Poll: Stannis vs. Daenerys - Better claim?

[Ishal]

Ah. Never watched it, have no idea. I hear the movie is amazing though, you should watch that! =D

The more I think on Korra, the more the movie looks appealing. Don't tempt me, Guppy. I might just listen.

Yeah it's definitely a weird situation. George has no one but himself to blame with the snails pace he writes at. I shant be comparing the show to the books in inverse because I can't be assed to see what D&D think makes an interesting story, they've shown me time and time again what terrible writers they are.

But then how will you be informed enough to react and voice your rage on the forums?!?! It makes for good entertainment.

I find Brandon Sanderson too hacky to read, and these guys make him look like James Joyce.

... *sniffle* nobody likes Sanderson around here but me it seems. But that compliment(?) was nice, I guess...

 

[Grahav]

Hey, who wants to be more pissed?

About Hardhome:

Spoiler

http://winteriscoming.net/2015/06/02/behind-the-scenes-of-the-hardhome-massacre/

She was a guy originally, and then somewhere in the process we thought it might be cool if she were a mother, and show her sending off her own kids to make that moment with the corpse children really resonate emotionally?As the sequence was refined, she emerged as this clear representative of all the Wildlings, which was organic, and it made us care. Then we started casting and saw Birgitte?s work and she got the part.

Yeah, only mothers care. Fathers neglect and kill.

Pisses you off wether you are a feminist, equalist, MRA or any shit.

One more thing.

These blogs put the final nail in the show coffin for me.

I am not a feminist. But, goddamn, they really nailed it.

http://theculturalvacuum.tumblr.com/post/121019701044/i-understand-that-the-growing-disconnect-from-the

http://gotgifsandmusings.tumblr.com/post/121016611972/no-this-wont-happen-in-the-books

 

[Terminal Blue]

Arya's House of Black and White teacher is surprisingly unconcerned with her random murderous impulses when she's out and about. Obviously Trant never goes to Braavos in the books, but she does kill that Night's Watch deserter, and he's just kind of "meh". He acknowledges that she's still clinging to her identity as Arya Stark, but beyond that he seems totally chill about the actual murder.

Spoiler

I don't think murder is the problem, the problem is that she's disobeying a direct order.

It's worth noting that in the books, Arya has been temporarily blinded and then later healed at this point to teach her a lesson about identity. She's escaped that in the TV series.. so far, but when have the show writers ever missed an opportunity to have bad things happen to likable characters?

Anyway. Books aside. Foreshadowing:

The fact that she's been given a single shot of poison and is going to use it on someone other than its intended target is also quite an important indication that she's actually not meant to do that. It would be pretty shitty storytelling (and I mean actually shitty not just "oh no, they deviated from the books") to have that not matter. If they wanted the poison to just be a general thing she had, she would have been told to use "a few drops" or something. That didn't happen.

Finally, the scene in which she attempts to lie to Jaqen lingers on him for a few seconds after she leaves. That is basically coding for "this character's reaction will be important later on".

I like being surprised, so I kind of hope in a way it plays out like you say, but I'm pretty sure I won't be surprised in this case.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I don't doubt that book Stannis WOULD burn Shireen. They've just done such a horrible job establishing the Azor Ahai storyline, the prophecy of the Long Night and the war against the darkness, and Stannis's utter commitment to duty that the character comes off as easily duped/changeable. You tear away all the context and complexities of characters, and the reading of those characters suffers terribly.

I doubt he'd even burn Shireen in the books. Sure, he's not the closest father, but she is his heir. In a preview chapter, he specifically tells a knight that if he dies in the siege, they must do everything they can to get Shireen on the Iron Throne.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mel burns Shireen at the wall, but I don't think Stannis will be involved in any way, and I doubt he'd allow it.

 

[Grahav]

I don't doubt that book Stannis WOULD burn Shireen. They've just done such a horrible job establishing the Azor Ahai storyline, the prophecy of the Long Night and the war against the darkness, and Stannis's utter commitment to duty that the character comes off as easily duped/changeable. You tear away all the context and complexities of characters, and the reading of those characters suffers terribly.

I doubt he'd even burn Shireen in the books. Sure, he's not the closest father, but she is his heir. In a preview chapter, he specifically tells a knight that if he dies in the siege, they must do everything they can to get Shireen on the Iron Throne.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mel burns Shireen at the wall, but I don't think Stannis will be involved in any way, and I doubt he'd allow it.

In the books:

It may happen, but not in the half-assed way that happened in the show.

One of Stannis most important arcs in the books was the one with Edric Storm (one of Robert's bastards):

"Edric-" he started.

"-is one boy! He may be the best boy who ever drew breath and it would not matter. My duty is to the realm.? His hand swept across the Painted Table. ?How many boys dwell in Westeros? How many girls? How many men, how many women? The darkness will devour them all, she says. The night that never ends. She talks of prophecies . . . a hero reborn in the sea, living dragons hatched from dead stone . . . she speaks of signs and swears they point to me. I never asked for this, no more than I asked to be king. Yet dare I disregard her?" He ground his teeth. "We do not choose our destinies. Yet we must . . . we must do our duty, no? Great or small, we must do our duty."

He threatned to kill Melisandre slowly if she was wrong about the sacrifice.

In the Edric arc he was torn apart by that decision. Contrast to the Tv show where he looked super eager to toss him in the pyre.

If he does sacrifice Shireen it would be to save the fucking world and not himself or his position to the throne. Also he would need to be 100% sure that it was the only way.

This loss of nuance really makes the diference. Some people think it makes no difference, but I think it is like rice without that small amount of salt (unpalatable). Stannis is one big victim of this in the show, but I've come to realize that this has hit the other characters really hard. Tyrion, Cersei, Dany, Jaime, Sansa... I am not going to watch the show anymore. They hide behind Martin and the books to write their own possession fic and the culture recognizes that shit as the official material.

I am getting old. I had the knowledge that TV makes you dumb. But, this time, I really felt it.

 

[Loonyyy]

I'm guessing Jon Snow, but I know jack shit about GOT.

Jon Snow doesn't have a claim, as he's a bastard, and has taken the vows of the Night's Watch.

Only trueborn, or acknowledged offspring can inherit from their family, and the Starks have no claim to the Iron Throne. There's some question about Jon's parentage, but even should it turn out that he has royal blood of some nature (Such as Targaryen, which is suspected by many fans), he was born out of wedlock, and was never recognised by his family, and that family was deposed in a violent civil war that tore the kingdoms apart.

And then he took the vows of the Night's Watch, which prohibit him from having titles, lands, or any claim to his ancestry, and dedicates his life to guarding the Wall.

 

[Gretha Unterberg]

A Song of ice and fire.
Who ever stops the others/white walkers will have the best claim.

so the choosenone of the God of Flame or the mother of dragons...
Can't they become a super couple to rule them all ?

 

[Grahav]

A Song of ice and fire.
Who ever stops the others/white walkers will have the best claim.

so the choosenone of the God of Flame or the mother of dragons...
Can't they become a super couple to rule them all ?

Too OP, nerf it.

The tragedy is that both of them have capacity to be good rulers who have the kingdom's well being as their main interest.

Still, they would die before letting the other one rule.

Shame.

 

[Politrukk]

Disclaimer, I do not know the entire lore of their universe so I would like to ask- were the Targaryens the original ruler or did they took it from another House? Also was the Mad King always been said mad since birth?

If they were not the original ruler and the Mad King was mad since growing up then I denounce Daenery claim (but it's an upvote is they were ruler since the very starter and the former king was once sane at some point in his life).

Before you mention Stannis to me, Robert was a lousy ruler spending his time with the whores and hunting than actually ruling it. Sure Stannis would probably run it better just as long he keep away from burning people alived.

Targaryens have held the throne for years, the Baratheon rebellion was only to overthrow the mad dictator that the Mad king Aerys had become and it wasn't even supposed to play out that way.

Robert Baratheon is written as to have been inclined to have let Ned Stark take the throne but Ned walked away from that possiblity.

The Baratheon claim is only pure in the fact that the Baratheon children on the throne right now are all bastard born.

Stannis's claim starts and ends with Robert, Daenerys's legal claim is to a throne held by her family for years if not centuries.

The Iron Throne itself is a Targaryen creation, so as there must always be a Stark in Winterfell, perhaps also a Targaryen on the Iron Throne.

The best claim however does not mean the best leader or best choice, these died with Ned and especially Renly.

 

[Politrukk]

A Song of ice and fire.
Who ever stops the others/white walkers will have the best claim.

so the choosenone of the God of Flame or the mother of dragons...
Can't they become a super couple to rule them all ?

It wil be a Stark, (A Lannister), a Targeryen and the new prince of flames to challenge the long dark night like it was before.

 

[Politrukk]

Lastly, I have a right to complain about whatever I want to complain and according to the notes and to most people I?ve read, I?m not alone. Enjoy the series whatever you want, but you?ll probably have to resign yourself to the fact that people who genuinely like the characters will be pissed at how they?ve been butchered.

You're absolutely correct that you have a right to complain about whatever you want. But I can't help but wonder if you've confusing "liking" characters for having a better understanding of them or their arcs than those who don't share your like.

It strikes me as a little too close to the "but you just don't get it!" argument.

Furthermore, does this particular instance actually impact on whether Stannis would be a good king, as you suggest, or does it merely impact on your ability to continue "liking" the character? If anything, the willingness to make hard sacrifices would seem to me to be a trait of a good king, assuming the sacrifice doesn't turn out to be completely pointless (which would in and of itself be a pretty interesting nihilistic twist). It also lends credence to the idea that Stannis might actually be Azor Ahai and thus pays off a lot of the foreshadowing present in the books.

You talk about "emotional porn", but, and I don't mean this to sound as harsh as it will, if what you want is simply to have characters you personally like continue to be likable and winning and never do stupid or regrettable things (speaking of which, you and I both know how Arya's paedo-hunting adventure is going to end) then is that not simply a different kind of emotional porn? All media is built to exploit the emotions of the audience. That's what makes it entertaining in the first place.

I mean, that Dorne subplot was dumb and took god-knows-how-many episodes of forgettable padding and hilariously poorly choreographed action sequences to basically get to an just-about-okay resolution while also writing out one of the more effective female characters at this point in the books, so it's not like I can't see where you're coming from on some things, but the kind of pseudo-elitist assumption of greater "understanding" just seems to poison every single one of these discussions. To be extremely blunt, Stannis Baratheon isn't a real person. Technically, you don't "understand" him better than anyone because there isn't a real person to "understand".

I don't "like" Stannis or Dany, not in the books and not in the TV show. I tend to resent any character I feel I'm "supposed" to like anyway and be skeptical of things which look like easy resolutions. From where I'm sitting this isn't so hard to understand.

They should have cut Dorne instead of the Iron islands to be perfectly honest, but that doesn't win them any prizes for scenery and costume design now really right?

 

[Silvanus]

Stannis's claim starts and ends with Robert, Daenerys's legal claim is to a throne held by her family for years if not centuries.

Sure, but that doesn't lend it legitimacy. If you abuse your reign so egregiously, and it's taken away, that right is no longer yours by any measure.

This still irks me about Dany; she still imagines that her family lends her claim weight. It devalues it, in my opinion, as does the fact she's never even been to mainland Westeros, and only experienced Dragonstone as an infant.

The best claim however does not mean the best leader or best choice, these died with Ned and especially Renly.

What leadership qualities did Renly show? He was popular, but flippant and totally inexperienced.

 

[Politrukk]

Stannis's claim starts and ends with Robert, Daenerys's legal claim is to a throne held by her family for years if not centuries.

Sure, but that doesn't lend it legitimacy. If you abuse your reign so egregiously, and it's taken away, that right is no longer yours by any measure.

This still irks me about Dany; she still imagines that her family lends her claim weight. It devalues it, in my opinion, as does the fact she's never even been to mainland Westeros, and only experienced Dragonstone as an infant.

The best claim however does not mean the best leader or best choice, these died with Ned and especially Renly.

What leadership qualities did Renly show? He was popular, but flippant and totally inexperienced.

To my legal opinion you are confusing "Right to rule" with "Claimant".

By all acounts I agree with your interpretation of Daenerys but one simply can't lose their legal claim simply by being a bad ruler.

Aside from that fact one must consider that The Mountain That Rides slew all Targaryen claimants that should have actually taken the Mad King's place.

All but the infants Viserys and Daenerys (and possibly a third) perished at the hands of the rebellion.

Claimants in medieval times and even beyond that were important to legitimize war and to maintain a form of stability.

A big part of this was borne in the Catholic Church

It took protestantism for the Dutch and English to legally be able to overthrow/depose their monarchs and it was always the biggest fear for the English that a Catholic ruler would marry into their kingdom for these would change the playing field immensely.

 

[Silvanus]

To my legal opinion you are confusing "Right to rule" with "Claimant".

By all acounts I agree with your interpretation of Daenerys but one simply can't lose their legal claim simply by being a bad ruler.

Aside from that fact one must consider that The Mountain That Rides slew all Targaryen claimants that should have actually taken the Mad King's place.

All but the infants Viserys and Daenerys (and possibly a third) perished at the hands of the rebellion.

Claimants in medieval times and even beyond that were important to legitimize war and to maintain a form of stability.

A big part of this was borne in the Catholic Church

It took protestantism for the Dutch and English to legally be able to overthrow/depose their monarchs and it was always the biggest fear for the English that a Catholic ruler would marry into their kingdom for these would change the playing field immensely.

In legal terms, too, the Targaryen claim has lost its validity-- the laws are set by the Iron Throne.

 

[Lightknight]

Honestly, that's the point of the Game of Thrones. No one has a legitimate claim to the throne. Only the might or diplomacy to win the throne and maintain it is the legitimate claim to the throne. That and only that. Bloodline? Heritage? Doesn't mean shit in the show.

 

[Politrukk]

To my legal opinion you are confusing "Right to rule" with "Claimant".

By all acounts I agree with your interpretation of Daenerys but one simply can't lose their legal claim simply by being a bad ruler.

Aside from that fact one must consider that The Mountain That Rides slew all Targaryen claimants that should have actually taken the Mad King's place.

All but the infants Viserys and Daenerys (and possibly a third) perished at the hands of the rebellion.

Claimants in medieval times and even beyond that were important to legitimize war and to maintain a form of stability.

A big part of this was borne in the Catholic Church

It took protestantism for the Dutch and English to legally be able to overthrow/depose their monarchs and it was always the biggest fear for the English that a Catholic ruler would marry into their kingdom for these would change the playing field immensely.

In legal terms, too, the Targaryen claim has lost its validity-- the laws are set by the Iron Throne.

How can you lose the claim to a seat you created yourself?

Not just by virtue of tyranny.
If anything anyone else would then immediately lose their claim.

The Iron Throne was created by the Targaryens to signify their supremacy over their fallen foes, hence the fabrication out of molten arms.

 

[Terminal Blue]

They should have cut Dorne instead of the Iron islands to be perfectly honest, but that doesn't win them any prizes for scenery and costume design now really right?

Totally agree.

They clearly didn't actually want to include Dorne. I mean, it is clearly such an afterthought that the credits breaks with the standard location naming conventions and simply calls it "Dorne" rather than "Sunspear" or "the Water Gardens". I'm not sure why they felt obligated to include Dorne, especially when familiar locations and characters (like the iron islands) have simply dropped off the planet.

I mean, keeping on topic for this thread. Remember the three leeches which Stannis burned? One of them was for Balon Greyjoy. We don't even know whether Balon is dead in the TV series, which makes including that scene retrospectively kind of pointless.

Not to mention the plotting in the Dorne stuff they did add is downright weird. The most WTF example is having Bron be poisoned in one episode and then immediately given an antidote with no consequences in the next. I mean for what possible reason could that scene exist?

 

[Childe]

Yeah i agree with the people that said that those with the power have the right to the throne. If you don't have the power to conquer the throne for yourself and subjugate your rivals then you really don't have a right to the throne. in otherwords everyone and no one has the right to the throne.

 

[Silvanus]

How can you lose the claim to a seat you created yourself?

Not just by virtue of tyranny.
If anything anyone else would then immediately lose their claim.

The Iron Throne was created by the Targaryens to signify their supremacy over their fallen foes, hence the fabrication out of molten arms.

The creator of the Throne is long dead, and even so, creation doesn't convey unending legal right. The laws are decided by the occupant of the Throne-- if they recognise the movement of legitimacy from Targaryen to Baratheon, then it's legal.

Now, if we entirely refuse to recognise right of conquest, then fair enough, but then Aegon's Conquest was in contravention of the laws of the kingdoms he conquered.