#this is such a huge and complicated and ambiguous topic that it's hard to sum up

[laurelwen]

Heyy, I'm back to bother you 🚶🏻‍♀️

anyway I was actually confused, like I read your masterpost about the Templar knights and Friday the thirteenth and also kind of googled it and Alex argued in class that the Templar were the ones to kill Becket..but google says otherwise and also your post didn't mention anything about thomas becket's death so like idk😭

I'm sorry if I seem dumb (i am)

It's been a busy week, so it took me a minute to gather up the resources to reply to this one. (Your Eddie Breadmayne pfp is wrecking me, btw.) And this is not at all a dumb question.

Essentially, the Templars were involved in the conflict between King Henry II and Archbishop Becket, but the actual murderers of Becket were 4 of Henry's knights who were NOT Templars.

Becket

Thomas Becket served as Henry's chancellor and they were close friends. When Henry appointed Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury (a powerful position), he probably imagined that Becket would continue to be a loyal supporter of the crown. This was not the case, and Becket became more pious and Church-oriented, leading to political conflicts between the two. Henry saw Becket's actions as a threat to his authority. Becket fled to France, the pope got involved, and eventually Becket returned to England but once again pissed off the king. Henry made a remark in front of his knights to the effect of "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" and they decided that was an implied order to go kill Becket. His murder inside a church shocked the people, who called him a martyr and a saint, and led to some serious repercussions for Henry.

The Templars

So where do the Templars fit in?

Bear in mind that this series of events occurred during the time of the Crusades. Henry II was in fact the father of Richard the Lionhearted and Prince John (of Robin Hood fame). The Templars were an active political and religious force and very much interested in drumming up support for additional military actions in the Holy Land. Because they were often travelling and due to their unique place, they were often used as messengers and mediators.

They saw the conflict between Becket and Henry as an unwelcome distraction that would keep the king from focusing on the Holy Land. They tried to persuade Becket to stop antagonizing the king, which worked for a short while. The king in turn dangled the Crusade as a carrot to get the Templars and the Pope on his side in the dispute. During this time, the Templar influence at the royal court grew and they became well known as trusted advisors to the king. Someone sent an anonymous warning to Becket in 1170, saying ‘he should not trust the Templars, who would not dwell in simplicity and would rather be eager to prove the king’s will than Becket’s and they would tell him nothing but the lies of the king’.

Despite this warning, the Templars did continue to serve as a go-between for Becket and Henry. No direct wrongdoing or treachery on the part of the Templars was ever proven. The four knights who murdered him inside the cathedral were not themselves Templars. Two of them donated lands to the Templars as a part of their penance, and there were suggestions that some of them may have joined the Order so that their violent tendencies could be put to better use.

The political backlash for Henry was acute, and the Templars were involved once again, acting as messengers to the Pope on his behalf. The Pope's chamberlain at this time was ALSO a Templar. Henry had to essentially buy his way out of trouble, and these regular payments helped to increase the funding for action in the Holy Land. In 1172, at the conference of Avranches, Henry agreed to pay huge sums of money to the Templars to assist in the defence of the Holy Land – enough to pay for the upkeep of 200 knights for a year.

In the end, the Templars got what they wanted. Like so many other stories about the order, it's hard to say exactly what their part may have been behind the scenes. This leads to rumors and supposition, and leaves the door open for conspiracy theories. Despite not holding the sword, were they in fact responsible for Becket's death? Impossible to prove. What we can say for certain is that they managed to derive immense monetary and political benefit from this shocking murder.

Source

As with all things concerning the Templars, you have to be critical when examining information on the internet. The best source I've found on the topic is on this site. It's not a primary source, but the author has a solid background in this area with an impressive CV and is likely a trustworthy authority.

What Does It All Mean In the Movie

The key takeaway here in relation to the movie itself is the insight this whole affair can provide regarding the varying views of Nigel and Alex.

"These were great men.  Men who kings knelt before."

He is referring to this political and religious power wielded by the Templars. He sees the modern incarnation of the "order", (meaning the Freemasons as self-proclaimed inheritors of the Templars), as a pale imitation of what once existed. They are police chiefs and headmasters, concerned only with their puerile male-bonding, holding only petty power and influence over very localized groups. What Nigel is seeking is a reclaiming of the power and influence the Templars once held--to be Important, Relevant, Meaningful.

In this classroom scene, Alex is suggesting that Becket's views--his increase in piety and attempts to disentangle the Church in England from political concerns--were actually at odds with the Church's goals. It's no secret that the Church was heavily invested in maintaining political power throughout Europe. There was no such thing as a non-Christian European nation, and that meant that every monarch, every country was ultimately subject to the Pope (this is a very complex topic and I'm just skimming the surface). Alex's assertion is that Becket's murder was motivated by his inconvenient opinions. Was he correct that it was the Church behind the whole affair? That's hard to prove, but tempting to believe.

Alex's (rather disjointed) argument in class brings up the Templars as instruments of the Church's will, but also touches on the fact that the Templars suffered the same fate as Becket. They grew too powerful, acting for their own ends which no longer aligned with the Church's agenda, amassed too much wealth of their own, etc. Thus the order was accused of heresy, idolatry, and sodomy, and subsequently dissolved. The members were persecuted and burned at the stake or exiled, and yes, some of them found safe haven in Britain. He is calling out the Church for hypocrisy here--pointing out that despite being an organization supposedly devoted to the spiritual, they use the excuse of heresy to eliminate those who challenge their secular (worldly) power: Becket, the Templars, and the Cathars all suffer the same fate.

Nigel and Alex are both interested in the Templars--they're approaching the subject from different starting points, but their views are ultimately compatible. Nigel recognizes this commonality in class and starts to see Alex as someone with whom he can relate. Alex might show some initial skepticism in the basement, but he stays and listens to what Nigel has to say.

For anyone interested, you can read the play "Becket" by Tennyson here.

[mandabear72]

Okay, so, I finally managed to go back and re-watch all of Who killed Markiplier. And honestly…..I’m still just as confused, but not angry about it any more. This is just my personal stance on it. You can take it or leave for what it is.

I feel like I picked up on a few things that I didn’t the 1st time around (even a couple of things that they might’ve intended to edit out in post or didn’t catch), but overall, still very confused. It leaves you with more questions than it answers and while no, it doesn’t need to answer all of them, it could’ve answered all of the main ones. Perhaps I’m a bit biased in wanting answers. I just really don’t do theories and having actual facts or concrete evidence mean more to me. Some might consider it boring or a buzzkill, but I’d rather know something’s legit than to grasp aimlessly for straws on a topic and then wind up being completely wrong about it.

Tbh, if I look at everything before the final chapter, it’s actually pretty good. I liked the filming and transitions, the effects and music placement were good, and I can even take some of the offbeat humor for what it is (i.e. The Jims, The Detective at times, etc). Even the bits where Mark dives head first into self-deprecating meta through The Colonel took me aback, as cringey as those moments were to watch. It’s just the ending itself that’s just so…..I dunno. I think Mark and his crew had something with the concept, but there’s something about it that left me feeling like it wasn’t all together.

Maybe one of the reasons why the ending was so bluh and angering for me is because I feel like I got cheated through false advertisement. I was actually expecting a Who-dunit when the 1st video came out and was excited about that since those are fun. A couple of friends I talked to even likened it to Clue at first. But then when I find out that the “mystery” was a red herring, the murder never even mattered, and was supposedly a guise for an origin story to Wilford and who I personally dub Darkiplier 2.0 (because this Dark we’re seeing is of Mark’s creation, not ours), it just feels a little ungratifying. I can accept that it’s not a Who-dunit now, but at the moment, it was a huge let down. I still question whether this was canon or not, but if it was, I’m rejecting it.

Like, shit’s already hit the fan with the murder of Mark goin’ down, but then there’s additional shit joining alongside the still drying shit that’s previously hit with the introduction of the Seer. I’d comment on the romantic connection with Mark, The Colonel, and Mayor Damien (theorized by others in the fandom); but honestly if that’s also true, the whole affair is soap opera levels of ridiculous and it’d be too easy to take pot-shots at it. If anything, she didn’t help at all and her character’s shady as fuck. Affiliations aside, this thing has a lot of questions it never answers and that can’t really be answered properly through theorizing: 

What the fuck happened to Mark’s body and Selene’s (dunno if that’s how her name’s spelled)? 

We don’t know what she did that landed Damien in the Spirit world in the first place when the others went to talk to the Groundskeeper. 

What the fuck was up with the crib in Mark’s room and do we really have time to throw a kid into the mix of this already complicated backstory?

If everyone was supposedly at Mark’s place dubbed “Markiplier Manor”, then why did The Colonel make the comment “I will NOT be called a murderer in my own home!” toward the end of the 2nd video? 

How the hell did Selene know when to show up? If she sensed or “foresaw” that something was wrong, wouldn’t she have also sensed that Mark died?

That shit with the newspaper saying “Safari gone wrong”….I’m gonna put aside theories I’ve heard some people say about a potential kid killed during that and focus on the headline above it. It says “City Mayor is secretly a demon in disguise?”. Is that supposed to be foreshadowing or something to lead us on another theorizing goose-chase for answers? 

The series suggests between The Colonel, Mark, and Damien, one of them “stole” their wife. If it was Mark, I can buy that as a motive for revenge for the Colonel. However, it still fails to mention exactly what else Mark did to fuck over everyone else. 

At the end, Damien suggests while in the spirit world that Mark is somehow in Damien’s body. Damien and Selene seem to be in the character’s body. But who the hell is the character? Because they have the same jacket and shirt as Damien, sans the white flower, tie, handkerchief, and mayoral pin. 

When the image changes in the mirror, is it like a portal of sorts? Does the other person get trapped inside and it’s just Damien and Selene walking around in the character’s body? 

But also, if we’re humoring this and saying Mayor Damien is Darkiplier 2.0 and The Colonel is Wilford Warfstache, how’d Wilford get the warbly accent of his? Because that’s not present in this at all as The Colonel.

And lastly if say it IS canon…..what the fuck’s up with “Markiplier TV” then? If Darkiplier 2.0 truly is the manifestation of Damien’s rage and Selene’s powers (which are also NEVER explained), why the fuck would he be working with Wilford in any manner other than to lull him into a false sense of security and exact revenge on him? He wouldn’t even still have any respect for him after everything that happened despite being friends once and yet in that same video you hear him saying “Look, Wil. I respect you. I always have….” soooo…what’s real here? What’s fake? 

Regardless, it definitely brings the focus back to Wilford and Dark 2.0. Putting this under consideration…..where exactly do they stand with each other? Because it’s kind of a cop-out to say that Dark 2.0 pities Wilford and keeps him alive out of said pity. Once again, if this really is canon, it feels like it takes a lot of the bite out of them as to what was previously established about these two; leaving you in a position to feel sorry for them. But I believe the main reason why the ending felt crappy was that this origin story was completely unnecessary. I felt like it robbed both Wilford Warfstache and Darkiplier 2.0 of an opportunity to be bad guys just for the sake of being bad guys. While villains should have something that makes them relatable to some degree, not EVERY villain or bad guy needs this. People have done evil or shady shit all the time and they don’t always have a sound reason let alone a reason as to why other than they wanted to. 

To me, we didn’t need to know how or why Wilford became who he was. I was perfectly fine with him just existing and willing to take him at face value since he’s such an interesting character to watch…….I know he’s a psychotic, trigger-happy, morally-ambiguous bastard who honestly should come with a warning and leave with a referral to his nearest therapist/psychiatrist ASAP. I also know he’s fucked up despite meaning well MOST of the time, but….that’s what I love about him. I love the pepped-up, cotton candy psycho and his zany charm. 

I can also take Dark 2.0 at face value as being evil and manipulative, too. Somehow, I wish I could say the last part about him, but even with this new info of an origin story, it still makes it hard to like him or have full sympathy for him (though I already have issues with his existence to begin with that I mentioned in my initial reaction about the series). Does it make it understandable? Sure, I can understand his background and why he is the way he is, but it doesn’t justify his actions (or Wilford’s). I suppose I could sum it up as….I see Wilford as more of a redeemable character than Darkiplier 2.0 should there ever BE a chance for redemption later on. But as weird as that is….a part of me kinda thinks that’s the point??? 

Darkiplier 2.0’s never MEANT to be a redeemable person, let alone a LIKEABLE one. If I’m ripping a quote from Mark from a past livestream, he said of Dark: “He’s a social manipulator. He is literally, 100% manipulative. He leads you into this false sense of security, and he wants you to trust him because he wants to take advantage of you.” And while this shit with Who killed Markiplier left me confused as fuck and made me wonder if Mark intended for us to gain further understanding of these characters or garner our sympathy for them through a “tragic backstory”, maybe he just wanted to tell a story….granted, it was one that could’ve been executed better in plot and that I wish wasn’t so convoluted or such a headache to make sense of, but a story nonetheless. 

I WILL say this though: Despite my criticisms about Who Killed Markiplier?, I am surprised about some of the approaches taken to make it when they’re done right and I can genuinely appreciate the effort to do something different. Maybe this might lead to something else in the future, or maybe it won’t. But if it means we’ll see something LESS heartbreaking for one of the characters, then, we’ll see what happens.

[thelegendofclarke]

I'm not sure that the Undercover Lover Jon thing is true, even though I get why people believe it. If it isn't true tho, what is the third treason that Dany's going to suffer? I thought it was pretty much agreed that it was going to be Jon.

Hokay I know I said I wasn’t going to talk about this, but I am nothing if nothing contrary af. SO anon I am going to use your ask as a kind of like ~general layout~ of my thoughts on the potential of UCJ.  I’m going to maintain though that I would prefer not to discuss any potential consent issues for personal reasons. 

I am also gonna shout out to the other few anons as, well as @ladyanyawaynwood and @lyanna-mormont, who also sent me asks on this topic. 

SO all right folks *drum roll* It’s the new favorite fandom Disc Horse! Either you love it or you hate it! Either you want to have its babies or want to kill it with fire!… It’s THE UNDERCOVER JON THEORY!

Before I start rambling, you should all totally check out the bottom part of this really excellent post by @him-e about some of the details and possibilities of this theory, because Claudia is so much better at words and explanations and life than me. There’s also this post by @blindestspot, whose no nonsense approach I always really appreciate.

Ok, first of all: I would like to go on record once more in saying that God I really dislike the name Undercover Jon. I primarily hate it because I feel like it’s misleading, at least in terms of what I personally would consider this theory to be. I feel like “undercover” implies deliberateness and ill intent and malice aforethought that I generally don’t really think is involved here. Also, I guess I don’t really subscribe to the Undercover Lover theory at all, because I don’t think Jon’s feelings for/sexual relationship with Dany have anything to do with it (i.e. I do not think Jon purposefully and deliberately seduced Dany for the sole purpose of manipulating her, nor do I think he is merely pretending to have feelings for her for the sole purpose of personal/political gain). 

I truly don’t believe Jon is in any way maliciously gaslighting Dany as part of any Grand Scheme. Personally, I feel that would be too much at odds with the Honorable and Noble character and narrative established for Jon. But that’s not to say that I don’t think the general theory is totally with out merit. I actually think some elements of it could definitely make up a potential plot line. I have explained my take on it as more Flying By the Seat of His Pants Jon- I think “scheme” would be way too strong a word, I think “plan” would probably even be too generous. It’s probably more along the lines of “ok so this is what we are doing now.”

Somewhere along the line I feel like this whole thing turned into something VERY black and white and moralized. I also think that somewhere down the line this turned into a VERY polarized and mutually exclusive theory, which I don’t think would be the case in the event that the theory ends up being true. I have seen a lot of comparisons being made to LF and Ned Stark. It’s either that Jon is Ned Stark’s son and he would NEVER act in this type of morally dubious manner, OR that if Jon were to be acting in this morally dubious manner that he is just as bad as LF. @blindestspot summed up this polarization kind of perfectly imo:

Hyperbolically speaking, either Jon is a cruel cad or he is a faithless idiot. If you step away from the hyperbole, his pragmatism or naivety might actually make him less of a righteous cookie-cutter hero and more like a flawed human being. But it’s the internet and ideas are quickly distorted into their most hyperbolic versions of themselves. If Jon isn’t wholly good, he has got to be evil. If Jon isn’t smart, he eats crayons for breakfast.

Likewise, I disagree with the idea that Ned Stark and LF are the only two applicable points of moral comparison, that just seems awfully restrictive imo. Also, both Ned Stark and LF are dead. This implies that in order to survive the game of thrones, you have to fall somewhere in between. I guess the best way I can think of to explain it is that I kind of view this theory and it’s different variations on a sliding scale… The more deliberate and manipulative the version of the theory makes Jon out to be, the less likely I think it is to happen in that manner. 

Jon is one of the heroes of the show; and not only that, he has often been used or portrayed as the Moral Compass Character. (And example being just this season when he refused to punish Ned Umber and Albs Karstark for the sins of their fathers). The show runners have never had any story line that explicitly and intentionally places Jon in the wrong or in an extremely negative light. There has been story lines where he has acted in a morally ambiguous manner (see: Ygritte and the Wildlings), but he has never done anything purposefully malicious or outright evil or immoral. Also, there has been no indication in the narrative that he is heading toward any kind of downward spiral. I just can’t see the show going the dark!Jon or evil!Jon or morally corrupt!Jon route in the final season when he has been consistently portrayed as the Knight in Shining Armor, Savior, and Hero of the story.

I am a lawyer… So my basic approach to things like speculation is to look at the evidence. Honestly, for this theory, imo the defense for both sides have created reasonable doubt.

Arguments for UCJ

Potential Evidence from Jon’s character:

Through the Wilding plot from s1-s3, the narrative has established that Jon is capable of deception. He is capable of having genuine feelings for someone while not being completely honest. 

Sansa told Jon he needed to be “smarter,” which he could have taken to heart. A plot like this, similar to the the Sansa and Arya vs. LF plot, could be part of the general theme of “I learn” and the Starks going from pawns to players.

Kit Harrington has said this about Jon Snow’s character in s7 and s8: “But this year, I think he becomes a politician… He starts manipulating people in a Jon Snow way - in a kind way, but he has a job to do.” (x) This not only confirms that Jon IS operating as apolitical actor, but could also imply that Jon has a strategic goal or purpose. However, Jon having real feelings for Dany is not necessarily at odds with him having a second agenda. The two things are not at all mutually exclusive.

Jon steadfastly maintained through out the season that he would not be bending the knee. He even went so far as to tell Dany “I am a king.” It could be difficult for people to see how he would make such a complete 180, and a seemingly needless and unnecessary one given that Dany agreed to fight the NK before he bent the knee.

Potential Evidence from the Show:

There have been story lines, like the Sansa and Arya vs. LF plot, that were dishonest on their face. The way they were portrayed was intended to mislead the audience. So D&D are capable of using this kind of plot device.

The way I see this kind of story line going, it would also essentially be a pretty significant parallel to the Jon and the Wildlings plot, where Jon had real feelings for Ygritte but the situation was complicated by duty and circumstance. However, this would mean that it’s material D&D are familiar with.

All of the finale was full of subtext about lying and lies and honor. They laid it on so thick. Thick enough, I felt, that it could imply that Jon is hiding something or that part of him is overcompensating and/or being motivated by guilt.

Arguments Against UCJ:

Potential Evidence from Jon’s character:

Obviously, Jon’s honor code and strong senses of morality and duty are huge parts of his character. It’s totally reasonable to think that he has no ulterior motives beyond forming an alliance to ensure Dany and her dragons will fight with the North.

I think that Jon knows The NK will probably have a dragon how (he has seen the NK raise people from the dead, and he knows from the wight hunt that the NK can also raise animals from the dead). He knows without the dragons, they do not stand a chance. So he is doing everything necessary to ensure the dragons are on their side.

Jon has been consistently portrayed as a Hero and Moral Compass type character. There would be no reason for them to do anything that had the potential to  turn the audience so vehemently against him in the final season.

Potential Evidence from the Show:

There have been some incredibly stupid story lines (jfc that wight hunt). It’s fair to be suspicious that a story line of this manner is beyond what D&D have the tendency to produce in terms of complex details.

There are only 6 episodes left. I have a really hard time imagining how they would pull this off in 6 episodes ON TOP OF everything else that has to happen before the series ends.

In regards to the plot device of characters using seduction and emotional manipulation as a tool, D&D have consistently been typical dude bro’s insofar as it has been largely female characters who have done so (Cersei, Margaery, Shae, Osha, ect.) It might be completely beyond them to think to have a male character utilize those techniques in such a manner.

I see valid arguments being made on both sides here to constitute a generally sufficient case for it going either way. I think that anyone who would argue “yes the is 100% going to happen” OR “no there is a 0% chance this is happening” would be willfully disregarding evidence from one side or the other. Obviously it’s natural that people will find one side or the other more persuasive, everything about speculation is subjective. But I just don’t feel like it would be possible to make any definitive statements at this point. 

All the reasons I have for thinking this could be possible or impossible have nothing to do with me shipping Jon/Sansa. They actually don’t really have anything to do with Sansa herself at all in any different way than they have to do with everyone in the North that Jon’s decision affects. I know there are some people who might not believe me when I say that, but I supposed there is nothing I can do about it. But that’s the thing about speculation: it’s always subjective, there can be arguments made for both sides. While some people may say “Jon has made promises to Dany and he wouldn’t break them and betray her,” the flip side is “in making these promises to Dany, Jon has betrayed his duty and promises he made to all of his subjects as their king whom they trust.” For every argument, there is a counter argument; for every action, there is a reaction. For every person who can’t believe Jon would betray Dany, there is another person who can’t believe Jon would betray his family. For every person who believes Jon was right to bend the knee, there is another person who can’t believe he would do it. For every person who thinks Dany deserves to rule the Seven Kingdoms, there is another person who believes the North deserves their freedom and independence.

All things considered, I do feel there could be some potential conflict in regards to Jon’s intentions and motivations. I think there are various events and ambiguities in the past and present plot, as well as in Jon’s actions and in Jon and Dany’s relationship, that support said hypothesis. My best guess is that Jon definitely has some guilt about bending the knee because he either: a) knows the north will NEVER go for it, or b) was being genuine and feels guilty for having unilaterally made such a huge decision that effects so many people, including his own family, with out their input (which he should because ffs dude come on!) .The only thing that I believe Jon has been outright dishonest about is telling Dany that the Northerners would bend the knee accept her as Queen. The North has a very deep seated rhetoric against the Targaryens. Whether it’s true or not is essentially a moot point, it’s just something that is deeply embedded in their history. In 7x02 they went out of their way to make a ~big deal~ about how “Targaryens can’t be trusted.” The North also has a historic distrust and disdain for Southern rule and the Iron Throne, going all the way back to Torrhen Stark, the king who knelt. I don’t think there is any way that Jon could reasonably believe that Dany won’t be met with opposition from the North… All the rest of it, including Jon’s feelings towards Dany, kind of falls into a gray area of words vs. actions vs. intent vs. motivations. Which makes sense, because this would be a morally gray plot; and it wouldn’t be the first time one of those was featured on Game of Thrones. 

I suspect that, like with Operation Wildling, Jon has no real escape plan or exit strategy here; I honestly don’t think that he has thought about it that much (also implying that any deliberate, premeditated manipulation or ill intent on his part would be minimal or non existent). Honestly, I think that Jon believes he is not going to survive to see the extended repercussions of and reactions to his bending the knee. I think that Jon truly believes he is going to die fighting the NK. He already showed that he was willing to die when he told Dany to leave him behind in 7x06. Like the rest of us, his he is probably wondering how in the ever loving fuck his ass has somehow managed to survive this long. (Honestly being like, “I’ll bend/pretend to bend the knee and then just die so I don’t have to face Sansa” would ABSOLUTELY be a Jon Snow thing to do.) I think Jon made what he saw as the best decision in the present, and isn’t concerned about the future or the fallout. Which, if true, could lead to a couple possible conflicts for next season:

Possibility 1- Jon dies in the BftD and Dany lives, leaving Dany to face the North and Cersei on her own.

Possibility 2- Dany dies in the BftD and Jon lives, leaving him to deal with the fallout in the North and Cersei alone.

Possibility 3- Both Jon and Dany survive the BftD and the North makes it clear that they will not accept his as queen, leaving Jon to decide who’s side he will be on. His decision then would obviously be complicated by his feelings for Dany and his loyalty to his family ect. ect.

Possibility 4- The White Walkers win and everyone dies so it doesn’t even matter!

(*Disclaimer: Obviously this list is just me speculating and is in no way comprehensive or exhaustive.)

And like Anon said, if Jon is going to be the third reason that Dany suffers, then Possible Conflict #’s 1 and 3 could definitely play into that. In #1 Dany would not only be dealing with Jon’s death, but also with the knowledge that he was dishonest to her. And in #3 if Jon ends up siding with the Starks in a potential conflict, that could possibly be a major betrayal.

I also think subjectivity comes into play big time here with regards to which parts of the story people prefer or find more compelling or are more interested in. Game of Thrones has SO MUCH going on and there are so many different lenses through which people can view it. Who are the most important characters? What is the most important plot? Who is The Hero™? Who is The Villain™? What is the ideal endgame? I would bet you pretty much anything no two people would answer all those questions the exact same way. We as an audience have been waiting 6 seasons for BOTH the Stark Restoration/Northern Independence AND the Dany Getting to Westeros plots to play out. I’ve kind of talked about it a little bit before, but for me personally (and I think for others as well), it was extremely narratively frustrating to finally get the narrative pay out from the Stark story line, only to have it be given up and taken away such a short time later. 

I also think that if Jon’s storyline is 100% completely honest, straight forward, and genuine as it stands, then like 90% of the major, climactic events of his arc will seem to have been pointless and he will have learned nothing from them. It would also seem that Jon bending the knee and unilaterally making such a huge decision for such a large number of people so easily would go against a lot of what he has supposedly learned. I’m not even saying that it was the wrong decision or that he didn’t have the authority to make it or even that it would be completely ooc. However, such a seemingly single minded action would show an alarming and annoying (imo) lack of character development… Which, again, is entirely possible. This is D&D after all.

In sum, I honestly don’t have that strong of a stance on this tbh. I guess mine is kind of like a Moderate View on the theory or like, “Undercover Jon Light.” I think some variation of it could definitely be possible and would be an interesting potential plot so I won’t rule it out completely. But I also won’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen.