The North is finally independent

[Haskelltier]

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

This is show forums. There are hundreds of things happened differently in the books, we are not discussing all of them in here right? So stop it please.

I take the books as canon so long as differences between show and books are reasonable small, because the show lacks a coherent, plausible story in a lot of parts (it was better in the early seasons and became worse when and after the show reached the end of the books). Major parts of the story in season 7 and 8 didn't make any sense at all. So its very difficult to analyse the story in the later parts of the show, because of all the plot holes, stupid dialogues, rediculous advices and ideas.

24 minutes ago, Mystical said:

The NW is not subject to the Realm and neither are Maesters. That's why the NW is not allowed to interfere with anything that happens south of their lands, the South aka the Realm. They are for all intends and purposes independent. They vote for their own leader (Lord Commander) and they have The Gift as their land.

Sam never forged all links of his maester-chain, therefore he is no maester. Yes, the Nights Watch doesn't interfere with politics, but then Sam shouldn't have mentioned Jon's parentage at all, because by doing so he does interfere with politics by revealing a claim nobody knew about (under the condition that there is anybody of importance, who believes him; but even then, without a good proof, this only leads to unnecessary confusion).

[RYShh]

Just now, Haskelltier said:

I take the books as canon so long as differences between show and books are reasonable small, because the show lacks a coherent, plausible story in a lot of parts (it was better in the early seasons and became worse when and after the show reached the end of the books). Major parts of the story in season 7 and 8 didn't make any sense at all. So its very difficult to analyse the story in the later parts of the show, because of all the plot holes, stupid dialogues, rediculous advices and ideas.

Sam never forged all links of his maester-chain, therefore he is no maester. Yes, the Nights Watch doesn't interfere with politics, but then Sam shouldn't have mentioned Jon's parentage at all, because by doing so he does interfere with politics by revealing a claim nobody knew about.

When did I say the show make sense and reasonable? But that's what they give us, so that's what we need to discuss, not the books in here.

Talking about the truth is not politics at all. How should they know that what Daenerys's reaction will be? Not only Jon, Daenerys also deserved to know the truth about her family, and she should've supported the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, instead she usurped Aegon VI's right to the throne, or at least she tried and failed. Sam did the right thing by telling it.

[Haskelltier]

19 minutes ago, RYShh said:

When did I say the show make sense and reasonable? But that's what they give us, so that's what we need to discuss, not the books in here.

Okay, then I must say, that season 7 and 8 have so many plot holes and illogical acting characters in it, that it is very difficult to have a rational talk about what happened. Take for example everything that happened in Dorne after Oberyn's death (obviously I'm talking about the show). That whole story was simply bullshit from beginning to end. It didn't make sense, it contradicted the background of the world and the dialogues were cringy. You can try and talk about it, but you are far better of, when you simply forget everything that happened there.

19 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Talking about the truth is not politics at all.

When you assert that somebody has a (better) claim to the Iron Throne, then it is political.

19 minutes ago, RYShh said:

How should they know that what Daenerys's reaction will be?

Common sense? Anybody who is not dumb or crazy would have known, that talking about a potential new candidat for the Iron Throne is a problem for all other candidates. So it was only natural that Dany wasn't pleased about that revelation.

[RYShh]

16 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

Okay, then I must say, that season 7 and 8 have so many plot holes and illogical acting characters in it, that it is very difficult to have a rational talk about what happened. Take for example everything that happened in Dorne after Oberyn's death (obviously I'm talking about the show). That whole story was simply bullshit from beginning to end. It didn't make sense, it contradicted the background of the world and the dialogues were cringy. You can try and talk about it, but you are far better of, when you simply forget everything that happened there.

When you assert that somebody has a (better) claim to the Iron Throne, then it is political.

Common sense? Anybody who is not dumb or crazy would have known, that talking about a potential new candidat for the Iron Throne is a problem for all other candidates. So it was only natural that Dany wasn't pleased about that revelation.

That's another topic. We can discuss the plot holes and bullshits in a different thread, not in the middle of this discussion when the truths in the show doesn't suit you.

How is that a crime again? Daenerys is a usurper if she denies Aegon VI's right to the throne, not the other way around. Sam would be a traitor if he didn't tell the truth, he did the right thing. It's saying like Ned shouldn't tell the truth about the twincest and Joffrey's parentage, otherwise he is a traitor.

Then Daenerys is a usurper and she can't blame people for betraying her. All she could do killing the people who secretly plotted against her in her own council, like Varys. She can't say or do anything about people who did nothing but telling the truth, such as Sam, Tyrion and Sansa.

And for the last time, stop cutting my posts into pieces, you're trying to show my post differently when you cut my posts like that. But I guess you're doing that purposely.

[Haskelltier]

17 minutes ago, RYShh said:

How is that a crime again? Daenerys is a usurper if she denies Aegon VI's right to the throne, not the other way around.

When you swore fealty (that includes loyalty) to one of the candidates and secretly spread word that there is another candidate with a better claim, thats a crime, because you swore an oath to be loyal and you aren't.

17 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Sam would be a traitor if he didn't tell the truth, he did the right thing.

Okay, Sam has no problem (and wouldn't be a traitor if he kept this information to himself, since he don't have to share any secret he knows), but Sansa has by trying to persuade Tyrion to declare for Jon.

17 minutes ago, RYShh said:

It's saying like Ned shouldn't tell the truth about the twincest and Joffrey parentage, otherwise he is a traitor.

Ned had proof for that, Sam didn't.

17 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Then Daenerys is a usurper and she can't blame people for betraying her.

Without strong evidence (book and weirdo aren't good proofs) there is nothing you can do (you need the proof to convince other lords, that Jon is the rightful heir).

[Kajjo]

On 5/20/2019 at 12:19 PM, Erkan12 said:

Robb would've been proud, he died for it, but the North accomplished the vision that he has started.

Well, he might have dies for it but not because of it.  He died because he broke his promise to House Frey to marry a daughter. Lannisters so could successfully get Frey onto their side and decide the war without a further battle -- instead they committed the Red Wedding.

On 5/20/2019 at 12:19 PM, Erkan12 said:

 The endgame was successful for the Starks, now all Sansa needs to do is finding a husband that would take her name as a Stark.

Right. Shouldn't be a problem. Sansa is very young still and after a few years she will certainly find a man that suits her.

[RYShh]

12 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

When you swore fealty (that includes loyalty) to one of the candidates and secretly spread word that there is another candidate with a better claim, thats a crime, because you swore an oath to be loyal and you aren't.

Okay, Sam has no problem (and wouldn't be a traitor if he kept this information to himself, since he don't have to share any secret he knows), but Sansa has by trying to persuade Tyrion to declare for Jon.

Ned had proof for that, Sam didn't.

Without strong evidence (book and weirdo aren't good proofs) there is nothing you can do (you need the proof to convince other lords, that Jon is the rightful heir).

First;

29 minutes ago, RYShh said:

 

And for the last time, stop cutting my posts into pieces, you're trying to show my post differently when you cut my posts like that. But I guess you're doing that purposely.

Just stop doing that.

12 minutes ago, Haskelltier said:

When you swore fealty (that includes loyalty) to one of the candidates and secretly spread word that there is another candidate with a better claim, thats a crime, because you swore an oath to be loyal and you aren't.

Okay, Sam has no problem (and wouldn't be a traitor if he kept this information to himself, since he don't have to share any secret he knows), but Sansa has by trying to persuade Tyrion to declare for Jon.

Ned had proof for that, Sam didn't.

Without strong evidence (book and weirdo aren't good proofs) there is nothing you can do (you need the proof to convince other lords, that Jon is the rightful heir).

Jon swear fealty before he knew that he was Aegon VI, I didn't make the rules.

Doesn't matter what Sansa trying to do, for the last time, telling the truth about Jon is not a crime. It can be a crime in your mind, but it's not in the show. Daenerys never told Sansa to be silent about Jon's parentage, and she couldn't even ask that even if she wanted it. Because that's the truth about House Targaryen. Daenerys is Aegon VI's aunt, and Aegon VI is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, not Daenerys.

Uhm what? Are you seriously discussing the truth about Jon? A truth that everyone accepted, even Daenerys herself? Ok I am done here. 

[Mystical]

1 hour ago, Haskelltier said:

Sam never forged all links of his maester-chain, therefore he is no maester. Yes, the Nights Watch doesn't interfere with politics, but then Sam shouldn't have mentioned Jon's parentage at all, because by doing so he does interfere with politics by revealing a claim nobody knew about (under the condition that there is anybody of importance, who believes him; but even then, without a good proof, this only leads to unnecessary confusion).

Of course Sam being a measter, hell grand maester, makes no sense. But we have already stated plenty of times that D&D don't understand GRRM's world. As far as Sam telling Jon. If he hadn't done it then Bran would have. Sam would have told Jon the truth of his parentage for no other reason than Jon deserved to know the truth. Politics would have nothing to do with it and Sam wouldn't view it that way anyway. The only reason that Sam made it political is because of Dany burning his family. But even if that event hadn't happened, Sam would have told him, without any ulterior motives, because Sam is a good guy who thinks his friend deserves to know who is actual mother and father were.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Maybe Jon lost the right to ask anyone to take his word seriously when he unilaterally decided the North couldn't be independent because he wanted to fuck a queen. 

[Jaghen]

17 minutes ago, RYShh said:

First;

Just stop doing that.

Jon swear fealty before he knew that he was Aegon VI, I didn't make the rules.

Doesn't matter what Sansa trying to do, for the last time, telling the truth about Jon is not a crime. It can be a crime in your mind, but it's not in the show. Daenerys never told Sansa to be silent about Jon's parentage, and she couldn't even ask that even if she wanted it. Because that's the truth about House Targaryen. Daenerys is Aegon VI's aunt, and Aegon VI is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, not Daenerys.

Uhm what? Are you seriously discussing the truth about Jon? A truth that everyone accepted, even Daenerys herself? Ok I am done here. 

I myself do not cut your posts out of lazyness, but it does make for a clearer discussion. Point by point.

For the last time, telling the "truth" that you want to tell is a crime, in and out of Westeros. Spreading rumors about a pretender better suited to rule than your Queen is treason. Simple as that.

Daenerys had a right to know as you say. And she did. She then urged Jon not to say a thing for fear of the inevitable plotting that would ensue. And she was right.

Aegon VI is no rightful heir at all, except Dany's heir at best. Daenerys didn't usurp his throne, she conquered that which Cercei usurped from the Baratheons. But, as is, was and always be the case, disgruntled are always happy to take a pretender when it can help their agenda - looking at you Sansa (or the Tyrells, Renly wasn't any kind of rightful ruler yet they decided to back him).

 

I see no problem with Sam telling Jon. although one might wonder why Bran did not do it himself, as Sam only knew about a marriage. But the way Sam brought it to Jon, just like the way Sansa brought it to Tyrion, smells of treason. They both are lucky that their exact words never reached Daenerys.

[RYShh]

30 minutes ago, Jaghen said:

I myself do not cut your posts out of lazyness, but it does make for a clearer discussion. Point by point.

For the last time, telling the "truth" that you want to tell is a crime, in and out of Westeros. Spreading rumors about a pretender better suited to rule than your Queen is treason. Simple as that.

Daenerys had a right to know as you say. And she did. She then urged Jon not to say a thing for fear of the inevitable plotting that would ensue. And she was right.

Aegon VI is no rightful heir at all, except Dany's heir at best. Daenerys didn't usurp his throne, she conquered that which Cercei usurped from the Baratheons. But, as is, was and always be the case, disgruntled are always happy to take a pretender when it can help their agenda - looking at you Sansa (or the Tyrells, Renly wasn't any kind of rightful ruler yet they decided to back him).

 

I see no problem with Sam telling Jon. although one might wonder why Bran did not do it himself, as Sam only knew about a marriage. But the way Sam brought it to Jon, just like the way Sansa brought it to Tyrion, smells of treason. They both are lucky that their exact words never reached Daenerys.

I wasn't talking to you? You're answering this Haskeltier posts in his place sometimes it's really weird. 

That's only in your mind, no matter how much fanfic you have about the show it doesn't matter. No one in the show said Sansa or Tyrion are traitors for telling the truth. You need to understand this fact I am afraid. And it's not a rumor. Bran is a confirmed 3 eyed raven, and Sam has seen the evidence on the marriage annulment. Which makes it real, and the truth. Everyone knew Bran has special powers like seeing the past.

Daenerys conquered nothing. She died shortly after killing Cersei and her forces. That would be true if Daenerys conquered the KL and her coronation happened, but that never happened. They learned that in Winterfell, before attacking the KL. That's the difference you need to understand. And then you say Cersei usurped, if you believe Daenerys can conquer the throne, then Cersei can too, because none of them has the right, but the difference is Cersei actually conquered the throne and her coronation happened, unlike Daenerys.

Jon being a better option isn't treason, that's truth. 1- People in Westeros love Jon, 2- He is a war hero in Westeros and raised in Westeros, those two qualities officially makes him a better option than Daenerys, that's a fact. A fact that Daenerys also knew, she also knew she was a usurper, so she can't execute people for telling the truth. I hope this will be my last post to you, since you either don't understand the facts in the show or you're not serious about Daenerys' situation or being a traitor.

[Jaghen]

If you believe you are having a message discussion with Haskelltier, I'm sorry to break it to you, this is a message board, where everyone is welcome to answer to anything.

Now, did we watch the same show ?

Does Bran being the 3ER makes him incapable of lying ?

Cercei just kind of happened to be there, and took the Crown. that's not a conquest, that's an usurpation. The Lannisters have been loosing Kingdoms one by one since the start of the war because they are Usurpers. None of them was ever Robert's heir (no more than Jon!) and the only allies they retained fully understood that they followed an usurper but accepted it as it pushed their agenda forward.

Daenerys came in with an army, waged war, burned a shit ton of soldiers, and fought everyone into submission but that is not a conquest, what the hell are you on ? I want some.

 

Jon would have been a better option if all of them were not already serving a Queen and they wanted someone to lead (as at the end of the show) in context, it was treason. You can't see it fine, you are missing something most obvious and thus can't understand why Jon had to kill Danny, simple as that. 

[RYShh]

2 minutes ago, Jaghen said:

Did we watch the same show ?

Does Bran being the 3ER makes him incapable of lying ?

Cercei just kind of happened to be there, and took the Crown. that's not a conquest, that's an usurpation. Daenerys came in with an army, waged war, burned a shit ton of soldiers, but that is not a conquest, what the hell are you on ? I want some.

 

Jon would have been a better option if all of them were not already serving a Queen and they wanted someone to lead (as at the end of the show) in context, it was treason. You can't see it fine, you are missing something most obvious and thus can't understand why Jon had to kill Danny, simple as that. 

Yeah, I honestly don't know if we actually watch the same show.

So you made Bran a liar? That's a serious accusation. You can't blame people like that without an evidence. Do you know who is Jon's mother is? No one knows. Eddard lying about it also makes perfectly sense as well. The fact is that's truth and everyone believed it. Doesn't matter the rest.

Doesn't matter what you use, shadowbaby, dragon, zombies, wild fire, backstabbing, the point is taking it. Cersei took it, that's the truth, like it or not.

No one serving Daenerys in Westeros, because she wasn't the queen yet. The real treason is usurping Aegon VI's right to the throne. Even Varys has seen that, and even Daenerys's own hand Tyrion knew that. 

[Jaghen]

Well. I guess it must be nice living in your world.

 

Eddard lying is believable, The 3ER (which is not Bran, not as he used to be anyway) lying is not. 

It's not like Bran says "I don't want to be king" after doing everything so that he would become king (provoking the death of hundreds of thousand - greater good all that stuff right). Nothing to see, please move on.

 

You can't say Bran lies without evidence but Bran can say Jon is the true King of Westeros without evidence. double standard much ? As I was afraid, and as evidence by your earlier assumption, your hate of Daenerys clouds your judgement.

 

Varys thought Jon would be a better ruler. Tyrion feared that. That's pretty much it. It doesn't matter what imaginary right to this throne you imagine he had. Right doesn't give a crown. Power does. People do. Hence pushing them towards rebellion against Dany, who was their Queen at this point, no matter the spin you want to give the story, was treason.

[RYShh]

17 minutes ago, Jaghen said:

Well. I guess it must be nice living in your world.

 

Eddard lying is believable, The 3ER (which is not Bran, not as he used to be anyway) lying is not. 

It's not like Bran says "I don't want to be king" after doing everything so that he would become king (provoking the death of hundreds of thousand - greater good all that stuff right). Nothing to see, please move on.

 

You can't say Bran lies without evidence but Bran can say Jon is the true King of Westeros without evidence. double standard much ? As I was afraid, and as evidence by your earlier assumption, your hate of Daenerys clouds your judgement.

 

Varys thought Jon would be a better ruler. Tyrion feared that. That's pretty much it. It doesn't matter what imaginary right to this throne you imagine he had. Right doesn't give a crown. Power does. People do. Hence pushing them towards rebellion against Dany, who was their Queen at this point, no matter the spin you want to give the story, was treason.

Yeah, my world is the real word, it's not my own fanfic world.

Eddard had a solid reason to lie. Robert Baratheon. Bran had not. Bran wouldn't make his own father a liar if it wasn't the truth. Again, why are you discussing this? We know that's the truth and Daenerys believed that it's true, so there is no need for this discussion, no one questioned it.

I don't hate Daenerys, it looks like you want to defend Daenerys so much that you're even making other people traitors, and also liars  for no reason so you can defend Daenerys, even when those things never mentioned or told in the show. 

Yes power does, and Jon has the power to rule lords of Westeros, no one loved Daenerys and they wanted to backstab her in the first moment they can get. Once again; Daenerys wasn't the queen. Cersei was holding the KL and capital, Daenerys's coronation never happened, she never took the KL. Thus choosing Jon, a.k.a Aegon VI is not treason, it's the right thing, it's treason to hide the truth, no different than hiding the truth about Joffrey. 

[Jaghen]

Please explain to me where I defend anything Daenerys did, I'm curious, really. That's really not a part of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

I'm talking about the plotters, traitors, call them as you will.

 

You see, I'm of those people that believe doing something wrong to bad people (say crucify 163 masters) is still wrong. Daenerys can be a tyrant, plotting against her still makes you a traitor when you are supposed to serve her.

Just like Jaime was a traitor towards Aerys. The reason he betrayed Aerys is irrelevant, he did betray him.

 

Bran is a liar. He explicitely started the whole R+L=J substory, which pushed Daenerys over the edge and ended with her being killed by Jon. All of that, after having seen what would happen, and that he would be made king. That is what happened this season, did you forget this already ? And yet then pretends he doesn't want to be king. It is now canon in the show that he is not trustworthy.

 

Coronations are useless. The coronation does not make a King, or Queen. Rob was King in the North when his vassals declared him so, not when he had a crown forged. It's like saying "I'm a movie star because I've had a press conference" it doesn't make sense. 

[Haskelltier]

4 hours ago, RYShh said:

Just stop doing that.

No, I will not. It helps me and others following conversations, when you or others quote the concrete sentences or paragraph you are dealing with next in your post. By doing that others won't have to guess what you are talking about, you would avoid misunderstandings and you don't waste other peoples time. It's a good practice.

If you don't like that, you are free to ignore me.

And since I don't really see any real progress in this conversation with you, I will only answer new arguments from you. That way others won't have to read post after post dealing with the same things and arguments.

Is that a deal?

3 hours ago, Jaghen said:

Varys thought Jon would be a better ruler. Tyrion feared that. That's pretty much it. It doesn't matter what imaginary right to this throne you imagine he had. Right doesn't give a crown. Power does. People do. Hence pushing them towards rebellion against Dany, who was their Queen at this point, no matter the spin you want to give the story, was treason.

Exactly, Sansa's reaction could have easily led to a new war or rebellion (pick the word you like). So even if you ignore the obvious treasonous act, she had no problem causing more unnecessary death, since Dany made it clear that she will fight for the Iron Throne. And because Jon made it clear that he didn't want the throne, she only made things more complicate (and I think that was her goal in the first place).

[King Wyman]

Technically neither Jon or Dany was the rightful heir to anything. The last official Targ heir was Viserys, so Jon and Dany just have a claim.

A claim they can make on their own if they choose to do so. A claim that will need support to properly enforce. 

Dany has a dragon, Dothraki, unsullied, alliances with Dorne, the Reach and the Iron Islands (and technically the North and Vale).

Jon has....a small northern/Vale army of maybe 13k, like 50 Wildings, a fat bald man who forgot how to conspiracy in season 4, and no desire whatsoever to press his claim. 

Put any character you want in Dany’s spot, and they ain’t gonna step down. 

Imagine Sansa took back the north on her own by uniting the North and Vale. All her allies name her queen, but then all of a sudden, Jon shows up and tells her Robb legitimized him so he’s the rightful heir to the north despite not having an army, or any real support, but tells her several times he doesn’t really want it so Sansa can still be queen.

Would Sansa just step aside because it’s “the right thing to do”? No chance in hell. 

[WolfOfWinter]

 

 

1

5 hours ago, King Wyman said:

Technically neither Jon or Dany was the rightful heir to anything. The last official Targ heir was Viserys, so Jon and Dany just have a claim.

A claim they can make on their own if they choose to do so. A claim that will need support to properly enforce. 

Dany has a dragon, Dothraki, unsullied, alliances with Dorne, the Reach and the Iron Islands (and technically the North and Vale).

Jon has....a small northern/Vale army of maybe 13k, like 50 Wildings, a fat bald man who forgot how to conspiracy in season 4, and no desire whatsoever to press his claim. 

Put any character you want in Dany’s spot, and they ain’t gonna step down. 

Imagine Sansa took back the north on her own by uniting the North and Vale. All her allies name her queen, but then all of a sudden, Jon shows up and tells her Robb legitimized him so he’s the rightful heir to the north despite not having an army, or any real support, but tells her several times he doesn’t really want it so Sansa can still be queen.

Would Sansa just step aside because it’s “the right thing to do”? No chance in hell. 

Would that be the Sansa who accepted her bastard brother being crowned instead of her, Ned Stark's legitimate daughter, after she asked the man who sold her to a monster for help and saved the day during the Battle of the Bastards because Jon couldn't be bothered to ask more Northern houses for help? Who only agreed to marry Ramsay because she thought it would help House Stark get the North back? Who then ruled in her absent king's stead for several months with no contact with him, only to learn that he'd bent the knee to a woman who'd imprisoned him on Dragonstone, and against every Northerner's desire, because he was in love with her? The man who then marched his exhausted and traumatized army south because their new ruler couldn't be bothered to wait a few weeks for Cersei's own people to turn against her? And Sansa, who, despite all this, still marched the remaining, exhausted army south to free her brother and then expressed genuine regret that the North would be absent their king? 

Sansa already stepped aside for Jon when she had both the better claim and had the whole North and the Vale ready to crown her in season seven.

Meanwhile, Dany who haughtily denounced Robert Baratheon as a usurper for disposing of her family, and who constantly stressed how Westeros was hers because she had the rightful claim, went against her own principles and abandoned her own logic the moment she found out about Jon's claim, thus proving that she herself was a usurper. Ironic.

The ending more than anything has made me excited about the books. 

 

[Jaghen]

I'm not sure how well Sansa took the whole thing to be honest. She obviously took it for the team but I'm pretty certain she was not happy about the turn of events. And realize that she didn't have the bigger support, Jon did. Nobody gave her a choice, she was not Queen in the North until Jon came along. Also unsure how legitimizing Bolton's rule by marrying into them helps the Stark ^^

Finally, are we talking about the Sansa who did not step aside for her brother Bran, rightful heir of Winterfell, at the end of the show ? Kid always wanted to be Queen...

 

In any case, Daenerys is not Sansa. We have known for some time that she is delusional about her Westerosi throne and wants it no matter what, it is her life goal. The whole rightful Queen may have been her hope but she quickly realized it would not happen, or Viserys would have been reinstated already. She was going for conquest, just refusing to say it. Hence waiting to have an actual army to get there.

I'm fine with you calling her a Usurper, after all that's how she called Robert, who was just as legitimate in his conquest as she is here.

Everyone is a usurper in someone else's eyes.