Daenerys & Mirri Maaz Duur

[SeanF]

@Sweet Sunray, to continue the analogy, Daenerys' situation is more akin to that of an exiled US girl who gets wed by force to an IS leader, than to an English teenager who flies out to join them.

If said girl had already had half her family murdered by the US government, and had spent her life on the run from US special forces, it would surely be a very harsh court that would condemn her for inciting an attack against the US.  I'm not saying it might not happen (or US forces might just shoot her on the spot) but it would be very unfair.  

I'd say that girl would have very real grievances against the US government.

[Lord Varys]

Why not compare to a dispossessed princess who was brought up by her abusive and somewhat deranged brother to see the reclamation of what their family had lost as their lives' purpose, marrying her to a cruel savage at the age of thirteen?

Because that's what she is. She never wanted to be Drogo's wife - she made the best she could out of this shitty and abusive relationship, looking for and finding 'joy' in a dunghill, basically. Dany's desire to get back what was her family's is nothing more and nothing less than what any other self-respecting noble/royal person in her situation would be expected to do. In fact, it is very clear that she only takes up Viserys III's mantle after his death, when she is truly the last Targaryen, the only one who can avenge her murdered family.

But even then - while she is still a fertile little baby machine she only acts in the best interests of her unborn son, not in her own. She is like Cat, protecting Robb and Bran and her other children. Or like Cersei, (sort of) trying to do the best for her children. Even when she declares herself queen in conversation with Jorah - she doesn't yet want the Iron Throne for herself. That only comes after Rhaego's and Drogo's death - and in a sense only after she hatches the dragons. Because only that makes herself a queen in the eyes of the people (especially the men) around her. Without the dragons Dany would have ended as Jorah Mormont's little sex bunny, just as she had started out as Khal Drogo's little sex bunny.

What Dany truly wants has nothing to do with power or violence or conquest - we see that in ADwD and whenever she brings up the house with the red door. She just wants to live her life in peace. And this agenda to avenge her family and reclaim what they lost isn't exactly her top priority, either, after she starts this crusade against slavery. This is a much more worthy cause than pursuing the shitty throne of savage and backwater Westeros - and she seems to be sharing that opinion. She makes it pretty clear in ADwD that 'fucking Westeros must wait'.

I cannot imagine a scenario where Dany ever ends up being obsessed with that ugly iron chair in a meaningful manner. Westeros never was her home, she was never there, she has no personal connection with the place. It will mean nothing to her if the people there love her or hate her. And she will always have her people - the freedmen and the Dothraki (if they end up joining her).

@sweetsunray

As per the standards of monarchs Robert's assassination attempt on Viserys III, Daenerys, Drogo himself, and his unborn son was, of course, an act of war by a 'brother/fellow monarch' which necessitated an answer in kind by any self-respecting ruler. If Drogo had let this slide he would have lost face not only with his fellow khals and the dosh khaleen, but also with other powerful players in Essos - even in Westeros itself.

And if you think about it - this whole thing borders on the Red Wedding insofar as their sacred taboos that are broken to conduct the assassination. Robert's agents broke the hospitality laws of the Dothraki, and it is even worse that this took place in their sacred city of Vaes Dothrak. One could compare this with an envoy of the Iron Throne throttling the High Septon in the Great Sept or in the Starry Sept back when they resided in Oldtown. Or with a lord butchering his guest in his castle or a guest attacking his host in the host's castle, etc.

There is nothing wrong with Drogo's action here. In fact, Drogo was a pretty reasonable guy until the assassination attempt was made. He took the Targaryens in and married the last princess because of the exotic flavor that came with it - his strong sons would inherit the purple eyes and the silver-gold hair of the Valyrian dragonlords the Dothraki seem to have been in awe centuries ago - but he had no real intention to ever bring his khalasar to Westeros. Perhaps he would have made good of his promise to Viserys III eventually, giving him the men he wanted to have, but he would have never bothered to get personally involved in a war in Westeros prior to the assassination attempt. That much is clear both from his contempt of Viserys III as well as from his plans for his unborn son.

[Lord Varys]

On 2/6/2020 at 4:30 AM, TedBear said:

The way it all happened Dany was desperate and it seemed to me that she just forgot about the child's life, when MMD tells her it wasn't her life we don't have any more Dany's thoughts on the subject, she says before she would sacrifice for him, but after learning that it wasn't her life she just says "do it". 

Just a few lines later, in time to put Drogo in the bathtub Dany says that the stallion would be used to give to Drogo strength, similar to what happened to her before.

"In Vaes Dothrak, Khal Drogo killed a stallion and I ate his heart, to give our son strength and courage. This is the same thing. The same."

right afterwards, when MMD is going to do the procedure, Dany talks about her son, and in no case does she seem to know the real sacrifice, she really doesn't seem to have thought that it could be the child, when she wakes up, she asks about her son and wants to see him, and she already had the information that Drogo was alive.

Dany says the baby appeared to be alive when he was taken to the tent. At that moment, MMD says "There was death in that tent, khaleesi", as she had previously said to Dany (but if she sacrificed the child as part of the ritual, why did she say that?)

- Only shadows, Ser Jorah revealed, but Dany could feel the doubt in her voice - I saw it, I saw it maegi, alone, dancing with the shadows.
- The grave produces long shadows, Iron Lord, said Mirri. Long and dark, and in the end no light can resist them.

after that Dany starts to think that Jorah taking her to the tent was the reason for Rhaego's death, but the shadows also touched Jorah.

The shadows touched you too, Ser Jorah, ”Dany told him. The knight did not answer. She turned to the wife of god. - You warned me that only death could pay for life. I thought you meant the horse.
"No," said Mirri Maz Duur. - That's what wanted to believe. You knew the price.

Here when Dany accuses her, MMD implies that the child was used in the ritual and tells Dany that she knew it. When MMD says about the ritual having a price, Dany could evaluate any living being that was not her, could be a blood companion, or any other sacrifice, if Rhaego was really the price, I think everyone would say that in the clear, maybe MMD was seeing that the situation was getting complicated for her and tried to stop Dany, saying that, but in my opinion neither she knows why the baby was born so monstrous, and I really believe that Dany was unconsciously transferring the baby's life to the dragon eggs gradually. 

She was lying there, clinging to the egg, when she felt the baby move in her belly ... as if she were holding out a hand, brother to brother, blood to blood.
"You are the dragon," Dany whispered to his son, "the real dragon."

She lightly ran her fingers over the surface of the bark, following the golden volutes, and in the depth of the rock she felt something twist and stretch in response. Wasn't scared.

There is really no clear answer to that whole conundrum - unless you turn to the appendices where it is stated multiple times that Mirri Maz Duur slew Rhaego in the womb of his mother.

We never get Mirri's POV so we cannot know what actually happens. In fact, we don't even know what the good Mirri did after Dany had been carried into the tent and the ritual to save Drogo was over. Mirri did not only work a spell to save Drogo, she also 'delivered' little Rhaego and tended to Dany while she was unconscious.

It is not even beyond the realm of possibility that the spell/ritual did nothing to Rhaego and Mirri just jumped on the chance magically kill Rhaego during the process of the premature birth. We know that magic/poison apparently can transform Targaryen children into monstrosities if Tyanna of the Tower can be believed.

But we can be very sure that Mirri Maz Duur actually claiming responsibility for the death of the child - and being proud of having killed the Stallion That Mounts the World before his birth - cannot just be swept aside. Considering Mirri's warning that Dany should not enter the tent the character could have washed his hands off the entire affair, claiming that Jorah killed Rhaego by carrying Dany into the tent. She could have said she tried to save Rhaego from the spirits/demons/whatever but failed. Instead she makes it very clear that she wants to understand Daenerys that she, Mirri, was responsible for this thing. That is not just an empty claim.

But as I wrote above somewhere already - there are many layers to the whole thing. Dany might have indeed known subconsciously that Rhaego had to die for Drogo to live - her not asking/caring about Rhaego when she awakes could indicate something like that. Or it just means she knew subconsciously that the child was dead.

There is no clear answer to all that - and we don't really need one.

[Bullrout]

On 2/8/2020 at 12:18 AM, Lord Varys said:

Why not compare to a dispossessed princess who was brought up by her abusive and somewhat deranged brother to see the reclamation of what their family had lost as their lives' purpose, marrying her to a cruel savage at the age of thirteen?

Because that's what she is. She never wanted to be Drogo's wife - she made the best she could out of this shitty and abusive relationship, looking for and finding 'joy' in a dunghill, basically. Dany's desire to get back what was her family's is nothing more and nothing less than what any other self-respecting noble/royal person in her situation would be expected to do. In fact, it is very clear that she only takes up Viserys III's mantle after his death, when she is truly the last Targaryen, the only one who can avenge her murdered family.

But even then - while she is still a fertile little baby machine she only acts in the best interests of her unborn son, not in her own. She is like Cat, protecting Robb and Bran and her other children. Or like Cersei, (sort of) trying to do the best for her children. Even when she declares herself queen in conversation with Jorah - she doesn't yet want the Iron Throne for herself. That only comes after Rhaego's and Drogo's death - and in a sense only after she hatches the dragons. Because only that makes herself a queen in the eyes of the people (especially the men) around her. Without the dragons Dany would have ended as Jorah Mormont's little sex bunny, just as she had started out as Khal Drogo's little sex bunny.

What Dany truly wants has nothing to do with power or violence or conquest - we see that in ADwD and whenever she brings up the house with the red door. She just wants to live her life in peace. And this agenda to avenge her family and reclaim what they lost isn't exactly her top priority, either, after she starts this crusade against slavery. This is a much more worthy cause than pursuing the shitty throne of savage and backwater Westeros - and she seems to be sharing that opinion. She makes it pretty clear in ADwD that 'fucking Westeros must wait'.

I cannot imagine a scenario where Dany ever ends up being obsessed with that ugly iron chair in a meaningful manner. Westeros never was her home, she was never there, she has no personal connection with the place. It will mean nothing to her if the people there love her or hate her. And she will always have her people - the freedmen and the Dothraki (if they end up joining her).

@sweetsunray

As per the standards of monarchs Robert's assassination attempt on Viserys III, Daenerys, Drogo himself, and his unborn son was, of course, an act of war by a 'brother/fellow monarch' which necessitated an answer in kind by any self-respecting ruler. If Drogo had let this slide he would have lost face not only with his fellow khals and the dosh khaleen, but also with other powerful players in Essos - even in Westeros itself.

And if you think about it - this whole thing borders on the Red Wedding insofar as their sacred taboos that are broken to conduct the assassination. Robert's agents broke the hospitality laws of the Dothraki, and it is even worse that this took place in their sacred city of Vaes Dothrak. One could compare this with an envoy of the Iron Throne throttling the High Septon in the Great Sept or in the Starry Sept back when they resided in Oldtown. Or with a lord butchering his guest in his castle or a guest attacking his host in the host's castle, etc.

There is nothing wrong with Drogo's action here. In fact, Drogo was a pretty reasonable guy until the assassination attempt was made. He took the Targaryens in and married the last princess because of the exotic flavor that came with it - his strong sons would inherit the purple eyes and the silver-gold hair of the Valyrian dragonlords the Dothraki seem to have been in awe centuries ago - but he had no real intention to ever bring his khalasar to Westeros. Perhaps he would have made good of his promise to Viserys III eventually, giving him the men he wanted to have, but he would have never bothered to get personally involved in a war in Westeros prior to the assassination attempt. That much is clear both from his contempt of Viserys III as well as from his plans for his unborn son.

I will add this.  There is no difference at all with the Targaryens wanting their kingdom back than the Starks who want Winterfell back.  Or Stannis wanting what he thinks is his in his own mind.  They are more justified because they owned the Seven Kingdoms for three centuries.  Doran's plan as well as Varys' scheme to restore the Targaryens to the throne is just as justified as Wayman's scheme to put the Starks back in power.

Khal Drogo had as much justifications for wanting to attack King's Landing for Robert's attempted assassination of his wife, the khaleesi, as the Starks had for wanting revenge for Bran and Ned.  Oh yeah, both would cause the deaths of many innocents along the way.  They are equivalent.  And you are correct.  The assassin broke a taboo as sacred as guest rights.  

Now on to Mirri Maaz Duur.  Taking your anger out on an unborn child is madness.  Murdering Khal Drogo or any leader would never go unpunished in any place in that world.  Let's put this situation in Westeros.  King Joffrey was an ass but everybody in Westeros would agree that his assassin should be punished.  The Khal was not a good man and sold many into slavery; however, there is always a consequence for killing a leader.  Mirri Maaz Duur would have suffered worse if she had killed Roose Bolton and Ramsay got hold of her.  Arya Stark would have made her die in extreme pain if she had murdered Ned Stark.  Stannis would have burned her for eating his pudding.  Understand what Mirri did to Daenerys was cruel.  Daenerys was perfectly justified to execute Mirri.  Ned killed Gared, a man suffering from post trauma stress.  Jon killed Janos for showing disrespect.  Arya murdered a helpless old insurance man and a young crow who had taken an extended vacation from the watch.  Stannis murdered his own brother.  The execution of one Mirri Maaz Duur is perfectly fine in their world.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Bullrout said:

I will add this.  There is no difference at all with the Targaryens wanting their kingdom back than the Starks who want Winterfell back.  Or Stannis wanting what he thinks is his in his own mind.  They are more justified because they owned the Seven Kingdoms for three centuries.  Doran's plan as well as Varys' scheme to restore the Targaryens to the throne is just as justified as Wayman's scheme to put the Starks back in power.

Khal Drogo had as much justifications for wanting to attack King's Landing for Robert's attempted assassination of his wife, the khaleesi, as the Starks had for wanting revenge for Bran and Ned.  Oh yeah, both would cause the deaths of many innocents along the way.  They are equivalent.  And you are correct.  The assassin broke a taboo as sacred as guest rights.  

Now on to Mirri Maaz Duur.  Taking your anger out on an unborn child is madness.  Murdering Khal Drogo or any leader would never go unpunished in any place in that world.  Let's put this situation in Westeros.  King Joffrey was an ass but everybody in Westeros would agree that his assassin should be punished.  The Khal was not a good man and sold many into slavery; however, there is always a consequence for killing a leader.  Mirri Maaz Duur would have suffered worse if she had killed Roose Bolton and Ramsay got hold of her.  Arya Stark would have made her die in extreme pain if she had murdered Ned Stark.  Stannis would have burned her for eating his pudding.  Understand what Mirri did to Daenerys was cruel.  Daenerys was perfectly justified to execute Mirri.  Ned killed Gared, a man suffering from post trauma stress.  Jon killed Janos for showing disrespect.  Arya murdered a helpless old insurance man and a young crow who had taken an extended vacation from the watch.  Stannis murdered his own brother.  The execution of one Mirri Maaz Duur is perfectly fine in their world.

I think it would be hard to justify war, purely, on the grounds of wanting the kingdom back.

But, Robert  gifted ius ad bellum to Daenerys, and Drogo.  Firstly, he rewarded the murderers of Elia and her infant children, and indeed was delighted by those murders.  Then he drove Dany and Viserys into exile.  Then he tried to poison Dany.

If, say, Robert had punished the murderers of Elia and her children, and made it clear to Dany and Viserys that they were at liberty to return to Westeros and live free, then I don't think there would be just cause for war.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Bullrout said:

I will add this.  There is no difference at all with the Targaryens wanting their kingdom back than the Starks who want Winterfell back.  Or Stannis wanting what he thinks is his in his own mind.  They are more justified because they owned the Seven Kingdoms for three centuries.  Doran's plan as well as Varys' scheme to restore the Targaryens to the throne is just as justified as Wayman's scheme to put the Starks back in power.

 

Which is none at all, people tend to use the Starks as the ultimate get away, but as you say, the Starks have as many rights to claim Winterfell than the Florents have to claim Brightwater Keep, the Yronwoods claiming half of Dorne and ofc the Targs claiming the 7K. Bringing war to a country because you feel entitled to it is not a justification. 

At least the Starks can make a case by saying that Westeros , as whole and not some random houses,  still considers them as the rightful rulers of the North and the North resents the Boltons for the Red Wedding, but  20 years from now, if say Rickon wants the North back and for that decides to drag a peaceful North under the Boltons into war,  that wouldn't be a valid excuse. That is simply warmongerism and entitlement, in no way different than Aegon's conquest and Daeron's war and ofc the sea of blood the Starks had to spill to be hailed as Kings in the North.

 

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

But, Robert  gifted ius ad bellum to Daenerys, and Drogo.  Firstly, he rewarded the murderers of Elia and her infant children, and indeed was delighted by those murders.  Then he drove Dany and Viserys into exile.  Then he tried to poison Dany.

 

The only ad bellum Robert gives, that makes a compelling case and a "moral one" is Robert trying to poison Dany. Robert did not sack KL, nor he rewarded or was delighted by those murders, he condoned them which is awful but isn't a causus belli and he marrried for political reasons that weren't related to the Sack. Were the Blackfyres entitled to wage three more dumb wars because they were drove into exile after their father's failed conquest?? One can say that Brynden's decision of killing Aenys B was indeed a causus belli, but exile for treason can't never be.

Before the poisoning Dany has no justification to claim vengeance over people he neither knows nor she truly cares about but Rhaegar and her father,  the rest  only are in her memory as a testimony of the Usurper's and his dogs evilness. After the poisoning she has every right to go to war but truth be told, the poisoning only gives case to her previous entitlement.

 

About the whole Mirri thing. I partially agree to an extent with @sweetsunray.

[SeanF]

24 minutes ago, frenin said:

Which is none at all, people tend to use the Starks as the ultimate get away, but as you say, the Starks have as many rights to claim Winterfell than the Florents have to claim Brightwater Keep, the Yronwoods claiming half of Dorne and ofc the Targs claiming the 7K. Bringing war to a country because you feel entitled to it is not a justification. 

At least the Starks can make a case by saying that Westeros , as whole and not some random houses,  still considers them as the rightful rulers of the North and the North resents the Boltons for the Red Wedding, but  20 years from now, if say Rickon wants the North back and for that decides to drag a peaceful North under the Boltons into war,  that wouldn't be a valid excuse. That is simply warmongerism and entitlement, in no way different than Aegon's conquest and Daeron's war and ofc the sea of blood the Starks had to spill to be hailed as Kings in the North.

 

 

The only ad bellum Robert gives, that makes a compelling case and a "moral one" is Robert trying to poison Dany. Robert did not sack KL, nor he rewarded or was delighted by those murders, he condoned them which is awful but isn't a causus belli and he marrried for political reasons that weren't related to the Sack. Were the Blackfyres entitled to wage three more dumb wars because they were drove into exile after his father's failed conquest?? One can say that Brynden's decision of killing Aenys B was indeed a causus belli, but exile for treason can't never be.

Before the poisoning Dany has no justification to claim vengeance over people he neither knows nor she truly knows about and but Rhaegar and her father only are in her memory as a testimony of the Usurper's and his dogs evilness. After the poisoning she has every right to go to war but truth be told, the poisoning only gives case to her previous entitlement.

 

 

"I see no children, only dragon spawn".

one can guess what Viserys' and Dany's fates would have been, had they fallen into his hands.

[frenin]

Just now, SeanF said:

"I see no children, only dragon spawn".

one can guess what Viserys' and Dany's fates would have been, had they fallen into his hands.

An expression of hatred, not  of delighment.

He would've killed them as a adults, doubtful he would've had the guts to kill them as children, more likely than not he'd wash his hands.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

An expression of hatred, not  of delighment.

He would've killed them as a adults, doubtful he would've had the guts to kill them as children, more likely than not he'd wash his hands.

He'd get someone else to do it for him.

[frenin]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

He'd get someone else to do it for him.

As he kept doing for 14 years according to Viserys?? Maybe, i don't think again, Dany had any good jusification to insist on waging a war on Westeros prior the poisoning, i don't believe that entitlement is the bext justification of them all.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

As he kept doing for 14 years according to Viserys?? Maybe, i don't think again, Dany had any good jusification to insist on waging a war on Westeros prior the poisoning, i don't believe that entitlement is the bext justification of them all.

Perhaps, but what I know is that if were in Daenerys' shoes, I'd want to pay Robert back, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.

[frenin]

55 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Perhaps, but what I know is that if were in Daenerys' shoes, I'd want to pay Robert back, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.

Ofc, if you were Dany you would've been raised with only hatred and revenge. You'd hate also, "cold eyes with frozen heart" Ned Stark and so on, that does not make it you're wrong and jumped into conclussions. At least Viserys or i don't know Sansa know or understand what they have lost, Dany  was not even born when her family lost it all and were slaughtered, they are strangers to her, ghosts she feels the need to revenge, ghosts she feel the need to fight.

Waging a war on that is unjustifiable, waging a war after the poisoning is totally understandable but since she is using the poisoning as a tool to egg Drogo into something she wanted all along, she shares a small (however small is up to the reader) guilt of whatever Westeros turns out.

 

About Mirri, i don't really think she kill them, deformities stillbirths are a thing in the Targs so i don't buy it all, why she claim she had?? Well, rage can make someone do the stupidest things...

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 hours ago, frenin said:

As he kept doing for 14 years according to Viserys?? Maybe, i don't think again, Dany had any good jusification to insist on waging a war on Westeros prior the poisoning, i don't believe that entitlement is the bext justification of them all.

It may not be the best justification but it's the only one Renly or Stannis had either. Dany didn't wage war on Westeros prior to the poisoning anyway so when it happened, it was justified 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Ofc, if you were Dany you would've been raised with only hatred and revenge. You'd hate also, "cold eyes with frozen heart" Ned Stark and so on, that does not make it you're wrong and jumped into conclussions. At least Viserys or i don't know Sansa know or understand what they have lost, Dany  was not even born when her family lost it all and were slaughtered, they are strangers to her, ghosts she feels the need to revenge, ghosts she feel the need to fight.

She doesn't only feel hatred & revenge. She does call Robert & Co the ursurper & the ursurpers dogs but Robert is, indeed a usurper.

The fact that she lost her family all before she knew them is all the more reason to be mad about it. She had to be raised by a cowardly, vicious brother because of it. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Waging a war on that is unjustifiable, waging a war after the poisoning is totally understandable but since she is using the poisoning as a tool to egg Drogo into something she wanted all along, she shares a small (however small is up to the reader) guilt of whatever Westeros turns out

Sure, she holds responsibility for how what happens if she wages war on Westeros, but as of yet, she has not. 

2 hours ago, frenin said:

About Mirri, i don't really think she kill them, deformities stillbirths are a thing in the Targs so i don't buy it all, why she claim she had?? Well, rage can make someone do the stupidest things

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't but I do think there is evidence to support both positions & the fact that Mirri took responsibility for it says to me she got what she deserved. 

[frenin]

8 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It may not be the best justification but it's the only one Renly or Stannis had either. Dany didn't wage war on Westeros prior to the poisoning anyway so when it happened, it was justified 

And the Starks and Rhaenrya and and... There is a difference, i wouldn't mind if they fight for what is "theirs",  i root for them but deep down i know, that's a shitty justification for throwing a whole continent into a war.   Since i don't have either a positive nor a negative opinion of Dany i can say much easily than if say, we were  having a "greens v black" discussion.

Also i think there is a rather big difference about fighting for something you know and know it's yours than fighting for a dream because your brother egged to believe it's your dream too.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

She doesn't only feel hatred & revenge. She does call Robert & Co the ursurper & the ursurpers dogs but Robert is, indeed a usurper.

She does because Viserys had taught her that. Or is Ned Robert's dog??

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 The fact that she lost her family all before she knew them is all the more reason to be mad about it. She had to be raised by a cowardly, vicious brother because of it. 

She wouldn't have been born otherwise. Losing something/someone you hold dear is worse than losing an illusion, which is what the Targs, especially Rhaegar and Aerys are, does she talk about her mother?? A curiousity,  i can only think about her recalling that Viserys had been crowned by her.

She is mad because her cowardly vicious brother had filled her head with dellusions about her family which makes her angry because they are all dead and instead of dellusions she is stuck with the cowardly, vicious brother.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, she holds responsibility for how what happens if she wages war on Westeros, but as of yet, she has not. 

And what happens to get to Westeros...

 

 

37 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't but I do think there is evidence to support both positions & the fact that Mirri took responsibility for it says to me she got what she deserved. 

Well, i don't know if she deserved that but yeah, if you proudly tell someone you killed both their husband and theur kid, you better be ready for the consequences.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 minute ago, frenin said:

And the Starks and Rhaenrya and and... There is a difference, i wouldn't mind if they fight for what is "theirs",  i root for them but deep down i know, that's a shitty justification for throwing a whole continent into a war.   Since i don't have either a positive nor a negative opinion of Dany i can say much easily than if say, we were  having a "greens v black" discussion

Yeah, I agree wars are shitty, regardless of the justification for them. I'm only noting that her justification is no more or less than most. 

2 minutes ago, frenin said:

Also i think there is a rather big difference about fighting for something you know and know it's yours than fighting for a dream because your brother egged to believe it's your dream too

Oh, I disagree. She doesn't view it as a dream, but a right. She believes it's her birthright to rule Westeros. So she very much knows it's hers. 

3 minutes ago, frenin said:

She does because Viserys had taught her that. Or is Ned Robert's dog?

Viserys "taught" her many things, many of which she has disregarded. She is her own person, regardless of what he told her & has proven herself capable of a wide variety of feelings & emotions, not just hatred & vengeance. 

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

She wouldn't have been born otherwise. Losing something/someone you hold dear is worse than losing an illusion, which is what the Targs, especially Rhaegar and Aerys are, does she talk about her mother?? A curiousity,  i can only think about her recalling that Viserys had been crowned by her

Why would she not have been born if her family wasn't slaughtered? 

She has every right & reason to be upset over her entire family being slaughtered, whether she knew them or not. She would have grown up very differently had she been born into & raised by Rhaegar or even Aerys. He was a nut job but she would have never wanted for a place to live, probably never been subject to her cruel brother, never had to rely on handouts & never been sold to a horselord. 

If your father, brother, niece, & nephew were brutally murdered before you were born & your mother died in childbirth, do you not think you would mourn them just because you never met them? Do you not think you would want revenge & justice on the people who murdered them? 

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

And what happens to get to Westeros

I'm not sure what you are asking me. 

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

Well, i don't know if she deserved that but yeah, if you proudly tell someone you killed both their husband and theur kid, you better be ready for the consequences

Well, yeah burning someone alive is pretty inhumane. But she definitely earned Dany's wrath. 

[kissdbyfire]

21 minutes ago, frenin said:

Also i think there is a rather big difference about fighting for something you know and know it's yours than fighting for a dream because your brother egged to believe it's your dream too.

 

This, x 1,000.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Oh, I disagree. She doesn't view it as a dream, but a right. 

She does indeed, but that alone doesn’t make it so. The Targs lost the war, and the crown. They aren’t the “rightful” heirs to anything. If they conquer it back, then yeah. But not until then, and certainly not in the current timeline. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This, x 1,000.

She does indeed, but that alone doesn’t make it so. The Targs lost the war, and the crown. They aren’t the “rightful” heirs to anything. If they conquer it back, then yeah. But not until then, and certainly not in the current timeline. 

For sure. I was pointing out that this isn't a dream she inherited from her brother. It isn't a dream at all in her eyes but a right. I don't agree with that right but I do understand why she would hold animosity towards the men who killed her family. 

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

For sure. I was pointing out that this isn't a dream she inherited from her brother. It isn't a dream at all in her eyes but a right. I don't agree with that right but I do understand why she would hold animosity towards the men who killed her family. 

Definitely. It’s a shame Dany only had Viserys for so long. Her heart is in the right place, but Viserys really was Mad Aerys’s son through and through. When people talk about Dany suffering from Stockholm Syndrome w/ Drogo it makes me laugh a bit, b/c her proper

Syndrome developed during all the years she spent w/ her crazy ass loser of a brother. 

The real question irt Dany is whether she’ll realise how wrong some of her “beliefs” are or not. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

20 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Definitely. It’s a shame Dany only had Viserys for so long. Her heart is in the right place, but Viserys really was Mad Aerys’s son through and through. When people talk about Dany suffering from Stockholm Syndrome w/ Drogo it makes me laugh a bit, b/c her proper

Syndrome developed during all the years she spent w/ her crazy ass loser of a brother. 

The real question irt Dany is whether she’ll realise how wrong some of her “beliefs” are or not. 

I agree 100% she was indoctrined long before Drogo. I do hope she straightens her shit out.