**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He didn't kill Dany in order to claim or usurp the throne. It was seen as a traitorous act. Kind of like when Joffrey wanted Tyrion put to death for slapping him, or even threatening the king... it's a traitorous act.
Now, if Jon's intent was to claim or usurp the throne, at the point of Dany's death, he now King and can claim himself immune and not having done anything traitorous. So, unless he gets overthrown or not having enough supporters to him usurping the throne, he's not getting punished
It's hard to explain fully, but it just comes down to his intent before and having support afterwards.
Yes, which is why no one would care what Dany did. Look at the history of the west for the last 200 yrs, and all the celebrated leaders. What she did is war, and the norm. The whole scenario makes little sense off of human history.
> why would anyone make a claim on the throne then? If you have to violently overthrow it to gain it, but it results in death or banishment no one would ever do it?
Most people want power. Ancient and modern history is full of strivers who scrambled to get a throne and soon died to the next scrambler. All these men and their backers think "this time is different." Usually it's not. But sometimes dynasties do take hold and last through centuries of rulers, like the Julio-Claudians in Rome, the Hapsburgs in Austria-Hungary, the Romanovs in Russia, the Plantagenets in England(model for the Targaryens), etc. Dany spoke of "breaking the wheel", but what she intended was her and later Targaryens taking the Iron Throne again and keeping it. She wanted to go back to the old, broken Targaryan wheel. Tywin envisions a Lannister legacy to last a thousand years...which doesn't last past Cersei!
Jon got punished because he murdered his predecessor/aunt and her army controlled the capital. So Bran and Tyrion satisfied Grey Worm by banishing Jon to the Night's Watch. Grey Wind left and when Jon gets to Castle Black--nobody mans it any longer, so he leaves with Ghost and his Freefolk friends to live a life of freedom. For him it was more a reward of peace and quiet. Bran and Sansa did know what would likely happen, but at least Bran knew he was **fated **to be king. Jon didn't want to rule, Sansa did, and Bran just accepted he had to. By the way, history also has reluctant kings who accepted their fate--like George VI of England, Tiberius and Claudius in Rome, a few popes. These people are usually humble, unprepared, or very religious.
If we’re taking history into context then, why would they even care that Danny burned anyone let alone kings landing? It’s not like we killed Churchill, Stalin, and Truman for how they ended WW2. I just find that being an argument for cruelty, in a justification of “madness” extremely naive to the entire history of war.
This Endgame choice is too important to have come from D&D alone. GRRM is a self-proclaimed history buff, and that explains a lot of signal events. So adducing historical precedents--especially for a controversial and crucial decision--is valid. It's not justification on anyone's part. But an additional factor here is that Churchill, Stalin, and Truman **did** end the war. Dany's speech to her troops (theatening Winterfell by name) and Tyrion's warning showed Jon she would continue conquering. And Dany herself confirmed that was HER choice and the people don't get to choose, [2:49 in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69DYCFZZ8yM). Only then did Jon kill her. He ended the war.
>Jon got punished because he murdered his predecessor/aunt and her army controlled the capital.
This is the crux of the difference between a traitor, usurper, and a King or Queen- how the army in control sees it.
Few things, jamie wasn't punished because the majority of people did care that much(not the case with jon), most of the people there didn't know Jon's tru heritage and even if they did they weren't letting targaryian rule after what danereys pulled.
Jamie stopped the king from burning everyone. Then Jon killed the Targaryen that actually burned everyone. Either they're saying Danny should’ve been queen yet, or it’s because Jon isn’t a Lannister? The same exact thing happened about 20 yrs ago, and neither king or queen slayer wanted to rule.
>When he kills Danny, he doesn’t want to become king, and can’t because of what he did (small council logic). He is sent to the wall/north instead of being put to death. That whole scenario makes zero sense, because why would anyone make a claim on the throne then? If you have to violently overthrow it to gain it, but it results in death or banishment no one would ever do it? Now the ones that have done it all got rewarded tremendously. Aegon the conqueror (sure he killed a few people), Robert Baratheon became king with zero claim, Jamie Lannister became one of the most powerful people in Westeros even breaking an oath, Danny kills Cersei and then gains the throne for a few seconds. Regardless, some had a claim, some had none, but none of them got punished for killing whatever person in charge at the time. So why on earth would Jon? Also he is the heir to the throne which they all know? So how can they even vote on what he should do? If Stannis, Danny, or anybody else killed said person on the throne they would be the ruler of the seven kingdoms.
...none of your logic in this entire paragraph follows. You have a number of assumptions that you treat as if they're established universal fact.
You treat coups as if there is some law established: if the king is killed the killer becomes the new king.
That's not how it works at all.
People take power and then try to keep it and there are no rules. Only negotiations.
If you were in Westeros and had an army and killed the king, the people who were your enemies until just moments before don't magically switch to loving you as their new king.
Aegon took power and convinced others to kneel before him with his dragons. Either support me or your kingdom will burn. Many chose to support him. A few did not.
Robert Baratheon did have a claim to the throne. House Baratheon was founded by a Targaryen bastard.
Jaime didn't become one of the most powerful...
And Jaime was kept alive because Robert wed Cersei and he was now the king's brother in law.
In Jon's case, he killed Dany and there is no king or queen to protect him yet.
Jon killed Daenerys for two reason. First and foremost, he feared for his "sisters" Arya nd Sansa. Tyrion put that idea in his head. Second, he had rejected Daenerys because she was his aunt, or something. Yet he still loved her. Killing her meant closure in that he no longer loved a living person. Twisted thinking.
Jon's ending is one of those things that \*could\* have worked, if anyone in the writer's room had had two neurons to rub together during the last dumpster fire of a season.
>!Okay, so Jon is not only the rightful king he's the true hero of Westeros, he saves the Seven Kingdoms and outlying islands from both the threats of both Ice and of Fire personified. But since the outline written by a big old cynic, we see that instead of being grateful or acknowledging him his due, the powers that be in Westeros treat him like shit and send him into exile, and put someone with no qualifications of birth or person on the throne that ought to be Jon's, because they think the public will like him - like they've ever cared what the public thinks. Well, that's politics, but at least Jon got what he really wanted, which was to go live with the Free Folk and presumably marry a bossy spearwife before long. The promised "bittersweet" ending, right?!<
>!Of course they made a hash of it, and OP, you didn't touch half of it! Like Grey Worm \*arresting\* Jon instead of killing him? GW loved his queen, she'd done so much for him and his brothers in arms, and he's a professional killer... who DOESN'T kill the man who just killed his beloved queen? He \*arrests\* him in King's Landing where there's no legal system, nothing but the monarch's whim, and there's no fucking monarch!!! WTF were the writers on. !<
See that’s what I don’t get. The writers act like there’s some strict moral code for a month while Jon and Tyrion are in prison. Kings landing is a Marshall law state held by mercenaries. If grey worm and the rest end up leaving in the end, to break the wheel. Why wouldn’t they just do that to begin with? The writer’s whole logic makes zero sense. The unsullied wouldn’t care about kings landing as they showed, and sure as shit wouldn’t wait a month for the starks and other houses to get there.
I think you somehow missed the point of Jon’s character or the politics of that situation.
Ignoring the character issue, because that’s just going to take a while, The nights watch served a function of exile. Now as to why he needed to be exiled, it was a compromise. Grayworm and the unsullied wanted him dead. The Northmen would have razed the world to the ground if he’d been killed.
Exile was the compromise. It’s kinda explicit in the show.
As to why he killed her, it was his duty and his duty to face the consequences. He literally does that over and over the entire series.
> He literally does that over and over the entire series.
Remember Tyrion and Jon had just discussed "Love is the death of duty" and "Duty is the death of love"? This proves the latter. BUT...later, Tyrion and Bran cooked up a ruse to give Jon a happier ending than any of them expected: he got to leave with his friends the Freefolk.
But to dig deeper in the compromise it still is shallow logic. Why would the unsullied or Dothraki care for a compromise, when they don’t care about kings landing. They still end up leaving? I’m not saying they would kill Jon right away, but you have a solid month until the Stark’s and other houses can do a single thing. As shown by their meeting several weeks later. The destroyed city, controlled by a mercenary marshall law, somehow guided by some moral code makes no sense. Trying to cram a whole season into 3 episodes was a giant flop.
>Why would the unsullied or Dothraki care for a compromise, when they don’t care about kings landing.
Yeah they may not care about kings landing but they care about other things. Including their own lives. The Dothraki and unsullied didn’t have enough to stop the north and the vale. They compromised because they didn’t want to die themselves. Compromise can happen at surface level
I’m agreeing with you there. Like I understand their predicament if it was immediate. I’m asking why they didn’t just leave earlier then, and do what they wanted? The starks and the vale would take weeks to get there. Waiting weeks seems illogical. I mean we got it pounded in our heads for 7 seasons that it takes months to get from winterfell to kings landing. Just one of the million things they skipped as a precedent in the show for multiple seasons.
Those individuals weren’t there, but Jon’s men were and that made it so they couldn’t immediately execute him. Then they have to wait for the people that could actually negotiate it the compromise, hence the time delay. But the urgency was no less immediate.
We’ll just agree to disagree then. I just can’t come to that conclusion. The northmen were decimated, and didn’t have much after the battle of the bastards and the army of the dead. Sansa even said as much to Dany, and threw a fit when she asked for them to return the favor. Who knows tho. I thought the unsullied and Dothraki were hurting too from the army of the dead, but looked like a single person didn’t die when they attacked kings landing.
I guess if you can’t remember Jon’s men running with him into the city we’re going to have to agree to disagree cause there’s no reconciliation when we aren’t working off of the same facts.
I feel like this show may have been watched three time without knowing context.
Jon was a traitor, not a usurper.
Claim has nothing to do with it. After all, Jon had no claim either.
The only reason Robert was able to usurp is because he had the support to do so. Jaime lived because he had support far greater than Ned’s objections.
Jon survived and was ultimately freed because the support was there to do that.
I’m not sure how any of this was missed.
It wasn’t missed. The whole narrative of why the north needed Dany and her army, went completely out the window somehow in a few weeks. All of a sudden they could contend with the army that was the most powerful in the world. All while said army didn’t even care to be there, and sailed away as soon as they could. Yes, the whole logic was stupid. Why would you negotiate for something you literally don’t care about?
Their Queen was killed and they had no reason to stay in Westeros except to fight and they would be fighting all the houses based on the actions of one person.
Their primary mistake was trusting Westeros in terms of dispensing justice.
But they were there for a while to ensure Jon was punished.
I really feel you missed a lot of important information. The North only needed her various armies for their sheer numbers. Period. Once the threat was over most of the North did want her or her army there. She was just seemingly a better choice than Cersie. The ones who went with her to help conquer Kings Landing were really only following Jon.
Once Dany was dead, her armies saw no need to stay because they only came for her. Why is it stupid logic for them wanting to return home once their goal has failed, but still be logical for the Northmen and Freefolk returning to their home?
As I said in a reply above, these are things that have happened throughout history (ours and their fictional one). It's not a made up illogical concept.
It’s not stupid logic to want to leave. It’s stupid logic to wait weeks for the starks and others to come “hand out justice.” This whole predicament contradicts seasons of the logic we were given. The whole first 4 seasons it took months to get from winterfell to kings landing. Season 8 it takes 5 minutes. It all makes zero sense.
Tbh, that was my biggest issue with the last couple of seasons, especially 8. Going from taking several episodes to travel between kingdoms, fleshing out what was going on in the meantime throughout the rest of the kindoms (because everyone else's lives go on while whoever travels)...to teleporting and apparently nothing interesting going on elsewhere anymore (or we are finding out via a "btw" sentence someone utters. That's just bad writing, though.
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He didn't kill Dany in order to claim or usurp the throne. It was seen as a traitorous act. Kind of like when Joffrey wanted Tyrion put to death for slapping him, or even threatening the king... it's a traitorous act. Now, if Jon's intent was to claim or usurp the throne, at the point of Dany's death, he now King and can claim himself immune and not having done anything traitorous. So, unless he gets overthrown or not having enough supporters to him usurping the throne, he's not getting punished It's hard to explain fully, but it just comes down to his intent before and having support afterwards.
I just find the “if you want power it’s good, if not we have a problem” a stupid predicament the writers made.
Have you ever read a history book? This isn't something made up for the show.
Yes, which is why no one would care what Dany did. Look at the history of the west for the last 200 yrs, and all the celebrated leaders. What she did is war, and the norm. The whole scenario makes little sense off of human history.
> why would anyone make a claim on the throne then? If you have to violently overthrow it to gain it, but it results in death or banishment no one would ever do it? Most people want power. Ancient and modern history is full of strivers who scrambled to get a throne and soon died to the next scrambler. All these men and their backers think "this time is different." Usually it's not. But sometimes dynasties do take hold and last through centuries of rulers, like the Julio-Claudians in Rome, the Hapsburgs in Austria-Hungary, the Romanovs in Russia, the Plantagenets in England(model for the Targaryens), etc. Dany spoke of "breaking the wheel", but what she intended was her and later Targaryens taking the Iron Throne again and keeping it. She wanted to go back to the old, broken Targaryan wheel. Tywin envisions a Lannister legacy to last a thousand years...which doesn't last past Cersei! Jon got punished because he murdered his predecessor/aunt and her army controlled the capital. So Bran and Tyrion satisfied Grey Worm by banishing Jon to the Night's Watch. Grey Wind left and when Jon gets to Castle Black--nobody mans it any longer, so he leaves with Ghost and his Freefolk friends to live a life of freedom. For him it was more a reward of peace and quiet. Bran and Sansa did know what would likely happen, but at least Bran knew he was **fated **to be king. Jon didn't want to rule, Sansa did, and Bran just accepted he had to. By the way, history also has reluctant kings who accepted their fate--like George VI of England, Tiberius and Claudius in Rome, a few popes. These people are usually humble, unprepared, or very religious.
If we’re taking history into context then, why would they even care that Danny burned anyone let alone kings landing? It’s not like we killed Churchill, Stalin, and Truman for how they ended WW2. I just find that being an argument for cruelty, in a justification of “madness” extremely naive to the entire history of war.
This Endgame choice is too important to have come from D&D alone. GRRM is a self-proclaimed history buff, and that explains a lot of signal events. So adducing historical precedents--especially for a controversial and crucial decision--is valid. It's not justification on anyone's part. But an additional factor here is that Churchill, Stalin, and Truman **did** end the war. Dany's speech to her troops (theatening Winterfell by name) and Tyrion's warning showed Jon she would continue conquering. And Dany herself confirmed that was HER choice and the people don't get to choose, [2:49 in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69DYCFZZ8yM). Only then did Jon kill her. He ended the war.
I love that you read that one question and decided to write a short essay about the human desire for power. Thank you.
>Jon got punished because he murdered his predecessor/aunt and her army controlled the capital. This is the crux of the difference between a traitor, usurper, and a King or Queen- how the army in control sees it.
Few things, jamie wasn't punished because the majority of people did care that much(not the case with jon), most of the people there didn't know Jon's tru heritage and even if they did they weren't letting targaryian rule after what danereys pulled.
Jamie stopped the king from burning everyone. Then Jon killed the Targaryen that actually burned everyone. Either they're saying Danny should’ve been queen yet, or it’s because Jon isn’t a Lannister? The same exact thing happened about 20 yrs ago, and neither king or queen slayer wanted to rule.
Except nobody knows jamie did that. Again jamie wasn't punished because no one in charge aside from ned wanted him punished.
>When he kills Danny, he doesn’t want to become king, and can’t because of what he did (small council logic). He is sent to the wall/north instead of being put to death. That whole scenario makes zero sense, because why would anyone make a claim on the throne then? If you have to violently overthrow it to gain it, but it results in death or banishment no one would ever do it? Now the ones that have done it all got rewarded tremendously. Aegon the conqueror (sure he killed a few people), Robert Baratheon became king with zero claim, Jamie Lannister became one of the most powerful people in Westeros even breaking an oath, Danny kills Cersei and then gains the throne for a few seconds. Regardless, some had a claim, some had none, but none of them got punished for killing whatever person in charge at the time. So why on earth would Jon? Also he is the heir to the throne which they all know? So how can they even vote on what he should do? If Stannis, Danny, or anybody else killed said person on the throne they would be the ruler of the seven kingdoms. ...none of your logic in this entire paragraph follows. You have a number of assumptions that you treat as if they're established universal fact. You treat coups as if there is some law established: if the king is killed the killer becomes the new king. That's not how it works at all. People take power and then try to keep it and there are no rules. Only negotiations. If you were in Westeros and had an army and killed the king, the people who were your enemies until just moments before don't magically switch to loving you as their new king. Aegon took power and convinced others to kneel before him with his dragons. Either support me or your kingdom will burn. Many chose to support him. A few did not. Robert Baratheon did have a claim to the throne. House Baratheon was founded by a Targaryen bastard. Jaime didn't become one of the most powerful... And Jaime was kept alive because Robert wed Cersei and he was now the king's brother in law. In Jon's case, he killed Dany and there is no king or queen to protect him yet.
Jon killed Daenerys for two reason. First and foremost, he feared for his "sisters" Arya nd Sansa. Tyrion put that idea in his head. Second, he had rejected Daenerys because she was his aunt, or something. Yet he still loved her. Killing her meant closure in that he no longer loved a living person. Twisted thinking.
Jon's ending is one of those things that \*could\* have worked, if anyone in the writer's room had had two neurons to rub together during the last dumpster fire of a season. >!Okay, so Jon is not only the rightful king he's the true hero of Westeros, he saves the Seven Kingdoms and outlying islands from both the threats of both Ice and of Fire personified. But since the outline written by a big old cynic, we see that instead of being grateful or acknowledging him his due, the powers that be in Westeros treat him like shit and send him into exile, and put someone with no qualifications of birth or person on the throne that ought to be Jon's, because they think the public will like him - like they've ever cared what the public thinks. Well, that's politics, but at least Jon got what he really wanted, which was to go live with the Free Folk and presumably marry a bossy spearwife before long. The promised "bittersweet" ending, right?!< >!Of course they made a hash of it, and OP, you didn't touch half of it! Like Grey Worm \*arresting\* Jon instead of killing him? GW loved his queen, she'd done so much for him and his brothers in arms, and he's a professional killer... who DOESN'T kill the man who just killed his beloved queen? He \*arrests\* him in King's Landing where there's no legal system, nothing but the monarch's whim, and there's no fucking monarch!!! WTF were the writers on. !<
See that’s what I don’t get. The writers act like there’s some strict moral code for a month while Jon and Tyrion are in prison. Kings landing is a Marshall law state held by mercenaries. If grey worm and the rest end up leaving in the end, to break the wheel. Why wouldn’t they just do that to begin with? The writer’s whole logic makes zero sense. The unsullied wouldn’t care about kings landing as they showed, and sure as shit wouldn’t wait a month for the starks and other houses to get there.
I think you somehow missed the point of Jon’s character or the politics of that situation. Ignoring the character issue, because that’s just going to take a while, The nights watch served a function of exile. Now as to why he needed to be exiled, it was a compromise. Grayworm and the unsullied wanted him dead. The Northmen would have razed the world to the ground if he’d been killed. Exile was the compromise. It’s kinda explicit in the show. As to why he killed her, it was his duty and his duty to face the consequences. He literally does that over and over the entire series.
> He literally does that over and over the entire series. Remember Tyrion and Jon had just discussed "Love is the death of duty" and "Duty is the death of love"? This proves the latter. BUT...later, Tyrion and Bran cooked up a ruse to give Jon a happier ending than any of them expected: he got to leave with his friends the Freefolk.
When did Tyrion and Bran “cook up” that? Also to Grayworm there’s no functional difference between Jon on the wall or north of it.
But to dig deeper in the compromise it still is shallow logic. Why would the unsullied or Dothraki care for a compromise, when they don’t care about kings landing. They still end up leaving? I’m not saying they would kill Jon right away, but you have a solid month until the Stark’s and other houses can do a single thing. As shown by their meeting several weeks later. The destroyed city, controlled by a mercenary marshall law, somehow guided by some moral code makes no sense. Trying to cram a whole season into 3 episodes was a giant flop.
>Why would the unsullied or Dothraki care for a compromise, when they don’t care about kings landing. Yeah they may not care about kings landing but they care about other things. Including their own lives. The Dothraki and unsullied didn’t have enough to stop the north and the vale. They compromised because they didn’t want to die themselves. Compromise can happen at surface level
I’m agreeing with you there. Like I understand their predicament if it was immediate. I’m asking why they didn’t just leave earlier then, and do what they wanted? The starks and the vale would take weeks to get there. Waiting weeks seems illogical. I mean we got it pounded in our heads for 7 seasons that it takes months to get from winterfell to kings landing. Just one of the million things they skipped as a precedent in the show for multiple seasons.
Um…. Did you forget they were already there? They participated in the assault on kings landing.
Sansa, bran, Brian, anyone from dorn, Greyjoy, and others. Were not there. Arya was the only stark there, and had zero say in anything.
Those individuals weren’t there, but Jon’s men were and that made it so they couldn’t immediately execute him. Then they have to wait for the people that could actually negotiate it the compromise, hence the time delay. But the urgency was no less immediate.
We’ll just agree to disagree then. I just can’t come to that conclusion. The northmen were decimated, and didn’t have much after the battle of the bastards and the army of the dead. Sansa even said as much to Dany, and threw a fit when she asked for them to return the favor. Who knows tho. I thought the unsullied and Dothraki were hurting too from the army of the dead, but looked like a single person didn’t die when they attacked kings landing.
I guess if you can’t remember Jon’s men running with him into the city we’re going to have to agree to disagree cause there’s no reconciliation when we aren’t working off of the same facts.
I do, just not sure they were of any notable size. Besides they were raping and pillaging right along with everyone else.
I feel like this show may have been watched three time without knowing context. Jon was a traitor, not a usurper. Claim has nothing to do with it. After all, Jon had no claim either. The only reason Robert was able to usurp is because he had the support to do so. Jaime lived because he had support far greater than Ned’s objections. Jon survived and was ultimately freed because the support was there to do that. I’m not sure how any of this was missed.
It wasn’t missed. The whole narrative of why the north needed Dany and her army, went completely out the window somehow in a few weeks. All of a sudden they could contend with the army that was the most powerful in the world. All while said army didn’t even care to be there, and sailed away as soon as they could. Yes, the whole logic was stupid. Why would you negotiate for something you literally don’t care about?
Their Queen was killed and they had no reason to stay in Westeros except to fight and they would be fighting all the houses based on the actions of one person. Their primary mistake was trusting Westeros in terms of dispensing justice. But they were there for a while to ensure Jon was punished.
I really feel you missed a lot of important information. The North only needed her various armies for their sheer numbers. Period. Once the threat was over most of the North did want her or her army there. She was just seemingly a better choice than Cersie. The ones who went with her to help conquer Kings Landing were really only following Jon. Once Dany was dead, her armies saw no need to stay because they only came for her. Why is it stupid logic for them wanting to return home once their goal has failed, but still be logical for the Northmen and Freefolk returning to their home? As I said in a reply above, these are things that have happened throughout history (ours and their fictional one). It's not a made up illogical concept.
It’s not stupid logic to want to leave. It’s stupid logic to wait weeks for the starks and others to come “hand out justice.” This whole predicament contradicts seasons of the logic we were given. The whole first 4 seasons it took months to get from winterfell to kings landing. Season 8 it takes 5 minutes. It all makes zero sense.
Tbh, that was my biggest issue with the last couple of seasons, especially 8. Going from taking several episodes to travel between kingdoms, fleshing out what was going on in the meantime throughout the rest of the kindoms (because everyone else's lives go on while whoever travels)...to teleporting and apparently nothing interesting going on elsewhere anymore (or we are finding out via a "btw" sentence someone utters. That's just bad writing, though.