Free Northman Reborn

Why did the Show discard Robb's will, only to arrive at the same outcome less credibly?

270 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Quyen Thuy Tran said:

He did have some very good deals for NW like the deal with iron bank. 

That's true, but that was after the aforementioned beheading Janos Slynt like a boss.  I suppose I warmed up to Jon Snow in the books when he "killed the boy" and let the man Jon Snow out.  

Of course at the same time he was doing all of these good things, he als made the decision to send away all of his core supporters b/c he was worried he might show favoritism and that left him without anyone to literally have his back when people tried to stab him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sigrid said:

Of course at the same time he was doing all of these good things, he als made the decision to send away all of his core supporters b/c he was worried he might show favoritism and that left him without anyone to literally have his back when people tried to stab him.

Personally I think he was stabbed mostly despite he did the right thing yet he wasn't beware of the dark side of people. Jon sees things in a simple way. He is just too oblivious to the cunning and conservative side of people. Like someone who never steals anything couldn't understand why some people steal. 

About Sansa, I have posted this in other thread but I will repost it here. In my opinion, the main reason the show has ignored Sansa as the heir for Winterfell might be because she isn't there in the book at all. Simple as that, there is a huge possibility that by the time some battle happens between Jon and the Boltons in the Book, Sansa is still staying in Vale. D&D just fxxx up the plot line and put Sansa in the scenario just to give her fans some fan service for more Sansa's screentime and empowering theme etc. Jon being hailed as King of the north surely will happen because it is such a major event and it will event out his position vs Dany in the South. In short, Sansa isn't screwed over, she is ignored by the northern people in the show might be because in the book she isn't supposed to be there at all. They can't hail Sansa in the show as queen if in the book she isn't supposed to get that title. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of things don't make sense in this show. 

Given how things played out in the end, they had absolutely no reason to kill off Doran Martell and pull off all that ninja crap back in Dorne. It actually would have been way better and more easier following the original Doran character from the books, with the exception of Quentyn being cut out of course. 

At the least Jon being 'made' KitN isn't as disastrous. As a lot of people pointed out, Jon made some pretty impressive achievements, some of which are worthy of legend. He showed selflessness by risking his life for Rickon, and sense of honor by risking all to stand up to Ramsay when he was a mere bastard. So basically, he had merit to become King, and even a bit of legitimacy by being Ned's son. The show never did do a god job when it came to convincing storytelling in Season 6, but at least for Jon the ingredients were there more or less. But I will agree wholeheartedly that the existence of Robb's will (and for gods' sake, where the hell is Howland Reed at this moment) would have added a far more refined touch to this development. Of course, (though I seriously do doubt) it could be that they have some greater reason for Jon staying a Snow.

And on another note, I do agree that Jon riding out for Rickon was poor judgment in terms of strategy and generalship, though it did show Jon's love for his family and his lack of ulterior motives regarding succession. Yet I would have to point out that Sansa was basically a hidden troll for the Stark army.

Of course, it was due to her that the battle was won because she brought in the Vale forces. But it really was sheer luck on her part that the Vale forces stayed stationed at Moat Calin for as long as they did, and that they got to Winterfell in near-to-impossible perfect timing. Turning down LF the way she did (what if he just rolled up his banners and went back to the Vale?), and gods, not telling Jon & Co. this crucial information when she knew for months that without some miracle the Stark forces with surely lose.... This makes no sense at at all given that this war is essentially Sansa the trueborn Stark and Ramsay's target's war, and that it's her own life and legacy on the line. There is nothing to be strategically or politically gained by delaying either. If the Vale forces should intervene, it's always better if they become involved sooner. Better in terms of battle planning, range of available tactics, a much more higher chance of winning, and the very obvious fact that more dead Stark forces and a dead Jon equals a whole lot less political influence for Sansa against the Vale forces (LF) even if the result is victory. Some people have insisted that if the Vale forces had merged with the Stark forces earlier, Ramsay would have turned this into a siege. But let's not forget that it was Sansa who strongly insisted that they wait to muster a larger force - had Jon and Sansa succeeded in doing this (which was impossible), it would have meant a similarly higher chance of Ramsay choosing a siege anyway. And also, with pre-planning and coordination, a similar yet much better picture of the battle would have been possible resulting in a lot less dead Stark forces and preferably, a not-so-dead giant.

So, no, Sansa did not show any tactical or political insight at all up to episode 9. She was just a troll. Another thing I hate about the show as one who grew to love book Alayne.

She did show some level of insight and humility in ep 10 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TwiceBorn said:

We've been here before.

Rob was voted king by the people, so what? When the time came, the same people betrayed him and his kin. They served his murderers eagerly. Jon Snow himself was chosen Lord Commander by the Watch, so what? He got killed soon: by the Watch, "for the Watch" and afterwards the Watch accepted his murderers as leaders.

"He avenged Blood Wedding". Oh? Didn't he avenge Commander Mormont before? And shared his fate? "White Wolf"? Seriously? "We've broken our oaths before, but now we won't." ...until you do again? Laughable.

Such public elections are worth nothing. A king is not to be made! Else the very ones who made him will be tempted to rule him or unmake him. Only a birthright or merit can make one true, unquestionable king. Of these two merit is better. Aegon the Conqueror was king by merit, Robert was king by merit, Stannis attempted to be a king by merit, so does Dany.

Jon Snow is in a weak position (again) until his true birthright is revealed.

Not so.  Initially kings were elected.  Or defeated rival claimants in battle.  Yes ... those who elected could unmake the king.  Typically, the election involved trade offs where the new king gave concessions to the electors.

 

Not laughable re. breaking oaths.  In the Nobles eyes, King Robb broke _his_ oath (abrogated one of his primary responsibilities) by not returning to the north and helping protect them vs the Ironborn.  Thus the Nobles were justified in breaking their oaths, in their eyes.

 

EDIT:  here are 2 historical example of nations who elected their rulers down until modern times:  The Holy Roman Empire (whose Kaisers/Emperors were chosen by the approx 7 Elector Princes) and the Kingdom of Poland (where the entire nobility had a vote ... I think)

Edited by Thror Baratheon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Anarres said:

I'm not sure why some are being a stickler for rules and traditions when the show has been constantly highlighting people who break the rules and, or maybe even to, move themselves and their interests into higher social spheres. As Tywin said way back: 'Aegon Targaryen changed the rules. That's why every child alive still knows his name, three hundred years after his death.'

Jon Snow changed the rules, too. He was Lord Commander and invited the Free Folk south of the Wall. He was killed and lives again. He is a bastard who became King of the North.

 
 

Nice talk. And I am fed up with the "king deserves their title because of their birthright". Most kings started up their career because they were strong fighters (if not the strongest) or great strategist or inspiring leaders of the tribe. Their sons and daughters only got the benefits of being royal while they actually did not deserve as they're either not strong fighters, strategists or natural leaders.

I don't know much about Western history, but in Asia, there were many cases when the older dynasties were too much rotten, the farmers/fighters/intellectual class turned the wave and killed their kings. The possibility of someone had root as a farmer/fighter who later became kings is not that odd, it is not impossible. In my country history, we used to have kings with poor heritage. There is nothing such as "only a birthright or merit could make you a true king" it has always been a mix of time and situation. 

It is true that you might gain a lot from your birthright when you're noble but that does not make you the ultimate ruler and it does not mean you have the rights to own everything and be hailed as king/queen. If people are not scared of you because you are a tyrant (like they fear Cersei or they fear Ramsay), then they have to respect you a lot to hail you as king and queen.

In short, a lot of royal families actually started from just being stronger fighters or stronger strategists, more cunning... than the rest. Being royal does not mean you have absolute rights over others who are stronger or smarter, more inspirational. They might kill you when you are bad and declare themselves kings/queens and people still follow them, not you. It is normal actually.

Edited by Chib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon earned the crown, not just by this season's developments but by having protected the North for years and earning an impressive reputation. Lords had free will to choose their leader. They chose not to be prejudiced and classist. They weren't forced to comply with some flimsy piece of paper from a now dead royalty. We all saw how much decrees from dead kings mean when Cersei tore one up and no one but Ned gave a shit about it. Succession laws mean nothing in times of conflict and power vacuum.

I wouldn't want Jon to be declared King by reluctant Lords just because Robb named him his heir. The show's version is better.

BTW what did Robb do to earn his crown? He was King only on account of his blood/name.

Edited by Darksky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Darksky said:

BTW what did Robb do to earn his crown? He was King only on account of his blood/name.

He had a direwolf i.i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think of Jon's "election" fits in the themes of the book, especially about power and rulership.  The Northern Lords elect him because they think he is the right man to lead, not because of a paper will.  There could be some bad factors at play like sexism, but it could also be Jon is a legendary character and that he is most like his "father" (which is ironic given that he isn't Ned's trueborn son.)  Yes, Jon screws up at the Battle of Winterfell, but Sansa didn't tell Jon about the Vale army either.  

The laws of succession in Europe weren't that iron clad.  GOTs is loosely based on the War of the Roses, where people were fighting over the Crown.  Before that there was the Anarchy.  A king could also lose the support of his nobles.  The pope excommunicated HRE Henry IV three times, which led Henry's lords to rebel.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Darksky said:

Jon earned the crown, not just by this season's developments but by having protected the North for years and earning an impressive reputation. Lords had free will to choose their leader. They chose not to be prejudiced and classist. They weren't forced to comply with some flimsy piece of paper from a now dead royalty. We all saw how much decrees from dead kings mean when Cersei tore one up and no one but Ned gave a shit about it. Succession laws mean nothing in times of conflict and power vacuum.

I wouldn't want Jon to be declared King by reluctant Lords just because Robb named him his heir. The show's version is better.

BTW what did Robb do to earn his crown? He was King only on account of his blood/name.

The Northern Lords could just ignore Robb's will.  Robb is a dead traitor to the Crown according to the Lannisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, Ruhail said:

At some point you have to wonder what the hell is this plot? - David Benioff 2016

Is this a real quote? It is hilarious if it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bent branch said:

 

Is this a real quote? It is hilarious if it is.

its from the inside the episode of 10 xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2016 at 9:26 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

So we saw this rather unbelievable scene where the Lords of the North proclaimed Jon Snow as King in the North - even without him being legitimized. In fact, they even call him Jon Snow while chanting "King in the North", instead of referring to him as Jon Stark. And this while Ned Stark's trueborn daughter is sitting right next to him. Added to which, according to their knowledge, he has just abandoned his oaths to the Night's Watch and let a bunch of wildlings into the North.

Frankly, all of this is rather unbelievable. And the perplexing thing is that without requiring any further budget, they could have included Robb's discussion with Catelyn regarding his heir, and shown him dispatching his will for safe keeping, thereby legitimizing Jon in his role as King in the North and giving a rock solid basis for Jon's crowning and making the entire scene of the Northern Lords swearing their allegiance to him entirely justifiable and believable.

So the question then becomes - why did Benioff and Weiss deliberately decide to cut Robb's will from the Show? It makes no sense.

Unless it was for the express purpose of giving Sansa and Littlefinger a stronger position of from which to challenge Jon's rule in Season 7. Something which we can then only assume is not intended as a plotline in Martin's books, where the will is intended to cement Jon's position as King in the North without any opposition.

Thoughts?

Obviously, the show way is way better. Jon didn’t just wait for the will to show up from nowhere to become the king. The simple fact that he wasn’t afraid to be rejected because of his name shows that he’s strong and knows what he is doing and what he wants.

He, keeping the name ‘Snow’ and becoming king without being legitimised, only shows that you don’t need a name to be a good ruler. Aerys The Second was a true Targaryan but a crazy man and not a good ruler. Ramsey was legitimised but was another crazy little arse.

So Jon sitting there waiting for the will to show up would be “SHAME!... (Ring the bell) SHAME!... (Ring the bell) SHAME!”

He deserves better than just a will. Robb Stark was chosen by the Northern Lords. So was Jon Snow. Even though Rickon was still alive, I don’t reckon they would have chosen him. If I were there, I wouldn’t choose him anyway. Fortunately, or unfortunately I’m not there. Jon IS the only one. He fought for it. He risked his life to get there while all of them were turning their thumbs and lying in their bed.

To sum up, Jon Snow was chosen by the lords. If the will showed up before Jon’s battle, they would have accepted him. They wouldn’t choose him. Jon wasn’t brought to them by force. They willingly chose him. I reckon it is better that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naming Jon the King in the North is more than just choosing the Lord of Winterfell.  Yes, it was Sansa who brought in the knights of the Vale, without whom the Battle of the Bastards would have been lost. Yes, Sansa has a superior legal claim to Winterfell -- and as little Lady Mormont shows, sometimes a woman will be accepted as the leader of a House if no trueborn male heir is available. 

In naming the King in the North, the lords are choosing the person to lead the fight against the Others.  Jon is the logical person to lead that fight, not Sansa, and not just because he's a warrior and she's not. He has already fought against the Others. He understands the threat as no one else in the room except Davos and Tormund do. So that's why I think the lords choose him and not Sansa.

Perhaps Sansa has shared with some of the lords that, as she tells Jon, he's a Stark to her. Perhaps she's run a Sam-type shadow campaign for Jon (less likely, IMO). But she seems pleased at the developments, and Jon seems to get a nod and a smile from her as he stands up to accept. I interpreted the fading smile as she looks at Littlefinger as her worrying about Littlefinger, not resentment at being passed over in favor of Jon. I could be wrong about that, and that resentment may yet develop even if it wasn't there at the moment of the "coronation," since I am sure Littlefinger will keep whispering in her ear. 

The irony, of course, is that Jon is Ned's nephew, not his son, so he really has no claim on Winterfell at all. I can't wait to see how he finds out about that, and how he reacts.  Would the lords of Westeros accept a Targaryen bastard (assuming R + L never married) over a woman (even one with dragons). Would Dany and her dragons step aside if it turns out that Jon is the trueborn son of Rhaegar (which would give him the superior legal claim)? Will they marry and rule jointly (as aunt and nephew marriage is less skeezy than the usual Targaryen brother-sister arrangement, especially since they are essentially strangers)? 

Will we have to wait another 10 months to get more clues from Season 7? Will GRRM publish TWoW before then? Have the show and the books diverged so far that whatever is in the books wouldn't help us predict the show at this point? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is that lines of sucession dont matter for the it or the north, or even name but then simultaneously yes it is supposed to matter greatly to the plot, but lets all ignore that. R+l=j point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dragonslack said:

So what you are saying is that lines of sucession dont matter for the it or the north, or even name but then simultaneously yes it is supposed to matter greatly to the plot, but lets all ignore that. R+l=j point?

The Stark name does not matter much in the show. 

Edited by Winter's Cold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 27, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Lyin' Ned said:

That was the one part of the episode that didn't sit well with me. Sansa was right there, she saved the North by brokering an alliance with the Vale, unlike dumbass Jon who let himself be goaded into a trap. 

So what if she was forcefully (kinda?) married to Tyrion and Ramsay? She ditched those losers, didn't have any kid by them. She's still a Stark to the bone, more so than an oathbreaker/deserter bastard. 

Stark to the bone???  That's laughable. Sansa just became a "Stark" this episode. First by being honest to her kin and apologizing. Second when she admitted that her whole life she wanted to be somewhere else than Winterfell. Always wanted something more than what her family and North had to offer. And you have the nerve to say she's more of a Stark than Jon???  Please. Jon may end up being a Targ but he's more Stark and more Northern than Sansa has ever been or probably will ever be. So why in the hell would the North declare for her. She hasn't spilled a drop of blood or risked anything personal in them reclaiming Winterfell from the Boltons. Technically, you can say she aligned herself with the Boltons by marrying Ramsey. Thank God that Sansa/Bolton crap is over. Hopefully they don't make her turn cloak again next season. Sansa was great in the finale all up until that last stare with LF. I hope they make her stay true to her family and not be LF's pawn once again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 28, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Trickrs said:

Except "love and dedication" doesn't win wars, an army and good generalship does. Jon had neither of them and Sansa had all of it (through the Knights of the Vale), but Jon was chosen because plot.

Good generalship???  Are you joking?  What in the hell has Sansa ever led or commanded. Everything she's done has been done as a pawn of someone else...  You Sansa fans are ridiculous.  Sansa ain't fit to lead anything but a knitting/sewing class. This shit you're giving Sansa praise for was done because of plot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Stark to the bone???  That's laughable. Sansa just became a "Stark" this episode. First by being honest to her kin and apologizing. Second when she admitted that her whole life she wanted to be somewhere else than Winterfell. Always wanted something more than what her family and North had to offer. And you have the nerve to say she's more of a Stark than Jon???  Please. Jon may end up being a Targ but he's more Stark and more Northern than Sansa has ever been or probably will ever be. So why in the hell would the North declare for her. She hasn't spilled a drop of blood or risked anything personal in them reclaiming Winterfell from the Boltons. Technically, you can say she aligned herself with the Boltons by marrying Ramsey. Thank God that Sansa/Bolton crap is over. Hopefully they don't make her turn cloak again next season. Sansa was great in the finale all up until that last stare with LF. I hope they make her stay true to her family and not be LF's pawn once again. 

Didn't say she was more Stark than Jon, tho. But she is a Stark and he's a bastard (or a Targaryen), and that's a fact. She has a better claim to Winterfell (and therefore to the reign of the North) than him, that's the law. And Jon should've said, "Whoa, whoa, fellas, I appreciate the sentiment but Sansa is the trueborn daughter of Ned Stark here, not me. She's the rightful Lady of Winterfell, Robb's rightful heir. And even if you don't want her, Bran and Arya are still alive out there somewhere, and both of them have a better claim than me."

Jon being declared KitN over an actual Stark was literally Catelyn's worst nightmare. She would tear out her face all over again if she was alive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Stark to the bone???  

At least she's the stark who cared about their homeland and liberated Winterfell from the boltons, and yes she's the most stark of all the starks, other than jon give me another stark who did that? 

Edited by Future Null Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

You Sansa fans are ridiculous

please respect yourself and respect the posters, you are not on tumblr to throw insults left and right

Edited by Future Null Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.