Jump to content

King Jon snow ?!?


TheLastWolf

Recommended Posts

On 6/28/2020 at 12:14 PM, Kierria S said:

Jon Snow will be the alpha dire wolf among the Starks.  He will be the King In The North while the long winter holds the land in its grip.  But Jon is not going to be the king of Westeros.  I am afraid the Seven Kingdoms is not going to have all its kingdoms for the remainder of the series.  The north is hell bent on independence and they will get what they want, and will deeply regret it.  But that is a long topic on its own and deserve its own section. 

We may get hints of a very strong monarch in the South like Daenerys Targaryen putting together a game plan for when the Spring comes back but we will not get to see the continent in a united form.  The title of the last volume will be A Dream of Spring.  So yeah, I think Daenerys will be dreaming and hoping for the winter to finally go away so she can rebuild Westeros into one realm under Targaryen rule. 

Jon Snow and his personality bears striking similarity to Mance Rayder.  He will be a more suitable choice to lead a tribe of wildlings.  He is absolutely not the right person to govern a kingdom.  He is a rule breaker and not one to make them.  Jon is terrible at enforcing rules equally and shows favoritism and bias.  One need look no further because he treated Mance and Janos differently when both men are under his command.  Justice will be hard to come by under Jon Snow.  But he could do well with the Wildlings where might sort of makes right.  He belongs in a people where a man who can take the girl away from another man by force is the winner.  Jon is the last person anybody should want on the Iron Throne.  His time at the wall proves that. 

Jon is the next in line to be the heir to Mance Rayder.  Ramsay is about to execute Mance.  Jon has already the Wildlings in his pocket.  He would do well with the free folk.  They are his people.  Jon should not rule over the North and certainly he should not rule over Westeros.  He would be terrible at it.  He lacks the discipline and the dedication.  But he would fit right in with the free folk.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 PM, TheLastWolf said:

I was on a re-read of ADWD and stumbled upon this Para that caught my eye. 

"... "Corn" the bird said, and, "King" and, "Snow, Jon snow, Jon snow." That was queer. The bird had never said his full name before, as best Jon could recall."

I don't put much faith in prophetic ravens, so that tidbit isn't enough to convince me that Jon is supposed to be a king ;)

But if one would be inclined to entertain Jon's kingly prospects, one should get a grasp about his central character conflicts first. Which are:

- his self-identity - the identity of his mother (and all this L+whoever=J bussines) is a red herring of sorts, because if we accept it's true then the real question becomes Is Ned Stark - the man who raised Jon as son - his 'true' father or is it the man who contributed nothing but half his DNA to who Jon is? Basically - nature vs. nurture. And I, for one, land firmly on the nurture side of this debate;

- his sense of duty - and more precisely, should one follow the letter or the spirit of the rules. Once again, I land firmly on the side of spirit and I agree with basically everything @TheLastWolf wrote about Jon's 'crimes'.

And IMHO this informs the possibility of Jon being the king thusly:

1. Jon Snow as king of Westeros. 

Nope. And not because I think he's horribly incompetent and totally undeserving to ever sit his behind on the Iron Throne. I actually think he'd be a medicore ruler - neither brilliant nor terrible - and very, very unhappy with the job. But mostly, I think it makes no sense as a resolution to his character arc. 

It requires him embracing his Targ herritage, which implies Rhaegar is more of his father than Ned, even though he had no influence over what sort of person Jon grew up to be. And it requires him completely disregarding the fact that following the spirit of the rules (when his people had clung to the letter) led to him being stabbed. It was the right choice but it also had a steep price and the fact of the matter is people as a whole understand the letter better than the spirit and prefer their leaders to stick to the same. Jon is the idealist and not the politician - if he was to rule Westeros, he would get himself stabbed all over again sooner rather than later. 

2. Jon as King in the North

Also nope.

The issue of being an idealist not a politician and therefore not cut out for ruling people still applies the same way. 

The issue of his identity plays differently, but still wrong. Jon is the son of Ned Stark in all the ways that matter (personality, values, upbringing) but he isn't a Stark. He is a Snow. In terms of character development him finally getting over his hung up about not being a trueborn Stark is much more powerful than him 'earning himself a spot' among them by inheriting Robb's title and Stark legacy. 

3. Jon as the Night King. 

On 6/28/2020 at 6:15 PM, kissdbyfire said:
On 6/28/2020 at 5:57 PM, TheLastWolf said:

Or is it gonna be the Nightking? :(

Nah, that’s silly fan fic that some readers like, but there’s no textual support for it. It’s wishful thinking, and it ain’t gonna happen. 

This. 

4. Jon as the King Beyond the Wall

If he must be some kind of king by the end, that's the title that fits him best. It doesn't hinge on his genetics nor does it play into his hung ups. He doesn't have to become Targ or Stark to get it - he can be who he is, Jon Snow, a bastard without a title or position to inherit, a man defined by his deeds not his blood. That's a neat ending for him. And also the Free Folk are the only people who would actually appreciate him prefering the spirit of the rules and pragmatic solutions over sticking for the letter of the rule no matter how detrimental it is to the bigges issue at hand. 

But still, I would prefer Jon to just join the Free Folk and live among them without becoming their king. Because Free Folk don't really need a king. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

his sense of duty - and more precisely, should one follow the letter or the spirit of the rules. Once again, I land firmly on the side of spirit and I agree with basically everything @TheLastWolf wrote about Jon's 'crimes'.

Thank you

14 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

4. Jon as the King Beyond the Wall

If he must be some kind of king by the end, that's the title that fits him best. It doesn't hinge on his genetics nor does it play into his hung ups. He doesn't have to become Targ or Stark to get it - he can be who he is, Jon Snow, a bastard without a title or position to inherit, a man defined by his deeds not his blood. That's a neat ending for him. And also the Free Folk are the only people who would actually appreciate him prefering the spirit of the rules and pragmatic solutions over sticking for the letter of the rule no matter how detrimental it is to the bigges issue at hand. 

Just what I believe is gonna happen (below)....doesn't mean that I'd like it.

On 7/7/2020 at 12:33 PM, TheLastWolf said:

More and more this thread goes, I get the impression that Jon is gonna be either the Nightking or King-beyond-the-Wall. 

 

14 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

But still, I would prefer Jon to just join the Free Folk and live among them without becoming their king. Because Free Folk don't really need a king. 

The Free Folk have had kings and have need them sometimes (like they needed Mance when others came)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheLastWolf said:

The Free Folk have had kings and have need them sometimes (like they needed Mance when others came)

Yeah. But I agree that he doesn’t need and probably has no interest in remaining king. My take on Jon’s “kingship” is exactly what I said, as King of Winter - and old title, for an old threat - b/c leadership is especially important in  certain moments like the LN 2.0. Just imagine the likes of Bowen Marsh or Janos Slynt leading at such a time! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

The Free Folk have had kings and have need them sometimes (like they needed Mance when others came)

Yes, the Free Folk needed king Mance to unite them against the threat of Others and lead them to the relative safety on the Westerosi side of the Wall. But after the Others are defeated this need would disappear. They certainly could have another king who would keep them united but - in the long run - this would mean they're no longer the Free Folk.

What differs the Free Folk from the kneelers is that FF are basically anarchists - in the sense that they don't believe they owe personal obedience to an arbitrary power structure. They follow Mance out of pragmatism and self-interest first and foremost: he's the one with a plan how to save their asses from the Others and enough people skills to keep FF united in pursuit of that plan. But let's say Mance does a left turn and following him is no longer in the interest of FF (for whatever reason) - they can say "screw it, I'm out of here" or they can kill Mance and pick another leader and no FF will see anything wrong with that. 

Feudalism (and therefore monarchy) is the antithesis of all of that. You owe obedience to your lord/kind whether you agree with him or not, whether it's in your interest or not and whether he is in the right or in the wrong. It can be argued that sufficiently reprehensible and unjust conduct of the king releases his subjects from their duty to obey (say, if he goes full on Mad King), but that is still exception that proves the rule. 

So, if the FF accept Jon for a reason other than their immediate self-interest (and I don't really see how that would happen in the world free of Others), they would take a step towards that feudal mentality. And if it would persist long enough, it would turn them into kneelers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually free folk seems to be ruled by "strong men". Or they have some people who are more equal than others. For instance Varamyr was "lord" about dozen villages and his tendency to rape women would make sure that nowadays he would have huge problems with Me Too movement. So having some kind of overlord would not be totally strange concept for wildlings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

Actually free folk seems to be ruled by "strong men". Or they have some people who are more equal than others. For instance Varamyr was "lord" about dozen villages and his tendency to rape women would make sure that nowadays he would have huge problems with Me Too movement. So having some kind of overlord would not be totally strange concept for wildlings.

But that is small scale. If Jon has to be King of all FF, then him raping and intimidating won't work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

Actually free folk seems to be ruled by "strong men". Or they have some people who are more equal than others. For instance Varamyr was "lord" about dozen villages and his tendency to rape women would make sure that nowadays he would have huge problems with Me Too movement. So having some kind of overlord would not be totally strange concept for wildlings.

True. But I don't think this contradicts the 'anarchist' mindset of FF. Varamyr had enough power to subjugate a few villages, but the people from those villages didn't owe him obedience. If those people would rise against him and end his rule via murder, nobody amon the FF would bat an eye or condemn them as rebels. Meanwhile in Westeros the man who murdered an unhinged pyromaniac is condemned as an 'oathbraker' by the people who participated in the rebellion against said pyromaniac and nobody even considers he might have had a valid reason for his act.

In the anarchist mindset the stronger may force the weaker into obedience but that doesn't make him entitled to that obedience nor does it make it a crime to oppose him by any means necessary. In the feudal mindset, once you swore to obey somebody there is little to no reason to break that obedience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

But that is small scale. If Jon has to be King of all FF, then him raping and intimidating won't work 

If he followed example of Ivan the Terrible he would not have to do that personally. Or that tsar created special forces to do that for him and those people rode black horses and wore black clothes. So Jon could hire his own professional raiders and rapers without really chancing his style if he really want to follow that road.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprichnina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2020 at 11:42 PM, Miss_Saffron said:

I don't put much faith in prophetic ravens, so that tidbit isn't enough to convince me that Jon is supposed to be a king ;)

But if one would be inclined to entertain Jon's kingly prospects, one should get a grasp about his central character conflicts first. Which are:

- his self-identity - the identity of his mother (and all this L+whoever=J bussines) is a red herring of sorts, because if we accept it's true then the real question becomes Is Ned Stark - the man who raised Jon as son - his 'true' father or is it the man who contributed nothing but half his DNA to who Jon is? Basically - nature vs. nurture. And I, for one, land firmly on the nurture side of this debate;

- his sense of duty - and more precisely, should one follow the letter or the spirit of the rules. Once again, I land firmly on the side of spirit and I agree with basically everything @TheLastWolf wrote about Jon's 'crimes'.

And IMHO this informs the possibility of Jon being the king thusly:

1. Jon Snow as king of Westeros. 

Nope. And not because I think he's horribly incompetent and totally undeserving to ever sit his behind on the Iron Throne. I actually think he'd be a medicore ruler - neither brilliant nor terrible - and very, very unhappy with the job. But mostly, I think it makes no sense as a resolution to his character arc. 

It requires him embracing his Targ herritage, which implies Rhaegar is more of his father than Ned, even though he had no influence over what sort of person Jon grew up to be. And it requires him completely disregarding the fact that following the spirit of the rules (when his people had clung to the letter) led to him being stabbed. It was the right choice but it also had a steep price and the fact of the matter is people as a whole understand the letter better than the spirit and prefer their leaders to stick to the same. Jon is the idealist and not the politician - if he was to rule Westeros, he would get himself stabbed all over again sooner rather than later. 

2. Jon as King in the North

Also nope.

The issue of being an idealist not a politician and therefore not cut out for ruling people still applies the same way. 

The issue of his identity plays differently, but still wrong. Jon is the son of Ned Stark in all the ways that matter (personality, values, upbringing) but he isn't a Stark. He is a Snow. In terms of character development him finally getting over his hung up about not being a trueborn Stark is much more powerful than him 'earning himself a spot' among them by inheriting Robb's title and Stark legacy. 

3. Jon as the Night King. 

This. 

4. Jon as the King Beyond the Wall

If he must be some kind of king by the end, that's the title that fits him best. It doesn't hinge on his genetics nor does it play into his hung ups. He doesn't have to become Targ or Stark to get it - he can be who he is, Jon Snow, a bastard without a title or position to inherit, a man defined by his deeds not his blood. That's a neat ending for him. And also the Free Folk are the only people who would actually appreciate him prefering the spirit of the rules and pragmatic solutions over sticking for the letter of the rule no matter how detrimental it is to the bigges issue at hand. 

But still, I would prefer Jon to just join the Free Folk and live among them without becoming their king. Because Free Folk don't really need a king. 

see this from

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/157331-blackfish-and-bloodraven-starks’-resurgence-new-dragon-eggs-and-more…/

Quote

I also believe that the BF faked his disdain/hatred towards Jon (but not Theon) because he was close to Robb in his council and would have been instrumental in making him decide Jon as the North’s heir. Cat was b***h and a different matter, moreover, while Ned himself hid Jon’s parentage from her, why wouldn’t Robb do something similar?

·         So Gendry/Harwin(if the BF himself goes to GWW)/Anguy/Lem/Thoros/Tom or anyone could be sent to the Wall to bring back their heir….though it would end in failure since….u know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheLastWolf said:

see this from

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/157331-blackfish-and-bloodraven-starks’-resurgence-new-dragon-eggs-and-more…/

Quote

I also believe that the BF faked his disdain/hatred towards Jon (but not Theon) because he was close to Robb in his council and would have been instrumental in making him decide Jon as the North’s heir. Cat was b***h and a different matter, moreover, while Ned himself hid Jon’s parentage from her, why wouldn’t Robb do something similar?

·         So Gendry/Harwin(if the BF himself goes to GWW)/Anguy/Lem/Thoros/Tom or anyone could be sent to the Wall to bring back their heir….though it would end in failure since….u know.

So, basically, you're asking what do I think about Robb's testament? The short of it - I'm sure it'll come up and cause a bit of a stir but in the end it won't result in Jon being crowned King in the North. 

The long of it - Robb written the testament with the knowledge that didn't reflect the reality of the situation. It's made pretty explicit, that the testament assumes that Bran and Rickon are dead, Sansa is forever bound to the Lannisters and Arya is in the wind and also as good as dead. So none of them can inherit, therefore legitimizing Jon and making him Robb's heir is the only option to preserve Stark's line.

But we know that none of those assumptions are true at the moment. And I think that by the time the testament will be made public the error of Robb's knowledge will be also made public, at least to some extent. Manderly will reveal Rickon, Sansa will ditch her Alyanne disguise, Bran will return from beyond the Wall (with the help of Jon himself?) and maybe even Arya would appear in Westeros wearing her own face. I'm not sure all of those will happen by then, but I'm certain at least some of them will. And in such circumstances I don't think Jon will try to pursue the inheritance Robb had left him. And neither would lords of the North. Trueborn heirs are preferable to legitimized bastards 9 out of 10 times. 

BUT let's also tackle that 1 exception. If Robb's testament would be revealed after the North was made aware of the Others and possibly already under attack, some of the people might prefer Jon (a fighter with experience battling Others and wights) to Bran (a cripple), Rickon (a child) or Sansa/Arya (girls). They might believe that in a time like this North needs to be led from the frontlines and that only Jon is up for the job. This would cause a split among the Northmen. And I still think, than in such a scenario Jon would agree to lead the fight but refuse the crown, because after his stabby adventure he would have no desire to be a lord or king of anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2020 at 5:44 PM, Mon ami said:

Jon is the next in line to be the heir to Mance Rayder.  Ramsay is about to execute Mance.  Jon has already the Wildlings in his pocket.  He would do well with the free folk.  They are his people.  Jon should not rule over the North and certainly he should not rule over Westeros.  He would be terrible at it.  He lacks the discipline and the dedication.  But he would fit right in with the free folk.  

 

On 7/7/2020 at 3:03 AM, TheLastWolf said:

More and more this thread goes, I get the impression that Jon is gonna be either the Nightking or King-beyond-the-Wall. 

 

On 7/8/2020 at 2:12 PM, Miss_Saffron said:

I don't put much faith in prophetic ravens, so that tidbit isn't enough to convince me that Jon is supposed to be a king ;)

But if one would be inclined to entertain Jon's kingly prospects, one should get a grasp about his central character conflicts first. Which are:

- his self-identity - the identity of his mother (and all this L+whoever=J bussines) is a red herring of sorts, because if we accept it's true then the real question becomes Is Ned Stark - the man who raised Jon as son - his 'true' father or is it the man who contributed nothing but half his DNA to who Jon is? Basically - nature vs. nurture. And I, for one, land firmly on the nurture side of this debate;

- his sense of duty - and more precisely, should one follow the letter or the spirit of the rules. Once again, I land firmly on the side of spirit and I agree with basically everything @TheLastWolf wrote about Jon's 'crimes'.

And IMHO this informs the possibility of Jon being the king thusly:

1. Jon Snow as king of Westeros. 

Nope. And not because I think he's horribly incompetent and totally undeserving to ever sit his behind on the Iron Throne. I actually think he'd be a medicore ruler - neither brilliant nor terrible - and very, very unhappy with the job. But mostly, I think it makes no sense as a resolution to his character arc. 

It requires him embracing his Targ herritage, which implies Rhaegar is more of his father than Ned, even though he had no influence over what sort of person Jon grew up to be. And it requires him completely disregarding the fact that following the spirit of the rules (when his people had clung to the letter) led to him being stabbed. It was the right choice but it also had a steep price and the fact of the matter is people as a whole understand the letter better than the spirit and prefer their leaders to stick to the same. Jon is the idealist and not the politician - if he was to rule Westeros, he would get himself stabbed all over again sooner rather than later. 

2. Jon as King in the North

Also nope.

The issue of being an idealist not a politician and therefore not cut out for ruling people still applies the same way. 

The issue of his identity plays differently, but still wrong. Jon is the son of Ned Stark in all the ways that matter (personality, values, upbringing) but he isn't a Stark. He is a Snow. In terms of character development him finally getting over his hung up about not being a trueborn Stark is much more powerful than him 'earning himself a spot' among them by inheriting Robb's title and Stark legacy. 

3. Jon as the Night King. 

This. 

4. Jon as the King Beyond the Wall

If he must be some kind of king by the end, that's the title that fits him best. It doesn't hinge on his genetics nor does it play into his hung ups. He doesn't have to become Targ or Stark to get it - he can be who he is, Jon Snow, a bastard without a title or position to inherit, a man defined by his deeds not his blood. That's a neat ending for him. And also the Free Folk are the only people who would actually appreciate him prefering the spirit of the rules and pragmatic solutions over sticking for the letter of the rule no matter how detrimental it is to the bigges issue at hand. 

But still, I would prefer Jon to just join the Free Folk and live among them without becoming their king. Because Free Folk don't really need a king. 

Leader of the Free Folk is a better fit for Jon.  He would not make a good king.

I wish for Daenerys to win the game of thrones and rule Westeros for the next fifty years.  But, I would not mind if the north splits away and became it's own people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2020 at 12:06 AM, Frey family reunion said:

It depends on what kind of King the raven is calling Jon Snow.  If you take the words in order you have: Corn King Snow, Jon Snow.

In which case if Jon is a Corn King, that might bode fairly poorly for his ultimate fate.

 

https://thepaganandthepen.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/lammas-corn-king/#:~:text=The corn king%2C John Barleycorn,as Adonis%2C Osiris or Tammuz.

Back to where we started,.... see this excerpt from a Jon snow chapter from ACOK

Quote

....the bird hopped back to Mormont's shoulder, where it promptly shat. "You might have done that on Snow instead of saving it for me", the Old Bear grumbled. The bird just quorked....

Again a Mormont Raven sign. What I think it implies is that it would not shit on a future king. I know that it has shitted on him several times before and after this incident, but as someone suggested,(was it @Megorova ??)it could mean that Bloodraven was not skinchanging in it at the times when we don't see hints about Jon becoming king. Who knows? Perhaps there are more such Easter eggs hidden (or are they Raven eggs?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2020 at 11:12 AM, Miss_Saffron said:

If he must be some kind of king by the end, that's the title that fits him best. It doesn't hinge on his genetics nor does it play into his hung ups. He doesn't have to become Targ or Stark to get it - he can be who he is, Jon Snow, a bastard without a title or position to inherit, a man defined by his deeds not his blood. 

If he is half wildling (as much as he denies it), he's also a trusting fool because he denies this as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

If he is half wildling (as much as he denies it), he's also a trusting fool because he denies this as well.  

He doesn’t deny it.

ADwD - Jon VIII

Mully cleared his throat. "M'lord? The wildling princess, letting her go, the men may say—"

"—that I am half a wildling myself, a turncloak who means to sell the realm to our raiders, cannibals, and giants." Jon did not need to stare into a fire to know what was being said of him. The worst part was, they were not wrong, not wholly. "Words are wind, and the wind is always blowing at the Wall. Come."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2020 at 11:38 AM, Miss_Saffron said:

Yes, the Free Folk needed king Mance to unite them against the threat of Others and lead them to the relative safety on the Westerosi side of the Wall. But after the Others are defeated this need would disappear. They certainly could have another king who would keep them united but - in the long run - this would mean they're no longer the Free Folk.

What differs the Free Folk from the kneelers is that FF are basically anarchists - in the sense that they don't believe they owe personal obedience to an arbitrary power structure. They follow Mance out of pragmatism and self-interest first and foremost: he's the one with a plan how to save their asses from the Others and enough people skills to keep FF united in pursuit of that plan. But let's say Mance does a left turn and following him is no longer in the interest of FF (for whatever reason) - they can say "screw it, I'm out of here" or they can kill Mance and pick another leader and no FF will see anything wrong with that. 

Feudalism (and therefore monarchy) is the antithesis of all of that. You owe obedience to your lord/kind whether you agree with him or not, whether it's in your interest or not and whether he is in the right or in the wrong. It can be argued that sufficiently reprehensible and unjust conduct of the king releases his subjects from their duty to obey (say, if he goes full on Mad King), but that is still exception that proves the rule. 

So, if the FF accept Jon for a reason other than their immediate self-interest (and I don't really see how that would happen in the world free of Others), they would take a step towards that feudal mentality. And if it would persist long enough, it would turn them into kneelers. 

I think here resides the problem I find in the theories of most people. I am sorry but if the freefolk end the story returning north hating the rest of westeros and divided it would be a shit ending.

The conflict between the wildlings and westerosi is one of the oldest conficts in the story and they are the ones that will be most hurt by the others.

At the end of the story the wildlings will need to evolve into something that can be accepted by westerosi standards in order for this conflict to end and new age to begin. And I am not saying they will become kneelers, but they surely can t remain rapists, murderers and kidnapers. They can t go on to live in a miserable place with awfull weather and horrible living conditions.

Then it is pretty clear that the north at the end of the story will be completly diferente from the north at the beguining of the story. Several noble houses are pratically extinct, all northmen will be war veterans full of traumas, the clans and other more underdeveloped people will be more important than they were, the old gods will rise in importance, Some IB will probably remain there...

Honeslty, I see jon becoming king of this new north full of hard men that believe in the old gods and that were United by him to fight the others and now need to remain United to survive winter. Otherwise he should either die or become something like coldhands ranging north of the Wall protecting the realms of men for ever. 

 

Him becoming king behond the Wall is just plain stupid. Jon would hate to live with a group of rapists, kidnapers, murderers, uneducated canibals. I am sorry, but people thinking jon wants to rule these people as they are is stupid… And I am not even mentioning that they should want  to return to their frozen lands when they have fought so hard to gain lands in westeros...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

He doesn’t deny it.

ADwD - Jon VIII

Mully cleared his throat. "M'lord? The wildling princess, letting her go, the men may say—"

"—that I am half a wildling myself, a turncloak who means to sell the realm to our raiders, cannibals, and giants." Jon did not need to stare into a fire to know what was being said of him. The worst part was, they were not wrong, not wholly. "Words are wind, and the wind is always blowing at the Wall. Come."

I was more focused on the trusting fool part....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like Jon has assumed the leadership role for the wildlings.  North side of the wall is the only place for them.  Their culture will not fit into the feudal government of westeros.  Jon is drawn to them because he also has trouble following rules.  Feudalism imposes rigid restrictions on what people can do.  He will have more success with the wildlings.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2020 at 6:50 AM, TheLastWolf said:

I confess that I'm a Stark fanboy (to quote @Alyn Oakenfist

, but what you say is an overstatement of sorts. Jon did exceptionally well considering his age, all that he went through with the wildlings and his own sworn brothers and especially Ygritte. I still think that they should have gone into the caves as she suggested because...see the above link. But the storyline would be affected, so we could not have had that.

Jon did deeds that were both honorable and also not. But the former far exceeds the latter. He defended Castle Black with only greenboys, cripples and greybeards, while he himself was injured. His trick with Magnar and his raiders could not have been done by anyone else of the Watch at such a time. His wits and swordsmanship are really good, though not legendary. He withstood Mance's assault till Stannis arrived. 

If helping Stannis was wrong. so be it. But Stannis could've taken everything by force, so what Jon did was somewhat right. Besides Stannis did help the Watch, unlike all the other pretenders and claimants.

If you call his actions of allowing the wildlings through the Wall and saving them as poor, I suggest that you reconsider. Please keep in mind that the true enemy are the Others and each dead wildling beyond the Wall is one more wight to fight. Many of the Night's Watch seem to have forgotten this when they killed/tried to kill him, like you.

Him sending Mance/Rattleshirt/Abel to rescue fake Arya was not against his duties, as Meli had him under her power, so he was sure of his return (though not sure when). What would any of us have done then in his position? (with exceptions if any are like Stannis).

Him going to march against Ramsay was wrong. but not in entirety. Please re-read the letter from Ramsay to Jon. It disrespected all the laws of the kingdoms in what it demanded in its contents.

If you truly understood how cruel and sadistic Ramsay was (as I'm sure you did), you'd agree with me.

Any other crimes or failures of Jon I might've missed???

Jon is easily the worst lord commander since the NK.  The stuff he did created conflict between the watch and the Boltons over his sister.  He allowed his feelings for Arya to destroy the NW.  

On 7/1/2020 at 10:41 PM, Kierria S said:

I was referring to Jon's love for Arya.  It caused him to violate the rules of the Night's Watch.  He also let Mance Rayder go without punishment in order to send the man to fetch Arya.

All of these things will bring the ruin of the NW and it is Jon's fault.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...