Season 6: Speculation

GrailKing · June 5, 2016

1 hour ago, RedheadZombie said:

Reveal hidden contents

Do you think this is something Jon would readily accept, now that she's raised him from the dead? Davos saw what Stannis went through by placing so much faith in Melisandre and her prophecies. I'm wondering if Davos and Jon are now all in with Mel and whatever magic she can provide.

I don't think he would know about it, I can't be sure either.

AuntieMame · June 6, 2016

Perhaps Dany, rather than Margaery will be the younger, more beautiful queen that comes to undo Cersei before her younger brother does for her.

ElizaD · June 6, 2016

I know the younger queen could be Dany, but that's not a satisfying answer IMO. It's looking like Cersei will have lost all three of her children and burned King's Landing before Dany even arrives on the same continent, so what will there be left to take from her? She'll have no heirs, no claim to the throne, and will either be living in KL's ruins or fleeing to Casterly Rock. Dany won't have been responsible for the tears that have drowned Cersei or for taking what she loves, her children and her power: at most, she can deliver the final blow by ordering Cersei executed and giving the Rock to Tyrion. And Show Tyrion has been stripped of all his desire for revenge, so I can't see him making a big deal of wanting Cersei dead the way Book Tyrion does. I think Cersei dies in the 6x10 massacre (less likely) or is killed by Jaime who'll keep on loving her until he hears about KL burning.

Alapaki · June 6, 2016

Tower? Joy? Lyanna? Screaming? Whatthefuck show?

I'm assuming Episode 9 is going to be a full hour of BotB, ala Hardhomme. And Episode 10 will be fallout from the BotB and place-setting for next Season.

So either Episode 8 is going to do alot of heavy lifting, or D&D are going to drag out multiple storylines into next season. This is getting frustrating.

kittykat · June 6, 2016

Looks like we're getting Meereen back next episode, I'm assuming it will be Dany's return and a possible insurgence by the SOTH. We seem to be poised for three major battles in these last episodes. Battle for Meereen, Battle of King's Landing and Battle of the Bastards.

Hardhome wasn't a full hour of that battle. It was the last half of the episode. I can see them doing that with BotB. I also have a theory that House Manderley will finally be shown but when Team Stark/Wildlings arrive, it will appear that the Manderleys have joined Ramsay only to betray him once the fighting starts and join Team Stark (more hope than theory but there it is). It's obvious they're setting up the Starks to lose with the numbers they are posting which means they will likely win.

And it looks like Cersei is finally choosing violence, can't wait to see how that plays out.

Harald Hardrada · June 6, 2016

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 7:45 PM, Haleth said:

I would love to see (well, not really but it would be the ultimate twist) Dany arrive in Westeros with her dragons, only to find out the dragons can't survive the cold of winter (which is coming, did you hear?) and they immediately drop dead. Checkmate, Night King.

If the Night King can transform the dragons into wight-dragons with ice breath, literally undead frost dragon, controlling them and make the Wall collapse, better hope there will be a warrior who can slay those creatures and stop the walkers. Westeros need another Joramun and Brandon again. Like Beowulf and Bodvar team up against crazy ice men and their draugr army.

Oscirus · June 7, 2016

Alright I'm starting to see where they might be going. Note this is backup speculation mostly just to explore other options.

Since most of the North would only recognize someone from the North as their king and most of the common folks would like a king with a Targeryan background, then Jon becomes the king because he fits both criteria. A song of ice and fire.

Maximum Taco · June 7, 2016

6 hours ago, Oscirus said:

Alright I'm starting to see where they might be going. Note this is backup speculation mostly just to explore other options.

Since most of the North would only recognize someone from the North as their king and most of the common folks would like a king with a Targeryan background, then Jon becomes the king because he fits both criteria. A song of ice and fire.

I don't think most common folk care who is the King.

As long as he keeps the peace and protects the roads, it could be anyone.

That's one of the points of Dany's story. She thinks the small folk are eagerly waiting for her return, in fact they are just trying to stay alive and live their lives.

Oscirus · June 7, 2016

1 hour ago, Maximum Taco said:

I don't think most common folk care who is the King.

As long as he keeps the peace and protects the roads, it could be anyone.

That's one of the points of Dany's story. She thinks the small folk are eagerly waiting for her return, in fact they are just trying to stay alive and live their lives.

I agree but in this theory, one would need a king who could unite the north and the south since at the moment, it appears that most of the north isn't supporting the actual king. Jon's Targaryan blood just makes it look prettier, politically.

Harald Hardrada · June 7, 2016

If I was the dude destined to be Rh'llor's chosen or champion of the God Of Death, I will use the power to defeat Dany's army, the Golden Company, the rest of Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells, etc. to prevent them from ruling the Seven Kingdoms, then travel North to rally the Northern peasants rising against their arrogant lords and the Walkers, fight/kill the Night's King and pacify the wildlings/giants. After all of the campaigns ended, I return to King's Landing to destroy the Red Keep along with the Iron Throne which is the source of Westeros conflict using Dany's dragons I controlled with a magic horn my men obtained from Valyria, symbolized the fall of tyranny thus finally bring a real peace to Westeros by letting the people rule themselves.

When the smallfolk start to say "you, stranger, should be our king, our first true King." I shall respond "I have done my service to the Lord, now it's time to do yours... [stoical tone]" while placing an amulet of Rh'llor into his/her hand, then proceed on Drogon and fly off into the distance.

Jazzy24 · June 7, 2016

9 hours ago, Oscirus said:

Alright I'm starting to see where they might be going. Note this is backup speculation mostly just to explore other options.

Since most of the North would only recognize someone from the North as their king and most of the common folks would like a king with a Targeryan background, then Jon becomes the king because he fits both criteria. A song of ice and fire.

I rather Jon die again and get his head cut off to make sure he never comes back than to be subjected to the hell hole that is Kings Landing and that ugly cursed chair that so many of his family have died and suffered for.

Maximum Taco · June 7, 2016

3 hours ago, Harald Hardrada said:

If I was the dude destined to be Rh'llor's chosen or champion of the God Of Death, I will use the power to defeat Dany's army, the Golden Company, the rest of Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells, etc. to prevent them from ruling the Seven Kingdoms, then travel North to rally the Northern peasants rising against their arrogant lords and the Walkers, fight/kill the Night's King and pacify the wildlings/giants. After all of the campaigns ended, I return to King's Landing to destroy the Red Keep along with the Iron Throne which is the source of Westeros conflict using Dany's dragons I controlled with a magic horn my men obtained from Valyria, symbolized the fall of tyranny thus finally bring a real peace to Westeros by letting the people rule themselves.

When the smallfolk start to say "you, stranger, should be our king, our first true King." I shall respond "I have done my service to the Lord, now it's time to do yours... [stoical tone]" while placing an amulet of Rh'llor into his/her hand, then proceed on Drogon and fly off into the distance.

And if you ever came back you'd find things exactly how they were before you did anything at all. With a few squabbling houses fighting for power, and the smallfolk crushed beneath their heels.

I think that's one of the large points GRRM is trying to make. It's not enough to beat up the bad guys, you need to put into place a proper system of government. Dany kicked the asses of all the Masters, and tried to let the people rule themselves, but when she left Astapor all that happened was a Butcher King rose in the Masters' place and kept on doing exactly what the Masters had been doing before.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Maximum Taco

Paradigm14 · June 8, 2016

I have a theory on who Sansa contacted. It's not who we think. 1. He's at Moat Cailin with the Vale Army. 2. He's promosed to protect Sansa, 3. He knew Sansa was Sansa when she was in the Vale.

Spoiler

It's Lord Royce. She's not going to trust LF twice, and they both want to be rid of him. She'll use the Vale Army, but she'll take away his command of it, and possibly even his life. Royce was instructed to command the army anyhow, so no one willl bat an eye if the army continues it's mission and LF suddenly isn't around.

ElizaD · June 8, 2016

10 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

I rather Jon die again and get his head cut off to make sure he never comes back than to be subjected to the hell hole that is Kings Landing and that ugly cursed chair that so many of his family have died and suffered for.

The North isn't looking any better: in both the North and KL, the lords are snakes who like being ruled by a sadistic psychopath. If the lords only support Jon after he's won the battle, that'll completely miss the point of the Northern storyline in ADWD. Instead of being an uplifting moment of Stark loyalty and a rejection of Roose's treacherous part in the Red Wedding/Ramsay's psychotic nature and abuse of his "Stark" bride, it'll just be a bunch of despicable, lying opportunists who were perfectly fine with Lord Ramsay having to come up with with excuses for why they really like Jon after their #1 choice has been executed and they're scrambling to save their own lives and lands.

This season has actually managed to make Sansa's season 5 rape plot even more useless: not only was it idiotic planning by her and Littlefinger, turns out it was completely unnecessary for the Boltons to risk Cersei's wrath since no one even cares that Ramsay had the extra legitimacy of a Stark bride and then lost her: the Northern majority accepts Ramsay's leadership without Sansa Bolton and with Jon actively seeking their support. Weeks of rape and torture - and no Northern lord gives a damn that Ramsay treated Ned's little girl so badly. It's a shame Jon is too committed to his duty to get on a ship to Essos and tell these worthless assholes to look to Ramsay to lead them against the Night's King since they hate the Starks so much.

The North was perhaps the most widely loved plotline from ADWD, and it was reduced to Sansa's rape and Theon's escape as subplots on Everybody Loves Ramsay. I've been looking forward to the plot since season 2 (especially after Alfie's acting surprised me so positively), so this has been a huge disappointment, even bigger than Dorne since that didn't have such stellar material and hell yeah! moments to ruin.

arjumand · June 8, 2016

I've been watching some youtube critcs' analyses of GoT (nerdwriter1 and GoT Academy are pretty good at finding historical parallels as hints to where the story might be going) and after being reminded that GRRM based the story on the Wars of the Roses, I have some theories of my own.

Nerdwriter1, in his latest video about how Dragons stop progress (really excellent analysis) summed up the Wars of the Roses in a way which struck me - a series of conflicts in which the kings/heirs to the throne of England wiped each other out until a distant relative with links to the throne was found to take the throne and bring peace and stability to England; that being Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Which seems to me that would be Jon Snow, especially if he's really a secret Targaryen. Even in the Henry Tudor story there were hints of illegitimacy in his backstory. Now GoT Academy's theory is that Sansa will become Queen, specifically an Elizabeth I figure.

But I think not - if Jon Snow is Henry VII, then she's another Elizabeth - Elizabeth of York, who married Henry Tudor as a kind of unifying move for the houses of Lancaster and York. There are so many things in common between Sansa and Elizabeth of York, the most shallow being that they're both beautiful redheads. Going deeper, Elizabeth of York was older sister to the Princes in the Tower - two young boys who disappeared under mysterious circumstances in a time of conflict.

Sansa married Tyrion Lannister, a person who is hated and despised for what is considered a physical deformity, and whose family is an enemy to her house. Elizabeth of York was said to be in love with Richard III, who was depicted as being physically deformed, who disinherited her brothers and who is believed to have had them killed. Now Tyrion isn't evil on the show, but he is evil and Machiavellian in the play Arya sees, just like many historians believe that Richard III wasn't actually evil (or even a hunchback), he was just given the evil edit by Tudor historians and Shakespeare.

It's already been said that a marriage between Jon and Sansa (if they're not half-siblings, of course) would be the unifying of North and South, even more than Jon himself is, if he's the son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen. I don't buy the argument that they were brought up as siblings, because Jon was shown his place over and over, and that it wasn't with the other Stark kids. It's significant that Jon's moment, before leaving for the Wall, was with Arya and not Sansa - until their 'reunion' they hadn't even had a scene together onscreen.

Or at least, these are my theories, lol.

SimoneS · June 8, 2016

Whatever Martin intends, the show isn't going to have Jon marry one of his Stark siblings/cousin, period. If Margaery survives, she is far more likely to be his bride. Alternatively, he will marry a wealthy heiress from one of the southern houses like Sam's sister.

CofCinci · June 8, 2016

I think the only wedding glimpse that will make the fans go nuts is Jon and Dany.

Haleth · June 8, 2016

That is an interesting theory, arjumand.

Maximum Taco · June 8, 2016

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Whatever Martin intends, the show isn't going to have Jon marry one of his Stark siblings/cousin, period. If Margaery survives, she is far more likely to be his bride. Alternatively, he will marry a wealthy heiress from one of the southern houses like Sam's sister.

I don't think Margaery is going to survive. It might just be a feeling but I think she's marked for death.

Chris24601 · June 8, 2016

10 hours ago, arjumand said:

But I think not - if Jon Snow is Henry VII, then she's another Elizabeth - Elizabeth of York, who married Henry Tudor as a kind of unifying move for the houses of Lancaster and York. There are so many things in common between Sansa and Elizabeth of York, the most shallow being that they're both beautiful redheads. Going deeper, Elizabeth of York was older sister to the Princes in the Tower - two young boys who disappeared under mysterious circumstances in a time of conflict.

Excellent analysis, Arjumand. I definitely see Jon/Sansa as basically a unifying move. As Cat points out when Robb wants to make Jon his heir, she's not so much worried what JON will do, but what his children might do to the trueborn Stark heirs down the road. Since Robb would have had to die without issue and at the time she said it Brann, Rickon and Arya were all believed dead, Cat could only be referring to Sansa's future children. Just as with Henry and Elizabeth, a Jon/Sansa union makes those heirs one and the same; heading off any conflict before it can even begin.

I am also heartened upon reading the Wiki entry on Elizabeth of York that after the period of conflict where her brothers went missing, Elizabeth went on to lead a happy and uneventful life. I've spoken at length previously that if not for Rickon, Jon and Sansa should have just taken the Wildlings and left Westeros entirely to get over their collective PTSD on some tropical island. I've further stated that after all they've been through (and are likely yet to go through) the best happy ending I can imagine for Jon and Sansa would be "they returned home to raise a family and nothing eventful happened for the rest of their long lives."

So here's hoping Jon/Sansa are the Henry/Elizabeth of the story.

Oscirus · June 8, 2016

I'm not getting how Jon marrying Sansa would be a unification of the North and the South. Rhaegar being Jon's father doesn't change the region that he's from. Besides, he already has Starks blood so he already has both regions covered. If Jon marries in this series, it'll be for love since there's nothing that anybody can do for him politically. I guess a Margery or Yara or Sand snake marriage might help him, but let's be honest there's no way in hell he's marrying any of those characters.

arjumand · June 8, 2016

6 hours ago, Haleth said:

That is an interesting theory, arjumand.

Thanks!

15 minutes ago, Chris24601 said:

Excellent analysis, Arjumand. I definitely see Jon/Sansa as basically a unifying move. As Cat points out when Robb wants to make Jon his heir, she's not so much worried what JON will do, but what his children might do to the trueborn Stark heirs down the road. Since Robb would have had to die without issue and at the time she said it Brann, Rickon and Arya were all believed dead, Cat could only be referring to Sansa's future children. Just as with Henry and Elizabeth, a Jon/Sansa union makes those heirs one and the same; heading off any conflict before it can even begin.

I am also heartened upon reading the Wiki entry on Elizabeth of York that after the period of conflict where her brothers went missing, Elizabeth went on to lead a happy and uneventful life. I've spoken at length previously that if not for Rickon, Jon and Sansa should have just taken the Wildlings and left Westeros entirely to get over their collective PTSD on some tropical island. I've further stated that after all they've been through (and are likely yet to go through) the best happy ending I can imagine for Jon and Sansa would be "they returned home to raise a family and nothing eventful happened for the rest of their long lives."

So here's hoping Jon/Sansa are the Henry/Elizabeth of the story.

Thank you! Unlike the mistake Robb made, where he followed his heart and so destroyed an alliance (in the show - in the book he was thinking with his dick and then belatedly thought of the honour of the Westerlings), this would start out as a marriage of convenience and then love would follow. What you say with the children and heirs corresponds too - the Henry / Elizabeth marriage was planned by their mothers when they were babies for this very purpose. I feel that the show changed the motivation for the Robb marriage on purpose - together with Rhaegar's storyline, and Cersei and Jaime, among others, it seems to indicate romantic love as being a destructive force which high-born people can't afford.

I can't see a Jon / Danaerys marriage working for the simple reason that she's being given the villain / ungovernable other edit (GoT Academy compare her to Genghis Khan, and point out that she's only good at bringing the (uncontrollable) dragons and the ~~Mongol~~ Dothraki horde. She sucks at politics). And why would she marry Jon? She doesn't need him.

But hey, it's just a theory. I'm not going to denounce the show if it doesn't happen. I mean, I'd like for my favourite characters (+ Brienne! Brienne must live!) to get a happy ending, or as happy as it can be in their hellhole. And I'm mostly invested in the Night's King and the White Walkers storyline (It's apocalypse o'clock, guys! Stop messing around).

Eyes High · June 8, 2016

Although her claim is more solid than that of the historical Henry VII, Dany works much better than Jon as a Henry VII figure. Spent many years abroad in exile? Check. Conquered her way to the throne? Check (I assume). Dragon standard? Check. Ragtag group of supporters with beef against the current ruler? Check. Handy saviour prophecy used to garner support? Check.

Furthermore, Henry married Elizabeth of York because she had a claim to the throne in her own right, being the daughter of Edward IV (the model for Robert Baratheon). Sansa has no claim to the throne in her own right. Elizabeth of York is more like Myrcella, politically speaking. Marrying Sansa would do nothing to cement anyone's claim to the throne. She was also disinherited by Robb in the books, so she may not even have a claim to Winterfell anymore. Don't let the red hair mislead you; Sansa is a poor analogue for Elizabeth of York.

Interestingly, Edward's dismissive nickname for Henry Tudor was "the imp."

The other thing to remember is that unlike the historical WOTR, all the possible rulers are facing an enormous ice zombie apocalypse that is more likely to dictate who will be left standing at the end than any one battle between human combatants.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Eyes High

Chris24601 · June 8, 2016

1 hour ago, Oscirus said:

I'm not getting how Jon marrying Sansa would be a unification of the North and the South. Rhaegar being Jon's father doesn't change the region that he's from. Besides, he already has Starks blood so he already has both regions covered. If Jon marries in this series, it'll be for love since there's nothing that anybody can do for him politically. I guess a Margery or Yara or Sand snake marriage might help him, but let's be honest there's no way in hell he's marrying any of those characters.

Actually, I think its the other way around. Its Jon that brings the North while Sansa brings South; the Riverlands specifically. The show has made it pretty clear that Edmure is a dead man (the fact that the actor's got his own show now is another telegraphing clue) and has no heir. Once he's dead then Sansa is the rightful ruler of the Riverlands on the show (technically its Bran, but Sansa would come right after him in line and a cripple who cannot fight and cannot produce heirs will be pressured to abdicate as soon as Sansa's eldest son comes of age).

Because he's NOT descended from a Tully, Jon has no claim to the Riverlands so a marriage to Sansa would unite both regions under the same ruling family which is a pretty strong political move. The Riverlands have much better farmlands than the North and it is an effective buffer state between the North and the rest of Westeros (not just physically via easily defended fortifications like the Twins, but culturally as well since they follow the Faith of the Seven and have traditions more in line with the Crownlands, Westerlands and Stormlands).

Its a little different in the books as Edmure has an unborn child, but its not inconceivable something could happen before the end of the story to take Edmure and child off the board. But in the books Jon's claim via Robb's will is more likely to cause friction with those who would prefer a trueborn Stark and marrying the trueborn and still virgin Sansa Stark would calm any potential conflict before it begins.

* * * *

I also think its worth pointing out that the show and the books put different weights on love (the show) vs. political alliance (the books). While they may end up in the same place (a marriage of Jon and Sansa), I think the show will put more weight on the romantic side while the books will likely be content to let the advantages of a political alliance be seen as the good end in and of itself.

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again. I think the show moving Sansa up north and into Jon's orbit well in advance of her book counterpart is in large part because the showrunners want Jon/Sansa to be a romantic story in addition to the political angle of the books (because romance sells to general audiences in ways political alliances/marriages of convenience will not). Romance takes time to sell, particularly when each episode is only giving you at most 10 minutes of screen time to depict anything of relevance.

* * * *

Related to this is that I don't know how much the southern portions of Westeros are even going to factor into the endgame. If Dany is going all Genghis Khan with dragons on the South it may not even have anything of any value to offer the King through marriage. She's talking about killing the existing nobility and tearing down their castles with a Dothraki horde and the Red Priestess has held up the Chekov's Gun that the dragons can burn those who oppose Dany by the thousands. Whole villages will be burned, noble houses extinguished and the Dothraki will be used to keep the survivors in line.

Presuming Dany dies in the final battle... just what happens to the South when the Dothraki left behind to keep order realize their leader is dead and they're free to do as they wish? If you said turn on each other and go back to raiding and slaving anyone weaker than themselves you're getting the picture. Anyplace where Dany has replaced the local rulers with Dothraki raiders as the security force is going to need someone to drive the raiders out and if that's Jon's men then whoever takes over will be so grateful to the crown for saving them or will be someone Jon himself appoints as ruler that he wouldn't need to worry about securing their loyalty via a marriage alliance (that would be something for his children or even children's children to resolve).

In other words, when we say end up as "King" I think its something of a mistake to presume that automatically means the Iron Throne and all of Westeros. This story didn't start in King's Landing, it started at Winterfell. If Dany turns villain then our main protagonists are the Starks of Winterfell and all of their arcs could be summed up as "Leave Home. Lose Yourself. Find Yourself. Return Home."

In which case Jon and Sansa as King and Queen of Winterfell (a Ned/Cat 2.0) is the logical narrative endpoint of the story. King's Landing/The Vale, The Wall/True North and the Riverlands/Braavos are just the places our young Starks had to travel to in order to lose themselves and find themselves so they can go home.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Chris24601

arjumand · June 8, 2016

29 minutes ago, Chris24601 said:

Actually, I think its the other way around. Its Jon that brings the North while Sansa brings South; the Riverlands specifically. The show has made it pretty clear that Edmure is a dead man (the fact that the actor's got his own show now is another telegraphing clue) and has no heir. Once he's dead then Sansa is the rightful ruler of the Riverlands on the show (technically its Bran, but Sansa would come right after him in line and a cripple who cannot fight and cannot produce heirs will be pressured to abdicate as soon as Sansa's eldest son comes of age).

Because he's NOT descended from a Tully, Jon has no claim to the Riverlands so a marriage to Sansa would unite both regions under the same ruling family which is a pretty strong political move. The Riverlands have much better farmlands than the North and it is an effective buffer state between the North and the rest of Westeros (not just physically via easily defended fortifications like the Twins, but culturally as well since they follow the Faith of the Seven and have traditions more in line with the Crownlands, Westerlands and Stormlands).

Its a little different in the books as Edmure has an unborn child, but its not inconceivable something could happen before the end of the story to take Edmure and child off the board. But in the books Jon's claim via Robb's will is more likely to cause friction with those who would prefer a trueborn Stark and marrying the trueborn and still virgin Sansa Stark would calm any potential conflict before it begins.

* * * *

I also think its worth pointing out that the show and the books put different weights on love (the show) vs. political alliance (the books). While they may end up in the same place (a marriage of Jon and Sansa), I think the show will put more weight on the romantic side while the books will likely be content to let the advantages of a political alliance be seen as the good end in and of itself.

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again. I think the show moving Sansa up north and into Jon's orbit well in advance of her book counterpart is in large part because the showrunners want Jon/Sansa to be a romantic story in addition to the political angle of the books (because romance sells to general audiences in ways political alliances/marriages of convenience will not). Romance takes time to sell, particularly when each episode is only giving you at most 10 minutes of screen time to depict anything of relevance.

* * * *

Related to this is that I don't know how much the southern portions of Westeros are even going to factor into the endgame. If Dany is going all Genghis Khan with dragons on the South it may not even have anything of any value to offer the King through marriage. She's talking about killing the existing nobility and tearing down their castles with a Dothraki horde and the Red Priestess has held up the Chekov's Gun that the dragons can burn those who oppose Dany by the thousands. Whole villages will be burned, noble houses extinguished and the Dothraki will be used to keep the survivors in line.

Presuming Dany dies in the final battle... just what happens to the South when the Dothraki left behind to keep order realize their leader is dead and they're free to do as they wish? If you said turn on each other and go back to raiding and slaving anyone weaker than themselves you're getting the picture. Anyplace where Dany has replaced the local rulers with Dothraki raiders as the security force is going to need someone to drive the raiders out and if that's Jon's men then whoever takes over will be so grateful to the crown for saving them or will be someone Jon himself appoints as ruler that he wouldn't need to worry about securing their loyalty via a marriage alliance (that would be something for his children or even children's children to resolve).

In other words, when we say end up as "King" I think its something of a mistake to presume that automatically means the Iron Throne and all of Westeros. This story didn't start in King's Landing, it started at Winterfell. If Dany turns villain then our main protagonists are the Starks of Winterfell and all of their arcs could be summed up as "Leave Home. Lose Yourself. Find Yourself. Return Home."

In which case Jon and Sansa as King and Queen of Winterfell (a Ned/Cat 2.0) is the logical narrative endpoint of the story. King's Landing/The Vale, The Wall/True North and the Riverlands/Braavos are just the places our young Starks had to travel to in order to lose themselves and find themselves so they can go home.

What I bolded: Ooh, I like that. To be honest, I'm not very interested in Jon being on the Iron Throne, because I don't think he's interested, even if he turns out to be a secret Targaryen, maybe even a legitimate one (through secret marriage between Lyanna and Rhaegar). Sansa doesn't strike me as wanting to be Queen of the seven kingdoms either - she just wants to go home, IMO. Actually, she seems to want everything to go back to how it was before, which is why she seems to be clinging to old ideas in this new, post-Red Wedding world (the breaking of guest-right really fucked up everything) - like when she reminded Lord Glover of his vow to the Starks, and Jon was turning to her with this "No, honey. Just no" expression on his face. No, Robb fucked that up, and then the Boltons became the new arbiters of everything in the North.

What does Jon want? Well, this new, kinda blank Jon seems to be suffering from a massive case of PTSD, brought on by Hardhome and being murdered. Right now, this whole battle for Winterfell is kind of like a mosquito buzzing in your ear when you're trying to concentrate on the bigger problem: the unstoppable ice guys with their armies of fast zombies who are just beyond the horizon. So at the moment he just seems to want it over with.

What's interesting to me is I think I know why Ramsey has to be such a sociopathic monster and rapist (and specifically raping Sansa, rather than characters we don't know or care about), worse than the Night's King who is ultimately just doing what's in his nature. The reason is, in my opinion, that if he wasn't, if he was just more of an asshole than the others, people would be giving Jon the same argument he gave the Wildlings in Hardhome:

Quote

We’re not friends. We’ve never been friends. We won’t become friends today. This isn’t about friendship. This is about survival.

But with this Ramsey, who not only did horrible things to people Jon doesn't know, but did horrible things to Sansa, there's no reasoning. Or maybe he doesn't even want to try. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's reasoning with Ramsey, because he's not only a twisted sociopath, he's also incredibly stupid. But it's interesting that the situation is being manipulated so that there is no way anyone will even try. And now, when the Night's King does his stroll into the North, he'll be faced by exhausted and decimated armies.

Back to the aftermath - I'd love for that to be the Jon / Sansa ending: Lord and Lady of Winterfell, especially as some people are theorizing he'll do a Mad Max, and wander off with the Wildlings once it's all over. I suspect that under all the layers of shock and worry, he just wants to go home, too.

Hecate7 · June 8, 2016

16 hours ago, ElizaD said:

Weeks of rape and torture - and no Northern lord gives a damn that Ramsay treated Ned's little girl so badly. It's a shame Jon is too committed to his duty to get on a ship to Essos and tell these worthless assholes to look to Ramsay to lead them against the Night's King since they hate the Starks so much.

The North was perhaps the most widely loved plotline from ADWD, and it was reduced to Sansa's rape and Theon's escape as subplots on Everybody Loves Ramsay. I've been looking forward to the plot since season 2 (especially after Alfie's acting surprised me so positively), so this has been a huge disappointment, even bigger than Dorne since that didn't have such stellar material and hell yeah! moments to ruin.

But it's much more realistic that Northern lords would not care how another Northern lord treats his wife. The important thing is that he married her, not what he did to her afterwards or how she felt about marrying him in the first place. A man's wife is his property and what he does with her is his business, in this sort of culture. If Ramsey wanted to set her on fire or feed her to the dogs, that's his business. Sansa is not THEIR little girl--she's Ned's, and Ned isn't here to object. Moreover, Ned screwed the North by getting himself killed, and then his son lost them most of their men because they followed him. Their reaction, "The North Remembers," is entirely appropriate and realistic. Of course they care more about the devastation of their own houses, than anything to do with the Starks. It's also very realistic that Sansa doesn't get this at all.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Hecate7

Jazzy24 · June 8, 2016

37 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

But it's much more realistic that Northern lords would not care how another Northern lord treats his wife. The important thing is that he married her, not what he did to her afterwards or how she felt about marrying him in the first place. A man's wife is his property and what he does with her is his business, in this sort of culture. If Ramsey wanted to set her on fire or feed her to the dogs, that's his business. Sansa is not THEIR little girl--she's Ned's, and Ned isn't here to object. Moreover, Ned screwed the North by getting himself killed, and then his son lost them most of their men because they followed him. Their reaction, "The North Remembers," is entirely appropriate and realistic. Of course they care more about the devastation of their own houses, than anything to do with the Starks. It's also very realistic that Sansa doesn't get this at all.

Of course they would care about their Liege Lord's daughter and how she was treated.

Ned was a great lord to the Northmen. He treated them fairly and with respect something the Boltons have never done. They followed him into 2 wars without question and did the same for his son of course they care about his daughter and the rest of his children.

Yes Ned and Robb made mistakes but the Starks for thousands of years have done both great and bad things for the North. The northerners should be angry about the Red Wedding and having a sadistic bastard be in control of the North and by right their liege(Rickon)

The Starks have been in control of the North for thousands of years and having relationships with their bannermen almost as long. That's why in ADWD the Mormonts march with Stannis because they remember how the Starks gave them Bear Island and help protect them from the Ironborn. Or what about the Starks building the Winter Town for the Northmen to come to for winter to help them? That's why Lyanna Mormont in ADWD verbally kicked ass by saying that "Bear Island knows no King, but the King In the North whose name is STARK!!" Or what about Wylla Manderly who gave us that awesome speech about how 1,300 years ago that house Manderly was chased from their home and were welcomed and protected in the North by the Starks and how they pledged to be their men always? What about that Liddle men saying that when there was a Stark in Winterfell that a maiden girl could walk the road in her name day dress and go unmolested. Or how about the northern army marching hundreds of miles in snow to save "Ned's girl"

This northern story line pisses me off, they keep shitting on the Starks to prop Ramsey Snow and so Littlfinger who betrayed Ned can waltz in and save the day while the Starks can't get one freaking victory after so much hell. Watch them kill Rickon just because.

spottedreptile · June 9, 2016

24 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

This northern story line pisses me off,

It's bad writing and a sign of Being.In.Over.Their.Heads.

Chris24601 · June 9, 2016

[Snipped for space]

2 hours ago, arjumand said:

To be honest, I'm not very interested in Jon being on the Iron Throne, because I don't think he's interested, even if he turns out to be a secret Targaryen, maybe even a legitimate one (through secret marriage between Lyanna and Rhaegar). Sansa doesn't strike me as wanting to be Queen of the seven kingdoms either - she just wants to go home, IMO. Actually, she seems to want everything to go back to how it was before ... What does Jon want? ... I suspect that under all the layers of shock and worry, he just wants to go home, too.

In the books, when Jon imagines a life for himself outside of the Watch he pictures himself as the Lord of Winterfell with children named after his lost family. In other words, yes, he just wants to go home and not just home, but the Winterfell of his youth only with himself in the role of Ned Stark.

Of all the female viewpoint characters in the books there's only one whose dreams match that; Sansa imagines herself as the lady of a castle with children named after her lost family (and puppies). She's also one of the few people who shares the same memories of Winterfell in their youth that both long to return to.

Which is why, of all the likely candidates for Jon, I've always felt Sansa is the best fit. They don't want to conquer/rule the world or be some restless righter of wrongs. They have the same wished for happy ending... and its not some childish fantasy dream like being the high queen or legendary knight of some storybook (though in the process I think they'll end up both and be too worn down by life to even remember those were once their dreams), but the mature dream of someone who's seen the horrors of the world firsthand. They want to go home and raise a family and live peaceably for the rest of their days.

Different roads can lead to the same castle. Sansa went a thousand miles south, Jon went a thousand miles north and yet, of all the Starks who were scattered to the winds by the end of the first book, they are the ones who find each other again (on the show and most likely in the books as well) and the ones who are on the road to returning home (which they will have to defend one final time; likely from both the Night King and the Dragon Queen at once because its no accident that Martin placed Winterfell at the mid-point between The Wall and where Dany is likely to land her forces).

Winterfell is where the story began; with a King and Queen journeying there and, as a result, scattering the Starks to the winds. That will be where it ends as well; with a King and Queen returning HOME to Winterfell and gathering the survivors to them with dreams of happier days ahead.

* * * *

As relates to the theory that Jon might go all Mad Max with the Wildlings... I think it will be the opposite. I think Jon will invite the Free Folk to settle in his lands without having to bend the knee to him. You could see that in one of Jon's few smiles Jon has had since his resurrection when the Free Folk leader did not kneel when agreeing to help, but clasped hands as equals. I think you could see it in the compare and contrast between Tormund's "When we say something we do it" and the many excuses made by the Northern Lords to not follow through on their words.

At this point, the Free Folk are more worthy to survive in my eyes than most of the Northern Lords and I suspect that Jon would rather make the North more like the Free Folk than try to make the Free Folk more like the North (and its why every one of my joking (but not really) posts about Jon and Sansa just leaving to go find a tropical island somewhere always includes them gathering up the Free Folk to go with them).

Jazzy24 · June 9, 2016

31 minutes ago, spottedreptile said:

It's bad writing and a sign of Being.In.Over.Their.Heads.

I feel like they want to drag it out plus try to make it more realistic by having the Starks suffer and get crapped on.

Kinslaying is the worst crime you can commit in the North besides breaking guest rights, yet the Northmen in the show don't care that the Boltons participated in the RW and Ramsey killed his father. WTF!!!!!

Cherpumple · June 9, 2016

Personally, I would love to see this thing end with no wall, no Iron Throne, and no Seven Kingdoms. A reshuffling seems to be in order, and with the deterioration or possible extinction of several major houses, it might make more sense to end with a Southern Kingdom and a Northern Kingdom, or a Northern Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and Dorne, or some other such arrangement. I have no love for the Targaryens, and their measly 300 year rule is a blink of an eye in terms of the history of Westeros, so in my mind their claim to rule all seven kingdoms after being defeated in Robert's rebellion is flimsy, and certainly not the epic destiny that Dany makes it out to be. That being said, I would be happy for Jon to end up as the Northern king, but the thought of him marrying Sansa makes me want to vomit.

On 6/1/2016 at 1:38 AM, Macbeth said:

Cersei's Trial by Combat is coming up. We know she has the Mountain in her corner - who will HS choose? It has to be someone we know or what's the point. Who do we know that are members of that faith - Tommen and Lancel. Even if Tommen chose to fight - Cersei would just have the Mountain kill the High Sparrow.

I would LOVE for the High Sparrow to choose Tommen as the champion of the faith! It would be an absolute (and hilarious) disaster, and could definitely be the thing that pushes Cersei over the edge into destroying King's Landing. Bring it on, Sparrow!

nksarmi · June 9, 2016

I really and truly don't mind how the show is handling the North. Because on the show Robb really did muck things up. He broke a marriage pack for selfish reasons and killed the head of the House most closely related to the Starks for an act of vengeance and disobedience but did nothing to his own mother whose action precipitated those events. If Robb was going to show mercy to Caitlyn, he probably should have extended the same mercy to the Kastarks.

In the books, I don't actually get the feeling that the North Remembers is just about loyalty to the Starks. It's about revenge for what happened to the leaders of all those houses who were killed at the Red Wedding. And it's exacted in very subtle and careful ways. The show doesn't have the time or the budget to weave such a tale. But I don't think the "every house for himself" is an entirely wrong reaction either. It is still very realistic. Also, we don't know if any of the Northern houses will side with the Boltons in the books - because let's face it, loyalty to the Starks is one thing - but loyalty to Stannis (a Southern king/usurper who leads a sell-sword army and burns people to a foreign god) and Jon (a bastard who leads wildlings) might not come as quickly as we want to believe.

So who knows if a very similar story isn't coming in the books where Jon has to literally win the loyalty of the North through battle.

Hecate7 · June 9, 2016

8 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

Of course they would care about their Liege Lord's daughter and how she was treated.

Ned was a great lord to the Northmen. He treated them fairly and with respect something the Boltons have never done. They followed him into 2 wars without question and did the same for his son of course they care about his daughter and the rest of his children.

Yes Ned and Robb made mistakes but the Starks for thousands of years have done both great and bad things for the North. The northerners should be angry about the Red Wedding and having a sadistic bastard be in control of the North and by right their liege(Rickon)

The Starks have been in control of the North for thousands of years and having relationships with their bannermen almost as long. That's why in ADWD the Mormonts march with Stannis because they remember how the Starks gave them Bear Island and help protect them from the Ironborn. Or what about the Starks building the Winter Town for the Northmen to come to for winter to help them? That's why Lyanna Mormont in ADWD verbally kicked ass by saying that "Bear Island knows no King, but the King In the North whose name is STARK!!" Or what about Wylla Manderly who gave us that awesome speech about how 1,300 years ago that house Manderly was chased from their home and were welcomed and protected in the North by the Starks and how they pledged to be their men always? What about that Liddle men saying that when there was a Stark in Winterfell that a maiden girl could walk the road in her name day dress and go unmolested. Or how about the northern army marching hundreds of miles in snow to save "Ned's girl"

This northern story line pisses me off, they keep shitting on the Starks to prop Ramsey Snow and so Littlfinger who betrayed Ned can waltz in and save the day while the Starks can't get one freaking victory after so much hell. Watch them kill Rickon just because.

All of that is about respect given to the male heads of Stark households, not the concern for any maidens of the houses. The country was split in half over the honor of a Stark "maiden" once before, but that was because Rhaegar abducted her over her father's and brother's objections, not because of any worries about how Lyanna herself was being treated. Had Rheagar managed to publicly marry Lyanna, with her father's blessing, there would have been no war, even if he had beaten her to death or raped her privately every day, after their marriage.

I do think they might have rallied around Rickon, but it does make sense that they wouldn't--the Northmen value strength, and a boy captive, a bastard, and a girl don't really telegraph much strength. Bottom line: the Karstarks are never coming back. The Umbers aren't, either. And this is a huge problem because they have the numbers. None of the other Northern houses have the armies anymore, to take on the Boltons. I cannot believe Jon Snow wants to march his armies to Winterfell when they are outnumbered three to one. Did Sansa not tell him what Ramsey does to his enemies? Maybe Theon should have come to the Wall with Sansa after all, just so Jon could get a good look.

Oscirus · June 9, 2016

Quote

Actually, I think its the other way around. Its Jon that brings the North while Sansa brings South; the Riverlands specifically. The show has made it pretty clear that Edmure is a dead man (the fact that the actor's got his own show now is another telegraphing clue) and has no heir. Once he's dead then Sansa is the rightful ruler of the Riverlands on the show (technically its Bran, but Sansa would come right after him in line and a cripple who cannot fight and cannot produce heirs will be pressured to abdicate as soon as Sansa's eldest son comes of age).

Because he's NOT descended from a Tully, Jon has no claim to the Riverlands so a marriage to Sansa would unite both regions under the same ruling family which is a pretty strong political move. The Riverlands have much better farmlands than the North and it is an effective buffer state between the North and the rest of Westeros (not just physically via easily defended fortifications like the Twins, but culturally as well since they follow the Faith of the Seven and have traditions more in line with the Crownlands, Westerlands and Stormlands).

Politically, I don't think the riverlands is enough to move the needle one way or the other. I'm sure it's nice for Sansa to have if she wants to leave Winterfell but other then that it's more useful for people in the North then it is for someone on the Iron throne. That's assuming that the Starks even bother trying to take it back from the Freys since everybody will be too busy fighting bigger targets.

12 hours ago, Chris24601 said:

In other words, when we say end up as "King" I think its something of a mistake to presume that automatically means the Iron Throne and all of Westeros.

I would argue that it's not at all a mistake. The iron throne is very much an important character in this story. The two important questions are a) who will be sitting on the throne at the end? b) How will they get it? Will they take it by force, take it by trickery, use diplomacy, or will it fall into their lap thanks to inheritance?

Quote

Personally, I would love to see this thing end with no wall, no Iron Throne, and no Seven Kingdoms. A reshuffling seems to be in order, and with the deterioration or possible extinction of several major houses, it might make more sense to end with a Southern Kingdom and a Northern Kingdom, or a Northern Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and Dorne, or some other such arrangement

That's pretty much what the current situation is. I'd argue that the final (show) king on the throne will have a tough job ahead of them. Not only will they have to rebuild King's Landing, but they will also have to reunite the seven kingdoms.

Oscirus · June 9, 2016

9 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

Of course they would care about their Liege Lord's daughter and how she was treated.

Ned was a great lord to the Northmen. He treated them fairly and with respect something the Boltons have never done. They followed him into 2 wars without question and did the same for his son of course they care about his daughter and the rest of his children.

Yes Ned and Robb made mistakes but the Starks for thousands of years have done both great and bad things for the North. The northerners should be angry about the Red Wedding and having a sadistic bastard be in control of the North and by right their liege(Rickon)

The Starks have been in control of the North for thousands of years and having relationships with their bannermen almost as long. That's why in ADWD the Mormonts march with Stannis because they remember how the Starks gave them Bear Island and help protect them from the Ironborn. Or what about the Starks building the Winter Town for the Northmen to come to for winter to help them? That's why Lyanna Mormont in ADWD verbally kicked ass by saying that "Bear Island knows no King, but the King In the North whose name is STARK!!" Or what about Wylla Manderly who gave us that awesome speech about how 1,300 years ago that house Manderly was chased from their home and were welcomed and protected in the North by the Starks and how they pledged to be their men always? What about that Liddle men saying that when there was a Stark in Winterfell that a maiden girl could walk the road in her name day dress and go unmolested. Or how about the northern army marching hundreds of miles in snow to save "Ned's girl"

This northern story line pisses me off, they keep shitting on the Starks to prop Ramsey Snow and so Littlfinger who betrayed Ned can waltz in and save the day while the Starks can't get one freaking victory after so much hell. Watch them kill Rickon just because.

The North supported Ned and his family in two great wars sixteen years apart. Many people lost their lives, many families were torn apart, kids were forced to rule after they lost their families at a young age. They supported the Starks until Rob straight up fucked everybody because he didn't feel like honoring a deal. I agree, that the Boltons and the Frey should be made to pay for their actions, but at the same time, why does this fall on the North? The North has more then repaid Ned. The Starks can't keep using "The North remembers" as some sort of credit card whenever they get in trouble.

Harald Hardrada · June 9, 2016

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 5:37 AM, Maximum Taco said:

And if you ever came back you'd find things exactly how they were before you did anything at all. With a few squabbling houses fighting for power, and the smallfolk crushed beneath their heels.

I think that's one of the large points GRRM is trying to make. It's not enough to beat up the bad guys, you need to put into place a proper system of government. Dany kicked the asses of all the Masters, and tried to let the people rule themselves, but when she left Astapor all that happened was a Butcher King rose in the Masters' place and kept on doing exactly what the Masters had been doing before.

Except that Westeros smallfolk were not slaves, and they obviously don't like those noble lords rule over their villages and farms. I'm sure they can manage on their own without the Houses and the Iron Throne.

cambridgeguy · June 9, 2016

Quote

None of the other Northern houses have the armies anymore, to take on the Boltons. I cannot believe Jon Snow wants to march his armies to Winterfell when they are outnumbered three to one. Did Sansa not tell him what Ramsey does to his enemies?

Stannis, the most experienced commander in Westeros according to Davos, did the exact same thing, so I guess that's considered brilliant military strategy. He also had the exact same reasoning (if we don't move we'll be snowed in).

Of course Jon's strategy might be different if Sansa would tell him about those Vale soliders just hanging out by Moat Cailin. I think their sales pitch would have gone better if their allies were thousands (?) of Vale knights instead of some wildlings. Jon Arryn was Ned's second dad and teaming up with House Arryn (even if it is headed by a lunatic child and his devious uncle) would probably be a lot more palatable. That lunatic child is also Sansa's cousin so she can invoke the family card.

Chris24601 · June 9, 2016

2 hours ago, Oscirus said:

Politically, I don't think the riverlands is enough to move the needle one way or the other. I'm sure it's nice for Sansa to have if she wants to leave Winterfell but other then that it's more useful for people in the North then it is for someone on the Iron throne. That's assuming that the Starks even bother trying to take it back from the Freys since everybody will be too busy fighting bigger targets.

As you say, its more useful for people in the North. So if you're not concerned with the Iron Throne and just want to be King/Queen in the North then marrying the heir to the Riverlands is a fantastic political play of great value.

2 hours ago, Oscirus said:

I would argue that it's not at all a mistake. The iron throne is very much an important character in this story. The two important questions are a) who will be sitting on the throne at the end? b) How will they get it? Will they take it by force, take it by trickery, use diplomacy, or will it fall into their lap thanks to inheritance?

Then that's where our fundamental disagreement is and can see why you would disagree with my assessment.

I believe the entire message of the story is that the ugly hunk of scrap is the PROBLEM and has been a distraction from the real threats faced by the Realms of Men (note that it is 'realms' in the plural) and the only hope for the world are the people who don't give the slightest damn about it.

How many lives have been spent on the struggle for that infernal chair that could have instead been preparing for the wars to come and for the inevitable years long winter that is coming? How much food and other resources wasted in conflict that will prove utterly pointless when the real threats show up?

If the Iron Throne were so important to the story then events surrounding who controls it should be the central conflict of the story, but its not... the Iron Throne and King's Landing have instead become sideshows; does anyone think Cersei's conflict with the Sparrows will amount to anything once Dany or the Night King reaches them?

Its lack of importance probably comes from the fact that despite the name of the show, the actual story whose end they're adapting is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" and we've been told the end of the series will be mostly in line with the books. The end of that story is Winterfell. It will always be Winterfell because the story started at Winterfell, not at some blighted scrap a thousand miles away. Classic stories end where they begin so it is easier to see what has changed in the characters (and what has remained the same) so it will end with our heroes coming home to Winterfell.

And if I'm right about where the story is headed, then Jon/Sansa as King/Queen of Winterfell (the North united with the Riverlands) makes perfect sense.

Maximum Taco · June 9, 2016

4 hours ago, Harald Hardrada said:

Except that Westeros smallfolk were not slaves, and they obviously don't like those noble lords rule over their villages and farms. I'm sure they can manage on their own without the Houses and the Iron Throne.

Can they? Who would protect them from bandits and rapers? Who would keep the roads safe? Who would feed them if the harvest is poor or if the winter is extended? Who would settle a dispute if someone cheated someone else?

The nobles don't just lord over the smallfolk, they also help them. And that's not to say another system can't work, it obviously can. but your plan of killing all the nobles and riding off on your dragon would doom these people to anarchy, with no laws to protect them if somebody wanted to come to their farm take all their goods, rape their wife and children and slit their throats.

Hecate7 · June 9, 2016

15 hours ago, Jazzy24 said:

I feel like they want to drag it out plus try to make it more realistic by having the Starks suffer and get crapped on.

Kinslaying is the worst crime you can commit in the North besides breaking guest rights, yet the Northmen in the show don't care that the Boltons participated in the RW and Ramsey killed his father. WTF!!!!!

Because they weren't there, and they don't actually know that he did. Sansa knows because she lived with him. The Northern lords didn't live with him. They never even met him. To know what Ramsey is like, you'd have to have spies in the Stronghold (like LF would normally have), or live there, like Myranda. Roose only knew about Ramsey's games because he kept losing servants to them, and because he knew what he himself was capable of and figured his son was, too.

Eyes High · June 9, 2016

20 hours ago, Chris24601 said:

I also think its worth pointing out that the show and the books put different weights on love (the show) vs. political alliance (the books). While they may end up in the same place (a marriage of Jon and Sansa), I think the show will put more weight on the romantic side while the books will likely be content to let the advantages of a political alliance be seen as the good end in and of itself.

What makes you think that Sansa would be remotely interested in a political marriage in either the show or the books?

Books: Book Sansa does not want to get remarried, not now and "perhaps not ever." She is sad that no one will ever marry her "for love." She hated being married for her claim. She is willing to play along with Harry the Heir flirtation because she is confident that she cannot remarry as long as Tyrion is alive. Nor is she pleased by the idea of being widowed and being freed up to remarry: "The thought [of widowhood] made her tummy flutter. She might never have to share a bed with Tyrion again. That was what she wanted...wasn't it?"

If Book Sansa does remarry, I expect it will be for love to someone who cannot benefit from her claim. If Book Sansa does marry purely for love, all indications are that it will be to someone who's politically worthless like Sandor, not Jon.

TV: TV Sansa has been raped many times and may or may not have had portions of her genitals removed by her current husband, depending on whom you ask. She's not likely to have any interest in sex, much less marriage, for a long time, if ever. Given that her last two marriages have been political sham marriages with no love, I doubt she'll be eager to repeat the experience. The show has also spelled out that some part of Sansa doesn't trust Jon. It seems unlikely that she would entrust anyone with the right to have sex with her, even him. If she DID entrust anyone with that right, it would be either Sandor ( since at their last meeting she seemed to accept that he wouldn't hurt her) or Tyrion (who had multiple opportunities to rape her and refused).

Edited June 9, 2016 by Eyes High

Chris24601 · June 9, 2016

2 hours ago, Maximum Taco said:

The nobles don't just lord over the smallfolk, they also help them. And that's not to say another system can't work, it obviously can. but your plan of killing all the nobles and riding off on your dragon would doom these people to anarchy, with no laws to protect them if somebody wanted to come to their farm take all their goods, rape their wife and children and slit their throats.

Davos had an excellent point that a king who does not help his people is no king at all. The smallfolk understand the concept of good and bad rulers as well as we do. But what they also understand is that feudalism (i.e. the trade of service in exchange for military protection) is one of the more stable forms of government in human history. People always focus on the vows sworn by the vassal, but often overlook the vows sworn by the liege as well.

I loved the scene with Sansa and Brienne in 601, because it is one of the few places where we see how it actually worked; that the oaths are a two-way street. Pledging by the hearth and meat and mead at table is an assurance of food and shelter to someone not trained to provide those things on their own. The further pledge to never ask them to undertake a dishonorable task goes hand in hand with their swearing to be loyal to the lord's orders... its a mutual pledge.

The same goes for the pledge between peasant and lord... the peasant pledges their service in food (or some other service) in exchange for the protection offered by the lord and his men from bandits and raiders and other things which might threaten himself, his family or his property. The lord who cannot provide such protection is no lord at all because the resources he needs to pay for and house his troops come from those people he has sworn to protect. Likewise, oppress them and their productivity will suffer and you won't have the money to keep your own men in line (and eventually someone will get the idea of "if you follow me, I'll protect you peasants better and pay you troops on time" and they become the new lord).

ETA: The problem with more modern systems of government like republicanism or direct democracy is that only function on a small scale without a concentrated population (such as the industrial revolution moving more of the labor force into the cities) and/or more reliable communications (faster ships, rail, telegraph, telephone, etc.) to allow for the citizens to feel they have a voice in the system. Westeros has neither and so feudalism is probably the most moral system of government that can actually function in the environment.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Chris24601

Hecate7 · June 9, 2016

7 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

What makes you think that Sansa would be remotely interested in a political marriage in either the show or the books?

Books: Book Sansa does not want to get remarried, not now and "perhaps not ever." She is sad that no one will ever marry her "for love." She hated being married for her claim. She is willing to play along with Harry the Heir flirtation because she is confident that she cannot remarry as long as Tyrion is alive. Nor is she pleased by the idea of being widowed and being freed up to remarry: "She might never have to share a bed with Tyrion again. That was what she wanted...wasn't it?"

Phrased like that, it's foreshadowing that it's NOT what she wants at all. Sansa may have some purely political uses for her marriage to Tyrion, and judging from the above sentence, she may also have some personal reasons to revisit the connection and have the marriage declared valid after all.

Maximum Taco · June 9, 2016

18 minutes ago, Chris24601 said:

Davos had an excellent point that a king who does not help his people is no king at all. The smallfolk understand the concept of good and bad rulers as well as we do. But what they also understand is that feudalism (i.e. the trade of service in exchange for military protection) is one of the more stable forms of government in human history. People always focus on the vows sworn by the vassal, but often overlook the vows sworn by the liege as well.

I loved the scene with Sansa and Brienne in 601, because it is one of the few places where we see how it actually worked; that the oaths are a two-way street. Pledging by the hearth and meat and mead at table is an assurance of food and shelter to someone not trained to provide those things on their own. The further pledge to never ask them to undertake a dishonorable task goes hand in hand with their swearing to be loyal to the lord's orders... its a mutual pledge.

The same goes for the pledge between peasant and lord... the peasant pledges their service in food (or some other service) in exchange for the protection offered by the lord and his men from bandits and raiders and other things which might threaten himself, his family or his property. The lord who cannot provide such protection is no lord at all because the resources he needs to pay for and house his troops come from those people he has sworn to protect. Likewise, oppress them and their productivity will suffer and you won't have the money to keep your own men in line (and eventually someone will get the idea of "if you follow me, I'll protect you peasants better and pay you troops on time" and they become the new lord).

Bran brings up a similar point in season 2 when he is the Stark in Winterfell and the Ironborn besiege Torrhen's Square.

"If we can't protect our own bannermen, why should they protect us?"

He also lends masons out to help Lord Tallhart repair his holdfasts, and sends two orphan boys home with a shepherd who needs help tending his flock after sending his sons with Robb's army. This actually kills two birds with one stone it gives the shepherd help to tend his flock, and gives the orphans a home.

Bran would've made a pretty good Lord if he had been given the opportunity.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Maximum Taco

Alapaki · June 9, 2016

Quote

Quote

Davos had an excellent point that a king who does not help his people is no king at all. The smallfolk understand the concept of good and bad rulers as well as we do. But what they also understand is that feudalism (i.e. the trade of service in exchange for military protection) is one of the more stable forms of government in human history. People always focus on the vows sworn by the vassal, but often overlook the vows sworn by the liege as well.

I loved the scene with Sansa and Brienne in 601, because it is one of the few places where we see how it actually worked; that the oaths are a two-way street. Pledging by the hearth and meat and mead at table is an assurance of food and shelter to someone not trained to provide those things on their own. The further pledge to never ask them to undertake a dishonorable task goes hand in hand with their swearing to be loyal to the lord's orders... its a mutual pledge.

The same goes for the pledge between peasant and lord... the peasant pledges their service in food (or some other service) in exchange for the protection offered by the lord and his men from bandits and raiders and other things which might threaten himself, his family or his property. The lord who cannot provide such protection is no lord at all because the resources he needs to pay for and house his troops come from those people he has sworn to protect. Likewise, oppress them and their productivity will suffer and you won't have the money to keep your own men in line (and eventually someone will get the idea of "if you follow me, I'll protect you peasants better and pay you troops on time" and they become the new lord).

Bran brings up a similar point in season 2 when he is the Stark in Winterfell and the Ironborn besiege Torrhen's Square.

"If we can't protect our own bannermen, why should they protect us?"

He also lends masons out to help Lord Tallhart repair his holdfasts, and sends two orphan boys home with a shepherd who needs help tending his flock after sending his sons with Robb's army. This actually kills two birds with one stone it gives the shepherd help to tend his flock, and gives the orphans a home.

Absolutely. The relationship between a Lord and their subjects is a two-way street. The implicit promise on the Lord's end is that they will provide protection for their subjects from foreign threats. It's why Robb felt the need to return North when the Ironborn invaded.

I know there's a ton of but-for's at work in how "the Starks lost the North", but the best play would've been for Robb, having declared himself King in the North and with Jaime still as a prisoner to ensure Sansa's safety, to mass his forces just north of the Neck and wait for the Lannister/Crown army to break themselves trying to invade. But that would've consigned the Riverlands to pillage and destruction by the Lannister forces, which I suppose Catelyn would never permit.

Oscirus · June 9, 2016

Quote

How many lives have been spent on the struggle for that infernal chair that could have instead been preparing for the wars to come and for the inevitable years long winter that is coming? How much food and other resources wasted in conflict that will prove utterly pointless when the real threats show up?

If the Iron Throne were so important to the story then events surrounding who controls it should be the central conflict of the story, but its not... the Iron Throne and King's Landing have instead become sideshows; does anyone think Cersei's conflict with the Sparrows will amount to anything once Dany or the Night King reaches them?

Its lack of importance probably comes from the fact that despite the name of the show, the actual story whose end they're adapting is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" and we've been told the end of the series will be mostly in line with the books. The end of that story is Winterfell. It will always be Winterfell because the story started at Winterfell, not at some blighted scrap a thousand miles away. Classic stories end where they begin so it is easier to see what has changed in the characters (and what has remained the same) so it will end with our heroes coming home to Winterfell

This story has always been about getting the right leader on the throne. One who can stop all these conflicts and unite the people so that they're prepared for whatever travesties may come in the future. It's not about being good or bad, just about being able to navigate the political terrain involved with the throne while at the same time being able to take care of your people. This show has gone out of it's way to show us what happens to leaders who exhibit shortcomings in either area.

Why isn't the throne the current central story? Because the wrong person is sitting on the throne so the show is showing us the results of that, but it's not going to invest all of its time showing us that.

Ultimately I think the show will end with the right person sitting on the throne. It won't be because of blood lines, desire or even strength but because said person is who westeros needs to lead. Which is where the bittersweet comes in, regardless of who sits on the throne, someone's not going to be happy.

That's not to say that winterfell won't be an important part of the story. I just tend to think that most of the remaining Starks have more important destinies then just returning there and staying there for good.

Chris24601 · June 9, 2016

I dunno... if what I think is going to happen in the Crownlands, Westerlands and Reach (ironically the places spared most of the fighting in the War of the Five Kings) when Dany brings in her invading ~~Mongol~~ Dothraki horde and dragons occurs... my hunch is that the North, the northern portions of the Riverlands and the Vale will probably be all that is left of civilization in Westeros by the time Dany and the Night King are done wrecking it (unless rampaging hordes of Dothraki and Ironborn preying upon defenseless peasants because Dany's killed all the nobles/professional military counts as civilization to you).

We already know from Dany's vision in the House of the Undying that the Iron Throne ends up abandoned in a burned out King's Landing. The construct that was the Iron Throne only worked "because dragons" and only lasted through the Baratheon/Lannister era because of inertia. By the time Dany gets to Westeros it will have failed utterly.

The only way the Iron Throne isn't consigned to the dustbin of history by the end of the story is if Dany wins and still has her dragons. Its power is being eclipsed in its own capitol city by a group of religious fanatics and entire regions are still in open rebellion (Dorne, Riverrun, the North) and there's little to no power behind the throne to bring them back into line. Even if Jon's appointed King by popular acclamation, he's never been south of Winterfell since he was an infant and would have no desire to resurrect that horrible piece of scrap metal (particularly not with the degree of PTSD he's suffering from).

FemmyV · June 9, 2016

On 6/8/2016 at 1:46 AM, ElizaD said:

If the lords only support Jon after he's won the battle, that'll completely miss the point of the Northern storyline in ADWD. Instead of being an uplifting moment of Stark loyalty and a rejection of Roose's treacherous part in the Red Wedding/Ramsay's psychotic nature and abuse of his "Stark" bride, it'll just be a bunch of despicable, lying opportunists who were perfectly fine with Lord Ramsay having to come up with with excuses for why they really like Jon after their #1 choice has been executed and they're scrambling to save their own lives and lands.

I kind of think that's the point, at least in the TV show. D & D have shoved nihilism down our throats repeatedly. On the upside, it gives him some leverage for setting aside lands for the Free Folk.

The most likely person who would sit in the Iron Throne, in the end, is the person who wants it but is most willing to burn it to fight WWs. Just a hunch.

Add another reason why Jon & Sansa isn't going to happen: the odds of it happening in the book are so unlikely that it leaves the filmed version all the more vulnerable to a remake if they go that far off the reservation.

kittykat · June 9, 2016

1 hour ago, Maximum Taco said:

Bran brings up a similar point in season 2 when he is the Stark in Winterfell and the Ironborn besiege Torrhen's Square.

"If we can't protect our own bannermen, why should they protect us?"

He also lends masons out to help Lord Tallhart repair his holdfasts, and sends two orphan boys home with a shepherd who needs help tending his flock after sending his sons with Robb's army. This actually kills two birds with one stone it gives the shepherd help to tend his flock, and gives the orphans a home.

Bran would've made a pretty good Lord if he had been given the opportunity.

Funny. I was just thinking of this scene and chapter in ACOK when people were talking about how Winter was coming and Bran was the SiW. Bran also was advising the bigger and smaller houses how much harvest they should set aside for winter. For a boy of eight at the time he really was being groomed to become a fair and judging lord. He appeared to see the bigger picture better than his parents and older siblings. He swallowed his Stark honor by yielding Winterfell to Theon to save his people.

I know Bran has a bigger fate in store for him as the new 3ER. I'm not sure if he makes it south of the wall by season's end but if he had been among Jon and Sansa when negotiating for soldiers it would've made that claim all the stronger.

The biggest issue with the fight between the White Walkers won't be numbers, it will be weapons. There aren't many Valyrian steel swords around (Longclaw, Oathkeeper and Littlefinger's Dagger are the only ones in the North. Widow's Wail and Heartsbane are far south.) As someone said upthread, someone would need to travel to Dragonstone via LF's Tardis to grab their stores of dragonglass. I mean the army might as well be armed with torches. Although I'm sure the Dragons ex machina will show up in time before our favorites fall.

1 hour ago, Alapaki said:

I know there's a ton of but-for's at work in how "the Starks lost the North", but the best play would've been for Robb, having declared himself King in the North and with Jaime still as a prisoner to ensure Sansa's safety, to mass his forces just north of the Neck and wait for the Lannister/Crown army to break themselves trying to invade. But that would've consigned the Riverlands to pillage and destruction by the Lannister forces, which I suppose Catelyn would never permit.

Technically this was Robb's plan but instead of the Neck he was trying to drive Tywin's forces west and besiege them leaving the Westerlands pillaged instead of the Riverlands. But then Edmure went and attacked them at Stone Mill (after Robb told him to hold at Riverrun), which drove them South, which led them to King's Landing in time to defeat Stannis at Blackwater. Had Edmure held his ground and not attacked Lannister forces then Tywin would not have made it and Stannis likely would have won. But there are a lot of if/then scenarios and one absolute: Edmure's an idiot.

arjumand · June 9, 2016

32 minutes ago, Chris24601 said:

I dunno... if what I think is going to happen in the Crownlands, Westerlands and Reach (ironically the places spared most of the fighting in the War of the Five Kings) when Dany brings in her invading ~~Mongol~~ Dothraki horde and dragons occurs... my hunch is that the North, the northern portions of the Riverlands and the Vale will probably be all that is left of civilization in Westeros by the time Dany and the Night King are done wrecking it (unless rampaging hordes of Dothraki and Ironborn preying upon defenseless peasants because Dany's killed all the nobles/professional military counts as civilization to you).

We already know from Dany's vision in the House of the Undying that the Iron Throne ends up abandoned in a burned out King's Landing. The construct that was the Iron Throne only worked "because dragons" and only lasted through the Baratheon/Lannister era because of inertia. By the time Dany gets to Westeros it will have failed utterly.

The only way the Iron Throne isn't consigned to the dustbin of history by the end of the story is if Dany wins and still has her dragons. Its power is being eclipsed in its own capitol city by a group of religious fanatics and entire regions are still in open rebellion (Dorne, Riverrun, the North) and there's little to no power behind the throne to bring them back into line. Even if Jon's appointed King by popular acclamation, he's never been south of Winterfell since he was an infant and would have no desire to resurrect that horrible piece of scrap metal (particularly not with the degree of PTSD he's suffering from).

Well, there's some who feel that Dany is going to go full Genghis Khan - i.e. the storms in the Narrow Sea will destroy all her ships (which would also bring something from the books into the tv show - the one thing we hear about Hardhome in the books is that half the ships Jon sent were lost), so the Dothraki will never reach Westeros.

And in Bran's vision, what we see, more than once, is the shadow of the dragon over King's Landing, rather than hordes of Dothraki galloping on the city. Maybe she loses all her shock troops and is so pissed off that she gets on Drogon and flies to King's Landing (maybe even muttering "Burn them all" under her breath the whole time).

About the dragons - it's been theorised that they have to die, that all magic has to leave Westeros to get the place out of the feudal hierarchy dead end.

Sign In

Season 6: Speculation

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HighQueenEB

Chris24601

Chris24601

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment