Ser_Patreck Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Sansa's warging talent shall be used first time on a Dragon. Who will them roast Littlefinger and eat him for breakfast. Calling it now.(Damn, I wish Joffrey and Tywin were alive just she could do the same. But there's always the "desecrating bones" option) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Yes, that's why they are fighting for Stannis, heh?Maybe because it's the right and honorable thing to do? Hadn't Ned supported Stannis claim to the throne? Stannis is the only rightful candidate for the throne and he belongs to the Iron Throne when at the same time the Starks belong to the Kingdom of the North Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 What textual evidence do you base this on? Sansa is aware of that she has nowhere else to go and has to stay and pretend to be LF daughter. I wouldn't really call that "currently allying de factor with Littlefinger". Nor does she trust to "come out" to anyone in the Vale, not even Bronze Yohn Royce.Well, I'm arguing that circumstances make her go along with Littlefinger, which is what would happen to make any Stark go along with Dany.The relevant bits of text are those where she monologues about how "father" and she know better, or when she more or less agrees and goes along LF's plan to get Harry and then the Vale and Winterfell, or when she just silently backs Littlefinger. A lot of it in in interpretation. Of course I'm not saying that a marriage of convenience is for life, or that she cannot actually be the one betraying it, same as I see it for a Stark/Targ alliance: it's up to them to break the alliance and betray the other party if they want.Mostly, I'm betting on the fact that those that see Dany as useless and prone to get written off the story will see Sansa the same, and would not actually have two standards for the two girls, therefore they would have a hard time disagreeing with any argument that paints Sansa that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser_Patreck Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Daenerys isn't useless. She's incompetent, harsh, rash, dangerous and psychotic. But hardly useless. She did gave birth to Dragons. And she would be a pretty trophy. Not useless at all.Sansa is stifled and bound. Again, not useless. She could make a great Queen, someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Daenerys isn't useless. She's incompetent, harsh, rash, dangerous and psychotic. But hardly useless. She did gave birth to Dragons. And she would be a pretty trophy. Not useless at all.Sansa is stifled and bound. Again, not useless. She could make a great Queen, someday.incompetent, harsh, rash, dangerous and psychotic.-> Those tooI agree that the only thing she did was the birth.Sansa queen? No :ack: she would be a great Lady but she doesn't fit to be a queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well when people make alliances that's what they do: promise things once they get to the able position via the requested help. So she would tell the starks, help me get the throne, n I will give u the north. N the north does 'somehow' belong to her. At the moment, she is the rightful heir to all seven kingdoms of westeros (that includes the north).This always makes me laugh, she is not the heir to anything the Targs lost their claim, it was was broken the moment good king robert dashed rhagers chest open with his hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dany4eva Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 This always makes me laugh, she is not the heir to anything the Targs lost their claim, it was was broken the moment good king robert dashed rhagers chest open with his hammer.But the targs did rule for a long time so that must count for something? Surely some small folk will rejoice for the targs to retake the throne. So in the same instance, jon has no claim to the throne as well of r+l=j? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Piece Maker Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's a bit uncalled for to try to insult other people's reading comprehension when one writes only barely intelligible posts.Why is Stannis the rightful monarch and not Dany, exactly? So of course you consider Robb's crowning to be a dishonourable rebellion against the rightful king, yes?You know the Baratheon always based their legitimacy on their drop of Targaryen blood they have from Rhaelle, right? (As Ned says "You had the better claim, Robert")I suppose just about any one can make a "claim" to the throne. Neither Stannis or Dany have done anything to have a valid claim except be a descendent of a previous "royal" family. Both of their ancestors obtained their titles by brute force. It's just a matter of timing. If Viserys hadn't been a child at the time of Rhaegar's death the Targs could still be in charge. If Cersei's children had been Robert's, the Baratheons would be in charge, not the Lannisters, and on and on. It's all about who was where when. Deserve's got nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I suppose just about any one can make a "claim" to the throne. Neither Stannis or Dany have done anything to have a valid claim except be a descendent of a previous "royal" family. Stannis is not from a previous royal family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [mod] More posts deleted, same warning posted from other thread: do not get personal. If you can't stick to that, there are going to be consequences. [/mod] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analeigh Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 But the targs did rule for a long time so that must count for something? Surely some small folk will rejoice for the targs to retake the throne. So in the same instance, jon has no claim to the throne as well of r+l=j?A long ruling dynasty of peace and prosperity? Sure, that would count for something. But unfortunately, that's not how the Targaryen's ruled Westeros. Instability, time consuming wars regarding succession, family members prone to madness...Not exactly a great advertisement for the family. And sure, maybe some small folk would rejoice if the Targaryens retook the throne. But the small folk have no say in who sits the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Piece Maker Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Stannis is not from a previous royal family.By "royal" I don't mean by blood. Robert was king. King="royal" IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Stannis is not from a previous royal family.Stannis is from the Targaryen family. That's how Robert's claim was better than Ned's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.