TV: Game of Thrones | Season 8 (Final) | Part IX -TV talk ONLY -NO Books, Spoilers, NO LEAKS

[Siamese Dream]

Are you still bummed out about Baby Sam?

By the end of the series Dany and possibly Cersei will probably do a full term of pregnancy and baby Sam will still be a non-talking toddler

 

[Blender]

I think for the most part, Varys has always been consistent. made moves that he felt that would be ideal for the realm he wanted to protect and be a part of. (this kind of makes me feel believe that the whole thing will end with a formation of some form of republic/democracy NOT a monarchy. all the talk about breaking wheels etc and how Varys is "for the people." makes me think that).

I think Varys would support a benevolent monarch/dictator as well as they will care more about bettering society than their own personal ambitions, possibly with the aim of dismantling the monarchy long term. He thinks Dany is one, and I assume he now thinks Jon is one as well. He probably would have even supported Ned had Ned done what was required to seize power.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I think Varys would support a benevolent monarch/dictator as well as they will care more about bettering society than their own personal ambitions, possibly with the aim of dismantling the monarchy long term. He thinks Dany is one, and I assume he now thinks Jon is one as well. He probably would have even supported Ned had Ned done what was required to seize power.

this is also v. true. I think a lot of ppl would have followed Ned.

 

[Blender]

this is also v. true. I think a lot of ppl would have followed Ned.

Ned could have seized power than cut deals with Renly, Stannis, or Olenna to shore up his de facto power position.

 

[Neutrinos]

Would Stannis have accepted Ned as king based on Robert's letter?

I'm guessing not since Ned was only named temporary king until Joffrey came of age. With Joffrey being illegitimate, Stannis would probably push his claim

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Would Stannis have accepted Ned as king based on Robert's letter?

I'm guessing not since Ned was only named temporary king until Joffrey came of age. With Joffrey being illegitimate, Stannis would probably push his claim

But if Ned wasn't beheaded and queen/Joffrey were patient the Stark's and Northern Houses would have come to aid of defending crown

So Stannis would have probably not been able to fight off the rest of the houses to secure crown

 

[Neutrinos]

But if Ned wasn't beheaded and queen/Joffrey were patient the Stark's and Northern Houses would have come to aid of defending crown

So Stannis would have probably not been able to fight off the rest of the houses to secure crown

Would Ned have even wanted the throne though? He told Stannis about Joffrey, so it's likely he would've relinquished the throne to Stannis

 

[Blender]

Would Stannis have accepted Ned as king based on Robert's letter?

I'm guessing not since Ned was only named temporary king until Joffrey came of age. With Joffrey being illegitimate, Stannis would probably push his claim

No, but he probably would have cut a power sharing deal with Ned.

Ned wasn't named king by Robert, he was named Lord Protector which essentially gave him all the power of the king but not the hereditary title.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Stannis would never have accepted anyone else as monarch. By law and tradition he is the rightful heir to the throne, given that Joeffrey isnt Roberts son.

If you think he would have accepted anyone else as monarch, then you haven't been watching the show. However, it could he a problem with how he is portrayed. D&D hate the character and didn't put an ounce of effort into recreating the character for the show.

 

[Blender]

Stannis would never have accepted anyone else as monarch. By law and tradition he is the rightful heir to the throne, given that Joeffrey isnt Roberts son.

If you think he would have accepted anyone else as monarch, then you haven't been watching the show. However, it could he a problem with how he is portrayed. D&D hate the character and didn't put an ounce of effort into recreating the character for the show.

Where did I say he would accept someone else as monarch?

I also have no problem with his portrayal. He's by far the most overrated character from the books.

 

[oXo Cube]

Stannis would never have known Joffrey was illegitimate if Ned didn't tell everyone.

Ned wasn't interested in a simple peaceful transition of power, he was interested in doing what was right knowing full well that that could mean civil war.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Stannis would never have known Joffrey was illegitimate if Ned didn't tell everyone.

Ned wasn't interested in a simple peaceful transition of power, he was interested in doing what was right knowing full well that that could mean civil war.

yup. which is weird that Ned was prepared for Civil war.
like i said it just seemed like he thought the truth and roberts words would have been okie dokes.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Stannis would never have known Joffrey was illegitimate if Ned didn't tell everyone.

Ned wasn't interested in a simple peaceful transition of power, he was interested in doing what was right knowing full well that that could mean civil war.

And regardless of weather or not Ned was right, or perhaps Ned was a good choice as an interim leader, Stannis would have had none of it. Stannis is the literal definition of a blunt object that is governed solely by honor, duty and work ethic. While he would have likely respect Ned for all that he did, he would have told Ned to forfeit the thrown and all of it's powers to him should they have won. He would have then demanded Ned bend the knee just like everyone else in the kingdom.

 

[oXo Cube]

And regardless of weather or not Ned was right, or perhaps Ned was a good choice as an interim leader, Stannis would have had none of it. Stannis is the literal definition of a blunt object that is governed solely by honor, duty and work ethic. While he would have likely respect Ned for all that he did, he would have told Ned to forfeit the thrown and all of it's powers to him should they have won. He would have then demanded Ned bend the knee just like everyone else in the kingdom.

Not really sure what you're arguing here beyond the attempt to paint Stannis as a gaint badass.

For starters, once again Stannis isn't the legitimate heir to jack shit until Ned makes that true by letting it slip that Joffrey isn't Roberts. Secondly, Ned was never interested in being Lord Protector anyway and would have relinquished the throne to Stannis willingly. They were on the same side.

I was more arguing against the idea that Ned just wanted to avoid bloodshed. He actively went down the road that was most likely to lead to that outcome because in his honorable mind it was the right thing to do.

What got him into trouble was being blinded by his own righteousness and assuming that the powers at large sans-house Lannister would simply fall in line behind him rather than act out of self interest.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

The entire Baratheon line started when they rebelled against the current throne, anyways, so the whole discussion is kind of silly (within the show at least).

It's never been about "legitimacy". It's been about power.

 

[oXo Cube]

The entire Baratheon line started when they rebelled against the current throne, anyways, so the whole discussion is kind of silly (within the show at least).

It's never been about "legitimacy". It's been about power.

It was about legitimacy to Ned, which is the crux of this discussion.

Stannis wasn't doing the honorable thing, he was in it for himself.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It was about legitimacy to Ned, which is the crux of this discussion.

Stannis wasn't doing the honorable thing, he was in it for himself.

They both did what they did based on legitimacy, but they chose to ignore how that line became the "legitimate" one in the first place because it benefit them in the first place.

 

[glovesave_35]

The entire Baratheon line started when they rebelled against the current throne, anyways, so the whole discussion is kind of silly (within the show at least).

It's never been about "legitimacy". It's been about power.

That rebellion took place for legitimate reasons though. I know what you are getting at, but the world created here is important. And in this world, line of succession is everything. A child born of incest would have less than zero claim.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Not only was the rebellion legitimate (well, as legitimate as far as rebellions go I guess), but Robert and his line of the Baratheons can point out their links to the Targaryens, which gives his claim some level of legitimacy.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

That rebellion took place for legitimate reasons though. I know what you are getting at, but the world created here is important. And in this world, line of succession is everything. A child born of incest would have less than zero claim.

I'm aware it was a legitimate rebellion, but if Robert had fallen at the trident then Stannis isn't complaining about his rights as heir to the throne (just assuming he is granted clemency after the war for argument's sake.).

The rightful ruler is the one who has the power to take or maintain the line. The reason behind keeping them based on a certain set of rules based on birth is arbitrary. Especially considering incest was a staple of the Targaryen line and the family's right to rule was unchallenged up until the rebellion.

 

[glovesave_35]

I'm aware it was a legitimate rebellion, but if Robert had fallen at the trident then Stannis isn't complaining about his rights as heir to the throne (just assuming he is granted clemency after the war for argument's sake.).

The rightful ruler is the one who has the power to take or maintain the line. The reason behind keeping them based on a certain set of rules based on birth is arbitrary. Especially considering incest was a staple of the Targaryen line and the family's right to rule was unchallenged up until the rebellion.

At least the Targaryans were the line in question.

I agree with your overall point though. I posted before reading your follow-up post.

 

[Blender]

I'm aware it was a legitimate rebellion, but if Robert had fallen at the trident then Stannis isn't complaining about his rights as heir to the throne (just assuming he is granted clemency after the war for argument's sake.).

The rightful ruler is the one who has the power to take or maintain the line. The reason behind keeping them based on a certain set of rules based on birth is arbitrary. Especially considering incest was a staple of the Targaryen line and the family's right to rule was unchallenged up until the rebellion.

What is power and why do people follow leaders are major themes of the show. Littlefinger and Varys discuss it, Tywin tries to teach it to Joffrey and Tommen, Tyrion and Varys discuss it, Jorah and Danyers discuss it, it was discussed about Jon and Dany in season 7, etc.

Having some link to a line of succession helps give legitimacy to your power and may help pull in supporters, but at the end of the day winning and maintaining power are all that matters. Robert won the Iron Throne because he conquered it in a war and at the end of the war had control of the Stormlands, the Crownlands, the Vale, the Riverlands, and the North with his alliance, and had a soft alliance with the Westerlands. The rebellion had majority control over the continent at the end of the war and a leader from the rebellion could have seized power no matter what, but to ensure they controlled all of Westeros they cut a marriage deal with Tywin for Robert and Cersei, and used the Baratheon ancestry to shore up their position. Even with all of that Dorne was under nominal control only.

 

[RandV]

Westeros was kind of due for a major breakup either way. It's based loosely on the United Kingdom except maybe 3 times bigger and with 8 major factions, the number perhaps moving up or down over time. It's a continent with thousands of years of history, and only in the last 300 years has it been united under a single rule when the Targaryan's conquered and united it with dragons making the 7 kindoms/8 great houses kneel to them.

While Robert's rebellion had justification it's entirely possible that you had more going on at the time and the Mad King had a right to be paranoid. While his family had 3 centuries of rule they dragons they initially conquered with are long gone, so it's entirely possible that cracks were forming and there was a conspiracy to topple the Targaryan's. We don't know how often great families intermingled, but before the rebellion we had a Stark and a Baratheon squiring together under an Aryn and becoming bff's plus a number of marriages being arranged: Baratheon-Stark, Stark-Tully, Aryn-Tully. That's a 4 great house alliance whose positioning conveniently sandwiches Kingslanding in a pincer attack, with the Baratheon's coincidently having the best claim to the Iron Throne in a post-Targaryan Westeros. Then when the Mad King through a torch on the dry tinder kicking off the rebellion, the Lannisters through there hat in with the Baratheon's and you had an alliance that couldn't be denied by the remaining great houses.

That's old history though which just left another ticking time bomb - the alliance was strong through the rebellion but how do you keep such a multifaceted object together through the generations? In GoT we see the Baratheon & Lannisters split and the Aryn's withdraw, leaving the Stark's & Tully's alone and the Tyrel's able to pick their side and play Kingmaker. I mean this is all fictional of course, but I've always felt the way it was setup without "Fire and Blood" a fracturing of the Kingdoms back into their original state was inevitable.

Ultimately it all comes down to power, but it's just to difficult for any non-Targaryan to build and maintain an alliance strong enough to keep everyone else in check. Just look at the Greyjoy's as the canary in the coal mine. Immediately following Robert's rebellion they split and declared themselves independent, Robert sent his fleet and forcibly brought them back into the fold. When Robert died and Joffrey succeeded, they immediately rebelled again... except through the duration of the show there's been too much infighting so they've been able to run amok as they please.

 

[Sol]

No spoilers I get it. I just started season 6. So far, I don't get the hype. Visually beautiful show. Awful plots and story lines. The most bizarre character development. The characters don't follow logic. Predictable and stupid. Watching this bullshit is infuriating.

I recommend Vikings over this bullshit 10/10 times.

Such an overrated show, just like the walking dead.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

No spoilers I get it. I just started season 6. So far, I don't get the hype. Visually beautiful show. Awful plots and story lines. The most bizarre character development. The characters don't follow logic. Predictable and stupid. Watching this bull**** is infuriating.

I recommend Vikings over this bull**** 10/10 times.

Such an overrated show, just like the walking dead.

Walking Dead sucks, Game of Thrones does not.

What is predictable and stupid? What characters don't follow logic?

One of Game of Thrones best strengths is that, generally speaking, all of the characters have believable motives and are fairly 3-dimensional. I am biased because I have read the books and they offer more depth to the characters, but still.