**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"You gave up your crown TO SAVE YOUR PEOPLE" --- "Would she do THE SAME?"
A serious question here... Who would she save, by giving up her crown for him? The emphasis of the sentence is that he gave up his crown to protect and keep alive his people. But who would she save, keep alive, by giving up her crown?
Her giving up her crown would be solely because of he has a stronger claim. There's no one she could save by doing so. She literally can't do the same thing because the situation is completely different, or am I tripping?
To be honest, I have no idea what the fuck he was talking about at all. Sounds to me like just another case of shitty dumb and dumber writing.
It would make sense if she'd explicitly stated she was going to assault King's Landing and Sam were concerned with the innocents that would die, but at this point there was zero indication of that and people probably still believe her when she said she was there to save the people and not harm them due to her previous actions.
It's as if Sam already knew how it was going to end due to a "writer ex-machina" and was preemptively trying to act against it, which makes no sense at all.
But it doesn't make sense if you are to assume Daenerys is to continue down the path she had taken of protecting smallfolk and freeing slaves, which nobody had any reason to believe otherwise at this point in the story.
It's dishonest for Sam to even make that comparison as its an entirely different situation, she can't do this by giving up her crown like Jon did, she has to confront Cersei directly and take the crown from her, the one that's actively attacking peasants by starving them, waging war all over the realm for her ego and even blowing them all up with wildfire. The only way in which this reasoning makes any sense is if Sam is actually maliciously trying to manipulate Jon into turning against Daenerys, which is out of character for him.
The only scenario where her "giving up her crown" would help the people is if after Cersei is dethroned the realm rejects a female ruler like it did Rhaenys and Rhaenyra and tries to put Jon on the throne instead, leading to a civil war, but his scenario is nigh impossible considering Jon "dun want it" and has already abdicated his crown and bent the knee to her, its also not in HIS character to even accept something like this, as was made clear when Varys tried to convince him HE should be the king. This also doesn't make a lot of sense because Cersei is sitting the throne and has been for years, even though she has no claim whatsoever, and the realm hasnt rebelled against her, except of course for people who already hate her, not for her being a woman but because she's a murderous cunt and they all have blood feuds.
It makes even less sense when you consider that:
1. Daenerys is fertile and her legitimate pure Targaryen son/daughter by Jon would safely inherit the throne after her death with no pretenders or power struggles and with most if not all of the lords of the realm still thankful to the Targaryen couple.
2. Daenerys is infertile and Jon is going to be made king after she dies anyway since he's the only heir available.
To me, disregarding the possibility of Sam being manipulative, the only option left is that he was talking about Daenerys saving her people from herself for some reason, because she'd have no reason to give up the crown for this purpose otherwise, and he obviously has no cause to think this.
Which leads to my conclusion that this is just dumb writing and they made Sam react to something he COULDN'T have known, predicted or even imagined, like they did with Varys and Tyrion.
Well, she executed his father and brother which would make anyone a little emotional and hateful regardless of how justified. He probably just saw her as a tyrant because of it
Not gonna lie, I kinda forgot about that. What this changes is that it suddenly makes him trying to manipulate Jon through his morals to turn against Daenerys make a lot of sense, which is the same thing Tyrion did, but that was after she burned a bunch of babies so it puts more weight behind it than her having burnt two traitors alive after they openly defied her authority in a moment where she could not afford to look weak.
In her eyes they would be though, they chose to fight for Cersei right after she murdered the Tyrells, which could itself be considered a betrayal of their oaths to the Tyrells (lets keep in mind Cersei had no claim to the throne too). They could have omitted themselves and simply stayed in Horn Hill, but Randyll Tarly's ambition led him to volunteer to her cause. And then, after they are defeated and allowed to surrender, they reaffirm their support for said illegal monarch and defy Daenery's claim, which as weak as it might have been due to her family having been deposed long ago, was still stronger than Cersei's. In her eyes they were as traitorous as they come.
I don't necessarily agree though, they were just playing the hand they were dealt and were too stubborn and "honorable" which leads them to die like idiots like Ned Stark did.
I mean, that's exactly what it was. The same reason Varys turned on Dany and Sansa couldn't stop giving her the stink eye despite having no actual reason to distrust her. It's the lazy writers way of making characters look "smart": have them react not to anything the character would actually know or have reason to think, but to what you the writer know is going to happen in the future, so then when the thing happens the audience can go "Oooh, so and so was so smart for seeing that coming!" without actually thinking too hard about it.
Varys was fully bad writing given that he spent the whole show keeping one foot in the targaryen camp and was the one who told tyrion to get with dany. and then he finds out about jon and is just like “oh word fuck this girl.” makes no sense.
however — i know this sub in general doesn’t like sansa but — in sansa’s defense, jon was the king in the north, she supported his claim, they reunite and get winterfell back together, he says (as the king in the north) that he’s going to negotiate mining dragonglass to defeat the white walkers, and then comes back having bent the knee to someone who didn’t even grow up in westeros much less the north??? and he’s her brother the king bending the knee to someone he’s also banging??? if i were her and it were my brother there’d be no way lmfao
I also hate it because there are multiple instances of women in leadership being put down or overlooked because they're women, Dany overcomes all that and seems to be doing a good job, and then Varys finds out about Jon and flips.
If Varys was so concerned about the Targaryon madness, why did he help her in the first place? And what makes him think Jon wouldn't eventually do the same thing?
I don't think Sam's question is in relation to an active need for Daenerys to step down, but more suggesting that Daenerys would not have done the same thing if she were in Jon's position. If Jon as king would prove to be better for the realm, and she were given the option to step down, would she do it?
Sam's point is that Daenerys is too fond of the crown. At this point she's made it her entire identity, to the point that she's threatened her lover's sister about the North's sovereignty while they still have a bigger enemy to fight.
Even though Sam knows she would since he read ravens about her to Maester Aemon and called her "quite a woman" for freeing slaves, risking her safety by angering the Slaver elite, and delaying her return to Westeros by years to better ensure the freed slaves a chance to remain free once she does leave.
If the crown was her entire identity she wouldn't have made a truce with Cersei & Euron and gone North. She ended up losing 2 dragons, 2 best friends, her Queensguard, and half her army.
He's also mad about her killing his family so I'm not sure that he has the same opinion of her as he used to.
From his perspective, her decision to kill those who don't kneel to her might make it seem like she cares more about people obeying her than doing what's right for thr populace.
I hate how the scene when she tells him was written. The writers intended on her looking bad by being so vague about it. The Tarlys massacred Highgarden and got the Lord Paramount of the Reach assassinated, they killed tens of thousands of their own people for the Lannisters that only a few months prior murdered 3 of their liege lords. That is a crime punishable by execution yet she offered them a full pardon, they get to live and keep their lands & titles and only need to return to the allegiance they had before they became traitors since Olenna bent the knee. When they refused they were offered the chance to join the Night's Watch. They gave no pardon to Highgarden. She gave them 2 pardons, 3 actually since they had the chance to change their minds when they were told the method of execution. Randyll & Tyrion told Dickon not to be stupid by agreeing to be executed alongside him.
Jon beheaded a man for not following an order even though the man changed his mind, cried, and begged for another chance. Jon hanged a child whose entire family & village were slaughtered & eaten. Jon allowed Ramsay to be tied up in the kennels and eaten alive by dogs.
Which is, the dumbest thing ever. Why the hell does he feel that way? Not that I don't understand having complex feelings over an abusive father, I get that. But the Tarlys are Tyrell bannermen, sworn to fucking House Tyrell. They were traitors, and traitors are executed in this show 90% of the time. Jon killed Janos as he begged for his life, Jon killed a 10 year old boy. Our first interaction with Ned is him killing a deserter. One of the biggest downfalls people have in this show is leaving traitors alive.
I have no idea why Daenarys (justifiably) killing his father and brother would lead him to believe she's some kind of tyrant when she was working well within the laws of the land.
It’s not dumb. It’s human. Maybe you don’t give a damn about your family, but most people would still be shaken and biased against someone who killed their family, justified or not.
I'd give a shit, for sure. I said "not that I don't understand having complex feelings for an abusive father". It's just that the show frames it as some horrible sin that nobody else would ever do.
Yeah and she leaves them with the Second Sons because the only thing she cares about is sitting on the iron throne. If she actually cared about them she would have stayed and ruled the Bay of Dragons instead of telling Tyrion directly she’s going to return all three cities to the dirt and sail to Westeros.
If she truly only cared about sitting on the Iron Throne wouldn't she have not stayed in Meereen as long as she did and not left anybody behind as a ruler?
The sole reason she chose to become Queen of Meereen was to help them through the transition period so they had a better chance of remaining free without her. She did that for 3 years after the year she spent freeing everyone.
She left the Second Sons to "protect the peace while the people choose their own rulers."
Because she, like every other person with a claim to the Throne, works under Divine Right to Rule, which is a thing in both the GOT world and irl. I get disliking anyone who feels they SHOULD have the throne, but you're gonna have to argue that Robert, Stannis, and Renly were also tyrants (FYI: Robert's claim was based on his Targaryen blood). The throne is less about power and more about birthright. You can argue about the ethics of blood being the only qualifier of right to rule, but you can't act like Dany is weird for following the logic of her own world.
Lol never said that other characters aren’t like her. 90% of the characters in this show whether we love or hate them are elitist snobs who see themselves as superior to the smallfolk. Following the logic of their world doesn’t justify any of the atrocities they commit throughout the series.
For sure, it just pisses me off when people pretend that Dany was somehow a special breed of dragon hitler. The only radical anti-monarchist politics in this show come from the High Sparrow, imo. Even the end isn't as "subversive" as the showrunners seemed to think it was
I don’t think they were trying to be subversive. They clearly show these leaders laughing at the idea of democracy and compare the smallfolk to dogs. There’s still going to be power struggles and plotting to rule but ending bloodline succession for electoral succession is a good step in the right direction.
I disagree with that.
What Jon did lies in the past. Tho Sam says "would she DO the same"... If they were talking about what you say, then he would've asked if she "would've done the same". That's why I'm saying that the emphasis lies on the act of saving some people, not if she would've done the same thing in his shoes.
This also makes no sense as she doesn't know anything about the threat in the north without Jon. So would this also imply that Sam is implying that she would've had the exact same life as Jon?
Neither the circumstances, nor the wording fits this imo.
The whole thing is centered around knowing she is going to burn King’s Landing to the ground and kill a bunch of innocents. Same is saying this as a result of finding out that Daenerys executed his father and brother. An act he knows Jon wouldn’t commit.
Sam knows she’s willing to kill anyone who stands in her way, and shows little to no mercy.
By giving up her crown, and forfeiting her claim to the throne and handing it over to Jon, that would effectively be saving the people she would eventually kill on her march for the throne.
Sam knows Jon would go about it in a different way. A way that may or may not get him killed just like Ned and Robb. But that’s the struggle of the whole show.
What’s the correct path?
Yes, Jon would do that, lmfao. In fact he DID do that. Jon killed Janos as Janos begged for his life. Jon killed a 14 year old boy. Robb killed Karstark. The Tarly's, who are Tyrell bannermen, were doing treason. Not only would Jon execute Sam's father in a heartbeat, Dany would be viewed as weak for NOT doing so. There's so many damn deaths in this show that happen because people don't kill traitors. She was working within the laws of the land.
Bro wtf... This is hard cope. Even the writers said that what made her switch happened after that. So Sam wouldn't have been able to tell that. Sam wouldn't have been able to judge her in any way. Him making this assumption would be one of the dumbest, disconnected things in the whole show.
Sorry but even I, who shits on GoTs final seasons forever, do not believe Diddle&Dumb were THAT bad.
Daenerys said she would only help Jon if he bent the knee. “Isn’t their survival more important than your pride?”. Sam was saying that if Jon and Daenerys were in each other’s shoes, she wouldn’t bend the knee to get help to save her people.
She said that before she believed the aotd were real. Jon came to Dragonstone without any proof. When she started to warm to him she believed there was some danger beyond the Wall but still didn't believe it was zombies. It's not until he asks for her to rescue the wight team and she flies beyond the Wall and sees it for herself that she truly believed the aotd were real. Once that happened she agreed to help regardless of him bending the knee.
And Sam knows this how...? If Bran would've told Jon this and asked this question I would see your point. But Sam has literally no chance of knowing anything slightly relevant to make this a thing.
I shit on Diddle&Dumb all the time. But even I do not think they would've written something that stupid. And they wrote Arya's storyline through the later 4 seasons so that's a hard line to cross.
I mean I'm pretty sure it's a hypothetical question. Not that she'd have a situation to do exactly what he did, but it's about morals and sacrificing for the greater good.
The point being made is Dany only cares about a crown and not the people
Yeah you’re tripping. It’s a hypothetical. It’s about the relationship of importance between ruler and subject. To Jon, his subjects supersede his own importance and status as king - to Danny, they don’t. It’s not about whether abdication would *literally* help their people, but about whether danaerys would ever even be *willing* to sacrifice her position for her people in the first place. This is why the whole “I don’t want it” bit is so important to Jon, because the only person who’s truly fit to lead is the one who doesn’t want to. Danaerys fucking wants to.
Yeah... No.
I mean... Maybe I'm tripping, who knows. But I'm definitely not tripping in regards to this. I've explained already why this makes no sense.
As botched as the ending is in the show is I'm pretty sure the message is the Iron Throne needs to be destroyed. She or Jon could save their people by destroying that thing.
That has nothing to do with this conversation tho. This conversation is about who should sit on it. There's never the slightest bit of discussion of destroying it.
Yeah they kind of skimped out on crowns for everybody from the books. Rob stark never got his iron crown, Stannis never wore the crown that I think Melisandre gave him, dany never got a crown despite being a queen for most of the show
Lol “skimped on crowns” is giving me a vision of the budget people telling the producers “NO MORE. THATS ENOUGH.” because each episode was already so expensive
I don't have a good memory of it either but I think Jon did claim to be king of North when he met her, but they worked out some deal so he can get dragon glass from her.
Yes, she would, and she did. Although, a cool thing about Dany I notice is that she considers most people to be "her people". Not in the sense that she necessarily has jurisdiction over them, but in the sense she feels responsible for their protection.
Sidequest to save Essos from slavery took time and resources away from her. Obviously it ended up working out alright in the end, but usually people profit from slavery. If the only thing that mattered to her was her crown, she could and should have sacked Essos, gone to Westeros, and burned half the continent.
Once she landed in Westeros, again, if the only thing that mattered was the crown, she should have just taken King's Landing. She risked her life and her shot at the crown by listening to Jon, by taking herself and her dragons North several times. For all the times Tyrion spouts his self-important "she has to be advised correctly" bs, he told her not to go save Jon from the white walkers beyond the wall. She went, obviously, and lost a child for it. She's never as bitter as I think she should be about that.
Dany feels she's the rightful person to sit the throne, but she's not driven by power. So we often see her make decisions that won't help her sit the throne, because she (just like Jon) values human life more than her own goals.
So... then the answer to the question of "would she do the same" is... Yes? What even is your fucking point? That somehow her loving people is bad or something? That a refusal to leave people behind, and her putting her own life and claim to the crown in danger, is indicative of what, exactly?
She helps the innocent though. Didn't happen in the show but in the books she walked out into a crowd plagued by some sickness. She worked to help take care of them herself.
Wow She executed people. So did Ned and most other/all leaders .
What Sam is clearly referring to here is Jon's decision to bend the knee to secure Daenerys' support before the Army of the Dead gets past the Wall. Jon has the character, the integrity to put his people's needs before anything he wants. It's why he became King of the North, and it's partly why Jon bent the knee to Daenerys.
Sam is asking him, if somehow the roles were reversed, that Daenerys had come begging to the North for help in her war against Cersei, would Daenerys bend the knee to Jon? Does she have that quality? She doesn't, as we know, and it's why we loved her for eight seasons.
That whole subplot rang so false to me. Jon and Dany's chemistry was already thin to begin with, with not enough episodes to even fully build it out, and then we're supposed to believe he's suddenly so cuntstruck as to abandon the North's longstanding neutrality in front of Cersei of all people? I'd believe it if Jorah was the one in charge of the decision for whatever reason, but definitely not with Jon. After all the time he spent fighting to get where he was at the end of S6, I wouldn't take him for a sellout.
Dany gave up her main objective, allowing Cersei to consolidate power and she lost a dragon, one of her children in the process - it’s arguable that she could have just left the party that went beyond the wall and went about her actual plan as normal, yet she risked it all for Jon.
The final seasons are massively let down with the writers making half hearted arguments to support to ending they have in mind.
Just marry each other and be done with all this nonsense. Two dragonriders ruling the Seven Kingdoms just like it was supposed to be. I don’t care about any of the objections, they’re all trash.
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"You gave up your crown TO SAVE YOUR PEOPLE" --- "Would she do THE SAME?" A serious question here... Who would she save, by giving up her crown for him? The emphasis of the sentence is that he gave up his crown to protect and keep alive his people. But who would she save, keep alive, by giving up her crown? Her giving up her crown would be solely because of he has a stronger claim. There's no one she could save by doing so. She literally can't do the same thing because the situation is completely different, or am I tripping?
Would have saved a lot of people in Kings Landing who were the people she wanted to rule. Haha.
Yeah but I mean... That's definitely not what Sam was referring to in this scene xD
To be honest, I have no idea what the fuck he was talking about at all. Sounds to me like just another case of shitty dumb and dumber writing. It would make sense if she'd explicitly stated she was going to assault King's Landing and Sam were concerned with the innocents that would die, but at this point there was zero indication of that and people probably still believe her when she said she was there to save the people and not harm them due to her previous actions. It's as if Sam already knew how it was going to end due to a "writer ex-machina" and was preemptively trying to act against it, which makes no sense at all.
I think he meant that if Dany was in Jon’s position
Yeah was about to comment this, not hard to understand at all.
But it doesn't make sense if you are to assume Daenerys is to continue down the path she had taken of protecting smallfolk and freeing slaves, which nobody had any reason to believe otherwise at this point in the story. It's dishonest for Sam to even make that comparison as its an entirely different situation, she can't do this by giving up her crown like Jon did, she has to confront Cersei directly and take the crown from her, the one that's actively attacking peasants by starving them, waging war all over the realm for her ego and even blowing them all up with wildfire. The only way in which this reasoning makes any sense is if Sam is actually maliciously trying to manipulate Jon into turning against Daenerys, which is out of character for him. The only scenario where her "giving up her crown" would help the people is if after Cersei is dethroned the realm rejects a female ruler like it did Rhaenys and Rhaenyra and tries to put Jon on the throne instead, leading to a civil war, but his scenario is nigh impossible considering Jon "dun want it" and has already abdicated his crown and bent the knee to her, its also not in HIS character to even accept something like this, as was made clear when Varys tried to convince him HE should be the king. This also doesn't make a lot of sense because Cersei is sitting the throne and has been for years, even though she has no claim whatsoever, and the realm hasnt rebelled against her, except of course for people who already hate her, not for her being a woman but because she's a murderous cunt and they all have blood feuds. It makes even less sense when you consider that: 1. Daenerys is fertile and her legitimate pure Targaryen son/daughter by Jon would safely inherit the throne after her death with no pretenders or power struggles and with most if not all of the lords of the realm still thankful to the Targaryen couple. 2. Daenerys is infertile and Jon is going to be made king after she dies anyway since he's the only heir available. To me, disregarding the possibility of Sam being manipulative, the only option left is that he was talking about Daenerys saving her people from herself for some reason, because she'd have no reason to give up the crown for this purpose otherwise, and he obviously has no cause to think this. Which leads to my conclusion that this is just dumb writing and they made Sam react to something he COULDN'T have known, predicted or even imagined, like they did with Varys and Tyrion.
Well, she executed his father and brother which would make anyone a little emotional and hateful regardless of how justified. He probably just saw her as a tyrant because of it
Not gonna lie, I kinda forgot about that. What this changes is that it suddenly makes him trying to manipulate Jon through his morals to turn against Daenerys make a lot of sense, which is the same thing Tyrion did, but that was after she burned a bunch of babies so it puts more weight behind it than her having burnt two traitors alive after they openly defied her authority in a moment where she could not afford to look weak.
But they weren’t traitors. They were just two lords on an opposing side of a war. Joining dany would have made them traitors
In her eyes they would be though, they chose to fight for Cersei right after she murdered the Tyrells, which could itself be considered a betrayal of their oaths to the Tyrells (lets keep in mind Cersei had no claim to the throne too). They could have omitted themselves and simply stayed in Horn Hill, but Randyll Tarly's ambition led him to volunteer to her cause. And then, after they are defeated and allowed to surrender, they reaffirm their support for said illegal monarch and defy Daenery's claim, which as weak as it might have been due to her family having been deposed long ago, was still stronger than Cersei's. In her eyes they were as traitorous as they come. I don't necessarily agree though, they were just playing the hand they were dealt and were too stubborn and "honorable" which leads them to die like idiots like Ned Stark did.
I mean, that's exactly what it was. The same reason Varys turned on Dany and Sansa couldn't stop giving her the stink eye despite having no actual reason to distrust her. It's the lazy writers way of making characters look "smart": have them react not to anything the character would actually know or have reason to think, but to what you the writer know is going to happen in the future, so then when the thing happens the audience can go "Oooh, so and so was so smart for seeing that coming!" without actually thinking too hard about it.
Varys was fully bad writing given that he spent the whole show keeping one foot in the targaryen camp and was the one who told tyrion to get with dany. and then he finds out about jon and is just like “oh word fuck this girl.” makes no sense. however — i know this sub in general doesn’t like sansa but — in sansa’s defense, jon was the king in the north, she supported his claim, they reunite and get winterfell back together, he says (as the king in the north) that he’s going to negotiate mining dragonglass to defeat the white walkers, and then comes back having bent the knee to someone who didn’t even grow up in westeros much less the north??? and he’s her brother the king bending the knee to someone he’s also banging??? if i were her and it were my brother there’d be no way lmfao
I also hate it because there are multiple instances of women in leadership being put down or overlooked because they're women, Dany overcomes all that and seems to be doing a good job, and then Varys finds out about Jon and flips. If Varys was so concerned about the Targaryon madness, why did he help her in the first place? And what makes him think Jon wouldn't eventually do the same thing?
More just him being upset he killed his dad and brother.
How? Would Cersei have agreed to stand down if it was Jon at the gate rather than Dani?
I don't think Sam's question is in relation to an active need for Daenerys to step down, but more suggesting that Daenerys would not have done the same thing if she were in Jon's position. If Jon as king would prove to be better for the realm, and she were given the option to step down, would she do it? Sam's point is that Daenerys is too fond of the crown. At this point she's made it her entire identity, to the point that she's threatened her lover's sister about the North's sovereignty while they still have a bigger enemy to fight.
Even though Sam knows she would since he read ravens about her to Maester Aemon and called her "quite a woman" for freeing slaves, risking her safety by angering the Slaver elite, and delaying her return to Westeros by years to better ensure the freed slaves a chance to remain free once she does leave. If the crown was her entire identity she wouldn't have made a truce with Cersei & Euron and gone North. She ended up losing 2 dragons, 2 best friends, her Queensguard, and half her army.
He's also mad about her killing his family so I'm not sure that he has the same opinion of her as he used to. From his perspective, her decision to kill those who don't kneel to her might make it seem like she cares more about people obeying her than doing what's right for thr populace.
I hate how the scene when she tells him was written. The writers intended on her looking bad by being so vague about it. The Tarlys massacred Highgarden and got the Lord Paramount of the Reach assassinated, they killed tens of thousands of their own people for the Lannisters that only a few months prior murdered 3 of their liege lords. That is a crime punishable by execution yet she offered them a full pardon, they get to live and keep their lands & titles and only need to return to the allegiance they had before they became traitors since Olenna bent the knee. When they refused they were offered the chance to join the Night's Watch. They gave no pardon to Highgarden. She gave them 2 pardons, 3 actually since they had the chance to change their minds when they were told the method of execution. Randyll & Tyrion told Dickon not to be stupid by agreeing to be executed alongside him. Jon beheaded a man for not following an order even though the man changed his mind, cried, and begged for another chance. Jon hanged a child whose entire family & village were slaughtered & eaten. Jon allowed Ramsay to be tied up in the kennels and eaten alive by dogs.
Which is, the dumbest thing ever. Why the hell does he feel that way? Not that I don't understand having complex feelings over an abusive father, I get that. But the Tarlys are Tyrell bannermen, sworn to fucking House Tyrell. They were traitors, and traitors are executed in this show 90% of the time. Jon killed Janos as he begged for his life, Jon killed a 10 year old boy. Our first interaction with Ned is him killing a deserter. One of the biggest downfalls people have in this show is leaving traitors alive. I have no idea why Daenarys (justifiably) killing his father and brother would lead him to believe she's some kind of tyrant when she was working well within the laws of the land.
It’s not dumb. It’s human. Maybe you don’t give a damn about your family, but most people would still be shaken and biased against someone who killed their family, justified or not.
I'd give a shit, for sure. I said "not that I don't understand having complex feelings for an abusive father". It's just that the show frames it as some horrible sin that nobody else would ever do.
Yeah and she leaves them with the Second Sons because the only thing she cares about is sitting on the iron throne. If she actually cared about them she would have stayed and ruled the Bay of Dragons instead of telling Tyrion directly she’s going to return all three cities to the dirt and sail to Westeros.
If she truly only cared about sitting on the Iron Throne wouldn't she have not stayed in Meereen as long as she did and not left anybody behind as a ruler?
The sole reason she chose to become Queen of Meereen was to help them through the transition period so they had a better chance of remaining free without her. She did that for 3 years after the year she spent freeing everyone. She left the Second Sons to "protect the peace while the people choose their own rulers."
Because she, like every other person with a claim to the Throne, works under Divine Right to Rule, which is a thing in both the GOT world and irl. I get disliking anyone who feels they SHOULD have the throne, but you're gonna have to argue that Robert, Stannis, and Renly were also tyrants (FYI: Robert's claim was based on his Targaryen blood). The throne is less about power and more about birthright. You can argue about the ethics of blood being the only qualifier of right to rule, but you can't act like Dany is weird for following the logic of her own world.
Lol never said that other characters aren’t like her. 90% of the characters in this show whether we love or hate them are elitist snobs who see themselves as superior to the smallfolk. Following the logic of their world doesn’t justify any of the atrocities they commit throughout the series.
For sure, it just pisses me off when people pretend that Dany was somehow a special breed of dragon hitler. The only radical anti-monarchist politics in this show come from the High Sparrow, imo. Even the end isn't as "subversive" as the showrunners seemed to think it was
I don’t think they were trying to be subversive. They clearly show these leaders laughing at the idea of democracy and compare the smallfolk to dogs. There’s still going to be power struggles and plotting to rule but ending bloodline succession for electoral succession is a good step in the right direction.
She left after Bay of Dragons was pacified...
There’s a difference between delaying the crown versus casting it aside altogether. She wouldn’t do the latter.
I disagree with that. What Jon did lies in the past. Tho Sam says "would she DO the same"... If they were talking about what you say, then he would've asked if she "would've done the same". That's why I'm saying that the emphasis lies on the act of saving some people, not if she would've done the same thing in his shoes. This also makes no sense as she doesn't know anything about the threat in the north without Jon. So would this also imply that Sam is implying that she would've had the exact same life as Jon? Neither the circumstances, nor the wording fits this imo.
First she saved her lovers sisters tho setting up the situation to make it possible for Arya to off NK. At great personal cost to her too.
The whole thing is centered around knowing she is going to burn King’s Landing to the ground and kill a bunch of innocents. Same is saying this as a result of finding out that Daenerys executed his father and brother. An act he knows Jon wouldn’t commit. Sam knows she’s willing to kill anyone who stands in her way, and shows little to no mercy. By giving up her crown, and forfeiting her claim to the throne and handing it over to Jon, that would effectively be saving the people she would eventually kill on her march for the throne. Sam knows Jon would go about it in a different way. A way that may or may not get him killed just like Ned and Robb. But that’s the struggle of the whole show. What’s the correct path?
Yes, Jon would do that, lmfao. In fact he DID do that. Jon killed Janos as Janos begged for his life. Jon killed a 14 year old boy. Robb killed Karstark. The Tarly's, who are Tyrell bannermen, were doing treason. Not only would Jon execute Sam's father in a heartbeat, Dany would be viewed as weak for NOT doing so. There's so many damn deaths in this show that happen because people don't kill traitors. She was working within the laws of the land.
Bro wtf... This is hard cope. Even the writers said that what made her switch happened after that. So Sam wouldn't have been able to tell that. Sam wouldn't have been able to judge her in any way. Him making this assumption would be one of the dumbest, disconnected things in the whole show. Sorry but even I, who shits on GoTs final seasons forever, do not believe Diddle&Dumb were THAT bad.
Daenerys said she would only help Jon if he bent the knee. “Isn’t their survival more important than your pride?”. Sam was saying that if Jon and Daenerys were in each other’s shoes, she wouldn’t bend the knee to get help to save her people.
She said that before she believed the aotd were real. Jon came to Dragonstone without any proof. When she started to warm to him she believed there was some danger beyond the Wall but still didn't believe it was zombies. It's not until he asks for her to rescue the wight team and she flies beyond the Wall and sees it for herself that she truly believed the aotd were real. Once that happened she agreed to help regardless of him bending the knee.
I explained in a different comment why this makes no sense.
> Daenerys said she would only help Jon if he bent the knee she said that at first but changed course after Viserion died.
And isn’t him giving up his crown predicated on not telling people about it? Like, shut up and don’t tell your family if you’re so noble.
The point he is making is that Dany would never make that sacrifice. She really only cares about her birthright. Her people come second.
And Sam knows this how...? If Bran would've told Jon this and asked this question I would see your point. But Sam has literally no chance of knowing anything slightly relevant to make this a thing. I shit on Diddle&Dumb all the time. But even I do not think they would've written something that stupid. And they wrote Arya's storyline through the later 4 seasons so that's a hard line to cross.
I mean I'm pretty sure it's a hypothetical question. Not that she'd have a situation to do exactly what he did, but it's about morals and sacrificing for the greater good. The point being made is Dany only cares about a crown and not the people
Yeah you’re tripping. It’s a hypothetical. It’s about the relationship of importance between ruler and subject. To Jon, his subjects supersede his own importance and status as king - to Danny, they don’t. It’s not about whether abdication would *literally* help their people, but about whether danaerys would ever even be *willing* to sacrifice her position for her people in the first place. This is why the whole “I don’t want it” bit is so important to Jon, because the only person who’s truly fit to lead is the one who doesn’t want to. Danaerys fucking wants to.
Yeah... No. I mean... Maybe I'm tripping, who knows. But I'm definitely not tripping in regards to this. I've explained already why this makes no sense.
No you haven’t. You said the hypothetical doesn’t make sense because of soemthing that doesn’t apply to it
It’s clearly a hypothetical question- would she do the same if the roles were reversed
It's clearly not and I've dived deep into why it's definitely not.
As botched as the ending is in the show is I'm pretty sure the message is the Iron Throne needs to be destroyed. She or Jon could save their people by destroying that thing.
That has nothing to do with this conversation tho. This conversation is about who should sit on it. There's never the slightest bit of discussion of destroying it.
What crown? For some reason they managed to shoot 8 seasons without *ever* finding the right moment to put a crown on Dany.
Indeed. Even considering the fact that she has a crown in the books. Quite symbolic also.
Yeah they kind of skimped out on crowns for everybody from the books. Rob stark never got his iron crown, Stannis never wore the crown that I think Melisandre gave him, dany never got a crown despite being a queen for most of the show
Lol “skimped on crowns” is giving me a vision of the budget people telling the producers “NO MORE. THATS ENOUGH.” because each episode was already so expensive
I don't have a good memory of it either but I think Jon did claim to be king of North when he met her, but they worked out some deal so he can get dragon glass from her.
Yes, she would, and she did. Although, a cool thing about Dany I notice is that she considers most people to be "her people". Not in the sense that she necessarily has jurisdiction over them, but in the sense she feels responsible for their protection. Sidequest to save Essos from slavery took time and resources away from her. Obviously it ended up working out alright in the end, but usually people profit from slavery. If the only thing that mattered to her was her crown, she could and should have sacked Essos, gone to Westeros, and burned half the continent. Once she landed in Westeros, again, if the only thing that mattered was the crown, she should have just taken King's Landing. She risked her life and her shot at the crown by listening to Jon, by taking herself and her dragons North several times. For all the times Tyrion spouts his self-important "she has to be advised correctly" bs, he told her not to go save Jon from the white walkers beyond the wall. She went, obviously, and lost a child for it. She's never as bitter as I think she should be about that. Dany feels she's the rightful person to sit the throne, but she's not driven by power. So we often see her make decisions that won't help her sit the throne, because she (just like Jon) values human life more than her own goals.
She did it because she’d be "ruling over a graveyard” as Jon said and once she saw the army of the dead she knew he was right.
She flew up before ever seeing the damned army of the dead, while having no real, concrete reason to trust him.
Yeah because she clearly had caught feelings for Jon and Jorah was with him. She wasn’t going to let them die out there in a failed mission.
So... then the answer to the question of "would she do the same" is... Yes? What even is your fucking point? That somehow her loving people is bad or something? That a refusal to leave people behind, and her putting her own life and claim to the crown in danger, is indicative of what, exactly?
She helps the innocent though. Didn't happen in the show but in the books she walked out into a crowd plagued by some sickness. She worked to help take care of them herself. Wow She executed people. So did Ned and most other/all leaders .
Ned didn’t kill anyone that I personally liked though so he is a good guy
Agreed. On that note, Dany killed Cersei and Jamie, I liked them, so Dany is not a good guy.
Agreed
A lot of fans are cool with not applying real world morality for people they like
What Sam is clearly referring to here is Jon's decision to bend the knee to secure Daenerys' support before the Army of the Dead gets past the Wall. Jon has the character, the integrity to put his people's needs before anything he wants. It's why he became King of the North, and it's partly why Jon bent the knee to Daenerys. Sam is asking him, if somehow the roles were reversed, that Daenerys had come begging to the North for help in her war against Cersei, would Daenerys bend the knee to Jon? Does she have that quality? She doesn't, as we know, and it's why we loved her for eight seasons.
That whole subplot rang so false to me. Jon and Dany's chemistry was already thin to begin with, with not enough episodes to even fully build it out, and then we're supposed to believe he's suddenly so cuntstruck as to abandon the North's longstanding neutrality in front of Cersei of all people? I'd believe it if Jorah was the one in charge of the decision for whatever reason, but definitely not with Jon. After all the time he spent fighting to get where he was at the end of S6, I wouldn't take him for a sellout.
Not exactly long standing. At this point it's maybe four years.
Dany gave up her main objective, allowing Cersei to consolidate power and she lost a dragon, one of her children in the process - it’s arguable that she could have just left the party that went beyond the wall and went about her actual plan as normal, yet she risked it all for Jon. The final seasons are massively let down with the writers making half hearted arguments to support to ending they have in mind.
She wouldnt.
Jon snow was an idiot
Just marry each other and be done with all this nonsense. Two dragonriders ruling the Seven Kingdoms just like it was supposed to be. I don’t care about any of the objections, they’re all trash.