Jump to content
Hajk1984

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

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, falcotron said:

Sure they do. It's pretty clear that in Westeros, just as in medieval Christian Europe, incest is taboo, but incest only means fucking your siblings or children.

Of course you, as a 21st century American, have different taboos than Westerosi, so you think of an aunt or a first cousin as incest. But that doesn't mean the Starks do—as evidenced by Ned's own parents being cousins, and plenty of other examples in the family trees. Insisting otherwise is like insisting that Drogo would be squicked out by the idea of drinking horse milk.

 

I'm not American! Cousins and Aunts/Uncles are different. Avuncular marriage is not a British thing, maybe continental Europe. Most definitely ancient Pharoahs. 

Share this post


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

There is, as Robert's widow. Just as, for example, Lady Donella inherited from her husband (over his sister and his bastard son), and then her widower Ramsay Snow inherited from her.

Sure, it's not an open-and-shut case, but there seems to be more precedent for it than against it. More to the point, everyone in the realm is either supporting her inheritance from Robert, or rejecting Robert's usurpation in the first place, in favor of a Targaryen restoration. So in practice, her claim stands as strong as Robert's.

Monarchy never ever goes backwards. Its a bloodline, Cersei is not of Robert's bloodline. She is Royal by marriage and not by blood. Tommen's heir is a 2nd or 3rd cousin in the Stormlands. Just like when Robb and Cat don't contemplate Cat as his heir. She's not of Stark blood. The next true born Stark blood is in the Vale if Jon isn't legitimised. Everything has happened so fast the next Baratheon blood in line hasn't had time to consolidate their claim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

Monarchy never ever goes backwards. Its a bloodline, Cersei is not of Robert's bloodline. She is Royal by marriage and not by blood. Tommen's heir is a 2nd or 3rd cousin in the Stormlands. Just like when Robb and Cat don't contemplate Cat as his heir. She's not of Stark blood. The next true born Stark blood is in the Vale if Jon isn't legitimised. Everything has happened so fast the next Baratheon blood in line hasn't had time to consolidate their claim

Robert got the throne because he was related to the Targs through his grandmother, so going up the maternal line doesn't seem to be an absolute obstacle. When the inheritance is not clear, the decision seems to be based on who is the closest relative that can gather enough support.

 

Edited by Tucu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Robert got the throne because he was related to the Targs through his grandmother, so going up the maternal line doesn't seem to be an absolute obstacle.

 

But that would be through the Targaryen ROYAL bloodline. Not the Baratheon bloodline. It has to be the right type of relation. You can't just be related in any way at all.  If you believe that succession their heir is now the nearest relation to Rhaelle that isn't from the line of Aerys (as they were exiled and deposed)

Go find Kate Middleton on this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne

That is the ludicrousness of Cersei's 'claim'

Edited by AryaNymeriaVisenya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

But that would be through the Targaryen ROYAL bloodline. Not the Baratheon bloodline. It has to be the right type of relation. You can't just be related in any way at all.  If you believe that succession their heir is now the nearest relation to Rhaelle that isn't from the line of Aerys (as they were exiled and deposed)

Go find Kate Middleton on this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne

That is the ludicrousness of Cersei's 'claim'

The british inheritance rules are not as ambiguous as the westerosi rules (or lack of them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tucu said:

The british inheritance rules are not as ambiguous as the westerosi rules (or lack of them)

They are not ambiguous though. We know what should happen, that doesn't mean it does happen. Cersei on the throne doesn't mean she had a good claim to it beyond being on it currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

They are not ambiguous though. We know what should happen, that doesn't mean it does happen. Cersei on the throne doesn't mean she had a good claim to it beyond being on it currently.

They are ambigous once direct inheritance is not an option. That is why they have Great Councils of Lords to decide who the new King (or regent) will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

He just found out that Jon was legitimate. Jon's parentage wasn't legally significant if he was a bastard. It's brand new info to Bran that Jon is the rightful King. It's not for Bran to weigh this, that and the other reason for why it may or may not be beneficial for Jon to know.* Jon's birthright is Jon's business, and he deserves to know about it.

There may be a legit question as to why he hasn't told him what he knows previously, but that's probably just because it wasn't that important and Bran is pre-occupied. But there really isn't any question as to whether he should tell Jon now. Of course he should.

*Plus there are plenty of reasons to weigh on the other side, starting with the fact that folks are about to go to war to fight for their future, and should know what it is they are fighting for. 

Jon doesn't have any right to the IT. Robert claimed the IT by the right of conquest.

As others said, there is really no need to tell him now, he is already declared as KitN. If he wants to be the King, he is already.

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

Robert got the throne because he was related to the Targs through his grandmother, so going up the maternal line doesn't seem to be an absolute obstacle. When the inheritance is not clear, the decision seems to be based on who is the closest relative that can gather enough support.

 

Everyone knew why Robert become the king, not because his grandmother, because of his warhammer.

Renly Baratheon : "Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne? Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer."

--- A Clash of the Kings, Chapter 22

As for Cersei, yeah, it's completely idiotic to choose her as Queen when she didn't conquer it and she has no bloodlines with any kings.

 

Edited by Erkan12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bran does not see the future happenings, right? Only past and present. He was not quite ready to become 3ER. We can't tell if he knows exactly what he's supposed to do with his abilities. Or is he only supposed to deliver any information he gets from the past. I believe he was "programmed" to speak for the truth.

 

7 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Actually, we saw Sam take books from the library in the middle of the night, pack up a cart, and get the hell out of Old Town. We never saw that diary Gilly was reading in any place other than in front of Gilly.

But it doesn't matter. I doubt Sam would have taken it, as it likely doesn't have any information about the Walkers, which is his only concern at the time, because he had no reason to suspect Jon was anyone other than who he said he was.

Either everyone will believe Bran & Sam, or we'll get to finally meet Howland Reed, which is why they sent Meera home. 

 

 

What I saw was Sam grabbing the book that Gilly was reading and placing (throwing) it in front of little Sam. That's how I think it ended up with them.

 

7 hours ago, 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.

Viserys sort of betrayed her by arranging the marriage with Drogo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lurid Jester said:

Yeah, I don't get why he told Sam but not his own sisters?

Because Sam is unconditionally loyal to Jon. And always was.

While Sansa and Arya has their own interests and priorities.

Sansa isn't even sure whether Jon should be King in the North. Seems more likely that she herself wants to be Queen in the North, in addition to her Lady of Winterfell title. So it's possible that she will use 'Jon is not son of Ned Stark', as a trump card to claim Winterfell for herself only. Now she may be a Lady of Winterfell, but when Jon will return, he again will be the one in charge. Who would even ask Sansa's opinion about anything, if Jon will be there to rule?

And Arya has her own goal - to kill Cersei. Out of two Stark sisters, Arya always loved Jon, maybe even more than Robb and her other brothers. Maybe she won't even care that he's a Targaryen and not Stark. For her he is Jon, and always will be. So there's no point to tell her beforehand. She will know about it when Bran will tell truth to Jon. Also the fact that Jon is Targaryen is benefitual for Arya's goal. When he was just Jon Snow, bastard of Ned Stark, he did had a grudge against Lannisters, for killing his father and Robb. But when he will learn that they also killed his mother (or at least played crucial part in her death), he will be more motivated to go and claim Iron Throne, and challenge Cersei.

Also it wouldn't be smart to tell this secret to anyone before Jon will know. And Jon should be given a choise whether to share this information with anyone else. Who knows how northeners will react to this revelation. They were so against Jon going to meet Dany, and when he returned he also became Targaryen??? Just imagine their reaction. They won't be happy. Daenerys Targaryen corrupted their King :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's the same old trope, ptwp, 2nd dragon rider, etc. 

Terrible misconception that game of thrones show is not like any other tv show. After the last episode of this year, I've watched other tv shows and thought that exactly, the same old shit, like a formula, just with a huge budgit, cgi and actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Because Sam is unconditionally loyal to Jon. And always was.

While Sansa and Arya has their own interests and priorities.

Sansa isn't even sure whether Jon should be King in the North. Seems more likely that she herself wants to be Queen in the North, in addition to her Lady of Winterfell title. So it's possible that she will use 'Jon is not son of Ned Stark', as a trump card to claim Winterfell for herself only. Now she may be a Lady of Winterfell, but when Jon will return, he again will be the one in charge. Who would even ask Sansa's opinion about anything, if Jon will be there to rule?

And Arya has her own goal - to kill Cersei. Out of two Stark sisters, Arya always loved Jon, maybe even more than Robb and her other brothers. Maybe she won't even care that he's a Targaryen and not Stark. For her he is Jon, and always will be. So there's no point to tell her beforehand. She will know about it when Bran will tell truth to Jon. Also the fact that Jon is Targaryen is benefitual for Arya's goal. When he was just Jon Snow, bastard of Ned Stark, he did had a grudge against Lannisters, for killing his father and Robb. But when he will learn that they also killed his mother (or at least played crucial part in her death), he will be more motivated to go and claim Iron Throne, and challenge Cersei.

Also it wouldn't be smart to tell this secret to anyone before Jon will know. And Jon should be given a choise whether to share this information with anyone else. Who knows how northeners will react to this revelation. They were so against Jon going to meet Dany, and when he returned he also became Targaryen??? Just imagine their reaction. They won't be happy. Daenerys Targaryen corrupted their King :angry:

Jon is a Stark cousin in addition to being a true born Targaryen. North including Sansa should be pushing him to take the throne. He would be the most Northern King of the 7 kingdoms ever. Sansa should use her littlefinger skills to get her kin on the throne. Then convince Jon to make her warden or hand. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the incest apologists are out again I see. 

 

 

Considering Dany is already severely inbred, and Jon is somewhat inbred as well, they're much closer than a normal aunt and nephew. Their children could easily be monsters, but sure pretend it's a fairy tale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it Brans Place to tell JOn anything. This was Ned secret to tell Jon alive or in a letter after death like in a will. Bran has no business to tell or play god. I would rather They tell Dany first figuring Jon would listen more too the person he has feelings for but my hope is Dany cant tell jon out of fear of loosing him and doesnt and learns she is pregnant and when Bran is gonna tell Jon the war starts and Bran gets killed. Sam will maybe tell Jon but on maybe near Danys death bed if she has a baby. I seriously think her fate is Lyannas. And I want it to end where Jon loves her and isnt messed up and they loose time as parents because of the ick factor becaus bran is robot and doesnt care what he says does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Erkan12 said:

Jon doesn't have any right to the IT. Robert claimed the IT by the right of conquest.

As others said, there is really no need to tell him now, he is already declared as KitN. If he wants to be the King, he is already.

 

Everyone knew why Robert become the king, not because his grandmother, because of his warhammer.

Renly Baratheon : "Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne? Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer."

--- A Clash of the Kings, Chapter 22

As for Cersei, yeah, it's completely idiotic to choose her as Queen when she didn't conquer it and she has no bloodlines with any kings.

 

The rebels won the crown by right of conquest. Then they decided to crown Robert based on his Targ ancestry. From the horses' mouths:

Quote
Robert sat down again. "Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon."
"You had the better claim, Your Grace."
"I told you to drink, not to argue. You made me king, you could at least have the courtesy to listen when I talk, damn you. Look at me, Ned. Look at what kinging has done to me. Gods, too fat for my armor, how did it ever come to this?"

 

Edited by Tucu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

Monarchy never ever goes backwards. Its a bloodline, Cersei is not of Robert's bloodline. She is Royal by marriage and not by blood. Tommen's heir is a 2nd or 3rd cousin in the Stormlands. Just like when Robb and Cat don't contemplate Cat as his heir. She's not of Stark blood. The next true born Stark blood is in the Vale if Jon isn't legitimised. Everything has happened so fast the next Baratheon blood in line hasn't had time to consolidate their claim

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tucu said:

The british inheritance rules are not as ambiguous as the westerosi rules (or lack of them)

Exactly.

It's also worth looking at the old English inheritance rules (or lack thereof). Why did England have so many succession wars? Sometimes because it was ambiguous or contradictory who should inherit, sometimes because even though it wasn't technically ambiguous it was tenuous enough that people were willing to challenge it.

The reason the UK has firm, unambiguous laws today is because, long after the medieval era was over,  Parliament got sick of all those wars and decided to codify things to make them impossible, at first with specific succession laws covering different current claims, and then finally with a general-purpose law that attempts to fully cover all possibly contingencies.

Westeros isn't anywhere near there yet. They don't even have a Parliament.

Share this post


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

Ah, the incest apologists are out again I see. 

Considering Dany is already severely inbred, and Jon is somewhat inbred as well, they're much closer than a normal aunt and nephew. Their children could easily be monsters, but sure pretend it's a fairy tale. 

Pretty sure that the reason that Rhaegar turned out pretty good is because of his mother Rhaella's "dalliance" with Ser Bonifer Hasty, doing unto Aerys as Aerys did unto Tywin. There's more than one cuckoo in this story.

Share this post


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

What I saw was Sam grabbing the book that Gilly was reading and placing (throwing) it in front of little Sam. That's how I think it ended up with them.

Go back and watch that scene. It's a different book Sam puts in front of the kid. In the wide shot after, Gilly still has the book open in front of her.

16 hours ago, Erkan12 said:

Jon doesn't have any right to the IT. Robert claimed the IT by the right of conquest.

 

Robert is a usurper. Jon is the rightful heir, and at this point, I'm sure the common folk would be grateful for the Targaryens to return peace to Westeros. Even more so if they defeat the WWs.

 

Edited by ShadowKitteh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Deminelle said:

Bran does not see the future happenings, right?

He's had at least one unambiguous future vision—one of Bran's first visions, of Drogon flying over King's Landing, didn't happen until this episode. And in the EW interview with D&D and Isaac, they refer to Bran having access to "all of space and time", which implies that wasn't a mistake, or something they've later changed their minds on.*

Still, it's pretty clear that he can only look at things when he knows exactly where and when to look and what to watch for (except when he happens to see them by accident). He had no idea about the Lyanna-Rhaegar marriage until Sam told him about it, but then he was able to find it and watch it. And most interesting future happenings, how would anyone be able to tell him where to look? If you want to know what Littlefinger said in his meeting with Ned in such and such a room at such and such a time, that's easy. If you want to know how the Night King is going to get past the Wall, how long would it take him to scan the next couple months at every possible place the Wall could be bypassed?

Also, we don't even know how firmly the future is predestined in this world. Sure, some prophecies come true, but that doesn't mean it's totally deterministic. Imagine what a waste it would be if Bran spent a week discovering that the Night King is going to use his Bran-mark to sneak his Walkers through an ancient gate one by one, wight a small force from south of the Wall, then take the castles from behind and open the gates to get his army through, and then the future changes because Jon's wight hunt gives the Night King a dragon.

ETA: A more recent interview with Isaac clarifies—or maybe confuses—things a bit: Bran can't necessarily see the future, but he can see "the general arc and shape of how things have to go". He gave Arya the knife because he could see it was important in her future timeline, even though he couldn't see her using it to execute Littlefinger. Which sounds like a much less visual power than what we've actually seen him use, but then that may just be the limitations of trying to represent his power on TV, rather than what it's actually like.

---

* It might be different in the books, but we don't know, because it's much earlier in his story. He can't even see things that didn't happen in front of a weirwood yet.

Edited by falcotron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×