khal drogon Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 3:42 PM, YOVMO said: Oh I have a pretty open mind and usually subscribe to the the idea that whatever direction the story goes in, no one will have picked out everything. Also, I have a lot of faith in George that he will do it well whatever he does. I just see Dany as having finished up her usefulness in this story. My money is still on totally meaningless and unceremonious death for dany very much the way Joff just said "bring me his head" and like that Eddard Stark was no more. What do you think her usefulness is? I can't comment without knowing it. But all I know is Martin intended the top 5 to survive the story. The story is about them. We don't need the inner turmoil of a princess in a far away land if she is not important to the endgame. Ned Stark had a different purpose. He was used to setup the story like bringing out the incest, setup Jon Snow's mystery and so on and his so called unceremonious death is what scattered the Starks beginning their journey. The important part is his death was not just there for shock value but it was used to move the story instead of it being a death to remove a character that has served it's usefulness. I don't see Dany's death being used as a setup for any story so your Ned comparison doesn't work. Also I don't see the need for the build up if she is not going to affect the endgame. The story structure and her build up alone makes sure that she may die only at the very end of the story. So unless you have a death wish for Dany I can't see the basis of the understanding that her death will be meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khal drogon Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 Why Dany and Jon had to be a couple anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 1 minute ago, khal drogon said: Why Dany and Jon had to be a couple anyway? Because main male character and female character always have to be together according to some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orphalesion Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 12 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said: Jon is still a bastard even if R+L=J is proven. 1. Rhaegar cannot marry Lyanna. The Targaryens agreed to give up polygamy because it did not offer any advantages to continue that practice. 2. Rhaegar doesn't have the authority to legitimize anybody. Rhaegar was not a king. Only a king can legitimize a bastard and Aerys would have never agreed to allow any child of Lyanna Stark to inherit his throne. 3. Aerys disinherited Prince Rhaegar. Aerys made this choice deliberately. He chose Viserys to inherit the throne after him. The inheritance passed to Viserys and on down to Daenerys. Blue Rose = Stark Bastard Blue Rose = Jon First of all There is no "if" about it. Jon is Rhaegar's. 1. I merely entertain the possibility, I do not necessarily believe it. 2-3 That all won't matter in the end. It would have mattered if the Targaryen Dynasty had survived and there would be no second War for the Dawn. However the Targaryen dynasty went belly up and is reduced to two members (three if Faegon is genuine) one of which is a woman and one a bastard (very, very probably) Both are technically not capable of inheriting the throne, so the best solution would be a great council. However since there is an Apocalyptic event in our future even that might not be the case and it remains to be sen whether Jon and/or Daenerys will be left standing on the last page and how much Westeros will be left for them to reign. Don't know what you are yammering on about the Blue Rose here. Do you honestly think it's new information to me that it's supposed to be Jon and that I wasn't able to deduce it for myself? Of course the blue rose points towards his Stark ancestry; it links it to Lyanna and thus gives another hint towards his parentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 12 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said: The Targaryens agreed to give up polygamy Do you have any proof about it? 12 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said: Aerys disinherited Prince Rhaegar That is something that it was mentioned only at TWOIAF the same book where it was mentioned that Elia killed her children. Do you believe that she did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Guapo Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 17 minutes ago, Orphalesion said: First of all There is no "if" about it. Jon is Rhaegar's. 1. I merely entertain the possibility, I do not necessarily believe it. 2-3 That all won't matter in the end. It would have mattered if the Targaryen Dynasty had survived and there would be no second War for the Dawn. However the Targaryen dynasty went belly up and is reduced to two members (three if Faegon is genuine) one of which is a woman and one a bastard (very, very probably) Both are technically not capable of inheriting the throne, so the best solution would be a great council. However since there is an Apocalyptic event in our future even that might not be the case and it remains to be sen whether Jon and/or Daenerys will be left standing on the last page and how much Westeros will be left for them to reign. Don't know what you are yammering on about the Blue Rose here. Do you honestly think it's new information to me that it's supposed to be Jon and that I wasn't able to deduce it for myself? Of course the blue rose points towards his Stark ancestry; it links it to Lyanna and thus gives another hint towards his parentage. Sigh. Not true at all. There is no law that women can't inherit the throne. Indeed, Daenerys claim is already recognized by several Westerosi including Jorah, Barristan and House Martell. Even Tyrion while recognizing that Aegon has a stronger claim doesn't state that Dany has no claim at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 9 minutes ago, El Guapo said: Sigh. Not true at all. There is no law that women can't inherit the throne. Indeed, Daenerys claim is already recognized by several Westerosi including Jorah, Barristan and House Martell. Even Tyrion while recognizing that Aegon has a stronger claim doesn't state that Dany has no claim at all. Plus, as stated many times throughout the last 300 years in Westeros, a Council will tend to NOT argue with Targs claiming the throne on Dragonback. It adds credence to their claim indisputably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mon ami Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 5 hours ago, El Guapo said: Sigh. Not true at all. There is no law that women can't inherit the throne. Indeed, Daenerys claim is already recognized by several Westerosi including Jorah, Barristan and House Martell. Even Tyrion while recognizing that Aegon has a stronger claim doesn't state that Dany has no claim at all. Good points. Gender won't matter. Besides, she is the only one whose Targaryen identity cannot be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drogonthedread Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 The more i think the more I can't stop laughing at the idea of a girl that is described as the most beautiful women in the whole world will glamour herself as another to seduce a guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 On 29/12/2016 at 0:12 PM, Drogonthedread said: The more i think the more I can't stop laughing at the idea of a girl that is described as the most beautiful women in the whole world will glamour herself as another to seduce a guy Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do find the notion that Dany will glamour herself ridiculous but still. Because some people believe that Dany is the most beautiful woman in the world doesn't mean that she is the most beautiful for all the people in the world. So yes, even the most beautiful woman in the world would had to glamour herself if she wanted to seduce someone who wasn't his type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drogonthedread Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do find the notion that Dany will glamour herself ridiculous but still. Because some people believe that Dany is the most beautiful woman in the world doesn't mean that she is the most beautiful for all the people in the world. So yes, even the most beautiful woman in the world would had to glamour herself if she wanted to seduce someone who wasn't his type. Of course I agree with you there ..that's why I didny bring Jon's perspective ..I was speaking more from dany's POV ..like others I can't see a character like dany doing something like that at all.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Just now, Drogonthedread said: Of course I agree with you there ..that's why I didny bring Jon's perspective ..I was speaking more from dany's POV ..like others I can't see a character like dany doing something like that at all.. I agree then. She wouldn't need to use glamour to someone who already fancies her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weirwoods Eyes Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 As far as I am aware it has never been said that Polygamy was outlawed or given up entirely and officially by the Targaryens. And we have plenty of reason to believe that Rhaegar may have married Lyanna. For a start, you don't hang polygamy on the wall unless you intend to use it! The idea that Polygamy won't play a role going forward in the story is absurd. Why bother to introduce it at all if it won't be used at some point. When Jorah suggests Polyandry to Danaerys it is a clue to the reader that it has never been made officially illegal. not to mention that laws in these types of scenarios are as flexible as those with power require them to be. For instance, Henry VIII almost got a decree to allow his daughter Mary to marry his bastard; Henry FitzRoy. Which would have been direct Incest, something which the Catholic church most certainly did not hold with, and the vaguery of incest as a suggestion with Mary's mother having been wed to Henry's brother was the entire basis of his divorce. So we see the same thing (Incest) being used by a powerful man to bend laws to his will. Not to mention the multitude of other hints in the book that they were married, and the real life precedent for wives being illnesses being used as a means to set them aside and marry again in order to produce heirs. Richard III was said to be about to set aside Anne Neville upon their son's death and her subsequent inability to bear another child, for his Niece Elizabeth of York. So the idea of a polygamous marriage - with the daughter of the house which is widely taken as based upon the great Northern Powerhouse the Yorks - for Rhaegar in light of Elia's ill health in a universe with a precedent for polygamy doesn't seem so whacky. Not to mention all the other elopements the Targaryens partake in throughout the histories as a huge clue, or the real world parallel with going into hiding until a pregnancy can be confirmed as a means of ensuring a marriage can not be undone by one's families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schwarze Sonne Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 I find it weird that no one ever thought about Daenerys beauty in their POV (they described her appearance, but never praised her appearance). Some other unique things about POVs involving Daenerys is that all POV of people interacted with her are all in past tense. Is Daenerys really that beautiful as people made up to be? And how handsome is Rhaegar to make Cersei considered Jaime to be like a stable boy compared to him (forgetting that she always compared her and Jaime's similarity to each other, lol)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOVMO Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 On December 28, 2016 at 0:13 PM, khal drogon said: What do you think her usefulness is? I can't comment without knowing it. Fair enough. I think Dany has been a huge positive to our story. I feel that she does a number of things, not the least being to set the moral ambiguity, to show the hubris of the well meaning, to show the reader (and indeed other characters) how the pure of heart can be internally rather than externally corrupted. There are a lot of things I think dany has been both meaningful and useful for. On December 28, 2016 at 0:13 PM, khal drogon said: But all I know is Martin intended the top 5 to survive the story. The story is about them. We don't need the inner turmoil of a princess in a far away land if she is not important to the endgame. It really all depends on the endgame. Of course I have no doubt that wherever this story leads, Dany will play or will have played a tremendous roll both for the reader as well as for other characters. That said, grrm has made it very clear that he doesn't want a neat bow tied on his story ala LOTR/Star Wars. our story is messy and morally ambiguous. I personally do not believe that the Iron Throne (both the actual chair as well as the political binding force of the 7K) will survive the series On December 28, 2016 at 0:13 PM, khal drogon said: Ned Stark had a different purpose. He was used to setup the story like bringing out the incest, setup Jon Snow's mystery and so on and his so called unceremonious death is what scattered the Starks beginning their journey. The important part is his death was not just there for shock value but it was used to move the story instead of it being a death to remove a character that has served it's usefulness. Fair enough point. Maybe "usefulness" was a poor choice of words. Maybe simply that her story arc will come to a completion. I simply don't believe that the last chapter of ADOS will involve a world where dany is alive. On December 28, 2016 at 0:13 PM, khal drogon said: I don't see Dany's death being used as a setup for any story so your Ned comparison doesn't work. Also I don't see the need for the build up if she is not going to affect the endgame. The story structure and her build up alone makes sure that she may die only at the very end of the story. So unless you have a death wish for Dany I can't see the basis of the understanding that her death will be meaningless. Here is my general problem with Dany. Maybe you can help me work it out and maybe it is just that I am not seeing the right angle...really....where does dany, her dragons and her army fit into our story? I think we can take it as a certainty that if Dany lands on mainland westeros with an Army of Unsullied (and sell swords and maybe dothraki and whomever else she picks up along the way) and three full grown dragons then all of the political machinations of the previous books will be for naught. Like Aegon she would simply conquer westeros and any resistance would be quickly dealt with. To put it bluntly, Dany conquering westeros with dragons and an army the way Aegon did is simply boring. I think she will have a roll to play in the war with the Others. What that roll is I do not know. However, as far as the politics of the realm are concerned I feel that her inclusion into the wider world would leave not just an ultimately unsatisfying story, but one that is so trite and ridiculous that it could be written by the show runners. So I guess, to clarify, I would say that Dany and the Dragons, in one way or another, still have some part to play in the war that involves the magical side of affairs, but I think that as soon as that is done she will have to die. The story is ruined with Dany's inclusion into politics of Westeros. Can you see a way in which Dany (clearly a poor queen) with a foreign army and what essentially amounts to unilateral nuclear fire power with her dragons can possibly make for an interesting story one the "who will rule westeros" front? If so I would be very interested to read. As a side note and to put my cards on the table, I believe the endgame is pretty much total population and kingdom annihilation. I think that All Men Must Die....Noah after the flood.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCK Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 Jon & Dany ruling Westeros together and being happily ever after is exactly the kind of ending the story won't have. The Lannisters won the War of the 5 Kings and were already beginning to crumble apart from within. Very much a bittersweet ending for them and it's along those lines the end of the story itself will fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywater-Watch Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 We need to see this story come to an end. characters have to die to clear the field. POV Daenerys going to Jon, coupling with him and then 9 months of pregnancy - that does not work in favour of accelerating things. Please no more births. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orphalesion Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 On 28/12/2016 at 8:12 PM, El Guapo said: Sigh. Not true at all. There is no law that women can't inherit the throne. Indeed, Daenerys claim is already recognized by several Westerosi including Jorah, Barristan and House Martell. Even Tyrion while recognizing that Aegon has a stronger claim doesn't state that Dany has no claim at all. Women have been passed over in the past, even if they were, technically more eligible to inherit the throne than their male relatives. Jorah is a spineless exile (plus a pathetic excuse of a man) and his opinion counts jack. He would support Daenerys if she claimed to be God-Empress of the world because he has the hots for her. Barristan is an idealist and also has personal interest to see the Baratheons go. House Martell has a more gender egalitarian society and would find no issue with a female leader. And AGAIN, the Targaryen dynasty is basically dead, so the ordinary rules don't apply anymore. If dynasties are on the verge contenders who (under normal circumstances) would never been let near the throne are suddenly considered eligible. Tyrion knows that. The moment the Targaryen dynasty was abolished, their rules died with them, the next claimant has (at least to some extend) the opportunity to re-write the rules. Daenerys can make herself Queen because she has power, but if RR had not happened she would not have sat the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maudisdottir Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I find it laughable that Jon would only sleep with Dany if she was glamoured as Ygritte. I'm not disputing that Jon loved Ygritte - he did, and he mourned her. But he got over her, and I'm not convinced she was the great love of his life. She was his first love, but it was out of necessity, and I don't think Ygritte is the kind of girl Jon would be happy with long term. She was annoying and rude (but with many good qualities which made me like her character and feel sad when she died, but it had to happen to move Jon's story along) and Jon paired off with her reluctantly. He loved her anyway because he has a good heart. And because she died she'll always be romanticised to him - his first, dead love. Yet he thinks Val is the loveliest thing he's seen in a long time, so he's moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 "He loved her anyway because he has a good heart"? Sorry, @maudisdottir, but I'm gonna have to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.