#anti daenerys targaryen

[the-daily-dreamer]

The targaryen ruled 130 years without dragons. And the most capable kings were all targaryen. After them it was a decline for the throne. Robert, joffrey, tommen, cercei were all sith ruler .

I see targ stans are investing in high quality air to fill their heads lol

But anyways. “The most capable kings were all targaryens”. You know who else were targaryens? The worst rulers of Westeros. Robert, Cersei, Joffrey, and Tommen aren’t even close to the worst kings and queen to rule. And bringing them up as evidence to show that the targaryens are good is so disingenuous.

Maegor the Cruel, Aegon the Unworthy, The Mad King Aerys, Rhaenyra (yes, I know that’s controversial), and Daenerys (yes, I know that’s even more controversial) are all far FAR worse than anyone you mentioned.

Maegor killed his wife and her entire family. He was a usurper (apparently it’s good when the targs you like do it lol), a kinslayer (also a thing only good when it’s targs you like doing it), raped and tortured many people, wiped out entire houses, killed any and everyone that he saw in any way as deserving, and created a huge war with the faith of the seven.

Aegon the unworthy was corrupt and lazy and legitimized his bastards leading to the blackfyre rebellions that led to endless bloodshed for 5 generations.

Aerys was so bad he had a rebellion staged against him that ended his family dynasty. He burned fathers and sons together. He tortured people and burned them alive. He abused and raped his wife when he would burn people alive. He wanted to kill the entire city of kings landing.

Rhaenyra (who like it or not went down in history as one of the worst rulers) known as maegor with teats taxed her people to starvation. She had daily executions. She had knights inquisitors hunt down and punish people.

Daenerys burnt down kings landing, was complicit in the rape and enslavement of hundreds, ruined city economies so badly slavery was a better option, then profited from said slavery, abandoned the people she conquered (no doubt ensuring they will be enslaved much more harshly after supporting her), raped a “free” slave that she admits still acted like a slave because that’s all she knew, oh yeah and again, SHE BURNT DOWN KINGS LANDING. And this is after the people you listed.

And this isn’t including non Targaryen rulers that ruined lives like the blackfyres. Or rulers that are bad but weirdly beloved like Aegon I who basically conquered people by threatening to kill them and everyone they loved, subjugating a country for hundreds of years.

The best rulers I admit were Targaryens. But that’s because they were the only rulers save for 4 people. Of those four, two were bad and two were incompetent. Not nearly the sadistic “mad” people I described above. And funnily enough, as soon as a Targaryen came back to power…things got worse again. Funny how that is.

Oh and by the way. Going with the histories of Westeros. Guess who is among the best rulers according to small folk Aegon II and Alicent. Seethe :)

[amaltheas-garden]

Just so we're all on the same page:

Cersei's fascination with wildfire=bad

Melisandre's fire/blood magic=bad

Aerion, Aegon V, Aerys II meddling with fire=bad

Daenerys' three flying flamethrowers=somehow good???

Make it make sense 😐

[lemonhemlock]

do you think the "female character in a position of power goes mad" trope is misogynistic? i think dany is a cersei in the making but i worry about how george will handle that and the chances of jon killing her… ugh

i think dark! dany has the potential to be one of the most radical and transformative characters of our generation, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE we spent so much time in her POV witnessing her struggles and her compassion for the downtrodden comes from a genuine place!

again, it's not 'punching down' because she is a woman, think of the intersection of gender, race and class! daenerys is THEE white woman, aryan-coded & overpowered with magic who wants to 'conquer' a land she's never been to and rule because of her 'birthright'. the rights or wishes of her future subjects are of no concern to her.

[rise-my-angel]

I think its funny that technically Jon has "the blood of Old Valyria" in him as well. But if you told him that as if it meant something, you know Jon would dismiss it entierly as unimportant, and that he does not give a single shit about it. Being Valyrian is so integral to someone like Danaerys or really any mainstream Targaryeans identity.

Then you have Jon Snow whose just like "I have things to do, I don't care" literally anytime something tries to convince Jon hes special. He's the opposite of everything Valyrians stand for and it would be so funny if hes the only one with Targaryean blood to survive, so that the last living relic of the ancient Valyrian Freehold is stuck inside the most grouchy, anti prophecy Northerner known to man.

[agentrouka-blog]

How is Dany a colonizer? What about Westerosi history, and even how the Starks got there in the first place?

The history of migration into Westeros is certainly not without conflict. Especially since GRRM twice emphasizes an interplay between seeking refuge (from the slaving Valyrians!) and waging violent conquest in turn.

But it's still a bold claim to create an equivalence between that and a campaign of conquest run by a single family in possession of a perfectly safe island home (itself a former outpost of the Valyrian slave empire!), based entirely on the superior firepower of their dragons and demonstrated willingness to commit vast destruction for power. A family that demands rulership over all, and then proceeds to claim exceptionality from the local laws and traditions based on their inherent sense of superiority, avoiding non-Valyrian intermarriage wherever possible for centuries. They are deliberately holding themselves apart from the people they rule. Then they promptly wage civil wars in almost every generation, destroy the basis of their power and then soon follow through with self-destruction in spite of a local willingness to tolerate their rule even without dragons - for a time.

They were deposed for abject tyranny after 300 years where their main impact was spectacularly destructive warfare. They are out.

There is no "rightful claim" to anything.

What Dany lays claim to is a legacy of imperialism and needless conquest for personal power and resources. So... yeah, people will describe her in those terms.

[sunnysideaeggs]

If your strong female character needs every other female character to always agree with her and sacrifice her own goals for her maybe she isn’t that great and heroic 🫶���

[catofoldstones]

Show Dany’s burning of KL has always been seen as a Mad Queen argument but I always thought of it as entitlement and rage emanating from that entitlement. The people of Westeros were supposed to welcome her and her armies, they were supposed to open their arms and open their forts up to the rightful ruler of their kingdom, they were supposed to vouch for her not be resistant to her rightful conquest, not attack her, provide her with what was hers all along, overthrow the usurpers in her name before she even came along. They were supposed to be on her side and they weren’t. They betrayed her. So she burned them and she took what was hers, with fire and blood. It wasn’t some of unreasoned madness but I feel wrongfully reasoned clarity.

[saltywinteradult]

not the targaryen stans seeing daemon having a vision of dany and thinking this means dany was actually meant to be the hero, she was good all along guys, she actually was the Chosen One destined to save the world and they just ruined her for no reason!!! jesus christ if you people wanted a simple good vs evil narrative you should’ve stuck to harry potter

this shit is so disrespectful to asoiaf because prophecies being misinterpreted through people’s own biases and blind spots and causing more harm than good when obsessed over (see also: rhaegar) is such an important theme in the books. fuck house of the dragon for upending that theme and making the targs the good guys who totally had an altruistic reason to violently conquer westeros, actually! and fuck hotd for implying that daenerys (the person who probably killed about as many people by burning king’s landing as she saved by helping fight the white walkers) was actually a good guy all along.

[atopvisenyashill]

i get that we hate monarchy and some targs are assholes but george explicitly sets the dragons as the defenders of life and their return as the revival of magic in a world? i really do not think supposed to see them as the 'ultimate threat' or ONLY as a threat bc there's foreshadowing for dany fighting in the long night and the others are in charge of that role? even if i think magic is gonna leave the world in the end…

“george explicitly sets the dragons as defenders of life” …..huh?

these dragons?? look what’s coming in twow, it’s not any defending of life, it’s destruction!

and yeah, I know it’s a common fan idea that Dany ~reawakens magic~ but the thing is that’s just…not true. I’m not trying to discount the insane magic Dany pulls off, or that her specific type of magic -being fire magic - starts going crazy once she wakes the dragons from stone. But the Starklings all being wargs happens before Dany wakes her dragons, as does Bran opening his third eye. I don’t think Dany nor Valyrian magic or blood in general is going to be the end all be all of magic especially a form of magic she’s not even involved with and there are several.

also “foreshadowing for fighting in the long night” while I definitely go back and forth on what some of the foreshadowing in her chapters means for her endgame, I think it’s really silly to say that passages like the ant one are concrete evidence that she’s going to be involved in the long night. i still don’t even fully buy she’s going to be involved AT ALL in the long night - i don’t think she ever goes North of the trident even if she DOES fight them. Beyond that, again, I get it’s a popular fan theory that the Others are going to be the ultimate evil that the hero’s will be allowed to uncritically massacre but a) so george LITERALLY talks about the ethical ramifications of killing orcs, why is it so ingrained in fandom that he’s just going to go full tolkien here? how does that make any sense? considering how important the isle of faces is, i think it’s much more likely a new pact is made and whatever happens with the others stops because of THAT not because of some big battle that wipes them all out. As george says himself, it’s a trope that basically legitimizes committing genocide? And it’s not one he likes!

and b) por que no los dos????? it’s not like the lannisters are the only evil people in the whole series!

[esther-dot]

I mean it's worth mentioning that Mirri exploited the grief of a fourteen-year-old girl, one who attempted to save and protect her, taking both her husband and her child (and therefore her security and stability in the society she was still pretty new to, as well as getting a lot of the slaves Dany saved from worse fates killed) in the process. I'd probably kill someone for that too. And if I knew I'd get a dragon out of it? Fuck that bitch if I can't have my son I'm having a dragon.

Like yeah it's not great but per the moral standards of this series Dany is pretty good

I've already explained, Mirri didn't kill Drogo, and Dany knows Mirri didn't kill Rhaego.

As for Dany's age meaning she isn't responsible for her actions:

"Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see." She raised the harpy's fingers in the air . . . and then she flung the scourge aside. "Freedom!" she sang out. "Dracarys! Dracarys!" (ASOS, Daenerys III)

Dany ordered her men to kill kids younger than that.

And Dany "saved" Mirri? They burned and murdered and pillaged and raped throughout her village. Dany thinks of it all as the cost of the throne ie Dany's ambition demands it. You don't have to agree with each POV, every thought they have. Sometimes you are meant to judge them. Listen to Mirri's perspective on being saved:

"I spoke for you," she said, anguished. "I saved you." "Saved me?" The Lhazareen woman spat. "Three riders had taken me, not as a man takes a woman but from behind, as a dog takes a bitch. The fourth was in me when you rode past. How then did you save me? I saw my god's house burn, where I had healed good men beyond counting. My home they burned as well, and in the street I saw piles of heads. I saw the head of a baker who made my bread. I saw the head of a boy I had saved from deadeye fever, only three moons past. I heard children crying as the riders drove them off with their whips. Tell me again what you saved." "Your life." Mirri Maz Duur laughed cruelly. "Look to your khal and see what life is worth, when all the rest is gone."(AGOT, Daenerys IX)

And then what does Dany do? She takes Mirri's life.

"You will not hear me scream," Mirri responded as the oil dripped from her hair and soaked her clothing. "I will," Dany said, "but it is not your screams I want, only your life. (AGOT, Daenerys X)

Dany didn't save anything. She took. She repeatedly benefits from other people's suffering.

You can convince yourself to be cool with this, but the author isn't. He didn’t intend for audiences to work themselves into moral pretzels to avoid condemning Dany or realize where her story is going.

Here is what he said of some famous Dany essays:

And here are some quotes about Dany from those essays:

(link)

This is not a hero.

[the-daily-dreamer]

Reminder that if your feminism revolves around propping up women that partake in traditionally masculine activities/roles and shitting on or even hating women who embody traditionally feminine roles and enjoy feminine activities you’re not really a feminist.

It sets the precedent that women are only valuable and valid if they have traditionally masculine traits, which feeds a narrative that masculine traits are better simply because they are associated with men who are the ideal. It perpetuates the idea that things that are feminine and traditionally associated with women are in fact inferior to men/masculinity and should be looked down upon and belittled.

And, it alienates so many individuals that feel more comfortable in femininity, regardless of gender identity.

I think people in the ASOIAF fandom really need to learn this because feminine characters are so despised on the basis that they are not “better” women. Simply because they don’t embody traditionally masculine things like conquering or fighting.

Much of the hate comes from stans that love characters like Rhaenyra, Daenerys, and Arya (and do not get me wrong I love Arya), who are women and girls that are in positions that allow for more traditionally masculine behaviors and tomboyishness. And they will say incredibly sexist things about how the other women in media are inferior and directly contrast these women to their faves negatively by pointing out that they’re “too weak” or “subservient”. They reduce femininity to weakness and bowing to patriarchy instead of considering that some people have a different, more feminine nature. And that is OK! Just because a woman isn’t wielding a sword or fighting on the front lines or pursuing leadership roles in masculine ways (because historically women exacted and sought power in different ways than men) doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable and strong characters. Do not use feminine characters as a negative comparison to show how “feminist” and great your fave is. Because it’s just so blatantly sexist.

Don’t fall into the trap of reinforcing patriarchal rhetoric!!! Don’t reinforce narratives that traditional masculinity is superior to femininity!! Don’t belittle feminine activities and act as if they aren’t valuable!!! Girbosses are great but so are gentlewomen.

[amaltheas-garden]

people still shocked that in the year of our lord 2024 some of us don't want to see Dany get her 'happy ending' by becoming the white savior who was promised

[lemonhemlock]

As a result of Daenerys torturing a little girl for nothing, she immediately regretted it, realized it was wrong, and then banned it.

so it's ok to commit a heinous act as long as you feel sorry afterwards. gotcha

[rise-my-angel]

Anytime I see a post about how Rhaenyra won because her bloodline leads to the Prince that was Promised I have the most petty urge to just reblog their post with a single gif of Jon Snow.

[agentrouka-blog]

I find it infinitely fascinating that Dany - even outside a purely Targaryen context - follows the footsteps of her female ancestors and is married far too young, is pregnant with a prophecy baby, and would have likely died giving birth to a deformed stillborn half-dragon fetus. A disposable vessel for a flawed incarnation of war and conquest, given no room for her own desires, her own inherent worth.

And a healer saves her from this fate. She helps her survive the traumatic birth even though she is in conflict with Dany and her people, has been victimized by Dany and her people. Dany is allowed to escape the cycle of birthing a conqueror. Is allowed to escape the cycle of dying for men's ambition.

And then she turns that healer into a vessel for her weapon of war, burns her alive to birth herself a conqueror. Mirri screams in agony to give life to Dany's ambitions. The maternal sacrifice to Dany patriarchical consummation of her body and life.

Dany could have chosen a painful lesson and freedom. She chose to uphold the oppressive cycle, with herself at the top now. The half-human dead child fully replaced by reptiles that will kill for her within a year.

Mother, she calls herself.

[montyluvsjasper]

Dany: Hello Northerns I'm here to liberate and free you!

Northerns: We already did that ourselves?