My biggest issue with the finale is that they tried to make us feel guilty for supporting Daenerys' journey.

[RYShh]

21 minutes ago, tallTale said:

You conveniently are omitting the part where Viserys held a weapon to Daeny's throat and threatened her and her unborn baby's life. Viserys deserved his fate, and Daeny was right not to stop his execution (not that she had power to do so anyways!)

Viserys was the king, according to @Br16 so he can do that to his subjects I guess.

Daenerys could ask Drogo to take Viserys as a prisoner, or send him into exile, Viserys was the king after all according to some.

27 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Wow, you "read" this story (book or show it doesn't matter for this scene) as it were a news item related by the Daily Mirror…

Something else is happening in this scene. 

Not even talking about the fact that under no circumstances could she have saved Visery's head.

Is that impossible to send him to exile, or take as a prisoner seems impossible to you? And  you're jumping on some part of my post and cutting it out for your on purposes, this is not playing nice at all. If you read my post fully, @Br16 is talking about Targaryen dynasty and why and how it's still legally they are the monarch in Westeros, so according to that view, Viserys was the king, and Daenerys did nothing to save her own king...

Of course, this not my opinion, this is just an answer to that wrong argument. Of course Daenerys shouldn't do anything when they kill Viserys because Viserys was no king, and Targaryens were not legally the monarch family. And Viserys deserved to die like that, but if Br16 was right, then Daenerys literally let her own king to die.

[tallTale]

1 minute ago, RYShh said:

Viserys was the king, according to @Br16 so he can do that to his subjects I guess.

WUT.

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, RYShh said:

That's something they didn't prefer, because they had no room left for prisoners, it's still better than forcing them to bend the knee.

Daenerys specifically said she will take no prisoners, that's the end of it. And even Tywin was better than her in that regard, not even talking about Robb or other nobles in Westeros.

She didn't understand the value of high born hostages in war time.

[RYShh]

14 minutes ago, tallTale said:

WUT.

Is this the first time you hearing that?  Kings can threaten people. Joffrey threatened Tyrion and others many times before, that doesn't give them an ok to kill the King. 

Of course this is because you jumped on some part of my post, and didn't read it fully. I was explaining why Targaryens were not the monarch anymore and Viserys was actually no king, so Daenerys could let him die.

[tallTale]

6 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Is this the first time you hearing that?  Kings can threaten people. Joffrey threatened Tyrion and others many times before, that doesn't give them an ok to kill the King. 

Of course this is because you jumped on some part of my post, and didn't read it fully. I was explaining why Targaryens were not the monarch anymore and Viserys was actually no king, so Daenerys could let him die.

You're right, just saw the response to my quote. Didn't read all the way to the bottom, my mistake. 

[RYShh]

4 minutes ago, tallTale said:

You're right, just saw the response to my quote. Didn't read all the way to the bottom, my mistake. 

No problem, it happens.

[Bael's Bastard]

On 5/20/2019 at 7:53 PM, WalkinDude said:

Totally, it was rushed in the show. But the idea it came out of nowhere and her previous actions didn’t set the stage for her burning KL is bunk in my opinion. 

The idea that anything Dany had done in the past "set the stage" for her intentionally targeting and burning to death tens or hundreds of thousands of smallfolk is without basis. Dany has previously always targeted the high born and privileged. She has always seen herself as protective of slaves and smallfolk. This is how Dany views herself. For her view of herself to be so completely shattered that she would actually intentionally target and burn to death smallfolk was not believably portrayed by the show. No amount of cruelty to the Slavers, Khals, etc. sets the stage for that turn.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, RYShh said:

 

Daenerys has no right to talk about Targaryen line when she didn't even try to stop his brother Viserys's execution, so according to you, and according to her claim, Viserys was the rightful king, and he was her king. Yet she did nothing to stop Drogo when they killed ''king'' Viserys. She doesn't care any of that. And she know she wasn't the queen yet as she admitted to Tyrion, plain and simple.

Daenerys, at the point of Viserys' execution, had the importance and status of a privileged sex slave.   Viserys' fate was completely out of her hands.

[Br16]

12 hours ago, RYShh said:

You forget the fact that Tarlys bent the knee to House Lannister as well, they openly switched sides and swear fealty to them, because Lannisters were holding the throne. Targaryens rule lawfully has extinguished after Robert's war, bending to knee to them isn't important as they were running away from them, they lost their kingdom and they lost their throne. Targaryens lost their monarch legally due to right of conquest and they were in exile. Robert's coronation happened and the entire Westeros accepted Robert as their king while Targaryens were on exile. They didn't have any right after Robert's coronation, and that's law, like it or not.

Robert was obssessed with assasinating Daenerys because he hates Targaryens. He specifically said that to Ned, because of what Rhaegar did, lol. And you are asking this question? Seriously? 

Daenerys has no right to talk about Targaryen line when she didn't even try to stop his brother Viserys's execution, so according to you, and according to her claim, Viserys was the rightful king, and he was her king. Yet she did nothing to stop Drogo when they killed ''king'' Viserys. She doesn't care any of that.

Let me put it this way: If Person A seized your house and car without your permission, and proceeded to live in and drive them as if they were his own, you would rightfully still consider the house and car as legally yours and that Person A is a thief. No matter how many people support Person A, the fact is that he does not have title, not unless you willfully convey it to him. Just like title is invested in your person, the power of the Iron Throne is vested in the Targaryen name and bloodline, not the chair or the city. 

As long as there is one true born member of House Targaryen still alive and unbent, the authority of the Iron Throne automatically rests with him or her. And no house that has sworn to Aegon I may swear new oaths of fealty.

Thus, House Tarly's oath to Cersei was invalid and treasonous. Robert's claim of conquest was technically incomplete as the Targaryens still live. His coronation does not lend him more legitimacy as even a thief can crown himself with a stolen crown and be cheered on by his accomplices. Even if the great houses supported him, that merely increases the ranks of traitors needing pardons. Robert was obsessed with assassinating Daenrerys because he knows the Targs still have legitimacy, that they can use that legitimacy to acquire enforcement such as Dothraki army.

Lastly, Dany didn't stop Viserys death precisely because he was her King and she was next in line. As a woman and sister, she was only Heir Presumptive. If Viserys should marry a Martell (that was the plan from the books) and father a Heir Apparent son, she would never inherit. The moment he died without children, she became Queen Regnant. This is the cruel fact about royalty (think Richard III). Of course Dany probably wasn't this crafty back in Season 1, but as far as the rules are concerned, the Viserys debacle automatically ended in her favor. 

[RYShh]

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

Daenerys, at the point of Viserys' execution, had the importance and status of a privileged sex slave.   Viserys' fate was completely out of her hands.

The point is not what she could do. The point is she didn't even try. She could ask to spare Viserys's life from Drogo and take him as a prisoner or send him to exile. And she didn't even ask it.

7 hours ago, Br16 said:

Let me put it this way: If Person A seized your house and car without your permission, and proceeded to live in and drive them as if they were his own, you would rightfully still consider the house and car as legally yours and that Person A is a thief. No matter how many people support Person A, the fact is that he does not have title, not unless you willfully convey it to him. Just like title is invested in your person, the power of the Iron Throne is vested in the Targaryen name and bloodline, not the chair or the city. 

As long as there is one true born member of House Targaryen still alive and unbent, the authority of the Iron Throne automatically rests with him or her. And no house that has sworn to Aegon I may swear new oaths of fealty.

Thus, House Tarly's oath to Cersei was invalid and treasonous. Robert's claim of conquest was technically incomplete as the Targaryens still live. His coronation does not lend him more legitimacy as even a thief can crown himself with a stolen crown and be cheered on by his accomplices. Even if the great houses supported him, that merely increases the ranks of traitors needing pardons. Robert was obsessed with assassinating Daenrerys because he knows the Targs still have legitimacy, that they can use that legitimacy to acquire enforcement such as Dothraki army.

Lastly, Dany didn't stop Viserys death precisely because he was her King and she was next in line. As a woman and sister, she was only Heir Presumptive. If Viserys should marry a Martell (that was the plan from the books) and father a Heir Apparent son, she would never inherit. The moment he died without children, she became Queen Regnant. This is the cruel fact about royalty (think Richard III). Of course Dany probably wasn't this crafty back in Season 1, but as far as the rules are concerned, the Viserys debacle automatically ended in her favor. 

That's funny. Because that's not the right example at all. If A person commits crimes and then loses his assets after the court decides to confiscate his property, you can't take it back. That's how happened with the Targaryens, it's totally legal. They fought on the field against the rebels that claims Targaryens committed crimes, and then they lost the war to the rebels, and Robert took the throne legally. Viserys or Daenerys didn't have any right legally, they needed to take it back by right of conquest. Which means Daenerys wasn't the queen at the moment and she couldn't execute Tarly prisoners due to betrayal, because they betrayed no one.

Did Ned try to bring Viserys or Daenerys into Westeros after Robert's death and after learning that Joffrey and other children are not from him? No. Or better, did he try to put his own blood Jon a.k.a Aegon Targaryen to the throne? No. He tried to put Stannis on the throne, because Stannis was ''the rightful ruler'' according to law. Targaryens lost their right to the throne. House Baratheon had the legal right, not the Targaryens.

So Daenerys doesn't care about about her own king Viserys? And she is a usurper? Good thanks, that only helps my point. She was no different when she learned Jon had better claim as well, she is indeed a usurper, who doesn't care about the line of succession.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, RYShh said:

The point is not what she could do. The point is she didn't even try. She could ask to spare Viserys's life from Drogo and take him as a prisoner or send him to exile. And she didn't even ask it.

That's funny. Because that's not the right example at all. If A person commits crimes and then loses his assets after the court decides to confiscate his property, you can't take it back. That's how happened with the Targaryens, it's totally legal. They fought on the field against the rebels that claims Targaryens committed crimes, and then they lost the war to the rebels, and Robert took the throne legally. Viserys or Daenerys didn't have any right legally, they needed to take it back by right of conquest. Which means Daenerys wasn't the queen at the moment and she couldn't execute Tarly prisoners due to betrayal, because they betrayed no one.

Did Ned try to bring Viserys or Daenerys into Westeros after Robert's death and after learning that Joffrey and other children are not from him? No. Or better, did he try to put his own blood Jon a.k.a Aegon Targaryen to the throne? No. He tried to put Stannis on the throne, because Stannis was ''the rightful ruler'' according to law. Targaryens lost their right to the throne. House Baratheon had the legal right, not the Targaryens.

So Daenerys doesn't care about about her own king Viserys? And she is a usurper? Good thanks, that only helps my point. She was no different when she learned Jon had better claim as well, she is indeed a usurper, who doesn't care about the line of succession.

When you've spent your life being molested by a brother who says that he'd be happy for 40,000 men to rape you, who beats you, who threatens to murder you and cut out your unborn child, and sells you to a chieftain who then rapes you every which way, is it really likely that you're going to beg for his life?

The show-runners' suggestion that this moment was the start of Dany's moral descent is frankly repulsive.

[Br16]

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

That's funny. Because that's not the right example at all. If A person commits crimes and then loses his assets after the court decides to confiscate his property, you can't take it back. That's how happened with the Targaryens, it's totally legal. They fought on the field against the rebels that claims Targaryens committed crimes, and then they lost the war to the rebels, and Robert took the throne legally. Viserys or Daenerys didn't have any right legally, they needed to take it back by right of conquest. Which means Daenerys wasn't the queen at the moment and she couldn't execute Tarly prisoners due to betrayal, because they betrayed no one.

Your example is not correct as it applies only to vassals and commoners who hold their wealth or power by the grace of the Royal House. A Royal House such as House Targaryen is the law, cannot commit crimes and is the highest arbiter of justice. Thus, Targaryens  have sovereign immunity. As long as they are not extinct, they are legally in power and Robert remains technically an illegal usurper of an incomplete conquest.

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

Did Ned try to bring Viserys or Daenerys into Westeros after Robert's death and after learning that Joffrey and other children are not from him? No. Or better, did he try to put his own blood Jon a.k.a Aegon Targaryen to the throne? No. He tried to put Stannis on the throne, because Stannis was ''the rightful ruler'' according to law. Targaryens lost their right to the throne. House Baratheon had the legal right, not the Targaryens.

Ned was part of Robert's rebellion, so he himself was on the wrong side of the law. He should have done something about Viserys or Daenerys when he had the chance (either by accepting pardons, somehow getting them to kneel, or by finishing them off). 

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

So Daenerys doesn't care about about her own king Viserys? And she is a usurper? Good thanks, that only helps my point. She was no different when she learned Jon had better claim as well, she is indeed a usurper, who doesn't care about the line of succession.

Jon's claim is not better since Rhaegar and Lyanna's marriage did not receive royal assent, had no witnesses and Rhaegar's annulment to Elia ( a legal marriage with kids) was most certainly invalid. So it could very well be that Jon Snow is actually Aegon Sand and not Targaryen.

Also, Dany is not a Usurper as she is next in line. You cannot usurp what is yours by right as heir presumptive. Whether she cares about Viserys or how he died is irrelevant, all that mattered was that Dany was next in line at that time by Targaryen Succession law. 

I know you feel bad for the Tarlys (probably Dickon more than Randyll), but this is Westeros where legal power is not sourced from compassion, tolerance or kindness. In Medieval times, even confessions received by torture were completely admissible as key evidence. It's a cruel and uncompromising world order, and if your reasoning was true, then it wouldn't be a World of Ice and Fire.

 

[RYShh]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

When you've spent your life being molested by a brother who says that he'd be happy for 40,000 men to rape you, who beats you, who threatens to murder you and cut out your unborn child, and sells you to a chieftain who then rapes you every which way, is it really likely that you're going to beg for his life?

The show-runners' suggestion that this moment was the start of Dany's moral descent is frankly repulsive.

He beat her after she tried to manipulate him by using a Dothraki girl servant, Viserys is her king according to that delusional Targaryen claim, of course he could sell Daenerys to a Dothraki Khal, that happens even in Westeros, as Tyrion sold myrcella baratheon to martells. He told that 40.000 men thing after she said she doesn't want to be Drogo's Queen. Viserys is her king after all according to Targaryen claim, she needed to obey Viserys's royal command.

As I said, since Viserys was no king, she could do that and she could resist to Viserys's behaviors and his commands, but according to you the Targaryens are still kings and still the monarch, then Daenerys didn't listen her king even after Viserys told her to stop Drogo from killinghim. So pick one, either Daenerys is a traitor and a usurper, or the Targaryens were not the monarch and Viserys was no king and Daenerys was right to not to listen Viserys.

I pick the latter, the Targaryens were not the monarch, Viserys was no king and Daenerys was no queen.

2 hours ago, Br16 said:

Your example is not correct as it applies only to vassals and commoners who hold their wealth or power by the grace of the Royal House. A Royal House such as House Targaryen is the law, cannot commit crimes and is the highest arbiter of justice. Thus, Targaryens  have sovereign immunity. As long as they are not extinct, they are legally in power and Robert remains technically an illegal usurper of an incomplete conquest.

Ned was part of Robert's rebellion, so he himself was on the wrong side of the law. He should have done something about Viserys or Daenerys when he had the chance (either by accepting pardons, somehow getting them to kneel, or by finishing them off). 

Jon's claim is not better since Rhaegar and Lyanna's marriage did not receive royal assent, had no witnesses and Rhaegar's annulment to Elia ( a legal marriage with kids) was most certainly invalid. So it could very well be that Jon Snow is actually Aegon Sand and not Targaryen.

Also, Dany is not a Usurper as she is next in line. You cannot usurp what is yours by right as heir presumptive. Whether she cares about Viserys or how he died is irrelevant, all that mattered was that Dany was next in line at that time by Targaryen Succession law. 

I know you feel bad for the Tarlys (probably Dickon more than Randyll), but this is Westeros where legal power is not sourced from compassion, tolerance or kindness. In Medieval times, even confessions received by torture were completely admissible as key evidence. It's a cruel and uncompromising world order, and if your reasoning was true, then it wouldn't be a World of Ice and Fire.

 

Kings and queens are not above the law, that's your another mistake.

Spoiler

 

''High Septon: The Faith calls Queen Margaery forward.

Margaery: You call me forward? 

High Septon: Yes, we have some questions for you.

Margaery:  - I am the queen. -

High Septon: You are. And according to the law of the Seven, neither kings nor queens are exempt from testimony at a holy inquest.''

 

Did High Septon give the crown to Robert? Yes. Then Robert is lawfully the king. Ned being a rebel doesn't make him a liar, are we going to listen him or you? Again, Varys said Jon has a better claim than Daenerys, are we going to listen you or him? You claim that Targaryens were the monarch, not me, so according to you Daenerys should've obeyed her kings royal command, but almost every time she tried to manipulate him and didn't listen to Viserys's final command before Drogo kills him.

I don't feel bad for Taryls at all, all I am saying that Tyrion and Varys were right about her, and Daenerys shouldn't execute the prisoners. Otherwise that would make her another cruel Tyrant, no different than Joffrey or the Boltons. In the end, they were right, Daenerys was no different at all.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, RYShh said:

He beat her after she tried to manipulate him by using a Dothraki girl servant, Viserys is her king according to that delusional Targaryen claim, of course he could sell Daenerys to a Dothraki Khal, that happens even in Westeros, as Tyrion sold myrcella baratheon to martells. He told that 40.000 men thing after she said she doesn't want to be Drogo's Queen. Viserys is her king after all according to Targaryen claim, she needed to obey Viserys's royal command.

As I said, since Viserys was no king, she could do that and she could resist to Viserys's behaviors and his commands, but according to you the Targaryens are still kings and still the monarch, then Daenerys didn't listen her king even after Viserys told her to stop Drogo from killinghim. So pick one, either Daenerys is a traitor and a usurper, or the Targaryens were not the monarch and Viserys was no king and Daenerys was right to not to listen Viserys.

I pick the latter, the Targaryens were not the monarch, Viserys was no king and Daenerys was no queen.

 

She is also his heir, and Princess of Dragonstone, according to Targaryen loyalists. So, no, there is no expectation that she be treated as a slave.

[RYShh]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

She is also his heir, and Princess of Dragonstone, according to Targaryen loyalists. So, no, there is no expectation that she be treated as a slave.

As I said; 

''That happens even in Westeros, as Tyrion sold myrcella baratheon to martells.'' 

Joffrey was doing the same to his siblings, that doesn't give them a right to disobey Joffrey's orders.

[SeanF]

Just now, RYShh said:

As I said;

that happens even in Westeros, as Tyrion sold myrcella baratheon to martells. 

There's no comparison between being future Princess of Dorne (and she and Trystane are plainly very fond of each other) and a "horse lord's slut" (as Viserys charmingly describes her).

[RYShh]

Just now, SeanF said:

There's no comparison between being future Princess of Dorne (and she and Trystane are plainly very fond of each other) and a "horse lord's slut" (as Viserys charmingly describes her).

Still a Khaleesi.

[Nowy Tends]

3 hours ago, RYShh said:

The point is not what she could do. The point is she didn't even try. She could ask to spare Viserys's life from Drogo and take him as a prisoner or send him to exile. And she didn't even ask it.

Dothrakis don't keep prisoners, they sell them as slaves. and I doubt the concept of "exile" exists in Dothraki culture.

You miss the main "message" from this scene: Daenerys finds that Viserys is NOT a dragon, and she herself might well be the dragon. She understands that her brother could never have fulfilled the destiny of the last Targaryens, this task falls to her. Viserys has run his course, he is out of the picture.

[Br16]

2 minutes ago, RYShh said:

As I said, since Viserys was no king, she could do that and she could resist to Viserys's behaviors and his commands, but according to you the Targaryens are still kings and still the monarch, then Daenerys didn't listen her king even after Viserys told her to stop Drogo from killinghim. So pick one, either Daenerys is a traitor and a usurper, or the Targaryens were not the monarch and Viserys was no king and Daenerys was right to not to listen Viserys.

I pick the latter, the Targaryens were not the monarch, Viserys was no king and Daenerys was no queen.

Kings and queens are not above the law, that's your another mistake.

  Hide contents

 

''High Septon: The Faith calls Queen Margaery forward.

Margaery: You call me forward? 

High Septon: Yes, we have some questions for you.

Margaery:  - I am the queen. -

High Septon: You are. And according to the law of the Seven, neither kings nor queens are exempt from testimony at a holy inquest.''

 

Did High Septon give the crown to Robert? Yes. Then Robert is lawfully the king. Ned being a rebel doesn't make him a liar, are we going to listen him or you? Again, Varys said Jon has a better claim than Daenerys, are we going to listen you or him? You claim that Targaryens were the monarch, not me, so according to you Daenerys should've obeyed her kings royal command, but almost every time she tried to manipulate him and didn't listen to Viserys's final command before Drogo kills him.

I don't feel bad for Taryls at all, all I am saying that Tyrion and Varys were right about her, and Daenerys shouldn't execute the prisoners. Otherwise that would make her another cruel Tyrant, no different than Joffrey or the Boltons. In the end, they were right, Daenerys was no different at all.

 "...but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men."

The Andal Kings were subordinate to the Faith of the 7, but the Targaryens and their rule technically weren't. The Faith lost the their war when the Faith Militant disbanded and did the Church version of bending a knee by recognizing Doctrine of Exceptionalism etc. 

Also, Varys was treasonous and was willing to do anything to support a king he liked ("loyal to the realm"), so you should listen to me as I've outlined clear reasons why Jon is most likely a Sand.

And as I've said before, Dany was next in line to Viserys, so she becomes Queen Regnant upon his death. The fact whether she helped him or not does not change the succession law. It's where the phrase "The King/Queen is dead, long live the King/Queen" comes from. Once the King is dead, the heir becomes the new Sovereign immediately. The heir cannot be a usurper unless he or she was expressly disinherited before the King died. Viserys didn't get a chance to do so, so Dany is legally Queen. 

Also, you can legally do the right thing according to Medieval standards and still be a tyrant. Almost every powerful person is Westeros is a tyrant who tortured, conscripted, "foraged",  and laid waste to civilians non combatants. Even their captivity is under cruel and inhumane conditions. 

Thus, I feel that Dany executing the Tarlys were correct from a Judicial and Military view, but incorrect from a Compassion and Humaneness view. 

[RYShh]

1 minute ago, Nowy Tends said:

Dothrakis don't keep prisoners, they sell them as slaves. and I doubt the concept of "exile" exists in Dothraki culture.

You miss the main "message" from this scene: Daenerys finds that Viserys is NOT a dragon, and she herself might well be the dragon. She understands that her brother could never have fulfilled the destiny of the last Targaryens, this task falls to her. Viserys has run his course, he is out of the picture.

You doubt that? Perhaps there is one, and the issue is not even asking it, she didn't even ask or listen Viserys's so called royal command.

Oh, how nice. She can decide the laws and the destiny by herself, and she can decide for other people as well, it looks exactly like a Tyrant.