she fucked up horribly by getting rid of basically the only thing it made money from?

Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters used fire and blood to conquer Westeros. And do anyone say they were only interested in doom and destruction? Even if that was the case  why would anyone want a nuanced character with internal conflicts to become an one dimensional fire and blood destructive conqueror? Because that was the implication made from one line in the book and their prediction is nothing but one dimensional.

In fact the 'Fire and Blood' is more as a reminder of her Targaryen heritage and that she has forgotten her initial mission of taking Westeros for trying to bring peace to a region which seems almost impossible but also turning her into something else and binding her into an undesirable position. That's what the 'dragon plant no trees' meant. As a resolution of her arc. A dragon is not a mindless destructive beast. It's also means a Targaryen paragon. A person who wield the power and authority given very well to work towards an end not a person who keeps bending to the end of losing themselves. That was the resolution of the arc. For Dany it's about retaking Westeros realising what as a Targaryen she has to do.

Yeah she got rid of the only thing Meereen made money from. It's also the only thing responsible for millions of deaths and the continued denial of the rights of a set of people who can't exist as humans but objects. I prefer short term instability and the deaths affecting everyone over long term continuation of slavery and deaths affecting only the slaves. At least the former will bring a change than status  quo.

[khal drogon]

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

No, my judgement of her future actions are based on what the writer himself indicates are her thoughts about her future. I'm not conjecturing or making "faulty hypothesis" here as you state. I'm basing my statement on textual evidence. I've seen some of your fanfic assumptions and defense of Dany's arc, and based on that I'd say my argument is much sounder and backed by textual evidence than the nonsense you sometime espouse. 

LOL. Where do the author indicate Dany would turn into mindless destruction? And what textual evidence? Yeah "No mercy to anyone opposing her" has a lot of textual evidence (eyeroll:) Yeah you are the one certifying what is nonsense and what's not because you show much better understanding of her arc and your prediction of her becoming an one dimensional character is going to happen. It must be a joke that you are accusing others for using fan ficy arguments. 

 

[teej6]

2 hours ago, khal drogon said:

LOL. Where do the author indicate Dany would turn into mindless destruction? And what textual evidence? Yeah "No mercy to anyone opposing her" has a lot of textual evidence (eyeroll:) Yeah you are the one certifying what is nonsense and what's not because you show much better understanding of her arc and your prediction of her becoming an one dimensional character is going to happen. It must be a joke that you are accusing others for using fan ficy arguments. 

 

Fan ficy arguments? What does that mean? I don't claim to have any greater understanding of her arc than other readers (though perhaps you ), but when the writer has her thinking in her latest thoughts about fire and blood and dragons plant no trees, any rationale reader understands that to mean as Dany turning away from peace and society building to conquest and destroying her enemies. It doesn't take a very astute reader to decipher this.  Dany's tendency to be merciless to her enemies in the past and her latest epiphany only reinforces the perception in readers minds that Dany will most likely end up wiping out her enemies by any means possible. 

And btw, becoming ruthless and merciless does not mean becoming one dimensional. Tywin was ruthless and merciless. I suppose he was one-dimensional to you.

[superninja76]

Anyways,I would much rather have margarey over these two.

 

[khal drogon]

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

Fan ficy arguments? What does Tyt mean? I don'tdlaim toshve any greater understanding of her arc than other readers (though perhaps you ), but when the writer has her thinking in her latest thoughts about fire and blood and dragons plant no trees, any rationale reader understands that to mean as Dany turning away from peace and society building to conquest and destroying her enemies. It doesn't take a very astute reader to decipher this.  Dany's tendency to be merciless to her enemies in the past and her latest epiphany only reinforces the perception in readers minds that Dany will most likely end up wiping out her enemies by any means possible. 

And btw, becoming ruthless and merciless does not mean becoming one dimensional. Tywin was ruthless and merciless. I suppose he was one-dimensional to you.

Turning down to War and conquest is not equal to mindless destruction your previous argument. Her embracing her house words has more  meaning which I had explained in my previous post and I don't doubt you would not understand it. And how wrong you are if you think she has left peace and society building forever for war and conquest. So after Westeros which place she will destroy and conquer? You know you used that as a support argument for why she would be bad ruler because she likes destruction over peace and that you arrived from a single line. Yeah sure no conjectures. You need more support if you go far as to claim she will wipe out her enemies by "any means possible".

Mindless doom and destruction is one dimensional in my book. It would mean less internal conflicts, less moral dilemmas which is uncharacteristic of any multidimensional character. Being ruthless to enemies is fine. I do expect her to be ruthless but not as ruthless as Tywin. I don't expect her to plan a wedding and slit the throats of their guests. I don't expect her to flood a mine full of people. I certainly don't expect her to order her army to rape and pillage to terrorise people. Anyway I am at least glad that you changed your stand from mindless doom and destruction(like Mountain) to ruthlessness like Tywin.

Anyway I do expect her to use Fire and Blood but with qualities that defines her to be intact. Her intent to rule a peaceful Westeros would remain. Her intent to end slavery would remain. Her stand against rape isn't going to change. Instead she would use dragons to enforce the things she failed at and which she was too afraid to before. She finally learnt to use dragons as a conquering tool not a mindless destructive tool. Like Aegon and his sisters she would use dragonfire and diplomacy possibly with Tyrion at her side. That's the path I see for her.