Spoilers Game of Thrones: The Final Season

Even if Dany was male, or say Dany died but her brother survived, that male would still have less of a claim than Jon. Again, gender was not the deciding factor in this case.

A son of the first born beats a son of the second or third born.

 

Nope. That would be the case if they were brother/sister.

If Vasyris was still alive, as a male who is older than Jon, he would still be behind Jon.

If Dany had a younger brother, that younger brother would be ahead of her.

You seem to be arguing if Jon was actually female, and Vysyris was still alive, Vysyris would have priority. That's not how it works in the UK, so unless you can point to evidence in Westros it seems unsubstantiated.

 

i really don't get why he's not getting this. There is literally a real world example happening right now...

Ignoring Charles, or assuming he dies, passes on the throne, etc. Prince William is King. When they were both kids, Harry was #2. William now has 3 kids. Harry went from #2 to #5. Harry could be male, female, or a corgi, he's behind all of William's kids.

Only difference would be if the gender consideration was a non-starter, in which case Charlotte falls out completely, her younger brother goes from #4 to #3, and Harry gets bumped up to #4.

The age of William's kids is a total non-factor. The gender of Harry is a non-factor. If everyone but Charlotte died tomorrow, she'd be heir, would be Queen at age of majority, and Kate (or other surviving relative) would act as Regent until then. Harry still wouldn't be King.

 

Completely wrong. his claim is better because he's the son of the firstborn of the king. Dany is 3rd born of the king, so she's behind both of her siblings (if they were alive), and ALL of their children (for example, Jon) if they lived. Gender, for the very last time, doesn't play. It would be a tie-breaker in Westeros eventually, but she never rises up high enough for that to disqualify her. If she was the oldest child of the king, your whole debate would be worth something, but as she's the youngest, it's meaningless.

Because that's the truth? Jon is alive, so at no point was she ever the last surviving family member, so she was never first in line. So didn't have to get disqualified for gender.

Try it this way: If you never get to the front of the line for the rollercoaster, it doesn't matter if you're only 3 feet tall. You didn't get kicked off of the ride for being short, you never got to the front of the line to get on. If you were first in line, you can bitch about being short, this being discrimination, whatever. You're way in the back, so the operator never even considered if you should go for a ride.

 

One online article claimed Jon was yelling “go, go, go”. That he had seen Arya going for the NK. Was encouraging her and was also trying to distract the dragon so it won’t go after her.

 

Didn't see that from my watching. It was really dark, but the audio worked ok

Even in that scenario, why not hold up his valaryian steel sword and try to at least take a swing instead of getting flambayed? Just like in most things, I suppose, Jon Snow knows nothing...

 

Maybe someone more versed in succession law can answer this, but I always wondered - if Rhaegar and his children all died before Jon was born, Viserys would be the rightful heir (and technically king-in-exile). Would Jon's birth then allow him to leapfrog over Viserys?

Personally, I've never liked that theory because it almost justifies Tywin's rejection of Tyrion as his son.

 

Yes. There would be legal challenges, especially since Viserys was a dick, but eventually as long as Jon could prove parentage and that the marriage was legitimate, he'd be 1st in line again. Then again, Viserys only THOUGHT he was king in exile because he didn't know about Jon. Based upon exact times of death, it's possible Viserys actually WAS rightful heir for a few minutes between his brother's death and Jon's birth. Exact timing doesn't really matter though as long as Rhygar did the deed before being killed, Jon still counts even if on a 9 month delay. There usually isn't a secret pregnancy in play, though.

Way more awkward if Viserys had been crowned king and THEN Jon shows up, not sure how that would play out. In most instances, civil war I'd expect unless one of them volunteers to back down...

 

Going back to the alleged primacy of male heirs, the son of King Stephen was William, but his successor was Henry, the male heir of Matilda the female heir to the throne of England that Stephen usurped. Alfred the Great, by the way, succeeded his brother Aethelred, not either of Aethelred's sons. As near as I can make out the original British law that is being used is Henry VIII's decreed succession.

Character is what you do, what you want. For fictional characters, the supernatural is directly implicated in what they can do, what they might fear. There is no separating the supernatural from character, any more than there is separating society from character, or the natural world, for that matter. It's just bad writing to pretend.

DigiFic Writer is right on this however. This timeline has one thing right. Rhaegar must have impregnated Lyanna before the Trident. The notion that Aerys must have impregnated his wife just before he was killed has nothing to support it. The notion that they murdered Rhaegar's heirs upon taking King's Landing shows they wouldn't have let Aerys' new heir (Viserys) and spare (Daenerys) unmolested for nine months. This is not just unsupported but absurd. The episode Stormborn talking about the storm when Daenerys was born was even compatible with the great storm, Daenerys' birth and the fall of King's Landing being close in time. And last, the idea that Ned Stark left the war immediately after the battle of the Trident and quickly found the new-born Jon is highly implausible. It's not even a sound interpretation of Ned's remarks about searching for Lyanna, as I remember.

I think it is impossible for the annulment to be valid. There is no such thing as a secret annulment, because Ellaria the wife would have to be able to make her response in court, either to affirm or contest the grounds for annulment. The idea that a mere High Septon could annul a royal marriage on his own is preposterous. The King himself might be able to, although not certainly, but Rhaegar wasn't King. A plural marriage seems no more an obstacle to inheritance than an incestuous one, but no, it is not clear that Jon is the one true king though he does have a claim. It would have been vastly stronger if Rhaegar had acknowledged him as his son and heir, though. Varys should have known about Jon's impending birth, just as he knew about Robert's bastards. It is also likely Aemon knew, and Jeor Mormont (explaining their favoritism to Jon.) Qyburn should have found out about it for Cersei, who should be interested in holding Jon Snow's southern mother as leverage. Even making the claim Jon is the heir serves her purposes.

Aegon's claim to Westeros was dragons. The same should be true of the later members of the dynasty. Indeed, Aerys' obsession with fire is either Bran driving him mad like Hodor, or because Aerys knows without a dragon he's not the true king, a knowledge that unhinges him.

 

Yeah. It seemed to have come from reading too much into "The dragon must have three heads" - concluding that even if Jon and Dany both rode dragons, you'd need a third dragonrider as well. And few can ride dragons besides a Targaryan.

 

that was the biggest part, plus as the Lannister we like, there was hope he'd be the third piece here. Instead, turns out we didn't need another dragon rider because they found one up north...

And DigFicWriter can be right on the ages, but just missing the forrest for the trees because age has nothing to do with Dany's claim to the throne. Jon could be 100 or an infant, and he's got the claim either way. And if Jon was female, s(he) would still have a better claim, if either of them had a claim at all and it didn't try to pass to some distant cousin instead of a female heir. As the 3rd child of a monarch, Dany was never going to become Queen unless she married up...

 

I wondered if they were going to go anywhere with Bran's ability to sort of interfere in the past. He drove Hodor nuts and sort of communicated with Ned a bit. That's a huge power that seems to have been left on the table. I wonder why introduce it without using it.

I'm suspecting that Bran's part of the story is now over for the most part. He was a pawn in the game of Lord of Light vs King of the Night. That game is over and I suspect so is his role. But, we'll see. At the very least, it's hard to imagine him being particularly concerned about who wins the throne.

In general, I think the character of Bran and his abilities were under-utilized. Like they developed him but then didn't know what to do with him. Unless of course there are further surprises . . .

 

exactly why i want the books to hurry up and get written. I think the show dropped a lot on the floor trying to get to the end, and subplots like Bran, the entire White Walker thing, feel shortchanged and ultimately pointless given how they finished off here. Unless Bran has some final part to play in the battle, no reason we should see him again. A lot of people, actually, that should end up staying in the north to rebuild and have no part to play in the final episodes. Sansa only matters in a final scene if she gets the north while Jon is either dead, King, or goes back to the Night's watch. Davos should be done, Brianne only should show up again if she follows Jaime to knock off Cersei, no reason for Sam to leave Winterfell other than to keep explaining to Dany the same thing we're trying to explain to DigFicWriter, etc. When you wrap up the White Walkers, the North, and the mystical angle, a lot of the plot threads dry up. I mean, Melisandre got so upset by it that she just wandered off and died of boredom

 

Matilda being daughter of Henry I

At that time primogeniture was fairly new, but there are still several types.

Male-preference primogeniture, which is what we are arguing based on that's what ran the UK (and commonwealth, and England/Scotland before that) until 2013, which puts Jon ahead of Dany

Absolute primogeniture, which discounts the sex, and is how the UK operates now (but only came in globally the later half of the 20th century), which puts Jon ahead of Dany

Agnatic primogeniture, which I think is what some are arguing, where the order of succession passes to brothers before sons. I think Saudi Arabia practices something like that. There's no evidence that this type of system was ever used in Westeros. This is about the only way Dany could be ahead of Jon that I can see, but it would have to discount gender, and Tomen's ascension disproves this

 

She got her Knighthood. Maybe she can run off with Tormund.

 

I suspect that Dany will be as deaf to Sam's explanation as . . . well a certain poster is to ours!

I agree in general. No reason Bran should play a large role and a lot of Northerners will be much more interested in rebuilding the North.

However, I have a hunch that Sansa and Tyrion take the throne at the end. And Brienne sets up/runs the first professional police force of Westeros (like a Robert Peel). Nothing really to support that than hunches based on predictions of character arcs!

 

We had already guessed episode 5 will be the next big battle because Miguel Sapochnik directed it. But now Emilia Clarke is saying the episode is going to be insane:
https://winteriscoming.net/2019/05/02/emilia-clarke-game-of-thrones-jimmy-kimmel-episode-805-drake/

 

I never liked that theory either for the same reason.

I much preferred the theory that was based on Lannister history hints dropped a female member (Tywin's sister, aunt, someone?) that suggested that Joanna had affair with someone else (I don't believe it was Aerys, but maybe) and that Tyrion was Tywin's only natural born child.

 

If Tyrion wasn't Tiwyn's son he'd be a bastard.

If it were true, Tiwyn can't have known about it. Maybe suspected, but not known. Because the only thing that prevented him from kicking him to the curb or drowning him as a child was the fact he was his son.

I'm not sure Bran's part is over. I think while everyone else is fighting over the throne, he'll be dealing with the next step in the winter cycle. He's either going to wind up stuck in a tree for the next cycle or he's going to notice something's wrong and it'll be a thing where he fights against it.

 

I really feel like the Night King needed to get close to Bran, to possibly warg into him. I don't think the Night King is truly finished.