Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RFL

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not my idea entirely but going back to the execution of the Tully men. First Cersei would have already instituted trial by combat. The Tullys would have demanded it from Dany and the line (not my line) “Fire is the champion of house Targaryen would have been uttered”. Kings Landinv would be utterly destroyed and no longer fit as a capital. Jon would have been accused of treason for telling his lineage. He would demand trial by combat and the same line uttered but Drogon would have torched her. Some explanation is to why she is no longer the unburnt (Lisa of innocence?) from Brann. Jon is offered the iron throne, declares he does not want it, and begins to leave. We see various people moving towards it but Drogon torches it and then flies off. Jon declares himself done as a piece in the game of thrones, notes that it can only harm people, and leaves for the north. Our parting shot plays the opening music but we see seven independent kingdoms with major players wearing crowns We are shown Brann in a cave somewhere with roots forming around his feet
  2. I always had the impression Ned wanted nothing to do with the throne and was more than willing to step back and let Robert have it. He only came south again when he was bound by duty to his king to do so.
  3. Did Baratheon have some birth-right to the throne I am unfamiliar with? He took it by force with the backing of a majority of the major houses. For all intents they DID "elect" him as surely as that council elected Brann. They elected him through politics and then by the use of force. We are reminded that when Ned and Robert came into the great keep Jaime had been sitting on the throne and I always felt like there had been some tension and compromise there (marrying Cersei) to prevent the forces that had ousted the Targareyns from falling on each other.
  4. We seem to ignore the last time Jon was in charge (King of the North) he led his army into a battle that would have destroyed them if not for outside forces and gave up leadership as soon as he was given the chance. The time before that he was so convinced he was in the right and ignored dissent around him that he ignored generations of traditions of the Night's Watch, in the book plunged the watch into debt with the Iron Bank, gave aid and shelter to Stannis and his men after they saved him from another ill-advised plan in violation of the ideals of the watch to stay out of the affairs of man, and failed so miserably his men mutinied. Had he been king he would have lasted a very very short time.
  5. Of course she supported Viserys claim. She had grown up knowing only that her whole life. But since his death she had believed the claim was hers. Ever since she walked from the fire with three dragons everything she did was about getting to that throne. Every slave freed, every atrocity committed... She believed, as Tyrion pointed out, that SHE was doing what was right. The destruction of King's Landing. The people had a choice and that was to love her or to fear her. When Jon did not love her before the attack on Kings Landing she said "fear it is then" because she did not see love in Westeros around her. When Jon was coming back to her she was willing to accept love again and MAYBE the breaking of the wheel would have been different. The other lords, after seeing what happened to Kings Landing, would have bent the knee the same as generations had before to the conquerers. It seems the most likely hold outs were the North because Sansa was not going to display the sense her ancestors did (no Stark swords in the Iron Throne). Would she have ruled with Jon? Sure she would have. Pretty easy to share power when you have the dragon (the northern armies would have gone home) should you ever decide you no longer want to share power. She was in a no-risk scenario welcoming Jon back to rule with her. Maybe, if Jon had not killed her, Westeros would be stabilized with the rest of the kingdoms bowing down to her. Maybe the game would have paused with her at the top of the wheel. She was more than willing to take allies in the past (Tyrells, Yara, Dorne) as long as they were willing to bend the knee and love her. Indeed what seemed to push her over the edge was those who would not simply bend the knee (Sansa) and those who suggested there were other options (Viserys). Fear or love - you chose fear and fear was highlighted. But I think love was still an option. Like any good extortionist you never give up on the "easy" path.
  6. No one was fit enough to rule. No one had the army left to impose their will on the rest of the realm. As others have noted it would have made far more sense for the seven kingdoms to have been broken especially with the capital in ruins
  7. The only successful leadership role Jon ever had was with some of the wildings and even that, IIRC, required the backing of Stannis The knights watch killed him in mutiny The battle of the bastards was a disaster except for the knights of the Vale He almost immediately gave up being king of the north Hiding the defenseless in the crypts from an enemy that raises the dead Attempting to stand off against an undead dragon Arya bailed out the entire lack of plan at winterfell He had to resort to killing his own men in Kings Landing
  8. Dany WAS willing to rule with Jon. He strode into that throne room in full battle gear (apparently soldiers in the north hate helmets) with no guards and no one accompanying him. She did not have him "accidentally" killed by the Unsullied in the battle or after it. She had not poisoned him. She had not burned him alive. She embraced him She had absolutely no idea that Jon would have been upset about the destruction of Kings Landing. Not the slightest hint that she seemed to realize that anyone might be a little upset by it. As others have noted, outside of perhaps Tyrion, it seems virtually no one was. Yara was like "that's my queen" and even Sansa and Arya didn't defend Jon's actions as justified - they negotiated for a punishment other than death.
  9. Dany had come too far, lost too much, and was too focused on the throne. What was she going to tell the Dothraki that crossed the narrow sea for her? Never mind, by right of birth its his so we should just go with that.
  10. Sounds like all the problems associated to Ultron or A Space Odyssey
  11. But does not use that power to prevent the entire destruction of the capital city. In fact, one could easily argue, he used his knowledge to set the events in motion. Had Jon never been told his true heritage it might have prevented the entire destruction of Kings Landing. What purpose was there in Brann telling him? To keep the events in motion that ended with Brann being king.
  12. The assertion that Brann was the best possible choice requires positive defense. For instance what has Brann done that has actually helped to this point? He was marked by the Nights King and then crossed the wall - which if there was any magic in the wall undid it the same as the sanctuary of the previous three eyed raven. He was not able to stop the Night King's dragon. He was not able to stop Danaerys dragon. He put into motion one of the final factors that unhinged Danaerys. For all his supposed knowledge he has been an absent observer.
  13. I think Bronn is a little deeper than that. After previous promises were not met he did not continue to follow Jaime around Westeros just because. He did not risk the fire of a dragon to save him just because. He did not risk Cersei's ire by giving Tyrion a chance to double the offer. Did he believe he was getting something out of the deal? Yeh I do but I also think he had some loyalty to Tyrion and more to Jaime
  • Create New...