Jump to content

Why didn't Jon simply refuse to accept banishment?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, teej6 said:

There’s no pardon of Jon in the books. Robb was arguing with Cat in the books of releasing Jon from his NW vows, which Robb in his mind thinks he can do, but Cat wasn’t so sure. Robb argues if he gives a 100 men to the NW, the NW would then release Jon from his vows. Similarly, Stannis also thinks as King of the seven kingdoms, he can release Jon from his vows. And the authority of the King of Westeros over the NW has been an ongoing debate.

How is this even a debate? NW protects the realm, whose realm? The realm belongs to Kings/Queens, they are the supreme commander over the realm, they are above of Lord Commander of the NW in chain of command, plain and simple.

As I said, even a Kingsguard can be pardoned, NW can too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RYShh said:

Robb was going to pardon Jon after Bran's and Rickon's death, and Stannis was going to do the same and if Jon wanted it he would be Jon Stark and Warden of the North, and rejected Stannis's offer. Royal pardon all that matters. Even Kingsguards can be pardoned and they can take different tasks if the Kings/Queens decides. NW or any other organization needs to obey them, otherwise they would get nothing, no men, no resources and they would be destroyed without their help.

The word is not “pardon” but “release” from vows. Again, Robb believed he could  release Jon from his vows but he wasn’t sure if there was any precedent for it. He thought he could do it if he send a 100 men as replacement for Jon. As for the KG, their vows are also for life. Joffrey was the first to release Barristan from his vows, and we are shown that it was never done before or at least that’s what Barristan think. This is why Barristan took such offense to it. In his mind there was no precedent for it and a KG’s vows are for life. Read the books please before you refer to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RYShh said:

How is this even a debate? NW protects the realm, whose realm? The realm belongs to Kings/Queens, they are the supreme commander over the realm, they are above of Lord Commander of the NW in chain of command, plain and simple.

As I said, even a Kingsguard can be pardoned, NW can too.

Read my response to you above and read the books. I can’t vouch for what they portray on the show coz they keep changing things to suit their narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

Yara only says your ancestors defeated ours and that she has no problem with Dany being the queen. But the issue is in House Targaryen, Dany has no legal claim to the throne ergo Jon can do anything to stop her as she was never the rightful queen in the first place. So  Yara May bend her knee to someone who never had a right to the throne but she can’t stop the rightful heir from killing an usurper. 

Yeah that is not how it works. Both Jon and Dany were claimants to the Iron Throne. No more no less. They each would have to conquer Westeros to claim it

and no Jon can't do anything he wants. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, teej6 said:

The word is not “pardon” but “release” from vows. Again, Robb believed he could  release Jon from his vows but he wasn’t sure if there was any precedent for it. He thought he could do it if he send a 100 men as replacement for Jon. As for the KG, their vows are also for life. Joffrey was the first to release Barristan from his vows, and we are shown that it was never done before or at least that’s what Barristan think. This is why Barristan took such offense to it. In his mind there was no precedent for it and a KG’s vows are for life. Read the books please before you refer to them.

I read the books, which is why I gave Robb's example. That's your delusion to think Robb couldn't release Jon, Robb said could do that, nothing suggests he couldn't. Stannis was too going to do the same. So we've 2 examples, and as well as Kingsguard example as well.

Not sure why you're in denial, Royal command goes beyond the NW or Kingsguards vows. They are fighting for protecting the realm and Kings/Queens are the supreme commander of the realm. They obey their command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Read my response to you above and read the books. I can’t vouch for what they portray on the show coz they keep changing things to suit their narrative.

I did read the books, are you trolling me? :D How could I know about Robb's command if I didn't read the books? Please stop this :bs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RYShh said:

I read the books, you understand nothing. Robb was going to pardon Jon after Bran's and Rickon's death in the books, and Stannis was going to do the same and if Jon wanted it he would be Jon Stark and Warden of the North, and rejected Stannis's offer. Royal pardon all that matters. Even Kingsguards can be pardoned and they can take different tasks if the Kings/Queens decides. NW or any other organization needs to obey them, otherwise they would get nothing, no men, no resources and they would be destroyed without their help.

Wow! to the bolded. And I don’t think you’ve read the books or you wouldn’t be making the arguments you are. Robb assumes he can release Jon from his vows. Here’s the exchange between Cat and Robb so you can actually read it:

Quote

“Jon is a brother of the Night’s Watch, sworn to take no wife and hold no lands. Those who take the black serve for life.” “So do the knights of the Kingsguard. That did not stop the Lannisters from stripping the white cloaks from Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Boros Blount when they had no more use for them. If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon’s place, I’ll wager they find some way to release him from his vows.”

Robb is using the Lannisters removing Barristan (which was never done before) as a precedent for releasing Jon from his vows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RYShh said:

I read the books, which is why I gave Robb's example. That's your delusion to think Robb couldn't release Jon, Robb said could do that, nothing suggests he couldn't. Stannis was too going to do the same. So we've 2 examples, and as well as Kingsguard example as well.

Not sure why you're in denial, Royal command goes beyond the NW or Kingsguards vows. They are fighting for protecting the realm and Kings/Queens are the supreme commander of the realm. They obey their command.

Well if you have read them properly you wouldn’t be arguing that Sansa has authority over the Wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Wow! to the bolded. And I don’t think you’ve read the books or you wouldn’t be making the arguments you are. Robb assumes he can release Jon from his vows. Here’s the exchange between Cat and Robb so you can actually read it:

Robb is using the Lannisters removing Barristan (which was never done before) as a precedent for releasing Jon from his vows.

How is this even a discussion? :D Robb is totally right, if they can release a Kingsguard, Robb could do the same. No one could argue against it, that's a royal command.

Catelyn was just bullshitting because she didn't want Jon to be the Lord of Winterfell, since Jon wasn't one of her children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

That land is independent of the North. And it’s ruler/administer would also be independent of the north. The NW is independent of the north. 

I agree. That’s the point I was making to @RYShh who seems to be arguing that the NW isn’t an independent/autonomous body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I agree. That’s the point I was making to @RYShh who seems to be arguing that the NW isn’t an independent/autonomous body.

Independent/autonomous? You realize NW need men and resources from the realms right? And their job is protecting the realms of men right? Whose realm is that? Kings and Queens realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RYShh said:

How is this even a discussion? :D Robb is totally right, if they can release a Kingsguard, Robb could do the same. No one could argue against it, that's a royal command.

Catleyn was just bullshitting because she didn't want Jon to be the Lord of Winterfell, since Jon wasn't one of her children.

Cat may have been finding excuses but the point is until Robb mentions it in the books, there was no precedent for it. That’s why Robb states Barristan’s removal (again no precedent for releasing/removing the KG until Joffrey did it) and sending a 100 men as reasons why he thinks it will work. He’s not sure it will work because it’s never been done before (or at least we are not shown such a thing in the books up until then).

And again, the NW is shown to be an independent/autonomous body that may need resources from the Lords and King of Westeros but they are not governed by the King and these Lords, and make their own decisions. If you’ve read the books, you’ll know that Tywin (who was the defacto King) sent a letter to the NW backing Janos Slynt for LC. Did Janos become LC? And if you can’t see that difference there’s no point going in circles with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Cat may have been finding excuses but the point is until Robb mentions it in the books, there was no precedent for it. That’s why Robb states Barristan’s removal (again no precedent for releasing/removing the KG until Joffrey did it) and sending a 100 men as reasons why he thinks it will work. And again, the NW is shown to be an independent/autonomous body that may need resources from the Lords and King of Westeros but they are not governed by the King and these Lords and make their own decisions. If you’ve read the books, you’ll know that Tywin (who was the defacto King) sent a letter to the NW backing Janos Slynt for LC. Did he become LC? And if you can see that difference there’s no point going in circles with you.

There is nothing suggests that it won't work. Not sure why you're stubborn to deny it, it was going to work and no one could argue against it just like Barristan couldn't argue against it.

I don't care what Tywin does or not, that's NW election, he wasn't trying to release someone. That's irrelevant. They can easily interfere legally or illegally, as Cersei was going to send men to kill Jon if Faith didn't capture her first, they can always interfere if they want. That's the end of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Yeah that is not how it works. Both Jon and Dany were claimants to the Iron Throne. No more no less. They each would have to conquer Westeros to claim it

and no Jon can't do anything he wants. lol

Her claim to the Iron throne is based on the fact that she is a Targ. But it only goes to her after Jon. She is a woman and a junior-line claimant to Rhaegar’s senior line. She can’t be a claimant as long as Jon is alive. And yes Jon can kill her as long as he is the legal heir. That’s why Stannis invaded KL to kill Joffrey as he was not the heir. 

Dany took the throne by force by conquering it. Legally she wasn’t the queen which is why she asks Jon to shut up otherwise it creates problems for her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, teej6 said:

The Wall belongs to Sansa? I can understand if you haven’t read the books but even in the abomination I believe they showed the NW being an autonomous organization. Neither the Wall nor the NW belong to any ruler. We can argue if the King of the seven kingdoms had any real jurisdiction over the NW. That’s a debate that’s being ongoing on the book forums. The Starks as Lords of WF didn’t have any authority or jurisdiction over the NW.

Ramsay was going to attack the NW to kill Jon. How would he do that if it was not under his jurisdiction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

Her claim to the Iron throne is based on the fact that she is a Targ. But it only goes to her after Jon. She can’t be a claimant as long as Jon is alive. And yes Jon can kill her as long as he is the legal heir. That’s why Stannis invaded KL to kill Joffrey as he was not the heir. 

So did all of Jon’s claims return to him when he died? Or he was never a member of the NW because his real name wasn’t Jon Snow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kaapstad said:

Her claim to the Iron throne is based on the fact that she is a Targ. But it only goes to her after Jon. She can’t be a claimant as long as Jon is alive. And yes Jon can kill her as long as he is the legal heir. That’s why Stannis invaded KL to kill Joffrey as he was not the heir. 

That is not how it works. The Targaryens haven't sat on the Iron Throne in 20 years. There is no line of succession any longer. Both of them are claimants at this point and both would have to take back the throne by force. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...