Endgame Discussion and Speculation

[bubble sparkly]

Barristan also said that Rhaegar was good at fighting but he didn't like it.  Then in s7 Jon made the comment about not liking what he's good at (i.e. fighting), and Dany gave him a Significant Look, so I think they have made it clear that Jon has at least a little bit of Rhaegar's personality.

[anamika]

9 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

Well the name of the thread is "endgame speculation," so I'm speculating about how Dany will respond to Jon's parentage and how Jon will see it. Or should I stop?

No, don't stop. You mentioned that Dany would want Jon to be a specific kind of Targaryen. I was asking you what kind of Targaryen she would want him to be?

9 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

I think Dany loves the idea of Jon Snow. Their meeting was straight out of Virgil's Aeneid. Dido receives Aeneas in her throne room in Carthage. Aeneas talks about his exploits and heroism in the Trojan war. Dido becomes obsessed with his deeds. But she only knows him as "person who is seeking her aid." She falls much harder for him than he does for her. Her love becomes an obsessive love that destroys her kingdom. After Aeneas betrays her, she sends fire and curses after his ships. Then she dies on a funeral pyre to join her first husband in the afterlife. The current epic of Jon/Dany just seems to jive with that a little too well. And GRRM knows his Greeks.

Why do you think Jon betrays her? Would that not be the antithesis of everything Jon stands for as a character - both in the books and on the show.

9 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

Jon agreeing with Dany on that statement about "terrible strength" is jumping to conclusions. He was silent. If he had agreed, he would have nodded or offered a follow-up.

He did not have to verbally agree. His statements and actions later on indicate that he was not bothered by Dany's actions - especially when Dany was right in what she said. He bends the knee and when Dany asks about those who swore allegiance to him, he says that 'they will all come to see you for what you are'. He thinks Dany is a good person, which means he understands Dany's POV.

I am also curious about whether you think Jon disapproved of Sansa feeding Ramsay to the dogs?

9 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

Dany is a Goliath figure in the story, and Jon is a David. Jon will still use force, but he's only a guy with a sword. He's not the type to use overwhelming brute strength to overpower masses of people into submission. Again, if Jon wants to get a bunch of people to do something, he'll make treaties (like with the Wildlings crossing the Wall) and allow people to retain their sense of humanity. He won't just kill them because they refused to kneel to him. What would Dany do with the wildlings? She tried to make those "Jon Snow-like" concessions in Meereen and she just said screw it, I don't want to do this. She would rather just kill them all.

Why is Jon David to Dany's Goliath? They are not enemies. They are allies. They are the David going to defeat the Goliath that is the Night King.

When has Dany used overwhelming brute strength to overpower masses of people into submission? She defeated the slavers and freed masses of people from oppression. She defeated the Lannisters and Tarlys who have murdered, massacred, raped, tortured, looted and pillaged masses of people. 

Jon and the Starks have used overwhelming strength to defeat armies - same as Dany . Robb participated in the WOT5K that ravaged the Riverlands. Jon waged war on the Boltons in which thousands of people were killed.

Did you forget the battle at castle black? Before Jon made treaties, he was killing the wildlings - same as the rest of the crows. Killing wildlings was the mission of the NW. Similarly Dany won over the Dothraki with a show of power - something them seem to value in their culture. And she won over the Unsullied with her actions - they fight for her out of their own free will - as Missandei tells Jon.

Jon has killed someone, because that person refused to do what he wanted - Janos Slynt.

Jon has executed his enemies including a child for mutiny.

Jon has clearly stated that the punishment for treason is execution. People have been executed for treason all the time on this show. Robb executed Rickard, Sansa fed Ramsay to dogs, Arya sliced open LF's neck.

Dany did not just kill them because they refused to kneel. They were also treasonous traitors who murdered their liege lord and looted and pillaged the Reach. As writer Dave Hill, who wrote the episode put it:

Quote

“At least Dany offers them a choice. Every conqueror offers the choice of ‘bend the knee or die.’ These lords disobeyed her and disrespected her in rebellion against the rightful queen,” he says. “Then she gives them a way out and they don’t take it. Her deal wasn’t even ‘I’ll let you live.’ They could have kept all their titles and land. So, yes, in one way, it’s a horrible death. On the other hand, they kind of asked for it. It’s a win-win situation and they somehow managed to find the ‘lose’ in that.”

http://ew.com/tv/2017/08/13/game-of-thrones-eastwatch/

Dany is actually ready to let these traitors go as opposed to Westerosi tradition where they are executed. They refused.

9 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

At least Varys had the good sense to be appalled by her actions. "You need to find a way to make her listen" - did Tyrion ever figure that out, by the way?

I really don't give a fig about Tyrion or Varys' opinions. Was it not Varys who send an assassin to murder a pregnant child on Robert's orders? Ah yes, the voice of morality right there. And Dany forgives him! Did not Tyrion burn enemies to death with Wildfire. Yes, these paragons of virtue have very good sense, I can see. They can stuff it. Dany would have defeated Cersei long ago and properly helped Jon up North if it was not for these idiots holding her back.

9 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

In terms of moral ambiguity, there is a lot of flattening going on here. "Everyone commits violence" is a nonstarter with this series. If you say that then you can't really call any act morally reprehensible or even downright evil. To clarify, there is a line that Jon won't cross, but there is a line that Dany will. Jon won't take a dragon and attack the realm, unprovoked, with a slave army, to justify his birthright. He'll defend it. Jury is still out if that's what Dany will do, but I have my doubts.

The problem is not that 'everyone commits violence'. It's that only Dany is selectively crucified for the violence she commits and depicted as a horribly evil person who deserves to get sexually manipulated and die for her violence - that's the problem. No context is applied to her actions whereas the actions of others is seen through 10 layers of context. Sansa feeding a person who is alive to starving dogs is justified, Arya poisoning an entire family is okay, Jon hanging a child is okay. Dany executes traitors for not bending the knee? - totally evil.

It's not surprising to me that female characters with raw, hard power are held to higher standards with respect to the violence they commit. Somehow their violence is wrong and evil. It's not surprising to me that Dany is evil whereas Sansa can feed any number of men to dogs and smirk while watching them be eaten alive and still be seen as sweet, merciful and compassionate. Sansa is celebrated for bringing in the Vale army and defeating the Boltons, Jon is seen as awesome for killing all those soldiers in battle, but if Dany gets down and dirty taking down the Lannisters - the central villains in this story - she is wrong for doing so.

It's only Dany's violence that is constantly questioned and that has to be justified and explained. As writers, David and Dan do this as well. If Dany was a male character we would not even be having this discussion. As we will not when Jon gets on a dragon next season and causes some death and destruction. Then it will be totally all right.

Recall, that Dany could have attacked the realm with her dragons long ago and won. Cersei is still sitting there in KL, because Dany did not attack the realm. She attacked the Lannister/Tarly armies who have been responsible for untold miseries across the realm. And Dany has every right to fight for her birthright - Just like Robb did, just like Jon/Sansa did, just like Stannis did, just like Ned/Robert have done. Which is what Dany points out to Jon.

9 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

My endgame prediction is that Dany does not sit at the hero/protagonists table with the Starks, Davos, Brienne, Sam, and others. She might have started off there in Book 1, Chapter 3. But you know - people change? Or should I say - power changes people. It's a gradual slide but the show is telling us in visual cues and added plots from D&D that she's going dark. I think she'll end up sitting  at the antagonists' table, closer to Rhaegar, Euron, Cersei, Tyrion, Robert, and her brother Viserys. 

Again, Jon has no reason that I see to identify with the Targaryens, especially in light of whatever war path Dany is on.

Dany is already sitting at the hero/protagonist table with the good guys. She is the central hero in this tale - she gives up her quest for the Iron Throne and goes North to save it with her dragons and her armies. Jon recognizes this, see the goodness in her and realizes that she has put the interests of the people above her own self interests  - as she has always done - in Meereen and now in Westeros. Many characters have pointed out her good heart. She and Jon have that in common. He is already in awe of the dragons. Considering Dany and Maester Aemon are the two Targaryens he knows, respects and loves and considering that both Dany and Bran can tell him the truth about Rhaegar, I don't see him having a problem identifying with Targaryens.

Edited March 25, 2018 by anamika

[WindyNights]

6 hours ago, bubble sparkly said:

Barristan also said that Rhaegar was good at fighting but he didn't like it.  Then in s7 Jon made the comment about not liking what he's good at (i.e. fighting), and Dany gave him a Significant Look, so I think they have made it clear that Jon has at least a little bit of Rhaegar's personality.

That's also something Ned said within the show.

[whateverdgaf]

The fact that Jon's true birth has had so much build up makes me hope that it isn't going to be responded to without some conflict, and not just Jon brooding but on a political scale. I certainly hope it's not just to pave the way to make Jon 'one true king of all', and that the final ruler becomes king because he was actually the true born heir all along. 

[Notwisconsin]

This is about the endgame. Fine. the Night King will marry what's left of Cercei and they will reign over a zombie kingdom while the planet Westros is on freezes to death.

[Colorful Mess]

On Dany's war - I think it's difficult to argue that on the one hand Dany's war is justified while simultaneously asserting that she's better than that now because she's going North to help. That "Break the Wheel" speech puts her on an entirely different plane than everyone else, and she has to live up to that. Either Dany is just like every other ruler we're comparing her to, or she actually lives up to her hype, because no other character gets this much hero worship or has that much "revolutionary hope" around her in the story. If she's truly better than everyone, we shouldn't even be able to say that she's equivalent to Stannis or Robert or whoever else. Actually, we should be able to say that she's never killed a family member (my own line in the sand... but each to his own). But the two characters who are kinslayers have teamed up to change Westeros for the better. That's not a good sign IMO. Moreover, GRRM has called Tyrion a villain, and he has mentioned how an annoyance of previous fantasy novels is that "everyone is what they seem." So with Dany I think he's pulling "antagonist-in-protagonists-clothing," similar to Tyrion (with differences between them of course).

I could see how Dany's war is closer to being justifiable, if she had invaded and attacked the people who wronged her directly, as Jon and Sansa did with Ramsay. But her war has taken on a different tone, now that Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark are dead. So now she's fighting against Robert Baratheon's wife? For a castle she never lived in? And for something that may not even satisfy her (because Dragonstone didnt). From a script/directorial standpoint, her war lacks the same feel as a war against the Boltons. We're meant to sympathize with the Starks. With Dany vs. the Lannisters, we should be torn. Or at least the show is giving us permission to be.

Moreover, in the books she'll likely be fighting against Aegon - who has nothing to do with her past wrongs against her, and may even be a popular ruler. The fact that she is using former slaves and Dothraki is also questionable. It makes her look like she's willing to win at all costs. Which is fine from a military POV. But again that's rule by fear...and no wheel is broken then.

Now it just seems about taking back something just for the sake of it. Is it wrong to ask, "What does Dany even want anymore?" "Why is she doing this?" I hear a different vision of what she wants from her fans. One moment she's looking for her red door the next she's taking back what was stolen from her the next its freeing the slaves. These justifications are all over the place. That makes her a complex character, but it also makes one wonder, is she a little bit confused? I wouldn't be surprised, because "If I look back I'm lost" suggests she's practicing avoidance and denial. But more importantly, why do so many people have to die because of her confusion?

This one is in answer to the question "why would Jon betray her?"

I don't think Jon will betray her per se. I think he will be pushed to the limit by her. This comes down to a reading of Dany as characterized by:

• Impulsive decisions, with a temper to boot (I think Tyrion is right...sorry)
• Fire - symbolically, is unpredictable, changes with the wind, and is terrifying in large amounts
• Not listening to her advisors, doing the opposite of what they say, and/or distancing herself from them
• Threatening to burn people alive (yay?)
• Executing people quickly, without trial (goes all the way back to Meereen) 
• Almost never showing mercy/forgiveness (as Barristan counseled)

• Fear of telling her the truth, because of fear of how she will react. Daario says this to her in S5: "You’re the queen. Everyone’s too afraid of you to speak truth. Everyone but me." That suggests that people are doing a dance of courtesy around Dany, like Sansa did with Joffrey.

These traits are going somewhere. If they are just "colorful characterizations" but don't actually amount to anything significant, then what was the point?

I'd argue that, with this characterization and temperament, anything could count as a "betrayal" in her mind.

Jon could refuse to marry her for a start. She's grown up with a vision of marrying a family member, riding dragons, and ruling with them. All of that is a foreign concept to him. Kneeling to her was one thing - but marriage could be a bridge too far, especially if he's insistent on not marrying his aunt. Another thing that could give him pause about cementing this relationship is the fact that she's executed prisoners of war by fire, see above. Not just any prisoners of war - his best friend's family. It doesn't really matter how Dave Hill sees it - we should try to see how Jon Snow sees it, and Sam especially.

Does she actually have the North yet? Not really. She'll have to win it by 1) proving herself in the field against the threat, and 2) through soft power.

On #1 -  what if there's only so much she can do? In the books the dragons are described as hiding in the pyramids because they don't like the rain. If they don't like the rain, how are they going to fight in a huge snowstorm? Moreover, the dragons can only kill wights, not White Walkers, and definitely not the Night King. So D&D will likely give her a limitation or an unexpected obstacle up North, because *suspense.* There is also the possibility that all of her Dothraki and Unsullied could be wightified, and therefore she has no followers anymore.

On #2 - If she fails at politicking, Jon cannot secure the North for her. The Northern lords will not kneel. So say she sends Jon out to try and convince them to do so. But he's lost all standing with them, because he's a Targaryen who loves a Targaryen (apparently?). It also won't help if she's facing obstacle #1. She could get frustrated that he's lost the ability to help her secure the 7 kingdoms, and frustrated that this war is taking longer than expected. Now Dany has to try and convince stubborn bulls like Lyanna Mormont why they should kneel to her.

What Dany did in the South with the Tarleys will come back to haunt her in this, because it undercuts her ability to be seen as merciful or someone whom they should kneel to. And if they don't want to kneel, I guess she should just burn up the entire North and start executing Northern bannermen. If she does that, how does Jon respond?

Since Dany would lack political capital in with the North and so will Jon, she might mis-read the situation and start wondering if Jon is doing enough to help her. This appears to be foreshadowed with the scene on the beach with Tyrion - "Your family, you mean? Perhaps you don't want to hurt them after all!" Her vehement reaction to Tyrion's dilemma suggests she has difficulties understanding how people can have divided loyalties. Likely setting up something where Jon is pulled in two different directions, without Dany really understanding his POV.

Another issue is Cersei - she's not going to honor that truce. So as the war drags on, Dany could be getting worried. Especially if she does attack WF with the Golden Company. Does she fly off to take revenge? 

Also, I can see a scenario where Jon's superior claim now becomes a form of paranoia in terms of the political context. Are the Northern Lords conspiring behind her back to put Jon on the Throne? Are Tyrion and Jon working together against her, since they also knew each other before they met her? What if she found out that wight hunt was all a farce by Tyrion to "find a way to control her?" (my theory is, that it was fake, to do exactly that) 

Time spent with Jon/Arya could be another factor. She would wonder why he's spending all this time with his sisters. Especially Arya, whom he hasn't seen in YEARS. So she could be jealous of that bonding time they have together, and again become suspicious that his loyalties are divided and not focused exclusively on her. This makes sense psychologically, since she's never had a healthy relationship with Viserys so she would be an outsider looking into the Starks, not really understanding that bond.

We are shown in books and show that Dany values loyalty above everything else. She fears betrayals, not only because she had her fortune read (same mistake as Cersei), but also because she has been betrayed in the past. It is difficult to be "fully loyal" to such a person. You could be doing everything right, and it's still "not loyal enough." Jorah got lucky, but look what he had to do to regain her trust: go to hell and back. Jon not being loyal enough (or not Targaryen enough...which I'll talk about later) might be where Jon is, in S8, because of these complications. So then that might set up a scenario for Dance of Dragons 2.0

Edited March 26, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Lemuria]

On 3/24/2018 at 12:58 AM, anamika said:

On 3/23/2018 at 8:53 PM, bubble sparkly said:

Jon will surely be grateful for the sacrifices Ned made for him over the years.  It would be interesting if he was also willing to examine the ways Ned failed him.  For example, Ned let Cat emotionally abuse Jon throughout his entire childhood and didn't appear to lift a finger to stop it.

Not only that, but Ned let him go to the wall without informing him about his parentage - which I don't think was fair.

I disagree.  I think Ned was always driven by the Prime Directive:  To protect Lyanna's son.  In Westeros, that wouldn't mean worrying about his feelings but worrying about keeping him alive.  Anyone who was familiar with Catelyn would know that she would not take being asked to raise Ned's bastard as a lesser member of the family (one who did not get to sit at the table in the front of the hall)--with the possibility he could be legitimized and somehow supersede her own children--well.  OTOH, she was not a nasty person by nature and if she knew the truth, she would have been sympathetic to Jon.  Which, in turn, would have made Tywin or Littlefinger or Varys suspicious.  Ned could not afford to draw their attention to Jon.

(It's amusing that Ned could only pull of this huge deception because he was known to be such an honorable man.)

As for the wall, of course he sent Jon there before telling Jon about his parentage.  Again, Ned could not afford to have Jon give something away before Jon was protected by taking the black.  Once Jon joined the Night Watch it no longer matter who his parents were because he could no longer inherit or sit on a throne (it's why Maester Aemon went there).  Jon would be safe forever.

[Eyes High]

On 3/25/2018 at 4:54 AM, whateverdgaf said:

The fact that Jon's true birth has had so much build up makes me hope that it isn't going to be responded to without some conflict, and not just Jon brooding but on a political scale. I certainly hope it's not just to pave the way to make Jon 'one true king of all', and that the final ruler becomes king because he was actually the true born heir all along. 

I think in the show at least there's just no time for the kind of shock and anguish the revelation of Jon's parentage might otherwise be expected to occasion. Everyone's going to have to suck it up and get on with things. In Seasons 6 and 7, the writers cut a lot of scenes where characters got each other up to speed on pretty important information just to save time. I doubt in S8 we'll have the luxury of long scenes where the Stark kids and Dany and Jon's entourages thoughtfully digest the truth about Jon's parentage.

[bubble sparkly]

I totally agree about the lack of time. It would not shock me at all if after the parentage bomb Jon has one short scene with say Arya where he talks about Ned etc., then the matter is dropped for a couple of eps while a battle happens. After the first big battle Jon might then have a short scene with say Dany where he verbalises his acceptance of his heritage (at which time Dany will probably drop the baby news).

Then Jon will go into the final battle fully accepting both sides of himself,  and will thus be able to conveniently ride a dragon at a crucial point in the battle to save the day.

There is definitely not going to be time for Jon to have multiple D&Ms with his siblings, Dany, Davos and Sam etc.

Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if the only reunion in s8 that gets any sort of screen time is Jon/Arya, due to lack of time. I’m kind of expecting Arya/Gendry, Arya/Hound and Sansa/Hound etc to get nothing more than a one sentence exchange at most.

[Happy Harpy]

2 hours ago, bubble sparkly said:

Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if the only reunion in s8 that gets any sort of screen time is Jon/Arya, due to lack of time. I’m kind of expecting Arya/Gendry, Arya/Hound and Sansa/Hound etc to get nothing more than a one sentence exchange at most.

Unless Arya/Gendry is endgame [kidding but not kidding]. I mean, there was a casting call for a Northern girl in a flirty/comedic scene IIRC, which I guess is very early in the season, so they plan other stuff. Battles take a lot of time to film, but less time to air (even BoTB didn't take a full episode) so maybe they'll do 8x01 like 7x01 and move the pieces on the chessboard, establish or re-establish characters connections etc. I'm sure Arya can have bonding scenes during battles with the Hound, Gendry and Jon anyway but in spite of my first sentence, the one reunion I don't want to be cheated of is Arya/Jon. After eight seasons of waiting, I want a bear hug, I want tears, I want smiles, I want Ghost bringing Jon his gloves, I want everything, damnit.

[Sunshinegal]

2 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

Unless Arya/Gendry is endgame [kidding but not kidding]. I mean, there was a casting call for a Northern girl in a flirty/comedic scene IIRC, which I guess is very early in the season, so they plan other stuff. Battles take a lot of time to film, but less time to air (even BoTB didn't take a full episode) so maybe they'll do 8x01 like 7x01 and move the pieces on the chessboard, establish or re-establish characters connections etc. I'm sure Arya can have bonding scenes during battles with the Hound, Gendry and Jon anyway but in spite of my first sentence, the one reunion I don't want to be cheated of is Arya/Jon. After eight seasons of waiting, I want a bear hug, I want tears, I want smiles, I want Ghost bringing Jon his gloves, I want everything, damnit.

Same here.  The one reunion I really want is Arya/Jon.  I want Jon to muss Arya's hair and call her little sister and be happy that she has Needle.  I also want a Nymeria and Ghost reunion, but I don't see that happening since that would cost money. 

[Happy Harpy]

43 minutes ago, Sunshinegal said:

Same here.  The one reunion I really want is Arya/Jon.  I want Jon to muss Arya's hair and call her little sister and be happy that she has Needle.  I also want a Nymeria and Ghost reunion, but I don't see that happening since that would cost money. 

I'm still holding on to the hope that Nymeria and her pack will play a role at one point. If only saving Hot Pie from the AoTD if it goes that far South, after all Nym wasn't far from the Inn. Or for Arya to be with Ghost, with someone stating he follows her like a shadow, when Jon sees her again.

[Sunshinegal]

Just now, Happy Harpy said:

I'm still holding on to the hope that Nymeria and her pack will play a role at one point. If only saving Hot Pie from the AoTD if it goes that far South, after all Nym wasn't far from the Inn. Or for Arya to be with Ghost, with someone stating he follows her like a shadow, when Jon sees her again.

Me too.  I so want Nymeria and her pack to be involved in some way.  I'm not expecting it and will be pleasantly surprised if we see Nymeria and/or Ghost.  I would be ecstatic if we get both direwolves and they interact with all the Starks this season (including Sansa and Bran).

[Calamity Jane]

5 hours ago, Sunshinegal said:

Me too.  I so want Nymeria and her pack to be involved in some way.  I'm not expecting it and will be pleasantly surprised if we see Nymeria and/or Ghost.  I would be ecstatic if we get both direwolves and they interact with all the Starks this season (including Sansa and Bran).

I just re-watched season 7 again, and that scene with Nymeria just ripped my heart out all over again.  I so wanted her to be part of the end-story!  I hope she will be after all.  

[anamika]

23 hours ago, Lemuria said:

Anyone who was familiar with Catelyn would know that she would not take being asked to raise Ned's bastard as a lesser member of the family (one who did not get to sit at the table in the front of the hall)--with the possibility he could be legitimized and somehow supersede her own children--well.  OTOH, she was not a nasty person by nature and if she knew the truth, she would have been sympathetic to Jon.  Which, in turn, would have made Tywin or Littlefinger or Varys suspicious.  Ned could not afford to draw their attention to Jon.

Nah, I really don't think Tywin or Varys are going to care about how Catelyn treats some bastard in the North. I think Ned was more worried about Cat spilling the beans. We see this from Ned's POV himself, where he wonders what Catelyn would have done if her children are threatened and what he himself would have done. Ned did not trust Catelyn with that information. At the first sign of danger to her children, Cat would have thrown Jon under the bus if it saved her kids. For Catelyn family comes first, above all. Ned, Cat and Jon were all stuck in a tough position. And I don't think Jon is going to blame Ned for how Cat treated him. That's on Cat.

23 hours ago, Lemuria said:

As for the wall, of course he sent Jon there before telling Jon about his parentage.  Again, Ned could not afford to have Jon give something away before Jon was protected by taking the black.  Once Jon joined the Night Watch it no longer matter who his parents were because he could no longer inherit or sit on a throne (it's why Maester Aemon went there).  Jon would be safe forever.

Ned may think that he was protecting Jon by sending him to the wall, but he was still taking away Jon's choice to make that decision. Jon was already too young to make that decision - something that Benjen and Ned himself points out. Once Jon gets to the wall, he is stuck there for life - there is no way out. Condemned to a life of celibacy and hardship. 

Ned could have waited till Jon was old enough, tell him about his parentage and then given him the choice. As an adult, Jon was then free to do what he wanted. Sure Cat, forced his hand because she wanted Jon out of Winterfell, but I felt that Ned could have insisted that Jon stay at WF at least until he was a few years older.

I don't know. The whole situation is complicated. Like I said, I don't think Jon is going to stop admiring Ned or see him as his father. But I also think that Jon is going to be conflicted and angry that Ned did not tell him about his mother, made him a bastard and send him to the wall without allowing him to make a more informed choice. These characters are still young and in their teens after all.

Edited March 27, 2018 by anamika

[Eyes High]

On 3/25/2018 at 11:06 PM, Lemuria said:

OTOH, [Cat] was not a nasty person by nature and if she knew the truth, she would have been sympathetic to Jon.

I don't think Cat was a nasty person by nature, either, but given that Jon, bastard or not, was an innocent child who lost his mother, shouldn't he have already received Cat's sympathy?

I agree with Ned's assessment: had she known it, Cat would have given up the truth about Jon's parentage in a heartbeat to save her own children. Whatever sympathy she might have had towards Jon had she known the truth would have ended precisely where a possible threat to her children began. Ned knew that and acted accordingly.

9 hours ago, anamika said:

And I don't think Jon is going to blame Ned for how Cat treated him. That's on Cat.

Exactly.

Quote

Ned could have waited till Jon was old enough, tell him about his parentage and then given him the choice. As an adult, Jon was then free to do what he wanted. Sure Cat, forced his hand because she wanted Jon out of Winterfell, but I felt that Ned could have insisted that Jon stay at WF at least until he was a few years older.

Cat was in no position to "force" anything. She was unable to refuse Ned's demand that Jon be raised at Winterfell. If Ned put his foot down and let Jon stay at Winterfell for a few more years, Cat couldn't have done anything about it.

 

21 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

Unless Arya/Gendry is endgame [kidding but not kidding]. I mean, there was a casting call for a Northern girl in a flirty/comedic scene IIRC, which I guess is very early in the season

I'm guessing that scene involves a Northern girl hitting on...someone in the main cast. One of the new arrivals, maybe. (Grey Worm, for the eunuch jokes? Jaime? Jon, for Dany's reaction?)

[Happy Harpy]

2 hours ago, Eyes High said:

I'm guessing that scene involves a Northern girl hitting on...someone in the main cast. One of the new arrivals, maybe. (Grey Worm, for the eunuch jokes? Jaime? Jon, for Dany's reaction?)

Jon is the King, I don't think a Northern girl is going to hit on him like this. I thought of Gendry (well, of course I did, but I have reasons here:) a good-looking guy but who isn't a warrior in armor, or a lord, or intimidating like the Hound. It reminded me of Bella hitting on him in the books when I read the blurb.

[Sunshinegal]

39 minutes ago, Happy Harpy said:

Jon is the King, I don't think a Northern girl is going to hit on him like this. I thought of Gendry (well, of course I did, but I have reasons here:) a good-looking guy but who isn't a warrior in armor, or a lord, or intimidating like the Hound. It reminded me of Bella hitting on him in the books when I read the blurb.

I do think a northern girl would be brazen enough with flirting with the king.  He is king, which means status and power.  They also think he is single.  

[Sunshinegal]

26 minutes ago, doram said:

It also means he can rape her and discard her with no consequences. The show does a really shitty job of depicting just how vast the void between the smallfolk and the aristocracy are. 

Agree.  In the show I think they just want to show Dany becoming jealous and playing that for laughs.  I don't think Dany has ever been jealous of another woman before.  In the books, they showed in the Riverlands chapters how horrible things can happen to smallfolk.  I think that the only highborn character that actually knows how it is to live as a smallfolk is Arya.  Jon and Dany might be sympathetic to smallfolk, but they didn't have to hide their identity.

[bubble sparkly]

TBH it’s kind of crazy that none of the Northern lords with an eligible daughter demanded that Jon legitimize himself and marry said daughter in s7. Any lord with half a brain should have been trying to get his daughter to marry the single, attractive KITN and consummate a marriage before he left for Dragonstone.

It’s also crazy that no one on Team Jon or Team Dany thought of proposing a marriage alliance in s7. I can only assume D&D want to make it clear that if DJ marry it will be for love, but after Tyrion and Dany had that marriage talk in 6x10 it’s insane that no one mentioned that one of the best marriage candidates was chilling on their island for months.

[Sunshinegal]

27 minutes ago, bubble sparkly said:

TBH it’s kind of crazy that none of the Northern lords with an eligible daughter demanded that Jon legitimize himself and marry said daughter in s7. Any lord with half a brain should have been trying to get his daughter to marry the single, attractive KITN and consummate a marriage before he left for Dragonstone.

It’s also crazy that no one on Team Jon or Team Dany thought of proposing a marriage alliance in s7. I can only assume D&D want to make it clear that if DJ marry it will be for love, but after Tyrion and Dany had that marriage talk in 6x10 it’s insane that no one mentioned that one of the best marriage candidates was chilling on their island for months.

I'm surprised people don't talk about it more often in the show.  In Westeros, many alliances are sealed through marriage.  I'm surprised that any lord in the North or the Vale didn't use a marriage to commit armies to Jon's cause.  Wasn't that the whole point of the Frey's.  They would only commit their armies only through a marriage alliance.  I'm surprised that they didn't even mention it with Sansa, since she is an attractive, rich widow.  I think we will hear more talk about marriages and alliances in season 8.  Any lord in Westeros once they find out that Jon is the heir to the Iron Throne would want to make an alliance through marriage.  I bet we will hear about marriage alliances from Tyrion or Varys about Jon, Dany, Sansa and Arya.

[Happy Harpy]

51 minutes ago, bubble sparkly said:

TBH it’s kind of crazy that none of the Northern lords with an eligible daughter demanded that Jon legitimize himself and marry said daughter in s7. Any lord with half a brain should have been trying to get his daughter to marry the single, attractive KITN and consummate a marriage before he left for Dragonstone.

It’s also crazy that no one on Team Jon or Team Dany thought of proposing a marriage alliance in s7. I can only assume D&D want to make it clear that if DJ marry it will be for love, but after Tyrion and Dany had that marriage talk in 6x10 it’s insane that no one mentioned that one of the best marriage candidates was chilling on their island for months.

On the other hand, kings tend to marry princesses or high ladies from other kingdoms in order to secure alliances or troops.  Based on Glover's rather traditional conception of a woman's role for example, I rather expected an ambitious lord to broke an alliance between Sansa and his second son to secure the latter a castle, and what castle. Of course, it's easy to fanwank that LF killed those attempts in the egg -and spared Jon or later Arya the need to throttle someone daring to propose that after Ramsay.

I hope that Tyrion not mentioning a marriage between Dany and Jon isn't born out of some romantic jealousy. But Davos didn't mention it either and since he noticed Jon noticing Dany's good heart, and is highly logical and matter of fact about politics, I think your assumption is right. Only LF talked about such an alliance. Maybe Davos or Tyrion would have said something, unless Jon needed dragonglass and troops, so each side already had something to ask in the negotiations.

Edit: I would love to see anyone mention such an alliance for Arya in front of her or her sibs.

Sansa: *glares*

Jon: *cracks knuckles*

Bran: *shrugs* Not seeing this happening.

Arya: Poison or pointy end?

Tyrion or Varys: *steps back, cautiously*

Edited March 27, 2018 by Happy Harpy

[bubble sparkly]

You guys bring up a good point about Sansa. After the BotB Royce should realistically press for Sansa to marry one of his sons or threaten that they will all leave back to the Vale. Either that or they should have been trying to get her to marry Robyn Arryn to try and strengthen the Vale’s future prospects.

Now of course Sansa would presumably not want to be forced into another marriage, but Westerosi lords aren’t exactly known for respecting the rights of women.

[OhOkayWhat]

On 27/3/2018 at 4:13 PM, bubble sparkly said:

You guys bring up a good point about Sansa. After the BotB Royce should realistically press for Sansa to marry one of his sons or threaten that they will all leave back to the Vale

There is nothing about Royce personality in the show, that makes me to imagine him doing such thing.

[WindyNights]

On 3/27/2018 at 4:55 PM, doram said:

You can have D & D's shitty writing to thank for that. 

Pretty much. They don't want to bother with it so they're ignoring it. It's kinda silly that only the politician "genius" would hint at a marriage between Daenerys and Jon.

[Colorful Mess]

It's probably because no one in those scenes wants a marriage alliance except Littlefinger, who wants to separate Sansa from the rest of the Starks, and make her doubt her brother's loyalty. And if that's not his motive, he's doing what he always does - sowing discord and chaos to benefit himself. 

Tyrion doesn't want anyone but himself to advise Dany. He wants to be her sole counsel, and he wants to have her ear. His horrified look in the last scene suggests he's worried about Jon taking over that role, and ousting him. The script outline (via Bronn) suggested that Jon was on the way to becoming one of her "ducklings," and that Tyrion and Jorah were the odd men out of her inner circle because they weren't attractive enough. 

When Jon was king, he was reticent to even bend the knee. He felt like a prisoner. She lectured him on the importance of kneeling, then rode off on her dragon on a *suspiciously* short mission and returned with "fewer enemies." Then Bran's raven arrives and Jon has more pressing matters to be concerned with. They're not going to start talking about marriages in the middle of all of that.

Does Dany even want to marry him? "He's too little for me" - either a height joke or a status joke, take your pick. Wow, D&D really selling me on this romance.

Right now he looks like a Daario to her. Daario was her bedmate and captain of her sellswords. Jon is now her bedmate and general of her Northern armies (FYI: I honestly laughed out loud typing "her Northern armies")

She accepted his offer of the North, she took it, and now he's her Warden. There is no "marriage alliance" worth having with a Warden of the North who is a Snow, and her only ally now.  Once he's a Targaryen it will make even less sense. 

It would be interesting if Dany proposes a marriage after she learns that he's a Targaryen. The timing will look really, really bad.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[glowbug]

I don't think there's any question that Dany and Jon are in love with each other by the end of season 7, and she has shown that she has more respect for him than she ever did for Daario by taking Jon's advice and risking her dragons and her life to save him. Politically, the match makes sense even if Jon was just a Stark (or a Snow who is King of the North). The Northerners have all but legitimized him by making him king, and Dany, as queen, can legitimize him too. By marrying Jon, Dany gains the loyalty of the North. While they may have a problem with their King renouncing his title and serving a Targaryen queen, they should be happy to have him marry her and become King of Westeros. If Jon is a Targaryen, politically it makes even more sense for her to marry him. He arguably has a better claim to the throne than she does so by marrying him she kills any attempt to use his claim against her. This is in addition to gaining the loyalty of the north. He is still a Stark through his mother, and he was raised by Ned so ultimately (at least in the books—who knows about the show northerners) the north will still follow him even after they find out he's a Targaryen. I think the only obstacle to Jon and Dany marrying is death. If one or both of them dies it obviously can't happen. Potentially, the incest could also be an issue for Jon, but considering the Starks have uncle/niece marriages in their family tree, it probably won't be something he can't overcome. Dany, of course, was fine with marrying her brother so marrying her nephew is a couple steps up genetically and a million steps up in terms of character and personality.

[Colorful Mess]

Well, I disagree with pretty much all of that, since the show has been hammering the point that being a Targaryen and a foreigner is a hindrance, not an asset, in the North. Moreover, Dany is not helping the Targaryen brand by looking like her father. If she doesn't want to be like Aerys, she should probably move as far away from fire as a method of execution/war as possible. I also don't buy the idea of zero human conflict, everything ironing itself out, with any struggle or difficulty easily resolved until Jon dies. Why do I feel like this is overly optimistic for a show where no alliance has worked out, ever. Also, why does this sound so boring?

Dany flew off to save Jorah too, or does he not even matter? He flayed himself alive for her but suddenly she's all about Jon? Dany showed up to get Jon out of a shitty situation that she put him in, then Benjen saved him. If this is really a love story of the ages I would exclude these points in the plot, because they muddy the waters unnecessarily for a convincing romance. Then there is the fact that Dany still looks selfish even after she acts bravely. She didn't sail for Winterfell imediately, since his people (now hers?) are in imminent danger because a wight dragon can fly over the Wall now. Instead she wasted time sailing South to go play games with Cersei. Jon cannot have appreciated all that wasted time, since he probably knows a wight dragon is coming for them soon (he saw a wight polar bear, ffs). I wish he would have asked Dany drop it and go to WF as fast as possible, but again that raises the question as to why there are so few honest lines of communication between them.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Happy Harpy]

4 hours ago, glowbug said:

Potentially, the incest could also be an issue for Jon, but considering the Starks have uncle/niece marriages in their family tree, it probably won't be something he can't overcome. Dany, of course, was fine with marrying her brother so marrying her nephew is a couple steps up genetically and a million steps up in terms of character and personality.

I would love it if during the rumored crypt scene between Jon and Arya, she told him "You know, by Targaryen marriage standards, you and the queen are very distant relatives." And it would make Jon smile.

[bubble sparkly]

1 hour ago, Happy Harpy said:

I would love it if during the rumored crypt scene between Jon and Arya, she told him "You know, by Targaryen marriage standards, you and the queen are very distant relatives." And it would make Jon smile.

I swear I remember an interview or something with the guy who plays Davos, who said he hopes Davos is all like "well, at least she's not your sister".  Between Arya, Davos and Sam, someone has got to get Jon to laugh about banging his aunt lol.

5 hours ago, glowbug said:

I think the only obstacle to Jon and Dany marrying is death

Even if Jon and/or Dany die by the end of the series (which I hope doesn't happen!), I would lay money on them marrying beforehand.  That Targ restoration baby is definitely surviving, and I don't think it's going to be a bastard.

[anamika]

18 hours ago, glowbug said:

Politically, the match makes sense even if Jon was just a Stark (or a Snow who is King of the North). The Northerners have all but legitimized him by making him king, and Dany, as queen, can legitimize him too. By marrying Jon, Dany gains the loyalty of the North. While they may have a problem with their King renouncing his title and serving a Targaryen queen, they should be happy to have him marry her and become King of Westeros. If Jon is a Targaryen, politically it makes even more sense for her to marry him. He arguably has a better claim to the throne than she does so by marrying him she kills any attempt to use his claim against her. This is in addition to gaining the loyalty of the north.

Yes, the marriage between Stark and Targaryen - which has not happened before except for Rhaegar and Lyanna's secret wedding - could unite the North and South and bring peace. It's weird that this has not happened in all the hundreds of years the Targaryens ruled. There was that one time, during the Hour of the Wolf, when there was a possibility of this happening with the Pact of Ice and Fire , but the pact was never implemented.

Besides in the books, the Northerners are not as averse to the Targaryens as the show's whiny Northerners are:

Quote

MY LORDS! Here is what I say to these two kings! Renly Baratheon is nothing to me, nor Stannis neither. Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong. The Others take the Lannisters too, I've had a bellyful of them. Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead! There sits the only king I mean to bow my knee to, m'lords. The King in the North!

Politically their marriage would be the best thing to happen to the realm if monarchy was to continue. The Henry Tudor (Dany) and Elizabeth of York (Jon) comparisons make sense here. Dany, the exiled princess, has the armies and power to win over throne, invades Westeros, and marries Jon to enforce her claim to the throne. Her banner of the three red dragons resembles Henry’s banner of the red dragon and she sees herself as the true heir to Westeros. And of course, the blue rose is more associated with Jon but the color white for ice has also been Jon's constant - Ghost, Snow etc. I recently watched the White Princess and I could not help seeing their opening credits with the white and red colors as Targaryens coming back to power :) Too much Game of Thrones!! Funnily enough Michelle Fairley, plays the King's mother.

 

In this scenario, Lancasters - Lannisters, Yorks - Starks and Tudors - Targaryens.

13 hours ago, bubble sparkly said:

Even if Jon and/or Dany die by the end of the series (which I hope doesn't happen!), I would lay money on them marrying beforehand.  That Targ restoration baby is definitely surviving, and I don't think it's going to be a bastard.

It could be that both Jon and Dany end up dying and their child ascends the throne. I have been thinking of the constant comparisons of Arya to Lyanna and of Jon to Ned. Maybe we get a reversal of the Ned-Lyanna situation. With a dying Jon asking Arya to take care of his child and Arya giving him her promise. Maybe Arya becomes the child's protector.

Edited April 3, 2018 by anamika

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, anamika said:

Besides in the books, the Northerners are not as averse to the Targaryens as the show's whiny Northerners are:

I think that's a pretty big stretch as far as interpreting the Greatjon's comment.  The Northerners didn't "marry" the dragons, they surrendered to them, and remained rather less than positive toward the whole arrangement for upwards of a century afterward.

[anamika]

21 minutes ago, SeanC said:

I think that's a pretty big stretch as far as interpreting the Greatjon's comment.  The Northerners didn't "marry" the dragons, they surrendered to them, and remained rather less than positive toward the whole arrangement for upwards of a century afterward.

Why is that a stretch? The GreatJon is pretty clearly saying that since they are not allied with the dragons anymore because the dragons are all dead, why should they not rule themselves? The word 'marriage' here clearly indicates an alliance and the Starks tied themselves to the Targaryens and that's definitely true - the Starks continued to be allies of the Targs even after the dragons were gone. It became less than positive only after the mad king Aerys ascended the throne.

Edited April 3, 2018 by anamika

[Katsullivan]

16 minutes ago, SeanC said:

I think that's a pretty big stretch as far as interpreting the Greatjon's comment.  The Northerners didn't "marry" the dragons, they surrendered to them, and remained rather less than positive toward the whole arrangement for upwards of a century afterward.

Cregan Stark raised his banners for Queen Rhaeynra, and sent down men South for her war, and was instrumental in re-establishing order after the chaos of the Dance of the Dragons and securing the throne for Aegon III. His heir rode and died alongside Daeron I when he conquered Dorne. The North also fought for the Targaryens during the Blackfyre rebellion.

The "North don't like Targaryens" is a show thing- and even the show had Ned Stark legitimizing Robert's claim to the Throne through his Targaryen mother. The North didn't secede because of the Targaryens .... they seceded because of the Lannisters. 

[SeanC]

4 minutes ago, anamika said:

Why is that a stretch? The GreatJon is pretty clearly saying that since they are not allied with the dragons anymore because the dragons are all dead, why should they not rule themselves? The word 'marriage' here clearly indicates an alliance and the Starks tied themselves to the Targaryens and that's definitely true - the Starks continued to be allies of the Targs even after the dragons were gone. It became less than positive only after the mad king Aerys ascended the throne.

The Targaryens conquered the North, and then the existing superstructure of the Seven Kingdoms endured past the dragons' departure.  The Greatjon's proposal was recognizing that it doesn't intrinsically have to be that way, and that independence was the way out of their present predicament.  He wasn't speaking out of any openness/fondness for House Targaryen.

2 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

Cregan Stark raised his banners for Queen Rhaeynra, and sent down men South for her war, and was instrumental in re-establishing order after the chaos of the Dance of the Dragons and securing the throne for Aegon III. His heir rode and died alongside Daeron I when he conquered Dorne. The North also fought for the Targaryens during the Blackfyre rebellion.

We're not aware of any participation by House Stark during any of the Blackfyre Rebellions (unless you mean the War of the Ninepenny Kings).

All of the events you identify did happen; they also happened more than a century later, so that doesn't contradict what I said, which referred to the tensions lasting to at least the end of the reign of King Jaehaerys.

Quote

The "North don't like Targaryens" is a show thing- and even the show had Ned Stark legitimizing Robert's claim to the Throne through his Targaryen mother. The North didn't secede because of the Targaryens .... they seceded because of the Lannisters. 

I never stated otherwise.  But the North is no more open to the idea of the Targaryens than any other southerners, and I expect that it's accurate enough that any Targaryen appearing now would be received frostily, given their recent history.

[Katsullivan]

22 minutes ago, SeanC said:

All of the events you identify did happen; they also happened more than a century later, so that doesn't contradict what I said, which referred to the tensions lasting to at least the end of the reign of King Jaehaerys.

I thought your point was that there's no credence to the concept that the North were loyal to the Targaryens because historically, the North had always sought their independence, resented Targaryen rule and had isolated themselves as far apart from the Targaryens as they were allowed to?

Because my counter was to show that there's a history of the North being allies to the Targaryens, not just subjects, and there were many opportunities where the North rather than break away from the Kingdom, actually endorsed and fought for Targaryen rule. 

If your take from Great Jon's "it was the dragons we married but now the dragons are dead" is that it was rejection of Targaryen rule, then that's your opinion but it's not really backed up by much.

[Colorful Mess]

I forgot to add that if Littlefinger is suggesting a marriage alliance, it's a pretty sure bet that it's going to end in disaster. The guy's successful match making track record consists of Tyrell/Lannister and Sansa/Ramsay.  If he thinks Jon/Dany "makes sense" then we should believe the opposite of whatever he thinks will work out well. 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[bubble sparkly]

Assuming the Night King is defeated, I would think it's in the North's best interests to be part of the seven kingdoms, because if they were independent I don't see how the survivors would remain alive for too long.  There are going to be a lot of casualties in the war with the NK and presumably most of them are going to be the fighting men, with the women and children having the best chance of survival if they are evacuated to safety.  It also seems likely that there will be significant destruction of castles and homes, with Winterfell even in danger of being destroyed. S7 showed there is already a food shortage, and the North is not known for being a great climate for crops to proser at the best of times.

So the survivors, mostly women and children, will have minimal food and homelessness will be a major problem.  Major funding would be required to buy food and rebuild homes, but it doesn't seem likely that there would be any incentive for anyone to give them funding because they would be seen a massive credit risk.  If Dany controlled the other 6 kingdoms she would be able to distribute the food stores from those kingdoms around, but if the North don't want to be under her rule then they can't expect her to give them any food or provide any assistance for rebuilding. Anyone shrewd on her small council, like Tyrion, would advise her to charge exorbitant prices for trade to the North or refuse to trade with them at all.

I would expect that after months of starvation and housing shortages, lots of people would be keen to immigrate to the Riverlands or other areas where they have a better chance for some food and shelter.  The ones that remain in the North would probably soon find themselves considering cannibalism just to stay alive.

Dany wouldn't even need to put in any effort to get the North back under the banner of the 7 kingdoms - give it a year or two and the North would probably be begging her for help, and knees would be bending all over the place.   

[anamika]

7 hours ago, SeanC said:

The Targaryens conquered the North, and then the existing superstructure of the Seven Kingdoms endured past the dragons' departure.  The Greatjon's proposal was recognizing that it doesn't intrinsically have to be that way, and that independence was the way out of their present predicament.  He wasn't speaking out of any openness/fondness for House Targaryen.

The GreatJon's proposal was that since the dragons were basically dead and gone, and their agreement/alliance -'marriage' - was originally with the dragons, that they could now seek independence from the Lannisters to whom they owed nothing.

Does this indicate that the North cared dearly for the Targaryens? No. But it also indicates that they did not see the Targaryens as the enemy and valued their alliance.

There is also Manderly's 'The North Remembers' speech where he says:

Quote

You saw them, the arrogant Ser Jared and his nephew Rhaegar, that smirking worm who wears a dragon's name.

This line indicates that Manderly thinks that Rhaegar Frey is unworthy of Rhaegar's name.  Which implies that he holds Rhaegar or the Targs in high regard. 

Have we seen the Northerners criticizing the Targs in the books?  No. Their enemies are the Lannisters,  Freys,  Boltons, Baratheons etc. 

Book Northerners are smarter and more loyal than the show versions -  I doubt they are going to stupidly hate on Danaerys Targaryen,  who will be trying to save the realm with her dragons and Aegon Targaryen,  Ned's nephew who grew up in the North.  After the great war,  I think they will be glad to be part of the 7k with a friendly ruler on the IT - GRRM has been about unions (he's pro-EU).

All in all,  the Northerners don't display any particular dislike for the Targaryens and rather seem to hold them in high regard.  

Edited April 3, 2018 by anamika

[Sunshinegal]

When they declared Robb the King in the North I thought it was because they didn't want to be ruled by the Lannisters or the Tyrells.  The Lannisters and the Tyrells were the only ones actively trying to make a member of their family queen (Tywin and Cersei from the Lannisters and Mace, Olenna and Marg from the Tyrells).  The Lannisters and the Tyrells both murdered a king for their own benefit (the Lannisters killed Robert and the Tyrells killed Joffrey). 

The North is wary of Dany but once they get to know her they might not be so opposed to her rule.  She is not set out to punish the North and she is there to help the North.  And she is the safest bet because unlike Cersei she is not set out to try to kill the Starks. 

[Happy Harpy]

5 hours ago, Sunshinegal said:

The North is wary of Dany but once they get to know her they might not be so opposed to her rule.

"They'll all come to see you for what you are", Jon 7x06. It is known (well, foreshadowed).

Edit: Hasn't "it is known" been widely used for years now in a humorous way?

Edited April 3, 2018 by Happy Harpy

[Sunshinegal]

Since the Martells are eliminated and we haven't heard too much about the Daynes on the show, I was wondering who would rule Dorne.  Then I remembered that the Dornish and the Targs have intermarried and that Dany might be the person with the closest relationship to the Martells on the show and she could probably rule Dorne by birthright.

[WindyNights]

15 hours ago, bubble sparkly said:

Assuming the Night King is defeated, I would think it's in the North's best interests to be part of the seven kingdoms, because if they were independent I don't see how the survivors would remain alive for too long.  There are going to be a lot of casualties in the war with the NK and presumably most of them are going to be the fighting men, with the women and children having the best chance of survival if they are evacuated to safety.  It also seems likely that there will be significant destruction of castles and homes, with Winterfell even in danger of being destroyed. S7 showed there is already a food shortage, and the North is not known for being a great climate for crops to proser at the best of times.

So the survivors, mostly women and children, will have minimal food and homelessness will be a major problem.  Major funding would be required to buy food and rebuild homes, but it doesn't seem likely that there would be any incentive for anyone to give them funding because they would be seen a massive credit risk.  If Dany controlled the other 6 kingdoms she would be able to distribute the food stores from those kingdoms around, but if the North don't want to be under her rule then they can't expect her to give them any food or provide any assistance for rebuilding. Anyone shrewd on her small council, like Tyrion, would advise her to charge exorbitant prices for trade to the North or refuse to trade with them at all.

I would expect that after months of starvation and housing shortages, lots of people would be keen to immigrate to the Riverlands or other areas where they have a better chance for some food and shelter.  The ones that remain in the North would probably soon find themselves considering cannibalism just to stay alive.

Dany wouldn't even need to put in any effort to get the North back under the banner of the 7 kingdoms - give it a year or two and the North would probably be begging her for help, and knees would be bending all over the place.   

This is such an anachronistic way of thinking.

 

Funding? Housing shortages?

 

If anything, it'll be like the after-effects of the Black Plague where the decreased population meant workers being valued more and a weakening of the nobility. And people were able to get houses for cheaper because there are so many abandoned homes.

 

There's plenty of trees in the North and land. People are just going to rebuild their own houses if they want to. They don't need someone to build houses for them or funding. And presumably with the end of the long winters, the North will far more potential for prosperity than before.

1 hour ago, Sunshinegal said:

Since the Martells are eliminated and we haven't heard too much about the Daynes on the show, I was wondering who would rule Dorne.  Then I remembered that the Dornish and the Targs have intermarried and that Dany might be the person with the closest relationship to the Martells on the show and she could probably rule Dorne by birthright.

Uh,  Daenerys' Martell heritage is like 6 generations ago besides there are Oberyn's other 5 Martell bastards that the show has already mentioned.

[WindyNights]

4 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

"They'll all come to see you for what you are", Jon 7x06. It is known (well, foreshadowed).

I mean if we want to take lines like those literally then: 

 

"I will not lie with you. And I will bear no children, for you, or anyone else.-Daenerys season 6. It is known. (Well, foreshadowed)

[bubble sparkly]

If we are taking everything literally:

Dany: I can’t have children 

Jon: who told you that

Dany: the witch who murdered my husband 

Jon: has it occurred to you that she might not be a reliable source of information 

Dany and Jon: boat banging

[Gwen-Stacys]

"Dany flew off to save Jorah too, or does he not even matter? He flayed himself alive for her but suddenly she's all about Jon? Dany showed up to get Jon out of a shitty situation that she put him in, then Benjen saved him."

Dany had nothing to do with Jon being in the situation and even spoke out against it. Jon made the decision to go. The idea itself was Tyrion's brain child. All Dany did was look less that enthused about an obviously horrible plan, but she wanted to help Jon without jeopardizing her own mission. Tyrions (suicidal) plan was a means to that end. And sure, she went up North for Jorah as well, but the way She stared at Jon and Jon alone (watch the camera angles again, when it shows her circling on Drogon and looking down, the next shot has Jon in the center). And once she touched down, she offered no one else but Jon a hand up. So, with all that in mind, it's safe to say that he was a big factor in the reason she decided to fly her 3 dragons north to help on a suicide mission she didn't seem too keen on to begin with.

Benjen saved Jon from himself. There was no other reason for him not hopping his tail on that dragon except D&D want his first (and only) dragon ride to be Raegal (and Dany, obvi)

I'm with the people who think the ending is either gonna be Jon and Dany together ruling or both dead but their child taking over for them. With Tyrion as their adviser and Aunt/cousin Arya as their protector.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Gwen-Stacys

[Colorful Mess]

Quote

 

Jon: We'll fight with the men we have. Unless you'll join us?

Dany: And give the country to Cersei? As soon as I march away, she marches in.

Tyrion: *comes up with hair brained solution to Dany's stubbornness*

 

See above. Tyrion wouldn't have had to come up with his crazy plan if Dany would have just let go of her primary objective for the moment, which was her war with Cersei. For watchers paying attention, wight hunt is a distraction, for Dany's benefit, and it is completely UNNECESSARY because Dany won't budge. So my point is that the conditions of her rescue are inherently less selfless because of this. They didn't have to write it this way. They could have had Jon go on wight hunt at Cersei's command, and had Dany go save him. Instead, it's a farce so that Dany can feel better about helping Jon in the larger scheme of things. It feels phony. 

Of course she didn't want him to go. But you know there are other options on the table that she could have taken when Tyrion proposed this? Such as "That's not necessary. I'll help you anyway" or perhaps "Why would we trust that Cersei would even agree to a truce?" She is letting herself be played.

Jon goes along with it - why? Either Jon and Tyrion were plotting together, because when Tyrion asks Varys what the scroll contains, it suggests that his gears are turning in his head. And if it's not a conspiracy between Tyrion and Jon, it's just him playing along with this farce because Dany won't change her mind otherwise. 

And then we saw how when the ceasefire didn't go her way, she was still torn about helping Jon. She couldn't let her own war go, without a super special ceasefire that no other character in Game of Thrones history has gotten. 

Think of Stannis pulling that same schtick. When Davos proposed that he should help defend the realm against the wildling attack, what if Stannis had said: "I won't go North and give the country to Joffrey. As soon as I march away, he marches in." Then when Davos proposes a ceasefire meeting, to convince Joffrey that the wildling threat is real, Stannis says "OK." Instead of laughing in his face at the absurdity of it all, like a smart person. 

Anyway, my point is that her own self-interest, stubbornness, and stupidity undercuts the selfless/heroic/romantic narrative that people seem to latch on to. Which makes me skeptical, again, why would Jon fall in madly love with such a person.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Gwen-Stacys]

"See above. Tyrion wouldn't have had to come up with his crazy plan if Dany would have just let go of her primary objective for the moment, which was her war with Cersei. For watchers paying attention, wight hunt is a distraction, for Dany's benefit, and it is completely UNNECESSARY because Dany won't budge. So my point is that the conditions of her rescue are inherently less selfless because of this. They didn't have to write it this way. They could have had Jon go on wight hunt at Cersei's command, and had Dany go save him. Instead, it's a farce so that Dany can feel better about helping Jon in the larger scheme of things. It feels phony.

Of course she didn't want him to go. But you know there are other options on the table that she could have taken when Tyrion proposed this? Such as "That's not necessary. I'll help you anyway" or perhaps "Why would we trust that Cersei would even agree to a truce?" She is letting herself be played.

" Yea, for watchers it is a distraction. But Dany isn't a watcher. Some guy just told her to discard a goal she's spent the last few years gearing up for (starting when Robert's assassin tried to kill her and her unborn baby and she knew that her enemies would never stop coming after her, so she'd have to go after them) for something that sounds like a total fairytale. Zombies are coming. She says it herself after their journey beyond the wall that she had to see it to know and now she knows. Watchers also know that the mission was for Cersei's benefit, not Dany's. Budge on what exactly? Jon was preparing to go back North without her when Tyrion proposed his idea then. Jon and Dany were both fully prepared to go off on their separate missions until Tyrion's plan. Dany was already willing to help Jon, just not at the expense of her own goal (commendable for a female character not giving up her dream for a guy she has the warm and fuzzies for). She only abandons her goal once she SEES the magnitude of the problem and fully understands what Jon does. I don't understand the flack she's getting for not immediately siding with Jon. Even Tyrion tells him that him thinking she would is unrealistic.

I don't understand the she's being played part. Unless it's that whole undercover jon theory which, as a Jon fan (both books and show) I'd really rather let people who believe that theory to believe it to their hearts content while I continue to ignore it.

Jon goes along with it - why?

Because it gives him what he wants ---the entire realm united against a greater enemy. Why wouldn't he go for it? Especially after Jorah volunteered to go.

And then we saw how when the ceasefire didn't go her way, she was still torn about helping Jon. She couldn't let her own war go, without a super special ceasefire that no other character in Game of Thrones history has gotten.

She literally tells Jon that he's right and she should've believed him from the beginning. But again, she had to see it to believe it. She had already let it go. They were hoping for both a ceasefire and combine their forces. Idealistic? Sure. But Dany is going off of Tyrion here, and believing that Cersei is a reasonable human being that cares about the lives of those she rules over.

Think of Stannis pulling that same schtick. When Davos proposed that he should help defend the realm against the wildling attack, what if Stannis had said: "I won't go North and give the country to Joffrey. As soon as I march away, he marches in." Then when Davos proposes a ceasefire meeting, to convince Joffrey that the wildling threat is real, Stannis says "OK." Instead of laughing in his face at the absurdity of it all, like a smart person. Anyway, my point is that her own self-interest, stubbornness, and stupidity undercuts the selfless/heroic/romantic narrative that people seem to latch on to. Which makes me skeptical, again, why would Jon fall in madly love with such a person.

I think we're just going to have to agree that we don't see the show (Dany specifically) the same way. Or I just rewatched season 7 (and re-reading the series) with a friend so it's fresher in my mind.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Gwen-Stacys

[Colorful Mess]

Seeing it from Dany's perspective misses the point that Dany looks petty. I invite folks to step outside her POV for a moment and see how it might look to Davos, who is standing right there, probably having severe case of deja vu, and realizing that Stannis committed to fighting the Others without having proof that they exist. 

Dany complicates things; she doesn't make it easier for the heroes in the story.

And willing to help, without the expense of her own goals, is not commendable in this narrative. Her "support" is hanging on by the thread of Cersei's word. How ridiculous is that? 

This discourse that Dany is doing her best and has no flaws is really hampering any critical analysis of what is presented on screen. 

ETA: Who comes out of this looking smarter than anyone? Sansa, for throwing that invitation into the fire.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Katsullivan]

16 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

probably having severe case of deja vu, and realizing that Stannis committed to fighting the Others without having proof that they exist. 

Stannis committed to fighting wildlings.

16 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Seeing it from Dany's perspective misses the point that Dany looks petty.

Well if Dany is petty for not believing in fairy-tale zombies then Sansa and the rest of the Northern Lords - the people who literally live next door to the threat and who crowned a maybe-zombie their King, yet still disbelieve - are petty fools. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Katsullivan