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

[PCK]

Sansa. I think the point of Mereen is to foreshadow that Daenerys is more of a conqueror than a governor.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Jaehaerys and Shaera are interesting because they were the product of three generations of non-incestuous marriages. If all the marriages Aegon V proposed had taken place, incestuous  marriage might have died out permanently among Targaryens. Jaehaerys was apparently a Targaryen traditionalist and that may have factored into his attraction for his sister. Maybe they were just enamoured of the romance of their own ancestors. Neither Duncan or Daeron were attracted to their siblings, though.

Jaehaerys II is really characterized and described as a person who idealized the Targaryen incest lifestyle yet the point I'm trying to make is that it is odd to assume that such a philosophical or political outlook should cause real romantic attraction. I mean, Princess Shaera did not get more beautiful just because she was Jaehaerys' sister, right? And the fact that these two were raised together should actually lower the chances that they would actually want to make out and be a couple.

In that sense it is also odd that Baelor I would really feel tempted by the seducing beauty of his three sisters. I mean, yes, they were most likely pretty attractive (although Elaena apparently wasn't all that beautiful as a girl) but being their brother he should not actually feel all that tempted by them.

In general, though, I think it is a mistake to assume that the incest policy was no longer the guideline for Targaryen marriage despite the fact that Daeron II and Maekar did not marry any sisters. I assume most - or perhaps even all - of the wives of the four sons of Daeron II were Targaryen cousins. Sibling incest wasn't possible since George changed the family tree so that Daeron II didn't have any daughters. This is confirmed for Aelinor Penrose who originally was the sister-wife of Aerys I and then changed to a cousin in TWoIaF.

The fact that Egg was betrothed to his Daella, that Aerion married his cousin Daenora, that Rhaegel's twins Aelor and Aelora married each other is a strong sign that Targaryen incest was still the dominant marriage policy. Daeron II marriage to Mariah Martell and Daenerys' marriage to Prince Maron were political marriages, as was, most likely, Valarr's (and later Daeron's) marriage to Kiera of Tyrosh (due to the whole Blackfyre issue) but the Targaryen ideal was still incest.

Only Aegon V apparently decided/realized that incest was bad and tried to abolish early on in his reign. But considering that he allowed the Jaehaerys-Shaera marriage to stand and even did not put a stop to the Aerys-Rhaella match Jaehaerys later insisted upon he didn't seem to be really committed to end the incest practice. He just didn't like it all that much, personally.

And if you ask me I think George is trying to sell us the idea that Jaehaerys II (and Shaera, too, perhaps) represent a very pure-blooded strain of the Targaryen dragonlord ancestry by genetic accident, never mind the fact that their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents weren't siblings. It is their line that produces prototypical Valyrian-looking descendants without exception (Aerys II, Rhaella, Rhaegar, Viserys, Dany) up until the point another Martell marries into the family. And it is their line that produces the Mother of Dragons and the other dragon heads.

If you check the portrait of Aegon V and his sons in TWoIaF you will realize that Jaehaerys II is part monstrosity. His left arm (the one that was concealed as per George's description) on Amok's portrait King Jaehaerys II is deformed in a way that is mildly reminiscent of the disfigurements of those half-dragon-half-human children many Targaryens had. And it is very much resembling the other minor oddities Aegon II's children by Helaena featured (Prince Jaehaerys had additional toes and fingers).

12 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Not a geneticist but I imagine the big problem with families like the Hapsburgs was repeated generations of closely related marriages, which must have increased the risk of genetic problems in their children. The Targaryens do have that as well but they also have a few generations non-incestuous marriages added to the family tree.

Well, if you genes are bad repeated inbreeding will make it more and more likely that your children will suffer from a hereditary illness that you and your ancestors are carrying. However, incest is not causing genetic diseases. But then, nobody is advocating that entire families should decide to force their children into unhappy and ridiculous arranged incest marriages like the Targaryens did. That's just silly.

The point is that having an incestuous relationship with your sibling or cousin shouldn't be punished by law if you are consenting adults. Nobody is saying you should train your children to become weirdo incest fans like Jaehaerys II was.

The social reality that favors cousin and incestuous marriages are arranged marriages, not people who follow their hearts in choosing their spouses. Those people are very unlikely to ever want to have children with their close relations.

[Whitering]

On 12/8/2016 at 10:57 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

@The Fattest Leech 

My point was not only about health, was also about what is legal in GRRTH and what isn’t. Dany has killed children for their family’s choice that was legal when they did it.

Dany’s family kept practicing incest in Westeros when it was illegal. Thus Dany being killed for what her family was doing is completely justified.

When did Egg ordered the death of children?

Did Dany? I know her folks wanted to kill the children, but I don't remember her outright ordering their deaths. Also, umm, we don't know, Egg is like 11 years old so far. He had titanic battles with nobles, so we don't know.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

4 minutes ago, Whitering said:

Did Dany? I know her folks wanted to kill the children, but I don't remember her outright ordering their deaths. Also, umm, we don't know, Egg is like 11 years old so far. He had titanic battles with nobles, so we don't know.

She talking about when Dany sacked Astapor and ordered no deaths under the age of 12. JQC thinks that = mass genocide of children and brings it up in almost every post on this forum.

[Whitering]

Just now, Suzanna Stormborn said:

She talking about when Dany sacked Astapor and ordered no deaths under the age of 12. JQC thinks that = mass genocide of children and brings it up in almost every post on this forum.

Oh okay lol

[Jon's Queen Consort]

33 minutes ago, Whitering said:

Did Dany? I know her folks wanted to kill the children, but I don't remember her outright ordering their deaths. Also, umm, we don't know, Egg is like 11 years old so far. He had titanic battles with nobles, so we don't know.

12 years old in GRTTH are children and unless the Unsullied ask for their identification younger children were also killed for no reason.

27 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

She talking about when Dany sacked Astapor and ordered no deaths under the age of 12. JQC thinks that = mass genocide of children and brings it up in almost every post on this forum.

Please tell us how awful was Robert who ordered the death of 14 years old Dany. Also personal attack but that isn't something original.

26 minutes ago, Whitering said:

Oh okay lol

Yes genocide and killing children are hilarious.

[Whitering]

18 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

12 years old in GRTTH are children and unless the Unsullied ask for their ID younger children were also killed for no reason.

Please tell us how awful was Robert who ordered the death of 14 years old Dany. 

Yes genocide and killoing children are hilarious.

Yep.

[Wrl6199]

Just now, Whitering said:

Yep.

yep.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 minutes ago, Whitering said:

Yep.

Now we can all praise Tywin for his beneficence to get Westeros gid of the dragonspawns.

19 hours ago, PCK said:

Sansa. I think the point of Mereen is to foreshadow that Daenerys is more of a conqueror than a governor.

That is quite right. We have seen that Dany is able to conquer a place with the power from her dragons and armies but when it comes to have IQ high enough to rule she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

1 hour ago, Whitering said:

Yep.

Yep, it never ends. All the other hundreds of characters in the books who kill children is NBD, Dany is the only one worth mentioning for whatever reason, on whatever thread, no matter what the topic or subject.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

Yep, it never ends. All the other hundreds of characters in the books who kill children is NBD, Dany is the only one worth mentioning for whatever reason, on whatever thread, no matter what the topic or subject.

For eff sake are you stalking me? Because that is the only way to know what you think that I am doing.

Also I am calling it utter , Dany killing innocent children is related with her ability or rather inability to rule. Furthermore neither Jon or Stannis have killed children. So you are again wrong not hundreds of people have killed children because they have felt like it and then claim that they are the greatest characters in the books.

[PCK]

3 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Now we can all praise Tywin for his beneficence to get Westeros gid of the dragonspawns.

That is quite right. We have seen that Dany is able to conquer a place with the power from her dragons and armies but when it comes to have IQ high enough to rule she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

She's the female equivalent of Robert. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

10 minutes ago, PCK said:

She's the female equivalent of Robert. 

At least Robert knew where to stop and didn't fought a war in order to gain a Throne that he knew that he would be terrible at and unlike Dany, he won a war with his own mind not his dragons and huge army. Also Robert hadn’t committed genocide.

[Lord Friendzone]

On 4. 12. 2016 at 10:53 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

You might find it funny but it's Dany's word against what happened. There is no reason why people should believe what she has to say especially since she would had most likely killed Aegon too.

I don't find it funny. What I find funny is your idea that Jon would 100% hate her for this specific act, if he knew context and he probably will...Viserys threaten her and her child in Vaes Dothrak... he'll have other things to do. She might kill Faegon and here we agree. That seems more relevant but Jon might be getting darker. He might do very questionable acts himself,

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

I don't find it funny. What I find funny is your idea that Jon would 100% hate her for this specific act, if he knew context and he probably will...Viserys threaten her and her child in Vaes Dothrak... he'll have other things to do. She might kill Faegon and here we agree. That seems more relevant but Jon might be getting darker. He might do very questionable acts himself,

My point is that there is no reason why Jon or anyone else will care about what she has to say after she has killed Aegon. By killing Aegon she proves that she kills people who have a better claim that she has. Hence when people will learn that her husband killed her brother and she did nothing to help him people will believe that she arranged Viserys' death in order to eliminate him from the line of succession.

Furthermore no matter how dark Jon will come back I bet that he will not come back as the opposite of what he is and what he is, is a man who loves his family above anything else and had endangered his life to help them. Thus a person who has killed or at least hadn't helped her brother will be at least on his dislike list. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not, it doesn’t matter what you imagine or not, it doesn’t matter how you find it the only thing we have so far to show to us how Jon will react is this quote;

Quote

If he is not a kinslayer, he is the next best thing. Axell Florent's brother had been burned by Melisandre, Maester Aemon had informed him, yet Ser Axell had done little and less to stop it. What sort of man can stand by idly and watch his own brother being burned alive?'

An observation; Both Alester and Viserys were burned.

[Maxxine]

51 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

My point is that there is no reason why Jon or anyone else will care about what she has to say after she has killed Aegon. By killing Aegon she proves that she kills people who have a better claim that she has. Hence when people will learn that her husband killed her brother and she did nothing to help him people will believe that she arranged Viserys' death in order to eliminate him from the line of succession.

Furthermore no matter how dark Jon will come back I bet that he will not come back as the opposite of what he is and what he is, is a man who loves his family above anything else and had endangered his life to help them. Thus a person who has killed or at least hadn't helped her brother will be at least on his dislike list. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not, it doesn’t matter what you imagine or not, it doesn’t matter how you find it the only thing we have so far to show to us how Jon will react is this quote;

An observation; Both Alester and Viserys were burned.

You make this very black & white and it's not. I highly Jon doubt has a like/dislike list that is that rigid. Stannis killed his own brother & burned others for questionable reasons but yet Jon helps bc of the good things & the good intentions Stannis has. If you only mention the kill everyone under 12 thing you completely ignore the good things Dany has done like free the slaves. It ignores the rest of the context. Just equating Alester to Viserys also ignores the context. Those were two completely different situations so it's not guaranteed that Jon would react the same way to both. In regards to Aegon, once it's again you're making too black & white especially considering the mystery surrounding Aegon. Whose to say anyone will believe he is who he says he is. If no one believes it & she kills people will just say she killed a pretender no big deal. If anything I think it would end somewhat like the Blackfyre rebellions. Some people will believe Aegon was the real thing so Dany is a kinslayer but others will be on her side.

 

in regards to the OP & something you posted earlier I think Meereen is meant to teach Dany how to rule. Make your mistakes in Meereen so you have it figured out when you get to Westeros. It's obvious she doesn't know what she's doing. How could she? She had no one to learn from. But that's why Meereen is put in so she can figure out. She would be a better ruler than Sansa. Sansa has done nothing to show she has any sort of capability to lead. She's doesn't even take any initiative to help herself & rarely even thinks for herself how could she be expected to rule a kingdom. She's better suited to someone's queen as opposed to actually ruling herself 

[Mon ami]

On 12/4/2016 at 10:11 PM, Heavy D said:

Sansa and Ruling do not belong together.  Sansa is unfit for leadership.  On the other hand, Daenerys is gaining valuable experience in Meereen.  Daenerys also showed effective leadership and got her Dothraki through the Red Waste.  That's not something Sansa could do.  Somebody would have to carry Sansa on their back through the desert and all the while she's complaining about the corns on her feet.  

It's an easy pick for me.  Daenerys would make the better ruler.  I may as well answer another question.  Yes, Daenerys would make a much better ruler than Jon Snow.  

Absolutely!  I agree with you completely.  It's not even a contest.  Sansa is not fit to rule anything.  Daenerys on the other hand is a proven, effective leader who got the Dothraki through the red waste, to Vaes Toloro and on to safety.  She has an agenda to end the greatest manmade evil, slavery.  I doubt Sansa has any plans beyond getting fitted for a new dress.  Daenerys deserves to rule Westeros and Essos.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

12 hours ago, Maxxine said:

killed his own brother

Is there any proof that Stannis knew what Mel was going to do before Renly's death?

12 hours ago, Maxxine said:

If you only mention the kill everyone under 12 thing you completely ignore the good things Dany has done like free the slaves.

 A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.

The fact that she freed some slaves, which means nothing in Westeros, doesn’t mean that she hasn’t killed innocent children or that she hasn’t take money from slave trading.

12 hours ago, Maxxine said:

Just equating Alester to Viserys also ignores the context. Those were two completely different situations

 We know that there are two different situations but how Jon or anyone else will know that? Because of what Dany will have to say?

12 hours ago, Maxxine said:

Whose to say anyone will believe he is who he says he is. If no one believes it & she kills people will just say she killed a pretender no big deal.

Only from the foreshadowings we have so far Aegon will have the support of the Westerosi something that imnsho is quite unlikely for Dany. Dany will have the support of her barbarians and the Iron Borns.

12 hours ago, Maxxine said:

Some people will believe Aegon was the real thing so Dany is a kinslayer but others will be on her side.

Even if Aegon is fake and Dany kills him she is a kinslayer. Much like how Robb was after killing Rickard.

12 hours ago, Maxxine said:

She had no one to learn from. But that's why Meereen is put in so she can figure out.

So is learning a good enough reason to destroy the lives of thousands of people?

12 hours ago, Maxxine said:

Sansa has done nothing to show she has any sort of capability to lead.

That is way better than mass killing and people selling themselves into slavery.

 

I think that PCK said it perfectly; Dany is good at conquering but not good at ruling and that is not because she doesn't have good intentions but she just isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Maxxine]

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Is there any proof that Stannis knew what Mel was going to do before Renly's death?

 A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.

The fact that she freed some slaves, which means nothing in Westeros, doesn’t mean that she hasn’t killed innocent children or that she hasn’t take money from slave trading.

 We know that there are two different situations but how Jon or anyone else will know that? Because of what Dany will have to say?

Only from the foreshadowings we have so far Aegon will have the support of the Westerosi something that imnsho is quite unlikely for Dany. Dany will have the support of her barbarians and the Iron Borns.

Even if Aegon is fake and Dany kills him she is a kinslayer. Much like how Robb was after killing Rickard.

So is learning a good enough reason to destroy the lives of thousands of people?

That is way better than mass killing and people selling themselves into slavery.

 

I think that PCK said it perfectly; Dany is good at conquering but not good at ruling and that is not because she doesn't have good intentions but she just isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

C'mon you really giving Stannis that benefit of a doubt to bc you don't like Dany. I don't remember the exact words but I'm pretty sure it's clear that at the very least Stannis was willfully ignorant of what Mel was going to do. He knew Renly had to die.

i don't think freeing slaves means nothing in Westeros. Slavery is abhorred in Westeros. Is going to Essos to free the slaves high on the priority list. Definitely not. But will it be completely ignored no. 

True people will probably draw their own conclusions & whisper about what they think happened to Viserys. Like Arianne has done. But I doubt it's something that is going to block her significantly. And assuming for the sake of this argument that Jon & Dany interact at all, I doubt Jon is just going to write he off bc of a story he wasn't witness to. He doesn't do it to  Stannis. He judges Stannis on his own interactions with him. I think he would give Dany the same benefit.

What foreshadowing do we have that all of  Westeros is going to be Aegon. That wouldn't even make sense & would be unrealistic. You really think all of Westeros is going to be behind this guy that was supposedly dead. Like it's more likely that the realm will be split like with every other Targ v Targ war. 

Assuming he's a Blackfyre, that's a very distant kinship that no one is going to hold against her. I actually started a thread on this a while ago. No one calls Robert a kinslayer ever for all the insults they have for him and Rhaegar was a lot more closely related to him than Dany would be to Aegon. And no one except the Karstarks calls Robb a kinslayer. So I don't think that's going to be an issue. 

She destroyed some lives but made thousands of other people's lives better. True she made some mistakes and some questionable decisions. Some of them understandable or arguably justifiable. But the point is to make the mistake in Meereen so she doesn't make it in Westeros. 

So someone who has no ruling experience and has shown no sign of leadership ability is better. If you say so 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

25 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

C'mon you really giving Stannis that benefit of a doubt to bc you don't like Dany. I don't remember the exact words but I'm pretty sure it's clear that at the very least Stannis was willfully ignorant of what Mel was going to do. He knew Renly had to die.

Can you prove it? Can you prove that he knew what was going to happen before Renly’s death? We do know that he felt something the time that it happened but not before.

25 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

i don't think freeing slaves means nothing in Westeros. Slavery is abhorred in Westeros. Is going to Essos to free the slaves high on the priority list. Definitely not. But will it be completely ignored no. 

Since slavery in Westeros is illegal the fact that she freed the slaves would mean nothing for the Westerosi.

25 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

True people will probably draw their own conclusions & whisper about what they think happened to Viserys. Like Arianne has done. But I doubt it's something that is going to block her significantly. And assuming for the sake of this argument that Jon & Dany interact at all, I doubt Jon is just going to write he off bc of a story he wasn't witness to. He doesn't do it to  Stannis. He judges Stannis on his own interactions with him. I think he would give Dany the same benefit.

 There is no proof that Stannis killed Renly, on the other hand Dany’s husband killed Viserys. There is nothing similar between those two.

25 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

What foreshadowing do we have that all of  Westeros is going to be Aegon. That wouldn't even make sense & would be unrealistic. You really think all of Westeros is going to be behind this guy that was supposedly dead. Like it's more likely that the realm will be split like with every other Targ v Targ war. 

Quote

A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd

You mean if Westeros will support beloved Rhaegar's son over Mad King's daughter who comes with hordes of barbarians to rape, pillage and kill? Heck yes.

25 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

Assuming he's a Blackfyre, that's a very distant kinship that no one is going to hold against her. I actually started a thread on this a while ago. No one calls Robert a kinslayer ever for all the insults they have for him and Rhaegar was a lot more closely related to him than Dany would be to Aegon. And no one except the Karstarks calls Robb a kinslayer. So I don't think that's going to be an issue. 

Not true. Even Cat in her PoV told that Rickard was like about kinslaying. And at the end of the day how Dany could make convince everyone that Aegon is a Blackfyre? It’s not like Varys or Illyrio will say the truth so it will be once more her words against everyone else

25 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

She destroyed some lives but made thousands of other people's lives better. True she made some mistakes and some questionable decisions. Some of them understandable or arguably justifiable. But the point is to make the mistake in Meereen so she doesn't make it in Westeros. 

Why people should ever give her a second chance? So far she has prove that she is not the sharpest tool in the shed and except good intentions she hasn’t shown anything more. Why people should even care about her? Because she has dragons? Hence if the dragons are gone her power is gone too.

25 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

So someone who has no ruling experience and has shown no sign of leadership ability is better. If you say so 

You mean better from a dumb person who destroys everything he touches with the excuse that she learns? Heck yes. In Sansa’s case no experience means that she is someone who hasn’t committed mass murders, genocide, destroyed three cities and hasn’t killed innocent children. Something that is a great thing and this is a reason why Sansa is a better candidate than Dany.