If Dany becomes mad, it will cement the idea that all westerosi queens in their own right are unworthy.

[Nami]

46 minutes ago, divica said:

I think the problem is the way they are writing the story is sounding completly depressing. Nobody likes that. There are only 2 eps until the end and if Jon and Danny don t end up together where will be a bit of happiness in the story? 

With Sam? Because all other characters don t seem to have anything good coming to them...

I don't expect and never expected AT ALL for Dany and Jon to end up together. Actually, it's one thing I'm sure it won't happen in GRRM ending. I even expected Dany to die too (Nissa Nissa and Azor Ahai prophecy). I just don't buy her going insane in two episodes. 

[Hodor the Articulate]

56 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Asha.

...is a minor character not seeking the IT, and isn't written to been thematically linked to Cersei.

50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It depends what she does.  Burning the Red Keep as a last resort is a similar act of ruthlessness to Henry V refusing to allow starving women and children through his lines when he besieged Rouen.  He simply said "they are not there at my command".  He gave the defenders the option to surrender, and save their lives, and the lives of innocents, as Dany did.

Offering your enemy the chance to surrender, but killing them if they refuse, is honourable behaviour in a medieval context.  What would show Dany in a much worse light is if she carried out a mass slaughter that went beyond any needs of war.

I agree, but the show seems to be portraying it as unusual cruelty these two seasons.

[divica]

32 minutes ago, Nami said:

I don't expect and never expected AT ALL for Dany and Jon to end up together. Actually, it's one thing I'm sure it won't happen in GRRM ending. I even expected Dany to die too (Nissa Nissa and Azor Ahai prophecy). I just don't buy her going insane in two episodes. 

If I were you I wouldn t be so sure. If grrm wants the end to be realistic there will be a lot of mariages to forge alliances in the end. They ending together is very possible. They being in love long before their marriage is less probable. 

But the problem in the show isn t so much if they end up together. It is more that the way they are telling the story it looks so depressing... Honestly, if they end up separated where can you find a shred of happiness? In Sam's ending? The rest look so sad

[elanmorin]

3 hours ago, TwiceBorn said:

Please do!

The “Andal misconception” starts with Visenia, whom Aegon married for political reasons which made him co-ruler. His first son by Rhaenys - Aenys was heir apparent for 5 years before Maegor was born which created succession dispute. On Aenys coronation day (by Grand Maester and according to Andal law) Maegor was declared co-ruler, heir presumptive (prince of Dragonstone) and presented with Blackfyre, then he claimed Balerion. He was stripped of the titles (in favor of Aenys’ son) and banished when it became obvious that he wants the Visenia line to continue - on basis of Andal law and all in favor of Aenys MALE heir.

Aenys distrupted his daughter’s Rhaena claim by desperately marrying her to her younger brother - an attempt to repeat what his father has done. 

Maegor united the matrilinear claims when he married Rhaena but this ultimately ruined her popularity and forced her to pass the succession to Jaehaerys and not to her daughters!

Jaehaerys objected the idea of women on the Iron throne - which caused discord with his wife who thought otherwise.

The key idea here is that being considered king of Andals is not the same as being considered the head of the house.

Nowhere it's written that Aegon I married his elder sister Visenya out of "political convenience". On the contrary, he did so because that was Targaryen's custom ("Keep the blood of the dragon strong") and because of prophecy ("The dragon has 3 heads") although it's true he did not love Visenya like he loved Rhaenys.

The Andals were very much against incest and poligamy. This would bite the Targaryen in a short few years with the raise of the Faith Militant and with the Targaryens being branded as "abominations". For Aegon it would have been politically convenient not to marry his sisters, let alone both of them. Yet he did and he could do that without much repercussion because he had the strength to do as he pleased with 3 full grown dragons and the defeat or surrender of most of the realms of Westeros (Dorne being the only exception). Note that Visenya had the same power as Aegon. She commanded a dragon only slightly less powerful than her brother's, she was better with the blade and she was rumored to be capable of casting spells. She never contested the right of Aegon to be the king.

Beside this note how Visenya never acted directly against her brother's son. She never openly contested Aenys' right to rule. She was an hard woman and considered him soft, and certainly believed her son Maegor would have made a better ruler but she did not act to subvert Aenys. Maegor was exiled because of the political outcry for him taking a second wife (Alys Harroway after Ceryse Hightower), Aenys aggravated the Faith against himself and his House by marrying his son and heir Aegon to his eldest daughter Rhaena. He was forced to flee King's Landing and Visenya suggested he retook the city by raining fire and blood on it (which seems what Dany is ready to do btw), yet Aenys was indecisive and when he discovered his daughter and son were besieged at Crakehall Castle his health took a turn for the worse and died (some claim he was poisoned by Visenya but that's not a fact, it's gossip).

Then yes, Maegor came back and took the Throne usurping Aegon's right, and rained fire and blood on anyone who dared oppose him.

[SeanF]

35 minutes ago, elanmorin said:

Nowhere it's written that Aegon I married his elder sister Visenya out of "political convenience". On the contrary, he did so because that was Targaryen's custom ("Keep the blood of the dragon strong") and because of prophecy ("The dragon has 3 heads") although it's true he did not love Visenya like he loved Rhaenys.

The Andals were very much against incest and poligamy. This would bite the Targaryen in a short few years with the raise of the Faith Militant and with the Targaryens being branded as "abominations". For Aegon it would have been politically convenient not to marry his sisters, let alone both of them. Yet he did and he could do that without much repercussion because he had the strength to do as he pleased with 3 full grown dragons and the defeat or surrender of most of the realms of Westeros (Dorne being the only exception). Note that Visenya had the same power as Aegon. She commanded a dragon only slightly less powerful than her brother's, she was better with the blade and she was rumored to be capable of casting spells. She never contested the right of Aegon to be the king.

Beside this note how Visenya never acted directly against her brother's son. She never openly contested Aenys' right to rule. She was an hard woman and considered him soft, and certainlyh believed her son Maegor would have made a better ruler but she did not act to subvert Aenys. Maegor was exiled because of the political outcry for him taking a second wife (Alys Harroway after Ceryse Hightower), Aenys aggravated the Faith against himself and his House by marrying his son and heir Aegon to his eldest daughter Rhaena. He was forced to flee King's Landing and Visenya suggested he retook the city by raining fire and blood on it (which seems what Dany is ready to do btw), yet Aenys was indecisive and when he discovered his daughter and son were besieged at Crakehall Castle his health took a turn for the bad and died (some claim he was poisoned by Visenya but that's not a fact, it's gossip).

Then yes, Maegor came back and took the Throne usurping Aegon's right, and rained fire and blood on anyone who dared oppose him.

Even if she did poison him, I suspect it was because she thought he had become a complete liability to House Targaryen.

[Panos Targaryen]

Seriously? Game of Thrones in its current form is not feminist and woman-empowering enough for you? For real? How much more pandering and appeasement could they possibly add?

[Rose of Red Lake]

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

...is a minor character not seeking the IT, and isn't written to been thematically linked to Cersei.

You said there were no queens worthy to contrast to Dany and Cersei. Asha is a POV character. That's not minor. Does she not have enough protagonist points? This critique that there are no variations among the female rulers is getting oddly specific now. They have to be worthy queens who WANT the Iron Throne? Okay, that's clearly not going to happen because it ruins the theme. The Iron Throne is the ring of power. It will corrupt people regardless of gender. 

Now if you really want a worthy queen who is thematically linked to Cersei, there is Sansa. She, just like Jon, is working as a queen without the title. She at one time wanted to be Queen of the Seven Kingdoms - not for power, but to live out a fairy tale. She's not going to be lusting after the Iron Throne, which is why you should really drop that criteria. She and Asha are excellent foils/contrast to Cersei and Dany. Arianne could be added in there too depending on her TWOW developments. 

People just don't understand that Dany is a conqueror first. That is her instinct. She ruled in Essos quite well when she locked her dragons up. The moment she rode Drogon in the fighting pits, that was her turn away from ruling where she had to use her brain.  She began to rely on dragons as a quick fix to solve problems. She began to accept rule by fear. 

[ummester]

This conversation (which I admit I have not read all of) is exactly why I think they gave Jon's NK killing moment to Arya - to try and make the show seem less sexist to viewers.

[AlaerysTargaryen]

8 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The problem is there are no worthy queens to contrast these mad evil queens.

Exactly my point! Dany being mad and liker her father so suddenly is another issue but having her become another  bloodthirsty woman who didn't deserved to rule because there is a better man in Westerosi eyes is redundant.

[AlaerysTargaryen]

1 hour ago, ummester said:

This conversation (which I admit I have not read all of) is exactly why I think they gave Jon's NK killing moment to Arya - to try and make the show seem less sexist to viewers.

Nah. Everyone , men and women wanted Jon to end the NK, the plot was headed there for 7 seasons. Arya killing the Nk, was the "subverted expectations"D&D gave to their favorite character and thought everyone will lose their shit, favorably. Well everyone hated it, even Maisie says so, that people will be mad. And yes, the 90% of fans still can accept what happened.

[Azarial]

16 hours ago, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Yes. According to them a woman should be a badass warrior, a killer or a schemer, she´s gotta be a YASS Queen.  As a woman I find this riddiculous. Why are tradional femenine qualities despised or considered weak? The men in the show display more emotion and compassion than the women. That is why I loved Sansa in the book. Being a Lady was her  armor and courtesy her weapon. Fine make her learn from LF, but dont change her personality. I hated the scene when she fed Ramsay to the hounds and smiled. If you write such travesty at least haver her cry at her loss of inoccense or at what her experiences have made her do. But that smirk ! I hated it. 

I have felt this exact way about the shows portrayal of Sansa, Arya and half the time Dany (Who they almost portray as two separate people depending on what the scene requires) You could take the three of them, swap the costumes and wigs and have them play each others characters and nothing about the portrayals would change. There is no way a realistically portrayed woman lead should be interchangeable with a different female lead. And I despise how they portray femininity as being bad, or weak. Both Dany and Sansa use femininity as a source of power in the books, and their arcs and characters were stronger for it.

[OldGimletEye]

"it will cement the idea that all westerosi queens in their own right are unworthy"

To who exactly?

Well I'm sure to people inclined to think that way it will serve as "evidence" that their shouldn't be any queen who rules in their own right over Westeros, which I'm imagine would be many individuals that live in Westeros. Of course Westeros, with its feudal system is sexist. Its also classist too. What do people expect?

Of course they are probably some people living here in the RW of the 21st century that thinks it's "evidence" as well. But lets forget about them. Because such a notion would be nonsense.

Is GOT/ASOIAF really making the point that women are less capable in ruling Westeros than are men? Well I guess you can read that much into it, but you might as well conclude that it's also making the point that people born into the lower classes are never fit rule Westeros either.

Anyway, the last three male monarchs have all been clowns. Two were maniacs and the other was an overgrown man child.

And of course there have been plenty of examples of really bad male monarchs in the ASOIAF universe, Aegon IV, Maegor, etc.

Its true of course there haven't been any in universe examples of really good Westerosi queens that have ruled in their own right. But, I think that can be just chalked down as women have been given fewer opportunities to become the leaders of Westeros, just like there aren't any good examples of people born into a KL slum that have become good monarchs.

But, I don' think its true that ASOIAF hasn't provided some examples of very strong female leaders. Perhaps, my favorite is Meria Martell, who successfully led Dorne to resist a Targaryen invasion. I think that showed some pretty strong leadership. And then there are Aegon's sister wives who seemingly handled the day to day administration of Westeros, and were pretty competent at it, as Aegon himself wasn't seemingly interested in that. There are probably other examples I'm forgetting about.

The point here is that the failure of three queens to matriculate into good monarchs shouldn't really be much evidence to any reasonable minded person about anything.

[Rose of Red Lake]

There are also the game rules to consider. Cersei and Dany are playing the same game in a hot war, so they're going to be dragged down together. If the author just lets Dany take the throne without forcing her to do something immoral then he violates his own rules.

Jon and Sansa (queen and king potential, either separately or together) will be elected, but Sansa is playing a cold war to put Jon forward. Sansa is the power behind the man, and that's realistic right now considering the realpolitik around women rulers. The author is not going to just shove a Cleopatra to the top in Westeros, she will have to take it by force (Cersei/Dany). Still, Dany had her kingdom from a pyramid already so these complaints seem really vapid. 

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Perhaps, my favorite is Meria Martell, who successfully led Dorne to resist a Targaryen invasion.

Yeah, I love her! Sansa is currently doing that right now in the story. 

The prequels should really have been about Dornish history, from Nymeria to Meria. Lots of good storylines for women there.

[Raksha 2014]

21 hours ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

I’ve entertained the possibility that Ayra may get killed herself by posing as a Faceless Man.  A case of mistaken identity. I keep thinking about that leak that says Jon finally sees Ayra in the throne room.  Is she dead or alive when he sees her?

 

What leak is this and where can I find out more about it?  Is there a chance it could be true?  (I hope not!)

[Ilissa]

1 hour ago, AlaerysTargaryen said:

Exactly my point! Dany being mad and liker her father so suddenly is another issue but having her become another  bloodthirsty woman who didn't deserved to rule because there is a better man in Westerosi eyes is redundant.

This is not about men and women. This is about good and bad rulers. If you are unhappy with Jon is a better ruler than Dany, maybe you can write your own book. I hate the idea that Dany will be mad. But your arguments are ridiculous. You should not worry about sexism, but about the fate of the character. Both, in fact. I don't think Jon can be happy without Dany. The alleged plot suggest unhappiness for both of them...

[Rhienne]

Yes, the queens we are acquainted with from the series are all terrible...but it seems a bit lop-sided not to note that the kings we know are all equally awful!  We have:

• Aerys - the mad king who wants to destroy all of Kings Landing and everyone in it;
• Robert  - irresponsible and disinterested in ruling properly, allows the Lannisters to take control and does nothing to stop their cruelty and power grabbing;
• Joffrey  - possibly the worst monarch of all!?
• Renly - weak and ineffectual
• Stannis - inflexible and inhumane

Rob and Jon are possibly the only 'kings' who would have made decent rulers out of all of them (men and women).

If the show is setting up Jon to be king and Dany to become a mad queen, I don't think it's anti-feminist.  I think the terribleness of all the monarchs (male and female) is meant to represent how rare are the individuals who can handle the terrible choices and responsibilities of ruling without letting their weaker characteristics come out.

[Wik]

9 minutes ago, Rhienne said:

Yes, the queens we are acquainted with from the series are all terrible...but it seems a bit lop-sided not to note that the kings we know are all equally awful!  We have:

• Aerys - the mad king who wants to destroy all of Kings Landing and everyone in it;
• Robert  - irresponsible and disinterested in ruling properly, allows the Lannisters to take control and does nothing to stop their cruelty and power grabbing;
• Joffrey  - possibly the worst monarch of all!?
• Renly - weak and ineffectual
• Stannis - inflexible and inhumane

Rob and Jon are possibly the only 'kings' who would have made decent rulers out of all of them (men and women).

If the show is setting up Jon to be king and Dany to become a mad queen, I don't think it's anti-feminist.  I think the terribleness of all the monarchs (male and female) is meant to represent how rare are the individuals who can handle the terrible choices and responsibilities of ruling without letting their weaker characteristics come out.

Agree...

If the back story of Dany was that her family was very stable, and had all been great leaders and she suddenly and unexpectedly went mad, that would be a major turn off and piss poor writing.

But she is going mad (lets not argue over how fast, we know the show writers have hacked this apart, I think we can all agree that GRRM will show us a slower, methodical descent into madness, if that is indeed the route we are going), because her family has some SERIOUS history of this. It seems pretty obvious that it is happening and there is going to be some bad fallout because of it.

[OldGimletEye]

20 minutes ago, Rhienne said:

 I think the terribleness of all the monarchs (male and female) is meant to represent how rare are the individuals who can handle the terrible choices and responsibilities of ruling without letting their weaker characteristics come out.

Maybe a resident Westerosi historian can correct me, but, it seems to me, of all the monarchs that have ruled Westeros, relatively few make into the "Good" or "Excellent" categories. Most are in the Mediocre, Bad, or Crazy categories.

[AlaerysTargaryen]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe a resident Westerosi historian can correct me, but, it seems to me, of all the monarchs that have ruled Westeros, relatively few make into the "Good" or "Excellent" categories. Most are in the Mediocre, Bad, or Crazy categories.

Jaeharys reign was long peaceful and prosperous. Bis wife Alyssane was beloved as well.

[TwiceBorn]

8 hours ago, elanmorin said:

Nowhere it's written that Aegon I married his elder sister Visenya out of "political convenience". On the contrary, he did so because that was Targaryen's custom ("Keep the blood of the dragon strong") and because of prophecy ("The dragon has 3 heads") although it's true he did not love Visenya like he loved Rhaenys.

You are right! Nowhere it is written. However...

... it is written time and time again... and again and again that Targaryens were not agnatic. Choosing male over female as a heir to the Iron Throne was a controversy within family, not the other way round and required either king's or Great Council decision.

Also it is written that Aegon I married BOTH of his sisters AGAINST tradition. Marring one was sufficient "to keep the blood of the dragon strong" (producing pure-blood Targaryen heir), the other woman would be traditionally married to Valeryon, Baratheon or Celtigar. So why did Aegon marry both? Prophecy? OK if you say so. But I see a political benefit here: Aegon's attempt to extinguish Visenia's senior and matrilineal line of Targaryens.

Quote

She never contested the right of Aegon to be the king. (...) Beside this note how Visenya never acted directly against her brother's son. She never openly contested Aenys' right to rule. She was an hard woman and considered him soft, and certainly believed her son Maegor would have made a better ruler but she did not act to subvert Aenys. Maegor was exiled because of the political outcry for him taking a second wife (Alys Harroway after Ceryse Hightower), Aenys aggravated the Faith against himself and his House by marrying his son and heir Aegon to his eldest daughter Rhaena.

Given the political circumstances it would be rather foolish to fight against her own kin. To win the Game of Thrones she had to install a heir of hers. Which she ultimately achieved. Unfortunately for her Maegor was infertile and thus her line was extinguished.

Now for the Aenys - who was rumored bastard and ever wondered who did those rumors serve? Huh? So Aenys' firstborn was a girl. Rhaena. IT IS WRITTEN that she pushed Maegor down the line of succession - and that was when Aegon I was still alive and kicking. Wouldn't it be more suitable and acceptable to marry her to her uncle Maegor? That's what Visenya demanded! Who would be the king then? But instead Rhaena was married to her brother Aegon Uncrowned, which made him a future king. An that is what Visenya protested and contested.

Quote

Maegor came back and took the Throne usurping Aegon's right

And here is where you are wrong. Maegor did not usurp Aegon's right. He was the second oldest Targeryan alive, a son and a brother of the king. Aegon Uncrowned was not a firstborn, only a crown prince - it was only AFTER Maergor's exile and AFTER the wedding with his elder sister that he was named Prince of Dragonstone.

GRRM coulda skip this whole ordeal and make Aegon I and Aegon Uncrowned firstborn children. But he did not.

You see, if you assume that Targaryen were agnatic then Maegor was the senior of the family (after his father and elder half-brother) and Rhaena should have been bethroded to him like Visenia wanted and he would become king. And if they were cognatic then Visenia was "a king" and Maegor had the right to rule before his senior brother as her heir. So if Targaryens were agnatic then Aegon I switched to cognatic to disinherit Maegor and then Aerys switched back to agnatic to exclude his own daughter. Here you go. Whatever it takes to keep women from power.