S08.E06: The Iron Throne

[rmontro]

9 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

so once he'd killed Dany and there were people demanding he be punished for it they didn't have reason to insist that he had to be king if they had somebody else they were also comfortable with.

I'm saying if Jon was the better choice when Dany was alive, he certainly was still the better choice when she was gone.  If Bran was the better choice, why weren't people pushing him for king before?  Didn't Bran even say something back in Winterfell to the effect that he couldn't rule the north because he was the three eyed raven and lived in the past or some such nonsense?

[Nashville]

3 hours ago, rmontro said:

I'm saying if Jon was the better choice when Dany was alive, he certainly was still the better choice when she was gone. 

Um - not necessarily (see below).

3 hours ago, rmontro said:

If Bran was the better choice, why weren't people pushing him for king before?  

When Dany was alive, her claim to and pursuit of the Iron Throne was based solely upon her Targaryen lineage - being the sole remaining member of the former ruling dynasty.  Within that Targaryen lineage context solely, however, exposure of Jon’s true parentage invalidated Dany’s claim on two counts: (a) she was NOT the sole remaining Targaryen heir, and (b) Jon’s claim to the throne was stronger than Dany’s in terms of succession precedence - and the simple truth of both things countered Dany’s claim, whether Jon wanted the Throne or not.

With Dany’s death the entire question of Targaryen succession became moot, however, because the only person alive on the planet with a valid claim to such had zero interest in pursuing it - and ONLY at this point, when the question of legitimate lineage claims to the Throne had been exhausted, did the window of opportunity open for Bran’s name to even be raised in consideration.

[TigerLynx]

10 hours ago, Nashville said:

and the simple truth of both things countered Dany’s claim, whether Jon wanted the Throne or not.

It's not simple.

Jon or anyone else claiming Jon was a Targ and Lyanna's son, not Ned's son, doesn't make it true.  It's not like they could do DNA tests.  Jon could have been seen as a pretender or usurper.

There may have been other members of the ruling families who also had a claim to the throne, who didn't want Bran as the King, or who would assert their independence like the North did.

Then there are the commoners who could very well say, "We are tired of the Fuckwit Ruling Families, their incompetence, corruption, greed, and sadism, and we don't recognize anyone you put on the Iron Throne as our ruler."

I think D&D were bored, didn't particularly care how they wrapped things up, and had Dany killed so Drogon could fly off with her because dragons are cool.

[Nashville]

4 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

It's not simple.

It is if you let it. 🙂

Quote

Jon or anyone else claiming Jon was a Targ and Lyanna's son, not Ned's son, doesn't make it true.  It's not like they could do DNA tests.  Jon could have been seen as a pretender or usurper.

Except nobody else (including Jon himself) was making such a claim.  The claim came from the Citadel, which has been repeatedly portrayed as Westeros’s version of the National Archives and Record Administration.  A member of the Citadel staff (Sam) presented the claim - and lest some question Sam’s veracity because of his friendship with Jon, please keep in mind Sam was able to verify the authenticity of the claim with records Sam had “borrowed” from the Citadel.  Whether one likes the claim or not is immaterial; the fact is, it was validated by the highest-recognized documentation authority in the kingdom.

Quote

There may have been other members of the ruling families who also had a claim to the throne,

But there weren’t; none whose claim was exposed, anyway, and certainly none with Citadel-based authentication.  One could just as easily hypothesize a hidden Targaryen Island somewhere chock-full of heir apparents to the Throne; such a claim would have just about as much objective veracity.

Quote

who didn't want Bran as the King,

When the Targaryen family tree was the subject of discussion I don’t recall anybody uttering so much as a single syllable to suggest the notion of Bran (or any other non-Targaryen) as king, much less anybody challenging the idea - the first suggestion of such was in the Dragon Pit, well after Dany’s demise.  Or am I mistaken?

Quote

or who would assert their independence like the North did after Dany’s death, when the KotN’s bend of the knee to her was nullified.

FTFY

Quote

Then there are the commoners who could very well say, "We are tired of the Fuckwit Ruling Families, their incompetence, corruption, greed, and sadism, and we don't recognize anyone you put on the Iron Throne as our ruler."

Uh, yeah; because medieval serf equivalents are constantly conceptualizing never-before-thought-of forms of government in their free time, right?  😄

Quote

I think D&D were bored, didn't particularly care how they wrapped things up, and had Dany killed so Drogon could fly off with her because dragons are cool.

Wouldn’t necessarily argue that.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Nashville
Typo

[screamin]

2 hours ago, Nashville said:

A member of the Citadel staff (Sam) presented the claim - and lest some question Sam’s veracity because of his friendship with Jon, please keep in mind Sam was able to verify the authenticity of the claim with records Sam had “borrowed” from the Citadel.  Whether one likes the claim or not is immaterial; the fact is, it was validated by the highest-recognized documentation authority in the kingdom.

The only proof Sam had of Bran's assertion that Jon was the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna was a book proving that a marriage had taken place between them. No paperwork from the Citadel proves that that marriage resulted in a child, or that the child was Jon.

[Umbelina]

Howland Reed knows, and I think that was him at Tyrion's "trial."

[sistermagpie]

23 hours ago, rmontro said:

I'm saying if Jon was the better choice when Dany was alive, he certainly was still the better choice when she was gone.  If Bran was the better choice, why weren't people pushing him for king before?  Didn't Bran even say something back in Winterfell to the effect that he couldn't rule the north because he was the three eyed raven and lived in the past or some such nonsense? 

Jon had killed Dany, which made some people want to see him punished for the crime and not support him. Jon himself was of course not going to do anything to defend himself on those terms. Without Dany for contrast, that became more of a problem. There was never any sort of Cult who wanted to see Jon as king, just 3 people, one of whom is now dead, who were just as happy to get what they wanted through somebody else. Bran did that.

[rmontro]

20 hours ago, Nashville said:

With Dany’s death the entire question of Targaryen succession became moot, however, because the only person alive on the planet with a valid claim to such had zero interest in pursuing it

Jon had zero interest in pursuing it before Dany's death as well, but that didn't stop anyone then from trying to switch horses in midstream.

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

There was never any sort of Cult who wanted to see Jon as king, just 3 people, one of whom is now dead

That's a lot of people, considering how few knew.  

[Umbelina]

Arya, Tyrion, Howland Reed, Jon, Samwell, and Sansa know, plus however many people got ravens from Varys before Dany burned him to death.

Varys only wanted Jon because he didn't trust Dany, and possibly he believed in Azor Ahai, or the PTWP.

Had Jon declared he wanted it, I am not sure how much support he would have really had though, he had the "right" to it, and both Stark and Targ blood so he was Fire and Ice, and he had a great deal of respect as well.  He definitely didn't want it though, so it was moot.

Hell, Gilly probably knows too.

There were more people up there that knew than didn't.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Umbelina

[TigerLynx]

6 hours ago, Nashville said:

It is if you let it. 🙂

Except nobody else (including Jon himself) was making such a claim.  The claim came from the Citadel, which has been repeatedly portrayed as Westeros’s version of the National Archives and Record Administration.  A member of the Citadel staff (Sam) presented the claim - and lest some question Sam’s veracity because of his friendship with Jon, please keep in mind Sam was able to verify the authenticity of the claim with records Sam had “borrowed” from the Citadel.  Whether one likes the claim or not is immaterial; the fact is, it was validated by the highest-recognized documentation authority in the kingdom.

But there weren’t; none whose claim was exposed, anyway, and certainly none with Citadel-based authentication.  One could just as easily hypothesize a hidden Targaryen Island somewhere chock-full of heir apparents to the Throne; such a claim would have just about as much objective veracity.

When the Targaryen family tree was the subject of discussion I don’t recall anybody uttering so much as a single syllable to suggest the notion of Bran (or any other non-Targaryen) as king, much less anybody challenging the idea - the first suggestion of such was in the Dragon Pit, well after Dany’s demise.  Or am I mistaken?

FTFY

Uh, yeah; because medieval serf equivalents are constantly conceptualizing never-before-thought-of forms of government in their free time, right?  😄

Wouldn’t necessarily argue that.

The majority of Westeros didn't even participate in the conversation or the decision.

The medieval serfs did rebel (England, France, Russia, etc.), and people kept rebelling right up to present day.

[rmontro]

On 6/3/2019 at 1:18 AM, Umbelina said:

Varys only wanted Jon because he didn't trust Dany, and possibly he believed in Azor Ahai, or the PTWP.

Had Jon declared he wanted it, I am not sure how much support he would have really had though, he had the "right" to it, and both Stark and Targ blood so he was Fire and Ice, and he had a great deal of respect as well. 

Well, originally it was presented that Varys wanted Jon because of the "what if there was someone better?" question.  And of course that quickly snowballed into "Dany's a dangerous nut" that they rushed into.  Odd that Varys seemed just fine with supporting Dany until Jon's real lineage was brought to light. 

And as others noted, there is the problem of Jon being able to prove his claim, IF he decided to press it.  I guess it's like any other politician.  If you support him, you'd likely decide to believe his claim.  If you don't, you'd likely decide not to.

Edited June 4, 2019 by rmontro

[Nashville]

9 minutes ago, rmontro said:

If you support [Jon], you'd likely decide to believe his claim.  If you don't, you'd likely decide not to.

Echo x1000.

[Nashville]

13 hours ago, screamin said:

The only proof Sam had of Bran's assertion that Jon was the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna was a book proving that a marriage had taken place between them. No paperwork from the Citadel proves that that marriage resulted in a child, or that the child was Jon.

 Wasn’t it the other way around - Sam basing his hypothesis upon reading of the marriage in the Citadel tome, and Bran/3ER corroborating it?

(Not arguing the point - asking merely for clarification)

ETA: Went back and did some checking.  The sequence as portrayed was:

1. Bran initially tells Sam that Jon is the bastard son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark - but does so as a statement of simple fact, with no context.
2. Sam’s memory is jogged as to Gilly’s readings from the journal of a recently-passed High Septon of the Citadel, and Sam tells Bran of the Rhaegar/Elia annulment and the Rhaegar/Lyanna secret marriage.
3. Sam’s additional information allows Bran to “raven” to the 3ER memory of the Rhaegar/Lyanna marriage - and after reviewing the memory, Bran confirms the wedding (a) actually happened and (b) cements Jon’s position as a legitimate Targaryen heir.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Nashville

[PatsyandEddie]

Gilly was the one who actually read about the marriage first while she was practicing her reading skills. 

[bijoux]

6 hours ago, rmontro said:

Odd that Varys seemed just fan with supporting Dany until Jon's real lineage was brought to light. 

Odder still that he latched onto Jon. Varys decided that Dany was going nuts because of her Targaryen blood even though he had been her supporter for a while by then. So even if you argue she did go nuts because that’s the Targaryen way, why not suspect Jon of turning that way in the future? It’s frustratingly short sighted even if one buys into the madness spin.

6 hours ago, rmontro said:

And as others noted, there is the problem of Jon being able to prove his claim, IF he decided to press it.  I guess it's like any other politician.  If you support him, you'd likely decide to believe his claim.  If you don't, you'd likely decide not to.

Both Gendry and Ramsey were legitimised by decress of the rulers. Since there wasn’t a king or queen after Dany’s death, I imagine all it would have taken was enough of big houses concluding that it would be beneficial to them and supporting him.

[screamin]

8 hours ago, Nashville said:

 Wasn’t it the other way around - Sam basing his hypothesis upon reading of the marriage in the Citadel tome, and Bran/3ER corroborating it?

(Not arguing the point - asking merely for clarification)

I'm pretty sure not. The fact that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married would be a mildly interesting footnote in Stark history of no further relevance without the subsequent pregnancy, and Jon had no suspicion he was Lyanna's son, so I don't see how Sam could have come by such a suspicion...and I also remember him being shocked by the news when Bran told him.

[screamin]

13 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Howland Reed knows, and I think that was him at Tyrion's "trial."

IA Howland could have been a corroborating witness, but no one ever thought to ask him, so here we are.

[Tikichick]

2 hours ago, bijoux said:

Odder still that he latched onto Jon. Varys decided that Dany was going nuts because of her Targaryen blood even though he had been her supporter for a while by then. So even if you argue she did go nuts because that’s the Targaryen way, why not suspect Jon of turning that way in the future? It’s frustratingly short sighted even if one buys into the madness spin.

Both Gendry and Ramsey were legitimised by decress of the rulers. Since there wasn’t a king or queen after Dany’s death, I imagine all it would have taken was enough of big houses concluding that it would be beneficial to them and supporting him.

It's possible that Varys could have reevaluated the situation based on what he knows of Danaerys before they met and since they met, and what he knows of Jon's past and Jon's course of action as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and subsequent to that time.  Varys knew Ned, understood Ned's sense of duty and honor got him killed -- and understood that prospect wouldn't budge Ned.  He recognizes the same in Jon.  IMO Varys was in fact looking at it less as putting another Targaryen on the throne, but rather putting Ned Stark's sense of duty and honor on that throne and thinking it would serve the kingdom well.  

[Nashville]

13 minutes ago, screamin said:

I'm pretty sure not. The fact that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married would be a mildly interesting footnote in Stark history of no further relevance without the subsequent pregnancy, and Jon had no suspicion he was Lyanna's son, so I don't see how Sam could have come by such a suspicion...and I also remember him being shocked by the news when Bran told him.

I went back and ETA’ed my original question post (see above) - actually, it was kinda both. 🙂 

Incidentally, my biggest takeaways from this Bran/Sam exchange were:

1. Bran’s simple statements of fact should not be taken as absolutely infallible - at least, not until Bran has referenced the collective 3ER memory store and actively post-witnessed* the event(s) in question.
2. Bran has zero problem admitting when he has made an inaccurate statement, and immediately takes steps to correct such - which automatically makes Bran more honest than most.

* Don’t know if “post-witness” was actually a word before, but it is now. 😉

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

IA Howland could have been a corroborating witness, but no one ever thought to ask him, so here we are.

It was never needed though, because Jon didn't want the throne, or to prove anything. 

If he had, Bran's memory showed Howland Reed at the Tower of Joy with Ned, and if proving it became critical?  Howland could/would be asked.  OR, Howland knowing Jon knew and wanted the throne?  Would have come forward and corroborated the entire tale.

[sistermagpie]

13 hours ago, rmontro said:

Jon had zero interest in pursuing it before Dany's death as well, but that didn't stop anyone then from trying to switch horses in midstream.

That's a lot of people, considering how few knew.  

But now the horse they were trying to switch from isn't there. That changes the situation. When they started thinking of Jon it was in the context of comparing him to Dany (same blood claim to the throne, but with advantages they prefer). Plus even Jon would have been convinced to go for leadership if it was necessary to get rid of a tyrant.

Now the board's reset. They're dealing with different circumstances without even ever started any real push for Jon as king to begin with. I don't see why we'd assume they'd still have some passionate desire to put Jon on the throne under any circumstances, especially with another guy there who fulfills every single thing they liked about Jon.

[GodsBeloved]

The talk about Jon proving his claim made me think what proof did Dany have of her claim?

As far as the people in Westeros were concerned why would they believe her claim any more or less than they would believe Jon's claim?

[MrWhyt]

6 minutes ago, GodsBeloved said:

The talk about Jon proving his claim made me think what proof did Dany have of her claim?

As far as the people in Westeros were concerned why would they believe her claim any more or less than they would believe Jon's claim?

she had her dragons and her armies, at that point the legitimacy of her claim is a moot. point

Edited June 3, 2019 by MrWhyt

[benteen]

We never get to see Jon truly grapple with learning the truth.  Finding out who is mother was was supposed to be important to him but I don't think he brings it up once.  That was disappointing.

Edited June 3, 2019 by benteen

[Umbelina]

51 minutes ago, benteen said:

We never get to see Jon truly grapple with learning the truth.  Finding out who is mother was was supposed to be important to him but I don't think he brings it up once.  That was disappointing.

Yes, very disappointing, as was the off screen reveal to his sisters.

[rmontro]

22 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Howland Reed knows, and I think that was him at Tyrion's "trial."

Ha!  Remember all the speculation awhile back that Howland Reed was going to be such an important character because of what he knew?  Turns out none of it mattered anyway.

8 hours ago, Tikichick said:

IMO Varys was in fact looking at it less as putting another Targaryen on the throne, but rather putting Ned Stark's sense of duty and honor on that throne and thinking it would serve the kingdom well.  

Varys is a hypocrite many times over, because he considered Ned too weak to rule when he was the Hand.  And then he tried to use poison to kill Dany, in order to install someone with "duty and honor".  Not very honorable there.

[Tikichick]

15 hours ago, rmontro said:

Ha!  Remember all the speculation awhile back that Howland Reed was going to be such an important character because of what he knew?  Turns out none of it mattered anyway.

Varys is a hypocrite many times over, because he considered Ned too weak to rule when he was the Hand.  And then he tried to use poison to kill Dany, in order to install someone with "duty and honor".  Not very honorable there.

If the saga hadn't been ended as a sprint for the finish Howland Reed would have been important.  Once D&D decided to close up shop on the works all those types of painstaking details for which the foundation had been laid wound up in the going out of business sale bin.

Varys making a different choice about Jon than he had about Ned isn't hypocritical.  In Jon he saw someone who led with integrity, inspired tremendous loyalty -- and responded with a loyalty to help and protect in return.  Varys choice required that he put his life on the line in an attempt to put someone on the throne who would have the best interest of the people at heart.  Doing so meant he faced his worst fear of death by fire.  IMO his intentions were indeed honorable.

[Umbelina]

Yes, more important details than simply Howland Reed were left by the wayside.  Actually, pretty much everything was...

[Armchair Critic]

On 5/20/2019 at 2:05 AM, RealityCreator said:

I'm going to fanwank that Jon is going to live with the Free Folk north of the wall and find a woman and have as many babies as he wants

Me too. Jon always tried to do what was right and he deserves happiness.

[jumper sage]

On 6/2/2019 at 6:47 PM, Nashville said:

On 6/2/2019 at 2:22 PM, TigerLynx said:

It's not simple.

It is if you let it. 🙂

You kill me.  You took your dragon fire and layed me out.  🤣

[John Potts]

Shouldn't the Dothraki be off raping and rampaging following their victory? That is what they're rather famous for.

 And aren't there rather more of them (and the Unsullied) than there seemed to be following the Battle of Winterfell? I guess the Dothraki could be breeding (if you ignore the couple of decades it would take for them to mature!) but it's not as if the Unsullied can. And yet these are the troops Danny thinks she can conquer the world with? Yes, she still had Drogon (who essentially won the "Battle" of Kings Landing single handedly), but dragons can be defeated (just ask the Dornish).

"You are not here to speak!" Then - why did Greyworm bring him there!? And how come he's still alive anyway? It's not as if he had a problem executing prisoners. Or is he operating under standard action hero rules where our hero can kill unlimited numbers of henchmen (and even quip as you do so) but has to offer mercy to the Big Bad?

Sam - when everyone was laughing at the idea of electing the next King, you could have mentioned how the Night Watch elects its Lord Commander. And why did Yara laugh at the idea? It's how the Kingsmoot works!

Nothing more powerful than stories? Only a writer could come up with a line like that. And how come the Starks get three representatives at the Council? Particularly considering their Queen didn't even want to be in the Seven Kingdoms!

I was kinda hoping we'd get the "Evil Bran/Bloodraven" reveal and that he'd Warged into the other Lords to get him appointed King, because otherwise why would they choose him? How many of them even knew who he was?

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:41 AM, nodorothyparker said:

I liked Brienne finishing Jaime's page even if I'm not thrilled with her pissing her life away on a kingsguard when she's an heir in her own right.  She's putting her own spin on things because she's the one who lived to write it

If I was being charitable, I would say it could be seen as a comment on how all historical records reflect the biases of those writing the histories (one reason why Richard III is seen as a villain is because Shakespeare was writing when the Tudors were on the throne and did such a successful hatchet job on him). But aside from that - Brienne, blot the ink first before you turn the page (or wait for it to dry) or you'll just leave a blurry mess.

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:39 AM, stagmania said:

More than all the ridiculous plot points and problematic character turns, this finale will go down for the biggest sin of all: being excruciatingly boring.

I wouldn't say "excruciatingly" boring, but it was rather anti-climactic. Though I agree that is worse than being bad (after all, we still remember the films of Ed Wood, when better film makers are forgotten).

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:51 AM, CherryMalotte said:

I liked that they had that grass peeking up thru the snow, to me that was a glimpse of something to come...while there's some green beyond the wall maybe they are due for a thaw. 

That was a lovely shot.

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 6:27 AM, Callista said:

Happy that Pod survived, but a bit underwhelming to see him become Bran's official wheelchair-pusher. 

I thought he looked like a new Kingsguard? Admittedly, he's woefully underqualified for the post but he's had more training than Sam has as Grand Maester!

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 7:12 PM, izabella said:

Bronn should be nowhere except in whatever castle he had already been given way back, or maybe running a brothel.

Look on the bright side: assuming Qyburn was right about that whore, he presumably now has syphilis and will be dead soon. No antibiotics in Westeros!

Finally, I couldn't help wonder if Ellaria's dungeon was deep enough for her to have survived the destruction of the city. Which would (arguably) be an even worse fate than what Cersei had planned for her.

Edited February 24, 2020 by John Potts