Remove ads

Game of Thrones Season 7

Cosar said:
So...this would mean that Danny should be bending a knee to Jon, assuming all of the actions were carried out legally, right? Or does the fact that the Crown prince died before the king mean that Jon would be moved back in the lines of succession?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nobody said:
She should be bending the knee to Jon. There is absolutely no scenario where she shouldn't if Jon's legitimately a Targaryen as they put women behind every single male claimant. Strictly speaking if her family had died of natural causes before Robert's Rebellion Dany would probably have to bend the knee to Robert. If Dany's son hadn't died she'd have to bend the knee to him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Succession on the Iron Throne is not really set per se. As a rule of thumb, the eldest male line takes the throne, and after the Dance with Dragons it was considered that Targaryen men would come before Targaryen women invariably. However, that custom does not exceed the power of the king, and as far any Targaryen loyalist was concerned, Viserys was king, and he named Daenerys as his heir. When he died, she succeeded him.

And this is the thing. Yes, Rhaegar was Crown Prince, but Viserys really was king. His ascension is both legal and entirely valid, even if in all practical terms he was nobody.
 
Nobody said:
She should be bending the knee to Jon. There is absolutely no scenario where she shouldn't if Jon's legitimately a Targaryen as they put women behind every single male claimant. Strictly speaking if her family had died of natural causes before Robert's Rebellion Dany would probably have to bend the knee to Robert. If Dany's son hadn't died she'd have to bend the knee to him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sucession in a feudal society is always a muddled thing. Targaryen rules of Sucession probably didn't matter for Robert, if he only had Daughters he probably would have made the eldest his heir. Even if Dany learned the truth she probably wouldn't change her stance, particularly considering the shadowed nature of the Annulment.
 
I have this odd feeling, even in the books, Gendry is more important to the end than meets the eye, but he could have always been a red herring. Considering how D&D threw him back in the mix as blunt as they did, I'm leaning more toward the former.
 
Wi'se said:
I have this odd feeling, even in the books, Gendry is more important to the end than meets the eye, but he could have always been a red herring. Considering how D&D threw him back in the mix as blunt as they did, I'm leaning more toward the former.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At the very least, the Stormlands will need a new LP after everything settles down.
 
In normal Andal and First Men succession laws (Dorne has outright equal primogeniture of course), a sister will always come after her brothers in succession - but a Lord's daughter will always come before a brother, uncle, aunt or whatever. It isn't that women always come last; it is that this marriage makes Jon the dynastically most senior Targaryen still alive, the eldest legitimate son of the eldest legitimate son of Aerys II.

Even if we assume for a moment Viserys was the rightful Targaryen king whilst he lived (but I think he was never crowned, not even in a sham ceremony), even then Jon as the eldest son of his elder brother would come first in his succession.

There is a precedent in Targaryen succession where the eldest daughter of an eldest son had been passed over (a Rhaenys Targaryen) in favour of a younger son of the monarch, but as it so happens Jon has the right gender as well. Purely legally, he simply is the rightful Targaryen heir.

...of course, he has neither dragons nor Unsullied nor a khalasar, so Daenerys could in fact pull a Renly and say "Bring it, boy". Really, at this point Daenerys could sweep up the entire kingdom and then focus on the Wall. All these attempts to bring back drama into this conflict feel a bit desperate.
 
Susano said:
In normal Andal and First Men succession laws (Dorne has outright equal primogeniture of course), a sister will always come after her brothers in succession - but a Lord's daughter will always come before a brother, uncle, aunt or whatever. It isn't that women always come last; it is that this marriage makes Jon the dynastically most senior Targaryen still alive, the eldest legitimate son of the eldest legitimate son of Aerys II.

Even if we assume for a moment Viserys was the rightful Targaryen king whilst he lived (but I think he was never crowned, not even in a sham ceremony), even then Jon as the eldest son of his elder brother would come first in his succession.

There is a precedent in Targaryen succession where the eldest daughter of an eldest son had been passed over (a Rhaenys Targaryen) in favour of a younger son of the monarch, but as it so happens Jon has the right gender as well. Purely legally, he simply is the rightful Targaryen heir.

...of course, he has neither dragons nor Unsullied nor a khalasar, so Daenerys could in fact pull a Renly and say "Bring it, boy". Really, at this point Daenerys could sweep up the entire kingdom and then focus on the Wall. All these attempts to bring back drama into this conflict feel a bit desperate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It doesn't seem like drama to me, and if it's desperate it's not Double D's fault. This is what GRRM pretty much wrote.
 
Polokun said:
It doesn't seem like drama to me, and if it's desperate it's not Double D's fault. This is what GRRM pretty much wrote.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nonsense. Cersei blowing up the Great Sept, thus turning the Reach against her? The Sand Snakes staging a coup d'etat in Dorne, thus turning Dorne against her? Tommen's suicide? The Knights of the Vale supporting Jon? That is their writing, not GRRM's. Parts of that may still happen in the books, maybe, but we don't know. The whole plot with Petyr and Sansa already can't really go that way, as Petyr never brought Sansa to the North.

The writing, whose ever it was, basically stacked all cards in Daenarys' favour, by having the realm conveniently crumble apart for good just before she arrives.
 
Susano said:
...of course, he has neither dragons nor Unsullied nor a khalasar, so Daenerys could in fact pull a Renly and say "Bring it, boy". Really, at this point Daenerys could sweep up the entire kingdom and then focus on the Wall. All these attempts to bring back drama into this conflict feel a bit desperate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

At which point Dany dies like Renly, only to a Faceless Man No One this time.
 
Polokun said:
Susano was talking about Targ inheritance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Don't play stupid games. What you said is that if the attempts to bring tension into the conflict are desperate, that is due to GRRM's writing. That is literally what you said. That has nothing to do with the Targaryen succession.
 
Susano said:
Don't play stupid games. What you said is that if the attempts to bring tension into the conflict are desperate, that is due to GRRM's writing. That is literally what you said. That has nothing to do with the Targaryen succession.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well then you should have been clearer. You were talking about Targ succession and Jon's legality in being king. You called the whole thing quote: "All these attempts to bring back drama into this conflict feel a bit desperate." Don't blame me that you wrote something that could be easily misinterpreted.
 
Polokun said:
Well then you should have been clearer. You were talking about Targ succession and Jon's legality in being king. You called the whole thing quote: "All these attempts to bring back drama into this conflict feel a bit desperate." Don't blame me that you wrote something that could be easily misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That sentence came immediately after my description how Daenerys could sweep up the whole realm with the forces she has. Everyone else understood that as well. It is not my fault if you in particular lack reading comprehension.
 
Susano said:
That sentence came immediately after my description how Daenerys could sweep up the whole realm with the forces she has. Everyone else understood that as well. It is not my fault if you in particular lack reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not my fault you lack clear writing skills to make your point clearer.
 
Re-read the last sentence:
Really, at this point Daenerys could sweep up the entire kingdom and then focus on the Wall. All these attempts to bring back drama into this conflict feel a bit desperate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No matter the reading, this bit here doesn't make it look like it's about Jon's Targaryen heritage, or just solely about it.
 
At the end of season 6 I figured Dany would make short work of Cersei, or at least what remained of her powerbase. However it would be in such a brutal manner, along with not having the control she thought she had over the dragons and the Dorthraki that it would lead to a lot of people turning to Eurgon or Jon or something to save them from the 'evil foreign invader'. Meanwhile the real threats coming over the wall.

So in a lot of ways I agree with Susano that this dragging out the conflict is somewhat artificial. The only thing supporting the logic behind it is Dany being convinced leaving King's Landing a pile of flaming stone and corpses would not look good for her intentions of being a different kind of ruler.
 
Last edited:
Wi'se said:
So in a lot of ways I agree with Susano that this dragging out the conflict is somewhat artificial. The only thing supporting the logic behind it is Dany being convinced leaving King's Landing a pile of flaming stone would not look good for her intentions of being a different kind of ruler.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This in-show argument never made much sense to me either, tbh. I mean, King's Landing needs to be taken one way or the other, and all of them will be bloody. Hell, dragons could even make keeping civilian casualties low easier. Just take to the air and focus on the Red Keep (which is conveniently facing the sea) in particular. The city proper will be spared, but the enemy head cut off. Alternatively, draw a siege around the city and just burn all relief troops.

Destroying the enemies' homebases also works... or would, normally. Here, it apparently has no effect. Like, the Unsullied now control Caasterly Rock and, uh... just what is happening in the Westerlands? Ah well, who cares, it doesn't involve the few select main characters, after all. I mean, we can mock how in the books the Lannisters were able to raise one army after the next from the streets of Lannisport, but at least you always had a good sense of what is going on in the war. Now, though, it's like everything happens in a vacuum. Actions have no consequences except dramatic effects, logistics don't exist, and things only happen when the camera is on them.
 
Last edited:
Susano said:
. Hell, dragons could even make keeping civilian casualties low easier. Just take to the air and focus on the Red Keep (which is conveniently facing the sea) in particular. The city proper will be spared, but the enemy head cut off.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I imagine Dany would want to keep the actual seat of power that she wants to take be intact.
 
Polokun said:
I imagine Dany would want to keep the actual seat of power that she wants to take be intact.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
She can build a new castle. It isn't like she has an emotional attachment to the place. She never once saw it in her life (she was born on Dragonstone during the war, and then directly whisked away from there when King's Landing fell).
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top