Who Should win the Iron Throne?

edited August 2014 in Game Of Thrones

I would under normal circumstances say Daenerys Targaryen, but she is unfortantly barren, so I believe the Throne should go to Stannis. Who do you guys think should win the throne?

«1

Comments

  • I SHOULD!

    I CALL DIBS FOR THE IRON THRONE!!!

    I've never watched or read GoT, what is the iron throne?

  • Well it is in the Name a "iron Throne" :p

  • I still want it! GIVE ME THE IRON THRONE!!!

    Or give it to Hodor.

  • i could get behind that

  • I support Stannis, because the Throne is rightfully his.

    #StannisForIronThrone

  • Everyone's gonna say Hodor, but I personally think that no one should sit the Iron Throne. I want Drogon to destroy it! >:D

  • Definitely Stannis

  • This guy.

    Alt text

  • Anyone, literally ANYONE but daenerys. I cant stand her.

    I'm not sure who will win but im sure a tyell will marry whoever does

  • Jon Snow or Tyrion :P

  • I don't care, just get the Lannisters away from it.

  • edited August 2014

    No one. It should be turned into plough shares by the Faith. Failing that, Lord Protector Bronn of the Blackwater.

  • Stannis! Stannis! STANNIS!

  • The three headed dragon will sit on the throne, jon, dany, and aegon

  • I think Tyrion is a targaryen. :P

  • Would be interesting if he was

  • Personally, I kind of want to see the Iron Throne be melted down by Daenerys' dragons and the steel be made into swords and other weapons to defend Westeros from the White Walkers/Others/etc.

    Too many people have died for the Iron Throne.

  • edited August 2014

    All hail Stannis, the warrior of Light! His enemies will bend the knee or he'll destroy them!

    Alt text

  • I hope either Vicatrian or Asha razes King's Landing and makes the Seastone Throne the king's throne.

  • The word "should" has no place in determining who gets the iron throne. The iron throne was forged through war and conquest by someone who wasn't even a native of Westeros. The person who gets the throne is the person who will take it for themselves. All other considerations: titles, claims, inheritance, and birthright mean nothing. Power makes a king.

    That being said, I'm actually hoping that no one gets the iron throne at the end. Just have all 7 kingdoms split back up into their own separate entities, each ruled by their own warden.

  • No one. There should be an oligarchy with Tyrion, Daenarys and Jon as the heads.

  • Ser Pounce, and Hot Pie as Hand of the King

  • You want too much, Dome. Before Aegon's Conquest, all kingdoms were vying for supremacy over one another, bringing wars and instability to the realms involved. Aegon went on and conquered/subjugated them, effectively sparing them of infighting for decades to come, and even then the war was instigated by the clergy against Maegor the Cruel, not by the Lords Paramount themselves.

  • If Aegon VI is indeed Targaryen, he should be the king as a son of the late Prince Rhaegar.

  • I really like that idea.

  • And things are so peaceful now? There will always be conflict between the kingdoms and within the kingdoms regardless of whether they call themselves many or one. They're already operating more-or-less autonomously, with their own armies and navies rivaling or surpassing those of the capital. Unless there's an active threat in place to keep them all in line (i.e. dragons, the white walkers, etc), it's only a matter of time before they start wondering why they have to bend to the will of some stranger on a metal chair.

  • I can understand Tyrion, he's pretty much a natural choice. I can even kind of understand Daenerys, but not Jon.

    Why is Jon Snow a good choice to be at the helm of this so-called oligarchy?

  • Just because things aren't so peaceful, it doesn't mean they should turn into 7 separate kingdoms which would mean they would fight each other for dominance leading to pretty much endless conflicts. It is better to have a strong king that would bring them all in line and have only a small chance of conflict during his reign, than have 7 separate entities that are bound to have conflicts until one defeats the other.

    Well, that's only because the dragons went extinct and there were no strong kings (the last one was presumably Rhaegar, but he effectively doomed himself by triggering a chain reaction that caused his dynasty's downfall) for a long time.

  • Well who's gonna fight? The Dornish and the Reach might clash a bit as they do now but the Martells aren't strong enough to do much and the Tyrells know better than to try to take over the only kingdom that even Aegon never took. The North already just want freedom (King in the North!) and they have no reason to bother anybody after they get it (unless the Boltons are still in charge by then but fuck that noise). I don't know too much about the Vale and the Riverlands, but they don't seem that ambitious to me. The only kingdom that might fuck stuff up is the Westerlands and that's because the Lannisters are a bunch of cunts. But their wealth is dried up now and they'll all be dead soon aside from Tyrion so that's fine. Also, I guess the Ironborn if they count, but they're going to fuck stuff up regardless so nothing's changed.

  • All of the aforementioned obstacles wouldn't stop them from fighting. Aegon has build his kingdom through conquest, so why not try and repeat this feat?

    The North and the Vale are the least possible candidates to be involved in conflicts, but let's not forget that Roose Bolton and his crazy bastard don't command the loyalty of most of their subjects, which might cause the infighting in the North (the books pretty much already lead to that). Don't know about the Vale, though, it is possible that the weak boy Robert Arryn would get overthrown, unless he dies before reaching maturity.

  • You leave 7 kids alone in a room and they're going to be shoving at each other a bunch. You leave 7 kids in a room with one toy to play with and you will have a massacre on your hands. That's what's happening now.

    The problem with establishing a single iron throne is that it establishes a position of dominance over all of the other kingdoms. And that makes it very tempting for someone to try and seize that for themselves. For someone who wants to rule over Westeros, it is much more tempting to try and take over one capital as opposed to six different ones. With Westeros divided into seven different kingdoms, you'll get little bits of conflict here and there, but you won't ever get to the point where half of Westeros is pitted against the other half in vying for the central seat of power because there would be no central seat of power.

  • Ygritte mentioned something about him being a cunning linguist. Good with his tongue.

  • With Westeros divided into seven different kingdoms, you'll get little bits of conflict here and there, but you won't ever get to the point where half of Westeros is pitted against the other half in vying for the central seat of power because there would be no central seat of power.

    The seat of power can be established or re-established and, because of that, it is pretty much superficial. If there is no Iron Throne/no value to King's Landing, the Lords Paramount (or, by that time, independent Kings) will find another reason to fight for dominance. There won't be any major conflicts, yes, but who's to say that all the minor ones won't result in the same amount of deaths, destruction and grief?

  • So what? I haven't seen any indication of him being a good ruler, or at least one of the good rulers. Granted, I haven't seen any proof of him being a bad ruler, but that doesn't mean he is a good ruler.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.