Noble Lothar Frey

Jon is not in the line of succession

400 posts in this topic

36 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

You mean the interview where he is specifically asked about the show, and how things on the show will go with Jon??? The interviewer literally asked "Jon on the show". That doesn't count for the real book canon.

And let's not upset nature here and start bringing the abomination into book discussion. One has nothing to do with the other in a long time.

You know exactly that he did not talked about the show solely,  since he spoke about characters that are definitely not in the show and about themes that are not part of the "GoT Universe". But of course I won't go further since...Spoiler and banning and stuff :D. Nevermind. I should not have started this conversation. 

Edited by Dragonsbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

You mean the interview where he is specifically asked about the show, and how things on the show will go with Jon??? The interviewer literally asked "Jon on the show". That doesn't count for the real book canon.

And let's not upset nature here and start bringing the abomination into book discussion. One has nothing to do with the other in a long time.

Amen to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pikachu101 said:

I think Manderly's planning on making himself regent, also Jon's a member of the NW so he can't be regent. 

:agree:

I don't doubt Manderly's loyalty to the Starks, but I do think that they'll support the Stark which best serves their own interest and that's Rickon. He has no clear candidate for regent, he's young and inexperienced at ruling allowing Manderly to call the shots and Wyman can betroth Rickon to Wylla. She's around 10 years his senior, but we saw something similar with Tommen and Marg. Manderly can (conveniently) reject Jon as a regent due to his vows. And the Manderlys were kicked out of the Reach for powergrabs.

ADWD Davos I

'Twas no more than nine hundred years ago when they came north, laden down with all their gold and gods. They'd been great lords on the Mander until they overreached themselves and the green hands slapped them down. The wolf king took their gold, but he gave them land and let them keep their gods."

A Winterfell with a Lord Stark is a very different place than a Winterfell which seats a King in the North. This Winterfell will begin to resemble King's Landing.

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pikachu101 said:

There were no witnesses, the wedding was performed by a drunken Septon with pigs as witnesses. Besides you can’t compare Sansa to Tysha, one was a nobody whilst the other is a noblewoman whose marriage was witnessed by every noble in King’s Lanfing therefore it has to be declared annulled rather than simply dismissed. Obviously it can be done because Tyrion never slept with her but at the same time doesn’t mean Littlefinger can do a Tywin and just pretend Sansa was never married. 

I said witnesses to the consummation. The wedding wasn't in question, both Tyrion & Tysha freely admit they were married & so does the septon that married them. Yet somehow Tywin got Tyrion out of that marriage. So anullment on the grounds of not consummating the marriage is not the only way to get an anullment. 

I'm not comparing Sansa to Tysha, I'm comparing marriage to marriage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Not 100% no, but he still has or can have many things backing his claim. The former Hand of the King Jon Con, who spent a great deal of time with Rhaegar, claims that he's Rhaegar son.

The thing is that even Jon Con doesn't know for sure, whether the baby that he was given to raise, is actually son of Rhaegar, Aegon Martell. There's no one who was with that baby from the moment he was born, and until the time he was given to Jon Con. It's unlikely that Jon Con had many opportunities to see little Aegon after his birth and during rebellion. And considering that aside from mothers, to other people all infants look the same, it's unlikely that Jon Con could have even identify, which baby is Aegon, if he will be shown to him amongst other babies. ^_^ 

But in case with Jon Snow, there are people that can confirm, that the baby that Ned brought to Winterfell, is the same baby that was born by Lyanna Stark. Those people could be Wylla (Jon's wet nurse, that came with him to Winterfell, after that she was wet nurse of Edric Dayne, and now she is still living at Starfall), Howland Reed, and Ashara Dayne (if she is alive and became Howland's wife, Jyana Reed).

Doesn't matter that Ned himself is dead, if it will became known that Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark had a baby, and that baby was taken by Ned Stark from Tower of Joy, then it will be obvious to everyone in 7K, that that baby is Jon Snow.

15 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

We don't know that the war with the Others is the main conflict in the story.  I don't think it is. 

Though it is.

Thousands years ago the Others came from The Land of Always Winter, and nearly annihilated entire humankind. The only reason why they went back is because, to defeat them, in Westeros, Children of the Forest joined their forces with First Men, and in Essos Azor Ahai sacrificed his wife to forge a Lightbringer. Then people have build The Wall, that up until now is still the biggest man made structure in the world of Planetos. Years ago one King married his children to each other, and his descendant kidnapped fiancee of another man, because both of them believed that it was necessary for fulfilment of a prophecy, about a hero that will defeat Others during second Long Night. Jon let the wildlings, longtime enemies of Night's Watch, to come to 7K, because the Others were getting closer and closer to The Wall.

So in comparison with a threat from approaching Others, all those political Games of Thrones, are just fights of mices for a piece of cheese.

15 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

Rhaegar's family was permanently disinherited and lost their place in the line of succession when Prince Viserys became King Viserys III.

Viserys I has chosen his daughter Rhaenyra as his successor, but she never became Queen. The crown went to her younger brother Aegon II. Nevertheless after Aegon's death, crown went back to Rhaenyra's son Aegon III.

Rhaenyra - Rhaegar, Aegon II - Viserys III, Aegon III - Jon Snow.

9 hours ago, Ser Maverick said:

George has recently confirmed that he dies

Dies and stays dead are different things. George avoided answering whether Jon is dead permanently or not.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


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

I just assumed that Jon actually survives his wounds, but I think George has recently confirmed that he dies, so what do I know.

Survives multiple stabs in body area lol, he is dead there is no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Dies and stays dead are different things.

Not really. He's repeatedly discussed his disagreement with Tolkien killing off Gandalf just to bring him back in the next book, and his version of resurrection can barely be considered "resurrection". He also recently stated that Lady Stoneheart and Lord Beric are wights, and not the same as they were before death. So if Jon's corpse gets revived, he wouldn't really be Jon anymore and therefore is still dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be very funny once Danny is in Westeros. 

First, there comes a guy who claims he is the dead Aegon VI. After many battles and a lot of spilled blood, people are gonna beginn to accept that he is real and be like

"Fine, OK, we accept it, you are the real deal. We will follow you". 

Then Danny comes along. "I am the rightfull Queen, this guy is only a pretender." Aaaand here goes another war. Yippie. Again, thousands of dead people. Then, finally, even this is settled, one way or another.

"Now we finally have peace. The pain is over. Westeros will finally flourish. All the deaths, all the suffering. Over. But it was worth it. The battles for this stupid throne are once and for all settled. The Targaryens have conquered the Throne again, and settled all the unsolved question who to rule rightfully. There are no other pretenders, no Baratheons, no Lannisters, on this world. We are done. Yay".

Jon: "Hey guys"

Edited by Dragonsbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Widow's Watch said:

Manderly and Glover know Rickon is alive, and so do the Lockes and the Flints. And the Liddles know that Bran is still alive and maybe they shared that information with the Wulls and the Norreys. But for whatever reason, they're not talking.

Sansa's marriage to Harry Hardyng wouldn't be legal because she would still be married to Tyrion. And Littlefinger can crown her queen, I don't think it will mean anything to the northmen. It's Robb they bent the knee to and Robb took Sansa out of the line of succession and may have put Jon in it.

There's no point in saying this to others. Bran and Rickon are kids, Sansa and Arya are girls, non of them would/could lead an army. Thus they are worthless to northerners, even though they are Starks.

Jon is Snow, though he's an adult and a warrior. He is useful as potential Commander.

4 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, you just didn't explain how to prove it wasn't consummated. Sansa's word? Both Sansa and Tyrion's word?

Midwife or maester could check whether she's still a virgin or not.

For example Joan of Arc had to go thru medical examination, to prove that she is a maiden. She was called The Maid of Orleans, because she was a virgin.

"An examination as to Joan's virginity was conducted some time prior to January 13, overseen by the Dutchess of Bedford (the wife of John, Duke of Bedford, regent in France of the boy-king Henry II of France). The Duchess announced that Joan had been found to be a virgin."

If Sansa will claim that her marriage wasn't consummated, there's no need for people to believe her words alone, she will have to be examined to confirm her statement.

3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The only way Jon is coming back from death is via wightification.  He's coming back as a wight.

His soul will warg into Ghost, and then Mellisandre will revive him. Though unlike Berric and Cat, he won't be a fire wight, like they are. Because they are just revived bodies without souls, so gradually they are loosing their memories and identities. But Jon's soul will go back in his body, when Mellisandre will be reviving him.

GRRM gave two hints that something like this will happen with Jon: 1. name of Jon's direwolf is Ghost, and ghost is a soul that remained in the world of living, after person's death; 2. Mellisandre said to Jon that he has a power, and that even though now he is afraid or hesitating to use/acknowledge it, eventually he will have to accept it <- don't remember what exactly, or when she said it, though she was referring to his abbility to warg.

Share this post


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

And let's not forget that he mutineers used daggers, and daggers have short blades. Add to that all those layers of woollen small clothes, boiled leather, chain mail, etc etc. I'll be shocked if he dies actually. 

Share this post


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

There's no point in saying this to others. Bran and Rickon are kids, Sansa and Arya are girls, non of them would/could lead an army. Thus they are worthless to northerners, even though they are Starks.

No, they're not worthless. None of them are. Bran would be the rightful heir. Bran has gone beyond the Wall, but he is the rightful lord of Winterfell and would be king in the north if Robb had known he was still alive. 

Wyman Manderly has sent Davos to find Rickon.

The northmen marching in Stannis's host want to get rid of the Boltons in Winterfell and rescue Ned's little girl from Ramsay. 

None of this makes the Stark children worthless to the northmen. And it's not like we are kept in the dark about the thoughts of the northmen. We know what Wyman Manderly is thinking and we know what the clansmen are thinking, what Alyanne Mormont is thinking, just the same as we know what Alys Karstark thinks of Jon and why she goes to him for his assistance.

I agree that none of them can lead armies, but that doesn't make them worthless. And a military leader doesn't need to be a king or the lord of a castle or warden or anything like that. 

Edited by Widow's Watch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Maverick said:
1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Dies and stays dead are different things.

Not really.

Jesus Christ wouldn't agree with you.

^_^

1 hour ago, Ser Maverick said:

He also recently stated that Lady Stoneheart and Lord Beric are wights, and not the same as they were before death. So if Jon's corpse gets revived, he wouldn't really be Jon anymore and therefore is still dead.

Unless if his soul haven't left the world of living, then he wasn't dead, not entirely.

1 hour ago, Ser Maverick said:

He's repeatedly discussed his disagreement with Tolkien killing off Gandalf just to bring him back in the next book,

I call :bs:

 

What he really said (I will also explain meaning of what he said, though that meaning is obvious even without any explanations):

"It’s always bothered me that Gandalf comes back from the dead,” the author told Time Magazine.

“The Red Wedding for me in Lord of the Rings is the mines of Moria, and when Gandalf falls - it’s a devastating moment! I didn’t see it coming at 13 years old, it just totally took me by surprise. Gandalf can’t die!

And then in the next book, he shows up again, and it was six months between the American publications of those books, which seemed like a million years to me. So all that time I thought Gandalf was dead, and now he’s back and now he’s Gandalf the White. And, ehh, he’s more or less the same as always, except he’s more powerful. It always felt a little bit like a cheat to me. And as I got older and considered it more, it also seemed to me that death doesn’t make you more powerful.

If someone comes back from being dead, especially if they suffer a violent, traumatic death, they’re not going to come back as nice as ever. "

 

He disagreed not about resurrection itself, he disagreed with the fact that after Gandalf was revived, he became more powerful, because in GRRM's opinion, experience like that - dying - should "damage" whoever went thru it, cause a psychological trauma or something like that.

 

1 hour ago, Dragonsbone said:

It will be very funny once Danny is in Westeros. 

First, there comes a guy who claims he is the dead Aegon VI. After many battles and a lot of spilled blood, people are gonna beginn to accept that he is real and be like

"Fine, OK, we accept it, you are the real deal. We will follow you". 

Then Danny comes along. "I am the rightfull Queen, this guy is only a pretender." Aaaand here goes another war. Yippie. Again, thousands of dead people. Then, finally, even this is settled, one way or another.

"Now we finally have peace. The pain is over. Westeros will finally flourish. All the deaths, all the suffering. Over. But it was worth it. The battles for this stupid throne are once and for all settled. The Targaryens have conquered the Throne again, and settled all the unsolved question who to rule rightfully. There are no other pretenders, no Baratheons, no Lannisters, on this world. We are done. Yay".

Jon: "Hey guys"

:lmao:

Could actually happen exactly like that. Though Jon will come to them, only to warn them about Others, not to claim crown for himself. He may ask Dany's help to fight against Undead Army, and that's all. Because he isn't interested in being ruler. He's the least selfish out of all possible successors. That's why he will be the best King that ever ruled in 7K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Megorova said:

He disagreed not about resurrection itself, he disagreed with the fact that after Gandalf was revived, he became more powerful, because in GRRM's opinion, experience like that - dying - should "damage" whoever went thru it, cause a psychological trauma or something like that.

 

Quote

I never liked Gandalf the White as much as Gandalf the Grey, and I never liked him coming back. I think it would have been an even stronger story if Tolkien had left him dead.

 

Quote

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re getting off topic, this thread is about Jon in regards to House Targaryen not House Stark. 

Share this post


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

 

 

Quote

I never liked Gandalf the White as much as Gandalf the Grey

"now he’s Gandalf the White. And, ehh, he’s more or less the same as always, except he’s more powerful."

Quote

and I never liked him coming back.

"and when Gandalf falls - it’s a devastating moment!

Gandalf can’t die!"

Quote

I think it would have been an even stronger story if Tolkien had left him dead.

Let's be realistic - without aid of Gandalf White, all other good guys in LOTR would have died. So even though GRRM thinks that without Gandalf, the story would be stronger, it also would have been much shorter, due to premature death of nearly all characters.

Quote

Though for GRRM, six months break before publication of next book, seemed like a million years. Because of Gandalf's death.

As GRRM said, for him the mines of Moria, were The Red Wedding.

"Screw Gandalf"? really? Then how about - Screw Cat?

If he didn't liked how Tolkien brought Gandalf back, after his death at Moria, then why did he resurrected Cat, after The Red Wedding? He did THE SAME THING!

Cat's return was absolutely unneccessary for plot's continuation. What she did as Lady Stone Heart, could have been done by Brotherhood without banners, even without her participation. So unlike Gandalf, whose return was absolutely necessary, Cat's return was totally pointless.

What George says at different times, contradicts one another. The guy has his moments with mood swings, and statements that go against logic. Old age takes its toll. -_-

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


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

What George says at different times, contradicts one another. The guy has his moments with mood swings, and statements that go against logic. Old age takes its toll. -_-

This made me lol but I don't see it as contradictory. I think his point is that because Gandalf just comes back later on and even more powerful than before, it really cheapens his death and makes it worthless drama. This fits with his own work as he's established that LSH is not Catelyn and therefore her death still had a purpose. So, in regards to Jon, I think it seems very implausible that if he's dead, that he will return in his body somehow, or else GRRM would be a hypocrite.

Quote

Cat's return was absolutely unneccessary for plot's continuation. What she did as Lady Stone Heart, could have been done by Brotherhood without banners, even without her participation. So unlike Gandalf, whose return was absolutely necessary, Cat's return was totally pointless.

We still have at least two novels left, I'm not sure where this is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Megorova said:

The thing is that even Jon Con doesn't know for sure, whether the baby that he was given to raise, is actually son of Rhaegar, Aegon Martell. There's no one who was with that baby from the moment he was born, and until the time he was given to Jon Con. It's unlikely that Jon Con had many opportunities to see little Aegon after his birth and during rebellion. And considering that aside from mothers, to other people all infants look the same, it's unlikely that Jon Con could have even identify, which baby is Aegon, if he will be shown to him amongst other babies. ^_^ 

Who on earth is Aegon Martell?

Jon Con has already gone on record and vouched for (f)Aegon being Rhaegar's son. That's all that matters. He's one of the last people alive to have known Rhaegar well. Him supporting (f)Aegon's claim lends it credibility.  Jon Con is a 100% on team (f)Aegon as is the GC at this point that should be obvious. 

 

Share this post


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

Who on earth is Aegon Martell?

^_^

There are two Aegon Targaryens in current generation - Rhaegar's first son Aegon, whose mother is Elia Martell, and second son, also Aegon, whose mother is Lyanna Stark, thus they are Aegon Martell and Aegon Stark.

(And I'm not basing it on show, whose name shalt not be told, on this side of The Forum :))

1. Rhaegar named his first son Aegon, because Aegon is the best name amongst all male Targaryen names. It was name of establisher of Targaryen's dynasty, Aegon the Conqueror. Also it was name of one of the best Kings of 7K, Aegon the Egg.

2. And Jon can't be crowned as King Jon first of his name. He will have to take a Targaryen name. And Aegon is not much different from Jon. Because what other Targaryen name could he take for himself? - Aemon? - there was already Aemon amongst people that he knew, so Jon wouldn't want to take his name. Viserys, Jaehaerys, Daeron, Maeker, Aerys? For a guy with short and simple name like Jon, the best would be to take new name Aegon, short and similar to his.

3. Also Aegon Martell, as first son of Crown Prince, eventually was supposed to become crowned as King Aegon VI. So if Young Griff will be crowned under this name, then after it will become known that he is fake, or when he will die, then when Jon will be crowned, he will be King Aegon VII. And 7 is a lucky number in 7K, thus his reign will be blessed by Seven Gods.

He's also the Prince that was promised, thus his name will be Aegon VII the Saviour. Or if he will sacrifice his life to defeat the Others, then he will be crowned post mortem as Aegon VII the Saint.

1 hour ago, Ser Maverick said:

We still have at least two novels left, I'm not sure where this is coming from.

I'm not the only one who thinks that LSH is useless for the plot.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/149173-so-what-exactly-is/

What she does could be done by other characters, even without her presence in the story.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


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

Jon Con has already gone on record and vouched for (f)Aegon being Rhaegar's son. That's all that matters. He's one of the last people alive to have known Rhaegar well. Him supporting (f)Aegon's claim lends it credibility.  Jon Con is a 100% on team (f)Aegon as is the GC at this point that should be obvious. 

If Jon Connington publicly denounced Aegon as an impostor and pretender in some sort of huge public show he could damage his claim somewhat.

Aside from that - which seems completely unlikely that this point -, Jon's support of Aegon is infinitely more valuable than anything any person might ever say about Jon Snow. Aegon looks the part. Jon Snow does not. Nobody would ever want to believe a man looking like a Stark is actually a Targaryen.

Just look how the looks of Cersei's children led to people believing they might not be Robert's. But then - if one of Cersei's children had had black hair, very few would have been willing to believe that they were not Robert's - never mind what's actually the case.

Vice versa, a child not looking like a Targaryen (prince) but like a Stark (bastard) is not going to motivate many people to believe in some sort of convoluted fairy-tale about him. Especially not when 'the truth' is pretty much visible in his face.

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