Who will be the final King and Queen?

[Toe]

Who will be the final King and Queen at the conclusion of the series?

Those with the best blood are likely in descending order:

Dany

Stannis

Shireen

Doran

Arianne

Quentyn

There are of course various complication like the question of female inheritance, Jon Snow's parents and if they were married, and the possibility of unknown persons with better claims. Tommen and Myrcella are obviously highly ranked if the charge of incest is not accepted.

Whoever has the real power and ascends the throne is most likely to try to marry one of these persons if not already on the list. This since the right blood is an extremely important issue for gaining the support of the nobility whose very existence depends on the importance of having the right blood.

My current guess is that when all is said and done the two Mary Sues will sit on the thrones. That is Dany and Jon. Yes, I know that this is so predictable. Still, they not unlikely have the best blood, Dany will in a few years have the best weapons in the world, and Jon seems prophesied for something big by his big wolf and there is, of course, Dany's prophecy of "A blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice, and filled the air with sweetness." which combine nicely with "three mounts must you ride... one to bed and one to dread and one to love...".

[Lord Varys]

Dany and/or Jon, I guess (if R+L=J is correct, of course). But at least one of those could very well die.

Shireen would be fun, I think, but it is unlikely that she is going to have a Consort by then. If she is nevertheless married/betrothed to someone, I'd strongly suggest Davos' son Devan. He is already Stannis' squire, and a very likely choice for a possible husband of Shireen. Especially as his father is now Hand of the King and Lord of the Rainwood.

Quentyn could end up in the mess as Consort to Dany (and if Jon is also the King Consort to Queen Daenerys - i.e. if they are sharing their rule), he might still be there, even if Dany should die and Jon survive. But they had to take some woman into the royal polygamy, or things would become strange.

[Ms Lannister]

Given Cersei's prophecy about seeing her children in shrouds, I think you could discount Tommen and Myrcella. I personally don't see Stannis either. I think he will die fighting the Others, doing something glorious that wins him great renown. Shireen, to me, is an outsider for the throne, though I could see her and Dany becoming good friends and allies.

Dany and Jon seem so obvious, and GRRM rarely does obvious, yet I have to agree that, at the moment, they probably have the best chance at the end, though I wouldn't discount someone from Dorne (not sure who yet).

[1000 days Anne]

Dany and Jon WON'T be.

Maybe Jaime Lannister. Or Gendry.

[Rockroi]

Believe it or not, this is a really interesting question.

Martin has stated that while the ending (he has planned) will be one where good triumphs over evil, it will be "bittersweet." For me, I cannot fathom a scenario that does not and with AT LEAST Jon or Dany on the Throne, even for a brief period of time. I think that Dany dies saving the realm, on Drogon, just burning a trail of white-blue death on the Others, finally succumbing to wounds or some catastrophe. I think by THAT point, the Wall will have fallen, thus releasing Jon from his vows, and freeing him from taking the Throne in his own right. I see him naming Sansa his heir should he die childless, but he probably has a kid (as weird as this sounds, maybe with Sansa).

Therefore my final answer: Dany invades; Jon discovers he is a Targ; Tommen dies childless; Wall falls, Jon retreats South, Dany comes up North. The two have wild, incredible Wolf-Dragon sex; he loves her, she loves him; Dany dies defending the North, Jon finishes off the Others; Jon returns to be crowned King, gets an heir. Or not.

[Alexia]

I can see Dany on the throne for a brief period of time. I'm not sure if she'll end up holding it though for a number of reasons - she's supposed to be a hero out of prophecy who will defend against the Others, for one. I think there is an excellent chance that she will die in the battle against them.

Despicable as he may be, I'd rather see Jaime on the throne than Jon (although I'm fairly sure Jaime won't get it). Jaime at least is an interesting, polarizing character who can arouse strong debate and emotions in both detractors and supporters. Jon is just...dull. And if the Wall falls, that seems to reinforce the need for the Night's Watch - not end it! Plus, there is no mention of swearing to the Wall in the vows, just to the Night's Watch. There's also no exit clause or expiration date...the watch ends at his death, not when the Wall falls.

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

I'm going to cast a vote for the Lady Shireen as the queen at the end of the series - perhaps alongside Trystane Martell?

[Bastet]

I, too, have always had a sense of Dany and Jon being the final winners. However, Maybe GRRM will read this and decide otherwise!

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Martin has stated that while the ending (he has planned) will be one where good triumphs over evil, it will be "bittersweet."

I'm hoping this means that Dany will inherit the throne with 1 or more royal consorts (could be 1 male and 1 female but probably will be 2 males). The bittersweet part will be that Mirri Maz Durr's prophecy is true, so that she will die childless and the Targ line will come to an end. Also her 3 dragons will die with her or in the battle, without leaving eggs.

Adding to the bittersweet, I expect most of the Starks will die, imo Bran will die fighting others, Arya and Sansa will die while killing off various villans (I'm thinking Sansa will kill LF and then go mad, while Arya will assassinate Roose Bolton and Walder Frey) and Rickon will inherit Winterfell.

Btw, I'm assuming that either R+L != J OR, that even if R+L=J that Jon will keep his vows and not do anything with regard to the crown. Honestly I think that staying as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch would make Jon a much more interesting character.

(Also D+J = :stillsick: :thumbsdown: )

[The_BlauerDragon]

Personally, I think it will come down to King Littlefinger and Queen Margeary.

[Fez]

My theory is that it ends with the 7 kingdoms actually being 7 kingdoms again. I always got the sense that the idea of one king actually died with the Targs only no one realized it for a while. None of the great lords would accept what they consider a peer being their lord, and while Dany as an "outsider" (i.e. a Targ) might be accepted, I think she dies near the end. The Others will be defeated, but Westeros will be broken (one could argue it already is) and revert to the way it was before the Conquest.

[Bronn55]

Myrcella doesn't have to die because of Cersei's prophecy. Her face is disfigured now, so it figures she would wear a shroud while in public, especially since she used to be young and pretty. I see Dany ruling alongside Bran.

[Toe]

Jon is just...dull. And if the Wall falls, that seems to reinforce the need for the Night's Watch - not end it! Plus, there is no mention of swearing to the Wall in the vows, just to the Night's Watch. There's also no exit clause or expiration date...the watch ends at his death, not when the Wall falls.

If the Others are conclusively defeated, and the magical Wall gone, then the only worry is the Wildlings. However, it seems unlikely that the situation here will return to its original status. The Wall likely worked as a barrier in both ways, preventing conquest and settlement of the militarily weak and technologically backwards Wildlings by forces from the South. Many Wildlings will likely also have been killed or may prefer to settle south of the former Wall.

As such, there may be little need for a NW. A shadow of its former roll may be taken of by the local nobility which may be augmented by a new Wildling nobility. If so, then the NW can be dissolved in which case the oaths would no longer apply. The Faith and the nobility would have little reason to object. Prisoner may instead be sent to work in mines or something similar.

[Toe]

My theory is that it ends with the 7 kingdoms actually being 7 kingdoms again. I always got the sense that the idea of one king actually died with the Targs only no one realized it for a while. None of the great lords would accept what they consider a peer being their lord, and while Dany as an "outsider" (i.e. a Targ) might be accepted, I think she dies near the end. The Others will be defeated, but Westeros will be broken (one could argue it already is) and revert to the way it was before the Conquest.

That would indeed be a bittersweet ending with the smallfolk now being assured of regular warfare between the Kingdoms. Also a surprise ending.

[Alexia]

If the Others are conclusively defeated, and the magical Wall gone, then the only worry is the Wildlings. However, it seems unlikely that the situation here will return to its original status. The Wall likely worked as a barrier in both ways, preventing conquest and settlement of the militarily weak and technologically backwards Wildlings by forces from the South. Many Wildlings will likely also have been killed or may prefer to settle south of the former Wall.

As such, there may be little need for a NW. A shadow of its former roll may be taken of by the local nobility which may be augmented by a new Wildling nobility. If so, then the NW can be dissolved in which case the oaths would no longer apply. The Faith and the nobility would have little reason to object. Prisoner may instead be sent to work in mines or something similar.

The Others last came south in force 8,000 years ago. In my book, 8,000 years of defeat is conclusive defeat. Yet the Wall still stands...they may have forgotten the reason it stands, but it still stands.

If the NW gets disbanded at the end of the series and Jon becomes king, then I hope the epilogue is set 8,000 years in the future where the last band of living humans are being attacked and eaten by Others right after they watch the Night's King (now a wight) mounting the Iron Throne.

[Blue Steel]

I can see Dany on the throne for a brief period of time. I'm not sure if she'll end up holding it though for a number of reasons - she's supposed to be a hero out of prophecy who will defend against the Others, for one. I think there is an excellent chance that she will die in the battle against them.

Despicable as he may be, I'd rather see Jaime on the throne than Jon (although I'm fairly sure Jaime won't get it). Jaime at least is an interesting, polarizing character who can arouse strong debate and emotions in both detractors and supporters. Jon is just...dull. And if the Wall falls, that seems to reinforce the need for the Night's Watch - not end it! Plus, there is no mention of swearing to the Wall in the vows, just to the Night's Watch. There's also no exit clause or expiration date...the watch ends at his death, not when the Wall falls.

I'm going to cast a vote for the Lady Shireen as the queen at the end of the series - perhaps alongside Trystane Martell?

I don't think Jon is dull. He's realistic. How many people do you know go around throwing children out of windows and how many do you know who usually try to do the right thing?

But it doesn't matter if the person is good or bad, as long as how their story is told is good. And Jon's story is really interesting.

As for the Night Watch, the Wall is going to come down. It has to. Otherwise the Others will never be a threat and the entire series will have been anticlimatic.

Without a wall, there won't be a central location for the Night Watch to guard.

[Lord Varys]

Building a huge Wall of Ice cutting the land apart is no victory, it is a 8,000 year long stand-off. The Wall itself is an embodiment of this stand-off. And when it is breached now, the Others will conquer all of Westeros. Unless they have a leader with the standing and the charisma to unite them.

The wildlings are the real victims of the Wall, as they were considered enemies, too, as they lived beyond the Wall (and the powers within the Seven Kingdoms did not consider the lands beyond the Wall their responsibility).

I can't but repeat it here. I want to see a conclusive victory in this series of a side. Or to use other words: A real resolution of this mess. I want to know why there is war between humanity and the Others, and I want this war to end forever (this has not to mean extermination of humanity/the Others; it can also mean mending the damage that caused the war originally). I certainly do not want an open end where this so-called War for Dawn is just a small skirmish in a conflict stretching over ages.

On Jon:

Alexia, I assume Jon still has the chance to become interesting, as he is no in a position where is no longer treated as a Gary Stu. He is now the Lord Commander (and cannot possibly rise even higher without being Rhaegar's son, and if he does, he will not before Dany arrives in Westeros), and has to rule. He is no longer going to be nice. Nor do I think we will see him making always the right decision. He is a politician now, and actually now one of the characters in the most interesting position.

[Alexia]

Alexia, I assume Jon still has the chance to become interesting, as he is no in a position where is no longer treated as a Gary Stu. He is now the Lord Commander (and cannot possibly rise even higher without being Rhaegar's son, and if he does, he will not before Dany arrives in Westeros), and has to rule. He is no longer going to be nice. Nor do I think we will see him making always the right decision. He is a politician now, and actually now one of the characters in the most interesting position.

Lord Varys, I really hope you are right. :) I agree that he is in one of the most interesting positions - my problem with him is the Gary Stu-ness. In particular, the fact that he continues to rise higher without doing anything to deserve it or even wanting it. And that the plot constantly wipes him clean of blame - take Ygritte, it couldn't leave an open question as to whether or not his arrow got her. Nope, he could tell by the fletching that it wasn't his. And his rise to Lord Commander - he couldn't pull together a group of sycophants and scheme to get it. He couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote. Yet he gets it anyway. :rolleyes: If he becomes king... :bang:

As for the 8,000 year long stand-off, I have to say that if whatever prehistoric creatures (that I don't even believe in) my prehistoric ancestors battled with 8,000 years ago suddenly return to attack us, there's been no stand-off but an epic victory on the part of said ancestors. :) I do feel sorry for the wildlings though.

[feardeathbywater]

The wildlings are the real victims of the Wall, as they were considered enemies, too, as they lived beyond the Wall (and the powers within the Seven Kingdoms did not consider the lands beyond the Wall their responsibility).

The question becomes, Why did they chose to stay north of the wall when it was built? Unless the Wildlings were exiled there, or someone decided (I can't think who would have had the authority back then) to prevent them from moving to the other side. To keep them as a buffer, perhaps. Until the Authoritative History of Westeros from the Dawn of Time makes an appearance we won't know what the story with the Wildlings is.

What we do know is that the Night's Watch has every reason to keep them on the opposite side of the Wall. Mance specifically refused to make any concessions to law and order in return for refuge. "Let us pass, and do whatever we want, and we won't knock the wall down" etc. Without submission to, well, civilization (such as it exists south of the Wall), they would absolutely be enemies to every man, woman and child in their path. To let them through the gate any other way than Stannis is doing would be equivalent to turning the Dothraki loose on Westeros (remember Jon's pondering this and resolving to stop it at any cost.)

It would be nice to hear what the Watch's policy is on Wildlings who are willing to civilize in return for passage south.

I can't but repeat it here. I want to see a conclusive victory in this series of a side. Or to use other words: A real resolution of this mess. I want to know why there is war between humanity and the Others, and I want this war to end forever (this has not to mean extermination of humanity/the Others; it can also mean mending the damage that caused the war originally). I certainly do not want an open end where this so-called War for Dawn is just a small skirmish in a conflict stretching over ages.

You and me both. Unfortunately, Melisandre's religion (which seems to have the most information about the original conflict -that we've heard, at least) describes it in just those terms. To the red priests, the conflict is endless.

[Zizoz]

If the wall is an impenetrable barrier to the Others, why have a Night's Watch at all?

Also, where do the Others come from? The North Pole?

The Wall was probably built where it was to minimize its length. The wildlings probably stayed beyond it because they didn't want to move and because the Others had been defeated. Also, the wildling population may have been greatly augmented by Nights' Watch deserters and others from Westeros who did not want to kneel to the King.

[Lord Varys]

On the wildlings:

They are, in my opinion, just men who lived wherever they lived when some dude built that huge Wall of Ice (and subsequently people on the warm side of the Wall said that whoever lived on the cold side of the Wall, could not cross it anymore). There is no textual evidence that no men lived north of the Wall when the Wall was built. And it also does not make much sense to assume that the Others wightified every single human being in their territory when the Wall was built. We don't even know if the Wall built during (maybe as a means to break up the Others in the south from their supplies), or after the Long Night (as a barrier to keep the Others out of 'the realms of men' should they ever become a threat again). I believe the latter, which is why I also believe that the Wall is no real tool to defeat the Others.

It is easily possible that even during the Long Night humans still lived up there in the uttermost cold. They still do now, and despite the fact that they share a huge prison with the Others and wights.

On the wildlings and civilization:

Well, actually, if people ask me what this whole series is about, I tend to say it is GRRM manifest against feudalism ;-). The 'civilization' of Westeros is not really a role model for civilization. There are interesting characters which care about justice - Stannis, for example, whose strong line about 'One Realm, one King' from ASoS I completely share within the bounds of this series, as it should be obvious for everyone, that secession and chaos even worsens the situation for the people who cannot protect themselves - but on the large scale this whole feudalistic system is nothing I'd consider a 'civilization' worth protecting. The wildlings approach on life is much honest than the civilization of Westeros. They show us how humanity lived before it developed 'Westerosi civilization', and I'm not sure if we can say that the way these people live are so much worse than the ways the people of Westeros live.

On Jon:

Alexia, I think we all do agree that most of GRRM's child POV characters (Dany, Jon, Robb, Bran, Arya, Sansa, Rickon, Joffrey, Tommen, Myrcella, Shireen, Robert - I will call him just 'Robert' now, after HBO decided that this is not his name ;-)) can only go Gary Stu (or Mary Sue), or become narrative dead-ends. The structure of the series does not permit the author to show us how they slowly grow up, make mistakes, and the like. The time frame is to short, and this is why Jon has to become Lord Commander the way he became it, or why Dany had to become the Unsullied the way she became them. It was either that, or use Jon as POV to describe the adventures of Dolorous Edd the Mighty and the Old Bear.

Looking at the other child characters, we see that Joffrey was just a plain villainous bully (a complete cliché character), Tommen and Myrcella are pretty much nice non-characters (and it is a good decision to have them not as POVs!), Robert is a freak, GRRM himself admits that he has massive problems to write chapters from Bran's POV, Arya is a nice character for a completely other novel (one about a young girl completely on her own during war in a medieval environment), and Sansa was always mainly a convenient tool to tell other people's story - she has no important story of her own. Robb would have been a pretty much interesting POV character - especially in contrast to Jon - he, too, was torn between different emotions, goals, intentions, and whereas Jon made always the right decisions, apparently, and it would have been interesting to see how Robb made his mistakes. Thus Jon making the right decisions would not be that extraordinary. Also, Jon thought much about Robb the whole time. I would be interesting to know if Robb thought much about Jon, too?

I don't know if you know the Jon spoiler chapter from ADwD.

The 'kill the boy' line, and Melisandre's advances toward Jon should be enough to confuse everyone. Also the whole Slynt business seems to be really dark stuff - Jon showing what it means to be a Stark in dark times.

I don't see Jon's path lying plainly before him, as it was before. Things are becoming confused up at the Wall, and I think it entirely possible that Stanns and/or Melisandre might be right once in while, and Jon suggesting/intending to do the wrong thing.