Jump to content

Why does every character hate Daenerys?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Surely that ship has well and truly sailed? Why would Jon even think that him being Rhegars son would be a problem if they married? Why would Dany?

They wouldn't? On the contrary, Jon being Rhaegars son would, given time, make him more appealing to Daenerys, not less. 

1 minute ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Them marrying and becoming King and Queen was clearly on the cards enough to be remarked on by the lonely old men. Yet, now they are revealed as related both seem to have written the idea off entirely.

They've written off an idea that they've... never spoken about themselves in the first place? How does that work.
We've only seen other characters talk about an eventual marriage between them, but we've yet to see Jon and Daenerys speak about it themselves. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

She should be super happy that she is not the last Targaryen, that a man who she likes and respect, who she says she loves, an honest good man, is her FAMILY, that she is not alone in the world after all, that after all the suffering, exile, abuse she suffered, being orphaned just since her birth, and having to endure that the one who should have cared for her the most, her own brother, was another abuser who sold her.  after ALL THAT, she finds out that JON is her family, Jon is HOME. And the first thing that crossed her mind is, that if this is true, he can damage her claim to the throne?? 

Re-watch the scene from the crypts. Despite her verbally going all "but muh throne", when the horns blow and Jon looks away, there's not a hint of anger in her eyes as she gazes on him.

She looks puzzled, sad and possibly even a little elated.
But not angry.

Unless she dies in the next episode (highly unlikely), she'll come around to see it the way you (and I, I've said the same thing about how she "should" feel on numerous occasions) said she would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

None of the people who have not yet seen the Undead are able to grasp the real dimension of what is coming, and the Northen people have not seen them. Northen independence is a very valid concern for a Northen leader, altough it comes second to Northen survival. In addition, the Lannisters actually responsible of the major offenses to the Starks (Joffrey of murdering Ned and Tywin of the Red Wedding) are dead already. And they ARE interested in beating Cercei, she is in Arya's list, and Sansa in season 7 told Jon that he was too worried about the threat coming from the North and neglecting the threat from the South. 

The Northen commonfolk reaction when they saw the dragons shows enough intimidation. And all the people who have seen them in action are equally intimidated, Tyrion,  Jaime and the Lannister soldiers included. 

Northen Lords DO HAVE a choice, if the choice is to bend the knee or die, they would most likely bend the knee, but they would know that Danaerys is the same trash her father was, they won't ever accetp her in their hearts, and even less will love her, But this is not the choice Danaerys is giving them now, did not she say "I'm not coming to conquer the North, I'm coming to save the North" to Jon? The choice the Northen Lords are given now is to voice/not voice their disagreement with their elected king's decision. 

No, they are completely different things. Janos Slynt was a sworn brother of the Night's Watch, a military order, who refused to take orders from his rightful commander and defied him in public. And the Night's Watch is the last step for criminals of Westeros, even for the worst of crimes, they have the option to the Night's Watch to avoid execution.

The Tarlys were Dany's prisoners, they were at opposites sides in a war between Houses for the Throne. They never swore any allegiance to Dany, and owe her nothing. She is not a queen, but a claimant to a Throne that actually has other occupant now. When she sits on that Throne, if she ever does, then would be another thing. 

This current situation is actually comparable to Robert's rebellion, with a monarch sitting on the Throne, and another claimant fighting him. What did Robert do with the enemies he had beaten in battle? Obviously, he did not kill them. There would be no Tarlys if he did, because the Tarlys fought in the Targaryen side in that war, alongside the Tyrells and many other houses throughout the Seven Kingdoms, with several of them choosing sides differently than their liege lords. 

Oh, come on. What the Stark soldiers did was not sanctioned by Robb, and he would have punished that severely. That's the point, that the person in charge,  orders to kill an unarmed prisoner, or abuse his/her power,  or not. I also hope that if the Dothraki do something alike (it's their way after all) , Dany punishes them with the same severity.

Sansa killed her abuser, that was personal. Arya the same, she might be a killer, but she refuse to kill innocents, that's the main reason she never could have been a true faceless man. She wants to kill everyone who wronged her and her family. It is personal too.

True, But if she had continued her campaign in the south, she would have to face the AotD in the South, completely unprepared and without any idea on how to beat it. She would be queen of nothing, so she being north is actually in her best interest. 

I find your wording curious, why "rob the throne off her"? The whole point is that it's not actualle HERS, isn't it? She thinks the throne is her birthright ("I was born to rule the Seven Kingdoms" "I want to recover what was robbed from my family", etc), but it isn't. She not only IS NOT the last Targaryen, she is not even the head of her own House.  And Sam just thinks that Jon would be a better ruler, so he's acting in consequence. It's not about fulfilling Dany's wishes (or Jon's wishes, for that matter), it's about who is the best for the people for Sam.

I agree with this actually. It's been clear through the whole story that the North can really be on its own no matter who sits on the Iron Throne. In the books Ned actually considered himself  "king in everything but name", and when he arrives to King's Landing  has to remind himself constantly that here he is not above others. 

The Vale and the Northen people who were present in Littlefinger's trial seemed to accept Bran's word pefectly. He has an unique way of convincing people that what he says is the truth, just by saying some words he makes you realize that ke knows things you thought were only known by you,  so I think it will be taken seriously by the people that matters: Jon, his Stark family and allies,  Tyrion, Jaime, etc. What the common people would think depends on other things, mostly the outcome of the Great War.

Again, I find curious your wording. You can't take from Dany what is hers. Hers are the armies she brought to Westeros, hers are  the Dragons. The throne is not hers, not yet. And why not getting the throne will ruin her life? If that's the case, it would show that her priorities are all wrong. She should be super happy that she is not the last Targaryen, that a man who she likes and respect, who she says she loves, an honest good man, is her FAMILY, that she is not alone in the world after all, that after all the suffering, exile, abuse she suffered, being orphaned just since her birth, and having to endure that the one who should have cared for her the most, her own brother, was another abuser who sold her.  after ALL THAT, she finds out that JON is her family, Jon is HOME. And the first thing that crossed her mind is, that if this is true, he can damage her claim to the throne?? 

 

Her entire arc has been building towards the throne. His has been that he beats the Night King and saves the world. To suddenly turn around and make Jon King would make Danys storyline entirely irrelevant. She simply existed to provide muscle for the Starks to beat the Undead. Her story simply to prop Jon on the throne. You would have been able to write the story without her and that would be a massively underwhelming resolution for her story after 8 seasons to either:

A) Abdicate the throne because Jon has a penis and go back to Essos

B - Become his lackey and continue to prop him up as King. 

C - Get stabbed by Arya in a coup.

Dany has earned the right to be ruler of Westeros. Jon has not. Jon got his mentor killed. He lost the Battle of the Bastards until Sansa saved him. He managed to get one of Danys dragons killed rather than just killing the Night King on the spot. He got to watch as the Wildlings got slaughtered at Hardholme because he couldn’t save them. He got himself outplayed and murdered. He has done absolutely nothing good beyond swinging the Valyrian steel sword he never deserved. Other characters keep telling us how amazing he is but he hasn’t actually done anything to warrant it. Now they say that he’s Rhaegars son (would you believe the Aragon cline is actually the King!) and Iam expected to want him on the Iron Throne instead of Danny? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

They wouldn't? On the contrary, Jon being Rhaegars son would, given time, make him more appealing to Daenerys, not less. 

They've written off an idea that they've... never spoken about themselves in the first place? How does that work.
We've only seen other characters talk about an eventual marriage between them, but we've yet to see Jon and Daenerys speak about it themselves. 
 

 

I don’t think they need to. She lets him ride a dragon. They fly up and say “we could live here for a thousand years”. They’re  clearly are deeply in love with each other so marriage is on the table even if it’s not being stated. They’re a couple.

Dany would have no reason to be angry if she thought their relationship would continue. She would still be Queen if she married Jon. Clearly, she’s worried that won’t happen. Clearly Jon think that him being King is mutually exclusive to her being Queen. So I can infer without them saying “oh god I had sex with my aunt!” Which would kind of ruin an otherwise serious conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Re-watch the scene from the crypts. Despite her verbally going all "but muh throne", when the horns blow and Jon looks away, there's not a hint of anger in her eyes as she gazes on him.

She looks puzzled, sad and possibly even a little elated.
But not angry.

Unless she dies in the next episode (highly unlikely), she'll come around to see it the way you (and I, I've said the same thing about how she "should" feel on numerous occasions) said she would.

She won't die, at least not in the Winterfell battle...

Spoiler

we saw them both in Dragonstone in one of the trailers; perhaps HBO didn't have the purpose of viewers noting that this was Dragonstone, so I put it within a spoiler alert.  

I agree she looks puzzled and sad,not angry. Actually, I thought that she was going to burst into tears. I also get the shock and initial disbelief, that's not different from Jon's initial reaction, after all this is something too big, too game changing, both at personal and political level.

This is when we'll see who Danaerys really is, her attitude after he has had some time will show us. I hope to see the good hearted person, not the mad queen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

She won't die, at least not in the Winterfell battle...

  Reveal hidden contents

we saw them both in Dragonstone in one of the trailers; perhaps HBO didn't have the purpose of viewers noting that this was Dragonstone, so I put it within a spoiler alert.  

 

Aye I'm aware of that, but I don't trust it until I see it. :P
HBO loves their fake-outs.

Quote

I agree she looks puzzled and sad,not angry. Actually, I thought that she was going to burst into tears. I also get the shock and initial disbelief, that's not different from Jon's initial reaction, after all this is something too big, too game changing, both at personal and political level.

This is when we'll see who Danaerys really is, her attitude after he has had some time will show us. I hope to see the good hearted person, not the mad queen. 

Bingo. 
Her life-long ambition is, according to her own rules, threatened by a man she loves. 
She is surrounded by people who dislike her, but who aren't her enemies.
All of her advisers and friends, especially her oldest one (Jorah) have a large chance of dying in the coming battle, and most of them probably will. 

Once the dust has settled, we'll see who she really is:
The power-hungry, ruthless, callous daughter of the mad king who burns people alive
- or - 
The compassionate, good-hearted woman who plays with children and care about peoples well being. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Risto said:

1. Medieval society with lack of cultural mixing.

2. Robert's fear of Dothraki in Season 1

3. Tyrion anticipating Dany having the problems in ruling Westeros with foreign army.

4. Randyll Tarly and Reach lords turning their backs on Tyrells because of that.

5. Targaryen crimes against Northern and Vale houses.

I mean, ignoring a mountain of issues Northerners have with Dany is one way to do so. Jon certainly has done so in order to save them all. But those cultural differences in medieval mindset are not to be easily overcome.

Sansa was stoic and cold, yes. She had every reason to be so. For all she knows, Dany is like her father and has far worse weapons to destroy them than Cersei. Sansa got to know her and then apologized. Which is a normal thing.

I have to say that it is funny that no one actually questioned Jon last season when he was distrustful of Dany, now that others are, they are all idiots. 


1.Agree, but ignorance isn't an excuse for them.

2.Robert hates and feared Targaryen. He knew dothraki just from what he heard.

3.Tyrion has become headless since he was named Dany's hand.

4.Because of what? They chose Cersei because she killed a whole family and even her uncle? Because Lannisters tore apart Riverlands? Or because Cersei named a traitor and a kingslayer as Warden of the North? 

5.Northerners also can blame Brandon hothead or Lord Rickard arrogance. They know that Aerys was Mad.

It seems like they did not have had these issues with Boltons who murdered their king and skinned on one them. They all bend the knee.

Starks, Arryns, Tullys, Lannisters, Baratheons they all were traitors.  All have sworn allegiance to Targaryens and they broke their oath.  And they don't even have managed to put on the throne a good king.

I really don't understant. When he was distrustful of Dany? Maybe I don't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, loverofcats said:

Starks, Arryns, Tullys, Lannisters, Baratheons they all were traitors.  All have sworn allegiance to Targaryens and they broke their oath.  And they don't even have managed to put on the throne a good king.

Yeah, maybe Jon Arryn should have murdered two teenage boys under his charge at the command of Aerys.

What a flamin' bunch of horseshit.

 

Quote

5.Northerners also can blame Brandon hothead or Lord Rickard arrogance. They know that Aerys was Mad..

Yeah, lets completely exonerate Aerys here. Good job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

4.Because of what? They chose Cersei because she killed a whole family and even her uncle? Because Lannisters tore apart Riverlands? Or because Cersei named a traitor and a kingslayer as Warden of the North? 

Because for them, Cersei is a lesser evil. Like Lord Royce said in Season 7 "I remember Mad King all too well" Mad King, without a personal army of 11000 men and two full dragons managed to do atrocious things. Naturally, the fear of Dany being like his is very realistic.

For Tarly and many other, that was war. We still have no idea what Dany's peace may be or how she will control Dothraki.

20 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

5.Northerners also can blame Brandon hothead or Lord Rickard arrogance. They know that Aerys was Mad.

Is that excuse? No, seriously. Rickard went there, showing loyalty. His King failed him. He killed him and his heir, with 200 men of North. So, don't give us "he was mad". For Northerners, Aerys was an enemy.

22 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

Starks, Arryns, Tullys, Lannisters, Baratheons they all were traitors.  All have sworn allegiance to Targaryens and they broke their oath.  And they don't even have managed to put on the throne a good king.

And they stopped being traitors once Aerys died. They didn't break their oaths, Aerys broke his. There was always a social contract. Aerys failed Westerosi and hurt them left and right. They did the only sensible thing - deposed him.

23 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

I really don't understant. When he was distrustful of Dany? Maybe I don't remember.

When they met. It wasn't until she saved them that he could put his kingdom into her hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Why do Sansa and Arya care about Northern independence? They should care about revenge on the Lannisters.

Why does anyone on earth care for freedom and independence? 

Sansa even bowed to her, but knows how the Northerners thinks. That's all she explains to Daenerys. The North accepts Daenerys' help because they understood they need it. That doesn't mean they are happy with being subjected to her government.

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Why are the Northern Lords acting as if they have a choice in this? Daenerys has two dragons.

They do not fight against her, they accept her help. 

Knowing "to have no chance" is one of the worst ways to feel good about a new ruler (or boss, or whatever). Get logical here!

They are between a rock and a hard thing here and have to live with it. But they don't have to be happy with it.

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Sam is completely overlooking Jon chopping off Janos Slynts head after he refused to follow orders. How is this different than Tarly not bending the knee and choosing a violent option? It isn’t.

It's entirely different. Open mutiny and disobeying your own oath and commander is different to being a prisoner of war. Get real, think of nowadays and how you think prisoners of war should be treated.

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

All the other characters keep pointing out how violent and cruel Danny

Because she is. Daenerys is acting on the verge between Mad King and Saint. Absolutely weird, with an insane greed for power and the ruthlessness to accomplish it.

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Danny has sent her people and dragons north. She lost a dragon saving Jons life. Danny did not need to do that.

Yes, and that's probably the point why she is accepted at all and not simply seen as usurper and enemy.

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Why is it taken for granted that Brans vision and Sams letter will be taken seriously?

It's not. Daenerys already questioned whether it is the truth and more discussions might follow. Obviously we as watchers know it is the truth.

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

You are about to be attacked by an army of the Undead and you are complaining that somebody brought an army and two dragons?

I believe no one is complaining about THAT at all. 

Some are complaining about Jon bending his knee. He could have gotten help without.

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

You are then conspiring to depose this person and ruin their life?

Who is?! Please elaborate on your "conspiration" idea. No one conspires at the moment.

21 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

But I do really think that none of the characters are being reasonable here. 

Who wants to be usurped or conquered or submitted or subjected to a new emporer?! By threat of dragons or death? Come one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, maybe Jon Arryn should have murdered two teenage boys under his charge at the bequest of Aerys.

What a flamin' bunch of horseshit.

 

Yeah, lets completely exonerate Aerys here. Good job.

No, they should name Viserys as King after Rebelion.

They challenged him. After all, mad or not, he was their king.

All what happened including the lie with the kidnapping makes me think that Aerys was not so mad. It was a plot against Targaryens and it was partially revealed in the fifth book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

No, they should name Viserys as King after Rebelion.

They challenged him. After all, mad or not, he was their king.

All what happened including the lie with the kidnapping makes me think that Aerys was not so mad. It was a plot against Targaryens and it was partially revealed in the fifth book. 

1. I don't see why they were under any particular duty to put Viserys on the throne.

2. Who gives a fuck if he was their king. He was a pycho and a madman and needed to go. You're getting into fascism territory here. Are you upset that Joffrey got wacked too?

3. And you are getting into wacko conspiracy theories here as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

No, they should name Viserys as King after Rebelion.

Pardon me... Correct me if I am wrong, Viserys was that enraged, spoiled, weakling who was threatening his sister that he would give her to 40 000 horses and screaming "blood of the dragon" every time he wouldn't get his way?

That was the solution to their problems? Oh, boy...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. I don't see why they were under any particular duty to put Viserys on the throne.

2. Who gives a fuck if he was their king. He was a pycho and a madman and needed to go. You're getting into fascism territory here. Are you upset that Joffrey got wacked too?

3. And you are getting into wacko conspiracy theories here as well.

1. Yes, they were after they have sworn loyalty to Targaryens
2. I didn't know that I'm a fascist. We are talking here of the medieval era.
3. Did you read what Maester Marwyn said to Sam?

 

17 minutes ago, Risto said:

Pardon me... Correct me if I am wrong, Viserys was that enraged, spoiled, weakling who was threatening his sister that he would give her to 40 000 horses and screaming "blood of the dragon" every time he wouldn't get his way?

That was the solution to their problems? Oh, boy...

 


The nobles of Westeros didn't know how it would have been Visery. We are talking here from their point of view. We know him, they not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Her entire arc has been building towards the throne. His has been that he beats the Night King and saves the world. To suddenly turn around and make Jon King would make Danys storyline entirely irrelevant. She simply existed to provide muscle for the Starks to beat the Undead. Her story simply to prop Jon on the throne. You would have been able to write the story without her and that would be a massively underwhelming resolution for her story after 8 seasons to either:

A) Abdicate the throne because Jon has a penis and go back to Essos

B - Become his lackey and continue to prop him up as King. 

C - Get stabbed by Arya in a coup.

Dany has earned the right to be ruler of Westeros. Jon has not. Jon got his mentor killed. He lost the Battle of the Bastards until Sansa saved him. He managed to get one of Danys dragons killed rather than just killing the Night King on the spot. He got to watch as the Wildlings got slaughtered at Hardholme because he couldn’t save them. He got himself outplayed and murdered. He has done absolutely nothing good beyond swinging the Valyrian steel sword he never deserved. Other characters keep telling us how amazing he is but he hasn’t actually done anything to warrant it. Now they say that he’s Rhaegars son (would you believe the Aragon cline is actually the King!) and Iam expected to want him on the Iron Throne instead of Danny? 

a) She has other options than adicate the throne to Jon and come back to Essos, or become a power hungry ready to go to war against Jon for the Iron Throne. And Jon wouldn't fight her, unless he comes to see her as a threat to the people. 

b) She should currently be focused on defeating the Night King, like Jon is. Everything else is secondary now. This is not "Jon's war", this is HER war if she considers herself the rightful ruler. The crown is a burden, not a right, you have obligations and duties to the people you want to rule, AFTER and only when they defeat the Night King, if they do, they should sit and talk what the best solution is. Marriage and ruling together would be a good one, they can balance each other.

c) Arya wouldn't do that, unless Dany become a threat to her family. 
She couldn't care less who sits on the Iron Throne, given they don't mess with her family.

Dany has not earned anything, not yet, not in Westeros.  Who mentor got Jon killed? Jon might have lost the Battle of the Bastardas, but won Winterfell. Neither Sansa nor the Vale knights breached into the castle, Wun Wun did, and he was there only because of Jon. Without him, Ramsay could have simply stayed inside and watch all the survivers perish of cold from the battlements, the Stark /Vale forces were not prepared for a long siege, and Ramsay was. He wasn't even worried when he went back to the castle, after losing the battle. 

He got to watch the wildlings get slaughtered, and got to save some of them too. And that allowed him to take the real measure of the danger they would all be facing. An awareness that none of the other leaders had, not Sansa, nor the Northen Lords, nor Sansa and certainly NOT Dany.

The Valyrian steel sword was given to him by his owner, who obviously thought he deserved it.

You are not expected to want anything, you can want whatever you prefer; and let others do the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“That’s treason...”

”It’s the truth”

A man offers up the notion that Dany should not be Queen and that he should be in charge. That’s pretty clearly a conspiracy. 

Sansa and co have been making rumblings that they’ll revolt the second the undead are dealt with. If she was resigned to the North being ruled then she wouldn’t be constantly sniping at Dany. When people are openly saying in front of Danys face that “Jon should be King of the North” that’s pretty conspiratorial. 

Plus Sansa and Arya have both given him the talk about remembering who his real family is. That’s pretty shifty language to be throwing around.

Jon telling Danny his parentage is the equivalent of Ned offering Cersei a way out. He would not have told her unless he had agreed with Sam. He could have easily just never told her and drifted apart if he didn’t intend to press a claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, loverofcats said:

The nobles of Westeros didn't know how it would have been Visery. We are talking here from their point of view. We know him, they not.

For nobles of Westeros, he was his father's son. And he proved them right.

1 minute ago, loverofcats said:

2. I didn't know that I'm a fascist. We are talking here of the medieval era.

And you fail to acknowledge the social contract between King and his subjects. Once King stops being in broadest way "good" and once his actions start to harm the subjects to the point it is against all the King's laws, then the King breaks the social contract and Lords are free of their oaths.

What Aerys did to the kingdom can't be justified. No one owed him loyalty and it is nonsensical to claim that people were traitors for saving their heads from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

a) She has other options than adicate the throne to Jon and come back to Essos, or become a power hungry ready to go to war against Jon for the Iron Throne. And Jon wouldn't fight her, unless he comes to see her as a threat to the people. 

b) She should currently be focused on defeating the Night King, like Jon is. Everything else is secondary now. This is not "Jon's war", this is HER war if she considers herself the rightful ruler. The crown is a burden, not a right, you have obligations and duties to the people you want to rule, AFTER and only when they defeat the Night King, if they do, they should sit and talk what the best solution is. Marriage and ruling together would be a good one, they can balance each other.

c) Arya wouldn't do that, unless Dany become a threat to her family. 
She couldn't care less who sits on the Iron Throne, given they don't mess with her family.

Dany has not earned anything, not yet, not in Westeros.  Who mentor got Jon killed? Jon might have lost the Battle of the Bastardas, but won Winterfell. Neither Sansa nor the Vale knights breached into the castle, Wun Wun did, and he was there only because of Jon. Without him, Ramsay could have simply stayed inside and watch all the survivers perish of cold from the battlements, the Stark /Vale forces were not prepared for a long siege, and Ramsay was. He wasn't even worried when he went back to the castle, after losing the battle. 

He got to watch the wildlings get slaughtered, and got to save some of them too. And that allowed him to take the real measure of the danger they would all be facing. An awareness that none of the other leaders had, not Sansa, nor the Northen Lords, nor Sansa and certainly NOT Dany.

The Valyrian steel sword was given to him by his owner, who obviously thought he deserved it.

You are not expected to want anything, you can want whatever you prefer; and let others do the same. 

 

In season 2 he gets the ranger training him captured and then ends up having to kill him. Basically because he let Ygritte go rather than kill her. 

No I disagree. They would try to sell this as her making a sacrifice and a magnanimous decision. That is an expectation that I like it. Jon gets to be King whilst Dany ends up wandering back to Essos. How is her going “well Iam a failure and would make a terrible Queen” a good story? She would not have got that far if she was a bad queen. Never mind him getting a left field power fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

1. Yes, they were after they have sworn loyalty to Targaryens

A loyalty that Aerys abused. He deserved no loyalty. Whatever loyalty the Targayens were owed, Aerys destroyed.

 

10 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

2. I didn't know that I'm a fascist. We are talking here of the medieval era.

And medieval monarchs were not generally understood to have absolute power. In theory, it was never understood that they could do whatever in the hell they pleased.

Don't you think it's lovely that Dany talks about breaking the wheel, but evidently, according to her fans, she should impose absolutism upon Westeros? I guess some people want to make Westeros safe for people like Joffrey. Good job, again!

12 minutes ago, loverofcats said:

Did you read what Maester Marwyn said to Sam?

Yep. And I still think you're getting into wackoville conspiracy theories here. There is plenty of evidence that Aerys was a full blown nutjob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...