Lionel Hutz
Stylish Dinosaur
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2017
- Messages
- 10,603
- Reaction score
- 8,231
Chill? Yeah, right, I'm worked up about it. If you can't post what you mean it's not on me and expect to get corrected.
we all know better
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Chill? Yeah, right, I'm worked up about it. If you can't post what you mean it's not on me and expect to get corrected.
That's rich. Still not my fault if you cannot express yourself properly.
Now **** off.
I still don't get the whole "birthright" claim that Dany has to the throne. Last I remember, her whole family was killed and specifically deposed from the throne. How does she still get to claim birthright? Her family had only ruled for like 300 years.
So I agree with your first statement. Dany's claim to the throne should be the same as anyone else's--she would get it simply because she killed enough people to convince everyone else that they should let her be queen.
I dunno about that--Robert is referred to as the usurper. That word implies illegality or illegitimacy. If you believe in bloodlines/birthright, then that trumps anything else. We are also given to believe that many in westeros agree with this--they wanted to go about their lives so they accepted Robert's rule, but they would support a true targ monarch.
The targs united the 7 kingdoms, so if you are going to go with bloodline stuff, I suppose you can make an argument that 300 years doesn't matter as they essentially created a new throne. There was no one else before them.
Robert failed to end the bloodline, so the claim must still exist (that's why he was so dedicated to making sure they were all gone even if they were just babies).
I dunno about that--Robert is referred to as the usurper. That word implies illegality or illegitimacy. If you believe in bloodlines/birthright, then that trumps anything else. We are also given to believe that many in westeros agree with this--they wanted to go about their lives so they accepted Robert's rule, but they would support a true targ monarch.
The targs united the 7 kingdoms, so if you are going to go with bloodline stuff, I suppose you can make an argument that 300 years doesn't matter as they essentially created a new throne. There was no one else before them.
Robert failed to end the bloodline, so the claim must still exist (that's why he was so dedicated to making sure they were all gone even if they were just babies).
What was the weapon Arya wanted Gendry to make? My guess is some sort of walking cain sword, or something else. It's definitely something, that I'm certain of.
There's dragons, resurrecting people, flame swords, etc. Don't overthink it.I'm a bit fuzzy about what Gendry was making during the forging scene---was he supposed to be making arrowheads by melting obsidian? Because I don't think it works that way.
Otherwise, what else would they do with arrow heads? Don't think they work very well against zombies.