Season 8: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[Eyes High]

20 hours ago, cambridgeguy said:

Is Gendry important enough in-show to be there?  Sure, he's the bastard son of Robert but barring a somewhat surprising declaration from Dany naming him Lord of the Stormlands he's still one of the "little people", as are Sandor and Gilly.  Missandei is probably going to stick with Dany or die so if Dany's not there there's some logic to her being absent. 

Brienne and Davos are also small fry, politically speaking, Brienne being heir to Tarth notwithstanding, and they are present. 

I think Gendry is a pretty minor character to require lots of shenanigans from the production trying to fool people into thinking he filmed for the show there, if Friki's version of events is to be believed.

16 hours ago, anamika said:

Where are the representatives of the rest of the kingdoms? Assuming Brienne is there with Sansa and Sam is there with Bran, why is Arya there? Surely one representative from the North should be enough? Who is representing the Riverlands and the Stormlands? The Rock?

 

There was someone who claimed on Twitter that when the cast was getting off the airplane at Stansted upon returning from Seville, Tobias Menzies was with them. In the photos taken at the airport, there was also a guy who looked like Mark Gatiss (Tycho Nestoris), so if true you have the Riverlands and the Iron Bank being represented at this trial or grand council or whatever it is.

I don't really understand why the production was trying to conceal Gemma's presence in Seville but not Lino's. Wouldn't their presence in Seville to film at the Italica Dragonpit site imply the same thing?

...I do think that even assuming Friki's information is wrong, the Italica scene is likely an epilogue scene.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Eyes High

[Smad]

51 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

I guess I could see that scenario, but I don't see the point of Bran being the face of the ruling family. He doesn't even act human anymore.

And that's my main problem with it. If he is the face of the operation, he's the one who has to sit there and actually interact with people. The council works behind the scenes. He would have to receive Lords and whatnot and interact with them and hear their problems. And lets face it, the Bran1000 is inhumane. So unless Bran becomes normal again (maybe with magic dying out?), I don't see how this would work.

[WindyNights]

18 minutes ago, Smad said:

And that's my main problem with it. If he is the face of the operation, he's the one who has to sit there and actually interact with people. The council works behind the scenes. He would have to receive Lords and whatnot and interact with them and hear their problems. And lets face it, the Bran1000 is inhumane. So unless Bran becomes normal again (maybe with magic dying out?), I don't see how this would work.

This is pretty much Aegon III in Fire and Blood. He mostly did nothing but brood in his room and had his little brother, Viserys, rule for him.

 

He almost never laughed or smiled or really talked much. He didn't care about almost anything.

[Happy Harpy]

Even if they overcame their past conflicts, even if they love each other as siblings, Sansa and Arya don't get along and I'm not sure they like each other in the sense that they wouldn't be friends were they not related. Sansa and Arya ruling wouldn't work out better than Sansa and Jon. Actually, it would be even worse because Jon is much more patient than Arya is.

Moreover Arya isn't interested in ruling and power, it's been made very clear, and it's also been made very clear that she's a DIY girl. I could see her as a Mito Komon type of character, I could see her ruling because she has to (last woman standing or being with a lord/a king) but ruling through her brother whereas she can leave it to someone else? Nope.

Imo, this so-called "leak" is yet another wishful thinking/fanfiction to explain how Sansa will rule even if she isn't queen in name.

There is yet no certainty that Bran's vegetable mode isn't only temporary or fake; again the character earned more good will than Theon or Jaime so it shouldn't be too hard to get the majority of the audience to root for him if needed again. OTOH, the odds are interestings but they aren't facts either. It could be that many chose "the least likely Stark" because they expect a "satisfying" Stark win with the least likely on the throne because they expect something "unpredictable".

[WindyNights]

17 minutes ago, Happy Harpy said:

Even if they overcame their past conflicts, even if they love each other as siblings, Sansa and Arya don't get along and I'm not sure they like each other in the sense that they wouldn't be friends were they not related. Sansa and Arya ruling wouldn't work out better than Sansa and Jon. Actually, it would be even worse because Jon is much more patient than Arya is.

Moreover Arya isn't interested in ruling and power, it's been made very clear, and it's also been made very clear that she's a DIY girl. I could see her as a Mito Komon type of character, I could see her ruling because she has to (last woman standing or being with a lord/a king) but ruling through her brother whereas she can leave it to someone else? Nope.

Imo, this so-called "leak" is yet another wishful thinking/fanfiction to explain how Sansa will rule even if she isn't queen in name.

There is yet no certainty that Bran's vegetable mode isn't only temporary or fake; again the character earned more good will than Theon or Jaime so it shouldn't be too hard to get the majority of the audience to root for him if needed again. OTOH, the odds are interestings but they aren't facts either. It could be that many chose "the least likely Stark" because they expect a "satisfying" Stark win with the least likely on the throne because they expect something "unpredictable".

Rhaenys and Visenya? Would Arya abandon her brother?

The markets predicted that Cersei would sit the Iron Throne at the end of season 7 so there's that.

It's not just one betting site. It's several betting sites that put Bran at a much higher likelihood than Daenerys or Jon or even their baby. 

And if it was just a poll, it'd be different but people are putting in actual money on this.

Fits GRRM's thought process though. Create a secret royal prince and make him a hidden bastard. Present Bran then Ned as the main characters. Paralyze Bran, kill Ned and reveal Jon's heritage to create expectation that Jon will sit the throne and then pull the rug from underneath the audience to make Bran the king. 

[Wouter]

On 24-11-2018 at 3:08 AM, GrailKing said:

Friki did say Sansa is the most wanted or sought after female now, so maybe Tyrion still thinks she's his ?

They have to bring show Tyrion into his book counter part; but they made him into such a saint, can't wait to see this play out.

We don't know if the book counterpart is that much different: he seems very likely to end up as Dany's advisor (and possibly, hand) in the books, as well. At the end of ADWD, the character got going again, de-facto taking control of the Second Sons (and possibly counting on Dany to eliminate their leadership afterwards - for treason - so he wouldn't have to honor his promises). In the books, Tyrion protected Sansa at his trial. It's far from certain he would be a particular threat to her once he arrives in Westeros (though he may try to bring up the marriage again), especially if Sansa does not align against Dany.

As for siding with Cersei, the thing about the book character is that he really hates Cersei. If they bring Tyrion "into his book counterpart", one would assume he would feel less sympathy for Cersei than the show version.

Tyrion is also intelligent, and should realise - book or show - that betraying Dany/the Starks while the winter apocalypse is going on is a bad idea. Even Jaime understands that (in the show, at least). 

One thing that is speaking in favour of a Tyrion betrayal is Dany's HOTU prophecy ("three betrayals shall you know") with Tyrion being a fair candidate for the betrayal for love (for blood being taken by Mirri Maz Duur, and for gold possibly by Ben Plumm). A betrayal for the sake of Jaime, or Myrcella or Tommen, I could see in the books. A betrayal for Cersei looks rather less likely, especially in the middle of an offensive by the NK.

Friki mentions specifically that Tyrion will betray the Starks. I have a hard time imagining how Tyrion would find it a good idea to let Cersei's forces assault Winterfell while the NK is approaching, or to let the NK himself take Winterfell. So I don't think that is likely to be the betrayal.

If it is letting Cersei get hold of Sansa, then this also seems weird for a motive (he would have to be really pissed at Sansa to consider this to be in his interests) and difficult to arrange, considering Sansa will be in well defended Winterfell at first and possibly on the run in a zombie-infected landscape later. Moreover, for Friki's leak to be right Sansa would have to survive all this in good health, so Cersei would merely use her as a hostage in that case.

A point against Tyrion being a traitor to Dany, is that he is the one (in the show) who did the most to make the alliance between Dany and Jon work. He jumped on Melisandre's suggestion - against Varys' objections, for example - he did his best to be diplomatic in the first Dany/Jon confrontation and he made sure Jon got the dragonglass (while Jon himself didn't even think to ask Dany that relatively small favour). If Tyrion did something right during S7, it was him championing and sponsoring this alliance at a time when neither Jon nor Dany really believed in it. If Tyrion was really playing a long game to betray Dany and/or the Starks, making this alliance happen would be obviously counterproductive.

 

On 25-11-2018 at 7:16 AM, Colorful Mess said:

Sounds a bit like my theory that Tyrion tries to consummate the marriage with Sansa to secure Winterfell for Dany. Marriages for peace-binding are contentious and if played poorly result in crisis. 

Winterfell is secure for Dany, through Jon. If Sansa disagrees, forcing the marriage on her isn't going to win him any friends at Winterfell, not to mention losing him Jon's support and possibly Dany's support.

21 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Betting has just been suspended on Bovada.

Bran jumped from +500 to +150 in the past few weeks on Bovada.

Bran is also the #1 choice on Betway and Betfair. 

 

Betway:

Bran 2.5/1

Dany 5/1

Jon 5/1

 

Betfair:

Bran 2/1

Dany’s Kid 4/1

Dany 4/1

 

Everywhere has has given Bran a minimum of a 28 % to 60 % chance of him becoming the king in the end.

Can't such things be manipulated by the betting sites themselves, at least to start the tendence? It would be in their interest to get people to bet money on the wrong person, for maximum profit.

[OhOkayWhat]

1 hour ago, WindyNights said:

The markets predicted that Cersei would sit the Iron Throne at the end of season 7 so there's that.

The thing is, we did not need the markets to predict Queen Cersei. We only needed:

-To ignore the books

-To know that 7 was not the final season

-To look at the show narrative as a whole

(Knowing they love to work with Lena helps too)

And the same narrative tells me:

-Sansa will rule something.

-Arya will not rule.

-Tyrion will not suddenly become the Tyrion that some theories say.

Edited November 26, 2018 by OhOkayWhat

[Smad]

17 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Winterfell is secure for Dany, through Jon. If Sansa disagrees, forcing the marriage on her isn't going to win him any friends at Winterfell, not to mention losing him Jon's support and possibly Dany's support.

How is WF secure for Dany through Jon? WF is Sansa's isn't it? She was Lady of WF last Season. How does that make it secure for Dany through Jon if it's Sansa's?

[Wouter]

5 minutes ago, Smad said:

How is WF secure for Dany through Jon? WF is Sansa's isn't it? She was Lady of WF last Season. How does that make it secure for Dany through Jon if it's Sansa's?

Jon is the king in the north. If he declares for Dany, the north declares for Dany. Sansa will follow Jon (who is her king!), at least in public, even if she may curse him and/or confront him in private. Lords (and ladies) who do not declare for Dany are committing treason to Jon.

Sansa was put in charge of Winterfell and the north by Jon, but he is still King. As King, he can take the "regent" role from her (and he will, considering he is back himself and Dany is there, too) and should he wish he could even take Winterfell from her, just as the Lannisters took Riverrun from Edmure. But that won't happen, Sansa will very likely do her best to get/keep everyone in line even if she disagrees herself with what Jon did.

[Colorful Mess]

25 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Jon is the king in the north. If he declares for Dany, the north declares for Dany. Sansa will follow Jon (who is her king!), at least in public, even if she may curse him and/or confront him in private. Lords (and ladies) who do not declare for Dany are committing treason to Jon.

Sansa was put in charge of Winterfell and the north by Jon, but he is still King. As King, he can take the "regent" role from her (and he will, considering he is back himself and Dany is there, too) and should he wish he could even take Winterfell from her, just as the Lannisters took Riverrun from Edmure. But that won't happen, Sansa will very likely do her best to get/keep everyone in line even if she disagrees herself with what Jon did.

Jon isn't going to make his people kneel to Dany. He didn't even make the wildlings kneel to Stannis.

If this event was in Fire & Blood what do you think would happen? GRRM would drum up the conflict and turn the North into Dorne 2.0. The North would rebel as soon as the WW war was over.

Northerners aren't going to roll over and just accept Dany. When Torrhen knelt there were Northerners who chose to exile themselves rather than bend the knee to a Targaryen. Rhaenys forced Torrhen's daughter into a marriage to peace-bind the Vale and which infuriated them. The North has been humiliated time and again, and has already participated in THREE rebellions (Roberts, Robbs, and Jon/Sansa's) - do you think they're going to bow to a Targaryen, Aerys' daughter, at this juncture?

Under Torrhen the Northerners had to follow suit because they didn't have a mountable defense against dragonfire. But Sansa would know they have their own Targaryen, he has a better claim, and he can ride a dragon. You have to think in terms of F&B: conflict, conflict, conflict. Every time a Targaryen gets a win they get a loss 10 pages later. It's not going to be easy for Dany. She won't get the North handed to her on a silver platter. Sansa isnt going to spend every episode doing Dany's political work for her. Dany has to do that herself. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Wouter]

6 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Jon isn't going to make people kneel to Dany. He didn't even make the wildlings kneel to Stannis.

If this event was in Fire & Blood what do you think would happen? GRRM would drum up the conflict and turn the North into Dorne 2.0. The North would rebel as soon as the WW war was over.

 

Jon himself knelt to Dany, and gave the north to her. I'm afraid his own subjects will have to kneel, too, at least those who are used to kneeling anyway (not the wildlings).

The north isn't going to rebel after WW war, the survivors will (a) be grateful for Dany's intervention (and Jon's own deeds, too) and (b) too busy with making sure they don't starve. Westeros will have gone through years of warfare, there will not be a stomach nor resources for more war.

And Sansa is smart enough to not go to war against Dany, unless she would go full mad queen or something like that. But that's more your cup of tea, I believe.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Wouter

[Colorful Mess]

15 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Jon himself knelt to Dany, and gave the north to her. I'm afraid his own subjects will have to kneel, too, at least those who are used to kneeling anyway (not the wildlings).

The north isn't going to rebel after WW war, the survivors will (a) be grateful for Dany's intervention (and Jon's own deeds, too) and (b) too busy with making sure they don't starve. Westeros will have gone through years of warfare, there will not be a stomach nor resources for more war.

And Sansa is smart enough to not go to war against Dany, unless she would go full mad queen or something like that. But that's more your cup of tea, I believe.

 

Thats really interesting that you say that Northerners will have to kneel since Jon hasnt even physically done that.

If hasnt done it; his people shouldnt have to either.

Lyanna Mormont will tell Jon and Dany to fuck right off.

Kneeling has nothing to do with fighting the White Walkers and it only makes things more tense in this ridiculous situation.

Jon should have gone for allies instead of overlord. 

As for not being able to stomach more war, if there's any lessons from GRRM's invented history, its that wars continue, with or without dragons, and that writing about peace and love is boring for him. He talks about adding in more "juicy" stuff, intrigue, betrayals, dragonfights, conspiracies, family members fighting each other, ect. So no, I dont think there will be peace and puppies after the battle against ice; I think they'll have to deal with fire as well. And there is no mad queen Dany in this scenario - its just an extension of what she already did in the show and what Aegon the Conqueror did to Westeros. She's already obliterated Westerosi armies. Aegon would have attacked the North as well. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[cambridgeguy]

2 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Brienne and Davos are also small fry, politically speaking, Brienne being heir to Tarth notwithstanding, and they are present. 

Sure, but Davos is also Jon's de facto hand while Brienne could be there as a bodyguard.  Gendry is just a blacksmith.

[Smad]

36 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Jon is the king in the north. If he declares for Dany, the north declares for Dany. Sansa will follow Jon (who is her king!), at least in public, even if she may curse him and/or confront him in private. Lords (and ladies) who do not declare for Dany are committing treason to Jon.

Sansa was put in charge of Winterfell and the north by Jon, but he is still King. As King, he can take the "regent" role from her (and he will, considering he is back himself and Dany is there, too) and should he wish he could even take Winterfell from her, just as the Lannisters took Riverrun from Edmure. But that won't happen, Sansa will very likely do her best to get/keep everyone in line even if she disagrees herself with what Jon did.

Jon was elected King. This isn't like the old system of inheritance. And Jon was a King without a seat. WF was Sansa's (as per HBO's own site) by right of inheritance. And since Jon is a King without any lands or other titles (what with being a bastard), WF was only his seat because he himself has nothing. But Sansa was in charge of WF the whole time and Jon can't just take it from her. Besides he no longer holds the position he was elected for (King). He's got no position except an illegal one as 'Warden of the North'. And yes it is illegal because Dany has no power over Westeros. She isn't sitting on the IT, she's no ruler atm but a conqueror. As abysmal as the North and ruling and titles has been since they ran out of book material, by the logic of the show the North, having a King who gave his office away he was elected for, means they are free to elect someone else and don't have to do squat for Dany or Jon. But I doubt logic enters into D&D writing. Just so long as Jon and Day get their butts kissed by everyone on the show...

[Wouter]

7 minutes ago, Smad said:

Jon was elected King. This isn't like the old system of inheritance. And Jon was a King without a seat. WF was Sansa's (as per HBO's own site) by right of inheritance. And since Jon is a King without any lands or other titles (what with being a bastard), WF was only his seat because he himself has nothing. But Sansa was in charge of WF the whole time and Jon can't just take it from her. Besides he no longer holds the position he was elected for (King). He's got no position except an illegal one as 'Warden of the North'. And yes it is illegal because Dany has no power over Westeros. She isn't sitting on the IT, she's no ruler atm but a conqueror. As abysmal as the North and ruling and titles has been since they ran out of book material, by the logic of the show the North, having a King who gave his office away he was elected for, means they are free to elect someone else and don't have to do squat for Dany or Jon. But I doubt logic enters into D&D writing. Just so long as Jon and Day get their butts kissed by everyone on the show...

If they reject a king everytime he does something they don't like, then the north has a ruling council (a house of lords, if you will) rather than a king. A king is the law; what he says, goes.

[Smad]

9 minutes ago, Wouter said:

If they reject a king everytime he does something they don't like, then the north has a ruling council (a house of lords, if you will) rather than a king. A king is the law; what he says, goes.

Jon is no longer King. They elected him as such, he gave the position up. Warden of the North is a different title and not what they elected him for. That's a position a foreign conqueror gave him who currently has no rights to any kingdoms in Westeros, much less all of them. So by all rights, Jon has no LEGAL title. Hence the North is free to either join Dany or elect another King/Queen since the last one gave his position away. They didn't reject anyone, he gave up the title he was voted into office for.

[Happy Harpy]

54 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

Sansa and Arya teamed up at the end of last season to take down Littlefinger, then came to a truce. Maybe they won't braid each other's hair and giggle over boys, but they are still sisters.

 

Yes, I said "even if they love each other as siblings".  You can love your siblings and be unable to see eye to eye with them. It's like Jon and Sansa after their emotional meeting in 6x04, their different tempers, experiences and POV soon took over.

I agree they came to a truce, but truce isn't peace. I think and I hope that Sansa and Arya are able to agree when push comes to shove, but imo they'd be like water and oil if they had to be closely associated and make decisions together on a daily basis. With Westeros needing to be rebuilt, I think they need more efficient teams and there are more efficient ones to be made (including Tyrion/Sansa).

Edit: I think their differences might reappear quite early in S8, re: Dany.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Happy Harpy

[Wouter]

25 minutes ago, Smad said:

Jon is no longer King. They elected him as such, he gave the position up. Warden of the North is a different title and not what they elected him for. That's a position a foreign conqueror gave him who currently has no rights to any kingdoms in Westeros, much less all of them. So by all rights, Jon has no LEGAL title. Hence the North is free to either join Dany or elect another King/Queen since the last one gave his position away. They didn't reject anyone, he gave up the title he was voted into office for.

As GRRM once wrote, don't expect Perry of House Mason to show up to argue the finer points of law. Legality means nothing. The north follows Jon, and they will either accept his decision to follow Dany (probably followed by a marriage soon after, if Dany and Jon don't think of it themself someone else will suggest the obvious solution) or they will rebel. No doubt Lord Glover will complain. I doubt anything will come of it. Maybe the Vale lords will make a semi-believable threat to leave, in which case Sansa will probably have to step in to glue the needed alliance together. When push comes to shove and they realise the Walkers are approaching, they will all follow Jon and Dany because they have no other choice.

Sansa's objections to Jon going were rational and understandable. With the benefit of having followed the story till now, we can say that Jon nevertheless made the right choice to go for the alliance. Even if sending a decent diplomat (apparently Davos, on the show) would have been smarter. I think both Sansa and Arya will realise soon enough that Jon's decision was right, even if especially the former may not be thrilled by having to accept a de-facto foreign woman as monarch. Especially since we can expect Bran to give warning soon that the NK has broken through the wall.

[tangerine95]

I really didn't see Jon's election as king to be the sign of the north now suddenly becoming a democracy.I think he was king just like Robb was,his kids would have inherited his throne,he had full authority,it's not like he'll have a reelection every 4 years or something.They just skipped the true born heir Sansa because that's the north for you,they want the warrior man to rule them even if he's a bastard.And probably for out of show reasons where in the books Jon was named heir by Robb and Sansa disinherited so since they didn't include Robb's will they used the election to king as a way to get him where he'll be in the books.Sansa getting the Lady of WF tittle imo was a soften the blow kind of thing and Jon being nice and not wanting to take away WF from her even tho he does feel like he has to be king in order to prepare for the AOTD.And they probably did it because it didn't matter if Jon had WF because he won't be king in the north for long.

So I don't think Jon bending the knee loses him all power and makes him a illegal warden of the north.When Torrhen Stark knelt to Aegon it didn't lose him his power and he was warden tho I'm sure plenty of lords hated that decision.Sure the north can try to rebel but is that really smart for them?Even if Jon and Dany don't fight them and try to force them to knell,just losing the advantage the dragons and Dany's armies offer would be a death sentence for the north.So I don't see why they wouldn't just work with Jon and Dany even if after the war they still want independence.I doubt Dany will go in there forcing the issue and everyone to literally kneel to her.She was already over Jon having to bend the knee and didn't require it.She's shown to be willing to work with Jon to show herself as someone coming to help and not conquer.

As for Dany being an illegal monarch well pretty much so is Cersei and so was Robert cause it's not like every house accepted him until he won and they had to.She's trying to win back what her family lost and she's in a war.All the great houses in westeros in that situation where there's a war of multiple monarchs have to chose who they consider the true queen and hope she wins so they don't get killed or punished after.

[Wouter]

15 minutes ago, Happy Harpy said:

 

I agree they came to a truce, but truce isn't peace. I think and I hope that Sansa and Arya are able to agree when push comes to shove, but imo they'd be like water and oil if they had to be closely associated and make decisions together on a daily basis. With Westeros needing to be rebuilt, I think they need more efficient teams and there are more efficient ones to be made (including Tyrion/Sansa).

 

Yet they would also complement each other (and I think this may happen in the books, in the Vale rather than in the North). Sansa as the PR-face, the diplomat (in the books she is rather better at gaining allies than in the show), the one able to read a political situation with Arya as the "mistress of whisperers" (spy), assassin, as a generally very observant person who sees what others miss. If Sansa becomes a politician in the vein of LF (even if she isn't near as good as he is), having Arya as an asset would be worth a lot. For Arya, it would help to see the big picture rather than act on impulse or feelings of revenge. Add Bran and his abilities, and the Starks would have one hell of a team, even without Jon.

[bubble sparkly]

It’s also possible that Dany is not going to demand the Northeners bend the knee. After all, she made the decision to go North before Jon BTK to her. From her perspective that was an unexpected bonus.

Also, even if Dany does intend to get them all to BTK, she might not even get the chance to demand it. As soon as D/J arrive they are going to get hit with the news that the wall has fallen, so presumably they will have to jump straight into strategy mode. Not to mention the Jon parentage bomb will likely drop.

As satisfying as it would be to see Glover shit his pants and cower to his knees in the face of a dragon, I wouldn’t be shocked if there’s no time for that.

[Colorful Mess]

5 minutes ago, Wouter said:

As GRRM once wrote, don't expect Perry of House Mason to show up to argue the finer points of law. Legality means nothing. The north follows Jon, and they will either accept his decision to follow Dany (probably followed by a marriage soon after, if Dany and Jon don't think of it themself someone else will suggest the obvious solution) or they will rebel. No doubt Lord Glover will complain. I doubt anything will come of it. Maybe the Vale lords will make a semi-believable threat to leave, in which case Sansa will probably have to step in to glue the needed alliance together. When push comes to shove and they realise the Walkers are approaching, they will all follow Jon and Dany because they have no other choice.

Sansa's objections to Jon going were rational and understandable. With the benefit of having followed the story till now, we can say that Jon nevertheless made the right choice to go for the alliance. Even if sending a decent diplomat (apparently Davos, on the show) would have been smarter. I think both Sansa and Arya will realise soon enough that Jon's decision was right, even if especially the former may not be thrilled by having to accept a de-facto foreign woman as monarch. Especially since we can expect Bran to give warning soon that the NK has broken through the wall.

Oh I absolutely think something will come of the North resisting Dany because it creates difficult choices for the characters, which is the entire reason why this story exists. Moreover, GRRM bothered to write in a Dornish rebellion against Targaryens that lasted 184 years so if Dorne can do it the North can too. If the North won't kneel I expect Dany to turn on them once she realizes she's losing her claim and territory like quicksand. I think Jon will have to choose, the Starks/North or his girlfriend. Sansa isnt going to be fixing things in the background just so Jon and Dany can have a relationship that has no political support. Jon is essentially useless to her so why would marrying him make any political sense. 

[Happy Harpy]

1 minute ago, Wouter said:

Yet they would also complement each other (and I think this may happen in the books, in the Vale rather than in the North). Sansa as the PR-face, the diplomat (in the books she is rather better at gaining allies than in the show), the one able to read a political situation with Arya as the "mistress of whisperers" (spy), assassin, as a generally very observant person who sees what others miss. If Sansa becomes a politician in the vein of LF (even if she isn't near as good as he is), having Arya as an asset would be worth a lot. For Arya, it would help to see the big picture rather than act on impulse or feelings of revenge. Add Bran and his abilities, and the Starks would have one hell of a team, even without Jon.

They would be a good team, but imo the lackluster fallout of the Starks reunions in S6 and S7 was there to hammer that tigers don't change their stripes and the family dynamics will stay the same. It was even stated in the Arya/Sansa closure discussion ("you're still weird" etc.); I don't think it was a throwaway line.

Moreover, being a team is different from one character pulling the strings of the others as it was presented in those fleaks.

3 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Rhaenys and Visenya? Would Arya abandon her brother?

The markets predicted that Cersei would sit the Iron Throne at the end of season 7 so there's that.

It's not just one betting site. It's several betting sites that put Bran at a much higher likelihood than Daenerys or Jon or even their baby. 

And if it was just a poll, it'd be different but people are putting in actual money on this.

Fits GRRM's thought process though. Create a secret royal prince and make him a hidden bastard. Present Bran then Ned as the main characters. Paralyze Bran, kill Ned and reveal Jon's heritage to create expectation that Jon will sit the throne and then pull the rug from underneath the audience to make Bran the king. 

Starks aren't Targaryens. The "leaks" aren't about abandoning her brother, but about using him as a pawn, knowing or not. Arya as the Hand of Police/Justice of King Bran? I could see it. Arya heavily involved in politics and ruling through her brother? Nope.

I didn't say that King Bran was impossible, I speculated it could be the ending and it could be a satisfying one. Yet, it isn't a verified insider's info so I'm just saying that it shouldn't be taken as fact.

[GraceK]

There better be a trailer soon before this fandom rips each other apart 😂

At least let us have some new information to argue over!! 😉

Edited November 26, 2018 by GraceK

[Colorful Mess]

3 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Fits GRRM's thought process though. Create a secret royal prince and make him a hidden bastard. Present Bran then Ned as the main characters. Paralyze Bran, kill Ned and reveal Jon's heritage to create expectation that Jon will sit the throne and then pull the rug from underneath the audience to make Bran the king. 

I agree w/ this. Even better, he fits the prince who was promised. It even fits Cogman's statements about flipping the story.

[Smad]

49 minutes ago, Wouter said:

As GRRM once wrote, don't expect Perry of House Mason to show up to argue the finer points of law. Legality means nothing. The north follows Jon, and they will either accept his decision to follow Dany (probably followed by a marriage soon after, if Dany and Jon don't think of it themself someone else will suggest the obvious solution) or they will rebel. No doubt Lord Glover will complain. I doubt anything will come of it. Maybe the Vale lords will make a semi-believable threat to leave, in which case Sansa will probably have to step in to glue the needed alliance together. When push comes to shove and they realise the Walkers are approaching, they will all follow Jon and Dany because they have no other choice.

Sansa's objections to Jon going were rational and understandable. With the benefit of having followed the story till now, we can say that Jon nevertheless made the right choice to go for the alliance. Even if sending a decent diplomat (apparently Davos, on the show) would have been smarter. I think both Sansa and Arya will realise soon enough that Jon's decision was right, even if especially the former may not be thrilled by having to accept a de-facto foreign woman as monarch. Especially since we can expect Bran to give warning soon that the NK has broken through the wall.

Of course legality means nothing in Weisseroff, that's how Jon became KitN to begin with. Lets screw inheritance, bastard status, Night's Watch rules and vows and so forth. Westeros however had just fought the War of the 5 Kings, in part because there was a BASTARD on the IT. So of course in Weisseroff everyone has brain damage and therefor really bad memory.

What the North should be asking is why they should bow to a Queen who expects absolute obedience and knee-bending before she helps anyone. She sees herself as Queen of the 7 Kingdoms, so why bow to her before she has proven that she actually cares about the people of Westeros. Unless Jon/Dany explain convincingly that she pledged to help the people before Jon bend the knee, I don't see why the people should bow to her first. After all she is the invader, the conqueror, who came there to take the throne with fire and BLOOD. It's not like she made the trip to Westeros to fight ice zombies or generally to help people have a better life. Has never been her goal. So she needs to show them first before they trust another Targ IMO.

But I'm not worried anything meaningful will come of this. There will be tensions and whatnot, and boom the NK comes knocking. Once the aotd is gone and defeated, most everyone will be dead anyway. So this whole thing will just be used for cheap drama and conveniently interrupted by the NK. And then anyone who might have issues will also be conveniently dead. It's so predictable it's already boring me.

[Wouter]

3 minutes ago, Smad said:

Of course legality means nothing in Weisseroff

Legality means nothing in GRRM's books, either, which is why he came up with that lord Perry of House Mason metaphor. Stannis may be the legal king (or even Viserys at the start of the books, depending on viewpoint), but he did not become so in fact.

When Ned sentenced Gregor to die, he was very right but he didn't exactly have a trial either, not in the way we understand that. The upside is that rather than having a legal circus, Ned quickly comes to a correct decision. But I think it's fair to say there is nothing legal about it, nor in AGOT nor in S1 of the show.

[OhOkayWhat]

22 minutes ago, Smad said:

Of course legality means nothing in Weisseroff,

 

22 minutes ago, Smad said:

Westeros however had just fought the War of the 5 Kings,

 

You answered yourself. Big terrible traumatic events (a war in this case) have big terrible consequences in everyone and every single thing. Legality is one of those things. Cause and effect. The writing makes narrative sense.

Edited November 26, 2018 by OhOkayWhat

[Colorful Mess]

39 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Legality means nothing in GRRM's books, either, which is why he came up with that lord Perry of House Mason metaphor. Stannis may be the legal king (or even Viserys at the start of the books, depending on viewpoint), but he did not become so in fact.

 

2 hours ago, Wouter said:

Jon himself knelt to Dany, and gave the north to her. I'm afraid his own subjects will have to kneel, too, at least those who are used to kneeling anyway (not the wildlings).

Am I going nuts or are these statements directly contradicting each other.

[Wouter]

7 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

 

Am I going nuts or are these statements directly contradicting each other.

If I have to choose, you are going nuts.

The second quote isn't a legal statement; it's just the way Westeros works. They don't kneel because their legal department pointed them to article 3 paragraph 2 of the law of 10 post-conquest, they kneel because their king does. It worked that way with Torrhen, too.

For that matter, the second statement doesn't apply to the books (yet) and probably never will since the chance that GRRM will ever reach that moment is extremely small.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Wouter

[Smad]

1 minute ago, Wouter said:

If I have to choose, you are going nuts.

The second quote isn't a legal statement; it's just the way Westeros works. They don't kneel because their legal department pointed them to article 3 paragraph 2 of the law of 10 post-conquest, they kneel because their king does. It worked that way with Torrhen, too.

For that matter, the second statement doesn't apply to the books (yet) and probably never will since the chance that GRRM will ever reach that moment is extremely small.

He/she is not going nuts. You talk about GRRM discarding legality in his own work so the show runners do too. But then you argue that Jon bending the knee is legally binding for him and the people in the North. Bending is a legal thing, so is giving up a kingdom. These two things contradict each other. So IMO the people in the North don't have to do squat if legality can be discarded. They don't have to accept Jon signing away their freedom, they don't have to accept him as WotN or Dany as their Queen. They could do what they want, including voting for a new ruler in the North. After all, nothing that happened is legal since legality doesn't matter.

[Wouter]

Just now, Smad said:

But then you argue that Jon bending the knee is legally binding for him and the people in the North. Bending is a legal thing, so is giving up a kingdom.

I do not argue that it is legally binding. Nor is bending a legal thing. It's a physical thing. And it is very possible that Tormund and co won't kneel, but they will obey Jon's commands and by extension, Dany's commands.

For example: people were not legally obliged to bend the knee to queen Cersei, who has no legal claim on the throne. But I guess that between blowing up the sept, Gregorstein and the Lannister soldiers and Gold Cloaks supporting her, people suddenly found themselves bending the knee anyway.

Dany has dragons, a large army and dragonglass. She also has 100% support of Jon and support from Davos as well. Those are serious arguments, especially with the army of the death coming down on them and with Cersei waiting to finish them off in case they survive. Who else are they going to follow, King Glover?

[Colorful Mess]

Legality doesnt matter, except when it does? 🤨 

I can see Cersei printing out your post, tearing it up, and laughing hysterically while continuing to rule. 

And characterization? Does that even matter? Is Jon the type to say, "This is who you have to follow now! You must kneel to her!" I cant imagine Jon ever doing that while dragons fly overhead, threatening his own people. 

Jon isnt Torrhen. His claim is too shakey and the Northerners are angry and prickly. He knows how the situation in the North has changed since that time:

Quote

 

Jon: "My people won't accept a southern ruler" 

Dany: "They will if their king does"

 

Dany knows diddley squat about the North here. She's lecturing Jon on HIS wheelhouse and she's never even set foot there. And Jon has too much pride? Jon Snow, the guy who doesnt even care if people call him king or not, has too much pride. Ok. Jon is saying his bannermen are very particular and he rules at THEIR permission. And they hate outsiders. And want a say in who rules them. And people have overthrown their rulers before in this story, whether it was "legal" or not. Doran, Robb, and Jon should know something about that. 

[GrailKing]

5 hours ago, Wouter said:

As for siding with Cersei, the thing about the book character is that he really hates Cersei. If they bring Tyrion "into his book counterpart", one would assume he would feel less sympathy for Cersei than the show version.

But he's not doing it at all for Cersei, she just happens to be the oven that has the Jaime bun. Cersei could die for all he cares after the baby's born.

He could be doing it just for Jaime and the Lannister legacy.

They made him into such a saint, I want to see how they bring him into his book role.

[ParadoxLost]

6 hours ago, WindyNights said:

It's not just one betting site. It's several betting sites that put Bran at a much higher likelihood than Daenerys or Jon or even their baby. 

And if it was just a poll, it'd be different but people are putting in actual money on this.

Fits GRRM's thought process though. Create a secret royal prince and make him a hidden bastard. Present Bran then Ned as the main characters. Paralyze Bran, kill Ned and reveal Jon's heritage to create expectation that Jon will sit the throne and then pull the rug from underneath the audience to make Bran the king. 

Does Bran as Regent for Jon and Dany's baby get around ruling at end of season 8 without him taking the Throne?

I've been thinking that fits GRRM's writing process.  Have Jon die while successfully halting NK's move South but not completely defeat him.  Have Dany defeat Cersei and then die in childbirth.  The baby has enough goodwill and powerful supporters because of his parentage to keep him as the heir and Bran is installed as regent until the kid is old enough to rule because no one else is left and Bran is expected not to usurp the throne and is expected to nip all scheming in the bud because he's the 3ER.

Where the writing part comes in.  Turns out the baby is the Prince that was promised and reincarnation of Azor Ahai.   It turns out the books (that will never be finished) are a prologue to explain how Azor Ahai was reborn setting up another book series (that will never be written). 

[WindyNights]

4 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

Does Bran as Regent for Jon and Dany's baby get around ruling at end of season 8 without him taking the Throne?

I've been thinking that fits GRRM's writing process.  Have Jon die while successfully halting NK's move South but not completely defeat him.  Have Dany defeat Cersei and then die in childbirth.  The baby has enough goodwill and powerful supporters because of his parentage to keep him as the heir and Bran is installed as regent until the kid is old enough to rule because no one else is left and Bran is expected not to usurp the throne and is expected to nip all scheming in the bud because he's the 3ER.

Where the writing part comes in.  Turns out the baby is the Prince that was promised and reincarnation of Azor Ahai.   It turns out the books (that will never be finished) are a prologue to explain how Azor Ahai was reborn setting up another book series (that will never be written). 

Potentially, it can work that way. Bran as Regent as the baby's closest living relative until the baby is grown.

[GrailKing]

5 hours ago, Wouter said:

Sansa was put in charge of Winterfell and the north by Jon, but he is still King. As King, he can take the "regent" role from her (and he will, considering he is back himself and Dany is there, too) and should he wish he could even take Winterfell from her, just as the Lannisters took Riverrun from Edmure. But that won't happen, Sansa will very likely do her best to get/keep everyone in line even if she disagrees herself with what Jon did.

By birth and law Sansa is the lady of Winterfell, Jon did not put her in charge of Winterfell, that's hers by right, he made her his regent in the North, his right by him being chosen King by the lords of the North. The KITN actually has no legal home at the moment and technically a guest of Winterfell, she can offer him the Dreadfort as his seat, if he wants it as she by marriage is the lady of that house also.

[GraceK]

17 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

Potentially, it can work that way. Bran as Regent as the baby's closest living relative until the baby is grown.

Just on a different note...can you picture Bran taking care of a baby?.......

😂😂😂😂🤣

Edited November 27, 2018 by GraceK

[GrailKing]

5 hours ago, Wouter said:

Jon himself knelt to Dany, and gave the north to her. I'm afraid his own subjects will have to kneel, too, at least those who are used to kneeling anyway (not the wildlings).

The north isn't going to rebel after WW war, the survivors will (a) be grateful for Dany's intervention (and Jon's own deeds, too) and (b) too busy with making sure they don't starve. Westeros will have gone through years of warfare, there will not be a stomach nor resources for more war.

And Sansa is smart enough to not go to war against Dany, unless she would go full mad queen or something like that. But that's more your cup of tea, I believe.

If this follows the Queen Alysanne visiting Winterfell, the Queen and Lady of Winterfell will slowly form a bond, but it shouldn't ( nor do I think ) be easy for the Targ Queen.

They both have more in common then they each realize. 

[GrailKing]

4 hours ago, Wouter said:

If they reject a king everytime he does something they don't like, then the north has a ruling council (a house of lords, if you will) rather than a king. A king is the law; what he says, goes.

But he gave up that right on a boat and sent a raven to Sansa stating so.

 Sansa won't and she shouldn't be expected to be happy; she's the one along maybe with Arya to have to either get the lords in line or protect Jon from the political mess he may have created.

[Colorful Mess]

2 hours ago, Wouter said:

I do not argue that it is legally binding. Nor is bending a legal thing. It's a physical thing. And it is very possible that Tormund and co won't kneel, but they will obey Jon's commands and by extension, Dany's commands.

For example: people were not legally obliged to bend the knee to queen Cersei, who has no legal claim on the throne. But I guess that between blowing up the sept, Gregorstein and the Lannister soldiers and Gold Cloaks supporting her, people suddenly found themselves bending the knee anyway.

Dany has dragons, a large army and dragonglass. She also has 100% support of Jon and support from Davos as well. Those are serious arguments, especially with the army of the death coming down on them and with Cersei waiting to finish them off in case they survive. Who else are they going to follow, King Glover?

You keep saying Sansa will smooth this over but the only way she can say that is by telling them, "You dont have to bend the knee to Daenerys. But you do have to fight for your homes." Jon is currently leading that fight so why would he care if his people recognized Dany as queen or not. They just have to fight. This knee bending thing is quite irrelevant and is something only Dany would care about. Or not. Maybe she'll be smarter about it.

[Smad]

13 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

You keep saying Sansa will smooth this over but the only way she can say that is by telling them, "You dont have to bend the knee to Daenerys. But you do have to fight for your homes." Jon is currently leading that fight so why would he care if his people recognized Dany as queen or not. They just have to fight. This knee bending thing is quite irrelevant and is something only Dany would care about. Or not. Maybe she'll be smarter about it.

How funny would it be if Sansa told no one in the North that Jon bend the knee because she is tired of having to clean up Jon's idiotic messes. Jon and Dany come to WF and everyone is bowing to their King. Jon and Dany looking all befuddled then having to explain that there is a new ruler of the North. Whoops. Major awkwardness all around. Then all the Lords can have it out with Jon and Dany. If it sounds like a comedy, why yes it is. I'd prefer a scenario like this over 'drama' (which D&D can't write).

[GraceK]

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/game-of-thrones/news/a871493/game-of-thrones-season-8-filming-fake-scenes-security-gestapo-levels/

Just a small nugget, but David Nutter confirms that they did in fact film fake scenes due to paparazzi. You can take it with a grain of salt, he could be trolling. I just wonder if those pics at Dubrovnik of Jon and Cersei that were so easy to photograph were just them fucking them with us. That would be relatively easy to do, knowing that paparazzi were there. Thoughts?

[Wouter]

18 hours ago, GrailKing said:

By birth and law Sansa is the lady of Winterfell,

By birth, Bran actually is the lord of Winterfell (the heirs before him are dead). As for by law - that actually means "because Jon said so after the battle of the bastards" (Sansa was surpised Jon yielded it to her). If "Jon gave that up on a boat", then Jon's laws wouldn't be binding anymore so Sansa's position could be questioned, especially if the complaining lords perceive her as collaborating with a "foreign Targaryen whore" (and married to the Imp, as well) or if they view Bran as an easily manipulated figurehead/disinterested monarch (and Sansa as an independent ruler who knows what she is doing) so they could rule instead, a la LF.
 

18 hours ago, GrailKing said:

But he gave up that right on a boat and sent a raven to Sansa stating so.

Did he? Did Torrhen's lords stop obeying him after he gave up his crown to a foreign invader with dragons?

One thing we have to keep in mind: medieval feudalism is based on oaths of fealty. Those lords were sworn to Torrhen, just as the northern lords now are sworn to obey, follow and support Jon.

Sure, decisions like this would test the loyalties of the lords. But given the circumstances, they really can't afford to fight among themselves now.

2 hours ago, GraceK said:

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/game-of-thrones/news/a871493/game-of-thrones-season-8-filming-fake-scenes-security-gestapo-levels/

Just a small nugget, but David Nutter confirms that they did in fact film fake scenes due to paparazzi. You can take it with a grain of salt, he could be trolling. I just wonder if those pics at Dubrovnik of Jon and Cersei that were so easy to photograph were just them fucking them with us. That would be relatively easy to do, knowing that paparazzi were there. Thoughts?

I suspect that infamous Jon/Cersei scene was staged for the paparazzi, right at that window and all. They may have filmed real footage there, but not at that moment, while so openly careless about the paps.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Wouter

[GrailKing]

Jon Bradley and Sophie T also.

[GrailKing]

21 minutes ago, Wouter said:

By birth, Bran actually is the lord of Winterfell (the heirs before him are dead). As for by law - that actually means "because Jon said so after the battle of the bastards" (Sansa was surpised Jon yielded it to her). If "Jon gave that up on a boat", then Jon's laws wouldn't be binding anymore so Sansa's position could be questioned, especially if the complaining lords perceive her as collaborating with a "foreign Targaryen whore" (and married to the Imp, as well) or if they view Bran as an easily manipulated figurehead/disinterested monarch (and Sansa as an independent ruler who knows what she is doing) so they could rule instead, a la LF.
 

Since we have no book info, we can only go by S 7, Jon left LOWF as regent, Bran returns, Sansa states you're " Lord of Winterfell now " Bran replied  ' I can't be LOWF, I can't be Lord of anything; I'm T3ER now "

Jon bent knee, he's Warden of the north, more a military title than a lordly title, Starks usually held both.

Since I hope in one hand for the books, I look at the other and see dust pile up.

So series may be the only answer.   : (

[SimoneS]

50 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

Jon Bradley and Sophie T also.

Pleeeze drop a hint or two. Anything to save me from the latest Bran as king speculation!

[GrailKing]

17 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

Pleeeze drop a hint or two. Anything to save me from the latest Bran as king speculation!

WYSIWYG.   : (

I see I post. 

I think everyone is just hoping something comes from it.

[screamin]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 2:36 PM, Wouter said:

Jon is the king in the north. If he declares for Dany, the north declares for Dany. Sansa will follow Jon (who is her king!), at least in public, even if she may curse him and/or confront him in private. Lords (and ladies) who do not declare for Dany are committing treason to Jon.

Sansa was put in charge of Winterfell and the north by Jon, but he is still King. As King, he can take the "regent" role from her (and he will, considering he is back himself and Dany is there, too) and should he wish he could even take Winterfell from her, just as the Lannisters took Riverrun from Edmure. But that won't happen, Sansa will very likely do her best to get/keep everyone in line even if she disagrees herself with what Jon did.

While I agree with Sansa's authority being subject to Jon as the King, having sworn fealty to Dany as ruler, Jon technically isn't king in the North anymore, and even signed his note to Sansa to that effect (calling himself 'Warden', instead). Little Lady Mormont and other Northerners of a similar mind might object to Jon treating the crown they gave him so cavalierly. There IS the question of whether, having given up his crown, whether he has a right to be the Warden if his brother Bran is technically Lord of WF, who traditionally has the title of Warden. Basically, if Jon gives up the crown of KitN to swear fealty to Dany, and he isn't Lord of Winterfell by inheritance - what authority has he left himself?

Granted, this is legal hairsplitting, and I fully expect everyone to end up following Jon anyway without picking those nits, but it still is an interesting question.

Edited November 27, 2018 by screamin

[screamin]

2 hours ago, Wouter said:

Did he? Did Torrhen's lords stop obeying him after he gave up his crown to a foreign invader with dragons?

One thing we have to keep in mind: medieval feudalism is based on oaths of fealty. Those lords were sworn to Torrhen, just as the northern lords now are sworn to obey, follow and support Jon.

Well, Torrhen kept the title of Lord of Winterfell, so he still had authority. I don't think vows of fealty to a lord are considered so unbreakable that they continue even after the lord gives up his title. Did the elder Lord Mormont's bannerman follow him to the Night Watch when he gave up his title and took the black?