What was the point of r+l=j

[John Meta]

13 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

But then Jon and Dany failed - the system remains at the end of the show, there is no fundamental difference in power structure before or after excluding Bran(who we don't know anything about). 

I'm not sure how you consider government by elected representative as having no fundamental difference with government by heredity without representation. The two are radically different. This was actual one of the themes of the final scene with Jon and Dany; Jon was ending the last claim to the Iron Throne by hereditary claim. Dany was for all intents and purposes the symbolic representation of the wheel that was to be broken. This was all pretty much stated in the dialogue.

[Tagganaro]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

How was Jon's parentage important to anyone else's story?  He would have been a natural choice to be king even if he was still a bastard since the major houses are now extinct or devoid of heirs, so all the tension w/Dany could just as easily have been because people preferred him over her for other reasons: war hero, male, Westeros native....

Having the Targaryen heritage be of literally zero importance in the battle against the WW means we really never needed it all, the show didn't even bother to set up the fact that only Targs can ride a dragon, and of course, Jon riding a dragon had no purpose either and could have easily been omitted.  

Jon hasn't done anything successful in the show in years. He didn't really win the Battle of the Bastards, he didn't really unite the North again, he didn't win at Hardhome, he had no role at all in the battle against the NK, he's been ancillary to all of these events with others succeeding where he has failed.

I can't agree with this at all.  Jon's Targ heritage is the reason for everyone thinking he could be King in the first place and it is explicitly mentioned by everyone as the main reason.  Sansa, for all her hate for Dany, doesn't think of putting Jon on the Throne instead until she finds out about his Targ heritage.  Tyrion and Varys similarly don't start debating this until they find out from Sansa (they even discuss it earlier in the season but just in the context of marrying Dany and Jon).  T

I also disagree with the show not setting up that only Targs can ride a dragon- Unless I'm forgetting Jon and Dany were the only ones to ever do so on the show, and Jon didn't until after his identity was revealed. That kind of speaks for itself no?

 

 

[Techmaester]

27 minutes ago, John Meta said:

I'm not sure how you consider government by elected representative as having no fundamental difference with government by heredity without representation. The two are radically different. This was actual one of the themes of the final scene with Jon and Dany; Jon was ending the last claim to the Iron Throne by hereditary claim. Dany was for all intents and purposes the symbolic representation of the wheel that was to be broken. This was all pretty much stated in the dialogue.

A ruler selected by a group of people coming from hereditary rule is still hereditary rule. Kings we're often at odds with nobility giving some degree of balance. The ending with Bran was a worse outcome.

I agree that Dany in some sense was part of the "wheel" but then so was Jon. IIRC she wanted to install her own rule and then transition away from that system. 

[Juligen]

Maybe the point was always make Daenerys more paranoic, and it was us, who made the mistake of imagining all the other possibilities. 

[John Meta]

29 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

A ruler selected by a group of people coming from hereditary rule is still hereditary rule. Kings we're often at odds with nobility giving some degree of balance. The ending with Bran was a worse outcome.

I agree that Dany in some sense was part of the "wheel" but then so was Jon. IIRC she wanted to install her own rule and then transition away from that system. 

The flaw in your reasoning here (equating election by hereditary lords as hereditary) is that you're not taking into account that hereditary rule without election allows someone like Geoffrey to wield absolute power. You understand why being able to elect the ruler is superior to having no say whatsoever? The former keeps Geoffreys from wielding absolute power, just because of bloodline. Imagine if the system of government shown at the end of the story existed from the beginning - do you think Geoffrey would be elected ruler? 

I'm not sure of your reasoning in getting to the conclusion "Bran was a worse outcome" on the face of it, that statement seems to be in opposition to reality so maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.

About Dany, she said several things prior to King's Landing. I'm not sure they should be taken as truths since she also said she wouldn't be "queen of the ashes" - we see the closer she gets to the throne, the more despotic she becomes. Seems to be a "power corrupts" theme in the story. The closer they get to the throne, the greater the changes. All we can really say, given the actual narrative, is that Dany's claim was based on heredity, and that was the root of the problem of the wheel.

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

9 minutes ago, John Meta said:

Imagine if the system of government shown at the end of the story existed from the beginning - do you think Geoffrey would be elected ruler?

Considering the power balance at the beginning of the story, I could see his grandfather giving it a good try.

As one of the lords in the meeting, I can see Tywin Lannister campaigning to rule through his grandson.

I'm not sure if what you're saying is that no bad people are ever elected to any office?

Our hipothetical Joffrey wouldn’t be King 'merely' through heredity because the system would have changed and no one would be inherit the position, but he could be King through political maneuvering.

Being a monster doesn’t preclude you from being elected by your peers.

[Bradam]

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I also disagree with the show not setting up that only Targs can ride a dragon- Unless I'm forgetting Jon and Dany were the only ones to ever do so on the show, and Jon didn't until after his identity was revealed. That kind of speaks for itself no?

 

 

The show told us only Targs can ride dragons, then created a plot hole when Dany tells Jon to just get on Rhagel, since at that point she still thought Jon was just a bastard Stark. Sure Drogon seemed ok with Jon, but he was also ok with Tyrion, and assuming whatever Dothraki guys that fed him daily.  None of them were offered a ride.   So she was.. trying to kill him? 

It was after that first ride and waterfall makeout session Jon then found out he was half Targ. 

[John Meta]

10 minutes ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Considering the power balance at the beginning of the story, I could see his grandfather giving it a good try.

As one of the lords in the meeting, I can see Tywin Lannister campaigning to rule through his grandson.

I'm not sure if what you're saying is that no bad people are ever elected to any office?

Our hipothetical Joffrey wouldn’t be King 'merely' through heredity because the system would have changed and no one would be inherit the position, but he could be King through political maneuvering.

Being a monster doesn’t preclude you from being elected by your peers.

I don't disagree with the spirit of your statement. Sure, terrible people can be elected. But election gives a representation - some measure of control - to the process which isn't found in a hereditary system. That is, in a purely hereditary system, Geoffrey is taking the throne and, we're screwed. In an elected monarchy, Geoffrey could be elected, but there is also the possibility he isn't. We got a chance where we had none before.

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

1 minute ago, John Meta said:

I don't disagree with the spirit of your statement. Sure, terrible people can be elected. But election gives a representation - some measure of control - to the process which isn't found in a hereditary system. That is, in a purely hereditary system, Geoffrey is taking the throne and, we're screwed. In an elected monarchy, Geoffrey could be elected, but there is also the possibility he isn't. We got a chance where we had none before.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but I meant that our hipothetical Joffrey will be, in our hipothetical Kingsmoot, be elected by 'his' peers.

I agree that it's better than the absolute certainty that he'd be King simply as a result of being the son of the previous king.

However, the system remains dangerously contained to a caste of highborn people, who remain in a system of direct hereditary titles.

I see the potential for a corrupted system where an artificial heredity to the most powerful house is probable, don't you?

[John Meta]

17 minutes ago, Bradam said:

The show told us only Targs can ride dragons, then created a plot hole when Dany tells Jon to just get on Rhagel, since at that point she still thought Jon was just a bastard Stark. Sure Drogon seemed ok with Jon, but he was also ok with Tyrion, and assuming whatever Dothraki guys that fed him daily.  None of them were offered a ride.   So she was.. trying to kill him? 

It was after that first ride and waterfall makeout session Jon then found out he was half Targ. 

To be fair, when Jon asked "What if he doesn't want me to?" Dany did reply, "Then it's been nice knowing you, Jon Snow."

Though it seems that the story is set in a world were things said from the past aren't taken to be absolute truths by the people in the present. Jon even had to capture a wight to prove they were real. There's a grain of salt being taken with such things. The dragon seems to be quite okay with Jon, so there really doesn't appear to be any reason to think the dragon will actually kill Jon if he's not a Targaryen. 

Seeing Jon actual riding the dragon could cause two conclusions to be reached:

1. Everything Jon was told about his lineage is a lie, concocted to protect him without his own knowledge - Jon is improbably and secretly a Targaryen and potentially the true heir to the Iron Throne!

2. Huh. I guess that saying about "only Targaryens can ride a dragon" is some made-up elitist Targaryen b.s.

Personally, I'd probably find conclusion 2 to more satisfactorily explain the event; though wouldn't rule out 1. So to me, there's nothing odd going on here in this narrative thread.

[John Meta]

9 minutes ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but I meant that our hipothetical Joffrey will be, in our hipothetical Kingsmoot, be elected by 'his' peers.

I agree that it's better than the absolute certainty that he'd be King simply as a result of being the son of the previous king.

However, the system remains dangerously contained to a caste of highborn people, who remain in a system of direct hereditary titles.

I see the potential for a corrupted system where an artificial heredity to the most powerful house is probable, don't you?

No, I completely agree. I see the potential for a corrupted system wherever corrupt people exist, no matter what form of governmental system is in operation. But I think the system in place is better than the previous system for the singular reason that Geoffrey can potentially be stopped from reaching the throne. Potentially. There is a greater degree of control, if only slight. But I think we're just supposed to be seeing the "first step" out of the darkness, and this new government by election isn't meant to be understood as that which is now permanently in place. It's more of a transitioning than a permanency.

At any rate, having at least a chance of avoiding Geoffrey is a huge step forward in the system, to my mind.

 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

15 minutes ago, John Meta said:

No, I completely agree. I see the potential for a corrupted system wherever corrupt people exist, no matter what form of governmental system is in operation. But I think the system in place is better than the previous system for the singular reason that Geoffrey can potentially be stopped from reaching the throne. Potentially. There is a greater degree of control, if only slight. But I think we're just supposed to be seeing the "first step" out of the darkness, and this new government by election isn't meant to be understood as that which is now permanently in place. It's more of a transitioning than a permanency.

At any rate, having at least a chance of avoiding Geoffrey is a huge step forward in the system, to my mind.

 

True. 

In this setting, and for that specific example, anything is better than Joffrey.

Unfortunately, various other posters here in the forum have made some very compelling arguments that, for an organic progression into actual universal representation, first you have to break from a feudal system where people were subjugated to the lord of the land they lived in as indentured servants.

Historically, this was many times achieved through centralising power into an absolutist monarchy. Hereditary.

What we can do is hope that, for Westeros, such progress can be less catastrophic, I guess?

Lets us imagine that Westeros reacts to the mass deaths of the wars we saw as Europe did after the plague and the scarcity of workers allowed them negotiating power?

But that is no longer part of what we're shown.

We're only left with the thought provoking notion that the Iron Throne is gone and things will be different now.

So for now, as a discussion, let us hope, with the North outside future election gatherings, the balance of power between the Six is level enough for even a mirage of advancement into representation.

 

[Apoplexy]

10 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Jon made it clear he was going to tell Sansa and Arya his secret to Dany. So Dany feeling blindsided or betrayed by it just doesn't work imo. 

When did he say that? I don't remember watching it.

[RYShh]

14 hours ago, John Meta said:

To be fair, when Jon asked "What if he doesn't want me to?" Dany did reply, "Then it's been nice knowing you, Jon Snow."

 

It's actually;

JON: What if he doesn't want me to?

DAENERYS: Then I've enjoyed your company, Jon Snow.

[John Meta]

15 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

When did he say that? I don't remember watching it.

Yeah Jon didn't make anything clear in the conversation. He said he wanted to tell his family and Dany told him not to. That's how the conversation ended.

4 hours ago, RYShh said:

It's actually;

JON: What if he doesn't want me to?

DAENERYS: Then I've enjoyed your company, Jon Snow.

Right, I thought the way I stated it sounded off. That explains why the word "presence" was vaguely jumping around my mind when I was recalling the scene.

[John Meta]

19 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

True. 

In this setting, and for that specific example, anything is better than Joffrey.

Unfortunately, various other posters here in the forum have made some very compelling arguments that, for an organic progression into actual universal representation, first you have to break from a feudal system where people were subjugated to the lord of the land they lived in as indentured servants.

Historically, this was many times achieved through centralising power into an absolutist monarchy. Hereditary.

What we can do is hope that, for Westeros, such progress can be less catastrophic, I guess?

Lets us imagine that Westeros reacts to the mass deaths of the wars we saw as Europe did after the plague and the scarcity of workers allowed them negotiating power?

But that is no longer part of what we're shown.

We're only left with the thought provoking notion that the Iron Throne is gone and things will be different now.

So for now, as a discussion, let us hope, with the North outside future election gatherings, the balance of power between the Six is level enough for even a mirage of advancement into representation.

 

The problem with trying to analogue the situation to real-world history is that in this story Bran exists and is now the ruler. There's no ability for anyone to competently argue anything since we have no precedent of a Bran-like person in the ruling position and how that affects the flow of transition, or, what even happens next. Since Bran is basically the personification of the past, all mistakes of the past can be avoided. And since he has some knowledge of the future, he knows where to steer things in the direction in which they are to be steered. It's not the system, it's the man that makes the outcome in this story the most beneficial outcome possible, given the information.

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

58 minutes ago, John Meta said:

The problem with trying to analogue the situation to real-world history is that in this story Bran exists and is now the ruler. There's no ability for anyone to competently argue anything since we have no precedent of a Bran-like person in the ruling position and how that affects the flow of transition, or, what even happens next. Since Bran is basically the personification of the past, all mistakes of the past can be avoided. And since he has some knowledge of the future, he knows where to steer things in the direction in which they are to be steered. It's not the system, it's the man that makes the outcome in this story the most beneficial outcome possible, given the information.

Again, exercise in discussing a theme we are emotionally involved in. And the comment in this case, as you said it, was about the system they chose. 

Bran, as a memory of the world, can choose to be an agent to 'steer' as you put it, the Six Kingdoms. To what end?

You say all mistakes of the past can be avoided. Well, of course they can, but since he is the only one in possession of that information, that implies that he will be the sole decisor. 

Call me cynical, but that is not a preferred scenario.

To further the discussion, by which point we do have to remove the 'Bran' element, we can always venture into a hipothetical future where Bran is no longer present. What then for our Westerosi experiment about progressing to representative government?

But again, we fall to the danger of posing ridiculous questions about how well Bran's knowledge serves him as an instrument to steer Westeros. How effectivelly he can do that and his will to do so. What he will do while he reigns over the Six and through mere presence and interaction, maybe the North as well.

And we return to aggressively invasive, as far as the integrity of the story we're shown, theories about where that will and effectiveness was before when so many were suffering.

If his will is the greater good? The good of the many, of nature, of everything?

I like to ask these questions, even if they are futile in the concept of a finished fantasy story I have no true background to conceptualize alterations, or hipothetical alternative iterations to. I can still imagine and idealize.

What we're shown was indeed the best case scenario. Because it was shown as such. Bran is king. He knows much. He knows best. All is good across the land. The end.

[btfu806]

The show obviously didn't know what to do with R+L=J. They knew it was important but I guess never found out from George why it was important. So it became a way to make her slightly more mad. It wasn't even the tipping point. D&D just dropped the important of the plot line because it was too hard to figure out or tie in, it wasn't the first time they did it and we shouldn't be surprised by their laziness.

[Dragonslack]

Some people always bend over backwards with feverish zeal trying to explain a meaning that does not exist. It is not by chance their nick is dumb and dumber.

It was an important theme in the books and in some viewer's heads. They just used it in as a throwaway to justify conflict. Then never returned to it. Notice the king in the north, heir to the iron throne always remained snow for some strange reason even after multiple kings offered to restore the family name and honor (necessary to be lord/king/steward). Nobody in the end cared or mentioned it. Even the ones that wanted him to rule or at least marry danny.

[King Jon Snow Stark]

3 hours ago, Dragonslack said:

Some people always bend over backwards with feverish zeal trying to explain a meaning that does not exist. It is not by chance their nick is dumb and dumber.

It was an important theme in the books and in some viewer's heads. They just used it in as a throwaway to justify conflict. Then never returned to it. Notice the king in the north, heir to the iron throne always remained snow for some strange reason even after multiple kings offered to restore the family name and honor (necessary to be lord/king/steward). Nobody in the end cared or mentioned it. Even the ones that wanted him to rule or at least marry danny.

It was weird he stayed a Snow. Jon might have rejected any legitimization. He favorite thing to say is “I’m not a Stark”