Are people taking the wrong message from the failure of Game of Thrones' final season?

[The Romulan Republic]

Funny, if Danny in Mereen was meant to represent American imperialism, then surely her returning to Westeros to "fix her own country first" is a better choice than continuing an "imperialist occupation" in Mereen. Yet the argument that Daenerys is a "foreigner" and/or "imperialist" "invading" Westeros is a favorite of her detractors. You yourself criticized her IIRC for leaving Mereen.

Which begs the question: Where is Daenery's country? Who are her people? Who's affairs does she have a right to take a role in, without being branded an Imperialist? Who is her responsibility? Is it the people of her ethnicity, those descended of Valyrian blood? Is it the land of her birth, and to who's crown she has a (debatable, due to misogynist Westerosi laws) hereditary claim? Is it her people by marriage, the Dothraki? Who?

I suppose its almost inevitable that with Danny's characterization being so inconsistent, the attacks upon her would be too.

[FaxModem1]

Funny, if Danny in Mereen was meant to represent American imperialism, then surely her returning to Westeros to "fix her own country first" is a better choice than continuing an "imperialist occupation" in Mereen. Yet the argument that Daenerys is a "foreigner" and/or "imperialist" "invading" Westeros is a favorite of her detractors. You yourself criticized her IIRC for leaving Mereen.

Which begs the question: Where is Daenery's country? Who are her people? Who's affairs does she have a right to take a role in, without being branded an Imperialist? Who is her responsibility? Is it the people of her ethnicity, those descended of Valyrian blood? Is it the land of her birth, and to who's crown she has a (debatable, due to misogynist Westerosi laws) hereditary claim? Is it her people by marriage, the Dothraki? Who?

I suppose its almost inevitable that with Danny's characterization being so inconsistent, the attacks upon her would be too.

That depends, do you think that the remnants of the Romanovs should have gotten to rule Russia after their violent overthrow? How about the Stuarts ruling England after they were overthrown, leading to the Jacobite rebellions? How about King George the III to the American colonies? Is there a blood claim to a nation after they have been ousted via violent revolution? If so, Dany has every right to rule Westeros. If not, guess not. Valyria could be considered her home, but that land was destroyed over a century before Dany was born. After that, she is in the same spot as the other French nobles after the French revolution, people without a country, taken in by other sympathetic nobles. 'Returning home to fix things' could potentially going to the remnants of Valyria and curing everyone there of Greyscale. Something never brought up as a possibility, though she didn't know it was possible until the final season.

With Meereen, she seemed, on some level, to serve the interests of the slaves. Playing a leadership role of their cause on some level. Until she brought back a lot of slavery policies from the civilization back into practice. That's where it gets complicated, because her cause, her own personal power, became intermeshed with their cause, their freedom. When the two reached cross purposes, her power became the more important priority, and men started selling themselves back into slavery to get a better life. Which sadly is not that different from a lot leaders of revolutions after the revolution is over.

[The Romulan Republic]

Funny, if Danny in Mereen was meant to represent American imperialism, then surely her returning to Westeros to "fix her own country first" is a better choice than continuing an "imperialist occupation" in Mereen. Yet the argument that Daenerys is a "foreigner" and/or "imperialist" "invading" Westeros is a favorite of her detractors. You yourself criticized her IIRC for leaving Mereen.

Which begs the question: Where is Daenery's country? Who are her people? Who's affairs does she have a right to take a role in, without being branded an Imperialist? Who is her responsibility? Is it the people of her ethnicity, those descended of Valyrian blood? Is it the land of her birth, and to who's crown she has a (debatable, due to misogynist Westerosi laws) hereditary claim? Is it her people by marriage, the Dothraki? Who?

I suppose its almost inevitable that with Danny's characterization being so inconsistent, the attacks upon her would be too.

That depends, do you think that the remnants of the Romanovs should have gotten to rule Russia after their violent overthrow? How about the Stuarts ruling England after they were overthrown, leading to the Jacobite rebellions? How about King George the III to the American colonies? Is there a blood claim to a nation after they have been ousted via violent revolution? If so, Dany has every right to rule Westeros. If not, guess not.

I think I've made my contempt for hereditary monarchy as a concept quite clear. Daenerys however might be the least bad option on the table for Westeros. Because unlike the examples you cited, Daenerys was not replaced by a republic, or any other system of government. She was replaced by a new King, except he didn't have even the legitimacy of law and tradition that that Targaryens had. Which meant that the only legitimacy left was "I have an army". Renly was right about that, damn him.

Daenerys at least could theoretically have offered stability, in the form of a semi-legitimate claim, support from multiple great houses, and dragon fire to back it up.

Valyria could be considered her home, but that land was destroyed over a century before Dany was born. After that, she is in the same spot as the other French nobles after the French revolution, people without a country, taken in by other sympathetic nobles. 'Returning home to fix things' could potentially going to the remnants of Valyria and curing everyone there of Greyscale. Something never brought up as a possibility, though she didn't know it was possible until the final season.

With Meereen, she seemed, on some level, to serve the interests of the slaves. Playing a leadership role of their cause on some level. Until she brought back a lot of slavery policies from the civilization back into practice. That's where it gets complicated, because her cause, her own personal power, became intermeshed with their cause, their freedom. When the two reached cross purposes, her power became the more important priority, and men started selling themselves back into slavery to get a better life. Which sadly is not that different from a lot leaders of revolutions after the revolution is over.

That doesn't really answer the question, though, and I think its a pertinent one when judging Daenerys's actions- what is her homeland? Where does she belong?

[FaxModem1]

I think I've made my contempt for hereditary monarchy as a concept quite clear. Daenerys however might be the least bad option on the table for Westeros. Because unlike the examples you cited, Daenerys was not replaced by a republic, or any other system of government. She was replaced by a new King, except he didn't have even the legitimacy of law and tradition that that Targaryens had. Which meant that the only legitimacy left was "I have an army". Renly was right about that, damn him.

Daenerys at least could theoretically have offered stability, in the form of a semi-legitimate claim, support from multiple great houses, and dragon fire to back it up.

No, there's the House of Stuart, who were replaced by the House of Hanover, who were supplanted by the House of Brunswick. On and on such history goes. It's why I made sure to include that example, as sometimes a royal family is replaced, whether Stuart or Targaryn, by another house, whether Hanover or Baratheon. There might be failed rebellions later on, like the Jacobites, but they are a page in the history book. Turn the page.

Valyria could be considered her home, but that land was destroyed over a century before Dany was born. After that, she is in the same spot as the other French nobles after the French revolution, people without a country, taken in by other sympathetic nobles. 'Returning home to fix things' could potentially going to the remnants of Valyria and curing everyone there of Greyscale. Something never brought up as a possibility, though she didn't know it was possible until the final season.

With Meereen, she seemed, on some level, to serve the interests of the slaves. Playing a leadership role of their cause on some level. Until she brought back a lot of slavery policies from the civilization back into practice. That's where it gets complicated, because her cause, her own personal power, became intermeshed with their cause, their freedom. When the two reached cross purposes, her power became the more important priority, and men started selling themselves back into slavery to get a better life. Which sadly is not that different from a lot leaders of revolutions after the revolution is over.

That doesn't really answer the question, though, and I think its a pertinent one when judging Daenerys's actions- what is her homeland? Where does she belong?

She reminds me mostly of Prince Charles Edward Stuart, assuming that her royal blood guarantees a god-given right to rule over the 'pretender on the throne', trying to curry favor from foreign powers, existing on other nobles' charity, and essentially being a very well off refugee. Eventually, they get some power behind them, and decide to take what's theirs. Like both, a lot of people die for them, and it's all for naught in the end. A lot more people would probably be alive and better off if they had stayed on the continent rather than cross the small sea separating them from their once known homeland. I think that would have been a fitting example for Dany. Back in Braavos or Meereen, raising the next generation, telling them tales of how Westeros belongs to them, and someday the common people would rejoice at their return.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think I've made my contempt for hereditary monarchy as a concept quite clear. Daenerys however might be the least bad option on the table for Westeros. Because unlike the examples you cited, Daenerys was not replaced by a republic, or any other system of government. She was replaced by a new King, except he didn't have even the legitimacy of law and tradition that that Targaryens had. Which meant that the only legitimacy left was "I have an army". Renly was right about that, damn him.

Daenerys at least could theoretically have offered stability, in the form of a semi-legitimate claim, support from multiple great houses, and dragon fire to back it up.

No, there's the House of Stuart, who were replaced by the House of Hanover, who were supplanted by the House of Brunswick. On and on such history goes. It's why I made sure to include that example, as sometimes a royal family is replaced, whether Stuart or Targaryn, by another house, whether Hanover or Baratheon. There might be failed rebellions later on, like the Jacobites, but they are a page in the history book. Turn the page.

Okay, I'll grant that's a somewhat apt example.

She reminds me mostly of Prince Charles Edward Stuart, assuming that her royal blood guarantees a god-given right to rule over the 'pretender on the throne', trying to curry favor from foreign powers, existing on other nobles' charity, and essentially being a very well off refugee. Eventually, they get some power behind them, and decide to take what's theirs. Like both, a lot of people die for them, and it's all for naught in the end. A lot more people would probably be alive and better off if they had stayed on the continent rather than cross the small sea separating them from their once known homeland. I think that would have been a fitting example for Dany. Back in Braavos or Meereen, raising the next generation, telling them tales of how Westeros belongs to them, and someday the common people would rejoice at their return.

So is Meeren her home?

I would argue that probably the only places where she ever felt at home were Braavos (as a child) and the Dothraki. But she's Westrosi by birth.

I would point out that Daenerys did not share Viserys's obsession with the throne when she first appeared in the series. IIRC, the turning point was a combination of her time as Khaleesi, Robert's assassins* trying to off her and her baby/Viserys dying, and then losing pretty much everything she had when Drogon died, before gaining dragons. And even after that, she often went to great lengths to help, protect, or avenge the people under her. This is not the behaviour of a dilitante who only cares about personal power.

Start of series Danny had no interest in power. She just wanted to live like a regular person and be left alone. But... you take a child who has always been helpless, give them a taste of power and security and belonging (even in the warped way that was her marriage to Kal Drogo), paint a target on their back simply for who they are, then suddenly rip everything they have away in a manner that sends a very clear message that the only way for them to protect themselves or their people is to take power for themselves, then give that person one extraordinarily powerful weapon that simultaneously confirms that they have a Special Heritage/Destiny... well, a plausible result is Daenerys Targaryen. Someone who's hard because the world has taught her to be, who's stubborn and driven because she had to be, who believes she's special because she has un-burnt skin and magic flying fire lizards to prove that she is. Who knows that the only way she can ever keep herself and the people she loves safe is to be stronger than those who would hurt them, but has basically no political training- just one really, really powerful weapon.

I don't think she's a insane, and I don't think she's evil, and I certainly don't think what happened to her was the result of some inevitable hereditary Targaryen madness or that she wanted the throne just because she thought she was entitled to it. I think she is a product of her experiences over the course of the first book/season.


*It is worth remembering that Daenerys did not start the war with the Seven Kingdoms. She was living life as a Dothraki Khaleesi when Robert's assassins tried to kill her and her unborn child, causing Drogo to declare war. Daenerys never had a choice about being at war with Westeros. This was not her invading Westeros as a foreign imperialist- she inherited this war simply by committing the crime of being born a Targaryen.

[Darth Yan]

No she was begging Drogo to go for Westeros after viserys bit it. Drogo refused until the assassin tried to kill her (and Dany was ecstatic at the concept).

She saw Robert as a usurper too.

[The Romulan Republic]

No she was begging Drogo to go for Westeros after viserys bit it. Drogo refused until the assassin tried to kill her (and Dany was ecstatic at the concept).

I recall differently, but its been a while. I'll look it up.

She saw Robert as a usurper too.

Probably because Viserys spent her whole childhood telling her that, but yeah.

I'm just saying, Daenerys is a lot more complicate than "Always crazy/evil" or "just cares about power".

[Vendetta]

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/game-of ... ueen-clues

She abandoned Mereen to fall into chaos to claim the throne of Westeros even though they didn't want her, she crucified people at random and when told that one of them was actually benevolent her response is "I don't care". Takes joy in killing her enemies because she feels if they oppose her they deserve to die etc Hell look at her "I will take what is mine through fire and blood" back in season 2.

And when Ned Stark has the same attitude towards meting out swift justice via execution in series 1, we applaud his honour for swinging the sword himself...

Daenerys is ruthless with her enemies because that's how you survive in the world she lives in. But in the bits of the series that had the books to draw upon, she is also specific with that ruthlessness, and she turns it on people who have and abuse power. (Even if one of the Masters of Mereen were not as vicious as the others, they still all participate in and benefit from the vicious institution of slavery, none of them are actually benevolent because they enjoy their power at the direct expense of others).

Daenerys is ruthless in the exercise of power, but she always attempts to use it for the benefit of the powerless and avoids using it against the powerless to the greatest degree possible (like locking her dragons away to protect the people from them). She's naive and thinks that just smashing the system will fix all the problems, but that's not her being a fascist conquerer that's her being a teenager.

And yes, she returns to Westeros. Not to start a war, that's already happening. She is called there by one of the factions in that war (the Iron Islands) and she proceeds with her conquest in a way designed to minimise the damage done to the smallfolk at the behest of her advisor Tyrion and puts it on hold to fight a greater threat to the people at great personal expense.

At the end of the series she burns half a city because it might not love her enough and is framed with deliberate reference to nazi rallies.

There is no narrative path taken between the two presentations, one just stops and the other replaces it because the writers didn't know how to naturally progress the character to that ending so they just teleported her there.

The clues WERE there from the beginning.

Again, foreshadowing is not character development. The clues are not enough. There also needs to be a consistent narrative path which the character follows so the audience knows at every step why the character believes their actions to be the right thing to do.

There's no coherent explanation for why Daenerys or, basically, anyone else think their actions in the last half of the series are the right thing to do.

It's consistent at every level with every character, and gets worse the further the series goes on. In basically no situations where a character decides to do something can you reasonably say "I know why they thought that was the right thing to do and it makes sense in context of their development to this point".

[Solauren]

Part of what makes her a complicated character is; Daenrys is a abuse victim, that has the power to fight back now, and is taking it to the logical extreme.

She had to live in fear of her brother, or rather upsetting him and 'waking the dragon'. - Emotional abuse, psychological abuse, evidence of past physical abuse

She had to live in fear of possible assassins sent by people in Westros. - Similar effects to Emotional abuse, psychological abuse.

There is evidence that she and her brother were betrayed numerous times by people that were supposed to be helping them.
This would no doubt lead to trust issues, and possibly anger issues. This is why she's so hard on people that she gives her trust to that violate it, or that she sees mistreating people she sympathizes with.

Now, add in the fact the few times she thinks she's found safety, security, and happiness, it's been taken away from her.
Season 1 - She and Drogo fall in love. He ends up treating her very well. She tries to help and trust someone, and that all gets taken from her.
Season 2 - She trusts the man in Qarth that was hosting her. He betrays and nearly gets her killed.
Season 4 - She finds out Jorah betrayed her, and exiles him.
Season 7 + 8 - She falls in love with Jon Snow. She's surrounded by people she can trust. The stand together.
Then, in a few short weeks -
She finds out her new lover actually has a stronger claim to the Throne, meaning he could take all her hardwork, and refuses to love/marry her (that would be the next logical step). That would seem like a massive betrayal to her.
Two of her trusted advisors betray her (Varys, Tyrion), and two more (Jorah, Melissandra) are killed.

She has quite the rollercoaster of a storyline emotionally. The only problem with any of it was, Season 8 was too rushed. 2 - 3 more episodes, and it would have been much more satisfying.

[Vendetta]

Part of what makes her a complicated character is; Daenrys is a abuse victim, that has the power to fight back now, and is taking it to the logical extreme.

Yes, and my contention is that "burn down a city because bells rang and hold a fantasy nazi rally" is not a logical extreme response to that.

It is a stupid response caused by bad writers who can't figure out how to remove the audience's sympathy from a character they want to be the baddie now.

[Solauren]

I think she saw all the betrayals at once, and decided 'If I can't have it, no one can!'

[Vendetta]

I think she saw all the betrayals at once, and decided 'If I can't have it, no one can!'

Again though, that doesn't in any way flow logically from the character as presented or the situation she is in.

Daenerys was not presented as being the sort of person who would do that or on the way to becoming the sort of person who would do that.

For that to be the case there would have to have been escalation over the course of her character, every time she's wronged she's just a bit more destructive and just a bit less discerning in who she targets until the burning of King's Landing, which would have to take place after it explicitly and in her presence preferred Jon over her, is the actual logical conclusion of that as an arc.

But that wasn't in the show, and it wasn't something that could have been added just by extending season 8 a couple of extra episodes. They would have had to be building up to it over half the show for it to be a logical progression for a character's arc.

Every time she's wronged or every time someone defies her and she kills them she's precise and specific, until the writers want her to lose the audience's sympathy and then she suddenly isn't.

[Darth Yan]

Uh she was fairly random with barristans death and the crucified maesters. She also abandoned Meereen to chaos (and leaving your boytoy doesn’t count)

[Raw Shark]

It's also entirely possible that R + L sent some kind of communication to her father explaining the situtation (Rhaegar wouldn't really have needed to), and someone intercepted it.

Well, her father was already dead (which also started the war), and they not only did tell Ned, but he was actually there for the really critical part (ie: Tower of Joy), so I personally think that L + R did as much as they could to try to put out the dumpster fire their teenage love started before they died young in it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Uh she was fairly random with barristans death and the crucified maesters. She also abandoned Meereen to chaos (and leaving your boytoy doesn’t count)

Did she just leave her "boytoy" (who is an experienced military commander), or did she leave him with a substantial garrison to keep the peace and ward off any neighbors who might be tempted to try a land grab with her gone?

[FaxModem1]

Did she just leave her "boytoy" (who is an experienced military commander), or did she leave him with a substantial garrison to keep the peace and ward off any neighbors who might be tempted to try a land grab with her gone?

Assuming she gave him enough troops to continue to hold the city, my main issue with that is, "Is this best for Meereen?" The man commanded a mercernary army with some other mercenaries, who promptly ended up dead when he switched sides and joined Dany's side. He does this mostly out of some sort of romantic crush for her. Will he continue to do so when she broke his heart? Will he actually try to rule the city fairly? Will he even know how? Or will it fall into more war and ruin?

Or will it turn out that Meereen is now under (looks up character's name) Daario's iron fisted rule, being fed grapes by the newly reconstituted slaves that Dany made into policy? Or will it turn out that Daario was so unpopular that he lost his head and Slaver's Bay is even worse?

[Vendetta]

Uh she was fairly random with barristans death and the crucified maesters. She also abandoned Meereen to chaos (and leaving your boytoy doesn’t count)

"She" was random with Barristan's death?

He was killed by rebels opposed to her rule, and it's only "her fault" in as much as she tries to move too quickly in reforming the Mereen away from reliance on slavery without the ruthlessness towards the slaveholders that would actually require (her problem was that she didn't burninate enough people to cow the former power structure the first time around).

Also, the Masters of Mereen, not Maesters, that's a different thing in GoT, were the slave-owning ruling classes and her crucifixion of 163 of them was a 1:1 punishment of their crucifixion of 163 slave children in what they hoped would be a sufficient display of ruthlessness towards people she was known to care about to deter her from invading.

It wasn't randomly enacted, and the people upon whom it was enacted were the people who benefited from, exploited, and enforced the practice of slavery in the city. All of them, even the allegedly "benevolent" one were part of the slave-owning rulers of the city.

Assuming she gave him enough troops to continue to hold the city, my main issue with that is, "Is this best for Meereen?" The man commanded a mercernary army with some other mercenaries, who promptly ended up dead when he switched sides and joined Dany's side. He does this mostly out of some sort of romantic crush for her. Will he continue to do so when she broke his heart? Will he actually try to rule the city fairly? Will he even know how? Or will it fall into more war and ruin?

As we'll never know either way, the point is moot. It can't be used as a criticism of Daenerys' behaviour because we don't know the outcome, but the intent was benevolent not the sort of intent that leads to burning down a city in a fit of pique.

Daario could be the best damn governor in the world for all we know. (God knows all the supposedly intelligent and capable people turned out fucking stupid, and his closest Westerosi equivalent, Bronn, got made Master of Coin)

[Solauren]

It's also entirely possible that R + L sent some kind of communication to her father explaining the situtation (Rhaegar wouldn't really have needed to), and someone intercepted it.

Well, her father was already dead (which also started the war), and they not only did tell Ned, but he was actually there for the really critical part (ie: Tower of Joy), so I personally think that L + R did as much as they could to try to put out the dumpster fire their teenage love started before they died young in it.

I meant as in

"Hang on, I need to leave Daddy a note that I'm running off to marry the Prince", left it on her bed or with the Maester, and between there and her father, the letter disappeared.

[Darth Yan]

Uh she was fairly random with barristans death and the crucified maesters. She also abandoned Meereen to chaos (and leaving your boytoy doesn’t count)

"She" was random with Barristan's death?

He was killed by rebels opposed to her rule, and it's only "her fault" in as much as she tries to move too quickly in reforming the Mereen away from reliance on slavery without the ruthlessness towards the slaveholders that would actually require (her problem was that she didn't burninate enough people to cow the former power structure the first time around).

Also, the Masters of Mereen, not Maesters, that's a different thing in GoT, were the slave-owning ruling classes and her crucifixion of 163 of them was a 1:1 punishment of their crucifixion of 163 slave children in what they hoped would be a sufficient display of ruthlessness towards people she was known to care about to deter her from invading.

It wasn't randomly enacted, and the people upon whom it was enacted were the people who benefited from, exploited, and enforced the practice of slavery in the city. All of them, even the allegedly "benevolent" one were part of the slave-owning rulers of the city.

Assuming she gave him enough troops to continue to hold the city, my main issue with that is, "Is this best for Meereen?" The man commanded a mercernary army with some other mercenaries, who promptly ended up dead when he switched sides and joined Dany's side. He does this mostly out of some sort of romantic crush for her. Will he continue to do so when she broke his heart? Will he actually try to rule the city fairly? Will he even know how? Or will it fall into more war and ruin?

As we'll never know either way, the point is moot. It can't be used as a criticism of Daenerys' behaviour because we don't know the outcome, but the intent was benevolent not the sort of intent that leads to burning down a city in a fit of pique.

Daario could be the best damn governor in the world for all we know. (God knows all the supposedly intelligent and capable people turned out fucking stupid, and his closest Westerosi equivalent, Bronn, got made Master of Coin)

Doesn’t she just pick someone at random for Barristans death not the guy who actually did it?

She also has a tendency to get pissy when people reject her, and was lobbying to conquer Westeros (which she had no real claim to) before the assassin tried to kill her. She has a very simple “if you oppose me you die” mentality that Jon and others don’t have

[The Romulan Republic]

Did she just leave her "boytoy" (who is an experienced military commander), or did she leave him with a substantial garrison to keep the peace and ward off any neighbors who might be tempted to try a land grab with her gone?

Assuming she gave him enough troops to continue to hold the city, my main issue with that is, "Is this best for Meereen?" The man commanded a mercernary army with some other mercenaries, who promptly ended up dead when he switched sides and joined Dany's side. He does this mostly out of some sort of romantic crush for her. Will he continue to do so when she broke his heart? Will he actually try to rule the city fairly? Will he even know how? Or will it fall into more war and ruin?

Or will it turn out that Meereen is now under (looks up character's name) Daario's iron fisted rule, being fed grapes by the newly reconstituted slaves that Dany made into policy? Or will it turn out that Daario was so unpopular that he lost his head and Slaver's Bay is even worse?

One of the many things the series' ending should have followed up on but didn't. I remain deeply conflicted on whether GoT needs to be stricken from the airwaves, rebooted, or just given a sequel series to tie up all the loose ends in a way that makes sense.

But I feel like Danny is kind of damned if she does, damned if she doesn't here. If she remains in Meereen, or retains control over it, she's an imperialist who only cares about power. If she leaves it, then she's abandoning it because she's an imperialist who only cares about power. She could have not invaded it in the first place, but, you know, fuck slavers.

[Raw Shark]

I meant as in

"Hang on, I need to leave Daddy a note that I'm running off to marry the Prince", left it on her bed or with the Maester, and between there and her father, the letter disappeared.

Well, again, teenagers. Nobody can be accused of great strategy here.

[Vendetta]

Doesn’t she just pick someone at random for Barristans death not the guy who actually did it?

Given that the people who did it were anonymous masked terrorists who were by default criminals who would be executed in literally any city on Planetos for just being part of a rebellion, one more line on the rap sheet doesn't mean much now does it.

She also has a tendency to get pissy when people reject her, and was lobbying to conquer Westeros (which she had no real claim to) before the assassin tried to kill her. She has a very simple “if you oppose me you die” mentality that Jon and others don’t have

Again, there's no logical path between "get pissy" and "burn down half a city". And she was lobbying to conquer Westeros, just like half a dozen other characters who were not presented as fantasy sky hitler. None of these things are unique to Daenerys and none of them draw a logical path to where her character ends up, because the writers were incompetent and didn't know that was what you're supposed to do.

Jon does, in fact, execute a number of people, including a child, for opposing him in the mutiny at Castle Black. Killing people who oppose you when they take up arms or incite others to do so is how the world works in Game of Thrones, it's the whole reason any of the the events of the series happen.

[Solauren]

I meant as in

"Hang on, I need to leave Daddy a note that I'm running off to marry the Prince", left it on her bed or with the Maester, and between there and her father, the letter disappeared.

Well, again, teenagers. Nobody can be accused of great strategy here.

I've seen theories that the Maester of Winterfell was part of a Anti-Targeryon conspiracy in the Maesters, who intercepted and destroyed the communication.

[The Romulan Republic]

I meant as in

"Hang on, I need to leave Daddy a note that I'm running off to marry the Prince", left it on her bed or with the Maester, and between there and her father, the letter disappeared.

Well, again, teenagers. Nobody can be accused of great strategy here.

I've seen theories that the Maester of Winterfell was part of a Anti-Targeryon conspiracy in the Maesters, who intercepted and destroyed the communication.

Or just plain old bad luck or incompetence.

Rhaegar's plan/implied plan wasn't awful, on paper. Marry Lyanna. Have Prince Who Was Promised. Defeat Robert's Rebellion (or avert/weaken it via a message, though that's unproven). Probably coup his father after that, which he could probably do with most of the Kingsguard apparently personally loyal to him. Rule as a just king (by all accounts, Rhaegar was a kind and charismatic king), while preparing for the Others.

Honestly, if Aerys wasn't a pyromaniac paranoid sadist, the whole matter could probably have been resolved via diplomatic channels, or failing that, trial by combat, either by Rhaegar himself (who was reportedly no slouch in combat, even if he lost to Robert), or via having Arthur Dayne (who was loyal to him) stand in for him against whichever poor bastard the Starks sent into the ring to die.

[FaxModem1]

Did she just leave her "boytoy" (who is an experienced military commander), or did she leave him with a substantial garrison to keep the peace and ward off any neighbors who might be tempted to try a land grab with her gone?

Assuming she gave him enough troops to continue to hold the city, my main issue with that is, "Is this best for Meereen?" The man commanded a mercernary army with some other mercenaries, who promptly ended up dead when he switched sides and joined Dany's side. He does this mostly out of some sort of romantic crush for her. Will he continue to do so when she broke his heart? Will he actually try to rule the city fairly? Will he even know how? Or will it fall into more war and ruin?

Or will it turn out that Meereen is now under (looks up character's name) Daario's iron fisted rule, being fed grapes by the newly reconstituted slaves that Dany made into policy? Or will it turn out that Daario was so unpopular that he lost his head and Slaver's Bay is even worse?

One of the many things the series' ending should have followed up on but didn't. I remain deeply conflicted on whether GoT needs to be stricken from the airwaves, rebooted, or just given a sequel series to tie up all the loose ends in a way that makes sense.

But I feel like Danny is kind of damned if she does, damned if she doesn't here. If she remains in Meereen, or retains control over it, she's an imperialist who only cares about power. If she leaves it, then she's abandoning it because she's an imperialist who only cares about power. She could have not invaded it in the first place, but, you know, fuck slavers.

I think that's an inherent issue with Dany's storyline. If she's supposed to be following a liberator and messiah narrative, which for most of the series, they're somewhat showing via her war on slavery, they have to reconcile that with the fact that she leaves that fight because she wants Westeros more than she wants to end slavery. After all, the slave cities around Meereen, like Yunkai, still exist, with hundreds, if not thousands still in bondage. Unless George RR Martin is going to have Dany wipe out every city with her dragons or the Dothraki, it's going to be a job half-finished. The show tries to paint it as Dany taking the wind out of their sails by majorly destroying their army, stealing their navy, and making Meereen a new major city of trade by being free. But, Dany is still leaving the city to it's own devices while she takes Westeros.

You can't have her as the Savior, and as someone who abandons things when a greater prize comes on the horizon. And I think that's an issue that needed to be fixed with her storyline if they wanted to get anywhere. Or they needed to be more honest with presentation if part of Dany's storyline was that she wanted to help people, but cares more about herself first.