I remember reading something about the possibility of fewer episodes in the final season, but they'd basically be feature film length episodes. Maybe that takes significantly longer to film/edit and stuff? Either way, gonna be a long ass wait.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
They must be doing some seriously crazy shit for it to take this long.
Westworld s2 this year tho
Yeah they better spend two years worth of budget on it
They basically are.
The other thing is that they are needing to push the shooting schedule back due to needing Winter in their locations and the fact that the final season is going to need a buttload of CGI. They probably could have done with like 5 months of delay, but at that point HBO probably just wants them to still be a late-spring through summer show for the hype.
Double checked the OP to make sure, but it looks like show stuff doesn't need spoiler tags. Anway:
So Robert's rebellion was predicated on a lie? The mad king did need to go, but was Robert just butt hurt that Lyanna chose Rhaegar instead of him? Did Ned know from the start, or only until he saw Lyanna and was given Jon?
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
+1
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Double checked the OP to make sure, but it looks like show stuff doesn't need spoiler tags. Anway:
So Robert's rebellion was predicated on a lie? The mad king did need to go, but was Robert just butt hurt that Lyanna chose Rhaegar instead of him? Did Ned know from the start, or only until he saw Lyanna and was given Jon?
Not even up to date on the show, but in the books, this pretty much seemed to be the case anyway. Like, yea Aerys was a sack of shit, but oh BOY did Robert almost exclusively care about Lyanna.
Ilpala on
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Double checked the OP to make sure, but it looks like show stuff doesn't need spoiler tags. Anway:
So Robert's rebellion was predicated on a lie? The mad king did need to go, but was Robert just butt hurt that Lyanna chose Rhaegar instead of him? Did Ned know from the start, or only until he saw Lyanna and was given Jon?
Also remember that "Robert's Rebellion" was named that after the fact because he ended up King. What really kicked off the war wasn't exactly Lyanna running off with Rhaegar. It was Brandon (Ned's older brother) riding to King's Landing and demanding her return from good old Mad King. The King held him captive, demanded that Lord Stark show up and sort this whole thing out with him. Then he killed them both and told Jon Arryn that he needed to turn over Ned (and Robert) to him as well. I can see quibbling at what point in that chain of events the war was inevitable but I think it was well after Lyanna running off.
Also it's unclear but I don't think Ned knew until the Tower of Joy. He certainly didn't know why the better half of the Kingsguard weren't in the battle that toppled their King.
I'd say the Mad King made it inevitable. Others set things rolling and may have been happy to go with it, but he quite literally lit the match that set things off.
What I find weird is HBO quickening its end, rather than milking it for all its worth with as many eps as possible. Damn the budget, this show is a goldmine rarely seen on the network.
What I find weird is HBO quickening its end, rather than milking it for all its worth with as many eps as possible. Damn the budget, this show is a goldmine rarely seen on the network.
fear of contract renegotiations is the reason I keep hearing
What I find weird is HBO quickening its end, rather than milking it for all its worth with as many eps as possible. Damn the budget, this show is a goldmine rarely seen on the network.
fear of contract renegotiations is the reason I keep hearing
Ok, I did not expect that explanation. lol C'mon, HBO pony up.
Double checked the OP to make sure, but it looks like show stuff doesn't need spoiler tags. Anway:
So Robert's rebellion was predicated on a lie? The mad king did need to go, but was Robert just butt hurt that Lyanna chose Rhaegar instead of him? Did Ned know from the start, or only until he saw Lyanna and was given Jon?
Robert and Lyanna were still betrothed. I wouldn't be surprised if Robert would have tried to go to war against the throne for nothing but having his betrothal broken by the crown prince marrying the woman he was promised.
The implication is that no-one outside of Rhaegar's appointed Kingsguard and whatever septon performed the ceremony knew about their marriage.
I was reading stuff last night because I can't accept that GoT is gone until at least 2019.
If Jon learns the truth, he has a stronger claim to the throne than Daenerys. But Gendry apparently has a stronger claim to it than either of them. Usurper rules or some such. I don't think either of those two even want to be king, though. Jon and Daenerys ruling together is what I'm pulling for, incest be damned!
Also, I'm hoping for some kind of super happy ending for Davos. I think he might be the least evil, best person in the world.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
Double checked the OP to make sure, but it looks like show stuff doesn't need spoiler tags. Anway:
So Robert's rebellion was predicated on a lie? The mad king did need to go, but was Robert just butt hurt that Lyanna chose Rhaegar instead of him? Did Ned know from the start, or only until he saw Lyanna and was given Jon?
Robert and Lyanna were still betrothed. I wouldn't be surprised if Robert would have tried to go to war against the throne for nothing but having his betrothal broken by the crown prince marrying the woman he was promised.
The implication is that no-one outside of Rhaegar's appointed Kingsguard and whatever septon performed the ceremony knew about their marriage.
Without the Stark murder fest I don't know if you get the North on board and I don't know if you get the Vale if you don't have the King asking Arryn for a fresh wolf cub to murder. Robert might be stupid enough to start a war with just the Reach but I don't think it goes anywhere.
Double checked the OP to make sure, but it looks like show stuff doesn't need spoiler tags. Anway:
So Robert's rebellion was predicated on a lie? The mad king did need to go, but was Robert just butt hurt that Lyanna chose Rhaegar instead of him? Did Ned know from the start, or only until he saw Lyanna and was given Jon?
Robert and Lyanna were still betrothed. I wouldn't be surprised if Robert would have tried to go to war against the throne for nothing but having his betrothal broken by the crown prince marrying the woman he was promised.
The implication is that no-one outside of Rhaegar's appointed Kingsguard and whatever septon performed the ceremony knew about their marriage.
Without the Stark murder fest I don't know if you get the North on board and I don't know if you get the Vale if you don't have the King asking Arryn for a fresh wolf cub to murder. Robert might be stupid enough to start a war with just the Reach but I don't think it goes anywhere.
Without the dead Starks the choice is elder Stark's to call the banners.
"The Prince has kidnapped my daughter." Yeah war probably happens.
"My daughter ran off and married the Prince instead of her betrothed." Nah, no way.
Double checked the OP to make sure, but it looks like show stuff doesn't need spoiler tags. Anway:
So Robert's rebellion was predicated on a lie? The mad king did need to go, but was Robert just butt hurt that Lyanna chose Rhaegar instead of him? Did Ned know from the start, or only until he saw Lyanna and was given Jon?
Also remember that "Robert's Rebellion" was named that after the fact because he ended up King. What really kicked off the war wasn't exactly Lyanna running off with Rhaegar. It was Brandon (Ned's older brother) riding to King's Landing and demanding her return from good old Mad King. The King held him captive, demanded that Lord Stark show up and sort this whole thing out with him. Then he killed them both and told Jon Arryn that he needed to turn over Ned (and Robert) to him as well. I can see quibbling at what point in that chain of events the war was inevitable but I think it was well after Lyanna running off.
Also it's unclear but I don't think Ned knew until the Tower of Joy. He certainly didn't know why the better half of the Kingsguard weren't in the battle that toppled their King.
This is a bit more speculative, but there's some good reasoning that the war was planned well beforehand. The Stark murders accelerated things, but it was going to happen anyway. If you're interested, it's called the "Southron ambitions" theory.
The biggest component is that there was a flurry of activity creating marriage alliances and fostering between Great Houses. Inter-Great House marriages are pretty rare in Westerosi history except in preparation for or a result of war. There has also been some insinuations in the books (hence the "Southron ambitions" name, from a dialogue where a character heavily implies Grandpa Stark was trying to create a strong alliance).
I'm not positive about the timeline, I'm not sure if this was during the Mad King's reign or if he was inaugurated later, but the implications are that there was an anti-Targ coalition gathering power. I think that if the Mad King kept being the Mad King, war would've been inevitable, even if he hadn't started murdering anyone. Westeros was a powder keg.
What I find weird is HBO quickening its end, rather than milking it for all its worth with as many eps as possible. Damn the budget, this show is a goldmine rarely seen on the network.
fear of contract renegotiations is the reason I keep hearing
Ok, I did not expect that explanation. lol C'mon, HBO pony up.
Supposedly it's also behind the episode length stuff. They're apparently under contract for a certain number of episodes but the episode length isn't specifically stipulated?
I haven't seen anything confirming this though and I'm not sure I believe it because "Ok fine all your remaining episodes are gonna be two hours long then" strikes me as the point where lawyers would get involved.
I was reading stuff last night because I can't accept that GoT is gone until at least 2019.
If Jon learns the truth, he has a stronger claim to the throne than Daenerys. But Gendry apparently has a stronger claim to it than either of them. Usurper rules or some such. I don't think either of those two even want to be king, though. Jon and Daenerys ruling together is what I'm pulling for, incest be damned!
Also, I'm hoping for some kind of super happy ending for Davos. I think he might be the least evil, best person in the world.
"Claims" to the throne are primarily a game mechanic. There's no real tie there. Getting the throne is 50% about having the force to take it and 50% about convincing the people you're ruling (the lords, not the peasants) that you have the right to rule.
Daenerys is clearly a Targaryen. She has the coloring and the dragons to prove it. The problem is that the Targaryens were thrown out by Robert, which is the same problem Jon ultimately has. Even if he could somehow prove that Rhaegar had legally married Lyanna, he'd have to prove that he was their child, and then he'd still face the fact that Rhaegar's father was dethroned in a war.
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
Gendry has as much (in the "real life" of the books) of becoming king as Hot Pie does. He's just a commoner. If his father was around and still king, it would go up a bit, if he could convince Robert to legitimize him. Without that, there's nothing.
Having said that, it's a book and GRRM loves nothing more than misdirecting his audience. Who knows what will happen.
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
At the moment though, I'm going with no.
With all Cersei's kids dead a Bartheon bastard would be higher on the list then the Lannisters
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
At the moment though, I'm going with no.
With all Cersei's kids dead a Bartheon bastard would be higher on the list then the Lannisters
Plus everyone hates Cersei
Yes, but who wants to put him there?
Everyone looking to take Cersei down is backing Jon and Daenerys, both of whom have a better claim than a bastard
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
At the moment though, I'm going with no.
With all Cersei's kids dead a Bartheon bastard would be higher on the list then the Lannisters
Plus everyone hates Cersei
Yes, but who wants to put him there?
Everyone looking to take Cersei down is backing Jon and Daenerys, both of whom have a better claim than a bastard
Assuming that Gendry isn't actually legitimate (like, Cersei isn't hard enough to kill the kid the first time Robert impregnates her, despite what she says), getting him legitimized and marrying him is probably Dany's best move... way better than marrying Jon (who probably isn't into it, anyway). Jon and Dany's claim comes from basically the same place; they're both Targaryans. But a political alliance of Targ and Baratheon would immediately satisfy everyone whose name doesn't rhyme with "Mercy Bannister."
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
At the moment though, I'm going with no.
With all Cersei's kids dead a Bartheon bastard would be higher on the list then the Lannisters
Plus everyone hates Cersei
Yes, but who wants to put him there?
Everyone looking to take Cersei down is backing Jon and Daenerys, both of whom have a better claim than a bastard
Assuming that Gendry isn't actually legitimate (like, Cersei isn't hard enough to kill the kid the first time Robert impregnates her, despite what she says), getting him legitimized and marrying him is probably Dany's best move... way better than marrying Jon (who probably isn't into it, anyway). Jon and Dany's claim comes from basically the same place; they're both Targaryans. But a political alliance of Targ and Baratheon would immediately satisfy everyone whose name doesn't rhyme with "Mercy Bannister."
But what about my Genrya?!
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
At the moment though, I'm going with no.
With all Cersei's kids dead a Bartheon bastard would be higher on the list then the Lannisters
Plus everyone hates Cersei
Yes, but who wants to put him there?
Everyone looking to take Cersei down is backing Jon and Daenerys, both of whom have a better claim than a bastard
Assuming that Gendry isn't actually legitimate (like, Cersei isn't hard enough to kill the kid the first time Robert impregnates her, despite what she says), getting him legitimized and marrying him is probably Dany's best move... way better than marrying Jon (who probably isn't into it, anyway). Jon and Dany's claim comes from basically the same place; they're both Targaryans. But a political alliance of Targ and Baratheon would immediately satisfy everyone whose name doesn't rhyme with "Mercy Bannister."
I don't inherently disagree with the idea, however.
I don't understand your first point, are you saying that you think Gendry is a kid born from Cersei and Robert? I don't know that there is anything that has ever been shown of Cersei's character that would lead one to believe that she lied about having a medieval abortion the one time Robert actually did get her pregnant. Additionally, there is (Book Spoiler)
The children prophecy (which like, yeah it's a "prophecy" but they have been mostly followed so far):
Cersei:"Will the king and I have children?"
Maggy:"Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you. Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds..."
We know that Cersei had three children (the bastards), and we know that they have all had their crowns and their shrouds.
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
True but I believe in that case he was legitimized.
As for Gendry, I could see a case on the basis of there are no true born Barathorns left. But I don't know there is anyone left who is all that interested in a Barathon King.
I was reading stuff last night because I can't accept that GoT is gone until at least 2019.
If Jon learns the truth, he has a stronger claim to the throne than Daenerys. But Gendry apparently has a stronger claim to it than either of them. Usurper rules or some such. I don't think either of those two even want to be king, though. Jon and Daenerys ruling together is what I'm pulling for, incest be damned!
Also, I'm hoping for some kind of super happy ending for Davos. I think he might be the least evil, best person in the world.
Jon does not have a stronger claim.
1) Not all of Westeros follows the "Only males" or the "Only first born males of a single line, scew you Uncles" rules. Plenty of examples of women taking leader roles when the current leader of their house died and not just as reagents either.
2) Dany is a direct heir to the previous Targ King. Jon is once removed being the son of a direct heir, he would be equal to say ... if Dany's kid had survived.
3) Dany has a better military force and dragon's on top that that, the ultimate "You don't think I am in charge? Dracerys" trump card. She could be a low born daughter of a peasant in the slum, but if she still has her dragons, she wins. Its originally what gave the first Targs to a good portion of their right to rule, anyone in opposition to that was a fool.
Jon's the oldest surviving son of the oldest surviving son of the Mad King. He's in the direct line. Like if Charles predeceases Elizabeth, William get the crown, not Andrew.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
You are assuming Westeros uses the same type of order of succession as UK used to, male primogeniture, when it demonstrably does not, it uses absolute primogeniture, which is what the UK has been using since 2015 as per the Perth Agreement.
I was reading stuff last night because I can't accept that GoT is gone until at least 2019.
If Jon learns the truth, he has a stronger claim to the throne than Daenerys. But Gendry apparently has a stronger claim to it than either of them. Usurper rules or some such. I don't think either of those two even want to be king, though. Jon and Daenerys ruling together is what I'm pulling for, incest be damned!
Also, I'm hoping for some kind of super happy ending for Davos. I think he might be the least evil, best person in the world.
Jon does not have a stronger claim.
1) Not all of Westeros follows the "Only males" or the "Only first born males of a single line, scew you Uncles" rules. Plenty of examples of women taking leader roles when the current leader of their house died and not just as reagents either.
2) Dany is a direct heir to the previous Targ King. Jon is once removed being the son of a direct heir, he would be equal to say ... if Dany's kid had survived.
3) Dany has a better military force and dragon's on top that that, the ultimate "You don't think I am in charge? Dracerys" trump card. She could be a low born daughter of a peasant in the slum, but if she still has her dragons, she wins. Its originally what gave the first Targs to a good portion of their right to rule, anyone in opposition to that was a fool.
You are completely wrong about parts 1 and 2.
The Iron Throne does follow male-first inheritance AND the oldest living son of the oldest son gets priority over a daughter
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Playing Crusader Kings 2 and using the words doesn't make you an expert on Westerosi heredity. :P
The vast majority of Westerosi nobility uses male-preference primogeniture. Dorne is the only major outlier in that regard, and while there are other exceptions, they are clearly noted as such and often follow convoluted customs (e.g., Yara's attempt to win via Kingsmoot, which was thwarted by the presence of a viable male heir - Euron). As for the Targaryens, there was literally a civil war called the Dance of the Dragons over whether or not women inherited before men. Rhaenyra Targaryen was the officially designated heir as well as being the firstborn of King Viserys I and his first wife, Aemma Arryn. Her younger half-brother Aegon II argued that he should be the king because he was the oldest son.
Sound familiar?
Without getting into too much detail, at the very end the Targaryens codified male-preference primogeniture to prevent another civil war from happening again under the same pretenses.
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
At the moment though, I'm going with no.
With all Cersei's kids dead a Bartheon bastard would be higher on the list then the Lannisters
Plus everyone hates Cersei
Yes, but who wants to put him there?
Everyone looking to take Cersei down is backing Jon and Daenerys, both of whom have a better claim than a bastard
Assuming that Gendry isn't actually legitimate (like, Cersei isn't hard enough to kill the kid the first time Robert impregnates her, despite what she says), getting him legitimized and marrying him is probably Dany's best move... way better than marrying Jon (who probably isn't into it, anyway). Jon and Dany's claim comes from basically the same place; they're both Targaryans. But a political alliance of Targ and Baratheon would immediately satisfy everyone whose name doesn't rhyme with "Mercy Bannister."
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
At the moment though, I'm going with no.
With all Cersei's kids dead a Bartheon bastard would be higher on the list then the Lannisters
Plus everyone hates Cersei
Yes, but who wants to put him there?
Everyone looking to take Cersei down is backing Jon and Daenerys, both of whom have a better claim than a bastard
Assuming that Gendry isn't actually legitimate (like, Cersei isn't hard enough to kill the kid the first time Robert impregnates her, despite what she says), getting him legitimized and marrying him is probably Dany's best move... way better than marrying Jon (who probably isn't into it, anyway). Jon and Dany's claim comes from basically the same place; they're both Targaryans. But a political alliance of Targ and Baratheon would immediately satisfy everyone whose name doesn't rhyme with "Mercy Bannister."
I don't inherently disagree with the idea, however.
I don't understand your first point, are you saying that you think Gendry is a kid born from Cersei and Robert? I don't know that there is anything that has ever been shown of Cersei's character that would lead one to believe that she lied about having a medieval abortion the one time Robert actually did get her pregnant. Additionally, there is (Book Spoiler)
The children prophecy (which like, yeah it's a "prophecy" but they have been mostly followed so far):
Cersei:"Will the king and I have children?"
Maggy:"Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you. Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds..."
We know that Cersei had three children (the bastards), and we know that they have all had their crowns and their shrouds.
In the show, there is one point where Cersei waxes nostalgic about her first Robert abortion and his dark hair, if I recall. It must have been a late term abortion...and I would not put it past her to lie about a living child that she hoped had been since killed, or maybe she thought he was dead but some handmaid or wetnurse saved him.
Prophecy? Screw prophecy. Hey didn't that prophecy warn her of the firstborn or something?
I was reading stuff last night because I can't accept that GoT is gone until at least 2019.
If Jon learns the truth, he has a stronger claim to the throne than Daenerys. But Gendry apparently has a stronger claim to it than either of them. Usurper rules or some such. I don't think either of those two even want to be king, though. Jon and Daenerys ruling together is what I'm pulling for, incest be damned!
Also, I'm hoping for some kind of super happy ending for Davos. I think he might be the least evil, best person in the world.
Jon does not have a stronger claim.
1) Not all of Westeros follows the "Only males" or the "Only first born males of a single line, scew you Uncles" rules. Plenty of examples of women taking leader roles when the current leader of their house died and not just as reagents either.
2) Dany is a direct heir to the previous Targ King. Jon is once removed being the son of a direct heir, he would be equal to say ... if Dany's kid had survived.
3) Dany has a better military force and dragon's on top that that, the ultimate "You don't think I am in charge? Dracerys" trump card. She could be a low born daughter of a peasant in the slum, but if she still has her dragons, she wins. Its originally what gave the first Targs to a good portion of their right to rule, anyone in opposition to that was a fool.
Dorne does allow women to inherit its lordship if they were born first.
But everywhere in Westeros, even Dorne, has descendants of the heir coming before siblings of the heir.
Jon has a stronger lineage claim to the throne, Dany has the stronger army claim. It'll be interesting to see which one capitulates.
I was reading stuff last night because I can't accept that GoT is gone until at least 2019.
If Jon learns the truth, he has a stronger claim to the throne than Daenerys. But Gendry apparently has a stronger claim to it than either of them. Usurper rules or some such. I don't think either of those two even want to be king, though. Jon and Daenerys ruling together is what I'm pulling for, incest be damned!
Also, I'm hoping for some kind of super happy ending for Davos. I think he might be the least evil, best person in the world.
Jon does not have a stronger claim.
1) Not all of Westeros follows the "Only males" or the "Only first born males of a single line, scew you Uncles" rules. Plenty of examples of women taking leader roles when the current leader of their house died and not just as reagents either.
2) Dany is a direct heir to the previous Targ King. Jon is once removed being the son of a direct heir, he would be equal to say ... if Dany's kid had survived.
3) Dany has a better military force and dragon's on top that that, the ultimate "You don't think I am in charge? Dracerys" trump card. She could be a low born daughter of a peasant in the slum, but if she still has her dragons, she wins. Its originally what gave the first Targs to a good portion of their right to rule, anyone in opposition to that was a fool.
Dany sounds like she has the stronger hereditary claim on the Targaryean Dynasty (which should probably treated as something different than even the Iron Throne in King's Landing, much less "ruling over all Seven Kingdoms"). I imagine the issue is that between a woman who was the daughter of the Mad King, spent most of her outside Westeros, brought a Dothraki Horde to the continent and is known to have burned alive at least one noble lord, the remaining lords of Westeros on both sides might be more inclined to take a man who was the only son of the Mad King's apparently not insane but very irresponsible heir, who has lived in Westeros his whole life, and has a very good reputation despite being a bastard and having left the Night's Watch.
It sounds like the sort of thing they would overlook the whole illegitimacy thing for (this is assuming that no one's ever going to believe Sam and Bran).
Nobody is legitimate and everyone is, might makes right, it's where people believe the power lies that it lies, etc etc, that's literally the point of the entire narrative.
Dany and Cersei are just as bad as each other, may they both burn each other down!
Posts
They basically are.
The other thing is that they are needing to push the shooting schedule back due to needing Winter in their locations and the fact that the final season is going to need a buttload of CGI. They probably could have done with like 5 months of delay, but at that point HBO probably just wants them to still be a late-spring through summer show for the hype.
So Robert's rebellion was predicated on a lie? The mad king did need to go, but was Robert just butt hurt that Lyanna chose Rhaegar instead of him? Did Ned know from the start, or only until he saw Lyanna and was given Jon?
Not even up to date on the show, but in the books, this pretty much seemed to be the case anyway. Like, yea Aerys was a sack of shit, but oh BOY did Robert almost exclusively care about Lyanna.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Also remember that "Robert's Rebellion" was named that after the fact because he ended up King. What really kicked off the war wasn't exactly Lyanna running off with Rhaegar. It was Brandon (Ned's older brother) riding to King's Landing and demanding her return from good old Mad King. The King held him captive, demanded that Lord Stark show up and sort this whole thing out with him. Then he killed them both and told Jon Arryn that he needed to turn over Ned (and Robert) to him as well. I can see quibbling at what point in that chain of events the war was inevitable but I think it was well after Lyanna running off.
Also it's unclear but I don't think Ned knew until the Tower of Joy. He certainly didn't know why the better half of the Kingsguard weren't in the battle that toppled their King.
fear of contract renegotiations is the reason I keep hearing
Ok, I did not expect that explanation. lol C'mon, HBO pony up.
Robert and Lyanna were still betrothed. I wouldn't be surprised if Robert would have tried to go to war against the throne for nothing but having his betrothal broken by the crown prince marrying the woman he was promised.
The implication is that no-one outside of Rhaegar's appointed Kingsguard and whatever septon performed the ceremony knew about their marriage.
If Jon learns the truth, he has a stronger claim to the throne than Daenerys. But Gendry apparently has a stronger claim to it than either of them. Usurper rules or some such. I don't think either of those two even want to be king, though. Jon and Daenerys ruling together is what I'm pulling for, incest be damned!
Also, I'm hoping for some kind of super happy ending for Davos. I think he might be the least evil, best person in the world.
EDIT: I too hope for happy endings for Davos, Jorah "the Fedorah" Mormont, Tormund, and of course Brianne of Tarth,
Without the Stark murder fest I don't know if you get the North on board and I don't know if you get the Vale if you don't have the King asking Arryn for a fresh wolf cub to murder. Robert might be stupid enough to start a war with just the Reach but I don't think it goes anywhere.
Without the dead Starks the choice is elder Stark's to call the banners.
"The Prince has kidnapped my daughter." Yeah war probably happens.
"My daughter ran off and married the Prince instead of her betrothed." Nah, no way.
This is a bit more speculative, but there's some good reasoning that the war was planned well beforehand. The Stark murders accelerated things, but it was going to happen anyway. If you're interested, it's called the "Southron ambitions" theory.
The biggest component is that there was a flurry of activity creating marriage alliances and fostering between Great Houses. Inter-Great House marriages are pretty rare in Westerosi history except in preparation for or a result of war. There has also been some insinuations in the books (hence the "Southron ambitions" name, from a dialogue where a character heavily implies Grandpa Stark was trying to create a strong alliance).
I'm not positive about the timeline, I'm not sure if this was during the Mad King's reign or if he was inaugurated later, but the implications are that there was an anti-Targ coalition gathering power. I think that if the Mad King kept being the Mad King, war would've been inevitable, even if he hadn't started murdering anyone. Westeros was a powder keg.
Supposedly it's also behind the episode length stuff. They're apparently under contract for a certain number of episodes but the episode length isn't specifically stipulated?
I haven't seen anything confirming this though and I'm not sure I believe it because "Ok fine all your remaining episodes are gonna be two hours long then" strikes me as the point where lawyers would get involved.
"Claims" to the throne are primarily a game mechanic. There's no real tie there. Getting the throne is 50% about having the force to take it and 50% about convincing the people you're ruling (the lords, not the peasants) that you have the right to rule.
Daenerys is clearly a Targaryen. She has the coloring and the dragons to prove it. The problem is that the Targaryens were thrown out by Robert, which is the same problem Jon ultimately has. Even if he could somehow prove that Rhaegar had legally married Lyanna, he'd have to prove that he was their child, and then he'd still face the fact that Rhaegar's father was dethroned in a war.
Gendry's father was the man who dethroned Aerys, but it doesn't matter because he's a bastard. No lord will ever follow a bastard. They have a hard enough time accepting legitimized bastards, let alone one who was never even recognized.
Gendry has as much (in the "real life" of the books) of becoming king as Hot Pie does. He's just a commoner. If his father was around and still king, it would go up a bit, if he could convince Robert to legitimize him. Without that, there's nothing.
Having said that, it's a book and GRRM loves nothing more than misdirecting his audience. Who knows what will happen.
I'm pretty sure there is a long history of people using bastards as proxies for rebelling against unpopular rulers. Or just claiming random people were actually some dead claiment or another.
Specifically for Westeros see Blackfyre rebellion.
Yes, and if there was a force that was looking to start a war and didn't have a better candidate to sit the throne afterwards, that might happen.
At the moment though, I'm going with no.
With all Cersei's kids dead a Bartheon bastard would be higher on the list then the Lannisters
Plus everyone hates Cersei
Yes, but who wants to put him there?
Everyone looking to take Cersei down is backing Jon and Daenerys, both of whom have a better claim than a bastard
Assuming that Gendry isn't actually legitimate (like, Cersei isn't hard enough to kill the kid the first time Robert impregnates her, despite what she says), getting him legitimized and marrying him is probably Dany's best move... way better than marrying Jon (who probably isn't into it, anyway). Jon and Dany's claim comes from basically the same place; they're both Targaryans. But a political alliance of Targ and Baratheon would immediately satisfy everyone whose name doesn't rhyme with "Mercy Bannister."
But what about my Genrya?!
Dany can't legitimately legitimize (heyoooo) Gendry unless she's already acknowledged as queen though.
I don't inherently disagree with the idea, however.
I don't understand your first point, are you saying that you think Gendry is a kid born from Cersei and Robert? I don't know that there is anything that has ever been shown of Cersei's character that would lead one to believe that she lied about having a medieval abortion the one time Robert actually did get her pregnant. Additionally, there is (Book Spoiler)
We know that Cersei had three children (the bastards), and we know that they have all had their crowns and their shrouds.
True but I believe in that case he was legitimized.
As for Gendry, I could see a case on the basis of there are no true born Barathorns left. But I don't know there is anyone left who is all that interested in a Barathon King.
Jon does not have a stronger claim.
1) Not all of Westeros follows the "Only males" or the "Only first born males of a single line, scew you Uncles" rules. Plenty of examples of women taking leader roles when the current leader of their house died and not just as reagents either.
2) Dany is a direct heir to the previous Targ King. Jon is once removed being the son of a direct heir, he would be equal to say ... if Dany's kid had survived.
3) Dany has a better military force and dragon's on top that that, the ultimate "You don't think I am in charge? Dracerys" trump card. She could be a low born daughter of a peasant in the slum, but if she still has her dragons, she wins. Its originally what gave the first Targs to a good portion of their right to rule, anyone in opposition to that was a fool.
You are completely wrong about parts 1 and 2.
The Iron Throne does follow male-first inheritance AND the oldest living son of the oldest son gets priority over a daughter
That is literally a plot point.
The vast majority of Westerosi nobility uses male-preference primogeniture. Dorne is the only major outlier in that regard, and while there are other exceptions, they are clearly noted as such and often follow convoluted customs (e.g., Yara's attempt to win via Kingsmoot, which was thwarted by the presence of a viable male heir - Euron). As for the Targaryens, there was literally a civil war called the Dance of the Dragons over whether or not women inherited before men. Rhaenyra Targaryen was the officially designated heir as well as being the firstborn of King Viserys I and his first wife, Aemma Arryn. Her younger half-brother Aegon II argued that he should be the king because he was the oldest son.
Sound familiar?
Without getting into too much detail, at the very end the Targaryens codified male-preference primogeniture to prevent another civil war from happening again under the same pretenses.
Well, Dany has to die sometime. Valar morghulis.
In the show, there is one point where Cersei waxes nostalgic about her first Robert abortion and his dark hair, if I recall. It must have been a late term abortion...and I would not put it past her to lie about a living child that she hoped had been since killed, or maybe she thought he was dead but some handmaid or wetnurse saved him.
Prophecy? Screw prophecy. Hey didn't that prophecy warn her of the firstborn or something?
Dorne does allow women to inherit its lordship if they were born first.
But everywhere in Westeros, even Dorne, has descendants of the heir coming before siblings of the heir.
Jon has a stronger lineage claim to the throne, Dany has the stronger army claim. It'll be interesting to see which one capitulates.
West world spoilers
4) Jon Snow is no Sarah Connor.
It sounds like the sort of thing they would overlook the whole illegitimacy thing for (this is assuming that no one's ever going to believe Sam and Bran).
Dany and Cersei are just as bad as each other, may they both burn each other down!
I thought she was a great Sarah Connor.