Jump to content

Why did the Show discard Robb's will, only to arrive at the same outcome less credibly?


Recommended Posts

The worst part for me was when they shouted "Jon Snow, King in the North".

So what is the name of the King in the North now? If someone from Braavos asked who rules as King in the North, what would the answer be? Jon Stark or Jon Snow? The idea that you can have a King with the surname Snow is just so ridiculous that it is jarring. He needs to be legitimized to be King. That's what the will does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The worst part for me was when they shouted "Jon Snow, King in the North".

So what is the name of the King in the North now? If someone from Braavos asked who rules as King in the North, what would the answer be? Jon Stark or Jon Snow? The idea that you can have a King with the surname Snow is just so ridiculous that it is jarring. He needs to be legitimized to be King. That's what the will does.

 

Dany will legitimate him as a Targ, don't worry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the OP, because the writers have a hard on for displaying honor as something that merely gets you killed, rather than as something that can inspire true, lasting loyalty.  Ned and Robb may be dead, but their lords carry on trying to avenge them and place their heirs back in Winterfell. At the end of the day, Ned and Robb may not be better off, but their honor offers greater long term benefit to their family and vassals than the dishonorable behavior. That doesn't fit D&D's nihilistic world, so it has to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The worst part for me was when they shouted "Jon Snow, King in the North".

So what is the name of the King in the North now? If someone from Braavos asked who rules as King in the North, what would the answer be? Jon Stark or Jon Snow? The idea that you can have a King with the surname Snow is just so ridiculous that it is jarring. He needs to be legitimized to be King. That's what the will does.

LOL, what I mused last night was very close to this - now that Jon Snow has been proclaimed king he can take the first formal step in legitimizing himself as Jon Stark! 

As for the OP, I firmly believe Jon will indeed be proclaimed KitN in the books, and I don't think Robb's Will will (erg, sorry) be anywhere close to the main impetus for his declaration.  Perhaps it will be an aspect, but the survival of Bran and Rickon complicates it anyway, which I think will be the primary contention as to the heir of the North in the books, not Sansa.  Plus, IRT the show, you basically answered your own question:

Quote

Unless it was for the express purpose of giving Sansa and Littlefinger a stronger position of from which to challenge Jon's rule in Season 7.

IMO that will be the "filler" conflict between the living in the North before they get around to fighting the Others in earnest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

LOL, what I mused last night was very close to this - now that Jon Snow has been proclaimed king he can take the first formal step in legitimizing himself as Jon Stark! 

As for the OP, I firmly believe Jon will indeed be proclaimed KitN in the books, and I don't think Robb's Will will (erg, sorry) be anywhere close to the main impetus for his declaration.  Perhaps it will be an aspect, but the survival of Bran and Rickon complicates it anyway, which I think will be the primary contention as to the heir of the North in the books, not Sansa.  Plus, IRT the show, you basically answered your own question:

IMO that will be the "filler" conflict between the living in the North before they get around to fighting the Others in earnest.

In the books it will all be about timing. Jon will become King in the North. But only until Rickon or Bran arrives. And only then will his identity as a Targaryen be revealed. Giving him a claim to the Iron Throne. So it will be a stepped progression. I highly doubt that there is time in the books for another internal power struggle in the North. Once the Boltons are done for the Starks will take over again as a unified force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In the books it will all be about timing. Jon will become King in the North. But only until Rickon or Bran arrives. And only then will his identity as a Targaryen be revealed. Giving him a claim to the Iron Throne. So it will be a stepped progression. I highly doubt that there is time in the books for another internal power struggle in the North. Once the Boltons are done for the Starks will take over again as a unified force.

The way I see it is Jon's motives for accepting KitN will be at odds with those supporting Rickon's claim.  Jon will accept the title for the exact reason any political leader does:  to get people to do what he wants them to do.  Jon's agenda may be righteous, but at this point - especially upon resurrection - he has a very specific agenda.  I'm far too stupid to know how all of this will go down, but my gut says he'll take the title over Rickon=Shaggydog precisely because he wants to muster the North differently than Manderly and friends.  While I strongly disagree Bran will remain a tree, I also think this will all transpire before he makes his way back to the realm of the living.  That's my thought process on how the books will play out, as vague and shitty as it may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been here before.

Rob was voted king by the people, so what? When the time came, the same people betrayed him and his kin. They served his murderers eagerly. Jon Snow himself was chosen Lord Commander by the Watch, so what? He got killed soon: by the Watch, "for the Watch" and afterwards the Watch accepted his murderers as leaders.

"He avenged Blood Wedding". Oh? Didn't he avenge Commander Mormont before? And shared his fate? "White Wolf"? Seriously? "We've broken our oaths before, but now we won't." ...until you do again? Laughable.

Such public elections are worth nothing. A king is not to be made! Else the very ones who made him will be tempted to rule him or unmake him. Only a birthright or merit can make one true, unquestionable king. Of these two merit is better. Aegon the Conqueror was king by merit, Robert was king by merit, Stannis attempted to be a king by merit, so does Dany.

Jon Snow is in a weak position (again) until his true birthright is revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TwiceBorn said:

We've been here before.

Rob was voted king by the people, so what? When the time came, the same people betrayed him and his kin. They served his murderers eagerly. Jon Snow himself was chosen Lord Commander by the Watch, so what? He got killed soon: by the Watch, "for the Watch" and afterwards the Watch accepted his murderers as leaders.

"He avenged Blood Wedding". Oh? Didn't he avenge Commander Mormont before? And shared his fate? "White Wolf"? Seriously? "We've broken our oaths before, but now we won't." ...until you do again? Laughable.

Such public elections are worth nothing. A king is not to be made! Else the very ones who made him will be tempted to rule him or unmake him. Only a birthright or merit can make one true, unquestionable king. Of these two merit is better. Aegon the Conqueror was king by merit, Robert was king by merit, Stannis attempted to be a king by merit, so does Dany.

Jon Snow is in a weak position (again) until his true birthright is revealed.

That´s some rare wisdom right there.

 

But I believe, maybe to answer the question to the op, that when Jon finally finds himself in a good position, both in the show and in the books, he will make the choice of throwing it away in the name of fighting the White Walkers. This way, the manner of him becoming King in the North might not matter, only the eventual position and decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gods, I'm becoming a show apologist...

Actually, I have to admit I liked the fact Jon Snow was elected king in the North by his peers. Because he manages to galvanize people. He didn't win this title because he was necessarily "a Stark" (they keep calling him "Jon Snow") but simply because the northmen think he will be a good ruler. And the fact he has Ned Stark's blood is an incentive as well. 

I'd be kind of disappointed if Jon is "only" crowned King in the North because of Robb's will, in the books. I thought his election in the show was very meaningful because it wasn't based on any kind of "obligation". So that is actually a change I liked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

The way I see it is Jon's motives for accepting KitN will be at odds with those supporting Rickon's claim.  Jon will accept the title for the exact reason any political leader does:  to get people to do what he wants them to do.  Jon's agenda may be righteous, but at this point - especially upon resurrection - he has a very specific agenda.  I'm far too stupid to know how all of this will go down, but my gut says he'll take the title over Rickon=Shaggydog precisely because he wants to muster the North differently than Manderly and friends.  While I strongly disagree Bran will remain a tree, I also think this will all transpire before he makes his way back to the realm of the living.  That's my thought process on how the books will play out, as vague and shitty as it may be.

That's not how it works in Westeros. The whole idea of the North is that the Starks are part of their mythology. Going back to their founding myth. If someone could just win the Kingship by the valour of his deeds or due to his oratory skills, then anyone could occupy that throne. Besides the fact that Jon didn't actually do anything noteworthy to earn it. In fact, he did everything he could to make his side lose in the Battle of the Bastards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That's not how it works in Westeros. The whole idea of the North is that the Starks are part of their mythology. Going back to their founding myth. If someone could just win the Kingship by the valour of his deeds or due to his oratory skills, then anyone could occupy that throne. Besides the fact that Jon didn't actually do anything noteworthy to earn it. In fact, he did everything he could to make his side lose in the Battle of the Bastards.

Well, yeah, my above argument has little to do with the show, other than the fact I think Jon will be proclaimed KitN.  I operate on the general assumption the books will be better than the show, but I think it's quite possible many will prefer him over - in my estimation - Rickon, because of his battle prowess.  And that is how it works in Westeros - do you think Robert was such a popular choice due to his Targaryen grandmother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The worst part for me was when they shouted "Jon Snow, King in the North".

So what is the name of the King in the North now? If someone from Braavos asked who rules as King in the North, what would the answer be? Jon Stark or Jon Snow? The idea that you can have a King with the surname Snow is just so ridiculous that it is jarring. He needs to be legitimized to be King. That's what the will does.

While I'm annoyed they proclaimed him king of the north after he proved last episode that he is not a good leader, I really don't mind him remaining a Snow. Ramsay being legitimized as a Bolton didn't make him any more suitable to rule. What's in a name? Jon is Ned's son (or so they think), whether he is called Snow or Stark.

I'm just sad they called him King in the North instead of King of Winter. Jon Snow, the King of Winter, that's jst so fitting. And Jon as King of Winter, as in King during that season, would make a lot of sense. You want a warrior king during the war against the Others White Walkers, but if the war gets won, Sansa could be Queen in the North when spring comes and at last they get a chance to rebuild... well, sorry for my hoping.

Did the title King of Winter ever get mentioned in the TV show at all, anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why some are being a stickler for rules and traditions when the show has been constantly highlighting people who break the rules and, or maybe even to, move themselves and their interests into higher social spheres. As Tywin said way back: 'Aegon Targaryen changed the rules. That's why every child alive still knows his name, three hundred years after his death.'

Jon Snow changed the rules, too. He was Lord Commander and invited the Free Folk south of the Wall. He was killed and lives again. He is a bastard who became King of the North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Grizzly Mormont said:

What did he do? Sansa won that battle. Jon fucked it up catastrophically.

 

As I explained in length before it goes well beyond just what he did in that battle.  Yes he screwed up, but I think the other lords/men fighting with him understand he did it to try and save his brother.  He didn't mess up the battle plan (which he helped create) because he was scared or he was looking to make himself the hero, he did it to try and save his family.  No he shouldn't have charged recklessly after Rickon was killed, but he just reacted, and even though he should know that his men would follow him he didn't order them to either.

There is so much more to why he "earned" the respect of the other Northern lords than just one battle.  The North and Night's Watch are close so I'm sure the lords heard the stories of all he did for the watch (infiltrated the Wildling army, led the raid on Craster's Keep to silence and bring to justice the traitors/deserters there, led the defense of the wall at the end, led mission to Hardhome and killed a WW, was killed for his compassion for the Wildlings, etc).  Again he was the only person (along with Sansa) that had the courage to stand up to the Boltons and take back the North from them and try to rally an army.  Again tactically it was a huge mistake, but he showed the love and dedication to his family (a family they all know he wasn't always a complete part of because he was a bastard) by trying to save Rickon, mistake or not from a battle standpoint.  And he did that all without any grand scheme.  He wasn't angling to be Lord Commander, or KitN or even Lord of Winterfell, he did it because it was the right thing to do.

That is why I think he "earned" their respect and they named him KitN, and I like that better than it just being willed to him.  It is based off of his deeds (and yes he screwed up a major, MAJOR part of the big battle).  But they know he is honorable, loyal, and is willing to fight for his people, and isn't afraid of the real enemy who they are about to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on the arguments in this thread are ridiculous. Jon earned the title of king in the north by doing his duty and through his achievements. Being handed the kingship through a will undermines all that he has done. Robb put him in his will in the books because he was the last and only resort. He thought Bran, Rickon and Arya were all dead, he hadn't impregnated Jeyne Westerling yet and he didn't want Sansa to inherit the North because he knew that the Lannisters would rule through Tyrion. He saw an opportunity to set Jon free from his Night's Watch vows as Joffrey already set that precedent by dismissing Ser Barristan. Therefore it was the best option for Robb. In the show his wife Talisa is actually pregnant. Furthermore, from what I have seen in this episode and the last (referring to the conversation between Tormund and Davos) is that Jon Snow is more a king than anyone else because of his character, his duty and his achievements and not whose son he is and whether he is a bastard or a trueborn Targ. In the books Varys says that "Tommen has been taught that kingship is his right whilst Aegon has been taught that it is his duty" and Stannis gives the whole "cart before the wheel" speech. This is what Jon represents. So why is Jon fit to lead?

1) He was raised by Ned Stark and learnt to live as a nobleman. He was taught by a maester, trained by a knight and learnt to be honorable and selfless from Ned.

2) He rose quickly in the Night's Watch where he became the Lord Commander Mormont's steward. Jeor Mormont was the once the lord of Bear Island and to become his steward essentially as his protege is a big deal. He saved Jeor Mormont from a wight. I do think that this tale was spread in the North (after all Ser Alliser went all the way to King's Landing to talk to the Crown about the wight so why wouldn't the North know?)

3) He killed the mutineers at Craster's Keep and risked being captured by the Wildlings in order to ensure they didn't find out about Castle Black's weak position and avenged his lord commander. This was all done whilst he was essentially sent out to die by Ser Alliser and Janos Slynt.

4) He led the defence at the Wall where Ser Alliser fell and Janos Slynt was a coward and killed the Magnar of Thenn in single combat. He gave good orders and fought well and thus the Wall was held long enough for Stannis to come and save the day.

5) He recognised the real threat of the White Walkers and organised the Hardhome rescue knowing that it would be dangerous but if they didn't save them then the entire Wildling population would be fodder for the Night King's army. He killed a White Walker and rescued as many Wildlings as he could. So maybe the majority of Castle Black and the North didn't like this. That's because they didn't understand what the real threat was. Jon did and he knew that he had to do whatever was in his power to save the Wildlings because it was the right thing to do.

6) He led whatever men he could against Ramsay. He had a plan and unfortunately it backfired. But in his mind he had no choice but to save Rickon. Rickon being the last trueborn son of Ned Stark is his rightful lord and liege. It is Jon Snow's duty to offer his life for Rickon's. Sansa knew he was toast and deep down Jon probably knew too. But he knew that he must at least try to save Rickon. If he didn't save him then people would argue that he was a bastard who saw an opportunity to take Winterfell for himself. Was it stupid that he charged forward by himself? Yes. But at that point he was probably so overcome with grief and anger that he didn't care (especially when you consider he was already so suicidal). He killed countless men in the battle and is regarded as a great fighter in the North.

So Jon earned being king because he did what was right wherever he could, fought bravely on countless occasions, helped bring justice to those victimised by the Bolton's atrocities and is committed to prepare for the Long Night in spite of being the Lord of Winterfell. The Northerners saw a true leader in him and thus chose him to be king. How many times have those who have been handed kingships or declared themselves kings turned out to be horrible? Having Robb's will undermines WHY Jon should be king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Power resides where men believe it resides; it is a trick, a shadow on the wall.." Varys.

Jon being acclaimed king by the Northern Lords makes sense from a storytelling, visual, and thematic perspective.  They were placing their faith in him, not in a piece of paper written by a dead man.  I also like that Jon looked overwhelmed by the situation and didn't know how to play it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about that. Jon was a pretty poor commander in the battle, but he did rally the North as best he could to fight the Boltons, and rescue a Stark. He took his sword and got stuff done when everyone else was too scared shitless of Ramsay to move against him.

Add to that Lyanna shaming the crowd, and it seems a bit more credible to crown Jon because of that, rather than because a piece of paper says so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...