Recent Comments

But Jon isn't the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. The Targaryen's lost that claim when Robert's Rebellion deposed the Mad King.

At the time Stannis was offering Jon the rights to Winterfell, Stannis was in fact the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. He wasn't offering Jon that claim. The only claim even Dany has to the Iron Throne at this point is "my dragons will melt you unless you let me have the throne"

My point was more in general saying that any rights Jon forfeited when he took his NW oath may in fact be available to him again since he died.

I read "crootin' tail" and thought this was more a reference to Crosby in current events...

I walked upstairs to talk to a coworker who went to VT. Then I walked by someone else's office and they went to VT. Then there was this one time at Penn State where the head of the department was also formerly at VT. Also, I went to VT.

The main source of the laughter is the verbiage, combined with the extreme level of excitement over the commitment from an invited walk-on. Maybe he will be a diamond in the rough, but until then... They may have a similar ranking, but I think it's pretty obvious who has gotten more bang for the buck over the last decade plus...Ring out that fun sponge and enjoy the fodder :D

Stannis, the rightful heir to the Iron Throne (in fact the one thing that he did get right), was offering Jon Snow the rights to Winterfell.

That's perfectly fine. We're talking about Jon's claim to the Iron Throne as Rhaegar's son, though. The circular logic is that, in a hypothetial situation, Stannis couldn't give Jon the title of "rightful heir due to his lineage." He could admit that he is the rightful heir (which isn't the point here), but he could only say "as the king, I declare that Jon's claim to the throne is now valid again." He could not say "it was always valid and that's because I say so" because in order for Stannis to declare that, his own claim would need to be valid, and his own claim would be invalidated by Jon's claim.

The fact that I just had to write that so complexly indicates circular logic in my book. :D

In a world where your power exists solely at the discretion of those that support you, the discussion pretty much ends at that point.

I completely agree. The idea of a "rightful heir" isn't really all that important.

Talk about being given keys to the kingdom. And he just squandered it away by using his gonads as brains.

So true. Although, the Hokies I ran into were never classmates (did the Army before VT). Crazy thing is, as ridiculously small as my HS was, I ran into 3 different guys from HS while deployed.

Yea, they're really pudding in some good work on the 'crootin trail.

Rutgers pulling in some home grown talent.. that's been an interesting team/coaching staff to follow lately if anyone is bored lol.

Finished 76th for 2016, sitting at 18 for 2017.

We could be dead last in the ACC and LOLUVa be (God forbid) first in recruiting and I would still take every opportunity to laugh at them. Remember the year we swept them in baseball and they went on to win the college world series? Cause I choose to acknowledge just the first part of that sentence.

I hope he makes a killing with money off endorsements as he is being criminally underpaid at the moment for the level of play he has given.

Also, to be fair, Robert didn't want to marry Cersei either. He wanted Lyanna. It was a marriage to make allies between two houses, not one of love. Other reasons I'm seeing is that you cannot marry into a royal name. The Starks aren't royalty, so thus you can have Catelyn Stark.

Throwing stones in glass houses?

UVA might not be great at recruiting, but they're 38th nationally and 7th in the ACC. The mighty Hokies are 33rd nationally and 6th in the ACC. The Hokies have one recruit better than a 3-star (and barely).

Laughing at their plight seems to neglect the fact that the Hokies are essentially in the same category.

Good point. The only reason I can think of is more for storytelling...Cersei Lannister sounds more "bad", I guess is the word. Or to drive home the disgust she had for her husband. Maybe she decided to be referred to as Lannister, and its just a decision we never see.

In the case of Catelyn for example, we know she loved Ned so maybe she had the option to be Tully after his death and decided against it. Who knows.

I'm not adding anything. The oath is an agreement that lasts until death and all that you promise are part of that oath. Can't say that the Watch has ever really had to deal with any member coming back from the dead and not being a wight so I'd say they are going to let him do whatever the hell he wants to do. By virtue of the words of his oath, he has fulfilled his duty and is released from his obligation as he served until his death. Now he's free to move forward. As said elsewhere, he can be released by a King or higher power as Stannis promised to do. Well the higher power of the Lord of Light, or whoever you choose to believe resurrected him, brought him back. No member of the Night's Watch is going to expect him to still be there or they would have stopped him when he left. History is written by the victors. If he were to potentially take control, those who try to stand against him become enemies and are handled appropriately.

Circular logic? How so?

Stannis, the rightful heir to the Iron Throne (in fact the one thing that he did get right), was offering Jon Snow the rights to Winterfell. Jon refused because of his oath to the Night's Watch prohibited it basically.

Upon his death, the prohibition no longer stood. The evidence for this is the reaction that the people that would know the Night's Watch the best, and have the most skin in the game for proclaiming him King of the North, i.e. the other Northern Houses, have no hesitation in naming him the rightful Stark heir.

In a world where your power exists solely at the discretion of those that support you, the discussion pretty much ends at that point.

Pages