Jump to content

Will Jon be Dany's heir


Lady Winter Rose

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no precedent for an older line which has been passed over to reclaim their rights with the Targaryens, so there is no example for this anybody could point to.

And Dany doesn't come with maesters and scholars and lawyers. She comes with dragons and swords. She can ignore established precedents, laws, and traditions if she wants to - and she can force people to see her arguments rather those of the other side. This is all a case by case basis. And Dany's case is pretty good considering she is not only a dragonrider, but also the Mother of Dragons, which basically makes her somewhat of a Targaryen goddess.

But in the field of claims she has a pretty strong case - she is the daughter and the sister of a king, Rhaegar's children are just royal grandchildren, farther down the line. In such cases proximity wins over primogeniture - Jaehaerys I's grandson become king, not his great-grandson, Maekar's son became king, not his grandson, and so forth.

And Dany is also the chosen heir of the last crowned Targaryen king - who also happened to be the chosen heir of the last Targaryen king on the Iron Throne. Nobody made any of Rhaegar's children heirs to the Iron Throne.

When did Viserys choose Dany to be his heir? I really doubt Viserys would want Dany to be his heir especially after what happened to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Starkz said:

When did Viserys choose Dany to be his heir? I really doubt Viserys would want Dany to be his heir especially after what happened to him.

She is styled Princess of Dragonstone in AGoT. She is as much Viserys' heir as Princess Aerea was Jaehaerys I's heir before the man had any children of his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Son of Man said:

There is a recent topic about this.  Bran is not going to forgive Jaime.  It would be a dull story if he did.  This is not the story of the Starks letting bygones be bygones.  Catelyn slit the throat of a harmless simpleton.  Arya killed an innocent old man who had nothing whatsoever to do with the red wedding.  She has a kill list for Pete's sake.  Jon killed Slynt the moment he got the chance.  Bran is not going to be different.

Everyone in the story is going to struggle with this, not just the Starks. That's why Westeros was written to be so all-around awful. They'll struggle to overcome old wrongs in the face of needing to work together. There's plenty of that to spread around and def not just with Starks. But if Woo-hoo Tribalism! is your take from this series, we're not going to agree on much of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

Yet they still had a strong fleet there, and loyal men protecting them, and the men at the tower had been given commands either by King Aerys II or by Prince Rhaegar (or perhaps even by Lyanna, depending what role she had), and for one reason or another they were sticking to them. Just as Willis Fell didn't abandoned Aegon II while he was protecting Princess Jaehaera, there is no reason to believe the men at the tower being there means they abandoned Aerys II or Viserys III - or were giving some sort of political statement by doing that.

Just as Willis Fell being with Jaehaera doesn't mean he thinks a woman should be Queen Regnant or that Jaehaera was Aegon II's legal heir and successor after Prince Maelor was killed.

Except it doesn't take a lot to see that Robert would shortly send a force to Dragonstone with the small garrison being alone against an overwhelming force of Northmen, riverlords, Stormlanders and westermen led by none other than Tywin Lannister, and even so, that fleet doesn't change their vows or their duty as KG. Their vows would have required them to guard the royal family on Dragonstone if Jon was a bastard. Dayne's family could have provided Lyanna the protection she needed.

Willis FelI was protecting a legitimate heir to the IT, and he did it knowing full well that his king was already safe somewhere else.

 

Visenya founded the KG with "no purpose but to defend the king, giving up their own lives if need be."

Guarding the king, that is their highest duty. They could perform other duties so long as it didn't conflict with objective of the first: making sure the king is safe. LC Hightower tells as much to Jaime: You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him. Viserys clearly wasn't safe with an impending assault on Dragonstone, and the vows of the KG would have required them to go to Dragonstone, as choosing to stay at the ToJ with a bastard during such a time would have been a dereliction of their duty. When they started staying at the ToJ, their king, Aerys, had four KG with him. By the fall of KG, Viserys, the king in this scenario, had none. He also wasn't safe in hiding. 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

How do you know the former? When Maegor was a rotting corpse on the Iron Throne nothing was accepted this man did - and pretty much nobody listening to him in the days before that, anyway? Viserys I decreed his daughter should succeed him - did that happen? No. Maegor could have married and ape and adopted a horse for all we care - and while he was still in charge people would have nodded their heads and smiled uncomfortably -, but nobody would have treated the ape as the Queen Dowager and the horse as his successor after his death.

And it might have been similar if Maegor had left any heirs of his body from some of his later wives.

There is no indication that Rhaenys was Aegon's second wife in a temporal sense - but even if she was - you yourself point out that those marriages took place on Dragonstone before the Conquest. They are not accepted because they are done within the traditions of the Seven Kingdoms, they are accepted because they were done outside of the Seven Kingdoms and before Aegon and his sisters conquered them.

And as it happened the Conqueror was a polygamous father for only three years. And he lived 27 years as a monogamist. 

Nothing this man did was accepted? That completely ignores his ban on the Faith Militant, which was accepted by Jaehaerys I and his successors. Viserys I naming Rhaenyra his heir is a poor analogy given Viserys I didn't have precedent and rather went against the precedent of the Great Council and Jaehaerys's ascension in doing that. Rhaegar, by contrast, had plenty of precedent for polygamy and eloping. The example you give is poor as well given, even ignoring the outright ludicrousness, Maegor had precedent for none of the things you described

 

while it is mentioned as he pointed out that he did have precedent for polygamy from his father, Aegon I.

Saying Dragonstone isn't part of the Seven Kingdoms is really reaching, given it doesn't fit with geography. Dragonstone is clearly accepted as part of the Westeros, as it was only settled a few centuries ago by Valyrians and the population was/is mainly Westerosi and worshiped the Seven as evidenced by the septs. Dragonstone was under the Targaryen domain, but so were the rest of the Seven Kingdoms eventually. 

How long he was a polygamist is completely irrelevant as is how long he was a polygamist father. The High Septon still crowned him when he was already married to both his sisters. There is also no rule that says you need to be married to more than one wife X amount of years to be considered a polygamist, and the same can be said for a polygamist father. 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

King Aenys didn't want his brother to keep Alys Harroway - that's why he wanted Murmison to make Ceryse fertile. He hoped his brother would repent his folly. What would have happened had Aenys lived and Maegor returned after the five years we don't know. But the crucial thing here is that even Targaryen kings do not like polygamy.

If smallfolk, nobility, and royals see polygamy as vile and wrong in 282 AC as King Aenys did in 39 AC, then there is pretty much no chance that a child from such a union is seen as equal to a child from a monogamous marriage, especially not if the father involved is just a prince, and not a king ruling for nearly forty years.

Those are obscure cases from the past - and Prince Rhaegar didn't follow the old gods, anyway, and did marry his wife, Princess Elia Martell, in the Great Sept of Baelor. He would have broken the marriage vows spoken there if he had taken a second wife. And since Rhaegar had neither dragons nor a crown chances are not that great that everybody would have cheered him if he had done something like that.

Lyanna would have been a whore, just as Alys was, and any child of theirs a bastard.

Yet, Aenys could have declared Maegor's marriage unlawful, but didn't. With attitudes toward polygamy, it actually depends which Targaryen king you're talking about. Yes, more Targaryen kings practiced monogamy than polygamy, and some were uncomfortable with polygamy like Viserys I and Jaehaerys I, the latter's case due in no small part to the memory of his uncle. However, it hasn't been effectively banned. 

Aegon I's polygamy was accepted despite some grumbling, and some Blackfyre supporters supported the claim that Daemon was promised Daenerys as a second wife, meaning there was at least some level of acceptance.

Lyanna followed the Old Gods, and could have insisted on a marriage before a heart tree. Also, Maegor had polygamous marriages held by a septon. There is precedent from him. I also don't think I've seen the Westerosi wedding vows. How Westeros would have responded to Rhaegar taking Lyanna s a second wife? There would be shock and grumbling, especially from Robert and Rickard, but whether his marriage would be able to be dissolved is another question. The two men mentioned would push for it to be dissolved along with some other lords, but one can't get results simply by demanding them. I agree that it would be a mess. 

Even when the High Septon warred against the Targaryens, while he declared them abominations, and even monsters, he didn't declare either Aenys or Maegor bastards, meaning he accepted them as trueborn.

 

The only account of polygamous marriages being dissolved and the children declared bastards is Lucamore Strong. In this case Alysanne said all three of his marriages were unlawful, not just the last two, but all three. She specifically said they were unlawful not an account of polygamy, but on account of Lucamore being a KG knight sworn to celibacy, and any marriage to a KG therefore is illegal. If it were on account of polygamy than the first marriage would have been regarded as legal with just the last two being illegal. 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

I don't expect there to be any conflicting pretenders around after that, aside from perhaps people one would not want to give the forum of a Great Council (like Euron) anyway. Dany and Jon can rule together if both of them live, and if one of them dies then the other can be the heir of the other - and if they both they they could have a child.

I mean, honestly, the idea that people have to actually formally discuss who should rule them after they just worked together and defeated the Others sounds like a pretty strange setting to me. Sort of like, 'Well, we got around solving the pretty big issues, the one that matter, but we can't really decide who is going to be the guy who collects out taxes?' That would be just strange.

I can see a Great Council like gathering somewhere in the middle of the story - when the threat of the Others is finally on the table and key characters try to convince other people that they have to work together now - but I don't see something like that for as insignificant a question as who should rule them.

Fighting the Others would require the Westerosi to unify, there is no other way. After the fight, with the shared sacrifice, they could decide that a Great Council might be the best way to solve the issue of the crown given the War for Dawn and the War of Five Kings before it would have exhausted them, and they wouldn't want to do any more fighting. They have also known no government other than a monarchy so it makes sense they would want a king. 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is actually not the case. The dragonriding thing helps to convince people his story is true, but the boys are only legitimized because Rhaenyra does legitimized them - and she does that only because people she trusts tell her the story.

It is Marilda of Hull, Corlys and Jacaerys Velaryon who ensure the legitimization of the Hull boys. Not some dragon. If dragons bred Velaryons or Targaryens, we would have a Hugh Velaryon, a Ulf Targaryen, and a Nettles Targaryen.

And the issue with the Jon story really is that his mother and his father are dead, and the people apparently knowing the story are not necessarily firsthand witnesses. Howland and even Wylla can at best claim to tell others what Lyanna and Ned believed to be the truth, they have no proof that Rhaegar Targaryen actually fathered Lyanna's child.

Blood of the dragon can be found anywhere. And if Ashara Dayne had some, then she could be Jon's mother and Ned his father, right?

The way things stand Dany doesn't need much convincing that the Jon story is true - she already believes Rhaegar loved Lyanna. The point is just that if she didn't want to believe it, a dragon would not have to change her mind. Especially not if Dragonbinder creates dragonriders who have not even a single drop of Targaryen blood. Which it might well do.

The reader knows the case, but not the public in Westeros. The only time it is mentioned is in a footnote as a theory pushed by Mushroom. The chances are the public heard a different story, the official one Velaryons put forward: Addam and Alyn are Laenor's bastard sons. The problem with the example you provided with Hugh, Nettles, etc is that none of them claimed to be the progeny of any existing Targaryens or Velaryons.  

I know the proof would be in the testimony, maybe something in Lyanna's crypt and Jon proving he has blood of the dragon. 

The problem of the theory of Ashara as Jon's mom is that Ned would have to have stayed in Dorne for at least nine months, or if Ashara gave birth before he arrived, he would have had to have visited Dorne in the middle of Robert's Rebellion. 

Mounting a dragon would at least make Dany consider, since Jon couldn't have gotten the blood of the dragon from the Starks. Especially with Ashara's testimony, which would be credible given she personally knew Rhaegar, and wouldn't want to disgrace his memory by putting a Stark bastard on the IT. Also, as to your last claim, where would Jon get a Dragonbinder? If he had one and used it, everyone would hear. Daenerys would recognize the sound. We can effectively rule that scenario/argument out. 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

I don't think Jon will have to prove his heritage. I think it will be revealed or uncovered and Dany will go along with it and accept it because they are already in love, anyway.

How? Credibly, how would his heritage be uncovered in your scenario in a way that is accepted? 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

But Viserys III was the crowned Targaryen king after his father, and he chose and named Princess Daenerys his Heir Apparent. That's obvious in AGoT.

That is going to be (one of) the card(s) Dany will play to challenge Aegon's claim.

Viserys didn't know about Jon, and he never issued a decree officially naming her his heir like the first Viserys did. 

Daenerys wouldn't play that card given she already has the card of Aegon being fake. 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

This is all pretty much irrelevant in light of the fact that Jon Snow is a nobody with no connections to House Targaryen and their followers. Even if they liked 'the male line' more, they are not just suddenly defecting in mass to another hidden prince. Dany will have time and time and time to actually build herself a proper power base while Jon cannot even hope to rival her in that. He could come to power with her, at her side, but not against her.

I mean - just think what you would do. You are, say, Mathis Rowan. You jump ships at Storm's End when the blue-haired boy is revealed to be Rhaegar's dead son. Then that turns out to be a lie, you end up switching sides again to Aerys II's confirmed daughter, the Mother of Dragons.

And then suddenly another son of Rhaegar's shows up, one you never even heard of? Give me a break. That's not going to fly. Not ever. 

Hence, why Jon convinces Daenerys and everyone with her. It is going to be accepted and revealed, or there is no point in putting it in the story. 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

If Jon had first installed as King in the North or even only Lord of Winterfell against Eddard Stark's living, breathing children (Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, Arya) then I do think this could cause some problems, yes.

It is part of the reason why I don't think Jon Snow should presume to actually end up in a kingly or even lordly leadership role in the North. Because he is not a Stark. Not through the male line at least.

I don't think Jon is going to be KitN. He would give WF to Rickon. 

On 11/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Lord Varys said:

I think Jon's ultimate role will have to do more with the Others than the king crap. Dany is the queen, not Jon. Jon is more a hero, not a king. A king does mundane things like ruling, a hero saves people from ice demons (and can, perhaps, die a final death in the process).

I'm sure Jon could rule as king in the end, and I'd like him and Dany rule together, but I'm not sure that's going to happen. This is not a fairy-tale. And the way it is written especially the characters who deserve it to live in the end are not going to make it.

His royal heritage is going to play a role as he doesn't need to be a Targaryen to fight the Others. Who says kings can't be heroes? Hell, Brandon the Builder was one of the heroes, and likely was the last hero. 

I don't think Dany would rule with him, as I don't think she'll survive the series. If Jon gets the crown, it wouldn't a be fairy tale ending, given he would have a huge pile of dogsh!t at the foot of the IT with a huge debt, and a realm devastated by war and winter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Except it doesn't take a lot to see that Robert would shortly send a force to Dragonstone with the small garrison being alone against an overwhelming force of Northmen, riverlords, Stormlanders and westermen led by none other than Tywin Lannister, and even so, that fleet doesn't change their vows or their duty as KG. Their vows would have required them to guard the royal family on Dragonstone if Jon was a bastard. Dayne's family could have provided Lyanna the protection she needed.

Robert had no fleet. They were perfectly safe on Dragonstone and would have continued to have the upper hand had the storm not destroyed the Targaryen fleet. There was not the slightest rush to go there - assuming they had good information what was going on.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Willis FelI was protecting a legitimate heir to the IT, and he did it knowing full well that his king was already safe somewhere else.

Aegon II was not safe. He was alone on Dragonstone with a bastard knight, who followed the commands of the man who would mastermind Aegon II's murder.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Guarding the king, that is their highest duty. They could perform other duties so long as it didn't conflict with objective of the first: making sure the king is safe.

That is nowhere stated as such and makes no sense in the overall context. Fell didn't know, could not know or be sure Aegon II was safe. Barristan knows Dany is not safe yet he doesn't try to find her after she disappears. Barristan allows his king to get himself killed facing a boar, etc. Kingsguard do as they are told. And the men at the tower were doing what they were told, too. They were not protecting a king there. They were protecting a dying woman who had birthed a prince (most likely at least).

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

LC Hightower tells as much to Jaime: You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him. Viserys clearly wasn't safe with an impending assault on Dragonstone, and the vows of the KG would have required them to go to Dragonstone, as choosing to stay at the ToJ with a bastard during such a time would have been a dereliction of their duty. When they started staying at the ToJ, their king, Aerys, had four KG with him. By the fall of KG, Viserys, the king in this scenario, had none. He also wasn't safe in hiding. 

If Rhaegar or Aerys II had commanded them to guard their horses or an empty house or do this or that they would have been forced to do that, too. Just as Arys Oakheard remained in Dorne with Myrcella even after King Joffrey (on whose orders he was, in the end, going there) was dead (and the Hand saying that order dismissed and disgraced).

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Nothing this man did was accepted? That completely ignores his ban on the Faith Militant, which was accepted by Jaehaerys I and his successors.

Because Jaehaerys I confirmed Maegor's laws. King Tommen abolished them, bringing the Faith Militant back. Jaehaerys I also rescinded the bounties on the heads of the Faith Militant.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Viserys I naming Rhaenyra his heir is a poor analogy given Viserys I didn't have precedent and rather went against the precedent of the Great Council and Jaehaerys's ascension in doing that.

Maegor also went against precedent and the policies of his father, Aegon the Conqueror, by warring against the Faith and the Seven. You don't have to have precedent and some lords backing you to establish new policies. There was no precedent for the Conquest, either, nor did anyone ask whether dragon warfare was 'legal'...

My point simply is that there is no precedent for a polygamous prince ever having a child by his second wife (married under ridiculous circumstances) accepted as a royal child. Do you think Aegon III is going to accept Alys River' son as his trueborn nephew? He can use exactly the same tactic I think Dany could use against Jon - dismiss the story that the child is Aemond's seed (especially viable if the boy doesn't look Targaryen) and if that doesn't work ridicule the idea that he could have married her.

If all the woman has is her own word and claims that some people attended a wedding she basically has nothing. And that goes for Jon, too.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Saying Dragonstone isn't part of the Seven Kingdoms is really reaching, given it doesn't fit with geography. Dragonstone is clearly accepted as part of the Westeros, as it was only settled a few centuries ago by Valyrians and the population was/is mainly Westerosi and worshiped the Seven as evidenced by the septs. Dragonstone was under the Targaryen domain, but so were the rest of the Seven Kingdoms eventually. 

Dragonstone was the Targaryen domain. And the Seven Kingdoms were not united before the Conquest. A sept being there doesn't mean many people follow the Seven. Or do you think the Braavosi follow the Seven because there is a sept there, too?

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

How long he was a polygamist is completely irrelevant as is how long he was a polygamist father. The High Septon still crowned him when he was already married to both his sisters. There is also no rule that says you need to be married to more than one wife X amount of years to be considered a polygamist, and the same can be said for a polygamist father. 

The Faith never accepted Aegon's polygamy, nor did they bless his marriage.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Yet, Aenys could have declared Maegor's marriage unlawful, but didn't.

He had no need to do that explicitly. He never even accepted it in the first place.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

With attitudes toward polygamy, it actually depends which Targaryen king you're talking about. Yes, more Targaryen kings practiced monogamy than polygamy, and some were uncomfortable with polygamy like Viserys I and Jaehaerys I, the latter's case due in no small part to the memory of his uncle. However, it hasn't been effectively banned.

That it is not necessary, because the Faith never formally allowed it. Maegor basically forced the Faith with a loaded gun/dragon in attendance to officiate at two of his weddings (or four, if you count each black bride as a single wedding). That does not change the tenets of the Faith or what marriage, just as me going threatening some cleric or official into making an impossible marriage for me.

Maegor lost, was replaced, and had he any children by his later wives Jaehaerys I and his people would have used exactly my line of reasoning to dismiss the claims of those children.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Aegon I's polygamy was accepted despite some grumbling, and some Blackfyre supporters supported the claim that Daemon was promised Daenerys as a second wife, meaning there was at least some level of acceptance.

The latter sounds like a fairy-tale to me, the former is not true as such. They did not accept the polygamy thing. They ignored it. And it went away after Rhaenys' death, anyway.

Comparing the likes of Aenys and Maegor to the Jon Snow thing also doesn't make much sense. Aenys was the Heir Apparent and the chosen and accepted successor of Aegon I. Lyanna-Rhaegar may or may not have been known to the public as a marriage, and nobody does even know the child existed, presumably.

We cannot compare the chosen/known heir of a king to some hidden prince coming out of the woodworks at some point. Dany is a well-known Targaryen, there are no doubts about her identity. Jon Snow will never in that territory, not even when everybody were to spread his story - because it would be just that, a story. Whereas Daenerys Stormborn is accepted by everyone as King Aerys II's daughter.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Lyanna followed the Old Gods, and could have insisted on a marriage before a heart tree. Also, Maegor had polygamous marriages held by a septon. There is precedent from him. I also don't think I've seen the Westerosi wedding vows. How Westeros would have responded to Rhaegar taking Lyanna s a second wife? There would be shock and grumbling, especially from Robert and Rickard, but whether his marriage would be able to be dissolved is another question. The two men mentioned would push for it to be dissolved along with some other lords, but one can't get results simply by demanding them. I agree that it would be a mess. 

The novels make it clear spouses swear fidelity to each other during an Andal wedding, and this is reinforced again when Alysanne points out that the First Night is effectively adultery.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Even when the High Septon warred against the Targaryens, while he declared them abominations, and even monsters, he didn't declare either Aenys or Maegor bastards, meaning he accepted them as trueborn.

No, he did not. To accept them as trueborn he would have to actually refer to them as such. He didn't even accept Aegon's marriage as such. He just pretended it wasn't there. Overlooked it, without offering an opinion.

He also made it clear that Alys Harroway was the whore of Harroway. That doesn't mean she was accepted as Maegor's wife, no?

The Lucamore thing is a special case within a special case considering he couldn't have been lawfully wed, anyway.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Fighting the Others would require the Westerosi to unify, there is no other way. After the fight, with the shared sacrifice, they could decide that a Great Council might be the best way to solve the issue of the crown given the War for Dawn and the War of Five Kings before it would have exhausted them, and they wouldn't want to do any more fighting. They have also known no government other than a monarchy so it makes sense they would want a king. 

But whoever is the leader against the Others in the War for the Dawn - and his or her command structure, so to speak - would likely already have a chain of command in place. If I die, you take over, if you die, he takes over, and so forth.

And whoever led and won the war would have so much power and prestige afterwards that he or she would not have to ask the lords - they would have to beat in line before to do what was necessary, anyway - for their opinion on whether they could continue to rule or not. This is not a democracy.

Even if the savior died in the fighting - his lieutenants would participate in the shining light he or she cast that they should be able to just seize power without any difficulty. 

If there is some Great Council it should be about the Others and the fact that one has to work together - long before the final fighting.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

The reader knows the case, but not the public in Westeros. The only time it is mentioned is in a footnote as a theory pushed by Mushroom. The chances are the public heard a different story, the official one Velaryons put forward: Addam and Alyn are Laenor's bastard sons. The problem with the example you provided with Hugh, Nettles, etc is that none of them claimed to be the progeny of any existing Targaryens or Velaryons.

But, say, they themselves were of the opinion they were sons of the late King Viserys I, like the Trystane fellow? And they had some guys confirming that at the ready? Do you think Rhaenyra would have given a damn without anyone she actually trusted or at least listened to had lobbied on their behalf?

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

I know the proof would be in the testimony, maybe something in Lyanna's crypt and Jon proving he has blood of the dragon. 

That can all be dismissed if you don't want to believe it.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

The problem of the theory of Ashara as Jon's mom is that Ned would have to have stayed in Dorne for at least nine months, or if Ashara gave birth before he arrived, he would have had to have visited Dorne in the middle of Robert's Rebellion. 

While we don't know where exactly Ashara was throughout that time - or when exactly 'Jon Snow's' official birth day is - we cannot dismiss that possibility. And Aegon IV fathered so many bastards - who is to say that whoever 'Jon Snow's' mother was, wasn't a great-great-granddaughter of the Unworthy?

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Mounting a dragon would at least make Dany consider, since Jon couldn't have gotten the blood of the dragon from the Starks.

That is not off the table, actually. Perhaps Sara Snow had a child from Jacaerys Velaryon which later married into House Stark through the female line? Or just one of the many houses marrying into House Stark descends from a dragonseed or one of the bastards of the Unworthy or even one of the actual cadet branches of House Targaryen - Velaryon, Penrose, Plumm, you name it.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Especially with Ashara's testimony, which would be credible given she personally knew Rhaegar, and wouldn't want to disgrace his memory by putting a Stark bastard on the IT. Also, as to your last claim, where would Jon get a Dragonbinder? If he had one and used it, everyone would hear. Daenerys would recognize the sound. We can effectively rule that scenario/argument out. 

No, the point is that if Dany sees people claiming dragons who shouldn't be able to do that she might conclude that anybody can. That this means the blood doesn't play that much of a role after all.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

How? Credibly, how would his heritage be uncovered in your scenario in a way that is accepted? 

Dany first learns that Lyanna and Rhaegar were in love and married - for Barristan, say. That lays the foundation that there may have been a child. Later she learns something about what transpired at the tower (from some Daynes, say). And finally she connects the dots and realizes this Jon Snow fellow is that child.

That's not that hard. Rhaenyra bought the story about Addam and Alyn of Hull. Why shouldn't Dany be able to do that, too?

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Viserys didn't know about Jon, and he never issued a decree officially naming her his heir like the first Viserys did.

He might have, we don't know. What we do know is that he treated and saw Dany as his heir. She was styled 'Princess of Dragonstone' on parties he was throwing, basically.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Daenerys wouldn't play that card given she already has the card of Aegon being fake.

Why shouldn't she do that. If the boy was a threat to her she would want him gone.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Hence, why Jon convinces Daenerys and everyone with her. It is going to be accepted and revealed, or there is no point in putting it in the story.

It would depend what is supposed to be done with Jon Snow. He can a prince who chooses not to become king, you know, never mind his parentage.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

I don't think Jon is going to be KitN. He would give WF to Rickon. 

I'd like that, too, but perhaps Rickon dies. And he thinks Arya and Bran are dead, and he doesn't care enough about Sansa to not think a legitimized male should come before a female Lannister-by-marriage.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

His royal heritage is going to play a role as he doesn't need to be a Targaryen to fight the Others. Who says kings can't be heroes? Hell, Brandon the Builder was one of the heroes, and likely was the last hero.

We don't know who the Last Hero was, but chances are pretty high that the whole Targaryen-and-dragon thing is in there for the Others, not so much the king crap. Rhaegar didn't try to make a promised prince so that somebody could sit his father's throne. Aerys II already had two heirs by the time Aegon was born.

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

I don't think Dany would rule with him, as I don't think she'll survive the series. If Jon gets the crown, it wouldn't a be fairy tale ending, given he would have a huge pile of dogsh!t at the foot of the IT with a huge debt, and a realm devastated by war and winter. 

It would still be clichéd fairy-tale ending if the hidden prince proves his worth, etc. And very odd if the guy was actually an undead/resurrected guy while doing that. Those people usually go into the West and/or promise to come back while their followers are still alive but then don't show up for 2,000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

She is styled Princess of Dragonstone in AGoT. She is as much Viserys' heir as Princess Aerea was Jaehaerys I's heir before the man had any children of his own.

Viserys never choose Dany to be his heir which you said he did. Furthermore as I’ve already said Viserys wouldn’t want Dany to be his heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

It would still be clichéd fairy-tale ending if the hidden prince proves his worth, etc. And very odd if the guy was actually an undead/resurrected guy while doing that. Those people usually go into the West and/or promise to come back while their followers are still alive but then don't show up for 2,000 years.

You can literally apply the “cliched fairy-tale ending” to every single possible outcome/ending in the story. Jon the lost Prince saves the North and Westeros becomes King, Dany the forgotten outlaw Princess comes home and saves Westeros and becomes Queen, Tyrion the secret imp Prince who everyone doubted becomes King(Three popular theory’s).  No matter how the story ends depending on how you look at it, it will be a cliched fairy tale ending in one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Starkz said:

Viserys never choose Dany to be his heir which you said he did. Furthermore as I’ve already said Viserys wouldn’t want Dany to be his heir.

He must have, or else she wouldn't have been seen and styled as his heir. She even makes it very clear that she was Viserys' heir after the man dies and she takes the style of Queen. What you think Viserys would have wanted does not reflect on what Viserys actually did.

Viserys certainly could have said his sister was not his heir, even more so now that he married her to some barbarian, but he never did that. Even Robert's gang sees Dany as Viserys' heir considering they fear that a son of Dany's and Drogo's would have the claim allowing him to invade Westeros.

The idea that hidden princes of questionable identity and parentage - princes who are supposed to be dead or not even exist - will have a chance to challenge Dany's claim on a legal basis the way Baelon/Viserys I won against Rhaenys/Laenor, or the way Aegon II challenged Rhaenyra is very far-fetched, considering that they start from completely different points.

The princes challenging their female (line) rivals were born and raised and seen as princes. Aegon and Jon Snow are not.

If Aegon has success then not against Daenerys and her dragons but in absence of them. He invades at a time when there are no other Targaryens but him making their claim in Westeros. At a time when - as might turn out - people desperately want a Targaryen to come back and claim the throne because they are the glorious and peaceful past. The claim of an absent woman is easily dismissed or ignored, unlike an actual present female dragonrider, and one who actually brought the dragons back into the world.

And as the belief in Aegon's fairy-tale story crumbles - that he is Rhaegar's son - the support for Dany might swell.

If she ever has a proper coronation and anointing in KL - which she might have - then her queenship is never going to be taken away from her. Regardless what Jon Snow's parentage is. Unless, of course, she were defeated in battle and imprisoned and deposed/killed by an army led by him.

And considering Dany is actually a woman the solution for the Jon Snow situation could actually be a marriage there. There is no reason for them to fight, especially not if they fall in love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He must have, or else she wouldn't have been seen and styled as his heir. She even makes it very clear that she was Viserys' heir after the man dies and she takes the style of Queen. What you think Viserys would have wanted does not reflect on what Viserys actually did.

Viserys certainly could have said his sister was not his heir, even more so now that he married her to some barbarian, but he never did that. Even Robert's gang sees Dany as Viserys' heir considering they fear that a son of Dany's and Drogo's would have the claim allowing him to invade Westeros.

The idea that hidden princes of questionable identity and parentage - princes who are supposed to be dead or not even exist - will have a chance to challenge Dany's claim on a legal basis the way Baelon/Viserys I won against Rhaenys/Laenor, or the way Aegon II challenged Rhaenyra is very far-fetched, considering that they start from completely different points.

The princes challenging their female (line) rivals were born and raised and seen as princes. Aegon and Jon Snow are not.

If Aegon has success then not against Daenerys and her dragons but in absence of them. He invades at a time when there are no other Targaryens but him making their claim in Westeros. At a time when - as might turn out - people desperately want a Targaryen to come back and claim the throne because they are the glorious and peaceful past. The claim of an absent woman is easily dismissed or ignored, unlike an actual present female dragonrider, and one who actually brought the dragons back into the world.

And as the belief in Aegon's fairy-tale story crumbles - that he is Rhaegar's son - the support for Dany might swell.

If she ever has a proper coronation and anointing in KL - which she might have - then her queenship is never going to be taken away from her. Regardless what Jon Snow's parentage is. Unless, of course, she were defeated in battle and imprisoned and deposed/killed by an army led by him.

And considering Dany is actually a woman the solution for the Jon Snow situation could actually be a marriage there. There is no reason for them to fight, especially not if they fall in love.

Dany was never seen as or styled as Viserys heir. Dany being Viserys heir only has to do with the fact that she’s supposedly the last Targaryen, which isn’t true because Aegon is still alive. The only reason Dany is seen as Viserys heir is because there is no one else, which will soon change when Aegon starts making progress. Aegon is already accepted by Dorne and the rest of the 7K will recognize him as being the Targaryen heir. Also no one is reminiscing over the Targaryens or wanting one the memory of the Mad King is still fresh in everyone’s mind. Dany is just Mad King 2.0 whereas Aegon will be the son of the last dragon Rhaegar it’s easy to see how the 7K and it’s people would support Aegon over Dany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Starkz said:

When did Viserys choose Dany to be his heir? I really doubt Viserys would want Dany to be his heir especially after what happened to him.

King Viserys III sure as hell would not want a Half-Stark to inherit his throne!  No matter what happened between them, King Viserys III would choose his little sister to inherit before any Half-Stark.  The Starks are their enemies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

King Viserys III sure as hell would not want a Half-Stark to inherit his throne!  No matter what happened between them, King Viserys III would choose his little sister to inherit before any Half-Stark.  The Starks are their enemies.  

Ok... kind of an off-topic comment you just made. Aegon is the rightful heir which I’ve been saying not any half breed. The last person Viserys would want on the Throne is Dany. She signed off on his death and is responsible for it. If it came down to it I bet Viserys would choose a Half Stark Half Targ over Dany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Starkz said:

Dany was never seen as or styled as Viserys heir. Dany being Viserys heir only has to do with the fact that she’s supposedly the last Targaryen, which isn’t true because Aegon is still alive. The only reason Dany is seen as Viserys heir is because there is no one else,

Dude, it can’t be both either you think Daenerys was seen as Viserys heir or was never seen as his heir.

23 hours ago, Starkz said:

Aegon is already accepted by Dorne and the rest of the 7K will recognize him as being the Targaryen heir. Also no one is reminiscing over the Targaryens or wanting one the memory of the Mad King is still fresh in everyone’s mind. Dany is just Mad King 2.0 whereas Aegon will be the son of the last dragon Rhaegar it’s easy to see how the 7K and it’s people would support Aegon over Dany.

No Aegon isn’t accepted by Dorne. Literally Doran himself hasn’t actually met or even seen this boy claiming to be his long dead nephew. Aegon’s story is not new. It’s really rather common for supposed secret  princes come out spontaneously, after their alleged father’s death. It’d be idiotic for everyone to just accept him as legit just because he says so. Especially it’s in their interest not to-House Lannister, House Baratheon, and House Tyrell do not stand to benefit Aegon’s claim to be true. Aegon needs his supposed Aunt’s backing if the idea of him being the real deal is going to be seen by most to be true. Daenerys has dragons. People know she’s Targyen and so far as she’s done nothing to which would get her to which could be qualified as Aerys. Yes, she crucified literal slavers. The land she’s seeking to rule cuts people’s body parts off for thievery. Jaerrys Targyen, who is generally  seen as magnanimous, castrated one of his Kingsguard for failing to be celibate and was prepared to enact a tortuous death upon a man who had lain with one of his daughters unless that man fought him Jaerys to the death. Aegon III(well his lord regent and hand but still no one called this moment proof of Aegon being mad or evil) saw hundreds of traitors burned at the stake. But oh no, Daenerys crucified some slavers and even had her dragon burn one for their blantant rebellion(which would be so much worse than killing a child for his or her parents rebellion). Really she is too barabaric for the seven kingdom lol. 

And sure there are people remisicing over the Targyens. Arya sees an old man do so at Harrenhal-not surprising given, that Aerys reign was largely one where the realm prospered(yes mostly due to Tywin but for many of the common folk they would not know that-all they would see is that the country was better when the Targyen’s were in charge) when the , and even Robert  knew there were plenty Targyen loyalists in the realm. Plenty of people still see them as the rightful rulers of the realm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dude, it can’t be both either you think Daenerys was seen as Viserys heir or was never seen as his heir.

No Aegon isn’t accepted by Dorne. Literally Doran himself hasn’t actually met or even seen this boy claiming to be his long dead nephew. Aegon’s story is not new. It’s really rather common for supposed secret  princes come out spontaneously, after their alleged father’s death. It’d be idiotic for everyone to just accept him as legit just because he says so. Especially it’s in their interest not to-House Lannister, House Baratheon, and House Tyrell do not stand to benefit Aegon’s claim to be true. Aegon needs his supposed Aunt’s backing if the idea of him being the real deal is going to be seen by most to be true. Daenerys has dragons. People know she’s Targyen and so far as she’s done nothing to which would get her to which could be qualified as Aerys. Yes, she crucified literal slavers. The land she’s seeking to rule cuts people’s body parts off for thievery. Jaerrys Targyen, who is generally  seen as magnanimous, castrated one of his Kingsguard for failing to be celibate and was prepared to enact a tortuous death upon a man who had lain with one of his daughters unless that man fought him Jaerys to the death. Aegon III(well his lord regent and hand but still no one called this moment proof of Aegon being mad or evil) saw hundreds of traitors burned at the stake. But oh no, Daenerys crucified some slavers and even had her dragon burn one for their blantant rebellion(which would be so much worse than killing a child for his or her parents rebellion). Really she is too barabaric for the seven kingdom lol. 

And sure there are people remisicing over the Targyens. Arya sees an old man do so at Harrenhal-not surprising given, that Aerys reign was largely one where the realm prospered(yes mostly due to Tywin but for many of the common folk they would not know that-all they would see is that the country was better when the Targyen’s were in charge) when the , and even Robert  knew there were plenty Targyen loyalists in the realm. Plenty of people still see them as the rightful rulers of the realm. 

I’m speaking from Dany’s perspective where she says she is the rightful Queen and what not just because she’s the last Targaryen. Dany is not Viserys heir but she believes herself to be the rightful Queen because she’s supposedly the last Targaryen. Dany burns people, crucifies people and tortures children, any one of those things is enough to deduce that she is like Aerys.  Quoting other Targaryens doing barbaric things to rationalize and downplay the inhuman acts Dany has done is pathetic. It doesn’t work like that. Every Lord knows how great Tywin was, even the ones who despise him must know and it’s the Lords who’s opinions matter the most not peasants. Aegon is the man the 7K needs and will accept. Dany will need to either try to marry him or follow under him if she wishes to be in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2018 at 7:28 PM, Starkz said:

Dany was never seen as or styled as Viserys heir. Dany being Viserys heir only has to do with the fact that she’s supposedly the last Targaryen, which isn’t true because Aegon is still alive. The only reason Dany is seen as Viserys heir is because there is no one else, which will soon change when Aegon starts making progress. Aegon is already accepted by Dorne and the rest of the 7K will recognize him as being the Targaryen heir. Also no one is reminiscing over the Targaryens or wanting one the memory of the Mad King is still fresh in everyone’s mind. Dany is just Mad King 2.0 whereas Aegon will be the son of the last dragon Rhaegar it’s easy to see how the 7K and it’s people would support Aegon over Dany.

LOL, what makes you think Viserys III would give a rat's ass about some nephew he thought was dead? A nephew he may not actually believe is his nephew.

Eventually, Dany will cast down Aegon, and when that happens the claim of Rhaegar's son will go down the toilet, too. Dany may destroy Aegon actually believing he is her brother's son - or not really caring whether that story is true or not.

Chances are very low she would just handing Westeros and the Iron Throne to Aegon - even if she knew for a fact that he was her brother's son. And the same goes for 'Jon Snow'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2018 at 11:29 PM, Starkz said:

Viserys never choose Dany to be his heir which you said he did. Furthermore as I’ve already said Viserys wouldn’t want Dany to be his heir.

Oh yes he would.  Daenerys already told us.  She is the heir to King Viserys, the third of His name.  Viserys is the one who was formally crowned.  Rhaegar was not.  Rhaegar never even got close to the crown.  That's probably why he wanted to call a Great Council.  He was smarting because his father disinherited him.   Which is totally understandable if we buy into your theory of R + L = J why Aerys would disinherit his son for such an irresponsible behavior.   

If you want to take road, very well.  I can tell you, King Aerys II and his successor, King Viserys III will never allow the child of Lyanna Stark to inherit their kingdom.  You might recall, King Aerys II thought of the Starks as traitors to the crown.  

This discussion is only relevant if Jon is the son of Rhaegar.  There is still the problem of bastardry even if this should prove true.  The dark pall of Jon's treason at the Wall also hangs over his head.  I can't see anybody trusting Jon after that.  There are way too many hurdles for Longface and there are more logical choices besides.  Daenerys has people she can leave behind to rule Westeros before she goes back to Meereen.  Aegon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Starkz said:

Dany burns people, crucifies people and tortures children, any one of those things is enough to deduce that she is like Aerys. 

She  is publicly known to have  burned slavers with her dragons. Enough to deduce she’s like plenty of Targyen monarchs. Might as well say Aerys was like Aegon I. They  both burned people, that’s enough right? Carbon copies. Jk.

She crucified slavers as well. So far as I’m aware Aerys never did that-he did order the gruesome some executions of people. But then again I’m sure most people in the seven kingdoms are not going to horrified the people guilty of one of the worst sins imaginable even in their culture met such grizzly end. She did have the shopkeeper’s daughters be tortured to see what they knew about the Harpy-which in truth was probably nothing.  Not good. But I wager most people tortured in the seven kingdoms don’t deserve such suffering. Yet even Stannis’ camp(a man who prides himself on being just), enough young women wind up in the hands of his torturers to satisfy one sociopath’s sadism.She’s not particularly worse than most in her context given some of the people who were tortured by her people weren’t guilty of anything.  You can deduce she’s as bad or good as the typical person of her position. Using torture is an accepted way to gather information.  Put her actions into the context of the world she’s in and they aren’t exceptionally bad. 

2 hours ago, Starkz said:

IQuoting other Targaryens doing barbaric things to rationalize and downplay the inhuman acts Dany has done is pathetic. It doesn’t work like that. 

My point is what Daenerys’ actions are not likely going to be seen as exceptionally bad for a Targren Monarch. Her actions simply aren’t. Aegon III wasn’t called mad or evil for the hundreds that were burned while he was king. Jaerys wasn’t seen a monster for gelding his lusty Kingsguard. There’s no reason to think Daenerys’ actions so far will considered too humane. You act as though the 7 kingdoms must be sickened at what Daenerys has done just because you don’t think what she did moral. Again the country Daenerys seeks to rule,  views it morally acceptable for people to lose body parts over stealing. It’s country  where a man could beat his wife to death for cheating on him so long as he only hits her six times(because anymore  ould displease the gods).  

Pretending the people of the seven kingdoms will be so aghast at tales of Daenerys burning people with dragons(as if Targyens have never done that before), torturing people(as if Torture isn’t an accepted way to gather info), giving a brutal death to people guilty of one of the worst crimes(slavery), that they would see her as revolting is ridiculous. The seven kingdoms accepts actions just as bad and even worse as being totally fine. 

It’s like pretending a person who publicly punched a black lady for being black  in the 1920s has little chance of winning an election in Mississippi, because of his racially charged assault of that woman. 

Its wiseful. 

2 hours ago, Starkz said:

Every Lord knows how great Tywin was, even the ones who despise him must know and it’s the Lords who’s opinion who’s opinions matter the most not peasants. Aegon is the man the 7K needs and will accept. Dany will need to either try to marry him or follow under him if she wishes to be in Westeros.

First, glad you concede there are people reminiscing of Aerys’ reign.  Do you also concede Dorne hasn’t accepted Aegon as of yet? And Second, Aegon is only seen as being a contender for the throne by virtue of supposedly being a Targyen prince. Because there are still plenty of Targyen loyalists. People who do see them as the rightful rulers of the country. If Daenerys(who people know is legit) says he(like so many other supposed “secret” princes), is a fraud, than a large retinue of any of the support he gains dissipates. He needs her dragons as well recognition. Saying  Aegon is  the man Westeros needs is presumptive. He is not portrayed as especially  just, honorable, or even  kind. He has expressed no real interest in any sort of social justice or thinks there’s some existential threat brewing in Westeros. He just wants the throne because he believes its his right. He’s shown not to be a very bad or very good good. He’s portrayed to be a pretty normal teenager given his background and context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, what makes you think Viserys III would give a rat's ass about some nephew he thought was dead? A nephew he may not actually believe is his nephew.

Eventually, Dany will cast down Aegon, and when that happens the claim of Rhaegar's son will go down the toilet, too. Dany may destroy Aegon actually believing he is her brother's son - or not really caring whether that story is true or not.

Chances are very low she would just handing Westeros and the Iron Throne to Aegon - even if she knew for a fact that he was her brother's son. And the same goes for 'Jon Snow'.

Viserys wouldn’t care, but he would definitely choose Aegon over Dany if given the choice. Dany will need to align with Aegon or she’ll be seen the same as the “Usurper dogs” she so fondly recalls. The IT is rightfully Aegons, not hers. Also Jon Snow isn’t even in contention for the IT. The IT is Aegons, not Dany or Jon’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Oh yes he would.  Daenerys already told us.  She is the heir to King Viserys, the third of His name.  Viserys is the one who was formally crowned.  Rhaegar was not.  Rhaegar never even got close to the crown.  That's probably why he wanted to call a Great Council.  He was smarting because his father disinherited him.   Which is totally understandable if we buy into your theory of R + L = J why Aerys would disinherit his son for such an irresponsible behavior.   

If you want to take road, very well.  I can tell you, King Aerys II and his successor, King Viserys III will never allow the child of Lyanna Stark to inherit their kingdom.  You might recall, King Aerys II thought of the Starks as traitors to the crown.  

This discussion is only relevant if Jon is the son of Rhaegar.  There is still the problem of bastardry even if this should prove true.  The dark pall of Jon's treason at the Wall also hangs over his head.  I can't see anybody trusting Jon after that.  There are way too many hurdles for Longface and there are more logical choices besides.  Daenerys has people she can leave behind to rule Westeros before she goes back to Meereen.  Aegon.  

I’ve been saying Aegon.. not Jon. Dany only says she is Viserys heir because all other Targaryens are dead and there is no other option, supposedly. Viserys wouldn’t want Dany to be his heir. Had Rhaegar not died he could of been King. “My theory” of R+L = J I’ve never even said that and Jon’s parentage doesn’t matter. Jon isn’t in contention for the IT or wants it. I’ve been saying Aegon should and will be on the IT.. not Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She  is publicly known to have  burned slavers with her dragons. Enough to deduce she’s like plenty of Targyen monarchs. Might as well say Aerys was like Aegon I. They  both burned people, that’s enough right? Carbon copies. Jk.

She crucified slavers as well. So far as I’m aware Aerys never did that-he did order the gruesome some executions of people. But then again I’m sure most people in the seven kingdoms are not going to horrified the people guilty of one of the worst sins imaginable even in their culture met such grizzly end. She did have the shopkeeper’s daughters be tortured to see what they knew about the Harpy-which in truth was probably nothing.  Not good. But I wager most people tortured in the seven kingdoms don’t deserve such suffering. Yet even Stannis’ camp(a man who prides himself on being just), enough young women wind up in the hands of his torturers to satisfy one sociopath’s sadism.She’s not particularly worse than most in her context given some of the people who were tortured by her people weren’t guilty of anything.  You can deduce she’s as bad or good as the typical person of her position. Using torture is an accepted way to gather information.  Put her actions into the context of the world she’s in and they aren’t exceptionally bad. 

My point is what Daenerys’ actions are not likely going to be seen as exceptionally bad for a Targren Monarch. Her actions simply aren’t. Aegon III wasn’t called mad or evil for the hundreds that were burned while he was king. Jaerys wasn’t seen a monster for gelding his lusty Kingsguard. There’s no reason to think Daenerys’ actions so far will considered too humane. You act as though the 7 kingdoms must be sickened at what Daenerys has done just because you don’t think what she did moral. Again the country Daenerys seeks to rule,  views it morally acceptable for people to lose body parts over stealing. It’s country  where a man could beat his wife to death for cheating on him so long as he only hits her six times(because anymore  ould displease the gods).  

Pretending the people of the seven kingdoms will be so aghast at tales of Daenerys burning people with dragons(as if Targyens have never done that before), torturing people(as if Torture isn’t an accepted way to gather info), giving a brutal death to people guilty of one of the worst crimes(slavery), that they would see her as revolting is ridiculous. The seven kingdoms accepts actions just as bad and even worse as being totally fine. 

It’s like pretending a person who publicly punched a black lady for being black  in the 1920s has little chance of winning an election in Mississippi, because of his racially charged assault of that woman. 

Its wiseful. 

 

 

First, glad you concede there are people reminiscing of Aerys’ reign.  Do you also concede Dorne hasn’t accepted Aegon as of yet? And Second, Aegon is only seen as being a contender for the throne by virtue of supposedly being a Targyen prince. Because there are still plenty of Targyen loyalists. People who do see them as the rightful rulers of the country. If Daenerys(who people know is legit) says he(like so many other supposed “secret” princes), is a fraud, than a large retinue of any of the support he gains dissipates. He needs her dragons as well recognition. Saying  Aegon is  the man Westeros needs is presumptive. He is not portrayed as especially  just, honorable, or even  kind. He has expressed no real interest in any sort of social justice or thinks there’s some existential threat brewing in Westeros. He just wants the throne because he believes its his right. He’s shown not to be a very bad or very good good. He’s portrayed to be a pretty normal teenager given his background and context.

In regards to the first part, what I’ve listed are the propaganda/obstacles Dany will face when trying to garner support and rule. All of the bad things Dany has done will be used against her and people undoubtedly through the use of propaganda will draw parallels to the Mad King whereas Aegon faces none of these problems making him a much better candiadate on top of the fact of his father being Rhaegar.

 

With Aegons looks, family connection to Dorne and Varys wits + connections, it’s all but a done deal that Dorne will support Aegon. Dany has no way of knowing if Aegon is a fraud, which he’s not, and she’ll know as much when she meets him. Dany saying Aegon is fake would have no weight as she would have no proof and the Dornish and other will be supporting Aegon. Saying Aegon wants the Throne because it his right is the exact same mindset that Dany has. Dany will need to fall in line with Aegon or go back to Essos. Aegon is the rightful King, head of House Targaryen and TPTWP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Starkz said:

In regards to the first part, what I’ve listed are the propaganda/obstacles Dany will face when trying to garner support and rule

All of the bad things Dany has done will be used against her and people undoubtedly through the use of propaganda will draw parallels to the Mad King whereas Aegon faces none of these problems making him a much better candiadate on top of the fact of his father being Rhaegar.

No you've listed actions by Daenarys you find immoral and want to be things impair her ability to grab the throne. All the things you consider bad won't really be seen as such in a country where again where it's not controversial cut off body parts for stealing. No one cares about slavers getting burned and crucified. There will be plenty of slander, and talk of how she's unworthy(she did marry two foreign savages aNS she is a woman) for the throne from her opponents but, the things you've cited aren't going to be seen as persuasive-she burned people with dragons-plenty of Targyens burned people-her doing so, is not like to be seen as controversial in fact what the else would you do with dragons-torturing people for info-that too is acceptable in the seven kingdoms. These aren't going to be seen parallels to Aerys. Plenty of lords use torture and know Targyen monarchs who have dragons often use dragons to burn things

And, no, Aegon does not get to avoid rumors of him being bad-House Baratheon, House Lannister, and House greyjoy do not stand to benefit from him being seen as legit or seen as the one who should be one to hold the throne. 

He is the grandson of Aerys. His relation being slightly more distant to the man doesn't mean people can't manufacture parred where there really aren't.

7 hours ago, Starkz said:

 

 

With Aegons looks, family connection to Dorne and Varys wits + connections, it’s all but a done deal that Dorne will support Aegon.

Glad to see you concede you were wrong in Dorne having already accepted  aegon.. But family connection, and the pale hair and purple eyes were never exclusive to the Targynes-hell some places they are pretty common. Doran has if nothing else to be cautious. It's a real possibility he will be hesitant to throw his support behind whose story, isn't really original-again there have been plenty of secret, princes that have sprouted out through out the years. He doesn't want thousands of his people to die needlessly if the boy is a pretender. 

7 hours ago, Starkz said:

 Dany has no way of knowing if Aegon is a fraud, which he’s not, and she’ll know as much when she meets him. Dany saying Aegon is fake would have no weight as she would have no proof and the Dornish and other will be supporting Aegon. Saying Aegon wants the Throne because it his right is the exact same mindset that Dany has. Dany will need to fall in line with Aegon or go back to Essos. Aegon is the rightful King, head of House Targaryen and TPTWP.

She'll know nothing other than he looks like the typical boy from Lys. The Targyen look was again not really exclusive to them. And that he can act like nobility.  Aegon has no real proof is in fact Aegon son of Rheagar. He could be. He could easily be another fake. Only Varys can honestly be said to know for sure. He's after all propped up seemingly out of no where. People a would be unwise to to just believe him without question.Doran may buy his story. Though I think its a possible he greets Aegon with suspicion rather than unquestioning acceptance. Daenarys too may buy it. Because she'd want to be true. It'd be nice for the Targyens to be able to continue once she's gone. But Plenty of the great houses won't. Either because they don't stand to benefit and/or they don't buy the story that he is putting forth. Having Daenarys(the person until Aegon appeared who everyone thought was the last Targyen and the Targen to have brought back the dragons), say the boy is an imposter will make those same houses more resolved not to support him and likely cause many of his supporters to start wondering about the fanciful story Aegon is telling. You think Stannis and his followers are going just to bow down for Aegon? That Euron and the ironborn are certianly going to opt for the Aegon rather than  continue to try to go for the woman with the dragons? It's not a given Aegon will be accepted as King. 

And he has the same exact mindset most people trying to rule have. Ned Stark(a genuinely exceptionally honorable and good man), rules with the idea of that being right because of the place he had in his family.   simply isn't shown to be special in regards for his motives for trying to become a king. He himself has of yet to show have done anything  to say he out of people needs to be on throne. Or he is definitely the one who will save the world. Like he's not portrayed in ADWD as being especially heroic. He could be tpwp. Or he could die a lonesome death having never come close to his goal of being king. Don't pretend he has legit been confirmed tpwp. He may be he may not be. but you don't know. You suspect. You believe. But you don't know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...