Jump to content

Archived

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

Skahaz mo Kandaq

Jon will never be king.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lerxst said:

I was wondering the same thing over the past year or so.

But... Gilly read the passage from the book she was looking through that described a secret annulment performed alongside a marriage of that same person. We can safely surmise that the annulment was that of Rhaegar and Elia Martell and the marriage was to him and Lyanna Stark. This would make Jon a fully legitimate Targaryen and the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, in every way, shape and form.

The question is, how would they prove this to the rest of Westeros?

By showing the book to the rest of Westeros, presumably. There may be other proof elsewhere—Howland Reed shows up to testify, Bran offhandedly mentions some physical evidence they go dig up, whatever—but that's already enough.

But really, if they're going to do the Jon+Dany thing, they don't need to prove Jon to the rest of Westeros. If you believe the story, he's King and she's Queen Consort; if you don't, then she's Queen Regnant and He's Prince Consort; either way, same difference. Which is the whole point of uniting two claims by marriage: nobody can rebel for the Yorks after Henry Tudor has married Elizabeth, because the best York heir is always going to be his heir too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2017 at 7:11 AM, Agent Orange said:

The idea that Jon would be a good king because he doesn't want it doesn't make sense.  People who take on a job they don't like more often than not end up doing a poor job.  Jon is not fit to become king because he's never been good at ruling.  He failed at the wall.  A man who can't rule a small outfit like the Wall is the wrong man to rule over Westeros.  Jon would make a terrible king. 

Will Jon be king is a separate discussion.  Misters Benioff and Weiss might do it for the sake of fan service but it makes for bad story telling as Jon is just not any good at ruling.  I really wish they don't go in that direction.

You are so right.  Jon should never rule over anybody.  He will never be good at it.  He's not much of a general on the battle field.  He failed at his job at the wall and got "fired" for it.  He doesn't have the intellect for ruling. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon will be king of Westeros,  they would not waste the stupid plot to make him a legit A. Targaryan if it just was to die a hero death and let Dany alone with a child. I think there a much bigger chance that Dany dies in season 8 to protect her King and lover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lerxst said:

I was wondering the same thing over the past year or so.

But... Gilly read the passage from the book she was looking through that described a secret annulment performed alongside a marriage of that same person. We can safely surmise that the annulment was that of Rhaegar and Elia Martell and the marriage was to him and Lyanna Stark. This would make Jon a fully legitimate Targaryen and the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, in every way, shape and form.

The question is, how would they prove this to the rest of Westeros?

Howland Reed? Might we see him at some point? There is also Bran, but people would have to believe him.

Share this post


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

Howland Reed? Might we see him at some point?

Why would that help? You've got a book written by a Maester that says he annulled Rhaegar's marriage so he could marry Lyanna. Anyone who doesn't believe that is not going to believe Howland. He's got the same problems as Bran—any knowledge he has is third-hand at best (Ned saw or read something that convinced him the marriage was legit, then told Howland about it), and both he and his source have potential reasons to be biased, not to mention that nobody alive knows the guy or what his motives are. The Maester has none of those problems. People will believe the book. That's what written documentation is for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Monster_Under_the_Bed said:

Jon's hardly even a rebel because there is not a fully legitimate ruler sitting on the Iron Throne. Cersei was "only" married to the king (a Baratheon), and once he died, power went to other Baratheon males, Joffrey and then Tommen, passing over her. She is on the throne now, in a self-proclaimed queen role, because there is essentially a power vacuum. She doesn't have the military strength to control nor political support of all 7 kingdoms so for all intents and purposes, she is only a ruler of King's Landing and Lannister lands. Jon actually has a stronger position as KitN because he was elected by acclamation by an assembly of Northern lords. They are not bound by any fealty to a ruler who is not a Baratheon.

Good points Monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are some very strong preconceptions about what a king should be, and we have been shown some highly incompetent kings (and a queen) to date in this story.

 

Was Baratheon a good king?  Tommen?  Joffrey?

 

Anyone who has ever worked in a corporate environment knows that people make it into leadership positions who really aren't suited for those positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, falcotron said:

Why would that help? You've got a book written by a Maester that says he annulled Rhaegar's marriage so he could marry Lyanna. Anyone who doesn't believe that is not going to believe Howland. He's got the same problems as Bran—any knowledge he has is third-hand at best (Ned saw or read something that convinced him the marriage was legit, then told Howland about it), and both he and his source have potential reasons to be biased, not to mention that nobody alive knows the guy or what his motives are. The Maester has none of those problems. People will believe the book. That's what written documentation is for.

I would advice Dany to destroy any proof of Jon's parentage.  Jon is an idiot who doesn't need to sit on any throne except a rusted chamber pot that hasn't been emptied in a week.  I don't like Jon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Heavy D said:

I would advice Dany to destroy any proof of Jon's parentage.  Jon is an idiot who doesn't need to sit on any throne except a rusted chamber pot that hasn't been emptied in a week.  I don't like Jon.  

Not sure how you really feel <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To throw something into the pot ...
 
If Jon does become King of Westeros, I suspect some sort of price will be exacted from him for reasons of balance. For example, I can see him being blinded in battle. So he will be King, yes, but he will be, in the words of Tyrion, a "broken thing" King. His sight will be the price he pays for the removal of the stain of his bastardy, which will be mitigated, possibly, by his ability to warg (if magic still exists once/if the NK is vanquished). 
 
Such a development for Jon would be a very interesting and ironic echo of his old NW vows -- in that he can wed, but he cannot "take a wife" within the circumstances of a traditional marriage because he either cannot see her or because his wife is taken from him through death that he cannot prevent because he cannot see; he can sire a son, but he cannot "father" him like another sighted man would; he can be King, but can never see himself wear a crown. If he can still warg, he will quite literally be "a watcher on the walls" of his own life. He will be a "sword" in the perpetual darkness of his own blindness. 
 
And part of me suspects that with GRRM, you can't get away with breaking things like NW vows, even if you die and are resurrected.    
 
This poetic sense of balance is quite integral with GRRM, I think. The kingslayer Jamie loses the hand he used to slay the King. Bran loses his legs but gains the ability to "fly." Brienne trains herself to be of service as a knight, but struggles to find a liege. Arya is "no-one" but can also be "everyone". Olenna poisons Joffrey and dies by poison herself (unknown to the person, Jamie, that offers her that choice). It's all ice and fire with everyone, a constant dance where circumstances and events cancel out victories. Looking through this lense, I would venture Cersei will die by wildfire (her greatest success), and Dany's dragons will be the cause of her death.       
 
In this way, everyone's ending will be bittersweet because everyone will have to pay a price in the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2017 at 1:16 AM, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Jon will never be king.  For one thing, he's unfit to rule.  He's not cut out for it.  He's not smart enough and he's too crude. 

That was a poor decision to put those kids in charge of the Karhold and the Last Hearth.  Those children are not capable of leading the defense against the WW and their wights.  It's a poor decision and prideful to refuse to kneel to the one person who has the resources that he needs desperately. 

Jon has never won a battle that he led.  Stannis Baratheon bailed his butt from the wildlings when the savages attacked the wall.  The victory over Ramsay Bolton wasn't Jon's.  LittleFinger won that battle.  That was a victory for House Baelish because LF bailed Jon from certain defeat. (A little gratitude to LF  would have been nice and polite).  Ramsay was two steps ahead of Jon in every way in that battle.  Some people may forgive him for breaking his vows to the NW but many will not. 

He may never be King but I disagree about bending the knee.  There is no quicker way to lose the northern houses than to bend the knee to Dany without first holding council with them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Masha's apron said:
To throw something into the pot ...
 
If Jon does become King of Westeros, I suspect some sort of price will be exacted from him for reasons of balance. For example, I can see him being blinded in battle. So he will be King, yes, but he will be, in the words of Tyrion, a "broken thing" King. His sight will be the price he pays for the removal of the stain of his bastardy, which will be mitigated, possibly, by his ability to warg (if magic still exists once/if the NK is vanquished). 
 
Such a development for Jon would be a very interesting and ironic echo of his old NW vows -- in that he can wed, but he cannot "take a wife" within the circumstances of a traditional marriage because he either cannot see her or because his wife is taken from him through death that he cannot prevent because he cannot see; he can sire a son, but he cannot "father" him like another sighted man would; he can be King, but can never see himself wear a crown. If he can still warg, he will quite literally be "a watcher on the walls" of his own life. He will be a "sword" in the perpetual darkness of his own blindness. 
 
And part of me suspects that with GRRM, you can't get away with breaking things like NW vows, even if you die and are resurrected.    
 
This poetic sense of balance is quite integral with GRRM, I think. The kingslayer Jamie loses the hand he used to slay the King. Bran loses his legs but gains the ability to "fly." Brienne trains herself to be of service as a knight, but struggles to find a liege. Arya is "no-one" but can also be "everyone". Olenna poisons Joffrey and dies by poison herself (unknown to the person, Jamie, that offers her that choice). It's all ice and fire with everyone, a constant dance where circumstances and events cancel out victories. Looking through this lense, I would venture Cersei will die by wildfire (her greatest success), and Dany's dragons will be the cause of her death.       
 
In this way, everyone's ending will be bittersweet because everyone will have to pay a price in the end. 

I honestly don't think he will make it out of this alive.  Or still above ground I should say.  

Share this post


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

I would advice Dany to destroy any proof of Jon's parentage.  Jon is an idiot who doesn't need to sit on any throne except a rusted chamber pot that hasn't been emptied in a week.  I don't like Jon.  

Then why are you watching? The entire story revolves around Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Heavy D said:

I would advice Dany to destroy any proof of Jon's parentage.  Jon is an idiot who doesn't need to sit on any throne except a rusted chamber pot that hasn't been emptied in a week.  I don't like Jon.  

i dont like dany right now. all she does is burn people alive. jon might not be the best ruler, but a better person then dany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, princess brittany said:

i dont like dany right now. all she does is burn people alive. jon might not be the best ruler, but a better person then dany.

Individually they have flaws...  maybe together they can be great.  

Share this post


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

i agree

I wish more did.  Instead we have the "Jon sucks, he should die!" and the "Dany is mad, she should die!" camps.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

You are so right.  Jon should never rule over anybody.  He will never be good at it.  He's not much of a general on the battle field.  He failed at his job at the wall and got "fired" for it.  He doesn't have the intellect for ruling. 

 

I've seen the "failed at his job at the wall and got fired for it" comment before and I don't get it. 

His job at the wall is not to make the members of the Night's Watch happy or to appease their prejudices, it is to be the sword in the darkness, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men, etc.  As Lord Commander he has authority to give orders to other members of the watch that must be obeyed and to impose punishment for disobedience but the fundamental nature of his job remains that which is described in the oath.  The Watch isn't a body that exists for its own benefit, it is a body that exists to protect the realms of men from the others.  He hadn't failed in that job as of the time of his death and really, hasn't failed yet. That is what he is still doing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Capo Ferro said:

His job at the wall is not to make the members of the Night's Watch happy or to appease their prejudices, it is to be the sword in the darkness, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men, etc.

This isn't said enough because far too many people on these forums are just like Allister Thorne.  Totally blind to the point of the Night's Watch.  

The shield that guards the realms of men... all men.  Wildlings included.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×