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

[danm_999]

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.

Renly immediately married Margaery so presumably everyone was waiting for the heir to be announced. Renly himself likely wouldn't have expired for another 30-40 years, but they wanted him married immediatly to produce an heir because the Tyrells saw the importance of it.

[danm_999]

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).

Because that's how it works in Westeros. Ruling is hereditary. Your trueborn children inherit what you have. It's not a modern society; you can't tag someone in.

If a monarch cannot produce children, they are less eligible for the job because they're ensuring there's going to be a succession crisis when they die. A fertile monarch ensures an heir will at least hopefully stall that crisis.

Moreover, if there is, that is not Dany's fault but instead the fault of the nobles.

It's how it's always been done, so if Dany doesn't pay attention to that, it's certainly her fault.

[Dr. Pepper]

Whether or not Renly would have produced an heir is moot. The point is that he planned on doing so and he voiced his plans, thus indicating he wanted to secure succession. The same with Shireen. There's a plan for Stannis' succession whether or not people would accept her as their Queen Regnant.

I know I pointed this out before in this thread, but the issues of succession isn't unique to monarchies. Even elected rulers must indicate a successor before they take their seat. It doesn't matter if they never get elected to take the seat, there's still the plan of succession.

For me, my problem with how Dany handled Quentyn wasn't that she rejected the betrothal. It was that she is still thinking about conquering Westeros, a continent he has just come from, and she doesn't pull him aside and pick his brain about what's going on there. It was such a huge missed opportunity and I just wanted to grrrrrrr. You've gotta know what the Frey's are doing before you can capture them and bake them in a pie.

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.

I didn't start liking Stannis as a character until re-read and after I came to the forums. I mean, he burns people alive, kills his own brother through sorcery and he's so fucking rigid. How could someone like a character like that? However, there's something to be said about the way Stannis accepts sage counsel. Also, I've been totally enlightened about how damn witty he can be. Truly, the Stannis humour thread is a riot! Still, I'd be afraid to have him as my king because I speed and he's like to take my foot if I rode my horse too fast.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

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).

I would put Danny as more similar to Stannis approach rather than Jon's.She is in it for herself because she suffers from megalomania and is a warlord and she feels herself great enough to justify being a warlord AND she also feels some need to help people and believes in something greater than herself. Those two approaches sometimes contradict each other or sometimes she ignores the negative consequences of her warmongering so she suffers from cognitive dissonance.

In contrast we have Stannis duty (personally I don't believe it is all about duty, part of it is feeling angry on how he was treated and that he wants it. In some way Stannis belief in duty is his " I am the blood of the Dragon" although with less megalomania) to become king no matter the consequences (Stannis who also has a skill in war like Danny) and we also have believing that he has a duty for the realm some of the time.

Another similarity is that they both believe that the crown was stolen from them and they deserve to get it back through war. Edit: Hell another similarity is what happens when they get the throne. Danny is infertile and Stannis health is weakened and his daughter suffers from grayscale.

As for Jon, I find his dedication and cause to the realm more pure and genuine to such extend that it is not fair to compare him to Daenerys and also Stannis although even Jon is not perfect on that regard. Still both Stannis and Daenerys are persons who it is possible to fight for the realm based on the circumstances so it is possible for either Stannis or Danny to fight against the Others in the story.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

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.

He was a frog that became a prince, thats hilarious! Plus he was sketchy and pretended not to be a Prince for a long time. quentin martell is a fool, who played Essos politics as well as grabing a dragon. And fuck the Martells! They could have helped Dany earlier, insted of whoring out their kids when the Targs reach of age. Mayhaps Dany could have acted better, but she was at Essos court, and can't turn it upside down becasue some ugly dude from the weakest of the 7 kingdoms asked for a dragon

[danm_999]

I know I pointed this out before in this thread, but the issues of succession isn't unique to monarchies. Even elected rulers must indicate a successor before they take their seat. It doesn't matter if they never get elected to take the seat, there's still the plan of succession.

For example, the Presidential line of succession is very long and detailed because the US doesn't ever, ever want to get into a situation when it has to ask 'whose in power?'

[Independent George]

Infertile people are unfit to rule? They can't choose sucessors? How about this - Targs forged the Iron Throne. Once the last Targ sits on it the Iron Throne should be dissolved into 7 Kingdoms :)

The last time a Targ tried to choose his heir, the entire kingdom went to war and tens of thousands died.

The last time a Targ did something innocuous, yet which could conceivably be viewed as an attempt to declare someone an heir outside of the line of succession, the entire kingdom went to war and tens of thousands died.

The last Targ has already left the game, and the realm has already dissolved into 7 Kingdoms.

That's the problem right there. Having a clear and unambiguous heir doesn't solve everything, but it's pretty damned vital to ruling.

Would Renly have made an heir? Is Shireen really going to make an heir or be accepted as queen if Stannis dies?

The problem with Renly wasn't that he couldn't make an heir; the problem with Renly was that he didn't even consider what would happen with his heirs if his own claim to the throne was "I'm more popular." I've said this on various threads on Renly, but if he won, his very victory guaranteed another massive civil war as various factions decided to back different children in hopes of putting their own family on the throne. If Renly sets the precedent that anyone can claim the throne because they think they'd be a better king, then everyone will try to claim the throne for themselves because they think they'd be better kings.

Shireen will never be accepted as Queen, but there's no indication that Stannis himself is unable to conceive more children with a different wife. The point to the original question was that Dany herself believes she is infertile, and conceals it in Meereen because she knows that it changes how willing people are to accept her rule. In all of her "Fire and Blood" speeches, she never once considers what her lack of an heir would mean for Westeros even if she did claim the throne. I don't know how much she knows about the Dance of the Dragons, but if the question of heirs and succession is very much tied in with the concept of legitimacy.

[eyeheartsansa]

I didn't start liking Stannis as a character until re-read and after I came to the forums. I mean, he burns people alive, kills his own brother through sorcery and he's so fucking rigid. How could someone like a character like that? However, there's something to be said about the way Stannis accepts sage counsel. Also, I've been totally enlightened about how damn witty he can be. Truly, the Stannis humor thread is a riot! Still, I'd be afraid to have him as my king because I speed and he's like to take my foot if I rode my horse too fast.

He's funny the same way a crusty old high school teacher can be funny. I think to be truly funny a person can't take themselves too seriously and needs to laugh at themselves, and Stannis is too self righteous to have what I'd call a true sense of humor. Instead he mostly just rips on everyone else. Yeah, sometimes it's clever. 'This isn't King's Landing' did make me chuckle.

I could go on and on listing things I don't like about Stannis but I don't want to derail.

[Sun]

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.

Hmmm, are you really comparing Robb's potential ability to administer the North, a task he was born and raised to, and watched his father do all his life, to Dany's expertise on the same subject? (Also note that Robb had no interest in ruling Westeros; a throne he rightly recognized he was neither eligible for, nor suited to).

Are you comparing Renly and Stannis' knowledge of Westeros, having each been born and raised there as lords of their own domain, and spent years in court, and on the small ruling council, with the complete ignorance that Dany offers? A foreign child who has never ever set foot on the continent, and knows next to nothing of its ways, other than what she was told by her insane brother?

Are you comparing the carnage resulting from a war fought with swords, horses and knights, with one fought with wild Dragons laying waste to all they see (think F100s raining Napalm)?

Are you comparing Dany's megalomania, ignorance, narcissism, petulance, and utter disregard for logical consistency, to what we know of Robb's, Stannis', or Renly's personalities, which though flawed, certainly come nowhere near as frelled as Dany's?

Cause if you are, then any discussion to be had between us would be fruitless, I'm afraid.

[Lummel]

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...

I do feel that Quentyn over played his hand too. This was probably because he was young and romantic. Really he should have declared Dorne's support for her cause, offered himself as Dornish liason and waited to see what way the wind was blowing both thinking about marriage.

Fire and Blood was what his father wanted, he had to lead her to Westeros to achieve that and no more.

On the other hand I thought she was nice to her cousin in taking down to see the dragons.

[David Selig]

I've said this on various threads on Renly, but if he won, his very victory guaranteed another massive civil war as various factions decided to back different children in hopes of putting their own family on the throne. If Renly sets the precedent that anyone can claim the throne because they think they'd be a better king, then everyone will try to claim the throne for themselves because they think they'd be better kings.

Not really, nothing like that was guaranteed at all.There are plenty of historical examples of kings who earned the throne through war and after ignoring the rules of succession, yet after their own death the succession went smoothly and peacefully.

Besides, it's not like there aren't precedents already in Westeros for people with no right for the throne claiming it and winning or gathering large support. Robert Baratheon, Aegon the Second, the Blackfyres...

[PatrickStormborn]

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.

But ... this isn't correct. Quentyn doesn't feel insulted with Dany's rejection of him, and he still feels hopeful (even after her marriage and departure) that she'll ally with him and the Dornish -- and she probably would have. It's his attempt at stealing the dragons that burns any potential alliance to a crisp (literally).

[Lummel]

Sun,

I was quoting you saying this:

"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."

Stannis, Renly, Robert Baratheon all killed, burnt and destroyed their way to the throne. Robb killed, burnt and destroyed in defence of his.

They are all self-deluding and obtuse at least at times (really that comes with the territory of being King), although none I think is megalomanical. Euron though seems to meet all catagories.

So how is Dany different? OK yes she knows less about Westeros. Yes if it comes to war some of the dead may well die from dragon fire and yes maybe nine out of ten dead westerosi would prefer to die with a lannister sword through their guts rather than from dragon fire.

The problem is with having a monarchy in the first place - that is institutionally placing too much weight on one person.

Nice rhetoric by the way in your post #309 :thumbsup:

[Euphail]

But ... this isn't correct. Quentyn doesn't feel insulted with Dany's rejection of him, and he still feels hopeful (even after her marriage and departure) that she'll ally with him and the Dornish -- and she probably would have. It's his attempt at stealing the dragons that burns any potential alliance to a crisp (literally).

Quentyn feels he must find a way to ally Dany with Dorne because he wants his fathers, and his sisters, approval. In my opinion, if it had been anyone else, it would be seen as Dany spitting on their house.

She was stupid to reject him. If Dany had been training her dragons, Quentyn may have represented a potential rider. Someone she could have trusted. Dorne stood beside the Targ's (in secret sure, but were risking much by sending Quentyn to her.) I think it's fair to argue they should have done more, but they were doing something. Further, Dany's enemies in Westeros are Dornes enemies.

Dany's marriage was incredibly short sighted. So she brought a temporary peace in Mereen, what was her plan after that? Her marriage would prove useless if she continued to conquer in Essos, and a detrament if she conquered in Westeros.

IMO if she was considering an alliance through marriage for stability in Essos, she should have reached out to another major family in another city. Diversify for stability, and potential long term gain - I accept this as debatable though.

The problem is with having a monarchy in the first place - that is institutionally placing too much weight on one person.

Nice rhetoric by the way in your post #309 :thumbsup:

Potentially. Monarchy has the unique ability to be nimble when compared against democracy. The drawback is potentially worse decision making. The problem with Dany's rule, imo, is that it is reliant on Dragons. As others (Apple martini most notably) have pointed out, Dragons are ONLY a destructive weapon. Fire consumes and destroys is the theme of Targ rule. The others you have mentioned work within the confines of historical socially acceptable conquering paths to achieve intended goals, and would likely be able to bring about stability afterwards as a result. Dany's plan is to carve out a kingdom by working outside social norms, and bring about stability... how? Dragons. That is why Dany either needs to learn a lot and change her ways in order to become a ruler versus a conqueror.

That's why I think Quentyn would have made a good match, potentially. His father has illistrated a very long term approach to maintaining power and control. This is exactly what Dany lacks.

[eyeheartsansa]

It can be argued that Dany's 'naivety' when it comes to all things Westerosi is actually a plus because she is coming in with a fresh perspective. Some hiring managers would rather have someone inexperienced so they can be trained with a clean slate, rather than having to unlearn old tricks that no longer apply. Likewise some politicians distinguish themselves as being "outsiders" as opposed to their 'insider' opponents who are supposedly corrupted by The System.

Prior rulers had all kinds of experiences and knowledge on the way things were.. and look where it's gotten them. The realm is in shambles. No single king knows everything.. a smart ruler knows to stick to doing what they're good at, and then find trustworthy people to delegate the rest to. I'm first to agree that Dany has work to do in this category, but I'd say that her sense of justice, compassion, and general regard for the well being of peasants/women/children, are more important than how well she understands the mechanics of the Westeros game. This is what advisors are for. She is very much a visionary, and, best case scenario, she will have Tyrion to help with the more practical things.

How she will reconcile her vision of a peaceful, happy Westeros, with her 'Fire and Blood' side... is her central conflict and the outcome is anyone's guess.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Hmmm, are you really comparing Robb's potential ability to administer the North, a task he was born and raised to, and watched his father do all his life, to Dany's expertise on the same subject? (Also note that Robb had no interest in ruling Westeros; a throne he rightly recognized he was neither eligible for, nor suited to).

Are you comparing Renly and Stannis' knowledge of Westeros, having each been born and raised there as lords of their own domain, and spent years in court, and on the small ruling council, with the complete ignorance that Dany offers? A foreign child who has never ever set foot on the continent, and knows next to nothing of its ways, other than what she was told by her insane brother?

Are you comparing the carnage resulting from a war fought with swords, horses and knights, with one fought with wild Dragons laying waste to all they see (think F100s raining Napalm)?

Are you comparing Dany's megalomania, ignorance, narcissism, petulance, and utter disregard for logical consistency, to what we know of Robb's, Stannis', or Renly's personalities, which though flawed, certainly come nowhere near as frelled as Dany's?

Cause if you are, then any discussion to be had between us would be fruitless, I'm afraid.

First of all, there is no indication at all that Robb didn't want Winterfell, you shouldn't make stuff up. Hey I'm sorry, I thought you wrote Winterfell. Anyways your right about Westeros, but he didn't have a plan for it either, he wanted to kill the king and leave the South in anarchy. Furthermore he didn't leave any support up North, causing the Ironborn and Ramsay to rape his lands. Robb was a warmonger, not even a conqueror.

Everything Renly had was the Tyrells. The Stroms Land gave up a mediocre amount of men and before the battle with Stannis Renly sent his host away, and then decided to attack into the sunlight, Renly was an idiot when it came to war, plus he was 100% positive that the Dornish would back him up, which is funny because he's married to a flower, so his politics wasn't all that either.

Stannis is the man and a historian. But he's not all knowing either, he made a fool of himself with the Northern lords and asked Jon Snow who these Lords were.

The Targaryen may be ignorant and foreign to Westeros, but Westeros is not ignorant and foreign to Targaryens, and Dany knows this.

Anyways like Lummel said, Monarchy is wrong, I'm just rooting for the cooler of 2 evils. And Dragons are crazy beasts, but does that mean extinction of the most bad ass animal ever?

[Dr. Pepper]

It can be argued that Dany's 'naivety' when it comes to all things Westerosi is actually a plus because she is coming in with a fresh perspective. Some hiring managers would rather have someone inexperienced so they can be trained with a clean slate, rather than having to unlearn old tricks that no longer apply. Likewise some politicians distinguish themselves as being "outsiders" as opposed to their 'insider' opponents who are supposedly corrupted by The System.

Prior rulers had all kinds of experiences and knowledge on the way things were.. and look where it's gotten them. The realm is in shambles. No single king knows everything.. a smart ruler knows to stick to doing what they're good at, and then find trustworthy people to delegate the rest to. I'm first to agree that Dany has work to do in this category, but I'd say that her sense of justice, compassion, and general regard for the well being of peasants/women/children, are more important than how well she understands the mechanics of the Westeros game. This is what advisors are for. She is very much a visionary, and, best case scenario, she will have Tyrion to help with the more practical things.

How she will reconcile her vision of a peaceful, happy Westeros, with her 'Fire and Blood' side... is her central conflict and the outcome is anyone's guess.

I argue that naivety and ignorance are very different. And a hiring manager wanting someone inexperienced that they can train is more comparable to a King wanting to make a Lord out of someone who doesn't come from that background. Sort of like Stannis does with Davos. A company wouldn't appoint a CEO who had no knowledge of it's core history. Even outsider politicians are elected only because they demonstrate their understanding of key issues. (Very American example here, but Sarah Palin, anyone?) No single modern elected leader knows everything either, that's why they appoint what is basically a small council to advise on a whole slew of issues.

The small folk didn't seem to care that Aerys burned a couple of lords. Aerys assembled a worthy council that helped give the realm 20 good, solid years. And it may very well be that she gains the love of the commoners if she goes to Westeros, but will it amount to anything when the commoners aren't trained and armed soldiers who can help her fight? She can't promise a commoner a castle if that commoner has no means to fight. She hasn't even promised the freed slaves anything other than the allusion of freedom. Freedom without a means to obtain or grow food or safety or an education on how to leave as freedmen isn't exactly useful.

Consider an animal who has been caged in a zoo all it's life and PETA breaks it out and immediately releases it in the wild. "Tis a noble gesture but it's also a death sentence. The animal has no knowledge about how to actually live in the wild because it's never experienced it. For the action to be successful, PETA must accept that they have to keep the animal caged at least some of the time while they slowly acclimatize is to surviving on it's own. Freeing the slaves and empowering the smallfolk of Westeros is noble, but it's a death sentence without recognizing that a drastic change in identity doesn't happen overnight. I don't think even the slaves will think too kindly of Dany in the coming future.

[HyacinthGirl]

Dany doesn't do 'long-term planning'. That is all.

[Euphail]

It can be argued that Dany's 'naivety' when it comes to all things Westerosi is actually a plus because she is coming in with a fresh perspective. Some hiring managers would rather have someone inexperienced so they can be trained with a clean slate, rather than having to unlearn old tricks that no longer apply. Likewise some politicians distinguish themselves as being "outsiders" as opposed to their 'insider' opponents who are supposedly corrupted by The System.

Prior rulers had all kinds of experiences and knowledge on the way things were.. and look where it's gotten them. The realm is in shambles. No single king knows everything.. a smart ruler knows to stick to doing what they're good at, and then find trustworthy people to delegate the rest to. I'm first to agree that Dany has work to do in this category, but I'd say that her sense of justice, compassion, and general regard for the well being of peasants/women/children, are more important than how well she understands the mechanics of the Westeros game. This is what advisors are for. She is very much a visionary, and, best case scenario, she will have Tyrion to help with the more practical things.

How she will reconcile her vision of a peaceful, happy Westeros, with her 'Fire and Blood' side... is her central conflict and the outcome is anyone's guess.

Be hoenst though, it really is a best case scenario. Will she even trust Tyrion? The Lannisters don't have the best reputation with Targs. And why shouldn't Tyrion act to take advantage of her? I sincerely hope they find a balance, but both her and Tyrion can be bull headed, and I could see Tyrion being frustrated in having to "put up" with her, and him starting to work around her.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Dany's sense of justice. She issued a blanket decree to execute 163 great masters at (seemingly) random. This wasn't justice, it was vengence. I cheered in my head a little when I read it, but that's because the great masters were written as evil up until then, and I hadn't really considered in depth what she was doing. There was no justice here.

I agree though, she is visionary, and perhaps with Tyrions attention to detail, things will turn for the better.

Could you provide a little context on how you see her "fire and blood side". I see that as the definition of how she approaches ruling, and for Targs in general, but I often forget details, so if you see it differently please elaberate. Does she have another side where she has tried something else? I often say fire consumes and destroys, but what I imply is that Targs go in and make sweeping changes without consideration for how to maintain, reform, and endure. I like your idea of her as a visionary, because that's what she attempts to implament (ie ending slavery, etc.). But what she did as a result was distabalize a a region, and provide no means for lasting change. So I don't see it as a need to reconsile, so much as a need to either surround herself with people entirely different with her way of ruling (tyrion is a good start) or to learn to be more like a stark or Martell, and endure.

ETA: To those that think monarchy is blanket wrong, I would disagree. It is an option for rulership that has advantages and disadvantages. I would argue that Democracy sacrifices timely response for, hopefully, better decision making, where monarchy does the reverse, timely response for potentially worse decision making. But, there are going to be a plethora of examples contradicting and supporting that.

[Dr. Pepper]

First of all, there is no indication at all that Robb didn't want Winterfell, you shouldn't make stuff up. Furthermore he didn't leave any support up North, causing the Ironborn and Ramsay to rape his lands. Robb was a warmonger, not even a conqueror.

I'm very confused here. Robb took the title King in the North. Obviously he wanted Winterfell. He still claims it as his own when he's talking with Roose after it was sacked. I don't think anyone's said he didn't want it. He definitely wasn't seeking the Iron Throne. He did leave support up North. The Ironborn just happened to use a surprise element and Theon broke his fathers orders and took Winterfell because he knew it's secrets. Ramsay was also his support, Ramsay turned out to be a traitor. No one can know all the traitors in their midst.