Landis Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Only by those with questionable reasoning abilities.It doesn't matter how questionable the reasoning abilities are, if people are in a powerful or opportune enough position, they will have you killed or discredited. In Jon's case, he was killed by his own steward and a number of others, whose identities have yet to be revealed. We can reason over Jon's intentions all we want, but the fact remains that he pissed some people off by breaking his oath, and those people assassinated him for it, reasonably or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 It doesn't matter how questionable the reasoning abilities are, if people are in a powerful or opportune enough position, they will have you killed or discredited. In Jon's case, he was killed by his own steward and a number of others, whose identities have yet to be revealed. We can reason over Jon's intentions all we want, but the fact remains that he pissed some people off by breaking his oath, and those people assassinated him for it, reasonably or not.I don't recall any of the perpetrators saying that Jon had broken his oath. What I do know is that the main one, Bowen Marsh, is not an expert at aything except counting cabbages. He could well have plotted to kill Jon because he was feeding the Wildlings. We just do not know his reasoning, as yet. So, the reason for the murder of the Lord Commander certainly can't be because he broke his oath, since he has not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guybrush Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I don't recall any of the perpetrators saying that Jon had broken his oath. What I do know is that the main one, Bowen Marsh, is not an expert at aything except counting cabbages. He could well have plotted to kill Jon because he was feeding the Wildlings. We just do not know his reasoning, as yet. So, the reason for the murder of the Lord Commander certainly can't be because he broke his oath, since he has not.I think it would have been regarded as oathbreaking by Lord Eddard, and it was by Jon himself as well - that's why he wasn't going to take any of the Watch with him. As for Marsh, I'd agree. Most like he stabbed John for sending all of the Watch north to save the Wildlings, and marching south with the other Wildlings. Since many mistrusted Jon to begin with, that could be construed as a Wildling attack on the realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Octarina Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think it would have been regarded as oathbreaking by Lord Eddard, and it was by Jon himself as well - that's why he wasn't going to take any of the Watch with him.I think it depends on how Jon sees his own actions. If he believes he's only going to Winterfell for personal reasons (including defending his ally Stannis, whereas he shouldnt be taking sides), than it's oathbreaking. But if he went to prevent the Bolton from attacking the Wall, insulting their honor, etc, that would be a different situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tini Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I don't think Jon considered his actions oath breaking. And he doesn't really care if others view his actions as oath breaking, as long as he does what is right. Jon does not waste energy on upholding appearances, he is focused on the spirit of his vows.He knows that others will think of him as an oath breaker and traitor for his actions: it is not the first time it happened. He didn't forsake his vows when he joined the wildlings, he was following orders as a sworn brother of the Night's Watch. And yet he was called a deserter by some when he returned to the Watch. If Jonos Slynt had been chosen Lord Commander, he would have been executed as a traitor.In a way, it is not possible to say if Jon is keeping or breaking his oaths at this point in the story. That is for history to decide, and Westerosi historians might be just as divided on the issue as we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smuggler Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think this topic has become about Jon, wouldn't there be a thread just for him? Anyways, i don't think neither Jon, Dany, or Aegeon will get the throne, that's just to obvious for how thick the plot is. I think the Targaryens are both just distractions for someone else, weather it be one of Robert's bastards or some completely different character, whom still has to show his legitimacy to being in the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jory Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Anyways, i don't think neither Jon, Dany, or Aegeon will get the throne, that's just to obvious for how thick the plot is. I think the Targaryens are both just distractions for someone else, weather it be one of Robert's bastards or some completely different character, whom still has to show his legitimacy to being in the line.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimeisnotazombie Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Stannis is the only rightful king IMO.The targs have taken to long, 3 kings have sat the throne since they did.Tyrion(even though i hate him) would make a good kingDavos- would make a good kingGarlan tyrell- i think would be a good kingDolorous edd- would be known as the great kingthen i guess Aegon because he was trained to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Octarina Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Stannis is the only rightful king IMO.The targs have taken to long, 3 kings have sat the throne since they did.Tyrion(even though i hate him) would make a good kingDavos- would make a good kingGarlan tyrell- i think would be a good kingDolorous edd- would be known as the great kingthen i guess Aegon because he was trained to be so.Apart from "Aegon", I completely agree with you! Imagine Davos as king, Dolorous Edd as his Hand...But seriously, if neither Stannis nor Jon gets the Throne in the end, which is really plausible, I'd rather see Westeros divided into many free republics ^.^ Which is also impossible unlikely, but... anything but Gendry, Sansa, Arya and co. on the Throne! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smuggler Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I'd be okay with Sansa, but how would Gendry even get to the throne? what even happened to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dohogerse Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Gendry was last seen with The Brotherhood without Banners, could be interesting to see who else knows of his existance and curretn status. Davos as king would just be epic with Edd involved, the common people taking charge. I also think the iron throne per se will be destroyed for all that representes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smuggler Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I would love to see Davos rule, just doesn't seem very likely that it iwill happen :dunce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I would love to see Tyrion on the Throne. He would be just like Henry VII, the first Tudor: an awesome king who re-stabilizes the war-torn nation, rebuilds the economy, reasserts royal power, and just generally brings an age of peace, only to be hated in spite of his goodness by his subjects, who are too tired of war to bother deposing him. It's unlikely that it will come to pass, but of everyone right now, I'd say that he is the best suited to the task. More probably, he will end up as the Hand (or perhaps regent, depending on who wins the war). Davos, I can see as a member of the Small Council for certain, maybe as Hand if Stannis wins (though I don't honestly think he will), but never as king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallion That Mounts Texas Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I pray Jon takes the throne as he is by far the best suited (blood and upbringing). I could live with Aegon (fake or no). Whoever wins I would like to see them name a principal bannerman from each Kingdom to the small council. This will weaken each ruling house and help to bring stability:1. Mathis Rowan, Roland Crakehall or Bronze Yonze Royce as Hand2. Davos as master of ships3. Victarian as Lord High Admiral4. Wyman Manderly as Master of Coin5. Brynden Tully as Master of Laws6. Tyene or Nym as Mistress of spy master7.Grand Maester Marwyn8.Randyll Tarly as chief justiciar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 In addition, something needs to be done about the religious sector. Cersei certainly managed to make that FUBAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardMaster24 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 My theory is that it doesn't matter who the Iron Throne will go to at the end of the series because it will be powerless. This civil war has shown that there are so many flaws in the system, like every kingdom having there own army and that there is no royal army. It gives to many people power to rebel against the system. So it won't matter who sits there because it is powerlessNow here is the order of succession if you go Targaryen before Baratheon1. Aegon VI(If hes not a fake)2. Jon(If you believe R + L = J is true)3. Daenerys4. StannisNow here if you move Stannis to the top that will show you Baratheon before TargaryenNow there is another solution to this, there is a posibility that the Lannisters could get a claim on the throne. If all of those guys either die or don't want the throne, that leaves us with a situation where we get the closes male with a claim on the throne is Jaime Lannister. Now there is another solution where nobody has a legitimate claim on the throne so the throne will just go to who ever an take it, though no matter who gets on it he will only be as powerful as the other lords Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 My theory is that it doesn't matter who the Iron Throne will go to at the end of the series because it will be powerless. This civil war has shown that there are so many flaws in the system, like every kingdom having there own army and that there is no royal army. It gives to many people power to rebel against the system. So it won't matter who sits there because it is powerlessNow here is the order of succession if you go Targaryen before Baratheon1. Aegon VI(If hes not a fake)2. Jon(If you believe R + L = J is true)3. Daenerys4. StannisNow here if you move Stannis to the top that will show you Baratheon before TargaryenNow there is another solution to this, there is a posibility that the Lannisters could get a claim on the throne. If all of those guys either die or don't want the throne, that leaves us with a situation where we get the closes male with a claim on the throne is Jaime Lannister. Now there is another solution where nobody has a legitimate claim on the throne so the throne will just go to who ever an take it, though no matter who gets on it he will only be as powerful as the other lordsI agree that the holder of the Iron Throne has been proven to be only as powerful as his allies in the series, but I highly doubt that if the Seven Kingdoms stay unified under the Iron Throne, the old system will be maintained. Introduction of a standing army for the king is something that a lot of monarchs introduced in the early modern era due to issues of lords with vast tracts of lands being able to call up such enormous support for rebellions all through the middle ages (which ASOIAF is inspired by heavily). I would say that if the Iron Throne is kept, this would be one thing in particular that would change as a mode of reasserting regal dominance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardMaster24 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Well I don't think the lords of the lands would want to split the empire because there are a lot of benefits of being unified, though it could all breakdown and the seven kingdoms could be basically shattered into peices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mist Isle Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 A completely new dynasty based on a monarch that gains acceptance and establishes this new order could be very interesting depending on the version of the scenario.Stannis and Edric Storm (becoming Edric Baratheon) seem to be some of the more interesting possibilities out of the characters who presently have some potential route to acquire the throne.I do not want to see any new type of Targaryen dynasty ruling Westeros at the end, but there is no problem if a Targaryen monarchy governs somewhere else (maybe a repopulated Valyria instead).The idea of Westeros containing several kingdoms is definitely intriguing though it does not necessarily need to lead to all of the Seven Kingdoms becoming separate states. If there is state pluralism then I would like to see Willas Tyrell be one of the kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladywhiskers Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Myrcella is back from Dorne and older than Tommen... she'll be able to carry a child soon...They can fataly injure Tommen and bethrow Myrcella to Garlan or Willas and still keep a place on the throne...That is if they accept the Dornish laws of succession !Why, who else is there to inherit after Tommen? His uncles? I think Myrcella actually does come next, even under Westerosi law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.