The North is finally independent

[Haskelltier]

5 hours ago, RYShh said:

That's called answering the parts you like, and cutting the pieces you don't like.

No, I'm simply dividing your post into smaller pieces, so that it is clear which part of my post answers which part of yours. It simplifies discussion, you may not like it, I do, so live with it or not. Its not my concern.

5 hours ago, RYShh said:

You don't understand, you're talking about Robb's political mistakes, while I am talking about Robb's main goal. Robb fought for the North, if not for the Northern crown, he would fight for Stannis probably, and until Stannis dies he would be safe and even after Stannis, he would've no choice but to submit to the crown. Robb specifically asked the independence of the North, and again he said ''We're fighting for the North'' , so he was fighting for the North, and he died for the North. What was his mistakes and his successes are not important, I am not talking about that, yet you are insisting on talking about Robb's political mistakes, that's not the point.

He wanted to rescue his father in the first place. But when Joffrey executed Ned, the Northern Lords had to answer the question which of the three so called kings of the seven kingdoms they wanted to support. They weren't convinced by each one of them and could only agree on doing the best for the North. Well, until Greatjon Umber came up with the idea of naming Robb king and Robb didn't refuse. Nobody denies that that was risky, but in the end his trust in Theon, his trust in Roose Bolton, his awkward handling of justice (Catelyn was pardoned for releasing Jaime, who had killed Rickard Karstarks sons) and his decision to marry Jeyne Westerling, not a Frey and breaking his own oath, lead to his early death. The Independence of the North was a risky gamble, but it was not the main reason why he died in the end. Thats my point.

5 hours ago, RYShh said:

Killing Daenerys is a risky job too. And I would say even more risky.

Oh, come on. Varys tried to poison Daenerys before he got executed and was almost successfull with it (hadn't Daenerys stopped eating for a time). In a political unstable Westeros (and after her mass murder in Kingslanding) you could find enough people in the right places, who could plot her death. Poison, a falling stone, a knife in the right hands at the right time, there are enough opportunities. And they are all better than trying to smuggle scorpions near Kingslanding (as I said, the first lord collecting his duties would have found them and confiscated them, because big scorpion are dangerous and no common trading good) or trying to kill a dragon in his lair, when he sleeps with your own hands.

Yes dragons were killed by common people at the end of the Dance of the Dragons, but it costed thousands of lives, when they stormed the dragonpit.

5 hours ago, RYShh said:

What if Drogon went lose and started to burn other cities and kill everyone?

Well, killing a riderless dragon in battle is easier than killing one with a rider, because dragons don't understand tactics and warfare. Yes, a lose dragon is a risk, but you have to start somewhere (and I would start with the easier tasks with the smaller risks) or live with Dany's plans of conquering the world.

5 hours ago, RYShh said:

You just made that up, I asked you to give me examples on great conflicts like it happened during the Targaryen dynasty but you didn't show me anything.

The problem is, we only have detailed historical facts from the reign of the Targaryens to present (thats only natural, since these facts are the more important ones for the present actions in the books) and far less concret facts from the time before that. So you have to live with Martins relative unconcrete mentions of constant wars when there were many smaller kingdoms in Westeros or not. But you won't get concrete wars, because Martin didn't write about them in detail.

5 hours ago, RYShh said:

Because what Sansa did isn't a treason. It's the truth.

A truth she couldn't proof well enough (you can write many things in books, that doesn't make them right; and a boy claiming he saw it in dreams isn't believable either). And I repeat myself, nobody forced Sansa to spread her tales in Daenery's back. That was her own decision and something her liege (she swore fealty to Daenerys) wasn't comfortable with. She did it anyway and freely on top.

 

 

[WeDoNotKneel_HailMance]

On 6/18/2019 at 3:32 PM, RYShh said:

Why do I have to repeat myself? It doesn't matter what Sansa wants or what she believes. It matters only what she does. And she did nothing wrong. Which is why Tyrion said only Varys committed treason and not Sansa. Which is why Daenerys only burned Varys alive but not Sansa and Tyrion. It's quite understandable if you want.

Are you saying this means that people only actually committed crimes when they get caught or punished? Like, you're saying Sansa didn't commit treason because Dany didn't burn her alive.....right? And if this holds, then... did Tyrion not murder Tywin, because he was never punished for it? did Roose Bolton not commit treason against Robb Stark because he was never punished for it? Did Littlefinger not commit treason against Joffrey because he wasn't punished for it? I'm so confused by this argument. 

I also still don't understand your definition of treason or your argument for why Sansa did not commit treason. Are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because she didn't intend for her statement to Tyrion to bring down or overthrow Dany in favor of Jon? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because she told the truth and was therefore absolved? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because Sansa doesn't matter and so she can't commit treason? Or.....? 

 

[RYShh]

8 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

No, I'm simply dividing your post into smaller pieces, so that it is clear which part of my post answers which part of yours. It simplifies discussion, you may not like it, I do, so live with it or not. Its not my concern.

He wanted to rescue his father in the first place. But when Joffrey executed Ned, the Northern Lords had to answer the question which of the three so called kings of the seven kingdoms they wanted to support. They weren't convinced by each one of them and could only agree on doing the best for the North. Well, until Greatjon Umber came up with the idea of naming Robb king and Robb didn't refuse. Nobody denies that that was risky, but in the end his trust in Theon, his trust in Roose Bolton, his awkward handling of justice (Catelyn was pardoned for releasing Jaime, who had killed Rickard Karstarks sons) and his decision to marry Jeyne Westerling, not a Frey and breaking his own oath, lead to his early death. The Independence of the North was a risky gamble, but it was not the main reason why he died in the end. Thats my point.

Oh, come on. Varys tried to poison Daenerys before he got executed and was almost successfull with it (hadn't Daenerys stopped eating for a time). In a political unstable Westeros (and after her mass murder in Kingslanding) you could find enough people in the right places, who could plot her death. Poison, a falling stone, a knife in the right hands at the right time, there are enough opportunities. And they are all better than trying to smuggle scorpions near Kingslanding (as I said, the first lord collecting his duties would have found them and confiscated them, because big scorpion are dangerous and no common trading good) or trying to kill a dragon in his lair, when he sleeps with your own hands.

Yes dragons were killed by common people at the end of the Dance of the Dragons, but it costed thousands of lives, when they stormed the dragonpit.

Well, killing a riderless dragon in battle is easier than killing one with a rider, because dragons don't understand tactics and warfare. Yes, a lose dragon is a risk, but you have to start somewhere (and I would start with the easier tasks with the smaller risks) or live with Dany's plans of conquering the world.

The problem is, we only have detailed historical facts from the reign of the Targaryens to present (thats only natural, since these facts are the more important ones for the present actions in the books) and far less concret facts from the time before that. So you have to live with Martins relative unconcrete mentions of constant wars when there were many smaller kingdoms in Westeros or not. But you won't get concrete wars, because Martin didn't write about them in detail.

A truth she couldn't proof well enough (you can write many things in books, that doesn't make them right; and a boy claiming he saw it in dreams isn't believable either). And I repeat myself, nobody forced Sansa to spread her tales in Daenery's back. That was her own decision and something her liege (she swore fealty to Daenerys) wasn't comfortable with. She did it anyway and freely on top.

 

 

It's everyone's concern, at least people who are reading how you're answering it.

I honestly don't understand what are you trying to say here, are you going to deny the fact that Robb fought for the independence of the North? If you are not going to deny it, then he died for it, because his main goal was that, and he did everything for that goal. If he submit to Stannis, then he would die for Stannis. Your point is irrelevant with Robb's main goal. It's like saying Stannis didn't die for his right to the throne, he died because he let Florent to command his fleet and then Tyrion tricked them at Blackwater once all of his forces entered into the Blackwater without figuring out their Lannisters defensive tactics. You sound exactly like that, there is a bigger picture, and you're talking about the tactical mistakes they made during the war. 

Because that's Varys, he doesn't command the Northern and the Vale army, he can't command the smiths so they can forge new scorpions for him. He can only poison people by using his littlebirds. You're comparing a high lord (and a former king) to a spy master here, which makes no sense. Varys had no other choice but poisoining Daenerys, Jon had other options other than stabbing Daenerys in the throne room and then waiting to be executed by Drogon and the Unsullied army, he chose the stupidest option. Luckily for him, somehow Drogon didn't kill him, and then Unsullied didn't execute him.

That's not a proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know there are at least 4 great conflict during the 200 years Targaryen dynasty. We don't about the rest, so what we know is more important. And as far as I see, as long as the power is not divided into 7 regions, there will be always conflicts between the great houses in the King's Landing, and always more people will die when these great houses trying to take the power from that central and only power, which is Iron Throne. 

Daenerys never ordered her to be silent about it, so your point is moot I am afraid. She can't blame Sansa for telling the truth. She could do that only if she ordered her to be silent about it, but even that, by what right Daenerys could that? She couldn't, because that's truth. Which is why only Varys died, not Tyrion and Sansa.

[RYShh]

15 minutes ago, WeDoNotKneel_HailMance said:

Are you saying this means that people only actually committed crimes when they get caught or punished? Like, you're saying Sansa didn't commit treason because Dany didn't burn her alive.....right? And if this holds, then... did Tyrion not murder Tywin, because he was never punished for it? did Roose Bolton not commit treason against Robb Stark because he was never punished for it? Did Littlefinger not commit treason against Joffrey because he wasn't punished for it? I'm so confused by this argument. 

I also still don't understand your definition of treason or your argument for why Sansa did not commit treason. Are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because she didn't intend for her statement to Tyrion to bring down or overthrow Dany in favor of Jon? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because she told the truth and was therefore absolved? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because Sansa doesn't matter and so she can't commit treason? Or.....? 

 

How is this even a counter argument?  Tyrion was a traitor after killing Tywin, which is why he escaped and which is why Cersei ordered Tyrion's death. Roose committed treason which is why he had to lie about the Red Wedding to the Northern lords. If they knew about LF plot against Joffrey they would kill LF.

Now let's back to our topic, did Daenerys know what Sansa and Tyrion did? Yes she knew. And what Daenerys did to them? Nothing. Then they are not guilty and they are not traitors. I honestly don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

[WeDoNotKneel_HailMance]

11 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Now let's back to our topic, did Daenerys know what Sansa and Tyrion did? Yes she knew. And what Daenerys did to them? Nothing. Then they are not guilty and they are not traitors. I honestly don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

Ugh. How do we know that Dany knew what Sansa said or Sansa's intent? And even if we say you're right, yes Dany knew, well how does that even matter? It seems like you're arguing that Dany knew what Sansa did and didn't punish Sansa, and therefore Sansa is innocent. So....if I'm speeding in my car, get pulled over, a policeman got my speeding on radar (they know what I did), but they decide to not give me a ticket because I'm a nice guy...does that mean that I wasn't speeding? 

Let's take an in universe example. The Tyrells committed treason against Joffrey by declaring for Renly. Tywin is obviously fully aware of it. (see video link here). And what did Tywin do to them? Nothing. Does that mean they never declared for Renly, or that declaring for Renly wasn't treasonous?

[RYShh]

Just now, WeDoNotKneel_HailMance said:

Ugh. How do we know that Dany knew what Sansa said or Sansa's intent? And even if we say you're right, yes Dany knew, well how does that even matter? It seems like you're arguing that Dany knew what Sansa did and didn't punish Sansa, and therefore Sansa is innocent. So....if I'm speeding in my car, get pulled over, a policeman got my speeding on radar (they know what I did), but they decide to not give me a ticket because I'm a nice guy...does that mean that I wasn't speeding? 

Let's take an in universe example. The Tyrells committed treason against Joffrey by declaring for Renly. Tywin is obviously fully aware of it. (see video link here). And what did Tywin do to them? Nothing. Does that mean they never declared for Renly, or that declaring for Renly wasn't treasonous?

So you're deciding for Daenerys place, that who is a traitor to Daenerys and who is not?  How can you blame people for betraying Daenerys even when Daenerys herself didn't blame those people? This makes no sense.

Tyrells get the pardon because they saved the Lannisters from Stannis in Blackwater. They committed treason, and no one denied that, then they saved Lannisters and they get pardoned for it.

Again, Sansa and Tyrion pardoned by Daenerys because? What heroic act that saved them from Daenerys's wrath? None. Because there is no need for that, because they committed no treason.

[WeDoNotKneel_HailMance]

12 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Tyrells get the pardon because they saved the Lannisters from Stannis in Blackwater. They committed treason, and no one denied that, then they saved Lannisters and they get pardoned for it.

Your description of that situation is entirely inaccurate. Watch the conversation in the video clip. There is no agreement of pardoning the Tyrell's for their help, there is no deal. They explicitly say "perhaps that treason should be punished one day, after Stannis." Meaning that they aren't punishing treason for strategic reasons.  Which frankly could be exactly Dany's plan with Sansa...Sansa's treason should be punished one day, after Cersei. She needed the northern army and Jon to help her take KL. 

I will state the following questions again, in hopes that you can respond to them: 

What is your definition of treason? Are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because she didn't intend for her statement to Tyrion to bring down or overthrow Dany in favor of Jon? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because she told the truth and was therefore absolved? Or are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because Dany didn't burn her for it? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because Sansa doesn't matter and so she can't commit treason? Or.....? 

[Haskelltier]

31 minutes ago, RYShh said:

I honestly don't understand what are you trying to say here, are you going to deny the fact that Robb fought for the independence of the North?

I said, that fighting for the independence of the North (and his kingship) was a risk, but it was not the main reason why he died. He died, because he broke an oath, he died, because he trusted the wrong people (or didn't control them better) and he died, because he handled some situations badly. He didn't die because he wanted independence of the North. Ask Walder Frey, he was perfectly fine to back the King in the North as long as he married a Frey. Roose Bolton didn't commit treason, because Robb wanted an independent North, he committed treason because he had ambitions and wanted to gain power. And he used every opportunity to get that. Meaning, making common cause with Walder Frey and murdering Robb and collecting a nice reward from the Lannisters (fake Arya to get a claim on Winterfeld, becoming Warden of the North). The Northern independence was no concern of Walder Frey or Roose Bolton.

38 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Because that's Varys, he doesn't command the Northern and the Vale army, he can't command the smiths so they can forge new scorpions for him. He can only poison people by using his littlebirds.

Thats not my point. Killing a human (even a queen) is a lot easier than killing a dragon in the middle of foreign territory. The first happened during the Dance of the Dragons and could be repeated in the aftermath of the slaughter of Kingslanding. Killing a dragon without scorpions (I told you why you cannot simply build scorpions in the North, transport them thousands of kilometres near Kingslanding without anybody taking hold of the scorpions or telling Dany) and without a lot of men (you cannot sneak an army of thousand men into a dragon lair near Kingslanding without Daenerys getting informed and burning your army to ashes). So you can take "ten men" and sneak into a dragon lair with a sleeping dragon. But thats suicidal.

45 minutes ago, RYShh said:

That's not a proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Okay, one last time: G R R Martin told us in The World of Ice and Fire that there were constant fights between the small kingdoms (above territory, succession, religion, feudes, whatever) in Westeros in the prä-Targaryen history of Westeros. But he never explained these conflicts in detail, because they mattered little to nothing for the present situation during A Song Of Ice and Fire. So there were a lot of wars, but not one of them was explained in all detail like the Dance of the Dragons or the Blackfyre-rebellions and so on. Or else The World Of Ice And Fire would probably be 2000 pages thick and kept Martin busy for decades.

52 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Daenerys never ordered her to be silent about it, so your point is moot I am afraid. She can't blame Sansa for telling the truth.

You don't need a concrete order to commit treason. Sansa knew very well, that telling other people about Jons perentage would cause problems for Daenerys and she did it anyways.

[RYShh]

3 minutes ago, WeDoNotKneel_HailMance said:

This description of that situation is entirely inaccurate. Watch the conversation in the video clip. There is no agreement of pardoning the Tyrell's for their help, there is no deal. They explicitly say "perhaps that treason should be punished one day, after Stannis." Meaning that they aren't punishing treason for strategic reasons.  Which frankly could be exactly Dany's plan with Sansa...Sansa's treason should be punished one day, after Cersei. She needed the northern army and Jon to help her take KL. 

I will state the following questions again, in hopes that you can respond to them: 

What is your definition of treason? Are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because she didn't intend for her statement to Tyrion to bring down or overthrow Dany in favor of Jon? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because she told the truth and was therefore absolved? Or are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because Dany didn't burn her for it? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because Sansa doesn't matter and so she can't commit treason? Or.....? 

This is their pardon;

Joffrey: ''Ser Loras Tyrell. Your house has come to our aid. The whole realm is in your debt, none more so than I. If your family would ask anything of me, ask it, and it shall be yours.'' (S02E10)

So I ask again, when did Daenerys mention a debt like this, and when she said Tyrion and Sansa were traitors? I am still waiting, instead you're declaring people traitors without showing any evidence at all. If Daenerys can't declare them traitors, you can't as well.

[Haskelltier]

16 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Tyrells get the pardon because they saved the Lannisters from Stannis in Blackwater. They committed treason, and no one denied that, then they saved Lannisters and they get pardoned for it.

Again, Sansa and Tyrion pardoned by Daenerys because?

Because killing Sansa for treason would definitely start a rebellion in the north, which would be the end of her dreams of ruling the seven kingdoms.

[WeDoNotKneel_HailMance]

Just now, Haskelltier said:

Because killing Sansa for treason would definitely start a rebellion in the north, which would be the end of her dreams of ruling the seven kingdoms.

Yes. Dany can decide to not kill Sansa for treason. And do so for this strategic reason.

[WeDoNotKneel_HailMance]

3 minutes ago, RYShh said:

I will state the following questions again, in hopes that you can respond to them: 

What is your definition of treason? Are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because she didn't intend for her statement to Tyrion to bring down or overthrow Dany in favor of Jon? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because she told the truth and was therefore absolved? Or are you saying Sansa didn't commit treason because Dany didn't burn her for it? Or are you saying that Sansa didn't commit treason because Sansa doesn't matter and so she can't commit treason? Or.....? 

 

[RYShh]

30 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

I said, that fighting for the independence of the North (and his kingship) was a risk, but it was not the main reason why he died. He died, because he broke an oath, he died, because he trusted the wrong people (or didn't control them better) and he died, because he handled some situations badly. He didn't die because he wanted independence of the North. Ask Walder Frey, he was perfectly fine to back the King in the North as long as he married a Frey. Roose Bolton didn't commit treason, because Robb wanted an independent North, he committed treason because he had ambitions and wanted to gain power. And he used every opportunity to get that. Meaning, making common cause with Walder Frey and murdering Robb and collecting a nice reward from the Lannisters (fake Arya to get a claim on Winterfeld, becoming Warden of the North). The Northern independence was no concern of Walder Frey or Roose Bolton.

Thats not my point. Killing a human (even a queen) is a lot easier than killing a dragon in the middle of foreign territory. The first happened during the Dance of the Dragons and could be repeated in the aftermath of the slaughter of Kingslanding. Killing a dragon without scorpions (I told you why you cannot simply build scorpions in the North, transport them thousands of kilometres near Kingslanding without anybody taking hold of the scorpions or telling Dany) and without a lot of men (you cannot sneak an army of thousand men into a dragon lair near Kingslanding without Daenerys getting informed and burning your army to ashes). So you can take "ten men" and sneak into a dragon lair with a sleeping dragon. But thats suicidal.

Okay, one last time: G R R Martin told us in The World of Ice and Fire that there were constant fights between the small kingdoms (above territory, succession, religion, feudes, whatever) in Westeros in the prä-Targaryen history of Westeros. But he never explained these conflicts in detail, because they mattered little to nothing for the present situation during A Song Of Ice and Fire. So there were a lot of wars, but not one of them was explained in all detail like the Dance of the Dragons or the Blackfyre-rebellions and so on. Or else The World Of Ice And Fire would probably be 2000 pages thick and kept Martin busy for decades.

You don't need a concrete order to commit treason. Sansa knew very well, that telling other people about Jons perentage would cause problems for Daenerys and she did it anyways.

The Freys and the Boltons committed treason because Lannisters told them to do it, and they gave a guarantee for afterwards. Robb send his peace terms to the Lannisters, which is taking Sansa and Arya back, and the independence of the North, and the Lannisters declined it. It's easy to understand. If they accepted the independence of the North, then Robb would return to the North, and the Freys and the Boltons couldn't get any guarantee for their betrayal. Instead you're talking about marriage, no the Freys would shut their mouths if Lannisters didn't give them any guarantee for it, as well as the Boltons. So Robb died for the independence of the North.

And Jon shouldn't choose the easy and the stupid way, he should've been smarter. None of those small conflicts can be equal to the great conflicts that happened in a tiny 200 years history during the Targaryens dynasty, and that wasn't going to stop until they destroy the Iron Throne and divide kingdoms back to its old shape.

Then Daenerys should kill Sansa and Tyrion too, but she didn't. Ok, you guys should stop declaring people traitors without any evidence. Even Daenerys didn't say they are traitors, somehow you believe they are. So, basically you're deciding for Daenerys's place that who is traitor and who is not.

 

[RYShh]

9 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

Because killing Sansa for treason would definitely start a rebellion in the north, which would be the end of her dreams of ruling the seven kingdoms.

You know this because? Did Daenerys say this to you? Again, you're talking without evidence. 

[Haskelltier]

27 minutes ago, RYShh said:

You know this because? Did Daenerys say this to you? Again, you're talking without evidence.

Thats common knowledge. Lords who would have supported Daenerys could reconsider their support, when there is somebody with a better claim. Or look at the Dance of the Dragons or the Blackfyre-rebellion. There were quite a lot noble houses who secretly were pro Blackfyre (because they thought the legitimized bastards had a better claim), and who were giving the "true Targaryens" a lot of problems for a long time. So, yes, by spreading the word that there is somebody with a better claim, you cause confusion, lords will question Daenerys' claim even more than they would without those words. That makes it more difficult for Daenerys to find loyal supporters.

42 minutes ago, RYShh said:

The Freys and the Boltons committed treason because Lannisters told them to do it, and they gave a guarantee for afterwards.

No, they had the chance to support the Lannisters from the beginning and stayed with Robb or chose Robb because they thought it would give them more benefits than supporting the Lannisters. In the end, Freys, Boltons and Lannisters plotted the murder of Robb, because the Lannisters had the advantage (Renly was dead, Stannis defeated, Robb had lost a lot of men and part of the North to the Ironmen), because Robb had broken his oaths and Bolton saw an opportunity to gain power (and because the Lannisters pardoned them and promised them land, gold and titles). The independence of the North was only a problem for the Lannisters.

[RYShh]

2 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

Thats common knowledge. Lords who would have supported Daenerys could reconsider their support, when there is somebody with a better claim. Or look at the Dance of the Dragons or the Blackfyre-rebellion. There were quite a lot noble houses who secretly were pro Blackfyre (because they thought the legitimized bastards had a better claim), and who were giving the "true Targaryens" a lot of problems for a long time. So, yes, by spreading the word that there is somebody with a better claim, you cause confusion, lords will question Daenerys' claim even more than they would without those words. That makes it more difficult for Daenerys to find loyal supporters.

No, they had the chance to support the Lannisters from the beginning and stayed with Robb or chose Robb because they thought it would give them more benefits than supporting the Lannisters. In the end, Freys, Boltons and Lannisters plotted the murder of Robb, because the Lannisters had the advantage (Renly was dead, Stannis defeated, Robb had lost a lot of men and part of the North to the Ironmen), because Robb had broken his oaths and Bolton saw an opportunity to gain power (and because the Lannisters pardoned them and promised them land, gold and titles). The independence of the North was only a problem for the Lannisters.

What you're saying is plotting against someone. Which only Varys did. Sansa just told Tyrion the truth, so Tyrion could reconsider his current course. Then he told that to Varys, but he still didn't commit any treason (like Sansa) then Varys decided to betray Daenerys and started to plot against her (tried to murder her and send letters to his allies for supporting Jon). Both Tyrion and Sansa did none of that, so they did nothing wrong, which is why Daenerys couldn't do anything about it, telling the truth is not a crime no matter why you think it is. Dance of the Dragons is completely irrelevant with this situation. Rhaenyra was the heir, and people supported Aegon II against her despite him being a usurper. In these circumstances Jon is the rightful heir and Daenerys is an usurper, and you think talking about the truth and rightful heir is a crime, while it's not. If anything, Daenerys is committing treason towards her rightful king Jon. She should've supported Jon's claim. Instead Jon let her to be the queen and when people talk about the truth you think that must be a treason? Please. 

Nothing you say disprove that argument. If Robb never risked his life for the Northern crown, he wouldn't go and fight with the Lannisters on his own, he would declare for Stannis or Renly, and once he did that, all other Northern lords would still follow Stannis or Renly even after Robb's death, so it means killing Robb in a wedding wouldn't solve anything. But once Robb accepted the Northern crown, he risked his life for it, he would win or die, for the independence of the North.

[CrypticWeirwood]

Treason is only attempting to overthrow the current regime, whether through open war or a narrow coup or assassination. It is not disagreeing with someone, doing something they don't like like walking out if a meeting, or revealing that the queen is sleeping with her brother, or saying that the king is a fink. Only seeking to "kill" the regime and replace it with a new one is treason. 

Telling Sansa the truth that he is her aunt's son not her father's cannot possibly be treason. Dany may not want it to happen but that is not for her to decide. She cannot force him to lie to his own family because that severs the feudal bond, just as it did when her father called for Ned's head.

[Rose of Red Lake]

8 hours ago, Haskelltier said:

she swore fealty to Daenerys

When did this happen?

[Jaghen]

10 hours ago, RYShh said:

Danerys never ordered her to be silent about it, so your point is moot I am afraid. She can't blame Sansa for telling the truth. She could do that only if she ordered her to be silent about it, but even that, by what right Daenerys could that? She couldn't, because that's truth. 

Oh, sweet summer child...

 

Ever heard of lese-majeste ? 

Or, you know, of Daenerys burning down KL because reasons ? When dealing with a monarch, perceived slight is just as deadly as actual slight.

In the case of Sansa that's definitely an actual slight anyway.

By right of being Queen, she ais entitled to kill off those that conspire against her. Even imagined, Aerys had some fun with that. The Queen's words are law. That's how she got 150 random men executed earlier. Sure some guilty in the lot.

 

How could Daenerys forbid her from speaking about it without prior knowledge that  Sansa knows ? Not that such an order need be given, it's obvious. To this day whistle blowers have it hard, and we live in quite free societies these days. Back in the feudal day ? That was treason.

[Jaghen]

6 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Treason is only attempting to overthrow the current regime, whether through open war or a narrow coup or assassination. It is not disagreeing with someone, doing something they don't like like walking out if a meeting, or revealing that the queen is sleeping with her brother, or saying that the king is a fink. Only seeking to "kill" the regime and replace it with a new one is treason. 

Telling Sansa the truth that he is her aunt's son not her father's cannot possibly be treason. Dany may not want it to happen but that is not for her to decide. She cannot force him to lie to his own family because that severs the feudal bond, just as it did when her father called for Ned's head.

Ok, that's your take on treason, likely true in some countries, Sansa did try to overthrow the regime, she was looking for allies to do just that and went to Tyrion, who was not interested. I guess we could call that Sedition, or Treason Felony (1848 Act in GB, all of which was considered full treason before that Act). Still a traitor.

I'm not sure if this is about Dany hating or Sansa loving, but it's just wrong. Sansa did betray Dany. that Daenerys is a ruthless tyrant who kills those she wants and had it coming is irrelevant. That Sansa ends up somehow Queen in the North actually points toward treason as well. the Queen got offed, thanks to her, and she got what she wanted because of that.

 

Yes, that is definitely for Dany to decide whether she can share that information, she is the freaking Queen. And the only person who say that's the truth... is the Broken, who ends up King thanks to that conspiracy. Even accepting the book found by Sam as true, a wedding does not mean an heir, and even less that that heir is still alive and is Jon. There is exactly one character in the series that pretends Jon is the heir of Rhaegar (not that it matter at this point but oh well) : Bran. The rest follow as it suits their political agenda.