• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

CloudWolf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,626
I almost pity the GRRM purists. Bashing the show since season 2 and putting all their faith in GRRM to "tell it right", only for eight fucking years to go by and still no sign of TWoW. Now, they have no choice but to hate-watch the series since all but the most deluded know that Mr. I-don't-write-during-football-season is never going to finish.
Most of the people (like me) who are critical of these past seasons aren't "GRRM purists". I don't care about the adaptation diverting from the original work as long as it retains a certain quality. I'm for instance not complaining about Hardhome, which was a great episode in an otherwise mediocre season and it was pretty much completely imagined by D&D. Samen with the confrontation between Jaime and Olenna in Season 7, even though I hated most of season 7, that was a really good moment. I also do not think GRRM is this flawless writer, his writing has issues and his lack of respect for deadlines is awful IMO.

However, in my opinion, most of the deviations from the source material have been awful, not just in how they compare to the source material, but mainly in the way they themselves are written. Stuff like WHERE ARE MAH DRAGONS, the Sand Snakes, the raping of Sansa or the Beyond the Wall episode are awfully written IMO and fail not only as an adaptation, but just as a well written show in general. These last three seasons the show has thrown any sense of logic in the wind, instead opting for a 'as long as it looks awesome, we do it'-approach. The Beyond the Wall episode was the cumulation of this way of writing, with tons of stuff that the actual writers of the show actually admitted in the Behind the Scenes special were only there because they thought it would look cool. That entire confrontation with the zombie polar bear was only there because D&D really wanted to have a zombie polar bear fight.

It's frustrating because I loved the way most of the early season were written (with the glaring exception of the aforementioned Daenarys S02 plotline) and it just hurts to see what was once easily one of my favourite shows on tv turned into this lowest common denominator popcorn spectacular.
 

Stop It

Bad Cat
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,352
I envy you. I would love to binge the series in one go fresh lol. I've ran out of people to introduce the show to and experience that feeling through them as we watch together :(
It's been fun to watch with my partner.

I watched series 1 back in the day but didn't keep up. Watching in a concurrent block (thanks to Sky box sets then recording the rest) has made the flow of the series work much better for me.
 

Quinton

Specialist at TheGamer / Reviewer at RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
17,283
Midgar, With Love
Let's see... 20 more episodes for my roommate and I to show our other roommate before April 14th. Combine 1-2 episodes a week with new episodes of Star Trek Discovery in regular Friday night blocks... cross the t, carry the 3...

Yep. We've got this.
 

CopperPuppy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,636
Most of the people (like me) who are critical of these past seasons aren't "GRRM purists". I don't care about the adaptation diverting from the original work as long as it retains a certain quality. I'm for instance not complaining about Hardhome, which was a great episode in an otherwise mediocre season and it was pretty much completely imagined by D&D. Samen with the confrontation between Jaime and Olenna in Season 7, even though I hated most of season 7, that was a really good moment. I also do not think GRRM is this flawless writer, his writing has issues and his lack of respect for deadlines is awful IMO.

However, in my opinion, most of the deviations from the source material have been awful, not just in how they compare to the source material, but mainly in the way they themselves are written. Stuff like WHERE ARE MAH DRAGONS, the Sand Snakes, the raping of Sansa or the Beyond the Wall episode are awfully written IMO and fail not only as an adaptation, but just as a well written show in general. These last three seasons the show has thrown any sense of logic in the wind, instead opting for a 'as long as it looks awesome, we do it'-approach. The Beyond the Wall episode was the cumulation of this way of writing, with tons of stuff that the actual writers of the show actually admitted in the Behind the Scenes special were only there because they thought it would look cool. That entire confrontation with the zombie polar bear was only there because D&D really wanted to have a zombie polar bear fight.

It's frustrating because I loved the way most of the early season were written (with the glaring exception of the aforementioned Daenarys S02 plotline) and it just hurts to see what was once easily one of my favourite shows on tv turned into this lowest common denominator popcorn spectacular.
Basically this, but you can't criticize the show without these comments coming out of the woodwork:
I almost pity the GRRM purists. Bashing the show since season 2 and putting all their faith in GRRM to "tell it right", only for eight fucking years to go by and still no sign of TWoW. Now, they have no choice but to hate-watch the series since all but the most deluded know that Mr. I-don't-write-during-football-season is never going to finish.
 

TrueBroLapp

Member
Nov 7, 2018
172
Not really excited, but I've been following it since season 2, I'll see it to end end now.
Hopefully it's better than the last few seasons, and a good ending , since this is probably the only ending we will get to ASoIaF.
 

Netherscourge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,930
It wouldn't be Game of Thrones if it was predictable.

h4QHiYb.gif


I'm curious how certain arcs will end:

1. Hound vs. Mountain. IF it even happens. Will fire and/or Sandor's fear of it play any role?
2. Arya's general distrust of anyone not a Stark family member. Will she accept Dany ruling the kingdoms? Will she accept any truce or deals made between anyone?
3. Same with Sansa - Sansa's willingness or unwillingness to hand everything over to Dany & Jon.
4. Jamie trying to be noble at the end, while Cersei DGAF if she has to lie, cheat and backstab all her allies to protect her throne.
5. Euron and his navy are clearly setting up a ruse on Cersei's behalf to undermine Jon and Dany. If they're all stupid enough to accept Euron just going back to the Iron Isles until the war is settled and not interfere...
6. ...does Theon finally get a pair of virtual balls and save Yara? Will she accept him after he literally bailed out on her? Will Theon be the one who dispatches Euron and then Captain Theon shows up leading the Iron Fleet to SAVE the day in a big surprise twist at the end? Or does Yara turn on Theon to return the favor?
7. Will Ghost and Nymeria ever show up again in a meaningful way?
8. Will Tyrion betray Dany at some point to save Bron or Jamie or Cersei?
9. Will Varys or Melisandre play a larger role this season? Any magic spells or voodoo shit or crazy demon summoning or wacky Spider treachery?
10. Everyone is assuming the Night King will be dispatched by an army of dragon-glass wiedling Northerners and some half-noble Lannisters led by Jamie, and the rest of the season will be strictly Game of Thrones maneuvering into a final epic battle between Dany's forces and Cersei's forces. But what if the Night King crushes the northern army despite the dragon glass weaponry? What if they kill Dany's other two dragons and convert them to the Night King's army too?
11. Will Sam Tarly and Bran Stark play 4-D Chess and mindfuck the whole lot of us on all of the plotlines and backstory elements?
12. Hot Pie vs. Samwise Gamgee - who cooks a better meal on Iron Chef?
13. I'm still hoping for Lady Stoneheart to show up, throat gaping wound and all.

Should be fun. I hope we get a lot of twists and turns and unexpected stuff. The only predictable ending I approved of was Ramsay's demise at the conclusion of the Battle of the Bastards.
 

Deception

Member
Nov 15, 2017
8,430
Personally, I don't think I've ever been more hyped for a TV show in my life.
I'd even go as far as to say that I'm more hyped about S8 then I am for Avengers: Endgame, and that's saying a whole lot since I absolutely love both.
 

Lunar Wolf

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
16,237
Los Angeles
That's something I don't get though. With Jon in the watch, and Visarys dead, didn't Dany technically become the Targaryen heir by virtue of being the only living Targaryen that could claim it? I just don't understand how Jon getting out of his oaths on a technicality somehow puts him back at the #1 spot. Even if he gains his titles, wouldn't he be her heir?

Like say Jon was older than Rob and he wasn't actually a Targ. Rob becomes Lord of Winterfell after Ned right, and say Robb is still alive. Jon dying and coming back doesn't bump Rob from a position he already inherited. So Jon at best becomes his heir if he's child less, or realistically goes to the bottom of the line right? With Visarys dead and Jon in the watch having lost all titles, Dany became the Targaryen Queen. So how does Jon doing the revive thing take away he legitimate inheritance? He should be her second. Also, do we even know if technicalities like that even work? I mean you're not meant to die and come back.

I mean you're completely right but the show doesn't want you to think about it.
 

Lunar Wolf

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
16,237
Los Angeles
Let them whine. Its makes it all the more hilarious when the shows breaks viewewship records and keeps winning awards.



I almost pity the GRRM purists. Bashing the show since season 2 and putting all their faith in GRRM to "tell it right", only for eight fucking years to go by and still no sign of TWoW. Now, they have no choice but to hate-watch the series since all but the most deluded know that Mr. I-don't-write-during-football-season is never going to finish.



Nah, GRRM plays straight just as many Fantasy cliches as he subverts.

Rian Johnson he is not.

GRRM isn't subverting tropes (well not mainly). He's deconstructing them. He's also playing with a larger number of tropes than Rian ever has.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DeconstructedTrope/ASongOfIceAndFire

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DeconstructedCharacterArchetype/ASongOfIceAndFire

Just look at how large the page is.

How do the tropes influence your writing?

GRRM: You have to be aware of them but you have to smash them with hammers and make up your own. Tolkien twisted an old cliché of elves (tiny faeries) into something else - met with resistance from his editors at first, arguing over what an elf or dwarf is. Now Tolkien is the cliché. Can't just regurgitate them you have to do something with them.
 

CampFreddie

A King's Landing
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,957
I hope they can finish it in 6 episodes without making too many shortcuts.
Season 7 had great action scenes and the writing and plot were poor (especially the plot).

I always liked GoT because it felt like fantasy Sopranos. It's got worse as events are more driven by dragons/zombies and less by machiavellian politics.

I'm still very interested to see how it plays out. Especially around if/how they will subvert the cheesy heroic encounters set up in season 7.
e.g. Cleaganebowl, Dany/Cersei, John/Zombielord, Theon/Euron
 

bye

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,424
Phoenix, AZ
I mean you're completely right but the show doesn't want you to think about it.

Do you think the nights watch gave a damn about Jon leaving when...

1) they all saw literal white walkers and wights, many died fighting them at Hardhome
2) Jon died and came back to life
3) the impending war with the Boltons for his home

would Ned have killed the guy who fled after seeing a WW if Ned believed him? Because Ned assuming he was lying was just as influential in his decision as the oath he broke.

It's such a lame "technicality" to complain about because it ignores all logic and reason in favor of assuming the oath can never be broken. Not to mention Jon should have died way back in S3 when he escaped the first time then.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
43,004
That's something I don't get though. With Jon in the watch, and Visarys dead, didn't Dany technically become the Targaryen heir by virtue of being the only living Targaryen that could claim it? I just don't understand how Jon getting out of his oaths on a technicality somehow puts him back at the #1 spot. Even if he gains his titles, wouldn't he be her heir?

Like say Jon was older than Rob and he wasn't actually a Targ. Rob becomes Lord of Winterfell after Ned right, and say Robb is still alive. Jon dying and coming back doesn't bump Rob from a position he already inherited. So Jon at best becomes his heir if he's child less, or realistically goes to the bottom of the line right? With Visarys dead and Jon in the watch having lost all titles, Dany became the Targaryen Queen. So how does Jon doing the revive thing take away he legitimate inheritance? He should be her second. Also, do we even know if technicalities like that even work? I mean you're not meant to die and come back.

This is actually quite interesting. I guess legally speaking, Jon could argue that he was not aware of his birthright when he accepted his Night's Watch oath and thus he could never have given up a bithright he had no knowledge of. And, now that he is free from the NW and later becomes aware of his birthright he can assert his claim.
 

Yasuke

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
19,817
In the "Season 7's writing was pretty gotdamn shit, but I still enjoyed it because I love the characters and the endgame was upon us" camp.

I don't even know that that's an unpopular take amongst those who actually talk about Game of Thrones critically. But nonetheless, I'm hyped up for this. Started rewatching the show last week. We've come so far.
 

Kylo Rey

Banned
Dec 17, 2017
3,442
It's insane
You CAN'T being negative about GoT.
We have to acknowledge it's the best tv show of all time, if we don't you complain.

It's not like we're not saying it's NOT on the top in production side.
It's on the story it's bad.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,510
The only episodes I hated last season were episode 5 and 6.
4 was the highlight, wish it went up from there but a few cool moments didn't fix much.
Jaime Lannister was the highlight of the season overall.

I think(hope) season 8's going to be much better, if not for the fact that Sapochnik is here.
 

Kylo Rey

Banned
Dec 17, 2017
3,442
The only episodes I hated last season were episode 5 and 6.
4 was the highlight, wish it went up from there but a few cool moments didn't fix much.
Jaime Lannister was the highlight of the season overall.

I think(hope) season 8's going to be much better, if not for the fact that Sapochnik is here.


Jaime is the only character with Jon that is in the GRRM line. Seriously, Jaime is the best.
And it was close in season 5 to be bad with the goofy sandsnake storyline
 
Dec 2, 2017
1,544
I stopped comparing the show to the books all the time, accepted that I would not get Stoneheart and that Aegon and my love Jon Con likely wouldn't make an appearance somewhere in the middle of season 5. The ending beats for the major players will be what Gurm cooked up once upon a time and we all knew it had to turn into humans versus the ice people eventually, so that is good enough for me. It is highly entertaining television with top-notch production.
 

Yasuke

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
19,817
Jon doesn't owe the Night's Watch anything. They serve until death. He did that. He's done with them.
 

sibarraz

Prophet of Regret - One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
18,108
At this point I give all the clear issues than the last 3 season have only because I'm way too invested in the story and I just enjoy the ride while accepting that most of the plot is dumb
 

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
Do you think the nights watch gave a damn about Jon leaving when...

1) they all saw literal white walkers and wights, many died fighting them at Hardhome
2) Jon died and came back to life
3) the impending war with the Boltons for his home

would Ned have killed the guy who fled after seeing a WW if Ned believed him? Because Ned assuming he was lying was just as influential in his decision as the oath he broke.

It's such a lame "technicality" to complain about because it ignores all logic and reason in favor of assuming the oath can never be broken. Not to mention Jon should have died way back in S3 when he escaped the first time then.
I thought Ned told Bran that it didn't matter if what he said was the truth, the man broke an oath. It's like when Stannis still chopped off Davos' fingers because even though he saved him, he was still a smuggler. My question wasn't even in regards to the Watch but the realm as a whole and to how inheritance works. Once you lose your spot, I don't see how a technicality allows you to insert yourself to the same position you once held. People would have already moved up the inheritance latter, and someone who was behind you initially may have already inherited the title. So that's why I asked about Robb. If he was still alive and Jon was a full blown Stark, does he become Lord of Winterfell and King in the North, even though Robb has already legally inherited the first and was declared second? If he can't bump Robb back down, then he can't do the same with Dany. He'd be her heir until she has kids.
 

Deleted member 21431

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
596
I enjoyed season 7 and can't wait for this. I half expect the White Walkers to head straight to Kings Landing, decimate the place and then either head north to confront John's army at Winterfell or John marches South to retake the city. I also expect Cersi to be converted into an undead queen to sit next to the Night King....
 

Untzillatx

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,375
Basque Country
That's something I don't get though. With Jon in the watch, and Visarys dead, didn't Dany technically become the Targaryen heir by virtue of being the only living Targaryen that could claim it? I just don't understand how Jon getting out of his oaths on a technicality somehow puts him back at the #1 spot. Even if he gains his titles, wouldn't he be her heir?

It's basically due to Westerosi succession rules, which in GoT are based on European succession rules in nobility and royalty.

It works like this: the first trueborn male child of the monarch is the Prince and heir apparent, and has priority over his younger brothers and over all his sisters (younger or not). Also, his children have priority over his siblings. So even if the Prince died, as long as he had any children, they would come first in the sucession line, before the deceased prince's siblings.

So, Rhaegar was the Prince heir, first in line to the Mad King. His son Aegon by his marriage with Ellia Martell was his heir (being the first trueborn son), and second in line. His daughter Rhaenys was third in line (despite being older), while Viserys and Daenerys -Rhaegar's siblings- were fourth and fifth respectively. Now, at this point in time no onw knows Jon's true identity, so of course he isn't counted.

When Rhaegar, Aegon and Rhaenys all die, Viserys becomes the heir, and Daenerys second in line. Once Viserys is gone, Dany is the rightful heir. However, as we know it is revealed that not only is Jon Snow Rhaegar's son, but also he is a trueborn son at that (being born inside a marriage, so not a bastard). Being a son of the Prince (and strangely also named Aegon), that puts him second in line after the first Aegon, and before Rhaenys. When these two are dead, he is the true heir following succession rules, before both Viserys and Daenerys, because children come before siblings.

As he is not a bastard, the only thing truly preventing him from being in the sucession line, was his vow to the Night's Watch, as he renounced to all titles. I believe his death and resurrection is just a narrative technique that GRRM has decided to use to "free" him of his vow, and it technically established that it only lasted until his death, and he did die as a sworn brother. A loophole of sorts. Once the vow is removed, and he is recognised as a trueborn son of Rhaegar, he definitely has a claim on the Iron Throne.

Of course, this would mean Rhaegar's siblings (basically Daenerys at this point) would have to willingly recognise Jon as his brother's trueborn son, and then, as the rightful heir (which would put her as second in line until Jon's future children are born). In history there's many times when uncles and aunts refused to recognise the children of their deceased Prince as heirs, and civil wars have started because of that (for example, the Carlist Wars in Spain).

Like say Jon was older than Rob and he wasn't actually a Targ. Rob becomes Lord of Winterfell after Ned right, and say Robb is still alive. Jon dying and coming back doesn't bump Rob from a position he already inherited. So Jon at best becomes his heir if he's child less, or realistically goes to the bottom of the line right? With Visarys dead and Jon in the watch having lost all titles, Dany became the Targaryen Queen. So how does Jon doing the revive thing take away he legitimate inheritance? He should be her second. Also, do we even know if technicalities like that even work? I mean you're not meant to die and come back.

The difference is that under your scenario, Jon would still be a bastard, so even if he was released from his vow to the Night's Watch, he still would not be able to inherit Winterfell. If it was revealed that Jon was in fact a Stark (or he was legitimised as one), being older than Robb would in fact give him claim to Winterfell. In fact, in the books that's one of the reasons Catelyn Stark had against recognising him as a true Stark (she feared it would put her own children's future in jeopardy). Although it is important to bear in mind that Robb is in fact older than Jon, so this is just hypothetical.

The resurrection thing does not interfer with the inheritance, it is just a way of releasing him of the vow (which does interfer).

EDIT.- Fixing mistake
 
Last edited:

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
It's basically due to Westerosi succession rules, which in GoT are based on European succession rules in nobility and royalty.

It works like this: the first trueborn male child of the monarch is the Prince and heir apparent, and has priority over his younger brothers and over all his sisters (younger or not). Also, his children have priority over his siblings. So even if the Prince died, as long as he had any children, they would come first in the sucession line, before the deceased prince's siblings.

So, Rhaegar was the Prince heir, second in line to the Mad King. His son Aegon by his marriage with Ellia Martell was his heir (being the first trueborn son), and third in line. His daughter Rhaenys was four in line (despite being older), while Viserys and Daenerys -Rhaegar's siblings- were fifth and sixth respectively. Now, at this point in time no onw knows Jon's true identity, so of course he isn't counted.

When Rhaegar, Aegon and Rhaenys all die, Viserys becomes the heir, and Daenerys second in line. Once Viserys is gone, Dany is the rightful heir. However, as we know it is revealed that not only is Jon Snow Rhaegar's son, but also he is a trueborn son at that (being born inside a marriage, so not a bastard). Being a son of the Prince (and strangely also named Aegon), that puts him second in line after the first Aegon, and before Rhaenys. When these two are dead, he is the true heir following succession rules, before both Viserys and Daenerys, because children come before siblings.

As he is not a bastard, the only thing truly preventing him from being in the sucession line, was his vow to the Night's Watch, as he renounced to all titles. I believe his death and resurrection is just a narrative technique that GRRM has decided to use to "free" him of his vow, and it technically established that it only lasted until his death, and he did die as a sworn brother. A loophole of sorts. Once the vow is removed, and he is recognised as a trueborn son of Rhaegar, he definitely has a claim on the Iron Throne.

Of course, this would mean Rhaegar's siblings (basically Daenerys at this point) would have to willingly recognise Jon as his brother's trueborn son, and this, as the rightful heir (which would put her as second in line until Jon's future children are born). In history there's many times when uncles and aunts refused to recognise the children of their deceased Prince as heirs, and civil wars have started because of that (for example, the Carlist Wars in Spain).



The difference is that under your scenario, Jon would still be a bastard, so even if he was released from his vow to the Night's Watch, he still would not be able to inherit Winterfell. If it was revealed that Jon was in fact a Stark (or he was legitimised as one), being older than Robb would in fact give him claim to Winterfell. In fact, in the books that's one of the reasons Catelyn Stark had against recognising him as a true Stark (she feared it would put her own children's future in jeopardy, as a 'Jon Stark' would be the rightful heir to Winterfell).

The resurrection thing does not interfer with the inheritance, it is just a way of releasing him of the vow (which does interfer).
Thanks for this detailed explanation. I totally forgot about Jon still being a bastard under Stark succession rules. So because of his Night's Watch vows, he either has to have the military strength to make a claim and succesfully take the throne, or Dany has to willingly step aside for him. That makes sense.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
43,004
I thought Ned told Bran that it didn't matter if what he said was the truth, the man broke an oath. It's like when Stannis still chopped off Davos' fingers because even though he saved him, he was still a smuggler. My question wasn't even in regards to the Watch but the realm as a whole and to how inheritance works. Once you lose your spot, I don't see how a technicality allows you to insert yourself to the same position you once held. People would have already moved up the inheritance latter, and someone who was behind you initially may have already inherited the title. So that's why I asked about Robb. If he was still alive and Jon was a full blown Stark, does he become Lord of Winterfell and King in the North, even though Robb has already legally inherited the first and was declared second? If he can't bump Robb back down, then he can't do the same with Dany. He'd be her heir until she has kids.

Well, it's like I said, if we're talking about the Iron Throne Jon could argue that he never had knowledge of his claim and thus he could not have abandoned something he never believed he had in the first place. The revelation of his birthright after leaving the Night's Watch should make his claim valid. Further, Daenerys has yet to be vested as the Official Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. She has made her claim and pressed it, but until she sits the Iron Throne she;s simply another claimant. Thus, unlike Robb already inhering Winterfell and ruling as Lord in your hypothetical, Dany has yet to do so with the Iron Throne.
 

Untzillatx

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,375
Basque Country
Thanks for this detailed explanation. I totally forgot about Jon still being a bastard under Stark succession rules. So because of his Night's Watch vows, he either has to have the military strength to make a claim and succesfully take the throne, or Dany has to willingly step aside for him. That makes sense.

Well, it's not so much about his Night's Watch vows as it is about the fact that just a handful of people knew for a fact that he is Rhaegar's trueborn son, so Daenerys would have to simply 'accept it' with little proof. It's like, this guy shows up and says he is the lost son of my long-dead brother, and a trueborn son at that. Accepting this would mean Daenerys gives up its claim, so it's tricky. The Night's Watch vows do not really have much to do with it as long as we accept that Jon was released of them by dying, and it seems like the Watch itself has accepted it (they haven't called him a deserter nor attempted to stop him), so that kinda legitimises it.
 

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
Well, it's like I said, if we're talking about the Iron Throne Jon could argue that he never had knowledge of his claim and thus he could not have abandoned something he never believed he had in the first place. The revelation of his birthright after leaving the Night's Watch should make his claim valid. Further, Daenerys has yet to be vested as the Official Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. She has made her claim and pressed it, but until she sits the Iron Throne she;s simply another claimant. Thus, unlike Robb already inhering Winterfell and ruling as Lord in your hypothetical, Dany has yet to do so with the Iron Throne.

Yeah I keep forgetting that Dany's title of Queen is from her being a Khaleesi and from being the Queen of Mereen. So she's a queen in her own right, just not of the Seven Kingdoms yet.

Well, it's not so much about his Night's Watch vows as it is about the fact that just a handful of people knew for a fact that he is Rhaegar's trueborn son, so Daenerys would have to simply 'accept it' with little proof. It's like, this guy shows up and says he is the lost son of my long-dead brother, and a trueborn son at that. Accepting this would mean Daenerys gives up its claim, so it's tricky. The Night's Watch vows do not really have much to do with it as long as we accept that Jon was released of them by dying, and it seems like the Watch itself has accepted it (they haven't called him a deserter nor attempted to stop him), so that kinda legitimises it.

But Bran's testimony was enough to convince a room full of Northerners that Littlefinger was guilty. So it seems like certain people have already decided that Bran is a valid source of information. But you're right, it's a tough claim to digest, especially with how honourable Ned was.
 

Stouffers

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,924
I hope the statues come alive and fight shoulder to shoulder with the starks, tree children and all their cartoon pals.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
43,004
Yeah I keep forgetting that Dany's title of Queen is from her being a Khaleesi and from being the Queen of Mereen. So she's a queen in her own right, just not of the Seven Kingdoms yet.

It's not so much that, I mean she is Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, at least that's what she claims. The problem is there are multiple claimants at this point. In a strict legal sense, either Dany or Jon would be the rightful ruler of Westeros. So, analyzing Jon's claim under such a strict legal theory can be interesting as you determine whether him joining the NW caused him to abandon a claim he never knew he had and whether his death and resurrection from the NW removed such vows. But, these are hypothetical legal theorizing. At this point, a claim is only as good as the sword behind them. So, the legality isn't really important.

The fact that Jon has Rhaegar's blood is enough to have people really around him.
 

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
It's not so much that, I mean she is Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, at least that's what she claims. The problem is there are multiple claimants at this point. In a strict legal sense, either Dany or Jon would be the rightful ruler of Westeros. So, analyzing Jon's claim under such a strict legal theory can be interesting as you determine whether him joining the NW caused him to abandon a claim he never knew he had and whether his death and resurrection from the NW removed such vows. But, these are hypothetical legal theorizing. At this point, a claim is only as good as the sword behind them. So, the legality isn't really important.

The fact that Jon has Rhaegar's blood is enough to have people really around him.
It's also enough to have people want to kill him too. Some of those Northerners and Vale Knights/Lord don't seem like they have love for any Targaryens.
 

NYR

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,020