Season 7: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[Oscirus]

7 hours ago, doram said:

No amount of mental gymnastics will convince me that Joffrey's death was anything less than an Objectively Good Thing. There'll always be a justification for every cause of action on this show so I'm not going to go into the logistics of whether or not the Tarlys were justified in betraying Olenna or not. I can only reiterate that Dickon personally thought he was wrong, and he also seemed (from the leaks) to think that not bending the knee was wrong, and both times he went against his instincts - not because of his own convictions - but because of his fear of his father.

In the end, he's a grown man in a medieval world. He made his bed. Now he'll ? barbecue? in it. 

I'm fine with that. Dickon faced down a dragon wielding psycho and got burned for it. That's stupidity and that's on him. All I'm saying  is that these actions make miss "break the wheel" a big ole hypocrite, and that justifying her actions by saying that the two betrayed Oleanna who herself was known for betraying people is really stretching it. 

 

So Sam's going to keep doing shit he shouldn't be doing and not suffering the consequences? At this point, his last name should be changed to plot mover since he barely qualifies as a character anymore.

[SimoneS]

6 hours ago, Lemuria said:

I liked Olenna Tyrell but she wasn't really a very nice person and in the end, she wasn't nearly as smart a player as she--and the audience--thought she was.

No one on GoT is particularly nice. It is question of who is the worse. Compared to the Lannisters, Olenna was practically a saint. She didn't go around destroying people at a whim like Cersei and Joffrey which is why she lost her family and her house. Olenna made a lot of mistakes. For example, she should have killed Cersei before killing Joffrey. However, IMO none of this justifies the Tarlys breaking their oath to the Tyrells or not bending their knees to Daenerys Targaryen. Even Dickon admitted to Jaime that he knew what he and his father did was wrong. I hope they both burn hot and long and do not have one of those quick to ashes deaths. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by SimoneS

[Advance35]

Well I think Sam's current character status is a consequence of where the story is going.  Human reactions and consequences are not prominent anymore.  As the more Syfy and by the numbers characters are being positioned center stage Dany, Jon, Arya, Bran.  

The more nuanced and complex (and formerly prominent) Characters and what happens to them are re-assigned to a supporting role (Tyrion, Varys, LF) or shuffled offstage (Tywin, Roose, Olenna, Margaery, pretty much Kings Landing Seasons 2-6).

It's why for some, the upcoming battle with the NK isn't so exciting.  It's also why Cersei and Jaimie are still alive.  Picture HOURS of screentime concentrated on Dany, Jon, Bran and the NK doing what they do.   I suspect this is what has stalled GRRM as well.

I have to admit I'm eager to see how the show runners are going to attempt to keep things interesting next season considering what they have to work with.   6 hours of Hardhome might get old.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Advance35

[YaddaYadda]

7 hours ago, Lemuria said:

There are a lot of claims that any annulment Rhaegar got would be illegal or invalid or illegitimate.  What is this actually based on?  

I don't think it matters. The show has gone its on way on this one. If they say that there was an annulment and that Jon is legitimate and has claim to the throne, no amount of any of us book nerds saying that annulments can't happen because the marriage was consummated and children were born will change that. This is when everyone needs to separate the books from the show, I think.

Edited August 11, 2017 by YaddaYadda

[SeanC]

17 minutes ago, doram said:

It's based on medieval European customs (much like the claim that Jon is the rightful heir to the Throne even though there's no precedent in Westeros of a grand-son inheriting the Crown from his grand-father King) and aspects of the show like Tyrion & Sansa's marriage, and all of Margaery's previous marriages being considered null and void since they were not consummated.

And the argument that Westeros is an absolute monarchy (although it's more a fiefdom than a centralised government) just makes the case against Jon as rightful heir worse because the absolute  monarch in this case is King Aerys, not Rhaegar and the King:

1. did not annul the marriage or give permission for its annulment -> the annulment was not legal, making any subsequent marriages illegal.

2. did not approve the marriage to Lyanna Stark -> making it null and void and Jon a bastard.

3. passed over Rhaegar's still-living children to crown Viserys -> disinheriting Jon and taking him out of the line of the throne. 

You're assuming that Aerys' permission is necessary in either case.

Going by the spoilers, it isn't.

[ElizaD]

38 minutes ago, doram said:

The spoilers are just indicative of the lazy & fan-servicey narrative that the writers have been taking once they run out of source material. So it shouldn't come to their surprise or anyone else's that people will point out all the logical flaws in this. 

I don't think it's lazy and fanservicey, it might be just as possible to call it efficient and goal-oriented. With Jon's legitimacy and the Sansa/Tyrion marriage, I would now guess that the key thing is that Jon's legitimacy will matter and the marriage will not: in the end, legitimacy will play a part in Jon either sitting on the throne or becoming Dany's husband in order to end the debate about their claims, while Sansa and Tyrion will not be ruling as husband and wife either at Winterfell or Casterly Rock.

If GRRM wrote the last books, his explanations would probably be more time-consuming and do more to acknowledge the existing laws and customs of the setting. But the show has to choose between lengthy exposition and simply establishing the key point in a way that the audience understands (for example, many viewers really will need to have R+L=J explicitly spelled out even after the Tower of Joy confirmed it to readers). So when the show began moving Sansa towards her endgame in the North non-consummation was suddenly enough to invalidate the marriage, and Tyrion again made this clear in 7x03: no matter what the books said about annulment, by the end of their stories (as told to the showrunners by GRRM) they will not be married and the show quickly got that out of the way. I feel that it's quite possible that annulment is how GOT includes the key thing about book Rhaegar's secret revival of Targaryen polygamy (IMO, the book theories about Jon's legitimacy are pretty well-argued though not yet in the category of all but confirmed like R+L=J and the gravedigger used to be before the show got around to making them official).  If the important thing is what Jon's legitimacy leads to, personally I'm fine with the show focusing on the present-day consequences rather than how it came about all those years ago. While annulment makes Rhaegar look like a dick, even in the books Elia is simply one of GRRM's disposable background women defined by the reactions of men to her tragedy; it's the reactions of Jon and Dany above all that are going to matter to this storyline.

Going back to historical examples, the children of an annulled marriage don't always become bastards. When Eleanor of Aquitaine and the King of France only had daughters rather than sons, their marriage was annulled but their daughters were declared to be legitimate. Without the books we'll never get a detailed explanation about what exactly Rhaegar had in mind and whether this was originally polygamy or annulment: maybe he still wanted Aegon #1 to be first in the succession, maybe he was so prophecy-obsessed that he'd decided Aegon #1 couldn't be the PWWP and he had to have a half-Stark Aegon #2 because his first attempt to produce the correct type of heir had failed.

[anamika]

I don't think these legitimacy issues are going to matter in the end. I am pretty certain at this point that Jon will die - he is most certainly a fire wight in the books and will be vastly different from the resurrected version on the show. In every way the book version is different to the show version even before he got killed off. His lineage will play a role in his riding Rhaegal and in the fight against the WW and that's about it. Either he dies, decides to continue at the wall as a NW brother or he goes off beyond the wall à la Paul Muad'Dib or Rand Al' Thor - typical endings for heroes in fantasy.

Dany will ultimately take down Cersei (younger, more beautiful queen),  win the throne with Tyrion as her hand. Or even Davos - he was talking about switching sides last episode! She will be sad because Jon is gone, but will do her duty and rebuild Westeros. Tyrion gets Casterly Rock - what he's wanted all his life.

In Winterfell, the Stark girls and Bran will hold the North as Wardens under Dany. Theon will probably support Yara as leader of the Iron Islands.

I am hoping that Jaime dies along with Cersei, but knowing this show, he may get the happiest ending of all with Brienne.

Edited August 11, 2017 by anamika

[YaddaYadda]

21 minutes ago, doram said:

The journey is as important as the destination.

That is true, but the sad thing is that shows don't care as much about the journey as they should. They care about the destination, that's why we're always stuck with characters that are twisted into something unrecognizable to fit the plot of the day. 

Judging by the my friends who have never read the books, the audience at large won't care about the annulment. One of my friends didn't even remember who Rhaegar was. Two of them don't remember that Rhaegar had children, and one of them said they're dead, so who cares. The one who didn't remember who Rhaegar was thought Ned and Lyanna were Jon's parents, one thought Robert was the father even though Lyanna was just done telling Ned that Robert would kill Jon if he ever found out. That's who the show is written for, for the audience at large. 

I wonder what the episodes threads for 705 and 707 will look like. It don't think it will be pretty.

[anamika]

6 minutes ago, YaddaYadda said:

I wonder what the episodes threads for 705 and 707 will look like. It don't think it will be pretty.

Why?

[Keener]

18 hours ago, Wouter said:

So far, it looks like Sansa is headed to be lady of Winterfell. With Rickon dead (a shock to me, as a book reader I had suspected this character was there to continue the Stark line in the end, as the main line holding Winterfell), Sansa will need heirs or else she will have to count on Arya providing those for her. Which does seem to indicate she will likely need to marry at some points, and the show has left few viable candidates. It would be ironic if it were Gendry, if he would marry a Stark it should be Arya. I suppose they may introduce some northern or Vale lordling in S8, but would they wait so long for that?

It's funny, I joked with my friend that I thought-- through no real indication from the show-- that the match for Sansa was going to be Podrick. While I realize he's just a squire at best, when the war is over will anyone truly care about titles?  The thought came to me when I was thinking about his purpose on the whole. What's he really done to forward the story?  And the continuous scenes of Brienne training him? What do those insignificant scenes demonstrate? The conclusion I came to was that perhaps Podrick will be meant to take on Brienne's vows to protect Sansa. That in some capacity he'll actually use his terrible sword skills to do something useful to help Sansa in the future.  For Sansa, she needs a person of *her* choosing; someone she's fallen for naturally. Also she needs a person who will feel at home in Winterfell and will not attempt to challenge her role as Lady of Winterfell. A few of the other remaining male options are either related to her, far older than her, or have potentially nefarious goals in mind. Podrick is the right age (I think? It's hard to tell how old anyone is meant to be now) and he'd fit in the north and likely has no aspirations of grandeur. Also, he's kind to Sansa and he's not a terrible person. Considering he's been hanging out at Winterfell and is Stark loyal, I can't see any other real outcome for the character. 

[anamika]

I think Jon and the Hound discuss Sansa next episode? In which case, he may still be a viable candidate for her to marry..

[YaddaYadda]

26 minutes ago, anamika said:

Why?

Mostly of this whole debate about annulments. 

[ElizaD]

54 minutes ago, doram said:

It's a story, not a powerpoint presentation. The show might not be able to go into the level of detail that the books do, but they still need to establish an actual cohesive narrative - and not just bullet points of story. That's why it's a series, acted out, played out, over hours and hours of screen-time. 

Otherwise, if the end goals are all that mattered, they can deliver that in thirty minutes where they read off the endgames of the show - who dies, who lives, who sits on the Iron Throne if it still exists, etc. 

The journey is as important as the destination.

For me personally, I feel that this journey begins when the present-day characters start reacting to Jon's legitimacy. Rhaegar's annulment is rather like Sansa's: it's an OK starting point for something that could be/is different from the books but can nonetheless be used to develop relationships, character abilities and the political situation in the direction where they will ultimately be heading in both mediums.  In Sansa's case the story that followed the annulment was IMO an absolute mess that ultimately felt like it was built around the rape and didn't even stay faithful to its stated goals (I've read small suggestions that would have done a lot to salvage bits of the story, for example at least one Northern house siding with Jon/Sansa explicitly because of the Stark loyalty that was the stated Bolton reason for the marriage, so it didn't have to be a failure on all levels just because it started with a dodgy annulment). It's yet to be seen if the Jon/Dany reaction to his legitimacy will feel similarly governed by plot expediency above character, but since I feel that they're starting to do decent buildup for their initial romance, I'm willing to wait and see since I consider those two to be far more important than the status of Rhaegar/Lyanna/Elia.

To me, Jon/Dany is the narrative, and whether it turns out to be cohesive or not has nothing to do with Rhaegar's annulment, only with whether the characters respond to Jon's parentage and claim in ways that end up feeling believable after we've watched the 6-7 hours of season 8.

[sacrebleu]

Quote

There are a lot of claims that any annulment Rhaegar got would be illegal or invalid or illegitimate.  

That Rhaegar is a boss-- He kidnapped Lyanna, starting a war-- but still had time and presence of mind to fill out the appropriate paperwork to annul his marriage and marry his new woman to ensure the legitimacy of Targ. succession (and raven it off to the Citadel?)

There is multi-tasking, and then there's this.

[Moxie Cat]

48 minutes ago, anamika said:

I am hoping that Jaime dies along with Cersei, but knowing this show, he may get the happiest ending of all with Brienne.

I would bet anything that Jaime dies in a terribly noble way, such as sacrificing himself to save a whole bunch of people. It would be the ultimate full circle for a show that started with him pushing a child out a window to protect his situation with Cersei.

I agree that knowing who Rhaegar is could be challenging for non-book readers. I wish that last season they had woven in a couple more flashbacks for Bran that not only showed the audience Lyanna but Rhaegar too. Doing so also would have made the last scene at the Tower of Joy make more sense to those who might be confused.

[Katsullivan]

2 hours ago, doram said:

It's a story, not a powerpoint presentation. The show might not be able to go into the level of detail that the books do, but they still need to establish an actual cohesive narrative - and not just bullet points of story. That's why it's a series, acted out, played out, over hours and hours of screen-time. 

Oh thank you for saying this. I'm a book purist as everyone probably knows by now but I won't mind these seasons so much if they let their narratives make sense for the story they're trying to tell us. 

[stagmania]

2 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

Judging by the my friends who have never read the books, the audience at large won't care about the annulment. One of my friends didn't even remember who Rhaegar was. Two of them don't remember that Rhaegar had children, and one of them said they're dead, so who cares. The one who didn't remember who Rhaegar was thought Ned and Lyanna were Jon's parents, one thought Robert was the father even though Lyanna was just done telling Ned that Robert would kill Jon if he ever found out. That's who the show is written for, for the audience at large. 

I know a lot of these kinds of viewers-I would wager that they are the vast majority of the audience. They will just go with whatever the show tells them, probably won't bother thinking through the details, and won't make all the connections anyway. My friend and I were discussing the other day that the show could probably do the full R+L=J reveal, and as long as a character doesn't explicitly say "Hey Jon, you fucked your aunt", a lot of the audience wouldn't even realize incest is at play.

2 hours ago, anamika said:

I think Jon and the Hound discuss Sansa next episode? In which case, he may still be a viable candidate for her to marry..

It would make no sense for show Sansa and the Hound to end up together, and would in fact probably lead to a lot of outcry because it's a pretty gross and inappropriate idea given his role in Sansa's imprisonment, their age disparity, their relative status in society, etc. In the books, you can at least say there's more of a foundation for it (though tbf I still think it's gross). 

[Katsullivan]

9 minutes ago, stagmania said:

It would make no sense for show Sansa and the Hound to end up together, and would in fact probably lead to a lot of outcry because it's a pretty gross and inappropriate idea given his role in Sansa's imprisonment, their age disparity, their relative status in society, etc. In the books, you can at least say there's more of a foundation for it (though tbf I still think it's gross). 

The show marrying Sansa off to Ramsay and all the raping and abuse that followed set the bar for gross and inappropriate things. Letting these two broken birds find love with each other doesn't even come close to that. By bringing Sandor not and having him mention Sansa, not Arya with whom he was longer acquainted, to Jon, they might be setting the groundwork for it.

There has to be a reason why Sandor Clegane has lasted on the show for this long and it's more than just Cleganbowl. As you pointed out, I doubt that the average audience member even remembers that Sandor and the Mountain are brothers.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Katsullivan

[stagmania]

1 minute ago, Katsullivan said:

The show marrying Sansa off to Ramsay and all the raping and abuse that followed set the bar for gross and inappropriate things. Letting these two broken birds find love with each other doesn't even come close to that. By bringing Sandor not and having him mention Sansa, not Arya with whom he was longer acquainted, to Jon, they might be setting the groundwork for it. There has to be a reason why Sandor Clegane has lasted on the show for this long. 

Yes, and that was the low point of her character journey, so subjecting her to another inappropriate relationship seems counter to her story trajectory. There is absolutely nothing in the show to indicate Sansa held the Hound in any particular regard or has thought about him at all since her escape from King's Landing. It would be completely out of left field.

I think the Hound is still on the show because he's a fan favorite and has good potential for a redemption arc. I'm all for that, I just don't think it needs to have anything to do with Sansa.

[glowbug]

6 hours ago, doram said:

It's based on medieval European customs (much like the claim that Jon is the rightful heir to the Throne even though there's no precedent in Westeros of a grand-son inheriting the Crown from his grand-father King) and aspects of the show like Tyrion & Sansa's marriage, and all of Margaery's previous marriages being considered null and void since they were not consummated.

And the argument that Westeros is an absolute monarchy (although it's more a fiefdom than a centralised government) just makes the case against Jon as rightful heir worse because the absolute  monarch in this case is King Aerys, not Rhaegar and the King:

1. did not annul the marriage or give permission for its annulment -> the annulment was not legal, making any subsequent marriages illegal.

2. did not approve the marriage to Lyanna Stark -> making it null and void and Jon a bastard.

3. passed over Rhaegar's still-living children to crown Viserys -> disinheriting Jon and taking him out of the line of the throne. 

Actually, if we use medieval Europe as an example, the king, even in an absolute monarchy like France, did not have the authority to approve or grant an annulment. That was solely at the discretion of the Catholic church. The reason Henry VIII of England (during the Renaissance, not the middle ages) broke with the Catholic church was because the church wouldn't grant him an annulment. And this was HIGHLY unusual. The Catholic church almost always granted an annulment to monarchs who requested them. Non-consumation was one reason that could be given to invalidate a marriage but there were many others. The reason that Pope Clement VII did not grant Henry VIII his annulment to Catherine of Aragon was because he was the prisoner of Catherine's nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, who opposed the annulment.

Based on the spoilers, the Faith of the Seven did grant an annulment to Rhaegar in the show so he could marry Lyanna, therefore, Jon is legitimate. In the books, I agree with @ElizaD that it's more likely the Rhaegar is going to resurrect polygamy and take Lyanna as a second wife. Since the show hasn't established a basis for Targaryen polygamy and doesn't want to waste time explaining it, they're going with the annulment rout, which doesn't need explanation since we know those happen in the show universe, and also happened in real world medieval Europe. 

Dany may have a superior claim based on argument number 3, that Aerys declared Viserys as his heir over Rhaegar's known living children, but this would assume that the king in Westeros has the right to declare an heir. I believe in England, the King didn't not have the authority to disinherit an heir. He required the approval of parliament, but the nobility in England, starting with the Magna Carta, always had more authority than in other European countries, like France, which had an absolute monarchy. Though given that in Westerosi history a council was created to determine the rightful heir on at least two occasions, it seems that in Westeros the King alone may not have the sole right to determine who is next in line for the throne. Basically, succession Westeros as in medieval Europe, is often messy. Dany's best claim to the throne is right of conquest because she has the armies and dragons to do it. 

Not that any of this is likely going to matter because a) Dany can claim right by conquest, b) it's unlikely both Dany and Jon will survive until the end and c) if they both happen to survive they'll likely end up married, which makes the whole argument of who has the better claim moot. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by glowbug

[Katsullivan]

41 minutes ago, glowbug said:

Based on the spoilers, the Faith of the Seven did grant an annulment to Rhaegar in the show so he could marry Lyanna, therefore, Jon is legitimate.

Yeah, that's all sorts of nonsense. The marriage was not invalid so it couldn't have been annulled. Just because some corrupted  High Septon claims that it was (and on what  basis? is any reason even given for this?) doesn't make it binding. Henry 8 gave a bullshit reason for the annulment which he would have probably got away with if not for the present politics - but it didn't make it any less a bullshit reason and even when he made himself King, and annulled the marriage, there was still a lot of instability in England for many decades because of what he started.

That Rhaegar can just get the High Septon to write a piece of paper that declares Elia's children illegitimate and she, Elia who's basically a Princess of Dorne, no better than a mistress, and that this is regarded as uncontroversially binding is laughable. Dorne would see it as a great insult and rise up against the Iron Throne. The North would almost certainly be dragged into the war because an invalid annulment would make their Princess-equivalent a whore. The Baratheons will be offended, etc, etc, etc. Present day, the sentiments will be about the same and at the very least, the Kingdoms will take sides over which claimants to back - Jon, on the basis of this controversial "annulment" or Dany in defiance of it. 

TL DR... There's nothing in this piece of paper that binds Dany or any of her supporters into accepting Jon as a legitimate issue of Rhaegar and therefore a better claim to the Iron Throne, and she can defy it. 

 

And that's without even going into the fact that Aerys bypassed Rhaegar's line entirely when he made Viserys his heir - without any opposition. 

41 minutes ago, glowbug said:

Dany may have a superior claim based on argument number 3, that Aerys declared Viserys as his heir over Rhaegar's known living children, but this would assume that the king in Westeros has the right to declare an heir. 

Though given that in Westerosi history a council was created to determine the rightful heir on at least two occasions, it seems that in Westeros the King alone may not have the sole right to determine who is next in line for the throne. 

The Council was only called when the rightful  heir was unclear. In one case, the King himself called the Council. In the second case, the Hand of the late King did so.

There's no event where a Council was called to overrule a King's choice as heir. 

Rhaenyra was her father Viserys I's choice as Heir to the Iron Throne. When he died and Dowager Queen Alicent, her step-mother, tried to steal her throne for her own son, one of her 'tactics' was to suggest that a Great Council be called and Rhaenyra laughed that out of the water because she guessed (rightly) that a Council of Old Men would not choose a woman as Queen, regardless of what her father wanted. A civil war followed. 

This, so far, is the only case in the history of Westeros where the King's choice of heir ended up being overruled, and it wasn't done by a Great Council. It was done by the second claimant waging war on the rightful heir. Basically, it was a coup. 

As far as we know, since no objection was placed against Viserys as the King's heir at that time, and he was indeed declared King, then he was Aerys's heir, and Daenerys in turn becomes his heir. 

 

If the show were to do this realistically, and Dany and Jon agreed to it (remember again that Rhaenyra refused to subject to a Great Council and none was ever called), then a Great Council could be called to decide this - based on Jon's "legitimacy" and Aerys's own declaration of Viserys as his heir, knowing that he did so without being aware that Jon existed so there is some leeway in that. But apart from depending on both claimants subjecting to a Great Council, it would mean that there is a conflict in the first place, which will obviously not be happening at this rate on the show. 

 

Of course, the show will hand-wave all this, fly the annulment paper in Dany's face and she and Jon co-rule, so all this is academic anyway.  

Edited August 11, 2017 by Katsullivan

[GrailKing]

19 hours ago, amandawoods said:

What does this mean?  

Per leaks:

Sansa has concerns about Arya, she investigates and finds faces in Arya's room.

.

[Oscirus]

3 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

Mostly of this whole debate about annulments. 

Look at it on the bright side, at least it'll be a change from the sansa and dany debates

[Edith]

More spoilers from frikidoctor: Dany does ask Jon about the "heart stab" thing and Jon says that Davos has a crazy imagination.

Jaime will find out about Cersei pregnancy next episode.

The northern lords are restless and asking where Jon is. Arya peeks from a door watching carefully for signs of Sansa's temptation

Sam would not find out about his brother and father. The maester doesn't have the heart to tell him. 

The maesters believe that if an invasion from WW occurred, it would benefit Dany.

Tormund is going to ask if someone else (Brienne) is coming with them to he WH when he sees Jon.

For episode 6: the truth or dare game between Arya and Sansa, the punishment for lying it's death not hit by a stick. (?????)

Edited August 11, 2017 by Edith

[Oscirus]

3 hours ago, sacrebleu said:

That Rhaegar is a boss-- He kidnapped Lyanna, starting a war-- but still had time and presence of mind to fill out the appropriate paperwork to annul his marriage and marry his new woman to ensure the legitimacy of Targ. succession (and raven it off to the Citadel?)

There is multi-tasking, and then there's this.

He also somehow managed to convince half the kings guard to abandon their posts and protect someone who was at best fourth in line to the crown at the time. Rhaegar was magical.

[Wouter]

On 10/8/2017 at 6:23 PM, ElizaD said:

Jon/Dany both surviving and ruling together fits both the Wars of the Roses (two claimants marry) and LOTR (Aragorn/Arwen). At the moment it feels like the show is portraying Jon as someone Dany comes to respect because he's able to relate to her as an equal and also speak to her heart so that after listening to him she can put her fiery temper to a better use (going dracarys on the army rather than KL). I guess if they both live, the only question is which of them is the one actually sitting on the Iron Throne in the finale.

If both live, presumably they would co-rule as did Jaehaerys and his wife. I don't think there would be a clear "boss" between the two of them.

I don't agree with the analogies, though. The War of the Roses was quite clearly won by one side, and the marriage was not to a major opponent of the other side. It was a way to end the strife, but it was clear who was in charge. I think it would be more comparable with alternative endings to the war of five kings: Lannisters winning (but Joffrey dying) and Tommen marrying Sansa or Shireen to secure lasting peace, or Starks winning with Robb marrying Myrcella or Shireen or Margaery to do the same.

LOTR: Aragorn and Arwen were never opponents nor rivals for the same seat, IIRC.

On 10/8/2017 at 8:10 PM, GrailKing said:

Well show gendry is a combo of book Gendry and Edric Storm (?).

Yes, and Edric ending up with Storm's End is perfectly possible in the books. He's likely to side with Dany, probably backing the winning horse.

5 hours ago, ElizaD said:

I don't think it's lazy and fanservicey, it might be just as possible to call it efficient and goal-oriented. With Jon's legitimacy and the Sansa/Tyrion marriage, I would now guess that the key thing is that Jon's legitimacy will matter and the marriage will not: in the end, legitimacy will play a part in Jon either sitting on the throne or becoming Dany's husband in order to end the debate about their claims, while Sansa and Tyrion will not be ruling as husband and wife either at Winterfell or Casterly Rock.

So when the show began moving Sansa towards her endgame in the North non-consummation was suddenly enough to invalidate the marriage, and Tyrion again made this clear in 7x03: no matter what the books said about annulment, by the end of their stories (as told to the showrunners by GRRM) they will not be married and the show quickly got that out of the way.

Tyrion didn't press the issue in 7x03, but the show isn't over yet. Another way to see that particular conversation with Jon is that he is still interested in Sansa: "does she miss me terribly?". Sarcastis/ironic, sure, but the scene was ambiguous enough as to whether he may mean it to some extent. So, I'm still not ruling out they may be married in the end, even if in the show they would have to re-marry.

And I don't think Tyrion really acknowledged that the marriage was null and void in a legal sense; he said that he never touched Sansa (otherwise Jon may have wanted to harm him) and that the marriage was a sham. The last is true in any case, it's true in the books too (even truer considering how icy the marriage was, in the books) even though that marriage was legally binding.

This POV rests mostly on the hypothesis that Tyrion is a bastard son of Aerys though, and that Dany+Jon may not yield any children. It's mostly based on book theories; the way I see it Jon is likely a "fire wight" in the vein of Dondarrion, post-resurrection, even though the show has been playing this aspect of Jon (and Beric himself, for that matter) down.

I also doubt that Jonh legitimacy really matters; what matters is that he has the unique "ice and fire" combination that Rhaegar apparently sought so badly. This may enable him to stop the Others (books) and/or Night King (show). The question of legitimacy may only affect his relationship with Dany, and even without it she is quite likely to share power with him once they ally and hook up. And a legitimate Jon is still likely to share power with Dany, in turn.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Wouter

[Wouter]

17 hours ago, Eyes High said:

I doubt it. We'll get a Jonerys baby in "current" time in Season 8 along with Baby Sam, and that's it. Harry Potter this ain't.

As MarySNJ just reminded us (on the Season8 thread), GRRM has said that Bran will have the first and the last chapter of ASOIAF (not that he is ever going to write that last chapter, sadly!). If so, the final chapter will be from the 3ER's point of view, a powerful seer/warg who may become very old if Bloodraven is an indication. I'm not quite sure it won't be a bit like Harry Potter, and it would have something poetic in my view.

[SeanC]

36 minutes ago, Edith said:

For episode 6: the truth or dare game between Arya and Sansa, the punishment for lying it's death not hit by a stick. (?????)

Well that escalated quickly.

Looking through the leaked outlines for the earlier episodes of the season, there's some interesting stuff that didn't make it into the final versions, such as this bit from 702:

Quote

Yes, Dany believes that Tyrion hates Cersei. She asks Varys: who's commanding the Lannister forces now?

Jaime Lannister, Varys answers.

Jaime Lannister. If Dany remembers correctly, Tyrion confessed to caring for his brother. Didn't Jaime set him free, when he was a condemned man?

Tyrion admits his love for Jaime. He would ask Dany to spare his life, when she has emerged victorious.

Dany asks: and what if I refuse?

Tyrion hesitates. Before he can answer, they hear approaching footsteps.

[OhOkayWhat]

2 hours ago, Katsullivan said:

The show marrying Sansa off to Ramsay and all the raping and abuse that followed set the bar for gross and inappropriate things. Letting these two broken birds find love with each other doesn't even come close to that. By bringing Sandor not and having him mention Sansa, not Arya with whom he was longer acquainted, to Jon, they might be setting the groundwork for it.

There has to be a reason why Sandor Clegane has lasted on the show for this long and it's more than just Cleganbowl. As you pointed out, I doubt that the average audience member even remembers that Sandor and the Mountain are brothers.

 

It seems there is not Sansan (as romance) narrative in the show. Sansa never talks about him.

If the leaks are true, Sandor worries about Arya, and he talks with Brienne about her. Why Sandor did not mention Sansa too?

 

 

7 hours ago, doram said:

We already see that Westeros is not run as an absolute monarchy... But I was pointing out that even if it were, this argument would fall flat.

The spoilers are just indicative of the lazy & fan-servicey narrative that the writers have been taking once they run out of source material. So it shouldn't come to their surprise or anyone else's that people will point out all the logical flaws in this. 

We can accept it because the Show Said So.

 

About the annulment, we have almost zero data about how the Targaryen monarchy worked a long time ago. And about how the Faith of the Seven did then.Therefore the writers have plenty of space to include the elements the show-narrative needs and at the same time to mantain a cohesive story.

Edited August 11, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[SeanC]

2 hours ago, Katsullivan said:

By bringing Sandor not and having him mention Sansa, not Arya with whom he was longer acquainted, to Jon, they might be setting the groundwork for it.

It isn't the Hound who mentions Sansa.  Jon supposedly takes issue with the Hound because he was one of Sansa's captors.  The Hound does mention Arya to Brienne later, supposedly.

[Wouter]

5 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Well that escalated quickly.

Looking through the leaked outlines for the earlier episodes of the season, there's some interesting stuff that didn't make it into the final versions, such as this bit from 702:

Tyrion is very lucky that the attack of the NK leads to a temporary (even if insincere, on Cersei's part) truce. If Jaime does decide to fight with his enemies, execution may be less likely.

[screamin]

Myself, I think the showrunners went with 'annulment' for no better reason than that it seemed to them easier to explain as 'like a divorce, but more medieval-sounding' to modern viewers and thus seemed at first glance easier for viewers to quickly comprehend then going through the details of Targaryens' history of polygamy. But dammit, 'annulment' and 'divorce' are NOT synonyms and using them as if they were so that can depict Rhaegar as running down to Reno for a quickie divorce is just plain sloppy.

[Wouter]

1 minute ago, SeanC said:

It isn't the Hound who mentions Sansa.  Jon supposedly takes issue with the Hound because he was one of Sansa's captors.  The Hound does mention Arya to Brienne later, supposedly.

Jon sure is ultra-protective of Sansa, lately!

And Sansa seems to miss Jon in Winterfell. While part of the fandom always used to believe those two hated one another.

[GrailKing]

30 minutes ago, Wouter said:

As MarySNJ just reminded us (on the Season8 thread), GRRM has said that Bran will have the first and the last chapter of ASOIAF (not that he is ever going to write that last chapter, sadly!). If so, the final chapter will be from the 3ER's point of view, a powerful seer/warg who may become very old if Bloodraven is an indication. I'm not quite sure it won't be a bit like Harry Potter, and it would have something poetic in my view.

My view, one of three: Sam reading from his book titled A Song of Ice And Fire, Bran showing us a glimpse of the future, or Sansa as the latest Old Nan telling tales to children nieces and hopefully grandchildren.

[Oscirus]

2 minutes ago, SeanC said:

It isn't the Hound who mentions Sansa.  Jon supposedly takes issue with the Hound because he was one of Sansa's captors.  The Hound does mention Arya to Brienne later, supposedly.

What I'm reading here is aryasan?

[OhOkayWhat]

1 minute ago, SeanC said:

It isn't the Hound who mentions Sansa.  Jon supposedly takes issue with the Hound because he was one of Sansa's captors.  The Hound does mention Arya to Brienne later, supposedly.

I think Sandor and Arya will be part of a group Sansa decides to send to Kings Landing in season 8

[Oscirus]

7 minutes ago, OhOkayWhat said:

 

About the annulment, we have almost zero data about how the Targaryen monarchy worked a long time ago. And about how the Faith of the Seven did then.Therefore the writers have plenty of space to include the elements the show-narrative needs and at the same time to mantain a cohesive story.

We have plenty of it. Not one king of westeros was able to get an anulment. Its pretty strange that rhaegar was able to.

[OhOkayWhat]

7 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

We have plenty of it. Not one king of westeros was able to get an anulment. Its pretty strange that rhaegar was able to.

We know a lot about the "present" Westeros. We don't know almost anything about Targaryen marriage rules in Westeros a long time ago (in the show).

In fact, we know that usually Rhaegar's father did whatever he wanted to do, or at least it seems to be the case.

Edited August 11, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[amandawoods]

Quote

For episode 6: the truth or dare game between Arya and Sansa, the punishment for lying it's death not hit by a stick. (?????)

Seriously, what the hell? It said that Arya wants to know how she feels about Jon and Cersei, I guess.  

[SeanC]

4 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

We have plenty of it. Not one king of westeros was able to get an anulment. Its pretty strange that rhaegar was able to.

Not true, actually.  Baelor had his marriage annulled.  But I'm not otherwise aware of any king who desired to have his marriage annulled, so I'm not sure that I see how that proves anything.

[MadMouse]

1 hour ago, Oscirus said:

He also somehow managed to convince half the kings guard to abandon their posts and protect someone who was at best fourth in line to the crown at the time. Rhaegar was magical.

Dayne is easy enough to explain, they were best friends. Whent, well maybe some of the truths about why and who funded the tourney at Harrenhal have some truths behind them. The biggest question is why the White Bull stayed, maybe he was at Summerhall and was promoted after Dunk's death there. 

[OhOkayWhat]

4 minutes ago, amandawoods said:

Seriously, what the hell? It said that Arya wants to know how she feels about Jon and Cersei, I guess.  

I'm pretty sure Arya does not want to kill Sansa. But Arya lives with the delusion that she is some kind of bringer of justice. And she is not that.

[GrailKing]

7 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Not true, actually.  Baelor had his marriage annulled.  But I'm not otherwise aware of any king who desired to have his marriage annulled, so I'm not sure that I see how that proves anything.

Not to mention Tywin managed to do something about Tyrions 1st marriage, with a septon.

[Oscirus]

6 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

Not to mention Tywin managed to do something about Tyrions 1st marriage, with a septon.

So what would be rhaegar reason? Is he going to call Elia a whore or is he going to say his marriage was unconsumated?

[GrailKing]

Just now, Oscirus said:

So what would be rhaegar reason? Is he going to call Elia a whore or is he going to say his marriage was unconsumated?

Maybe, she can't bare any more kids, dunno; people in power can usually get what they want, with force, or money.

[Oscirus]

16 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Not true, actually.  Baelor had his marriage annulled.  But I'm not otherwise aware of any king who desired to have his marriage annulled, so I'm not sure that I see how that proves anything.

OK so other than an obviously  unconsumated marriage, we haven't seen any kings do it despite the political benefits that it would bring. Just saying  it's pretty  strange that rhaegars able to  do  it now.

[Colorful Mess]

44 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Jon sure is ultra-protective of Sansa, lately

Hmmmm...Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Jon also get a raven that Sansa and Littlefinger are married, or getting married or something? It seems they are setting up him to do something rash out of anger over that.

 

44 minutes ago, Wouter said:

And Sansa seems to miss Jon in Winterfell. While part of the fandom always used to believe those two hated one another.

Starkbowl just another "Jon is really, really dead"

Edited August 11, 2017 by Colorful Mess

[Wouter]

8 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Hmmmm...Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Jon also get a raven that Sansa and Littlefinger are married, or getting married or something? It seems they are setting up him to do something rash out of anger over that.

 

Starkbowl just another "Jon is really, really dead"

On Jon being really dead: true, there was a portion of the fans that firmly believed this (because Martin doesn't do cliché - supposedly).

As for the other thing, I've never heard of rumours of a Sansa/LF marriage. It's seems very unlikely given the spoilers we have (but I did not follow all the latest frikidoctor and co spoilers).

[SeanC]

41 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

OK so other than an obviously  unconsumated marriage, we haven't seen any kings do it despite the political benefits that it would bring. 

In what case do you think a king would have done that?  The marital history of the Targaryens:

1.  Aegon I - multiple wives.

2.  Aenys I - married Alyssa Velaryon, a cousin.

3.  Maegor I - multiple wives, killed wives he didn't like.

4.  Jaehaerys I - married his sister Alysanne, had a great marriage.

5.  Viserys I - married his cousin Aemma Arryn; after she died, married Alicent Hightower.

6.  Aegon II - married his sister Helaena, who committed suicide; was planning to marry one of Borros Baratheon's daughters before he himself died.

7.  Aegon III - married Daenaera Velaryon, a distant cousin.

8.  Daeron I - never married.

9.  Baelor I - annulled his unconsummated marriage, did not want to marry.

10.  Viserys II - married to Larra Rogare, who abandoned him; never evinced any desire to remarry, as he already had heirs.

11.  Aegon IV - married to his sister Naerys; declined her request to let her take holy orders, which would have dissolved his marriage, because he enjoyed tormenting her.

12.  Daeron II - married to Mariah Martell, which marriage was the lynchpin of his main policy of Dornish integration.

13.  Aerys I - married to Aelinor Penrose, marriage seemingly unconsummated for lack of interest.

14.  Maekar I - married to Dyanna Dayne, who died before he became king; never remarried.

15.  Aegon V - married to Betha Blackwood, seems to have been a love match.

16.  Jaehaerys II - married to his sister Shaera, love match [this generation doesn't exist in the show]

17.  Aerys II - married to his sister Rhaella, definitely not a love match; much like Aegon IV, seems to have enjoyed tormenting her.

Edited August 11, 2017 by SeanC

[Katsullivan]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

It isn't the Hound who mentions Sansa.  Jon supposedly takes issue with the Hound because he was one of Sansa's captors.  The Hound does mention Arya to Brienne later, supposedly.

Well it's still bringing up Sansa in relation to Sandor Clegane. Considering how many little strands of continuity they've dropped along the way, it's telling that this is one thing that they picked up again.

The books definitely set up something between these two. Until the show's over, I won't dismiss the possibility of Endgame SanSan absolutely. 

 

30 minutes ago, doram said:

This is a world where people have gone to war because of broken engagements and somehow we're supposed to believe a piece of paper renders a marriage with 2 children null and void as easily as that?

Well said. In a world where the Red Wedding exists, the concept of a Crown Prince dissolving a marriage on a whim is positively anachronistic.