Guys at least have a basic understanding of medieval feudal hierarchy if you're going to comment.
Television Game of Thrones (TV) • The watch has ended
- Thread starter ha_rooney
- Start date
Isn't he a Baratheon bastard? Why would she marry him?
Im confused. I still think the Targaryans have a better claim to the throne than anyone else. Aegon Targaryan was first in power, then came Aerys Targaryan aka Mad King. He had three children - Rhaegar, Viserys and Daenerys. The children take over after the dad. If no kids exists then siblings take precedence. So Rhaegar and his kids were next in line. Rhaegar died and Jon is his son so technically he is next in line but its unproven yet. Then came Viserys and his kids. He died and didnt have kids. So that leaves Dany.
Last edited:
What I'm saying is that I think all the talk of who has the most legitimate claim to the throne kind of misses the point.
I get your point about the most "legitimate" person might not end up on the throne but if you go by the rules and look at who has the most claim it still has to be the Targaryans aint it?
Not necessarily, for thousands of years before the Targaryans showed up Westeros was governed under different arrangements, with independent kingdoms. What gives a Targaryan in King's Landing more of a right to rule, say, the North, than a Stark in Winterfell?
In the Baratheon line, the likely best heir is Gendry.
In the Targ line it would depend on who is given priority a daughter of the king or the bastard son of the heir.
But as I have said before, you want to know who has the best claim on the throne? The person with the power behind them.
In the Targ line it would depend on who is given priority a daughter of the king or the bastard son of the heir.
But as I have said before, you want to know who has the best claim on the throne? The person with the power behind them.
I know the show takes liberties with time, but I don't think the specific timeframe you're referring to is possible.
Chicken dinner. Just tell that to poor Stannis.
I dont think history goes that far to explain all that. Whats been explained is that Aegon was in power for almost two centuries and hence the Targaryans are next in line.
That was the entire reasoning behind Robb Stark's declaration of independence in Season 1.
Me either. Could end with the continent split into three. Could end with Dannys heir on the throne, getting ready to go to war with Sansa's heir, as they've declared independence.
Without book knowledge, I guess no one knows do they. Obviously the 100 years of Targarean rule has been mentioned a few times... which makes Danny the leg ruler. But if Robert was the last true king, then it's his bastard son.
you mean the guy who had most of what should have been his bannermen side with Renly, then with the Lannisters. The guy who got beat at the battle of blackwater. Then defeated and killed by the Boltons. Sort of proves my point doesn't it. He may have had a good claim "legally" to the thrown, but did not have the power to back it up.
I think a good ending would be to see the people in some way put an end to despotic, absolute rule in Westeros altogether, or at least sew the seeds for that happening in the future.
It should end with the Night King being a benevolent ruler to the zombiefied kingdoms.
I'm 100% with you.. although a slightly different scenario
There was a scene when Arya was serving Tywin Lannister at Harrenhal, Little Finger showed up to talk about Rob Stark and Walder Frey (IIRC?) then she tried not to be recognized by him. Could have something to do with that.
If Bronn hadn't lost his bag of gold coins on the battle field, would he have bothered saving Jamie? Last time we saw Bronn, prior to him diving to Jamie's rescue, he was looking at a riderless (he killed the guy) white horse. If he'd had his gold, surely he'd have tried to make a run for it. But without it, he needs Jamie. I think that's why they showed the conversation between him and Bronn, in which Bronn was going on about what he's owed.
Thats one way of thinking about it. Although is all that money worth getting captured and maybe killed for trying to save Jaime? I think if he really wanted to save himself he would have.
Losing that bag and still going for the ballista and saving Jaime showed he doesn't do it for money, in my mind. At least that's not reason #1...
Thats exactly my point. I mean he even had a chance to make a run for it at the end. Now for sure he is captured and worst case scenario dead.
Doesn't make sense from a storytelling point of view, certain things still need to happen which can't if they are captured.
valonqar/ jaimes redemption
Surely they will be captured. They cant escape from that situation. That immediate future is that they will be prisoners of war. But something will give at some point for them to escape.
He did it for love.
But he's a Sell Sword. He's only with the Lannisters because he saw the opportunity there was for saving Tyrion. Ser Vardis was the captain of the guards of the Eyrie. Basically he was great knight and Bronn was prepared to fight him to death just to get into Tyrions service. He must have known there was a good chance he'd die but he still stood for Tyrion. He refused to stand for against the Mountain due having already having being made a good offer from Cersei. But at the beginning of this episode Bronn makes it clear to Jaimie he wants what he's owed.
How much backlash would there be if the Night King and the White walkers emerged victorious and say only one or two of the characters escaped by fleeing across the Narrow Sea as the dead take King's Landing.
I'd be furious. How did those characters escape the awesome power of the Night King?
Sure Ser Vardis was a good knight but two things are different - he wasnt fighting a Dothraki horde and dragons and how much ever money he has now he didnt have back then, so he had nothing to lose.
This scene was put in for a reason:
Remember he lost his last castle and his been promised a new one.
Bronn fought at the Battle of Blackwater, when the odds seemed against them. He fought on the road to the Eyrie. He's not a coward at all. But he's not a complex character either. He's no Han Solo. Bronn wont fly back in of the Falcon to save people if there is nothing in it for him. But if there is something in it for him, he's shown before he'll put his life on the line, even against the odds. He's straight forward and does things for money, hence he's a Sell Sword. Any explanation for him saving Jaimie beyond financial gain are over complicating him.
Bronn tried to get Jaime away from the front line. He cares about him as a friend. It's possible to want to earn money from someone whilst simultaneously being fond of them.
A Lannister always pays his debts, so a castle was coming his way from Cersei regardless.
The worst thing that could happen to Bronn is for Jaimie to die. Friend or not, the most important thing for him is to ensure Jaimie's survival.
Why did you only bold the first bit, when the second bit addresses your point?
It doesn't because Bronn has no real relationship with Cersei and she doesn't know what Jaimie has promised him. Jaimie is infinitely more honorable than Cersei.
Bronn's status is dependent on Jaimie. This idea that he's trying to save him out for friendship, rather than being motivated by money is just wrong in my opinion.
Cersei always pays her debts. Because she's a Lannister. Your opinion of both her and Bronn is incredibly reductive. Neither Martin nor the showrunners write the (main) characters in such one-dimensional ways.
Bronn is one dimensional in his motive though and has been consistently throughout the show. Also you assume Cersei is even aware of the deal between Bronn and Jaimie.
You're really clutching at straws there, mate!
Also Bronn even expresses his concern over the debt despite the Lannisters reputation in the clip I posted above.
Jaimie - "The Lannisters always pay their debts"
Bronn - "Aye, just not to me."
Jaimie - "The Lannisters always pay their debts"
Bronn - "Aye, just not to me."
That was sarcasm. Jesus.I'm not watch the clip I posted again. Bronn expresses his worry about the Lannistes paying debts to him.
They put that scene in there for a reason. I'm pretty sure I'm spot on about this.
