Wouter

Lord Mormont released his bannermen from their fealty (which was transferred to his heir, presumably Maege Mormont, instead) when he took the black (and swore to hold no lands, etc). Torrhen did not, and allthough he lost the title "king in the north" he wasn't reduced to merely the lord of Winterfell (an equal to the lords of the Dreadfort and Karhold, possibly even inferior to the lord of White Harbour?) but became lord paramount of the north instead. On the show, they don't use that term and go for Warden (which in the books is a mostly theoretical military command; I think in the main books only Mace Tyrell ever acted in the capacity of warden, when he besieged Storm's End as Aerys' warden of the south; you may argue Roose Bolton acts as Tommens warden of the north, though he is lord paramount, too). But it means the same thing: he yields to the Targ with dragons, and in turn the Targ names him as the lord that other lords have to swear fealty to in their part of Westeros. Lady Mormont may object, but I doubt she will turn on Jon. Jon made his intentions clear, and Sansa pointed out at that meeting that going to Dany was dangerous. Now that his gambit was actually succesful, would they turn on Jon anyway? We already know that Sansa will welcome Jon back at Winterfell (from the few seconds of S8 footage we got), despite knowing what he did. It's not like she will bar the gates and keep him (and by extension, Dany) out. With Dany's army and dragons present - and the actual enemy soon to arrive - even those thinking about rebellion will have to think twice before daring to do anything. Maybe there is something to the rumours that the Vale Lords will leave (or threaten to); they admittedly did not sign up for this particular deal. It's difficult to say because the show doesn't make it very clear why Royce is so helpful for the Starks.

By birth, Bran actually is the lord of Winterfell (the heirs before him are dead). As for by law - that actually means "because Jon said so after the battle of the bastards" (Sansa was surpised Jon yielded it to her). If "Jon gave that up on a boat", then Jon's laws wouldn't be binding anymore so Sansa's position could be questioned, especially if the complaining lords perceive her as collaborating with a "foreign Targaryen whore" (and married to the Imp, as well) or if they view Bran as an easily manipulated figurehead/disinterested monarch (and Sansa as an independent ruler who knows what she is doing) so they could rule instead, a la LF. Did he? Did Torrhen's lords stop obeying him after he gave up his crown to a foreign invader with dragons? One thing we have to keep in mind: medieval feudalism is based on oaths of fealty. Those lords were sworn to Torrhen, just as the northern lords now are sworn to obey, follow and support Jon. Sure, decisions like this would test the loyalties of the lords. But given the circumstances, they really can't afford to fight among themselves now. I suspect that infamous Jon/Cersei scene was staged for the paparazzi, right at that window and all. They may have filmed real footage there, but not at that moment, while so openly careless about the paps.

I do not argue that it is legally binding. Nor is bending a legal thing. It's a physical thing. And it is very possible that Tormund and co won't kneel, but they will obey Jon's commands and by extension, Dany's commands. For example: people were not legally obliged to bend the knee to queen Cersei, who has no legal claim on the throne. But I guess that between blowing up the sept, Gregorstein and the Lannister soldiers and Gold Cloaks supporting her, people suddenly found themselves bending the knee anyway. Dany has dragons, a large army and dragonglass. She also has 100% support of Jon and support from Davos as well. Those are serious arguments, especially with the army of the death coming down on them and with Cersei waiting to finish them off in case they survive. Who else are they going to follow, King Glover?

If I have to choose, you are going nuts. The second quote isn't a legal statement; it's just the way Westeros works. They don't kneel because their legal department pointed them to article 3 paragraph 2 of the law of 10 post-conquest, they kneel because their king does. It worked that way with Torrhen, too. For that matter, the second statement doesn't apply to the books (yet) and probably never will since the chance that GRRM will ever reach that moment is extremely small.

Legality means nothing in GRRM's books, either, which is why he came up with that lord Perry of House Mason metaphor. Stannis may be the legal king (or even Viserys at the start of the books, depending on viewpoint), but he did not become so in fact. When Ned sentenced Gregor to die, he was very right but he didn't exactly have a trial either, not in the way we understand that. The upside is that rather than having a legal circus, Ned quickly comes to a correct decision. But I think it's fair to say there is nothing legal about it, nor in AGOT nor in S1 of the show.

Yet they would also complement each other (and I think this may happen in the books, in the Vale rather than in the North). Sansa as the PR-face, the diplomat (in the books she is rather better at gaining allies than in the show), the one able to read a political situation with Arya as the "mistress of whisperers" (spy), assassin, as a generally very observant person who sees what others miss. If Sansa becomes a politician in the vein of LF (even if she isn't near as good as he is), having Arya as an asset would be worth a lot. For Arya, it would help to see the big picture rather than act on impulse or feelings of revenge. Add Bran and his abilities, and the Starks would have one hell of a team, even without Jon.

As GRRM once wrote, don't expect Perry of House Mason to show up to argue the finer points of law. Legality means nothing. The north follows Jon, and they will either accept his decision to follow Dany (probably followed by a marriage soon after, if Dany and Jon don't think of it themself someone else will suggest the obvious solution) or they will rebel. No doubt Lord Glover will complain. I doubt anything will come of it. Maybe the Vale lords will make a semi-believable threat to leave, in which case Sansa will probably have to step in to glue the needed alliance together. When push comes to shove and they realise the Walkers are approaching, they will all follow Jon and Dany because they have no other choice. Sansa's objections to Jon going were rational and understandable. With the benefit of having followed the story till now, we can say that Jon nevertheless made the right choice to go for the alliance. Even if sending a decent diplomat (apparently Davos, on the show) would have been smarter. I think both Sansa and Arya will realise soon enough that Jon's decision was right, even if especially the former may not be thrilled by having to accept a de-facto foreign woman as monarch. Especially since we can expect Bran to give warning soon that the NK has broken through the wall.

If they reject a king everytime he does something they don't like, then the north has a ruling council (a house of lords, if you will) rather than a king. A king is the law; what he says, goes.

Jon himself knelt to Dany, and gave the north to her. I'm afraid his own subjects will have to kneel, too, at least those who are used to kneeling anyway (not the wildlings). The north isn't going to rebel after WW war, the survivors will (a) be grateful for Dany's intervention (and Jon's own deeds, too) and (b) too busy with making sure they don't starve. Westeros will have gone through years of warfare, there will not be a stomach nor resources for more war. And Sansa is smart enough to not go to war against Dany, unless she would go full mad queen or something like that. But that's more your cup of tea, I believe.

Jon is the king in the north. If he declares for Dany, the north declares for Dany. Sansa will follow Jon (who is her king!), at least in public, even if she may curse him and/or confront him in private. Lords (and ladies) who do not declare for Dany are committing treason to Jon. Sansa was put in charge of Winterfell and the north by Jon, but he is still King. As King, he can take the "regent" role from her (and he will, considering he is back himself and Dany is there, too) and should he wish he could even take Winterfell from her, just as the Lannisters took Riverrun from Edmure. But that won't happen, Sansa will very likely do her best to get/keep everyone in line even if she disagrees herself with what Jon did.

We don't know if the book counterpart is that much different: he seems very likely to end up as Dany's advisor (and possibly, hand) in the books, as well. At the end of ADWD, the character got going again, de-facto taking control of the Second Sons (and possibly counting on Dany to eliminate their leadership afterwards - for treason - so he wouldn't have to honor his promises). In the books, Tyrion protected Sansa at his trial. It's far from certain he would be a particular threat to her once he arrives in Westeros (though he may try to bring up the marriage again), especially if Sansa does not align against Dany. As for siding with Cersei, the thing about the book character is that he really hates Cersei. If they bring Tyrion "into his book counterpart", one would assume he would feel less sympathy for Cersei than the show version. Tyrion is also intelligent, and should realise - book or show - that betraying Dany/the Starks while the winter apocalypse is going on is a bad idea. Even Jaime understands that (in the show, at least). One thing that is speaking in favour of a Tyrion betrayal is Dany's HOTU prophecy ("three betrayals shall you know") with Tyrion being a fair candidate for the betrayal for love (for blood being taken by Mirri Maz Duur, and for gold possibly by Ben Plumm). A betrayal for the sake of Jaime, or Myrcella or Tommen, I could see in the books. A betrayal for Cersei looks rather less likely, especially in the middle of an offensive by the NK. Friki mentions specifically that Tyrion will betray the Starks. I have a hard time imagining how Tyrion would find it a good idea to let Cersei's forces assault Winterfell while the NK is approaching, or to let the NK himself take Winterfell. So I don't think that is likely to be the betrayal. If it is letting Cersei get hold of Sansa, then this also seems weird for a motive (he would have to be really pissed at Sansa to consider this to be in his interests) and difficult to arrange, considering Sansa will be in well defended Winterfell at first and possibly on the run in a zombie-infected landscape later. Moreover, for Friki's leak to be right Sansa would have to survive all this in good health, so Cersei would merely use her as a hostage in that case. A point against Tyrion being a traitor to Dany, is that he is the one (in the show) who did the most to make the alliance between Dany and Jon work. He jumped on Melisandre's suggestion - against Varys' objections, for example - he did his best to be diplomatic in the first Dany/Jon confrontation and he made sure Jon got the dragonglass (while Jon himself didn't even think to ask Dany that relatively small favour). If Tyrion did something right during S7, it was him championing and sponsoring this alliance at a time when neither Jon nor Dany really believed in it. If Tyrion was really playing a long game to betray Dany and/or the Starks, making this alliance happen would be obviously counterproductive. Winterfell is secure for Dany, through Jon. If Sansa disagrees, forcing the marriage on her isn't going to win him any friends at Winterfell, not to mention losing him Jon's support and possibly Dany's support. Can't such things be manipulated by the betting sites themselves, at least to start the tendence? It would be in their interest to get people to bet money on the wrong person, for maximum profit.

Sansa can have a sex life even without a marriage, but I doubt it would be with Theon and even so it wouldn't be a marriage. One of the prime reasons for marriage, at least in Westeros, is to get children (and the Starks may well need a heir, considering Jon isn't really from the "main" line (and a walking corpse a la Dondarrion, to some extent, allthough this may not stop the suspected boatsexbaby), Bran is crippled and Arya may not be more inclined then Sansa to take care of getting a direct heir for Ned Stark. I disagree that this would be possible "in-universe", particularly so in the books. Eyes High rightly points out that the legal marriage to Tyrion won't be set aside as easily as in the show, so it remains to be seen how this will be resolved. As for the books, I'm one of those still dying for them to come out, at least the next book. But then, I'm invested in the book characters (which do have more depth than the show characters, as is inevitable given the format) and I like for example Sansa's vale arc or the Dorne arc in the books. Things that the show discarded or resolved in (I suspect) a very different and more abrupt way. I would love to find out how Sansa gets the better of LF in the books, or how (f)Aegon (probably + Dorne) and Dany would play out. Chances are, we'll never find out given TWOW would probably only get some movement in the first and maybe not even get at all to the second. And how Jon and Stannis will play out in the books. If he does manage to get out TWOW before 2025 or so, we may yet get that. I suspect book-Pod has a bit of a crush on book-Sansa, and that's why he is extra shy about her and part of the reason why he joins Brienne in looking for her. Daniel Portman did not film a lot, but then so did Sophie Turner (ostensibly) and studio scenes aren't too easily spotted. Sweetrobin as a possible long term survivor in the books is not only more likely now that it would seem he makes it in the show, it was always a possibility considering Sansa's nephew may be the main reason why Sansa would turn on LF. If his survival is part of the stakes of their confrontation, Sansa may just win that one. I also had the impression that SR seemed to be showing signs of intelligence in Sansa's last chapters, as he seems to realise exactly what his relationship with Harry the Heir is. GRRM has been teasing this theory for a while, which is why I hate it when this theory is seen as a "crackpot" - it's not, there are sound arguments for it even if those are not conclusive. It would seem that GRRM is at least deliberately going for a red herring, if it isn't true in the books. However, it does seem unlikely the show will reveal this after an S7 that was silent on the matter (after a promising start to S6, with the dragons). Still, if Tyrion's possible Targaryen blood would mean he ends up on the throne (or as Hand) in the books, the show could still reach the same outcome (through other means) leaving the debate open. I agree that Sansa's endgame (not meant strictly in the "shipping" way) has always been one of the most unpredictable outcomes of ASOIAF, and by extension in GOT. Lots of possibilities for her. Then again, the ending of ASOIAF/GOT is generally not predictable, except that it is a safe bet that the Others/NK will not win and that Cersei will die.

Theon is not an option anymore, in his post-Ramsay (physical) state. Should Friki's info on Tyrion not be true, he remains a candidate, though. Jon/Dany as a romantic couple was never considered a crack theory by book readers, after all it's one of the possible outcomes if they are supposed to end up joining forces against the Others anyway (an outcome that was considered likely already by ACOK, at the latest), even if the terms of such an alliance would be speculative at that point. Book fans generally weren't as fixated on "shipping", anyway, that's more a TV thing I suppose. Jon as son of Lyanna and Rhaegar was an overwhelmingly popular theory on book forums already by AGOT, and its proponents include many book fans who have no love for the show (because D&D "have no respect" for GRRM, or because they dislike the writing on the show). Those who deny that have always been a fringe group among book fans. That D&D got the rights after they correctly answered GRRM's question about Jon's mother has been well known among book fans, too.

In book fandom, Jon/Dany was considered to be the most likely outcome almost from the start. Especially after it became quite clear that Robb (Jon's main competition for being the main male hero) was doomed, sometime around Dany's (book) visions in the House of the Undying. It's only Jon getting murdered by his own men, and the associated (suspected/possible) consequences of being magically revived, that may have caused some doubt post-ADWD. That Jon, as son of Lyanna and chief defender of the realm, would join forces with Dany and her dragons was very likely. His true identity was hidden, OK. But it is important to realise that Jon lived a very privileged life, one which made him destined to be lord commander of the Night's Watch from the moment he decided to join that order. Mormont made him his de-facto successor, mostly because he is a Stark. An acknowledged bastard is not a "lowly commoner" (see also: Edric Stone, Sandsnakes,...). Pyp and Grenn, those are lowly commoners. What information by BSB was confirmed? Agreed. Power is make believe.

We have? Who? Certainly not Jon, who has been raised by a Lord alongside his own children in a big castle - and a noble bastard is still not a commoner. This was a plotpoint in books and show, when Jon arrived at Castle Black with his castle training to wipe the floor with his fellow recruits (until Donal Noye in the books and Tyrion in the show gave him a few pointers on how to do that better). Jon is not, and never was, a commoner. If you mean Illyrio's Aegon, this is likely a fake prince rather than a secret prince. Regarding westeros.org, I think Dany and Jon getting together has always been the prevailing theory. The ending of ADWD (with Jon getting stabbed) may have shook this belief a bit, I don' think there is/was a major consensus there on the ending of the books (other than that more and more people are coming to believe there never will be an ending, but S8 of the show).

Hibberd is a HBO mouthpiece though, so he's not going to divulge info nor give impressions that HBO don't want to be given.

Not necessarily D&D. In the books, there is a prophecy that the Valonqar will strangle her after the YMBQ has taken everything she valued. This would suggest that the YMBQ actually does not kill her (and I doubt "the Valonqar" would be acting on her orders), so it could well be supposed to be at the very end of the books (should those ever get completed). Regarding the battles, it's a possibility that Winterfell will be the big battle and that Dany/Jon actually win the battle. In the sense that the castle (or at least a part of it, think Helm's Deep) isn't taken, the NK loses many wights and does not really inflict a crippling amount of casualties on his opponent. It could be only part of the NK's army (with other parts going to attack other places) or all of it. It's possible one or both sides lost a dragon at this point, though this may be reserved for the final confrontation at/near KL. If so, this could lead the NK to regroup and sent his remaining forces south to go directly to KL (bypassing Dany/Jon, if possible, to go for the largely unprepared south), aiming to zombify a large percentage of the population there. This would more than erase his (possible) losses at Winterfell. This would make it less likely that Cersei would order an attack on Winterfell - the fighting there is then entirely living vs death. It also would make sense if "Winter Fell" there.

The south is large. Fleeing to casterly rock (under their control) or if they have ships, to Dragonstone, would be far better.

Lannister soldiers could accompany/join Jaime at Winterfell, I'm still not sure there is a Cersei attack on that castle. If Lannisters are defending KL, then that is the most likely moment we see the towers scorched by dragonfire. So if Friki and Javi are right, the city will be destroyed later still, when the NK arrives, and damage by the dragon attack before that will be relatively light. Which makes me wonder how the war between Jon/Dany and the NK has been going between the battles of Winterfell and KL. Since the NK would probably not politiely agree to a time-out so Dany can take out Cersei while he cools his heels, it looks like he may have actually suffered a defeat at/near Winterfell and the attack at KL may be his last, possibly semi-desperate move to defeat Dany and Jon.

It's all still weird and doesn't seem to add up, they are so definite about Tyrion but know so little about Jon and (especially) Dany. Even if Cersei is not in control of KL, Euron and/or The Golden Company (or even whoever is commanding the Gold Cloaks at that point) still could be. It also seems weird: we know Winterfell gets attacked and is partially or maybe completely burned, we also know the army of the death is still coming (or at least believed to be coming) when KL's gates are supposed to be shut off. Why would Dany and Jon attack KL before dealing properly with the NK? Jon has his priorities straight. I suppose it's possible that Cersei gets overthrown by her own followers (in particular the Golden Company) and those choose to follow Jaime in joining Dany. If there is some truth to the rumour that Cersei orders an attack at Winterfell, the end result could be a damaged Winterfell and survivors (both attackers and defenders) joining Dany's (field) army as a result of (part of) the army of the death joining the battle. Cersei, having lost almost all het troops, may have no choice to run in that scenario. Even Javi's and Friki's scenario's don't seem to exclude the possibility that Tyrion gets pardoned at the actual execution. It wasn't filmed in Spain, apparently, so they don't know for sure what happens (even if they are correct about Seville).

So, what do we think? Now Javi supports Frikidoctor. What they are saying (speculating?) now is hard to frame in the 3-way war between Cersei/Euron, Dany/Jon and the NK, though. For Tyrion to be able to stop people from leaving KL, he either needs an army guarding the gates (hardly possible, since the army of the death is about to arrive and Tyrion is definitely not in control of that - a Dany army outside KL could either defend the city or they would be massacred themselves, making the point moot) or he needs to be in control of the city itself (at the very least, in control of all of the gates). So, does Dany take KL before the NK attacks it (in which case, Tyrion and co could survive inside the Red Keep) or is Cersei/Euron still in control? If the latter, it's hard to see how Tyrion could close off the gates. This is not like Oldtown when the plague hit it, lord Hightower was well placed to seal off the city. It also seems like it closing off KL would not be a betrayal of the Starks in particular. Maybe Jon and/or Dany would see it as a betrayal, but Tyrion would view it as necessary ( I suppose) to win the war with the NK - and Sansa, Arya and Bran wouldn't be particularly betrayed unless they would happen to be in the city at that point. But since Friki also says that all three survive, this seems unlikely as well. It does seem that HBO has gone to quite some length in a misinformation campaign. Either Friki is correct and they organised an elaborate charade at Seville, or HBO managed to fool both Friki and Javi with false leaks.

They used minimal number of characters for the citadel: only Sam's maester was a really principal character. For the rest, you had a few other maesters who barely figured, the scribe when he entered, and characters that were already in the show: Gilly and Jorah. The latter most likely won't be involved with this storyline in the books, as he hasn't contracted grayscale there. On the other hand, the Vale requires a set of allies and adversaries for Littlefinger (those could be provided by the Vale lord and lady already introduced in S4, but at only 2 that's a very limited number) as well as a separate set of potential allies and adversaries for Sansa (taking the book roles of Myranda, Mya, Harry the Heir, Lothor Brune and the Mad Mouse). And then there is a tourney, which requires a lot of effort and money to film (the limited S1 budget of GOT couldn't really do the KL tourney justice). It would also require a couple of knights to be added, to act out whatever Martin is planning there. The advantage of a separate Vale storyline is that we could actually have seen Sansa gradually gaining insight into Vale politics (and LF's intentions) and come out on top in the end, in a much more subtle fashion than actually happened. Sure, the scene at the end of S7 where Sansa condemns LF was gripping TV, but I feel this came at the expense of a logical storyline for the rest of that season (and even during S6, where Jon and Sansa had no reason to not work together). Sansa also would have had a more natural opportunity to help secure food for the north (as that seems to be of major importance in the books). In the books, I suspect Sansa will be involved with the Vale for some time still. The fact that Sweetrobyn is still around by the dragonpit in S8 points to this character not being without importance in the books, to. As for who would take Winterfell, I still think that a major difference may be that Stannis looks to take it early in TWOW. What then causes him to burn Shireen is admittedly unclear. No doubt Jon, and possibly Sansa, will take up the pieces afterwards.

The Vale was probably more expensive to film (maintaining the sets of the Eyrie, setting up a major tourney, quite a cast of characters to support or oppose LF and to work with or against Sansa,...). Moreover, Martin likely still has to write most of it. The Citadel is probably easier to fill in for D&D. And with Sansa in Winterfell, they don't have to create a new character (Jeyne, who did not yet exist on the show) for Theon to save from Ramsay. Whereas Sam still has to do his training.

I don't think he has ever specified a number. He knows the ending of "the main characters", which would seem to include not only Sansa, but also Jaime and Cersei besides the five from the original outline.

As Merrick said. I had actually included the timestamp in the original link (the underlined part of the post), but I guess it's easy to overlook it there.