Jump to content

Why didn't Jon Snow legitimize himself? [Season 7 Spoilers?]


Euron's Mom

Recommended Posts

This has been bugging me since last season!

Why is Jon King in the North as a Snow?  I do not understand why he did not use royal proclamation to make himself a Stark.  Is he going to create a new dynasty in Winterfell as the House of Snow?  I struggle with the in-story logic.

I assume that the out-of-story explanation is that they want to make him a Targaryen instead.  But Jon wouldn't know that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 4/7/2018 at 0:36 AM, Euron's Mom said:

This has been bugging me since last season!

Why is Jon King in the North as a Snow?  I do not understand why he did not use royal proclamation to make himself a Stark.  Is he going to create a new dynasty in Winterfell as the House of Snow?  I struggle with the in-story logic.

I assume that the out-of-story explanation is that they want to make him a Targaryen instead.  But Jon wouldn't know that!

Well, I guess that's because it was the other nobles who made him King (and not himself) because they liked him (he didn't want to become one). Of course, those who made him KIng completely ignored Sansa and the true heir, Brandon Stark (that both Sansa and Jon know that he is alive), so it's not that the scene makes sense anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I guess my question is why should he legitimize himself? He is already King, what more does he need? Legitimizing himself would only mean something if he is no longer King, and if he is no longer King, it's likely because he is dead anyway.

Also in story it makes all the sense in the world. He is King of the North, he is not the Lord of Winterfell, Lady Sansa Stark is (I am sure her previous marriages annulled for you know hostage and rape reasons). If he legitimized himself then he takes it from Sansa and he has said all along he wouldn't take it from his sisters or brothers.

So as King of the North, assuming he lives, he would likey decide on a place to house himself after all was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:38 AM, jcmontea said:

There is no time for that. 

I saw the Night King. I looked into his eyes! 

....

all joking aside show jon probably gives two shits about this topic with the apocalypse coming

LOL You beat me to it!  This joke will NEVER get old, or at least it will never get as old as Jon's frequent reminders of our lack of time and his familiarity with the Night King.

 

Yeah, I agree with most everyone here.  Jon probably isn't even thinking about things like getting married, having and heir, bringing continuity to his kingdom.  He is the fucking worst at kingin'.  I wish the ghost of Bobby B had come back to at least instruct him to (1) not lay down your kingdom to a pretty girl because she asked nicely, and (2) not lay down your kingdom to a pretty girl because she asked nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say there is little reason to legitimize himself right now. Legitimization of bastards usually was done for inheritance purposes, not for the feels. As King, he gets to do whatever he wants anyway. Though, at this point it is unknown if the King in the North title will be transferable to heirs or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Presumably it would. He would set up a new dynasty, with a new house name. The Starks would still be there, he did not take their banner.

A bigger question would be what happened to all of the other more distant family members? Presumably there are a lot of other non-dynastic lines of Starks around, some of who might think they have a better claim to the house name than Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

From what we know of Jon's history and psychology, he would not can not legitimize himself.  Jon always thinks he is unworthy and he needs approval from outside, not within.  Tyrion tells him ...'never forget who you are and wear it like armor'.  If Jon is made King by acclaim (KoTN) he will accept but he does not have to confidence or tools to do it for himself.  That may be how Jon's story ends, when he finds a way to recognize the honor within him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I find it amusing that in story, Jon (both in books and show) keeps resisting or putting off opportunities to change his name to Stark. It was his most fond wish growing up, but he hasn't done it. Stannis gave him a chance and he did the "right" thing by staying a man of the Watch and a Snow. Then in the show he hasn't made time to legitimize himself as king.

 

In a story telling sense, I chalk this up to "good things come to those who wait". When he and those around him learn he is a Targaryen is will be much more of an emotionally satisfying ending to have him crowned or take on the name Aegon VI, if that's indeed where the story is heading in the show and the books. It would make for a very Lion King epic type of moment after all he has gone through. To have him change his name to what we find out is the wrong name just BEFORE changing his name...that would suck a lot of the oomph out of the moment later on. 

In universe, the OP here has a great point. End of the world aside, it would take the stroke of a pen for him to legitimize himself as a Stark. What is his title? King Jon of the House of Snow? He needs a name, if not for himself then for any sons he plans on having. He needs to leave them a name. And I can't imagine him picking a different name like the cadet branch of Targaryens did with Blackfyre. It comes off odd, but we just have to suspend disbelief and ignore for a while longer that Jon hasn't shed the name of Snow yet. The writers of the show are kind of stuck there and have to keep it up for the same reasons GRRM is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During WW2 every American Armored Division had a nickname, Old Ironsides, Hell on Wheels, Spearhead etc.  All but one, 4th Armored was simply that.  When the Division Commander was asked about it he simply said that "4th Armored" was enough.  For Jon Snow just being Jon Snow was enough.  Dany may need a dozen titles, Jon doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Why Jon wouldn't legitimize himself makes perfect sense.  Why northern lords would say they only bow to the king in the north whose name is Stark and then immediately after bow to a guy called Snow is the real head scratcher.   Although it isn't like the northerners have any real principles or loyalties in the show anyway.  An exchange where someone says "The northern lords will recognize you as Jon Stark if you want" makes a lot more sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/8/2018 at 9:41 PM, Byfort of Corfe said:

Dany may need a dozen titles, Jon doesn't.

Dany has earned her titles and her people loves them - its good awesome pr. Jon should take notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sigella said:

Dany has earned her titles and her people loves them

Who do you suppose is "her people"? She has no people yet.

The Unsullied are brainwashed automatons and the Dothraki follow her because of the fire miracle and fun of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

Who do you suppose is "her people"? She has no people yet.

The Unsullied are brainwashed automatons and the Dothraki follow her because of the fire miracle and fun of war.

The Dothraki (her small Khalasaar) follow her because Mother of Dragons and Unburnt. The freemen (former slaves from Astapor, Yunkai and Mereen) follow her because she is Breaker of Chains. The titles are telling her story anew every time someone asks "why is she called that?". 

She has lots of people following her, I don't understand how you'd miss them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sigella said:

The freemen (former slaves from Astapor, Yunkai and Mereen) follow her because she is Breaker of Chains.

The former slave cities have mostly turned into slave cities once again. I don't think she has a lot of followers there, now that she left the continent. She cannot protect people on far away continents. Further, the slaves were not so happy but crashed into many problems while being freed.

I don't think that we should assume that Daenerys has any one "people" that follows here. The Dothraki on Westeros are just men in war, no families at all, no "a people" in the sense of nation. The Unsullied as well, just trained automatons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kajjo said:

The former slave cities have mostly turned into slave cities once again. I don't think she has a lot of followers there, now that she left the continent. She cannot protect people on far away continents. Further, the slaves were not so happy but crashed into many problems while being freed.

I don't think that we should assume that Daenerys has any one "people" that follows here. The Dothraki on Westeros are just men in war, no families at all, no "a people" in the sense of nation. The Unsullied as well, just trained automatons.

 

You do realise that the conversation between Missandei (a follower who is a freed slave and who is in a relationship with an "automaton"-Unsullied) Davos and Jon throws your argument completely over board? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sigella said:

You do realise that the conversation between Missandei (a follower who is a freed slave and who is in a relationship with an "automaton"-Unsullied) Davos and Jon throws your argument completely over board? 

 

No, I don't realise it. You see Daenerys in a very one-sighted perspective. She certanly does not protect the (former?) slave cities anymore. She is on a different continent.

Single persons adoring Daenerys does not mean a whole people follows her not that such a people exists. Armies are not people or nations.

Daenerys does not reign over any people yet. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kajjo said:

No, I don't realise it. You see Daenerys in a very one-sighted perspective. She certanly does not protect the (former?) slave cities anymore. She is on a different continent.

Single persons adoring Daenerys does not mean a whole people follows her not that such a people exists. Armies are not people or nations.

Daenerys does not reign over any people yet. 

 

Yes I like the character and that might rose tint my view to some extent and maybe your dislike towards the character might downgrade your view.

 

Arguing "Dany doesn't have any followers and the few that do follow her doesn't count"... Seems trollish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2018 at 6:03 PM, Sigella said:

Yes I like the character and that might rose tint my view to some extent and maybe your dislike towards the character might downgrade your view.

Daenerys is one of my favorite characters to watch and Emilia Clarke one of my favorite actresses of the entire show. I don't dislike Daenerys.

However, I see the daughter of the Mad King portrayed as a young woman with quite a lot of ruthlessness and cruelty, albeit high ideals and best intents. 

She failed in several attempts to free the slave cities and the people did not always regard her as positive. They were afraid of the dragons, suffered from it (the child of a goat shepard eaten alive), she sentenced Mossador to death which caused a riot and extreme disregard of Daenerys. And so on and on. She is not an all-shiny person, but very controverse.

https://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Daenerys_Targaryen

On 8/11/2018 at 6:03 PM, Sigella said:

Arguing "Dany doesn't have any followers and the few that do follow her doesn't count"... Seems trollish. 

You misunderstand the word people. Daenerys has NOT any one people (in the sense of nation) that follows her. She does not reign a kingdom yet. of course she has individuals who follow her. We all know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...