Katsullivan

His name was Hizdahr, not "poor dead guy". He was living in a slave state, a member of the ruling class. The only thing that was particularly traumatising about watching his peer be executed was knowing that the same kind of torture that his ilk had inflicted on generations of slaves could easily be done on him. The show drastically changed the circumstances of the marriage and even his own character and involvement with the Sons of Harpy. But concluding that Dany forced the marriage because she proposed it, is still a leap. And no, women and men in this world are not equal and do not have equal rights under marriage contracts (except maybe in Dorne). Case in point - Tyrion and Sansa were both forced into an unwilling marriage, but where does audience sympathy lie the most? I don't see the logic in acting that Dany or anyone else, would consider them equivalent circumstances. And the bottom line is that there's a lot of debate on a far-fetched hypothetical situation on just how monstrously Dany will force a powerless Sansa into marriage.

Sansa gets more excuses (isn't the current discussion that she was right to condemn the Karstark and Umber children?) than blame for her actions. So this perception that Dany is somehow excused while Sansa is condemned is skewed. I had to go back thread, and you were actually the one who turned this into a Sansa vs Dany debate. The discussion was about the misogyny that female characters (Arya and Dany) face when their actions are analysed and condemned, as opposed to men. This is the thread that you were responding to: Thank you for saying this! Dany's desire to (re)claim the Iron Throne is constantly written as her being entitled and showing signs of madness, in a way that no other of the contenders is described. I disagree. I think Dany is seriously unbalanced because she has repeatedly shown a cruelty in her desire for vengeance that doesn't seem to be reliably predicated on circumstance, guilt or innocence. (See also her crucifixion of 130+ nobles because of the ruling class's cruel crucifixions as she arrived -- despite the fact that she apparently did not bother to learn which nobles were actually guilty or responsible.) I know she's pretty and sweet (most of the time) but Dany can definitely be cruel and unpredictable and to me she is most definitely a Targaryen in action and narrow viewpoint. The other commenters were pointing out the irony of you making a post excusing Sansa of her actions because of her trauma, while at the same time making a statement like that, condemning Dany, turning this into a Sansa vs Dany thing. We're always going to have our favourite characters and who will be more sympathetic to over the others. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. I guess the answer is: "my personal dislike for her".

Going by the World book, it is. The very first succession in the Targaryen dynasty was from brother to brother (Aegon I to his brother), even though the last King had a living son. Additionally, in all the situations where a Prince of Dragonstone died before the ruling King, there has been contention over who the Throne is passed on to. I think someone above mentioned how this was settled by Great Council. I remember at least that Aegon V was crowned King even though he was a fourth son and all his older siblings (except Aemon the Maester) had living children. People keep using UK laws of succession to apply to Westeros and it's frustrating because they obviously only have a very, very superficial resemblance to each other.

I know it seems too soon to assume but I'm guessing that they're dropping the Superhoodie arc and opting for Simon-turns-villain arc that was originally conceived for the character.

How has Dany destroyed their way of life? They can always return to Essos and continue their nomadic existence of sacking & raping. I'm sure a great deal of the Dothraki (women) would prefer to settle in Westeros and live a less exciting life. As for not speaking the common tongue - history has shown us that that has never hindered immigration/integration. The Dothraki presence in Westeros will strengthen the country, not weaken it. After the War(s), Dany will do what she has always done - she will give them a choice. She did that to the Unsullied. She did that to the ex-slaves at Mereen. She did that to the Dothraki who followed her out of Vaes Dothrak.

This is a common assumption that is simply not true and contradicted by the history of this world. In the example that you put in your links, Queen Victoria was crowned as a baby despite her living uncles - something that could never happen in Westeros. When Maekar I died, another Great Council was set up and his infant grandson, who had a claim through his dead son was discounted in favour of Maekar I's living son. Before Jaehearys I died, he set up a Great Council to determine the next King, and the line of his oldest son was discounted in favour of the second oldest son. When Aegon I died, his brother became King even though he had a young son. In an alternate reality where Robert's Rebellion had never happened and Rhaegar had died under normal circumstances, and then Aerys died later, it is unlikely that any of his babies would be crowned before Viserys, based on the precedent of this story. Throw in the factor that these are not ordinary times: the Targaryen dynasty has technically ended, and while Daenerys is claiming the Iron Throne based on her being the daughter of the last Targaryen King, Dany could be Daniella from the House Who-Cares and she'd still sit her ass on the throne by the time her dragons and her armies bullied everyone into giving it to her. Which is essentially what the first Aegon did when he united the Seven Kingdoms under his rule. TL DR, Jon's stronger claim = he has a dick and she doesn't, as @doram said. If Daenerys was Daeron, this won't even be an issue.

This was obviously not the intention but I can't help laughing at the irony that Sansa's privilege disadvantaged her. Because the meta-analysis of that (real life parallels, etc) might explain why some people has such a visceral dislike towards the character.

So who gets what? Do they divvy up the 2 lands between the 3 houses? Maybe in the ratio of the men they contributed? What happens to the Lords that Did Nothing, supporting Bolton by silent consent? What is their punishment for them? IMO, it was a slippery slope that Jon chose not to descend.

There definitely seems to be a pattern here of dumb plotlines from the writers and Sansa.

It was implied when she apologised to him in season 6. You know, this might sound flippant but I it's possible that after 11 years Ned had come to realise that his daughter's psyche was so far removed from reality that trying to reach her was pointless.

You know in all this Jon vs Sansa argument, most people tend to forget this. Other than the Bears and the wildings, and eventually the Vale, what was Jon's army made up of? So who was Karhold and Umber-land supposed to go to? If Lyanna Mormont wasn't angling to add Karhold to her island, I don't see why any of the Lords who basically sat their asses on the fence should have deserved it. Jon's decision was fair no matter how you look at it.

The writers decided early on that Sansa was going to be their little pet and insulate her from every bad decision she's ever made. LOL! How was she supposed to avenge them by marrying into the family that murdered them?

Off the top of my head - not marry Ramsay Snow/Bolton? LF told Sansa that she had a choice in the matter. Now you can argue all you like about how true that was, but the fact is that we'll never know because Sansa didn't take him up on that. Instead, he convinced her that she could "take back" Winterfell by literally going to bed with the same House that murdered her family. And Sansa bought it because she believed that LF loved her so much.

Not really. Dunk goes from hedge knight to Lord Commander of the Kingsgaurd as Aegon goes from squire to King. They live through 3 reigns - Daeron, Aerys I, Maekar before Aegon. At the start of the series, Westeros had only just ended the Blackfyre rebellion, and the fall-out of that hadn't quite settled. Over the years, there would be several Blackfyre Pretenders. In fact, the entire Blackfyre saga seems like a large-scale setting of the feud between 2 Targaryen bastards Bloodraven and Bittersteel. To do the story justice, it might require at least one actor change for Egg as he goes from kid to grown man, which I think showrunners are unwilling to do because they'd rather the audience remain attached to one actor.

Sansa has misjudged/over-estimated LF's devotion to her at every count now. Third (or fourth?) time lucky? I guess time will tell.

I really wish this was the show I was watching because it would be so much more interesting than watching Sansa getting fooled at every turn in King's Landing by Joffrey and Cersei, then Margarey and Olenna, until she waltzed her way into a wedding with Tyrion. At least book!Sansa had the backbone to refuse to kneel for the cloaking but TV!Sansa was the good little girl that lay down on her own altar. She provided the intel that motivated Olenna to want Joffrey dead - then she got framed for her trouble. She thought she had an ally with the Knight she rescued, her "true" Knight - and he ended up being another of Littlefinger's pawns and she was delivered up to Mr. Pervert. Somehow between being sexually assaulted by him, and watching him murder his wife, Sansa concluded that he was her staunch ally and let him talk her into marrying into the same family who murdered her brother and mother. She could have escaped from that situation up until the very point of her marriage - yet somehow she convinced herself that her name was enough to protect her from someone whose House motto was "a flayed man has no secrets". You'd think she'd learn from all that, but later on, she meets Littlefinger in secret, and trusts in him to "rescue" her with the Vale army because she is so confident in her fascination to him. The more I think about it, the more I realize that there are deliberate parallels between Sansa and Cersei in the ways they have suffered, and the ways they have grown from that suffering.

Nice analysis @screamin. But you're doing the writers's job for them. The show should have already made this clear.

Sansa "knew" that LF wanted her ass. It was that same smug assurance that made her leave the safety of the Vale with him as her companion, and was sold off to marriage to the Boltons. There was no second-level manipulation from her at the council meeting. She wasn't "fronting" to make Petyr think she and Jon were divided. For one: daft - she might deceive Petyr, but she's still harming Jon's rule and two: Sansa is not smart enough to pull that kind of long game.

So in bad news, they've cast Simon. Someone else should post the link or put up a picture because I can't bring myself to. Seems like they're going to go with the Evil!Simon arc from season 1, not the Superhoodie arc which will be... interesting. I imagine that Iwan Rheon is so typecast as a villain now that they can't imagine the Simon character as anything else. Or they found a clever way to back out of delivering the show's OTP which happens to be interracial and we all know how well that type fares on US TV...

No offence to whathisname that was cast in the remake to play Simon but this thread title no longer applies.

OK, am I missing something? I know the show shot that as a rape scene but in the books, that was very much consensual?

The idea that Dany's endgame is being a womb is horrifying.

Yes, I also think that's what was meant. It's why her miscarriage was significant - it was a clue. I really don't understand the idea of thinking that Jon's bloodline was kept a secret for so long - and ultimately means nothing. I don't know if Jon will survive the series. I don't know which character will survive the series. But I am quite certain that he will 'continue' via his bloodline after the series. The only reason why I'm not so certain of whether he and Dany will have a child/children together is because of the original outline that had Jon/Arya as endgame.

More likely Karstark and Umber were the named houses that fought with Bolton. That army came from somewhere. We know at least of House Manderley who "gifted" Rickon to Bolton. That was actually a greater betrayal than fighting alongside Ramsay. Anyway, my point still stands - the overnight unanimity was incredulous. A rebellion is exactly what happened when Daemon Blackfyre was crowned by his group of nobility - and he was a legitimised bastard. The Lords won't think that Ned denied Jon anything. Why would they? Each of those Lords most likely has at least one Snow or is half-brother to some other Snow or the other. If anything Ned treated Jon better than a lot of those Lords treated the bastards in their families. By declaring a Snow their King, each of those Lords has immediately set a precedent where their own rule, the rule of their children will be threatened by any bastard in their Houses. If the North were Dorne, it would be one thing but it's not.