Jump to content
Daemos

This is all Jon’s fault

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

First cousin marriages appear to be acceptable in Westeros, but I don't recall any instance of aunt-nephew or uncle-niece marriages except by the Targaryens, who already get away with siblings marriages. Incest is considered a grievous sin by both old gods and new, and while Jon might biologically be a male line Targaryen, that knowledge is brand new to him. 

Arnolf and Lord Rickard's father were brothers. Arnolf's son Cregan and Lord Rickard are first cousins. And Arnolf wants to wed his son Cregan to Lord Rickard's daughter Alys. So no, that is not comparable to Dany being the full sister of Jon's father.

Aunt-nephew or uncle-niece marriages are not unheard of. They are common enough.

Victarion takes a moment and seriously considers a marriage between him and Asha. A marriage entertained by Asha herself. Yes, even Victarion of all people stopped to seriously consider a marriage between him and a rival female claimant. Even the super self-righteous, holier-than-thou Aeron thinks that it is a good idea.

Not that many people take issue with the marriage between Alys Karstark and her uncle Arnolf Karstark. Which explains why Alys felt the need to take a dying horse all the way to the Wall and ask for help from Jon Snow (who she isn't quite sure would agree to help her for various reasons, one of them being the bad blood between King Robb and Lord Rickard that ended up dooming King Robb's campaign)

Only the central and fiercest Greens (Queen Alicent, Lord Otto, Ser Criston) had a problem with the marriage between Daemon and Rhaenyra. And it had nothing to do with the fact that they were already blood relatives. None of the non-Targaryen blacks were offended -- they wouldn't fight for her if they were as we soon find out -- and most of the country couldn't care less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, the tower of albion said:

Call me foolish but I'm begining to think Dany isn't going mad and we are being gaslighted into thinking that. Her actions in Kings landing was just to demonstrate the consequences of defying the new ruler of Westeros. This is her Dresden. A terrible act but one that will show the great houses who may quarrel with her position that there is only one opinion that matters. Hers.

At least I hope this is the case.

Her Dresden? Pardon me? She just comited the worst genocide in probably the history of Westeros, to unarmed civilans. She became the biggest monster of the story. A Ramsay Bolton with Dragons. She is unredeamable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think it was a cry for help and he wanted out of this relationship. If you look closely at the scene where Varys informs that he knows the truth, he has a half-smile to himself as he's thinking about the implications.

I think he told her the truth because he didnt want to have sex with her anymore. I don't think he ever really loved her and I think it was purely a business relationship but she wanted more, so he couldn't exactly turn down her advances. It would have ruined his efforts. 

Once it got scary and Dany started to threaten people, he was always going to choose his family, to protect them FROM her. 

 

I disagree, I think he does love her - or did - jon does not have it in him to deceive another, however I do think some of her actions and behaviour, aswell as the family tie was too much for him. he is still wrestling with what is going on and his identity. he shouldn't have told sansa, I wish he told davos as a confidente ( I was so looking forward to davos talking some sense to jon/just getting him to think about things - fuck jon has never spoken a word to him this season!)  - but we dont know if bran told sansa to tell tyrion.  he is gutted that they are kin and yes he made a load of mistakes - I wish he had never told sansa and kept being a bastard, but of course a marriage should have been pushed. but no conversations too many egos (like sansa) being damaged. a real shame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jabar of House Titan said:

Aunt-nephew or uncle-niece marriages are not unheard of. They are common enough.

The only actual example I can think of is Rhaenyra and Daemon, from a family that practices sibling incest.

1 minute ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Victarion takes a moment and seriously considers a marriage between him and Asha. A marriage entertained by Asha herself. Yes, even Victarion of all people stopped to seriously consider a marriage between him and a rival female claimant. Even the super self-righteous, holier-than-thou Aeron thinks that it is a good idea.

This tells us nothing about how such a marriage is viewed in the North, or how Jon would view it.

2 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Not that many people take issue with the marriage between Alys Karstark and her uncle Arnolf Karstark. Which explains why Alys felt the need to take a dying horse all the way to the Wall and ask for help from Jon Snow (who she isn't quite sure would agree to help her for various reasons, one of them being the bad blood between King Robb and Lord Rickard that ended up dooming King Robb's campaign)

Again, Arnolf wants to wed his son to the granddaughter of his brother. That is not an uncle/niece marriage. That is even more distant than a first cousin marriage, which we already know is acceptable in Westeros (for example, Tywin and Joanna).

4 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Only the central and fiercest Greens (Queen Alicent, Lord Otto, Ser Criston) had a problem with the marriage between Daemon and Rhaenyra. And it had nothing to do with the fact that they were already blood relatives. None of the non-Targaryen blacks were offended -- they wouldn't fight for her if they were as we soon find out -- and most of the country couldn't care less.

None of this is relevant to whether an aunt-nephew match would be considered incest in the eyes of the old gods, or whether Jon would be comfortable with it. He grew up believing Lyanna was his aunt, and we can be reasonably certain that the idea of hooking up with his aunt wouldn't be kosher to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, T and A said:

Her Dresden? Pardon me? She just comited the worst genocide in probably the history of Westeros, to unarmed civilans. She became the biggest monster of the story. A Ramsay Bolton with Dragons. She is unredeamable. 

No need to respond to a crazy claim with another crazy claim. She committed an atrocious mass murder of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent smallfolk. No indication she set about wiping out an entire race or people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said:

No need to respond to a crazy claim with another crazy claim. She committed an atrocious mass murder of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent smallfolk. No indication she set about wiping out an entire race or people.

I don't quite understand what you mean. What claim do I make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sir Hedge of Hog said:

I disagree, I think he does love her - or did - jon does not have it in him to deceive another, however I do think some of her actions and behaviour, aswell as the family tie was too much for him. he is still wrestling with what is going on and his identity. he shouldn't have told sansa, I wish he told davos as a confidente ( I was so looking forward to davos talking some sense to jon/just getting him to think about things - fuck jon has never spoken a word to him this season!)  - but we dont know if bran told sansa to tell tyrion.  he is gutted that they are kin and yes he made a load of mistakes - I wish he had never told sansa and kept being a bastard, but of course a marriage should have been pushed. but no conversations too many egos (like sansa) being damaged. a real shame. 

I think the only thing he was blinded by was that she would make a good queen. 

That he fell in love with her is debatable for me. I think their lack of chemistry is intentional. Kit can act in love if he wanted. I think he was directed to act uncomfortable but eager for a successful military alliance. It's suspicious that the only time he tells her he loves her is when things get very scary for him, and she just executed someone who vouched for him and who will probably kill Sansa next. 

He's contradicting himself too. On the one hand he says the can live together but on the other he can't kiss her because he's disgusted by the incest. So what is it, they'll just live together as platonic aunt and nephew, never letting anyone know they're related, but also never being intimate? I think his all-over the place. The best explanation is he's trying to placate her.

You also have to keep in mind that the only person who could tell her the truth was Daario. Jon has stopped speaking the truth to her. I think the last time he told her the truth was when he revealed the parentage.  

Once Jon arrived on Dragonstone in 7x3, Jon's POV has mostly been blocked to the audience. We don't know what he thinks of Dany. We dont know why he bent the knee, we don't know the answer to Sansa's question really because he explains it in public as a military choice. He never really puts in the effort to convince people that Dany is worthy. He can't even kiss her normally before the parentage reveal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

You're all over the place.

One moment you say "Daenerys is only doing that because Tyrion told her to do it" and then two sentences later you're saying "Daenerys is on a long slide to not listening to her advisors."

LMAO which is it?

If she'd truly prefer a chain of Daarios, why didn't she take Daario, the first link in her chain, with her? Why did she skeptically raise the question of Daario wanting to be her mistress and then deny him when he all but said yes, please take me for your male mistress.

D&D are peeing on you guys and you all think it is snow on Christmas Day.

GRRM is going to pee on you too, don't get too snarky. 

He already said ice and fire are the two threats in Westeros that people are blind to. He's not going to "solve the jon/dany dilemma" by just having them marry. 

As for that scene, I dont know how much more clear I can make it. She is listening to Tyrion here in S6. Then but she starts to not listen to him in S7. I'm not contradictory, Dany is. 

She didn't take Daario with her because Tyrion told her Daario would be a liability. Later, before she even meets Jon, she immediately sees him as someone who has to submit to her. He calls her queen, she doesn't return the courtesy and call him king, ect ect. That's a big warning sign.

When confronted with a marriageable ally, she doesn't see him that way. She'd rather have a supplicant. He wasn't good enough for her. She'd rather he be Ned Stark's bastard and take the North as a prize for herself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The only actual example I can think of is Rhaenyra and Daemon, from a family that practices sibling incest.

This tells us nothing about how such a marriage is viewed in the North, or how Jon would view it.

Again, Arnolf wants to wed his son to the granddaughter of his brother. That is not an uncle/niece marriage. That is even more distant than a first cousin marriage, which we already know is acceptable in Westeros (for example, Tywin and Joanna).

None of this is relevant to whether an aunt-nephew match would be considered incest in the eyes of the old gods, or whether Jon would be comfortable with it. He grew up believing Lyanna was his aunt, and we can be reasonably certain that the idea of hooking up with his aunt wouldn't be kosher to him.

But then why does Alys Karstark refer to them both as her uncles.

If she doesn't see the difference when she has all the reason to see the difference, why should Jon Snow? Why should the reader?

It is unlikely that an aunt-nephew or an uncle-niece match would be considered incestuous and unlawful before the old gods. Especially considering the lord's right to the first night is still believed in and practiced secretly among many of the northern lords: the real northern lords north of Winterfell like the Umbers, the Karstarks, the mountain clansmen, etc.

The Karstarks have not and do not come across as irreverent or sacrilegious. Cregan Karstark and his father thought it was lawful before the gods. Why else would they do it? I don't see them defaming the old gods like the Boltons did.

In any case, Jon might not be comfortable with it at all. But it should not be as rare and unseemly in Westeros to the point where no one suggests it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, the tower of albion said:

Call me foolish but I'm begining to think Dany isn't going mad and we are being gaslighted into thinking that. Her actions in Kings landing was just to demonstrate the consequences of defying the new ruler of Westeros.

Yes exactly!  Had Dany accepted the surrender, she would be forced to accept Jon's claim to the throne soon after.  She needed Cersi to not surrender so that she had an excuse to burn down KL and move the capitol to Dragonstone, where she would rule as absolute monarch (Empress instead of Queen),  projecting her will via the force of her Dragon and protecting Dragonstone with a small army.  It's my guess that she will be pushing a narrative of the battle around Westeros that Cersi never did surrender (which, given Cersi's history, will not be much of a stretch for the other nobels to believe, especially if they don't want to piss off the Dragon Empress)

She is looking to break the wheel of the nobility but can't do that with KL intact as the bureaucracy there is too strong.  She might win their favor for a while, but would always be at risk of being overthrown as that's become an acceptable political process in the Seven Kingdoms now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

GRRM is going to pee on you too, don't get too snarky. 

He already said ice and fire are the two threats in Westeros that people are blind to. He's not going to "solve the jon/dany dilemma" by just having them marry. 

As for that scene, I dont know how much more clear I can make it. She is listening to Tyrion here in S6. Then but she starts to not listen to him in S7. I'm not contradictory, Dany is. 

She didn't take Daario with her because Tyrion told her Daario would be a liability. Later, before she even meets Jon, she immediately sees him as someone who has to submit to her. He calls her queen, she doesn't return the courtesy and call him king, ect ect. That's a big warning sign.

When confronted with a marriageable ally, she doesn't see him that way. She'd rather have a supplicant. He wasn't good enough for her. She'd rather he be Ned Stark's bastard and take the North as a prize for herself. 

Either there is a long slide of not listening to her advisors or there is not.

Either Daenerys thinks its a good idea to leave herself open to marriage or not?

Olenna Tyrell was one of her advisors and she told her not to take the advice of clever men such as Tyrion and that she should just be a dragon because the lords of Westeros are sheep. She died because she listened to Tyrion's advice.

If you are wrong, you are wrong. Tyrion admits it. Why can't you?

Why do David Benioff and D.B. Weiss contradict themselves? They wrote that episode, they wrote the last two episodes of last season, they wrote four of the six episodes this season and they are the showrunners of the whole sha-bang.

Why do they contradict themselves and ruin their own work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

I think that fact that so much emphases was spent on "bells = surrender," and we got a long bell-tolling PLUS we saw the Lannister commander throwing his sword down at Jon's feat make the "necessary evil" argument a stretch. They did all that specifically to highlight that burning down the entire population of KL was strictly optional and just something Daenerys wanted to do for personal reasons (whatever they may have been).

Don't we all do things for personal reasons?

Dany's personal reason was that the city did not surrender until arrival of Jon Snow. They flocked to the tyrants and when the tyrants failed they flocked to Jon Snow to save them from the dready dragon. If she let him do this, they would kill her and make him king (yet again) and then kill him soon enough. You know it's true: when the carnage started Jon's soldiers ignored his orders and joined in the fray. Jon tried to stop them - they lashed at him (yet again). She defeated all of her enemies that day - on all sides. Now Jon has no authority and does what she tells him to. This is what he had chosen when he pushed her away.

I'm against rulers on principle. But if you want to rule you need to strike fear in hearts of men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

The fact that D&D failed to reconcile Sansa and Jon's feelings towards Stannis Baratheon with Robb's desire for independence (or rather the rivermen's and the northmen's desires for independence) is yet another example of bad writing.

Sansa never believed in northern independence. She loves the songs and stories of the Seven Kingdoms of yore and Sansa has always wanted peace and security and family. Why does she care about northern independence now? And why has the northern independence movement become so anti-Targaryen when the Ironborn independence movement (the Ironborn of all people!!!) is staunchly pro-Dany.

Because of her experiences down south. That’s the whole point of her arc. She learned the hard way that those things she wanted and believed at the beginning of the story was just her being naive. She’s grown and learned the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, olibar said:

Yes exactly!  Had Dany accepted the surrender, she would be forced to accept Jon's claim to the throne soon after.  She needed Cersi to not surrender so that she had an excuse to burn down KL and move the capitol to Dragonstone, where she would rule as absolute monarch (Empress instead of Queen),  projecting her will via the force of her Dragon and protecting Dragonstone with a small army.  It's my guess that she will be pushing a narrative of the battle around Westeros that Cersi never did surrender (which, given Cersi's history, will not be much of a stretch for the other nobels to believe, especially if they don't want to piss off the Dragon Empress)

She is looking to break the wheel of the nobility but can't do that with KL intact as the bureaucracy there is too strong.  She might win their favor for a while, but would always be at risk of being overthrown as that's become an acceptable political process in the Seven Kingdoms now.

 

It is worth pointing out that Cersei never did surrender. The city never officially surrendered. The soldiers did but the city did not.

She tried to insist on fighting until the bitter end (even though she saw Daenerys blow up the scorpion ballistas along the walls of the city) and then she wanted to run for cover so that she could keep fighting. Notice how Cersei was counting on the Lannister troops to keep fighting to the death...however, they laid down their swords.

The point is that Cersei never did surrender. Tyrion tried to force a false, inauthentic surrender that included smuggling Cersei out of the city.

How did the civilians know that ringing the bells meant surrender when it is commonly understood that the bells have never meant surrender or thank you?

Plot hole.

Edited by Jabar of House Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

It is worth pointing out that Cersei never did surrender. The city never officially surrendered. The soldiers did but the city did not.

She tried to insist on fighting until the bitter end (even though she saw Daenerys blow up the scorpion ballistas along the walls of the city) and then she wanted to run for cover so that she could keep fighting. Notice how Cersei was counting on the Lannister troops to keep fighting to the death...however, they laid down their swords.

The point is that Cersei never did surrender. Tyrion tried to force a false, inauthentic surrender that included smuggling Cersei out of the city.\

That's a really good point.  Had Dany accepted the surrender, Cersei likely would have escaped and could have potentially tried to gather support to throw out the Usurper from Essos.  So another strong reason why Dany did what she did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Because of her experiences down south. That’s the whole point of her arc. She learned the hard way that those things she wanted and believed at the beginning of the story was just her being naive. She’s grown and learned the hard way.

Why wasn't it shown onscreen how important Northern independence had become for her. Why is it suddenly an issue for her in season 7? What ever happened to the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

If the Greyjoys both could recognize it and approach Daenerys respectfully with strength and poise, then why couldn't Sansa the political mastermind do the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The only actual example I can think of is Rhaenyra and Daemon, from a family that practices sibling incest.

This tells us nothing about how such a marriage is viewed in the North, or how Jon would view it.

Again, Arnolf wants to wed his son to the granddaughter of his brother. That is not an uncle/niece marriage. That is even more distant than a first cousin marriage, which we already know is acceptable in Westeros (for example, Tywin and Joanna).

None of this is relevant to whether an aunt-nephew match would be considered incest in the eyes of the old gods, or whether Jon would be comfortable with it. He grew up believing Lyanna was his aunt, and we can be reasonably certain that the idea of hooking up with his aunt wouldn't be kosher to him.

Ygritte makes it pretty clear how the North feels about it and gives Jon a lecture about sleeping even with people from your own village, never mind a close relative. If I remember right, Jon asks her if she slept with Longspear Ryk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, azor_ahaiii said:

And there's a ton of proof (listed out in detail in the post above yours) showing how she lost that restraint 

I understand not liking the episode for whatever reason but people claiming this "came out of nowhere" are full of shit

so much this. it's like listening to breaking bad fans trying to rationalize why walter white is still just looking out for his family towards the end. 

Edited by the red god

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Either there is a long slide of not listening to her advisors or there is not.

Either Daenerys thinks its a good idea to leave herself open to marriage or not?

Olenna Tyrell was one of her advisors and she told her not to take the advice of clever men such as Tyrion and that she should just be a dragon because the lords of Westeros are sheep. She died because she listened to Tyrion's advice.

If you are wrong, you are wrong. Tyrion admits it. Why can't you?

Why do David Benioff and D.B. Weiss contradict themselves? They wrote that episode, they wrote the last two episodes of last season, they wrote four of the six episodes this season and they are the showrunners of the whole sha-bang.

Why do they contradict themselves and ruin their own work?

The long slide of not listening started way back when Barristan told her to show mercy to the slavers. She didn't listen then, but then listened other times. Then the biggest one is when she doesn't listen to Tyrion about the Tarlys or about the dangers of going on the wight hunt. 

Lordy, it's not like she can change her mind or change her thinking depending on context? This is actually a very human trait - nobody is 100% consistent. But inconsistency and self-contradiction are an in-character flaw of hers too. She locked up her dragons in ADWD and thinks she's not going to rule by dragons, then ends thinking that dragons are the coolest things ever and that she is "fire made flesh." 

Dany's character is all over the place. Just look at all the different motives she had for going to Westeros and claiming the throne. 

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

×