Why didn't Jon simply refuse to accept banishment?

[teej6]

33 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Should I listen to you or should I listen Robb? If he says he can then he would. He even gave an example on how other people easily did.

Or Stannis? Didn't you know Stannis propose the same thing to Jon in the books?

  Reveal hidden contents

“I have heard all I need to hear of Lady Lannister and her claim.” The king set the cup aside. “You could bring the north to me. Your father’s bannermen would rally to the son of Eddard Stark. Even Lord Too-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse. White Harbor would give me a ready source of supply and a secure base to which I could retreat at need. It is not too late to amend your folly, Snow. Take a knee and swear that bastard sword to me, and rise as Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North.”

Should I say you didn't read the books?

I didn't say you're trolling because I disagree with you, I said you're trolling because you claim I didn't read the books while I did and then you said ''Don’t have an opinion on what was shown on the show.'' 

(Then you edited that part of your post). We are in the show forum. 

Oh yes I do know Stannis proposal but then again did Jon accept? No. Stannis thinks he can release Jon from his NW vows but that still doesn’t make it the norm. Martin doesn’t show what precedent Stannis is basing his order on. Was this ever done before or was Stannis making it up as he goes along? And to disprove your point even further, after Jon becomes LC, he disputes Stannis on several occasions. He wouldn’t do so if he thought Stannis had jurisdiction over him and the NW. Stannis thinks he has the power to dictate things as King and coaxes and threatens but still doesn’t do anything when Jon refuses giving castles to Stannis despite having an entire force stationed at Castle Black. 

Again, I don’t care what the show has shown as I can’t trust the narrative. Saying that on this thread does not make me a troll. One can hate the show and point to it’s inconsistencies and say that I can’t base my opinion on anything the show has showed. And what’s your point in repeating I edited my comment? People have a right to edit their comments you know and what does that have to with anything. Yes I stated “I don’t have an opinion on the show” and then realized it was not exactly what I meant so I changed it. But on second thought, I stand by my initial statement that I can’t form an opinion based on the show because it is inconsistent and all over the place. That still doesn’t make me a troll. 

[RYShh]

5 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Oh yes I do know Stannis proposal but then again did Jon accept? No. Stannis thinks he can release Jon from his NW vows but that still doesn’t make it the norm. Martin doesn’t show what precedent Stannis is basing his order on. Was this ever done before or was Stannis making it up as he goes along? And to disprove your point even further, after Jon becomes LC, he disputes Stannis on several occasions. He wouldn’t do so if he thought Stannis had jurisdiction over him and the NW. Stannis thinks he has the power to dictate things as King and coaxes and threatens but still doesn’t do anything when Jon refuses giving castles to Stannis despite having an entire force stationed at Castle Black. 

Again, I don’t care what the show has shown as I can’t trust the narrative. Saying that on this thread does not make me a troll. One can hate the show and point to it’s inconsistencies and say that I can’t base my opinion on anything the show has showed. And what’s your point in repeating I edited my comment? People have a right to edit their comments you know and what does that have to with anything. Yes I stated “I don’t have an opinion on the show” and then realized it was not exactly what I meant so I changed it. But on second thought, I stand by my initial statement that I can’t form an opinion based on the show because it is inconsistent and all over the place. That still doesn’t make me a troll. 

I can't understand your logic really, what do you think would happen if Jon accepted Stannis's offer? Who could argue with that or could stop Jon if he wanted it? Stannis can't force Jon to do anything, because they are in war, Stannis was at the losing side, and the crown could hold Jon responsible for choosing a side in a war. You're mixing the things here, Jon refuses to give castles to Stannis because that would be choosing a side in a internal war. That's what he couldn't do.

But if Jon wanted, he could leave NW and he could accept Stannis's offer, and he could be the Warden of the North. A thinks B thinks doesn't matter. It would happen. I am not going to listen you over Robb or Stannis, they obviously know better than you. That's the end of it, stop pushing your personal thoughts over the books.

Once again, you don't understand what I am talking about, I didn't say you're a troll, I said you're trolling with those posts. If you're going to edit your post after I see it then that's not my problem, discussing in a show forum then saying ''Don’t have an opinion on what was shown on the show'' is trolling according to me. Anyways, we're not getting anywhere with your denying attitude on what happens in the books, and the show. It's better if you stop replying to me.

[Kaapstad]

2 hours ago, El Guapo said:

No. The Baratheons got the throne because they won the war and conquered King Landing.  And no every Targaryen was not killed off as Viserys and Daenerys were still alive and kicking.

 She calls them usurpers as they had no right to it as long as she and her brother were alive. They killed all of them in Westeros but didn't bother with Viserys and Dany as they didn't have an army and if they ever came to Westeros they could easily kill them. They took the throne from her by force just like how Dany took the throne from Cersei. By legal right, after Aerys and Rhaegar the throne goes to Jon, not Dany. She was harping on and on about her inheritance for 8 seasons but after she learns of Jon's identity she purposely changes her argument and says it was her destiny to get it as she knows she has no legal right to it.

 

[Kaapstad]

2 hours ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

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. 

The NW vow was only as long as he was alive. It ends after he dies. Jon's other claims remain with him as long as he exists as they are not vows.

[Kaapstad]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

Because Ramsay is a full blown lunatic who thinks he can do whatever he wants. In the books, the fact that Ramsay challenged the life of the LC, was one of the impetus for Jon to give his speech to his men and respond to Ramsay’s attack on his person. You do know that Jon was going to answer Ramsay’s challenge right before he got stabbed, right?  

That's the point. The reason they were going to war is because he is in his jurisdiction and they can attack each other. Ramsay may be a lunatic but he isn't suicidal. If the NW was neutral turf then his move would have caused all the houses in all kingdoms to move against him.

Another point being Ned asks Yoren to save Arya and he listens. If he was not under Ned's rule, why would he listen to him?

[teej6]

5 minutes ago, RYShh said:

I can't understand your logic really, what do you think would happen if Jon accepted Stannis's offer? Who could argue with that or could stop Jon if he wanted it? Stannis can't force Jon to do anything, because they are in war, Stannis was at the losing side, and the crown could hold Jon responsible for choosing a side in a war. You're mixing the things here, Jon refuses to give castles to Stannis because that would be choosing a side in a internal war. That's what he couldn't do.

We don’t know if Jon would think he’s an oath breaker if he accepted Stannis’ offer because he doesn’t accept the offer. Although we actually do know Jon’s first thoughts when Stannis offers him WF, they were about his bastard status and his NW vows. It was Melisandre (not Stannis) who argues against these impediments. We also don’t know what the rest of the realm would think of Jon quitting the NW if it were to happen in the books. The Lannisters or the Boltons would not miss the opportunity to claim he’s an oath breaker. For all we know, if Jon accepted Stannis’ offer and then Stannis loses and a new LC is elected, he may also think Jon is an oath breaker. We don’t know how things will play out in the books as Jon did not accept Stannis’ offer.

If you can’t understand as to why Jon denying castles to Stannis suggests that Stannis has no jurisdiction over the NW, then there’s no point discussing this with you. The autonomy and independence of the NW is exactly why Jon as LC thinks Stannis has no jurisdiction over what is owned by the NW. Jon is shown not to care much about what the crown thinks or about the Lannisters holding him responsible, which is evident when Sam had to convince Jon to sign a paper shield. He doesn’t care to bow to the Lannisters or to Stannis (although he prefers Stannis), instead what he cares about is maintaining the neutrality of the NW. Even when he gives Stannis advice he is constantly thinking about the NW neutrality. If you can’t recognize this from the texts, I really don’t care.

5 minutes ago, RYShh said:

 

5 minutes ago, RYShh said:

But if Jon wanted, he could leave NW and he could accept Stannis's offer, and he could be the Warden of the North. A thinks B thinks doesn't matter. It would happen. I am not going to listen you over Robb or Stannis, they obviously know better than you. That's the end of it, stop pushing your personal thoughts over the books.

I’m not pushing anything just analyzing the text. Does Robb think in his mind that he can release Jon from his NW vows? He does but with the caveat that he is resorting to a flimsy precedent of Barristan’s case and willing to give the NW a 100 men in Jon’s place. He is hoping he can convince the NW in releasing Jon for the above reasons. I’m not arguing that in the books that Jon won’t leave the NW based on some clause that Martin comes up with. He probably will. Jon’s death or near-death might be the way out together with Robb’s will (which I think will be more relevant to Jon accepting WF if he ever does).

23 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Anyways, we're not getting anywhere with your denying attitude on what happens in the books, and the show. It's better if you stop replying to me.

We can agree on the bolded. As to me denying what happens in the books, that’s your opinion. I’ll repeat it one last time, in the books we are shown several times that the NW is an independent and autonomous organization that governs itself. I’ve referred to instances where this is shown in the books. You just keep arguing that it is not but as yet have not shown any convincing textual evidence that it is not. You know there is an ignore function on this forum, right? You can go ahead and put me on ignore. 

[teej6]

27 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

Another point being Ned asks Yoren to save Arya and he listens. If he was not under Ned's rule, why would he listen to him?

Yoren comes to Ned for NW recruits when he sees Arya. He comes to Ned and warns him that Cat has captured Tyrion (although he knows in his mind he shouldn’t take sides) because Benjen is a brother to him and Ned is Benjen’s actual brother. This was also shown on the show. As to Ned asking Yoren to save Arya, I think that’s only in the show, in the books IIRC, Yoren sees Arya in the crowd and helps her without having talked to Ned. Either way, Yoren is shown saving Arya by his own judgement and free will. He’s not obeying Ned but rather doing it as a favor to Ned because of their mutual relationship with Benjen.

[teej6]

39 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

That's the point. The reason they were going to war is because he is in his jurisdiction and they can attack each other. Ramsay may be a lunatic but he isn't suicidal. If the NW was neutral turf then his move would have caused all the houses in all kingdoms to move against him. 

The NW is not part of any jurisdiction. As to Ramsay, if you are talking about the books, who knows what he’s thinking. As of now, we aren’t even sure whether Ramsay wrote the pink letter. If you want to speculate, Ramsay could be thinking that Jon broke the NW neutrality in helping Stannis, stealing his bride, etc. As to how the other houses will react, the Lannisters who back the Boltons sit the IT,  the Southern Lords will not really care as they have their own conflicts to settle, and we don’t know what the state of the other Northern houses are after the battle with Stannis. We also don’t know how the other Northern houses feel about Jon’s pact with the Wildlings. We have two heads of mountain clans begrudgingly accepting it, but we don’t know how the other Northern Lords are going to feel about Wildlings on their lands. For all we know Ramsay can convince them that Jon broke the NW neutrality and purpose and they need to remove him as LC. It’s all speculation with regards to the books at this time.

[King Jon Snow Stark]

36 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Yoren comes to Ned for NW recruits when he sees Arya. He comes to Ned and warns him that Cat has captured Tyrion (although he knows in his mind he shouldn’t take sides) because Benjen is a brother to him and Ned is Benjen’s actual brother. This was also shown on the show. As to Ned asking Yoren to save Arya, I think that’s only in the show, in the books IIRC, Yoren sees Arya in the crowd and helps her without having talked to Ned. Either way, Yoren is shown saving Arya by his own judgement and free will. He’s not obeying Ned but rather doing it as a favor to Ned because of their mutual relationship with Benjen.

Forgot about Yoren. Now Jon is a wandering Crow in my head “recruiting” all over Westeros. Hanging out with Sansa and Bran.

[RYShh]

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

The NW is not part of any jurisdiction. As to Ramsay, if you are talking about the books, who knows what he’s thinking. As of now, we aren’t even sure whether Ramsay wrote the pink letter. If you want to speculate, Ramsay could be thinking that Jon broke the NW neutrality in helping Stannis, stealing his bride, etc. As to how the other houses will react, the Lannisters who back the Boltons sit the IT,  the Southern Lords will not really care as they have their own conflicts to settle, and we don’t know what the state of the other Northern houses are after the battle with Stannis. We also don’t know how the other Northern houses feel about Jon’s pact with the Wildlings. We have two heads of mountain clans begrudgingly accepting it, but we don’t know how the other Northern Lords are going to feel about Wildlings on their lands. For all we know Ramsay can convince them that Jon broke the NW neutrality and purpose and they need to remove him as LC. It’s all speculation with regards to the books at this time.

As Kaapstad said, Ramsay thinks Jon can break his vow with a royal command  which is why he considers to kill Jon.

10 hours ago, teej6 said:

We don’t know if Jon would think he’s an oath breaker if he accepted Stannis’ offer because he doesn’t accept the offer. Although we actually do know Jon’s first thoughts when Stannis offers him WF, they were about his bastard status and his NW vows. It was Melisandre (not Stannis) who argues against these impediments. We also don’t know what the rest of the realm would think of Jon quitting the NW if it were to happen in the books. The Lannisters or the Boltons would not miss the opportunity to claim he’s an oath breaker. For all we know, if Jon accepted Stannis’ offer and then Stannis loses and a new LC is elected, he may also think Jon is an oath breaker. We don’t know how things will play out in the books as Jon did not accept Stannis’ offer.

If you can’t understand as to why Jon denying castles to Stannis suggests that Stannis has no jurisdiction over the NW, then there’s no point discussing this with you. The autonomy and independence of the NW is exactly why Jon as LC thinks Stannis has no jurisdiction over what is owned by the NW. Jon is shown not to care much about what the crown thinks or about the Lannisters holding him responsible, which is evident when Sam had to convince Jon to sign a paper shield. He doesn’t care to bow to the Lannisters or to Stannis (although he prefers Stannis), instead what he cares about is maintaining the neutrality of the NW. Even when he gives Stannis advice he is constantly thinking about the NW neutrality. If you can’t recognize this from the texts, I really don’t care.

I’m not pushing anything just analyzing the text. Does Robb think in his mind that he can release Jon from his NW vows? He does but with the caveat that he is resorting to a flimsy precedent of Barristan’s case and willing to give the NW a 100 men in Jon’s place. He is hoping he can convince the NW in releasing Jon for the above reasons. I’m not arguing that in the books that Jon won’t leave the NW based on some clause that Martin comes up with. He probably will. Jon’s death or near-death might be the way out together with Robb’s will (which I think will be more relevant to Jon accepting WF if he ever does).

We can agree on the bolded. As to me denying what happens in the books, that’s your opinion. I’ll repeat it one last time, in the books we are shown several times that the NW is an independent and autonomous organization that governs itself. I’ve referred to instances where this is shown in the books. You just keep arguing that it is not but as yet have not shown any convincing textual evidence that it is not. You know there is an ignore function on this forum, right? You can go ahead and put me on ignore. 

No one cares about that, no one care about when they released Barristan from Kingsguard , or when they accepted Jaime to Kingsguard again after killing his own king and sitting on the Iron Throne. Being an oathbreaker  means nothing if there is a royal command / royal pardon.

If Robb and Stannis believe they can do that, then there is no problem here. As well as Ramsay believes Stannis can, which is why he wants to kill Jon.

[Kaapstad]

10 hours ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

Forgot about Yoren. Now Jon is a wandering Crow in my head “recruiting” all over Westeros. Hanging out with Sansa and Bran.

Yeah. I wonder if that’s the reason they didn’t give any purpose to the NW. His only punishment is to wear the uniform. Then he can do whatever he wants under the guise of being a ranger as there is nothing to range for. 

[King Jon Snow Stark]

6 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

Yeah. I wonder if that’s the reason they didn’t give any purpose to the NW. His only punishment is to wear the uniform. Then he can do whatever he wants under the guise of being a ranger as there is nothing to range for. 

NW becomes a tourist attraction because of the peaceful reign of the Starks. War Hero Jon Snow will gave ranging tours for rich nobles who missed out on the Wars. :D

[Kaapstad]

On 6/5/2019 at 11:22 AM, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

I mean, he is STILL King in the North, which is now an independent kingdom. He is STILL a ruling monarch and his people STILL chose him as their leader. He did what he did for the good of The North and it seems rather bizarre that he would have to bow down before a council composed of Southron lords plus Yara Greyjoy. By what right does the Reach, the Crownlands, the Stormlands, the Westerlands, the Vale, the Iron Islands and Dorne have to dictate the fate of the ruler of an independent kingdom?

I mean, yes, Jon "Muh Queen!" and "I don't want it!" Snow is honorable enough to accept his punishment. But this is just moronic. It doesn't even make sense from the POV of how Westeros operates!

Something new I found. The production site seems to suggest he doesn't accept the punishment. He leaves with the WIldlings

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/season-8-episode-6-finale-thrones-throwback-daenerys-vision

But what about Jon Snow? He wound up where he began. Jon makes his own callback to Maester Aemon’s Season 5, Episode 7 comment “Love is the death of duty” — a fitting one given Aemon was also a Targaryen who had no interest in the throne. But what about his sentence to return to the Night’s Watch? It may have seemed like a slap in the face for a man who was once a king (and arguably the rightful heir to the Iron Throne), but actually Season 8, Episode 4 hinted at what was to come. As Jon bids farewell to his closest friends, he asks Tormund to bring Ghost beyond the Wall with him:

Jon Snow: “He’ll be happier up there.”

Tormund: “So would you.”

Jon Snow: “I wish I was going with you.”

Tormund: “You’ve got the North in you. The real North.”

The scene is simple enough not to immediately remember while watching the final episode, but it bears repeating once you’ve seen Jon riding into the forest among the wildlings — where he always belonged.

 

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

12 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

Something new I found. The production site seems to suggest he doesn't accept the punishment. He leaves with the WIldlings

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/season-8-episode-6-finale-thrones-throwback-daenerys-vision

But what about Jon Snow? He wound up where he began. Jon makes his own callback to Maester Aemon’s Season 5, Episode 7 comment “Love is the death of duty” — a fitting one given Aemon was also a Targaryen who had no interest in the throne. But what about his sentence to return to the Night’s Watch? It may have seemed like a slap in the face for a man who was once a king (and arguably the rightful heir to the Iron Throne), but actually Season 8, Episode 4 hinted at what was to come. As Jon bids farewell to his closest friends, he asks Tormund to bring Ghost beyond the Wall with him:

Jon Snow: “He’ll be happier up there.”

Tormund: “So would you.”

Jon Snow: “I wish I was going with you.”

Tormund: “You’ve got the North in you. The real North.”

The scene is simple enough not to immediately remember while watching the final episode, but it bears repeating once you’ve seen Jon riding into the forest among the wildlings — where he always belonged.

 

There’s also a scene with Tormund in an earlier season before Mance was executed IIRC in which Tormund told Jon he had spent too much time with the Freefolk and that he would never be a kneeler.   It was scenes like this one, yours, and others that have made me feel that Jon was most happy with the freefolk, being in the North, and essentially doing what he is doing now.  Jon has a servant’s leadership style and will sacrifice his needs and wants for the greater good when needed but that doesn’t mean that he is naturally happy about it.  I was happy to see him with .Tormund, Ghost, and the freefolk because he would have been miserable as King in the South.

[Lollygag]

On Jon deserting for the wildlings:

Oaths:

The show pushed the Ned parallel hardcore in season 8. Dany murdered a million innocent men, women, children and babies for the hell of it, and Jon *still* wouldn't break his oath to her. Show Jon isn't breaking another oath unless it's for an absolutely huge reason. 

 

Kneeling:

Jon kneeled to Dany when he knew no one wanted that. They were very clear about that before he left. And he kneeled for no reason whatsoever. "She's muh queen" said on repeat despite the horrors that resulted is not what a wildling would ever, ever, ever say. Ever.

 

King Beyond the Wall:

How many times does he have to say he doesn't want to be king before people actually believe him? 

 

Guilt & Punishment:

Jon feels conflicted over killing Dany and accepting punishment is the only way emo show Jon can reconcile what he did. Many think Benjen joined the NW for guilt also - speculated to be for his role at Harrenhal leading to the whole mess that resulted from that making Jon a parallel for him. It also makes the whole Nissa Nissa sacrifice thing meaningless if Jon moves on like he did with Ygritte and goes on to find love again and a happy life. 

 

The ending montage where Jon puts on the black of the NW makes no sense at all if he just turns around and deserts. That's like Arya deciding to go back to Westeros right after the montage or Sansa changing her mind about being separate a short time later. 

 

If Jon was to go live as a freefolk in the end or as King Beyond the Wall, they needed to do a 180 in writing him the last few seasons to make that work. 

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

18 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

If Jon was to go live as a freefolk in the end or as King Beyond the Wall, they needed to do a 180 in writing him the last few seasons to make that work. 

That is assuming nothing has really changed.  When Jon brought the freefolk beyond the wall and united them with the Northerners to fight against the Night King then essentially everyone was now free to wander anywhere they wanted in the North. Is there really any difference now between the lands that belong to the Nightwatch and those of the freefolk in the far North?  Seems to me they are pretty much united and on good terms with one another. Jon or others of the NW  can go and hang out with his freefolk friends all they want and I really don’t think anyone would care or think they are breaking their oaths as long as they don’t go too far south and then it might be a problem.

[Lollygag]

9 minutes ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

That is assuming nothing has really changed.  When Jon brought the freefolk beyond the wall and united them with the Northerners to fight against the Night King then essentially everyone was now free to wander anywhere they wanted in the North. Is there really any difference now between the lands that belong to the Nightwatch and those of the freefolk in the far North?  Seems to me they are pretty much united and on good terms with one another. Jon or others of the NW  can go and hang out with his freefolk friends all they want and I really don’t think anyone would care or think they are breaking their oaths as long as they don’t go too far south and then it might be a problem.

Tyrion said Jon's punishment was to hold no lands, take no wife and father no children.

So living with the freefolk and doing stuff north of the Wall for the NW (whatever the hell that is anymore) doesn't conflict with his punishment so long as he doesn't do any of those three things. And emo show Jon def feels he needs to be punished. No, I don't think anyone would actually care that much if Jon broke his oaths, but they wrote Jon to be fixated on oaths to the point of absurdity and gave him guilt over what he did and we all know how show Jon rocks emo guilt like no one else.

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

22 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Tyrion said Jon's punishment was to hold no lands, take no wife and father no children.

So living with the freefolk and doing stuff north of the Wall for the NW (whatever the hell that is anymore) doesn't conflict with his punishment so long as he doesn't do any of those three things. And emo show Jon def feels he needs to be punished. No, I don't think anyone would actually care that much if Jon broke his oaths, but they wrote Jon to be fixated on oaths to the point of absurdity and gave him guilt over what he did and we all know how show Jon rocks emo guilt like no one else.

I agree with you about Jon’s basic character being of honor and duty.   I don’t think he would purposely disobey his oath unless somehow the oath and rules of the NW are more lenient now and not the same as before.   Sam certainly seemed to have been released from his oath......so who knows what the rules are anymore....lol.   I’m willing to settle for he is ranging in the North with his freefolk buddies and reporting back to CB from time to time.

[Lollygag]

Just now, TheFirstofHerName said:

I agree with you about Jon’s basic character being of honor and duty.   I don’t think he would purposely disobey his oath unless somehow the oath and rules of the NW are more lenient now.  Sam certainly seemed to have been released from his oath......so who knows what the rules are anymore....lol.   I’m willing to settle for he is ranging in the North with his freefolk buddies and reporting back to CB from time to time.

Thing is that Jon's punishment isn't tied to his NW oath. Tyrion said his punishment was those three things very specifically (no land, no wife, no children), not taking the NW oath which I guess wouldn't exist anymore. 

This is the NW oath, and with no more Others, it doesn't really make sense anymore. Nothing left to watch.

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come." 

And the reasons for Jon not to do those three things are important in principle: Jon is Aegon, the last Targ and people will use him for the throne. He can't hold lands as that's a step in that direction. He also can't take a wife or have kids. More Targs running about means more wars. Especially with a dragon out there and given that Targs get kinda obsessive about them. Bad, bad idea. 

[Alex200]

On 6/6/2019 at 3:14 AM, 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. 

Technically Dany won the throne through right of conquest so there is no usurper argument. Its not like Cersei just made way for Dany as a Targ. Also there wasn't any proof that Jon was a Targ except the word of Bran Stark/Varys which wouldn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

Secondly, Dany also had legal claim as an heir of the House Targaryen. After Rhaegar died, Aerys made Viserys the heir passing over the kids of Rhaegar. So Jon's claim could easily be disputed.