S06.E03: Oathbreaker

[SeanC]

23 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

All of the actors on GOT have had to deal with less-than-stellar writing at one point or another. The good ones can sell it; heck, the really good ones can make it sound like the finest poetry (look what Jonathan Pryce did with the High Sparrow's word salad blathering this episode, or the way Iain Glen can give a hundred different readings to "Khaleesi"). The bad ones, like Sophie, can't.

When Sansa's scenes are badly written all the actress is called on to do is spout lines that make her character look stupid or cry.  I'm not sure what Sophie was supposed to do in moments like that (and in some of those scenes, e.g., the scene with Loras in 306, she does try to give some weight to a scene that on the page is just a poorly-written joke about how Sansa doesn't realize Loras is gay).  In the scene in 310 we're discussing, where we see the aftermath of Sansa hearing about her family, Sophie does her best dignified crying face, which is all any actor could do.  On the occasions where Sansa is given meaningful material, she invariably sells it, and in scenes with, e.g., Aidan Gillen, she's doing all the work to make the scene watchable.

[Oscirus]

Quote

No Jon could be if he was legitimate. 

Legitimate or not, Viserys was still next in line. Rhaegar died before the mad king hence Viserys became the crown prince.

Quote

They were protecting a innocent baby whose life was in danger because his daddy was a Targ. Nobody was getting to that tower if they could help it. 

They weren't protecting shit, they were doing a favor for a friend. Either way it was pretty stupid to not allow the one person who would've helped Lyanna.

[Alapaki]

My impression from the books is that even a significant number of people who couldn't stand Mad King Aerys would've been happy with Rhaegar as King.  Ned obviously wanted to save his sister from (what he believed to be) Rhaegar's kidnapping.  Of course, shit got really real for Ned after Aerys killed his father and brother, but that was a beef with Aerys, not Rhaegar.

Once the battle was down to Dayne and Ned, and Dayne disarmed Ned, for all practical purposes Ned was dead.  If Lyanna's relationship with Rhaegar and conception of Rhaegar's child truly was consensual, that would've undercut the entire raison d'etat for Robert's Rebellion.  Why wouldn't Dayne explain that to Ned and ask Ned, now knowing his sister's true wishes, go back and stop Robert from being crowned while Dayne takes the Lyanna and baby into secure hiding until there is a consensus on the succession?

I find it hard to believe that Ned would place Robert's pride before his own sister's wishes (and, by definition, a child who would be his own blood).

[Eyes High]

13 minutes ago, SeanC said:

When Sansa's scenes are badly written all the actress is called on to do is spout lines that make her character look stupid or cry.  I'm not sure what Sophie was supposed to do in moments like that (and in some of those scenes, e.g., the scene with Loras in 306, she does try to give some weight to a scene that on the page is just a poorly-written joke about how Sansa doesn't realize Loras is gay).  In the scene in 310 we're discussing, where we see the aftermath of Sansa hearing about her family, Sophie does her best dignified crying face, which is all any actor could do.  On the occasions where Sansa is given meaningful material, she invariably sells it, and in scenes with, e.g., Aidan Gillen, she's doing all the work to make the scene watchable.

In my opinion, her scenes with Aidan Gillen are another instance of the blind leading the blind. They were painful to watch, in my opinion, since Sophie Turner tries for "clever" and only gets "smug": they were almost, but not quite, as bad as her horrendous scenes with the Hound in Season 2, which was supposed to be "meaningful material," I think. She gives a performance that runs the range of emotions from A to B. Not good.

Given Sophie's severe limitations as an actress, it's probably for the best that we didn't see the scene where she found out about Robb and Catelyn's deaths. She's nowhere near good enough to do that justice. Small wonder they turned that bit into a Tyrion/Sansa scene where Tyrion realizes that Sansa already found out; at least Peter Dinklage knows what he's doing.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Eyes High

[screamin]

2 minutes ago, Winter Rose said:

The Kingsguard's job first and foremost is to protect the king. Anything that comes after can only do so if it doesn't interfere with that first duty. Ned may have been Lyanna's brother but he was still one of the people to rebel against the crown, in addition to being Robert's best friend, and he didn't come to the ToJ alone. And Jon being next in line following the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon (and NOT swearing fealty to Robert, as they only saw him for a usurper), protecting Jon would've been too important for the Kingsguard to take a chance that they MIGHT be able to reason with Ned.

Well, but if Lyanna is in the midst of labor (as the volume of her shriek seems to imply) the Kingsguard in front of the tower have no idea just what she's bringing forth into the world, do they? It could be a mere girl, with much less right to the throne than her male uncle. Not to mention that after the death of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon, the Targaryen right to the throne might be considered to have fallen to Dany's living brother, not to an unborn fetus of undetermined sex.

Besides, the Kingsguard explain their presence there as following the Prince's orders, specifically; no hint about protecting a king. And is depriving this infant of the only relative who has the power to help him really protecting him? All of Westeros is now officially hostile territory to Targaryens. If Rhaegar's child is to have any chance of surviving, it needs to leave the country or hide REALLY well. Do three lonely knights have the resources for either? Ned's been leading armies, and for all the KG know, he has one quartered right over the horizon. Kill Ned, the army comes to look for him and slaughters them all, having no reason not to. But Ned has a very good reason to spare and help Lyanna's child - the taboo against kinslaying. Lyanna is a very good source about Ned's nobility of character, and the KG have spent months with her. Wouldn't it be worth it for Lyanna to TRY to convince Ned to help them escape - maybe even have him come with them as a voluntary hostage till they escape? If he says no, nothing is lost. If he says yes, they have the protection of a great lord in getting the child out of a country swarming with hostile armies. Isn't it worth a try? IMO, the fact that they DIDN'T try (and Dayne's last cryptic remark) indicates the Kingsguard are just looking for an honorable death in battle, not looking for the best way for Fetus Jon to survive.

Quote

And even if Lyanna could talk between contractions and ask them to spare Ned, she was well inside the tower while the Kingsguard were outside. It would've been difficult for her to yell to them to spare Ned, or even for her to know when Ned arrived.

Picture that...the Kingsguard stroll into Lyanna's bedroom. "Your brother arrived while you were crowning."

"Ned? What luck that it was him instead of any other lord! Bring him in, let me talk to him, I know I can get him to help us..."

"You were busy pushing, so we killed him. Here's his head. He says hi." *waggle,waggle*

Nope, can't see the Kingsguard as being anything but Lyanna's implacable jailors at that point...

[Alapaki]

Quote

Legitimate or not, Viserys was still next in line. Rhaegar died before the mad king hence Viserys became the crown prince.

Viserys would not be next in line until Rhaegar's children were killed (if they both were) by the Mountain.  

I don't know what the status of a first-born's in utero heir is vis a vis the first born's next male sibling.  But any male child of Rhaegar would have a claim.  It would all come down to whom the most people (and the most strength) would coalesce behind.  Knowing what we know of Viserys, I doubt he would've had many backers.

But an R+L=J child, with Ned as Regent until the child came of age and Viserys being taken out of the picture is a scenario that might've garnered a significant amount of support from the dueling factions.  Ned wouldn't have been seen as a threat, as I don't think that Northerners were thought of as having designs on the Southron crown anyway.  And it would've brought the realm a period of relative pax Johnny while the various families angled their way to influence.

[SeanC]

3 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

In my opinion, her scenes with Aidan Gillen are another instance of the blind leading the blind. They were painful to watch, in my opinion, since Sophie Turner tries for "clever" and only gets "smug": they were almost, but not quite, as bad as her horrendous scenes with the Hound in Season 2, which was supposed to be "meaningful material," I think. She gives a performance that runs the range of emotions from A to B. Not good.

Given Sophie's limitations as an actress, it's probably for the best that we didn't see the scene where she found out about Robb and Catelyn's deaths. She's nowhere near good enough to do that justice. Small wonder they turned that bit into a Tyrion/Sansa scene; at least Peter Dinklage knows what he's doing.

I think "supposed to be" is the right word there, since the writing gives her nothing to work with.  The Sansa/Hound dynamic on the show doesn't really appear to be anything more than "Sansa is afraid of this guy, I guess?"  The writing strips out pretty much all the thematic significance of their interactions, beginning with her empathizing with him, which was the foundation for their whole relationship.

In the books it was Tyrion who told Sansa about her family's deaths, so they didn't turn it into a Tyrion/Sansa scene.  Indeed, they cut one such scene, basically.

[Winter Rose]

11 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

Legitimate or not, Viserys was still next in line. Rhaegar died before the mad king hence Viserys became the crown prince.

No he's not. Rhaegar's heirs are ahead of Viserys.

[SeanC]

1 minute ago, Alapaki said:

I don't know what the status of a first-born's in utero heir is vis a vis the first born's next male sibling.

In the real world, generally the succession is suspended until the baby is delivered (e.g., Alfonso XIII of Spain, who was born several months after the death of his father, Alfonso XII).

[DigitalCount]

The problem is that it's trickier than that. The idea exists that Viserys as the son of a king would have more right to the throne than Jon as even the trueborn son of a prince. Since Rhaegar never ascended to the throne, it could be said (and has historically been attempted, IIRC) that Viserys' claim trumps Jon's. I'm not sure if Dany being female means that hers wouldn't even by this system, but while Jon inherits Rhaegar's claim, he doesn't necessarily inherit the strength of Rhaegar's claim, if that makes any sense.

And this won't really make much sense since people have already posted and I didn't use the quote function, but oh well.

[Dev F]

1 minute ago, Alapaki said:

Viserys would not be next in line until Rhaegar's children were killed (if they both were) by the Mountain. 

No, I think Oscirus is right -- a king's children inherit before his siblings, but I believe his siblings inherit before his grandchildren. If Rhaegar had lived long enough to become king, of course his children would be next in line, but he died before his father.

Quote

Knowing what we know of Viserys, I doubt he would've had many backers.

He was a little boy. I don't think he'd have done much by this point to earn people's ire.

[Oscirus]

Quote

Viserys would not be next in line until Rhaegar's children were killed (if they both were) by the Mountain.  

That's not how line of succession works. Once the king's son dies it goes to the next king's son, not the king's grandkids.

[SeanC]

Just now, Dev F said:

He was a little boy. I don't think he'd have done much by this point to earn people's ire.

Barristan Selmy considered him sufficiently unstable at that point to doubt whether it would be a good idea to try and serve him.

Succession generally works by bloodline.  Rhaegar's children would come before Rhaegar's siblings.  Now, if the siblings were adults they'd often have the inside track to usurp infant children, but that wouldn't be the case here, given that Viserys is also a child.

[screamin]

Quote

In the real world, generally the succession is suspended until the baby is delivered (e.g., Alfonso XIII of Spain, who was born several months after the death of his father, Alfonso XII).

I'm pretty sure that's not necessarily the universal rule. "The king is dead, long live the king."

[SeanC]

2 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

That's not how line of succession works. Once the king's son dies it goes to the next king's son, not the king's grandkids.

Not in any western country, from whence Westeros generally draws its inspiration.

[Alapaki]

Quote

The problem is that it's trickier than that. The idea exists that Viserys as the son of a king would have more right to the throne than Jon as even the trueborn son of a prince. Since Rhaegar never ascended to the throne, it could be said (and has historically been attempted, IIRC) that Viserys' claim trumps Jon's. I'm not sure if Dany being female means that hers wouldn't even by this system, but while Jon inherits Rhaegar's claim, he doesn't necessarily inherit the strength of Rhaegar's claim, if that makes any sense.

No disagreement.  It's just that no one truly has any "right" to the throne.  One or more parties have "claims" to the throne, of varying strengths.  And, ultimately, the winner is usually the claimant who has the most muscle behind him/her.

Jon's claim might be considered strong in that regard, as he might have the support of the North as well as the Rhaegar loyalists.  The problem, to the extent that illegitimacy would be a problem for anyone) is that there was no one with the authority to "legitimize" Jon.  Unless they went through the farce of having Jon's Regent or Hand issue a proclamation in Jon's name, whereby he legitimizes himself.

[SFoster21]

Can I just say that Sir Arthur was seriously cute?  Too bad we'll see no more of him.

[Avaleigh]

14 hours ago, screamin said:

Oh, I'm sure she initially went off with Rhaegar willingly - but to me, the Kingsguard being willing to kill Ned before they'll let him talk to his sister smacks more of them holding her prisoner under Rhaegar's orders than of Lyanna still being willingly a guest at the tower. I'd guess that the bloom went off the romance after the horrid consequences to Lyanna's father and brother, and at some time Rhaegar ordered his KG to keep her in the tower and let no one come near her - regardless of what her wishes might be on either of those points. I can envision charismatic, loony Rhaegar being sweet enough to initially seduce Lyanna and unyielding and obsessive enough in his pursuit of 'the third head of the dragon' not to let Lyanna out of his possession once things started going sour...

I don't think they were keeping Lyanna prisoner. I think they were protecting the baby because they didn't trust that the Usurper's best friend wouldn't hand the kid over. 

[GrailKing]

15 hours ago, dr pepper said:

Not even! It's the frontal balance that needs work.

my wife seem to remember some choice frontal, Alfie came to her mind, the rest were side characters.

I always read woman did not like the "P" my wife told me the same thing, not nice looking she say unless it's WOOD! this may be an adult show but laws for TV dictates no woody's for the ladies unless they go XXX rated.

[Black Knight]

49 minutes ago, screamin said:

Picture that...the Kingsguard stroll into Lyanna's bedroom. "Your brother arrived while you were crowning."

"Ned? What luck that it was him instead of any other lord! Bring him in, let me talk to him, I know I can get him to help us..."

"You were busy pushing, so we killed him. Here's his head. He says hi." *waggle,waggle*

Nope, can't see the Kingsguard as being anything but Lyanna's implacable jailors at that point...

I'm withholding judgment. Both sides have valid points. One point I haven't seen made yet is that Lyanna has to plead with Ned, "Promise me, Ned." That doesn't necessarily suggest a man who was sympathetic to keeping a Targaryen heir around even after hearing that it wasn't rape.

There's a lot about that whole war we don't know yet - I remember GRRM saying, for instance, that people seem to be assuming Ashara Dayne just stayed at Starfall the entire time. It seems to me that Lyanna and Rhaegar would have tried to clear up the whole "rape/kidnapping" misapprehension. So it may have been that Lyanna sent a message to Ned at some point in the war, he didn't believe her, and that made her afraid for her unborn baby. In that scenario, yes, I could see her willingly being in the Tower of Joy, willingly having Kingsguard as protectors, very concerned that she wouldn't be able to reason with Ned.

The biggest thing for me is that Ned bears no ill will towards Rhaegar. If Rhaegar was keeping his sister a prisoner later in the war, then even if it wasn't originally a rape/kidnapping, I think he'd have some bad feelings towards Rhaegar. So I guess I do lean more towards the side that Lyanna still had some agency of her own rather than being a prisoner. But still, I'm not sold because, again, there is just so much we don't know yet. Even much of what we know, we don't truly know, as they're actually assumptions by various characters, stories they've heard, things they were told. And we've seen repeatedly throughout the series that the stories that get repeated are often not true.

[benteen]

I've always felt the Kingsguard was disobeying their oath to their King by taking orders from his son instead.  They should have been on the Trident unless their King ordered them to stay with the Crown Prince.  It doesn't matter if they thought Rhaegar would make a better King.  Everyone is so strict on that oath to the King that I believe they broke it when they decided the Prince was who they were going to take orders from.

[GrailKing]

1 minute ago, benteen said:

I've always felt the Kingsguard was disobeying their oath to their King by taking orders from his son instead.  They should have been on the Trident unless their King ordered them to stay with the Crown Prince.  It doesn't matter if they thought Rhaegar would make a better King.  Everyone is so strict on that oath to the King that I believe they broke it when they decided the Prince was who they were going to take orders from.

So this all comes down to which oath do they honor as Jamie Lannister told Brienne, now show wise they could had explain just the two at the TOJ as following Rhaegar's orders as the balance followed the Prince to the Trident, but they didn't and it would add more fuel to the few who wants a to the word of God rendition ( GRRM).

[mac123x]

Regarding the laws of succession as established in the text:

Westeros in general follows male-preference primogeniture:  Eldest son of the eldest son inherits even in his father predeceases his grandfather.  If all the sons are dead, the daughters inherit in order of birth.  Some examples:

 

Alys Karstark was her brother’s heir.  He was currently in captivity, so her uncle was trying to marry her and provoke the Lannisters into killing the brother, thus giving him Karhold.

 

Jon points out many times to Stannis that Sansa is the rightful lady of Winterfell, because (he thinks) all his brothers are dead and she’s the elder female.

 

The entire convoluted reason that Harry is the Heir of the Vale is an elaborate reading of male-preference primogeniture.

 

The Targaryen succession isn’t quite so straight forward.  When Jaeherys’s eldest son died, leaving only a daughter (Rhaenys), theoretically she should have become his heir, but he proclaimed that his second son would succeed him.  A few years later, the second son also croaked, so they had the first Great Council.  They boiled it down to either (1) Rhaenys’s son Laenor (the king’s great-grandson) or (2) the king’s second son’s son Viserys. 

 

(1) wins on primogeniture, since he’s descended from the eldest line.  (2) wins on proximity, since he’s a closer generation.  They made up some justification that women can’t have a claim on the throne or pass on a claim to their children, but it really boiled down to (2) being an adult and (1) being a child and they didn’t want a regency.

 

Viserys became king then cocked it all up by insisting that his eldest daughter succeed him, despite having sons through his second marriage.  Thus leading to the Dance of the Dragons.

 

So who has the best legalistic claim?  Faegon then Jon by primogeniture , Dany by proximity.  In the end it probably won’t matter since it’ll be decided by whoever wins the wars.

[Jazzy24]

1 hour ago, Oscirus said:

Legitimate or not, Viserys was still next in line. Rhaegar died before the mad king hence Viserys became the crown prince.

They weren't protecting shit, they were doing a favor for a friend. Either way it was pretty stupid to not allow the one person who would've helped Lyanna.

No learn how inheritance works in the world of Westeros. 

Rhaegar is the first born son so the heir. So Rhaegar is first in line and after him would be any sons that he had even if he did die before Aerys and if he didn't have any sons or they all died than Viserys would be next. 

So it works like this Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Jon(if he's legitimate), any other sons Rhaegar might have and than  Viserys. 

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. 

[Alapaki]

Quote

 In the end it probably won’t matter since it’ll be decided by whoever wins the wars.

And it also probably won't matter because there's a huge fucking zombie army about to massacre its way across Westeros from North to South!

The "game of thrones" really is just a "game" compared to that.  Maybe that's the ultimate message of the series.

[Chris24601]

On 5/9/2016 at 10:15 PM, GrailKing said:

Head seemed damn small from when we last saw them.

Sadly, on rewatch I can confirm that the wolf head, while not as big as we'd expect, was about twice the size of a normal wolf head (I've seen the real thing up close). Thus, I'm forced to conclude that was indeed Shaggydog's head.

Dammit!

The Umbers might have some scheme up their sleeves to betray Ramsey (thus the no kneeling or oaths), but if they do, that scheme isn't being pursued for the sake of the Starks and doesn't hinge at all upon Rickon surviving. Rickon is as doomed as Myrcella was last season, I just hope we don't have to watch Ramsey have his 'fun' in the process.

My original wish for Jon, Sansa and Ghost to just get the frak away and leave Westeros to its fate stands. No one will blame you (most will applaud you). Davos, Edd, Brienne, Pod and the Wildlings can come too (they all fit on a half-dozen boats when they left Hardhome). Just stop and pick up Nymeria on the way the way south. Bran will be fine, Rickon will be dead before you can possibly save him and there's nothing else left in Westeros worth saving (nothing in Essos at this point either).

Is it wrong of me that I think a light-hearted dramedy about a bunch of Northerners trying to adapt to life on a tropical island paradise would actually be pretty awesome?

Edited May 10, 2016 by Chris24601

[Jazzy24]

1 hour ago, Oscirus said:

That's not how line of succession works. Once the king's son dies it goes to the next king's son, not the king's grandkids.

I think you don't understand the line of succession. 

Yeah the throne would go to the Kings grandkids if the son came from the heir. 

 

Even if Rhaegar died before Aerys Rhaegar's oldest son would still get the throne. 

So Aegon Rhaegar's oldest son and Jon of he's legitimate would be ahead of Viserys.  

[MarySNJ]

2 hours ago, Oscirus said:

Jon wasn't next in line though, Viserys was.  

That's the one situation where I'm with Ned. You're trying to kill me before I see my sister, screw honor.

All is fair in love and war. In this case, Ned was dealing with both, his love for his sister and the fact that the last remnants of the defeated regime would not stand down to end the war.  Arthur Dayne wasn't going to surrender so yeah, whatever it takes at that point.

As for Jon, if Rhaegar and Lyanna had legally married and Rhaegar's older son Aegon was dead, Jon would be next in line - ahead of Viserys. (Oops. Jazzy24 beat me to it)

Edited May 10, 2016 by MarySNJ

[benteen]

In the books, when Walder Frey's eldest son Stevron died, it was his oldest son Ryman (that was his name right), Walder's grandson, who became heir.  If he dies, then his oldest son (Walder's great-grandson) becomes heir.

[Paradigm14]

On 5/9/2016 at 0:59 PM, RedheadZombie said:

I think he'd refuse to believe it, and killed the baby.  He would probably have killed the baby regardless because it was Targaryen.

Yeah, I think Robert was obsessed with Lyanna. So I think if he let himself believe it, she'd be dead too.

[Knuckles]

On a rewatch, I think my hopes that the Umbers are playing an elaborate game are about to be dashed. This Lord Umber has no patience for any fiction that Roose was poisoned, he seems to know for a fact that Ramsay killed him, (though exactly how, I would like to know, as the Maester sent out ravens with the poisoning story).  Presumably he considered what he knows of Ramsay and his flaying of Northern nobles, and his destruction of Stannis' army and decides this is an ambitious man on the make. He has no time or inclination for vassal folderol, and plenty of contempt for Lord Karstark. But, like Alliser Thorne, he sees the Wildings as his enemy and a threat on his borders. Bolton and Karstark have armies, and added to his forces, he may be able to drive the Wildlings back.

He has no time for stories about zombie armies and White Walkers...the wildlings are the imminent threat and he needs to deal with them now. His father gave shelter to Osha and Rickon, but now they are more useful as gifts to entice Bolton to join forces with him against the wildlings. If he blows off any formality in meeting Ramsay, why would he hold to old oaths with the now mostly dead Starks who are of no use to him?

[lucindabelle]

18 minutes ago, Paradigm14 said:

Yeah, I think Robert was obsessed with Lyanna. So I think if he let himself believe it, she'd be dead too.

so much this.

I think what happened to Lyanna is not what we've been given to think. I suspect there was consensual relationship that Robert couldn't accept.

Maybe Ned was uncertain as to who to believe.

I also sometimes wonder whether the mad king was really mad.

There are things that don't add up.

[glowbug]

In the real world here is the line of succession in the United Kingdom:

Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948), eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982), elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales
Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013), son of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015), daughter of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984), younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales
Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b. 1960), second son of Queen Elizabeth II

Note that Prince Charles' brother, Prince Andrew, is below the Queen's grandchildren and great grandchildren. Also, Prince Harry is below Prince William's children. If the son of a King/Queen was above the son of a prince then Prince Andrew would be directly after Prince Charles and above Prince William, which isn't the case. 

Following this model (minus the recent changes that allow women to inherit the throne before men if they're older), the line of succession during the time of King Aerys would have been:

Rhaegar
Aegon
Jon (if legitimate)
Viserys 

Edited May 10, 2016 by glowbug

[Avaleigh]

3 hours ago, lucindabelle said:

so much this.

I think what happened to Lyanna is not what we've been given to think. I suspect there was consensual relationship that Robert couldn't accept.

Maybe Ned was uncertain as to who to believe.

I also sometimes wonder whether the mad king was really mad.

There are things that don't add up.

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. 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Avaleigh

[RedheadZombie]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 3:45 PM, Black Knight said:

I'm thinking Drogon wakes up from his nap (teenagers!) and flies to Dany and she rides him around Vaes Dothrak. Drogon can also torch and eat a few horses for effect. The Dothraki would see the combination of Dany/Drogon as the Stallion That Mounts the World, so I can totally see them going over to Dany in huge numbers after that. It's similar to how she won Drogo's khalasar to her at the end of the first book, but on a greater scale (both in terms of the number of people and the size of the dragon(s) involved).

And haven't they established that the only thing the Dothraki respect and follow is strength?  What's stronger than having a huge fire-breathing dragon at your beck and call, and that he docilely allows you to ride him?  Wait until they find out there's three of them.

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 4:10 PM, lucindabelle said:

Re Tower of Joy.

For some reason I don't think Lyanna was just kidnapped and raped by Rhaegar. I know this puts me out on a limb but I think there are hints that the relationship was mutual. Which would really be something no Stark would want to admit.

Of course, I could be wrong, but the whole "psycho kidnaps woman, thinks it's love, etc." is so... predictable. I want there to be a bigger mystery.

Besides the obvious reasons the Starks have for not wanting to believe Lyanna went willingly, how could they begin to process that Ned's father and brother died, and Robert's Rebellion was in part triggered by what happened, and she was a willing collaborator?  How do you process that your sister, that you loved so much, deliberately brought this down on her family's head?  Then she died tragically, so you had to eat whatever resentment you may have felt.  I think you process it by seeing her as an innocent victim. 

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 2:11 PM, Avaleigh said:

Regarding Shaggydog being alive--maybe this is grasping at straws but shouldn't Ghost and Summer have been howling? They'd know if their brother was dead. I guess it's probably asking too much for the showrunners to include a mention of the direwolves being disturbed but I'm hoping maybe they weren't shown howling or we didn't get a mention of it because it wasn't really Shaggydog. 

Rickon did look pretty broken up about it, but I haven't given up hope completely. I think some compelling arguments have been made.

Did the sibling dire wolves react when Grey Wind or Lady were killed?  It would have been confusing if we did see a Ghost reaction, because he was in the midst of all the drama of Jon, and it would have been difficult for the audience to differentiate Ghost's upset.

[Scaeva]

All the discussion about whether Jon or Viserys should be next in line for the throne is interesting, in that real world kingdoms were torn apart by similar arguments. 

If in some alternate Westeros where both Robert and Rhaegar die in battle at the Trident and the Mad King still ends up assassinated, with Lord Tarly leading the royal forces to victory, the Seven Kingdoms probably divide into two factions, each propping up their own favorite child claimant for the throne. It would be another round of the Dance of Dragons, minus actual dragons, with Viserys and baby Jon effectively puppets for ambitious, quarreling regents.

[Bean421]

24 minutes ago, 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 anyway reasonable. I want to say that he didn't even trust Rhaella to be around Viserys to 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 would love to see this explored more with Dany. Before she took off on Drogon, I felt like she was starting to spiral and needed  a few more advisors who could be more than yes men.

[Constantinople]

7 hours ago, Oscirus said:

That's not how line of succession works. Once the king's son dies it goes to the next king's son, not the king's grandkids.

That's how it's worked in Saudi Arabia to date -- though I think we're running out of King Ibn Saud's sons -- but that's not what the rule became in England.

After the Conquest, the rules were a little fuzzy.  Basically it broke down to might makes right and who was on the spot.  In the following two examples, the successful claimants were in England when the previous king died and their rival claimants were abroad.

William the Conqueror gave England to his 2nd son, William II and the Duchy of Normandy was inherited by William's eldest son Robert.  In 1100, when William II died -- or was murdered, depending on your viewpoint -- his younger brother Henry seized the throne as Henry I even though his elder brother Robert was still alive (basically Henry I was Renly and Robert was Stannis without a smoke baby assassin).

54 years later, Henry II became king.  He had 4 sons:  Henry, Richard, Geoffrey & John.  Henry (the son) and Geoffrey both died before Henry II, but Geoffrey had a son, Arthur.  Richard I became king when Henry II died.  In 1199, when Richard I died, John seized the throne and Arthur came to a bad end (accounts differ as to whether John was responsible).  That's the only example I know of in post-Conquest England where young son became king instead of the legitimate son of his dead older brother (In contrast, Richard III had his elder brother Edward's marriage declared invalid and thus his nephews became bastards).

But those were early days.  As time went on, the idea solidified that if a king's or noble's eldest son was already dead, the king/noble should be succeeded by the dead son's son rather than the king/noble's younger son.

Edward III had 5 sons: Edward the Black Prince, Lionel, John of Gaunt, Edmund and Thomas.  Both Edward the Black Prince and Lionel died before their father.  In 1377, when Edward III died, he was was suceeded by the Black Prince's son, Richard II, and not John of Gaunt.

George II's eldest son, Frederick the Prince of Wales, died before his father.  In 1760, when George II died, he was succeed by Frederick's son George III, not Frederick's younger brother William, Duke of Cumberland.  Similarly, in France, Louis XIV was succeeded by his great-grandson, having outlived his eldest son and his eldest son's eldest son, rather than his younger surviving son, the Duke of Maine.

Generally, though not always, the rule in European countries with hereditary monarchies was that the descendant of a king's dead eldest son took precedence over the king's younger surviving son.  I've read that in the Byzantine Empire, it tended to be the other way around; that more prominence was given to the sons of the Emperor than grandsons and that a younger son who was born in the purple, i.e., while his father was Emperor, could take precedence over an older son who wasn't.  But I don't have any examples.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Constantinople

[Pogojoco]

Per the succession thing- Given that the War of Five Kings is based on the War of the Roses, let's think of England. 

Right now- It goes Elizabeth (as regent), Charles, William, George.

Before George was born, Prince Harry came after William (the heir and the spare.) And now William's second child was born, so Harry is bumped again. It's Charles (son of Queen), William (grandson of Queen), George (great-grandson), Charlotte (great-granddaughter) and Harry (grandson of Queen.) All of the Queen's kids (Andrew, Anne etc) bumped down when Charles had William. 

In Targaryen talk? George or Charlotte is Jon (for argument's sake), Harry is Viserys. 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Pogojoco

[kellog010]

From what I remember Rhaegar was married at the time he "kidnapped" Lyanna. I remember the story of how Rhaegar named Lyanna the most beautiful girl of a tournament over his wife. Robert as her betrothed probably couldn't fathom that she didn't love him. Love makes people do crazy things. Also, as honorable as Ned was, maybe he felt that his sister would never do such a dishonorable thing as run away with a married man. The king did kill his father and brother so it probably wasn't hard to convince him Rhaegar took Lyanna against her will. Even if Jon is proven to be the son as is likely is he still legitimate? I'm fuzzy on the timeline of Rhaegar's wife and children being killed to the time that Rhaegar was killed and the Tower of Joy.

Edited May 11, 2016 by kellog010

[Jazzy24]

5 minutes ago, kellog010 said:

From what I remember Rhaegar was married at the time he "kidnapped" Lyanna. I remember the story of how Rhaegar named Lyanna the most beautiful girl of a tournament over his wife. Robert as her betrothed probably couldn't fathom that she didn't love him. Love makes people do crazy things. Also, as honorable as Ned was, maybe he felt that his sister would never do such a dishonorable thing as run away with a married man. The king did kill his father and brother so it probably wasn't hard to convince him Rhaegar took Lyanna against her will. Even if Jon is proven to be the son as is likely is he still legitimate? I'm fuzzy on the timeline of Rhaegar's wife and children being killed to the time that Rhaegar was killed and the Tower of Joy.

After Robert killed Rhaegar on the Trident him and the rebels stupidly proclaimed Robert King. I guess they sent out Ravens to the regions. 

When Tywin found out that Rhaegar died and Robert was king he and his army marched on KL. Aerys thought that Thein was coming to help him so he told the guards to open the gate. I think Jaime killed him while Tywin and the Westermen were out killing and raping innocent people. Than the Lannister soldiers got into the Red Keep where Jaime was sitting on the ugly throne smirking. Gregor and another of Tywin's monsters were busy killing and raping Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys. 

I guess by than Ned got into KL saw Aerys dead and Jaime sitting on that ugly throne smirking. Than Robert and Jon was there and Lannister men laid the dead bodies of 3 year old Rhaenys and 1yro old Aegon at the bottom of the throne wrapped in Lannister Crimson cloaks. Robert and Ned than fought and that's when Ned left KL to lift the siege at Storms End. After lifting the seige I guess he found out where Lyanna was and went to go get her. 

[Jazzy24]

32 minutes ago, Pogojoco said:

Per the succession thing- Given that the War of Five Kings is based on the War of the Roses, let's think of England. 

Right now- It goes Elizabeth (as regent), Charles, William, George.

Before George was born, Prince Harry came after William (the heir and the spare.) And now William's second child was born, so Harry is bumped again. It's Charles (son of Queen), William (grandson of Queen), George (great-grandson), Charlotte (great-granddaughter) and Harry (grandson of Queen.) All of the Queen's kids (Andrew, Anne etc) bumped down when Charles had William. 

In Targaryen talk? George or Charlotte is Jon (for argument's sake), Harry is Viserys. 

Yeah it's not that hard to follow the rules of succession. 

Like when Brandon died and Ned married Catelyn who got pregnant with Robb during Robert's Rebellion Benjen though he was 14 or 15 acting as The Stark in Winterfell if Ned had died during the war and Robb was born Robb would come before Benjen. 

[glowbug]

41 minutes ago, kellog010 said:

From what I remember Rhaegar was married at the time he "kidnapped" Lyanna. I remember the story of how Rhaegar named Lyanna the most beautiful girl of a tournament over his wife. Robert as her betrothed probably couldn't fathom that she didn't love him. Love makes people do crazy things. Also, as honorable as Ned was, maybe he felt that his sister would never do such a dishonorable thing as run away with a married man. The king did kill his father and brother so it probably wasn't hard to convince him Rhaegar took Lyanna against her will. Even if Jon is proven to be the son as is likely is he still legitimate? I'm fuzzy on the timeline of Rhaegar's wife and children being killed to the time that Rhaegar was killed and the Tower of Joy.

Rhaegar died before Elia and her children and he certainly would have married Lyanna while his wife was alive if in fact he did marry her. The reason there's a chance that Jon is legitimate is that historically Targaryens had multiple wives and the faith had begrudgingly accepted it because dragons. It hadn't been practiced in a while though. I think that even if Rhaegar married Lyanna and Jon is his son there would obviously be people contesting his legitimacy including the Faith of the Seven most likely. Those that support him would argue that he was legitimate while those who backed another would say he wasn't. I think if he saves the world and survives not many people would care about his legitimacy. 

[screamin]

7 hours ago, Black Knight said:

 One point I haven't seen made yet is that Lyanna has to plead with Ned, "Promise me, Ned." That doesn't necessarily suggest a man who was sympathetic to keeping a Targaryen heir around even after hearing that it wasn't rape.

 

What I see there suggests a woman so confident in the love of her brother for her that despite the disaster she's inadvertently brought on the family by running away with Rhaegar (if that's what she did), she feels herself in the position to exact promises from him that will require honorable, rules-abiding Ned to lie to his own nearest and dearest for the rest of his life, with great difficulty and not a little danger - and trusts him to KEEP those promises. Just IMO.

[Macbeth]

There is another Direwolf running around the north.  That could be Nymeria,not Shaggydog.  Just putting it out there.

I am so glad to see Osha again, I missed her.  She is a great character, and truly loves the younger Stark boys.  Osha is a Wilding and appears to have survived a White Walker attacked.  She impressed Maester Luwin to be given care of Bran.    A good fighter with good social skills. Ramsey will be dying at her hands soon.

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.

[screamin]

4 hours ago, glowbug said:

Following this model (minus the recent changes that allow women to inherit the throne before men if they're older), the line of succession during the time of King Aerys would have been:

Rhaegar
Aegon
Jon (if legitimate)
Viserys

Problem there. Rhaegar dies some time before Aegon, and before Jon is born. The line of succession at that point is thrown into flux. Someone has to be made Crown Prince right then. So the succession actually becomes (maybe):

Aegon -> Viserys

...as far as anybody publicly knows. And even to the KG in the tower who know Lyanna's pregnant, the best they can know about the succession is (if they consider her baby NOT a bastard):

Aegon -> Boy Fetus -> Viserys  OR  Aegon -> Viserys -> Girl Fetus.

Remember what Sansa's septa told her: "If you only had girls, I suppose the throne would pass to Prince Joffrey's little brother."

So as long as Lyanna's screaming in labor, the KG don't know which heir in the line of succession they're fighting for. Even if it were a boy, considering him King requires that we believe the succession MUST be held in suspense for months until the former Crown Prince's son is born, even if there's a perfectly healthy son of the King around. I don't think there's precedent to say that. Yes, SeanC cites Alfonso XIII of Spain - but that was the posthumous son of a childless king. AFAIK (though there's a lot I don't know), there's no 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. There's a reason the two sons of a king are called "the heir and the spare."

Besides, the Kingsguard themselves said they stayed at the Tower because of Prince Rhaegar's orders...no hint of any other reason.

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.

Edited May 11, 2016 by screamin

[Umbelina]

I really doubt "who SHOULD inherit?" is going to make a damn bit of difference to this story though.  Unless of course, the survivors, if there are any, that have claim to the throne want to start another war about it later.

[lmsweb]

Just rewatching the TOJ scene right now and had to pause it to post here. I don't think I fully appreciated the level of skill in putting that fight scene together (particularly the man playing Arthur Dayne). The man looks like he was born wielding a sword. I'm not going to dicker on the two swords vs one because frankly the two swords looks so badass. The producers did an OUTSTANDING casting job there.

And I can't remember who first posted that YoungNed looks like Neil Patrick Harris, but now I can't UNSEE it when I watch this scene.

Two small things - when Bran cried out "Father" and Ned heard him - there is no way Ned was hearing Bran and recognizing the voice. At this point in time Bran wasn't born. Indeed, I think Robb was the only Stark born at this point and still a baby. I'm going to go with Ned hearing SOMETHING but not necessarily a real word.

Second thing is I keep seeing posts in both threads by people all worried that Jon has left Castle Black and he's going to miss seeing Sansa arrive and he didn't take Ghost with him, or Davos, or anyone, etc. All we saw at the end was him walk away from the group. I doubt very much he just walked out the gates at that moment with no cloak, provisions, etc. Yes, he is going to leave, but it wasn't happening right that moment. I feel confident he's not leaving Ghost behind.

[Jazzy24]

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

[Constantinople]

56 minutes ago, screamin said:

Problem there. Rhaegar dies some time before Aegon, and before Jon is born. The line of succession at that point is thrown into flux. Someone has to be made Crown Prince right then. So the succession actually becomes (maybe):

Aegon -> Viserys

...as far as anybody publicly knows. And even to the KG in the tower who know Lyanna's pregnant, the best they can know about the succession is (if they consider her baby NOT a bastard):

Aegon -> Boy Fetus -> Viserys  OR  Aegon -> Viserys -> Girl Fetus.

Remember what Sansa's septa told her: "If you only had girls, I suppose the throne would pass to Prince Joffrey's little brother."

So as long as Lyanna's screaming in labor, the KG don't know which heir in the line of succession they're fighting for. Even if it were a boy, considering him King requires that we believe the succession MUST be held in suspense for months until the former Crown Prince's son is born, even if there's a perfectly healthy son of the King around. I don't think there's precedent to say that. Yes, SeanC cites Alfonso XIII of Spain - but that was the posthumous son of a childless king. AFAIK (though there's a lot I don't know), there's no 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. There's a reason the two sons of a king are called "the heir and the spare."

Besides, the Kingsguard themselves said they stayed at the Tower because of Prince Rhaegar's orders...no hint of any other reason.

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.

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.