Jump to content

Would it matter if Daenerys and Jon Snow were infertile?


norwaywolf123

Recommended Posts

That would end the rule by inherited right, which is one of the cornerstones of feudalism.  I doubt it would matter to Jon, because he swore to father no children.  He would be the biggest shit heel in the story to break that vow after breaking his oaths to save Arya.  Dany may not be interested in setting up a dynastic rulership.  She is genuinely interested in empowering all people (except the slave masters) and it would not be out of character if she sets up a system of elected rule.   That said, I don't think Dany is infertile.  Just look at how everything comes in 3s in her life.  I believe she will have three children before the end of the story.  Three bloodriders, three dragons, three handmaidens, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

That would end the rule by inherited right

Or Dany/Jon could just adopt an heir and then things just keep on truckin as regular. Heck Jon has living siblings so he is sett, assuming he survives/revives after the stabbing and somehow become king/lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ylath's Snout said:

Or Dany/Jon could just adopt an heir and then things just keep on truckin as regular. Heck Jon has living siblings so he is sett, assuming he survives/revives after the stabbing and somehow become king/lord.

Frankly, I want Dany to rule instead of Jon.  But back to the topic, adoption is not the same thing.  

I would be fine with a Stark inheriting Winterfell.  I would not be fine with a Stark on the Iron Throne, or even someone who is half Stark.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 867-5309 said:

Frankly, I want Dany to rule instead of Jon.  But back to the topic

Agree to disagree?

Just now, 867-5309 said:

But back to the topic, adoption is not the same thing.  

Historically adopting an heir is a kinda common practice, plenty for Roman rules did it for example.

2 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

I would be fine with a Stark inheriting Winterfell.  I would not be fine with a Stark on the Iron Throne, 

I don't see why being a Stark is disqualifying for taking the Iron Throne. The Foundation of that trone isn't divine providence, a popular mandate or ancient rights. It was right-by-conquest that forged that throne so frankly the Targ losing it that same way seems "fine"* and if a Stark could claim that throne by might or marriage why should they not?

6 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

or even someone who is half Stark.  

There have been half-Blackwoods, half-Hightowers and full-on-incestious-freaks on the Iron Throne. Why would Stark blood be specifically disqualifying for kingship of the Seven Kingdoms?

Sure you could argue of plenty of specific Starks would have made poor kings but that is true of every family in Westeros from Great Houses to smallfolk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

That would end the rule by inherited right, which is one of the cornerstones of feudalism. 

No it would not... plenty of family lines have ended already without getting rid of inheritance or even primogeniture.

18 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

I doubt it would matter to Jon, because he swore to father no children.  He would be the biggest shit heel in the story to break that vow after breaking his oaths to save Arya.  Dany may not be interested in setting up a dynastic rulership.

Then why invade? Vengeance?

18 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

  She is genuinely interested in empowering all people (except the slave masters) and it would not be out of character if she sets up a system of elected rule. 

Where do you get that idea? Her only claim to a crown and dragons comes from her blood...

She has shown she is more than willing to let slavery continue in the world, ally herself with a known slaver in Illyrio, and use slave soldiers to fight her battles.

I don’t think there is any evidence she is even inclined to break the wheel, hell, she is the wheel!

18 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

 That said, I don't think Dany is infertile.  Just look at how everything comes in 3s in her life.  I believe she will have three children before the end of the story.  Three bloodriders, three dragons, three handmaidens, etc.  

On this I’m inclined to agree with you, I doubt she is infertile, way too wordy a prophesy to simply mean never! But, I wouldn’t be overly surprised if she died in childbirth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said:

Agree to disagree?

Historically adopting an heir is a kinda common practice, plenty for Roman rules did it for example.

I don't see why being a Stark is disqualifying for taking the Iron Throne. The Foundation of that trone isn't divine providence, a popular mandate or ancient rights. It was right-by-conquest that forged that throne so frankly the Targ losing it that same way seems "fine"* and if a Stark could claim that throne by might or marriage why should they not?

There have been half-Blackwoods, half-Hightowers and full-on-incestious-freaks on the Iron Throne. Why would Stark blood be specifically disqualifying for kingship of the Seven Kingdoms?

Sure you could argue of plenty of specific Starks would have made poor kings but that is true of every family in Westeros from Great Houses to smallfolk.

I am a Daenerys Targaryen fan as well as a fierce critic of Jon.  You and I are not going to reach an agreement.  I do not dislike all of the Starks, but I dislike Jon and Sansa very much.  All you need do is search my posts for the reasons.  :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

I am a Daenerys Targaryen fan as well as a fierce critic of Jon.   I do not dislike all of the Starks, but I dislike Jon and Sansa very much.  All you need do is search my posts for the reasons.  :)

Awww number-dawg, it trust you on this. Mostly because it would be super weird of you to lie about it.

4 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

You and I are not going to reach an agreement.

We can still talk about how theoretically they would handle their inheritance right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

She isn't infertile. MMD meant  dosh khaleen.

She is as far as we know, a Targ though and they seems to have some pretty major infertility/birthing complications problems soo as the last Targ of her branch it would still be a relevant problem for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it could be an issue for the Targaryens because the dragon-bonding gene is carried by the females.  Please note how few Targaryen women married outside the family during the course of 3 centuries.  

For the Starks, not so much.  I mean, they have nothing to inherit now.  Jon is sworn to the wall.  Okay, he is an oathbreaker but so was Mance.  Mance is not relieved of his obligations to the Night's Watch.  Jon is obligated to stay at the wall as long as he continues to breath.  Dying and resurrection won't change that.  Rickon can still produce an heir though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ralphis Baratheon said:

There is also the dragons to consider, they can live for hundreds of years. There needs to be someone with enough dragon blood to control the dragons or they could end up causing great chaos and destruction in Westeros. 

Oh you mean like how uncontrolled Nymeria is causing chaos and destruction in the Riverlands.  The dragons can easily fly back to the Dothraki Sea, if they should wish, if the bond is broken.  Dany's dragons would most likely return to the Dothraki Sea, the place of their birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Agent Orange said:

Oh you mean like how uncontrolled Nymeria is causing chaos and destruction in the Riverlands. 

What does that have to do with anything in this discussion? 

10 minutes ago, Agent Orange said:

The dragons can easily fly back to the Dothraki Sea, if they should wish, if the bond is broken.

They could go there or anywhere else, there is no way of knowing at this point. They are still very young and could end up living the majority of their lives in Westeros. The people of Westeros would grow very worried about the dragons if there comes a time when there is no one left to connect or bond with them, rightfully so in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, norwaywolf123 said:

Assuming that they really are infertile. Causes of infertility may be blood magic in both Dany's case(Dragons) and Jon's case(Resurrection).

if they do unite westeros under their marriage and they do not have kids there will be a war to determine their heir 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they both survive and if one or the other ends up ruling and if he/she/they are infertile, I don't see a problem with adopting an heir. The problem would be if the people accept and support this. No noble rules without the consent of the people they rule. True, an adopted heir would have a larger hurdle towards gaining acceptance and it gives their enemies a more powerful card to play against them, but it just puts them closer to revolt on the sliding scale of peace-war than a trueborn heir would be by default.

I think that the smart move would be to work with a council of nobles to decide an acceptable heir, rather than Dany/Jon deciding unilaterally. Do it early, do it by as large a consensus as possible, and failing that, explain your reasoning and do everything in your power while you still live to earn friends and allies to your side so the succession has a chance of being peaceful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Agent Orange said:

Well, it could be an issue for the Targaryens because the dragon-bonding gene is carried by the females.  Please note how few Targaryen women married outside the family during the course of 3 centuries.  

No offense to you personally but where do people even get this ridiculous idea that every so often people bring up like some half trained parrot?

Plenty of non-targ queens with rdescendants are known and hell, Dance of the Dragons, the famous succesion war that brought dragons to near extinction, one side, the greens, had no Targaryen ancestry on the female side(Alicent HIGHTOWER) and yet they rode dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say Dany's infertility isn't exactly a given. The person who stated her womb dried up had something of a negative agenda towards Dany. As for Jon, literally hasn't even happened yet to become a point of debate. I don't see Dany making it though. Dying in child birth is a possibility given the narrative of all three major characters in the series having mothers who died giving birth. She also could go down in the heroic sacrifice, though Jon seems a more likely candidate for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

No offense to you personally but where do people even get this ridiculous idea that every so often people bring up like some half trained parrot?

Plenty of non-targ queens with rdescendants are known and hell, Dance of the Dragons, the famous succesion war that brought dragons to near extinction, one side, the greens, had no Targaryen ancestry on the female side(Alicent HIGHTOWER) and yet they rode dragons.

Technically, Dany is a decedent of Aegon V who was married to a Blackwood, so by their own logic Dany can't be a dragon rider as the gene couldn't have passed to Rhaella , thus she couldn't have passed it to Dany. But when it comes to making sure Dany is the only possible dragon rider apparently logic is irrelevant. 

---------------

As for fertility. I don't think either of them are infertile. Dany was given a confusing prophecy/curse by MMD, and she took it to mean that she would never have kids. But, since characters tend to be wrong I see no reason to view this differently. Plus the Dothraki sea is dry, Patrick of Kings Mountain was being waved around like a leaf in the wind, etc. so even if it was true it won't be for long.

Jon we don't know for sure what happened yet, but I suspect he was kept alive by Ghost, just as we saw with Bran in book one, and there will be no nights watch when the war for the dawn is done, so he can have all the kids he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting the cart before the horse a bit here. As Jon wasn't knifed in the winky, we can't really speculate yet on him.

Only death can pay for life gets a very nuanced handling in the series. Dany is called Mother of Dragons, daughter of death in the HOTU.

Healers have power over life and notice that in the Dothraki hoard that the healers are eunuchs and the barren. They have traded the life they save with the live they would give others. Same with the Maesters. The symbolism also extends to the KG and the NW. Mirri Maz Duur states that she paid a steep price for what she learned and she surely has power over life and death: notice that she is 40ish, has no children, and is a healer.

MMR's statements sound like a magical realignment to me and it makes me think that Dany's infertility is magical balance and tied to the dragons. That was the price paid. I suspect her fertility would gradually increase if one, two, or all of the dragons die and it would come back in degrees based on the number of dragons dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...