Jump to content

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, hallam said:
  Hide contents

What happened the last time a serving wench got a speaking part?

 

That wasnt Arya. She is not in Kings Landing.

And numerous servants and handmaidens have had minor speaking parts throughout shows history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

No it isn't.  You never lose your birthright. You always have your claim. Twenty years is nothing. There are still plenty of Targaryen loyalists in the seven kingdoms. There is a reason why Robert was concerned about Viserys  or Daenerys crossing the Narrow Sea as he said so himself "there are still those in the seven kingdoms who call me usurper". 

When you flee your country and lose the throne for twenty years then tell me why she gets to claim it. Should whoever was on the throne just get off now (even if it was a good king or queen). And dany's only allies were dorne and the tyrells. the dornish joined for survival and olenna joined so she could get vengence. So where are those loyalist at. Robert had a deep hatred of the targs and it blinded him. Dany would not have been a threat if robert hadn't tried to kill her. Khal drogo would never have been willing to cross the sea otherwise

Edited by snow is the man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

When you flee your country and lose the throne for twenty years then tell me why she gets to claim it. Should whoever was on the throne just get off now (even if it was a good king or queen). And dany's only allies were dorne and the tyrells. the dornish joined for survival and olenna joined so she could get vengence. So where are those loyalist at. Robert had a deep hatred of the targs and it blinded him. Dany would not have been a threat if robert hadn't tried to kill her. Khal drogo would never have been willing to cross the sea otherwise

Nobody has ever said that the current occupant of the throne should just hand it over?  Not sure where you are getting that. Dany would have to press her claim and take it by force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Nobody has ever said that the current occupant of the throne should just hand it over?  Not sure where you are getting that. Dany would have to press her claim and take it by force. 

so then how can jon be in open rebeliion against her. If her birth right was real then she would be in line for the throne like a son of someone sitting on the throne or some family member. Jon has more of a right to the north thenshe does to westero's at the moment since bran will let it pass by him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Marlom said:

There is another heir. Sam ;-)

He was disinherited by his father, he declared that he didn't not want to be Randyll's heir, he took the Black, and he trained to be a Maester. In-universe, that's about as many disqualifications as you can pile up. Sure, Dany could probably have her Maesters come up with some legal way around it, but it would presumably be a lot easier to attaint the Tarly line and then just grant the Reach to Sam in his own right.

And thematically, it would be a lot more fitting. For one thing, his double-disqualification is a deliberate echo of Aemon, who intentionally became both Maester and Watchman to make absolutely sure he couldn't inherit the throne. For another, Sam's story is all about not trying to be his father's son and learning to succeed his own way.

Or, even better: Legitimize Little Sam, maybe even have Sam and Gilly come up with a new dynastic name for him, and make him Lord of Oldtown and Warden of the Reach, with Sam as his regent. Because I'm pretty sure that after he's forged his own destiny and become a hero and all that, what Sam will really want is to retire from the limelight and dedicate himself to being a good father to Little Sam, as Randyll and Craster weren't. And as long as Jon keeps his mouth shut, everyone believes Little Sam is his bastard. (In the books, maybe not Oldtown—it depends on what the Hightowers do. But on TV, the Hightowers are a once-mentioned irrelevant family, and Oldtown is much more fitting for Sam's legacy than Horn Hill or Highgarden.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

so then how can jon be in open rebeliion against her. If her birth right was real then she would be in line for the throne like a son of someone sitting on the throne or some family member. Jon has more of a right to the north thenshe does to westero's at the moment since bran will let it pass by him.

Daenerys doesn't recognize the legality of King Robert's rule or anyone who has ruled after him. She is the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms of which she inherited after the death of the previous King Viserys.. The North is one of those kingdoms.  By not swearing fealty to her they are in open rebellion (as is the Vale, Stormlands and Westerlands).  

This the same thinking as KIng Stannis who labeled Robb Stark a usurper who was trying to steal half his kingdom and also of King Renly who didn't care of Robb called himself king just as long as bent the knee to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, El Guapo said:

Daenerys doesn't recognize the legality of King Robert's rule or anyone who has ruled after him. She is the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms of which she inherited after the death of the previous King Viserys.. The North is one of those kingdoms.  By not swearing fealty to her they are in open rebellion (as is the Vale, Stormlands and Westerlands).  

This the same thinking as KIng Stannis who labeled Robb Stark a usurper who was trying to steal half his kingdom and also of King Renly who didn't care of Robb called himself king just as long as bent the knee to him.

okay here is the difference. Dany's family LOST THE THRONE before she was even born. She considers the man who took the throne a usuper and I understand why she thinks that but in reality then wasn't aegon the conqueror a usuper when he conquered the seven kingdoms.(well six since he didn't get dorne). Stannis was the rightful heir since his brother was sitting on the throne when he died and had no trueborn children. Stannis was a member of the current ruling dynasty and as such had a right to the north.  And dany not recognizing that robert was king doesn't mean she is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

When you flee your country and lose the throne for twenty years then tell me why she gets to claim it.

Because that's how it works.

Of course you have to win your claim, but history is full of people with claims like that who won. For example, Henry II spent his childhood in exile in France after his mother failed to take the throne from Stephen. Henry VII wasn't Richard III's heir, he was (supposedly) the successor of Edward III's rightful heir who'd failed to take the throne almost a century ago and fled to Wales.

And of course it's full of people who lost. The reason Charles Stuart didn't become King wasn't that he wasn't eligible because his grandfather had lost the throne, or because his family had been in exile in Europe for two generations, but because the Jacobites lost their wars. That's the only difference between him and Henry Plantagenet or Henry Tudor.

Likewise them, Dany has a legitimate claim to the throne, but it's not the only one. That happens, and that's why there are wars of succession. People seem to think that there's some simple and unambiguous law of succession that covers every possible edge case, but there's nothing of the sort. As we saw in The Princess and the Queen, what Westeros has is nearly identical to what Norman England had, with exactly the same problems. And that's not surprising, because the same thing is true of every pre-constitutional monarchy ever. There's no point in searching for the real answer to who's the legitimate leader, because there are multiple equally-real answers that contradict each other, and the matter can only be settled by war or diplomacy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

okay here is the difference. Dany's family LOST THE THRONE before she was even born. She considers the man who took the throne a usuper and I understand why she thinks that but in reality then wasn't aegon the conqueror a usuper when he conquered the seven kingdoms.(well six since he didn't get dorne). Stannis was the rightful heir since his brother was sitting on the throne when he died and had no trueborn children. Stannis was a member of the current ruling dynasty and as such had a right to the north.  And dany not recognizing that robert was king doesn't mean she is right.

Sure you can Aegon a usurper I guess though know one in Westeros would since he conquered the seven kingdoms three hundred years ago and started a dynasty that ruled for 280 years. And as far as House Targaryen is concerned they never lost the throne. Viserys was crowned on Dragonstone upon Aerys death and Dany inherited the crown from him upon his death. They have been a royal family living in exile. 

Stannis was never the rightful heir as Robert's children were never declared illegitimate. He did have a good claim on the throne though and like Dany would have it to take it back by force.

Edited by El Guapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Sure you can Aegon a usurper I guess though know one in Westeros would since he conquered the seven kingdoms three hundred years ago and started a dynasty that ruled for 280 years. And as far as House Targaryen is concerned they never lost the throne. Viserys was crowned on Dragonstone upon Aerys death and Dany inherited the crown from him upon his death. They have been a royal family living in exile. 

Stannis was never the rightful heir as Robert's children were never declared illegitimate. 

not officiaclly but everyone knew it and excepted it but by that time the tyrells had joined the lannisters and the battle of blackwater had been won and stannis had pretty much lost at that point. Also in both the books and the show dany is never given a crown by her brother. In fact that is specifically mentioned in the books. And by people calling aegon a usurper I meant at the time he conquered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Because that's how it works.

Of course you have to win your claim, but history is full of people with claims like that who won. For example, Henry II spent his childhood in exile in France after his mother failed to take the throne from Stephen. Henry VII wasn't Richard III's heir, he was (supposedly) the successor of Edward III's rightful heir who'd failed to take the throne almost a century ago and fled to Wales.

And of course it's full of people who lost. The reason Charles Stuart didn't become King wasn't that he wasn't eligible because his grandfather had lost the throne, or because his family had been in exile in Europe for two generations, but because the Jacobites lost their wars. That's the only difference between him and Henry Plantagenet or Henry Tudor.

Likewise them, Dany has a legitimate claim to the throne, but it's not the only one. That happens, and that's why there are wars of succession. People seem to think that there's some simple and unambiguous law of succession that covers every possible edge case, but there's nothing of the sort. As we saw in The Princess and the Queen, what Westeros has is nearly identical to what Norman England had, with exactly the same problems. And that's not surprising, because the same thing is true of every pre-constitutional monarchy ever. There's no point in searching for the real answer to who's the legitimate leader, because there are multiple equally-real answers that contradict each other, and the matter can only be settled by war or diplomacy.

 

that's my point though. Until she wins her claim it doesn't mean much. The people who joined her didn't join her because she was the rightful ruler but because dorne needed dany to win otherwise they would die and olenna joined for vengence pure and simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

… and also of King Renly who didn't care of Robb called himself king just as long as bent the knee to him.

I still don't get why Tyrion hasn't remembered that and figured out how to make it work.

Declare Dany to be not Queen, but Empress. She could easily justify that—she holds overseas territories that were once part of Valyria, she beat Volantis in a war, she has all the dragons, etc. And an Empress can have Kings as vassals. They both get what they need, both practically and in terms of not looking weak to underlings or rivals. Dany even gets new bargaining chips to use in her future negotiations, and, best of all, even more titles to recite. Everybody wins.

(We're talking about the show here. In the novels, playing Charlemagne would be a lot more complicated, because Valyria is a lot less like Rome. In particular, they were explicitly never an Empire, and that was in intentional contrast to the Ghiscari, so, declaring herself Empress would mean claiming successorship to Harpy Empire of Ghis, not the Dragon Empire of Valyria, and it's obvious why that wouldn't play as well in Westeros, or the Free Cities, or Slaver's Bay. But just play Henry III instead of Charlemagne—as Daeron II already did with the Martells. The Starks can remain a Royal House, so long as they bend the knee to the Targaryens, and all future heirs remain Prince instead of becoming King at accession. A bit more of a compromise, but it still ought to be pretty easy to play off as a victory for both sides of the deal.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lee Chapman said:

They were in a bed!

 :P But perhaps all the non-bed sex helped keep the spark alive for 25+ years. ;) 

1 hour ago, Gaz0680 said:

That wasnt Arya. She is not in Kings Landing.

And numerous servants and handmaidens have had minor speaking parts throughout shows history. 

I really hope it's not Arya, because I don't think she's got a great reason to kill Cersei--even though Cersei is on the List.  Now, Sansa is a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

that's my point though. Until she wins her claim it doesn't mean much. The people who joined her didn't join her because she was the rightful ruler but because dorne needed dany to win otherwise they would die and olenna joined for vengence pure and simple

Sure, because having a rightful claim doesn't mean anything more than a foot in the door to convince people to fight for your claim. You still need to convince them, and they still need to win, or you just go down in history as another failed pretender.

Dany has a claim, exactly the same as Stannis, Tommen, Cersei, Jon, Sansa, Euron, etc. She'll either succeed or fail in pressing that claim. It doesn't matter whether her claim is "the" rightful claim, or "more rightful" than someone else's; however it ends up, the Maesters can work out the trivia of justifying why it was right that she won or lost, as appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, falcotron said:

I still don't get why Tyrion hasn't remembered that and figured out how to make it work.

Declare Dany to be not Queen, but Empress. She could easily justify that—she holds overseas territories that were once part of Valyria, she beat Volantis in a war, she has all the dragons, etc. And an Empress can have Kings as vassals. They both get what they need, both practically and in terms of not looking weak to underlings or rivals. Dany even gets new bargaining chips to use in her future negotiations, and, best of all, even more titles to recite. Everybody wins.

(We're talking about the show here. In the novels, playing Charlemagne would be a lot more complicated, because Valyria is a lot less like Rome. In particular, they were explicitly never an Empire, and that was in intentional contrast to the Ghiscari, so, declaring herself Empress would mean claiming successorship to Harpy Empire of Ghis, not the Dragon Empire of Valyria, and it's obvious why that wouldn't play as well in Westeros, or the Free Cities, or Slaver's Bay. But just play Henry III instead of Charlemagne—as Daeron II already did with the Martells. The Starks can remain a Royal House, so long as they bend the knee to the Targaryens, and all future heirs remain Prince instead of becoming King at accession. A bit more of a compromise, but it still ought to be pretty easy to play off as a victory for both sides of the deal.)

I think Mance Rayder had more influence on Jon's philosophy and leadership style than anyone else.  Jon seems to be importing North of the Wall political sensibility to Westeros.  Bending the knee wouldn't be a personally humiliating thing to Jon, it would be a betrayal of those who put him in power as an independent king.

 

For that reason, I don't think there is a scenario in which Jon will bend the knee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nara said:

I really hope it's not Arya, because I don't think she's got a great reason to kill Cersei--even though Cersei is on the List.  Now, Sansa is a different story.

I think the whole point of the scene where Arya pauses and then decides to ride north from the inn instead of south was that she'd decided to put her family over her list, so we're probably not going to see her kill Cersei.

But imagine the scene we could get:

  • Cersei: But the prophecy!
  • Arya: What prophecy?
  • Cersei: A prophecy I was given as a child. Every other part of it has come true, and it ends by saying I will die choked by the hands of the valonqar.
  • Arya: What's a valonqar?
  • Cersei: It's Old High Valyrian for "little brother". And you're a girl.
  • Arya: Could it matter that I was dressed as a boy when I escaped King's Landing during your coup?
  • Cersei: That hardly seems like it would qualify you as a "little brother".
  • Arya: Yeah, good point. Wait, when I was spying on some other people, I overheard Tyrion say that everyone forgets that some Valyrian words are grammatically neutral, like the one for Prince. Maybe that's true for valonqar also, so it really means little sibling, not little brother?
  • Cersei: OK, that could work. But you're still not my little sibling, I mean, I don't see Cat and Tywin—
  • Arya: Eww, no. That doesn't seem likely. But you said the prophecy says "the valonqar", not "your valonqar", right? I've got lots of older siblings.
  • Cersei: Hmm. It's really a stretch both ways, but I guess technically maybe it works. But the real problem is that thematically, it's stupid. Why would anyone give a prophecy warning me against anyone who's the little brother or sister of anyone? 80% of the people in Westeros are someone's younger sibling. It might as well say "You will die at the hands of the person".
  • Arya: Yeah, you're right. Maybe the "little" means "youngest", not "younger".
  • Cersei: Yeah, but you're not the youngest. Not even the youngest left alive, if the rumors about Bran are true.
  • Arya: Yeah, they're true. So. Um. I guess the only answer is: fuck the prophecy.
  • Cersei: Fair enough.
  • Arya: I mean, I wasn't planning to choke you anyway. Hence this knife. 
  • Cersei: Oh, yeah.
  • Arya: (Stabbity-stab)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, nara said:

 :P But perhaps all the non-bed sex helped keep the spark alive for 25+ years. ;) 

 :D  It might make a likely story. :wub: Both for the last 25 years and for the obvious upcoming break up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, snow is the man said:

that's my point though. Until she wins her claim it doesn't mean much. The people who joined her didn't join her because she was the rightful ruler but because dorne needed dany to win otherwise they would die and olenna joined for vengence pure and simple

A claim is just that, a claim and nothing more. Cersei sits the throne, so Cersei is Queen. At this point Dany is the usurper no matter how "rightful" she may consider her claim to be. Jon is in open rebellion, but not against Dany, against the Iron Throne and Cersei, just like Dany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Illiterati said:

I think Mance Rayder had more influence on Jon's philosophy and leadership style than anyone else.  Jon seems to be importing North of the Wall political sensibility to Westeros.  Bending the knee wouldn't be a personally humiliating thing to Jon, it would be a betrayal of those who put him in power as an independent king.

 

For that reason, I don't think there is a scenario in which Jon will bend the knee.

 

Jon will definitely be willing to bend the knee. The deal is, Dany uses her dragons to defeat the Army of the Dead, Jon acknowledges her as queen. The only real argument they're having is whether to deal with Cersei first, which is why we have another season.

Jon never actually says he won't bend the knee, he just basically he won't do it right away - it's not yet a reasonable thing to ask. But I think he clearly holds open the possibility, especially given how he just sort of accepts the whole "being prisoner" thing. His concern is defeating the Night King; I don't think there's any chance a King Jon Snow would be willing to wage war in order not to have swear fealty, especially with dragons potentially at his doorstep. He's just using whatever leverage he has to try and get Dany's attention towards the North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 6:27 AM, RedShirt47 said:

Minor gripe with the Iron Bank of Braavos being in the Slave Trade when the city of Braavos was founded by escaped slaves and it's the one city in Essos which never had slavery. A minor plot point which doesn't ruin the show for me.

They are a bank.  As financiers, they can surely profit from the slave trade without being slavers themselves.  The same way we eradicated slavery in the west and yet buy our clothes from Chinese sweatshops because their payroll is wicked low and the savings get passed on to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×