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

[Jarl Halstein]

4 hours ago, TwiceBorn said:

1. Unlike warlord or president a king isn't chosen by the people but by the God/Gods themselves. His right to rule is divine.

I don't think so, they always had to rely on others - rare was the king who could rule without the support of the nobility, the people, the church or temples or whatever. They knew kings could be toppled, and kings could also be ignored by strong regions. Even if it doesn't come to outright hostilities, having ruling nobles not like you is a problem.

Rome the TV Series:

Cato (about Caesar before the war): "He is taking the love of the people."
Pompey: "What do I care who the commoners love?"
Cato: "Nothing is more important!"
.......................................

Brutus (next season, after Caesar's death): "The Senate and all the men of quality are on our side."
Marcus Antonius: "And I have an angry mob, who will piss on your men of quality from the ashes of the Senate house!"

Heck, even as late as the 16th century there were the Kurfürsten, the elector princes, in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, who would elect the "King of the Romans" to be crowned by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor. The nobility were so strong they could even acquire this right.

As for warlord that you mention, THAT is someone who rules without the consent of the people. Cersei is basically a warlord at this point.

[Jarl Halstein]

I find it ironic that Cersei herself explained to Joffrey in the first season how you can't rule without support. Joffrey talked about how he would raise taxes on the nobility to pay the Crown's debt, and Cersei asked, what would you do if the North rebels? You don't have enough men to invade. Joffrey said he would demand that the nobles give him an army. And Cersei pointed out that these would be the nobles who he just bled dry through taxes.

It was an important lesson. But Cersei the Warlord now just doesn't care. Her children are dead, she'll play the game of thrones to the bitter end.

[hallam]

Any thread that starts by claiming that HBO has 'got it wrong' because the books 'will be different' starts with a rather silly premise.

Book Jon is dead and has never discovered he isn't a bastard. book Jon will almost certainly follow the same arc of being declared King in the North by right of arms before right of birth even becomes an issue. At this point right of birth doesn't really count for much. All the ancient houses are virtually extinct. Sweet Robyn is the only person left whose inheritance isn't invalidated and LF is poisoning him.

it is fairly obvious that Robb's will will come into play next season but quite likely only after it is discovered that Jon isn't a Stark. They will be opening up the crypt to bury Rickon (and possibly Ned).

My guess would be that Jon will only find out about Robb's will after he discovers he isn't any sort of Stark at all but before he discovers who he really is.

[Masha]

24 minutes ago, hallam said:

Any thread that starts by claiming that HBO has 'got it wrong' because the books 'will be different' starts with a rather silly premise.

Book Jon is dead and has never discovered he isn't a bastard. book Jon will almost certainly follow the same arc of being declared King in the North by right of arms before right of birth even becomes an issue. At this point right of birth doesn't really count for much. All the ancient houses are virtually extinct. Sweet Robyn is the only person left whose inheritance isn't invalidated and LF is poisoning him.

it is fairly obvious that Robb's will will come into play next season but quite likely only after it is discovered that Jon isn't a Stark. They will be opening up the crypt to bury Rickon (and possibly Ned).

My guess would be that Jon will only find out about Robb's will after he discovers he isn't any sort of Stark at all but before he discovers who he really is.

The only ancient houses that are virtually extinct is Tully - with captive Edward and his pregnant wife locked in at Casterly Rock

Baratheon - since Robert and Renly are dead with no legitimate issue and Stannis/Shireen are bound not to survive in books either. However, Robert has several acknowledged bastards left - main one being Edric Storm (prime candidate ) and another one being Miya Stone. 

Tyrells are not extinct - Margaery has several older brothers - including warrior Garland and heir apparent Willas who is safely tucked away in Highgarden. Additionally Tyrells have lots of other branches - QoT had two other daughters and her husband had 3 more brothers. 

Starks will rise again with Sansa, Arya and Bran perhaps even Rickon in the books

Lannisters - have a lot more relatives in the books than in the show. Tywin had 3 more siblings in addition to Kevan, who has more than children than Lancel. And all those siblings have loads of children.

What ancient extinct houses you are referring to?

[jrod]

13 minutes ago, Masha said:

The only ancient houses that are virtually extinct is Tully - with captive Edward and his pregnant wife locked in at Casterly Rock

Baratheon - since Robert and Renly are dead with no legitimate issue and Stannis/Shireen are bound not to survive in books either. However, Robert has several acknowledged bastards left - main one being Edric Storm (prime candidate ) and another one being Miya Stone. 

Tyrells are not extinct - Margaery has several older brothers - including warrior Garland and heir apparent Willas who is safely tucked away in Highgarden. Additionally Tyrells have lots of other branches - QoT had two other daughters and her husband had 3 more brothers. 

Starks will rise again with Sansa, Arya and Bran perhaps even Rickon in the books

Lannisters - have a lot more relatives in the books than in the show. Tywin had 3 more siblings in addition to Kevan, who has more than children than Lancel. And all those siblings have loads of children.

What ancient extinct houses you are referring to?

In the show there aren't nearly as many though.  They haven't gone into the detail on some of these families.  In the show the Baratheons are done (Robert, Stannis, Renly, Shireen all dead) they haven't mentioned Robert's one acknowledged bastard in Edric I don't think (maybe in the 1st season can't remember), in the books there are other known ones but believe Edric is the only acknowledged one.  Tyrells are done, Olenna pretty much says it and they refer to Loras as the Heir of Highgarden multiple times I believe.  Arryns have Robyn who is doomed with LF around.  Only other Lannister is Kevan (they don't mention any of his other children in the show).

So going basically just off the show, there aren't many members of the major houses left, at least that they have shown yet.  They are all pretty well decimated.  

[Masha]

50 minutes ago, jrod said:

In the show there aren't nearly as many though.  They haven't gone into the detail on some of these families.  In the show the Baratheons are done (Robert, Stannis, Renly, Shireen all dead) they haven't mentioned Robert's one acknowledged bastard in Edric I don't think (maybe in the 1st season can't remember), in the books there are other known ones but believe Edric is the only acknowledged one.  Tyrells are done, Olenna pretty much says it and they refer to Loras as the Heir of Highgarden multiple times I believe.  Arryns have Robyn who is doomed with LF around.  Only other Lannister is Kevan (they don't mention any of his other children in the show).

So going basically just off the show, there aren't many members of the major houses left, at least that they have shown yet.  They are all pretty well decimated.  

Yes, but you are saying that book and TV storylines will be same, in the show the rights of birth don't matter anymore, in the books they still most certainly do

[Desert Fox]

10 minutes ago, Masha said:

Yes, but you are saying that book and TV storylines will be same, in the show the rights of birth don't matter anymore, in the books they still most certainly do

Well the crown in the books has been invalidating a lot of birthrights and bestowing them on people of lower nobility or no nobility. There was no reason why Sansa shouldn't have gotten Winterfell when Robb died. She wasn't a traitor. But Tywin gave it to the Boltons (or did they take it after he died?)

Renley had the best backing in the WoT5K despite having a demonstrably false claim.

The show is taking it to another level, but clearly respect for traditional inheritance and law is nearly out the window in the book too.

[jrod]

59 minutes ago, Masha said:

Yes, but you are saying that book and TV storylines will be same, in the show the rights of birth don't matter anymore, in the books they still most certainly do

I never said the book and show storylines will be the same.  I just pointed out that in the show there aren't nearly as many other family members that are either mentioned yet or they don't exist (like the older Tyrell brothers).  hallam's post mentioned both the show and book some, but in my post I was specifically saying in the show those families appear to be decimated now.

[MoreOrLess]

4 hours ago, Jarl Halstein said:

Heck, even as late as the 16th century there were the Kurfürsten, the elector princes, in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, who would elect the "King of the Romans" to be crowned by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor. The nobility were so strong they could even acquire this right..

You look back on the show and this is much more inline with the way the North has been presented. Robb didn't declare himself King of the North(and likely wouldn't have due to the disadvantages with Renly and Stannis) but was declared so by his bannermen after proving himself in battle in a similar kind of fashion to Jon.

In terms of houses being wiped out I must admit the idea of any house lasting thousands and thousands of years has never really seemed that realistic to me. What you could say I spose is that the introduction of a king of westeros as a whole makes the situation more dangerous, it reduces the potential for the previous local conflicts but when war does break out its on a larger scale involving grand alliances that can bring down houses more easily.

[Darksky]

17 hours ago, Lyin' Ned said:

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. 

But Sansa has Winterfell. She is Lady of Winterfell. Jon has the North, he is KITN. Being one doesn't have to mean being the other. Those two titles are separate in the show. The Lords were looking for a leader, they chose Jon for his years of servitude and protection of the North, his valour, determination, strength, swordmanship skills, dedication to the Stark family (he was the only one who desperately tried to save Ned's heir), and being a Stark in blood with Valyrian Steel and a badass direwolf. How would Sansa fill that role? A leader is a doer, does things alongside their men, things they ask their men to do. Sansa is no fighter, military tactician or politician. She would be nothing more than a figurehead if she ascended the throne. She wouldn't be able to do anything with that power, it'd be an empty title and position. Jon can do a lot with being King.

[Jarl Halstein]

I suspect that by the end of the show Jon will have stepped down as King in the North in favor of a united Westeros. This is after Dany with her massive army and dragons, and the war against the dead, have changed everything. Jon will become Commander of the Night's Watch again, number 1,000. We started with Commander Mormont as number 997, so we all knew they'd keep going until an even thousand.

[TwiceBorn]

10 hours ago, Jarl Halstein said:

I don't think so, they always had to rely on others - rare was the king who could rule without the support of the nobility, the people, the church or temples or whatever. They knew kings could be toppled, and kings could also be ignored by strong regions. Even if it doesn't come to outright hostilities, having ruling nobles not like you is a problem.

Rome the TV Series:

Cato (about Caesar before the war): "He is taking the love of the people."
Pompey: "What do I care who the commoners love?"
Cato: "Nothing is more important!"
.......................................

Brutus (next season, after Caesar's death): "The Senate and all the men of quality are on our side."
Marcus Antonius: "And I have an angry mob, who will piss on your men of quality from the ashes of the Senate house!"

Heck, even as late as the 16th century there were the Kurfürsten, the elector princes, in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, who would elect the "King of the Romans" to be crowned by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor. The nobility were so strong they could even acquire this right.

As for warlord that you mention, THAT is someone who rules without the consent of the people. Cersei is basically a warlord at this point.

I think I'm not making myself clear enough.

When I say for example: "In Christianity Jesus Christ is the son of a God" I feel weird when people respond: "I don't think so, I think he was a man" or "I don't believe it". There is nothing to think or believe here: we discuss a dogma of particular religion. You cannot argue that Christians don't believe in divinity of Christ only because you don't. This makes no sense, opinions have no impact on facts. Same goes with the king in monarchy, which is actually a very close concept. Some men are chosen by the God to be above all else in society - this is monarchy. See this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

Well of course the king who doesn't have any political support will not last long. However due to the power of birthright it's difficult to topple him over. See Aerys the Mad. Half of the kingdom was against him and the other half was with his son. Still Robert had to make up some bullshit excuses about his Targaryen descent to fortify his claim.

The whole point of birthright is that you don't need someone's approval for it. Neither can it be taken away. You are born son of a king and it's done - you have the claim. No one can disagree with that, no matter what, and it doesn't matter if you are popular or not. If someone disobeys your rule, then he's an outlaw and he knows it, everyone knows it. People hated Jon Lackland and loved Robin Hood, but everybody knows who was the king and who was the outlaw. I cannot put it more simple.

If one claimant has weaker claim than the other then he seeks either merit or popular support. Stannis for example had weaker claim, because he was like 4th to rule by (official) birthright. So first he tried to win over the nobles. This didn't last long as expected. Then Davos who is actually a great Hand encouraged him to seek merit. This went rather well. Merit is always better but more difficult than support and birthright is easier than merit.

The problem with Jon is that he's unlegitimised bastard, so he has explicitly no birthright, and many people, myself included, believe that he did nothing worthy of a king yet. Sansa is ahead of him in line of succession, so the nobles actually (almost literally) overthrew her and by doing so terminated the Starks. This is outrageous and dangerous. Had the will of Robb been known then all would be different.

As for Cersei she is the last person fit to rule in Kings Landing. She is an usurper, this is how it's called. She has no claim to the crown, but she took it anyway. It doesn't matter if people support her or not, for this is not democracy. Support or lack of support doesn't make one a legitimate ruler. She has some merit though - she did defeat all her enemies within KL. So I'd say that until legitimate claimant arrives, she is in a better position than Jon.

[Dragonslack]

The point of the will is obvious, legitimising job! Only a stark can rule winterfell and the north. Also clarifies the sucession, because some starks fate is unknown and some fake stark can always show up again. It could also get him out of the nightswatch without dying.

The tv show repeatedly gave importance to names, sucession, support, the stark name etc but then threw it all out the window. King snow they even said, how stupid.

Not to mention ignoring the nights watch abandonement (desertion=death). The ressurection and the walkers situation. Grave situation indeed!

[CrypticWeirwood]

15 hours ago, LazyBazooka said:

Because that would've given the audience hope after the Red Wedding. Can't have that, the show thrives on nihilism and hopelessness. That, and D&D simply do not plan ahead.

Please provide, if not proof, at least convincing examples supporting your final statement that the showrunners do not plan ahead. There are countless examples of setups from the beginning with long payoffs only now coming home. That illustrates that they do indeed plan ahead, so the burden of proof is now on you to present evidence to the contrary.

[bent branch]

14 hours ago, Chib said:

I think in the book, Robb's will would trip Sansa away all of her rights for Winterfell?

 

You are correct. In the books, Sansa is specifically disinherited.

 

10 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Well the crown in the books has been invalidating a lot of birthrights and bestowing them on people of lower nobility or no nobility. There was no reason why Sansa shouldn't have gotten Winterfell when Robb died. She wasn't a traitor. But Tywin gave it to the Boltons (or did they take it after he died?)

Renley had the best backing in the WoT5K despite having a demonstrably false claim.

The show is taking it to another level, but clearly respect for traditional inheritance and law is nearly out the window in the book too.

The situation with Winterfell in the books is more complicated than that. Winterfell is handed over to the Boltons by the crown. They also provide the fake Arya for Ramsay to marry. They are taking the tack of Winterfell still being in Stark hands through the fake Arya. Tywin doesn't expect the Boltons to last through winter though. He expects the North will end up killing off the Boltons. After this happens (in the spring), he intends Tyrion and Sansa to go up and have a try.

 

1 hour ago, Dragonslack said:

The point of the will is obvious, legitimising job! Only a stark can rule winterfell and the north. Also clarifies the sucession, because some starks fate is unknown and some fake stark can always show up again. It could also get him out of the nightswatch without dying.

The tv show repeatedly gave importance to names, sucession, support, the stark name etc but then threw it all out the window. King snow they even said, how stupid.

Not to mention ignoring the nights watch abandonement (desertion=death). The ressurection and the walkers situation. Grave situation indeed!

I know. Basically, Westeros has descended into anarchy. At this point it is kill someone, take their stuff. That's how it is done in Westeros. By simplifying the rules so much, it is a lot easier on the writers to figure out what they can do storywise. Which at this point is whatever they feel like, damn coherency. And I have to admit, there does seem to be a lot of people who don't understand what they are watching isn't really coherent.

[Jarl Halstein]

2 hours ago, TwiceBorn said:

I think I'm not making myself clear enough.When I say for example: "In Christianity Jesus Christ is the son of a God" I feel weird when people respond: "I don't think so, I think he was a man" or "I don't believe it". There is nothing to think or believe here: we discuss a dogma of particular religion. You cannot argue that Christians don't believe in divinity of Christ only because you don't. This makes no sense, opinions have no impact on facts. Same goes with the king in monarchy, which is actually a very close concept. Some men are chosen by the God to be above all else in society - this is monarchy.

Nope. That's just something that is added to it. If you think people would follow kings only because "oh well, he says he's chosen by God, so we must even though we hate him!" then you don't know much about history. Kings got toppled. And other kings who didn't get toppled got wing-clipped in other ways.

But nice arrogance there. "I don't have to explain myself! There is nothing to think or believe here CUZ I AM RIGHT!" Your comparison with Christian dogma is bullshit that doesn't have anything to do with the argument at hand.

I can just as well say: "When I say for example that two plus two is four, I feel weird when retards like you respond that you think it's five. There is nothing to think or believe about that, and that's exactly like your retarded belief that I'm not right in the discussion we were really talking about!" You must not have many friends with that attitude. In fact, I suspect you got beaten up in school quite often.

 

Quote

The whole point of birthright is that you don't need someone's approval for it. Neither can it be taken away.

 

Yeah kings got overthrown plenty of times.

Let me remind you of your original claim since you seem to have forgotten it. You made the claim that "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."

Thror Baratheon wrote that kings could only rule if they had support and that, despite your ignorant claim, kings HAVE been elected. (In fact, for many centuries, in Scandinavia for example. You could have learned something new there, but you chose not to.)

You objected to this by saying: "1. Unlike warlord or president a king isn't chosen by the people but by the God/Gods themselves. His right to rule is divine"

No. Thror Baratheon was right, kings have been elected, and even unelected kings only ruled when they had support. You were wrong. As for "divine right" the noblemen would only let the king go around saying that as long as they supported him. It wasn't WHY they supported him.

 

Aside from that, your explanation of a warlord is pretty much the opposite of reality - THAT is someone who rules without caring about claims and support from the country at large, only the support of his soldiers for as long as the game lasts. Cersei is now like a warlord.

 

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

On 29/06/2016 at 3:30 AM, DeGavph said:

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.

PREACH BABY PREACH!!! 

I haven't read the whole comment but I'm sure I won't be disapointed. I like the beginning! Keep preaching baby!

[Mayura]

I'd like your insight on that: I actually thought that, in the books, we were obviously showed that names and titles do matter up to a certain point (easier to make a claim, easier to get support under regular circumstances) but that ultimately, "power resides where men believe it resides".

So I'm really not sure the message even GRRM is trying to convey is that "name, title, law of inheritance > all". To the contrary, I was under the impression he was telling us that the law of inheritance isn't that clear in Westeros and that it indeed sometimes works a bit "à la carte", depending on who the people think is the alpha-ruler at the moment (a good example was already given: a lot of men followed Renly and supported his claim although it was obviously shaky but his men loved him, decided they wanted to follow him and therefore decided to bet on him). And even though some of these characters are playing the game of thrones and believe their lordship and position will come into use, names and titles will absolutely not matter in the long run, because while the high lords are busy tearing each other apart in the name of their "claim", a worse threat is coming from the North. 

And quite frankly, I fail to see what Sansa, for example, could do against the Others/White Walkers. She could indeed inherit Winterfell "because she has the better claim and she is a Stark", but she would still not be the leader the Northmen want to follow. And I think this is the important part: to stand united, the North (and Westeros as a whole) has to unite behind an elected leader, someone they want to fight with and for. Clearly, Sansa wasn't that person and I don't find this illogical. Jon and the northmen in general understand there is a massive threat coming from the North and that the Others are coming for all mankind. They won't give a F about who is King or Lord of whichever region. So it was maybe the right time to sit on old customs and for the people to choose the person they'll follow into the war to come. 

I've also seen people criticizing the apparent "anarchy" on the show (no respect for family rights, people taking other families' seats etc) but I actually think that will happen in the books as well (probably with more subtlety, granted). GRRM said that quite a few players will sit the Iron Throne before the end of the books and I doubt all of these players who'll sit the IT will have a "legal claim" to it. That chair will most likely be held by opportunists who'll just sit on it whenever they can, regardless of any "claim" they might have. And I though that was the entire point of this story: for Westeros to dive into a complete anarchy as the people are tearing each other apart to get a piece of power while they don't actually notice the real threat is coming from the North and none of their claims and stupid quarrels actually matters.

[TwiceBorn]

4 hours ago, Jarl Halstein said:

Nope. That's just something that is added to it. If you think people would follow kings only because "oh well, he says he's chosen by God, so we must even though we hate him!" then you don't know much about history. Kings got toppled. And other kings who didn't get toppled got wing-clipped in other ways.

But nice arrogance there. "I don't have to explain myself! There is nothing to think or believe here CUZ I AM RIGHT!" Your comparison with Christian dogma is bullshit that doesn't have anything to do with the argument at hand.

I can just as well say: "When I say for example that two plus two is four, I feel weird when retards like you respond that you think it's five. There is nothing to think or believe about that, and that's exactly like your retarded belief that I'm not right in the discussion we were really talking about!" You must not have many friends with that attitude. In fact, I suspect you got beaten up in school quite often.

 

Yeah kings got overthrown plenty of times.

Let me remind you of your original claim since you seem to have forgotten it. You made the claim that "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."

Thror Baratheon wrote that kings could only rule if they had support and that, despite your ignorant claim, kings HAVE been elected. (In fact, for many centuries, in Scandinavia for example. You could have learned something new there, but you chose not to.)

You objected to this by saying: "1. Unlike warlord or president a king isn't chosen by the people but by the God/Gods themselves. His right to rule is divine"

No. Thror Baratheon was right, kings have been elected, and even unelected kings only ruled when they had support. You were wrong. As for "divine right" the noblemen would only let the king go around saying that as long as they supported him. It wasn't WHY they supported him.

 

Aside from that, your explanation of a warlord is pretty much the opposite of reality - THAT is someone who rules without caring about claims and support from the country at large, only the support of his soldiers for as long as the game lasts. Cersei is now like a warlord.

 

Well I've actually learned something from Scandinavians, Swedish to be exact. In their culture to lose your temper during discussion is an utter humiliation and a clear sign that someone has nothing more to say. You keep repeating yourself and throwing insults. How does it work for you in your society?

To those forum users who aren't experts in medieval Europe history:

The Holy Roman Emperors weren't random people or popular leaders like nowadays politicians. They were chosen from top candidates of the most prominent houses like Habsburg. Royal blood, they were already princes or sometimes even kings. They've already had divine rights to rule - even before the election. Lastly - the choice had to be approved by the local clergy and the Pope - voice of God on Earth. This means that once approved there was no recall - a choice sanctioned was no longer within human reach. This is why the above arguments about HRE are useless when discussing Jon - there is barely any comparison.

It is vital to understand that a king by divine right remains a king even when he is toppled, overthrown, imprisoned, blinded, castrated, cursed or exiled. Aside form the last two, the rest is a crime actually. A king by popular vote stops being a king once he loses popular support. A king by merit stops being a king once he loses merit, however his descendants do not - their right to rule is by birth.

[The Chequered Raven]

On 28.6.2016 at 1:30 AM, jrod said:

I actually like it this way better.  Jon has "earned" the lords' trust and for them to declare him KitN, the will would just means he would have inherited the title.  I would rather it that Jon did something to become KitN rather than it just being given to him by Robb's decree.

Absolutely!
After all Robb's kingship wasn't this successful... There would not be much reasons for the northern Lords to obey the will of a dead King whose wars have cost the lives of their sons and commoners!

Remeber Varys: Power resides wher poeple believe it resides.
They believe Jon has the power to rule!

And - also mentioned before - Robb's will would have happened some seasons ago. The audience most likely has forgotten today...