Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Styl7

How can Daenerys make her claim stronger than Jon's

Recommended Posts

Marry him and make it a moot point.

43 minutes ago, Charlie Hustle said:

jon met his obligation. He died on the watch.

True. What's weird is that people on Dragonstone like Tyrion, Varys and Jorah, who all know what a big deal Night's Watch vows are even if Dany and the Essosi contingent don't, aren't questioning how he could leave the Watch without being beheaded and thus forcing him to talk about his resurrection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the folks posting that Dany has dragons, we just saw Drogon 'bend the knee' to Jon.  Not sure the dragons will fight against him.

Killing him is the time-honored way. 

Once Dany finds out about Jon's resurrection, she could argue that Jon1 (before murder) was a true claimant to the throne, but Jon2 (post murder) is not human any more, thus no claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what we know so far, the only proof of the annulment is a note in a book hidden in the Citadel. Destroy the book and then there's no proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Marry him and make it a moot point.

True. What's weird is that people on Dragonstone like Tyrion, Varys and Jorah, who all know what a big deal Night's Watch vows are even if Dany and the Essosi contingent don't, aren't questioning how he could leave the Watch without being beheaded and thus forcing him to talk about his resurrection.

This bugs me SO much.  Particularly when he brings up serving with Jeor Mormont. 

Why didn't Jorah say "wait... what?  How are you not at the wall?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Styl7 said:

Yeah I know it is.. This topic is for fun.

Daenerys has three dragons. If a dragon find a rider, who is opposed to Daenerys, will the dragon fight against his mother?

this is the question. And another is it doesn't have to fight against dany directly to work against her. It could burn up something that is hers but while she isn't there. As for attacking dany while she is riding a dragon I don't know for sure but I don't think it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Styl7 said:

I know that such a thing won't happen.. The WW are machine towards the Wall.. No time for things like that.. The IT isn't that important..

But if Daenerys wanted to make her claim look stronger than Jon's how could she support it. (I have something in mind, but I won't to hear other people's opinions).

Dany's claim is already stronger than Jon's.  The crown passed from King Aerys II to King Viserys III and to Queen Daenerys. 

The question of Female vs. Male no longer apply.  Cersei became the first ruling queen of Westeros and established a precedent.  So Jon being male is no longer important. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

This bugs me SO much.  Particularly when he brings up serving with Jeor Mormont. 

Why didn't Jorah say "wait... what?  How are you not at the wall?"

That's because HBO is really hard at work on Fan Servicing Jon's supporters that they've bent and changed the story to the point that it no longer makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Dany's claim is already stronger than Jon's.  The crown passed from King Aerys II to King Viserys III and to Queen Daenerys. 

The question of Female vs. Male no longer apply.  Cersei became the first ruling queen of Westeros and established a precedent.  So Jon being male is no longer important. 

 

It's not a male/female thing. Jon would come before Viserys in succession. Viserys only *thought* he was king, and called himself that (which no one really paid attention to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Dany's claim is already stronger than Jon's.  The crown passed from King Aerys II to King Viserys III and to Queen Daenerys.

Only because Rhaegar was dead and his children presumed to be.  His children would still be higher in the order of succession than either Viserys or Daenerys.  Sons come before daughters,  but both come before aunts and uncles.  If Jon is proven to be Rhaegar's son,  then he would have the stronger claim to traditional Targaryen titles.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

It's not a male/female thing. Jon would come before Viserys in succession. Viserys only *thought* he was king, and called himself that (which no one really paid attention to).

No. Viserys was actually crowned on Dragonstone and he was crowned because Aerys made him his heir after Rhaegar had died.

Share this post


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

No. Viserys was actually crowned on Dragonstone and he was crowned because Aerys made him his heir after Rhaegar had died.

I suppose Dany could use that as her precedent, then. But some people would contest it on the basis of Aerys's madness, and others would argue that the crown then reverts to Rhaegar's sons, not to Dany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurid Jester said:

This bugs me SO much.  Particularly when he brings up serving with Jeor Mormont. 

Why didn't Jorah say "wait... what?  How are you not at the wall?"

With all the shit thats about to go down, I dont think the wall and his obligation matters. I believe that a lot of rules is about to be rewritten and a lot of old ways is about to get thrown out the windows. Its obvious when the wildlings is manning one of the wall towers and is inhabiting south of the wall, and now you have Dothraki and unsullied in westeros. Change is happening and its about time too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only answer is that Jon took the Black and gave up any birthright to the crown when that occurred.

Now, he did die so he is released from the NW but that doesn't change the fact that he (unbeknownst to him at the time) was the rightful heir to the Seven Kingdoms (in a roundabout/iffy way) and he unknowingly relinquished his claim to any throne when he joined the Black.

I assume once you relinquish your claim to something you can't get it back after you die and return to life.

IMO, this is the only way Dany could position herself to having a stronger claim.

None of this matters as at least one will most likely die, leaving the other to rule over the ashes, or they will get married and rule happily ever after as a couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The show doesn't care about the Targaryen claim. They consider the Targaryen claim be worth nothing because there are no Targaryen loyalists left in Westeros now that Cersei has killed them all.

The people following Dany follow her, personally. They don't care about her blood claim to anything. And neither do Jon's people, apparently. But since they apparently hate/mistrust the mad Targaryens they are also likely to oust and denounce Jon when his true parentage is revealed since that would make him a Targaryen, too.

So the whole question is pretty irrelevant insofar as the show is concerned.

And in the show Jon is never going to challenge Dany's claim to the Iron Throne, especially not once he learns the truth about his own parentage. He didn't want to rule the North, why on earth should he want to rule over people he knows nothing about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither Dany nor Jon have a claim.  The Targaryen dynasty ended with Aerys and Robert's Rebellion.  Targaryen succession rules are no longer applicable.  Dany is trying to take the Iron Throne by force of arms and will rule by right of conquest.  Dany is attempting to re-establish the Targaryen dynasty - she does have an heir now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Charlie Hustle said:

jon met his obligation. He died on the watch.

First of all, I think that could be debatable on both sides. It's a literal technicality, a loophole, not a premeditated exception written in explicitly. It would be easy to argue that Jon's freedom from his obligation doesn't meet the spirit of the oath, the intended meaning of it's formulators, or the understood meaning of those who keep it.

Would you also release someone who's heart stopped but was revived with a defibrillator? I think there's strong arguments to be made on either side and Dany could use that fuzziness to argue against his claim.

Secondly, if we do accept that Jon is released from serving because he died at his post, I still don't think it explicitly negates the second line of the oath:  "I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. "

It doesn't say "as long as I serve" or "until the end of my watch". The oath binds one to serve until death, ok, but it states no lands or crowns without caveat.  I can buy the argument that after death, one no longer has to serve, but I'm not immediately sold that one is released from the oath wholesale; only that he has fulfilled that part of the oath. Otherwise, you're interpreting the first line of the oath extremely literally, while not doing the same for the second.

Finally, if death does release someone wholesale from an oath, perhaps an argument could be made that it also releases them from all else they have claim to. That is, for all intents and purposes, Jon renounced his inheritance. I don't see any reason he should get them back without being explicitly granted them from his liege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lonin said:

Neither Dany nor Jon have a claim.  The Targaryen dynasty ended with Aerys and Robert's Rebellion.  Targaryen succession rules are no longer applicable.  Dany is trying to take the Iron Throne by force of arms and will rule by right of conquest.  Dany is attempting to re-establish the Targaryen dynasty - she does have an heir now.

LOL, no. Not even in the show - people realize that Dany has a claim as the daughter of Aerys II - but most certainly not in the books. Half the Realm is still Targaryen loyalist, and even Robert knew he was a bloody usurper who might be quickly deposed if Viserys III or Dany's Dothraki son ever came knocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the laws of succession had been thrown out of the window with Tommen in season six, Daenerys has a 50% chance for the stronger claim. The other 50% is that whenever d&d tossed a coin to determine who'll have the stronger claim, the coin landed for Jon. Nothing Daenerys says or does And no previous law or agreement has any influence on this matter at all. It all comes down to which side of the coin made creatively more sense landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Styl7 said:

I know that such a thing won't happen.. The WW are machine towards the Wall.. No time for things like that.. The IT isn't that important..

But if Daenerys wanted to make her claim look stronger than Jon's how could she support it. (I have something in mind, but I won't to hear other people's opinions).

Simply by saying that (1) Jon is a bastard, or (2) stories of Jon's heritage are made up by ambitious people with ulterior motives (such as gaining power)

In the end Jon's origins are murky whereas hers are not so much. Jon can't prove his heritage, but Daenerys's is well known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RhaenysB said:

Since the laws of succession had been thrown out of the window with Tommen in season six, Daenerys has a 50% chance for the stronger claim. The other 50% is that whenever d&d tossed a coin to determine who'll have the stronger claim, the coin landed for Jon. Nothing Daenerys says or does And no previous law or agreement has any influence on this matter at all. It all comes down to which side of the coin made creatively more sense landing.

Why should they throw a coin at all? They are in love already. Perhaps it is going to part of their romantic banter who is going to sit in the ugly chair on the odd and who on the even days, but there is not going to be any serious conflict over that in the story.

I mean, I'd honestly have liked it if George had made Rhaenyra and Aegon II a married couple, having two spouses to go to war against each other could have been very interesting, but that doesn't seem to be the kind of story he wants to tell.

And perhaps not even in the books since they might hook up there before the truth about Jon's parentage is out, too. And Dany-Jon are not going to war against each other or struggle for supremacy within their own marriage.

Dany is pretty non-confrontational about this whole issue within the confines of marriage. She made Hizdahr her king consort, granting him more than a little authority after she married him. And if she and Jon truly love each other he might already be (effectively) the king at her side before he learns that he could actually also have tried to be king in his own right.

Unless Jon suddenly decides being Rhaegar's son means that he, and only he, should sit the Iron Throne the whole thing is going to be a non-issue even in the books. Dany will be perfectly fine with him doing the martial part of the kingship. She isn't a warrior queen, and not even a really great or dedicated/determined general. Jon can do all that stuff as her consort.

Whether they would be complete equals is difficult to say. But they could certainly be co-rulers, with Dany being the Jaehaerys I or Aegon I and Jon being the Alysanne or Rhaenys/Visenya insofar as authority, etc. is concerned. Dany is the last scion of House Targaryen and is not going to give up that identity and the kingship/authority that goes with it because she has some hidden nephew. But they will share power.

And in light of the fact that Aegon is most likely going to fail Jon is not likely going to repeat his mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×