Daenerys 'Stormborn' Targaryen: The Breaker Of Chains, Mother Of Dragons Etc

[arty]

1 hour ago, GraceK said:

It’s horrible in light of everything Dany has lost this season, especially sitting in Winterfell and knowing it’s coming North that caused a lot of it.

While I agree that Dany has lost a lot in coming to save the North, I think that she would be in a more precarious position had she rejected Jon's plea outright and left the North to its own fate. Assuming that the North defeats the Dead and Bran lives, Jon's true identity would have been revealed, and the current roadblocks that prevent him from pursuing his birthright, as it were, would not exist. In this alternate scenario, he wouldn't have sworn fealty to Dany or fallen in love with her.

The current situation she finds herself in is a complicated one, and outside factors have contributed to her troubles. But, as GRRM has stated many times, he's most interested in writing about the human heart in conflict with itself. So, I think that however Dany's story ends, it will be rooted in the decisions she's made about her own internal conflict.  (I actually have come to believe in the last few days that Stannis' story acts in the overall narrative as a cautionary tale for both Dany and Jon.)

[GraceK]

11 minutes ago, bijoux said:

Maybe it's because we've never actually seen any Dothraki babies, but it's really hard to imagine Dany and Drogo's child being a chubby cuddly delight. At the time it felt like, yep, biggest bit of fiction shown thus far. 

That really was a cute baby though 😊

[ursula]

19 minutes ago, arty said:

I think that she would be in a more precarious position had she rejected Jon's plea outright and left the North to its own fate. Assuming that the North defeats the Dead and Bran lives, Jon's true identity would have been revealed, and the current roadblocks that prevent him from pursuing his birthright, as it were, would not exist. In this alternate scenario, he wouldn't have sworn fealty to Dany or fallen in love with her.

She'd have 3 dragons and 2 armies though. There's no way that is more precarious.

[Bryce Lynch]

16 hours ago, GraceK said:

Problematic issues aside, Drogo is a thousand times better than Jon. Call me whatever names you want, but Drogo not only loved her , he protected, respected, and killed all those who threatened her. That vision of him and her unborn son in the House of The Undying still makes me cry. He would never leave her open to attack like this.

Drogo was good to Dany (after she got her man pleasing lessons), but he led a gang of pillagers, killers, rapists and slave traders.   I know that was his culture, but he was still a bad guy in many ways.   

[Hana Chan]

Dany was in a catch 22 position when it came to defending the North. She could have done nothing and left the North to it's own fate, but that would have been a tremendous dereliction of her duty. The chief responsibility of a ruler is to defend the realm and Jon has presented to her a very real threat to not just one rebellious territory, but eventually the entire realm. The instant that Jon bent the knee to Dany (giving her what she'd originally demanded when she first heard his name), he placed the well being of the North in her hands.  It became her obligation to protect the North, not just a kind and generous thing to do.

Of course, she could have done as Cersei did and left the North to deal with the AOTD on her own, but that would have ended any possible claim she could make on the North. They would have had absolutely zero reason to support her claim to the throne and she would have ended up with an absolutely tremendous AOTD (since likely the majority of the North's population would have been killed) and little means to fight them. 

And I'll be blunt... she wouldn't be down another dragon if she'd listened to others and held off on rushing back south. She not only didn't give her men to heal and rest, but she didn't give the dragons a chance to heal. She divided her forces (the majority traveling over land with Jon) and arrived at Dragonstone very vulnerable. What happened to Rhaegal and Missandei was, to a very large degree, her fault.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Hana Chan

[ursula]

10 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

The instant that Jon bent the knee to Dany (giving her what she'd originally demanded when she first heard his name), he placed the well being of the North in her hands. 

Bingo. But he didn't, did he? He went to Dragonstone and grandstanded for about 5 episodes of show time. She gave him dragonglass for free while he did that. 

And it's worth knowing the no one in the North bent the knee literally to Dany. Compare her arrival at Winterfell to Robert's. The lesser Lords should have ideally made the trip to Dragonstone to bend the knee to her. At the very least they should have bent the knee in Winterfell. But no one did. 

All that aside, Dany's obligation of help could still be done at her own pace. A ruler has to prioritize. If she judges Cersei as a greater threat to the realm than zombies over the Wall, she is obligated to deal with Cersei first. (And she'd have been right).

[arty]

8 hours ago, ursula said:

She'd have 3 dragons and 2 armies though. 

That's what she had when she first landed in Westeros, and Dany didn't deploy them against Cersei as she could have. Because Dany is, as Jon noted in their first meeting, "better than Cersei." Thinking about it now, she's better than her much-lauded ancestor, Aegon First of His Name, IMO. 

Dany has been threatening to burn cities to the ground since S2, IIRC. But she hasn't acted on that impulse yet. I think it's because unlike Cersei she cares about human life and wants to be loved by her people while wanting to fulfill what she believes is her destiny and be Queen. She's one of GRRM's main characters; I can't imagine that her story will be simple and she'll be spared an internal struggle & living with the consequences of that struggle. Or, that her story will be reduced to "strong woman brought down by loving a weak man" as has been suggested by others. But, we shall see!

8 hours ago, ursula said:

There's no way that is more precarious.

By precarious situation, I was referring specifically to that fact that Jon, unlike Cersei, is (a) a true born Targaryen and (b)someone with a better claim to the Iron Throne than Dany.  

[Hana Chan]

2 minutes ago, ursula said:

All that aside, Dany's obligation of help could still be done at her own pace. A ruler has to prioritize. If she judges Cersei as a greater threat to the realm than zombies over the Wall, she is obligated to deal with Cersei first. (And she'd have been right).

Except that we have no way of knowing if that would be the case. Having Visarion certainly made getting past the Wall easier for the AOTD, but they were already moving to do so. Odds are that it might have been a difference of a few weeks or months at the outside before the North was invaded. All Visarion did was make an E-Z-Pass lane.

Going after Cersei would be about Dany satisfying her needs, and the odds are that she could have ended up in a protracted war dealing not just with the Lannisters, but Houses that would flock to Cersei to defend against this foreign invader. And Cersei already had the tools that could wound or kill the dragons. It's more than likely that after Dany pacified the South that she'd be facing an invasion unlike anything she would have ever imagined and the South would be nearly defenseless after being drained by the fight over the throne.

[ursula]

11 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

And Cersei already had the tools that could wound or kill the dragons.

To wound not to kill. The first spider was a prototype and Drogon survived that wound. Dany going North gave Cersei time to upgrade. After the Battle of the Reach, Cersei had lost her army. It won't have been a protracted war, it would have been a short one. The only reason why the war wasn't over in one episode was because Dany listened to Tyrion and not everybody else and refused to storm the Red Keep.

11 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

Having Visarion certainly made getting past the Wall easier for the AOTD, but they were already moving to do so. Odds are that it might have been a difference of a few weeks or months at the outside before the North was invaded.

That would have been enough time. It's also possible that without Viserion nothing would have happened.

I'm sorry but I can't grasp how anyone can conclude that:

Viserion not bringing down the Wall

Dany (3 dragons , 2 armies) vs Cersei (no army, prototype weapon) 

Would be worse outcomes than what we have. 

11 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

Houses that would flock to Cersei to defend against this foreign invader.

Or Houses that would see a Targaryen with 3 dragons versus the Queen that just torched the Sept of Balor to avoid charges and no military power and support Dany. Cersei wasn't a popular ruler. She had been recently exposed and disgraced and had no claim to the throne. She had killed their beloved Queen Margarey and driven her own son to suicide. Why would anyone risk Dany's wrath to defend her in a battle she was clearly going to lose? Especially when picking sides wisely during a change of power usually came with perks? (eg Tyrells who were stewards becoming the Lord Paramount  of the Reach after the original Gardners lost to Aegon).

The show depicted the politics and loyalties of Westeros very dishonestly. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by ursula

[Meredith Quill]

21 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

Except that we have no way of knowing if that would be the case. Having Visarion certainly made getting past the Wall easier for the AOTD, but they were already moving to do so. Odds are that it might have been a difference of a few weeks or months at the outside before the North was invaded. All Visarion did was make an E-Z-Pass lane.

This is pure speculation. The show told us the Wall was insurmountable to the dead. We have to take that as fact. If anything, it seems the NK was a seer and foresaw that he'd be presented with an opportunity to obtain a dragon. Ergo, Dany didn't need to postpone her plans and go to defend the North and had she not done so none of the shit that followed would've come to pass.

When it takes leaps of speculation to bolster an argument, the weaker the argument becomes, Occam's Razor.

[Hana Chan]

Well, one thing isn't spectulation - Dany's claims of right to the IT are totally shot because she's 1) not the last Targaryen and 2) Jon would be ahead of her in the line of succession. Her whining that Jon revealing his heritage to anyone because it would take away her throne is pretty laughable because 1) Cersei's ass is currently sitting in it and 2) Jon's ass should be.

[Meredith Quill]

2 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

Well, one thing isn't spectulation - Dany's claims of right to the IT are totally shot because she's 1) not the last Targaryen and 2) Jon would be ahead of her in the line of succession. Her whining that Jon revealing his heritage to anyone because it would take away her throne is pretty laughable because 1) Cersei's ass is currently sitting in it and 2) Jon's ass should be.

1. Yep - fact

2. Ok - fact

1a. Yep - fact

2a. Ok - opinion

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Hana Chan]

1 minute ago, SilverStormm said:

1. Yep - fact

2. Ok - fact

1a. Yep - fact

2a. Ok - opinion

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If Dany's claim to the IT is because of her bloodline, then she cannot ignore that Jon is the one who has the rights to it instead of her. That's not a matter of opinion. She can't have it both ways.

[Meredith Quill]

2 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

If Dany's claim to the IT is because of her bloodline, then she cannot ignore that Jon is the one who has the rights to it instead of her. That's not a matter of opinion. She can't have it both ways.

You're forgetting one fact: Jon doesn't want it. 

And that being the case, there is no 'should, would, could' argument. He doesn't want it, and I'm not a supporter of forcing people into doing things they don't want to do. 

[Kate47]

Dany wasn't wrong when she told Jon that the secret has a life of its own. She wants to rule an undivided Westeros peacefully. As long as people who oppose her (or are just unhappy with her decisions) know that Jon has a stronger claim, there will be splinter factions and plots rallied behind him. She will always have to question if her supporters actually want what's best for her, or if they're giving her false flattery or wrong advice to put puppet jon on the throne. It would be a paranoid and difficult reign for her.

It doesn't much matter what he wants, IMO. People will seek to use him in a variety of ways. Sowing doubt can sometimes be more damaging than meeting on a field of battle.

[bijoux]

I guess too bad the Night Watch is no more, because there is a precedent for someone renouncing the throne. His name was Aegon Targaryen. 

[Sakura12]

Jon said he doesn't want the IT, that puts Dany back into being the heir. 

[ursula]

48 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

If Dany's claim to the IT is because of her bloodline, then she cannot ignore that Jon is the one who has the rights to it instead of her. That's not a matter of opinion. She can't have it both ways.

Oh please. On what grounds? His birth certificate via Branvision? An illegal marriage that needed the permission of the King and is technically null and void? A marriage that was at best polygamy (illegal) or at worst following an annulment that was also illegal based on the fact that: Princess Elia had 2 children so Rhaegar couldn't use the "no consummation" clause and - again - the King's permission is required to approve a royal annulment? 

And even if Jon were to surmount all that - convince people he was Lyanna's son, by Rhaegar, and their union was valid so he's not just going from a Stark bastard to a Targaryen one.... Aerys's heir was  Viserys, not Rhaegar. He cut off Rhaegar's line. So that makes Dany the heir of the last King, not Jon.

Like to postulate that Jon clearly has more right to the throne than Dany is ridiculous. The only reason why the show is making it de facto and not just a tenuous claim is to make Dany weak and "crazy".

Edited May 10, 2019 by ursula

[izabella]

31 minutes ago, Kate47 said:

Dany wasn't wrong when she told Jon that the secret has a life of its own. She wants to rule an undivided Westeros peacefully. As long as people who oppose her (or are just unhappy with her decisions) know that Jon has a stronger claim, there will be splinter factions and plots rallied behind him. She will always have to question if her supporters actually want what's best for her, or if they're giving her false flattery or wrong advice to put puppet jon on the throne. It would be a paranoid and difficult reign for her.

It doesn't much matter what he wants, IMO. People will seek to use him in a variety of ways. Sowing doubt can sometimes be more damaging than meeting on a field of battle.

I agree with you that Dany was right about the secret.  However, I think no matter how she gets the throne and even if there were no secret, if she got the throne, she would still have to question if her supporters are giving false flattery and working against her or trying to use her for their own ends.  That is the nature of being on the throne - someone will always be trying to get you off, especially if what you as the Queen want is in opposition to what they want or what is good for them.  It's one thing to get the throne; it's quite another to maintain it. 

[JennyMominFL]

2 minutes ago, izabella said:

I agree with you that Dany was right about the secret.  However, I think no matter how she gets the throne and even if there were no secret, if she got the throne, she would still have to question if her supporters are giving false flattery and working against her or trying to use her for their own ends.  That is the nature of being on the throne - someone will always be trying to get you off, especially if what you as the Queen want is in opposition to what they want or what is good for them.  It's one thing to get the throne; it's quite another to maintain it. 

Yup, just look at Henry the VII reign  to see how that works

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, SilverStormm said:

You're forgetting one fact: Jon doesn't want it. 

And that being the case, there is no 'should, would, could' argument. He doesn't want it, and I'm not a supporter of forcing people into doing things they don't want to do. 

Have you considered the best ruler might be someone who doesn't want to rule?

That's why Hot Pie would make a great assassin and Arya would be the best baker in the land. Ayra doesn't want to be a baker and Hot Pie doesn't want to be an assassin.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Constantinople

[bijoux]

25 minutes ago, ursula said:

Oh please. On what grounds? His birth certificate via Branvision? An illegal marriage that needed the permission of the King and is technically null and void? A marriage that was at best polygamy (illegal) or at worst following an annulment that was also illegal based on the fact that: Princess Elia had 2 children so Rhaegar couldn't use the "no consummation" clause and - again - the King's permission is required to approve a royal annulment? 

And even if Jon were to surmount all that - convince people he was Lyanna's son, by Rhaegar, and their union was valid so he's not just going from a Stark bastard to a Targaryen one.... Aerys's heir was  Viserys, not Rhaegar. He cut off Rhaegar's line. So that makes Dany the heir of the last King, not Jon.

Like to postulate that Jon clearly has more right to the throne than Dany is ridiculous. The only reason why the show is making it de facto and not just a tenuous claim is to make Dany weak and "crazy".

I'm not advocating for anyone's right to the throne but is polygamy illegal? At least in the world of Targaryens? Aegon the Conquorer had two sister wives. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by bijoux

[ursula]

49 minutes ago, bijoux said:

I'm not advocating for anyone's right to the throne but is polygamy illegal? At least in the world of Targaryens? Aegon the Conquorer had two sister wives. 

Well, he was the only one. (Unless you count Maegor who was an usurper and kinslayer and mass-murderer and generally not someone to emulate. Fun fact: There was a Prince in line to the throne called Maegor. On the basis of his name alone, he was taken out of consideration).

When Jahearys and Alysanne established the Doctrine of Exceptionalism, it was targeted at incest, not polygamy.

And it's easy to do stuff like that when you have dragons.

The odds of Rhaegar's polygamy being accepted as legal were none to none. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by ursula

[Maximum Taco]

1 hour ago, ursula said:

Oh please. On what grounds? His birth certificate via Branvision? An illegal marriage that needed the permission of the King and is technically null and void? A marriage that was at best polygamy (illegal) or at worst following an annulment that was also illegal based on the fact that: Princess Elia had 2 children so Rhaegar couldn't use the "no consummation" clause and - again - the King's permission is required to approve a royal annulment? 

And even if Jon were to surmount all that - convince people he was Lyanna's son, by Rhaegar, and their union was valid so he's not just going from a Stark bastard to a Targaryen one.... Aerys's heir was  Viserys, not Rhaegar. He cut off Rhaegar's line. So that makes Dany the heir of the last King, not Jon.

Like to postulate that Jon clearly has more right to the throne than Dany is ridiculous. The only reason why the show is making it de facto and not just a tenuous claim is to make Dany weak and "crazy".

Another thought:

Wouldn't Jon have given up all previously held birthrights when he swore himself to the Night's Watch? I don't think he would/should get reinserted into the line of succession by virtue of resurrection. 

Sure he became King in the North, when he forswore those vows (or loopholed his way out, whatever you want to say) but that wasn't a title he inherited he became King by acclamation. 

[Constantinople]

20 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

Wouldn't Jon have given up all previously held birthrights when he swore himself to the Night's Watch?

Some have argued -- I am not among them -- that he couldn't give up a birthright he didn't know about.

[ursula]

25 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

Wouldn't Jon have given up all previously held birthrights when he swore himself to the Night's Watch? 

Which was basically the reason why Ned wanted him to go to the Wall.

Jon even thinks it in season 1, that Ned let him join the NW which wasn't full of noble heroes like his uncle but with criminals because Ned wanted to get rid of him, since he embarrassed him as a besmirch on his honor. He was half right. Ned knew that if Jon went to the Wall, then he'd be safe. If the secret every came out, it couldn't be used against him.

6 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

he couldn't give up a birthright he didn't know about.

🤣🤣🤣🤣By that ridiculous logic, he should be allowed to marry women that he hasn't met yet. 

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

Some have argued -- I am not among them -- that he couldn't give up a birthright he didn't know about.

In the NW oath, they don't specifically give up birthrights or titles.  They pledge to " hold no lands... and....wear no crowns,"

As discussed before, the  oath reads, "It shall not end until my death."

So, NW brothers don't directly renounce birthrights, they forfeit them more by default, because they promise not to claim the benefits of them (lands and crowns).   

Since Jon died, his watch ended.  Upon his resurrection, he was then free to claim any lands or crowns that were his by birth, especially ones that had not already been taken by the next in line.   

That's my argument if I'm his lawyer, anyway.   

[DigitalCount]

30 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

In the NW oath, they don't specifically give up birthrights or titles.  They pledge to " hold no lands... and....wear no crowns,"

As discussed before, the  oath reads, "It shall not end until my death."

So, NW brothers don't directly renounce birthrights, they forfeit them more by default, because they promise not to claim the benefits of them (lands and crowns).   

Since Jon died, his watch ended.  Upon his resurrection, he was then free to claim any lands or crowns that were his by birth, especially ones that had not already been taken by the next in line.   

That's my argument if I'm his lawyer, anyway.   

Incidentally, he at least acknowledges this argument when he leaves.

[Couver]

One thing I think Dany failed on big time was locking Rhaegal and Viserion up. It not only stunted their growth it left them unaware of battle tactics. One thing the show did well was show that Drogon has better natural battle instincts. He always dodges the spears/scorpions (except the first one). I don't think Rhaegal and Viserion had the chance to realize that they weren't necessarily the top of the food chain. Drogon roamed and saw a lot of sh!t. The other two always got to come in after and help with clean up. But they never got a chance to be in the thick of it until the wight hunt.

Some of this was just bad writing of course. But that's one of my regrets with Dany. If she hadn't imprisoned them she would have arried in Westeroes with 3 dragons all at full size and strength. Although the show still would have had two die in really dumb ways 😂🙄

Edited May 10, 2019 by Couver

[Constantinople]

8 minutes ago, Couver said:

Although the show still would have had two die in really dumb ways 😂🙄

Rhaegal would be the latest drummer for Spinal Tap

[sistermagpie]

20 hours ago, ursula said:

<Insert Oprah shrug gif>

And what happened in season 8? What narrative is being pushed as what actually happened? 🤷

Right, but they wouldn't have to have people tell a different version on the show if they just wrote the version they wanted to begin with. It's not a retcon if the characters tell the story wrong, only if they do a flashback where they change it or something.

5 hours ago, Hana Chan said:

Dany was in a catch 22 position when it came to defending the North. She could have done nothing and left the North to it's own fate, but that would have been a tremendous dereliction of her duty. The chief responsibility of a ruler is to defend the realm and Jon has presented to her a very real threat to not just one rebellious territory, but eventually the entire realm. The instant that Jon bent the knee to Dany (giving her what she'd originally demanded when she first heard his name), he placed the well being of the North in her hands.  It became her obligation to protect the North, not just a kind and generous thing to do.

Also, it's a moral question. I feel like this, again, goes to the whole question at the center of the story--one that seems to be of interest to the TV show as well, which is why they keep pushing the "maybe Jon's a better king because he doesn't want to be."

Any argument about how things might have been better or worse for Dany had she not gone to the North (she'd have 3 dragons, Cersei wouldn't have her anti-dragon aircraft weapons, Dany would be sitting on the throne etc.) are assuming that Dany's goal of being queen of the 7 kingdoms is not only important. That dragons are better used to win the throne for yourself than fight the zombie army killing everything in their path. Even the argument that as queen she would have a responsibility to the North to protect them is looking at it from that standpoint. Even describing it as kind and generous is a direct contrast to Jon's arguments throughout the show.

[ursula]

2 hours ago, Couver said:

One thing I think Dany failed on big time was locking Rhaegal and Viserion up.

Dany never gets a break. She locked up her dragons because as far as she knew, they were eating little children. If she hadn't, she'd be dragged over the coals for being a monster.

Now she's responsible for stunting their growth and killing them.

🙄

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Right, but they wouldn't have to have people tell a different version on the show if they just wrote the version they wanted to begin with. It's not a retcon if the characters tell the story wrong, only if they do a flashback where they change it or something.

Flashbacks aren't essential to establish a retcon. Retcons are almost always "as you were..."

Everyone on the show is taking the version of the story that Dany came to the North after Jon bent the knee as de facto. Dany had a good opportunity to clear the air when she was trying to make peace with Sansa - and she never once mentioned or contradicted it. Jon is supposed to be Honesty Personified, and he says that this is what happened. Even if this were some scheme that Jon and Dany concocted to "sell" to the North, then you'd also think Dany would bring it up when she's begging him to keep his bloodline secret - after all she's done the same for him with the North. And again, it doesn't come out. 

So unless Jon, Dany and everyone else in the know are all suffering from mass delusion, then this is a retcon. 

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Also, it's a moral question. 

Not the story that D & D are telling. Instead what we have is that the Queen who chose to sacrifice her people on a gamble that she'd win has won ---- while the one who chose to to save the North has been met with ingratitude and loss and even been point-blank called a fool (Sansa: "you never should have trusted Cersei") for doing so.

Quote

That dragons are better used to win the throne for yourself than fight the zombie army killing everything in their path.

Only if it was either/or. Which is the gas-lighting that the show using Jon as a proxy did in Season 7.

It's not "either/or". It's not Dany can fight Cersei or fight AOTD but she can't do both. She could have have fought Cersei then faced the Army of the Dead. That was always the logical way to progress things.

Another "damned if she does/damned if she doesn't" argument. Which more often than not is always directed at Dany. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by ursula

[sistermagpie]

12 minutes ago, ursula said:

Flashbacks aren't essential to establish a retcon. Retcons are almost always "as you were..."

I know, but I'm wondering *why* they made it a retcon instead of just writing it the way they wanted it to begin with. Why did they only decide later on it was better to their whole set up if Jon did it this way? Or do they just not see it as a retcon in some way?

15 minutes ago, ursula said:

Another "damned if she does/damned if she doesn't" argument. Which more often than not is always directed at Dany. 

I'm not damning her. In the context of the show and the fantasy tradition it just seems like fighting the NK is the right thing to do--the whole set up of the night before the battle, imo, says these are the good guys. In hindsight yes, we can say that Dany could have gone after Cersei first and then gone to the wall, but everything in the show, imo, sets up that the plucky band at Winterfell are the good guys. Cersei is a terrible person for considering him strategically. 

If it puts her at more of a disadvantage against Cersei I don't think that reflects badly on Dany at all. It shows she would be a better ruler because she's not only focused on her own goal. The North is willing to help her win the throne. But ambition for the throne is always a dangerous temptation--you need it, but it's easy to tip over into having too much of it. If Dany lost the throne because she helped the North that wouldn't, imo, reflect badly on Dany as a leader. Regretting helping the North because it made her help the North would. Dany isn't Cersei. She aspires to be a good leader, not just the leader.

[Umbelina]

Also without Dany's help, the Winterfell forces would have probably be overwhelmed, and Dany would lost most of her Kingdom to WW, and then, in far greater forces *all those new dead forces,* they would arrive in KL and probably kill her too.

If she cared about her Kingdom at all, it was her duty to protect her people.

[Umbelina]

If Dany is so convinced that the true heir deserves to rule the 7 Kingdoms, and birthright is what matters?

Why didn't she immediately bend the knee to Jon? 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Umbelina
clarity

[GraceK]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

If Dany is so convinced that the true heir deserves to rule the 7 Kingdoms, and birthright is what matters?

Why didn't she immediately bend the knee to Jon? 

It’s not just about birthright anymore . She’s worked for 8 years for the throne, and her whole life has been spent on the run with her brother believing it was up to them to reestablish House Targaryen,   and she feels it’s her destiny. And if I was able to walk through fire, birth dragons and ride them, I would think I was made for great things too. You call her a fanatic but remember, there are literal prophecies in this world, she has priestesses talking about her , she has dreams that come true. She is literally a magical figure. And she has a true desire to make things better for people , and she feels she’s can do so. She wants to create change. 

She has raised armies, been chained, attacked, and lost loved ones among the way. She sacrificed half her armies, people who followed her out of pure loyalty, Jorah and one of her Dragons to do her duty to the realm she wants to rule, as everyone says it’s her responsibility to do so , and now she’s supposed to say “ oh forget it. I bend the knee to you Jon, cause by an accident of birth your actually ahead of me in line. Totes cool!. Everything I lost and sacrificed is for nothing . I’m fine. It’s fine.”

And maybe if Jon brought up marriage, and still acted like he loved her, maybe she would be on board with sharing power and full on Targaryen restoration. She knows she needs to marry. She was all about it last season. But he keeps pushing her away instead. He squicked by the incest thing. So maybe she feels that’s not even an option for her . 

Edited May 11, 2019 by GraceK

[ursula]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Also without Dany's help, the Winterfell forces would have probably be overwhelmed, and Dany would lost most of her Kingdom to WW, and then, in far greater forces *all those new dead forces,* they would arrive in KL and probably kill her too.

If she cared about her Kingdom at all, it was her duty to protect her people.

If Dany hadn't tried to help in the first place, the Army of the Dead would be on the other side of the Wall so this is moot.

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

In the context of the show and the fantasy tradition it just seems like fighting the NK is the right thing to do

But that's my point - in the context of the show, it was not right thing to do. The show has proven that. You're applying altruistic ethics which is a foundation this show has never run on.

Edited May 11, 2019 by ursula

[ursula]

4 minutes ago, GraceK said:

her whole life has been spent on the run with her brother believing it was up to them to reestablish House Targaryen

Jon just found out he was Targaryen yesterday based on Branvision and his Tarly bestie conveniently finding a piece of paper that proved Rhaegar and Lyanna got a septon to perform a highly illegal marriage. That's not even going into the fact that Aerys declared Viserys his heir, bypassing Rhaegar's children and Viserys was actually crowned. Which makes Dany next in line not her maybe-legitimate nephew.

The fact that Dany didn't just burst into laughter at Jon's "claim" is testimony to how hard the show wants to push Dany as the "mad Queen".

[Umbelina]

It doesn't work like that.  Sisters or Brothers of Kings or Queens don't become the ruler if the King or the Prince from that King has heirs.

It would be like the throne of the UK going to Ann instead of William if Elizabeth II and Charles both died.

Birthright has been what Dany has used as her excuse since the very beginning, so yes, it does matter.

[GraceK]

Pretty much 😂

[rmontro]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

It doesn't work like that.  Sisters or Brothers of Kings or Queens don't become the ruler if the King or the Prince from that King has heirs.

It would be like the throne of the UK going to Ann instead of William if Elizabeth II and Charles both died.

Birthright has been what Dany has used as her excuse since the very beginning, so yes, it does matter.

Jon/Aegon certainly had the better claim to the throne by birthright.  Proving it might be another matter, but whatever.  He doesn't want it anyway.  I would have actually liked to have seen a big argument between the two of them as to who was going to take the throne.  Would have been better than what we're seeing.  Or they should have gotten married and co-ruled, like Varys and Tyrion were suggesting.

I'm not even sure Jon loves Dany, at least not in that way.  Especially since finding out she's his aunt.  I think someone upthread noted that he has never said it?

[Andromeda]

Edited May 11, 2019 by Andromeda

[rmontro]

Lol, that's awesome, Andromeda.  🙂

Nice to see something happy connected with this show lately.

[sistermagpie]

5 hours ago, ursula said:

But that's my point - in the context of the show, it was not right thing to do. The show has proven that. You're applying altruistic ethics which is a foundation this show has never run on.

I disagree. The show certainly shows that altruistic ethics aren't always rewarded, but that doesn't mean they aren't appreciated. And often they are rewarded in the long run more than the short term victories won by bad guys.

Dany herself is a curious mixture of the two. Her main justifications for ruling are her bloodline and her plans to rule compassionately over a peaceful and happy world free of tyranny. Then there's just the desire for the throne. The closer she gets to it the more those three things have come in conflict with each other so she'll find out which one's the priority.

3 hours ago, GraceK said:

Pretty much

Neither Jaime nor Theon were coming to rule the North. If they had been the North would have been just as mistrustful of them. Dany was trusted as much as those two were. Nobody thought she was going to be stabbing anyone in the back during the battle or setting the Northerners on fire.

5 hours ago, ursula said:

The fact that Dany didn't just burst into laughter at Jon's "claim" is testimony to how hard the show wants to push Dany as the "mad Queen". 

She couldn't as long as she believed him, which she definitely seems to do. She's spent a long time believing in the standard line of succession. Of course she could challenge Jon's claim on legal grounds, reject the idea there was a marriage etc. But to do that she has to see the whole thing as going to the person with the best lawyer and the best PR and she has no divine right to it either. To keep that intact the whole problem has to just not exist and swearing him to secrecy was a weak attempt at that.

[ursula]

28 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

The show certainly shows that altruistic ethics aren't always rewarded, but that doesn't mean they aren't appreciated. And often they are rewarded in the long run more than the short term victories won by bad guys.

Well if there's any tangible evidence that this holds in-universe, I'm interested in hearing it. 

28 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

She couldn't as long as she believed him, which she definitely seems to do. 

I was pointing out that the narrative is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that she just takes it as de facto based on his word. It would be even more ridiculous if he had (which he didn't) told her his key "witnesses" were his brother's vision and a letter his best friend that hates her "found". And that's so before going into whether the marriage even counted as legal marriage or there's any tangible proof (visions not usually material evidence) that he's Lyanna's son or that his claim can rival hers when Aerys publicly took Rhaegar's children from the succession line.

The show wanted Dany vulnerable and threatened by this, so they wrote her that way even though narratively it makes as much sense as her inability to spot a fleet of ships from an aerial perspective. Fans who are prejudiced against Dany will accept and rationalize this because they're already predisposed to do so. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by ursula

[Spartan Girl]

Right new, I can't help feeling that "Burn" from Hamilton would make an excellent theme for Dany and Jon. Especially if he's going to turn on her or if she finds out he blabbed.

[MrsR]

Dany found out early that there was no innocent by-standing for her. She had a death warrant on her. It was go for the throne, or wait for the poison in the wine, knife in the back, magical insect assassin or whatever method her paranoid enemies could come up with to put her down. Combine that with her brother's ambition imbedded in her, her dragons hatching and her die was cast. There was never going to be a red door that could have withstood the outside forces of her ancestral background.

[Maximum Taco]

11 hours ago, Andromeda said:

Is it a dark omen that the Rockets then lost the game after swearing fealty?

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, ursula said:

Well if there's any tangible evidence that this holds in-universe, I'm interested in hearing it. 

I think Jaime, Theon and the Hound are all stories that show people being strengthened by relationships based on better morals. Ned died because of too much honor but the good will he earned makes his people more loyal to him even after his death while Cersei's position as queen is much more vulnerable because she hates the people and the people hate her. Ramsey Bolton and Tyrion both murdered their fathers. Brienne stood up for Jaime because of his better actions toward her. Most all the lasting relationships are the better ones.

9 hours ago, ursula said:

I was pointing out that the narrative is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that she just takes it as de facto based on his word. It would be even more ridiculous if he had (which he didn't) told her his key "witnesses" were his brother's vision and a letter his best friend that hates her "found". And that's so before going into whether the marriage even counted as legal marriage or there's any tangible proof (visions not usually material evidence) that he's Lyanna's son or that his claim can rival hers when Aerys publicly took Rhaegar's children from the succession line.

Sure, it would make sense for her to actually not believe it--she'd have to think people were lying to Jon to manipulate him or that Jon was lying himself. That would be a whole story of more conflict between Dany and Jon, Dany and Bran, Dany and Samwell. But we the audience know that it's true so I assume we're supposed to accept that Dany also believes that it's true. Given the way she's viewed her right to rule before it would be a huge change for her to go from seeing herself as the rightful (in an almost divine sense) heir to the throne as the only surviving child of the former king who has no other descendants to seeing herself as one of two direct descendants (youngest daughter vs. trueborn son of eldest son) squabbling over legal details of the succession line.

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Right new, I can't help feeling that "Burn" from Hamilton would make an excellent theme for Dany and Jon. Especially if he's going to turn on her or if she finds out he blabbed.

"Blabbing" makes it sound like Jon told a secret of Dany's.

Edited May 11, 2019 by sistermagpie

[Maximum Taco]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Right new, I can't help feeling that "Burn" from Hamilton would make an excellent theme for Dany and Jon. Especially if he's going to turn on her or if she finds out he blabbed.

He didn't blab. It was his secret to tell.

She also didn't order him as Queen to keep it a secret, she begged him not to tell.