assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 ...well, Jon is half Targaryen. One could state that he already has her loyalty because he's her family. Aegon 1.5 already had Maegor's loyalty because they were family. Rhaenyra already had Aegon II's loyalty because they were family. Daeron II already had Daemon Blackfyre's loyalty because they were family. Aerys II already had Robert's loyalty because they were family. Stannis already had Renly's loyalty because they were family. Seriously, come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC_Lymond Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I think Ygritte will be Jon's only love / hook up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Those who are loyal to Baratheon dynasty will want to see Shireen's line on the throne. Rickon will not be made the king of the Realm, Jon will.What makes you think Jon would be king? R+L=J is hard to proveAnd if they're loyal they'd crown Shireen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 What makes you think Jon would be king? R+L=J is hard to proveAnd if they're loyal they'd crown Shireen Jon will save the Realm. That will be his proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNinjaDC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Rickon's a better match for Shireen The age gap is the same, but inversed. And if Bran never comes back(very likely) then there must be a Stark(male heir) in Winterfell. A position Rickon can readily fill, but not while sitting the Iron Throne/equivalent position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Stark-Targaryen Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Aegon 1.5 already had Maegor's loyalty because they were family. Rhaenyra already had Aegon II's loyalty because they were family. Daeron II already had Daemon Blackfyre's loyalty because they were family. Aerys II already had Robert's loyalty because they were family. Stannis already had Renly's loyalty because they were family. Seriously, come on. Hey, I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate and advance an argument against Jon/Dany, a hookup I actually wouldn't mind. I actually agree with you. So much so that I'm saving your post to use whenever people object to Jon/Dany or Aegon/Arianne. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A spoon of knife and fork Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Jon will save the Realm. That will be his proof.Ok so you're saying that only prophecied Warriors of royal blood can ever be of any use in savig the world? That's awfully silly and elitist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Ok so you're saying that only prophecied Warriors of royal blood can ever be of any use in savig the world? That's awfully silly and elitist. Strawman. I am saying that Jon is the one true hero of the story. That is not because of his blood or something. That is because of his heroic virtues and his potential to make a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A spoon of knife and fork Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Strawman. I am saying that Jon is the one true hero of the story. That is not because of his blood or something. That is because of his heroic virtues and his potential to make a big difference.Not a strawman at all. You said in response to someone saying R+L=J is hard to prove that he will prove it by saving the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Jon will save the Realm. That will be his proof.How is that proof exactly? This is too close to the King Arthur/Aragon trope and George has expressed his criticsm of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 How is that proof exactly?This is too close to the King Arthur/Aragon trope and George has expressed his criticsm of it. People will believe his claim when he steps up and makes a name as the leader of the mankind in the fight against the Others. He could very well be a random person and save the Realm and the common folk would still choose him as their king (though the nobilty would have a very hard time accepting that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 People will believe his claim when he steps up and makes a name as the leader of the mankind in the fight against the Others. He could very well be a random person and save the Realm and the common folk would still choose him as their king (though the nobilty would have a very hard time accepting that).Yeah this is too King Arthur for the series Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Yeah this is too King Arthur for the series Oh really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'm starting to believe that Dany being Jon's aunt doesn't cause the repulsion but the fact that she is Dany. Aegon is Arianne's cousin. Does people see a problem with it? Sansa was ok about marrying SR until she got mad by other reasons, but the blood relation was not a problem for her. Also, Dany is a aunt Jon has never seen, so he wouldn't feel her "familiar" :dunno: Sansa was never OK with marrying Sweetrobin. But you're right that it wasn't because he's her cousin, it was because she immediately realized she was being used for her claim, again. ("It is not me she wants her son to marry, it is my claim. No one will ever marry me for love.") The other objection which she was able to say aloud to Lysa was that he was still a child. That's before she met SR - after that, she started disliking the idea even more because of the way he is. I just don't see the point in marrying a northerner. The whole point of the GNC and similar theories that they want a son of ned as KITN. Therefore what's the advantage to marrying a northerner? Jon already has their loyalty as a son of ned - he does't need to strengthen those ties. Much better to marry a southerner - almost anyone, but preferably someone from a large or influential house.Maybe a Hightower or something, assuming Arianne, asha, or Margarey are unavailable. Doesn't Marg have some cousins? They may be vapid, but they may keep the peace between north and south. What was the point of any of the previous Stark lords marrying northerners? Most of them did. Most of the southern lords also usually intermarry with their bannermen in times of peace, to ensure their loyalty and strengthen ties. Marriages between the Great Houses weren't actually that common when there was no war, or no need to bring two kingdoms together (like Dorne into the 7K). As to why the northern lords would want to marry their daughters or sisters to Jon - why did Tywin Lannister want to be grandfather to a king? Why did Walder Frey want to be grandfather to a king, or at least to a Lord Paramount? Why did the High Septon who was a Hightower want his niece married to Maegor, why did the Harroway Hand of the King want the same for his daughter? Why did Otto Hightower want his daughter married to Viserys I? Why do any of the ambitious men want to marry their female family members to kings and great lords? Of course some northern lords would want their daughter married to the King in the North. If Manderly gets Rickon from Skagos and start trying to install him as Lord of Winterfell and/or King in the North, I wouldn't be surprised if he immediately betroths Wylla to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I actually agree with you. So much so that I'm saving your post to use whenever people object to Jon/Dany or Aegon/Arianne. Thanks!Maybe you missed the point. None of those people made successful marriage pacts to improve loyalty and relations. They fought each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A spoon of knife and fork Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Of course the northern lords want their daughters to be queens. My point is that there is no political advantage to jon marrying them. They are so atark obsessed that jon doesn't need to strengthen northern ties - he just needs to have the stark name. Meanwhile it's essential for jon to marry to the south if in fact they are going for independence, so they can avoid being invaded.If they don't go for independence then by all means marry a northerner - it doesn't really matter then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Of course the northern lords want their daughters to be queens. My point is that there is no political advantage to jon marrying them. They are so atark obsessed that jon doesn't need to strengthen northern ties - he just needs to have the stark name. Meanwhile it's essential for jon to marry to the south if in fact they are going for independence, so they can avoid being invaded.If they don't go for independence then by all means marry a northerner - it doesn't really matter then.Independence essentially means withdrawing from involvement in outside regions. So why would the northerners entangle themselves in other regions by marrying into the south? Robb made the Frey pact to cross a bridge, and the Freys were a Riverlands house anyway. But I don't see the need to make a southern match if the issue is northern autonomy.As for the invasion thing. It's the middle of winter and nearly every other enemy army is decimated or otherwise engaged. If some idiot southern army decides to invade the North during the winter, more power to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A spoon of knife and fork Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Independence essentially means withdrawing from involvement in outside regions. So why would the northerners entangle themselves in other regions by marrying into the south? Robb made the Frey pact to cross a bridge, and the Freys were a Riverlands house anyway. But I don't see the need to make a southern match if the issue is northern autonomy.As for the invasion thing. It's the middle of winter and nearly every other enemy army is decimated or otherwise engaged. If some idiot southern army decides to invade the North during the winter, more power to them.Northern independence means the opposite of withdrawing from involvement in outside affairs - it invites outsider interference. The north as a subject of the IT had practically no outside interference for hundreds of years. Really none at all that the northern lords didn't precipitate themselves by going southward.Kingdoms intermarry in order to avoid conflict with ther neighbors. If the northern lords want to just be left alone their safest move is to bend the knee to whomever can get a child (or grandchild) of ned into WF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Stark-Targaryen Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Maybe you missed the point. None of those people made successful marriage pacts to improve loyalty and relations. They fought each other. No, I totally understood your point. I was just trying to see the other side. The argument against Aegon/Arianne is "he doesn't need her, his mother was Dornish, so he doesn't need her to ensure the loyalty of the Martells and their allies. A parallel argument against Jon/Dany could be "he doesn't need her, his father was Targaryen, so he doesn't need her to ensure the loyalty of the Targaryens and their allies. Both arguments fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 No, I totally understood your point. I was just trying to see the other side. The argument against Aegon/Arianne is "he doesn't need her, his mother was Dornish, so he doesn't need her to ensure the loyalty of the Martells and their allies. A parallel argument against Jon/Dany could be "he doesn't need her, his father was Targaryen, so he doesn't need her to ensure the loyalty of the Targaryens and their allies. Both arguments fail.Not sure it's quite the same situation. Aegon is actively trying to conquer Westeros militarily, and Jon isn't. He also has something to prove (that he is Aegon), and the Dornish siding with him gives him legitimacy. Jon probably wouldn't even attempt to get the Iron Throne. As for legitimacy, it's a Catch-22. If he can prove he's Rhaegar's son without having to marry her, Dany becomes superfluous. But if he needs to marry Dany to prove he's Rhaegar's son, then there's no benefit to her. Dany and Arianne are not on equal footing here. Dany could become queen without Jon, whereas Arianne would never become queen without Aegon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.