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

2 hours ago, princess brittany said:

i agree. 

It doesn't matter. Rhaegar's children were removed from the line of succession.  The throne passed to Viserys and he was legally crowned by Queen Rhaella herself on Dragonstone.   It is really in keeping with the facts and Aerys' personality to disinherit Rhaegar's children.  Think about it.  Aerys would make certain that the grandchildren of his enemy (Rickard Stark) will never inherit his kingdom.  One of the first actions he would take is to close the doors on the children of Lyanna. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

It doesn't matter. Rhaegar's children were removed from the line of succession.  The throne passed to Viserys and he was legally crowned by Queen Rhaella herself on Dragonstone.   It is really in keeping with the facts and Aerys' personality to disinherit Rhaegar's children.  Think about it.  Aerys would make certain that the grandchildren of his enemy (Rickard Stark) will never inherit his kingdom.  One of the first actions he would take is to close the doors on the children of Lyanna. 

+ the fact that Jon would stink north, in the same way Rhaenys stinked Dorne..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lurid Jester said:

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?

That would never happen, GRRM has clearly decided to just accept that the show has deviated majorly from "his" story, and he's (publicly, at least) ok with that - but there's no way he would change anything on his side to match what the show did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

It doesn't matter. Rhaegar's children were removed from the line of succession.  The throne passed to Viserys and he was legally crowned by Queen Rhaella herself on Dragonstone.   It is really in keeping with the facts and Aerys' personality to disinherit Rhaegar's children.  Think about it.  Aerys would make certain that the grandchildren of his enemy (Rickard Stark) will never inherit his kingdom.  One of the first actions he would take is to close the doors on the children of Lyanna. 

I thought the Targaryen succession law is, that every possible male heir comes befor a female heir.

So it doesn't matter if Rhaegar's children were removed from the line. Jon is the first (and only) possible male heir an has the first claim to the iron throne from the eyes of the Targaryen dynasty.

Share this post


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

every possible male heir comes befor a female heir

I don't think so, but disagreements over that is basically what led to the Dance of Dragons 1.0.

I am sure that "a son of the firstborn son" comes before "a secondborn son or daughter" though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Marlom said:

I thought the Targaryen succession law is, that every possible male heir comes befor a female heir.

So it doesn't matter if Rhaegar's children were removed from the line. Jon is the first (and only) possible male heir an has the first claim to the iron throne from the eyes of the Targaryen dynasty.

It's open to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I didn't read each and every comment, I think the majority of people are missing the point here.

This isn't entirely about what Daenerys wants or Jon wants; for the Westerosi, Daenerys is a foreign invader who brought savage rapists onto their land to rape and pillage what they have. News will spread regarding her burning Lord Tarly alive, along with his son, which eerily reminiscent of when Rickard and Brandon were burned alive in King's Landing.

When news, and hard evidence via Gilly's book, surface, the Westerosi will look upon Jon with greater interest in terms of leadership, especially if he helps defeat the White Walkers. Daenerys, for her part, will have only two options; either fight him or marry him and solidify power - she wants to be the queen, and that doesn't mean she doesn't need the king. The Westerosi will accept her as queen so long as she marries a true-Westerosi-born man (Jon Snow/Targaryen). The fact he is a Stark and Targaryen will be the clinch that brings together the North and South once more, thus unifying the realm and securing peace for a while.

This outcome seems fairly evident - although, we don't know who will survive the True War. If they survive, this is how peace will most likely unfold between the two claimants to the throne. The fact Jon does not want to rule is why he'll be a great ruler, should he have great men and women giving him sound advice.

I vote Arya for the next Spymaster - once she learns all she can from Varys. Little wolves she'll call her army of begger-childern :D

Share this post


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

That would never happen, GRRM has clearly decided to just accept that the show has deviated majorly from "his" story, and he's (publicly, at least) ok with that - but there's no way he would change anything on his side to match what the show did

Oh, I agree that he won't change his novels due to anything the show does.  I'm just pointing the tendency some theory crafters have. 

They present their theory as fact.  Show reveals the theory isn't true, in the show.  Theory crafters then say the theory is still fact, in the book.  

My point was where their theory goes if Martin proves it false in the book.  

Because we all know people will claim that he changed the book to match the show.  

Share this post


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

Oh, I agree that he won't change his novels due to anything the show does.  I'm just pointing the tendency some theory crafters have. 

They present their theory as fact.  Show reveals the theory isn't true, in the show.  Theory crafters then say the theory is still fact, in the book.  

My point was we're their theory goes if Martin proves it false in the book.  

Because we all know people will claim that he changed the book to match the show.  

Oh, well in that case we're in full agreement. They're two separate, though obviously related, entities at this point. But I still think the majority of "big events" will be the same between the two, though the road there might be very different.

If Jon dies (for good) in the final episode of the show, the same will happen in the final book (if ever we get it, heh). That's obviously just my opinion, but I think it'll be like that. Outside of the absolute key points, though, anything can change between the two, up to and including major characters living or dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dawn of Fyre said:

Although I didn't read each and every comment, I think the majority of people are missing the point here.

This isn't entirely about what Daenerys wants or Jon wants; for the Westerosi, Daenerys is a foreign invader who brought savage rapists onto their land to rape and pillage what they have. News will spread regarding her burning Lord Tarly alive, along with his son, which eerily reminiscent of when Rickard and Brandon were burned alive in King's Landing.

When news, and hard evidence via Gilly's book, surface, the Westerosi will look upon Jon with greater interest in terms of leadership, especially if he helps defeat the White Walkers. Daenerys, for her part, will have only two options; either fight him or marry him and solidify power - she wants to be the queen, and that doesn't mean she doesn't need the king. The Westerosi will accept her as queen so long as she marries a true-Westerosi-born man (Jon Snow/Targaryen). The fact he is a Stark and Targaryen will be the clinch that brings together the North and South once more, thus unifying the realm and securing peace for a while.

This outcome seems fairly evident - although, we don't know who will survive the True War. If they survive, this is how peace will most likely unfold between the two claimants to the throne. The fact Jon does not want to rule is why he'll be a great ruler, should he have great men and women giving him sound advice.

I vote Arya for the next Spymaster - once she learns all she can from Varys. Little wolves she'll call her army of begger-childern :D

Foreign invaders, like the First Men.  They were all foreigners at one time.   Aegon was a foreign invader with no prior claims to Westeros and yet he was accepted.  Daenerys has more grounds to make a claim than Aegon ever did.  More people in Westeros would prefer Daenerys to someone like Jon who just basically took it upon himself to break his sworn oaths to the NW and conveniently allowed himself to be named "king" in the north.  Jon brought something culturally less desirable than any army that Daenerys did, the Wildlings.  Jon is not going to be the poster boy for good PR.

Share this post


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

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.

Making it simple, the NW betrayed him by killing him. So why would Snow want to work for them ever again? Also since he did die, he fulfilled his obligations to the wall. Its not his fault that he came back to life. As far as inheritance, he has none at the moment beside being claimed KOTN. Remember only us users, and Bran know that Jon is a Targ.  Also, i dont think too many people really believe that he died and was resurrected. Hell, even Jon still dont boast that.

 

Also, once again, do you think Jon really care about ruling anything? Thats not his cup of tea.

Share this post


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

I don't think so, but disagreements over that is basically what led to the Dance of Dragons 1.0.

I am sure that "a son of the firstborn son" comes before "a secondborn son or daughter" though.

Yeah, but the king chose another for an heir.. Things like this lead to the Dance with Dragons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Charlie Hustle said:

Making it simple, the NW betrayed him by killing him. So why would Snow want to work for them ever again? Also since he did die, he fulfilled his obligations to the wall. Its not his fault that he came back to life. As far as inheritance, he has none at the moment beside being claimed KOTN. Remember only us users, and Bran know that Jon is a Targ.  Also, i dont think too many people really believe that he died and was resurrected. Hell, even Jon still dont boast that.

 

Also, once again, do you think Jon really care about ruling anything? Thats not his cup of tea.

Yeah, many will not believe that he died and then he came back to life. In the same way many will doubt that Daenerys stepped into the fire and stayed unharmed. But Dany has her dragons and it's kinda a proof. 

Jon is not interested in ruling... He is not bad at ruling but he is not the best...

Share this post


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

I don't think so, but disagreements over that is basically what led to the Dance of Dragons 1.0.

I am sure that "a son of the firstborn son" comes before "a secondborn son or daughter" though.

I found something in the awoiaf wiki:

Quote

In 171 AC, after the death of King Baelor I Targaryen, the succession of the throne was not clear. Since Baelor had not appointed an heir, there were some lords and smallfolk who felt the Iron Throne should pass to the eldest of his sisters, Princess Daena Targaryen. However, other recalled the troubled time when Rhaenyra Targaryen sat the Iron Throne. The Dance was part of the reason why Prince Viserys Targaryen, Baelor's uncle, was chosen to ascend the throne over the wild Daena.[14] By choosing Viserys over Daena, women have came after all men in Targaryen succession since the Dance.[15]

 

Share this post


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

I found something in the awoiaf wiki:

 

Aye, that's all because Baelor 'the Blessed' had no children at all though. This doesn't apply to Aerys "appointing" Viserys his designated heir, even if it happened in between Rhaegar and his childrens' deaths, since Jon's existence invalidates the need for Aerys to appoint an heir at all.

Share this post


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

Aye, that's all because Baelor 'the Blessed' had no children at all though. This doesn't apply to Aerys "appointing" Viserys his designated heir, even if it happened in between Rhaegar and his childrens' deaths, since Jon's existence invalidates the need for Aerys to appoint an heir at all.

How do you come to that conclusion? Aerys named Viserys his heir when Prince Aegon was still alive and well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only 'make' your claim stronger by removing the person with a stronger claim (set by the standards and laws of the realm) from existence.

Other option is lying about it. Defeat and or convince the opposition to drop their claim. Or maybe the competitor is not interested in the throne, like Aemon for example. This is of course is all within the context of the entitlement of one line (Targaryen).

I agree with the poster who said it all boils down to right by conquest in the end.

Share this post


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

How do you come to that conclusion? Aerys named Viserys his heir when Prince Aegon was still alive and well.

Good question. I believe the whole "naming of an heir" is flawed from the get-go, but I'm assuming he accused Elia of treason or some such to discount her children (maybe he piggybacked onto whatever Rhaegar did to get his marriage annulled?), Aerys was mad after all so it's not impossible.

It is a guess though, but either Aegon was the heir all along (until he died obviously), and naming Viserys was invalid from the start, or both of Rhaegar's known children were removed due to reasons, and an heir named because there was seemingly no-one else.

But I'm personally of the opinion that Jon being legit or not ought to have no bearing on the story at all, I just don't think the show would hit us over the head with it if it turned out not to matter.

Share this post


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

How do you come to that conclusion? Aerys named Viserys his heir when Prince Aegon was still alive and well.

He named Viserys heir over Rhaegar's kids because he believed that Dorn betrayed the throne.  Specifically he believed that Prince Lweyn, a dornishman and kings guard, betrayed Rhaegar at the Trident so he didn't want a dornish heir. 

Thats also why he kept Ellia and the kids at KL instead of sending them to Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys. He was using them as hostages against potential Dornish aggression.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She won't even bother. By Season 8 she'll be completely in love with Jon, she'll be the one bending her knee in the end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×