Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gael Knight wrote:
Do we think the Valonqar is Euron? Strangles Cersei during sex perhaps.

I don't think so. I think it's probably Jaime.

My guess is Euron gets killed by Theon as the climax of his largely-unearned second redemption arc.

 Gael Knight wrote:
By that logic then Jon is the rightful heir, as his line takes precedence over Dany.

Would be except he forswore any claim to anything when he joined the nights watch.

Legally it can be argued that he lost his claim.

Perhaps. Jaime only has one hand though.

Theon has definitely lasted far too long already. Euron is a bit of a non event but I think Theon killing him would be a bit weak.

Jon died. He's completed his vow to the Night's Watch.

Also these vows don't seem to really matter. Tywin had planned to undo Jaimes Kingsguard position and get him married.

Except that he died, which would technically release him from his vow.

Having said that, I think he ends up back at the Wall. The Wall and the NW are just too much a part of Jon’s story. It’s also possibly foreshadowed by his relationship with Maester Aemon.

I don't think Jon ends up back at the wall. He clearly was 100% uninterested in continuing his watch after he was brought back. He cares primarily about destroying the Night King, but no longer by being part of the Night's Watch.

Plus I'm pretty sure that, win or lose, there will be no reason to guard the wall anymore. Either the Night King is defeated forever, ending the threat to the living for good, or he wins and a winter comes that lasts for all eternity. Either way, guarding the wall will be a pointless endeavor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Plus I'm pretty sure that, win or lose, there will be no reason to guard the wall anymore. Either the Night King is defeated forever, ending the threat to the living for good, or he wins and a winter comes that lasts for all eternity. Either way, guarding the wall will be a pointless endeavor.

I agree. I don't see a return to the status quo at the end of the series.

Jons vows ending in death releases him from his duty to the nights watch. It doesn't restore his claim to any inheritance he might have had. Or at least it can be argued that way.

The show runners seem to be blowing right past all that stuff though. Jon himself doesn't even have the moral quandary about it that he should be being Ned Starks son. In the books when/if it comes to this I am sure Jon will be all tore up not knowing if he should accept his claim or keep his vows.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Gael Knight wrote:
By that logic then Jon is the rightful heir, as his line takes precedence over Dany.

Would be except he forswore any claim to anything when he joined the nights watch.

Legally it can be argued that he lost his claim.

By what lawyers or judges, exactly? There is no law that really matters, not in the fiction and not in reality. Who ends up living after the dead are defeated and after the ensuing war is the "legitimate" ruler. I'm sort of annoyed with the whole "he/she" is the rightful heir schtick. What is "right" has no bearing on reality, nor should we expect t in our fiction, unless we really want pure escapism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Plus I'm pretty sure that, win or lose, there will be no reason to guard the wall anymore. Either the Night King is defeated forever, ending the threat to the living for good, or he wins and a winter comes that lasts for all eternity. Either way, guarding the wall will be a pointless endeavor.

I agree. I don't see a return to the status quo at the end of the series.

That is exactly what people have been saying since after the last winter.

 Ouze wrote:
... what the feth

I was venting my frustrations in general, not accusing you of anything. Hence my "sorry if I sound cynical" bit at the end. Sorry that did not come across.

I think I just realized you missed a comma in your original post which would change the sentence considerably. My apologies for my part in the confusion.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Gael Knight wrote:
By that logic then Jon is the rightful heir, as his line takes precedence over Dany.

Would be except he forswore any claim to anything when he joined the nights watch.

Legally it can be argued that he lost his claim.

By what lawyers or judges, exactly? There is no law that really matters, not in the fiction and not in reality. Who ends up living after the dead are defeated and after the ensuing war is the "legitimate" ruler. I'm sort of annoyed with the whole "he/she" is the rightful heir schtick. What is "right" has no bearing on reality, nor should we expect t in our fiction, unless we really want pure escapism.

I agree.

But if WE are talking about who actually has claim and who SHOULD rule by rights then the laws of succession in the fictional kingdom are the things that matter for that discussion. Jon is the crown Prince and has the rightful claim. Right up until he joined an organization that stripped him of any claim. Danny is the next in line.

In my opinion I think it's unambiguous that Jon's service to the Night's Watch, and all that entails, ended with his death.

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death (and so on). The oath explicitly says his watch has ended.

So far as whether he or Dany would be next in line, I think there are arguments for both. By the laws of Westeros, it would be Aegon, but there always have been "the Targaryens are different" loopholes, such as, say, marrying your sister, or having 2 wives, or who exactly is next in the line of succession.

 Ouze wrote:
In my opinion I think it's unambiguous that Jon's service to the Night's Watch, and all that entails, ended with his death.

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death (and so on). The oath explicitly says his watch has ended.

So far as whether he or Dany would be next in line, I think there are arguments for both. By the laws of Westeros, it would be Aegon, but there always have been "the Targaryens are different" loopholes, such as, say, marrying your sister, or having 2 wives, or who exactly is next in the line of succession.

I agree that his duties to the Nights Watch ends with his death. (Clearly he justifies it that way)

The full oath is..

Night gathers, and now my watch begins.
It shall not end until my death.
I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children.
I shall wear no crowns and win no glory.
I shall live and die at my post.
I am the sword in the darkness.
I am the watcher on the walls.
I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.
I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

What can be argued however is that being released from his duty to the Nights Watch does not reinstate any claims that he had before he joined. Maybe he can find new ways into holding lands and wearing crowns (like being declared King in the North). But thats new stuff. Not reclaiming his old stuff. Just my take on it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Gael Knight wrote:
By that logic then Jon is the rightful heir, as his line takes precedence over Dany.

Would be except he forswore any claim to anything when he joined the nights watch.

Legally it can be argued that he lost his claim.

By what lawyers or judges, exactly? There is no law that really matters, not in the fiction and not in reality. Who ends up living after the dead are defeated and after the ensuing war is the "legitimate" ruler. I'm sort of annoyed with the whole "he/she" is the rightful heir schtick. What is "right" has no bearing on reality, nor should we expect t in our fiction, unless we really want pure escapism.

I agree.

But if WE are talking about who actually has claim and who SHOULD rule by rights then the laws of succession in the fictional kingdom are the things that matter for that discussion. Jon is the crown Prince and has the rightful claim. Right up until he joined an organization that stripped him of any claim. Danny is the next in line.

Fair enough. Well spoken, good sir. I Would just be wary of us putting any sort of rightful crown ornimatation on any person in the show. The rightful crown really doesn't matter at this point. It really never did other than to be a McGuffin to point at someone to cheer at/for. Hence the Stannis empithsizers. No laws really matter at this scale (just like in real life). Presumably, the Stark household had written agreements with the other North families. Laws and treaties and such. Yup, those mattered. If they really did, then half of last season could have been nixed. It seems to me, that is sort of the point of the "game of thrones". It is a game where people make their own rules when and wherever they want. The winner is who ends up living. Of course, in order to be satisfying, the tale must appeal to at least some people, so someone somebody was cheering for will win...that's my risky guess.

I agree, the "Game of Thrones" was always a bunch of drama nonsense that distracted everyone and depleted resources from the real story. The Song of Ice and Fire.

I disagree that is was nonsense. It is what created verisimilitude. People are going to create laws and lines of succession and treaties. They just don't matter much, ultimately. If you are going to tell a tale from a human perspective, you have to talk about what the humans would talk about. We as omniscient viewers, don't have to follow those rules though. To me, that is the very thing that Martin tapped into that makes the story work. I'm still not sure if it should be classified as modernist, post modernist, or popomo. With the above discussion, I personally, would put the books in the modernist category. The show is probably postmodernist. Our discussion, i guess, would be popomo.

Well, Martin always said he didn't understand why all the high fantasy was so fantastical and unrealistic and how it distracted from the stories. A Song of Ice and Fire was instead written as a historical fiction with all the grit and realism that that implies. It may have fantastic elements but it was always grounded in telling a story much like the War of the Roses as a dramatization of a history.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't think Jon ends up back at the wall. He clearly was 100% uninterested in continuing his watch after he was brought back. He cares primarily about destroying the Night King, but no longer by being part of the Night's Watch.

Plus I'm pretty sure that, win or lose, there will be no reason to guard the wall anymore. Either the Night King is defeated forever, ending the threat to the living for good, or he wins and a winter comes that lasts for all eternity. Either way, guarding the wall will be a pointless endeavor.

Again, a key factor here is how closely the ending will match GRRM's intended conclusion. Left to their own devices, sure, these showrunners would probably have the young hero defeat the dark lord with his magic sword, sparking lots of happily ever after.

There's no way the books go down like that though. GRRM has famously said that he doesn't like traditional good vs. evil stories. The NK doesn't even exist in the books like in the show. He's a figure -- possibly allegorical -- from an old legend. And there are hints all over the place that the 'status quo' may not reflect the truth of the situation...that the real purpose of the Wall and NW has been forgotten. The Others/WW might not even truly be evil.

So -- if we're really going to get into this -- I think it's completely possible that the show ends with a resumption of an ancient, now forgotten truce that was broken by the NW in their ranging beyond the Wall. And it makes tons of sense for Jon -- as the song of ice and fire -- to broker the peace and then monitor that peace from the Wall. As I said, it's possibly been foreshadowed already by Jon's closeness with Maester Aemon...his great-uncle (I think) and another Targaryen who turned down the crown to serve there. And there are also things like Daenerys' dream of a blue rose (a flower associated with Lyanna) growing from the Wall. Jon is conceptually tied to the Wall and the NW, and it's been well established in both mediums that he's not the type to be interested in ruling anyway. Leading, sure...but only when serving a greater good. He's the perfect Lord Commander.

But again, I'm looking at it from a book perspective. For this show...beating the bad guy and getting the girl is still in play.

Who is or legitmate only really matters to those in power, most of the "small folk" don;t give a gak - I seem to recall that being mentioned in the show.

If you have enough swords, spears or indeed dragons - you are the king or queen, if you can then hold it and have a succession of your bloodline then all good.

After all the entire "legitmate" succession of the Targayrians starts from asingle fmaily coming over and taking ove the 7 kingdoms by using their dragons. If you look at it that way they and their descendants are no more legitmate than Robert. Before them I imagine the king of the various lands are descendants of those who took power at the point of a sword axe or spear - they may have claime dthey were the decendants of the gods or whatever.

Another possibility is that Dany gets sick of Westros and goes back to her lands in the East - all those lands were also ruled by the Valarian Empire - so legitmatly hers too.

GRM obviously hs no idea how to continue never mind finish the books - he is watching to see how the show works and is received adn then may ge round to writing some of his own version. His first few books were good reads, interesting and somewhat unusual but there were and are a huge variety of fantasy authors who write gritty or similar works, many without proecting themselves into the novel (Sam).

Personally, I'm hoping the white walkers win and kill everyone, and as the final credits roll in the background is GRRM just belly laughing and pointing at the screen while cash rains down the sky.

Gotta admit, that would be a memorable end.

But they're clearly going to go the whole wayne's world mega-happy ending where Jon and Danyeris win, get married, and rule together or something.

I think there has to be a dead connection between Jon and the whole white walker thing. Why else put him through all of that? Maybe all of Westeros burns, various characters die and the only thing that is left is Jon ruling the peace from the north and probably Tyrion in the South.

Although I do love what Emelia has done with what script she has been given, I think her character is insufferable and am on the side rooting for her to either go 'mad queen' when she finds out Jon's true lineage and she is no longer #1 - or hopefully dies a noble death saving Jorah or something.

I think Daenarys going mad works. Since to Ascension, she never really had to fight for anything. While it may SEEM like she conquered lands, she never really did. She got the Dragons as a gift. Her "Loyal" Soldiers are slaves that she bought with her dragon......then had her dragon kill the buyer. Yeah
she set them "free" but they are kids raised from birth to Obey, to leave her would never enter their minds.
The Dothraki she got she got because she just didnt get burned....
Now she is facing real Adversity and real fights.
She is no real leader, Jon is a real leader. I would not be surprised if the other dragon starts to side with Jon, Who has shown to lead by example than fear.
It also kinda fits with what the show is kinda saying "Divine Right" and ruling by birth is kinda garbage.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think Daenarys going mad works. Since to Ascension, she never really had to fight for anything. While it may SEEM like she conquered lands, she never really did. She got the Dragons as a gift. Her "Loyal" Soldiers are slaves that she bought with her dragon......then had her dragon kill the buyer. Yeah
she set them "free" but they are kids raised from birth to Obey, to leave her would never enter their minds.
The Dothraki she got she got because she just didnt get burned....
Now she is facing real Adversity and real fights.
She is no real leader, Jon is a real leader. I would not be surprised if the other dragon starts to side with Jon, Who has shown to lead by example than fear.
It also kinda fits with what the show is kinda saying "Divine Right" and ruling by birth is kinda garbage.

Dany has survived so much more than most of the characters including Jon.

She has lost a child and a husband, been sold by her own brother and raised an army of devoted followers who have never lost a battle. Dany hates slavery and has fought hard against it. She gave the unsullied their FREEDOM - they love her for that - if you don;t understand that - I donlt know what to say.

Jon has gained the loyalty of many in the North but all of his battles have been won by others and he was stabbed to death by his own men. He leads by example but often that is foolinshness - if not for Littelfinger and Sansa he and all the wildings would be dead or worse at the hands of Ramsey Bolton. Where he does score is that he is prepared to put his own ambitions aside.

All we have is Greyworm saying they love her for it.
The Unsullied are slaves still, raised from birth by a brutal regime.
I severely doubt they even have a concept of freedom. Slaves quite often stay with those the freed them because that is all they know.
And lets not forget, Jon didnt BUY the norths loyalty like Daenarys did. the north CHOSE Jons loyalty.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
All we have is Greyworm saying they love her for it.
The Unsullied are slaves still, raised from birth by a brutal regime.
I severely doubt they even have a concept of freedom. Slaves quite often stay with those the freed them because that is all they know.
And lets not forget, Jon didnt BUY the norths loyalty like Daenarys did. the north CHOSE Jons loyalty.

Why Would Greyworm lie? The Unsullied were more than happy to turn on their oppressors and not a single one has ever chosen to leave her service. Did you not see the throngs of people that called her mother? You do watch the show right?

Whats left of the North chose Jon, remnants of shattered houses led by children and even some of them are reluctant.

Oh and of course Jon CHOSE Dany......

They slaughtered the masters because their new master said to.
Again, They are slaves raised to Obey, They she bought. They would not have listened to he before.
And Jons chose Dany so reluctantly it was a plot point.
And I did watch the show, and I saw Dany never work hard so a single thing and just have people bow before her.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They slaughtered the masters because their new master said to.
Again, They are slaves raised to Obey, They she bought. They would not have listened to he before.
And Jons chose Dany so reluctantly it was a plot point.
And I did watch the show, and I saw Dany never work hard so a single thing and just have people bow before her.

But Jon DID choose Dany - right?

It seems you have watched but not understood. I suggest you listen to how the freed slaves act and regard her. How the whole fething point of her campaign was more to free slaves than perhaps anything else.

I imagine if you are slave and someone frees you you might well be quite pleased.

here you go - watch and learn....and tell me again how she does not lead and inspire - The Unsullied (and Missendrie and thousands of other freed slaves) made a choice to stay with her same as the Wildings had a more stark (pun intended) choice to die or join with Jon.

She's had an unconventional rise to power, sure. But I feel hotsauceman1 is selling her somewhat short.

Yes, she bought The Unsullied. But she then ordered them to slaughter The Masters, without harming other slaves.

She then frees another city's worth of slaves. As rulers in the setting go, she is somewhat benevolent.

Her challenge is finding her feet somewhere where very few people want her. To them, she's a Targaryen first and foremost, and for many, her predecessor is a living, and deeply unpleasant memory.

We know she's not an inherently evil person. Her methods are broadly questionable, but one could argue much less so than say, Cersei (Dany incinerated enemy commanders that wouldn't switch sides. Cersei incinerated a decent proportion of her own city).

She's got a lot to prove, and lot of people to prove it to. But by riding North to defend The North? That's a good first step.

If you watch the video, she doesn't free the unsullied before she orders them to kill the Masters.
That just reenforces my point. She has an army of loyal because she bought them.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you watch the video, she doesn't free the unsullied before she orders them to kill the Masters.
That just reenforces my point. She has an army of loyal because she bought them.

"Sigh" I give up - you don't want to understand the narrative because it doesn't suit your own mental narrative.