S06.E10: The Winds of Winter

[OhOkayWhat]

44 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

She's a misogynist. She believes that MOST girls are stupid. It's not something she heard from other girls, it's what she actually feels about them, just like Cersei at her age. The misogyny is part of the darkness. It's funny: when she finally met a girl as tough as herself, and as "nonstupid," she hated her, too, and ended up killing her. And we are glad she did.

Even misogynists love mothers who nurture them. Arya likes Catelyn, and she likes Lady Crane, because she needs a Mom. She lost hers far too soon. This is something she has in common with Cersei, who was about the same age as Arya when she lost her mother.

She believed that, because her vision was narrow. In her mind most girls were stupid because they were not awesome warriors and in the horrible environment she was, she was thinking that only warrior girls were clever. But also she met new people, like Lady Crane, she was not warrior and she bonded with her. Her own old vision of the world (that includes women) is changing.

She appreciated Lady Crane even before Lady Crane behaved kinda like a mother for her. She liked her knowing only she was an actress, not a warrior and the emotional challenge was bigger because she was playing a person who Arya hated. Step by step, her vision about women is getting wider.

Edited July 13, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Hecate7]

5 hours ago, OhOkayWhat said:

She believed that, because her vision was narrow. In her mind most girls were stupid because they were not awesome warriors and in the horrible environment she was, she was thinking that only warrior girls were clever. But also she met new people, like Lady Crane, she was not warrior and she bonded with her. Her own old vision of the world (that includes women) is changing.

She appreciated Lady Crane even before Lady Crane behaved kinda like a mother for her. She liked her knowing only she was an actress, not a warrior and the emotional challenge was bigger because she was playing a person who Arya hated. Step by step, her vision about women is getting wider.

She fell in love with Lady Crane's performance as a bereaved mother. Lady Crane embodied The Mother for her, so much so that she actually wept for Cersei, the top name on her kill list. Seconds after she chuckled over Joffrey's death, Arya was moved to tears by "Cersei's" grief over him. It resonated so powerfully with her own feelings of loss, and her own longing for a mother, that she was unable to complete her assignment and kill Lady Crane, even though she understood that the actress and the character are separate things. Arya grew immeasurably just by watching a play. I would still not bet on her to be other than misogynistic about women and girls in general. She finds them useless and stupid, and derives most of her self-esteem from being "different from other girls."

[OhOkayWhat]

2 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

She fell in love with Lady Crane's performance as a bereaved mother. Lady Crane embodied The Mother for her, so much so that she actually wept for Cersei, the top name on her kill list. Seconds after she chuckled over Joffrey's death, Arya was moved to tears by "Cersei's" grief over him. It resonated so powerfully with her own feelings of loss, and her own longing for a mother, that she was unable to complete her assignment and kill Lady Crane, even though she understood that the actress and the character are separate things. Arya grew immeasurably just by watching a play. I would still not bet on her to be other than misogynistic about women and girls in general. She finds them useless and stupid, and derives most of her self-esteem from being "different from other girls."

 

This is part of the conversation between Arya and Tywin:

Arya: Visenya Targaryen was a great warrior. She had a Valyrian steel sword she called Dark Sister.

Tywin: Hmm. She's a heroine of yours, I take it? Aren't most girls more interested in the pretty maidens from the songs? Jonquil with the flowers in her hair?

Arya: Most girls are idiots

 

Even if Tywin compares her with Cercei, it does not makes it automatically true. I noticed a couple of things here:

a) Arya points that they are women, and admires them as warriors. In her mind, they are different to the other women. Her mind compares them to the other girls, the no-warriors ones. Her mind is still too narrow.

b) Tywin ask specifically about "most girls", he is not talking or asking about "most boys". Therefore the answer of Arya is only related to the question. We do not know what she could answer if Tywin asked about "most boys"....maybe the answer could be the same? If that is the case, then Arya probably think "most kids" or most "human beings" are idiots, and it is not something specifically directed towards women or girls. We will never know, because Tywin asked only about "most girls".

A and B does NOT make her vision about men and women a good vision in any case, but it makes me to have doubts about how specific her opinion is. It also provide me with the "admiring a warrior" element to analyze if there is a change in her future.

 

Let see now a little bit of what Arya and Lady Crane talk when they are alone:

Lady Crane: I remember when the players came to my village. I didn't have any money, so I snuck in. Just like you. Saw the painted faces, the costumes, listened to the songs, cried when the young lovers died in each other's arms. I ran off and joined them the next day, never looked back.

Arya: You're very good.

Then later:

Lady Crane: But to be fair to myself, which I always like to be, the writing's no good.

Arya: So change it. It would all just be farting, belching, and slapping without you.

 

I noticed a couple of things here too:

c) Arya hears about Young Lady Crane "crying when the young lovers died in each other's arms", a very Sansa-ish thing to do, and yet, she still likes her. She is starting to open her mind to the complexities of the different women and girls (and men and boys too).

d) Lady Crane represent A Mother and maybe The Mother, but she also represent her enemy, both things together. In some way, the play open new doors in her mind to understand women, even Cercei. And men too. To understand human beings. But it is also important to say that even if we think the fact that Lady Crane part in the play was a mother and this element could make Arya like her more, we also should notice that she admired her NOT ONLY because of the mother element in the play, but also for the simple fact that she was a great actress: "It would all just be farting, belching, and slapping without you". Here it does not matter who she is in the play, because Arya mind is very aware of a thing that she admires about her: her value as actress not related to the script of the play.

C and D shows us that meeting Lady Crane open new doors in the mind of Arya about women and girls and all the human beings. She see how girls are complex beings, how not only being a great warrior is awesome, that also being an great actress can be awesome too. I think that meeting her is a fundamental change in Arya (a change that also we can see with her bonding with Sandor), because her problems to admire the complexity of all human beings (not only girls or women) and her admiration for war and violence related elements are very dangerous issues and yes, it is related to the darkness around her and inside her. And Lady Crane (even if Lady Crane had also her own HUGE and terrible issues tied to violence) gave her the chance to change her vision about things she did not admire before and those are some of the first steps toward a new mentality inside Arya mind.

In brief, Arya shows that even if currently her mentality has serious problems to relate to other human beings, she also shows that new positive doors are opening in her mind too, and that struggle, the struggle to defeat the darkness inside her, I think, will be part of her future storyline.

Edited July 13, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Gertrude]

I was watching a review of season 6 by Preston Jacobs on youtube. He is a known book purist and has some crackpot theories (IMO). Since he knows he is a book purist and people will criticize him for it, he just took the story as presented and picked it apart. I don't agree with everything he says, but one point really stuck with me. The reason Sansa has been a pawn for so long was that she had value as a Stark heir. The Lannisters wanted her for it, the Tyrells wanted her. Littlefinger wants her (and her claim) and the Boltons valued her claim. That was the whole reason why the marriage took place and Roose was upset at Ramsey for letting her escape. That has been her entire story arc thus far - she is a powerless pawn trying to survive.

So now that she has escaped and is declaring war on her husband ... turns out her value is zero. Apparently the North is up for grabs for whoever is willing to take it and hold it through force. I think it's a good point. Even if they don't value her, Sansa, they should value her Stark blood and the ability to produce a male heir. They don't, and I think it's a weakness of the story they gave us.

[arjumand]

5 hours ago, Gertrude said:

So now that she has escaped and is declaring war on her husband ... turns out her value is zero. Apparently the North is up for grabs for whoever is willing to take it and hold it through force. I think it's a good point. Even if they don't value her, Sansa, they should value her Stark blood and the ability to produce a male heir. They don't, and I think it's a weakness of the story they gave us.

But in that society, in Westeros, in the North, her value is zero now - I mean, yes, it's awful for us, but that's how the values of that society have been presented to us.

Look, Sansa's been handed around like a game of pass the parcel as long as she was a virgin. Her entire value lay in her virginity. And yes, yes - her son would inherit Winterfell.

But now, when she and Jon were going around asking for help, all the others were seeing a wife who doesn't like her marriage anymore - a marriage she entered into of her own free will. Yes, we know that Ramsey is a monster, etc, but apparently, no one else does. Even in the books, at the most there are rumours of what happened to Lady Hornwood, but no-one knows for sure, and Roose is always quick to deny all of them.

The virginity business is really, really important, and perhaps the tv show has downplayed it too much, so that now we tend to want to sweep it aside. But in the books, there are so many examples of women only being valued for it - just some off the top of my head: Jaime asks Brienne is she's still a virgin after her first encounter with the Bloody Mummers, when Qyburn tells Jaime that Brienne isn't going home, Jaime assumes that her father won't pay the ransom because he thinks she isn't a virgin anymore, Jeyne Poole has been in a brothel being 'trained' (Petyr Baelish also needs to be dog food before the end of the story), but Ramsey is assured she's still a virgin - I'm sure there's more, but I'm starting to feel queasy.

In the books there's Northmen prepared to march for miles to save 'Ned's girl', but in the show, Sansa isn't Ned's girl anymore - she's Lady Whoever she married this week, to them.*

The other point is the Red Wedding, and how it completely destabilized Northern society. There's a reason it's being mentioned a lot in season 6, and I don't believe it's simply 'let's remind the audience that this is a thing'. Yes, it's going to be harder to get Northerners together, even for the Starks, because apparently, you can totally betray and destroy the family, and nothing will happen to you. Walder Frey broke guest right, and how did the gods punish him? He got everything he wanted for quite a long time.

In fact, I'm curious to see what kind of spin will be put on his death. Arya should really have painted a direwolf sigil on the wall.

*I'm not saying that she's stuck with the Lady Bolton title, now. She and Jon won - they can put any kind of narrative about they want. and if she wants to call herself Sansa Stark again, it'll be fine. Even Catelyn stayed a Tully till the end of her life. All the Boltons are gone, and anyone who wants to say otherwise is welcome to a tour of the kennels.

Edited July 13, 2016 by arjumand

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, arjumand said:

Look, Sansa's been handed around like a game of pass the parcel as long as she was a virgin. Her entire value lay in her virginity. And yes, yes - her son would inherit Winterfell.

Disagree. Her value lay completely in the fact that she could bear a true heir to Winterfell. I think her marriage to Tyrion was mentioned when Roose and Petyr were bargaining, but mainly it was to say that her marriage didn't count because of the non-consumation. (I think), there was no dialog indicating that 'whew, she's still a virgin' or that it would have been a deal breaker.

As doram mentioned from the books, Lady Hornwood is a good example. Despite being a widow, she is still highly sought after for her claims and titles.

Roose was very interested in securing Sansa and very upset with Ramsey losing her. They were also very intent on tying up loose ends (aka Jon, Bran and Rickon). Locke was sent up to infiltrate the Wall and take out Jon and try to learn about Bran and Rickon - that ended abruptly as well. I think the dialog was something like: 'Have we heard from Locke?' 'No.' 'Oh well, it doesn't matter.' They use the fact that their bloodline is important when it suits them, then dismiss it when it's not.

But this is entertainment and people are going to enjoy it on different levels and interpret it how they want. I just am left scratching my head when this show is praised so highly from so many different sources and polls. To me it's a summer blockbuster that's all spectacle with a thin plot. And that's ok, I just need a place to vent my frustration sometimes to get it out of my system, because I seem to be in the minority.

[ulkis]

1 hour ago, Gertrude said:

But this is entertainment and people are going to enjoy it on different levels and interpret it how they want. I just am left scratching my head when this show is praised so highly from so many different sources and polls. To me it's a summer blockbuster that's all spectacle with a thin plot. And that's ok, I just need a place to vent my frustration sometimes to get it out of my system, because I seem to be in the minority.

Nah, I agree. Which is why I'm not that harsh on the show and its plot holes, at this point I expect it to have giant plot holes. I'm just glad some medium is finishing this story up, even though it's probably nowhere as good as it would have been if Martin had finished the story back when he actually was motivated to write for it.

ETA: And I'm not as mad at the creators for some of their adaptation choices as I otherwise would be because I blame Martin. Like someone upthread pointed out, if he had finished the books, the writers probably would have made different choices. I daresay they'd probably still make a bunch of questionable decisions, but I do think a lot of the more wonky plot holes were due to the books not being done.

Edited July 14, 2016 by ulkis

[OhOkayWhat]

1) About the change on the value of Sansa Stark name, I think there is a mistake in the analysis of it, if we want to use it to say the show does not make sense.

Lets say that a pen has a value. The real value of the pen will not be the same if you give it to John (he does not even like to write) than if you give it to Peter (he is a great journalist). The real value of a thing is related to who use/buy it. Also if you give it to Peter while he already wrote his notes, it will not have the same value than if you give it to him while he is writing them and he is desperate because he does not have anything to use to write. The real value of the things is also related to the Time, and its different moments, each moment is related to its own circumstances.

2) Lets go further. Marie determines the value of x. The next month Rose also determines the value of x. Because the things we said in point 1, we can say that is very hard that x has the same value both times because:

a)Marie and Rose are not the same person.
b)The value of x was determined in different moments of the timeline.
c)There is the possibility that Rose knows than Marie determined the value of x and that first event (Marie analysis of the value) can influence the second event (Rose doing the same)

In other words, an event can influence the next event. That is another reason the value can change.

3) Lets go beyond: we are not talking about a pen or x. We are talking about Sansa Stark name. We are not talking only about a thing, we are talking about a person, because the name is related to the person (sadly, in Planetos they often forget it and they use the women and their names as coins in a market) and if the name is related to the person and the person change, then the analysis about what that name means for everyone can change too. In fact, that is part of the whole Sansa storyline.

Therefore because 1,2 and 3, we can say it is very difficult than the value of Sansa name does NOT change. And therefore to say it is a bad written plot because it changes is incorrect.

4) Roose was thinking, while he analyzed the North politics, than many Houses in the North were still weak and healing their wounds. And he was right about that, therefore he made a LONG term plan. His plan was NOT necessarily tied to the politics of the next months, he was thinking about the next decade and more.

5) The decision of the Lords of the North after the Battle of the Bastards, comes after the battle and after the death of Roose. Roose, obvioulsy, did not include that in his analysis.

6) As we said before, it is possible an event has an influence in the next event. And that is the case of the North. Each event needs to be analyzed as a moment with its own circumstances and also as a moment that is also transformed with the influence of previous events.

7) Here comes the core of my reply. People says "The North does not remember in the show" or "everyone forgot the Red Wedding in the show". That is incorrect. In the show, the North remembers and the North specially remembers the Red Wedding. The problem is, it did not remember the way we wish it did.

People mix together what they want the show characters to do, with the question about if the plot makes sense. If the show does not include things that we wish the show contains, then we say it does not make sense. But it is just matter of the human nature.

World History. There were thousands of events that happened and their consequences were than the souls of that people, city, country, etc, changed in a positive way. And also, sadly, there were thousands of cases where the souls of that people, city, country, etc changed in a negative way.

Cynism, fear, pragmatism in some people while violence in others, selfishness. It happens, and the Five Kings war was a horrible, tragic event. And the Red Wedding was a tragedy too, it was traumatic not only for each human being but also for all the Kingdoms. Something changed in the very core of the rules and beliefs of Westeros. From the poor farmer, to the rich Lord. And mostly, it changed in a bad way. That is the storyline of the North in the show. We do not like it, but it does not mean that it does not make sense as part of the history of human behavior.

It is a tragedy, seeing how the Red Wedding did not made the people try to find justice, and instead of that, many of them became violent (or more violent) or cynic. Some became just pragmatic. Selfish. And all of that is part of the tragedy that came after the tragedy of the war.

And I said it makes sense, not because becoming a worse person or a worse leader or a worse kingdom is an intelligent way to behave; it is not. Being selfish is not intelligent. But it happened in Human History sometimes, after traumatic events. It does not always happens, but it happened in the fictional world of Planetos.

8) And now what? what happens next? we do not know. The narrative decisions left us with a (mostly) pragmatic and confused North where everything is changing quickly. And where Sansa is changing too, she is becoming more pragmatic, and if the value of her name is disappearing, maybe it will make her trust more in her own intelligence and not only in the power of her name. The risk for her is to become a new Littlefinger, the trap is to forget about her heart and about love.

And also we have a North where pragmatism and a confused leadership (not all of the leaders, that is true too) replaced hope and trust. And Jon is there, the man-who-learned-to-never-give-up, and he has a job to do. To give unity and hope to the North and maybe all Westeros, because Winter is already there and everything is changing.

Edited July 14, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Raachel2008]

But Sansa is not the only Stark heir anymore. The moment the Northen Lords acknowledged that Jon is Ned's son, thus a Stark, the heir is him, not her. And yes, Sansa's value (what a horrible word) has decreased after that, because Ned Stark's blood doesn't run just in her veins, but Jon's too. She is the Lady of Winterfell, but isn't that because Jon doesn't have a wife? See, if Jon is a Stark - and the Lords accepted him as one -, then he is the oldest Stark alive, a man and the heir. He is the Lord of the Winterfell, and the only reason Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell is because he is not married. Whatever way you look at that, her value is not the same when she was seen as the only Stark child alive. Her ability to produce a male heir is not as important now that Jon is a Stark.

[Gertrude]

This is true once Jon is proclaimed KitN and the Lords say they don't care that he's a bastard, but the entire season before that, she was Sansa Stark, the only known heir of Ned Stark. Jon was a just a bastard, and bastards aren't in the line of succession. When they were canvasing the North looking for help, she should have had more value if the show were following it's own story logic.

And the issue of whether or not Sansa is Lady of Winterfell in her own right or through Jon has been hashed out in this thread. I agree with how you see it, but others don't and I have zero idea what the show wants us to think. The fact that she is the Lady of Winterfell wasn't even touched on in the show, but in the GoT index on HBO's site or something.

[Katsullivan]

On 7/9/2016 at 2:11 PM, WearyTraveler said:

No.  The ones that have left the Watch and survived always went beyond the Wall (like Mance Rayder).  When Jon thinks of leaving, after he took his vows, he always thinks about how he'd be hunted down, and how he'd have to hide, steal clothes and lie until he finds his way to Robb.  He actually wonders if Robb himself would sentence him to die for breaking his oath and take his head.

So that answers the question then. 

[SeanC]

20 hours ago, Gertrude said:

The fact that she is the Lady of Winterfell wasn't even touched on in the show, but in the GoT index on HBO's site or something.

No, Jon brought it up in their conversation earlier in the episode.

The confusing thing is that most of us assumed that had changed as a result of the lords electing Jon as the king, but evidently it didn't.

[OhOkayWhat]

21 hours ago, Gertrude said:

This is true once Jon is proclaimed KitN and the Lords say they don't care that he's a bastard, but the entire season before that, she was Sansa Stark, the only known heir of Ned Stark. Jon was a just a bastard, and bastards aren't in the line of succession. When they were canvasing the North looking for help, she should have had more value if the show were following it's own story logic.

The show is following its own story logic and THAT is the reason behind the change of the value of Sansa Stark name.

[Raachel2008]

On 14/07/2016 at 8:28 PM, Gertrude said:

 

This is true once Jon is proclaimed KitN and the Lords say they don't care that he's a bastard, but the entire season before that, she was Sansa Stark, the only known heir of Ned Stark. Jon was a just a bastard, and bastards aren't in the line of succession. When they were canvasing the North looking for help, she should have had more value if the show were following it's own story logic.

 

Oh, I know, I meant AFTER the Lords decided they didn't care he was a bastard.

[TaurusRose]

On 7/9/2016 at 1:57 AM, Gertrude said:

While I generally agree with this sentiment, this time it bugs me a lot. You're right, we don't need to see every reaction. I am also willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt for a lot of things. In my opinion, the show abuses this trust. I believe this particular problem is because the books will handle the aftermath of Jon's resurrection much differently than the show did. I have sympathy, because trying to come up to an alternate version of life after death sounds like a difficult task to me, but it's also their job. They couldn't come up with a plausible storyline that fits with what they've already done/planned. so they just ignore it and assume we'll roll with it.

So Ramsey knew about Jon's sword fighting ability but not that he was resurrected? If we're to assume he did, why not mention it? I'm sure Ramsey could think of a cutting remark. OK, so Ramsey knew about it but didn't want to acknowledge it. the resurrection and Jon being a special snowflake might have come in handy when trying to recruit the Houses. No, not gonna mention it there either? Not gonna even say a word that makes it seem like a well-known thing when proclaiming him King? At this point I have to assume the writers have had a creative failure on some level because a resurrection is a pretty big deal. I kept waiting for some reaction/consequence for it and nothing happened. OK, so the wildlings think he is some kind of god. We know that because Tormond said it, not because we were shown it. And with the Northern Lords, we weren't even told it. This is not the same as people reacting to Joff's death or that apparently Dorne is cool with Ellaria - these are things that could conceivably happen and people have a frame of reference for these events. Resurrection? Not so much.

I'm past the point of rolling with it. Do I think it ruins the show? No. For the most point I do roll, especially in the moment. It's when I sit down and think about thinks that it starts to drive me crazy. I mentioned in an earlier post that what actually drives me crazy is when the writing is not tight. I was a huge fan of Lost for a long time and I turned on it that last season because the writing was crap. They had a plan, knew the endgame and were still writing in little details that would have no payoff just because it was a cool thing to happen in the moment. This is exactly how I feel about this show right now. They wedge in the cool moments and don't bother to do detail work they need to do to earn those moments. It feels like it has no soul.

But yeah, I still watch and still enjoy it, I just don't respect it much anymore.

I get what you're saying, but at the end of the day I think you either roll with the way things are presented or you make yourself crazy in forums like this.  I personally could give a shit how Jon's resurrection will be handled in the books, I'm good with how it was handled on the show.  I really have no intention of reading GRRM's take on it whenever he decides to publish.  Jon is a special snowflake.  He rose from the dead.  But the only thing that would have made the Northern houses rally around Jon was knowing that others had already committed, or if Sansa had told Jon about LF's offer to commit the Vale's army. Manderly, Glover and Cerwyn were not willing to be the first.  

If the Northerners didn't know about his resurrection prior to naming him KitN, they soon will.  The very people who witnessed the miracle are among them right now.  People talk.  Ravens fly.  There is no way in hell this will stay quiet for long.  I'd rather not have valuable time wasted on logistical matters and easily deciphered details, but rather in scenes that actually further the plot.  The well known thing is that House Bolton was defeated and Jon Snow was responsible.  The well known thing is that Jon Snow went to war with the men he had and was willing to fight to the death.  The well known thing is that when the Vale army showed up, Jon was still standing and beat Ramsay's ass into the dirt.

IMO, the idea that Jon deserted from the NW is a moot point.  No one cares.  The person who would have passed judgment on him for that is the Warden of the North, who I guess now is Jon.  All of this debate about Jon's being a deserter and whether or not Sansa should have been named as Lady of Winterfell/Queen of the North makes my head hurt.  

I really wish Sophie Turner would shut the hell up about Sansa's motives because I think she's mainly talking out of her ass. IMO, she doesn't have the emotive skills to make us clearly understand what Sansa is feeling.  If she did, we wouldn't be having all this discussion about what this or that Sansa scene means.  What I've seen is Sansa make one bad decision after another.  She may fancy herself a "player," but that would largely be in her own mind.  Sansa doesn't have an army; the Vale's army is loyal to Robin Arryn, who is totally controlled by his stepfather (Littlefinger).  The Tullys are a non factor with the Blackfish dead and Edmure the prisoner of the Freys.  And even if Edmure somehow is restored to power, any Tully army would be his to command, not Sansa's.  She would be dependent on his decision to lend aid to the Starks and that's not a given.

If you've read any of my posts, you'll know how I feel about Sansa being the "savior" of the battle of the bastards, and that little stunt did not earn her any brownie points with me.  I saw Littlefinger's expression during the KitN scene as one perturbed by the turn of events.  I thought Sansa looked worried because he's a snake.   If by some bizarro state of affairs LF is able to win Sansa's trust and get her under his influence, it will bring him one step closer to the IT.  If Sansa is DUMB enough to fall for anything LF offers after everything that has happened, I'll hate her even more than I do now and will be rooting for Drogon to burn her to ash.    

Regarding the writing, I think it's easy to dismiss the writing off hand when you're watching one episode at a time.  I've watched each season's episodes back-to-back and I'm impressed by the overall tightness of the plotting with few exceptions; one being Dorne and the other Sansa.  I don't feel that any of the big scenes were written just to be cool without previous story beats supporting them.  I feel the heart in those scenes and I love them.  YMMV, of course.

[TaurusRose]

On 7/13/2016 at 6:41 PM, Gertrude said:

Disagree. Her value lay completely in the fact that she could bear a true heir to Winterfell. I think her marriage to Tyrion was mentioned when Roose and Petyr were bargaining, but mainly it was to say that her marriage didn't count because of the non-consumation. (I think), there was no dialog indicating that 'whew, she's still a virgin' or that it would have been a deal breaker.

As doram mentioned from the books, Lady Hornwood is a good example. Despite being a widow, she is still highly sought after for her claims and titles.

Roose was very interested in securing Sansa and very upset with Ramsey losing her. They were also very intent on tying up loose ends (aka Jon, Bran and Rickon). Locke was sent up to infiltrate the Wall and take out Jon and try to learn about Bran and Rickon - that ended abruptly as well. I think the dialog was something like: 'Have we heard from Locke?' 'No.' 'Oh well, it doesn't matter.' They use the fact that their bloodline is important when it suits them, then dismiss it when it's not.

But this is entertainment and people are going to enjoy it on different levels and interpret it how they want. I just am left scratching my head when this show is praised so highly from so many different sources and polls. To me it's a summer blockbuster that's all spectacle with a thin plot. And that's ok, I just need a place to vent my frustration sometimes to get it out of my system, because I seem to be in the minority.

I believe Locke was killed by Hodor (under Bran's influence) during the battle at Craster's Keep.

[TaurusRose]

On 7/14/2016 at 7:28 PM, Gertrude said:

This is true once Jon is proclaimed KitN and the Lords say they don't care that he's a bastard, but the entire season before that, she was Sansa Stark, the only known heir of Ned Stark. Jon was a just a bastard, and bastards aren't in the line of succession. When they were canvasing the North looking for help, she should have had more value if the show were following it's own story logic.

And the issue of whether or not Sansa is Lady of Winterfell in her own right or through Jon has been hashed out in this thread. I agree with how you see it, but others don't and I have zero idea what the show wants us to think. The fact that she is the Lady of Winterfell wasn't even touched on in the show, but in the GoT index on HBO's site or something.

Everyone knows that Jon is a bastard, but that fact doesn't make usurpers (like the Boltons) worry less about him that is why Ramsay wanted to kill him.  And again, the North was thoroughly over the Stark name (back to Robb and the Red Wedding) when Jon & Sansa were looking for bannermen to come to their aid.  Sansa's value was to the political players in KL and LF, not so much in the North.  

[SandSniper]

On ‎11‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 6:51 AM, screamin said:

IMO, he would be right not to tell them everything. At the beginning of the series, we and Jon saw Ned speak to a man who saw wights and White Walkers. Ned DID believe the man had been truly frightened by SOMETHING, but when he heard his explanations he dismissed him as a madman. Even the commander of the NW - the organization FOUNDED to stop White Walkers - no longer believed in them.................To me that's more credible than the idea that people who have never seen magic all unanimously believe in a miracle just because they were told about it, without proof.

 

I think your assumptions of no one believing in White Walkers on the show is no longer “really” true.

Ned killing the Night Watch deserter was different with only one witness claiming White Walkers and with a motive to make up a wild story to excuse his desertion and dodge execution.

Meanwhile if they have doubts all the Northern Lords have to do is talk walk through the Wilding camp and randomly ask people about White Walkers and the Army of the Dead and the account of the Battle of Hardhome and they will get the same story out of everyone which doesn’t happen when a story is a fabrication.

Plus the same story comes from every member of the Nights Watch that experienced Hardhome.

The same story comes from every sailor on the dozens of ships that acted as transportation out of Hardhome etc.

Finally the Wildings and the Nights Watches says while you Northern Lords lived your comfortable lives in your Castles and lands we on the wall and north of the wall fought each other for hundreds and hundreds of years so what other than an supernatural threat to us both would make us allies yada yada yada.

It really isn’t a hard sell.

I think the reason you don’t see this is they show runners simply don’t have the time to put in that five minute scene where the Lords say how do you stop these whitewalkers and Jon says I killed one with my Valerian steel sword etc?

Also they don’t talk about it just for FALSE drama etc like they did with lady Mormont but didn’t with  Lord Glover etc.

I think a lot of the time the Game of Thrones show runners decide to make characters (specially the Starks & Northern Lords) purposely stupid for the sake of drama etc.

Just my two dirhams worth.

Warmest Regards, SandSniper

[screamin]

3 hours ago, SandSniper said:

Meanwhile if they have doubts all the Northern Lords have to do is talk walk through the Wilding camp and randomly ask people about White Walkers and the Army of the Dead and the account of the Battle of Hardhome and they will get the same story out of everyone which doesn’t happen when a story is a fabrication.

Plus the same story comes from every member of the Nights Watch that experienced Hardhome.

But, you see, Jon didn't ride with any Night's Watch members, so there's no opportunity for any Northern Lords to question them. And the Northern Lords - if they deigned to lower themselves to talk to the Wildlings at all, which is doubtful - would not consider the wildlings reputable witnesses, as they have an ulterior motive to invent a good reason for them to 'have' to leave their own lands to invade the North.

So I think the fact that there was no explicit mention to  the Northern lords or BY the Northern lords of the imminent threat of the White Walkers in Jon's crowning scene means that it really wasn't a factor in their decision to crown him...certainly not proof that they uncritically believe him.

[WearyTraveler]

The Night's Watch men didn't go to Hardhome with Jon, but Stannis' men did, and some of them must have survived the battle with Ramsey.  Also, many NW men were at the Fist of the First Men, when they were first attacked by an army of WW and retreated to Craster's.  Unless you have just arrived at the Wall, you know the Walkers are real.

[SandSniper]

On ‎18‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 6:59 PM, screamin said:

But, you see, Jon didn't ride with any Night's Watch members, so there's no opportunity for any Northern Lords to question them. And the Northern Lords - if they deigned to lower themselves to talk to the Wildlings at all, which is doubtful - would not consider the wildlings reputable witnesses, as they have an ulterior motive to invent a good reason for them to 'have' to leave their own lands to invade the North.

So I think the fact that there was no explicit mention to  the Northern lords or BY the Northern lords of the imminent threat of the White Walkers in Jon's crowning scene means that it really wasn't a factor in their decision to crown him...certainly not proof that they uncritically believe him.

All anyone has to do is tell any Northern Lords that doubt the existence of White Walkers just has to send a raven to the acting Lord Commander of the Nights Watch ie Edd Tollett and ask him what is the truth and they will find out pretty quick.

Whether you like them or not when 4,000 people give you the same story then you know it is reliable.

Plus all the sailors on Stannis Baratheon's ships tell the exact same story.

Also when the guy you ended up choosing as King in the North says (paraphrased): "the war isn't over and the storm brings the real enemy yada yada yada" it isn't a leap to assume anyone that didn't know about the White Walkers would ask him: "Hey Jon Snow, what the heck are you talking about?"

Of course this is TV so lots of the time the writers make the characters "brain dead" or "suffering from SELECTIVE amnesia" just to set up some dramatic scene later in the show so I expect when Jon makes the call throughout the North for fighters to defend the North from the White Walkers and the Armies of the Dead at least some of the Northern Lords and/or their fighting men will suddenly act all freaking surprised that White Walkers at are the wall yada yada yada.

Warmest Regards, SandSniper 

Edited July 21, 2016 by SandSniper

[arjumand]

On 19/07/2016 at 1:09 AM, WearyTraveler said:

The Night's Watch men didn't go to Hardhome with Jon, [snip]

I'm pretty sure I saw them in the boat with him and Tormund (besides Edd). Also, he tells one of the Night's Watch to take the boat and come back for him, and then he yells 'Night's Watch, to me!'

A lot of them died, though, which caused even more problems, as the traitors put the spin of "He let Night's Watch men die for Wildlings!"

I think that the only Night's Watch men who didn't believe in the White Walkers (or didn't care) were the ones stabbing Jon - I'm sure Alliser believed, he just didn't think it was enough reason to let the Wildlings through the Wall.

And of course the Northern lords will find it hard to believe until they see everything with their own eyes.

And I'm pretty sure that Petyr Baelish doesn't really believe in it, or doesn't think it will affect him, even if it's true. Ooh, I just want him to be killed by a White Walker so bad! Who can I bribe to make this happen? It's just - he's so slimily sure he has all the angles worked out, he knows everything that's going to happen, he's the puppeteer pulling the strings: I just want him to be faced with someone who can't be bought or bribed or manipulated.

Edited July 21, 2016 by arjumand

[screamin]

On 7/21/2016 at 4:27 AM, SandSniper said:

All anyone has to do is tell any Northern Lords that doubt the existence of White Walkers just has to send a raven to the acting Lord Commander of the Nights Watch ie Edd Tollett and ask him what is the truth and they will find out pretty quick.

Uh-huh. They will totally believe some guy who was a lowborn nobody before his friend Jon Snow became Lord Commander, who suddenly got promoted to Lord Commander after Jon executed his higher-ups, when he says Jon was resurrected by a miracle of miracles, when none of the Northern Lords have ever seen a miracle in their lives. I'd say that they wouldn't consider Edd to be free of possible ulterior motives either.

The Northern Lords have been accustomed to ignoring the Night Watch even when it had a highborn respected commander who held the post for years when he begged for reinforcements against wildlings that everyone KNEW existed and were real dangers. Are they going to suddenly take Lord Commander EDD seriously when he warns them of far less plausible dangers when they disregarded Commander Mormont warning them of realistic threats? 

Which IMO is why Jon didn't speak clearly about the Night King threat when he asked for fealty. He know that to speak in too much detail about what threatened the north would mean he'd be written off as a madman. He needed to get their loyalty before he could use it for that end.

[screamin]

On 9/9/2016 at 0:45 PM, doram said:

The Lord Commander was begging the Crown for reinforcements, not the Northern Lords who automatically provided reinforcements anyway (if they didn't want their lands to be overrun with wildlings - they literally didn't have a choice about it) and if they didn't, it's probably because they were too busy fighting King Robb's war. 

Pray point out in the books (or the show, for that matter) where the Lord Commander said that the Northern Lords were the only ones who did not stint in sending recruits to the Wall...where it says the the Northern Lords "automatically" provided reinforcements to the Wall.

On 9/9/2016 at 0:45 PM, doram said:

He spoke about it to Mormont so no doubt, he spoke about it to everyone who cared. Unless there were scenes where Jon or someone else is deliberately resolving not to bring this up, it's a clear enough inference. 

Just before his acclamation as King, Jon did NOT speak clearly of the threat the Night King poses. All he says was "he brings the storm," which could refer to the still-formidable living human enemies of the Starks. You assert that before that meeting that Jon has already given the Northern Lords a clear picture of the Night King and his army of wights - swelled by the thousands with all the dead of the Wall and the wildlings, poised to overwhelm the Watch and invade - and that the Northern Lords BELIEVE it. But if they did believe it, it makes no sense for the Northern Lords to say (as they do during that meeting) that the war is over and that they should all go home and prepare for winter. 

And yes, Jon told little Lyanna Mormont the truth about the Night's King's threat. I even agree that she probably believed it. But you will notice that Lyanna makes absolutely NO reference to it when she gives the Northern Lords the scolding pep talk that eventually precipitated Jon's acclamation as King in the North. I'd guess she didn't because she knew that talking about it would actually be counterproductive to Jon's cause...make him look more like a madman than a suitable king. As a child, she likely knows the typical reaction adults have when you talk to them about your fear of the bogeyman.

On 9/9/2016 at 0:45 PM, doram said:

Unless they are unaware of why Jon executed his higher-ups in the first place? Of course, it begs the question of why the Northern Lords are following Jon at all if they all privately think that he is, by this assumption: a liar, a traitor, a schemer and a deserter who is, apparently, consorting with raping and murdering wildlings for shits and giggles. 

Not at all. There's no need for the Northern Lords to assume that Jon is a liar about anything, if he didn't tell them clearly about things they probably couldn't believe without seeing them themselves...like his resurrection, or the wights, or the Night King. We didn't see him telling those Northern Lords about those things, we saw that they did not speak of them when they decided to make Jon King, and IMO the evidence shows that Jon hasn't told them much or anything about it at all.

IMO, believing that the zombies are marching to invade and the man who wants to be your king rose from the dead are enormities that would be very difficult to believe without evidence. Assuming that the Northern Lords DID believe those enormities, BUT that it was NBD for them and that they brushed it off with "the war is over, let's go home now," is a step too far for ME to believe. I'm not going to believe that Jon told the Northern Lords about the Night King and they accept it till we actually see that explicit on the screen.

As for Jon being a deserter consorting with wildlings - IMO, the Northerners would sympathize with Jon's reasons for deserting - to avenge his father, whom all the North loved. The wildlings? Every king and pretender we've seen has hired his mercenaries, some more unsavory than others. The wildlings spilled their blood fighting for Ned's son against Ramsey, who was loathed by the lords, while most of the lord who owed fealty to the Starks sat back and watched. The wildlings are owed by the North. If the wildlings misbehave, that perception may change, but right now the Lords realized the wildlings displayed the bravery they should have - and mostly didn't.

[screamin]

18 hours ago, doram said:

Far easier and less a stretch on the imagination to fall back on simple inference than come up with unfeasible theories to explain away common sense i.e. that the Northern Lords who didn't have any sympathy towards avenging the Starks/Red Wedding a few days past; who were aware (and colluded) that the true Lord of Winterfell Rickon Stark was being tortured by Bolton; and had been aware that Sansa Stark was being raped by Bolton; and were unmoved by any of this to the point of refusing to fight for said Starks; would overnight be welcoming and understanding of Jon deserting the Night's Watch and consorting with wildlings who are the Northern equivalent of terrorists, to the extent that they are willing to overlook all these grievances because of a cause that they made quite clear they were not invested in pursuing

You see that as too much of a stretch for you to believe.

I think the idea that the Northern Lords totally believe that Jon was brought back from the dead (a miracle, a bloody fucking miracle) and believe that an army of wights and a supernatural Night King are threatening to overwhelm the decimated Night Watch (an apocalyptic scenario for sure) and yet think none of this is EVEN WORTH MENTIONING in their argument before making Jon king (instead nitpicking with the man they SHOULD regard as their messiah over the nasty wildlings he brought with him, and saying the whole war is over and they should go home) is too much of a stretch for me to believe. To me it's just simpler to believe that Jon hasn't told them everything.

And since the show has provided neither of us with definitive evidence one way or the other, I think we'll just have to wait till next season to see who's right.

Edited September 12, 2016 by screamin

[screamin]

23 hours ago, doram said:

In the same world where it's a known fact that a woman regularly bathes in fire and births fire breathing 100-ton monsters that are capable of aerial mobility? I'd says it's barely worth a water cooler chit chat.

Setting aside for the moment the question of Jon, do we know that the majority of Westeros immediately accepted Dany's dragons as a known fact - without ever having seen them or spoken to someone they consider trustworthy who has? Just because WE saw the dragons born doesn't mean we can infer that all of Westeros immediately believed in their existence without ever seeing them like we saw them.

Actually, it's not a fact that a woman birthed 100 ton fire-breathing flying monsters. She birthed teensy weensy little ones. And even as shrewd a man as Tywin brushed off the news of their existence, despite their well-documented potential as eventual hundred ton fire breathing monster weapons of mass destruction. And remember, Tywin lived in the Red Keep, a place where the actual skulls of hundred ton fire breathing monster dragons were stored in the cellar for him to prove to himself they HAD existed once.

And Tywin lived in a time when living dragons had existed just a century or so before his birth and were documented extensively by respected historians. That's very different from the history of the Night King, which happened thousands of years ago and was only documented in hazy legends that (as per the books) the maesters doubt ever happened. To say that a person who accepts the existence of dragons in Westeros must therefore totally believe that the Night King is coming with his army of wights is kind of like saying that because I believe in the fact that huge flocks of passenger pigeons the size of Iowa once existed a little over a century ago even though I never saw them, I MUST therefore believe in the biblical Leviathan and the coming of Gog and Magog to earth just because someone told me about them even though I've never seen them either. Two different things. One is a matter of historical documentation with proof easily available on investigation, one is a long-ago mythology-like story widely doubted in the present day as fact.

Yes, time will tell.

Edited September 14, 2016 by screamin

[peggy06]

Late to this party, but I just finished the 5th book. And I'm confused. Even in No Book Talk, people were regularly making reference to the Tower of Joy. I missed any such reference in the book. Granted, it took me a long time to finish, but still. Bran's first few experiences as a Greenseer included a snippet of the scene, but how does everybody know it by that name? What did I miss?

[WearyTraveler]

11 hours ago, peggy06 said:

Late to this party, but I just finished the 5th book. And I'm confused. Even in No Book Talk, people were regularly making reference to the Tower of Joy. I missed any such reference in the book. Granted, it took me a long time to finish, but still. Bran's first few experiences as a Greenseer included a snippet of the scene, but how does everybody know it by that name? What did I miss?

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Tower_of_joy

It's mentioned in the first book: Chapter 39, Eddard X. and in A Dance with Dragons, Map of the South.

I think those of us who picked up on the significance of Ned's memories of Lyanna and the events surrounding Robert's ascent to power, probably paid more attention to the name when we read it.

[peggy06]

On 4/7/2017 at 6:47 PM, WearyTraveler said:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Tower_of_joy

It's mentioned in the first book: Chapter 39, Eddard X. and in A Dance with Dragons, Map of the South.

I think those of us who picked up on the significance of Ned's memories of Lyanna and the events surrounding Robert's ascent to power, probably paid more attention to the name when we read it.

Thanks. I must not have been paying close enough attention; this isn't the first thing I appear to have missed. Got me to wondering if I somehow skipped a few (or few dozen) chapters, somewhere along the way.

[WearyTraveler]

10 hours ago, peggy06 said:

Thanks. I must not have been paying close enough attention; this isn't the first thing I appear to have missed. Got me to wondering if I somehow skipped a few (or few dozen) chapters, somewhere along the way.

My pleasure.  I've found that the wiki I linked is a good source for all questions regarding ASOIAF

[John Potts]

With the restoration of the direwolf over Winterfell, are we going to see the Lion replace the Stag over Kings Landing?

Love Bron - "Not blond enough?" to Jamie. But Jamie got in some nice digs at the (Now Very) Late Lord Frey.

"I should have told you about him [Littlefinger]" (Sansa). Ya think!?

"I've publicly declared for House Stark" "You've declared for other Houses before, Lord Baelish" Here's hoping that level of awareness/wisdom carries forward next season(s) for Sansa.

Love the dragon prow on Danny's fleet.

Young Ned turns around even though (this time) Bran said nothing. So we're probably dealing with a fixed loop - Bran was always fated to call out to his father (and presumably, get marked by the Night King and thus become the new Three Eyed Raven) so it was always going to happen.

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 7:00 AM, Avaleigh said:

The High Sparrow seemed concerned that Cersei would win her trial and to me that indicates that he'd already decided her guilt, so how is he a fair judge to have in a trial?

Denying people sleep or any contact with the outside world other than a Septa going, "Confess!" tends to suggest he's not exactly interested in a fair trial.

On ‎28‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 5:47 AM, slf said:

Again, you can say "being a bastard meant nothing" but that doesn't mean anything. These men and women only have the power they do because of the very law they're ignoring in favor of Jon. This does not make an ounce of sense. Jon is not a legitimate choice. On what ground are they saying his being a bastard is irrelevant?

I suspect you are from a country that has a written constitution where there is a clear procedure for who has what authority. But if Game of Thrones has shown anything it's that there IS no rulebook in Westeros: to quote Varys, "power resides where people believe it resides." Aegon had no "right" to the throne, he just took it because he had an army and three dragons: it's that principle ("Because I can!") that is Cersei's claim to the throne, not through some claim of distant kinship with the Baratheons (or more more distant one to the Targaryens). After Viserys I willed his throne to his daughter Rhaenyra over his son Aegon a precedent was established that women could not inherit the Iron Throne, but if Danny does win the throne, Danny will simply say to anyone pointing out women can't rule, "How many dragons do YOU have?" and not worry about any notional rulebook saying that she can't. Similarly with bastards inheriting: if it's convenient and they have the support, it doesn't matter whether there are legitimate children ahead of them in line, if they can enforce their claim, it'll be successful (though obviously, they aren't always correct about having the support to make their claim stick, or the Blackfyres would have taken the throne). It's the same principle that Renly used to claim the throne: he wasn't claiming the throne in some popular vote, but because his army was bigger than Stannis'. Jon is King because the Lords of the North will follow him and not his legitimate half-sister/cousin - unless Littlefinger wants to start a war between the Vale and the North, he'll just have to accept Jon as King.

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 3:22 AM, VCRTracking said:

RIP Margaery. You played the game as best you could but you couldn't match Cersei's crazy.

"To be in power, you don't need the guns or money or even numbers - you just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn't" (Verbal Kint, The Usual Suspects).

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 4:29 AM, Dewey Decimate said:

I hope Ser Pounce escapes the rubble and finds a nice home.

He has to! He's the Prince that was Promised! And possibly the Valonquar (I guess there's no separate word for "paws" and "hands" in High Valerian).

[slf]

3 hours ago, John Potts said:

I suspect you are from a country that has a written constitution where there is a clear procedure for who has what authority. But if Game of Thrones has shown anything it's that there IS no rulebook in Westeros: to quote Varys, "power resides where people believe it resides." Aegon had no "right" to the throne, he just took it because he had an army and three dragons: it's that principle ("Because I can!") that is Cersei's claim to the throne, not through some claim of distant kinship with the Baratheons (or more more distant one to the Targaryens). After Viserys I willed his throne to his daughter Rhaenyra over his son Aegon a precedent was established that women could not inherit the Iron Throne, but if Danny does win the throne, Danny will simply say to anyone pointing out women can't rule, "How many dragons do YOU have?" and not worry about any notional rulebook saying that she can't. Similarly with bastards inheriting: if it's convenient and they have the support, it doesn't matter whether there are legitimate children ahead of them in line, if they can enforce their claim, it'll be successful (though obviously, they aren't always correct about having the support to make their claim stick, or the Blackfyres would have taken the throne). It's the same principle that Renly used to claim the throne: he wasn't claiming the throne in some popular vote, but because his army was bigger than Stannis'. Jon is King because the Lords of the North will follow him and not his legitimate half-sister/cousin - unless Littlefinger wants to start a war between the Vale and the North, he'll just have to accept Jon as King.

Well, at least you're acknowledging that Jon is just an usurper. 

[WearyTraveler]

13 minutes ago, slf said:

Well, at least you're acknowledging that Jon is just an usurper. 

Only because the show wanted it so.  As we all know, Robb named him heir in his letter, which a King is allowed to do, so, in the books, Jon would be the rightful heir to Winterfell and all its titles, including King in the North.  Although I suspect that in the books, just as Robb had to prove his mettle to Lord Umber (when Greywind bit his fingers off), Jon will have to prove to the Northmen that he can rule.

D&D seem to want to emphasize the reluctant hero storyline by going for a perfect trifecta:

1. Jon didn't want to be Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but he was chosen
2. Jon didn't want to be King in the North, but he was chosen
3. Jon most certainly has not expressed any desire to go after the Iron Throne, but he is Rhaegar's rightful heir

Third time's the charm?

[slf]

21 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

Only because the show wanted it so. 

Yeah.

[John Potts]

8 hours ago, slf said:

Well, at least you're acknowledging that Jon is just an usurper

Sure, but the point is... it doesn't matter. What makes the King legitimate is entirely dependent on who supports him.  If you can make your claim stick - because you are feared enough, or have the support of the Faith, or have the largest army - then you'll be the "rightful" King, irrespective of precedent or bloodline. Henry Tudor (later King Henry VII) had virtually no blood claim to the English throne (his descent via Edward III had been specifically barred from claiming the throne, and in any case it was via his "inferior" maternal line) but that was irrelevant because he had enough support to beat the arguably superior claim of Richard III. But because he had the support, he was declared King, even though other men with arguably superior claims still existed. The rules of legitimacy are entirely determined by who has the power to make the rules, not some Platonic ideal of "The Rightful King".

[slf]

5 hours ago, John Potts said:

Sure, but the point is... it doesn't matter. What makes the King legitimate is entirely dependent on who supports him.  If you can make your claim stick - because you are feared enough, or have the support of the Faith, or have the largest army - then you'll be the "rightful" King, irrespective of precedent or bloodline. Henry Tudor (later King Henry VII) had virtually no blood claim to the English throne (his descent via Edward III had been specifically barred from claiming the throne, and in any case it was via his "inferior" maternal line) but that was irrelevant because he had enough support to beat the arguably superior claim of Richard III. But because he had the support, he was declared King, even though other men with arguably superior claims still existed. The rules of legitimacy are entirely determined by who has the power to make the rules, not some Platonic ideal of "The Rightful King".

Of course it matters. "Well, he has the bigger army so I guess dad's claim doesn't matter!" would not have been Jon's response if someone had tried to usurp Ned. Will Jon being an usurper stop him from taking and keeping the throne? No, not if he has enough support, like you said. But it will matter. That list of usurpers (what a group to belong to: psychotic Cersei, the deranged Targaryens, cowardly, selfish Renly!) you mentioned don't have great reputations years, even centuries after the fact. Pretty much all of them were still looked on as dishonorable, greedy, unworthy thieves and in a few cases how they came into power came back to bite their houses in the ass (because blood does matter, their whole system for ruling is based on it). I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Henry Tudor also spend an enormous amount of his time as King fighting people who backed the Yorkist claim- essentially supported his wife, Elizabeth of York? And it's not like the Tudor's claim on the throne went unchallenged after Henry Vll died; there were better claims and that caused issues going forward.

All of this is reminding me why I stopped watching this show years ago. It's garbage. The writing is ridiculously bad without actually being amusing in any way. It's been a hot minute since I've seen a show labor this much to prop a character like Jon.