Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Br16 said:

 "...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. 

They still keep following the Faith of Seven, what you say is nothing but an excuse.

Oh, you know better than Varys? Ok. :D Daenerys never took the Iron Throne, or her coronation never happened, just like Viserys never did, there is no difference between them. She would usurp any Targaryen before her, she didn't want to listen Viserys's command and she tried to usurp Jon's right to the throne, and she would kill anyone for that, she has no right to talk about the rights of House Targaryen in these circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RYShh said:

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.

If you see Daenerys as a tyrant in that scene where a 14 year old slave bride realizes that her brother is a loser who will never achieve his goal, then has the intelligence to keep her mouth shut, you probably see tyrants on every street corner and no discussion is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RYShh said:

They still keep following the Faith of Seven, what you say is nothing but an excuse.

Oh, you know better than Varys? Ok. :D Daenerys never took the Iron Throne, or her coronation never happened, just like Viserys never did, there is no difference between them. She would usurp any Targaryen before her, she didn't want to listen Viserys's command and she tried to usurp Jon's right to the throne, and she would kill anyone for that, she has no right to talk about the rights of House Targaryen in these circumstances.

They kept the faith around for PR purposes, but the faith was subordinate to its Royal Power. And, as I've said before, Dany cannot usurp because Viserys (who was crowned on Dragonstone by Rhaella BTW) designated her lawful heir. Moreover, Jon was a Sand, so he had no claims to the throne, it was Varys doing the usurpation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Br16 said:

They kept the faith around for PR purposes, but the faith was subordinate to its Royal Power. And, as I've said before, Dany cannot usurp because Viserys (who was crowned on Dragonstone by Rhaella BTW) designated her lawful heir. Moreover, Jon was a Sand, so he had no claims to the throne, it was Varys doing the usurpation.

PR purposes all that matters. Daenerys wouldn't be the heir if Viserys had a children, even then being heir doesn't give a right to disobey royal command, that's what she did. High Septon confirmed that Jon is not a Sand. Are you really following this show? :D

8 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

If you see Daenerys as a tyrant in that scene where a 14 year old slave bride realizes that her brother is a loser who will never achieve his goal, then has the intelligence to keep her mouth shut, you probably see tyrants on every street corner and no discussion is possible.

Renly decides on his own that Stannis wouldn't be a good king, and tried to usurp his right, and didn't listen his brothers royal command. She looks exactly like Renly in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RYShh said:

PR purposes all that matters. Daenerys wouldn't be the heir if Viserys had a children, even then being heir doesn't give a right to disobey royal command, that's what she did. High Septon confirmed that Jon is not a Sand. Are you really following this show? 

 

The faith is just a puppet of Targaryens after the Faith militant was disbanded by Targs. So they don't get to regulate Targaryen Royal power as they have submitted.

High Septon alone is not enough to make Jon not a Sand. Royal marriages must be approved by the Sovereign to be valid, and a wedding is only valid with witnesses. The High Septon's false annulment of a valid and consummated marriage is both illegal and opens him to charges of simony. 

Also, Dany was rightfully heir presumptive (so she was the lawful heir precisely because Viserys did not have children), and disobeying a royal command does not effect your succession rights unless the King changes it as retaliation. Viserys died with Dany as heir, so she becomes Queen Regnant. It's just like how some people forgot to change their wills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Br16 said:

The faith is just a puppet of Targaryens after the Faith militant was disbanded by Targs. So they don't get to regulate Targaryen Royal power as they have submitted.

High Septon alone is not enough to make Jon not a Sand. Royal marriages must be approved by the Sovereign to be valid, and a wedding is only valid with witnesses. The High Septon's false annulment of a valid and consummated marriage is both illegal and opens him to charges of simony. 

Also, Dany was rightfully heir presumptive (so she was the lawful heir precisely because Viserys did not have children), and disobeying a royal command does not effect your succession rights unless the King changes it as retaliation. Viserys died with Dany as heir, so she becomes Queen Regnant. It's just like how some people forgot to change their wills. 

Puppet or not, do they have laws? Yes, then stop making up excuses already. High Septon is more than enough to prove that he was not a sand. Which is why no one argued against it in the show, you're still making up excuses.

Who said disobeying royal command effects her succession rights? I said Daenerys disobeyed royal command of Viserys (according to you Viserys was king, I say he was not) and she let him die. So she has no respect for it, and she can't talk about Targaryen rights. And she knew Jon has a claim, and a better one, yet she wanted Jon to be silent and not to tell anyone, because she wanted to usurp Jon's right to the throne. She is a usurper, she is a tyrant, no one betrayed her, that's Daenerys's delusion, and she couldn't execute Tarlys for betrayal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

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.

Is she really doing all this for the smallfolk in Westeros though? If she did, she'd set aside her title and start a Brotherhood without Banners or something, not do whatever it takes to win the throne. By S8 I would say its a misconception that her heart bleeds for their plight. In the show, she only fought the NK for Jon and because she lost a dragon. In the books she doesn't really understand them. In her first chapter she says she cant understand why the people dont care who rules over them, an Usurper or a true king. I think that is magnified later on when Cersei and Jon are standing in her way. So she takes it out on the smallfolk for not choosing their "true queen." I also think deep down she didn't really care about them, her dragons and the throne were more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 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.

 

She is not next in line. The line now descends from Robert (himself a male descendant of Aegon V). That's why he was the candidate for the throne--not Jon Arryn and not Ned. As I've said before, if Aerys and his whole family had died in a plane crash, Robert was next in line.

With Joffrey and Tommen illegitimate, that made Stannis the rightful king after Robert's death. Daenerys is nothing but a usurper. She has no right to anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ice Queen said:

With Joffrey and Tommen illegitimate, that made Stannis the rightful king after Robert's death. Daenerys is nothing but a usurper. She has no right to anything. 

Except that the Lannister's managed to keep Joffrey and Tommen in power, while the person who tried to make their illegitimacy public is portrayed as the bad guy and is stupidly killed 1500 miles from the capital city…

With all the Baratheons dead, Dany becomes a legitimate contender, it is her right and her duty to kick the ass of the Lannisters and the fools who pay tribute to Cersei after all the crimes she has committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Except that the Lannister's managed to keep Joffrey and Tommen in power, while the person who tried to make their illegitimacy public is portrayed as the bad guy and is stupidly killed 1500 miles from the capital city…

With all the Baratheons dead, Dany becomes a legitimate contender, it is her right and her duty to kick the ass of the Lannisters and the fools who pay tribute to Cersei after all the crimes she has committed.

No, she's a usurper and violent conqueror. And in the show she was dumb enough to legitimize Gendry, making HIM the rightful heir over even Jon as the now-legitimized son of the lawful ruler. That would be Robert. So, not only would she constantly have to worry about Jon, she'd have to worry about Gendry and his sons.

Dany is no one's heir and she has no right to anything. Why do you think she was never part of Varys' plans in the books? He had Aegon and Viserys. He had no need of her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day the person who is able to seize the throne by rebellion or conquest and then has the ability to keep the throne with the support of allies and the people is the one who has the most right to be the king.  Titles and inherent right mean nothing if you are unable to seize power and keep it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

No, she's a usurper and violent conqueror.

And that is the response to my post? What age are you? Did you even understand what I just wrote? Or even tried to do so? 

btw, a "violent conqueror", seriously? in a world where 90% of problems are solved by violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

At the end of the day the person who is able to seize the throne by rebellion or conquest and then has the ability to keep the throne with the support of allies and the people is the one who has the most right to be the king.  Titles and inherent right mean nothing if you are unable to seize power and keep it. 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RYShh said:

Puppet or not, do they have laws? Yes, then stop making up excuses already. High Septon is more than enough to prove that he was not a sand. Which is why no one argued against it in the show, you're still making up excuses.

Who said disobeying royal command effects her succession rights? I said Daenerys disobeyed royal command of Viserys (according to you Viserys was king, I say he was not) and she let him die. So she has no respect for it, and she can't talk about Targaryen rights. And she knew Jon has a claim, and a better one, yet she wanted Jon to be silent and not to tell anyone, because she wanted to usurp Jon's right to the throne. She is a usurper, she is a tyrant, no one betrayed her, that's Daenerys's delusion, and she couldn't execute Tarlys for betrayal.

The sequence of events that I remember are as follows - Rhaegar fell on the Trident. Viserys and a pregnant Rhaella then fled to Dragonstone. Viserys was then made heir apparent, passing over Rhaegars actual legitimate infant son Aegon (son of Elia Martell). After Aerys was assassinated, Viserys was then named king of the seven kingdoms.  Aegon was also killed by the Mountain just prior to Aerys’ death.  Jon Sand/Snow/Targaryen was then born. Daenerys was then born. Viserys was then killed by Drogo, leaving Daenerys as the sole supposed heir.

It seems like Rhaegar’s line of heirs were skipped altogether even though baby Aegon was still alive after Rhaegar died. It may be cause Viserys was full Targaryen by blood while Aegon was not but I am not sure.  So if Aegon was left out, why would Jon Snow/Sand be considered any type of heir - who btw was never actually legitimatized.  And I don’t know how a high septon can just annul a marriage for no apparent reason. It seemed like something D&D just threw in there when Sam made that out of nowhere revelation. 

What I am saying is that Dany was the next in line after Viserys. At the very least, she has a very strong claim to the Iron throne at least by heritability. I know that’s not what was actually presented on the show but it was really because it was D&D and they aren’t really even going to actually try to be accurate when it comes to Westerosi history. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RYShh said:

Puppet or not, do they have laws? Yes, then stop making up excuses already. High Septon is more than enough to prove that he was not a sand. Which is why no one argued against it in the show, you're still making up excuses.

Who said disobeying royal command effects her succession rights? I said Daenerys disobeyed royal command of Viserys (according to you Viserys was king, I say he was not) and she let him die. So she has no respect for it, and she can't talk about Targaryen rights. And she knew Jon has a claim, and a better one, yet she wanted Jon to be silent and not to tell anyone, because she wanted to usurp Jon's right to the throne. She is a usurper, she is a tyrant, no one betrayed her, that's Daenerys's delusion, and she couldn't execute Tarlys for betrayal.

High Septon acted illegally to issue such a false annulment, and the faith's laws are subordinate to House Targaryen, which is why Targaryen incest is okay. Aerys II did not give Royal assent to the Lyanna marriage (which happened without witnesses), thus Rhaegar/Lyanna "marriage" was invalid for succession.  

And Dany certainly had every right to talk about Targaryen rights, she was next in line as heir presumptive. Also, Jon's claim was significantly worse, and is even inferior to the Blackfyre claim before as the Backfyres were legitimized and Jon was not.  

Thus, she lawfully inherited the iron throne, she could lawfully execute the Tarlys for betrayal, and she did.

8 hours ago, Ice Queen said:

She is not next in line. The line now descends from Robert (himself a male descendant of Aegon V). That's why he was the candidate for the throne--not Jon Arryn and not Ned. As I've said before, if Aerys and his whole family had died in a plane crash, Robert was next in line.

With Joffrey and Tommen illegitimate, that made Stannis the rightful king after Robert's death. Daenerys is nothing but a usurper. She has no right to anything. 

Robert and Stannis are descended from the female line, Targayren succession law only allows true born inheritance from the male line. Thus, Robert and Stannis have no rights. Daenerys is next in line as she inherits from Viserys, who inherited from Aerys II. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Westerosi said:

The sequence of events that I remember are as follows - Rhaegar fell on the Trident. Viserys and a pregnant Rhaella then fled to Dragonstone. Viserys was then made heir apparent, passing over Rhaegars actual legitimate infant son Aegon (son of Elia Martell). After Aerys was assassinated, Viserys was then named king of the seven kingdoms.  Aegon was also killed by the Mountain just prior to Aerys’ death.  Jon Sand/Snow/Targaryen was then born. Daenerys was then born. Viserys was then killed by Drogo, leaving Daenerys as the sole supposed heir.

It seems like Rhaegar’s line of heirs were skipped altogether even though baby Aegon was still alive after Rhaegar died. It may be cause Viserys was full Targaryen by blood while Aegon was not but I am not sure.  So if Aegon was left out, why would Jon Snow/Sand be considered any type of heir - who btw was never actually legitimatized.  And I don’t know how a high septon can just annul a marriage for no apparent reason. It seemed like something D&D just threw in there when Sam made that out of nowhere revelation. 

What I am saying is that Dany was the next in line after Viserys. At the very least, she has a very strong claim to the Iron throne at least by heritability. I know that’s not what was actually presented on the show but it was really because it was D&D and they aren’t really even going to actually try to be accurate when it comes to Westerosi history. 

 

I agree with you completely. Thank you for this excellent and succinct legal explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Br16 said:

Robert and Stannis are descended from the female line, Targayren succession law only allows true born inheritance from the male line. Thus, Robert and Stannis have no rights. Daenerys is next in line as she inherits from Viserys, who inherited from Aerys II. 

The Dance of Dragons once and for all settled that Targaryen females cannot inherit but their male children can.  See Aegon III.

Sorry, no queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

The Dance of Dragons once and for all settled that Targaryen females cannot inherit but their male children can.  See Aegon III.

Sorry, no queen.

The Dance settled that Targaryen females can only inherit after every true born male Targaryen was dead (which is what happened after Viserys died, so Dany inherited). By law, if Maester Aemon did not join the NW and was still around, he would lawfully be King over Daenerys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Br16 said:

The Dance settled that Targaryen females can only inherit after every true born male Targaryen was dead (which is what happened after Viserys died, so Dany inherited). So that means if Maester Aemon did not join the NW and was still around, he would lawfully be King over Daenerys. 

Which explains why Bloodraven, as the eldest surviving true-born male Targaryen, is now the lawful king. Hurray!

Sure is (l)awful good that he’s who got himself elected to the catbird seat at the end. 

Wouldn’t want anything unlawful would we now.

Pretty convenient how that all worked out if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...