|
hey remember when the show adapted loras to gently caress a dude like 20 seconds after renly died so they could have a contrived stoyline about the church killing gay people for woke points.
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
They must not have gotten the memo about Loras' sun setting forever and that being why he chooses to join a celibate guard
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:even alt shift x got salty on his ep3 video Really hoping his episode 4 videos opens with this, but for real.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:I think ultimately he’s sick and tired of being asked about the books, talking about the books, or even writing the book. I think he probably feels trapped by it. He’s a rich old white nerd so I hardly feel bad, but I do empathize with being trapped by something he once loved , and feeling discouraged. Lots of people have teenagers, most of them don't stop working as a result.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
They should have cast Idris Elba as Ned Stark, and left all the other casting choices and dialogue the same. Yes, Kit Harrington looks exactly like his father, everyone agrees on it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:They should have cast Idris Elba as Ned Stark, and left all the other casting choices and dialogue the same. Yes, Kit Harrington looks exactly like his father, everyone agrees on it. This but also cast Dennis Avner as Cat.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
cast Pam Grier as everyone
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
A bit unrelated to the discussion at hand and more related to old-fashioned theorycrafting. I've been listening to the first book on audio again over the past couple of days while going about my business and I'm nearing the end and I got to thinking. Specifically about that whole Tower of Joy incident. Now there's been alot of thought given to that it seems by searching around, nearly all of it related to whether or not R+L=J or not (obviously it was so, it was extremely heavily implied in the book with the last things Ned thinking of being his promise to Lyanna and him wanting to speak with Jon, also of course the show confirmed it). There's another that's been itching me a bit, after the whole thing, only Ned and Howland Reed (and Jon) are left alive and Ned tears down the tower, buries his friends and the Kingsguards at the site and takes Lyanna's body back north. So what's kind of bothering me is that why only take Lyanna back north? IIRC there's scenes in the later books where some other noblemen (or women it may have been) are pissy about Ned leaving their relatives' bodies back in the south and him never giving them a proper explanation for why, just brushing them off and demanding an end to the questions. And there's Howland Reed basically having stayed at home ever since, never leaving and never talking with anyone, almost like he was forbidden to do so by some oath or threat. So I'm kind of thinking what the gently caress happened? Obviously there was a cover-up because Lyanna and Rhaegar had Jon, but there almost seems to be more to it, like Ned went to great lengths to destroy all evidence by destroying the tower and burying everyone who died there but Lyanna at the spot, while never giving anyone no explanation to anyone why nobody but Lyanna could have their bodies taken home, like he's deeply ashamed about more than just lying about the kid, but something else he had to do there. I mean it almost feels like he might have killed everyone there but Howland Reed in order to preserve the secret (who was coerced or sworn to secrecy, or could be depended fully on, who knows) then torn down the tower (which I think was kind of hidden away right, so people couldn't easily find it?) and buried the bodies there to hide the evidence (seemingly he couldn't face their relatives). I would also assume that there might have been some servants or something there since Lyanna was pregnant. Probably just me going all tinfoil, and in the show it was nothing more than a terrible fight scene followed by revelation IIRC, but I just got thinking and some cursory searching on the internet only turned up the old R+L=J stuff. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 23:32 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Ned was dumb, hth
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 23:50
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Drone Jett posted:Lots of people have teenagers, most of them don't stop working as a result. George doesn’t have to work or do anything. Most parents of teenagers do. I don’t see how the two are even comparable.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:
i figured Ned just didn't have the resources to bring all 6 bodies back northward. With it being just him and Howland, there's only so much they could have done. The Daynes were apparently willing to tolerate his presence for at least a bit, even after Arthur's death, but that hospitality might not have extended so far as to help him police up his dead. And even if the Daynes had been willing to give him men and a caravan for moving those bones, it might not have been safe to travel that way. Long trip, through a land at war. (Remember that Dorne didn't submit for a while after the rest of the war was over).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:i figured Ned just didn't have the resources to bring all 6 bodies back northward. With it being just him and Howland, there's only so much they could have done. Yeah that seems to be the most obvious reason. But what's got me thinking then is why he never gave that reason, or any reason at all, to his dead friends' relatives. I think it's lady Hornwood or something in Clash of Kings who's still really angry at Ned for leaving her husband, or brother or whatever he was, down there in the south while taking Lyanna back north, and never giving her or any of the other bereaved any reason at all as to why he did it. First reason that pops to mind is maybe that together with having torn down the tower (that's also a "how?" because it was supposedly only him and Howland Reed and not an army, and if they had an army that gives the lie to not being able to take the bodies back) Ned wanted no one to know where it all took place. Why? I mean I can't really think of how you'd tell from the bodies of the dead and the ruins that Lyanna was pregnant and Jon was Rhaegar's bastard. It's that together with not facing the bereaved that makes me believed that Ned was deeply ashamed about something that happened there and he doesn't want talk to anybody about anything to do with it. Jon being Rhaegar's could be the reason alone, but I dunno, it seems you could omit that from it maybe when you tell your friends relatives why you left them there, it's tinfoily I admit, but it seems that something more happened there, also seems to be GRRM's style in a way, with how he likes to imply things rather than state them outright, which probably also means I'll never get a straight answer about this. Howland Reed having to stay at home and never speak to anyone ever again about any of this also seems to be that there's almost more to it than just Lyanna being Jon's mom. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:16 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
You're thinking wayyyyyy too much about this. R+L=J is the big secret they were trying to hide, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:Does anyone out there have any recommendations on some other good fantasy to read? I've read this series, of course, most of RA Salvatore's Forgotten Realms/Drizzt novels (I'm done with those, not interested in continuing), the first two books of Wheel of Time which I didn't care for too much, The Witcher novels which are as good to me as ASOIAF, and most of The Lord of The Rings. I still need to finish LOTR. I've heard good things about the Malazan trilogy. Any other series that treat their characters with the same general respect that ASOIAF/Witcher novels do? - The Dragaera books by Steven Brust, mainly the Vlad Taltos series which forms the basis of the main canon, but also the Paarfi books which are a kind of Dumas homage/pastiche and a few other single works not in either series. As a bonus if you are female/a feminist, he is the only male author who has ever written competent, powerful female characters who stay that way and who he doesn't compromise with how he handles their sexuality/maternal instincts. The ones who are upper-class / aristocracy are in fact portrayed as people who benefit from and will go to great lengths to protect their privilege, without grimdarking the hell out of them and leaving a handful of token "not like those other nobles". The worlds aren't super comparable, it's like pre-Revolutionary France as opposed to medieval Britain, but I prefer his approach to GRRM and most other fantasy writers. We do get one "Good King" figure in the form of an Empress, but the whole schtick is that the social and economic system is more powerful than she and all the other high aristocracy are, and half the point of why she is good is apparently because she winds up peacefully abdicating at some unspecified time in the future. Also cool in that he manages to have a system that winds up policing everyone's sex/personal lives and creating a lot of taboos and stigma that has nothing to do with Earth equivalents and is equally bullshit for both sexes. - Anything written by Joe Abercrombie, but do The First Law trilogy first and then the informal "trilogy" of standalone books that come afterward. Not as good as the best parts of GRRM, but he is a complete beast and machine for actually finishing his poo poo, and also improving with time instead of degrading. - Anything by KJ Parker. The psychological realism isn't quite there because he writes everyone as a kind of sociopath, but there's a weird verisimilitude to it and his world-building is kind of interesting and has a lot of the same "trying to be a real place that could have existed" vibe GRRM is going for. It's at least not "soft-focus Gary Stu/self-inserts for neckbeards" the way 99% of other fantasy is. - Scott Lynch's Gentleman Bastard series has a lot of flaws and the third book is really awful, but they are good for serious attempts at psychological realism, and the world-building was fairly plausible and interesting, again up until the third book. - Patrick Rothfuss is awful and his books are awful, but the first book of the Kingkiller Trilogy was absorbing on the first read in a way similar to AGoT, and while they are very much absolute failures of psychological realism, There Was An Attempt. - The Witchworld books by Andre Norton. - The Indigo books by Louise Cooper. Hard to track down because I don't think they were ever released in an e-book format. The Time Master series is also good, Chaos Gate was kinda ehhh to my standards, but all had a very good sword-and-sorcery-and-psychedelia feel and a lot of Actions Have Consequences. In a way, the entire series is a Consequence of the titular character loving up in the first book. - Anything Ursula LeGuin wrote ever, even the science fiction. - Anything Gene Wolfe wrote ever, even the science fiction. He's awful at writing women, but everything else makes up for it and if you're male you might not even notice/care. - Oddly, given they wrote one of the canonical D&D series, Weis and Hickman are surprisingly good from an "actions have consequences" standpoint. Even their Dragonlance stuff had a lot of good/noble characters dying because that's what happens in war, and lovely/morally grey people managing to survive and thrive because that's what the system/society demands. Their standalone series are all pretty decent. - All the old 70s poo poo GRRM is inspired by; Fafhrd and Grey Mouser, the Black Company, Elric of Melnibone, etc etc. Even early Conan. esperterra posted:yesss time to roll one and chill with my boi Preston Man, I'm usually Team PJ all the way, and I respect him ten thousand times more than any other YouTuber and GRRM himself on account of having a real actual respectable job that involves human consequences at the State Department, but I hear one more goddamn "Lawful Good On Account Of You Never Leave The House" snotty-rear end white dude sneer about Sansa feeding the dude who raped, beat, and tortured her to the psychotic dogs that were psychotic because he trained them to be man-killers for his hobby of hunting, raping, and killing peasant women and how it's a sign she's a bad person, I'm going to claw my loving face off. HELLO LADIES fucked around with this message at 01:34 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
If you're going to criticize something about this series not being woke enough, how about Sandor: "So, raped a lot, eh? Really got up in there, huh?" Sansa: "Yeah but it made me stronger. *wink*" Like really D&D? You're gonna catch poo poo for years for adding in Sansa getting raped and then double down on it with it being a learning moment for her? loving yikes.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:Man, I'm usually Team PJ all the way, and I respect him ten thousand times more than any other YouTuber and GRRM himself on account of having a real actual respectable job that involves human consequences at the State Department, but I hear one more goddamn "Lawful Good On Account Of You Never Leave The House" snotty-rear end white dude sneer about Sansa feeding the dude who raped, beat, and tortured her to the psychotic dogs that were psychotic because he trained them to be man-killers for his hobby of hunting, raping, and killing peasant women and how it's a sign she's a bad person, I'm going to claw my loving face off. From what I remember of his episodes and season summaries when that happened, PJ's main issue with the scene was less the content of it and more the timing of it. He's forever disappointed in how little fucks Sansa (or anyone) seems to give about Rickon dying. Also while it was 100% right for her to want him executed it's still needlessly cruel, which imo should be there to show that Sansa really isn't that good a person, and that's not necessarily a bad thing tbh. She would be boring if she were just good. She needs to be at least some degree of bad to be able to play the game well. e: there's also the inherent idea that doing the same to your enemies as they did to you doesn't make you any better than them, it makes you just as bad, when you could go about giving them their punishment a way more humane than their twisted asses could ever manage but that's neither here nor there rly. take the high road etc I liked Sansa feeding Ramsay to his dogs, but not b/c it was a righteous thing to do or anything. I liked it b/c it shows she's capable of being just as bad as those who cross her. e2: anyway not that it matters since it's a show only invention and the show was already bad before it made any of these decisions re: sansa esperterra fucked around with this message at 01:43 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Yeah that seems to be the most obvious reason. But what's got me thinking then is why he never gave that reason, or any reason at all, to his dead friends' relatives. he never gave a reason because the reason was evident: a dead Stark is more important to him than a dead vassal, even one of his friends. So if he couldn't bring back everybody, he was gonna prioritize bringing back Lyanna. that's what Barb Dustin (the person you're thinking of) was mad about. When the deceased Lyanna was treated with a level of respect that the others weren't, it just rubbed in the huge gulf of importance between the Starks and their subjects. Something she'd already gotten a pretty traumatic, hard lesson in when she got hit&quit by her youthful crush Brandon. She already resented the Starks before her husband was killed on NedQuest. i dont think there's any big secret - Barb is mad because of normal feudal-era angst. Ned has never made a rapprochement with her because the grudge runs too deep. And because begging for forgiveness isn't really something a feudal overlord - even one as relatively chill as Ned - does with a vassal. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 01:47 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
i think because the series has a lot of loving in it, people underestimate how important maidenhood is "all the chastity stuff is a veneer, everyones clearly loving on the sly" is to some degree a natural conclusion but like getting deflowered is a big deal and can severely damage a woman's prospects. if Brandon's seduction of Barb were common knowledge (which it probably was, since Brandon wasn't exactly a subtle guy) that could have hosed up her future pretty good. The Ryswells were lucky that they were still able to arrange her marriage to someone as prominent as Lord Dustin, and I would expect they probably had to make concessions w/r/t dowry size and so on when they were negotiating that tl;dr brandon was an rear end in a top hat and barb was correct to be pissed off about that whole incident
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Mike N Eich posted:Preston is in rare form today "wait... are they burning them with their armor on? wtf!" keeeek
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:He wants to advance in the feudal ladder, he wants house Bolton to survive and come out on top and thinks that despite all of his obvious shortcomings ramsay is the best horse to bet on as far as his prospective heirs are concerned. Except...no, he doesn't. He pretty much snorts at the idea of Ramsay ruling the North after him, says that all of the Bastard's Boys are his and his son should have been left grinding corn, and yet he basically shrugs at the idea of his loony bastard murdering his upcoming trueborn children in the crib. He's basically setting his own House to be deleted right after he dies, for...no reason. Basically, it's the whole "Eh, he's crazy and weird. His goals don't need to make sense" thing. It's especially funny because his stated half-excuse is "Well, I'm REALLY old, like almost 40, so I'm not going to live to raise new kids what with winter and all". In the first book it felt like GRRM really intended to have someone at 40 be old as poo poo, but later he realized that a ton of his characters were 35 or older and they were kicking rear end and loving all over the place, so that bit of medieval world-building was quickly forgotten until it became convenient here and there. As with kinslaying, religion, army sizes and supplies, which don't matter until they do. But to think that a wealthy lord (and an early health nut, to boot) would see another winter as a sure death sentence is just weird.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
As an alternative: Roose doesn’t give a poo poo about what comes after him, he just wants to revel in his own power and torture and rape whoever he wants in peace. E: As an aside, one of the earlier baffling things the show did was offing Roose in such a weak way. Fuckers really liked Iwan Rheon, I guess. The Unnamed One fucked around with this message at 03:42 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Except...no, he doesn't. Age is treated really oddly in the books. I mean Barristan is mid 60's and he's still knighting around, which isn't totally unbelievable but... Then other people are talking about being old at 40. Which the one thing you can definitely do is still have kids even pretty late in life as a man (even if it's not alway the best idea)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
iirc the reason Roose doesn't care if Ramsay continues to murder sons is that even worse than having the Bolton legacy end would be having the Bolton legacy continue with a child lord. Ramsay is a terrible choice, but then so is a kid ending up ruling the Dreadfort should Roose die before he can raise him properly.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Age is treated really oddly in the books. I mean Barristan is mid 60's and he's still knighting around, which isn't totally unbelievable but... Then other people are talking about being old at 40. Which the one thing you can definitely do is still have kids even pretty late in life as a man (even if it's not alway the best idea) with Barristan...we haven't actually seen him fight much, tbf people remark "wow Barristan still looks fit and healthy!" but this has not yet been put to the test but even if we accept that Barristan is pretty old at 60something, it is true that Roose acting old at 38 or whatever is odd i dont think there's a way around it, GRRM probably just hosed up his age
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
esperterra posted:iirc the reason Roose doesn't care if Ramsay continues to murder sons is that even worse than having the Bolton legacy end would be having the Bolton legacy continue with a child lord. Ramsay is a terrible choice, but then so is a kid ending up ruling the Dreadfort should Roose die before he can raise him properly. Right but he's only 40 or so. Lots of characters in Westeros seem to make it to their 60's easily. Maybe he's just fatalistic, but his character, at least to me, seems kind of contrary. Like maybe there was some more thought out stuff and it got edited out or something.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
i mean we do have younger people dying all the time from plagues and weird medieval ailments jon arryn's previous heirs come to mind maybe rather than his age, roose should have emphasized that the family tree is very threadbare due to his own lack of siblings or cousins less "walda's children would still be too young by the time i die", more like "if i die, there would be nothing left but infants"
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:with Barristan...we haven't actually seen him fight much, tbf He beats up like 3 guys with a stick in the first book, and he saves Dany from the manticore, then he beats up the titans bastard guy mero. At least in the books, I can't keep track of what happens in the show vs books.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
So Daenerys legitimising Gendry: How strong does that make his claim to the Iron Throne in a law sense when compared to her own? Jon supersedes because he's Rhaegar's son, but Gendry being the trueborn son of Robert means he's like Joffrey and Targaryen rule was ended by conquest. And Cersei sort of got the throne by being Queen Consort of the incumbent king who no longer has "legitimate" heirs, so if he does have one, she loses her power? I don't know anything about these kind of laws of succession but surely it means Gendry is like #1 strongest claim if he's a legitimate Baratheon considering the Iron Throne hasn't changed hands by conquest at any given point? Either way, for a political move she congratulates herself with to get one over on Tyrion in the show while being extremely concerned with legitimacy, surely this is extremely very stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:i mean we do have younger people dying all the time from plagues and weird medieval ailments Yeah I guess it's just... why didn't he take a 2nd wife sooner and have another kid who isn't insane. I mean I guess it's only been 3 years since he brought the bastard who poisoned his son to the dreadfort but didn't acknowledge him. I don't know it just doesn't really seem to add up to me.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
Josuke Higashikata posted:So Daenerys legitimising Gendry: His claim to being a legit Baratheon rests on her claim to be queen. If she isn't queen of the 7 kingdoms then he isn't a Baratheon, so he doesn't have a claim before her. I don't know why people are making such hay out of this.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
Josuke Higashikata posted:So Daenerys legitimising Gendry: if we uphold the results of Robert's rebellion (attaintment of Aerys and his descendents), then Gendry is #1 but even if that is overturned, he's still #3 behind Jon and Dany, by virtue of the same previous baratheon-targaryen dynastic marriage that put Robert in the line of succession Robert was, I believe, #4 at the time the rebellion broke out, since by precedent the Iron Throne has a stricter form of male preference, which would put the nearest male relative ahead of Rhaella or Rhaenys. Robert vs. Rhaella or Rhaenys would have been shaky enough that there would probably have been a Great Council called about it, though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:I don't know why people are making such hay out of this. It's interesting PupsOfWar posted:if we uphold the results of Robert's rebellion (attaintment of Aerys and his descendents), then Gendry is #1 Right on
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:if we uphold the results of Robert's rebellion (attaintment of Aerys and his descendents), then Gendry is #1 Wouldn't he be #2 after Jon, as he is the great grandson of a Targ. e: in the event we went by targ succession i mean, as a male cousin he'd prob be after jon but before dany, no?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:if we uphold the results of Robert's rebellion (attaintment of Aerys and his descendents), then Gendry is #1 No. Because if Dany isn't queen, she can't make someone, not a bastard. So he's nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
Unless Jon's the one who makes him not a bastard, and as someone who grew up as a bastard, I'm pretty sure he'd be keen on honouring the promise Daenerys made Gendry in his capacity as a king of the north (which is as easily unrenounced as renounced) or seven kingdoms considering he was there when she did it and he's like Ned for honour. It's obviously not going to play into anything at any point so it's spitballing but planting those seeds to me seems ill advised for her in every way. Ours is the Fury, Stannis the True King, put Bobby B's bastard on the throne show.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
targ incest also makes it weird normally the ruler's spouse doesn't have an inheritence claim in their own right, but may continue to exercise power through various means such as a regency (see: Cersei) rhaella did have a claim though, since in addition to being the king's wife she was also the king's sister Rhaenys would inherit before Rhaella though, since you've got to exhaust the descent of the initial heir (Rhaegar) before you back up a generation and start going through sibling branches. esperterra posted:Wouldn't he be #2 after Jon, as he is the great grandson of a Targ. hmm maybe that targ rule isn't law or anything, i think: it's just that all the times a targ woman might have inherited in her own right, it was considered enough of a mess that a Council was convened and the title awarded to some male cousin or other, for misogyny reasons. i think Gendry Baratheon's inheritance claim vs. Dany's would be similarly dicey (of course, westeros is in no condition for a Great Council atm and dany would presumably just feed Gendry to her dragon if he made an issue of it) i think that by normal westeros rules, the succession prior to robert's rebellion was rhaegar > aegon > viserys > rhaenys > rhaella >robert, while by targ rules it was rhaegar > aegon > viserys > robert > stannis > renly > rhaenys > rhaella not 100% sure it wasn't still rhaegar > aegon > viserys > rhaenys > rhaella >robert though. there would certainly be nobles clamoring to install robert, whichever the case. plausibly they could have done something like marry robert to rhaella (if she survived aerys) or pre-betroth robert's firstborn to rhaenys, to resolve the issue. BUT in addition to pseudo's point about gendry's claim depending on dany already being queen (i believe people in westeros would be scared enough of a Queen Regnant to contrive some retroactive-effect argument) we should also consider that Jon's backstory is kinda bullshit like sure mate, that secret marriage nobody knew about definitely counted PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 06:52 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:No. Because if Dany isn't queen, she can't make someone, not a bastard. So he's nothing. Ok but let's assume she takes the throne. That means Gendry is her heir, right? Specially if Jon and Dany died without any children, that would make Gendry king.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
Elman posted:Ok but let's assume she takes the throne. That means Gendry is her heir, right? Specially if Jon and Dany died without any children, that would make Gendry king. I mean it's calvinball, but logically no, if she takes the throne that means the Baratheons were pretenders and have no real claim to the throne, other than maybe whatever Robert's rested on, and there's got to be more hidden Targs around.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
If Dany took the throne and Jon wasn't in the running, then she would have to appoint an heir, I'd imagine. Assuming she dies without doing this it would eventually fall to Gendry or any other distant relative. Or anyone with enough power and clout to take the throne.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
I mean we are talking about the show. There's certainly no hidden Targs and Robert did have a claim, even if it was a weak one.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 07:10
|
|