@cswood said:

She's not technically a foreign invader if she's the last living heir to the deposed king. Dany's story is at least partly inspired by Henry VII who was in exile just like Dany. You just don't like her, which is fair, but don't pretend like she doesn't have a legit claim to the throne.

There is no "legit claim" to bringing war to a country on the basis of perceived inheritance. She is not defending herself or anyone. She wasn't called by anyone to help resolve a conflict. She decided to come and take back what her father was deprived of after breaking the trust of those who accepted him as a ruler. Daenerys is an unwanted aggressor.

@cswood said: If Stannis had dragons and set KL on fire you'd think he was a boss.

Definitely not. Stannis was a usurper. But I see from this stupidity of yours that you're just another danidiot. Get the f_ck out of my sight.

@CharlesTheBold said:

Sorry if I misunderstood your point. What I was talking about was the standard LAW of inheritance, which of course was often over-ridden in practice, particularly when the "rightful king" was weak and somebody else had a lot of power..

The "right to rule" is a delicate thing. What is "right" in terms of the law is what power holders agree to have enforced beyond the scope of parties. Example: after an election goes out 51% vs 49%, "everyone" still agrees to accept the winner and will accept to see force used against a group trying to change things. There is always such a fringe of potentially violent people, which is why I write "everyone" between quotes. Regardless how they voted last time, I am pretty sure an overwhelming majority of those who read this prefer to see the results of the last election enforced rather than having civil war. This is what makes the elected "rightful". His presence will be enforced with the backing of "everyone", especially of the police and the army, just like laws would be enforced against a thief or a murderer under the approving eyes of the city without parties starting to go against each other.

This is basically the definition of "right": what can be settled through widely backed enforcement that will not degenerate into conflict. Something can only be right as long as it keeps the civil peace.

Going back to Westeros, the only "rightful king" after Robert's death was Joffrey, because the belief he was his son made him widely acceptable as the next ruler. Stannis took arms on the basis of an accusation no one could prove and Renly decided he'd be king because he could. None of them had wide backing over Joffrey. Daenerys coming back to take what once belonged to her father is another example of the same. Power holders of Westeros agreed to support Robert after Aerys' death and made him "rightful", to the exclusion of any other claimant. They did so in order to restore peace and order. Robert was not even the one who started the rebellion, nor did he lead or finish it. The new king could as well have been an Arryn or a Stark but Robert was chosen because his Targaryen ascent made him more acceptable to those who had stayed true to Aerys. Acceptance was the deciding factor, not force.

This is what makes Daenerys an aggressor, bringing force into a situation which doesn't require any, out of purely personal motives those she faces have no reasons to recognise.

But perhaps the situation does require force. Aerys was overthrown because he was generally considered insane, and Jaime killed him because Aerys planned to use wildfire against the local population. Since Cersei did use the wildfire, she is no more fit to rule than Aerys was.

So force is needed to unthrone her, just as it was needed to unthrone Aerys. (And actually Joffrey, since people were beginning to describe him as another Aerys).

Once you eliminate the people who are unfit to rule, who is left?

@Mirabel said:

But perhaps the situation does require force. Aerys was overthrown because he was generally considered insane, and Jaime killed him because Aerys planned to use wildfire against the local population. Since Cersei did use the wildfire, she is no more fit to rule than Aerys was.

So force is needed to unthrone her, just as it was needed to unthrone Aerys. (And actually Joffrey, since people were beginning to describe him as another Aerys).

Once you eliminate the people who are unfit to rule, who is left?

If I remember correctly, Cersei only intended to trap her enemies in the Sept and kill them altogether. If Cersei has to be dethroned for using wildfire to demonstrate her strength then so should Dany for recklessly using her ugly dragons to kill thousands of innocents just because they wouldn't bend their knee to a foreign invader.

@Leo of Red Keep said:

@cswood said:

She's not technically a foreign invader if she's the last living heir to the deposed king. Dany's story is at least partly inspired by Henry VII who was in exile just like Dany. You just don't like her, which is fair, but don't pretend like she doesn't have a legit claim to the throne.

There is no "legit claim" to bringing war to a country on the basis of perceived inheritance. She is not defending herself or anyone. She wasn't called by anyone to help resolve a conflict. She decided to come and take back what her father was deprived of after breaking the trust of those who accepted him as a ruler. Daenerys is an unwanted aggressor.

Now you're just arguing for arguments sake. If there's no legit claim then why did Robert have Rhaegar's kids killed? Why did he send assassins to kill Dany? Why did Cersei have Robert's bastards killed after his death?

The Targeryens ruled Westeros for centuries. Dany is the last (publically known) descendant of the Targeryen bloodline. THAT his her claim. And let's be honest here, Joffrey was a horrible king, Tommon too weak, and Cersei is a monster who only sits on the throne because she blew up a building full of people and caused her son to kill himself (also she caused Robert's death).

Leaving Westeros in Cersei's hands would most likely cause more deaths in the long run than Dany taking the throne.

And don't think I didn't notice how you ignored my comparisons to Star Wars and King Arthur. "If Luke hadn't gotten involved all those innocent people on the Death Star would have lived" is basically the stance you are taking on asserting that Dany should have stayed out of Westeros.

"There is no "legit claim" to bringing war to a country on the basis of perceived inheritance."

All this depends what culture and era we're focusing on. In Shakespeare's HENRY V , Henry invades France on the basis of a century--long claim on the throne. To us in modern times this was utterly unjustified, but apparently it was accepted in Henry's time and maybe Shakespeare's .

"If there's no legit claim then why did Robert have Rhaegar's kids killed? Why did he send assassins to kill Dany? Why did Cersei have Robert's bastards killed after his death?"

In some monarchies an usurper might be challenged by a relative of the old ruler claiming to be the "rightful king" ( think LION KING) A really barbaric usurper would prevent this by massacring the previous ruler's family, even innocent children, so that there would be no survivor to make the challenge. There are even examples of this in the "historical books" of the Bible. Robert and Cirsei are certainly barbaric enough to do this.

@CharlesTheBold said:

In some monarchies an usurper might be challenged by a relative of the old ruler claiming to be the "rightful king" ( think LION KING) A really barbaric usurper would prevent this by massacring the previous ruler's family, even innocent children, so that there would be no survivor to make the challenge. There are even examples of this in the "historical books" of the Bible. Robert and Cirsei are certainly barbaric enough to do this.

And it was not considered barbaric in those times... it was insuring the royal lineage would never be challenged by someone who had a rightful claim..

"And it was not considered barbaric in those times... it was insuring the royal lineage would never be challenged by someone who had a rightful claim.."

That was my point -- monarchial practices that WE would regard as brutal.

@illnagas said:

Personally I just want the best show possible but...

Dany seems to be turning into a royal bîtch. bend the knee this. bend the knee that. Join me or die. Sounding more and more like the people she started out hating.

I'm still pulling for her because she's not psychotic like Cersei but she's clearly no "hero". She has Noble qualities like her aversion to seeing men in chains but she's as prideful and entitled as any would-be monarch in Westeros. She thinks she can rule by improvisation. She burns people alive who don't bend the knee against Tyrions advice. She could have killed the Tarleys without Dragonfire, but she wanted to make a point.

And even though she wishes for people not to judge a daughter for the sins of her father, they're parallels to the Mad King that can't be denied or ignored. They may be her downfall.

@CalabrianQueen said:

@illnagas said:

Personally I just want the best show possible but...

Dany seems to be turning into a royal bîtch. bend the knee this. bend the knee that. Join me or die. Sounding more and more like the people she started out hating.

I'm still pulling for her because she's not physchotic like Cersei but she's clearly no "hero". She has Noble qualities like her aversion to seeing men in chains but she's as prideful and entitled as any would-be monarch in Westeros. She thinks she rule by improvisation. She burns people alive who don't bend the knee against Tyrions advice. She could have killed the Tarleys without Dragonfire, but she wanted to make a point.

And even though she wishes for people not to judge a daughter for the sins of her father, there's parallels to the Mad King that can't be denied or ignored. They may be her downfall.

Hiiii!!

@rouge said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

@illnagas said:

Personally I just want the best show possible but...

Dany seems to be turning into a royal bîtch. bend the knee this. bend the knee that. Join me or die. Sounding more and more like the people she started out hating.

I'm still pulling for her because she's not physchotic like Cersei but she's clearly no "hero". She has Noble qualities like her aversion to seeing men in chains but she's as prideful and entitled as any would-be monarch in Westeros. She thinks she rule by improvisation. She burns people alive who don't bend the knee against Tyrions advice. She could have killed the Tarleys without Dragonfire, but she wanted to make a point.

And even though she wishes for people not to judge a daughter for the sins of her father, there's parallels to the Mad King that can't be denied or ignored. They may be her downfall.

Hiiii!!

ROUGE , I MISSED YOU SO FREAKING MUCH XOXOXO

@CalabrianQueen said:

@rouge said:

Hiiii!!

ROUGE , I MISSED YOU SO FREAKING MUCH XOXOXO

I missed you too! A lot of us are on filmboards.com (general discussion) if you ever wanna stop by and say hi 😊

@illnagas said:

Personally I just want the best show possible but...

Dany seems to be turning into a royal bîtch. bend the knee this. bend the knee that. Join me or die. Sounding more and more like the people she started out hating.

I don't think it's that she's a bitch. In her mind, she's the rightful heir. She faced a ton of shit to get where she is. Although I can say that I'm getting really tired of these white savior narratives. Why are all these colored people still wanting to choose servitude? Not really liking that part of the story. Maeve from Westworld, WYA?