S06.E03: Oathbreaker

[glowbug]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

Last but not least - the prophecy is The Prince That Was Promised, not the King That Was Promised. Ergo, Jon is most likely not the king.

That's true only if you interpret the word Prince as meaning the hereditary title. Prince is also generic term that refers to a male ruler. A king is a prince under that usage. An example would be Machiavelli's The Prince, which was referring not only to princes but other male rulers including kings. I've read other historical works that referred to kings as princes in the generic sense but I can't recall them right now. I just don't think the wording of the prophecy is any indication of Jon's legitimacy. 

ETA: Stannis was never a prince and no one seemed to point that out when Mel claimed he was TPTWP. There are many reasons to be doubtful but his title doesn't seem to be one of them. 

Edited May 11, 2016 by glowbug

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

There's a reason the two sons of a king are called "the heir and the spare."

And that reason is that if the heir dies, the spare can take over.  That in no way indicates that the spare is ahead of the heir's own children.  European dynastic succession has in virtually all cases been per stirpes, meaning, it follows each line of descent to its exhaustion.  The children (sons, particularly) of the Crown Prince inherit his primacy.  They may be vulnerable to usurpation by any adults further down the line, but in the case of Viserys that's not a worry, and that's not strictly a legal but a practical risk.

[Dev F]

Thanks for the clarification re: the Westerosi line of succession, guys. I could've sworn I remembered GRRM saying something about succession getting fuzzy between a brother and a grandson, but I think I was misremembering his comments about the ambiguity of whether a brother or a daughter inherits.

[screamin]

1 hour ago, Constantinople said:

The lack of precedent for holding the succession in suspense to await the birth of a deceased former Crown Prince's child when the King had other living sons merely means it hasn't happened before, not that there's some pre-ordained rule requiring the living son take precedence.

Well, you're saying that the living son of the King does NOT take the throne if the former dead Crown Prince has a fetus somewhere who is a grandchild of the king...that the throne may be held empty even if the king had a legitimate son ready to step into it, waiting months to see whether the fetus has a penis or not. I'd say that's a pretty extraordinary claim to make, with a certain burden of proof required for it.

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

And that reason is that if the heir dies, the spare can take over.  That in no way indicates that the spare is ahead of the heir's own children.  European dynastic succession has in virtually all cases been per stirpes, meaning, it follows each line of descent to its exhaustion.  The children (sons, particularly) of the Crown Prince inherit his primacy.

Same here. If it's so cut and dried that a legitimate son of the king can't take the throne before waiting for a deceased former Crown Prince's possible offspring to be born, then there should have been some case in all of European history where it happened. But it seems you can't point to a single case. The few times a throne has been held vacant, it seems it was always held vacant awaiting the birth of a child of a king without issue, never the birth of the grandchild of a king who had legitimate living sons.

Actually, as I poke deeper into the topic (this is all SO educational!) I find that in actual English history (that Westeros is based on), Queen Victoria was properly crowned queen - with the stipulation that if the just-deceased king's wife had a child within the nine months after the king's death she'd have to give the crown to him/her. Such is the power over the succession the child of a king has, no matter how much younger than the acknowledged Crown Princess who isn't the child of the king. Also, it seems that in England the throne can't remain vacant, there has to be a regent for someone. (Fascinating article: http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/the-primogeniture-paradox-the-posthumous-heir-54339)

Edited May 11, 2016 by screamin

[glowbug]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

Well, you're saying that the living son of the King does NOT take the throne if the former dead Crown Prince has a fetus somewhere who is a grandchild of the king...that the throne may be held empty even if the king had a legitimate son ready to step into it, waiting months to see whether the fetus has a penis or not. I'd say that's a pretty extraordinary claim to make, with a certain burden of proof required for it.

Same here. If it's so cut and dried that a legitimate son of the king can't take the throne before waiting for a deceased former Crown Prince's possible offspring to be born, then there MUST have been some case in all of European history where it happened. But it seems you can't point to a single case. The few times a throne has been held vacant, it seems it was always held vacant awaiting the birth of a child of a king without issue, never the birth of the grandchild of a king who had legitimate sons of his own.

Actually, as I poke deeper into the topic (this is all SO educational!) I find that in actual English history (that Westeros is based on), Queen Victoria was properly crowned queen - with the stipulation that if the just-deceased king's wife had a child within the nine months after the king's death she'd have to give the crown to him/her. Such is the power over the succession the child of a king has, no matter how much younger than the acknowledged Crown Princess who isn't the child of the king. Also, it seems that in England the throne can't remain vacant, there has to be a regent for someone. (Fascinating article: http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/the-primogeniture-paradox-the-posthumous-heir-54339)

The case of Queen Victoria actually lends further proof that Jon (if legitimate) would have a greater claim to the throne than Viserys. King George III, Victoria's grandfather, died and his eldest son became King George IV. George IV died without an heir (his only legitimate child, a daughter, died before him) so the crown was given to his brother William, the eldest surviving brother, who became King William IV (there was a brother in between them who had already died childless). William IV died without an heir. The crown would have passed to his next younger brother Edward, however, Edward had died before William IV. Prince Edward did have a daughter, Victoria. She was then crowned queen despite the fact that William IV had three surviving younger brothers. All three of William's brothers were sons of a king and yet Victoria inherited the crown despite her father never having been king. 

Further, the fact that William IV's child would have inherited the throne even if he or she had been born after the William's death lends some credence to the idea that Jon would have still taken precedence over Viserys once he was born. William's unborn child, had he or she existed, wouldn't have take precedence over Victoria because he or she is the son or daughter of the king versus of prince but because through the line of succession he would have been the rightful heir once he or she was born.

Edited May 11, 2016 by glowbug

[feverfew]

4 hours ago, Constantinople said:

The lack of precedent for holding the succession in suspense to await the birth of a deceased former Crown Prince's child when the King had other living sons merely means it hasn't happened before, not that there's some pre-ordained rule requiring the living son take precedence.  In any case, reegardless of whether Rhaeger's unborn child or Viserys is proclaimed the heir, there would a regency that lasted a decade or more once Aerys died (provided the Targaryens managed to hold on to the throne, which they didn't).  Waiting a few additional months makes little difference.  Plus, some may prefer a long regency because it means regency party gets to rule the country longer.

I haven't read The World of Ice and Fire book, but isn't there something in that about Aerys proclaiming Viserys heir after Rhaegar's death, but before his own? If that's the case Jon's claim gets even more fussy...

Edited May 11, 2016 by feverfew
Clarification

[Jazzy24]

6 minutes ago, feverfew said:

I haven't read The World of Ice and Fire book, but isn't there something in that about Aerys proclaiming Viserys heir after Rhaegar's death, but before his own? If that's the case Jon's claim gets even more fussy...

I think Aerys did which would have caused a succession crisis but I would have hoped that people dismissed his ass as crazy and ignored him naming Viserys his heir and just proclaimed Awgon King. 

Jon has no claim to that ugly chair he's a man of the NW and I hope he stays that way. 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Jazzy24

[lmsweb]

3 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

I think Aerys did which would have caused a succession crisis but I would have hoped that people dismissed his ass as crazy and ignored him naming Viserys his heir and just proclaimed Awgon King. 

Jon has no claim to that ugly chair he's a man of the NW and I hope he stays that way. 

Except Jon Isn't a man of the Night's Watch. He handed it over to Dolorous Ed and walked off saying "my watch is done". Being a man of the NW ended when Ollie stabbed him in the heart and killed him, since the oath ends with his death. 

[SeanC]

7 hours ago, screamin said:

If it's so cut and dried that a legitimate son of the king can't take the throne before waiting for a deceased former Crown Prince's possible offspring to be born, then there should have been some case in all of European history where it happened.

Well, honestly, it's not really that unusual that it hasn't happened.  For most of monarchical history, a king was lucky to even live to see his own children start to have children.  Given the small sample size (there aren't all that many who died with sons in utero to begin with; there's actually a list over on Wikipedia), as well, it requires quite exceptional timing.

[Oscirus]

EEP. I will concede I was mistaken about inheritance laws but I think it's fair to say that I got it now.

Quote

And yeah they were protecting a innocent baby from a man who just in their eyes helped kill the crown prince and princess. Nor were they doing any favor for a friend Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon were dead as far as they knew Jon was king and they were doing their duty in protecting the king. 

Ignoring the fact that bigamy hasn't been legal for years in Westeros and ignoring the fact that before the baby was born that Viserys was the king and they should've been protecting him , two problems with that.  One when they were first posted, the baby they were protecting was at best third in line. Since when does that person draw two kingsguards? As a matter of fact, how many guards did Tommen get at the beginning of this series? Two they had no idea what the sex of the baby was. Are you saying that if the baby turned out to be a girl that the guards would've suddenly abandoned Lyanna and ran off to protect the true king?  If not then they were doing a friend a favor.

I do seriously hope that there's more to Jon's bloodline then whether or not he has a claim to the .

Also it's quite ironic that Robert's claim was due to the fact that the Baratheons in the past got screwed over in a marriage deal with the Targaryens.

[Constantinople]

8 hours ago, screamin said:

Well, you're saying that the living son of the King does NOT take the throne if the former dead Crown Prince has a fetus somewhere who is a grandchild of the king...that the throne may be held empty even if the king had a legitimate son ready to step into it, waiting months to see whether the fetus has a penis or not. I'd say that's a pretty extraordinary claim to make, with a certain burden of proof required for it.

Philip IV of France had two sons:  Louis and Philip.  When Philip IV died in 1314, Louis became King Louis X.  Louis X died while his wife was pregnant.  Philip was proclaimed regent.  5 months later Louis's son John was born and proclaimed King John of France.  At the time, the only difference in the laws of succession between England and France was that in England a claim to the throne of England could be passed through a woman; that was yet to be decided in France (the eventual answer was no though, the Kings of England disagreed since they would have also been Kings of France if the answer was yes.).  So it's quite possible if Richard II had been born posthumously, he would have been proclaimed King of England.

I think it's important to emphasize that when it comes to matters of succession and claims to the throne, the rules weren't set in stone as 21st century commentators tend to believe.  They made the rules up as they went along.  William the Conqueror's eldest son did not inherit the throne of England.  Henry I wasn't succeeded by his surviving daughter Matilda (aka Maud) but by his nephew Stephen, even though Stephen's claim passed from his mother, Henry's sister.  Later, Stephen agreed to make Maud's son Henry his heir even though Stephen had a legitimate son.  Richard I was succeeded by his brother John, rather than his nephew Arthur, whose dead father was John's elder brother.  When Henry IV seized the throne, it suddenly argued that he had a better claim to the throne than his grand nephews because Henry's claim passed through the male line whereas his nephew's claim passed through their mother (never mind that Henry IV's claim ultimately descended from Henry II's mother).  Later on, Edward IV kicked Henry IV's grandson off the throne on the grounds as heir to those nephews, he had the superior claims.  Henry VII backdated his reign to start the day before the Battle of Bosworth (not that either date would have made any sense since Henry VII claimed the throne by descent, not Conquest).  Henry VIII passed a law proclaiming his heirs to be his son Edward, then his eldest daughter Mary and then his younger daughter Elizabeth, even though there was no coherent theory under which all 3 of them could be legitimate. When Elizabeth died, she was succeeded by James of Scotland even though there was a long standing law in England barring the throne to foreigners; it was decide that James was sufficiently English because he held an English title or two.  James II was deemed to have abdicated when he tried to flee to France but his successor's reign wasn't backdated to start at the time of James's attempted flight.  For that matter James II was succeeded by William and Mary (who were married) though Mary was his daughter and William was his nephew (so William jumped the queue since Mary had a younger sister Anne).

To get back to Westeros, if France can live without a King for 5 months, Westeros can handle not having a Crown Prince for a few months.  Moreover, the idea that in Westeros there must always be someone immediately next in line is disproved by the Great Councils.  When Maeker died, he wasn't immediately succeeded by Aegon V.  There was an interregnum, during which time the Great Council decided upon Aegon.

In any case, it's irrelevant for the most part since Viserys is dead and the Targaryens don't currently occupy the throne.

Perhaps a more germane question given Jon Snow's resurrection is if Jon's claim to the throne died when he did.  Jon feels his death gives him a get-out-jail free card with the Night's Watch, and the working of the oath would support that.  So why wouldn't his claim to the throne die as well.  One difference is that his position in the Night's Watch was voluntary whereas his status as possible heir was involuntarily.  The counter argument may be that he gave up his claim to the throne when he joined the Night's Watch, just as Aemon did when he joined.  The counter to that is Aemon knew he was giving up his claim to the throne at the time whereas Jon did not.  So who knows.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Constantinople

[Oscirus]

Jon's problem would still be a legitimacy thing. If Robert doesn't take over the throne and it's left to Viserys then westeros could have been in store for one of it's many rebellions if Jon found out and wanted to stake his claim.

What if all this turns out to be irrelevant and at the end, Littlefinger is on the throne in all his mustache twirling glory?

[mac123x]

One when they were first posted, the baby they were protecting was at best third in line. Since when does that person draw two kingsguards? As a matter of fact, how many guards did Tommen get at the beginning of this series?

Hell, at the beginning of this saga, Joffrey, the heir apparent, didn't even have one Kingsguard assigned to him -- his sworn shield was the Hound. 

 

We know that Rhaegar was at least partially motivated by his messianic beliefs about the PtwP; maybe he converted Arthur Dayne et al to the same fanaticism.  They might have thought they weren't just guarding a potential heir to the throne, but were also guarding the prophesized savior of the world.

[Jazzy24]

2 hours ago, lmsweb said:

Except Jon Isn't a man of the Night's Watch. He handed it over to Dolorous Ed and walked off saying "my watch is done". Being a man of the NW ended when Ollie stabbed him in the heart and killed him, since the oath ends with his death. 

Let's not use the show as cannon. 

Hopefully GRRM doesn't do it this way like at all.  

[nksarmi]

9 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

Let's not use the show as cannon. 

Hopefully GRRM doesn't do it this way like at all.  

Oh don't you think that's the entire point of GRRM killing Jon off? I mean, other than to add to his special sauce with how he's resurrected. But I feel 100% confident that D&D are borrowing from GRRM here. Jon is no longer a man of the NW - his watch ended with his death.

[Jazzy24]

Just now, nksarmi said:

Oh don't you think that's the entire point of GRRM killing Jon off? I mean, other than to add to his special sauce with how he's resurrected. But I feel 100% confident that D&D are borrowing from GRRM here. Jon is no longer a man of the NW - his watch ended with his death.

Nope. I also hope GRRM doesn't bring Jon back from the dead just have him serverely injured. 

What D&D have done with Jon is very cliche, I hope GRRM is better than that. 

Plus I hope Jon would understand that the fucking dead is walking and coming. Even though a traumatic experience will change him it shouldn't make him dumb as hell to just get up and leave while the world is on a brink of an apocalypse. There is already enough squabbles for that ugly ass chair keep Jon out of it. 

[nksarmi]

10 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

Nope. I also hope GRRM doesn't bring Jon back from the dead just have him serverely injured. 

What D&D have done with Jon is very cliche, I hope GRRM is better than that. 

Plus I hope Jon would understand that the fucking dead is walking and coming. Even though a traumatic experience will change him it shouldn't make him dumb as hell to just get up and leave while the world is on a brink of an apocalypse. There is already enough squabbles for that ugly ass chair keep Jon out of it. 

Well I think D&D are taking Jon's plot exactly from what they know GRRM is going to do. I think Jon will die. I think Mel will resurrect him. I don't know if it will be with more fanfare or if Ghost will play a role, but I expect things to go very similarly in the books. It all just makes sense.

*** I didn't take his "my watch has ended" to mean that he's giving up on what needs to be done. If he is having a moment of self-doubt (and he might be given that he just had to execute the boy he saved and mentored) - he probably doesn't think he's fit to command the Watch. But once he comes to realize that he MUST defend the realm against the Others - I think he will realize he needs to do it as the commander of an Army - not the Watch. I think his story for the rest of the show (and probably the books) will be about securing that Army - not about trying to rule.

I don't expect Jon to have any interest in the Iron Throne ever - on the show or in the books. I also don't think he will rule - assuming he survives. But if he does survive - I also don't think he will be at the Wall (if there is a Wall) when this is all said and done.

But I think a hell of a lot of things are going to change by the end of the books. I am not convinced at all that there will be an Iron Throne to rule. I think the Others will be defeated forever and the Wall will fall. But I think whatever is left of the seven kingdoms when it's all done will be separately ruled by whoever survives the end battle.

If Jon survives, he might be involved in ruling the North. He might marry Sansa if she survives (I don't think he will marry Ayra) and they could rule together if Bran decides he doesn't want it.

Asha will probably get the Iron Islands when it's all done. Tyrion will take over Casterly Rock. Edmure will be released to rule the Riverlands. Not sure about the Vale. Perhaps one of Loras' non-existent show brothers will take over Highgarden. Arienne might take Dorne with Aegon by her side if he lives. I don't believe Dany survives the series.

Edited May 11, 2016 by nksarmi

[SeanC]

16 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

Nope. I also hope GRRM doesn't bring Jon back from the dead just have him serverely injured. 

What D&D have done with Jon is very cliche, I hope GRRM is better than that. 

Plus I hope Jon would understand that the fucking dead is walking and coming. Even though a traumatic experience will change him it shouldn't make him dumb as hell to just get up and leave while the world is on a brink of an apocalypse. There is already enough squabbles for that ugly ass chair keep Jon out of it. 

Being stabbed a bunch of times in the chest is going to be fatal.  I'm quite certain that Jon will die and be resurrected by Mel; that has been set up extensively.

Jon in the books had already decided to march south to wage war on Ramsay when he was murdered.

[Advance35]

Quote

But I think a hell of a lot of things are going to change by the end of the books. I am not convinced at all that there will be an Iron Throne to rule.

GRRM has said that the Otherpocalypse will move to the forefront of the series but hasn't he intimated that the battle for the Iron Throne will go hand and hand with that event.  He mentioned that there will be a few more people who take the Throne before the final "winner" is crowned (paraphrasing).   Where does speculation that there won't be an Iron Throne or Seven Kingdoms to rule come from?

[lmsweb]

59 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

Let's not use the show as cannon. 

Hopefully GRRM doesn't do it this way like at all.  

Since we're discussing the show and not the book, I AM going to assume what we saw was cannon. YMMV.

[GrailKing]

1 hour ago, Jazzy24 said:

Let's not use the show as cannon. 

Hopefully GRRM doesn't do it this way like at all.  

Too much going against you here with this line, as stated by others, B & W know the high points, Jon's death and rebirth is one, along with him ending his watch; they will change wording, change people but Jon's story is the same.

[Alapaki]

Quote

Plus I hope Jon would understand that the fucking dead is walking and coming. Even though a traumatic experience will change him it shouldn't make him dumb as hell to just get up and leave while the world is on a brink of an apocalypse. There is already enough squabbles for that ugly ass chair keep Jon out of it.

Jon's leaving the Night's Watch/Castle Black is not mutually exclusive with keeping up the fight against the Others.  The Night's Watch force at Castle Black is so puny that it doesn't affect the Others' ability or inability to breach the Wall (setting aside supernatural methods used by the Others, which the mortals of the NW couldn't counter anyway).

My guess is that at this point Jon take the trek that in the books he sent Stannis on to rally the Northern hill-country houses to clear out Winterfell and then prepare to make a stand against the Others.

[Jazzy24]

20 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

Too much going against you here with this line, as stated by others, B & W know the high points, Jon's death and rebirth is one, along with him ending his watch; they will change wording, change people but Jon's story is the same.

I doubt it's the same. Apparently Jon is going to take Winterfell this season when that's Stannis' story in the books. 

Yes D&D know the high points it doesn't change the facts that a lot of the story have moved away from the books. GRRM and D&D have said that the books and tv show are moving away from each other hugely hence Sansa's rape story. We'll still get the end results(that's what they say) but the tv show won't get there the same way as the books will. 

[Hecate7]

8 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

I think Aerys did which would have caused a succession crisis but I would have hoped that people dismissed his ass as crazy and ignored him naming Viserys his heir and just proclaimed Awgon King. 

Jon has no claim to that ugly chair he's a man of the NW and I hope he stays that way. 

His watch is done. I think when your men turn on you in a body and mutiny, then murder you, and you DIE and come back to life, you are entitled to decide whether or not you want to keep living by those vows.

[Pogojoco]

12 hours ago, Dev F said:

Thanks for the clarification re: the Westerosi line of succession, guys. I could've sworn I remembered GRRM saying something about succession getting fuzzy between a brother and a grandson, but I think I was misremembering his comments about the ambiguity of whether a brother or a daughter inherits.

You might be thinking of Dorne, which is  absolute primogeniture, meaning the first born is heir, no matter gender. This is only sort of relevant because Rhaeger's kids are half-Dornish (their mother is Elia Martell) and they had a daughter first (Rhaenys) and then Aegon. So if the Iron Throne was Dornish- it would go Rhaeger, Rhaenys, Aegon and then Jon. 

There was a lot of talk by Arianne in the book about how Myrcella should be on the Iron Throne because she's older than Tommen. But Arrianne isn't on the show, so I guess it isn't a thing. 

[GrailKing]

1 hour ago, Jazzy24 said:

I doubt it's the same. Apparently Jon is going to take Winterfell this season when that's Stannis' story in the books. 

Yes D&D know the high points it doesn't change the facts that a lot of the story have moved away from the books. GRRM and D&D have said that the books and tv show are moving away from each other hugely hence Sansa's rape story. We'll still get the end results(that's what they say) but the tv show won't get there the same way as the books will. 

Sans's rape story while I didn't like it will eventually merge back to her story, she's bringing the Vale or sending the Vale along with aid, with or without LF, with or without Robert Arryn.

One way or another she's leaving the Vale I'm pretty sure someone is going down there [during the falcon tournament in the Alaynne chapter excerpt[/spoiler]

[GrailKing]

1 hour ago, Jazzy24 said:

I doubt it's the same. Apparently Jon is going to take Winterfell this season when that's Stannis' story in the books. 

Yes D&D know the high points it doesn't change the facts that a lot of the story have moved away from the books. GRRM and D&D have said that the books and tv show are moving away from each other hugely hence Sansa's rape story. We'll still get the end results(that's what they say) but the tv show won't get there the same way as the books will. 

Sans's rape story while I didn't like it will eventually merge back to her story, she's bringing the Vale or sending the Vale along with aid, with or without LF, with or without Robert Arryn.

One way or another she's leaving the Vale I'm pretty sure someone is going down there

during the falcon tournament in the Alaynne chapter excerpt

Edited May 11, 2016 by GrailKing

[GrailKing]

1 hour ago, Jazzy24 said:

I doubt it's the same. Apparently Jon is going to take Winterfell this season when that's Stannis' story in the books. 

Yes D&D know the high points it doesn't change the facts that a lot of the story have moved away from the books. GRRM and D&D have said that the books and tv show are moving away from each other hugely hence Sansa's rape story. We'll still get the end results(that's what they say) but the tv show won't get there the same way as the books will. 

Sans's rape story while I didn't like it will eventually merge back to her story, she's bringing the Vale or sending the Vale along with aid, with or without LF, with or without Robert Arryn.

One way or another she's leaving the Vale I'm pretty sure someone is going down there [during the falcon tournament in the Alaynne chapter excerpt[/spoiler]

something is causing multi post sorry :>(

Latest excerpt: Arianne new

 

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/excerpt-from-the-winds-of-winter/

[Alapaki]

Quote

I doubt it's the same. Apparently Jon is going to take Winterfell this season when that's Stannis' story in the books.

IIRC, Stannis is bogged down in a blizzard with his army reduced to killing and eating their horses, and possibly infiltrated by Karstark's secretly aligned with the Boltons.

I'd say the odds of Stannis even getting to Winterfell in the books, let alone taking a fortified walled redoubt under those circumstances are dubious at best.

[Jazzy24]

9 minutes ago, Alapaki said:

IIRC, Stannis is bogged down in a blizzard with his army reduced to killing and eating their horses, and possibly infiltrated by Karstark's secretly aligned with the Boltons.

I'd say the odds of Stannis even getting to Winterfell in the books, let alone taking a fortified walled redoubt under those circumstances are dubious at best.

Stannis and his army are right outside Winterfell by the time TWOW will start the Battle Of Ice is what GRRM is calling it. And Stannis knows that the Karstarks are on Boltons side. plus the Boltons are sitting scared in Winterfell with enemies inside and outside  

Stannis have apprehended the Karstarks in Theon's POV WOW excerpt chapter. We also find out that a Frey has died and the Freys and Manderlys are both coming out of Winterfell

Edited May 11, 2016 by Jazzy24

[GrailKing]

9 minutes ago, Alapaki said:

IIRC, Stannis is bogged down in a blizzard with his army reduced to killing and eating their horses, and possibly infiltrated by Karstark's secretly aligned with the Boltons.

I'd say the odds of Stannis even getting to Winterfell in the books, let alone taking a fortified walled redoubt under those circumstances are dubious at best.

Theon tells Stannis of the Karstarks treason ( in theon chapter excerpt) as he's hanging in chains,Stannis had some killed and sent a raven to WF

5 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

Stannis and his army are right outside Winterfell by the time TWOW will start the Battle Of Ice is what GRRM is calling it. And Stannis knows that the Karstarks are on Boltons side. plus the Boltons are sitting scared in Winterfell with enemies inside and outside  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Stannis have apprehended the Karstarks in Theon's POV WOW excerpt chapter. We also find out that a Frey has died and the Freys and Manderlys are both coming out of Winterfell

Ninged by this much| |I was. :>)

[lucindabelle]

3 hours ago, nksarmi said:

Oh don't you think that's the entire point of GRRM killing Jon off? I mean, other than to add to his special sauce with how he's resurrected. But I feel 100% confident that D&D are borrowing from GRRM here. Jon is no longer a man of the NW - his watch ended with his death.

Agreed. Everything I've read states that GRRM is involved in the show.

3 hours ago, nksarmi said:

If Jon survives, he might be involved in ruling the North. He might marry Sansa if she survives (I don't think he will marry Ayra) and they could rule together if Bran decides he doesn't want it.

 

Even if Jon isn't "really" a half brother to Sansa and Arya he was raised as if he were, and it would feel like incest to all parties. Even first cousin marriage is taboo in most societies. I don't see this happening.

[SeanC]

16 minutes ago, lucindabelle said:

Even first cousin marriage is taboo in most societies.

I don't think Jon is going to marry either of the girls raised as his sisters, for the record, but first cousin marriage is 100% okay in Westeros, from all evidence.  Taboos in the west about marriage between cousins didn't really start to develop until the mid-19th century, and even now it's still legal in most of the world.

[Dev F]

1 hour ago, Pogojoco said:

You might be thinking of Dorne, which is  absolute primogeniture, meaning the first born is heir, no matter gender. This is only sort of relevant because Rhaeger's kids are half-Dornish (their mother is Elia Martell) and they had a daughter first (Rhaenys) and then Aegon. So if the Iron Throne was Dornish- it would go Rhaeger, Rhaenys, Aegon and then Jon.

No, I was actually misremembering these GRRM comments specifically, where he discusses the muddiness of succession rules in general, and gives as an example the notion that if a king dies with no male heirs, only a daughter and a brother, there might be a conflict over which one gets to inherit. The Dornish rules would actually be less ambiguous in that case, because they'd clearly prefer the daughter to her uncle.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Dev F

[lucindabelle]

Legal but kinda gross. And illegal in a lot of states.

Regardless, Jon FEELS like a brother to Sansa and Arya and it would be too much for them. Even chimps raised with other chimps don't mate.

[GrailKing]

23 minutes ago, lucindabelle said:

Agreed. Everything I've read states that GRRM is involved in the show.

Even if Jon isn't "really" a half brother to Sansa and Arya he was raised as if he were, and it would feel like incest to all parties. Even first cousin marriage is taboo in most societies. I don't see this happening.

As far as the states well every where I read 2nd cuzs are ok, but first cuzs seem to have it's own rules: and this gent did some work:

http://www.11points.com/Dating-Sex/11_State_Laws_About_Marrying_Your_Cousins,_From_Strictest_to_Loosest

[lucindabelle]

But if Jon is Lyanna's son, he and Sansa and Arya are first cousins. But as I said, regardless, this would feel pretty awful to all parties.

[nksarmi]

3 hours ago, Advance35 said:

GRRM has said that the Otherpocalypse will move to the forefront of the series but hasn't he intimated that the battle for the Iron Throne will go hand and hand with that event.  He mentioned that there will be a few more people who take the Throne before the final "winner" is crowned (paraphrasing).   Where does speculation that there won't be an Iron Throne or Seven Kingdoms to rule come from?

My speculation is based on the idea that the Seven Kingdoms has only been joined for 300 years or so and then only because of Dragons. When we are thrown into this story it seems like the only reason the Seven Kingdoms survived Robert's Rebellion is because Ned was his best friend, Jon A arranged to have him married off to the biggest threat in the kingdoms (Lannisters), and Dorne has been secretly plotting to put a Targ BACK on the throne rather than waging open war.

In other words - when Robert B dies he takes anything the resembles peace and order with him and then people start asking very logical questions like - why should the Stag rule the Lion or why should the Lion rule the Direwolf. They bowed to Dragons not each other.

At this point in the books - we have one confirmed Dragon (Dany), one suspected bastard Dragon (Jon), and one suspected by fans fake Dragon (Aegon). Of those, I think there is just as much chance that none of them will rule as any of them will. Any or all of them could die.

If a Dragon doesn't take the thrown - then there are two logical possibilities - GRRM has Westerous develop some kind of parliamentary power share among the kingdoms with an elected head for the Iron Throne or the kingdoms break apart. Either way, I don't think Westerous is going to go through all of this just to return to the way things were before it all began.

[GrailKing]

17 minutes ago, SeanC said:

I don't think Jon is going to marry either of the girls raised as his sisters, for the record, but first cousin marriage is 100% okay in Westeros, from all evidence.  Taboos in the west about marriage between cousins didn't really start to develop until the mid-19th century, and even now it's still legal in most of the world.

I say no to Arya, but on the fence with Sansa, as saying goes: be careful what you wish for, and as Cersei said: you may not love the King, but you'll love the children paraphrased.

Edited May 11, 2016 by GrailKing
removed Jon, added Sansa

[nksarmi]

37 minutes ago, lucindabelle said:

Agreed. Everything I've read states that GRRM is involved in the show.

Even if Jon isn't "really" a half brother to Sansa and Arya he was raised as if he were, and it would feel like incest to all parties. Even first cousin marriage is taboo in most societies. I don't see this happening.

Hee I thought like you once until I spent some time on these boards. :)

Cousins marry all the time in Westerous. What I've learned that is interesting is that it's perfectly legal in most parts of the world today - and in 25 U.S. states (I looked it up because I was so shocked that many posters didn't consider what Cersei and Lancel did incest and figured the show HAD to be referring to Jamie at the end of last season).

The Jon / Sansa thing has been discussed a lot here - I'm guessing the television vs book thread is best if you want to see people argue for and against it. I have come to think it's possible because the show took pains to demonstrate that Jon and Sansa really weren't that close growing up. I think it's an effort to make it look less weird if GRRM does go down this path.

ETA: I asked this is another thread and I believe other posters confirmed it - Jon and Sansa have only been seen together on screen once and have never exchanged a line. It really won't be all that odd for people to accept they aren't really related if/when this happens.

15 minutes ago, lucindabelle said:

Legal but kinda gross. And illegal in a lot of states.

Regardless, Jon FEELS like a brother to Sansa and Arya and it would be too much for them. Even chimps raised with other chimps don't mate.

He FEELS like a brother to Ayra. You have never SEEN him be a brother to Sansa. Think about it and you'll realize it doesn't actually seem all that weird. And NOTE that they are leaving Jamie and Cersei in place this season when they should be falling apart. I'd bet money that's so viewers can be numbed into the idea that "cousins" aren't that bad. :)

Edited May 11, 2016 by nksarmi

[GrailKing]

2 minutes ago, nksarmi said:

Hee I thought like you once until I spent some time on these boards. :)

Cousins marry all the time in Westerous. What I've learned that is interesting is that it's perfectly legal in most parts of the world today - and in 25 U.S. states (I looked it up because I was so shocked that many posters didn't consider what Cersei and Lancel did incest and figured the show HAD to be referring to Jamie at the end of last season).

The Jon / Sansa thing has been discussed a lot here - I'm guessing the television vs book thread is best if you want to see people argue for and against it. I have come to think it's possible because the show took pains to demonstrate that Jon and Sansa really weren't that close growing up. I think it's an effort to make it look less weird if GRRM does go down this path.

ETA: I asked this is another thread and I believe other posters confirmed it - Jon and Sansa have only been seen together on screen once and have never exchanged a line. It really won't be all that odd for people to accept they aren't really related if/when this happens.

We may get a hint this week, when we see how it's played.

[lucindabelle]

I see what you mean but I just cant see Jon and Sansa marrying. They were raised in the same home and even if not close, it would be weird. For that matter I think Arya and Sansa had a fraternal type relationship with Theon as well.

[SeanC]

39 minutes ago, lucindabelle said:

For that matter I think Arya and Sansa had a fraternal type relationship with Theon as well.

In the books, no.  He was just a dude who lived at their house.  Sansa has never so much as thought his name, and I think Arya has maybe once, but only in response to being told that he attacked Winterfell at the end of ACOK.  Neither thinks of him as akin to family at any point.  The only member of the Stark family that Theon had any kind of close relationship with was Robb.

In the show, Sansa went on about how Bran and Rickon were his brothers, which I guess by implication means she was his sister, though they still always talk about "your/my family", so I don't know what we're supposed to think about that.

[Jazzy24]

1 hour ago, lucindabelle said:

Agreed. Everything I've read states that GRRM is involved in the show.

Even if Jon isn't "really" a half brother to Sansa and Arya he was raised as if he were, and it would feel like incest to all parties. Even first cousin marriage is taboo in most societies. I don't see this happening.

I don't know what you're reading about GRRM being involved in the show but I've been told he hasn't written a script for the show for 2 seasons now. He's also repeatedly reassured fans how the books and tv show are moving more and more away from each. 

Many of the stories are different than the books even Jon's story. 

[RedheadZombie]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 6:13 PM, Avaleigh said:

I agree with you that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a consensual relationship but I don't think there's any reason at all to doubt that King Aerys II was as mad as a hatter. By the end he sounded like he was in Howard Hughes territory in terms of his appearance. Book Aerys was forcing his wife to sleep with two septas or something like that because he couldn't deal with their issues of not having healthy children after Rhaegar. After a certain point he could only become sexually aroused after he'd had some unfortunate person burned to death. He names fire as the champion of House Targaryen as if that's in any way reasonable. I want to say that he didn't even trust Rhaella to be around Viserys too much out of paranoia. IMO the guy was completely off his rocker. 

Then there's the fact of how much it's emphasized that madness runs in the Targaryen family. Viserys had traces of it and Dany does too. 

I was just reading up on Aerys and Rhaella, and you're correct.  Aerys became convinced that her multiple miscarriages were bastards, so he made her sleep with the two septas.  After her babies continued to die, he was convinced it was his own infidelities, and swore to be faithful to Rhaella.  And there's no doubt he was mad.  After one of his babies died, he had the wet nurse beheaded.  He then blamed his mistress for that child's death, and tortured her and her family to death [ Correction:  I think he blamed the mistress and family for the death of his father]. After Rhaella gave birth to Viserys (after so many years of stillbirths and early deaths), Aerys had his food taster suckle from the wetnurse to ensure her nipples weren't poisoned.  He also forbid Rhaella to be alone with Viserys.  He didn't let anyone touch Viserys, and I'm sure that's part of the reason he was such a psychopath.

And the worst part:  He abused Rhaella terribly.  At one point while they were listening to Rhaella's cries as she was raped, Jaime insisted it was their duty to protect their queen as well.  The other KG said yes - but not from him.  She was noted to be covered in scratches, bruises, and bites when he was through with her.  And this happened right before he sent her to Dragonstone, so she was pregnant with Dany when he did this.

And although we're told that Targaryens always married siblings and other close family members, it was said that Rhaella and Aerys were made to wed because their father believed the prophecy of the prince that was promised, and that he would be born through Aerys/Rhaella's line.

There are a lot of characters with horrific stories in this series, but I find Rhaella's to be one of the worst.

I'm assuming Martin implies that the madness and dead babies are from centuries of inbreeding.

Edited May 12, 2016 by RedheadZombie
Correction

[RedheadZombie]

I think line of succession (in GoT land) is far more complicated than we believe.  If the reigning monarch must be legitimate as well as born from a monarch, why the urgency in killing all of Robert's bastards? 

As to British history, I will throw in the confusion of Edward VI's death.  Even though his elder sister Mary (and even Elizabeth) had the greater claim, distant cousin Lady Jane Grey was on the throne for nine days before they beheaded her, and crowned Mary.  There's also Richard III whose nephews (heirs of the king) conveniently disappeared, at which time Richard was made king.

An argument to consider when determining Dany versus Jon as monarch, is Jon isn't as inbred as Dany, and less prone to pass on the insanity.  Or since Dany is barren, she could reign with Jon as her heir.

As to Jon, Ned named him for Jon Arryn, correct?  I imagine if Lyanna named him, she would have given him an elaborate Targaryen name with Y's and Ae's.

18 hours ago, Macbeth said:

Speaking of Direwolves, I didn't see Ghost chasing after Jon when he left.  Ghost didn't stay with Jon when he joined the Wildings, either.  I remember when Commander Mornmont was rallying the troops after the White Walker attack, Ghost was standing listening to the Commander alongside the troops like he was a member of the NW himself.  Ghost is not good at being a NW - since Monmort was soon assasinated.

Maybe he pledged an oath to the NW and is keeping his oath.  Or, more likely, it was too costly to CGI him in.

At this point, I hope Jon goes nowhere without Ghost.  And there we have the true oathbreaker - Ghost.  Walking away from the NW without dying first.

17 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

I still and will forever say that baby Aegon should have been King with his regent as Jon Arryn and Oberyn Martell.  

Does this go along with the theory that Aegon is alive, and another baby was sacrificed and it's face destroyed so the secret wouldn't be revealed?  I wonder who was charged with raising Aegon.  Surely he'd be somewhere in Dorne.  Didn't some people speculate Trystane was Aegon?

[Chris24601]

1 hour ago, lucindabelle said:

I see what you mean but I just cant see Jon and Sansa marrying. They were raised in the same home and even if not close, it would be weird. For that matter I think Arya and Sansa had a fraternal type relationship with Theon as well.

One thing to remember about Westeros (and medieval nobility in general) is that marriage isn't about love. Its about politics and securing your family's legacy. Ned and Cat were virtual strangers when they married and conceived Robb and yet grew to have one of the most generally successful marriages ever depicted in the series.

One of the things the books make clear is that neither Sansa nor Jon have any illusions about this. Both of them reflect on what it would like to be married (to Willas and Val respectively) and the nature of their spouse was barely even a consideration; it was all about having children named for their dead relatives and recreating the happier times they remembered from their youth with themselves in the role of Cat and Ned respectively.

There's a reason a reason Jon/Sansa is sometimes referred to as Ned/Cat 2.0.

No one I've seen who predicts it has claimed it will be some mad passionate love affair. The claim is almost universally that it will be a political union with which the two can be reasonably content. That's about as close to a happy ending as you're going to get in a story like this.

[SeanC]

52 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

I think line of succession (in GoT land) is far more complicated than we believe.  If the reigning monarch must be legitimate as well as born from a monarch, why the urgency in killing all of Robert's bastards? 

Robert's bastards weren't killed because they had a claim on the throne, they were killed because Cersei is a sadistic monster and wanted all of Robert's bastards dead because she considered their existence an affront to her.

Quote

As to British history, I will throw in the confusion of Edward VI's death.  Even though his elder sister Mary (and even Elizabeth) had the greater claim, distant cousin Lady Jane Grey was on the throne for nine days before they beheaded her, and crowned Mary.

That wasn't "confusion", though.  Edward VI attempted to alter the succession in his will in favour of Lady Jane, but most of the people disagreed and Mary was crowned instead.

Edited May 11, 2016 by SeanC

[screamin]

9 hours ago, Constantinople said:

Philip IV of France had two sons:  Louis and Philip.  When Philip IV died in 1314, Louis became King Louis X.  Louis X died while his wife was pregnant.  Philip was proclaimed regent.  5 months later Louis's son John was born and proclaimed King John of France.

That is, again, (like Alfonso XIII of Spain, cited earlier) a case of a childless King whose throne is held vacant while awaiting the birth of that king's only child, not the case of a king with a living son (like Aerys with Viserys) whose throne is held vacant while awaiting outcome of the pregnancy of the consort of the deceased elder son - who was never King. No one's yet cited a case where a king's living son was held back from his father's throne for months to await the birth of the child of his deceased elder brother who was never king - who may or may not be born a boy, or even alive. I'm no historian, so I can't pretend to know the history of all monarchies of Europe, but I'm willing to bet you won't find a single case. Holding a throne vacant in times when wars of succession were rampant is just asking for trouble - probably the reason it happened so rarely throughout history. The chanciness of diagnosing pregnancy and assuring its successful outcome in those days would make it less likely that people would want to put their whole power structure on hold for it, unless doing so would increase stability (like assuring the succession of an established king's son). Anyway, I don't think you can take a far-fetched, entirely theoretical hypothesis and say, "If this had happened, this and only this is what people would have thought correct."

Anyway, I agree with others that Jon's claim to the rusty old throne will probably end up irrelevant. I think it would be a far more powerful story if Jon were truly a bastard, and achieves the status of savior of Westeros through his goodness and willingness to act to help others, thus far superior to greedy aristocrats who think their impeccable pedigrees make them supreme.

Just as I think it's a powerful story if the three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy followed Rhaegar's orders due to love and faith in him - and when he fails and dies, leaving them with the guilt of inaction while the Targaryens fell and the pain over their wrong choices, and the decision to expiate them by following their dead prince's orders to the bitter end - their certain death. I think that's a lot more poignant - as well as explicable - than imagining that the Kingsguard quibbled over a pedigree chart and royal succession lawbooks and decided that protecting a fetus who MIGHT be the King if it's a boy is worth leaving the boy Viserys (who WILL be king if Fetus is a girl) entirely without KG protection for months while all three of them watch vigilantly over Lyanna's vagina...and to boot, they decide that their protection requires killing Fetus' only powerful potential ally, his uncle, without so much as asking Fetus' mother's by-your-leave. I can't be emotionally moved by that gang of idiots.

Edited May 11, 2016 by screamin

[Umbelina]

I think it's highly unlikely that the show has deviated from the (overall, not detailed) story of Jon's resurrection.  We all knew he lived anyway, and the show just added the cherry on top.

As for some kind of eventual happy ending?  I honestly don't see it happening.  These rulers are almost all completely horrible, and/or rule only because their ancestors were just as disgusting, depraved, and blood-and-pain thirsty murderers and abusers of the powerless.  That's kind of the Faith Militant's point right now, but dig a bit deeper and are they any better? 

Anyway, to keep this mostly about the episode, Jon undoubtedly lives and ends his watch, although I'm pretty sure the whole thing will be vastly more grisly in the books, and I don't think he'll be the still handsome guy we have on screen with only a few cuts on his body.  Will his flesh begin to fall off in the books?  Who knows, but dude will live, will leave the watch, and obviously has a part in the wars to come.

There are a few decent people in the books, very few, but more and more I'm expecting the White Walkers to cleanse the world of the complete filth that has ruled and ruined for many centuries, so who is in line to inherit is completely irrelevant, because the ones left alive by the walkers, and the survivors of the other hardships Winter presents will be the ones who choose.  Now if they are stupid enough to still put someone with a "legitimate" claim in power?  That will be truly sad, and probably the bleakest ending of all.

I keep going back to the White Walkers not killing Sam on the show, WAS that foreshadowing that the White Walkers have an inner compass or understanding of people's souls, a kind of shared mind guide of who to be left alive?  Dipping far into the speculation thread territory now, so I'll stop.

ETA

Of course they are so busy killing each other off, and destroying crops and the people who grow them, the White Walkers may not have all that much "clean up" left to accomplish by the time Winter really does get off it's ass and come.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Umbelina