What is Dany's long-term plan for Westeros...

[danm_999]

She's very weak, under the power of her mother who is under the power of Mel, and could be infertile from greyscale. I see her as an extremely ineffective queen.

Oh very probably, but at least with her Stannis' dynasty is more stable than Daenerys. Stannis can marry her off for example.

No doubt. She just didn't want to see all of her 'children' die or be re-enslaved. That's tragic not stupid.

If Daenerys legitimately wants to reform Essos' culture and break Slaver's Bay's economy, that's a noble goal, but it's going to take years, if not decades. That means she has to give up the Iron Throne. She's not going to be able to both fix Slaver's Bay and conquer Westeros, so she needs to choose. Her immaturity comes from an implicit belief that since she's special, she can do it all.

Quentyn's a nice kid but what makes you think he'd be a good King (if we're going by the personal track record by which you're judging Dany)? And if she's infertile than the children bit is still moot.

I have no idea if Quentyn would be a good king, because that's not the metric I'm using to judge how best Dany could ensure the stability of her dynasty. She'd marry him for his power, for his armies. Doran would really be pulling his strings anyway, and I think he definitely would make a good king (more likely hand).

Once again, if she's infertile she needs to give up on ruling Westeros all together.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Clearly it was more about having securing the Dorne alliance than Quentyn being king. The important thing is that the Dornish are fairly peeved at the Lannisters/Tyrells, who would be Dany's main adversary. Now it looks like Dorne is going to support 'Aegon,' via a marriage pact with Arienne, which will make it tougher for Dany.

But the immediate discussion was about heirs, not alliances. She'd be crowing Quentyn king if she married him. So many people think Dany's an awful potential queen - what makes Quentyn a good potential king? He seems rash, immature, and unpredictable.

Once again, if she's infertile she needs to give up on ruling Westeros all together.

This is where we must agree to disagree.

[Lummel]

I don't have a problem with Dany not having a successor so much as I have a problem with her not at least considering it. I wouldn't have a problem if she thought to herself something along the lines of, "I have no successor but that makes no matter because the realm needs a good ruler and I can be that." I want her to think about why she would be a good candidate for the throne besides thinking she should have it just because her dad and Targs before him had it. She comes very close to thinking this in Meereen, which I'll give her credit for, but it's not really a discussion about what she plans for Meereen but for Westeros. I had a problem with Stannis, also, before he went to aid the wall and before that sample chapter, when all he talked about is how the throne was his, his, his. I think anyone who declares war has the responsibility to consider whether or not the costs outweigh the end result. They should think about what the costs of catching a Frey will be before they set out to do the catching. (I really like this Frey metaphor you're using! It so works.)

I agree, to me there is a flaw in the institution of monarchy. But, if monarchy did not exist in Westeros and there were no worries about heirs for succession, I'd still hope that those leading military campaigns against the sitting governing body would make a plan for someone to replace them should they perish. In the U.S. the President plans for his succession by choosing a Vice President before he ever takes the seat and there is a system to replace empty political offices and vacant military offices.

I think there is a separate (but related) issue of what makes a good monarch. We see a handful of people who think they should be the one to wear the crown, but the virtues and values that would make a good ruler seem harder to spot. I think Jon and Dany both try to do their best, but both fail.

On the whole, with the exception of Stannis, I think they are all focused more on their perceived right than on their duty, having said that I don't think that Stannis without good advise could make a good king.

Glad you approve of first catch your frey :)

And Dany has clearly demonstrated the unique abiltiy to conquer and transition a region to a stable, strong regime. It's uncanny really. Let's all sit back and relax.

Heh, heh, very well said! :)

Yes absolutely. I do, however give her credit for recognising her shortcomings. Dany and Jon are the only two leaders that we see dealing with the day to day drudgery of ruling

I think it should be painfully obvious to all by now that Dany has no long-term plans for Westeros whatsoever beyond killing, burning, & destroying her way to a throne her murderous psychopath of a father rightly lost.

Obtuse, self-deluding, megalomaniacal adolescent that she is, Dany is dangerously unfit to rule...

OK, but if we take out the bit about the father doesn't that describe most of our monarch candidates? Stannis, Renly, Robb - self deluding, how do any of them plan on getting power other than by killing people - two of them become kinslayers in pursuit of power. Did King Bob come to power by kissing babies (er, actually...) by giving away flowers? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Renly did not have a plan for creating a canal network, nor Stannis the introduction of curcuit judges nor educational reform in the north for Robb, each of them relied on the sword and other people's blood to get them to the throne.

It's an incredible call to say it isn't likely Dany will die in the next decade or so. Given what's she's planning, the instability of Meeren, the situation in Westeros, it's very likely she'll die...Also remember this is not a modern society. If there's no clear heir, trained by the previous ruler and clearly groomed, a civil war happens. There's no rule of law in Westeros...

Monarchy and the succession is a lottery.

Look at Henry I of England. He had three legitimate children and in excess of 32 acknowledged bastards but is succeded by his nephew even though he got all his barons to cross their hearts and swear to die & to promise on their mothers' graves that they would accept his daughter Maud as Queen after he died. Before Henry was even cold in his grave they invite his nephew over and crown him. Having an heir garentees nothing.

Should she acknowledge an heir? Certainly, once she is Queen she can marry a consort to succeed her, adopt an heir, acknowledge some distant cousin...but at the moment she is not even in sight of westeros, doesn't know the state of the nobility, doesn't know who could suceed her and has nothing for anybody to suceed to were she to die. Naming an heir at the present moment would be as meaningful as planning a westerosi currency reform!

There do seem to be strong traditions in Westeros, even if not the rule of law, they had a Great Council to resolve the last disputed Targaryen succession. The fighting they have had over the succession has been caused by too many people with semi-legitimate claims.

[Lyanna Stark]

Yeah, I get that she didn't want to jump in the sack with the kid straight away, but here was a high lord of Westeros utterly devoted to her who was an invaluable source of intelligence and advice; who could tell her of the War of the Five Kings, who could answer a million questions for her, or at least confirm or deny what she thought she already knew, who was probably the single greatest thing that had fallen into her lap since the dragon eggs hatched.

But she brushes him off.

I think it wasn't so much the fact that she brushed him off, but the incredibly rude way she went about it too. And we get her internal thoughts about how she would have liked it better if it was Gerris Drinkwater cos he was prettier(!!)

Dany didn't even try to negotiate or talk to them about whether or not she could get out of the agreement with Hizdahr, she instead started talking about frogs and enchanted princes. Sure, she was crushed because she had to marry Hizdahr and she was all bedazzled by her pretty, pretty Daario, but that was still apalling behaviour and I think one of Dany's worst moments so far.

Had she been clever, she could have tried to renegotiate the contract, promising her firstborn to a Dornish, anything, but she mocked and dismissed Quentyn et al.

To continue on what Lyanna Stark said. Tyrion knows alot about dragons, general scheming and Westerosi politics. He knows the game and who the players are. Marwyn the Mage probably knows alot about a great number of things. But I think his most important knowledge might be the info that Sam told him when he arrived in Oldtown. If Marwyn can convince Dany that Westeros is about to be attacked by the Others, maybe some sort of plan will take shape. Like Lyanna said, It might even be a Stannis-moment where Dany understands that she must save the realm to win the throne. Or it might just be a "Fuck you Marwyn, I´m the Blood of the Dragon" moment, who knows.

:agree:

Dany desperately needs fewer Yes-men and more "you need to STFU and learn a thing or two", even if she decides to follow her own ideas, at least she needs someone who seriously challenges her outlook on ruling and on conquering. I mean, who has she really learnt ruling from? The Dothraki? Bad, bad role models. Jorah Mormont? Eh no. He's a middle of the road lordling who worships the ground she walks on. The Quarthians? Ugh. Viserys? ;) She really has had little to no proper instruction or advice.

Besides, who knows, maybe Tyrion will be on her Council when she comes back? I doubt he will sit idly by while the Ironborn with Victarion waltzes past into Mereen.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Should she acknowledge an heir? Certainly, once she is Queen she can marry a consort to succeed her, adopt an heir, acknowledge some distant cousin...but at the moment she is not even in sight of westeros, doesn't know the state of the nobility, doesn't know who could suceed her and has nothing for anybody to suceed to were she to die. Naming an heir at the present moment would be as meaningful as planning a westerosi currency reform!

This so much.

[Lummel]

...Dany desperately need fewer Yes-men and more "you need to STFU and learn a thing or two", even if she decides to follow her own ideas, at least she needs someone who seriously challenges her outlook on ruling and on conquering. I mean, who has she really learnt ruling from? The Dothraki? Bad, bad role models. Jorah Mormont? Eh no. He's a middle of the road lordling who worships the ground she walks on. The Quarthians? Ugh. Viserys? ;) She really has had little to no proper instruction or advice...

It seems to me that one of the lessons of leadership in ASOIAF is that you are as good a leader as the quality of the people around you allows.

Even the most miserable ruler can be redeemed if they follow good advice (just look at Stannis :leaving: ), while a strong willed but inept ruler will make a mess over the heads of the wisest councilors (see King Bob).

[eyeheartsansa]

I think it wasn't so much the fact that she brushed him off, but the incredibly rude way she went about it too. And we get her internal thoughts about how she would have liked it better if it was Gerris Drinkwater cos he was prettier(!!)

Dany didn't even try to negotiate or talk to them about whether or not she could get out of the agreement with Hizdahr, she instead started talking about frogs and enchanted princes. Sure, she was crushed because she had to marry Hizdahr and she was all bedazzled by her pretty, pretty Daario, but that was still apalling behaviour and I think one of Dany's worst moments so far.

Had she been clever, she could have tried to renegotiate the contract, promising her firstborn to a Dornish, anything, but she mocked and dismissed Quentyn et al.

This, exactly. I find myself coming to Dany's defense quite often, but this was a new low and downright inexcusable. And we can be sure it will come back to haunt her.

[danm_999]

Monarchy and the succession is a lottery.

Right, but having no heirs is analagous to trying to win the lottery without buying a ticket.

You're just reducing the likelihood of stability after your death to zero.

Look at Henry I of England. He had three legitimate children and in excess of 32 acknowledged bastards but is succeded by his nephew even though he got all his barons to cross their hearts and swear to die & to promise on their mothers' graves that they would accept his daughter Maud as Queen after he died. Before Henry was even cold in his grave they invite his nephew over and crown him. Having an heir garentees nothing.

Of course it guarantees nothing. We aren't talking about guarantees; we're talking about prudence. A ruler with an heir and a spare has a more stable hold on power. There's at least a chance for an orderly succession. To not have an heir actually guarantees civil war after you die.

Should she acknowledge an heir? Certainly, once she is Queen she can marry a consort to succeed her, adopt an heir, acknowledge some distant cousin...but at the moment she is not even in sight of westeros, doesn't know the state of the nobility, doesn't know who could suceed her and has nothing for anybody to suceed to were she to die. Naming an heir at the present moment would be as meaningful as planning a westerosi currency reform!

She doesn't care about the state of the nobility. Witness how she brushed Quentyn off. That's not her reservation.

No, it's not as esoteric as currency reform. Naming an heir is everything! Including the acquisition of power. People are going to be less willing to follow you if you don't have an heir, you can't seperate the two things like you seem to want to.

It gives stability to your regime. It promises that even if you somehow die, there's going to be continuity. It makes you less of a target to assassins because just killing you won't remove Targaryens from power. She should not, can not, wait years until she arrives in Westeros, because every moment her government resides on whether she's alive or not is fundamentally dangerous.

There do seem to be strong traditions in Westeros, even if not the rule of law, they had a Great Council to resolve the last disputed Targaryen succession. The fighting they have had over the succession has been caused by too many people with semi-legitimate claims.

You've said so yourself; too many is as bad as too few. I'm not saying she have 20 heirs. She needs an heir and a spare.

[Lyanna Stark]

This, exactly. I find myself coming to Dany's defense quite often, but this was a new low and downright inexcusable. And we can be sure it will come back to haunt her.

Have you noticed how similar Dany's infatuation for Daario is with Tyrion's for Shae btw? Tyrion knows that Shae is only with him for his money and station, and Dany knows Daario is only with her because she is teh Dragon Queen. Both of them so desperately wants to be loved by their pretty and fickle partners, too.

It seems to me that one of the lessons of leadership in ASOIAF is that you are as good a leader as the quality of the people around you allows.

Even the most miserable ruler can be redeemed if they follow good advice (just look at Stannis :leaving: ), while a strong willed but inept ruler will make a mess over the heads of the wisest councilors (see King Bob).

Yep, it has not been lost on me how much Stannis has benefited from having Davos and Jon suggest a couple of very useful things to him. ;)

[eyeheartsansa]

Have you noticed how similar Dany's infatuation for Daario is with Tyrion's for Shae btw? Tyrion knows that Shae is only with him for his money and station, and Dany knows Daario is only with her because she is teh Dragon Queen. Both of them so desperately wants to be loved by their pretty and fickle partners, too.

Interesting! I'd never thought of this.

[danm_999]

Yep, it has not been lost on me how much Stannis has benefited from having Davos and Jon suggest a couple of very useful things to him. ;)

I think it cuts both ways honestly.

Davos is immensely useful to Stannis, and improves his character, but I also think Stannis is a good judge of character to elevate Davos in the first place.

After all, had Davos given the speech about duty to the people to Joffrey, Renly or Balon, would it have resonated with them? Davos, a good man, is loyal to Stannis because he knows deep down what kind of man he is.

[eyeheartsansa]

I've found all this love for Stannis to be quite puzzling, honestly.

I really really don't like him, and I get mad at Davos for being so loyal. The new improved Stannis of ADWD is a step in the right direction, I suppose, but I've never gotten over the underhanded way he dealt with Renly - and I don't think he has either.

[Lyanna Stark]

I think it cuts both ways honestly.

Davos is immensely useful to Stannis, and improves his character, but I also think Stannis is a good judge of character to elevate Davos in the first place.

After all, had Davos given the speech about duty to the people to Joffrey, Renly or Balon, would it have resonated with them? Davos, a good man, is loyal to Stannis because he knows deep down what kind of man he is.

No, I think the speech would have been lost on Joffrey, Renly and Balon. Probably also on Robb since he went to war for a more personal reason (his family), but...Dany? If Davos had held a similar speech to Dany, do you think she would have gone North to the Wall? Personally I think the only leaders so far who actually have interest in assisting Westeros, or at least potential interest in it are Stannis, Jon and Dany. Do you really think Dany would want Westeros ravaged by ice zombies? She might be ranting a bit about the blood of the dragon and what not, but she still thinks "I belong to my people".

The only two rulers who try this approach are Dany and Jon. They don't always succeed, but they do share that basic view, that they belong to something greater and a purpose higher than themselves (even if we can argue the merits and realism of Dany's purpose, of course, not to mention her failboat attempts at playing the Game of Thrones).

[Lummel]

No, it's not as esoteric as currency reform. Naming an heir is everything! Including the acquisition of power. People are going to be less willing to follow you if you don't have an heir, you can't seperate the two things like you seem to want to.

For me it's a question of timing. She believed she was infertile, maybe a couple of the Dothraki heard the curse too, but as far as everyone else in the world is concerned she's a healthy young woman with every chance of living and producing an heir.

If in Westeros she won't marry or after a period of time doesn't have a child, that's the time to name an heir and there will certainly be political pressure to do so. Renly had no heir, many knowing his preferences would have scoffed at his chance of ever having a son or a daughter but that didn't stop the Tyrells from backing him.

Have you noticed how similar Dany's infatuation for Daario is with Tyrion's for Shae btw? Tyrion knows that Shae is only with him for his money and station, and Dany knows Daario is only with her because she is teh Dragon Queen. Both of them so desperately wants to be loved by their pretty and fickle partners, too.

Interesting comparision!

I've found all this love for Stannis to be quite puzzling, honestly.

I really really don't like him, and I get mad at Davos for being so loyal. The new improved Stannis of ADWD is a step in the right direction, I suppose, but I've never gotten him over the underhanded way he dealt with Renly - and I don't think he has either.

I agree. Stannis is a kinslayer, some one who has tolerated the burning alive of people, prepared to use sorcery and murder, he'd be a Macbeth but the support of people like Davos and to an extent Jon honours him.

[PatrickStormborn]

Daenerys declined Quentyn's offer because 1) he could not help her situation in Meereen, and 2) she had already promised to marry Hizdahr. There was nothing stupid about it.

And personally I don't see why the quality of a monarch depends on their ability to produce offspring... As long as Daenerys names an heir, there is no reason for there to be a war of succession (assuming she is, in fact, infertile). Moreover, if there is, that is not Dany's fault but instead the fault of the nobles.

[Lummel]

...The only two rulers who try this approach are Dany and Jon. They don't always succeed, but they do share that basic view, that they belong to something greater and a purpose higher than themselves (even if we can argue the merits and realism of Dany's purpose, of course, not to mention her failboat attempts at playing the Game of Thrones).

Doran Martell too in my opinion, though of course he's not in contention for the big chair.

Failboat :rofl:

[Gingerly Grumkin]

I've found all this love for Stannis to be quite puzzling, honestly.

I really really don't like him, and I get mad at Davos for being so loyal. The new improved Stannis of ADWD is a step in the right direction, I suppose, but I've never gotten over the underhanded way he dealt with Renly - and I don't think he has either.

New Stannis? You mean the one that wants to burn northmen, or the one that keeps poor Asha in chains or perhaps

keeping Theon dangling from a wall, and swearing that he will burn him?

If anything he became a much worse person

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Daenerys declined Quentyn's offer because 1) he could not help her situation in Meereen, and 2) she had already promised to marry Hizdahr. There was nothing stupid about it.

And personally I don't see why the quality of a monarch depends on their ability to produce offspring... As long as Daenerys names an heir, there is no reason for there to be a war of succession (assuming she is, in fact infertile). Moreover, if there is, that is not Dany's fault but instead the fault of the nobles.

Dany is a Targ, she could marry both of them, the Frog Prince may complian but his dad wouldn't.

Dany wants the throne because it belongs to the Dragons. Taking back the throne just to put a bleached look alike Dragon on it seems... counterproductive

[eyeheartsansa]

New Stannis? You mean the one that wants to burn northmen, or the one that keeps poor Asha in chains or perhaps

keeping Theon dangling from a wall, and swearing that he will burn him?

If anything he became a much worse person

maybe so. The best you can say about him is that he's trying to fight the others. That's all I meant by 'improved.' Other than that he's still the same old poopy pants Stannis.

On Dany's childbearing status... wasn't she examined by some of Hizdar's crew, or did she somehow get around this? I can't recall. I know it was at least mentioned.

[Lyanna Stark]

Daenerys declined Quentyn's offer because 1) he could not help her situation in Meereen, and 2) she had already promised to marry Hizdahr. There was nothing stupid about it.

She wasn't stupid to reject him, she was very, very stupid in the way she did it though. It was extremely insulting and short sighted. Instead of dismissing them, she should have trie to seem thankful, but regretably informing them of her impending marriage that she could not get out of. And then promise her heir to marry someone of dornish decent, or something. The point is, she had potential Westerosi allies and she completely ruined any chances she had with them by pure arrogance and conceit. Not to mention ignorance.

On Dany's childbearing status... wasn't she examined by some of Hizdar's crew, or did she somehow get around this? I can't recall. I know it was at least mentioned.

I believe she said they could examine eachother or some such, which actually made me snigger since I thought it was rather funny. ;)