Hajk1984

"He has to know, we have to tell him..." WHY?

229 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

In the books, non targaryens can also ride dragons. But for the show, yes that could be another reason. And we'll probably see Jon ride a dragon in the show and in the books.

The non-Targaryens who ride dragons in the books are either other Valyrian bloodlines (ie, House Velaryon), or are conceivably descended of unacknowledged Targaryen bastards. Or, if the lack the name, have Targaryen/other Valyrian ancestors in their family tree.

But that's all historical stuff that's not been mentioned on the show. I doubt that they'd spring that on us in the final season, when Jon's Targaryen blood has already been confirmed.

16 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

If its to tell him he can ride a dragon that makes sense but he's already bonding with Dragon.  Bran thought Jon was a Sand that's why I was thinking he just wants him to know Lyanna is his mother. Maybe its both.

Bran: Remember all that whining you did about not having a mother. Well you do. Its Lyanna Stark and you can ride a dragon because you are Targaryen. Have a nice identity crisis. Jon: what the f!

It's Sam who cares about the marriage. 

It could very well be that Bran wants Jon to know that Lyanna's his mother. However, that's not really a vital "he needs to know the truth about himself" sort of thing, IMO, especially in the context of Jon leading the fight against the Others.

Sam only brought up the marriage because Bran thought Jon was a Sand (which he wouldn't've been anyway, but I digress).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

The non-Targaryens who ride dragons in the books are either other Valyrian bloodlines (ie, House Velaryon), or are conceivably descended of unacknowledged Targaryen bastards. Or, if the lack the name, have Targaryen/other Valyrian ancestors in their family tree.

But that's all historical stuff that's not been mentioned on the show. I doubt that they'd spring that on us in the final season, when Jon's Targaryen blood has already been confirmed.

It could very well be that Bran wants Jon to know that Lyanna's his mother. However, that's not really a vital "he needs to know the truth about himself" sort of thing, IMO, especially in the context of Jon leading the fight against the Others.

Sam only brought up the marriage because Bran thought Jon was a Sand (which he wouldn't've been anyway, but I digress).

Jon is already doing the work though he probably would have ended riding a dragon without this Targ bombshell. He went to down to create an alliance with Dany. He is already bros with Dragon. Bran telling him about his secret Targ blood seems to be more about potential drama.  

Jon is already marching his way to his destiny and no one told him to do it. He has dragonglass, he has the northern army, he has Dany, dragons and her army. I know Bran is all I'm 3eyed Raven but he is still Jon's brother. The most important thing Jon ever wanted to know was his origins and Bran knows that. 

Also the one thing that got him all those things: He's Ned Stark's son. That is about to be exposed as a lie. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

The non-Targaryens who ride dragons in the books are either other Valyrian bloodlines (ie, House Velaryon), or are conceivably descended of unacknowledged Targaryen bastards. Or, if the lack the name, have Targaryen/other Valyrian ancestors in their family tree.

But that's all historical stuff that's not been mentioned on the show. I doubt that they'd spring that on us in the final season, when Jon's Targaryen blood has already been confirmed.

Nettles in TPATQ wasn't known to have targ ancestry. I think she just bonded with the dragon by feeding it.

 

13 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

Jon is already doing the work though he probably would have ended riding a dragon without this Targ bombshell. He went to down to create an alliance with Dany. He is already bros with Dragon. Bran telling him about his secret Targ blood seems to be more about potential drama.  

Jon is already marching his way to his destiny and no one told him to do it. He has dragonglass, he has the northern army, he has Dany, dragons and her army. I know Bran is all I'm 3eyed Raven but he is still Jon's brother. The most important thing Jon ever wanted to know was his origins and Bran knows that. 

It would've been strange in my opinion if bran didn't tell Jon about his heritage. I don't think it has anything to do with drama. Why wouldn't bran tell jon about his mother and father if he knows the truth. Jon deserves to know the truth about his parents, which is why bran decides to tell him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Nettles in TPATQ wasn't known to have targ ancestry. I think she just bonded with the dragon by feeding it.

 

It would've been strange in my opinion if bran didn't tell Jon about his heritage. I don't think it has anything to do with drama. Why wouldn't bran tell jon about his mother and father if he knows the truth. Jon deserves to know the truth about his parents, which is why bran decides to tell him.

The drama I'm talking about is the fight for the iron throne. I think Bran should tell him because he's Jon's family and he know Jon wants to know. Jon's last conversation with Ned was about finding out about his origins. 

I personally think Jon should have stayed a bastard. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

The drama I'm talking about is the fight for the iron throne. I think Bran should tell him because he's Jon's family and he know Jon wants to know. Jon's last conversation with Ned was about finding out about his origins. 

I personally think Jon should have stayed a bastard. 

Yeah, absolutely. Bran knows Jon was curious about his mother, and it's natural that he would tell Jon. They may be cousins, but they grew up like brothers.

And I think the books will have a more complex backstory than an annulment, which would make Jon's legitimacy questionable, which I too think would be the better way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zapho said:

Would you rather have it all spelled out to you in great detail and spend hours watching Bran's development on the TV show? Seriously? I wouldn't because it would be boring and not good TV. 

It was GRRM's decision to allow HBO to make the show and he was (and probably still is) contributing. He's still listed as a co-executive producer in the credits of the very last episode. If you're a fan you ought to respect his decision. You don't have to like it and you don't have to like what they do with the material of the books you love but it was the author's decision to help creating a TV show out of it. He wouldn't have done it if he hadn't been okay with the consequences of transfering the story to another medium with different ways of showing things. 

Bran's transition will probably have much more room in the remaining books and that's fine. I'm looking forward to reading it. But it's the sort of thing a TV show can't show in great detail. Not unless it's a very different sort of show. They have to cut out some material, fuse plot lines together and rely for things like that on visual clues. And these clues are there if you are seeing them for what they are. The first visions Bran had as the 3ER were a confusing tumble of rushed images. As the show goes on, Bran's visions become clearer, more focused and he gets answers out of them. Faster and more precise answers. It's not the focus of the show but it is not completely left out or portrayed in a way that you have to be a super genius to understand what's happening. Yes, you don't get it in great detail. But that's not necessarily a bad thing imo. The clues are precise and vivid enough to allow your imagination to imagine and your reason to reason. They have spent very few scenes on showing us what Bran is capable of now, what his limitations are and what it means for him as a person, what he is going through. That's not bad for a TV show. It's actually really good. We are not used to seeing art on the telly and this is art. Which seems to confuse people.

If watching the TV-version pains you and spoils the books for you then you ought to stop watching the show. But you do watch it and spend time complaining about it. I don't understand why. What's the point? There certainly are things they could have done better but I don't get it why people keep whingeing about the show because it's a show and not a book. That's bad criticism and it's not very interesting to read. 

You might point out that this is not what you said and you would be right because you did not say that. Not explicitly. I found this forum a couple of weeks ago and I read many posts here and this sort of lousy criticism keeps coming up. It destroys discussions about some of the finer aspects of the plot, the characters and the story arch. About symbolism and yes also about the differences between show and TV. Half the posts on this forum (which I thought was supposed to be a fan forum) aren't worth reading because the author was so intent to hate what they saw they completely missed the point. There can only be one reason for this curious phenomenon and it is that you care about it. If you didn't you'd switch channels or watch it like the other garbage on TV - with only mild curiosity bordering on disinterest. You are a fan. A disappointed one. You've been waiting for years for the books to be finished and GRRM spent his valuable time selling it out. Spoiling it for you. Your favorite character isn't even there, the part you really liked is skimmed over, it's different, not the same, butchered, rotten, vile and ... visual. 

And you can't even sue him. :angry2:

;)

Goodness! I enjoy the books and the show. The show simply does not allow enough time to display what the books embody. Cheers. :)

Share this post


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

Yeah, absolutely. Bran knows Jon was curious about his mother, and it's natural that he would tell Jon. They may be cousins, but they grew up like brothers.

And I think the books will have a more complex backstory than an annulment, which would make Jon's legitimacy questionable, which I too think would be the better way to go.

I think his legitimacy is questionable. I don't think Dany should question that he's her nephew. She should question if the annulment was legal. 

Ned pretty much adopted Jon (I don't know if that's a thing in this universe) so Jon is still Arya, Sansa and Bran's brother. I just want to hear one of them say you're still our brother. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I think his legitimacy is questionable. I don't think Dany should question that he's her nephew. She should question if the annulment was legal. 

Ned pretty much adopted Jon (I don't know if that's a thing in this universe) so Jon is still Arya, Sansa and Bran's brother. I just want to hear one of them say you're still our brother. 

I'm getting a feeling Jon wouldn't contest Dany for the crown since he has already bent the knee. But his advisors may suggest otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I'm getting a feeling Jon wouldn't contest Dany for the crown since he has already bent the knee. But his advisors may suggest otherwise. 

His advisors are Davos, Sansa and northern lords. He doesn't listen to them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

His advisors are Davos, Sansa and northern lords. He doesn't listen to them 

:) If I had to pinpoint one of them, I'd say Sansa would be the one to urge him to exert his claim. But he clearly doesn't listen to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zapho said:

Would you rather have it all spelled out to you in great detail and spend hours watching Bran's development on the TV show? Seriously? I wouldn't because it would be boring and not good TV. 

It was GRRM's decision to allow HBO to make the show and he was (and probably still is) contributing. He's still listed as a co-executive producer in the credits of the very last episode. If you're a fan you ought to respect his decision. You don't have to like it and you don't have to like what they do with the material of the books you love but it was the author's decision to help creating a TV show out of it. He wouldn't have done it if he hadn't been okay with the consequences of transfering the story to another medium with different ways of showing things. 

Bran's transition will probably have much more room in the remaining books and that's fine. I'm looking forward to reading it. But it's the sort of thing a TV show can't show in great detail. Not unless it's a very different sort of show. They have to cut out some material, fuse plot lines together and rely for things like that on visual clues. And these clues are there if you are seeing them for what they are. The first visions Bran had as the 3ER were a confusing tumble of rushed images. As the show goes on, Bran's visions become clearer, more focused and he gets answers out of them. Faster and more precise answers. It's not the focus of the show but it is not completely left out or portrayed in a way that you have to be a super genius to understand what's happening. Yes, you don't get it in great detail. But that's not necessarily a bad thing imo. The clues are precise and vivid enough to allow your imagination to imagine and your reason to reason. They have spent very few scenes on showing us what Bran is capable of now, what his limitations are and what it means for him as a person, what he is going through. That's not bad for a TV show. It's actually really good. We are not used to seeing art on the telly and this is art. Which seems to confuse people.

If watching the TV-version pains you and spoils the books for you then you ought to stop watching the show. But you do watch it and spend time complaining about it. I don't understand why. What's the point? There certainly are things they could have done better but I don't get it why people keep whingeing about the show because it's a show and not a book. That's bad criticism and it's not very interesting to read. 

You might point out that this is not what you said and you would be right because you did not say that. Not explicitly. I found this forum a couple of weeks ago and I read many posts here and this sort of lousy criticism keeps coming up. It destroys discussions about some of the finer aspects of the plot, the characters and the story arch. About symbolism and yes also about the differences between show and TV. Half the posts on this forum (which I thought was supposed to be a fan forum) aren't worth reading because the author was so intent to hate what they saw they completely missed the point. There can only be one reason for this curious phenomenon and it is that you care about it. If you didn't you'd switch channels or watch it like the other garbage on TV - with only mild curiosity bordering on disinterest. You are a fan. A disappointed one. You've been waiting for years for the books to be finished and GRRM spent his valuable time selling it out. Spoiling it for you. Your favorite character isn't even there, the part you really liked is skimmed over, it's different, not the same, butchered, rotten, vile and ... visual. 

And you can't even sue him. :angry2:

;)

:agree:

I love this entire post x ∞.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I think his legitimacy is questionable. I don't think Dany should question that he's her nephew. She should question if the annulment was legal. 

Ned pretty much adopted Jon (I don't know if that's a thing in this universe) so Jon is still Arya, Sansa and Bran's brother. I just want to hear one of them say you're still our brother. 

That's not how the Right/Line of Succession works. 

I'm honestly surprised there's not more history nerds around here. 

There's nothing questionable about Jon's legitimacy. Westeros isn't 21st century Earth, where everything is "fake news" if you don't agree. (Which is patently insane no matter where you are.)

There's nothing to "prove." No one is going to hire some private detective to carbon-date the Maester's diary  - because you have Bran. Either get on this exposition bus, or forever whinge about a plot line you don't like.

Succession just IS. It isn't based off merit, or how much someone wants it.or how long they're been working for it. You're either the legit heir, (Jon), or you're not, (Dany), because a legit heir already exists, and it's not you.

It doesn't matter if you don't want the job, unless you want to marry Wallis Simpson, and that came close to destroying the English Monarchy. And while that may be something many fans want to happen (no monarchy for Westeros), that plot remains to be revealed, and it still has no bearing on The Line of Succession. 

Jon is the heir. There is no changing the rules, or killing the filibuster because you don't like the way things are turning out... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

That's not how the Right/Line of Succession works. 

I'm honestly surprised there's not more history nerds around here. 

There's nothing questionable about Jon's legitimacy. Westeros isn't 21st century Earth, where everything is "fake news" if you don't agree. (Which is patently insane no matter where you are.)

There's nothing to "prove." No one is going to hire some private detective to carbon-date the Maester's diary  - because you have Bran. Either get on this exposition bus, or forever whinge about a plot line you don't like.

Succession just IS. It isn't based off merit, or how much someone wants it.or how long they're been working for it. You're either the legit heir, (Jon), or you're not, (Dany), because a legit heir already exists, and it's not you.

It doesn't matter if you don't want the job, unless you want to marry Wallis Simpson, and that came close to destroying the English Monarchy. And while that may be something many fans want to happen (no monarchy for Westeros), that plot remains to be revealed, and it still has no bearing on The Line of Succession. 

Jon is the heir. There is no changing the rules, or killing the filibuster because you don't like the way things are turning out... 

Jon will do the right thing and respect his oath to his aunt. 

She will do the right thing and marry him instead of leaving him as Warden of the North

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

That's not how the Right/Line of Succession works. 

I'm honestly surprised there's not more history nerds around here. 

There's nothing questionable about Jon's legitimacy. Westeros isn't 21st century Earth, where everything is "fake news" if you don't agree. (Which is patently insane no matter where you are.)

There's nothing to "prove." No one is going to hire some private detective to carbon-date the Maester's diary  - because you have Bran. Either get on this exposition bus, or forever whinge about a plot line you don't like.

Succession just IS. It isn't based off merit, or how much someone wants it.or how long they're been working for it. You're either the legit heir, (Jon), or you're not, (Dany), because a legit heir already exists, and it's not you.

It doesn't matter if you don't want the job, unless you want to marry Wallis Simpson, and that came close to destroying the English Monarchy. And while that may be something many fans want to happen (no monarchy for Westeros), that plot remains to be revealed, and it still has no bearing on The Line of Succession. 

Jon is the heir. There is no changing the rules, or killing the filibuster because you don't like the way things are turning out... 

I watch the show so I believe Bran and Sam. Jon wasn't raised by his parents and the man who raised him is dead.

Jon knows both and they have no reason to mislead him. But why should anyone else believe them?

In your example the king did abdicate and his brother took over then his daughter did. Both kings were known and raised by their parents and there was no question about their birth. Their birth were publically known. Jon is a secret prince and was known as someone else's bastard son. The fact he exist should rock the kingdoms. It shouldn't be smooth. It should be doubted because what's the point of him being a secret prince if we jump over the conflict. 

 

 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

:) If I had to pinpoint one of them, I'd say Sansa would be the one to urge him to exert his claim. But he clearly doesn't listen to her.

She's my pick too. She will see that's it's in her family's best interest. And I think she will push for the Dany/Jon marriage too.

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

She's my pick too. She will see that's it's in her family's best interest. And I think she will push for the Dany/Jon marriage too.

I think Sansa will push for marriage. 

Pushing Jon to fight for his claim is not  the best advice when the other person has two dragons, 100k dothraki and 10k unsullied. Maybe if her forces got slaughtered it might become viable, but so long as Dany has the military might the smart advice is marriage. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

I think Sansa will push for marriage. 

Pushing Jon to fight for his claim is not  the best advice when the other person has two dragons, 100k dothraki and 10k unsullied. Maybe if her forces got slaughtered it might become viable, but so long as Dany has the military might the smart advice is marriage. 

Yes. That is true. It's probably the first time he will take her advise. I think it would be great if Sansa and Dany ask Jon to leave so they can negotiate the marriage since they are currently the heads of the houses. 

 

I have a question for you. Warden is just a military title right? If so isn't Sansa now the official ruler of the north. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

Yes. That is true. It's probably the first time he will take her advise. I have a question for you. Warden is just a military title right? If so isn't Sansa now the official ruler of the north. 

The Warden titles are legacy artifacts of the books - they were originally going to matter more in the books, but GRRM changed his mind about how things worked, but left them in.

It's unclear whether or not the show has retained the distinction of between Warden of the North and Lord Paramount of the North. Or, for that matter, the distinction between Warden of <Compass Direction> and Lord Paramount of <Region>, ie, Warden of the East and Lord Paramount of the Vale, or Warden of the West and Lord Paramount of the Westerlands. Don't recall who was Warden of the South, offhand.

I'm inclined to think the show has not retained the distinction between Warden of the North and Lord Paramount of the North, and, in fact, has completely forgotten about the other Wardenship titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

Yes. That is true. It's probably the first time he will take her advise. I think it would be great if Sansa and Dany ask Jon to leave so they can negotiate the marriage since they are currently the heads of the houses. 

 

I have a question for you. Warden is just a military title right? If so isn't Sansa now the official ruler of the north. 

Tyrion and Sansa should negotiate it. 

Technically Jon is still the head of House Stark I think although that has not been spelled out explicitly. Will likely change when the big news drops would guess.

But as of now my best guess is that Jon got the Toren Stark deal with some sex thrown in.

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

The Warden titles are legacy artifacts of the books - they were originally going to matter more in the books, but GRRM changed his mind about how things worked, but left them in.

It's unclear whether or not the show has retained the distinction of between Warden of the North and Lord Paramount of the North. Or, for that matter, the distinction between Warden of <Compass Direction> and Lord Paramount of <Region>, ie, Warden of the East and Lord Paramount of the Vale, or Warden of the West and Lord Paramount of the Westerlands. Don't recall who was Warden of the South, offhand.

I'm inclined to think the show has not retained the distinction between Warden of the North and Lord Paramount of the North, and, in fact, has completely forgotten about the other Wardenship titles.

I'm just curious since Jon is not Lord of Winterfell or King where his ruling authority come from now. And everything I looked at says Warden is the supreme military authority. Does Jon even have lordship to be lord paramount? 

10 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Tyrion and Sansa should negotiate it. 

Technically Jon is still the head of House Stark I think although that has not been spelled out explicitly. Will likely change when the big news drops would guess.

I thought Sansa was head of House Stark and Jon was operating outside of it because he's still a bastard. Since the kingship/Wardenship is now completely separate from being Lord Stark or Lord of Winterfell I wonder how this all works. 

Sansa and Tyrion would be interesting too. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

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