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

5 hours 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?"

The plot hole isn't that these people aren't asking about how he is KITN.  I think that is easy to overcome since Hot Pie already knew Jon was KITN so this fact is pretty common knowledge in the kingdoms it seems.

The real issue is this whole hidden resurrection thing.  That could never be hidden.  If Hot Pie knew about Jon being KITN then you can be sure he got the story on how that happened.

You'd think Jon would be a walking legend right now in the kingdoms due to the fact that everybody knows he was rose from the dead but no.....

This is one of the worst written parts of the entire thing but they are holding it back for a reveal.

The second news got out that Jon had become KITN then the word would have also spread how that happened.

Varys is right there.....yet he doesn't know the story of Jon's resurrection?  Please.

Jorah just came from being with Sam.......you think you leave the....I have a buddy who came back from the dead story not told?

Please.

People complain about a lot of petty stuff on this show here but this is one plot hole that makes no sense at all and deserves some ridicule.

Share this post


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

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.

Actually, Robert had a legitimate claim to the throne as well (a stronger one than Daenaerys most likely, since he was the senior male in the line of succession once her last brother died). The overall succession rules followed in general those of the medieval English kings, and it was not until the Renaisance that women were accepted as monarchs. In fact, the reason Robert became king and not Ned or Jon after the rebellion was precisely because he DID have an actual claim to the throne.

People forget that Robert's grandmother was Rhaella Targaryen, who was King Aegon V's daughter and a princess. He is family, even if his last name is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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. 

 

I agree with you.. But many disagree... And that is something that would happen in Westeros in such a case.

4 hours ago, bb1180 said:

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.   

 

King Aerys named Viserys his heir, but he skipped Rhaegar's children. He didn't think that they are dead.. Viserys heir is Daenerys so many can say that her claim is stronger..

Was Rhaenyra's claim stronger than Aegon II?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

Viserys being crowned would not alter the rules of succession, and it would not cut off Rhaegar's legitimate children, provided that they were male. 

Following succession rules as applied in medieval England Daenarys would not have been crowned since she was not a man, and Jon would not be crowned since he was a bastard (in spite of what some Maester claimed in his journal - something easily forged and in any case entirely illegal). The applicable historical context would be what happened after Henry I died in England. Neither of them has a legitimate claim to the throne. The last legally legitimate heir that we know about would be Tommen (yes, we know that he is not really Robert's son, but there is no proof of it story and consequently from a Westerosi point of view he is trueborn), and he is dead. After that whoever sits on the Iron throne will do so by force of arms, the crown has to be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple. She has the dragons, the Dothraki and the Unsullied. The claim will be hers by right of conquest, not because of her or Jon's name. 

Share this post


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

Actually, Robert had a legitimate claim to the throne as well (a stronger one than Daenaerys most likely, since he was the senior male in the line of succession once her last brother died). The overall succession rules followed in general those of the medieval English kings, and it was not until the Renaisance that women were accepted as monarchs. In fact, the reason Robert became king and not Ned or Jon after the rebellion was precisely because he DID have an actual claim to the throne.

People forget that Robert's grandmother was Rhaella Targaryen, who was King Aegon V's daughter and a princess. He is family, even if his last name is different.

Sure, but Robert lost his claim when he rebelled against the Iron Throne, didn't he? That would be the view of Aerys II, Queen Rhaella, King Viserys III, and his heiress Daenerys, styled Princess of Dragonstone in exile. Not to mention that it is clearly the view of the Targaryen loyalists like the Martells. They don't think 'Well, now that House Targaryen is extinct in the male line the Usurper is our rightful king after all'...

Dany was Viserys' own chosen and anointed heir. She was not just his heiress presumptive, the girl who would get his crown should he die without issue. He made her his heir.

And Viserys III was also named Heir Apparent by Aerys II after Rhaegar's death, so a case can be made that Rhaegar's children (Jon included) were cut out of the succession by royal decree.

To confuse things even further the Great Council of 101 AC - ruling against a male claimant through the female line - would, in it's most extreme interpretation, have decided that Robert Baratheon cannot be king under any circumstances because not only women are barred from the succession but also males through the female line like Laenor Velaryon or Robert Baratheon.

When Robert became king Viserys III was still alive and well and actually the rightful heir to the throne. Just because the king is a tyrant doesn't mean you can crown whoever you want.

If you do that you end up the way the Baratheons did in the books or the Lancaster dynasty did later on, when Henry IV deposed Richard II and made himself king rather than Richard II's legal heir.

And whether some distant cousin through the female line actually has a better claim to the throne than the king's own daughter has never been tested in Westeros. I actually doubt that people would go with that. Especially not if such a princess had dragons or was free to be married by some powerful and ambitious lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Styl7 said:

I agree with you.. But many disagree... And that is something that would happen in Westeros in such a case.

King Aerys named Viserys his heir, but he skipped Rhaegar's children. He didn't think that they are dead.. Viserys heir is Daenerys so many can say that her claim is stronger..

Was Rhaenyra's claim stronger than Aegon II?

Well, in the TV series Rhaegar's marriage was supposedly annulled, and to do that you would need to have legitimate grounds. The only way to do that would be if the marriage was not legal to start with or it never was consummated. One possibility is that Rhaegar had no interest in his wife and her children were actually bastards from someone else. Maybe Aerys was the father, which would make them bastards (even though Rhaegar's siblings). If he knew that then naming Viserys heir would be the proper thing to do, especially if he knew that Rhaegar had annulled his marriage on those grounds. At the time Aerys would not have known that Lyanna was pregnant so would not have been aware of Jon.

So there is a reasonable story line that could be developed to explain all of what happened. It would also provide a pathway for Jon being named Aegon since the other Aegon would have been Aerys's bastard and consequently there would not have been two living sons of Rhaegar named Aegon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but Robert lost his claim when he rebelled against the Iron Throne, didn't he? That would be the view of Aerys II, Queen Rhaella, King Viserys III, and his heiress Daenerys, styled Princess of Dragonstone in exile. Not to mention that it is clearly the view of the Targaryen loyalists like the Martells. They don't think 'Well, now that House Targaryen is extinct in the male line the Usurper is our rightful king after all'...

Dany was Viserys' own chosen and anointed heir. She was not just his heiress presumptive, the girl who would get his crown should he die without issue. He made her his heir.

And Viserys III was also named Heir Apparent by Aerys II after Rhaegar's death, so a case can be made that Rhaegar's children (Jon included) were cut out of the succession by royal decree.

To confuse things even further the Great Council of 101 AC - ruling against a male claimant through the female line - would, in it's most extreme interpretation, have decided that Robert Baratheon cannot be king under any circumstances because not only women are barred from the succession but also males through the female line like Laenor Velaryon or Robert Baratheon.

When Robert became king Viserys III was still alive and well and actually the rightful heir to the throne. Just because the king is a tyrant doesn't mean you can crown whoever you want.

If you do that you end up the way the Baratheons did in the books or the Lancaster dynasty did later on, when Henry IV deposed Richard II and made himself king rather than Richard II's legal heir.

And whether some distant cousin through the female line actually has a better claim to the throne than the king's own daughter has never been tested in Westeros. I actually doubt that people would go with that. Especially not if such a princess had dragons or was free to be married by some powerful and ambitious lords.

If he lost the war he would have lost his claim, but he did not.

Viserys being alive was inconvenient, and that was the reason Robert wanted them (and any other Targaryen still out there) dead. The purpose of that was to prevent anyone else coming along at some future date claiming that they had a stronger claim to the throne than Robert and his heirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She has the same claim as the one first Aegon has over westeros: dragons. 

she has the strongest claim in the world. Even if Rhaegar himself was alive again, Dany still has better claim than him. not to mention his offspring such as Jon Snow. 

Share this post


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

Viserys being crowned would not alter the rules of succession, and it would not cut off Rhaegar's legitimate children, provided that they were male. 

Following succession rules as applied in medieval England Daenarys would not have been crowned since she was not a man, and Jon would not be crowned since he was a bastard (in spite of what some Maester claimed in his journal - something easily forged and in any case entirely illegal). The applicable historical context would be what happened after Henry I died in England. Neither of them has a legitimate claim to the throne. The last legally legitimate heir that we know about would be Tommen (yes, we know that he is not really Robert's son, but there is no proof of it story and consequently from a Westerosi point of view he is trueborn), and he is dead. After that whoever sits on the Iron throne will do so by force of arms, the crown has to be taken.

Viserys was crowned because the King chose him to be his heir. According to the Westerosi tradition Aegon would be the heir, since he was Rhaegar's son. 

During the dance of dragons there was a similar situation. The King chose another heir(Rhaenyra) than the one the Westerosi tradition would choose(Aegon) and that brought war. 

I agree that the one who can rule on the Iron throne will have to conquer it.. The right of conquest..

Share this post


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

Well, in the TV series Rhaegar's marriage was supposedly annulled, and to do that you would need to have legitimate grounds. The only way to do that would be if the marriage was not legal to start with or it never was consummated. One possibility is that Rhaegar had no interest in his wife and her children were actually bastards from someone else. Maybe Aerys was the father, which would make them bastards (even though Rhaegar's siblings). If he knew that then naming Viserys heir would be the proper thing to do, especially if he knew that Rhaegar had annulled his marriage on those grounds. At the time Aerys would not have known that Lyanna was pregnant so would not have been aware of Jon.

So there is a reasonable story line that could be developed to explain all of what happened. It would also provide a pathway for Jon being named Aegon since the other Aegon would have been Aerys's bastard and consequently there would not have been two living sons of Rhaegar named Aegon.

I don't think Aegon and RhaenysAenys are Aerys children.. He wouldn't even touch Rhaenys..she was stinking Dorne.

Ofc if Jon was named Aegon and it's not just a show think to add to him some of the Young Griff storyline, then it would make more sense to name his child Aegon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Okra said:

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

For example, Selmy was his father's heir before joining the KG yet when Joffrey released him from his vows it wasn't expect he was going to take over the lordship over House Selmy.  Instead, any lands he would have would have been granted by Joffrey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, iprayiam said:

Jon took the Black. Nuff said. Sansa should behead him

Jon is a deserter and that should be one of the first things on people's minds when they see him.  He should pay for that oathbreaking.

15 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).

Who has the better claim can be argued and debated endlessly from both perspectives.  It seems the show writers have taken a position, which I suspect will reach a different conclusion from George Martin's ending.  This is a deliberate choice on Dan and Dave's part because they know how the story will end.  I am pretty sure Daenerys will rule Westeros in the novels.  I am just as sure that Jon will end up on the throne in the show version.

Getting back to your question.  Times have changed.  Robert's rebellion challenged the absolute right of the heir apparent to inherit the throne.  This is obvious because it didn't take long for the Baratheon brothers to follow Robert's example.  Robert got what he gave in the end and the joke is on him and his heir, Stannis.  Cersei took further initiative and made herself the first female ruler of the kingdom.  It's no longer a kingdom but a queendom.  Robb, Balon, and Renly challenged the right of succession.  In short, a claim is only as good as the power to back up to back up that claim.

In my opinion, Daenerys would make a better ruler than Jon.  She's a lot smarter than Jon.  Dany has a track record of success that no other person in a leadership position in the story can match:  she ended the slave trade.  She carries herself with authority and she looks the part.  She showed great wisdom and considerable capacity when she agreed to help Jon.  Jon should have bent his knees immediately right there and then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ascension of the Metatron said:

Who has the better claim can be argued and debated endlessly from both perspectives.  It seems the show writers have taken a position, which I suspect will reach a different conclusion from George Martin's ending.  This is a deliberate choice on Dan and Dave's part because they know how the story will end.  I am pretty sure Daenerys will rule Westeros in the novels.  I am just as sure that Jon will end up on the throne in the show version.

So if Jon ends up on the throne in the novels, will it be because GRRM changed his mind after seeing how the show ends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bb1180 said:

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.   

 

i agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, pinoyathletics said:

Dany is the child of a former king. Whereas Jon is the child of an heir to the King who never became King.

Many will support that Dany is the heir of a King, Viserys. If you have the power to take the throne then you can support your "claim"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ascension of the Metatron said:

Jon is a deserter and that should be one of the first things on people's minds when they see him.  He should pay for that oathbreaking.

Who has the better claim can be argued and debated endlessly from both perspectives.  It seems the show writers have taken a position, which I suspect will reach a different conclusion from George Martin's ending.  This is a deliberate choice on Dan and Dave's part because they know how the story will end.  I am pretty sure Daenerys will rule Westeros in the novels.  I am just as sure that Jon will end up on the throne in the show version.

Getting back to your question.  Times have changed.  Robert's rebellion challenged the absolute right of the heir apparent to inherit the throne.  This is obvious because it didn't take long for the Baratheon brothers to follow Robert's example.  Robert got what he gave in the end and the joke is on him and his heir, Stannis.  Cersei took further initiative and made herself the first female ruler of the kingdom.  It's no longer a kingdom but a queendom.  Robb, Balon, and Renly challenged the right of succession.  In short, a claim is only as good as the power to back up to back up that claim.

In my opinion, Daenerys would make a better ruler than Jon.  She's a lot smarter than Jon.  Dany has a track record of success that no other person in a leadership position in the story can match:  she ended the slave trade.  She carries herself with authority and she looks the part.  She showed great wisdom and considerable capacity when she agreed to help Jon.  Jon should have bent his knees immediately right there and then. 

I agree that Daenerys would be a better ruler than Jon. Even if they marry!, Daenerys will be the one who rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×