Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4708902-20160726013945/@comment-25402783-20160901014824

Fenrir51 wrote: BigBadBruin343 wrote:

I bring up him being in the Night's Watch because the Watch is very much respected in the North. Jon didn't desert, because, you know, he died. And would the Northmen be upset with the idea of Jon being The King On The Iron Throne? A Northerner would be one of the most powerful people in the known world. The Northmen respect him, that's why the follow him, not because of his last name (right now his last name comes with a lot of baggage). The idea of the Northmen not following Jon because he's a Targ is shortsighted. Jon was raised by Ned Stark, his mothe was a Stark, and they respect him. I doubt they'd up and desert him for who? Bran? Sansa? Bran is a cripple, and Sansa is a girl that almost cost them the Battle of the Bastards. There is no way in hell that they'd follow Bran or Sansa.

The Night's Watch may be respected in the North, but is ignored in much of the south. And since absolutely no one can have Jon Snow's resurrection verified, then as far as they figure, Jon is a deserter.

"And would the Northmen be upset witht the idea of Jon being The King On The Iron Throne? A Northerner would be one of the most powerful people in the known world."

A fact that will mean jackshit to them if their own part of the world becomes ignored once again. Something which you have consistantly ignored! If Jon sits on the Iron Throne, he will have to rule from King's Landing. He will leave the North, and it falls back to being an ignored province again. And they didn't sacrifice their lives of so many of their own countrymen just to see one of their own as the king on the Iron Throne. Robb Stark fought for independence, NOT the Iron Throne. The Northerner DON'T CARE about the Iron Throne, except to be FREE of it!

"The Northmen respect him, that's why they follow him, not because of his last name.."

Wrong! It's for neither reason, they acclaimed him king because they believe he's Ned's son. It helps that he fought with distinction (as a combatant, not as a general), but if they didn't think he was Eddard's son, he would no more merit being King in the North than Tormund Giantsbane or Ser Davos Seaworth.

"The idea of the Northmen not following Jon because he's a Targ is shortsighted."

If you actually think him being a Targ represents no problems for the Northerners, than you are the shortsighted one here! Again, they THINK he's Eddard's boy, and when it comes right down to it, that is the ONLY reason Jon was named King in the North.

"Jon was raised as a Stark..."

Not the point! He has no true claim, so merely being raised as Eddard's son is irrelevant as far as the laws of succession are concerned.

"..his mother was a Stark..."#

A fact which they are currently ignorant of. And a fact which also weakens Jon's claim to Winterfell than if he truly was Ned's son. Being a Targaryen boy gives Jon a WEAKER claim to Winterfell and the North than someone who is a genuine, paternally-born Stark bastard. Just let that sink in!

"..and they respect him."

Which by itself gives him no right to being the king!

"Bran is a cripple..."

A cripple with a greater legal right to Winterfell than Jon in either context. At least the cripple has better experience of ruling.

"..and Sansa is a girl that almost cost them the Battle of the Bastards."

Are you for real? It was Jon who rode yards ahead of his force and abandoned his strategy from the night before. It was Jon who stupidly led his force into the Bolton's meat-grinder. Jon could have kept his head during the battle, but in one reckless charge, he sacrificed the majority of his cavalry and nearly had his Wildings slaughtered inside the Bolton pincer movement. Jon was warned by Sansa what tricks Ramsay might pull, and he fell for it all the same! Sansa was the one who saved them. If she didn't message Littlefinger to get Knights of the Vale to Winterfell when she did, then a shitty, amateur general like Ramsay would have completly slaughtered the Stark loyalists. The Vale Knights saved Jon's army from certain death! So get that right!

"There is no way in hell that they'd follow Bran or Sansa."

Oh no, because they're only Eddard Stark's REAL children!

Sansa almost killed Jon and all of his men by not telling him that she sent a letter to Littlefinger. Her not telling Jon that she sent for help, caused the death of over 1,000 men. I wouldn't want to follow a person that is so stupid that she doesn't tell her "brother" that she's asked for renforcments, and that they should wait for a reply.

Bran has no leadership experience. Sure, he met with lords when Robb was in the South, but he's never led anybody. Jon has been an administrator while he was Lord Commander, and he's led men into battle. One of the big reasons that the Northmen declard Jon their king was becuase of his bravery on the battlefield, Bran can't even walk (or even continue the Stark bloodline, according to Ned, and you know, because he can't get it up). If the Northmen cared about who's a Stark and who's not, they would have made Sansa queen. But they made Jon king, by all the laws, Sansa should be Queen in the North, but they said "f*ck it".

I bring up Jon's mother because NO ONE OF NORTHERN BLOOD HAS SAT THE IRON THRONE. It think it's ignorent to think that the Northern lords automatically against Jon being on the Iron Throne because he's not a full Stark.

Jon is one of the few people that fought against the White Walkers, he's a leader and a warrior. Bran is a cripple, and Sansa is a girl that has ZERO leadership experence. Those are they're two fallbacks they have (well, maybe Arya, but she doesn't have any leadership experence either). If your a northren lord which these four choices (Jon, Sansa, Bran, Arya) do you go with?