El Guapo Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No, no I want none of this shit to happen. I want something original. I completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No, no I want none of this shit to happen. I want something original. If it's between Jon and Dany, it's between someone, Jon, who only the readers who analyze the text would find out about his parentage and the huge living breathing personification of tropes and clishes. I will take the first one 24/7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Arryn Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 With the realm so divided, why wouldn't this be a problem for everyone who is a contestant? This isn't exclusive to Jon, but anyone. I'm not sure why a separate North would be a logical conclusion, rather than a step backwards from unity. Whoever sits the throne will need to rebuild, and do so in a way that reflects the changes the kingdom has faced. But at its most basic level, choosing a king who is publicly understood to be a bastard is inherently a progressive step from where this story began-- where power allegedly depends on being born within wedlock to the right father and so forth. Having a council choose the next king based on something other than a bloodline claim is a gesture of progress. Who says Jon is truly dead and that we will see a literal resurrection? Not that I'm saying the north being independent is the main solution, but it seems like the only possibility of Jon becoming King within the context of the story that wont result in rebellions in the future. Jon may be a good solution but there are still some issues he may face as King on the IT compared to KotN. The first issue is the issue of religion, unless he converts to the faith, I don't necessarily think the south will be fully in support of someone that worships the old gods. Westeros is far from becoming a secular society and despite whoever saves the realm, religion will still play a big role in the leader of the society. Even Aegon that had dragons had to convert to the faith of the seven for political reasons, and the faith still rebelled after he died. JOn becoming king will have its advantages but also its negative parts. Also Jon may be a bastard, but he is still Ned's bastard and grew up in Winterfell so it really doesn't make him a bastard that opens new doors. Many people view him as higher than the ordinary bastard so bloodline is still at work in who gets to rule. Jon ruling the north however is not a problem, since hes Ned's bastard and shares the same culture and religion as them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Not that I'm saying the north being independent is the main solution, but it seems like the only possibility of Jon becoming King within the context of the story that wont result in rebellions in the future.By this logic, it would be even more true if Jon were actually sitting on the IT. Jon may be a good solution but there are still some issues he may face as King on the IT compared to KotN.The first issue is the issue of religion, unless he converts to the faith, I don't necessarily think the south will be fully in support of someone that worships the old gods. Westeros is far from becoming a secular society and despite whoever saves the realm, religion will still play a big role in the leader of the society.Even Aegon that had dragons had to convert to the faith of the seven for political reasons, and the faith still rebelled after he died.JOn becoming king will have its advantages but also its negative parts. Also Jon may be a bastard, but he is still Ned's bastard and grew up in Winterfell so it really doesn't make him a bastard that opens new doors. Many people view him as higher than the ordinary bastard so bloodline is still at work in who gets to rule. Jon ruling the north however is not a problem, since hes Ned's bastard and shares the same culture and religion as them.1. Jon does not need to convert. I don't understand why this would be a major detriment. Are you thinking the HS needs to anoint him or something? Are you thinking the Faith will be the uncontested religion of power? Even with R'hllorism exploding on the scene? 2. I don't get the bastard thing. Do you agree that the story has been moving toward some degree of social progress and paradigm shift? And do you agree that it's unrealistic for the conclusion of this to be a complete adoption of democracy or shattering of the entire system of aristocracy? Meaning, the conclusion of this within the story would be somewhere in the middle? As in, something that hints at or gestures to progress, but is not the complete, ideal perfect solution to everything? If the story began with people thinking that the person with the right royal blood should sit the throne, but ends with people choosing a leader based on some other quality and a "bastard," you don't believe this shows some manifestation that there's been a paradigm shift? The fact that he was raised in the Stark household and well trained is what makes his assumption of the throne fairly realistic-- it's precisely the fact they wouldn't be choosing "any old bastard" that renders this believable. Jon's ruling the North doesn't advance the story at all, in terms of a conclusion to either his arc or the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourneblade Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Ok just catching up. Claims ARE important because people believe in them, this might change but that is a complete unknown, so we can only go with what we know. Roberts Rebellion was not started as a war of succession, but was legally justified as such, which is why the Rebellion (Jon and Ned) chose Robert to lead because he had the better claim. Robert then attaints the Targaryen Line so that Dany, Aemon, or Viserys would not legally have no claim (or Aegon and Jon for that matter). This is smoke and mirrors really, but for those who follow the letter of the law claims are important. Robert then dies leaving Stannis as Rightful Heir, and Joffery as Legal Heir, two separate things and can be confusing. The Legal process supports Joffery as Rightful and Legal heir, through threat of force. Stannis is the Rightful Heir, but needs force to become legal heir, because first he is attainted as a rebel, and second must use that force to show Joff and Tom as bastard borne. R and L = J. Viserys was never sworn in as King and no Kings Guard were with him because they were with the Crowned Prince. That means R and L were married and Jon was Legitimized or the Kings Guard would have been with Viserys. These three KG made a point that they are sworn to their duty, so R+L=J must be true and J must be legitimate. With Jon alive and legitimate, Viserys, and there after Dany when Viserys dies is second in line to the Targaryen claim, or third and Jon second if Aegon is legit. Aegon would be Rhaegar's first son and Jon second. Ok everyone follow so far? hope so I know its confusing. So far we have listed the main players left in this war of succession. Why is it a War of Succession and not conquest when those not on the throne must use force? The answer is simple, every claimant left will justify their use of force, by legally revoking/attainting whom ever they defeat to seize power. All of this is based off the original Targaryen claim even though the Targaryens are now Attainted. This is possible because Robert/Jon Arryn chose to legally justify their use of force through the Targaryen hereditary claim, instead of through right of conquest. The reason for such is to maintain the ease of power transition. A Conqueror, with no claim, must create from scratch a new bureaucracy, where as a claimant does not. Now to matter at hand. Jon. If Jon should win the IT through force, he will justify it through his legitimate claim. He might choose to keep his last name Snow, but then again he would have chosen to drop it for Stark in a heart beat with Stannis's offer had it not been for the burning Weirwoods stipulation, however it will be legalized through his blood claim and the Baratheons would be attainted as rebels, and therefore any and all decrees their line made null and void. GRRM has a lot of plot holes to fill for us to buy this, and it would be a hard task for sure, but certainly not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Rhaegar had a son before Jon: Aegon. There is no DNA in Westeros to prove Aegon is not his son and everybody who could have known him is dead, except Jon Connington who believes he's the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Arryn Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 By this logic, it would be even more true if Jon were actually sitting on the IT. 1. Jon does not need to convert. I don't understand why this would be a major detriment. Are you thinking the HS needs to anoint him or something? Are you thinking the Faith will be the uncontested religion of power? Even with R'hllorism exploding on the scene? 2. I don't get the bastard thing. Do you agree that the story has been moving toward some degree of social progress and paradigm shift? And do you agree that it's unrealistic for the conclusion of this to be a complete adoption of democracy or shattering of the entire system of aristocracy? Meaning, the conclusion of this within the story would be somewhere in the middle? As in, something that hints at or gestures to progress, but is not the complete, ideal perfect solution to everything? If the story began with people thinking that the person with the right royal blood should sit the throne, but ends with people choosing a leader based on some other quality and a "bastard," you don't believe this shows some manifestation that there's been a paradigm shift? The fact that he was raised in the Stark household and well trained is what makes his assumption of the throne fairly realistic-- it's precisely the fact they wouldn't be choosing "any old bastard" that renders this believable. Jon's ruling the North doesn't advance the story at all, in terms of a conclusion to either his arc or the series. Ok let me clean up a bit. I understand where youre coming from, on how Jon becoming the King of westeros as a bastard is a great step forward for the westeros government. This is a good ending for the story and will be a big step forward, I agree on that. However what I don't agree on is how it can happen based on the context and setting of the story. My understanding of GRRM is that he is not subverting tropes he's just editing fantasy tropes to make them seem realistic compared to other stories, that it they could be similar situations that would happen in our time. An example is a princess being saved by a knight in shining armour, that never happens in real life, in real life it would end up being a modest knight that could even be ugly, and these are the type of things GRRM is doing. Jon being a King bastard would be a good thing for the story and Westeros government but however looking at it from a realist point of view on how the people in westeros think and the structure of the society it wont be that easy for it to happen. Social stereotypes can't be changed overnight, even if Jon plays a role in saving the realm that isn't going to eliminate the status of being a bastard. Also looking at it from a realist point of view I still struggle to see how Jon will become King of the IT. Who is going to make the call? How will it be made? Why will it be made? And will he accept it? Lets say Jon leads an army to defeat the others, are we so sure the realm will rise for him to be king? As real as GRRM makes this story I even think people will still think the Others are Grumpkins and Snarks in areas the others dont reach. Also as I stated earlier, If the others become a serious situation all over Westeros, in order for Jon to use that victory for the realm to rise for him he would have to teleport all over the realm like the wheel of time for that to happen, so everyone can see what he is doing. Westeros doesnt have internet to know what is going on everywhere. I see it in two possibilities either the others only get as far as the neck and Jon leads them and therefore he is only acknowledged in the North or the others attack everywhere and other people in other regions are acknowledged there. To conclude my issue is not that Jon becoming a bastard King is a bad thing, my point is that is it realistic in the setting of the story? Even if it is the right way for the westeros government to go, we have to argue if it is realistic. I find it hard to believe that the whole realm will acknowledge what Jon has done if he is only fighting in one region of the continent. Thats why I see it more realistic that the north will acknowledge what he has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourneblade Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Rhaegar had a son before Jon: Aegon. There is no DNA in Westeros to prove Aegon is not his son and everybody who could have known him is dead, except Jon Connington who believes he's the real thing. And Varys, and Ilyrio. Aegon will actually have to prove his claim, just as Jon would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormland's Fury Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 And Varys, and Ilyrio. Aegon will actually have to prove his claim, just as Jon would. If they know the right guy to get an ID: http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTEyMFgxNjAw/z/1XkAAOxy63FSuX2m/$_35.JPG?set_id=880000500F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 And Varys, and Ilyrio. Aegon will actually have to prove his claim, just as Jon would. If they both prove their claim, Aegon's claim goes first, because he's Rhaegar's older son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l2 0 5 5 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 All signs point to Jon having a claim to the throne. Not sure how he will act upon it. Jon said no to Winterfell when Stannis offered it to him. Things may be different now that his brothers stabbed him in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l2 0 5 5 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 He is a man of the watch but he still vowed to march south on the Boltons after robb's death so I think that he is prepared to cast his vows aside for certain things. Perhaps the iron throne? Agreed, ser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHouseHB Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Why would Jon Snow have a claim to the throne when his parents are Eddard and Wylla? :cool4: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourneblade Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 If they both prove their claim, Aegon's claim goes first, because he's Rhaegar's older son. And you will note in my first post that I said that very same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourneblade Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 All signs point to Jon having a claim to the throne. Not sure how he will act upon it. Jon said no to Winterfell when Stannis offered it to him. Things may be different now that his brothers stabbed him in the back. Jon only said no to Winterfell because he would not burn Weirwood Trees lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormland's Fury Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Why would Jon Snow have a claim to the throne when his parents are Eddard and Wylla? :cool4: Zing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 The Targaryen line, if R+L=J and they married, would go this way: fAegon, then Jon, then Daenerys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourneblade Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Why would Jon Snow have a claim to the throne when his parents are Eddard and Wylla? :cool4: Well since we are trolling I guess those 3 Kings Guard just coincidentally chose to make their stand where Lyanna was forsaking all KG duty to Viserys... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l2 0 5 5 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Jon only said no to Winterfell because he would not burn Weirwood Trees lol. That sounds like something they'll try to push for in the show. Much like burning Lord Alester for his religious views opposed to him trying to ship the princess away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourneblade Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 That sounds like something they'll try to push for in the show. Much like burning Lord Alester for his religious views opposed to him trying to ship the princess away. That seems the most realistic way of doing it. Jon was seriously considering it until he looks into Ghosts Eyes....The Eyes of a Weirwood... However he was appointed to LC before he actually had to explain that to Stannis lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.