xjlxking

Who did it better, Robb or Jon?

8 posts in this topic

Which King in the North got the title/support better on screen?

To me, seeing Robb being pronounced King in the North was more original. After all, it was the first time they played it. However, I followed the show/book for 6 years, I favored Jon since the beginning. To see the character being confirmed a Targ/Stark, while being anointed a King of the North was better. Yes, I had the, "we were here before" thought but it was still epic. Lord Glover also felt much more sincere and believable when proclaiming Jon a king. Something in his shatter speech made it sound better. On top of that, here is a character who came from being a Bastard to this..

so I say Jon

Edited by xjlxking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, xjlxking said:

Which King in the North got the title/support better on screen?

To me, seeing Robb being pronounced King in the North was more original. After all, it was the first time they played it. However, I followed the show/book for 6 years, I favored Jon since the beginning. To see the character being confirmed a Targ/Stark, while being anointed a King of the North was better. Yes, I had the, "we were here before" thought but it was still epic. Lord Glover also felt much more sincere and believable when proclaiming Jon a king. Something in his shatter speech made it sound better. On top of that, here is a character who came from being a Bastard to this..

so I say Jon

Well the first one was more powerful. It was full of hardened experienced men strong enough to rule their own will, but loyal to an enduring status-quote that have governed the north for 1000s of years, the starks rule the north. Robb was basically a kid, not only in age but in everything compared to the other lords, they were grown ups in life experience, he was a kid. He was not ruler of himself even at the time of war. While Robb distinguished himself enough to earn their respect, they followed him and crowned him king because of the nobility and loyalty they had for the stark name, and the raged they still felt on the southern king killing Ned Stark the patriarch of the starks. 

 

Jon was crowned by weaklings who were wetting themselves when hearing the name Ransey bolton. Jon while younger than some of them, in experience he's older than all of them combined. He's more battle hardened, more knowledgeable, he knows the truth of what's happening in the north, while those weaklings are still in their innocence. Jon asked them for their help, to help the remaining starks at their most need, to remember their families thousands of years oaths and loyalty towards the starks, but they refused and even scorned at the name stark. Jon went alone and with the help of the vale managed to defeat the monster that was making the northern lords hide in their beds. After Jon's victory then they wanted to talk and even then it took a 10 year old to shame them for their cowardice. Only after being shamed and feeling so weak they decided to follow the lead of the 10 year who's words left them as honorless cowards. Sure they crowned Jon their king but it was not out of loyalty, it was out of shame, ignorance and need

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is a tie. Both were very powerful scenes for their own reasons. Both united the northern lords to fight a common enemy. Robb was winning the war and their loyalty was from fealty. Jon united them by defeating the Boltons and their allies and their loyalty came to him from a choice, not tradition. So as I said it is a toss up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2016 at 4:36 PM, Slaysman said:

For me it is a tie. Both were very powerful scenes for their own reasons. Both united the northern lords to fight a common enemy. Robb was winning the war and their loyalty was from fealty. Jon united them by defeating the Boltons and their allies and their loyalty came to him from a choice, not tradition. So as I said it is a toss up.

While I suppose it is a bit arrogant to use my own quote I have decided to modify my response to the question.

I will stand by my statement that both were very powerful scenes in their own right. However, after watching both of the scenes over I noticed subtle differences that make both unique in their own way.

Robb being declared King after a failure of the Northern lords to come to a consensus on which Baratheon to support. I believe this took place after a victory in which Robb had the support of all the northern lords. After Great Jon Umber begins the declaration all the lords kneel to Robb and make him their King. In essence Robb was crowned because of his last name, and the reputation of his ancestors.

The lords kneeling is a very important distinction. It shows they are willing to go back to the old ways of the North and follow a Stark. When Robb stood to accept his crown, such as it was, he stood over them. This shows he was willing to lead and rule over them. Up to this point Robb had not yet done anything of notice. Though as the war raged on he received a deserved reputation as a strategist.

Robb's cause was to free his father and his sisters. Unfortunately his goals changed after he became King in the North. So he waged his war with no plan on what to do afterwards. 

Robb becoming King was more of a classical type of coronation, the whole divine right and what not.

Jon's coronation came after he and Sansa defeated the Umbers, Karstarks, and Boltons with almost no support from the north. Yes Jon messed up the battle of Winterfell, and he should have given more credit to Sansa. Anyway, Jon was not crowned because of his name, but because of his deeds.

After Jon is declared King, the lords all stand calling him King in the North. If you will notice Jon is the last to stand. This is very telling because it shows that while the assembled lords have acknowledged his as their King they are not going to kneel before him, but stand with him. It is also the same for Jon.

Jon also has a plan and a goal. The White Walkers are coming with their army of the dead. He isn't leaving the North to defend or liberate it as Robb did. He is staying in the North to defend the all the Realms. While as of this point he has no plan for what happens after, it will not matter if they fail.

In essence Jon is more like the Stark Kings of Winter of Old. He offers single combat to Ramsay to save lives. He believes in the Old Gods of the North. More importantly he fights. When Robb came back from his battles he had a little dirt on him, when Jon came back from battles he was covered from head to toe is mud, shit, blood and sweat.

Jon is not so much the King in the North as he is the resurgence of the King of Winter.

After a careful analysis I am of the opinion that while both were great for their own reasons, Jon's was better because after all his trials it felt like he earned it more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that the other northern lords weren't hardened, that they had less experience than jon. Some of them, lyanna, might have been safe at home. Some others went in war with robb, became prisoners or managed to escape tail between legs. Some stayed at home, but had to face the greyjoys, the boltons or the wildlings. It is more likely that they had more experience than jon during the last war. Also, some of the northern lords might be old enough to have fought at the ninepenny kings rebellion, at robert rebellion or at the greying rebellion. Jon did the the ranging beyond the wall, the battle vs mance army and the battle for winterfell and that's it. Also the larder two battles were won thanks to the arrival of another army that jon didn't expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, naossano said:

I disagree that the other northern lords weren't hardened, that they had less experience than jon. Some of them, lyanna, might have been safe at home. Some others went in war with robb, became prisoners or managed to escape tail between legs. Some stayed at home, but had to face the greyjoys, the boltons or the wildlings. It is more likely that they had more experience than jon during the last war. Also, some of the northern lords might be old enough to have fought at the ninepenny kings rebellion, at robert rebellion or at the greying rebellion. Jon did the the ranging beyond the wall, the battle vs mance army and the battle for winterfell and that's it. Also the larder two battles were won thanks to the arrival of another army that jon didn't expect.

Oh yeah the northern lords were definitely hardened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have irritation towards Robb for being stupid and following his heart. What comes after the proclamation counts right? What they choose to do as King should be considered, no? Robb was a good leader, and his men were loyal, but he forgot his duty, and most of them died because of it. Jon always does what needs to be done, he always does his duty. He slept with Ygritte partly to prove he was loyal to the wildlings, like the Halfhand told him to. And he went back to the watch as soon as he could and fought against her and the wildlings, as a brother of the Nights Watch. I say Jon. He is also playing a major role in this whole story, so of course his reveal was epic. And Lyannas speech was powerful. That girl can act. 

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