Season 8: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[Wouter]

35 minutes ago, screamin said:

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?

Lord Mormont released his bannermen from their fealty (which was transferred to his heir, presumably Maege Mormont, instead) when he took the black (and swore to hold no lands, etc).

Torrhen did not, and allthough he lost the title "king in the north" he wasn't reduced to merely the lord of Winterfell (an equal to the lords of the Dreadfort and Karhold, possibly even inferior to the lord of White Harbour?) but became lord paramount of the north instead. On the show, they don't use that term and go for Warden (which in the books is a mostly theoretical military command; I think in the main books only Mace Tyrell ever acted in the capacity of warden, when he besieged Storm's End as Aerys' warden of the south; you may argue Roose Bolton acts as Tommens warden of the north, though he is lord paramount, too). But it means the same thing: he yields to the Targ with dragons, and in turn the Targ names him as the lord that other lords have to swear fealty to in their part of Westeros.

Lady Mormont may object, but I doubt she will turn on Jon. Jon made his intentions clear, and Sansa pointed out at that meeting that going to Dany was dangerous. Now that his gambit was actually succesful, would they turn on Jon anyway?

We already know that Sansa will welcome Jon back at Winterfell (from the few seconds of S8 footage we got), despite knowing what he did. It's not like she will bar the gates and keep him (and by extension, Dany) out. With Dany's army and dragons present - and the actual enemy soon to arrive - even those thinking about rebellion will have to think twice before daring to do anything.

Maybe there is something to the rumours that the Vale Lords will leave (or threaten to); they admittedly did not sign up for this particular deal. It's difficult to say because the show doesn't make it very clear why Royce is so helpful for the Starks.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Wouter

[nikma]

That will be the first interview D&D will give after S7.

[bubble sparkly]

And what's the odds D&D don't say anything except the same old buzzwords the cast has trotted out lol.

[John Potts]

When Jon knelt to Dany, he would be giving up the title King in the North - but that doesn't mean Sansa automatically gets to be the "official" Lady of Winterfell. It means that title (and presumably, Lord Paramount of the North) is now in Danny's gift - and dollars to donuts (err... Galleons to grains?) she's going to confer it on Jon. Now whether the Northern Lords accept that is another matter, but no matter how stubborn and/or stupid you may think they are, they're probably not going to oppose the Queen with the largest army and two dragons when the dead are marching South. I'm sure they'll grumble, but they can't possibly believe they'll get a better deal from the Night King (or that they can fight both armies at once).

[YaddaYadda]

When Jon sent his letter to Sansa, he sighed it "Warden of the North."

[anamika]

All this confusion about who has what authority comes about because the show split KITN/Lord of WF which makes no sense because it leaves Jon without a seat in the North. Which is why GRRM had Robb both legitimize and make Jon a Stark/Lord of WF and KITN should he die without a child. The KITN/Warden of the North has traditionally always been the Lord of WF. Jon/Bran should have been KITN/Lord of WF or Sansa should have been QITN/Lady of WF. The show trying to accommodate Sansa in the North while adapting Jon's book story is where the issue of who has more authority comes in if Jon is no longer KITN.

I am not sure how the show handles this conflict next season. But thus far on the show, Jon is shown to have ultimate authority in the North as KITN. After he bends the knee, he becomes Warden of the North like Torrhen Stark. Maybe Sansa and Glover revolt against this decision like some Northerners rebelled against Torrhen's decision to bend the knee to Aegon. Maybe Jon then decides to make Arya the Lady of WF who gives him the full support of house Stark - the show made it clear last season, that Arya would chose Jon over Sansa. Then, like the Company of the Rose - Northerners who rejected Torrhen's submission to Aegon - Sansa and Lord Glover form the Company of Lemoncakes and go to Essos to become sellswords. Arya may give Sansa some contacts in Braavos and the Hound accompanies her and they fall in love all over again. Maybe Sansa ends up at the Sealord's palace in the house with the red door with lots of lemon trees for her to make her lemon cakes and finds true love with the Hound. An unpredictable ending for Sansa.

Edited November 28, 2018 by anamika

[SeanC]

54 minutes ago, anamika said:

All this confusion about who has what authority comes about because the show split KITN/Lord of WF which makes no sense because it leaves Jon without a seat in the North.

That actually does make sense (whether the writers actually thought of it this way or not, and I kind of doubt it) because Winterfell and its lordship is an inherited Stark family possession, but Jon isn’t made king via inheritance.  He’s acclaimed king by the council.  It makes sense that he wouldn’t inherit Winterfell by the same action (in practise he could of course have pressed that issue, but didn’t).

That he doesn’t have his own seat would in fact make such an arrangement politically tricky in the long term, but of course, nobody at that time is particularly concerned with that.

[domina89]

So I was looking at some comments on Reddit and Starks4eva made this interesting statement: 

Someone told me something about the teaser about 5 weeks ago and it sounds like it may be true. Although at this point I fully admit I'm so desperate to get something I'm not thinking clearly. They said the teaser will be "statues of the cast turning into ice breaking and blowing in the wind. Like the Wall of Faces teaser"

So we had Sophie reveal not too long ago that a statue was made of her and some were speculating that it was a possible spoiler for Sansa's death.  We know a statue was made and this kind of teaser sounds plausible.  I could see HBO preferring a sort of generic teaser trailer like this rather than spoil actual footage from season 8. 

Thoughts?  

Edited November 28, 2018 by domina89

[Katsullivan]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

That actually does make sense (whether the writers actually thought of it this way or not, and I kind of doubt it) because Winterfell and its lordship is an inherited Stark family possession, but Jon isn’t made king via inheritance.  He’s acclaimed king by the council.  It makes sense that he wouldn’t inherit Winterfell by the same action (in practise he could of course have pressed that issue, but didn’t).

 

No actually it doesn't make sense because the King in the North's seat is Winterfell. If he was acclaimed King in the North, that confers to him every right of a King in the North, including being Lord of Winterfell.

The Targaryen dynasty also had Kings appointed by Council - Aegon IV, and the guy just after Jahaerys I (I think Viserys I, can't remember his name) and it went without saying that he had his seat at the Red Keep/King's Landing. It would have been ridiculous if after crowning the King, they now had to sit another Council to decide where he lived.

Which is basically what GOT's "Jon is King, Sansa is Lady" amounts to. "Oh, you're the King in the North. Now let's go build you a seat of power from the bottom up."

It's horrifyingly clear that D & D simply have put no thought or planning into this mess they've invented. 

[Colorful Mess]

Jon rejecting being Lord of Winterfell is book canon. He defers to Sansa, like he did in the show. He will not usurp his siblings' rights to the castle. This is character compliant. It makes sense. The solution to the confusion is to marry the Lady of WF and join their two claims but they're siblings so... *shrug*

[SimoneS]

37 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

No actually it doesn't make sense because the King in the North's seat is Winterfell. If he was acclaimed King in the North, that confers to him every right of a King in the North, including being Lord of Winterfell.

I agree with this. As King in the North, Jon automatically inherits the title of Lord of Winterfell and all its lands which is why it made no sense for Sansa to tell Bran that he is the Lord of Winterfell. However, I think that D&D just had her to this to make it clear that Bran would not make any types of claims against Jon.

 

5 hours ago, John Potts said:

When Jon knelt to Dany, he would be giving up the title King in the North - but that doesn't mean Sansa automatically gets to be the "official" Lady of Winterfell. It means that title (and presumably, Lord Paramount of the North) is now in Danny's gift - and dollars to donuts (err... Galleons to grains?) she's going to confer it on Jon. Now whether the Northern Lords accept that is another matter, but no matter how stubborn and/or stupid you may think they are, they're probably not going to oppose the Queen with the largest army and two dragons when the dead are marching South. I'm sure they'll grumble, but they can't possibly believe they'll get a better deal from the Night King (or that they can fight both armies at once).

I also agree with this. By giving up his claim to the title of King in the North, he also loses the title of Lord of Winterfell. However, he signed the note to Sansa as "Warden of the North," the title conferred onto him by Dany which makes me think that she likely has also given him the title of Lord of Winterfell and its lands. After all, it is in Dany's best interest to make sure her strongest ally in the North holds the most powerful position. As far as I can tell Sansa and Arya have no status beyond the title of Lady Stark. Like women in the aristocracy they are dependent on their male relatives for financial support until they marry. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by SimoneS

[whateverdgaf]

32 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

As far as I can tell Sansa and Arya have no status beyond the title of Lady Stark. Like women in the aristocracy they are dependent on their male relatives for financial support until they marry. 

Traditionally the Stark heir is king, so their seat is the kings. But Jon isn't king because he is the Stark heir (he isn't, Sansa was, then Bran was, and he gave up his title) but because the Northern Lords wanted him to become king after the BATB. As king, Jon could have stripped his siblings of their birth right, but Jon in both show and book has been consistent in acknowledging Sansa's rights as the seemingly only surviving heir. There is nothing in show canon to indicate that Jon inherited Winterfell, and the fact is that Sansa is referred to as the Lady of Winterfell/Lady Stark, giving more indication that Sansa owns Winterfell than Jon.

If being Lord of Winterfell and King in the North are inherently joint honours, then Sansa would have told Bran that he was the King as well as Lord of Winterfell. Instead she just told him that he was Lord of Winterfell, id he should be pleased. Also, it was noted in the script that Sansa felt somewhat disappointed at the thought of Bran taking on this title. She would only be disappointed if it was her title she was losing. Why would she be disappointed if Jon was losing his title as Lord of Winterfell?

RE Sansa and Arya, most women were financially dependant upon men because men inherited before women and had more opportunities to find work. If Sansa is Lady of Winterfell  then she would be financially independent of the men in her family, only dependant upon Jon the same as the other lords are. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by whateverdgaf

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, Katsullivan said:

No actually it doesn't make sense because the King in the North's seat is Winterfell. If he was acclaimed King in the North, that confers to him every right of a King in the North, including being Lord of Winterfell.

Traditionally the Lord of Winterfell was the King in the North as well.  However, the two aren’t inherently the same thing, and in this case the Northern lords elected Jon their king despite him not being the heir to Winterfell.  If they had elected somebody else king, that wouldn’t automatically entitle them to Winterfell either, though they might try to take it anyway.

That’s essentially what happened with past Targaryen succession, which was about adjudicating who the proper heir should be. 

There is actually a point of comparison for that in the books, namely, the succession in Dorne following Nymeria.  Mors Martell was Lord of Sunspear, and his daughter by Nymeria succeeded to both his title and Nymeria’s queenship.  But the daughter would still have been Lady of Sunspear even if the royal title had gone to Nymeria’s son by Davos Dayne.

Edited November 28, 2018 by SeanC

[SeanC]

38 minutes ago, whateverdgaf said:

If being Lord of Winterfell and King in the North are inherently joint honours, then Sansa would have told Bran that he was the King as well as Lord of Winterfell. Instead she just told him that he was Lord of Winterfell, id he should be pleased. Also, it was noted in the script that Sansa felt somewhat disappointed at the thought of Bran taking on this title. She would only be disappointed if it was her title she was losing. Why would she be disappointed if Jon was losing his title as Lord of Winterfell?

Yeah, it’s clear by now that Sansa, as far as the show is concerned, is formally the Lady of Winterfell.  Season 7 even ends with Arya referring to her as such (rather like the more ambiguous reference at the end of Season 6 that we spent a lot of time trying to parse at the time, particularly after the HBO website update that listed it as her title).

[screamin]

15 hours ago, Wouter said:

Torrhen did not, and allthough he lost the title "king in the north" he wasn't reduced to merely the lord of Winterfell (an equal to the lords of the Dreadfort and Karhold, possibly even inferior to the lord of White Harbour?) but became lord paramount of the north instead. On the show, they don't use that term and go for Warden (which in the books is a mostly theoretical military command; I think in the main books only Mace Tyrell ever acted in the capacity of warden, when he besieged Storm's End as Aerys' warden of the south; you may argue Roose Bolton acts as Tommens warden of the north, though he is lord paramount, too). But it means the same thing: he yields to the Targ with dragons, and in turn the Targ names him as the lord that other lords have to swear fealty to in their part of Westeros.

You said that Jeor Mormont formally released his bannermen from fealty and transferred it to his heir. I don't remember reading any such formal ceremony described in the books. It seems to me much more logical that the vow to one's ruling lord, who owns his own estate near yours and has the inherited right to rule over the land you own near his, depends to some extent on him remaining lord of that land. To me it seems to make much more sense that the vow is to Lord Bruce of Darlingtonfordhamstershire as your ruling lord, he gets to rule over your land and is allowed to order you to call up your peasants to go to war. But if he willingly casts off this title and the possession of the land thereof that the title mandates gives him control over YOUR land, it seems to me he's changed the terms of the vow you swore, and that EVERY man who's sworn fealty to him is NOT actually obliged to give up his land and follow him to the North to join the Watch, or to Braavos to join the Faceless Men, or to the slaver cities to become a eunuch or whatever else strikes Bruce's fancy, unless Bruce gives them express permission not to. If you think otherwise, you'd need to show a time it DID happen that way.

 I don't think it really matters whether Jon is called Warden or Lord Paramount by the queen he gave up his crown to. It still leaves Jon a landless lord, with no peasants he can call up on his own to be his army, no lords who have a traditional fealty to a Warden or Lord Paramount who isn't Lord of WF, and who made a vow of fealty to King Jon, not to the Lord Paramount of Queen Danaerys, a ruler they told their chosen king they wanted nothing to do with.  If Dany resolves the issue as John Potts suggests:

5 hours ago, John Potts said:

When Jon knelt to Dany, he would be giving up the title King in the North - but that doesn't mean Sansa automatically gets to be the "official" Lady of Winterfell. It means that title (and presumably, Lord Paramount of the North) is now in Danny's gift - and dollars to donuts (err... Galleons to grains?) she's going to confer it on Jon. Now whether the Northern Lords accept that is another matter, but no matter how stubborn and/or stupid you may think they are, they're probably not going to oppose the Queen with the largest army and two dragons when the dead are marching South. I'm sure they'll grumble, but they can't possibly believe they'll get a better deal from the Night King (or that they can fight both armies at once).

...that is, she confers the title of Lord of WF on Jon - that means she's formally taking WF away from Bran, Sansa, and Arya and giving it to Jon to leave to their (probable) heir in succession. This is a high-handed action that Jon himself was too tactful to demand upon assuming his kingship. And while I agree that the Northern lords will not outright rebel against Dany, it'll leave them resentful and anxious about a monarch who's willing to take away the foremost title in their land from its legitimate heirs who did nothing to offend Dany so she could give it to her illegitimate favorite - who will actually turn out not even to be the son of Ned Stark, and therefore hasn't a shadow of a claim to WF over his cousins. And while I agree that Bran, Sansa and Arya will go along with Jon, they'd have a legitimate grievance about the loss. Meanwhile Royce, who seems to solely be staying for the sake of Sansa as official Lady of WF (who he was ordered by SR to aid and protect) will probably decide there's no further benefit to aiding Sansa who's just been demoted in power and devalued as a marriage prospect by being kicked backwards in the line of succession, and leave her further protection to Jon and Dany.

[Colorful Mess]

Dany is in a precarious position if she still wants to be queen. She has less claims to territory than even Rhaneyra or Aegon II. She doesnt have heirs she can marry off to make pacts and secure alliances. She's the conqueror and her allies are dead or captured. Even Theon isnt concerned about helping Dany; he's focused on Yara. And Dany's main ally does not have a claim to the castle through which all power runs in the North. One reason why I don't think this will be wrapped up neatly for Dany is that, Aegon didn't conquer all the 7 kingdoms in one fell swoop. Rebellions persisted even afterward. Aegon also didn't have to deal with a rival Targaryen claimant who was raised in Westeros. I think the White Walker battle isn't the main struggle here because that's not really flipping the story; it's what happens during a succession crisis and I think that's what this is building to, even if its filmed across 2 episodes I still think this is the flip, making audience members choose sides.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[SeanC]

6 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Aegon also didn't have to deal with a rival Targaryen claimant who was raised in Westeros. 

A claimant who, as you state earlier in your post, has very little power.  Dany commands basically all of the military force in her alliance, and none of her key supporters really care whether she’s the rightful heir or not.  That isn’t why the Unsullied and Dothraki follow her, let alone the dragons she possesses.

[Stella]

8 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Even Theon isnt concerned about helping Dany; he's focused on Yara.

And with good reason.

Imagine if Dany had bothered to use her head and keep the Tarley's alive as hostages. She possibly could have gotten Yara in an exchange. She's myopic. 

[Colorful Mess]

2 minutes ago, SeanC said:

A claimant who, as you state earlier in your post, has very little power.  Dany commands basically all of the military force in her alliance, and none of her key supporters really care whether she’s the rightful heir or not.  That isn’t why the Unsullied and Dothraki follow her, let alone the dragons she possesses.

His power is that he's an alternative to Dany with more ties to the Houses of Westeros, through the Starks, than Dany at the moment. It's hard to believe that Westeros will say "okay we submit to dragons...once AGAIN" when the lords (or even smallfolk?) have someone else whom they could rally behind over her. It all depends on what Jon decides to do after the parentage reveal, how Dany responds to his claim, and whom the Lords are willing to support. Dany just has brute force that she cannot use because it will ruin her public image. She needs to help protect the kingdoms first, without demanding fealty. Can she stay focused on delaying her desire for the crown, despite the setbacks she'll be facing in S8? (Tarly reaction, Cersei's lie, Jon's claim, the Northern Lords). I think she's walking on a tightrope. 

[Smad]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I agree with this. As King in the North, Jon automatically inherits the title of Lord of Winterfell and all its lands which is why it made no sense for Sansa to tell Bran that he is the Lord of Winterfell. However, I think that D&D just had her to this to make it clear that Bran would not make any types of claims against Jon.

No he does not inherit because the line of succession is clear. True born sons before daughters before bastards. That's why Sansa offered Bran WF, rightfully it was his. Even with Jon not being a bastard (via L/R marriage), the line of the male descendant comes first. Meaning all of Ned's children before Lyanna's. Jon being a bastard at this stage, he's a King without a seat or lands (one of the many reason why making him KitN makes no sense). The only reason why his seat was WF was because his 'siblings' own it, how very convenient for him.

 

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I also agree with this. By giving up his claim to the title of King in the North, he also loses the title of Lord of Winterfell. However, he signed the note to Sansa as "Warden of the North," the title conferred onto him by Dany which makes me think that she likely has also given him the title of Lord of Winterfell and its lands. After all, it is in Dany's best interest to make sure her strongest ally in the North holds the most powerful position. As far as I can tell Sansa and Arya have no status beyond the title of Lady Stark. Like women in the aristocracy they are dependent on their male relatives for financial support until they marry.

He doesn't lose any title he had inherited because he didn't have any. He was NEVER Lord of Winterfell. He's a bastard with no rights to it over Ned's true born children. Why is that so hard to grasp? There is a line of succession in Westeros that's pretty easy to understand. Even I as a non-book reader get the order of inheritance. And Dany can proclaim Jon whatever she wants, she's nothing at this stage in Westeros, therefor whatever titles she hands out mean squat. She's not the ruler of the 7 Kingdoms.

And frankly, it would be stupid to press this issue where Dany is concerned, should she entertain taking WF away from the rightful Starks. Sansa is much more powerful than Jon if you want to get technical. And all because of her family connections. None of which Jon has. The biggest army in the North is from the Vale, which is only there because of her due to Robyn Arryn being her cousin. If Edmure is alive and free, then whatever is left of the Riverlands is also behind her, again due to family connection. Dany's strongest ally in the North is not Jon, especially now that he has given up any and all power he had. Her strongest ally in theory would be Sansa.

[Happy Harpy]

17 minutes ago, Smad said:

He's a bastard

"He was never a bastard. He's the heir to the Iron Throne."

Winterfell will be rubbles by mid-season. So I still think that D&D went KITN/lord of WF vs books because it won't matter in the end.

The title of the last book is "A Dream of Spring", not "Spring is Here". Even if the NK is defeated, it doesn't mean that winter will end here and there; only that there will be a spring because the Westerosi population wasn't wiped out. It's the coldest winter in a thousand years (IIRC, stated in the show) and it could last as long as the Long Summer, like twenty years or more. You can't rebuild under feets and feets of snow, with a dead cold, and nothing to feed workers because nothing can grow. So it's imo not out of the realm of possibilities that the surviving Stark children will be well into middle age if/when they can rebuild WF and have their lives made elsewhere.

[John Potts]

9 minutes ago, Smad said:

No he does not inherit because the line of succession is clear. True born sons before daughters before bastards. That's why Sansa offered Bran WF, rightfully it was his.

To quote GRRM himself, "There is no Perry of House Mason in Westeros". Even if there are formal laws (which there probably aren't, so much as precedents people agree to follow), they can & will be changed if somebody can force that change. Aegon didn't have any claim to the throne except "I have three dragons and you don't"; Robert wasn't King because of a distant descent claim (via his grandmother, IIRC) but because he defeated Rhaegar at the Trident (and the Lannisters' intervention in KL) and Cersei has no claim to the throne at all beyond "I killed everyone else who had the power to oppose me". Just as the Iron Throne has not always followed strict male primo geniture, who becomes Lord Paramount of the North, or Lord of Winterfell is as much a matter of who can enforce their claim as anything. This is what Varys' riddle of power was all about, who is the rightful King/Lord is "a trick, a shadow on the wall" (after all, given Joffrey was illegitimate the rightful heir was Stannis - but he didn't try to invoke Impeachment Procedures, he called his banners to enforce his claim) and legitimacy is unimportant compared to the power to enforce your will.

[Colorful Mess]

11 minutes ago, John Potts said:

Even if there are formal laws (which there probably aren't, so much as precedents people agree to follow), they can & will be changed if somebody can force that change.

Can you explain where you think this is going? Is Dany going to force Jon to be Lord of Winterfell?

11 minutes ago, John Potts said:

Aegon didn't have any claim to the throne except "I have three dragons and you don't";

But Jon isn't making a claim. He's abdicating any claim to WF and supporting his siblings. No one objected to this Lady of Winterfell/King in the North arrangement, until Jon started to be too long away. So they're thinking, lets just merge these two titles and declare Sansa QitN. Is Jon even going to care about that? He treats his own title so carelessly I doubt he would care if Sansa took it.

Brute force worked for Dany in Esoss but will it work for her in Westeros? Dany hasn't won the throne yet. Tyrion and Varys are trying to avoid putting another tyrant on the throne.

[anamika]

3 hours ago, SeanC said:

Traditionally the Lord of Winterfell was the King in the North as well.  However, the two aren’t inherently the same thing, and in this case the Northern lords elected Jon their king despite him not being the heir to Winterfell.  If they had elected somebody else king, that wouldn’t automatically entitle them to Winterfell either, though they might try to take it anyway.

 

Which is why I pointed out that in the books, Robb both legitimizes Jon as a Stark and makes him his heir for the KITN position. In the books, Jon will not be 'elected' KITN - he would be Lord of Winterfell and KITN, with WF being his seat in the North. His children would then inherit WF and be further King/Queen in the Norths down the line.

What I said was that the show  having the Northerners 'elect' Jon KITN  makes no sense to me due to the political complications it creates - as you point out. Especially with Sansa right there. If Jon married and had children, what would happen to them? Do they remain bastards with nothing to inherit? How does that even work? In the show, Jon seems to be running the day to day affairs at WF when he was there - he was overseeing people training in the courtyard, planning the defense etc. - in essence he was doing what Ned, as Lord of WF/Warden of the North, was doing before him. As we saw, he can override Sansa when it comes to any decisions taken. So is Sansa lady of WF in name only with no authority whatsoever while Jon acts as Lord of WF and KITN?

The KITN/Warden of the North position on the show is nebulous, because unlike the books, the show has not defined it properly. Is Jon a KITN/Warden of the North without a seat in the North?  If he marries a Mormont, would the future KITNs be Mormonts and the Starks of WF lose their power over time?

The show has not explained all this properly because it cannot. But we can only assume that elected or not, Jon's authority as King will remain the same from books to show. If Jon abdicates in favor of Dany and becomes Warden of the North/Lord of WF in the books, I am assuming that's what we are seeing on the show. And as Warden of the North, he will the same amount of power that Ned Stark had in the North.

And as I mentioned above, Jon being an elected KITN will only be an issue if Sansa makes it an issue. Because I am pretty sure Arya and Bran will support Jon as Starks of WF. They always have.

2 hours ago, screamin said:

...that is, she confers the title of Lord of WF on Jon - that means she's formally taking WF away from Bran, Sansa, and Arya and giving it to Jon to leave to their (probable) heir in succession. This is a high-handed action that Jon himself was too tactful to demand upon assuming his kingship.

What does this even mean? How is Dany taking away from Bran, Sansa and Arya anymore than Robert Baratheon took away from Ned Stark?  Are you saying Dany is going to kick the Starks out from their home? If Dany followed Sansa's principle of kicking out the children of traitors from their ancestral homes she would be well within her rights to kick the Starks out for what Ned did. But that's not what she is doing. The Starks are still in charge of WF. She is only making the KITN the warden of the North - which on the show has nothing to do with Lord/Lady of WF since apparently Jon is a King without a seat, castles or land.

Edited November 28, 2018 by anamika

[bubble sparkly]

I agree that D&D don’t care / have just ignored the rather glaring issue of where Jon as KiTN would be based if not WF because it ultimately doesn’t matter. Jon was barely in the North in s7 before they had him leave and start hanging out with Dany. If he dies in s8 then it doesn’t matter because a dead guy doesn’t need a house. If he lives and runs away with Dany then they will not be in WF or DS etc and will find a new home. Or if he becomes Ko7K then he will be based in KL and be far away from the North.

I think that Jon’s endgame, whatever it is, won’t have anything to do with the North so D&D have just skipped over giving him Northern lands because he ultimately has no need or use for them.

[tangerine95]

6 minutes ago, bubble sparkly said:

I agree that D&D don’t care / have just ignored the rather glaring issue of where Jon as KiTN would be based if not WF because it ultimately doesn’t matter. Jon was barely in the North in s7 before they had him leave and start hanging out with Dany. If he dies in s8 then it doesn’t matter because a dead guy doesn’t need a house. If he lives and runs away with Dany then they will not be in WF or DS etc and will find a new home. Or if he becomes Ko7K then he will be based in KL and be far away from the North.

I think that Jon’s endgame, whatever it is, won’t have anything to do with the North so D&D have just skipped over giving him Northern lands because he ultimately has no need or use for them.

Yeah,I agree.They went with the illogical splitting of the titles because it won't matter since Jon won't be KiTN for long,WF doesn't even seem to survive the war and it's not like Sansa is actually going to make it a problem in the face of an apocalypse.

[anamika]

15 minutes ago, bubble sparkly said:

I think that Jon’s endgame, whatever it is, won’t have anything to do with the North so D&D have just skipped over giving him Northern lands because he ultimately has no need or use for them.

I agree that this was one of the reasons and that Jon's story in the North is more or less done.  The Old Kings of Winter in the crypts reject him in his dreams. The other reason being to fit Sansa into the Northern plot and set up  Jon Vs Sansa to resolve the LF story.  I suspect the sudden appearance of Robo Bran at the start of season 7 was also to remove Bran as Lord of WF while Sansa took over. Which is why I think all these current titles and positions of power will be temporary as the show barrels towards  GRRM's endings.

Edited November 28, 2018 by anamika

[Colorful Mess]

I don't see the books being neat and tidy about this. There is already confusion about who rules what, because Bran/Rickon/Arya aren't dead, Sansa is still married to Tyrion, Jon's bastard status only complicates matters, and he doesn't want to claim WF if it means taking it away from his siblings. GRRM is probably more likely to embrace the messiness of succession (like he did with Dance of Dragons??) so I don't think D&D are at fault. This seems true to form to split the title between a Stark and a Snow. I also don't see Jon just waltzing in with Robb's letter and telling everyone "I'm king now." I bet there will still be an election. He should secure the title on his own merits, just like his position as LC, and just like Robb. Robb's will serves to absolve him of guilt (because he has a lot of that).

[SimoneS]

17 minutes ago, bubble sparkly said:

I agree that D&D don’t care / have just ignored the rather glaring issue of where Jon as KiTN would be based if not WF because it ultimately doesn’t matter. Jon was barely in the North in s7 before they had him leave and start hanging out with Dany. If he dies in s8 then it doesn’t matter because a dead guy doesn’t need a house. If he lives and runs away with Dany then they will not be in WF or DS etc and will find a new home. Or if he becomes Ko7K then he will be based in KL and be far away from the North.

I think that Jon’s endgame, whatever it is, won’t have anything to do with the North so D&D have just skipped over giving him Northern lands because he ultimately has no need or use for them.

I agree with this. However, D&D are still portraying Jon as having authority in the North by making him the Ward of the North which suggests that he has command over Winterfell and the people in the North for the time being. I get why they are doing this. If Jon doesn't have any authority in the North, there would be no reason for Dany to take her armies to Winterfell. She easily could find another base to launch the war against the Night King and leave Winterfell to its fate.  

[WindyNights]

15 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

I don't see the books being neat and tidy about this. There is already confusion about who rules what, because Bran/Rickon/Arya aren't dead, Sansa is still married to Tyrion, Jon's bastard status only complicates matters, and he doesn't want to claim WF if it means taking it away from his siblings. GRRM is probably more likely to embrace the messiness of succession (like he did with Dance of Dragons??) so I don't think D&D are at fault. This seems true to form to split the title between a Stark and a Snow. I also don't see Jon just waltzing in with Robb's letter and telling everyone "I'm king now." I bet there will still be an election. He should secure the title on his own merits, just like his position as LC, and just like Robb. Robb's will serves to absolve him of guilt (because he has a lot of that).

He didn't secure the LC position on his own merits. He secured it because he was Ned Stark's bastard son and because of Sam playing two sides against each other. Jon literally fell into the position.

Robb's will also legitimizes Jon as a Stark. Jon would be known as Jon Stark not as Jon Snow so it doesn't really make sense to split it between a Snow and Stark since they're both officially Starks.

But most of all, Robb's will wouldn't put an end to the succession question. It would only make Jon a valid entry since Robb's will is based on shaky grounds.

Jon gets legitimized either way so that can't be disputed but Robb named Jon as his heir on the grounds that Sansa is married to Tyrion and Rickon + Bran are dead. If Sansa shows up married/betrothed to Harry the Heir and Rickon shows up alive then the validity of Robb's will has to be argued.

If Jon wants the crown he'll have to oppose his brother and sister's camps.

 

And well, Robb's will is going to give him more guilt once he discovers he's not a bastard so he can't be legitimized into being a Stark but that Ned isn't his dad and he's not a real King in the North since his kingship is based on a lie not unlike Joffrey's.

[onyxrose81]

1 hour ago, bubble sparkly said:

I agree that D&D don’t care / have just ignored the rather glaring issue of where Jon as KiTN would be based if not WF because it ultimately doesn’t matter. Jon was barely in the North in s7 before they had him leave and start hanging out with Dany. If he dies in s8 then it doesn’t matter because a dead guy doesn’t need a house. If he lives and runs away with Dany then they will not be in WF or DS etc and will find a new home. Or if he becomes Ko7K then he will be based in KL and be far away from the North.

I think that Jon’s endgame, whatever it is, won’t have anything to do with the North so D&D have just skipped over giving him Northern lands because he ultimately has no need or use for them.

This x 100.  I'm sure D&D didn't realize just how ferocious fandom can be about EVERYTHING so they didn't think defining KiTN/Lord of WF would be a problem because ultimately, it doesn't matter in the end.   

[Wouter]

9 hours ago, John Potts said:

When Jon knelt to Dany, he would be giving up the title King in the North - but that doesn't mean Sansa automatically gets to be the "official" Lady of Winterfell. It means that title (and presumably, Lord Paramount of the North) is now in Danny's gift - and dollars to donuts (err... Galleons to grains?) she's going to confer it on Jon.

While Dany could strip Sansa from the title (and even give it to Jorah or Grey Worm or her favourite Dothraki bloodrider instead, should she be so inclined), doing so would not only be a slap in the face of the Starks, it would also mean a vote of no-confidence in Jon's decisions. Not only did Jon yield Winterfell to Sansa in the first place, he also put her in charge of the entire north in his absence. Unless Jon would agree with the decision to remove Sansa, doing so would mean the alliance and relation between Dany and Jon would be destroyed before it even truly begun.

Stripping someone of titles and lands is something done to traitors, not to people you consider to be allies. Jon is her warden in the north (meaning: lord paramount in book terms), it would be his decision to take and since Sansa has done well in his absence (keeping the lords under control, preparing the castle for a siege and having LF killed in a sufficiently Stark-y way, looking him in the eye and hearing his plea and all) why would he want to alienate his family and his lords? In turn, why would Dany want to humiliate Jon?

7 hours ago, anamika said:

Maybe Sansa and Glover revolt against this decision like some Northerners rebelled against Torrhen's decision to bend the knee to Aegon.

I don't know what Glover will do (though he isn't the bravest man around, to rebel against Dothraki, unsullied and dragons), but we have seen in the minimal teaser footage we got that Sansa welcomes Jon back home. And she was already aware at the end of S7 that he had knelt to Dany. If she "revolts", it will amount to little more than a sharp discussion in private, I think.

4 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I also agree with this. By giving up his claim to the title of King in the North, he also loses the title of Lord of Winterfell. However, he signed the note to Sansa as "Warden of the North," the title conferred onto him by Dany which makes me think that she likely has also given him the title of Lord of Winterfell and its lands. After all, it is in Dany's best interest to make sure her strongest ally in the North holds the most powerful position. As far as I can tell Sansa and Arya have no status beyond the title of Lady Stark. Like women in the aristocracy they are dependent on their male relatives for financial support until they marry. 

Dany made him "warden of the north", which means the other lords in the north have to swear fealty to him while he swears to Dany in turn. The lord of Winterfell isn't automatically the warden/lord paramount, if a Bolton had managed to take control of the Starks (while those were still kings), they would likely have ruled from the Dreadfort.

If Dany wants to give Jon lands of his own, she could always make him prince of Dragonstone (a traditional title for the Targ heir) and/or give him the Dreadfort and the lands of the Boltons.

3 hours ago, SeanC said:

Traditionally the Lord of Winterfell was the King in the North as well.  However, the two aren’t inherently the same thing, and in this case the Northern lords elected Jon their king despite him not being the heir to Winterfell.  If they had elected somebody else king, that wouldn’t automatically entitle them to Winterfell either, though they might try to take it anyway.

That’s essentially what happened with past Targaryen succession, which was about adjudicating who the proper heir should be. 

There is actually a point of comparison for that in the books, namely, the succession in Dorne following Nymeria.  Mors Martell was Lord of Sunspear, and his daughter by Nymeria succeeded to both his title and Nymeria’s queenship.  But the daughter would still have been Lady of Sunspear even if the royal title had gone to Nymeria’s son by Davos Dayne.

Just so.

Another example would be Riverrun during the war of the five kings: at the start of the war, it was the seat of the lord paramount of the riverlands (Hoster and then Edmure Tully). At the end of the war, the Lannisters took the castle from Edmure and gave it to one of the Freys (Gemma's husband), but the title of lord paramount went to Littlefinger, along with the seat of Harrenhal. Harrenhal had incidentally been the seat of the kings of Iron Islands and Riverlands, when Aegon burned it. To make things more complicated, the de-facto power in the Riverlands is probably held in the Twins, by Walder Frey, at the time of AFFC. For one thing, Walder holds many hostages to keep the other lords in line, and LF so far isn't attempting to turn his theoretical title into reality.

3 hours ago, screamin said:

You said that Jeor Mormont formally released his bannermen from fealty and transferred it to his heir. I don't remember reading any such formal ceremony described in the books. It seems to me much more logical that the vow to one's ruling lord, who owns his own estate near yours and has the inherited right to rule over the land you own near his, depends to some extent on him remaining lord of that land. To me it seems to make much more sense that the vow is to Lord Bruce of Darlingtonfordhamstershire as your ruling lord, he gets to rule over your land and is allowed to order you to call up your peasants to go to war. But if he willingly casts off this title and the possession of the land thereof that the title mandates gives him control over YOUR land, it seems to me he's changed the terms of the vow you swore, and that EVERY man who's sworn fealty to him is NOT actually obliged to give up his land and follow him to the North to join the Watch, or to Braavos to join the Faceless Men, or to the slaver cities to become a eunuch or whatever else strikes Bruce's fancy, unless Bruce gives them express permission not to. If you think otherwise, you'd need to show a time it DID happen that way.

I wrote that Jeor Mormont released his bannermen from fealty (if he even has any, I suppose at least some landed knights may be on Mormont lands), I did not mean to imply this was done in some grand ceremony. He gave up his obligations (as his bannermen swear fealty, he also has a duty to protect them) and his heir - not Jorah, obviously - took them over, along with the fealty of his bannermen. We did not read about this in the books, because Mormont was already lord commander (for quite some time, I suppose) when we met him. We also didn't read about a rebellion on Bear Island having to be put down, so I guess the transfer of power went down smoothly.

The vows to Jon were made to the King in the North, not to the lord of Winterfell. Jon explicitly wasn't lord of Winterfell when he was elected as King (Sansa was/is the lady of Winterfell), so the vows clearly do not depend on him owning land. Jon is still following the spirit of his oath, it seems to me: hold no lands and defend the realm of men. The latter happens to demand that he defeats the Boltons, gets to lead the north and make an alliance with Dany.

Maybe he did change the terms of the vow, since being subject to the Iron Throne wasn't part of the deal. But then, it wasn't with Torrhen either. And Torrhen didn't have a Night King with army breathing down his back. It wasn't even winter. Circumstances are far more dire for the north, now.

[Wouter]

2 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

Winterfell will be rubbles by mid-season. So I still think that D&D went KITN/lord of WF vs books because it won't matter in the end.

We don't know that for sure (it still remains to be seen how bad that fire is; Winterfell is large and there are obviously a lot of survivors, suggesting the NK doesn't really win) and even if it does, chances are it will be rebuilt just like the last time it burned down. Friki had a rumour about reconstruction starting on Winterfell.

However, Jon's parentage will come out, removing him from Ned's direct line and putting him somewhere in Targaryen succession instead. If he survives and remains involved in the affairs of the realm, it's more likely to be from whatever the seat of the King and/or Queen will be.

[anamika]

10 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Jon gets legitimized either way so that can't be disputed but Robb named Jon as his heir on the grounds that Sansa is married to Tyrion and Rickon + Bran are dead. If Sansa shows up married/betrothed to Harry the Heir and Rickon shows up alive then the validity of Robb's will has to be argued.

Once Jon's legitimized, it's final. It cannot be taken away, no matter if Bran, Rickon or Arya turn up. Jon becomes the eldest Stark sibling. Which was why Catelyn was so against Robb putting that in his will.  And Sansa is out of contention for WF till Tyrion is dead - LF is waiting for Tyrion to die for her to marry Harry the Heir. Or she may approach KL for an annulment if fAegon becomes King and that will be when LF and Varys clash. 

At the end of the day, the Northerners will get to decide who becomes KITN - Jon or Rickon. Currently Manderly is backing Rickon while Glover, Mormont maybe backing Jon. The Northerners may chose to respect Robb's will and go with the older, wiser, more experienced Stark than the younger child. As per the show, Jon becomes KITN.

9 hours ago, Smad said:

And if Jon's story is ultimately about fighting the AOTD, then why did they bother with the whole KitN story?

Because that's what happens in the books?  It's Jon who is strongly involved with Northern politics and playing the game in the North in the books, likely becomes KITN through Robb's will and who probably unites all the Northern houses together against the AOTD before Dany gets there. That's not fanservice. That's his book plot. Meanwhile, Sansa is planning dance parties in the Vale. So if they are adapting Jon's book story he had to become KITN - without Robb's will and with Sansa sitting next to him. Hence the Northerners randomly making him king.

9 hours ago, Smad said:

And if Jon's story is ultimately about fighting the AOTD, then why did they bother with the whole KitN story? It literally lead nowhere. He had the title but did nothing kingly while he had it. It seemed to be utterly about fanservice and to facilitate Jon and Dany meeting in S7 (only king can treat with queen blah blah blah). Utterly pointless to give him the King title.

The fan service was inserting Sansa into the Northern plot because they found her book Vale plot unadaptable  for whatever reason and wanted to give Sophie Turner something more to do.   Pretty much most of what Sansa does in seasons 6 and 7, Stannis/Jon/Alys has already done in the books.  Fanservice is Sansa suddenly becoming an expert in armor making and defense strategy and the show dumbing down every one in her vicinity to make her smart. In the books, she is the Stark least qualified to run WF. They took away from book Jon, Arya and Bran to make Sansa Lady of WF on the show - that's the actual fanservice.

And if I recall right, before Jon leaves he sets women and children to train, mans the Wall with the Freefolk, sees to the business of strengthening their position by getting the loyalty of houses Karstark and Umber, plans their defense, puts Sansa in charge of the North and goes south to negotiate for an alliance, succeeds and is returning with the powerful Mother of Dragons and her entourage, armies and plenty of dragon glass weapons to fight the AOTD . Is all this not doing kingly stuff? What more must the King do?

I do think that the first two episodes next season will see them rehash the same old petty politics Vs AOTD argument before the AOTD attack in episode 3. There has to be drama and character conflict. There will be a group of people more concerned about Jon bending the knee and a group who want to focus on defending the North against the AOTD first. And this will show what kind of characters they are. As GRRM said:

Quote

And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.

We will know next season who is a righteous character and who is a selfish, petty idiot.  I am guessing episode 3 will be where we see the disparate group of characters coming together:

Quote

"It’s about all of these disparate characters coming together to face a common enemy, dealing with their own past, and defining the person they want to be in the face of certain death,” co-executive producer Bryan Cogman says.

Remember the Thenn from Hardhome who labels Jon as the enemy and then fights side by side with him - even sacrificing himself so that Jon could get to the dragonglass? I am guessing we will see a lot of this in episode 3 during the attack on WF.

This was Latin America HBO's teaser for GOT at the 2019 upfronts in Mexico city:

https://streamable.com/q2k1c

A lot of dragons and Dany/Jon from previous seasons.

Edited November 29, 2018 by anamika

[screamin]

17 hours ago, anamika said:

 

What does this even mean? How is Dany taking away from Bran, Sansa and Arya anymore than Robert Baratheon took away from Ned Stark?  Are you saying Dany is going to kick the Starks out from their home? 

 

If you'd read my post carefully, you'd see I said no such thing. I was responding to John Potts, who suggested that Dany could resolve the problem of her new Warden-Lord Paramount Jon having no land or intrinsic authority in the North after he abdicated the kingship his people had given him by using her power as queen to remove WF from the legitimate heirs of Ned - Bran, Sansa and Arya - and give it to Jon.

I was pointing out that while this would be a legal move for Dany to make, it would not be, in the long run, a wise one. Word would spread throughout the land that Dany wants to conquer that Dany is confiscating the land of nobles who did NOT fight her upon her return to Westeros (as, by all appearances, the legitimate Starks are not going to do). She's doing it on the grounds that the Starks' parent took sides against Aerys and was therefore a traitor - but that legal justification covers half the nobles in the country. Hell, it can cover ALL the nobles if you stretch a point to include all those who surrendered to Robert and vowed fealty to him instead of fighting on for exiled Viserys at Dragonstone as traitors. By decreeing that she can and will take away any nobleman's land that she feels like because they're all either traitors or children of traitors - even if they DON'T fight her invasion - she's taking away the incentive of those noblemen she hasn't yet conquered to surrender to her peaceably instead of fighting her. Not a smart thing to do when you've barely started conquering a continent.

Edited November 29, 2018 by screamin

[Colorful Mess]

20 hours ago, Wouter said:

Dany made him "warden of the north", which means the other lords in the north have to swear fealty to him while he swears to Dany in turn

I dont think they do at the moment. In the scroll he writes, "If we survive this war, I have pledged our forces to Daenerys, the Rightful Queen of the Seven Kingdoms." So they don't have to pledge themselves to Dany until the war is over, and if Jon and Sansa don't survive, his people aren't beholden to his oath. So she has to help fight and win against the AOTD to secure the North. I imagine that these issues about refusing to kneel to Dany would only come up with there is a lull in the fighting or after the war is won anyway. And it's funny because in the last war, they knelt to Jon when it was Sansa who helped win it. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Happy Harpy]

21 hours ago, Smad said:

So yes, for all intends and purposes, Jon is still a bastard.

In case it wasn't obvious, I don't care about the WF's "rights" debate since again, I don't think it will matter much in the end. It was just that whenever I hear/read "he's a bastard", I think of Bran's line (hence the brackets). That said, I don't care either about intents and purposes, I care about facts. Jon's parents were lawfully married when he was born, therefore he isn't a bastard. Fact!

Not that I have anything against bastards. And I wonder if the only one left in Team Good Bastards will actually devise a weapon, and which weapon, or if Joe Dempsie was simply playing coy with the fans at the event (the one in Texas, maybe?).

20 hours ago, Smad said:

But he had no acclimation really. What he was credited for...he didn't actually do. His fans can tout his horn all they want, but Jon did nothing to deserve the title. The only thing he did was fight alongside his army.

IKR, right? Really, I've always wondered why they build monuments to honor and remember soldiers who suffered or fell on the battlefield, no matter if they won, lost, were smart or stupid. Instead, they should build monuments for people who write letters to ask for a favor to someone who wants to fuck them. It's such a tremendous feat, so much more harrowing than actually shedding blood and facing swords, arrows and death.

Anyway. I'm sure there will be grumbling in 8x01 and mayyybe 8x02, although the way they were depicted so far, most Northern lords shouldn't grumble too loud once they face the dragons and Dany's armies. I do hope that a couple of them will surprise me in a  good way -kids, I count on you. But I'm also sure it'll be a question of patience. Those who were short-sighted will soon either die for their stupidity, or live to grovel for forgiveness at Jon's feet. Again.

I remember there were spikes around the WF walls in the set pictures, and there also were trenches full of them IIRC. Even with the quite volatile notion of time on the show, defenses take time to build and can't be built outside with an army laying siege. Unless there's a time lapse between the GC attack and the AOTD attack, which didn't seem the case according to the more or less reliable infos that trickled, it gives me hope that people in WF will get word early of how devastating the AOTD is and forget petty politics to actually prepare for the fight. The show stressed so many times how disasters come from not being ready. It would be refreshing if in its last season, it was the opposite and for example, getting prepared to face the AOTD would allow WF to lessen the damages of the GC attack.

[WindyNights]

Jon really did do nothing all that amazing as a leader to earn being King in the North. 

In fact, he proved a poor commander in battle and in unifying people(his own men killed him).

The thing he did prove is that he's good at killing people like Robert Baratheon. Jaehaerys, he is not.

[Wouter]

7 hours ago, Smad said:

Looking at this forum and others...what fans would D&D be servicing exactly? Sansa doesn't seem to have any.

She does, several on this forum alone. I'm one of few who wants to see Sansa's (book) storyline in the Vale reach completion. But then, I like most of the main characters.

[Happy Harpy]

I was watching the Bronn/Jaime scene in 7x05, with the "Only I get you kill you" line, and I wondered. Bronn is fond of the Lannister brothers, but he's always been honest about who he is. He saved Jaime from Drogo's flames, yes. Will he truly become "the sellsword with a heart of gold"? I can imagine the shock if he was the one to kill Jaime. There's also his dialogue with Tyrion in S2, where he said he'd kill a baby depending on how much he's paid: If Tyrion betrays, I could see Bronn do part of the dirty job.

I don't remember any Jerome Flynn sighting during filming. Bronn is a tertiary character but imo he's one whose "betrayal" or going full bad guy would make complete sense and be quite surprising at the same time.

[SimoneS]

Online fan forums are not representative of any character's popularity. There are maybe a couple thousand people in total posting on these forums if that much. Millions of people watch GoT. So of course, Sansa and all the characters have millions of fans.

In any case, I don't believe that D&D write their story around what the any particular group of fans want. They have been working to put the main characters into place so that they can have the ending that Martin gave them. It is very possible that Sansa does end up Lady of Winterfell. Jon will give up the title of Lord of Winterfell and give his Stark cousins Winterfell and lands that he inherited from Robb.

Edited November 30, 2018 by SimoneS

[Meredith Quill]

Mod Note:

This is the Season 8 Spec and Spoilers topic. As previously warned on multiple occasions; posts that only, or predominantly, discuss events of previous seasons have been removed and will continue to be removed for that reason.

[GraceK]

13 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

I was watching the Bronn/Jaime scene in 7x05, with the "Only I get you kill you" line, and I wondered. Bronn is fond of the Lannister brothers, but he's always been honest about who he is. He saved Jaime from Drogo's flames, yes. Will he truly become "the sellsword with a heart of gold"? I can imagine the shock if he was the one to kill Jaime. There's also his dialogue with Tyrion in S2, where he said he'd kill a baby depending on how much he's paid: If Tyrion betrays, I could see Bronn do part of the dirty job.

I don't remember any Jerome Flynn sighting during filming. Bronn is a tertiary character but imo he's one whose "betrayal" or going full bad guy would make complete sense and be quite surprising at the same time.

I think Bronns gonna end up on the road with Jaime next season heading to Winterfell. Contract wise, he’s not able to be on same scene with Lena Heady right because they used to date? That’s the reason he wasn’t at the dragon pit , he left for “ drinks” with Pod. So there’s no reason for him to hang out in Kings Landing. Cersei hates him, ( so does Lena) and he’s close with both Jaime and Tyrion. It would honestly make the most sense character wise for him to hitch his ride with the only person who has a use for him and whose headed to the side with the queen with Dragons.

[SimoneS]

I certainly hope that Jaime brings Bronn and some Lannister soldiers to Winterfell next season since by himself, he is pretty useless (other than that Valyrian sword). Also, what about those Lannister bannermen who swore allegiance to Daenerys? I wonder If we will ever see them again or if they were purely a plot point.

Edited November 30, 2018 by SimoneS

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, GraceK said:

Contract wise, he’s not able to be on same scene with Lena Heady right because they used to date?

Did Lena Heady put that in her contract?

[GraceK]

41 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Did Lena Heady put that in her contract?

That’s what I heard, but I don’t know for a fact so if someone else can confirm please go for it. I remember reading it somewhere right after season 7 but it’s been so long now I can’t remember the source . 

ETA:: @Morrigan2575 ok so looking it up on google all I found are some articles from like the Independent, Daily Mail, Reddit etc. So nothing confirmed about it being in her contract . It could just be gossip. 🤷🏻‍♀️ But they did use to date seriously and the split wasn’t amicable, so who knows :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/this-is-the-reallife-reason-why-cersei-and-bronn-never-share-a-scene-together-in-game-of-thrones-36084357.html

Edited November 30, 2018 by GraceK

[glowbug]

18 minutes ago, GraceK said:

That’s what I heard, but I don’t know for a fact so if someone else can confirm please go for it. I remember reading it somewhere right after season 7 but it’s been so long now I can’t remember the source . 

I don’t know if it’s specifically in her contract but it’s well known she refuses to work with him and D&D have respected her request. I agree it’s likely that Bronn ends up going North with Jaime. Otherwise he’ll be completely absent until episode 5 when actors who will work with him and who play characters that have a reason to interface with him will end up in King’s Landing if the filming leaks are to be believed. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by glowbug

[Happy Harpy]

4 hours ago, GraceK said:

I think Bronns gonna end up on the road with Jaime next season heading to Winterfell. Contract wise, he’s not able to be on same scene with Lena Heady right because they used to date? That’s the reason he wasn’t at the dragon pit , he left for “ drinks” with Pod. So there’s no reason for him to hang out in Kings Landing. Cersei hates him, ( so does Lena) and he’s close with both Jaime and Tyrion. It would honestly make the most sense character wise for him to hitch his ride with the only person who has a use for him and whose headed to the side with the queen with Dragons.

I agree, I doubt they'd share a scene. Jaime left the capital glaringly alone. Of course it could be a visual choice for more emotional impact and it'll be revealed that he actually brought a troop with him. Or, if Flynn wasn't spotted at all because he was barely there, it might mean that Cersei took her frustration out on Bronn after Jaime's departure and he'll be the first shocking casualty of S8.

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

I certainly hope that Jaime brings Bronn and some Lannister soldiers to Winterfell next season since by himself, he is pretty useless (other than that Valyrian sword). Also, what about those Lannister bannermen who swore allegiance to Daenerys? I wonder If we will ever see them again or if they were purely a plot point.

 

What about Bronn leading the Lannister soldiers to WF? Cersei did want to get rid of him, and sending him on a dangerous expedition could be a way of achieving that.

Not the most important character, but an interesting wild card imo.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Happy Harpy

[SimoneS]

5 minutes ago, Happy Harpy said:

What about Bronn leading the Lannister soldiers to WF? Cersei did want to get rid of him, and sending him on a dangerous expedition could be a way of achieving that.

Not the most important character, but an interesting wild card imo.

That would work. The only problem I see is that Bronn is a sellsword. I think is far more believable for Bronn to hop on the first ship crossing the narrow sea to get far away from war and certain death.

[Happy Harpy]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

That would work. The only problem I see is that Bronn is a sellsword. I think is far more believable for Bronn to hop on the first ship crossing the narrow sea to get far away from war and certain death.

True. Instinct of conservation wins most times with him, even against greed. And not sure that Cersei will be in the mood to make him an offer he can't resist.

Still about Bronn, they said there would be many callbacks to previous seasons in S8, and in 2x09 he was about to pull a knife on the Hound. (yes, this is me pulling a foreshadowing? card)

Really, interaction between characters, no matter what tier they belong to, is what I look forward to the most. Maybe more than endgame because I might not like endgame, but I'm sure I'll enjoy many if not all of those character-centered scenes. Even after months of exhausting wait, whenever I think about the potential, I find that my enthusiasm for the show is still there and pretty much intact.