If not Dany, then who?

[Monster_Under_the_Bed]

One big question is why would Westeros need Daenerys at all? All that she brings with her are dragons and Dothraki hordes to unleash on the population. Clearly, no matter how she proceeds, there will be a terrible war when she arrives. On a continent that was never really her home and one that is trying to forget that her ancestors ever existed. There is no indication that her rule will be anything other than a rule through terror as lords of Westeros will not go to her side willingly.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

One big question is why would Westeros need Daenerys at all? All that she brings with her are dragons and Dothraki hordes to unleash on the population. Clearly, no matter how she proceeds, there will be a terrible war when she arrives. On a continent that was never really her home and one that is trying to forget that her ancestors ever existed. There is no indication that her rule will be anything other than a rule through terror as lords of Westeros will not go to her side willingly.

In narrative terms, it seems she has a part to play in the defeat of the Others.  They won’t be beaten by Arya springing out of a tree.  In terms of local support, it will come from those who have a grudge against whoever rules in Kings Landing (most likely the Tyrells, and their vassals, IMO).

[Alyn Oakenfist]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Martin is a fan of Richard III, and Tyrion is pretty much his version of Shakespeare’s Richard III.  He might be aiming for an outcome in which Richard wins, rather than getting his comeuppance.  Or maybe he’ll be Iago?

I dunno about Iago, but Ned is definitely Richard the III, from ruling the North as the right hand man of his brother Edward, to then trying to usurp The Throne by claiming that Edward's children were bastards and Edward's brother should rule instead. Also he had a long face and had a bastard called Jon.

[Aldarion]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Mao was a piece of work from the outset.

Dany trying to complete her great-grandfather’s reforms, being branded like him a “tyrant”, resorting to force, and being brought down by the lords, is an entirely plausible outcome.  Even dragons are no protection from an assassin’s knife.  She could easily finish up on the opposite side to other sympathetic characters in such a conflict.  

That is definitely a possibility, yes.

[Rose of Red Lake]

That just sounds like the Jon/Bowen plot with the names changed.

[Nathan Stark]

8 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I dunno about Iago, but Ned is definitely Richard the III, from ruling the North as the right hand man of his brother Edward, to then trying to usurp The Throne by claiming that Edward's children were bastards and Edward's brother should rule instead. Also he had a long face and had a bastard called Jon.

Richard the III was a villian, if I remember my Shakespeare. George is not basing his tragic hero Ned on the character of one of Shakespeare's bad guys. Tyrion is a much better fit as Richard the III.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, Nathan Stark said:

8 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I dunno about Iago, but Ned is definitely Richard the III, from ruling the North as the right hand man of his brother Edward, to then trying to usurp The Throne by claiming that Edward's children were bastards and Edward's brother should rule instead. Also he had a long face and had a bastard called Jon.

Richard the III was a villian, if I remember my Shakespear. George is not basing his tragic hero Ned on the character of one of Shakespear's bad guys. Tyrion is a much better fit as Richard the III.

Well, it's a long story, but the crux of the matter is that Richard the IIIrd was deffo badly slandered by Shakespeare, and wasn't that mad. Some even go as far as to say he was a good person, though I'd call that a stretch. One of the books that claims as such I'm almost sure is one of the books GRRM read and may have used, similarly to how many Kings in Westeros are less parallels to actual roman and emperors than to the Roman emperors from I Claudius. And given that Ned is forced to basically admit he's the bad guy, you can see how that parallel might work.

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well, it's a long story, but the crux of the matter is that Richard the IIIrd was deffo badly slandered by Shakespeare, and wasn't that mad. Some even go as far as to say he was a good person, though I'd call that a stretch. One of the books that claims as such I'm almost sure is one of the books GRRM read and may have used, similarly to how many Kings in Westeros are less parallels to actual roman and emperors than to the Roman emperors from I Claudius. And given that Ned is forced to basically admit he's the bad guy, you can see how that parallel might work.

I think that Martin views Tyrion as Shakespeare's Richard III.  Richard is nominally the villain of the play, and Richmond the hero, but Richard really steals the show, and is the part every actor wants. 

Shakespeare nominally slanders Richard, but I wonder if it was his intention to make him the character that most people root for, or if this was just a happy accident.  Iago, on the other hand, is just vile.  

Although there is no smoking gun, I can't think of any better candidate than real life Richard for the murder of the two princes.  I'm not convinced at all by arguments that seek to blame Lady Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII, or the Duke of Buckingham.  In the terms of this story, I'm convinced by @Lord Varysargument that probably Tommen, Myrcella, and Margaery will be the equivalents of the princes in the Tower.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Although there is no smoking gun, I can't think of any better candidate than real life Richard for the murder of the two princes.  I'm not convinced at all by arguments that seek to blame Lady Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII, or the Duke of Buckingham.

Well if there was anyone but Richard (I agree that it was Richard) then it was Henry VII. Had they still been alive after Bosworth he might had plenty of reasons to do it:

- First of Henry the VIIth was a ruthless asshole, so no moral qualms there.

- Second off his rule was horrifically illegitimate, his claim came from the matrilineal side through a (legitimized) bastard line if I remember correctly. So he had way more reason then Richard

- Third off, while Richard was definitely an usurper, that doesn't make him a kinslayer, something that was as reviled back then as in Westeros. Henry on the other hand had no such familiar tie. Keeping them locked up and declared bastards could have been enough for him.

- And forth off and this is the most important. Henry removed the bastardy decree. In order to seal the deal he married their sister, Elizabeth I think. But to give the marriage some weigh, he revoked the bastardy decree, therefore making the princess that much more dangerous

Again not saying it wasn't Richard, but it is a valid theory.

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that Martin views Tyrion as Shakespeare's Richard III.  Richard is nominally the villain of the play, and Richmond the hero, but Richard really steals the show, and is the part every actor wants. 

 

Yes, Tyrion is Shakespeare Richard while Ned is romanticized historical Richard

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well if there was anyone but Richard (I agree that it was Richard) then it was Henry VII. Had they still been alive after Bosworth he might had plenty of reasons to do it:

- First of Henry the VIIth was a ruthless asshole, so no moral qualms there.

- Second off his rule was horrifically illegitimate, his claim came from the matrilineal side through a (legitimized) bastard line if I remember correctly. So he had way more reason then Richard

- Third off, while Richard was definitely an usurper, that doesn't make him a kinslayer, something that was as reviled back then as in Westeros. Henry on the other hand had no such familiar tie. Keeping them locked up and declared bastards could have been enough for him.

- And forth off and this is the most important. Henry removed the bastardy decree. In order to seal the deal he married their sister, Elizabeth I think. But to give the marriage some weigh, he revoked the bastardy decree, therefore making the princess that much more dangerous

Again not saying it wasn't Richard, but it is a valid theory.

Yes, Tyrion is Shakespeare Richard while Ned is romanticized historical Richard

The problem with that theory is that was known across European courts by December 1483 that the children had disappeared, and both senior clerics and foreign envoys were asking very pointed questions about their disappearance.  

It’s always possible they were murdered by underlings on their own initiative, leaving Richard with a horrid PR problem.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, SeanF said:

The problem with that theory is that was known across European courts by December 1483 that the children had disappeared, and both senior clerics and foreign envoys were asking very pointed questions about their disappearance.  

Thing is, no one actually searched the tower, so all we know is that they went in and never went out (probably but the theories that they did escape are worse then the supposed identity of Aegon). So that's it. Presumably they were killed off at some point, but the when is impossible to say. All we have are the characters and motivations of the people at stake. That's it.

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It’s always possible they were murdered by underlings on their own initiative, leaving Richard with a horrid PR problem.

I think this is the right one. And man did fate fuck over Richard hard. The PR disaster with the princes, losing his wife, his son and implicitly his alliance with the Nevilles, and finally one very Olenna Tyrell Margaret Beaufort stabbing him in the back through her very own Mace Tyrell, all leading to him losing to Henry.

[SeanF]

17 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

 

I think this is the right one. And man did fate fuck over Richard hard. The PR disaster with the princes, losing his wife, his son and implicitly his alliance with the Nevilles, and finally one very Olenna Tyrell Margaret Beaufort stabbing him in the back through her very own Mace Tyrell, all leading to him losing to Henry.

I could see it going down similarly in TWOW.  fAegon and Arianne take Kings Landing and capture Tommen, Margaery and her cousins (they already have Myrcella).  They formally proclaim the two Lannisters bastards, but otherwise guarantee their captives’ safety.

But, we know that Jon Connington, Nymeria, Tyene, and Obara are far more vindictive.  And so, something very ugly takes place, leaving fAegon and Arianne with an awful PR problem.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I could see it going down similarly in TWOW.  fAegon and Arianne take Kings Landing and capture Tommen, Margaery and her cousins (they already have Myrcella).  They formally proclaim the two Lannisters bastards, but otherwise guarantee their captives’ safety.

But, we know that Jon Connington, Nymeria, Tyene, and Obara are far more vindictive.  And so, something very ugly takes place, leaving fAegon and Arianne with an awful PR problem.

If we're going to try and resemble to actual history, then who is going to be Blackadder and who is going to be Baldrick?

[The Sleeper]

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

I could see it going down similarly in TWOW.  fAegon and Arianne take Kings Landing and capture Tommen, Margaery and her cousins (they already have Myrcella).  They formally proclaim the two Lannisters bastards, but otherwise guarantee their captives’ safety.

But, we know that Jon Connington, Nymeria, Tyene, and Obara are far more vindictive.  And so, something very ugly takes place, leaving fAegon and Arianne with an awful PR problem.

It seems to me that the easiest way to the Throne for Eagon is over Tommen's corpse. He is the lynchpin that ties the Tyrells (and the Faith, for that matter) to the throne. And the presence of the Sand snakes in King's Landing, seems like the setup for that to occur.

Why do you say they already have Myrcella?

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

It seems to me that the easiest way to the Throne for Eagon is over Tommen's corpse. He is the lynchpin that ties the Tyrells (and the Faith, for that matter) to the throne. And the presence of the Sand snakes in King's Landing, seems like the setup for that to occur.

Why do you say they already have Myrcella?

Myrcella is betrothed to Trystane, and returning to the capital with Nymeria.  But, she’s now been badly disfigured, reducing her appeal as a bride.  And, once they’re openly at war with the Lannisters and Tyrells, she’s no longer of any use to the Martells.

Arianne is full of remorse for the injuries done to Myrcella, but I doubt if she alone could protect her from the others’ wrath. Sadly, we know that Tommen and Myrcella are doomed, and their falling victim to Jon Con and the Sands seems the likeliest fate to me.

I don’t think Arianne appreciates just how cruel her cousins and supporters can be.

[The Sleeper]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Myrcella is betrothed to Trystane, and returning to the capital with Nymeria.  But, she’s now been badly disfigured, reducing her appeal as a bride.  And, once they’re openly at war with the Lannisters and Tyrells, she’s no longer of any use to the Martells.

Arianne is full of remorse for the injuries done to Myrcella, but I doubt if she alone could protect her from the others’ wrath. Sadly, we know that Tommen and Myrcella are doomed, and their falling victim to Jon Con and the Sands seems the likeliest fate to me.

I don’t think Arianne appreciates just how cruel her cousins and supporters can be.

They way you phrased it made it sound like she was in Aegon's custody. Which does not seem to be the case. Moreover we are pretty much (fore)told that Myrcela will outlive Tommen long enough to be crowned. My guess is that Cersei will flee King's Landing with Myrcella in tow and proclaim her queen.

[SeanF]

54 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

They way you phrased it made it sound like she was in Aegon's custody. Which does not seem to be the case. Moreover we are pretty much (fore)told that Myrcela will outlive Tommen long enough to be crowned. My guess is that Cersei will flee King's Landing with Myrcella in tow and proclaim her queen.

Tyene's plan (subsequently adopted by Arianne) was to proclaim Myrcella as Queen of Weteros, in order to force a war with the Lannisters, and to enable Arianne to take power in Dorne.  Neither of them was serving Myrcella's interests in doing so.  I'm certain Arianne did not want Myrcella to be harmed, but she would (at best) have been their puppet. 

But if (as I think her chapters in TWOW imply) Arianne's ambitions have moved on to being Queen herself, then there's no room for even a puppet Queen Myrcella.

[The Sleeper]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Tyene's plan (subsequently adopted by Arianne) was to proclaim Myrcella as Queen of Weteros, in order to force a war with the Lannisters, and to enable Arianne to take power in Dorne.  Neither of them was serving Myrcella's interests in doing so.  I'm certain Arianne did not want Myrcella to be harmed, but she would (at best) have been their puppet. 

But if (as I think her chapters in TWOW imply) Arianne's ambitions have moved on to being Queen herself, then there's no room for even a puppet Queen Myrcella.

I am assuming that you mean Aegon's queen, which I agree with. Aegon's claim does not hinge on Tommmen and Myrcela being bastards and with Tommen dead, Myrcella could be quite useful as heir to both Storm's End and Casterly Rock and could be useful to compel if not the fealty at least the neutrality of both the Stormlands and the Westerlands. As Trystane's betrothed she would be valuable in securing Aegon and Arianne's rule in the long run. So while, there are many in their faction who would happily murder Myrcella and call it justice, it would be more useful politically to go ahead and marry her to Trystane.

All bets are off course, if someone proclaims her Queen, which would fulfill the foreshadowing in Tyrion's early chapters in Dance as well as Maggie's prophecy.

[TheLastWolf]

If not Dany, Emilia Clarke