Jump to content

Jon Is No Longer Stark Or Snow: Implications For Many People


Iron Mother

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Nic. said:

The heritage is just icing on the cake.  He is going to be the leader that leads the seven kingdoms through the long night (cue on Sam's speech about the leader everyone turned to).  The show is going out of its way to place Jon on this pedestal (the cross, the companions, the resurrection, the horse, the hound/dog, on and on and on) while Dany is out there with her foreign army burning lords alive.   Jon doesn't want to be LC, but he becomes it anyways.  He doesn't want to become king but he becomes it anyways.  He won't want to be king of the seven kingdoms yet he will likely be King anyways.  

This is basically correct. I think this was one of the reasons for the Tarly BBQ in the last episode, to begin to position Dany as someone the people can't accept, whereas Jon, because of his heritage and because of his actions in defense of the realm, will be the natural leader for all of the seven kingdoms, which includes bringing the North back into the fold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pecan said:

This is basically correct. I think this was one of the reasons for the Tarly BBQ in the last episode, to begin to position Dany as someone the people can't accept, whereas Jon, because of his heritage and because of his actions in defense of the realm, will be the natural leader for all of the seven kingdoms, which includes bringing the North back into the fold. 

I actually think that people will choose Jon DESPITE his heritage and that will be the "breaking of the wheel" Dany has been talking about. Yes, he is Rhaegar's son, but it may be irrelevant. Claims, names and titles, that is just doing what has been done for years. The time has come for new approach. Jon was chosen to be KitN because he avenged the Red Wedding. They didn't give him title because he is a Stark, he isn't. But, because of what he did. Perhaps he will get Seven Kingdoms in the same way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

37 minutes ago, disgustipated said:

" One can lie for honorable reasons. "   That is exactly the rationalization.  Ned had the child under his protection. Instead of telling the truth of his nephew's parentage, he concealed it.  We don't know the Lyanna's request of Ned, only that she asked for Ned's promise to protect him from Robert.  Ned reasoned that if Robert knew the true parentage of Jon, Robert would order the child's death. Further, it would be Ned's responsibility to defend his nephew, which he was not willing to do. How do we know?  Because he feared the consequences and chose a path of lies and concealment. Harsh as it is, this was an act of cowardice for someone so bound by honor.    

You must be trolling. Post count of 8. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Yes and No. Robert was a cousin of the ruling Targaryen line through his grandmother. 

Yes, I know about his relation to the Targaryens.  But I read somewhere that there was also a rule by conquest claim that would stand even if he wasn't related.  And that's something I've wondered about even in our world.  Who's to say who has a right to rule?  One family line will rule for generations, and then be conquered and that begins a new line which is eventually accepted as the rightful rulers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SansaJonRule said:

Yes, I know about his relation to the Targaryens.  But I read somewhere that there was also a rule by conquest claim that would stand even if he wasn't related.  And that's something I've wondered about even in our world.  Who's to say who has a right to rule?  One family line will rule for generations, and then be conquered and that begins a new line which is eventually accepted as the rightful rulers.

Right of conquest isn't a rule or any kind of law. It just means you won. Legitimacy is a broader question of how you are perceived after you win. This is where Robert's Targ ancestry comes into play. Jon Arryn would have likely made the best King, but he knew that Robert had the best chance of being perceived as a legitimate ruler and uniting the realm, and so he took the throne and married Cersei, which aligned the Lannisters with the winning faction in the rebellion. 

The English Kings struggled with the issue of legitimacy as well. Henry IV was the first Lancastrian King, by right of conquest, more or less. But, he was also a descendant of Edward III, which made his claim more palatable. But, even though there were several generations of Lancastrian Kings after him, which were perceived as legitimate, the York claim eventually surfaced based on the idea that the York line should have precedence. But, even there, the Yorkist Kings had to fight a war to press that claim. So when they won, the legitimacy of Edward IV was based on conquest but also on a birthright claim. When Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at Bosworth, he claimed the throne more or less by right of conquest, but he also pledged to his followers that he would marry Elizabeth of York, Edward IV's daughter. That marriage was key to the legitimacy of the Tudor Kings and Queens. 

It's a bit of a tangled mess, honestly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pecan said:

Right of conquest isn't a rule or any kind of law. It just means you won. Legitimacy is a broader question of how you are perceived after you win. This is where Robert's Targ ancestry comes into play. Jon Arryn would have likely made the best King, but he knew that Robert had the best chance of being perceived as a legitimate ruler and uniting the realm, and so he took the throne and married Cersei, which aligned the Lannisters with the winning faction in the rebellion. 

The English Kings struggled with the issue of legitimacy as well. Henry IV was the first Lancastrian King, by right of conquest, more or less. But, he was also a descendant of Edward III, which made his claim more palatable. But, even though there were several generations of Lancastrian Kings after him, which were perceived as legitimate, the York claim eventually surfaced based on the idea that the York line should have precedence. But, even there, the Yorkist Kings had to fight a war to press that claim. So when they won, the legitimacy of Edward IV was based on conquest but also on a birthright claim. When Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at Bosworth, he claimed the throne more or less by right of conquest, but he also pledged to his followers that he would marry Elizabeth of York, Edward IV's daughter. That marriage was key to the legitimacy of the Tudor Kings and Queens. 

It's a bit of a tangled mess, honestly. 

Thanks for the history lesson. :rolleyes:  That's the thing I love about historical fiction/fantasy.  For some reason it's easier for me to retain our world's history that way.  I'm a big fan of Guy Gavriel Kay.  I knew the basic story of Lancasters vs.Yorks, but never got into the underlying issues of legitimacy of their claims to the thrones.  Like you said, it's kind of a tangled mess and so easy to get confused!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But by all means, the honorable and courageous thing to do would have been to lay waste to Westeros AGAIN by announcing the existence of a Targaryan in a case where no one needed to be the wiser."

Let's follow the logic here and see where the true blame would lie.  So if Ned had done what honor would dictate, to tell the truth, he would be to blamed for Robert ordering the death of Jon?  Or maybe that blame should fall on the person ordering the death?  We all make these little compromises, myself included.  Are we truly the honorable people we think we are, do we stand up for what is right when it matters most, or do we seek the rationalizations that most align with our own self interests?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, disgustipated said:

Let's follow the logic here and see where the true blame would lie.  So if Ned had done what honor would dictate, to tell the truth, he would be to blamed for Robert ordering the death of Jon?

Of course not, but Ned does not care about the assignment of blame, he cares about the consequences. No matter who was "rightfully" to blame, the consequences would be thousands dead, and Ned has just been through exactly that, seeing friends and family die.

Whether anyone else would blame Ned doesn't matter, because Ned would blame himself. He had a choice: take a dark secret upon himself, something that would harm only him, or throw the realm into chaos and war to preserve his honor? In the end, he chose wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, disgustipated said:

'he cares about the consequences'   So, he just kicked the can down the road and once he discovered the truth about Cersei's children, then he decided to plunge the 7 kingdoms into war..

No, he once again went out of his way to try to prevent that, by giving her forewarning so she could flee. But reading back a bit, I see you're just trolling so just like these other fine gentlemen and ladies, I'm going to ignore you. Have a nice day, and do find something more productive to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should be saddened by the close-mindedness.  so dismissive or so arrogant in thinking as to stifle and label any dissent as "trolling"  Nevertheless I will persist.

'giving her forewarning so she could flee' -  Was it colossal stupidity as suggested in the street play in Braavos, or a perverted sense of honor or both that lead to such miscalculation?  Just a Brutus was honorable to I suppose.  How is it that he was so wise in his reasoning with regards to Jon yet so stupid as Hand to Robert?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, SansaJonRule said:

John and Sansa married??  Can I get a collective Ugh!?  Not saying it couldn't happen and wouldn't make sense; they are cousins.  But they grew up as brother and sister in a culture where siblings did not marry.

They were the only Stark children who never had a real sibling relationship. As soon as Sansa was old enough to be aware of what a bastard was, Jon essentially become non-existent in her world, and she only talked to him when she absolutely had to. They were as close to each other emotionally as neighbors who only exchange small talk on occasion when they cross paths and there's no avoiding it. That's far from anything resembling actual sibling feelings. Personally, I think that was something which Martin did on purpose, have that distance between them which prevented the formation of an actual sibling bond, in order to open the door for this relationship down the road. There's plenty of evidence throughout the novels which hints at this pairing and now in the show, as well, but I've been repeating it all til I turned blue in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thor Odinson said:

They were the only Stark children who never had a real sibling relationship. As soon as Sansa was old enough to be aware of what a bastard was, Jon essentially become non-existent in her world, and she only talked to him when she absolutely had to. They were as close to each other emotionally as neighbors who only exchange small talk on occasion when they cross paths and there's no avoiding it. That's far from anything resembling actual sibling feelings. Personally, I think that was something which Martin did on purpose, have that distance between them which prevented the formation of an actual sibling bond, in order to open the door for this relationship down the road. There's plenty of evidence throughout the novels which hints at this pairing and now in the show, as well, but I've been repeating it all til I turned blue in the face.

You do have a very good point.  How many times was in referenced in the show?  The only time I remember was shortly after Sansa arrived at the Wall and asked Jon to forgive her.  It's been a couple years since I read the books, so I forgot that.  Now that I think about it, Sansa finding out that they are actually cousins could actually erase any remaining disdain she might feel toward Jon because of his bastard status.  You have convinced me!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

You do have a very good point.  How many times was in referenced in the show?  The only time I remember was shortly after Sansa arrived at the Wall and asked Jon to forgive her.  It's been a couple years since I read the books, so I forgot that.  Now that I think about it, Sansa finding out that they are actually cousins could actually erase any remaining disdain she might feel toward Jon because of his bastard status.  You have convinced me!  :)

I don't think she will feel any differently about him than she does now.  When she re-met him again in Winterfell she was very glad to see him.  I think all the "bastard" stuff is no more EXCEPT where it comes to whether or not she gets to rule Winterfell.  So, if the "cousin" thing happens, it will be too late in the show anyway to explore it but my opinion is she does care about him and it's not because of bastard or cousin or actual blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iron Mother said:

I don't think she will feel any differently about him than she does now.  When she re-met him again in Winterfell she was very glad to see him.  I think all the "bastard" stuff is no more EXCEPT where it comes to whether or not she gets to rule Winterfell.  So, if the "cousin" thing happens, it will be too late in the show anyway to explore it but my opinion is she does care about him and it's not because of bastard or cousin or actual blood.

You're probably right.  I was just mentioning it as a possibility.  But I do think there is some degree of affection between them just due to the fact that half of their family has been killed and they're both happy to have some family left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

You're probably right.  I was just mentioning it as a possibility.  But I do think there is some degree of affection between them just due to the fact that half of their family has been killed and they're both happy to have some family left.

Yes exactly. 

I'm kind of surprised how people are responding to the Arya/Sansa interaction.... but Arya is being observant and if you notice she said to Sansa "You're thinking it right now (ruling Winterfell when Jon doesn't come back) YOU DON'T WANT TO but you are".

That part means a lot.  It means she's giving Sansa a benefit, but still saying "I know you are thinking it". 

People are saying Arya straight up dissed her but I didn't see it that way.  Arya is thinking of Winterfell's benefit as a whole.

And to be honest, I think Sansa is doing her best and I get her POV of trying to work together..... I mean, if those people get pissed and leave, Winterfell is in trouble no matter who is in charge.  They are both right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sansa is, so far, doing a fine job IMO. Jon hasn't exactly given her the best working conditions, though she cannot be surprised that people are approaching her with suggestions to remove Jon after she publicly disagreed with him on several occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Iron Mother said:

Yes exactly. 

I'm kind of surprised how people are responding to the Arya/Sansa interaction.... but Arya is being observant and if you notice she said to Sansa "You're thinking it right now (ruling Winterfell when Jon doesn't come back) YOU DON'T WANT TO but you are".

That part means a lot.  It means she's giving Sansa a benefit, but still saying "I know you are thinking it". 

People are saying Arya straight up dissed her but I didn't see it that way.  Arya is thinking of Winterfell's benefit as a whole.

And to be honest, I think Sansa is doing her best and I get her POV of trying to work together..... I mean, if those people get pissed and leave, Winterfell is in trouble no matter who is in charge.  They are both right.

 

I think it would be impossible not to think of the implications if Jon doesn't come back.  There is always that risk.  But I'm not convinced she actually doesn't want him to.

Arya and Sansa are both concerned with WF's (and the north's) best interest, in their own ways.  Sansa is more politically savvy than Arya, and knows that losing the lords' support would be disasterous.  I don't think it was fair of Arya to accuse Sansa of wanting to maintain their support for her gain, not the North's though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

I think it would be impossible not to think of the implications if Jon doesn't come back.  There is always that risk.  But I'm not convinced she actually doesn't want him to.

Arya and Sansa are both concerned with WF's (and the north's) best interest, in their own ways.  Sansa is more politically savvy than Arya, and knows that losing the lords' support would be disasterous.  I don't think it was fair of Arya to accuse Sansa of wanting to maintain their support for her gain, not the North's though.

She was calling her out.  She's always loved Jon and always had issues  with Sansa.  It has to be seen as a familial clash.  Neither of them is trying to undermine Winterfell......... if you think, Arya's "cut off heads" is more of a Ned Stark way of dealing with things.  Sansa is acting more like LF in her diplomacy.  If Ned Stark was sitting up there and people were bitching, he wouldn't "hear their complaints" he would be like "WHAT did you say?"  And take them outside if they were too hostile.  Sansa (in Arya's POV) is not portraying enough strength.  The conversation was too skewed by their past relationship as sisters.

At the same time, I said I believe Sansa's way in this is right because you can't risk ANYONE leaving.  I can see both of their POVs.  Arya was being rabid about anyone (her sister included) even thinking Jon might not come back. 

+ the show needs some drama in WF because there would be nothing else happening there.  The preview of Arya's voice "are afraid?  what are you scared of?"  I think Sansa is going to fear Arya's strength in "Im not messing around here".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Sansa is, so far, doing a fine job IMO. Jon hasn't exactly given her the best working conditions, though she cannot be surprised that people are approaching her with suggestions to remove Jon after she publicly disagreed with him on several occasions.

People think I loathe Sansa - but I am ever always just pointing facts as shown in the series about her character and nature.  She IS doing a good job in Winterfell, the primary goal is to keep everyone onboard and not offend anyone and tell everyone what they need to hear to stay.  It's a sucky politician format but she's doing it.  Arya doesn't like that approach.  She wants more strength applied.  On this, I don't agree with Arya in this situation.

She can read Sansa that Sansa ultimately wants Winterfell for herself.  It's a completely separate issue.  I personally believe Arya to Sansa "You are thinking it right now.  You don't want to be but you are."

The key is "you don't want to be but you are."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...