Jump to content

DarkLord

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DarkLord

  • Rank
    Commoner
  1. Both Robb and Jon are children. It's worth remembering that. Yes he was "broken" about his father, but also he never declared himself king. His bannermen did that, and the strength of feeling meant it's possible he couldn't just hand his crown over. We don't know for sure because his attempts of alliances never got of the ground. Renly was killed and stannis already considered him a traitor. At that point though he wasn't "dragging men to war". Not in the war your post makes out he is. He made mistakes most kids would have. Robb never broke a vow when he slept with Jayne. You could argue he broke one when he married her but even then betrothals can be broken. The big fallout was losing allies that were bound by a promise but it wasn't a sacred vow like the night's watch is. Jon didn't "break" his Night's watch vow in the same way, Much like Jamiee he decided one vow (defending the realms of men) was the most important. The reader should know he is right. He just didn't have the ability to explain that they needed to work together with the wildlings to beat the others. The whole idea of being politically neutral is nonsense though since those against him were only worried about helping stanniss because they thought he would lose. Even if you think attacking winterfell was breaking it... he never got there. At best there's an intention to do so. In both cases they are young men who aren't even classed as adults in world. The fact Jon, at 14, could join the night's watch is kind of ridiculous anyway in my opinion but there it is.
  2. He didn't exactly have a choice but in that I always saw Ygritte as Jon's khal drogo. Neither relationship was exactly equal but both learned and by the end loved their partner (as much a a teenager in their respective situations could love them). There is a parallel with honor though. Honor made Robb marry well honor made Jon leave Ygritte. I did mention his age being a problem but I'm not sure it's fair to say people see him as important because all the Starks are dead. Catelyn outright worries the north will view him as more of a Stark because he looks like one. She also claims the wolves are some sign (something the north seem to agree with) although she outright pretends there wasn't one for Jon even after Robb corrects her. She's paranoid, sure, but the rest of the North looking to him didn't come out of nowhere. Acknowledged bastards are members of that house. Joy hill, for example, seems to be in a position to be matched of by the head of House Lannister. I think his leading role is because he is the only one near by (They all know Sansa is alive) and it's worth remembering this is even when he has taken night's watch vows. If he had a leading role in anything else I just don't see much resistance unless he turns out to be terrible at it... Book one Jon would have probably been terrible at it. Robb would still be King. I'm not sure Jon would have been able to stop it even if he was there. That was the most powerful lords in the north saying "no more iron throne". I think he would argue against the iron islands idea, be for trading Jamiee to get his sisters back, and probably end up as one of Robb's guards more then anything else though. His voice in stopping Robb going back on his word to the fray's would be big but I'm not sure that stopped them losing. It just massively speeds everything up. As a "what if" I'd not expect much else to change. The Jon at the start of the books would have been useless in the war of the five kings.
  3. Well this is partly true you don't need to be the prince of dragonstone to gain the throne anymore than you need to be the prince of wales to gain the UK throne, It's land and income for the heir apparent until he is king. That's it. There's no legal link to succession to the throne either in the story or real life. Aegon the conqueror was lord of dragonstone over his older sister-wife. We don't know all the details and laws but we can say it's similar enough that the male becomes lord first. Of course since they marry their sisters that's probably less of consideration. There are no formal succession laws anywhere. Interpretation is what matters. Like GRRM said it's complex but by the ruling (and even if it wasn't a legal ruling everyone considered it as such) his brother was heir. He might have though to change that by the lords agreeing to his daughter but at best you could argue that's returning to the same state as the rest of the kingdom (a daughter before an uncle). He made no moves at all to confirm absolute primogeniture. Like I said before though the key issue is "can a king name his heir" and I think the answer is no. There was no example of that before or after that I can recall.
  4. It followed the laws of the seven kingdoms with the exception of the great council's decision that put preference of males over females. Here it didn't matter though, the son comes before the daughter. The Iron throne wasn't any different from anywhere in the kingdom (Dorne was not in the seven kingdoms at this point) before the ruling of "males first regardless" so I'm not sure it was unclear at all. The question was if a King can pick his heir, and I don't think he can. There's no example of it happening for the throne. This is basically Lady Jane Grey, the nine day queen, because well the King named her his heir nobody accepted it over Mary 1st.
  5. I don't think this is true at all. Because the bastard point of view we get is Jon, who spent his whole life being put down for it by Catelyn, I think the readers have a harsher opinion of it then the world itself implies. Stannis names a bastard in charge of Dragonstone when he leaves ( Rolland Storm ) and we have seen them sit on the small council. We have examples of them being well liked and respected rather consistently. Even in the north as far back as the king who knelt there was his bastard brother giving him his council. Notable for the plan of sneaking in the darkness and killing the dragons. For Jon specifically we have seen that the north views him as the "Son of eddard stark" with Stannis, alys karstark, and the mountain clans among others. I think the bigger problem would be Jon's age not his status as a bastard half-brother. Catelyn, too, might have been an issue but if I recall Robb ignores her most of the time during the war. It's worth remembering that Robb had actual training by Ned's side as his heir well Jon tries to act like he thinks Ned would and so makes himself distant and "above" even his friends once elected as Lord Commander. It's significant because for all Robbs mistakes he does know how to lead. Jon gets power and makes one mistake after another not because he doesn't see the problems but because he thinks people would act like he did at Winterfell and remember he is their lord. Robb knows this is nonsense. By end end of ADWD Jon is sick of explaining any of his actions. Robb, by the end of his arc, is trying to fix situation he knew full well would happen once he married Jeyne. He married out of honor, but Jon wouldn't have slept with Jeyne at all.
  6. The idea that a king can just name his heir isn't really supported. Even Jaehaerys I called a great Council to ensure everyone accepted it even when they considered the outcome all but assured. Robb does the same before his death, his lord fix their seals to his will to ensure everyone knows his wishes and agrees. He doesn't just say "This is my heir" and expect that to do. You need support for your wishes. Viserys I came to power because of the rulings of the great council and should have known full well there would be problems after his death because the law didn't back up his own wishes. He could have taken steps to ensure everyone else accepted it especially after a male heir was born but he didn't. Even knowing there were essentially factions during his lifetime. When he was king, and during his first marriage he refused to name his daughter heir over his brother because he believed his wife would give him a son. It was a problem from day one of his rule. The dance with dragons is first and foremost his fault in my opinion. He named after her mother's death and only due to rage at his brother From the wiki The point is law in westeros is somewhat vague by design. Even naming his daughter was just a move against his brother who had upset him. As GRRM said himself - https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Category/C91/P210/ Now the Iron throne showed itself to be different already by ignoring Female claims. It's worth remembering that. In my opinion the son had the best claim because of precedent set up before. If he didn't his father was no King as it's the same rule, but there's arguments both ways.
  7. She didn't know any of this. Her fear and hate is misplaced because she can't aim it at Ned.
  8. Since the show already talked about annulment rather than either a 2nd marriage or lawfully putting a wife aside without removing the children from succession I didn’t expect Dany to back Jon. I just expected her to question his legitimacy, then offer it once she’s queen. His children would be heir to their house since she’s convinced she can’t have children anyway, and once Sansa or other pushed for him to be king or at the very least pushed for a marriage knowing their relationship (fine for a Targaryen but in the show it’s outright said “is it normal for the north to marry an aunt”) I expected it to go badly. It still could have had Dany saying she was Queen. burning Kind's landing, and Jon being pulled between two names. I even expected some kind of mad plan about how she would “break the wheel” that would have hurt Jon’s siblings. What we got though was her being unwilling to even talk about it, burning down King’s landing, and then she offers to build a new world with him. I’m not even sure what they were going for, and everyone who thinks they did seems to have a different view on it. On who is the better leader... Jon he didn’t really lead. He got stabbed in the night’s watch but the main plot was left out from the book so it seems like that was far more random. Just for letting the wildling past? I feel like they should have killed him before he went to get them. He failed to get the north on side against Ramsay Bolton, and then left quickly returning having given up his crown. Sansa didn’t either though. She basically let Jon go to battle with an army way too small knowing the Vale was a call away. We see some “leading” from her later as she lets the lord’s vent their frustration at Jon but that was just for the silly plot where her an Arya are set against each other. Bran bails them out of that apparently but it’s a deleted scene. Dany does terrible ruling meereen, Tyrion somewhat fixes it and she turns up and kills things with dragons at the end. I guess she has less failures but no successes at all. The cities other than meereen are retaken before this so I assume she said "do as I say I have dragons" and then left.
  9. I think Ned had a few problems with being a Lord and the fact after the rebellion his whole family had died (he had Robb from a wife he had known for two weeks and was supposed to marry his brother, Jon and then ben who joined the night's watch suspiciously quickly). He didn't have any plans for any of his kids and even Jon goes to the wall(or gets an "Ok" anyway) because he doesn't know what else to do with him. He's had 14 years to consider something and he doesn't consider anything past the first suggestion. Sansa being married to joffrey was just because Robert said so. The whole "promise me" thing haunts him. If it was "protect X" then you can bet he went over the top and sheltered his children way too much. He could do so though because not everyone expects a betrothal that young. Not with someone like Robb who would have been the prize anyway. We see lots of people married off young, but a lot of the more powerful family heir's like edmure, arianne, renly etc who are older and nobody is asking why they aren't married.
×
×
  • Create New...