Season 7: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[YaddaYadda]

I'm always very impressed when I see people able to recall dialogue with so much clarity. Can we talk about this for a second?

8 minutes ago, doram said:

That was very much the motivation of crowning Robb in the first place. When Ned was killed and Joffrey was crowned, and the Northern lords argued over which Baratheon wannabe they'd support (Stannis or Renly), one of the Lords (Umber, I think?) said something in the vein of : "I don't give a fuck about any Southern lord and their creepy-ass gods. It was the dragons we married and the dragons are dead. The only King I'm going to bend the knee to is him (points to Robb)". 

Which actually makes sense because yeah, the North wasn't conquered by military. It became a vassal state of its own will and specifically to Aegon Targaryen and his family. When the House of Targaryen no longer ruled Westeros, whatever treaty King Tormund made with Aegon became null and void. 

Because ha ha ha ha! They won't care if Jon is part Targaryen. If anything, that seems to be the perfect marriage for them.

[YaddaYadda]

1 hour ago, doram said:

Thanks! I always thought that was an interesting choice of words so it always stuck. I was never quite sure if the North admired or despised Tormund for bending the knee. 

I don't know if he would have been despised (I think you mean Torrhen Stark?) him bending the knee maintained the status quo for the North. Plus it's not like he could have done much against dragons. The Starks were still in charge even as Wardens of the North. I don't think they lost much of their autonomy. And when Robert took the throne, the status quo was still maintained. I don't think they had issues with that because it preserved their way of life, and the way they did things. 

I went looking for quotes because it's only Wednesday and this week refuses to go away, and they had GreatJon repeat practically the same thing on the show about the dragons, and bending the knee to the dragons who are now dead. One thing I learned from reading the books and even with the show, lines like that aren't thrown around just because. They end up holding a lot of meaning.

[Wouter]

On 5-7-2016 at 8:31 PM, SeanC said:

I agree that much of Season 6 was about moving her back into a position where Littlefinger can influence her.  I expect that's because merging Sansa with Jeyne Poole threw a complication into the relationship that doesn't exist in the books, which the writers had to write around.  Basically, they have to put Sansa back into a position of working with him so that the actual final endgame of the relationship, Sansa turning on him because of his betrayal of Ned, can play out.  While I now think they'll probably find a way to have the Hound spend most of Season 7 in the Riverlands or wherever, the fact that he's now with the Brotherhood (and, potentially, Arya and/or Brienne) going forward, and Dondarrion is now all about the White Walkers, seems a fairly obvious signal.

This is all inelegant, on a writing level.  In the books, I expect the story is that we'll just follow Sansa as she grows more skilled at playing the game and also more enmeshed in Littlefinger's web of manipulations, until the Hound, in his usual fashion, cuts through all the BS that Littlefinger has so skillfully deployed.  Sansa's whole book story is built around how deliberately Baelish has isolated her from anybody else.  The show has repeatedly mucked with this setup, by dumping Sansa in amongst other, more trustworthy characters and having her repeatedly talk about how she now gets Baelish and wants to be rid of him. 

I agree, it looks like the Sansa/Jon tension is the result of Sansa replacing Jeyne Poole in the show. In the books, she is unlikely to be near Jon for a long time still, and her main plotpoint seems to revolve around LF. There are some ways she may learn about LF's role in Ned's death, the Hound is one but Bran could also show her things through dreams/visions, Varys could find a way to get the info to Sansa (and hurt his rival LF in the process),...

Sansa's endgame is very unclear to me, though I do think that the marriage with Tyrion isn't quite done yet. It certainly seems to be a roadblock for a potential marriage to Harry The Heir, in the books. Sansa's playground in the books is the Vale, which happens to have untapped foodreservers that could be very important during the coming war with the Others, and in the aftermath. I think her contribution to the main event of the series - the war between the living and the death - may be found mostly there.

Since she seems to be "in training" as a diplomat/manipulator, much like Arya and Bran are being trained in their respective disciplines, I suspect this will come into play at some point as well, and since she is the only Stark in the south (and not quite hidden the way Arya can hide herself) she may be the first Stark to come into contact with Dany, also a potentially important point (and something the show could easily go for, if Jon and/or LF want to send an envoy to the Dragon Queen). Much like Arya looks likely to turn her backs on the Faceless Man after absorbing some training (though in the show, it seems Jaqen wasn't entirely unhappy with the way things turned out), I expect Sansa to learn from LF but eventually turn on him after she learns some truths. Or the situation with Sweetrobin may cause her to turn on him, even though she is playing along for now.

 

As for Jon and Dany, it seems obvious. Not only because of the Targaryen ties (Dany potentially seeing a way to continue the family line), but also to avoid a northern secession. If the northern king marries the southern queen, the 7K are preserved and no easy rallying points for a war of secession are available. In the books, the House of the Undying prophecy/vision in book 2 seems to hint at it, while Dany's declaration in the show that she will need to marry for political reasons in Westeros doesn't leave much other choices, considering she has already sided with Euron's enemies there.

If Martin truly said there will be someone unexpected on the throne in the end (this has been said for years but I've never seen anyone who could point out when and where Martin would have said that), I'm not counting out Tyrion. In the books, there are hints he may be the bastard son of the mad king, and the show has not ruled this out with the emphasis on Tywin stating "you are not my son" and with Tyrion as "the dragon whisperer" in S6, though there was no follow-up on the latter (yet). If he does have Targ blood, and being a trusted advisor of Dany, he could be Dany's (and Jon's) heir until they get children. And for them to get children, they need to both survive and be fertile.

[bunnyblue]

TV Guide has a round up of the season finale and talks to some of the cast and crew as to what comes next. 

Isaac Hempstead-Wright doesn't think Bran will challenge Jon for his newly won position of KitN. He says "Bran recognizes that his talents lie elsewhere. He's never going to be a leader or a warrior or a ruler. Bran has to keep training and get to the stage where he can control his mystical power. Until then, he's pretty useless and a lot of trouble". He also thinks it would be a fine idea if the 4 remaining Stark kids reunite because together "they could make a real impact in the world".

Regarding the Dany and Tyrion "hand of the queen" scene and whether Tyrion may "want more", Miguel Sapochnik says Dany "is at a strange crossroads and confides in Tyrion the way you would to a friend. At the same time, she completely misses the way he looks at her as she gets up". Hmm, maybe those who noticed Tyrion's look in the season finale weren't imagining things.

And Dean-Charles Chapman doesn't think Cersei's power is going to last because "Daenerys Targaryen has these big-ass dragons and they're coming to Westeros". I agree, Dean.

Edited July 7, 2016 by bunnyblue

[BlackberryJam]

9 hours ago, Audreythe2nd said:

I don't think Jaime and Brienne necessarily have "tragic romance" written all over them. We've already had just about all of the tragic romances this story can take (list any romance that hasn't ended tragically so far). It would actually be quite an odd narrative technique to drag a will they/won't they out this long (we're talking Season 2/3 through to Season 7 now) and have nothing but death and tragedy come of it. There has to be some kind of payoff that's not death in this scenario, I think. That's just my opinion, but I could cite book/show evidence that that's the case. They're my two favourite characters, so I've probably paid more attention to the specifics of their chapters and the minutia that can be considered foreshadowing in the show than most have, lol. 

I can see Sandor dying for Sansa though, or for some kind of cause related to her. Since they haven't framed it as a romance in the show, it wouldn't be totally redundant, and would be more about Sandor regaining honour and purpose at the end of his life (or something).

This is what astounds me. Everything about every Jaime and Brienne scene screams, "Slow build romance, invest in this romance, isn't this romantic, don't you just want these two to run off together, look at how they declare their love with just their eyes." Yet articles turn around and say, "Jaime will kill Cersei (and then himself which, ffs) because it's foreshadowed!"

Uh...the real foreshadowing is Jaime and Brienne. *sigh* But these are the same people who can't see the difference between what Jaime says and Jaime does, as in Jaime says he'll destroy everyone to be with Cersei but what Jaime does is end the siege without bloodshed because that's what Brienne asked him to do.

I am routinely amazed at the mis-read of Jaime by so many. Is he really that hard?

[SimoneS]

23 hours ago, Audreythe2nd said:

They've framed Jaime and Brienne as a romance (moreso even than in the books), while they've eliminated SanSan romantic references, but have still kept hints of a connection to each other. My guess is simply that wherever the story is going with Jaime and Brienne, the romance is an integral part of that (marriage maybe?) whereas with Sansa and Sandor, the romance isn't necessary, but just the general connection is. He might tell her the truth about Littlefinger, save her from the Mountain, and then die for all we know. Those are the types of events that could be framed romantically in the books, but aren't required to be romantic at all.

I completely agree about Jaime and Brienne. Their intense connection and potential romance is actually the only one portrayed on the show. It is clear to me that the show is committed to their relationship, whatever it might end up being. Jaime has to make the decision to reject Cersei and choose Brienne which I really hope happens.

The show has not hinted at Sansa in a romance with Littlefinger or Sandor or Jon. I haven't see a romantic attraction to the Hound or Littlefinger who have lusted after her. I have no idea what the "endgame" is for Sansa, but I expect that both Littlefinder and the Hound will die by the end of the series.

As for the North, in Jon they will have a Stark-Targaryen King on the Iron Throne. Jon won't even have to marry Daenerys for this to occur. The Northern lords will be happy.  

Edited July 7, 2016 by SimoneS

[Funzlerks]

I think Jon and Daenerys would create a huge succession crisis in The North.  Jon's heirs would be heirs to the whole kingdom, so who would sit at Winterfell?  It would really upset the status quo if the seat of the Starks was weeks away from even the most southern point of The North. I guess he could give it up to Sansa and her husband but that creates some potential problems down the line when the Targaryan line also has very strong claims to Winterfell.  I can't see the Northern lords loving the King of the North being the Mother of Dragons plus one.  And having the future Stark in Winterfell not setting foot in Winterfell for years.

[paigow]

7 minutes ago, Funzlerks said:

I think Jon and Daenerys would create a huge succession crisis in The North...

Only if the current rules survive the war....democracy is coming to Westeros...not overnight...but soon.

[bluvelvet]

2 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

TV Guide has a round up of the season finale and talks to some of the cast and crew as to what comes next. 

Isaac Hempstead-Wright doesn't think Bran will challenge Jon for his newly won position of KitN. He says "Bran recognizes that his talents lie elsewhere. He's never going to be a leader or a warrior or a ruler. Bran has to keep training and get to the stage where he can control his mystical power. Until then, he's pretty useless and a lot of trouble". He also thinks it would be a fine idea if the 4 remaining Stark kids reunite because together "they could make a real impact in the world".

Regarding the Dany and Tyrion "hand of the queen" scene and whether Tyrion may "want more", Miguel Sapochnik says Dany "is at a strange crossroads and confides in Tyrion the way you would to a friend. At the same time, she completely misses the way he looks at her as she gets up". Hmm, maybe those who noticed Tyrion's look in the season finale weren't imagining things.

And Dean-Charles Chapman doesn't think Cersei's power is going to last because "Daenerys Targaryen has these big-ass dragons and they're coming to Westeros". I agree, Dean.

So I wasn't seeing things when I saw Tyrion give Dany "the look" when she got up??

Edited July 7, 2016 by bluvelvet

[OhOkayWhat]

From Entertainment Weekly quoting the answer when a People reporter asked Maisie Williams about the what they’d like to see the future hold for her onscreen personas.

“I’d love for her to be a bit of a lone ranger,” Williams said of Arya, who was last seen infiltrating Walder Frey’s castle and avenging the death of her mother. “I’d love for her to be kind of like The Hound. I don’t really want her to reunite with her family because I don’t think that they’re the same people anymore or that she’s the same person anymore. I think she’s better off on her own. I’d love for her to be alive, actually, and be her own boss.”

Very interesting...

Edited July 7, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[evilmindatwork]

I would really like the look to be about Tyrion thinking she's going to be the next "Mad King (Queen)" than about her giving him butterflies but I fear that I am wrong.  I would also like Maisie to be wrong about Arya's future but, again, the show doesn't care about my needs. 

[anamika]

4 hours ago, SimoneS said:

As for the North, in Jon they will have a Stark-Targaryen King on the Iron Throne. Jon won't even have to marry Daenerys for this to occur. The Northern lords will be happy. 

It's not about making the Northern lords happy, it's about making Dany happy. Jon may end up being more of rightful heir to the throne than Dany. But Dany has the army, navy and airforce to actually take the throne. Jon is like Elizabeth of York in this case and Dany is Henry VII. By marriage they unite the North and South, make sure that the North does not cause any problems, that Jon's legitimacy is taken into consideration and that Dany gets to be Queen.

5 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

Regarding the Dany and Tyrion "hand of the queen" scene and whether Tyrion may "want more", Miguel Sapochnik says Dany "is at a strange crossroads and confides in Tyrion the way you would to a friend. At the same time, she completely misses the way he looks at her as she gets up". Hmm, maybe those who noticed Tyrion's look in the season finale weren't imagining things.

Interesting. I foresee a Jon/Dany/Tyrion love triangle that will eerily resemble GRRM's original Jon/Arya/Tyrion love triangle. I get the feeling that GRRM replaced Arya with Dany once Arya's age became a problem with the scrapping of the 5 yr gap.

I think Jon and Dany will end up meeting midway season 7 and the sparks fly and Tyrion has already fallen for Dany.

Now,  we have 7 episodes in season 7. It's a short season.  I think we will get Dany Vs Cersei in the first half of season 7. We may get a repeat of Jaime's take down of mad king Aerys with the Lannisters knocking at the gates. Only this time, Jaime will strangle mad queen Cersei (Who will be planning to burn down KL with Wild fire) with the Targaryens knocking at the gates. In the meantime Arya heads North with the brother hood and the hound. May meet Mel and take care of business. May meet Brienne.  The Tullys take back the Riverlands and Edmure is back in power.

In the North, we will get Sansa/LF plotting against Jon to take Winterfell from him. By episode 3 or 4, Arya gets there and will be like what the hell Sansa?! Sansa either gets a dose of needle or Jon and Arya leave Sansa and Brienne behind in WF and head towards the wall. Hound and Brienne advice Sansa on LF's untrustworthiness and Sansa ends LF. Bran is chilling on the wall, being the 3 eyed Raven and the WW have reached the wall. Bran lets Jon know what's up. And Jon and Arya are like, shit! They send a SOS to the rest of Westeros.

Dany, Tyrion and Jaime get the SOS. Sam also gets vital info from the Citadel and joins up with them. They all head North. Dany and Jon meet and are like what's up. Dany agrees that the WW need to be taken care but so does official business. They decide on a marriage alliance (Tyrion's like shit!).

And that's season 7. It will end with the WW breaching the wall.

I think the 6 or 8 episodes in season 8 will be all about the fight against the WW. Dany and Jon will ride dragons and Bran will warg one. Arya will use her super fighting skills or Jon may end up using her as NN. Sansa will either die while taking down LF or stay married to Tyrion in Casterly Rock or go off with the Hound. Bran and Arya (If they survive) will take over Winterfell. In the books, I can see Rickon taking over if Arya dies. On the show, Sansa may stay put in WF.

Dany (Break the Wheel) and Jon (Pro-free folk) have both shown inclinations towards democracy. At the very end, they will dismantle the IT, move the capital to Harenhall and try to implement a more advanced type of society. The cycle will be complete and we will start with the Targaryens and their dragons again.

There will be some deaths to make it all bittersweet. Arya, Rickon or Sansa may end up dying. Bran may retire to the far North and take up for BloodRaven, keeping an eye out for any danger. Or plotting for the future generations. Tyrion may die or get what he wanted all along: Casterly Rock. But end up losing Dany to Jon and a political alliance. Most of Westeros could be decimated and it's all about rebuilding a new future.

This is more or less, how I see things happening.

Edited July 7, 2016 by anamika

[FemmyV]

Quote

If Martin truly said there will be someone unexpected on the throne in the end (this has been said for years but I've never seen anyone who could point out when and where Martin would have said that), I'm not counting out Tyrion.

Neither would I, but if he's really going to go that far left field, I think I'll call for Edmure.

[cambridgeguy]

10 hours ago, Funzlerks said:

I think Jon and Daenerys would create a huge succession crisis in The North.  Jon's heirs would be heirs to the whole kingdom, so who would sit at Winterfell?  It would really upset the status quo if the seat of the Starks was weeks away from even the most southern point of The North. I guess he could give it up to Sansa and her husband but that creates some potential problems down the line when the Targaryan line also has very strong claims to Winterfell.  I can't see the Northern lords loving the King of the North being the Mother of Dragons plus one.  And having the future Stark in Winterfell not setting foot in Winterfell for years.

The simple solution - Jon starts a cadet branch of House Stark (House Whitefyre?) that happens to be the North's royal house, much like Robert did with the Baratheons.  This may change in season 7 but they were still calling him Jon Snow in the KITN scene, not Jon Stark.  Jon can wander off and build a new castle if he decides to pass off Winterfell to Sansa, Ned's actual heir. 

Sansa will be the one who continues the main Stark line.  If she gets booted from Winterfell then the Dreadfort, Karhold, and the Last Hearth are currently in need of someone to take over. 

The new Westeros can be analogous to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, with Dany and Jon as rulers. Technically one kingdom, but in reality independent of each other.

[benteen]

On the subject of Arya, I always saw her becoming a wandering King's Justice, traveling around the world to meet out justice to those who deserve it.

I can see Bran becoming Merlin to the Kingdom of the North.  Or possibly the Iron Throne.

[YaddaYadda]

If the Wall does come down, and the threat of the White Walkers is gone, does Bran really have any reasons to be beyond the wall at all? There's a perfectly good weirwood tree at Winterfell. He got his visions of the ToJ from the one where Jon and the brothers of the Night's Watch take their vows.

To this day, I still don't understand what the role of the tree-eyed raven is. 

[Eyes High]

13 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

"(...) At the same time, she completely misses the way he looks at her as she gets up". Hmm, maybe those who noticed Tyrion's look in the season finale weren't imagining things.

Heh. I knew it. The best part of the Burlington bar 6x10 videos--where someone on Youtube films the reaction of a crowd watching GOT episodes as they air live--was someone yelling at Tyrion during the 6x10 Tyrion/Dany scene something like "DON'T YOU FUCKING FALL IN LOVE WITH HER." Can't say I don't agree with the sentiment, but it was pretty obvious to me.

10 hours ago, evilmindatwork said:

I would really like the look to be about Tyrion thinking she's going to be the next "Mad King (Queen)" than about her giving him butterflies but I fear that I am wrong.  I would also like Maisie to be wrong about Arya's future but, again, the show doesn't care about my needs. 

I doubt Maisie has received any Season 7 scripts yet--they usually get them in July (i.e. the month when filming starts_, and if Season 7 is starting filming in September, D&D may still be working on scripts--so she's probably just spitballing.

9 hours ago, anamika said:

It's not about making the Northern lords happy, it's about making Dany happy. Jon may end up being more of rightful heir to the throne than Dany. But Dany has the army, navy and airforce to actually take the throne. Jon is like Elizabeth of York in this case and Dany is Henry VII. By marriage they unite the North and South, make sure that the North does not cause any problems, that Jon's legitimacy is taken into consideration and that Dany gets to be Queen.

Interesting. I foresee a Jon/Dany/Tyrion love triangle that will eerily resemble GRRM's original Jon/Arya/Tyrion love triangle. I get the feeling that GRRM replaced Arya with Dany once Arya's age became a problem with the scrapping of the 5 yr gap.

I think Jon and Dany will end up meeting midway season 7 and the sparks fly and Tyrion has already fallen for Dany.

(...) Sansa will either die while taking down LF or stay married to Tyrion in Casterly Rock or go off with the Hound. (...)

Sounds about right. I agree that Jon/Dany look like the Elizabeth of York/Henry VII pairing of ASOIAF (with the fun genderswapping of Jon as the Elizabeth of York figure). I wonder about the plot reasons for Tyrion falling in unrequited love with Dany, unless as in the outline it's to fuel a "deadly rivalry" between Tyrion and Jon. I have trouble believing Tyrion would object to or attempt to subvert a Jon/Dany union, though; he's too smart to believe that Dany would ever return his feelings or to ignore the importance of a Jon/Dany marriage for Westeros' peace and prosperity.

The only thing I really disagree with--other than Arya murdering Sansa, which seems very unlikely to me due to the kinslaying taboo in the books--is an endgame Sansa/Tyrion marriage remaining a viable possibility. Tyrion falling in love with Dany seems like the nail in the coffin of that theory. I otherwise agree that Sansa will either die as a result of her involvement with LF or, on the off chance she survives, will run off with the Hound.

 

1 hour ago, benteen said:

On the subject of Arya, I always saw her becoming a wandering King's Justice, traveling around the world to meet out justice to those who deserve it.

Arya desperately wants to reach Jon and misses him desperately (in the books at least, it's not as obvious in the show), but Arya in the books has occasionally thought about roving around and having all manner of adventures (becoming an outlaw like Wenda the White Fawn, e.g.). It could be that she's all adventured out at the end of the series after wandering through the Riverlands and traveling to Essos, much like Sansa has had her fill of the glamorous southern court life she once craved, but it's also possible that once the WW crisis has passed and that she's had the chance to catch up with Jon and to kick around Winterfell for a bit, that she once more starts getting restless.

There was that line from Arya this season about wondering "what's west of Westeros." It sounded like the sort of thing Arya wouldn't mind finding out for herself.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Eyes High

[SimoneS]

12 hours ago, anamika said:

It's not about making the Northern lords happy, it's about making Dany happy. Jon may end up being more of rightful heir to the throne than Dany. But Dany has the army, navy and airforce to actually take the throne. Jon is like Elizabeth of York in this case and Dany is Henry VII. By marriage they unite the North and South, make sure that the North does not cause any problems, that Jon's legitimacy is taken into consideration and that Dany gets to be Queen.

It isn't about making Daenerys happy, it is about doing what is politically best for Westeros and gaining the political favor of her new subjects. Again, Daenerys has stated that she cannot have any children. By marrying Jon, she would end her direct Targaryen line causing the Game to start all over again on her death. This is not breaking the wheel. 

The more accurate historical comparison is Daenerys as Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland, and Jon as James VI, King of Scotland. Elizabeth I had no children. She would never directly name her heir, but James VI gained her affection and she made it known to her advisors that he was to succeed her. On her death, James VI ascended to the English throne as James I. He dubbed himself "King of Great Britain and Ireland." It was the "first" time that Scotland and England were "formally" unified under one ruler who held their both crowns. James married and his son and then eventually his grandson inherited all three crowns, cementing the political union of the three nations. James reportedly only visited Scotland once after he ascended to the English throne.  

ETA: James was not Elizabeth I's nephew. He was reportedly her closest relative through Henry VII, I think. It has been awhile since I studied British history.

Edited July 7, 2016 by SimoneS

[SeanC]

I expect next season will be heavily marketed in terms of Dany arriving in Westeros, which made me wonder:  which characters would you expect to see her interact with in Season 7?  Olenna and Ellaria seem guaranteed, though only the former is likely to generate fan interest.  Depending on how Cersei's story plays out, it's entirely possibly she blows everything up before ever setting eyes on her, but I'm sure the writers will do anything to make that happen.  Jaime is in a similar boat, depending on how things play out.  Sam, maybe, if the Oldtown story becomes linked with some larger magical plot.

I'm uncertain whether the Northern and Southern plots will cross paths in Season 7.

[TxanGoddess]

Quote

I expect next season will be heavily marketed in terms of Dany arriving in Westeros, which made me wonder:  which characters would you expect to see her interact with in Season 7?

I think we'll see Ser Davos representing KITN to either Dany or Tyrion.  Because if you're Jon right now, you don't even know how much you don't know about the political situation in the South, and while its easy to say the politics are bullshit in light of the upcoming WW fight, there's no way any House in the South is turning their backs on KL until the know Cersei is dealt with/being dealt with (the Brotherhood will probably move northwards first though).  Sending a raven seems pretty risky, so my guess is that he makes Ser Davos hand and then sends him away.  I guess he could contact Sam at the Citadel, but he kind of needs him to keep his nose in the books. 

[Advance35]

Quote

It isn't about making Daenerys happy, it is about doing what is politically best for Westeros and gaining the political favor of her new subjects. Again, Daenerys has stated that she cannot have any children. By marrying Jon, she would end her direct Targaryen line causing the Game to start all over again on her death. This is not breaking the wheel. 

I'll be disappointed if this is what it all comes down to BUT.................I did get a queasy feeling when Dany was sniveling about "love" to Tyrion in 6x10.  I expect our Silver-haired Unicorn will make it to Westeros, stand imposingly while her Puff the Magic Dragons finish Cersei, She'll treat with the North, Cue a marriage, Jon is made her consort while she sits on the Iron Throne, She'll ride her dragons into battle beside Jon, The Others are vanquished, during the course of the battle Jon and Dany fall in love like nobody has ever loved before, Tyrion will look on wistfully at the bravest, intelligent, most beautiful woman in the world.   She'll be able to have children again because...........abracadabra.  And they'll live happily ever after.

Hopefully the side and B-plots will be interesting.

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, Advance35 said:

I'll be disappointed if this is what it all comes down to BUT.................I did get a queasy feeling when Dany was sniveling about "love" to Tyrion in 6x10.  I expect our Silver-haired Unicorn will make it to Westeros, stand imposingly while her Puff the Magic Dragons finish Cersei, She'll treat with the North, Cue a marriage, Jon is made her consort while she sits on the Iron Throne, She'll ride her dragons into battle beside Jon, The Others are vanquished, during the course of the battle Jon and Dany fall in love like nobody has ever loved before, Tyrion will look on wistfully at the bravest, intelligent, most beautiful woman in the world.   She'll be able to have children again because...........abracadabra.  And they'll live happily ever after.

Hopefully the side and B-plots will be interesting.

The odds seem so comically lopsided in Dany's favour at this point that I'm guessing she'll run into a few complications courtesy of Euron and Cersei, but this seems about right. Throw in Tyrion as the bestest, awesomest, longest-serving Hand that ever Handed--or as someone who nobly sacrifices himself in Westeros' darkest hour and is memorialized as the saintliest and most heroic man Westeros has ever known (in the show, anyway, I doubt GRRM would do that)--and there you go. Also, most of the key secondary characters die to make Jon and Dany's happy ending "hard-won" and "bittersweet." Hee.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Eyes High

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, doram said:

No. That would make James, Jon's son, not Jon himself. In this comparison, Jon would be Mary, Queen of Scots - who had a rival claim to the English throne and occasionally reminded people of this. Elizabeth had her head cut off.

Jon is not making a claim to any throne. He didn't even want to be King of the North. Jon isn't power grabbing or attempting to play the Game. Besides the King of the North has no claim on the Iron Throne as far as I know. Unlike Euron and Cersei, Jon is not Daenerys' rival. I think that the show deliberately took the time to have Tyrion get to know Jon so that he will vouch for Jon's character. When the truth of their relationship emerges, I think that Daenerys will be thrilled to have a close relative and she will make Jon her heir.

While there is some doubt, there is historical evidence that Mary, Queen of Scots was colluding with her supporters to overthrow Elizabeth and the Catholic Church did want to eliminate Elizabeth and install Mary who was a committed Catholic.

This is exactly why I don't see clear historical parallels with the Game of Thrones.

Edited July 7, 2016 by SimoneS

[Wouter]

2 hours ago, TxanGoddess said:

I think we'll see Ser Davos representing KITN to either Dany or Tyrion.  Because if you're Jon right now, you don't even know how much you don't know about the political situation in the South, and while its easy to say the politics are bullshit in light of the upcoming WW fight, there's no way any House in the South is turning their backs on KL until the know Cersei is dealt with/being dealt with (the Brotherhood will probably move northwards first though).  Sending a raven seems pretty risky, so my guess is that he makes Ser Davos hand and then sends him away.  I guess he could contact Sam at the Citadel, but he kind of needs him to keep his nose in the books. 

Davos is a possibility, but Sansa would also make sense. She was friendly with Tyrion (in the show), not involved in any action against Targaryens and as a young girl some sympathy fron Dany could presumably be counted on. And in the books, she is already in the south and if LF is smart enough to ally with Dany, she is at a possible landing location of Dany's forces (with dorne unlikely to ally with Dany in the books). 

Davos has the advantage that he can sail/command a boat, but he also has a history of being on opposing ends of the battlefield, during robert's rebellion and at the blackwater.

Maybe they could go together.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Wouter

[Hecate7]

On 7/5/2016 at 8:43 PM, SimoneS said:

Another thing, if Daenerys marries Jon, she will end the legitimate continuation of her Targaryenline. I don't care how "in love" she is, Daenerys would never to something so self-destructive.

I see Sansa stringing Littlefinger along to find out his schemes and then killing him or having him killed. I don't care what so called influence Littlefinger has, in the end Sansa is a Stark and she will choose her family over him.

The one good thing about Cersei on the throne is that the far-fetched talk of Littlefinger on the Iron Throne has died down.

How so? Jon is the last Targaryen besides Danaerys. Why would marrying him be a bad thing? I would think he'd be the best choice under the circumstances, unless Tyrion also turns out to be a Targaryen.

[Hana Chan]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Jon is not making a claim to any throne. He didn't even want to be King of the North. Jon isn't power grabbing or attempting to play the Game.

This is a really, really important point to make. Jon wanted acknowledgement and the prestige that came with being one of Ned Stark's legitimate children (since he was often shoved into the background when his presence proved inconvenient). When he was with the Nights Watch, he wanted the glory of being a ranger. But he never sought the position of Lord Commander and he didn't seek the position of KITN. He got those because he was chosen by others on the basis of merit.

And I think that GRRM had been very clear about what happens to those who actively seek power - it ends in destruction. Especially for the seeker themselves. So far everyone who had sought the Iron Throne - Robert, Renley, Stannis, Jeoffry, Robb - all met a terrible ends (and took a lot of people with them). Cersi has lost all of her children and every significant ally the Lannisters managed to cultivate over generations. She'll also likely die in the not too distant future. And the show has allowed Danaerys to tread awfully close to a dark side. The narrative, to me, looks to favor those who don't actually want the power that they find themselves given.

I keep in mind what Cersi said about the game and that you win or you die. But there is a third option that she hadn't considered - that option, of course, is to refuse to play at all.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Hana Chan

[WearyTraveler]

20 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I am routinely amazed at the mis-read of Jaime by so many. Is he really that hard?

It's not hard in the books, but I can see how non-book readers wouldn't get the nuances of the "I'll kill your baby if you don't handle me your castle" plot, for example.  The show hasn't really done a good job with this character since he arrived at King's Landing after his captivity in Riverrun.

18 hours ago, Funzlerks said:

I think Jon and Daenerys would create a huge succession crisis in The North.  Jon's heirs would be heirs to the whole kingdom, so who would sit at Winterfell?  It would really upset the status quo if the seat of the Starks was weeks away from even the most southern point of The North. I guess he could give it up to Sansa and her husband but that creates some potential problems down the line when the Targaryan line also has very strong claims to Winterfell.  I can't see the Northern lords loving the King of the North being the Mother of Dragons plus one.  And having the future Stark in Winterfell not setting foot in Winterfell for years.

Not at all.  Inheritance goes by paternal bloodline.  Jon's father was a Targaryen, and if he was legitimate (i.e. Rhaegar married Lyanna before going to the Trident), then his children's claim to WF comes after Ned Stark's bloodline is exhausted.  Jon's children would have a direct claim to the Iron Throne, but they would come after Bran, Sansa and Arya's offspring for WF.

18 hours ago, paigow said:

Only if the current rules survive the war....democracy is coming to Westeros...not overnight...but soon.

I agree.  Maybe not democracy, but I do believe Dany is intent in changing the system, one way or another

[BlackberryJam]

1 minute ago, WearyTraveler said:

It's not hard in the books, but I can see how non-book readers wouldn't get the nuances of the "I'll kill your baby if you don't handle me your castle" plot, for example.  The show hasn't really done a good job with this character since he arrived at King's Landing after his captivity in Riverrun.

 

I was actually talking about the book readers who assume Jaime would kill himself after killing Cersei, which...Nah, nothing in show or books leads to that conclusion.

Matriarchal system perhaps?

[WearyTraveler]

32 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I was actually talking about the book readers who assume Jaime would kill himself after killing Cersei, which...Nah, nothing in show or books leads to that conclusion.

Matriarchal system perhaps?

I don't think Jaimie would kill himself after(if?) he kills Cersei.  But I think the people who think that go by that little speech Cersei made to Ned, I believe, where she talked about how she and Jaimie had done everything together, how they came into the world together, him holding onto her ankle, how they had their first sexual experiences together, and so on.  I think she even mentions that they would leave this world together, and so, people may think she's right, at least where Jaimie is concerned.

[Wouter]

1 hour ago, Hana Chan said:

 

And I think that GRRM had been very clear about what happens to those who actively seek power - it ends in destruction. Especially for the seeker themselves. So far everyone who had sought the Iron Throne - Robert, Renley, Stannis, Jeoffry, Robb - all met a terrible ends (and took a lot of people with them).

Robb actually didn't seek the Iron Throne (he never aimed for King's Landing and everything that goes with that) and didn't really seek the job of King in the North actively - he was pushed by his lords, much like Jon was.

[Audreythe2nd]

18 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

I don't think Jaimie would kill himself after(if?) he kills Cersei.  But I think the people who think that go by that little speech Cersei made to Ned, I believe, where she talked about how she and Jaimie had done everything together, how they came into the world together, him holding onto her ankle, how they had their first sexual experiences together, and so on.  I think she even mentions that they would leave this world together, and so, people may think she's right, at least where Jaimie is concerned.

Cersei is literally always wrong, so... it's like, one of GRRM's favourite things to do, making Cersei wrong about things. There's no way I see Cersei ending up being right about how her life is going to end, how Jaime's life is going to end, etc. In the books, she has no idea that Jaime hates her and hasn't responded to her letter because he burned it as opposed to "Oh, he must not have gotten it! No way Jaime would abandon me!" I really, really wish more people would take this into consideration, because it's kind of a major thing.

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, Hana Chan said:

And I think that GRRM had been very clear about what happens to those who actively seek power - it ends in destruction. Especially for the seeker themselves. So far everyone who had sought the Iron Throne - Robert, Renley, Stannis, Jeoffry, Robb - all met a terrible ends (and took a lot of people with them). Cersi has lost all of her children and every significant ally the Lannisters managed to cultivate over generations. She'll also likely die in the not too distant future. And the show has allowed Danaerys to tread awfully close to a dark side. The narrative, to me, looks to favor those who don't actually want the power that they find themselves given.

Robb didn't seek the Iron Throne, or any throne at all.  He was acclaimed king, like Jon was.  Stannis certainly wanted the throne, but he was also heavily about duty.  Robert didn't really "seek" the throne either; he tried to defer to Ned, but everybody said he should take it.  Heck, Joffrey didn't seek the throne either; he just was the king (as far as he knew).

Quote

I keep in mind what Cersi said about the game and that you win or you die. But there is a third option that she hadn't considered - that option, of course, is to refuse to play at all.

Refusing to play the game generally leads to you getting trampled by the people who are.

2 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

How so? Jon is the last Targaryen besides Danaerys. Why would marrying him be a bad thing? I would think he'd be the best choice under the circumstances, unless Tyrion also turns out to be a Targaryen.

The premise of the post is that Daenerys is infertile, so the future of House Targaryen depends on Jon marrying somebody else.  There's considerable debate about Dany's future fertility, so that's up in the air, of course.

2 hours ago, Wouter said:

Davos is a possibility, but Sansa would also make sense. She was friendly with Tyrion (in the show), not involved in any action against Targaryens and as a young girl some sympathy fron Dany could presumably be counted on. And in the books, she is already in the south and if LF is smart enough to ally with Dany, she is at a possible landing location of Dany's forces (with dorne unlikely to ally with Dany in the books). 

Davos has the advantage that he can sail/command a boat, but he also has a history of being on opposing ends of the battlefield, during robert's rebellion and at the blackwater.

Maybe they could go together.

Purely from a resume perspective, Sansa would have obvious credentials as an emissary.  However, since the plot in the North for next season seems to be heavily about internal tension, Sansa being sent away doesn't really fit that story.  I could see Davos being sent off as a means of increasing perceptions of Jon's vulnerability.

[Chris24601]

4 hours ago, doram said:

No. That would make James, Jon's son, not Jon himself. In this comparison, Jon would be Mary, Queen of Scots - who had a rival claim to the English throne and occasionally reminded people of this. Elizabeth had her head cut off.

Leaving aside that ASoIaF isn't a historical retelling with serial numbers filed off so it doesn't have to be a perfect match, Jon's son being her actual heir for the simple reason that Dany, being a year younger, female and unlikely to die in childbirth will almost certainly outlive Jon during peacetime.

She can declare Jon her heir and that makes his eldest son next in line after Jon (and his next oldest son after that) so you have a proper line of succession complete with backups.

Given that Jon's claim is likely stronger than hers (per the decrees set down after the Dance of Dragons ANY male of the Targ  line comes before any female. If he's legit then its not even a contest) the safest thing for Dany's rule is to keep Jon isolated up in the North (particularly if he WANTS to be there) and groom Jon's son to rule (by having him fostered in the royal court) and named her heir. Jon's son then fully unites the North with the south just like James united Britain and Scotland after his ascension to the throne.

Also, if Jon's only concern once the WW are dealt with is holding the North then his best bet politically is Sansa. As Cat pointed out in the books while Robb was making his will, there will be strife down the line between Jon's line and the actual heirs of Ned Stark's line.

Both Robb in the books and the Lords on the show chose Jon because they believe he was the son of the previous King/Warden. Even if it doesn't happen with Jon and Sansa or their respective children, someone... a grandchild who never knew them will either decide they deserve the throne by bloodright or that the other branch is a threat to their rule and you'll have a civil war in the North.

You prevent that if Jon's descendents and Sansa's descendents are one and the same. There is no other branch to threaten or be threatened by the other. Historically the consolidation of claims/inheritance was one of the main reasons for a cousin marriage in the first place.

[Wouter]

3 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Purely from a resume perspective, Sansa would have obvious credentials as an emissary.  However, since the plot in the North for next season seems to be heavily about internal tension, Sansa being sent away doesn't really fit that story.  I could see Davos being sent off as a means of increasing perceptions of Jon's vulnerability.

At the end of S4, it looked like Sansa would become a power player ("Darth Sansa"), as it was more or less hyped by the production/actors, but not much came out of it. Before S6, it was indicated that Sansa would be succesful as a diplomat/politician, and not much came out of this, either. It may well be that the Jon/Sansa tension will fizzle out quickly, too, especially if D&D are just trying to reach a position for Sansa that is nearer to where she is and possibly will be (by the time Dany arrives) in the books (physically far apart from Jon, though under the influence of LF).

Sending her off would leave Jon free to do whatever he is supposed to do in the books, once he has reached the equivalent point in the books (post-Stannis?). And Sansa could still have doubts about Jon, until she finally turns on LF like we expect her to.

For D&D, it would also have the advantage of mixing their actors up again, finding new combinations. Especially if Davos comes along, too.

[SeanC]

8 minutes ago, Wouter said:

At the end of S4, it looked like Sansa would become a power player ("Darth Sansa"), as it was more or less hyped by the production/actors, but not much came out of it. Before S6, it was indicated that Sansa would be succesful as a diplomat/politician, and not much came out of this, either. It may well be that the Jon/Sansa tension will fizzle out quickly, too, especially if D&D are just trying to reach a position for Sansa that is nearer to where she is and possibly will be (by the time Dany arrives) in the books (physically far apart from Jon, though under the influence of LF).

I don't know precisely how the writers envisioned Season 5 (though they referred to Sansa as being "pretty good" at playing the game as of 605, so probably they imagined it as showing how she'd improved her skills), but it's quite clear that Season 6 was meant to be present Sansa as a successful diplomat/politician -- the writing for that was just bad.

[SimoneS]

2 hours ago, doram said:

It's based on the idea that Dany is infertile - even though that theory has been roundly debunked in the books, so it's confusing when it's brought up as if it's de facto.

I (and others) have been talking about the show where things are different so I have no idea why you are confused. When people are referring to the books, they usually make that clear in their comments. On the show, Daenerys has confidently stated twice that she will never have any children. As long as she believes this, I believe that she will act accordingly to secure her line continues through Jon. Maybe the show will indicate otherwise or some magic will make her fertile again, but I am only going the show's version of this story. Whatever is going on in the books is irrelevant.

This reminds me of how some people kept insisting that Daenerys was not immune to fire because she was not in the books, even though the show over and over again made it clear that she could not be burnt. It took her burning the Kals for the book folks to finally reluctantly acknowledge that on the show that Daenerys is immune to fire. The show and book are telling different versions of the same story at this point. 

Edited July 8, 2016 by SimoneS

[anamika]

4 hours ago, SimoneS said:

This reminds me of how some people kept insisting that Daenerys was not immune to fire because she was not in the books, even though the show over and over again made it clear that she could not be burnt. It took her burning the Kals for the book folks to finally reluctantly acknowledge that on the show that Daenerys is immune to fire. The show and book are telling different versions of the same story at this point. 

Daenerys being immune to fire was a gimmick used by the show to get Dany out of the Khal's clutches by girl power and not by dragon power (Drogon) or man power (Jorah and Daario). That's all. If the show wanted Dany to be fertile again, there will be a 5 second scene where a maester examines her and tells her that she can have kids again. There's no hard rules on the show. They bend the rules to move the story forward. Hence we get teleportation, lots of random kinslaying, LF being a fool etc.  In the books, Dany cannot be immune to fire because then it would make no sense for Jon and Viserys to be susceptible to fire. Hence GRRM attributes it to a one time thing caused by magic. The show does not care about such things. They will even just ignore it if needs be - like they ignored that we saw Mel without her choker earlier on and it did not cause her to become 300 yrs old then.

The key thing is that the major characters in the books will more or less have the same endings on the show. Unless it's too icky for a TV audience. For instance, if GRRM was going for a Jon-Arya relationship in the books, I can see the show substituting that with a Jon-Sansa relationship on the show because Turner looks older and hotter than Maise Williams and a TV audience maybe more open to Jon-Sansa than Jon-Arya. They have already replaced aspects of Arya's story (Fake Arya) with Sansa.  But if GRRM is going for Jon-Dany, I don't see the show changing that, because why should they?

So if Dany can become pregnant in the books and she and Jon marry in the books, then that is what will happen on the show. There was a German interview with the actor who plays sexy Jesus and he states that as far as the show is concerned, they know the endings of the 5 main characters, which according to GRRM (when he started writing the series) was Dany, Jon, Bran, Arya and Tyrion and those 5 characters will have the same endings on the show. Everything else is up for change and they will take liberties with the rest of the characters story arcs and endings.

So I really don't see Dany being unable to have children on the show if she can in the books. Iit's an important plot point. Her being immune or not being immune to fire is not really important other than to showcase that Jon is a Targaryen. The show shrugged that off.

Edited July 8, 2016 by anamika

[Advance35]

If Jon and Dany married and had multiple children, would ALL of those children remain in Kings Landing.   I assume one of them would take the Iron Throne and one, as the heir to the, named, King in The North, one would get Winterfell.   Sansa would be the regent until the rightful heir came of age wouldn't she?

Though I was talking with an offline fan who thinks if there are only 12-13 episodes left in the entire series, how on earth are they going to get Jon and Dany in a relationship.   It does seem eerily like the book in the sense that there is SO MUCH story left to tell but so little time/pages, to tell it in.

[anamika]

48 minutes ago, Advance35 said:

If Jon and Dany married and had multiple children, would ALL of those children remain in Kings Landing.   I assume one of them would take the Iron Throne and one, as the heir to the, named, King in The North, one would get Winterfell.   Sansa would be the regent until the rightful heir came of age wouldn't she?

The last KITN (Before Robb) was Torrhen Stark who also known as the King who knelt because he surrendered to the might of Aegon's dragons and because he did not want any bloodshed and death. He then became the warden of the north which continued till Ned. Robb was proclaimed King because the Lannisters had taken over and imprisoned his father.

Quote

"Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we bowed to. And now the dragons are dead. There sits the only king I mean to bend my knee to: the King in the North!"

―Greatjon Umber swears fealty to Robb Stark

I would assume that if there was still an Iron Throne at the end of it all, and if Jon and Dany marry, we would no longer have a KITN. Bran would then be the Warden of the North.

Edited July 8, 2016 by anamika

[anamika]

1 hour ago, doram said:

Pretty much this. Only I think Sansa and her descendants will be the Wardens since Bran might have to live the rest of his life (or eternity?) in a tree. 

Does he have to? He is currently on his way back and Winterfell has the Godswood described as a 'dark, primal place of three acres of old forest untouched for ten thousand years'. Bran can continue to be the 3ER from Winterfell. He can then name someone else as his heir if he cannot have children. Then there is also Arya, who is unencumbered by marriages. Arya's ending is very tricky to predict at this stage. Ned tells her that she would marry a king, but the only possible king at this point is Jon. I can see her being a warrior Queen like her heroine Nymeria or the wardeness of the North. Also remember that Rickon is still alive and well in the books.

Sansa is also slightly tricky. In the books she is still married to Tyrion and that cannot be as easily ignored as they ignored it on the show. LF is banking on Tyrion being killed or dead when he plots the whole Sansa - Harry the Heir (HH) marriage. Robb disinherits Sansa because he does not want the Lannisters to get Winterfell. The show also seems to be stating (Through some of the Northerners like Lyanna) that Sansa is somehow tainted because of her marriages. If she remains married to Tyrion, Sansa will be in Casterly Rock as opposed to WF. IF she marries HH, she maybe Lady of the Vale.

1 hour ago, doram said:

But it's Interesting that GRRM didn't list Sansa as one of the 5 mains. It supports the theory that she doesn't live to the end of the story. 

According to GRRM's original outline - 'The five key players are Tyrion Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, and three of the children of Winterfell, Arya, Bran, and the bastard Jon Snow'. Sansa betrays her family, marries Joffrey and has a child. That's the last we hear of her in the outline. She is presumably killed off by Jaime on his way to the IT.

12 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Jon is not making a claim to any throne. He didn't even want to be King of the North. Jon isn't power grabbing or attempting to play the Game.

 

9 hours ago, Hana Chan said:

This is a really, really important point to make. Jon wanted acknowledgement and the prestige that came with being one of Ned Stark's legitimate children (since he was often shoved into the background when his presence proved inconvenient). When he was with the Nights Watch, he wanted the glory of being a ranger. But he never sought the position of Lord Commander and he didn't seek the position of KITN. He got those because he was chosen by others on the basis of merit.

 

I don't know why Jon is being made out as some kind of saint. Sure, Jon has his principles and there is a line in the sand that he will not cross, come what may. But Jon is also incredibly ambitious. He chose the NW precisely because it was merit based and a bastard could climb high up in the ranks there. He was rankled that Mormont made him steward until Sam tells him that Mormont did so because he was grooming Jon to be LC. He wanted to be LC.  Even when he was elected LC, it was not like he said, no thanks I will remain a steward. It's not like he said, no thanks make my sister Queen when they made him KITN. There's that entire chapter in ASoS where he agonizes over Stannis' offer of Winterfell and he states:

Quote

He wanted it (Winterfell), Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily.

It's human nature and in a sense also allows us to sympathize with Catelyn's fear that Jon or his children would someday usurp her own children's rights to Winterfell.

If being King on the Iron Throne is going to allow Jon the power to make decisions that will be for the good of the 7 kingdoms or help fight the WW, I am damn sure he will go for it or even fight for it. If someone offers him the IT, he is not going to say no thanks. If he is the rightful heir of the IT, as the son of Rhaegar Targaryen, and has the support of the other Kingdoms like the North, the Vale and Riverlands, why cannot he go for it? He may even get a dragon. Dany will have the support of Dorne, Tyrells, Lannisters and Iron Born. They would need to meet in the middle and hence the marriage.

Edited July 8, 2016 by anamika

[Hecate7]

44 minutes ago, anamika said:

Does he have to? He is currently on his way back and Winterfell has the Godswood described as a 'dark, primal place of three acres of old forest untouched for ten thousand years'. Bran can continue to be the 3ER from Winterfell. He can then name someone else as his heir if he cannot have children. Then there is also Arya, who is unencumbered by marriages. Arya's ending is very tricky to predict at this stage. Ned tells her that she would marry a king, but the only possible king at this point is Jon. I can see her being a warrior Queen like her heroine Nymeria or the wardeness of the North. Also remember that Rickon is still alive and well in the books.

 

Not for long. In the books Shaggydog has just been gored by a unicorn. I don't think they'd kill him off on the show if he is endgame.

As for Bran, I hope he realizes the nature of the magic he's working with, before he tries to pass through the wall. ShowBenjen gave him a pretty broad hint, there, when he said the wall is magical and that the walkers and wights can't pass it. Surely Bran could put two and two together and realize that he will cause the same kind of disaster at the Wall as he caused at the tree, should he try to pass it. Surely Bran will realize that he has to remain north of the wall for the sake of the kingdoms...then again, considering who his mother was, probably not. Probably he'll have poor Meera drag him through the gates of Castle Black and the whole place will come tumbling down around his ears, and the walkers will descend on the unprepared and unprotected Seven Kingdoms. Bran Stark sends his regards.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Hecate7

[Hecate7]

6 hours ago, doram said:

It's based on the idea that Dany is infertile - even though that theory has been roundly debunked in the books, so it's confusing when it's brought up as if it's de facto.

If Jon's children are Dany's heirs then they won't be claiming the North, they'd be claiming the Iron Throne/7 Kingdoms, and not squabbling with Sansa's descendants over ownership of the North. 

 

How so? Just because Danaerys bleeds, doesn't mean she's fertile. It certainly isn't the same thing as bearing a living child. The blood in the books is just as likely to be the Pale Mare as a period or miscarriage. Bleeding actually signals the opposite of pregnancy. A woman has a period when she's not pregnant. Her periods stop when she's pregnant, has gone through menopause, has had a hysterectomy, or is starving.

We were not told why, apart from the prophecy, Danaerys thinks she's infertile. We were not told her periods stopped, or that she thinks she doesn't have a womb at all. I know some fans think that the blood is a miscarriage, and that this fulfills the prophecy, but it doesn't. The prophecy specifically states "when you bear a living child." A miscarriage isn't a living child, and it can be a sign that although eggs are dropping down to get fertilized, either they are not viable, or the uterus simply can't carry them to term. It can be a sign of infertility.

[Brn2bwild]

1 hour ago, Hecate7 said:

Not for long. In the books Shaggydog has just been gored by a unicorn. I don't think they'd kill him off on the show if he is endgame.

As for Bran, I hope he realizes the nature of the magic he's working with, before he tries to pass through the wall. ShowBenjen gave him a pretty broad hint, there, when he said the wall is magical and that the walkers and wights can't pass it. Surely Bran could put two and two together and realize that he will cause the same kind of disaster at the Wall as he caused at the tree, should he try to pass it. Surely Bran will realize that he has to remain north of the wall for the sake of the kingdoms...then again, considering who his mother was, probably not. Probably he'll have poor Meera drag him through the gates of Castle Black and the whole place will come tumbling down around his ears, and the walkers will descend on the unprepared and unprotected Seven Kingdoms. Bran Stark sends his regards.

Wait, what?  Did Martin release a Davos chapter and I missed it??

[Hecate7]

1 hour ago, Brn2bwild said:

Wait, what?  Did Martin release a Davos chapter and I missed it??

No, it's a Jon Snow chapter. Jon is hanging out in Ghost when Ghost sees it. "A wild rain lashed down upon his black brother as he tore at the flesh of an enormous goat, washing the blood from his side where the goat's long horn had raked him."

It doesn't sound like a serious enough injury to kill him, until you reflect that 1) there's no point in telling us about a minor boo-boo if Shaggy's going to recover, and 2) it took a lot less to kill Khal Drogo.

[arjumand]

I've been curious about this since Episode 10 - in light of the explosion, and the presumed death of every septon and septa in the city (except Unella - yikes), is the Faith of the Seven in trouble?

In the books, Melisandre has been leading a huge crusade against it - I don't think there's been anything similar in the show (though I haven't watched all the episodes - burning people alive is one of my 'can't watch, nosireee' - I cringed through that Mance Rayder scene and have never watched Shireen's), but one of the Davos chapters mentions them dragging out all the statues from the sept at Dragonstone or Storm's End and burning them. Afterwards, Davos often feels he's being punished, especially when his sons die.

Also, we keep reading snippets of septs being looted, septons and septas horrifically murdered. The Faith of the Seven has always been presented as a sort of Christianity analogue, with no visible answers to prayers etc, unlike the Lord of Light (I'm tired of looking up his bloody name to spell it right) and the old gods (the fact that people like Bran get visions and warg, etc, shows that there is some power there). So how long until people start doubting the Seven, and going back to the old gods or their fiery new god?

And now the Sept of Baelor is gone, and a lot of religious are dead - was the Sept like the Vatican for Catholics? Is there going to be some reaction to it in Westeros, or will it just be Sansa filled with glee?

I'm kind of torn - on the one hand, the new churchly homophobia put me off the Faith of the Seven. OTOH, crazy fire-mad let's burn EVERYONE because we're afraid of the dark isn't much better. I'd thought Melisandre was an exception until we met the lady in Mereen.

[Hecate7]

26 minutes ago, doram said:

For the same reason you've just given about Shaggydog and the goat - there's no point telling us about the details of Dany's miscarriage (and it's evident it's not a normal period since it's heavier and she realizes it's been moons since she last bled) if it's not significant. 

 

It could be significant without meaning she's fertile. Until this point in the story, we've had no evidence that her belief in Mirri's curse had any foundation in reality, because getting pregnant is hit or miss, and because Dany hasn't actually wanted to be pregnant. Her continuing without getting pregnant could simply be luck. But for her to be briefly pregnant, and lose it, reinforces the curse. No living children. I expect that if this is a miscarriage, people are interpreting it backwards. Dany will continue to miscarry at regular intervals, with far less detail, until some magic happens that allows her to carry to term. I suspect there is magic keeping her sterile, and that it has something to do with the dragons--perhaps she can't reproduce until they do, or maybe she has to sacrifice a dragon, or all three dragons, before she can be the mother of anything else. This is sheer speculation.

Whatever the real spell is, I don't think it's broken yet. I expect Jon Snow to be with Dany when it's broken, and I do ship them. I don't see them marrying out of starry-eyed infatuation, but rather out of a desire for alliance. Dany will die in childbirth, of course, leaving Jon free to marry the widowed Lady Lannister.

[TxanGoddess]

Quote

If Jon's children are Dany's heirs then they won't be claiming the North, they'd be claiming the Iron Throne/7 Kingdoms, and not squabbling with Sansa's descendants over ownership of the North. 

Well the first born of them would at least. 

Those "spare heirs" have a pesky habit of wanting something to inherit too ...

[Advance35]

Quote

Those "spare heirs" have a pesky habit of wanting something to inherit too ...

This was my thought exactly.  If I were Sansa  I would be keeping my eyes very open where Jon and Dany were concerned and I would not consider them "friends."  Their offspring could be as different from them as Tytos Lannister from Tywin.

[Eyes High]

16 hours ago, doram said:

But it's Interesting that GRRM didn't list Sansa as one of the 5 mains. It supports the theory that she doesn't live to the end of the story. 

Yes, it does, doesn't it?

The 1993 outline, coupled with GRRM's remark (made more than once, I think) that he's known the broad strokes of the ending (who lives, who dies, etc.) since 1991 and that he intends to stick to that ending, suggests to me that Sansa is in all likelihood doomed. At the very least, I think we know enough to write her off as endgame queen. The end of Season 6, which pointed to Sansa going against Jon with only 13 episodes remaining, put Sansa on notice, I think. Not to say she couldn't survive, but it's looking less and less likely.

I don't think GRRM is nearly as enamoured of Sansa's good qualities and potential as her fans. I generally agree with this post from upthread:

Quote

Honestly, I feel like a lot of speculation surrounding Sansa, her motivations and future assume facts simply not in evidence show-wise, or even book-wise. I think her blank canvas status leads fans to imprint their own desires onto her storyline. I'd honestly be surprised if any of the fan theories regarding her come to pass, and doubt that she is crucial in the endgame in the way people expect (through some never-expressed or implied desire to be QITN or of the Seven Kingdoms, or to marry Jon and have Sophie Turner/Kit Harington babies). The text just doesn't read/watch that way for me, neither does the subtext.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Eyes High

[AshleyN]

There are plenty of reasons I'm not looking forward to the way the Sansa/Littlefinger/Jon story seems to be going, but I think the biggest is that it's looking increasingly likely that whichever way they go with Sansa, Jon is going to be thrown back into the "noble idiot" box that the show insists on shoving every male Stark into. It's a really annoying oversimplification of all of them, but Jon in particular considering that his book version, while not perfect or immune to making mistakes, is actually a pretty smart guy. So the fact that, outside of his relationship with the wildlings*, the show keeps insisting that Jon's only value is his ability to swing a sword is really frustrating. It's also questionable decision-making, creatively speaking, because it's seems pretty obvious that Jon will be leading the fight against the White Walkers, which means they really need to stop undermining his credibility as a leader.

*Which is honestly one of my favourite dynamics on the show. Partly because Jon managing to convince the wildlings to follow a crow and fight alongside the people they've been warring with for literally thousands of years is one of the most impressive acts of diplomacy in the series, and partly because that relationship, particularly the one between Jon and Tormund, is one of the very few that is built pretty much entirely on mutual respect.

I'm also kind of over hearing about how naive Jon is in comparison to characters who have yet to acknowledge the fact that THERE IS AN ARMY OF ICE ZOMBIES COMING TO WIPE TO WIPE OUT ALL OF HUMANITY. Yeah, you could say that Jon doesn't "get" politics and intrigue, but on the other hand characters like Littlefinger and Sansa don't seem to "get" that none of that is going to matter in the very near future. This is why, even though I know the popular desire is for Littlefinger's downfall to come at Sansa's hands (and I expect that is the most likely ending for him), I'd personally like to see him get killed by White Walkers. This series is essentially all about a bunch of people so caught up in their personal grudges and power games that they ignore the greater existential threat coming their way, and nobody embodies that theme more that Mr. "Chaos is a Ladder" himself, who started a war because he never got over not being able to marry the girl he liked.

18 hours ago, Wouter said:

At the end of S4, it looked like Sansa would become a power player ("Darth Sansa"), as it was more or less hyped by the production/actors, but not much came out of it. Before S6, it was indicated that Sansa would be succesful as a diplomat/politician, and not much came out of this, either. It may well be that the Jon/Sansa tension will fizzle out quickly, too, especially if D&D are just trying to reach a position for Sansa that is nearer to where she is and possibly will be (by the time Dany arrives) in the books (physically far apart from Jon, though under the influence of LF).

I agree with you that that's how it played out onscreen to me, but it's pretty clear at this point that that's not what the people involved with the show think they portrayed. Pretty much every interview with the cast and crew has indicated that this season was all about Sansa's arrival as a player and how great she's gotten at politics, with "Battle of the Bastards" being her big victory in which dumb Jon fucks up and Sansa has to "save his ass" (in Sophie Turner's words). Apparently, we're supposed to ignore the fact that the reason she had to go crawling back to Littlefinger (a man she explicitly said she wanted nothing more to do with) in the first place was because her foray into Northern politics was a complete failure, or that Jon might not have needed his ass saved if she hadn't withheld vital information from him.

It's a shame too, because I actually like Sansa, have generally defended her in the past, and have been looking forward to seeing her evolve into a more politically savvy character. It's just that what I'm being told is not matching up with what I'm actually seeing onscreen.