Iron Mother

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

99 posts in this topic

48 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

Wasn't Robert's claim to the IT by rule of conquest?

Depends who you ask. Presumably, Jon Arryn used Robert's Targaryen ancestry to smooth it over with a few of the Lords who otherwise were die-hard Targaryen loyalists. Basically, it gave them a somewhat graceful way to publicly accept Robert after he won.

But for all intents and purposes, yes his claim was by conquest (just like Aegon's original one), he ruled not because of his blood, but because his enemies' blood was on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason not to think that Daenerys and Jon will get married? Then Daenerys will still be queen and doesn't need to get bent out of  shape about no longer being the last Targeryen. Sansa will be Lady of Winterfell, happy to bend the knee to a King with Stark blood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, First of Her Name said:

Is there any reason not to think that Daenerys and Jon will get married?

Other than the idea making me throw up a little, there is the fact that she is still his aunt. The Targaryens might be a bunch of incest-loving, inbred bastards but I don't see Jon as being ok with that. Blood aside, he's much more Stark than Targaryen.

Of course Jon and Dany don't know about this yet, so it's not at all inconceivable that they'll have relations before they find out, but from there to marriage is quite a step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing that life will go back to anything this normal after the Great War. I think that's kind of the point of all the talk about "break the wheel" and "the only war that matters." I hope I'm wrong, but I'm expecting it to be more post-apocalyptic than that.

And I can't help thinking that there are still things we need to learn about the White Walkers and their objectives. We used to think that the Wildlings were pure evil. Now, they are allies, and we discovered that they are not as different as we imagined. Granted, they are also breathing, as Jon mentioned. But I can't believe the end of the story will just be about how everyone comes together to defeat the ice zombies and their king. I think there is more intrigue to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, I prefer summer said:

We used to think that the Wildlings were pure evil.

Not really. Savage, aggressive enemies - yes - pure evil - no. Maybe a few of the Night's Watch hardliners though of it like that, but I don't think many people considered them evil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.  

Edited by Nic.

Share this post


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

Due to official marriage and annulment described by Gilly (in hilarious fashion, she calls him Rag-Ar)

Jon Snow is no longer Snow OR Stark.  He is 100% real Targaryen.  Do we even get the implications of this yet?  He is officially the Nephew of Daenerys, making her his Aunt.

When revealed, a few MEGA things will happen! 

1) Daenerys must acknowledge she is not the last dragon, and her claim to the throne is a step BELOW Jon!  Rhaegar was the successor behind Mad King Aerys.  The Living Son of Rhaegar would be the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, not Rhaegar's sister.  How will Daenerys approach this?

2) Sansa will be rightful heir to Winterfell/The North, assuming the North accepts females in that post now.  I don't see why they shouldn't.  Whole new dynamic up there!  How will The North approach this revelation that a woman will be ruling in Winterfell/The North?  How will the Stark family approach this?

3) Can Jon Snow even be King of the North anymore?  His "Kingship" currently hinges on him being SON OF NED STARK!

4) Cersei (on paper) would have to accept Robert did not kill the lineage/successor to the Iron Throne afterall..... making Robert's rule a REAL "usurper" not just a bad word but actually INVALID.  Rhaegar's heir is alive.  They thought the succession was extinguished but it isn't.

Looks like everyone has to bend the knee to Aejon Targaryen :D

1) It depends when Daenerys finds out. If she were to find out right now, I think she would be livid. She has just met Jon Snow and by the glances and look upon her face when he was announcing that he was leaving Dragonstone, she seems to be falling for him. I think, given that she was expecting to marry Viserys when she was younger, wouldn't stop her marrying Jon for being her nephew, though. But the problem she would have is that she has seen that while Jon is a reluctant leader, he is a very good one, who puts the safety of his people before winning any kind of crown. He is also courageous enough to lead from the front himself, taking the choice to go beyond the wall, as opposed to sending men to do it himself. And she would know that after spending her life thinking she was the last dragon and rightful heir to the Seven Kingdoms, she has just met a man with a better claim than her and also a far better suit for the role.


2) With Lyanna Mormont leading the Mormonts, I think it could be a start of a new trend in the North, with women leaders. I don't think any of the Northern Lords would be against it, as it seems they are already looking at Sansa as a better, safer fit than Jon. Jon is a bit of a rogue leader; he treats with Wildlings and Targaryens, two people the North has always disliked. In Sansa, they see someone who shares their own scepticism. Bran may have a better claim to Winterfell, but we are in a time where these Northern Lords aren't worrying about the ins and outs, they want the best person to lead them, and it feels the tide is shifting towards Sansa.

3) I think he could certainly still be King in the North, so long as the Northern Lords still want him to be King. They were willing to look beyond the fact he was a bastard in the first place. Now he is a legitimate son of another Stark, Lyanna. Yes, it would be complicated by the fact he is also Rhaegar's son, but Rhaegar didn't shape him. He was shaped by Ned. No matter what, he will still see himself as more Ned Stark's son than Rhaegar Targaryen's.

4) Cersei shouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to her entitlement to the Iron Throne in the first place, never mind now that there is proof Jon could be the legitimate child of Rhaegar Targaryen, therefore the true heir. Cersei only has her seat through being married to Robert. She is no less of an Usurper than Robert was. But once Robert usurped the Iron Throne, the line of succession changed. Baratheon's became Kings, not Targaryens. In that sense, despite being a bastard, Gendry has a better claim than Cersei. And if you look at House Baratheon is royalty as opposed to the Targaryens, Gendry has a better claim than Jon or Daenerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

You may want that to happen, but surely you don't *believe* it will.

Agreed, 

8 hours ago, Thor Odinson said:

IMO, I believe the following will happen:

1) Daenerys will NOT be happy. I believe she will go full-on Mad Queen. Finding out that she's spent years of her life believing that the Seven Kingdoms were hers by right, only to find out that according to the very same criteria which she's used to justify her ambition, she's not the rightful ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, is going to drive her over the deep end. The show will ultimately be about Jon Snow, the union of Ice and Fire, having to defeat the extremes of both Ice and Fire as represented by the Night King and Daenerys (Each side will have their own dragon. Jon Snow on Rhaegal, the Night King on Viserion, and Daenerys on Drogon).

2) He'll lose the position of King in the North and rule will pass to Sansa. She will then propose marriage and Jon will regain his position as King in the North by being Sansa's husband. And in the process he'll gain the Stark name (An old First One tradition. Great houses with only female heirs pass on the name of the daughter and not her husband). In the end Jon will forge his own identity as Jon Stark, rather than as Jon Snow, the Bastard of Winterfell, or ________, the Targaryen Prince.

3) Jon will never sit the Iron Throne, which I suspect will be destroyed by the end of the story, either by Cersei or Daenerys, both of which will be dead by the end of the story. Instead, he'll rule the North with Sansa from Winterfell, and through their children Jon and Sansa will recreate the Winterfell of their childhood memories. Bran will disappear into the wilderness permanently to take up his role as the Three-Eyed Raven, while Arya will follow in the footsteps of Nymeria and sail west of Westeros to discover whatever new lands may be there.

1). Daenerys has no real traits or hints she is going full on mad queen or just mad queen for that matter.

2). To believe they were brother and sister for their whole life pretty much stops anything from happening. Their is no chemistry or anything for that matter. Hes not a bastard :s, and what purpose does he gain becoming someone hes not, hes always been true to who he is.

3)I agree Jon will never sit the Iron throne and more than likely the Iron Throne will be destroyed. I disagree not by Cersei or Daenerys thats all they are interested in taking.....why would they destroy it? Its like some type of fair tale story you have written out in your head. Again Sansa/Jon wont happen for obvious reasons, the plot doesnt demand it to start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

no real traits or hints she is going full on mad queen or just mad queen for that matter

Yes she does. Burning people you don't like is not a good thing if you're trying to distance yourself from being the Mad King's daughter. She's not mad yet, but the hints that she could be are clearly there.

 

6 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

To believe they were brother and sister for their whole life pretty much stops anything from happening. Their is no chemistry or anything for that matter. Hes not a bastard :s, and what purpose does he gain becoming someone hes not, hes always been true to who he is.

I agree completely. Sansa+Jon or (even worse) Arya+Jon is icky beyond belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Yes she does. Burning people you don't like is not a good thing if you're trying to distance yourself from being the Mad King's daughter. She's not mad yet, but the hints that she could be are clearly there.

They wern't someone who she didnt like the look of or someone who had called her a nasty name like children in a school.

They were :-

  • Traitors
  • Oathbreakers
  • Her Enemies
  • Refused to bend the knee
  • Murderers

I agree with the resemblance of fire burning between both, however I do believe she is nothing like her father......

If we compare these two situations to each other,

  1. The mad king burnt two innocent people, Daenerys did not.
  2. Fire is Daenerys weapon, the Mad king used Wildfire.
  3. Daenerys does not enjoy burning people, the Mad king literally got off on it. Basically was an aphrodisiac
  4. Daenery listens to her council

To me Daenerys is sane, shes got morals and shes rational. All the violence before all this has been because she viewed people are doing things morally wrong, threatening her or directly betraying her. Each act justified. Daenerys was adminant that no civilians would be caught up in any situation of death, directly aiming at those who deserved it. She gave them a choice, die or bend the knee?? how is this not fair she could have just had them all slaughtered. War is War. 

I for one dont like the fact we are jumping at the chance to call Daenerys mad or that shes is like her father. Why is no one else been classed as mad?

  • Jon senselessly and brutually punches ramsay in fit of rage, to an inch of his life
  • then Sansa watched Ramsay been ripped to shreds by his dogs.
  • Tyrion strangled shae to death, then went on to murder his father

Would you question the killing of Balon/Theon for betrayal by robb, you wouldnt question his insanity. 

The matter of fact is Ned had Ice, he used that to execute people. 

Daenerys as fire as her sword in the form of Drogon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

They wern't someone who she didnt like the look of or someone who had called her a nasty name like children in a school.

The Tarlys were not the first she burned, though. She burned Mirri Mazz Duur all the way back in season one, because she felt cheated by her. Though considering what had been done to MMD, and what Khal Drogo was still doing, wanting him dead was entirely reasonable. That was an act of revenge, and she used fire because she wanted MMD to suffer.

 

See it's not the execution of her enemies per se that's problematic (well that part is, too, in the case of the Tarlys), it's burning them alive that's giving the Mad King/Queen connotations.

5 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:
  • Traitors
  • Oathbreakers
  • Her Enemies
  • Refused to bend the knee
  • Murderers

Traitors/Oathbreakers - no, or at the least it's ambiguous - they had sworn an oath to the Tyrells, it's true, but they had also sworn one to the Iron Throne. Obnoxious list of titles aside, Dany is not yet the Queen of Westeros, and they had certainly sworn no oaths to her.

Her Enemies - yes, definitely, that was made abundantly clear

Refused to bend the knee - yes, also true

Murderers - no more than any other soldiers

9 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Each act justified.

 

Acts of cruelty are almost always justified by the ones perpetrating them, Aerys always managed to find a pretext for burning people, too.

 

10 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

die or bend the knee?? how is this not fair she could have just had them all slaughtered. War is War. 

They were prisoners. Slaughtering your prisoners is generally not done, not even in Westeros.

 

10 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

I for one dont like the fact we are jumping at the chance to call Daenerys mad or that shes is like her father. Why is no one else been classed as mad?

  • Jon senselessly and brutually punches ramsay in fit of rage, to an inch of his life
  • then Sansa watched Ramsay been ripped to shreds by his dogs.
  • Tyrion strangled shae to death, then went on to murder his father

Well there is a batshit insane person in that list. It's Ramsay, however, not Jon or Sansa or even Tyrion, though his strangling of Shae was probably borderline mad. Killing Tywin, on the other hand, was perfectly fine under the circumstances.

13 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Would you question the killing of Balon/Theon for betrayal by robb, you wouldnt question his insanity. 

If it happened during war, I wouldn't for a second question their deaths. If they had been captured, I am honestly not sure. If Robb had burned or otherwise tortured them, however, I would definitely question his sanity.

13 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Daenerys as fire as her sword in the form of Drogon.

Yes, and that's problematic. She may not get off on it (yet, anyway, Aerys didn't either in his youth) but it's a needlessly cruel method of execution, and it's just plain stupid if you're trying to convince people you're not the Mad King's Daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

The Tarlys were not the first she burned, though. She burned Mirri Mazz Duur all the way back in season one, because she felt cheated by her. Though considering what had been done to MMD, and what Khal Drogo was still doing, wanting him dead was entirely reasonable. That was an act of revenge, and she used fire because she wanted MMD to suffer.

Why wasnt it as shocking when she burnt the Warlock in the house of the undying or when she torched the Slavers boat with people on board.. what about the freeing of the unsullied when she burnt the master with the dragon she swapped. I just dont like the idea that this portrays her as the start/increase of the Mad queen, when she has done it before. 

21 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

See it's not the execution of her enemies per se that's problematic (well that part is, too, in the case of the Tarlys), it's burning them alive that's giving the Mad King/Queen connotations.

I agree but disagree lol, Fire is her way, shes a dragon

21 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Traitors/Oathbreakers - no, or at the least it's ambiguous - they had sworn an oath to the Tyrells, it's true, but they had also sworn one to the Iron Throne. Obnoxious list of titles aside, Dany is not yet the Queen of Westeros, and they had certainly sworn no oaths to her.

Yeah i think this could bounce either way but for me they were.

21 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Her Enemies - yes, definitely, that was made abundantly clear

Refused to bend the knee - yes, also true

Murderers - no more than any other soldiers

Again still a murderer

21 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

Acts of cruelty are almost always justified by the ones perpetrating them, Aerys always managed to find a pretext for burning people, too.

Yes its all a matter of perspective but it was known the Mad king burnt innocents for his pleasure, Brandon and Rickard were innocent there was no need at all to burn them, Brandon just want his sister back. Both were executed for treason.

 

21 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Well there is a batshit insane person in that list. It's Ramsay, however, not Jon or Sansa or even Tyrion, though his strangling of Shae was probably borderline mad. Killing Tywin, on the other hand, was perfectly fine under the circumstances.

We knew ramsay was warped and fucked up.  

21 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

If it happened during war, I wouldn't for a second question their deaths. If they had been captured, I am honestly not sure. If Robb had burned or otherwise tortured them, however, I would definitely question his sanity.

I wasnt questioning if he was going to torture or burn, cos obviously he wont thats not how the northerners do it. (unless your ramsay)

The mad king killed Brandon because he questioned Rhaegars decision to kidnap Lyanna. Dickon obviously chose to side with his father and not bend the knee. Would you dispute Robbs sanity if he had killed Balon and Theon for betraying his trust.

21 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Yes, and that's problematic. She may not get off on it (yet, anyway, Aerys didn't either in his youth) but it's a needlessly cruel method of execution, and it's just plain stupid if you're trying to convince people you're not the Mad King's Daughter.

Just a quick question to finish off do you actually like the Daenerys character?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Though considering what had been done to MMD, and what Khal Drogo was still doing, wanting him dead was entirely reasonable.

Mirri didn't kill Drogo, though. She kept him alive but brain dead, and in the process killed Dany's unborn child, who (all prophecies aside) had harmed no one. Wanting Mirri to suffer for that is entirely reasonable on Dany's part. The main reason Dany used fire, though, was to animate the dragons, not because it was more painful than beheading. She said herself, "I don't want your screams, only your life."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Just a quick question to finish off do you actually like the Daenerys character?

The literary character? Certainly. I adore it, it's well written (in the books). I don't like the person it portrays (fictional though she is), if that distinction makes sense. I dislike how she's seen by so many (real) people as some kind of savior when, to me, it's obvious she's so very dark.

8 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Mirri didn't kill Drogo, though. She kept him alive but brain dead, and in the process killed Dany's unborn child, who (all prophecies aside) had harmed no one.

Yes, though Dany is the one who asked her to do the ritual. She may not have known the cost, even though Mirri warned her, instead convincing herself it was all about sacrificing a horse. To me it's two sides of a coin: Either Dany knew - instinctively - what she was doing with the whole magical ritual thing, in which case she's at least partly to blame for her child's death, or she didn't, in which case burning Mirri was for cruelty and revenge.

10 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Wanting Mirri to suffer for that is entirely reasonable on Dany's part. The main reason Dany used fire, though, was to animate the dragons, not because it was more painful than beheading. She said herself, "I don't want your screams, only your life."

No, if she had wanted her life only, then she could have executed her any other way. She definitely wanted her to suffer in the fire, whether it was madness/cruelty or for (slightly) more pragmatic ritualistic reasons is, I suppose, up for debate. Her denial that she wanted screams was, IIRC, in response to Mirri's defiant claim that she wouldn't scream at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

The literary character? Certainly. I adore it, it's well written (in the books). I don't like the person it portrays (fictional though she is), if that distinction makes sense. I dislike how she's seen by so many (real) people as some kind of savior when, to me, it's obvious she's so very dark.

Ahh ok :-) Im in slight disagreement, I however agree she is no saviour, but I dont think she is Mad King or as dark as we seem. I think we misunderstand the Character alot.

3 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Yes, though Dany is the one who asked her to do the ritual. She may not have known the cost, even though Mirri warned her, instead convincing herself it was all about sacrificing a horse. To me it's two sides of a coin: Either Dany knew - instinctively - what she was doing with the whole magical ritual thing, in which case she's at least partly to blame for her child's death, or she didn't, in which case burning Mirri was for cruelty and revenge.

Personally I believe she was unaware of the what the consequences of the black magic would be, so her killing Mirri was for revenge.

3 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

No, if she had wanted her life only, then she could have executed her any other way. She definitely wanted her to suffer in the fire, whether it was madness/cruelty or for (slightly) more pragmatic ritualistic reasons is, I suppose, up for debate. Her denial that she wanted screams was, IIRC, in response to Mirri's defiant claim that she wouldn't scream at all.

Yes she definitely wanted her to suffer, that was clear, she wanted her to scream, probably just how Daenerys felt inside after losing her child and husband. The bitch did scream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Yes, though Dany is the one who asked her to do the ritual. She may not have known the cost, even though Mirri warned her, instead convincing herself it was all about sacrificing a horse. To me it's two sides of a coin: Either Dany knew - instinctively - what she was doing with the whole magical ritual thing, in which case she's at least partly to blame for her child's death, or she didn't, in which case burning Mirri was for cruelty and revenge.

No, if she had wanted her life only, then she could have executed her any other way. She definitely wanted her to suffer in the fire, whether it was madness/cruelty or for (slightly) more pragmatic ritualistic reasons is, I suppose, up for debate. Her denial that she wanted screams was, IIRC, in response to Mirri's defiant claim that she wouldn't scream at all.

Justified revenge =/= cruelty. Just like Tyrion's revenge on Tywin.

You need fire for dragons, I'm sure.

Not saying she didn't take satisfaction from it, though. Anyone would.

Share this post


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

Justified revenge =/= cruelty. Just like Tyrion's revenge on Tywin.

Tyrion didn't torture Tywin though, he just shot him. There is a difference.

2 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

You need fire for dragons, I'm sure.

Probably, though fire by itself doesn't do anything either. The intricacies of dragon hatching are never explored, nor does anyone seem to know on an intellectual level how to do it.

2 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Not saying she didn't take satisfaction from it, though. Anyone would.

Aye, if anyone harmed my wife or our unborn child, I would probably stop at nothing to get revenge, either - but I would most certainly qualify as mad, or insane, at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, sorry, burning someone for killing your unborn child is not crazy. They deserve that level of kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can we dispense of the notion of Ned as an honorable courageous man?  Denied his nephew his birth right as King, knowing full well albeit after the fact that Robert's Rebellion and supporting the Baratheon line even after Robert died.

Edited by disgustipated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, disgustipated said:

Can we dispense of the notion of Ned as an honorable courageous man?  Denied his nephew his birth right as King, knowing full well albeit after the fact that Robert's Rebellion was wrong.

This is ridiculous :rofl:   

  • Do you actually understand why roberts rebellion happened?
  • Do you actually know why Eddard took part?
  • Do you actually know what would have happened if he let Jon be a Targaryen?

If you did you would know your questions are laughable.

Edited by Samwell_Tarly

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