Who will be King by the end? And what will king mean?

[El Guapo]

I see those more as hints to his true identity rather than forshadowing of future events.  Personally I would be very disappointed if George went with the poor bastard boy who really is a king who defeats all his enemies and becomes king at the end trope.  

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I see those more as hints to his true identity rather than forshadowing of future events.  Personally I would be very disappointed if George went with the poor bastard boy who really is a king who defeats all his enemies and becomes king at the end trope.  

I mean at the end of the day it's a bit unavoidable. The (realistic) alternatives are:

- Jon, which as you said, is a bit of a trope, with the whole bastard boy who really is a king stuff

- Dany, which is probably even worse, with the whole literal messiah thing, last of a great line, exiled, coming back to save her people, etc

- And finally Bran. Bran as King luckily is not a trope. It is however idiotic and completely shits on the stories themes and ideas.

So between Bran "subverting expectations" and Jon being a bit of a trope, I'd prefer Jon. Or Dany. Dany works too. Just no bloody Bran the Broken.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

6 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I see those more as hints to his true identity rather than forshadowing of future events.  Personally I would be very disappointed if George went with the poor bastard boy who really is a king who defeats all his enemies and becomes king at the end trope.  

So far he has used many tropes all over the series.  It would be a disappointment if being the King was a good thing and the King had a fairytale like happily ever after.  On the contrary in GRRM’s world it seems like being King is a bad thing and takes a great toll on the person who wears the crown and sits on the Throne.

 

[El Guapo]

18 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I mean at the end of the day it's a bit unavoidable. The (realistic) alternatives are:

- Jon, which as you said, is a bit of a trope, with the whole bastard boy who really is a king stuff

- Dany, which is probably even worse, with the whole literal messiah thing, last of a great line, exiled, coming back to save her people, etc

- And finally Bran. Bran as King luckily is not a trope. It is however idiotic and completely shits on the stories themes and ideas.

So between Bran "subverting expectations" and Jon being a bit of a trope, I'd prefer Jon. Or Dany. Dany works too. Just no bloody Bran the Broken.

Yeah if those are the only 3 options than yeah I would choose Dany because atleast she is an interesting character. Jon just bores me to death but as much as i would hate it I would accept his being king over Bran which would be the absolute worst as it makes no sense whatsoever. I am just hopeful that George thrown us a curve ball and it is none of those three though admittedly that may be a pipe dream.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

15 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I am just hopeful that George thrown us a curve ball and it is none of those three though admittedly that may be a pipe dream.

Yeah, I really, really hope for Stannis or Aegon, but realistically both are doomed.

17 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Yeah if those are the only 3 options than yeah I would choose Dany because atleast she is an interesting character. Jon just bores me to death but as much as i would hate it I would accept his being king over Bran which would be the absolute worst as it makes no sense whatsoever.

So, in ADWD, I'd personally say Dany and Jon are at similar levels of interesting as far as their POVs are concerned, with Jon being slightly better than Dany in terms of what is happening, while Dany is slightly better in terms of interior conflict and personality.

That said, I think Jon will be better going forward, just for how far he's progressed. In AGOT he's so damn annoying, like he's on Bran and Sansa levels, while by ADWD he has actually enjoyable POV's. Dany on the other hand is at the constant level of "it's fine, could be worse, could be a Bran POV" throughout the books. So that's why I'm slightly more hopeful for Jon.

But like you, I'd take either one of them without question if it means not getting Bran.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

53 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

So far he has used many tropes all over the series.  It would be a disappointment if being the King was a good thing and the King had a fairytale like happily ever after.  On the contrary in GRRM’s world it seems like being King is a bad thing and takes a great toll on the person who wears the crown and sits on the Throne.

Here's the thing though, tropes are not necessarily a bad thing. Especially when subverted.

Take Dany for example. She might seem set to be a pretty generic and boring savior from beyond the sea, lost child trope, until you realize, Aegon is already in Westeros, and with both of them fulfilling the trope, you can bet it's gonna get subverted. Hard.

[CamiloRP]

2 hours ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

So far he has used many tropes all over the series.  It would be a disappointment if being the King was a good thing and the King had a fairytale like happily ever after.  On the contrary in GRRM’s world it seems like being King is a bad thing and takes a great toll on the person who wears the crown and sits on the Throne.

 

Monarchy being a bad thing for the monarchs is a pretty awful take tho. I think that, if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and people become aware of this, the bad side would be it only causing more war and destruction, pitting Jon against Dany, Aegon and even Stannis. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

5 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Monarchy being a bad thing for the monarchs is a pretty awful take tho. I think that, if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and people become aware of this, the bad side would be it only causing more war and destruction, pitting Jon against Dany, Aegon and even Stannis. 

Also the throne being such a bad thing goes dangerously close to "I duhn wan et" and "muh kween" territory. And like, heck the only King that didn't want the Throne was Robert, and as a result he royally (pun intended) messed up

[Lord of Blackhaven]

Anyone but Bran.

Just read through this entire thread. Not going to quote multiple posts or respond directly to a lot of stuff. I'll just echo the sentiments of those who say that the idea of King Bran is the weakest, stupidest and most nonsensical conclusion imaginable. It makes no sense from a storytelling perspective. It would be a huge anticlimax. I certainly have a favorite for who I would like to see ultimately sit the Iron Throne (I'll keep that to myself), but I can live with just about any ending, except King Bran. Its just dumb in every possible way.

I said last week on a different thread that I have high hopes that one of the many reasons Winds is delayed right now is that Martin is hopefully rewriting massive amounts after seeing that a lot of stuff in the last season of the show just didn't work. King Bran may have sounded good in his head, but hopefully when he saw it fleshed out on screen he saw how weak it actually was.

I'm not going to count on it, but hey, hope is all Ice and Fire fans have right now!...

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

53 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Monarchy being a bad thing for the monarchs is a pretty awful take tho. I think that, if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and people become aware of this, the bad side would be it only causing more war and destruction, pitting Jon against Dany, Aegon and even Stannis. 

I always believed that the responsibilities of the King are what make being the monarch a difficult burden. Being a good person doesn’t mean that the ruler will enjoy ruling, but because it’s a good person who saved the realm it’s his responsibility to rule his job is not ended when the war ended. Also being a good person doesn’t mean that the person will be a good King too. Look at Robert, people say that he was a good person but a bad king.  Baelor the blessed was a good person but a terrible King. One of the things that broke Aegon III, also a good person, was the fact that he was a King. Tywin was a bad person but a good ruler, Viserys II and Bloodraven were unpopular but good rulers. I know that Tywin and Bloodraven were not the Kings but they were the rulers for all indented purposes.
I don’t think that Jon will fight against anyone if his parentage becomes public, because for him Ned will always be his father. Aegon will have already being dead, killed by Dany and maybe Stannis too. If Dany is alive at the end I don’t think that people will like and support her, a King and kinslayer who has hordes of barbarians with her will not be a good candidate and then people will use Jon's paternal bloodline against her. 

[Lord of Blackhaven]

12 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

I always believed that the responsibilities of the King are what make being the monarch a difficult burden. Being a good person doesn’t mean that the ruler will enjoy ruling, but because it’s a good person who saved the realm it’s his responsibility to rule his job is not ended when the war ended. Also being a good person doesn’t mean that the person will be a good King too. Look at Robert, people say that he was a good person but a bad king.  Baelor the blessed was a good person but a terrible King. One of the things that broke Aegon III, also a good person, was the fact that he was a King. Tywin was a bad person but a good ruler, Viserys II and Bloodraven were unpopular but good rulers. I know that Tywin and Bloodraven were not the Kings but they were the rulers for all indented purposes.
I don’t think that Jon will fight against anyone if his parentage becomes public, because for him Ned will always be his father. Aegon will have already being dead, killed by Dany and maybe Stannis too. If Dany is alive at the end I don’t think that people will like and support her, a King and kinslayer who has hordes of barbarians with her will not be a good candidate and then people will use Jon's paternal bloodline against her. 

Being a ruler is a thankless task. One that should be done out of duty, not entitlement or desire for fealty. In the epilogue of ADWD Varys tells a dying Ser Kevan exactly why fAegon will be a good king. Talking of foreshadowing - what major Westerosi character does all of that apply to as well?

Of the major contenders - who is the person who comes at leadership from the perspective of duty and responsibility, and not a desire to have people kiss their rings and bow before them? Who is the one contender who doesn't feel at all entitled to lead? Who is the major contender who understands what it is like to feel unwanted, unloved and unimportant? Denigrated and shunned their whole life simply because of the circumstances of their birth. Who is the one person who can understand the concerns of everyone? Highborn, smallfolk, wildlings - who is the one person who "gets" them all?

All the fans know who it is.

Someone please tell GRRM it isn't Bran... 

[CamiloRP]

15 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

I always believed that the responsibilities of the King are what make being the monarch a difficult burden. Being a good person doesn’t mean that the ruler will enjoy ruling, but because it’s a good person who saved the realm it’s his responsibility to rule his job is not ended when the war ended. Also being a good person doesn’t mean that the person will be a good King too. Look at Robert, people say that he was a good person but a bad king.  Baelor the blessed was a good person but a terrible King. One of the things that broke Aegon III, also a good person, was the fact that he was a King. Tywin was a bad person but a good ruler, Viserys II and Bloodraven were unpopular but good rulers. I know that Tywin and Bloodraven were not the Kings but they were the rulers for all indented purposes.

The problem with this is that it places the king as a victim of the system while he's actually the biggest be beficiary. Monarchy and feudalism are fundamentally unjust systems, and the victims of those are almost everyone but the royalty and nobility. Saying Jon being king would not be a good thing because he would not enjoy it as much offuscates the fact that it's not a good thing because it means an utterly unjust system is still at play, and a third mad king can easily come again. If the king doesn't enjoy being king, he can depose or do nothing while others rule for him.

 

Quote

I don’t think that Jon will fight against anyone if his parentage becomes public, because for him Ned will always be his father. Aegon will have already being dead, killed by Dany and maybe Stannis too. If Dany is alive at the end I don’t think that people will like and support her, a King and kinslayer who has hordes of barbarians with her will not be a good candidate and then people will use Jon's paternal bloodline against her. 

I didn't mean that he would necessarily harm them, but 'the people' crowning him are causing even more war is still bad. And also, if he thought he could help in the fight against the Others by being king, I think he would be willing to kill Dany to get that. But again, people using him for that purpose still brings death, famine, etc.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

22 minutes ago, Lord of Blackhaven said:

Being a ruler is a thankless task. One that should be done out of duty, not entitlement or desire for fealty. In the epilogue of ADWD Varys tells a dying Ser Kevan exactly why fAegon will be a good king. Talking of foreshadowing - what major Westerosi character does all of that apply to as well?

Of the major contenders - who is the person who comes at leadership from the perspective of duty and responsibility, and not a desire to have people kiss their rings and bow before them? Who is the one contender who doesn't feel at all entitled to lead? Who is the major contender who understands what it is like to feel unwanted, unloved and unimportant? Denigrated and shunned their whole life simply because of the circumstances of their birth. Who is the one person who can understand the concerns of everyone? Highborn, smallfolk, wildlings - who is the one person who "gets" them all?

All the fans know who it is.

Someone please tell GRRM it isn't Bran... 

I cannot express how much I agree with that one. Yes! So much yes! From his first chapter there is a main character who always tries to help the others without prejudgment, a character who fought to help and save the weaker more than anyone else someone who had proved time and time again that he does his duty over his ego, the people over himself. Why as a society we are so afraid of good people? When being a good person became a disadvantage? Why we chose a slightly unstable person over an all around good person with some flaws?

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

53 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

The problem with this is that it places the king as a victim of the system while he's actually the biggest be beficiary. Monarchy and feudalism are fundamentally unjust systems, and the victims of those are almost everyone but the royalty and nobility. Saying Jon being king would not be a good thing because he would not enjoy it as much offuscates the fact that it's not a good thing because it means an utterly unjust system is still at play, and a third mad king can easily come again. If the king doesn't enjoy being king, he can depose or do nothing while others rule for him.

Even the society we live in doesn’t have a true democracy Westeros is not advanced enough to have any form of democracy. Even if we don’t like it in a medieval setting society monarchy is the only possible system. In any case a King who sees his title as a responsibility and not as a right will do his best because it’s his duty and not his personal vanity project. The understanding that the King has to always put his people over his personal desires, his people’s lives before himself can take a great toll on him. The closest ruler, in my opinion, that we have in the books and novellas who seems to be a good ruler and a decent human being is Bloodraven.

53 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I didn't mean that he would necessarily harm them, but 'the people' crowning him are causing even more war is still bad. And also, if he thought he could help in the fight against the Others by being king, I think he would be willing to kill Dany to get that. But again, people using him for that purpose still brings death, famine, etc.

Death and famine will always come after an apocalypse. The issue is to try his best and not to take advantage of his position to his gain.

[El Guapo]

2 hours ago, Lord of Blackhaven said:

Anyone but Bran.

Just read through this entire thread. Not going to quote multiple posts or respond directly to a lot of stuff. I'll just echo the sentiments of those who say that the idea of King Bran is the weakest, stupidest and most nonsensical conclusion imaginable. It makes no sense from a storytelling perspective. It would be a huge anticlimax. I certainly have a favorite for who I would like to see ultimately sit the Iron Throne (I'll keep that to myself), but I can live with just about any ending, except King Bran. Its just dumb in every possible way.

I said last week on a different thread that I have high hopes that one of the many reasons Winds is delayed right now is that Martin is hopefully rewriting massive amounts after seeing that a lot of stuff in the last season of the show just didn't work. King Bran may have sounded good in his head, but hopefully when he saw it fleshed out on screen he saw how weak it actually was.

I'm not going to count on it, but hey, hope is all Ice and Fire fans have right now!...

I would argue that Varys speech described Dany as much as the person that you think it described.

[Darth Sidious]

It won't be Jon.  He comes back as an Ice Wight.  Jon Wight.  But he could be the king of the north if the free folk become the dominant power in that corner of Westeros.  

Daenerys will more than likely rule the South end of the continent.  

[Darth Sidious]

On 10/22/2020 at 9:51 AM, Brandon Snow was right said:

I just pray it isn't Bran.

Bran's job is to lead the wights back to the farthest part of the north, away from the living.  Maybe he gets it done or maybe he fails.  But that is what you need a skin-changing person for.  The Starks will become kings of the north but it won't be what people think.  Westeros is not going to be the same because of the long winter.  They will be kings of an ice-covered land of the dead.  Some of the wildlings may stay and die.  The land will eventually be free of living humans.  It may happen after they become a pack of dire wolves.

[CamiloRP]

3 hours ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Even the society we live in doesn’t have a true democracy Westeros is not advanced enough to have any form of democracy. Even if we don’t like it in a medieval setting society monarchy is the only possible system. In any case a King who sees his title as a responsibility and not as a right will do his best because it’s his duty and not his personal vanity project. The understanding that the King has to always put his people over his personal desires, his people’s lives before himself can take a great toll on him. The closest ruler, in my opinion, that we have in the books and novellas who seems to be a good ruler and a decent human being is Bloodraven.

But then George would still be framing monarchy as a good thing, saying that the issues come from the ruler, not the system. And that's a point I'm not interested in, and more importantly, I don't think George is interested in it either. And again, presumably one of Jon's offspring will be a bad king, even a terrible one, and in the end, nothing would've matter, Westeros will have another Aerys/Joffrey, another Robert's Rebellion and another WOT5K, time going in a circle like the banner of house Toland. It must end somewhere, and another king, even a great one (and I think Jon would be a great king given the chance) is not enough to fix the issues of Westeros.

On the topic of good rulers who are also good persons, IDK, I stand by Ned being a good ruler, tho I'm not so sure about Bloodraven, we don't know enough about the guy, he was likely into some shady shit, and he got sent to the Wall for a reason. Also I fundamentally mistrust the COTF, so it might be that. Egg is also a good ruler and person.

 

Quote

Death and famine will always come after an apocalypse. The issue is to try his best and not to take advantage of his position to his gain.

Yes, but going to war against Dany would bring more death and more famine, and George is against war in almost all it's shapes and sizes, he would approve of Dany suddenly goes bananas, but that's not what I'm talking about. I think George is interested in examining and deconstructing tropes, there's a lot of that in a lot of his work, and Jon's possible heritage being just an excuse to put him on the throne would be a validation of birthright, it would be like 'hey, monarchy isn't so bad, it gave us this guy, and he saved the world.' 

But Jon being the archetype of the hidden prince, and that only leading to more pointless war, that'd be very George R. R. Martin.

[Rose of Red Lake]

this thread came back from the dead. I will assume it's going to be a mess. 

I made my case for why Jon isn't in the running - he is history dumb. Bran trumps that. Not blaming the folks who think it's stupid though, clearly GRRM needs to write this better and faster.

[Lord of Blackhaven]

4 hours ago, El Guapo said:

I would argue that Varys speech described Dany as much as the person that you think it described.

To a certain degree, except for the entitlement part. Dany thinks she deserves to rule because of her last name and who her parents were. She never sees ruling as something to be earned, just a birthright that should be granted to her.

She's also been pretty well looked after her entire life. When has she ever had to fend for herself? She's always had servants and retainers seeing to her every need. She's always had a support system. Even when her brother was bullying and harassing her as they wandered through the Free Cities, or even after being sold to Khal Drogo she was still fairly pampered. Maybe she'll get a dose of self-reliance in the next book. She's all alone in the Dothraki Sea (except for Drogon) and it will be time for her to stand on her own. I look forward to seeing how she does!