Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

He says that just as he stabs her. I think this time he meant it in a romantic context. He first says "You are my queen" then follows it up with "You will always be my queen". He didn’t mean that literally.  After all he did love her. He was forced to kill her. 

She wanted to hear something more from him though, than just titles. He didn't give her that and used seduction so she wouldn't notice the knife going in. 

Jon's queen is a mass murderer who burns children alive, so he can live with that as a fond memory of her. 

Sorry I just dont see this as a tragic romance because there is no romance there.

[Kaapstad]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She wanted to hear something more from him though, than just titles. He didn't give her that and used seduction so she wouldn't notice the knife going in. 

Jon's queen is a mass murderer who burns children alive, so he can live with that as a fond memory of her. 

Sorry I just dont see this as a tragic romance because there is no romance there.

He did love her. That is why he still didn’t see her as a Mad Queen despite her burning the city down. He didn’t see she was still going to continue the fight and burn down Winterfell as well. He justifies it to Tyrion saying she lost her dragon and Missandei. Arya and Tyrion literally need to beat him over the head with the facts before he wakes out of his slumber. And even then when he entered the throne room, he first tries reasoning with her despite it all and as a last resort kills her while kissing her. 

More evidence is when Sansa checks out his allegiance by telling him that Daenerys is pretty. He glances down blushing. That’s when Sansa realises she has Jon wrapped around her finger and he loves her  and she tells this to Dany  

He wouldn’t have been his blind to her if he didn’t love her. 

[the trees have eyes]

17 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'd see Tyrion as becoming Dany's evil genius when he starts working for her (he is a complete shit by Book 5) egging her on to take revenge on those who have wronged him.

And here was me thinking Penny was going to be Tyrion's prosthetic conscience and have an effect like Brienne on Jaime (otherwise what is the point of the character?).  I guess I should stop being such an optimist and trying to expect the good in people to win out.  But surely people have to be able to conquer their demons, even for GRRM, otherwise it is all black and white after all, it just took a while for the image to snap into focus.  The only direction of travel can't be from a state of grace into the abyss, that's far too simple and deterministic of a moral indictment of human nature.

13 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Is it? Would you rather it were called The Fall of the House of Dragonstone instead of A Song of Ice and Fire? 

These are the final chapters in the saga of three hundred years of disputed hereditary rulership by horrible self-entitled conquerors wielding weapons of mass destruction, and the endless wars and unthinkable atrocities that ensued.

The hidden-rightful-heir motif is used to close off that saga not by a glorious Targaryen Restoration but by this hidden rightful heir realising how terrible the Targaryen family actually are, why they must not return, and snuffing them out forever.

Then after that he goes quietly off into the wild without telling anyone who he is.

Brilliant, Mr Martin, pure brilliance.

I don't agree at a meta level.  The potential with Targaryens for greatness or catastrophe mirrors the potential for good and evil that is within all men and women.  For every Aerys there is a Rhaegar, for every Maegor the cruel there is a Baelor the Blessed, for every Dany there is a Jon (unsatisfying as that is) and to simply say we have to get rid of Targaryens because they are too dangerous seems to give up on humanity.

What would Euron have been like with dragons?  What were Cersei and Joffrey like without them?  Or Roose and Ramsey or Littlefinger?

The reality of human nature is you have to take the good with the bad and the potential for greatness or catastrophe is always a coin flip.

And hereditary rulership has not ended.  The Starks rule in WF and on the IT - for a generation at least - before succession crises will likely kick in and a new game of thrones begin.  Jon killing Dany and wandering off did not change human nature.  It did not even change political systems.

On a personal level I agree that at one level it is a fitting end to Jon's secret identity but I also feel it's a fairly bleak one for this (at heart) Stark sibling.  As it is for all of them.  They are all like Frodo at the end of LoTR (rather than Sam, Merry and Pippin), The Shire has been saved but at a cost they will never get over.

11 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Viewers deceived by her beauty have conditioned themselves to ignore the many, many indications of her calamitous character. They refuse to see them all because Dany is "pretty" and because they bought into her "I DESERVE IT!" rants hook, line, and sinker.

You make this sound awfully black and white.  Perhaps people have more complex reasons for viewing her positively.  Or even some pretty simple ones: freeing slaves is not something usually regarded as a negative.

11 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Perhaps they'll instead reread her chapters, this time more closely looking for all the signs they'd missed before.

I don't agree with this at all and I think you are taking clues selectively.  The girl who was appalled by the brutality used in the training of the Unsullied or by the nailing up of slave children on the road to Meereen was capable of great violence against those she thought warranted it, i.e those she considered responsible.  But she is the girl who refused Daario's urging to kill the Merreenese child hostages because that was obviously atrociously wrong, who Jorah compared to Rhaegar and who Barristan observed carefully to determine she was not tainted by Aerys' madness before revealing himself to her.

More likely they saw the clues you now take as confirmation bias but gave more weight to ones (a few above) that allowed for very different possibilities for her character.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing but at the end of ADWD nothing is determined.  Lemongate was as popular an interpretation as evil Dany and lemongaters have pointed to the  "clues" that informed their view of Dany's parentage but hindsight won't help them.  You can't really tell people to reread when you were just gambling on a potential outcome that turned out to be right: what will inform the debate are the chapters that have yet to be written in TWOW as I imagine Dany will begin to change on page.

8 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So for it to be confirmed that George is writing this as a Romeo and Juliet tragedy is a big problem because I do not empathise with this individual remotely or have any investment in him as a character.

You relate to a love story much more of you like both characters. For example, if you like Lan and Nynaeve from Wheel of Time then any plot beats about those characters have a much greater impact than if I simply viewed the story with a detached and disinterested eye. If I had despised Nynaeve and thought she was annoying then it would be an uphill struggle to get a reaction when she speaks up for Lan at the inn to help him.

I believe GRRM intent was to have Dany be a demonstration of why a messianic hero who amassed that much power would automatically become evil and a monster. That makes her an “evil superman” only within the fantasy setting. I have seen this type of story many times in many different mediums. It’s not as original and ground breaking as people say it is. Hell, Halo 5 has the same story as this only the Chief doesn’t kill Cortana.

News just in: Romeo fine, just fine, Juliet not doing so well (sorry couldn't help myself).

Oh and for most of TWOT Nynaeve is an unrelenting and unbearable bully (not least towards Egwene until Egwene manages to stand up to her) whose attitude towards men is dismissive and toxic until she falls for the ultimate man, the legendary warrior-prince and uncrowned king of Malkier (Lan).  She only lightens up a bit when she gets laid (or married, same thing anyway), still bosses even Lan around in public like a pet dog (due to Malkier marriage etiquette of a husband obeying a wife in public and a wife a husband in private), bears a completely unreasonable grudge against Morraine (and Aes Sedai in general) until she mellows in the last few books and Brandon Sanderson had her reconcile with Morraine.  She comes good in the end and plays a vital role but for a lot of the series she is extremely unlikable, from the other characters's povs as well as the reader's.

Power corrupts?  Seems simplistic for a message.  The human heart in conflict with itself is GRRM's watchword and we can see how he intended that to play out for both Jon and Dany though show Dany lapsing into madness and megalomania really removes the drama of any conflict within Dany and just gives us an existential big bad that a conflicted Jon must address.  It is Ygritte v2 but on steroids.  Dany I'm less clear about and the show seems to have struggled with a convincing portrayal of her development so I'm not sure what the author's intent was.

[Techmaester]

6 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

He did love her. That is why he still didn’t see her as a Mad Queen despite her burning the city down. He didn’t see she was still going to continue the fight and burn down Winterfell as well. He justifies it to Tyrion saying she lost her dragon and Missandei. Arya and Tyrion literally need to beat him over the head with the facts before he wakes out of his slumber. And even then when he entered the throne room, he first tries reasoning with her despite it all and as a last resort kills her while kissing her. 

More evidence is when Sansa checks out his allegiance by telling him that Daenerys is pretty. He glances down blushing. That’s when Sansa realises she has Jon wrapped around her finger and he loves her  and she tells this to Dany  

He wouldn’t have been his blind to her if he didn’t love her. 

I don't agree....he may have "loved" her but he didn't act in a way which showed it. Ultimately we don't know what Dany would have done because she got killed by "ai dunt wunt eht" before she established her reign. 

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Dany I'm less clear about and the show seems to have struggled with a convincing portrayal of her development so I'm not sure what the author's intent was.

One can assume that she will die, in the books, and that it will be at Jon's hand.  Other than that, we can't know what her storyline will be.

[Tyrion1991]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

And here was me thinking Penny was going to be Tyrion's prosthetic conscience and have an effect like Brienne on Jaime (otherwise what is the point of the character?).  I guess I should stop being such an optimist and trying to expect the good in people to win out.  But surely people have to be able to conquer their demons, even for GRRM, otherwise it is all black and white after all, it just took a while for the image to snap into focus.  The only direction of travel can't be from a state of grace into the abyss, that's far too simple and deterministic of a moral indictment of human nature.

I don't agree at a meta level.  The potential with Targaryens for greatness or catastrophe mirrors the potential for good and evil that is within all men and women.  For every Aerys there is a Rhaegar, for every Maegor the cruel there is a Baelor the Blessed, for every Dany there is a Jon (unsatisfying as that is) and to simply say we have to get rid of Targaryens because they are too dangerous seems to give up on humanity.

What would Euron have been like with dragons?  What were Cersei and Joffrey like without them?  Or Roose and Ramsey or Littlefinger?

The reality of human nature is you have to take the good with the bad and the potential for greatness or catastrophe is always a coin flip.

And hereditary rulership has not ended.  The Starks rule in WF and on the IT - for a generation at least - before succession crises will likely kick in and a new game of thrones begin.  Jon killing Dany and wandering off did not change human nature.  It did not even change political systems.

On a personal level I agree that at one level it is a fitting end to Jon's secret identity but I also feel it's a fairly bleak one for this (at heart) Stark sibling.  As it is for all of them.  They are all like Frodo at the end of LoTR (rather than Sam, Merry and Pippin), The Shire has been saved but at a cost they will never get over.

You make this sound awfully black and white.  Perhaps people have more complex reasons for viewing her positively.  Or even some pretty simple ones: freeing slaves is not something usually regarded as a negative.

I don't agree with this at all and I think you are taking clues selectively.  The girl who was appalled by the brutality used in the training of the Unsullied or by the nailing up of slave children on the road to Meereen was capable of great violence against those she thought warranted it, i.e those she considered responsible.  But she is the girl who refused Daario's urging to kill the Merreenese child hostages because that was obviously atrociously wrong, who Jorah compared to Rhaegar and who Barristan observed carefully to determine she was not tainted by Aerys' madness before revealing himself to her.

More likely they saw the clues you now take as confirmation bias but gave more weight to ones (a few above) that allowed for very different possibilities for her character.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing but at the end of ADWD nothing is determined.  Lemongate was as popular an interpretation as evil Dany and lemongaters have pointed to the  "clues" that informed their view of Dany's parentage but hindsight won't help them.  You can't really tell people to reread when you were just gambling on a potential outcome that turned out to be right: what will inform the debate are the chapters that have yet to be written in TWOW as I imagine Dany will begin to change on page.

News just in: Romeo fine, just fine, Juliet not doing so well (sorry couldn't help myself).

Oh and for most of TWOT Nynaeve is an unrelenting and unbearable bully (not least towards Egwene until Egwene manages to stand up to her) whose attitude towards men is dismissive and toxic until she falls for the ultimate man, the legendary warrior-prince and uncrowned king of Malkier (Lan).  She only lightens up a bit when she gets laid (or married, same thing anyway), still bosses even Lan around in public like a pet dog (due to Malkier marriage etiquette of a husband obeying a wife in public and a wife a husband in private), bears a completely unreasonable grudge against Morraine (and Aes Sedai in general) until she mellows in the last few books and Brandon Sanderson had her reconcile with Morraine.  She comes good in the end and plays a vital role but for a lot of the series she is extremely unlikable, from the other characters's povs as well as the reader's.

Power corrupts?  Seems simplistic for a message.  The human heart in conflict with itself is GRRM's watchword and we can see how he intended that to play out for both Jon and Dany though show Dany lapsing into madness and megalomania really removes the drama of any conflict within Dany and just gives us an existential big bad that a conflicted Jon must address.  It is Ygritte v2 but on steroids.  Dany I'm less clear about and the show seems to have struggled with a convincing portrayal of her development so I'm not sure what the author's intent was.

 

Quirks are what makes a character interesting and balanced out their better points. It makes them feel more grounded and it gives her something to overcome.

I am not convinced by that at all. George said that in relation to all writing but that doesn’t explain how everything turns into Dale and Tucker vs Evil. Like really the whole story is founded on two young lovers not telling people what was going on and starting a war. That’s a little beyond the human heart in conflict. So he has an agenda and overall message.

I think George saw what Watchman did with superhero comics and thought “hey I can do that for Fantasy”. The only difference is that Watchman is up front with you that the Comedian and Dr Manhattan are bad men. Whereas with Dany George toyed with the idea that she might turn out good.

I think he does push the idea that power is evil and that human emotion is the cause of all problems. A hugely contentious world view once stripped away from a plot which validated those views at every turn as it was with the show. These are George’s views told poorly. 

Power is a metaphor for the individuals agency to change the world for the better. Spider-Man. What George is arguing is that humans are flawed so should not have agency or a say in how the world works. If you object to something, you’re ignorant and being emotional so you shouldn’t complain or do anything about it. You should leave it to the top men like Bran who are dispassionate and have the learning behind them. That is a vulgar and repulsive worldview. Why do you think the Church spent centuries advocating that humans were flawed and sinful? It’s a means of social control and discourage people following their conscience.

Plus the argument that stoicism is good and emotion bad is flawed. People are good and work better when they believe in what they are doing. If you’re just calling it in at work or study then you aren’t going to succeed. Passionate people push themselves and have more drive than a person who is detached and apathetic. Again, this attitude historically is used as a means of admonishing people and social control. It’s saying that the perfect man is the one who does what he’s told.

 

 

[Kaapstad]

2 hours ago, Techmaester said:

I don't agree....he may have "loved" her but he didn't act in a way which showed it. Ultimately we don't know what Dany would have done because she got killed by "ai dunt wunt eht" before she established her reign. 

He did show his love physically but that was before he knew she was his aunt. After he learns of that, he is confused about the status of this relationship. He still loves her but can't show it/engage in intimate relations as she is his aunt and he is grossed out. He tries to restrain himself. Incest on the other hand doesn't seem to bother Dany as Targs have always engaged it in but Jon was raised with the Starks. He definitely loved her as he was giving excuses for each and every one of her actions. He even justified her burning the city down. He just cant say the lovey dovey stuff as its gross to him.

In my opinion, she would have killed Jon had she taken the throne as to Dany, the throne takes precedence over Jon. She asks Jon to live a lie so that her authority won't be questioned. What sort of a lover asks their partner to live an insulting lie? And the frictions would eventually arise as Jon is not bloodthirsty and does show mercy while Dany is the exact opposite with her foes. 

[RFL]

Not just Targs.  The book is very suggestive that she was in an abusive non consensual sexual relationship with her brother early on.  Incest is not new to Dany.  

[Tyrion1991]

59 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

He did show his love physically but that was before he knew she was his aunt. After he learns of that, he is confused about the status of this relationship. He still loves her but can't show it/engage in intimate relations as she is his aunt and he is grossed out. He tries to restrain himself. Incest on the other hand doesn't seem to bother Dany as Targs have always engaged it in but Jon was raised with the Starks. He definitely loved her as he was giving excuses for each and every one of her actions. He even justified her burning the city down. He just cant say the lovey dovey stuff as its gross to him.

In my opinion, she would have killed Jon had she taken the throne as to Dany, the throne takes precedence over Jon. She asks Jon to live a lie so that her authority won't be questioned. What sort of a lover asks their partner to live an insulting lie? And the frictions would eventually arise as Jon is not bloodthirsty and does show mercy while Dany is the exact opposite with her foes. 

 

If Jon cared about Dany he would never have told her the truth and certainly wouldn’t have told Sansa. He knows Dany. She reacted badly when she was told about Jorah. It’s inviting disaster. He should not be that ignorant of her. He should not be that ignorant of Sansa. 

You make sacrifices for the people you love otherwise you don’t love or respect them.

How is it more shameful for him to comfort Dany knowing she’s considering killing thousands instead of letting it happen and then murdering her? If he had cared about the common people and wanted to make a stand  for the realm, well, the sacrifices “great” men have to make.

Only a weak man would throw up his hands and murder his lover. He was given multiple opportunities to avoid that situation and each time blundered into it. He then washed his hands of any blame or responsibility. Duty is the death of love indeed, the pretty lies murderers tell themselves.

I knew he was a loser but even I didn’t think he was that pathetic and contemptible. Greyworm should have cut his head off or Drogon should have eaten him. Instead he gets a slap on the wrists. Freak. 

[RFL]

If Jon cared about Dany he would never have told her the truth and certainly wouldn’t have told Sansa.

 

Jon, Brann, and Sam were the only ones who knew for sure.  Maybe it could have been pieced together - it seems Jon Arynn might have been on to something in his letter to Ned - but Jon was kept a secret all his life by Ned to protect the good of the realm.  He should have learned the lesson especially considering it only opened the door to problems and not something he wanted.  

[RYShh]

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

If Jon cared about Dany he would never have told her the truth and certainly wouldn’t have told Sansa. He knows Dany. She reacted badly when she was told about Jorah. It’s inviting disaster. He should not be that ignorant of her. He should not be that ignorant of Sansa. 

You make sacrifices for the people you love otherwise you don’t love or respect them.

How is it more shameful for him to comfort Dany knowing she’s considering killing thousands instead of letting it happen and then murdering her? If he had cared about the common people and wanted to make a stand  for the realm, well, the sacrifices “great” men have to make.

Only a weak man would throw up his hands and murder his lover. He was given multiple opportunities to avoid that situation and each time blundered into it. He then washed his hands of any blame or responsibility.

I knew he was a loser but even I didn’t think he was that pathetic and contemptible. Greyworm should have cut his head off or Drogon should have eaten him. Instead he gets a slap on the wrists. Freak. 

Jon cared about Dany, I think that's why he told her the truth, so she could understand why Jon is staying away from Dany, see in that episode 2, Jon just walks away from Dany after the meeting with Kingslayer, then she just looks at Jon and then she goes away too.

I think she deserved to know that why,

Then Dany should follow Jon, instead of still saying ''its mine'' thing, if Iron Throne belongs to House Targaryen, it was Rhaegar's son, not hers. Yet she forces Jon to tell no one, so she can usurp Jon's right to the IT.

Dany is an usurper, and not only that she killed thousands of innocent children, she deserved to die.

[Tyrion1991]

1 minute ago, RYShh said:

Jon cared about Dany, I think that's why he told her the truth, so she could understand why Jon is staying away from Dany, see in that episode 2, Jon just walks away from Dany after the meeting with Kingslayer, then she just looks at Jon and then she goes away too.

I think she deserved to know that why,

Then Dany should follow Jon, instead of still saying ''its mine'' thing, if Iron Throne belongs to House Targaryen, it was Rhaegar's son, not hers. Yet she forces Jon to tell no one, so she can usurp Jon's right to the IT.

Dany is an usurper, and not only that she killed thousands of innocent children, she deserved to die.

 

Jon doesn’t want the throne. This is called an abdication. You can’t be King if you abdicate.

I will give the writers the benefit of the doubt and assume that Jon understands how much the IT means to Dany and what she’s sacrificed to get there. She does tell him this. Why would anyone, ever, tell somebody something that hurtful. It’s her life. She’s been through hell. The idea that that could be stolen from her is a crushing thing to do to somebody. 

He should have done a Ned and like with Cat told her a white lie. “It’s not you it’s me. I think we should call this off.” Anything other than “You’re not the legitimate heir and have never been. Your life is a lie and every sacrifice you have done could pave the way to my throne. I’ve used you this entire time.” That’s what he did. He is a tool.

 

[RYShh]

Just now, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Jon doesn’t want the throne. This is called an abdication. You can’t be King if you abdicate.

I will give the writers the benefit of the doubt and assume that Jon understands how much the IT means to Dany and what she’s sacrificed to get there. She does tell him this. Why would anyone, ever, tell somebody something that hurtful. It’s her life. She’s been through hell. The idea that that could be stolen from her is a crushing thing to do to somebody. 

He should have done a Ned and like with Cat told her a white lie. “It’s not you it’s me. I think we should call this off.” Anything other than “You’re not the legitimate heir and have never been. Your life is a lie and every sacrifice you have done could pave the way to my throne. I’ve used you this entire time.” That’s what he did. He is a tool.

 

It's not something on wanting it or not, it's the law. It was Jon's duty to be the king. And I am pretty sure Jon wouldn't say that if he didn't bent the knee to Dany before, he was just trying to get along with her aunt's desire, but she can't change law, the succession is clear.

Yes, they gave her the old stone dragons eggs, then she burns a witch, her dead husband and comes out with 3 Dragons. If that's not helping her, I don't know what is.

Hypocrisy is that she wants to return to Westeros because she is a targaryen, and then she learns that there is another targaryen, and even a better claim than hers, then she tries to erase that so no one should take the throne from her, I can't imagine stark children would do that to each other, as if Bran or Rickon would try to usurp Robb's right to the Winterfell, we wouldn't even think that, but somehow, just because she had the dragons and an army, she tries to usurp Jon's right to the Throne.

[Hodor's Dragon]

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Jon doesn’t want the throne. This is called an abdication. You can’t be King if you abdicate.<snip>

 

Yet he never said those two little words: "I abdicate." Never.

[Tyrion1991]

2 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Yet he never said those two little words: "I abdicate." Never.

 

Saying “I don’t want the throne” repeatedly sure sounds like it. :D 

 

[Hodor's Dragon]

1 minute ago, RYShh said:

<snip>

Hypocrisy is that she wants to return to Westeros because she is a targaryen, and then she learns that there is another targaryen, and even a better claim than hers, then she tries to erase that so no one should take the throne from her, I can't imagine stark children would do that to each other, as if Bran or Rickon would try to usurp Robb's right to the Winterfell, we wouldn't even think that, but somehow, just because she had the dragons and an army, she tries to usurp Jon's right to the Throne.

What's worse is that she made the exact opposite choice in Season 1/Book 1. She continues to support Viserys' claim and is loyal to him as long as she can be, long after her favor with Drogo gave her complete power over him in a practical sense. Viserys was a far worse potential ruler than Jon Snow, and was despised among the Dothraki who held power over her, yet she stayed by his side until he did the unforgivable, baring steel in Vaes Dothrak and openly, publicly threatening Drogo's khaleesi.

[RYShh]

1 minute ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Saying “I don’t want the throne” repeatedly sure sounds like it.

 

It doesn't mean he won't become the King, he was KitN after all.

If it's his duty, he was going to do it.

Stannis didn't want it too, but it was his duty, so he fought for it.

[Hodor's Dragon]

2 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Saying “I don’t want the throne” repeatedly sure sounds like it.

 

Yeah, it sounds like it, but it's not it. Abdication was a patently obvious way to get out of the "trap" he and Daenerys were jointly in, yet it was never mentioned because the plot needed them to be in a trap.

[Tyrion1991]

Just now, RYShh said:

It doesn't mean he won't become the King, he was KitN after all.

If it's his duty, he was going to do it.

Stannis didn't want it too, but it was his duty, so he fought for it.

 

Stannis had the option to defer his claim in favour of Renly. He said no. Jon is saying “I dinna wannit” so yes, that is abdication.

His duty was to take care of Dany after Jorah died. At that he was a manifest failure and a fool.

[RYShh]

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Stannis had the option to defer his claim in favour of Renly. He said no. Jon is saying “I dinna wannit” so yes, that is abdication.

His duty was to take care of Dany after Jorah died. At that he was a manifest failure and a fool.

You think Dany would accept otherwise? If Jon said ''I want it'' she would help Jon to win the IT? I guess we all know that's not true, Jon was only saying that so Dany can have it, he knew Dany would never give up and since he love her he didn't want to upset her.

Both Tyrion and Arya warned Jon about Dany, they said Jon has the better claim and she would kill Jon for it, Jon also knew that. She is basically a kinslayer and a usurper according to both Tyrion and Arya, can you say that they are wrong?