Spoilers Game of Thrones: The Final Season

In Westeros, the power and support you have matters more than rule of law--kind of like our world in many countries.

 

Yes, at the moment Cersei is in control of Kings Landing but her reach is actually quite limited. It seems that she has not been accepted as far as Dorne is concerned and not by the Vale and certainly not by the North. We do not know how things currently stand in the Stormlands or the Riverlands

 

Has the Dornish wedding pact appeared in the series?

 

Episode 4 BTS video where D&D played wildlings:

 

When Missandei was executed, I thought something along the lines of "Dany's best friend has just been murdered in front of her. Poor Greyworm! Fuck, she's pissed!"

I did not think "OMG. They killed a young black woman! You bastards!"

I dunno why. Might have something to do with not being racist, or not looking at people in those terms, or because I never looked at Missandei as a color, but as a person.

I mean, this never, ever would have occurred to me because of my backward thinking. But yes, D&D are clearly racist, misogynistic bastards.

Come to think of it, they must have it in for white people too (see: Red Wedding).... and children (Shireen).

God, they hate everyone!

 

Sadly it's moot as the only son of the Dorne has died. Presumably, the Prince is a cousin.

It's actually a masterful stroke as Gendry can't press a claim as his legitimacy requires him to recognize Daenerys as queen.

 

In the books, she's albino white, with silver hair and purple eyes. As were most of the Targaryens.

Dany's complexion is darker than "lily-white" because they cast Emelia Clarke, who is in real life a dark-haired British person who actually has some South Asian ancestry.

No. The dragonriders of Valyria all had the same "look" as the Targaryens. However, they were only the ruling class of their empire, with a large number of slaves of various ethnic groups. The destruction of their capital city wiped out almost the entire ruling class (aside from the Targaryens, who were on Dragonstone, and a few other noble houses, like House Celtigar and Velaryon). However, the Valyrian "traits" survived in some of the slave populations which ultimately formed the Free Cities - particularly in Lys, which is where Varys is from. Oftentime pretenders of common Lysene birth show up in Westeros claiming to be Targaryens and dupe some commoners.

 

Bravo.

Yeah, but her sense of justice can be warped. She doesn't take things on a case by case basis, like when she crucified all those people, or when she killed Sam's brother.

She went against her advisors.

She did help save the people of Westeros, which arguably was out of self interest since you can't rule if everyone is dead.

 

Yeah, I've said this earlier in this thread, but while a legitimate claim helps you, you must have the power base and alliances to enforce your claim. And, if you don't have a legitimate claim, you'll need even more of a base. A legitimate claim only helps a bit! It isn't sufficient by itself. It's not even necessary.

 

Is it racist for people of color to see other people of color? Asking for a friend.

 

There's a lot of nonsense being tossed about in support of the preposterous Mad Queen arc. Those who agree with the producers' deeply felt conviction that Daenerys was a monster for tormenting the Masters are only consistent in thinking Daenerys did any good thing. Sorry that actually discussing this takes so much space.

Beginning at the beginning, Daenerys was dedicated to her brother retaking the throne because she would at some point be killed if she didn't. Sansa wants to be queen (in effect) to be safe. Same motive, but one is supposed to be evil, and Sansa is brave and has agency, which is just a double standard indulged because Daenerys is John Brown and must be mad. If one tries to be modern and deny the legitimacy of hereditary monarchy, the problem is that Sansa also believes in the Stark family hereditary monarchy. Condemning Daenerys but not Sansa is just the double standard again.

Daenerys did not urge Drogo to kill Viserys.

As for Daenerys not being satisfied to be Khal Drogo's wife, Sansa wasn't satisfied being Tyrion's wife either. Taking the Iron Throne was not just being safe, but finding somewhere else to live than Vaes Dothrak. I'm sympathetic, though any who think Dothraki customs for wives are suitable will disagree. After Drogo died, she gave others a chance to leave, and some did.

The rulers of Qarth attacked first. This was not going to be resolved peacefully. She didn't have the numbers to conquer the city.

The sack of Astapor was conducted by slaves freed after Daenerys used her dragon to murder the slavemaster. This earned the permanent hatred for her. The conquest of Yunkai, ditto. In Meereen, the crucifixion of a Master for each child crucified was stern but just, an example of why we should prefer to beg mercy than to demand justice. The show believes the whole Meereenese storyline about how awful it was to torment the Masters by freeing slaves is "The Yankee carpetbaggers and scalawags tormented the South with their mad, vicious, inhuman ideology of Reconstrutction?" Oh, yeah, after they made sure we knew some slaves wanted to stay with the masters they loved, and it was right not to execute rich people but to execute uppity ex-slaves who were taking an unjust revenge, and executing the good rich folk was murderous tyranny because they had nothing to do with the Sons of the Harpy, who were just hirelings paid by somebody else, they discreetly dispatched the Sons of the Harpy. They had after all done their work in showing how Daenerys was a wicked tyrant. This whole storyline was preposterous, no matter how sincere the producers were in believing this BS. Proffering this reactionary mythology as proof Daenerys was always evil is unacceptable to anyone who doesn't agree.

At the supply train, Daenerys had a cavalry force and a dragon, with no way to take prisoners. The Lannister soldiers had to surrender, because it would be criminal for her to leave them unmolested, later killing more of her followers. The man responsible for negotiating their surrender, refused any effort resolve their status, urging them implicitly to a futile defiance, even to the point of refusing an indirect surrender by taking the Black. Killing him was a military necessity, and much more merciful to the rank and file. Tyrion was distraught because Tyrion doesn't give a shit about ordinary people.

Sansa's enmity for Daenerys came first. There is no escaping that, and no excusing it. She hates Daenerys more than she hates Cersei and feared the Night King. As to Daenerys' temper, sure it's real. It is also known that Daenerys will listen to advisors, just as Sansa listened to Brienne when she wanted to kill Jaime.

Sansa had no real reason to think Daenerys is mad (except a violent prejudice in favor of the sanctity of noble life a la Tyrion.) And she knew Daenerys and Jon were in love. She hated Daenerys because she wanted an independent kingdom in the North (if not more,) one that she would be enormously influential in. She pushed Jon into attacking Bolton, she could hope to push him into much more. If she had sent the knight of the Vale to the wall, rather than forcing Jon to seek help from Daenerys, the Night King wouldn't have been able to break the wall, while the gates could be held. It is not at all clear that Bolton had to be attacked. She wanted it, though.

After Sansa finds out about Jon's birth, the claim is that she knew magically there could be no reconciliation through love, marriage or Daenerys proclaiming her heir. This is manifestly nonsense. Her problem was Daenerys being queen, period. That's why she deliberately tried to subvert Tyrion, risking Jon's life by inducing a crisis, because it would be much easier to kill Daenerys then. She deliberately forestalled any effort to work out a partnership, because she wanted war, not peace. (Her personal sufferings have not made her a good person. It is understandable and maybe forgivable.)

The last issue of course is the stuff about Jon being the legitimate heir. Sorry, no. First, he has declared his loyalty, which was an abdication of royal claim, to the kingdom of the North. It is not immediately clear that it isn't also an abdication from all royal claims. Second, there really is no such thing as a secret annulment. That's as ridiculous as Qyburn's scorpions. I don't know of any kind of law that would allow even a High Septon to annul a royal marriage without legal proceedings where Ellaria (and the King, for that matter) have their say. A medieval pope couldn't! The show may sincerely believe Jon is the legitimate heir, and may foist stupidity into Daenerys' mouth to the same effect. But it's stupid.

And lastly, Daenerys' real claim to the Iron Throne is the same as Aegon Targaryen's, dragons. If anybody had another just claim to the Iron Throne beyond dubious law, it was Renly Baratheon whose claim was really based on the acclamation of the majority of nobles. (That was why he had to be assassinated, he had too much support to be defeated in the field, even if it wasn't a general.)

The mad queen scenario is wrong, even if it was intended. The producers evidently thought they were writing a supervillain with misdirects, but they inadvertently wrote a heroine. Everything now to support their supervillain plan has to falsify the character they wrote---which they did, however much they misunderstood---or rely on stupid tripe like the ridiculous one party secret annulment or a double standard where Sansa is justified by her belief in hereditary monarchy but Daenerys isn't.

The funny thing is, Sansa isn't even very nice. She has almost never done anything good for someone else, and she has never expressed much affection for anyone she didn't grow up with. And yes, that includes Tyrion.

 

QFT.

Everything that Dany has done is and has always been justifiable, only now the writers want to say otherwise simply for the sake of melodrama and paint her as a mentally unstable tyrant who has to be taken down.

 

That's the beauty. Every individual action is justifiable, but it still ends up in disaster

 

I don't think there's been anything to suggest that Dany is truly mad in the sense of having lost hold of reality like her father. The question is whether she's fundamentally someone who is unsuited to wielding what amounts to absolute power. The last episode made a strong argument that perhaps she's not suited for it, and is setting up a scenario which tests the limits of her ability to restrain herself.

 

"Everyone thinks they're righteous."
--- J. Whedon

 

That is fair of course. But no one is more dangerous than when they feel wronged--especially if they have been wronged. Cities get bombed, cops shot, etc.

truer words....

 

One of the biggest themes of the show is that while nobody is completely good, nobody is completely evil either. Even Cersei was seen as sympathetic in a few episodes.

 

Nothing Dany did in Seasons 1-7 can be legitimately classified as 'evil", though, because of the intent behind her actions.

 

She did plenty of things which were brutal, however - things that 99% of us would flinch at doing. Like crucifying 163 Great Masters. Yes, they were child murderers, but that's still collective punishment, and we don't know if all of them were in fact guilty of those deeds. Arguably her response was as much about showing an example as anything - though certainly their lack of mercy as a class gave her an excuse to show them no quarter. Remember Barrisan Selmy was against the action though, and he was depicted as one of the pillars of moral righteousness of the show until his death.

 

Brutal doesn't equal evil... especially in a place like Westeros.

The writers are suddenly trying to twist Dany's actions so that they're seen as being unhinged and excessive purely for the sake of melodrama, revealing a double standard that has rightfully pissed people off.