"He has to know, we have to tell him..." WHY?

[SerJeremiahLouistark]

They need to tell him because he deserves to know the truth.  Maybe Bran knows that his father was going to eventually tell him at some point and Jon could die in this war and he should at least know who is before he is potentially killed.  

[ShadowKitteh]

53 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Bran does not see the future happenings, right?

He has seen the future. He saw the wildfire explosion under the Sept before it happened, and he's seen the shadow of a dragon over King's Landing - although that part could have been the past. 

I just think he doesn't know it's the future. 

And it might be possible futures.... 

[SerJeremiahLouistark]

1 minute ago, ShadowKitteh said:

He has seen the future. He saw the wildfire explosion under the Sept before it happened, and he's seen the shadow of a dragon over King's Landing - although that part could have been the past. 

I just think he doesn't know it's the future. 

And it might be possible futures.... 

I think that has always been the point with the future.  It's a possible future.  That's the problem with Mel, she sees what's going to happen but she often misinterprets it or does something that causes a different version to take place that she didn't foresee.  

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

10 hours ago, falcotron said:

Look at the examples I gave, which you quoted but didn't respond to:

• Donella inherits Hornwood from her husband despite having no Hornwood blood, and Bran (in Robb's stead) recognizes it.
• Luwin suggests marrying her to someone with existing children so one of them can inherit from Donella despite having neither Hornwood blood nor her blood.
• Then Ramsay Snow inherits from Donella by marrying her, and Rodrik and Luwin grudgingly conclude that his succession is legal.

That's three cases of exactly what you're saying is impossible and never happens, actually happening. In the novels, we even see learned men (I assume Maester Luwin knows Westerosi inheritance law better than you or I do) discussing the legal issues. And there are other examples in the books, and apparently (although a little guessing is needed) even more in the family trees in WoIaF. And yet you're denying that it's possible.

And what are you basing this on? The succession laws of the UK, written  up by Parliament long after the medieval era?

 

Donella doesn't inherit Hornwood. She is granted it by the Starks due to there being no heir. The same way that there should be a grand council when there is no heir to the Iron Throne. They also consider Laurence Snow. The Starks could equally have bestowed it on a new family entirely. Its not really inheritance as she is not in line to inherit. 

As for UK succession laws. They aren't particularly written up. We have an unwritten constitution based on precedent. Any writing of succession pre 2013 will be based on this with omissions such as the ban on Catholics. So any law will be 'As its always been plus/minus new thing' eg As its always been, minus Catholics. The argument about the medieval era doesn't fly in this consideration as it was the Medieval era that set those rules. Before 1066 the Saxons were quite different. They would choose with the existing King giving preference to certain members in the Witenagemot. eg Harold Godwinson wasn't the son of Edward the Confessor, he was the brother of his wife. But we know those aren't the rules Westeros use and therefore do not apply.

[Sand11751]

Not only should Jon know the truth because the stigma of bastardry clearly affected him with Catelyn at least his whole life and then with Thorne talking about his origins among his origins, but he has the wrong image about Ned's sacrifice. It won't change a thing of how he feels about his now cousins, but he may feel even better to have thrown off the KitN yoke because he's not just a Stark, but a Targ too. Starks are all he's known so I doubt he'll be sporting dragon jewelry or spouting about fire and blood anytime next season.

I wish if anyone else had known the truth about him, it might have been Maester Aemon. His speech to Jon about the death of his family, "Even the little children," damn, just tears me up every time. I wish he could have known that ultimately more than one of his family line survived and experienced some hope for the future as a result.     

[darmody]

On 8/31/2017 at 6:50 PM, Hajk1984 said:

Where else should that succession have gone? She's the last king's closest living relative. No children or even siblings of Tommen exist. The Baratheon house, to which he supposedly belonged has gone extinct. 

Hello, even if the Baratheon and whatever was Robert's mother's line disappeared, Larry is standing right there, looking sheepish. He was Tommen's closest male relative, as uncle if not father. And he wasn't in the King's Guard anymore at time of death. 

Failing that, you could keep going backwards in Robert's line until you found someone. Which eventual might be the Targaryens, I guess. 

Anyone but Tommen's evil mommy. 

[falcotron]

9 hours ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

Donella doesn't inherit Hornwood. She is granted it by the Starks due to there being no heir. The same way that there should be a grand council when there is no heir to the Iron Throne. They also consider Laurence Snow. The Starks could equally have bestowed it on a new family entirely. Its not really inheritance as she is not in line to inherit. 

As for UK succession laws. They aren't particularly written up. We have an unwritten constitution based on precedent. Any writing of succession pre 2013 will be based on this with omissions such as the ban on Catholics. So any law will be 'As its always been plus/minus new thing' eg As its always been, minus Catholics. The argument about the medieval era doesn't fly in this consideration as it was the Medieval era that set those rules. Before 1066 the Saxons were quite different. They would choose with the existing King giving preference to certain members in the Witenagemot. eg Harold Godwinson wasn't the son of Edward the Confessor, he was the brother of his wife. But we know those aren't the rules Westeros use and therefore do not apply.

No, Donella does inherit. She then comes to the Starks, of her own choice, to resolve the problem that she has no heirs of her own. They do consider taking the inheritance away from her to give it to the sister or the bastard, but they don't do so. And look at the other two cases. Why would marrying her to someone with an adult son solve the problem if her husband didn't become her heir and thus be able to pass it along to his adult son? Why would Luwin and Rodrik reluctantly conclude that if Ramsay's marriage to her was legal there's no way to void his inheritance?

Meanwhile, the UK has a number of written laws that control the succession. And, more to the point, the fundamental rule is that Parliament can pass any laws related to succession that they want. In fact, when a case arises that isn't clearly and unambiguously covered, the courts or other bodies are not allowed to decide the case; Parliament has to pass a new Act (as with Edward VIII's abdication). And, since each Commonwealth realm has its own Parliament, if two of them have different laws, they can end up with different monarchs (which is why they needed a treaty in 2011 to make sure all realms made the last set of changes simultaneously in 2015). This is how people are able to unambiguously draw up lists of all 5107 eligible heirs in order of succession (subject to change if someone dies, gives birth, converts, etc., of course, or if Parliament changes the laws).

The current rules are: Of the legitimate, natural-born, Protestant (the exact meaning of this has been refined multiple times since 1689) heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover who aren't otherwise disqualified by other Acts of Parliament (of which there have been several), the one who's nearest by strict equal-preference (male-preference until 2015) primogeniture inherits the throne.

[TwiceBorn]

https://i0.wp.com/lekememes.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/IMG-20170830-WA0027.jpg

[hallam]

On 9/1/2017 at 4:33 AM, ShadowKitteh said:

I hope not. I don't see Jon betraying her, unless she turns crazy, and Cersei already has that monopoly.

Dany's treasons... 

Once for blood - Mirri Maz Duur 

Once for gold - had to be Joreh I'd think

Once for love - Mirri Maz Duur because she takes advantage of Dany's assumption Mirri would be grateful to be spared mistreatment by the Khalasar to trust her, then uses Dany's love for Drogo, and betrays her for two reasons.

I feel like Viserys really needs to fit into that, but I just can't think of a way... maybe I just need sleep.

Once for love in the show would be surely Doreah who betrays her to Xaro Xhoan Daxos. The empty vault bit. I suspected at the time that had been put in because in the books, the other betrayal involved a character that was cut.

In the books, Danny hasn't left Essos yet. Plenty of other opportunities for betrayal.

On 8/31/2017 at 11:49 PM, Frances Bean Corbray said:

Bran has to tell him because Bran Is A Jerk now.

"Sansa, you were so beautiful on your wedding night when you were raped."

"Meera, thank you for sacrificing your brother's life and dragging my crippled ass across hundreds of miles of snow in both directions.  Now GTFO."

"Jon, you're actually my cousin and Dany's your aunt.  Just thought I'd tell you that AFTER you started boning her."

Well there is that. 

But also, how about we have to tell Jon so he knows he can ride dragons.

[storm.131]

On 01/09/2017 at 11:22 AM, ShadowKitteh said:

1. I don't see Jon having an Identity Crisis when he finds out. He's still a Stark. He's also has bonus family now, and he's not a bastard. That's an all around win.

2. Hopefully the incest (which really isn't) will be ignored, since only 21st Century people who aren't history nerds seem to have a problem with it. It's not only legal today on Earth, but Nobles and Royals have been doing it for centuries to keep the property from falling into the wrong hands.

3. I honestly hope Dany has zero problem. Why would she? Cersei is all ego, Dany isn't. The rightful succession is important to her, and when it's not her, but the man she loves, that makes her a better person is, I think she'll be the first to bend the knee, and without hesitation. Jon is not only family, he's the closest thing to Rhaegar she'll ever know.

4. Bran..... yeah. Maybe it will give everyone more drive? 

I agree with most of what you've said but I think that Jon being the man of honour he is and recognizing that Daenerys has earned her place in the world, will say that he already bent the knee and will not go back on his word.  She might then insist they become co-rulers (that's assuming they win the game).

[divica]

3 minutes ago, storm.131 said:

I agree with most of what you've said but I think that Jon being the man of honour he is and recognizing that Daenerys has earned her place in the world, will say that he already bent the knee and will not go back on his word.  She might then insist they become co-rulers (that's assuming they win the game).

The problem is that if jon is the rightfull heir to the IT it should provoke an identity crysis in danny. She has built herself around being the rightful ruler of westeros wich would be false. In addition the one who whould rule is someone she respects and maybe loves... She has to freakout and be in denial!

[Deminelle]

Hmm... I believe even in Jon's mind it makes a huge difference that instead of being bastard from one side of his parents he is a rightful heir. There can only be one of that kind at a time and he is it!

I don't even know which will be a bigger issue, learning that they are nephew and aunt or the fact than Jon is first in succession.

[divica]

I would say they must tell jon because he wanted to know is whole life who was his mother and has endured the consequences of being a bastard... He joined the NW because he was a bastard... 

I think he desserves to know the truth.

[MoreOrLess]

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 7:01 AM, ShadowKitteh said:

He has seen the future. He saw the wildfire explosion under the Sept before it happened, and he's seen the shadow of a dragon over King's Landing - although that part could have been the past. 

I just think he doesn't know it's the future. 

And it might be possible futures.... 

That vision could be argued to have been fulfilled by Dany turning up with Dragons in tow to the meeting. You could argue that makes sense dramatically since there was tension this season about whether Dany would attack Kings Landing directly with the vision hinting she would but the reality obviously being very different.

2 hours ago, divica said:

The problem is that if jon is the rightfull heir to the IT it should provoke an identity crysis in danny. She has built herself around being the rightful ruler of westeros wich would be false. In addition the one who whould rule is someone she respects and maybe loves... She has to freakout and be in denial!

My guess is that Jon is told next season and his decision whether to tell Dany or not becomes a major(possible THE major) dramatic thread of the whole thing. As you say there are many reasons not to tell her, potential for conflict damaging the war effort with her forces being loyal to her personally, also if she is pregnant by Jon then looking to save the child from being labelled as incestuous just as he was labelled bastard both for its benefit and for a potentially more stable dynasty.

I think you can see both conflict and resolution from this though, Dany potentially being angered at the deception and perhaps breaking alliance but also her shifting purpose successfully. I would argue that really the defining feature of the character thus far has been less her claim to the throne and more viewing herself in a messianic fashion, even in this season I think you see a clear shift in her priorities towards the end towards dealing with the threat of the dead and her becoming totally defined by this instead would I think make sense dramatically.

I wonder whether we might see a dramatic shift as well in terms of Jon and Dany reversing roles somewhat, previously he's been mostly defined by selflessness where as she has been defined by empathic leadship, maybe the two switch and Dany's story is to die selflessly and Jon's is to lead morally.

[Apoplexy]

6 hours ago, Deminelle said:

Hmm... I believe even in Jon's mind it makes a huge difference that instead of being bastard from one side of his parents he is a rightful heir. There can only be one of that kind at a time and he is it!

I don't even know which will be a bigger issue, learning that they are nephew and aunt or the fact than Jon is first in succession.

My bet would be that Jon would be more bothered by the fact that they are related and Dany will be bothered by the fact that he is higher than her in succession.

And Jon has already bent the knee to Dany, so I don't expect him to go back on that now even with the knowledge that he is first in line. Dany on the other hand might have a bit of an identity crisis. 

[Krishtotter]

7 hours ago, storm.131 said:

I agree with most of what you've said but I think that Jon being the man of honour he is and recognizing that Daenerys has earned her place in the world, will say that he already bent the knee and will not go back on his word.  She might then insist they become co-rulers (that's assuming they win the game).

That kind of co-rulership has precedent.

After the Glorious Revolution (1688-89) in England, William of Orange - a foreign invader from Holland - deposed King James II & VII and assumed the throne by right of conquest as recognised by the Convention Parliament alongside his wife Mary, the eldest daughter of James, who reigned with him as co-monarch. She assumed the throne by right of inheritance, now that Parliament had disinherited James' son Francis Charles Edward on the basis of his being raised in the Catholic confession.

So William and Mary reigned as joint monarchs of the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

 

Quote

 

The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England (James VII of Scotland) by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III, Prince of Orange. William's successful invasion of England with a Dutch fleet and army led to his ascension to the throne as William III of England jointly with his wife, Mary II, James's daughter, after the Declaration of Right, leading to the Bill of Rights 1689...

After consolidating political and financial support, William crossed the North Sea and English Channel with a large invasion fleet in November 1688, landing at Torbay...

William let it be known that he was happy for Mary to be nominal monarch and preference in the succession given to Anne's children over his by a subsequent marriage. Anne declared that she would temporarily waive her right to the crown should Mary die before William.

Mary refused to be made queen without William as king. The Lords on 6 February now accepted the words "abdication" and "vacancy" and Lord Winchester's motion to appoint William and Mary monarchs.^[86] Generally there was a great fear that the situation might deteriorate into a civil war.^[87]

William in February 1689 (New Style Julian calendar)^[a] convinced a newly chosen Convention Parliament to make him and his wife joint monarchs...

It has been argued, mainly by Whig historians, that James's overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy: the Bill of Rights 1689 has become one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain and never since has the monarch held absolute power.

Internationally, the Revolution was related to the War of the Grand Alliance on mainland Europe. It has been seen as the last successful invasion of England.

Since 1689, government under a system of constitutional monarchy in England, and later the United Kingdom, has been uninterrupted. Since then, Parliament's power has steadily increased while the Crown's has steadily declined. 

 

 

William and Mary were first cousins, incidentally (incest!!). Both were grandchildren of Charles I of England, James II's father. So in addition to being a foreign invader with a claim to the throne based upon conquest, and having married the legitimate heir once Parliament had deemed Catholics ineligible, William was also half-Stuart - a descendent through his mother Mary, Princess Royal, of the British ruling House.

In the ASOIAF universe, the gender roles would be reversed: Daenerys plays the role of the foreign conqueror William, while Jon is akin to Mary.

This could then be the George R.R. Martin/Westerosi equivalent of what the UK still calls the Glorious Revolution of 1688: when England - acting in the name of all Three Kingdoms - installed a foreign, conquering king and queen on the understanding that they'd "break the wheel" — the Stuart kings who thought they ruled by divine right - by adopting a limited, constitutional monarchy that was accountable to Parliament unlike what had preceded under the Tudors and prior Stuarts.

[divica]

6 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

That vision could be argued to have been fulfilled by Dany turning up with Dragons in tow to the meeting. You could argue that makes sense dramatically since there was tension this season about whether Dany would attack Kings Landing directly with the vision hinting she would but the reality obviously being very different.

My guess is that Jon is told next season and his decision whether to tell Dany or not becomes a major(possible THE major) dramatic thread of the whole thing. As you say there are many reasons not to tell her, potential for conflict damaging the war effort with her forces being loyal to her personally, also if she is pregnant by Jon then looking to save the child from being labelled as incestuous just as he was labelled bastard both for its benefit and for a potentially more stable dynasty.

I think you can see both conflict and resolution from this though, Dany potentially being angered at the deception and perhaps breaking alliance but also her shifting purpose successfully. I would argue that really the defining feature of the character thus far has been less her claim to the throne and more viewing herself in a messianic fashion, even in this season I think you see a clear shift in her priorities towards the end towards dealing with the threat of the dead and her becoming totally defined by this instead would I think make sense dramatically.

I wonder whether we might see a dramatic shift as well in terms of Jon and Dany reversing roles somewhat, previously he's been mostly defined by selflessness where as she has been defined by empathic leadship, maybe the two switch and Dany's story is to die selflessly and Jon's is to lead morally.

What you say might actually happen. So far jon feels he as the duty to serve and protect the north. So when he learns he is the heir to the IT he might feel he has a duty to protect the seven realms and make sure the people from all realms are governed by a good monarch (not cersei).

 

Honestly I don t know how jon can tell danny. Is she suposed to believe that bran is actually seeing the past and telling the thruth? The only proof we have so far is bran's word and sam's word on rhaegar and lyanna's marriage... If they can t shown some proof even jon is going to find it hard to believe because it would mean ned lied to him his whole life and let him join the NW whitout telling him the thruth... That should be unforgivable...

 

[ShadowKitteh]

On 9/2/2017 at 10:49 AM, Sand11751 said:

Not only should Jon know the truth because the stigma of bastardry clearly affected him with Catelyn at least his whole life and then with Thorne talking about his origins among his origins, but he has the wrong image about Ned's sacrifice. It won't change a thing of how he feels about his now cousins, but he may feel even better to have thrown off the KitN yoke because he's not just a Stark, but a Targ too. Starks are all he's known so I doubt he'll be sporting dragon jewelry or spouting about fire and blood anytime next season.

I wish if anyone else had known the truth about him, it might have been Maester Aemon. His speech to Jon about the death of his family, "Even the little children," damn, just tears me up every time. I wish he could have known that ultimately more than one of his family line survived and experienced some hope for the future as a result.     

So much this. And I wish the actor who played him, Peter Vaughan, was still alive. 

23 hours ago, divica said:

The problem is that if jon is the rightfull heir to the IT it should provoke an identity crysis in danny. She has built herself around being the rightful ruler of westeros wich would be false. In addition the one who whould rule is someone she respects and maybe loves... She has to freakout and be in denial!

Why? Dany has never been a power-hungry maniac. If Dany were Viserys, or Cersei, yes. She's not. Dany isn't ego. Dany has only ever wanted to do the right thing. The rightful heir and the Line of Succession is very real to these people. And Jon being a Targaryen means her House is still in power. It's not like the Martells are taking over. I think she also knows that Jon would never treat her as anything but an equal. I honestly don't see her character having a tantrum or anything of the sort. Succession ≠ Contest. It doesn't matter how hard someone works. It's not remotely democratic. It's Succession.

17 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

My bet would be that Jon would be more bothered by the fact that they are related and Dany will be bothered by the fact that he is higher than her in succession.

Why would they be bothered if they're related? Why would anyone? Incest involves siblings or offspring. Nephew/Aunt ≠ incest. There is no DNA knowledge in Westeros. This is based on Medieval England. No one in Medieval England would care, so why would anyone in ASOIAF? Does anyone think GRRM, being the history geek he is, would address it? It honestly makes me sad that only history nerds, and people who bother to actually open a dictionary or google the word incest know the facts. Where did this even come from? No one freaks out over Ashley & Melanie in Gone With The Wind, and they were cousins. 

And again, I don't see Dany being bothered, as long as peace is restored, the Army of the Dead is defeated forever, her family is on the Iron Throne (perhaps figuratively since it might be part of the burned out ruin Show Dany saw), and slavery is a thing of the past. 

17 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

And Jon has already bent the knee to Dany, so I don't expect him to go back on that now even with the knowledge that he is first in line.

Every smart man bends the knee to his wife.

That's not how succession works. He could abdicate, but that would only weaken House Targaryen, and there's no reason. He could suggest they rule together - like William & Mary. 

Again - it's Succession, not an election. There is no - oh YOU do it.... It's called "Divine Right" for a reason: a Higher Authority choses the King.... and someday maybe Jon & Dany issue in democracy, but that might a spin off. They'll be lucky there's humans left to breed. (Like President Roslin says, "We need to start making babies.") 

 

[ShadowKitteh]

15 hours ago, divica said:

Honestly I don t know how jon can tell danny. Is she suposed to believe that bran is actually seeing the past and telling the thruth? The only proof we have so far is bran's word and sam's word on rhaegar and lyanna's marriage... If they can t shown some proof even jon is going to find it hard to believe because it would mean ned lied to him his whole life and let him join the NW whitout telling him the thruth... That should be unforgivable...

Meera went home for a reason. Howland is still alive in the books, and they've already introduced him. 

Yes, I know Bran believes only he knows... I don't know how they'll specifically square this.... they could just keep Bran in whistleblower/FISA warrant mode, and outing all disbelievers by publicly describing their deepest secret. It shut Littlefinger up.

Or Sam could ask Bran to SEE if anyone else has the info, and Bran can then remember the ToJ.

[Megorova]

19 hours ago, divica said:

Is she suposed to believe that bran is actually seeing the past and telling the thruth? The only proof we have so far is bran's word and sam's word on rhaegar and lyanna's marriage...

Bran can tell her things that only she supposed to know. Same with other people, if there was no one else beside when something was happening, but Bran somehow knows about it, then it does proves that he knows (or potentially may know) everything.