Jump to content

Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance


Jaak

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

What if it is proved that he is a trueborn?

There's no way to prove this except for soap-opera style.

Quote

If he should go where he belongs he will end up on the Throne.

Then I pity him. It's not a very comfortable seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

How exactly do you know that?

 

Well, what are the possibilities?

Some letter in which Rhaegaer declares he got married to Lyanna with the signature of the there King' Guard members? Soap Opera.

Some relic in Lyannas tomb? Even worse soap opera.

Reed? Why would anyone believe him? Bran? Sure, the realm is going to believe a crippled child who claims to be a green seer.

As other member in this thread already pointed out, even if there's a letter and a testimony, why should anyone believe it? Words of dead people count even less than words of living people. Cercei tears Robert's decree into pieces in front of a lot of witnesses in A Game of Thrones. Doesn’t look like these kind of documents are very important. And that's not even taking into account that even if Lyanna and Rhagaer had a child it doesn't have to be Ned's bastard. There's not going to be a birth certificate with a photo of Jon as a baby.

I can imagine people believing Jon is the result of Lyanna’s abduction if Reed and Bran account for it but to believe he's the trueborn heir of Rhaegar? Very unlikely....  

Anyway I’m weary of this discussion especially since most of this and more was already mentioned in this thread.

I really like Jon as a character and therefore I hope he doesn’t end up on the iron throne. It’s not what the story is about and it's not a good place to be. Monarchy is awful, being king is even worse. Even if you're a good person it's going to destroy you, see Aegon the Unlikely or Robert. He didn’t enjoy kingship very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

There is a formal line.

Can you point me to a source actually confirming that? I'm not arguing that it is not common practice that younger son follows his elder brother should he die without issue. But it is quite clear that there is no certainty as to whether a grandchild from the eldest son or younger son of the lord/king came before. Else there wouldn't have been so much confusion.

The idea that Prince Aegon was firmly seen as King Aerys II's default heir presumptive should something happen to Prince Rhaegar is not clear at all.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If you trust something that someone said with no proofs either from the other books or even from the same books there is no reason to not believe that everything that are mentioned in this book are real, like the rumor that Elia killed her children.

Claiming that this is a lie isn't even confirmed. Do you know whether there were no rumors claiming that Aerys or Elia had killed her children? No, so Yandel recounting them is perfectly fine. He talks about many other rumors, too.

I also see no reason to cross-confirm believable stuff by using the other books. If I did that then half of the Targaryens mentioned in TWoIaF might not even exist.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Also in the same book it implies that a Targ woman cannot take the Throne, so by what you say the Targs are extinct.

It doesn't say that. It tells us that many interpreted the first Great Council in such a way. But that doesn't mean 'that a woman cannot take the throne'. It just means that many people do not want a woman to take the throne and while there still close male heirs around no woman after Rhaenyra ever claimed the throne.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Utter nonsense. I don't know how you don't know how the line of succession works.

Again, give me any textual evidence that there was a fixed and binding line of succession all the kings were bound to. Something like that is never mentioned.

The only thing we have is that Valarr was considered to be second in line to the Iron Throne during the late years of Daeron II. But we have no reason to believe that this was not confirmed by the king's decree and not by the right of some line of succession the king could not change.

When you were to present a long line of succession to George he would probably laugh and point out that the Westerosi succession customs are deliberately vague and unclear, wax in the hands of the mighty so that they could do whatever the hell they wanted to.

Yes, it is true that after the Dance the idea of female succession became very unpopular indeed. But that doesn't mean that everybody agreed whether a grandson should become before a younger son.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

We don't know why Maeglor was disinherited, which most likely had something to do with the fact that Aerion was mad, he was named after Maeglor and Westeros was in turmoil and needed a grown up as their King. But we do know that after Maeglor's death it wasn't his chosen heir Aerea that became the Queen but the one who was next to the line of succession, Jaehaerys. As Westerosi history proves a King cannot change his heir without a formal ceremony, like what happened in Rhaenyra's case, and a Great Counsil like Great Council of 101 AC and Great Council of 233 AC.

There is no reason to believe Maegor was disinherited (nor his cousin, Princess Vaella). The idea that those people were never named Maekar's heirs and could thus be pushed aside.

You are also mistaken in your belief that Viserys I changed the succession when he named Rhaenyra his heir. She was his first and only anointed heir. Prince Daemon never was Viserys I's heir apparent nor did his royal brother grant him the title Prince of Dragonstone.

Thus your idea that that Viserys 'changed his heir' makes no sense.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

In the end of the day even if Aerys had expressed his choice who would care? If Rhaegar had won the battle but Aerys would had made Viserys his heir do you think that anyone would had agreed with Aerys' choice? Also if Rhaegar was disinherited why everyone seem to believe that he would had been the next King?

We are not talking about who would care or not. We are talking about what's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Land's End said:

snip

The point is that we don't know who knows about Jon's parentage and what proofs are there. The only thing we can do so far is to just speculate about it based on the text proofs we have so far.

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that Prince Aegon was firmly seen as King Aerys II's default heir presumptive should something happen to Prince Rhaegar is not clear at all.

Yet, iirc, this is  what people think so far.

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Claiming that this is a lie isn't even confirmed. Do you know whether there were no rumors claiming that Aerys or Elia had killed her children? No, so Yandel recounting them is perfectly fine. He talks about many other rumors, too.

I also see no reason to cross-confirm believable stuff by using the other books. If I did that then half of the Targaryens mentioned in TWoIaF might not even exist.

Sure there is no reason to confirm something that seems like utter nonsense in order to treat it like a fact.

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It doesn't say that. It tells us that many interpreted the first Great Council in such a way. But that doesn't mean 'that a woman cannot take the throne'. It just means that many people do not want a woman to take the throne and while there still close male heirs around no woman after Rhaenyra ever claimed the throne.

It still has more proofs than Aerys formally disinherit Rhaegar, at least we have proofs that the Council happened.

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You are also mistaken in your belief that Viserys I changed the succession when he named Rhaenyra his heir. She was his first and only anointed heir. Prince Daemon never was Viserys I's heir apparent nor did his royal brother grant him the title Prince of Dragonstone.

Viserys chose his heir; a daughter before a son and since we know that a son always comes before a daughter outside Dorne Viserys changed the line of succession.

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We are not talking about who would care or not. We are talking about what's the case.

Not true. If *what is the case* matters then the Targs are usurpers since 48 AC;. Maeglor had chosen his heir and no one cared. So in the end of the day we have seen that a King can choose his heir but he needs to make it formal and so far we have absolutely no proof that Aerys did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The point is that we don't know who knows about Jon's parentage and what proofs are there. The only thing we can do so far is to just speculate about it based on the text proofs we have so far.

I made a completely speculative statement on a rather meta-textual than textual level. What are Martin's intentions and how could he realize them?

He wants to subvert fantasy tropes while not killing off characters and making weird twists just for the thrill of it. So, while I don't believe that everything that points towards R+L=J are red herrings and I also don't believe that it won't matter at all I found the idea quite intriguing that R+L=J will matter, but it won't act in favor of the character.

Trope: Protagonist has a secret noble heritage that will be revealed in the end and help him win the war/ the princess/ the throne
Martin's subversion: Protagonist has a secret noble heritage that will lead to his downfall

If your version (Protagonist has a secret noble heritage that will help him take the throne) is true, we’re back at the starting point.

I wasn't taking part in the textual discussion at all. I didn't say it's not possible that an evidence will turn up in the upcoming books. I said that in my opinion if it does and if it convinces everybody that Jon is trueborn it's bad writing (that's what I meant by soap opera style). So it was a completely subjective input.

I admit I shouldn’t have gatecrashed a completely different discussion with a reply to a post from two weeks ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Land's End said:

Martin's subversion: Protagonist has a secret noble heritage that will lead to his downfall

How do you know that?

In any case I never said that he will end up on the Throne because of his parentage. I said that he is truborn and that his place is on the Throne. I never said that he will take the Throne because he is trueborn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that is a fact Marsh and the old guard actually understood and conceded, too. But they disagreed on the 'We are going to feed, cloth, and arm the wildlings' policy. They could have just allowed them to pass. There was no need to keep them close and try to fraternize with them the way Jon did.

That we can say, yes. I don't know what Jon could have done in that situation, though. Mance practically tells him that he has to help them or he'll let them loose on the North...which would have caused a lot of problems in itself again leading the blame back to him, I guess. He also hopes to recruit them into the defense of the Wall. Pretty much a catch-22 situation, I'd say.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it isn't. The NW has a duty stipulated by their oaths whereas the Lords of the Seven Kingdoms (and their king) have no stipulated duty whatsoever towards the NW. And the NW are subjects of the Iron Throne like anybody else. They are not a legal body outside the law.

Really? What prevents the NW officers from saying - "Oh well, nobody is responding to our calls for help, we'll just leave and take the next ship to Braavos and chill in the Free Cities." The Lord of Winterfell and everyone else then has to deal with the problem themselves.

Duty is absolutely a two-way street.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I never said Jon would have had success. But he didn't even try. Nobody did. The argument 'nobody believes in the Others' isn't a very good one. There is proof that the Others exist and we are talking about a world where magic and monsters actually exist. If you tell a convincing story about the Others (let it be Sam, Jon himself, or any of the other survivors from the Fist or some of the wildlings encountering them) then quite a few people might listen. Stannis never saw an Other, either, yet he believes that they exist.

Yeah, when everyone else in Westeros is saddled with their own problems, dealing with the aftermath of a war, family losses, politicking, so and so on, they are going to suddenly listen to the NW men's stories. The NW are absolutely lucky that Stannis does. And why does he? Because of Melisandre who proclaimed him as AA.  Take that away and it'd be much, much harder to convince Stannis of the same.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The North already accepted their rule. We are talking about the beginning of ADwD. And Bolton being spared in the Red Wedding isn't proof that he was involved. Perhaps Roose was taken hostage and eventually agreed to serve the Lannisters in exchange for his life? Jon cannot be sure about any of that.

Strawman much? I stated examples of Ramsay's behaviour being very well known in the North, Roose's raping of Ramsay's mother, the reputation of the Starks, the fact that the Boltons are mysteriously victors and have gotten a "Stark" bride when, ahem, many other Lords are hostages at the Twins.

Doesn't really take a genius here, and I'm willing to bet anyone would have realised what Jon did.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is all irrelevant. If the Others are a real threat then making common cause with some rapist and torturer shouldn't be a problem. Neither for the Northmen nor for Jon Snow. If you have to choose between getting your hands dirty by association and the end of your race.

Why should the NW make common cause with such a guy when they have Stannis on their side? That's what I've been trying to argue. One can make this argument if Stannis had not been in the picture at all. But considering the situation in ADWD, it's just utterly incredulous why anyone would choose the Boltons.

Seriously, there are many mistakes which Jon did make, but this is not one of them. It's your preference clearly speaking here.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why do you think the the fall of the Wall is going to change anything, by the way? All the people in the south will get is rumors and reports that the Wall has fallen, they won't see the actual fallen Wall.

Yeah, it's actually quite likely they may not until things are really bad and Northern refugees start fleeing to the South, or something. GRRM has very much set it up such that both North and South are completely ravaged by various problems and might be taken unaware by the Others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yet, iirc, this is  what people think so far.

What people? Nobody in-universe thinks that this was the case. Dany thinks Aegon would one day have ruled as Aegon VI but that would have been so if Rhaegar had been king. Aegon was his eldest son and would have been his heir had Rhaegar taken the throne.

But there is no hint or confirmation whatsoever that Aegon was universally considered to be second in line to the throne (Aerys publicly rejecting his granddaughter Rhaenys is a pretty strong sign that Elia's children weren't even considered members of the royal family) or Aerys' heir after the death of Rhaegar.

Instead we got confirmation that Viserys was Aerys' new heir.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Sure there is no reason to confirm something that seems like utter nonsense in order to treat it like a fact.

Well, neither the Elia nor the Aerys thing is complete nonsense. Aerys tried to burn everybody in KL, and we know that parents in Westeros have killed their children before when they expected to suffer an even worse fate.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

It still has more proofs than Aerys formally disinherit Rhaegar, at least we have proofs that the Council happened.

Nobody ever said Aerys disinherited Rhaegar.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Viserys chose his heir; a daughter before a son and since we know that a son always comes before a daughter outside Dorne Viserys changed the line of succession.

How do you think the succession changed in Dorne? Nymeria succeeded Prince Mors and in turn named her eldest daughter her successor. If Viserys I had no right to name Rhaenyra his heir Nymeria also had no right to make her daughter her successor. After all, both of them had sons.

In addition, Rhaenyra was named Heir Apparent when Viserys I didn't have any sons. He never disinherited Aegon in favor of Rhaenyra. He named her his heir and then stuck to it.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Not true. If *what is the case* matters then the Targs are usurpers since 48 AC;. Maeglor had chosen his heir and no one cared. So in the end of the day we have seen that a King can choose his heir but he needs to make it formal and so far we have absolutely no proof that Aerys did it.

Maegor himself was a usurper, was he not? And Maegor named Aerea his heir in the middle of a war waged against him (also) by the widow of Aenys I and his sons. What makes you believe Maegor I didn't name Aerea his heir the same way Viserys I named Rhaenyra? We don't have any details on this whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

How do you know that?

In any case I never said that he will end up on the Throne because of his parentage. I said that he is truborn and that his place is on the Throne. I never said that he will take the Throne because he is trueborn. 

You’re right, I implied causality when in fact you only made two independent statements.

I don’t know whether my proposition is what Martin is going for. I didn’t mean to make it sound that way. It’s just an idea Protagoras post gave me and it made sense (to me). The whole R+L=J thing gives me headaches. To me there’s no outcome I would enjoy as a reader. Jon being accepted as the trueborn heir, becoming king etc. would be boring but if it made no difference it would be pointless.

But him being trueborn while being perceived as a Targaryen bastard and therefore losing the status Robb gave him would be the kind of tragic twist I’d expect from ASoIaF.

On an inter-textual level we could look at how Martin handled similar situations.

In "The Mystery Knight" Ser Glendon Flowers claims to be the bastard-son of Quentyn Ball. Contrary to his believes proving his abilities at the tourney doesn't make the noble families accept him but puts him in a dangerous situation instead. He's only a hero to a few characters, the majority mocks him. In the end the reader doesn't know if he's truly Quentyn Ball's son, so it's not the same situation. Overall the story gives the general message that it doesn't matter who your parents are or how talented you are but whether you're appealing to the public eye.

Tyrion faces similar problems. It doesn't matter that he's a Lannister or as clever as his father, first and foremost he's a dwarf. 

Another example for this message is Stannis. He has a better claim to the throne than Renly yet he got almost no support as long as his dashing brother was an option. And even now he's not seen as a real threat. It's another example of it doesn't matter who your parents are or how good your claim is if people don't like you.

Martin has a history of writing heroes who aren’t very attractive and stay in the background, who are honorable and dutiful and hated for the wrong reasons. People who do the right thing but don't get rewarded for it. Stannis and Ned fall into this category. Bloodraven might as well but we don’t know much about him yet. Jon seems to be one of these heroes in the making.

Jon is known as the Bastard on the Wall. In the book he's described as plain-looking. Tormund jokes his long face will make the wildlings less afraid of the Night Watch. Just like Stannis, he's able to inspire fierce loyalty in a few men but he isn't appealing to the masses. Assuming he somehow survives the stabbing or gets resurrected (which won't add to his looks) and becomes King in the North (so many assumptions) this will already piss off many people. They would take every chance to defame him.

I like the idea of his heritage being used against him because it's not a complete anti-thesis of the "hero with secret noble heritage-trope" which would be "hero with no noble heritage". Instead it would twist the expectations the reader usually has as soon as there are hints for a noble heritage in a book. We are used to hope for the heritage to be revealed and expect this revelation to have an immense positive effect on the story. It would be a clever move to make Jon finally find out who his parents are  - just as the readers have hoped - and then everything goes down the gutter because of it.

Basically I was just rambling about an outcome I would like, not something that’s going to happen. It really doesn’t belong into this thread so I’m going to shut up :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viserys claim mlaim means jack shit now and legally Daenerys is rightful heir to iron throne is irrelevant , Daenerys has Dragons and Army, she can conquer 7 kingdom thats all matters now, left over few great lords will do what they always does, follow winning side

 

military might and dragon is her right to throne, disagree? then they can die in their old world dracarys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the events prior to the sack of King's Landing, it is more believable that King Aerys chose Viserys as his heir.  He thought the Dornish failed him.  Therefore, he was not about to allow his half-dornish grandson to inherit his throne.  Also, given that he executed Brandon and Rickard, with prejudice, I might add.  It is also the most likely that he would make sure that any son coming from Rhaegar and the Stark girl would have no chance of inheriting his throne.  Based on his actions, it is clear that Aerys did not trust the Starks.  He would make sure to prevent them from getting his throne.  So that passage from TWOIAF is very likely true.  Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's  current children and any child he might have produced with Lyanna Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Wylde might have later held the view that Viserys I should have changed the succession but that doesn't mean he held the belief Daemon should have come before Rhaenyra while Viserys I had no sons.

The idea that a son should come before a daughter was a widespread belief in Westeros. Nobody doubts that. But that doesn't mean that the same people did not think the king could rule on his own succession.

It can be interpreted precisely so.

Jasper Wylde, and any other Greens, never argued that Viserys I ever actually acknowledged Aegon II as his heir. They agreed that Viserys had always declared Rhaenyra to be the heir.

So, the logical argument for the Greens to make was that Aegon II came before Rhaenyra as a matter of Andal law, and the King had no right to overrule the law to make a daughter his heir - that when the King broke the law, the subjects had the duty to disobey the King and follow his son anyway.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The thing is that Jaehaerys I most likely favored Baelon over Rhaenys not just because he got along well with his son but also because he was aware of the reservations his lords had for a female monarch. In addition it seems to be rather likely that he favored Viserys over Rhaenys/Laenor in 101 AC just as he favored Baelon over Rhaenys in 101 AC. Thus it is not unlikely that the Great Council was just the sneaky way the king used to ensure his favored heir would succeed him without a civil war.

Yes - there never was an official vote tally published. But as a matter of principle, did either the King or the supporters of Rhaenys recognize that the Great Council had a right to make Kings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

It can be interpreted precisely so.

Jasper Wylde, and any other Greens, never argued that Viserys I ever actually acknowledged Aegon II as his heir. They agreed that Viserys had always declared Rhaenyra to be the heir.

So, the logical argument for the Greens to make was that Aegon II came before Rhaenyra as a matter of Andal law, and the King had no right to overrule the law to make a daughter his heir - that when the King broke the law, the subjects had the duty to disobey the King and follow his son anyway.

If that was the case then Jasper Wylde and the other Greens should have rebelled against Viserys I the very moment it became clear that young Aegon would not be recognized as the king's heir, don't you think? After all, it would be Viserys I who broke Andal law, not Rhaenyra. The crime would have been to allow her to remain Princess of Dragonstone after Aegon's birth.

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

Yes - there never was an official vote tally published. But as a matter of principle, did either the King or the supporters of Rhaenys recognize that the Great Council had a right to make Kings?

No, because a Great Council never had such a right. Jaehaerys I decided who would be his successor in the end. The fact that he chose to follow the vote of the council isn't surprising because he called the council to advise him in this matter.

Ind 233 AC Bloodraven presided over the Great Council as Hand. He spoke with Maekar's voice and he would have ratified the council's decision arranging the coronation of Aegon V. Until Aegon V actually was king Bloodraven was the man in charge. That's clear from the fact that nobody has the power to punish him for the murder of Aenys Blackfyre until the new king is crowned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Land's End said:

That would actually be a really good twist. Jon finally becomes a legitimized Stark through Robb's will. Then L+R=J is revealed (by Bran/ Bloodraven) but not to his advantage - the typical fantasy trope - but to his (personal) disadvantage. He's a bastard again, though a Targaryen Bastard and not a Stark Bastard. He gets delegitimized as Ned's heir and is sent back where he belongs - the wall where he dies fighting the others.

Yeah, I don´t think GRRM will play this straight either and as it has been pointed out (by me and others) this trope has been done to death. It is more likely that GRRM won´t play this straight. The reveal will most likely have negative repurcussions as well as positive ones, but I have so far not seen a single shred of logic or argument from the Jon-crowd. After all, this shouldn´t be a hard question - right? How will the heritage be proven? Easy enough question. Yet, that seems to be a sore wound, becuase you tend to get bullshit answers like "he won´t need proof, he will get the Iron Throne anyway. And as a snow" or "Jon´s internal awesomeness will make everyone bow down since he will be the big, manly hero saving humanity" or "Who cares about the iron throne, I think Jon will get the throne anyway but he turns it down due to him being more important than it and so he leaves, brooding very manly with great weights on his shoulders but stays true to his values". His fans seems like they WANT that soap opera. 

Also, for your own sake - ignore JQC. She just assumes Jons truebornness will be proved without any kind of chain of logical events to lead it there and that Jon will get "everything" by simply being "awesome". Her definition of speculation is to just make something up and without supporting it by reasons. Because, after all - none of us are GRRM and we cannot know etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Really? What prevents the NW officers from saying - "Oh well, nobody is responding to our calls for help, we'll just leave and take the next ship to Braavos and chill in the Free Cities." The Lord of Winterfell and everyone else then has to deal with the problem themselves.

Duty is absolutely a two-way street.

No, it is not

The Night’s Watch is a glorified prison. These people there have been given a second chance to serve the realm. They are subserviant of the Iron throne (King of the North before Aegon) and are supposed to do exactly as said power say. They are meant to take no part in the affairs of the realm so it can focus on a larger threat. Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat.

If the Watch refuse to fulfill this role, well - The watch exist on the mercy of the throne. If they refuse to perform its task then they should be destroyed and dismantled. Who wants a paramiliary force on its territory who doesn´t do what they have been told? What the watch think of all this is not very relevant - they are not in a position to make demands. See them as as a satelite state - and extension of the thrones will. The same way a northern masterly house is an extension of the Stark will, but in practice have alot of influence and doesn´t have to cooperate with the Starks. They will just be destroyed root and stem if they do. As will the Watch. 

So the Night’s Watch certainly has a duty to the Throne. The Throne does not, in any shape or form, has a duty to the Night’s Watch. Hell, they should be allowed to interfere - they are the ones allowing them to exist in the first place. You don´t give criminals a vote if they like their cells or if the menial jobs they perform are ok. They get wtat they get. The choice is - accept or die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Yeah, I don´t think GRRM will play this straight either and as it has been pointed out (by me and others) this trope has been done to death. It is more likely that GRRM won´t play this straight. The reveal will most likely have negative repurcussions as well as positive ones, but I have so far not seen a single shred of logic or argument from the Jon-crowd. After all, this shouldn´t be a hard question - right? How will the heritage be proven? Easy enough question. Yet, that seems to be a sore wound, becuase you tend to get bullshit answers like "he won´t need proof, he will get the Iron Throne anyway. And as a snow" or "Jon´s internal awesomeness will make everyone bow down since he will be the big, manly hero saving humanity" or "Who cares about the iron throne, I think Jon will get the throne anyway but he turns it down due to him being more important than it and so he leaves, brooding very manly with great weights on his shoulders but stays true to his values". His fans seems like they WANT that soap opera.

Your idea really gave me hope for the upcoming books. So far I thought there’s no satisfying outcome but now I think there might be :)

It’s funny you call people who want Jon’s heritage to have a positive impact the Jon-crowd because I’d consider myself part of this crowd in the sense that I sympathize with the character. That’s the reason why I hope Martin won’t turn him into the chosen-one-stereotype. If Jon turns out to be another Harry Potter I’ll have to reconsider my take on him. I usually dislike characters who represent this specific trope. The reason why I have been able to sympathize with Jon so far is that I trust in Martin as an author to not let everything fall into his lap in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

No, it is not

The Night’s Watch is a glorified prison. These people there have been given a second chance to serve the realm. They are subserviant of the Iron throne (King of the North before Aegon) and are supposed to do exactly as said power say. They are meant to take no part in the affairs of the realm so it can focus on a larger threat. Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat.

If the Watch refuse to fulfill this role, well - The watch exist on the mercy of the throne. If they refuse to perform its task then they should be destroyed and dismantled. Who wants a paramiliary force on its territory who doesn´t do what they have been told? What the watch think of all this is not very relevant - they are not in a position to make demands.

They are in a practical position to make demands. They are at the border, for one - if the Watch decides to defect, serve the Kingdom beyond the Wall and hold the Wall against Southrons, that would hurt the South. For another, the only navy north of Gulltown is operated by Watch - North has none, so if the Watch decided to desert to Essos, again there would be little the Southrons could do in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Land's End said:

Your idea really gave me hope for the upcoming books. So far I thought there’s no satisfying outcome but now I think there might be :)

 

It’s funny you call people who want Jon’s heritage to have a positive impact the Jon-crowd because I’d consider myself part of this crowd in the sense that I sympathize with the character. That’s the reason why I hope Martin won’t turn him into the chosen-one-stereotype. If Jon turns out to be another Harry Potter I’ll have to reconsider my take on him. I usually dislike characters who represent this specific trope. The reason why I have been able to sympathize with Jon so far is that I trust in Martin as an author to not let everything fall into his lap in the end.

 

The problem is that, according to me, the "Jon-crowd" do strike me as the group who want a more traditional story. They want their hero to defeat the "evil persons". They want everyone to see how special he is. They in short, want to making him something between Aragorn and Harry Potter whereas me and others prefer a darker more tragic tale. 

But its good to know that there are Jon fans that doesn´t want everything to fall in his lap. I personally liked the turn Jons story took in ADwD (compared to the first books where I think Jon came off as the hero who doesn´t have to take consequences for his choices and that his struggles felt uninteresting with pretty easy choices. Either do right or be selfish basically). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jaak said:

They are in a practical position to make demands. They are at the border, for one - if the Watch decides to defect, serve the Kingdom beyond the Wall and hold the Wall against Southrons, that would hurt the South. For another, the only navy north of Gulltown is operated by Watch - North has none, so if the Watch decided to desert to Essos, again there would be little the Southrons could do in time.

Then the Throne just call them "wildlings" and command the Lord paramount of the North to deal with the problem. 

If even they don´t care about theit job, why should anyone else. The throne dont need them. They are a relic and not a particulary effective one. If the others do show up, the lords have enough man and steel to deal with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...