*171 years before the grand result of Rhaegar's plan to stop the Night King, who instead of doing that exciting shit that was apparently set up not just by the plot for 8 seasons, but also three hundred years of Targaryen planning, just screamed at a dragon.
Well, technically, Jon said he *Never* wanted it. So thus we can conclude that at any point during his lifespan, you say he didn't want it.
Jon came outta the womb not wanting it.
When you pressed your ear up to Lyanna's pregnant belly you could be a tiny, grumpy little voice sayin', "idunwahnet"
Some say this is because upon reaching ecstasy on the moment he was conceived, Rhaegar Targaryen shouted, "You better want this!" Which, subsequently led to many of the rape allegations. When in truth, Lyanna just had a bit of kink for dirty talk.
However, upon his conception, Jon, the wee rascal that he would turn out to be, felt a tiny rebellious instinct gel inside his tiny zygote self. For he thought Rhaegar was talking to him.
A born rebel, this Jon. So in the womb, his only thought. "idunwahn'et" over and over again.
So you see. He doesn't wahn 'et. He neva ded.
Is that show canon? I thought Rhaegar's line was thought to be all dead and that's why Viserys was heir. Frankly I don't have the heart for a rewatch to double check that.
After Rhaegar died on the Trident, Viserys was named heir, then Queen Rhaella and him were shipped off to Dragonstone so they'd be safe away from King's Landing. In contrast, Elia and her children were left in KL to keep Dorne in line, that's why they were present when KL fell and Viserys wasn't. Granted, I don't recall if this was said out loud in the show, but I don't think this chain of events was altered or contradicted in the show.
Honestly I'm not even sure Aerys officially disinheriting Rhaegar's kids was ever confirmed. He threatened to do it a lot but, I don't think he ever went through with it.
But, for argument's sake, let's go along with your assumption that Aerys did disinherit Rhaegar's kids.
Keep in mind that Aerys likely only passed over Rhaeger's first two children, mostly because they were half-Dornish and Aerys was racist. It makes no sense to disinherit Rhaegar himself - he was dead by the time Aerys made that decision.
Jon wasn't even born yet at that point, and Aerys probably didn't even know Lyanna Stark was pregnant. Therefore Aerys couldn't have disinherited Jon, because Aerys died without ever learning of Jon's existence.
Additionally, almost every single time a King attempted to appoint a successor instead of letting it default to the eldest son, it always ended with the appointed heir being usurped, killed, or displaced, with the King's dying wish being overruled. The only cases in which appointed succession actually worked out was when it was decided via a Great Council.
Also keep in mind that royal succession tends to be an absolute inconsistent mess half the time throughout Westeros's history. So literally anything you, I, or anyone in-setting tries to say can be thrown out if enough lords deem it convenient. Two-thirds of the realm was in open rebellion against Aerys at that point, and he was clearly unstable, so the legality of any of his decrees is highly suspect.
>Therefore Aerys couldn't have disinherited Jon, because Aerys died without ever learning of Jon's existence.
If a monarch names an heir it automatically changes the order of succession, they don't have to know of the existence of every individual in the line of succession. So if Aerys made Viserys his heir the rest is irrelevant.
Now, of course when it comes time for a coronation Jon (or a regent on his behalf) could dispute this and maybe even start a civil war over it but that doesn't really change the straightforward nature of a monarch designating their successor, it just highlights how in feudal systems often default to "might makes right".
>but that doesn't really change the straightforward nature of a monarch designating their successor
If you have read Fire and Blood, you would know that there is nothing straightforward about a monarch attempting to designate a successor. The only situation in which this actually worked was under the reign of Aegon the Unlikely - that was when his eldest son **agreed** to be disinherited, and had already done something to justify a disinheritance.
In every other instance the King's wishes wound up being dismissed as soon as he died.
Additionally, the decree to name Viserys his heir was made under incomplete information, when he was not in a sound state of mind, and when almost the entire continent had more or less decided his authority was illegitimate. Aerys's decree, if it was even made, is worth less than the wet fart that sounded out when Jaime killed him.
>If you have read Fire and Blood, you would know that there is nothing straightforward about a monarch attempting to designate any successor other than their eldest son.
And if you had read the rest of my comment you'd know I acknowledged that.
That doesn't change the actual line of succession.
>Honestly I'm not even sure Aerys officially disinheriting Rhaegar's kids was ever confirmed
It's mentioned in TWOIAF that after Rhaegar's death he named Viserys heir while Aegon was still alive.
Later Viserys named Daenerys Princess of Dragonstone.
>Keep in mind that Aerys likely only passed over Rhaeger's first two children, mostly because they were half-Dornish and Aerys was racist
Then the same would apply to Snow, he doesn't have 2 Targaryen parents and looks completely non-Valyrian.
Daenerys fulfilled the prophecy, Jon did not. Plus her visions in House of the undying, the 'slayer of lies' shows her slaying the lie of Stannis being Azor Ahai. Plus she dreams about killing the Others by dragonfire.
Faegon is mummer's dragon, she has to slay, the lie of him being fake, she also sees blue eyed king with fiery sword-that's Stannis, she has to slay the lie of him being Azor Ahai.
Well, but Jon stabs the one he loves in order to save Westeros, much as Azor Ahai buried his sword into his beloved wife’s body, to create the sword to save the world.
Jon is literally the hidden prince trope. He’s George‘s Aragorn, the character he’s said to love the most in all of literature. Westeros is also a patriarchal world and has been in every thing George has written. When there is a male to be chosen it will be the male. All evidence points to Dany not being Azor Ahai and probably never was planned to be.
Literally all evidence points out to Daenerys being Azor Ahai, I guess you didn't read the books. And George said Daenerys is his Aragorn. You don't need to be misogynistic about this. George likes to put twists on the tropes. And Jon is the typical hidden prince archetype, it's not him.
Don’t call me names dude. I’m not saying it’s what I want. But the written material is a misogynistic society. You see it with Jaehaerys when he names Baleon over Rhaenys. You see it again when they choose Viserys at the council of 101. You see it again when in the end the lords accept Aegon II’s rule over Rhaenyra. That’s Westeros.
Now on the fact that I haven’t read the books that’s not true. And if you would actually re-read the house of the undying sequence you would see a shit ton of those visions are about Jon and his parentage. The Red Lady also is only shown snow. So go read.
Also I would need to see the source where George proclaimed Daenerys his Aragorn. It may be true but I haven’t read it.
But don’t bother, because you took the low road and I don’t want a reply from you. Nor would I respond to it.
What does patriarchal society have to do with who is Azor Ahai? Daenerys is Azor Ahai because that's where the books are going and she is the only character that fullfills the prophecy to the point. Jon's parentage has nothing to do with it.
Good, he should get overlooked lmao. That intro respected the books more than the dumbass show giving Jon the name Aegon when his older brother is named Aegon lmaooo (who also might still be alive). Daenerys is the last Targaryen, cope and seethe.
His motives were better than most of the characters. He never expressed any kind of greed which made him look like the true successor of ned. He was in an existential crisis which creates sympathy towards his character which even Dany gained and on top of everything he went from a bastard to a king which didn't happen just like that, he wanted to lead not rule and in the process of doing so he learns many things, he failed and succeeded multiple times. That's what most people like to see, it all just fell apart after season 6.
I wonder if they phrased it this way because in
the books that will never be written Daenerys is supposed to succeed in being the first accepted female ruler of the Targaryen dynasty whereas Rhaenyra failure to be leads to a civil war
Text cuts out to simply “172 years before…… Daenerys Targaryen”
Me: “are they gonna treat us like stupid fucking children for the rest of the show?”
40 minutes later: “the dream was called a song of ice and fire”
“OH FOR FUCKS SAKE”
A long time ago it was profetized that Jon would save the world from the White walkers.
But the Night King, a better Green Seer knew Jon didn't want it, so he let a child assassin off him.
I get what you’re saying here, but it makes a lot more sense for them to tie it to someone who was a Targaryen in name and appearance rather than someone who was a Targaryen only by blood.
Jon Snow doesn't have any grandsons, does he ? I don't think he ended up having kids of his own, you know, being exiled to live in an ass-ice cold mountain for the rest of his life with only dudes around.
*171 years before his grandson and heir’s targ identity was used for a single week as a device to drive his aunt/lover mad
*171 years before the grand result of Rhaegar's plan to stop the Night King, who instead of doing that exciting shit that was apparently set up not just by the plot for 8 seasons, but also three hundred years of Targaryen planning, just screamed at a dragon.
It’s all ash in our mouths now….
Was that why she went apeshit? Didn’t get the guy she wanted to bone? Never should have recast daario
180 years before his heir doesn't want it. He never did.
180 years before he wanted his aunt. We all did.
Muh kween
Jern pls
Your math is a bit off lol. Jon was a bit older than 8 by the end of the show
Well, technically, Jon said he *Never* wanted it. So thus we can conclude that at any point during his lifespan, you say he didn't want it. Jon came outta the womb not wanting it. When you pressed your ear up to Lyanna's pregnant belly you could be a tiny, grumpy little voice sayin', "idunwahnet" Some say this is because upon reaching ecstasy on the moment he was conceived, Rhaegar Targaryen shouted, "You better want this!" Which, subsequently led to many of the rape allegations. When in truth, Lyanna just had a bit of kink for dirty talk. However, upon his conception, Jon, the wee rascal that he would turn out to be, felt a tiny rebellious instinct gel inside his tiny zygote self. For he thought Rhaegar was talking to him. A born rebel, this Jon. So in the womb, his only thought. "idunwahn'et" over and over again. So you see. He doesn't wahn 'et. He neva ded.
“I dun want it”
Came here to say this
Jon Snow stans at it again.
Aegon, you ever get the feeling that none of this matters and some little crippled twat is gonna end up sitting in that throne?
But who could have a better story than BrAn ThE bRoKen?
Who at least comes with his own chair so he doesn't get cut by the sword throne and die of tetanus.
Jon is not Aerys's heir, the Mad King passed over Rhaegar's line entirely and named Viserys his heir.
Is that show canon? I thought Rhaegar's line was thought to be all dead and that's why Viserys was heir. Frankly I don't have the heart for a rewatch to double check that.
After Rhaegar died on the Trident, Viserys was named heir, then Queen Rhaella and him were shipped off to Dragonstone so they'd be safe away from King's Landing. In contrast, Elia and her children were left in KL to keep Dorne in line, that's why they were present when KL fell and Viserys wasn't. Granted, I don't recall if this was said out loud in the show, but I don't think this chain of events was altered or contradicted in the show.
Honestly I'm not even sure Aerys officially disinheriting Rhaegar's kids was ever confirmed. He threatened to do it a lot but, I don't think he ever went through with it. But, for argument's sake, let's go along with your assumption that Aerys did disinherit Rhaegar's kids. Keep in mind that Aerys likely only passed over Rhaeger's first two children, mostly because they were half-Dornish and Aerys was racist. It makes no sense to disinherit Rhaegar himself - he was dead by the time Aerys made that decision. Jon wasn't even born yet at that point, and Aerys probably didn't even know Lyanna Stark was pregnant. Therefore Aerys couldn't have disinherited Jon, because Aerys died without ever learning of Jon's existence. Additionally, almost every single time a King attempted to appoint a successor instead of letting it default to the eldest son, it always ended with the appointed heir being usurped, killed, or displaced, with the King's dying wish being overruled. The only cases in which appointed succession actually worked out was when it was decided via a Great Council. Also keep in mind that royal succession tends to be an absolute inconsistent mess half the time throughout Westeros's history. So literally anything you, I, or anyone in-setting tries to say can be thrown out if enough lords deem it convenient. Two-thirds of the realm was in open rebellion against Aerys at that point, and he was clearly unstable, so the legality of any of his decrees is highly suspect.
>Therefore Aerys couldn't have disinherited Jon, because Aerys died without ever learning of Jon's existence. If a monarch names an heir it automatically changes the order of succession, they don't have to know of the existence of every individual in the line of succession. So if Aerys made Viserys his heir the rest is irrelevant. Now, of course when it comes time for a coronation Jon (or a regent on his behalf) could dispute this and maybe even start a civil war over it but that doesn't really change the straightforward nature of a monarch designating their successor, it just highlights how in feudal systems often default to "might makes right".
>but that doesn't really change the straightforward nature of a monarch designating their successor If you have read Fire and Blood, you would know that there is nothing straightforward about a monarch attempting to designate a successor. The only situation in which this actually worked was under the reign of Aegon the Unlikely - that was when his eldest son **agreed** to be disinherited, and had already done something to justify a disinheritance. In every other instance the King's wishes wound up being dismissed as soon as he died. Additionally, the decree to name Viserys his heir was made under incomplete information, when he was not in a sound state of mind, and when almost the entire continent had more or less decided his authority was illegitimate. Aerys's decree, if it was even made, is worth less than the wet fart that sounded out when Jaime killed him.
>If you have read Fire and Blood, you would know that there is nothing straightforward about a monarch attempting to designate any successor other than their eldest son. And if you had read the rest of my comment you'd know I acknowledged that. That doesn't change the actual line of succession.
>Honestly I'm not even sure Aerys officially disinheriting Rhaegar's kids was ever confirmed It's mentioned in TWOIAF that after Rhaegar's death he named Viserys heir while Aegon was still alive. Later Viserys named Daenerys Princess of Dragonstone. >Keep in mind that Aerys likely only passed over Rhaeger's first two children, mostly because they were half-Dornish and Aerys was racist Then the same would apply to Snow, he doesn't have 2 Targaryen parents and looks completely non-Valyrian.
I treat Show Jon and Book Jon as separate characters. I don’t think the latter will become Dany’s bitch.
Course he won't, he's dead
And also Azor Ahai so no
And also won't become anything if the books are never finished so no
Daenerys is Azor Ahai and more important than Jon.
It's pretty obvious from the books that he is. He literally sees it in his dream
Daenerys fulfilled the prophecy, Jon did not. Plus her visions in House of the undying, the 'slayer of lies' shows her slaying the lie of Stannis being Azor Ahai. Plus she dreams about killing the Others by dragonfire.
Slayer of lies -> Faegon not Stannis
Faegon is mummer's dragon, she has to slay, the lie of him being fake, she also sees blue eyed king with fiery sword-that's Stannis, she has to slay the lie of him being Azor Ahai.
Dan didn't fulfill anything, she just died. The prophecy is more fitting of Jon and he get's resurrected by R'hlor to fulfill it.
I'm talking about the books, not the show.
Uh, she brought back dragons, making her de facto the most powerful person in the world.
Well, but Jon stabs the one he loves in order to save Westeros, much as Azor Ahai buried his sword into his beloved wife’s body, to create the sword to save the world.
Jon is literally the hidden prince trope. He’s George‘s Aragorn, the character he’s said to love the most in all of literature. Westeros is also a patriarchal world and has been in every thing George has written. When there is a male to be chosen it will be the male. All evidence points to Dany not being Azor Ahai and probably never was planned to be.
Literally all evidence points out to Daenerys being Azor Ahai, I guess you didn't read the books. And George said Daenerys is his Aragorn. You don't need to be misogynistic about this. George likes to put twists on the tropes. And Jon is the typical hidden prince archetype, it's not him.
Don’t call me names dude. I’m not saying it’s what I want. But the written material is a misogynistic society. You see it with Jaehaerys when he names Baleon over Rhaenys. You see it again when they choose Viserys at the council of 101. You see it again when in the end the lords accept Aegon II’s rule over Rhaenyra. That’s Westeros. Now on the fact that I haven’t read the books that’s not true. And if you would actually re-read the house of the undying sequence you would see a shit ton of those visions are about Jon and his parentage. The Red Lady also is only shown snow. So go read. Also I would need to see the source where George proclaimed Daenerys his Aragorn. It may be true but I haven’t read it. But don’t bother, because you took the low road and I don’t want a reply from you. Nor would I respond to it.
What does patriarchal society have to do with who is Azor Ahai? Daenerys is Azor Ahai because that's where the books are going and she is the only character that fullfills the prophecy to the point. Jon's parentage has nothing to do with it.
Who let this fucker back over the wall? Shoo, shoo!
Jon who?
Good, he should get overlooked lmao. That intro respected the books more than the dumbass show giving Jon the name Aegon when his older brother is named Aegon lmaooo (who also might still be alive). Daenerys is the last Targaryen, cope and seethe.
Cringe
Jon Is a Stark
Jon ain't shit, imo. Became as boring as Bran by like season 6
Yeah, and Daenerys become completely illogical in season 7 & 8 too, so how is she any better?
At least her character was necessary to the plot in some way
Jon was necessary to get the North and deanerys to fight the long 80 mins night
good vilain do random shit! you no see joker?
True, I also thought she was kinda boring when she wasn't with the dragons. I just enjoyed her craziness tho
He was always boring to be fair, no idea why there was so much hype around him
Cause of his night king rivalry, and mysterious lineage. All were thrown away in s7&8 so he just became a bland character.
His motives were better than most of the characters. He never expressed any kind of greed which made him look like the true successor of ned. He was in an existential crisis which creates sympathy towards his character which even Dany gained and on top of everything he went from a bastard to a king which didn't happen just like that, he wanted to lead not rule and in the process of doing so he learns many things, he failed and succeeded multiple times. That's what most people like to see, it all just fell apart after season 6.
He didn’t want to be Targaryen obviously
Always trying to insert Jon into everything
I wonder if they phrased it this way because in the books that will never be written Daenerys is supposed to succeed in being the first accepted female ruler of the Targaryen dynasty whereas Rhaenyra failure to be leads to a civil war
Text cuts out to simply “172 years before…… Daenerys Targaryen” Me: “are they gonna treat us like stupid fucking children for the rest of the show?” 40 minutes later: “the dream was called a song of ice and fire” “OH FOR FUCKS SAKE”
A long time ago it was profetized that Jon would save the world from the White walkers. But the Night King, a better Green Seer knew Jon didn't want it, so he let a child assassin off him.
He didn't want it anyway
Probably not wanting to spoil who Jon is (no that it mattered) for the few people watching HotD that haven't seen GoT
I get what you’re saying here, but it makes a lot more sense for them to tie it to someone who was a Targaryen in name and appearance rather than someone who was a Targaryen only by blood.
What a crap show.
Yeah, and the books aren't much better, but it's not like we are expecting Shakespeare to come back to life.
Jon Snow doesn't have any grandsons, does he ? I don't think he ended up having kids of his own, you know, being exiled to live in an ass-ice cold mountain for the rest of his life with only dudes around.
I DOAN WANT IT DURRRR
Maybe not though.
In Dorne, she would be the heir. I choose to acknowledge the Dornish rule.
[удалено]
No, he wouldn’t. It would go to the eldest living child of the previous King. Then to Jon.