I like the idea of political jon and undercover jon, although I have to admit that I like the idea of undercover jon more, because in the theories that I have seen, he at least has a plan, political jon sounds more like jon is acting as time goes by, and it sounds more like reactionary jon, rather than a king acting politically, with a long term plan that benefits his nation, but that is my point of view. in my opinion he was not even responsible for making dany decide to go north, because
(2) it was cersei and her promise that she was going to help them that made dany go north, the only thing he did when dany said she was not sure What to do, was to say we are fuck. I see undercover Jon, not as a person who decided to betray Dany from the beginning, but more that he saw her attraction for him and decided to use it in his favor, he knelt because he knew that the North would not support him and neither he was going to force them to do it, and he knew that that was going to keep dany
(3) more enthusiastic (I do not think Jon thinks he can convince them, or that an agreement can be reached, I think Jon was sincere when he said that his people were not going to support a southern queen) and was planning to sleep with her from the moment she said she wasn’t sure to help them, to see if her feelings for him were enough to convince her. the only thing that worries me about both theories is that he knows dany was raped and sold, and I don’t know if he would be able to use a woman
(4) after knowing that, and in both theories he is doing it.
Dear nonny,
if I understand you correctly, you would distinguish between ‘Undercover’ and ‘Political’ and maybe ‘Sacrificial’ Jon. ‘Undercover’ would be Jon in cohots with Sansa and a plan to go undercover, seduce Da€nerys for her dragons. ‘Political’ would be Jon having as a main goal to the the dragons and adapting to the problem, that he has to somehow persuade Da€nerys to commit to a cause despite her being all about ‘bend the knee’. ‘Sacrificial’ Jon would be Jon not giving a fuck about what happens to him, since he thinks he’ll die anyway. He’ll sacrifice anything, his own honour, the independence of the North, just as long as the North and Winterfell are protected.
You seem to be somewhere between undercover and political. I myself am somewhere between political and sacrificial. I don’t think that Jon planned on going undercover or seducing Da€nerys, and I’m quite certain he didn’t make a secret plan with Sansa. Sansa’s face when he told everyone he would leave did not look like it would have if Jon had spoken to her imho.
I think he gave Da€nerys the benefit of the doubt and decided to treat with her in person to give her a ‘partial payment’ of trust, not because he trusted her, but probably because he trusted Tyrion. This was a bold move and not unlike his move in the Karstark/Umber case. Sometimes to earn trust you have to give trust. It’s a gamble, but Jon does gamble, he did also gamble in his negotiations with the Freefolk, in books and show, and it payed off.
His trust was betrayed at Dragonstone. Da€nerys demanded bending the knee, his ship was taken and there was no indication that she would let him leave any time soon. She allowed him to mine for dragonglass, so he might have had some hope to still persuade her. So, instead of throwing a tantrum, he brooded on the cliffs, voiced his longing for home, and then made another attempt to persuade Da€nerys. @thelawyerthatwaspromised made an excellent post on how Jon learns from Da€nerys’ entourage and how he ups the level of persuasion in each episode, until he finally knocks at her door.
I do think that Jon does not expect to stay KitN, he signed his last letter as ‘warden’ after all, probably knowing that his correspondence is read by others. So, he probably expects, that all Da€nerys gets from her promise to help him is his personal allegiance - an allegiance he fully plans to hold to imho, only the RLJ reveal will come into it.
As for Da€nerys I would say, she has different priorities than Jon. The whole time, Jon wanted to convince her that his priority for the living is the only one that counts. And as I see it, she still is not fully committed by the last episode. When Jon woke up on that ship in episode 6, he knew they were heading south, knew that Da€nerys was still bent on getting that truce, and at the Dragonpit meeting he realised that they are ‘fucked’. I think he would have avoided publically declaring for Da€nerys, but Cersei left him no choice but to be open about it. He couldn’t lie about that and still keep Da€nerys’ trust. He didn’t want the truce. For him the meeting at Dragonpit was pointless, because he doesn’t trust Cersei anyway.
So, now after they get the truce (which is no truce at all, because Cersei will go behind their backs), Da€nerys finally is free to pursue Jon’s priority and Jon tries to ensure that she stays enlisted so to say. But they still don’t have the same priorities! Jon doesn’t care about the war in the South and we will see next season what will happen if Da€nerys learns about Cersei and the GC.... Guess what, their priorities will differ again.
So, does that mean Jon uses Da€nerys for her dragons: Yes, it does. He is just like all the other suitors that want her dragons, just like all the men who wanted her hand in the books, Xaro, Hizdahr, Quentyn.... etc. It is foreshadowed in the books, when Jon contemplates in ASOS how useful dragons would be in defending the wall.
Is he capable of doing that, even knowing that she was used in the past? I would say yes. He was capable of using Ygritte. He rode with the wildlings, sang with them, slept with Ygritte, stayed with them climbing the wall (which was the one goal that was identical with Ygritte’s goals) and then he left them. Did Ygritte deserve that? Probably not. Do people in ASOIAF get what they deserve? I’d suggest you ask Ned or Robb or Catelyn about that. Would Jon be the villain if we had Ygritte’s PoV? Probably. I would say the only difference to the Ygritte situation is, that Jon does not plan on betraying Da€nerys, at least not as far as his own personal allegiance goes.
But won’t she feel betrayed anyway, when the North wavers in his loyalty to someone who is after all not Ned’s bastard son, but a Targ, someone who ‘sold’ their independence for some dragons? Will Da€nerys not feel betrayed in any case, whatever Jon’s intention, if she is suddenly short one kingdom and in exchange ‘gained’ a nephew with a claim to the Iron Throne that is stronger than hers? I think it will play out like that. Da€nerys will think that Jon knew all along about RLJ.
Does Da€nerys deserve being betrayed and used like that? That’s a difficult question, I think. She fully expects someone who is her prisoner to kneel to her? She fully expects the people of Westeros who ousted the Targaryens for very valid reasons to hail her as the new queen? She is very naive in the sense that she doesn’t think things through, she never thinks about consequences, she is a volatile narcist with occasional bouts of benevolence and all in all a very dangerous person. Does that mean she ‘deserves’ to be betrayed? Honestly, I dont know, and I fully expect GRRM to tell the three treasons that are in tow for her from her PoV, so that the reader can see how all the foreshadowing unfolds, have pity on her and shudder at what she’ll do after the treasons. This would imho make for very satisfying story telling, even if Jon would not be the honourable fool everyone in Westeros (and in the fandom) thinks him to be..... He is not by the way. Certainly not in the books, but also not in the show, if you look closely.
In a way, Jon may have had benevolent reasons to save the free Folk, to spare Karstark and Umber, but he has also very sound political reasons for doing the things he did. The fandom sees a good act and automatically assumes benevolent, morally good reasons behind that. This is why Da€nerys is hailed as an abolutionist, when she is not. She freed the Unsullied not to free them, but to get an army. And Jon saved the free Folk not only to save them, but also to recruit them against the WW and prevent the Others to turn them into wights.
If you think that motives must play a role in judging characters, then it should be noted that Jon is a grey character. All in all his motivations for acting or not acting are thought through, sound and rational, but if you look closely (like with the baby swap in the books), he can also be quite cruel to individuals, if he thinks it will serve the cause of the living, or save lives. He gambles and juggles and tries to save the realm and his family. I think, when he will be resurrected in the books, his focus will be more on saving his family. I think that Jon who bullied Gilly, another abused girl, into giving up her son (in the books) is capable to play a woman whom he thinks has the key to defeating the WW (and who held him prisoner in the show). The twist is, that probably the dragons are not the solution but another problem and that for all his plans, the RLJ reveal will blow up everything.
Thanks for the ask! And sorry, it took me so long. I’m well behind in asks!
There has been a lot of discussion about the ‘Undercover Lover theory’ on the Jonsa tag and I want to add to this discussion and give some of my thoughts on it. Many people have said that ‘Undercover lover theory’ would make Jon a very mean person and that this would not fit to a ‘hero’. I think to really judge what Jon is doing we must look at his agenda, his knowledge and his likely plans. Please note, that for the sake of the argument, I take the Undercover lover theory to be true.
1. Jon’s agenda. This is stated pretty obvious over season 7 and Jon makes no secret about it. Jon’s agenda is the saving of the North and his family. He states over and over how the White Walkers are the real threat and how they all must band together to defeat them and fight for the living. It is also implied that fighting for the living is also fighting for the preservation of the North. Before he leaves for Dragonstone, Jon gives an ‘oath of fealty’ to the North. He will fight for the North no matter what. I think we can surmise that he will even fight for the North if they depose him as a king and disavow him. For fighting the WW he needs an edge, and D might provide him with an edge, her army and more so her dragons and the dragonglass on Dragonstone might mark the difference between victory and defeat. Nothing wrong about that.
2. Jon’s knowledge. Jon knows what befell multiple Starks in the South: Betrayal, defeat and death, and being honourable and having a clear task in mind did not save them. So, if Jon wants to fight against the WW he also has to stay alive and that means that he has to ensure his survival by not repeating the mistakes Ned and Robb made. Sansa warned him about that. How does one avoid mistakes? By doing the exact opposite. As far as Jon knows Ned was to honourable for his own good. It is never explicitly said, that any of the Starks know that Ned was stupid enough to tell Cersei about his plans to lay open her incest and adultery, but they all have a vague idea about that. So, Jon knows that being honourable will not save him and yet he plays the honourable fool for all the world to see, while telling Theon in private that he does not always do the good things. He might have thought about his infiltratiion of the wildlings, when he said that, but I would say the something ‘not entirely good’ Jon did must be more recent.
What did Robb do? He endangered a crucial alliance for love. He did not do his duty to marry a comely Frey. In the books Robb is not too thrilled about the perspective of marrying a Frey, but at first he is prepared to do his duty and (by implication) to arrange himself to a potentially loveless marriage. Now, wouldn’t it be just useless for Jon to do the same? No, he does the exact opposite. He sets love aside and does everything in his power to ensure the alliance he so desperately needs. He is willing to sacrifice his personal happiness for the good of the North. What might help him here, is the fact, that if he is aware of his feelings for Sansa, that he thinks that his love is doomed anyway. Thus the way of duty is also the honourable way.
Now, does it make Jon a bad person to try to safe his own life, to ensure an alliance that might mean victory? No, it does not. Does it make Jon a bad person, if he ensures this alliance by utilizing the fact that D has a thing for him? I would argue that this is pretty grey. He does not tell her that he loves her. He promises her, that he will bend the knee, and he does it, by swearing that she is his queen in public for all the world to hear. What he does there is to ensure that D is endebted to him. She cannot possibly abandon an ally that steadfast (and remember that Jon knows that D is capable of leaving allies to fight on on their own, as Yara and Theon can testify). Now, how are alliances usually ensured? By marriage. Even if it is not a marriage of love. Or by siring a child with D or giving her the opportunity to conceive (and further endebt her to Jon). The thing is, if Jon were after getting into D’s bed, his move of holding everything back, being so guarded, not telling anything personal etc. would be pretty much the move of an asshole. But he is not after sex, he is after dragons! So as @goodqueenalys pointed out, ‘rape by deception’ does not come into it. If Jon would tell lies to D, it would also be a problem. But he does not lie to D. He never tells her he loves her, his wording in regard to the things she wants to hear, is very clever (”They will see you for what you are”). He’s walking a very, very thin line there, and you could argue that he counts on D misunderstanding his meaning, but he does not lie. If it would be a modern world with all our romantic expectations, Jon’s moves might be darker, but remember that this is world of marriage contracts where alliances are cemented with weddings, and love does not come into it. Wanting an alliance is connected to marriage and sex in Westeros. And it is understood that marriage because of an alliance is not about love, and not about sex, but about politics. And that’s what it all is for Jon. It is about politics, even if it’s under the bizarre gamechanging circumstances of the WW.
3. Jon’s plans: Now, for Jon’s plans. We can’t be sure, but I would argue that he personally means to hold true to his oath to D. He does not necessarily expect the North to follow him in that, he might even suspect that they will depose him and make another Stark king or queen, but he does not care about that. What he does care about, is that D will stay true to her word and fight with the dragons on his side. All he does is to ensure that no matter what happens, D will be so much invested in their relationship/alliance that she will not let him down, even if the North turns against him. In a way that is a deception: Jon brings some things to this alliance: his personal allegiance and probably a promise of being a faithful husband. He might count on the fact that D will earn considerably less from this alliance than she counted on. She will not earn the North as subjects and that is why Jon has to stand between her and the North and to ensure she sends her dragonfire in the right direction. In a way it is a lie by omission, but Jon did not play the Northern fool for nothing. He counts on convincing D that he acted in good faith, and his ostensible public declaration in the Dragonpit allows for a loophole for him, once the Northerners come not to D’s side. He is providing for his possible deposition, but I think his intention is to hold on to his own personal commitment, He will fight for the North, even though they do not know it, he will ensure their safety, although they will derile him for betraying the North. Is this the action of a deceiver? In a way Jon plays with D’s limited ability to understand things not connected to her own self, but as I said, he walks a thin line of keeping his own personal word by the letter while at least preparing for the North to disavow him. Just in case, he played the Northern fool and can fall back on this, if D suspects him. By the time they reach Winterfell he wants to have her full trust and commitment and he might achieve that.
Since I think Jon does not plan on betraying D personally, I think that the whole argument ‘But this makes him an asshole’ is simply wrong. Jon tries his best to stay honourable while he does not forget once about his agenda which is to safe Winterfell, the North and humanity. What is his own misery compared to that? What is a political marriage against that? As a king he has to do that anyway at some time.
It is tragic, that even though Jon did the opposite of what he thought Ned and Robb did, it will nevertheless all blow up in his face. Once his parentage is revealed I am sure that he will try to keep it secret, but D will find out and than everything Jon has said will fall into place for her and she will think that his betrayal is even greater than the one he actually did commit - the betrayal by ommission. I think that D will believe that Jon knew all along and that he played her and when she confronts Jon about this, she will see everything in a new light. She will remember Jon’s discomfort on certain occasions and she will put the puzzle together. Only she will put the puzzle together in a wrong way. And Jon will have slept with his aunt, will have betrayed the North and maybe sired a bastard, and it will be all for nothing, because Ned was not that honourable after all and was good at keeping secrets. If anything we should take pity on Jon and D, if the Undercover Lover Theory will turn out to be true. D deludes herself into thinking that Jon’s intent is about herself (and is aided in this by Tyrion), and all the while it is only an alliance, he was after (as was foreshadowed in the last episode of season 6). And D will be offended about that. In GRRM’s world nothing ever goes exactly as planned and if the personal connects with the political the best plan to ensure the stability of an alliance will not come to fruition.
