(06-19-2019, 03:06 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: Dany was acting like Anakin Skywalker in her final moments. You can't be the "Breaker of Chains" and tell people they have no choice. She wasn't breaking the wheel so much as she was becoming it. Dany saw herself as the ultimate power. She could justify anything she did because she thought only she, and maybe Jon, knew what was good. That's a tyrant if I ever saw one.
Don't think I'm trying to defend the writing because I'm not but it was clear to me that's what they wanted to convey. They didn't make her look regal. They were trying to make her look more evil especially when they had the shot of Drogon's wings directly behind her. Her ideology was dangerous because she would no longer be willing to compromise with anyone that didn't agree with her. She was a revolutionary turned dictator.
Essos was different from Westeros. As bad as it is with the different class systems, the latter technically didn't have slaves. At least not officially. They didn't want her to be their great savior. The reason Jorah was exiled was Ned called for his head for selling people into slavery so he could provide his wife a life of luxury. Westeros already had lords they admired such as the Starks, Tyrells, Tullys, Arryns and Martells. The Baratheons and even Greyjoys had their loyal subjects as well.
Dany got most of the followers she got not because they thought she would make a great queen but for vengeance. Olenna and Ellaria followed her because they wanted revenge on Cersei and they most likely would've had no problem with her burning KL to the ground. Yara pledged to her for help in combating Euron. She too wanted Cersei to just attack the Red Keep as soon as she arrived. They didn't really have an idea of what her governing style would be like. They just wanted fire and blood to rain down on their enemies.
The North, Vale, and Riverlands actually cared about how they would be governed and didn't want Dany. Sansa held much more influence than her in these kingdoms and they all would've allied and fought for her.
What would have been the best way then? According to the protocols of the time, Dany was the rightful heir to the throne. Olenna and Ellaria certainly had their personal reasons for siding with Dany, but the point is this. They never would have if she hadn't had a legitimate claim to the throne.
As for the North, had Jon got up in front of the room and agreed with the consensus that he should be king of the North, he'd be the king. Sansa would have fallen into the background, and despite her influence, could do nothing about it. You saw her reaction when Jon was nominated. She was angry, despite the fact that Jon probably would probably would have made a very good king. Even when Bran, who according the story is the king to end all kings and was made so, who took a stand against him? Sansa. Instead of looking ahead to the future where there's one king to wisely rule them all, she refuses to acknowledge that his title should include the North.
If, as stated, Sansa has the allegiance of the North, certainly they would follow her guidance if she gave her allegiance to Bran. She did not. So she was not looking at who could rule wisely and objectively. She was only looking at herself to be made queen with no thought or consideration for the outcome. Isn't that is just as selfish and tyrannical as Dany's facade of Breaker of Chains?
In thinking about this fascinating subject, I wonder now if Dany and Sansa were two sides of the same dark coin. Both women pretty much took an instant dislike to one another, yet both have some issues in common.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.