It just dawned on me, but the Tarlys already were oathbreakers. They broke an oath to House Tyrell, which was supporting Dany, to support Cersei's claim to the throne. So they not only were oathbreakers. They were traitors.
That's not clear. They had multiple oaths--both to Highgarden as well as the Crown. Highgarden supporting a rebel probably doesn't oblige the Tarlys to break their oath to the Crown.
LOL. You are reaching now. So they have multiple oaths to different sides so they aren't oathbreakers. That's very convenient. That definition makes oathbreaking absolute and impossible at the same time. Like I said, oathbreaking happens at the drop of a hat in this series. You want it both ways now to support your argument.
That's hardly reaching. The Crown is the highest loyalty. Every ruler demands that. The paramount house in their region is their secondary oath. This was common in our world to, in feudal times. A count may owe allegiance to his duke, but not over his king or queen. If the duke then supports a rebel cause, the count's loyalty is not to join the duke in revolt (though, obviously, he could if he also supports the revolt) but to the monarch. They didn't have "oaths to multiple sides." They had oaths to two parties, until one party (Highgarden) broke their oath (to the Crown). At that point, the Tarlys ethically (by the standards of that world, but also by ours in a different era) only had an oath to the Crown.
You are picking what suits you at this point. They have conflicting oaths. The Tarlys had oaths to the Targeryans, then the Baratheons, then the Lannisters, but they also had one to the Tyrells. You first say they are oathbreakers if they go with Dany, then the oaths are unclear, now you say their oath is to the crown first. Your argument is as changeable as the Tarleys' oath. DRACARYS!
I explained how they don't. You're welcome to provide some counter-logic, but just saying "No, they're conflicting" isn't really an argument. And yes, oaths to rulers that were vanquished and replaced have gone by the wayside. That's never been considered "oath-breaking"--in that world, or ours. Oath-breaking involves breaking faith with a (lawful) lord or monarch that still exists as lord or monarch. Once the Targaryens were destroyed, no one owed them fealty. The first and third things are consistent. They have an oath to the Crown first, which is why they'd be oath-breakers if they joined Dany. The second thing, it being unclear, I realized was wrong as I worked through the logic in my post. It isn't unclear--they had two oaths, but one superceded the other. If keeping oaths was important, they correctly prioritized their oath to the Crown, as that's always the highest loyalty demanded.
I have no doubt Ice and Fire will end differently than Game of Thrones, with the living vs the wights being the primary storyline and given much more emphasis than it's given in the show. Martin may be verbose on paper, but he doesn't waste words. He's referenced the legend of Azor Ahai and Nissa Nissa too many times, for it not to play out in the final two books. Who represents those characters will be fun to find out, but more importantly, I think it's the promise or fore-warning that ultimately the final game of thrones showdown will be between the new Azor Ahai vs wightwalkers or light vs darkness or fire vs ice - as the book saga is named. I get why the show isn't choosing to go that path, as from a production stand point it's cost prohibitive to carry out over several episodes or a full season. Both Martin and the showrunners say the book/show endings are bittersweet, but I think they'll be bittersweet for different reasons. For Martin and books, the Azor Ahai legend may be foretelling that Jon Snow will have to sacrifice his love or wife - Dany - in order to defeat the whitewalkers. There doesn't have to be betrayal or resentment between Dany and Jon Snow for this to happen, and she may even embrace or bless her sacrifice. It could be a real tearjerker. Obviously, that's not really the situation in the show, as there's likely no remaining love between them at this point, and Dany is no longer a protagonist in the story and probably going to be portrayed as an enemy for the viewers to root against. So, some other protagonist will likely have to be sacrificed to make it bittersweet. I'd guess Jon or Tyrion. Whoever is left, will be king and grant the North their independence. Maybe Jon will be king and grant the North their sovereignty, but must stay in Kings Landing as king of six kingdoms to keep the deal in place. And that would be bittersweet for Jon, since he loves his snow. I'm not sure what part Bran plays in all this. Maybe he goes back to the cave, melds into that tree and is the 3 eyed raven. That's a somewhat sad ending for the little boy who wanted to be a knight so badly. Aria may stay with Jon and be his silent hand who does the dirty work while Davos is the hand for show. Brienne is named to the Kingsguard. Sansa runs the North. I guess that's everyone who is left.
I've been thinking that Azor Ahai may not be a person at all, but rather the Night's Watch. In their vow, they say things like: "I am the sword in the darkness" "I am the fire that burns against the cold" "I am the light that brings the dawn" All sentiments that wouldn't be out of place with the Azor Ahai legend. Plus, as part of joining the Watch, all the men forsake taking wives. That may be the symbolic Nissa Nissa sacrifice.
As soon as Danny went bonkers and started destroying the capitol city i started thinking about what happens next. Whats the next move of any tyrant? To dispach anybody who has a claim to the throne and could become a threat to your rule. Sinse there is only one episode left in the whole series, I'm pretty darn sure danny is going to kill Jon and maybe gendry too in it for treason or some other made up offence. It would be cool if tyrion becomes the mad queen killer. That would be poetic justice.
Who knows!! Maybe they decide that all this king and queen stuff is very barbaric and lame so instead they elect their next ruler by popular vote! Wouldn't that be nice! It being GRRM'S lifes work i can just assume that all of the "good guys" die and the person who sits on the throne is a flawed ruler at best.
I could see that happening. That could be concitered a good ending for places like Dorn or the Iron islands that don't get much reward for their allegiance to the throne.
And for the North. It would be a bittersweet thing for Sansa if she gets her independent North but Jon dies (and I'm certain he will, whether Dany kills him or he kills Dany and then is killed in turn).
I still think it would have been way more bad ass if Jon found out he was a Targaryen when Dany turns evil and tries to burn him with her dragon like she did with Varys and it doesn't do anything to him.
What a breathe of fresh air. A thread where the bones guy doesn’t come in and yell at everyone about how they are wrong and he knows way more about GOT than everybody else because he watched some movie with a dragon in it while in community college!