Game of Thrones: TV Series - Season 8 (Book spoilers in tags with warning)

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

He is not important to the story. He is important within the world of the story, yes, but he is not important to the story.

[Ulyaoth]

Just because he doesn't appear in the story that often doesn't mean he isn't important. He's the main driving force to Jon's whole storyline in this book. And I'm guessing since they said they consider Mance of Ned like importance, they'll make up storylines for him to appear more.

[shadepanther]

Just because he doesn't appear in the story that often doesn't mean he isn't important. He's the main driving force to Jon's whole storyline in this book. And I'm guessing since they said they consider Mance of Ned like importance, they'll make up storylines for him to appear more.

I agree. I expect him to be pretty much appearing in all of Jon's scenes and have some of his own.

[magpie]

I have not read the books but have followed the TV series, I cannot quite get the role or how that blond girl with the dragons ties in with the story line.
The part seems to be a separate story to its self. Unless she pops up again with the dragons fully grown and kicks butt?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I have not read the books but have followed the TV series, I cannot quite get the role or how that blond girl with the dragons ties in with the story line.
The part seems to be a separate story to its self. Unless she pops up again with the dragons fully grown and kicks butt?

She's the daughter of the deposed Mad King Aerys. The one whom the fat guy deposed. Thus, she believes she has a claim to the throne (although legally Stannis has the best claim).


Hope that clears stuff up.

[Bobz]

I have not read the books but have followed the TV series, I cannot quite get the role or how that blond girl with the dragons ties in with the story line.
The part seems to be a separate story to its self. Unless she pops up again with the dragons fully grown and kicks butt?

It is essentially a separate story at this point, with only a few links with the Westeros storylines. I recommend reading the books

[Manco]

It might be good the keep in mind that the book series isn't called "Game of Thrones", a name that's falsely leading people to suspect that the political stuff is the central story.
The political stuff -presumably- sets the stage for the conflict where the dragons and the Others will feature predominantly

[magpie]

Thanks for the information guys, I shall look in some book stores or online.

regards,
mags

[EireEmerald]

This guy is more than likely Vargo Hoat.

[maxi90]

oh God... he´s looking into my SOUL

[Joar]

Thus, she believes she has a claim to the throne (although legally Stannis has the best claim).

What does "legally" mean? Has it been decided in a court of law?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

What does "legally" mean? Has it been decided in a court of law?

Legally, as in according to the laws of succession. Succession is an arbitrary system of determining the next in line for power, to avoid bloodshed. Since Robert was crowned king and the nobles swore allegiance to him, the Targaryens no longer have a legal claim because the nobles owe them no service. After Stannis dies, whoever manages to secure the loyalty of the realm is the legitimate king.

[SonOfOdin]

Thus, she believes she has a claim to the throne (although legally Stannis has the best claim).

Well, "legally speaking", Robert Baratheon didn't exactly have a claim to the throne at all. So Stannis would have even less of a claim. Yes sure some Baratheons married some Targaryens in the generations before, but like Renly said : it was Robert's strong military force that gave him his claim - not the line of succession.

[Mangalore]

Legally, as in according to the laws of succession. Succession is an arbitrary system of determining the next in line for power, to avoid bloodshed. Since Robert was crowned king and the nobles swore allegiance to him, the Targaryens no longer have a legal claim because the nobles owe them no service. After Stannis dies, whoever manages to secure the loyalty of the realm is the legitimate king.

it is entirely possible that after an exception of succession the old laws rebound and someone whose parents were barred from succession will remain in the line of succession.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Well, "legally speaking", Robert Baratheon didn't exactly have a claim to the throne at all. So Stannis would have even less of a claim. Yes sure some Baratheons married some Targaryens in the generations before, but like Renly said : it was Robert's strong military force that gave him his claim - not the line of succession.

Does. Not. Matter. Robert had no claim whatsoever, yes. But HE WAS MADE KING. The nobility swore allegiance, which means that they forsake allegiance to their former king, declare for the new king and accept all that it entails, including a new line of succession.

If Stannis dies, and the realm is at peace, Joffrey(Tommen) is the legit king, because the peers accept him as king and swear allegiance. That's how laws work in the middle ages.

it is entirely possible that after an exception of succession the old laws rebound and someone whose parents were barred from succession will remain in the line of succession.

Jon is not related to Robert, so he is not in the current line of succession.

[Joar]

Does. Not. Matter. Robert had no claim whatsoever, yes. But HE WAS MADE KING. The nobility swore allegiance, which means that they forsake allegiance to their former king, declare for the new king and accept all that it entails, including a new line of succession.

The big problem with you reasoning is your somewhat liberal and simplified view on succession and the laws concerning it. If you forsake your oath, you become an oathbreaker. Robert was a usurper and an oathbreaker, but all that never really mattered because he was strong enough to take the throne. The same of course goes for Aegon the Conqueror. He never had any claim to the seven kingdoms, but took them because he was strong enough to do so.

The big difference between Robert/Stannis and Danaerys is that the latter was born as royalty, i.e. "born in the purple", if you wish. She can then righfully claim that the iron throne is her birthright, but once again, it matters little if she isn't strong enough to make good of those claims.

And to say that the nobles' oath of allegiance to Robert legitimized his rule is of course true, but then again it was a mere formality. It's like staging a coup d'etat, and arrange an election ( vote for me or else... ), and then claim that the election somehow gives you legitimacy. Most nobles would have accepted the whole thing as a fait accompli, and why risk life, land and titles for a mad king and a dead prince?

Laws are all well and fine, but in medieval times, more often than not, might was right.

[Mangalore]

...
Jon is not related to Robert, so he is not in the current line of succession.

I thought we were talking about Dany?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The big problem with you reasoning is your somewhat liberal and simplified view on succession and the laws concerning it. If you forsake your oath, you become an oathbreaker. Robert was a usurper and an oathbreaker, but all that never really mattered because he was strong enough to take the throne. The same of course goes for Aegon the Conqueror. He never had any claim to the seven kingdoms, but took them because he was strong enough to do so.

The big difference between Robert/Stannis and Danaerys is that the latter was born as royalty, i.e. "born in the purple", if you wish. She can then righfully claim that the iron throne is her birthright, but once again, it matters little if she isn't strong enough to make good of those claims.

And to say that the nobles' oath of allegiance to Robert legitimized his rule is of course true, but then again it was a mere formality. It's like staging a coup d'etat, and arrange an election ( vote for me or else... ), and then claim that the election somehow gives you legitimacy. Most nobles would have accepted the whole thing as a fait accompli, and why risk life, land and titles for a mad king and a dead prince?

Laws are all well and fine, but in medieval times, more often than not, might was right.

Could you stop with that disgusting patronizing and contemptuous attitude of yours and actually read what I have written for once?

Succession is an arbitrary system of determining the next in line for power, to avoid bloodshed. Since Robert was crowned king and the nobles swore allegiance to him, the Targaryens no longer have a legal claim because the nobles owe them no service.

In more simple language, the king is whoever the nobles choose follow, for one reason or another. Succession is a system made to ensure reliable transfer of power. It ceases to matter when someone seizes the throne by force. It applies to he Targs just as it applies to Baratheons. Which means that you didn't say anything I hadn't.

You just made a pretty big fool of yourself, trying to be the smartass.

@Mangalore Well, doesn't matter. Neither has a legal claim to the throne. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that one (or both) of them will rule Westeros at the end of the story.

[Joar]

Could you stop with that disgusting patronizing and contemptuous attitude of yours and actually read what I have written for once?

In more simple language, the king is whoever the nobles choose follow, for one reason or another. Succession is a system made to ensure reliable transfer of power. It ceases to matter when someone seizes the throne by force. It applies to he Targs just as it applies to Baratheons. Which means that you didn't say anything I hadn't.

You just made a pretty big fool of yourself, trying to be the smartass.

I was not being "disgustingly patronizing", "contemptuous", or trying to be a "smartass". I wasn't even disagreeing with you, I was merely saying that one can't be as categorical as you were. You stated that Stannis had the best legal claim, and I was simply saying that that's a matter of opinion, or from what point of view one take. That's all. So please try to calm down, and stop it with the insults. Let's try and keep a constructive and civil discussion, OK?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I was not being "disgustingly patronizing", "contemptuous", or trying to be a "smartass". I wasn't even disagreeing with you, I was merely saying that one can't be as categorical as you were. You stated that Stannis had the best legal claim, and I was simply saying that that's a matter of opinion, or from what point of view one take. That's all. So please try to calm down, and stop it with the insults. Let's try and keep a constructive and civil discussion, OK?

Legality is not a matter of opinion. You were trying to appear somehow more educated, when in fact you were just reciting points I had already stated, as if I hadn't.

Legal succession is not subject to discussion, because it's not ambiguous. Not in Stannis's case. Legal claims have absolutely nothing to do with personal preference or with which side wins or loses. A legal claim just means that by the currently accepted laws of succession, a person must be king. Whether he becomes king or not is a different discussion. If someone without a claim secures the throne, they are the legitimate king from the moment that the nobles swear allegiance - the very act of giving this oath eliminates any prior loyalties to an opposing claimant, because any oath of allegiance is absolute.