Jon or Rickon for KiTN?

[TheTowerOfJoy]

@TheTowerOfJoy what part of WESTEROS DESERVES A RULER WHO KNOWS WHAT HE/SHE'S DOING don't you understand?

It's exactly why no Stark, except for Sansa, should be a ruler. They're all clueless and the South would eat them alive

What part of "I don't think Sansa knows what she's doing, and I think that Jon has a better clue about leading something (ie LC of the NW)" do you not understand?

Sansa may learn how to play politics, but she certainly hasn't shown much of that ability to date, she's been a piece, not a player.

[DaveSnow House Stark]

Ok, so because Sansa was in the South she knows how to lead? Yes she has some clues about the treachery, but really that is all. She knows nothing of ruling, just the games behind it.

Dany is learning to rule, Jon has learned to Rule, even Stannis is learning to rule.

Sansa has never led anything.

[DaveSnow House Stark]

What part of "I don't think Sansa knows what she's doing, and I think that Jon has a better clue about leading something (ie LC of the NW)" do you not understand?

Sansa may learn how to play politics, but she certainly hasn't shown much of that ability to date, she's been a piece, not a player.

Couldn't agree more. Jon learned how to motivate troops, gain support from opposition(the wildlings), how to preserve against the winter and get needed money, from the Iron Bank. He has been in battles and led battles. He has seen and fought wights.

Yeah, my fanboy may be showing but it doesn't mean any of those things isn't true. Can anyone argue that Sansa has done anything?

[Ghost's Shadow]

Lol, is Sansa doing things again?

[Pikachu101]

.

[Pikachu101]

What part of "I don't think Sansa knows what she's doing, and I think that Jon has a better clue about leading something (ie LC of the NW)" do you not understand?

Sansa may learn how to play politics, but she certainly hasn't shown much of that ability to date, she's been a piece, not a player.

What does Jon know about the Game of Thrones?

What does Jon know about politics?

Has Jon's whole arc been centred around the Game of Theones?

Does Jon have first hand experience?

Jon can lead the Wildlings: a bunch of rambling anarchists who lack order and discipline

He failed miserably at leading the NWs because he forgot one thing: the NWs don't get involved with the realm

He doesn't need to understand politics to control those two factions

Then we have Sansa who at 13 has a better understanding of politics and the South than a 30 something woman and all her siblings combined

There's a reason why LF's teaching her the game: she has potential remember all players start of as pawns

Unfortunately I see no potential in Jon to rule or govern the South. I can't believe you used Dany as an example, she's a bigger failure than Cersei!

Who is more believable and realistic:

A girl who learnt the hard way how the Game of Thrones works and is now learning from the master

Or

A boy whose only experience is controlling the NWs (something he failed at) and a bunch of wild anarchists.

Jon future lies in the Wall

Rickon's future lies in Winterfell

Sansa's future lies with a crown on her head

[Balerion06]

What does Jon know about the Game of Thrones?

What does Jon know about politics?

Has Jon's whole arc been centred around the Game of Theones?

Does Jon have first hand experience?

Jon can lead the Wildlings: a bunch of rambling anarchists who lack order and discipline

He failed miserably at leading the NWs because he forgot one thing: the NWs don't get involved with the realm

He doesn't need to understand politics to control those two factions

Then we have Sansa who at 13 has a better understanding of politics and the South than a 30 something woman and all her siblings combined

There's a reason why LF's teaching her the game: she has potential remember all players start of as pawns

Unfortunately I see no potential in Jon to rule or govern the South. I can't believe you used Dany as an example, she's a bigger failure than Cersei!

Who is more believable and realistic:

A girl who learnt the hard way how the Game of Thrones works and is now learning from the master

Or

A boy whose only experience is controlling the NWs (something he failed at) and a bunch of wild anarchists.

Jon future lies in the Wall

Rickon's future lies in Winterfell

Sansa's future lies with a crown on her head

The only part I disagree with here is Sansa being queen. If she's learning from LF of all people, I think she'll understand that she'll be in a far more flexible and, in some ways, more powerful position if she's not a figurehead but rather someone more "behind the scenes". I can't see her as queen, but I can definitely see her as the real power behind whoever assumes the throne.

[Addam of Hull]

What does Jon know about the Game of Thrones?

What does Jon know about politics?

Has Jon's whole arc been centred around the Game of Theones?

Does Jon have first hand experience?

Jon can lead the Wildlings: a bunch of rambling anarchists who lack order and discipline

He failed miserably at leading the NWs because he forgot one thing: the NWs don't get involved with the realm

He doesn't need to understand politics to control those two factions

Then we have Sansa who at 13 has a better understanding of politics and the South than a 30 something woman and all her siblings combined

There's a reason why LF's teaching her the game: she has potential remember all players start of as pawns

Unfortunately I see no potential in Jon to rule or govern the South. I can't believe you used Dany as an example, she's a bigger failure than Cersei!

Who is more believable and realistic:

A girl who learnt the hard way how the Game of Thrones works and is now learning from the master

Or

A boy whose only experience is controlling the NWs (something he failed at) and a bunch of wild anarchists.

Jon future lies in the Wall

Rickon's future lies in Winterfell

Sansa's future lies with a crown on her head

I really like Sansa, but I think you're underselling Jon's abilities here. He's played the Game of Thrones as well - remember that he negotiated with Stannis, set up a wedding for Alys Karstark, and began to integrate a new group of people in to the realm. That hasn't happened since Daeron II brought Dorne into the 7 Kingdoms! Jon's entire ADWD arc involves him making both political and military decisions. He didn't even fail to lead the Watch - everything indicates that most of the Watch was at least content under him - and that there were a few outliers who disagreed. But they had so little support that they couldn't get him imprisoned or form an actual mutiny - literally, all they could do was stab him out in the open where everyone can see. Those are the actions of men that don't have any other options. You can't use an attempted assassination to say whether someone is a good or bad leader.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

What does Jon know about the Game of Thrones?

What does Jon know about politics?

Has Jon's whole arc been centred around the Game of Theones?

Does Jon have first hand experience?

Jon can lead the Wildlings: a bunch of rambling anarchists who lack order and discipline

He failed miserably at leading the NWs because he forgot one thing: the NWs don't get involved with the realm

He doesn't need to understand politics to control those two factions

Then we have Sansa who at 13 has a better understanding of politics and the South than a 30 something woman and all her siblings combined

There's a reason why LF's teaching her the game: she has potential remember all players start of as pawns

Unfortunately I see no potential in Jon to rule or govern the South. I can't believe you used Dany as an example, she's a bigger failure than Cersei!

Who is more believable and realistic:

A girl who learnt the hard way how the Game of Thrones works and is now learning from the master

Or

A boy whose only experience is controlling the NWs (something he failed at) and a bunch of wild anarchists.

Jon future lies in the Wall

Rickon's future lies in Winterfell

Sansa's future lies with a crown on her head

First of all, I think by the end of the series, the Game of Thrones will be meaningless. What good do political maneuverings do you against an army of the undead?

Second, I don't think Jon will be at the Wall, because I believe it will be destroyed and/or breached by the end of the series.

Third, as for Sansa, LF may be teaching her, but she's yet to show she has the cunning or skill to actually be successful at it.

And what on earth are you talking about me using Dany as some sort of justification?

[Pikachu101]

First of all, I think by the end of the series, the Game of Thrones will be meaningless. What good do political maneuverings do you against an army of the undead?

Second, I don't think Jon will be at the Wall, because I believe it will be destroyed and/or breached by the end of the series.

Third, as for Sansa, LF may be teaching her, but she's yet to show she has the cunning or skill to actually be successful at it.

And what on earth are you talking about me using Dany as some sort of justification?

The Game of Thrones will NEVER be meaningless, no matter what there will always be players.

Jon doesn't stay on the Wall good for him, then what? His whole arc has been centred around he Wall everything he's learnt won't benefit him in Westeros, especially not the South

Sansa hasn't shown any skill or cunning but Jon has? Please don't use the Wildlings as an example, they're a bunch of wild anarchists, even Cersei could manipulate them!

[Pikachu101]

I really like Sansa, but I think you're underselling Jon's abilities here. He's played the Game of Thrones as well - remember that he negotiated with Stannis, set up a wedding for Alys Karstark, and began to integrate a new group of people in to the realm. That hasn't happened since Daeron II brought Dorne into the 7 Kingdoms! Jon's entire ADWD arc involves him making both political and military decisions. He didn't even fail to lead the Watch - everything indicates that most of the Watch was at least content under him - and that there were a few outliers who disagreed. But they had so little support that they couldn't get him imprisoned or form an actual mutiny - literally, all they could do was stab him out in the open where everyone can see. Those are the actions of men that don't have any other options. You can't use an attempted assassination to say whether someone is a good or bad leader.

Negotiating doesn't mean he's good at politics it just means he can do good negotiating. Even Ned could do that.

I'm sorry but Wall politics doesn't prove anything. Just because you're a successful nursery teacher doesn't mean you can become a university lecturer

[Pikachu101]

The only part I disagree with here is Sansa being queen. If she's learning from LF of all people, I think she'll understand that she'll be in a far more flexible and, in some ways, more powerful position if she's not a figurehead but rather someone more "behind the scenes". I can't see her as queen, but I can definitely see her as the real power by whoever assumes the throne.

It's just because I want her to be the Younger Queen, but I don't mind this theory either ;)

[Iroh]

Jon as regent and Rickon as Lord of Winterfell.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

The Game of Thrones will NEVER be meaningless, no matter what there will always be players.

Jon doesn't stay on the Wall good for him, then what? His whole arc has been centred around he Wall everything he's learnt won't benefit him in Westeros, especially not the South

Sansa hasn't shown any skill or cunning but Jon has? Please don't use the Wildlings as an example, they're a bunch of wild anarchists, even Cersei could manipulate them!

Robert wasn't any good at the politics, but he was a leader of men and ended up on the throne. Jon would just need a strong hand, say Tyrion Lannister.

[Addam of Hull]

Negotiating doesn't mean he's good at politics it just means he can do good negotiating. Even Ned could do that.

I'm sorry but Wall politics doesn't prove anything. Just because you're a successful nursery teacher doesn't mean you can become a university lecturer

Wall politics prove everything. Jon spent ADWD successfully forging bonds between four distinct groups, with himself as the center that kept it all together. That's what politics is - finding common cause and uniting despite differences. Stannis would never have been able to get the Northerners on his side without him. Hell, he gets the Mountain Clans - who are historically enemies to the wildlings - to accept their presence in the Gift. He weds Alys to Sigorn and not only protects Alys, but rids himself of an enemy and gains allies in one smooth stroke. He's a smart, capable leader who's able to think outside the box while following his conscience.

I'm not saying he's going to rule anything, but Jon is far more capable than even some seasoned players of "the game".

[TheTowerOfJoy]

Wall politics prove everything. Jon spent ADWD successfully forging bonds between four distinct groups, with himself as the center that kept it all together. That's what politics is - finding common cause and uniting despite differences. Stannis would never have been able to get the Northerners on his side without him. Hell, he gets the Mountain Clans - who are historically enemies to the wildlings - to accept their presence in the Gift. He weds Alys to Sigorn and not only protects Alys, but rids himself of an enemy and gains allies in one smooth stroke. He's a smart, capable leader who's able to think outside the box while following his conscience.

I'm not saying he's going to rule anything, but Jon is far more capable than even some seasoned players of "the game".

Good point, though I think the nobles will be so decimated by the end of it, politics will be the last thing on anyone's mind.

[Pikachu101]

Robert wasn't any good at the politics, but he was a leader of men and ended up on the throne. Jon would just need a strong hand, say Tyrion Lannister.

So you want Westeros to have another Robert? A clueless king who is manipulated by players because that's what Jon would be

Wall politics prove everything. Jon spent ADWD successfully forging bonds between four distinct groups, with himself as the center that kept it all together. That's what politics is - finding common cause and uniting despite differences. Stannis would never have been able to get the Northerners on his side without him. Hell, he gets the Mountain Clans - who are historically enemies to the wildlings - to accept their presence in the Gift. He weds Alys to Sigorn and not only protects Alys, but rids himself of an enemy and gains allies in one smooth stroke. He's a smart, capable leader who's able to think outside the box while following his conscience.

I'm not saying he's going to rule anything, but Jon is far more capable than even some seasoned players of "the game".

Lol :P

All Jon was doing was what Ned had taught him and Robb to do. Believe it or not but negotiations isn't the same thing as politics (not on the South's level anyway) negotiations is what every single highborn is taught because it creates allies. You don't need to be a political mastermind to be able to negotiate treaties, even Robb and Ned could do that

The only person Jon is more capable than is Cersei, he doesn't stand a chance against players like Varys, LF, Olenna and Margaery. I think you weakened your argument by saying that

[Pikachu101]

.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

So you want Westeros to have another Robert? A clueless king who is manipulated by players because that's what Jon would be

I don't think he'd be as manipulatable as Robert, because he'd actually care to rule. If the existing nobility was still in place, he'd need the help of someone he could trust like Sansa (if she actually develops the ability to play the game, rather than just being a piece in it), or Tyrion Lannister (depending on his story arc). But personally, I don't think there's going to be much of the nobility left at the end of all this. I think Westeros will be so decimated, that what they'll need is a uniter to bring together the few remaining people of Westeros to rebuild.

[Jory Cassel]

So you want Westeros to have another Robert? A clueless king who is manipulated by players because that's what Jon would be

That is just twisting words, the point here is: If an uncapable drunkard like Robert could stay on the throne for fifteen years someone disciplined and fairly intelligent like Jon can't be disqualified only for not being familiar with the southron "Game of Thrones"