“Real” magic starts working again soon after the eggs hatch, IIRC. That’s when Thoros discovers that his “red priest” powers are real, rather than the trickery they were before, and Melisandre’s spells all come after the hatching. Also, the obsidian candles that the Citadel holds start to work after that, as well. There is some speculation about the connection, but the circumstantial evidence is interesting, too.
Just to avoid any misunderstanding: I’m asking those questions because I’m actually interested and not because I’m trying to be antagonistic.
That was my impression as well – and that’s why I wonder, why I read so often the notion that Dany is rightfully the ruler of Westeros. If might decides the rightfulness, everyone who has it, is it. But, as I said before, that is a highly fragile foundation for a stable rule. It’s closer to the dictatorship-model of legitimization than monarchy.
I wonder why? [hyperbolic example] Consider a scenario, where the Tenno of Japan came with a fleet to Europe a thousand years ago and the natives would have thought: “Well, he is the son of the Sun Goddess and Japanese, while, lets face it, we are just Gaijin or so he says, so he might have a legitimate claim to rule us all.” Wouldn’t it rather have been: “Goddess? What Goddess? Burn the funny looking heathen!”
Why should people with their very own beliefs, traditions and ingrained hierarchies be awed by the ancestry of a bunch of foreigners, who, by the way, do their best (or worst) to f- them over?
I remenber that. But doesn’t this point of view reduce real magic to fire-related magic? The ice zombies were walking around prior to those events and they neither seem to be creatures of the natural realm nor associated with fire in any way.
The Targaryens conquered Westeros because they had dragons. To a large degree, they continbued to rule Westeros after the dragons died because they were descended from people who once had dragons.
Also, don’t underestimate the power of tradition and inertia in maintaining the status quo. Plenty of real-world forms of government have continued for centuries past their due date solely because “we’ve always done things this way.” Remember, there was no “Seven Kingdoms” before Aegon the conquerer. To many people, Targaryens=Westeros.
IMO, it comes down to the question that Varys posed to Tyrion. Which man is the most powerful, the lord, the septon, or the soldier. (Do I have that right?)
The ruler is the one that can convince everybody else that he should be ruler. Either by religion, or by heredity, or by killing his opponents.
Regarding Dany as good…
I consider her a good guy. She was raised in such a manner that being good is almost impossible. Viserys is the more likely product of your basic mad-king is your father & your entire family is slaughtered during a bloody rebellion scenario. Dany, while basically being raised by her brother, and come into womanhood with Drogo, has found a much different moral center than should be expected. At this point in the story shes 16? Freeing the slaves and punishing the slavers seems like the acts of a good leader. Deciding to stay and rule the former Slaver cities instead of rushing back to Westeros also seems like a good thing to do.
From her perspective, returning to Westeros isn’t only about kicking a corrupt king (Robert, but also the Lannister-controlled kids) off the throne. Her desire to invade Westeros has another ‘good’ motive…to avenge the deaths of her entire family. Now I guess you can argue if vengance (justice?) is good or not. And maybe she’s not the ‘most pure good’ of the characters…but I’ve got to put her among the top if I’m listing good characters.
On another note…Jaime strangling Cersi with his golden hand sounds so awesome.
Tywin would have done it in a heartbeat. If nothing else, he was ruthlessly practical. Whether Dany had any intentions of returning to Westeros or not is immaterial; as long as she is alive, the Baratheon hold on the throne is in danger. Her children could potentially try to lay claim to the throne even if she herself does not. First rule of a usurping king: kill all other people who have an equal or better claim to the throne you’re sitting on.
No, John Arryn plunged the kingdom into war, when he refused to hand over Robert and Ned to Aerys for execution and raised the Arryn bannermen in revolt.
King Aerys misjudged just how far he could push his lords. The blame for the war falls on his shoulders, not on Robert Baratheon’s.
I thought the first rule was not to talk about killing the other claimants. 
Nah, that’s the second rule. 
Yeah, the first rule is “Never put your own money into the revolution.”
But the second rule is “NEVER PUT YOUR OWN MONEY INTO THE REVOLUTION!!!”
Obviously someone has to rewrite and clarify the rules of usurpation.
I don’t know why Maggie the Frog’s line about Cersie’s brother wrapping his hands around her neck is being taken literally. The preceding line says she’ll drown in her tears. I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider the whole prophecy a metaphore.
Regarding Dany, I think she’s good. At least as good as could be reasonably expected. She was a little too cool with the way Drogo took out Viserys, but she’s still ultimately a “good guy.” However, if provoked, she could probably be an evil bitch.
Maybe Tyrion will sit the Iron Throne and his Hand will kill Cersei. 
I mostly agree with you*, tradition is a reason in itself. But to give my answer the correct perspective let me first cite Snarky_Kong:
When I read the last book, I had the impression that one of the following themes would not just be the already expressed question how to become ruler but the more fundamental one: why?
Maybe I give Martin too much credit, but I think he intentionally didn’t let any of his characters give a good answer verbally to the question of the legitimacy of power and authority.
It rather seems to be a constant question in the background and the actions of the different rulers we have seen so far seem to be weighted by their inherent answer to this question.
I think Tyrion came very close to rest his “how to rule?” on a “why do I rule?” that went beyond and might even have contradicted the so often witnessed “it’s good for me/the family” reasoning.
Dany seems to be headed toward a similar realisation and so does John at the wall (though I have to admit I can’t stand both characters but this is due to the far too blatantly obvious divine intervention [the author] present in their stories).
They all have a “protect and serve” side to them which points toward a rule based on responsibility and consent not dominance.
- It’d be too off-topic to ask you to name all those plenty forms of governments that were outdated for centuries before they were abandoned, though I find this statement .. questionable.
Yes, I forgot it was actually Arryn who raised his banners first. And yes Aerys was an insane king who deserved to be overthrown. I just wonder - if Rhaegar hadn’t kidnapped Lyanna, Aerys might have possibly lived out his reign. He was a bad king, but a lot of his predecessors were as well. The nobles more or less tolerated them, as they tolerated Aerys for a while.
I do recall Rhaegar promising Jaime that things would change when he returned (I don’t remember where he was going or at what point he said this - it must have been before he kidnapped Lyanna?).
Drowning in tears is likely going to be “shitloads of crying because her two remaining kids die”. The hands, well, we’ll see, but Jaime’s golden hand gives one a loophole against “Jaime one-hand can’t do it”, so I’m totally guessing it’ll be him.
-Joe
When Catelyn travels south to meet with Renly, he essentially puts forth a “might makes right”-type argument, that the 80,000 soldiers under his banners gives him all the legitimacy he needs.
And this answer didn’t sway anyone who wasn’t already paid. 
I think this is a good example that the answer needs to be more sophisticated in times of crisis to generate support and create consent beyond your friends and purse.
Hodor was older than I expected, too. I think in the first book they say that Hodor is Old Nan’s great-grandson, or possibly her great-great-grandson. Old Nan is really old.
I need to get all of these books on Kindle so I can search them.
Absolutely. Or if Tywin hadn’t resigned as Hand; I suspect he would have found a way to finesse that rather awkward situation.
He said that just before riding off to confront Robert’s forces at the Trident, so well after the “kidnapping.” If Rhaegar HAD defeated Robert there, I wonder how things would have turned out? Certainly it seems that he would have made a better king than Aerys (which would not be difficult) or Robert.