S07.E05: Eastwatch

[Wouter]

On 14/8/2017 at 4:11 AM, Eyes High said:

Not just on that basis, but on basis of Arya's (apparently accurate, judging from Sansa's reaction) discernment that Sansa is secretly hoping Jon will never return and that she will have the North to herself.

I don't think Arya's accusation is accurate. We saw Sansa arguing passionately against Jon leaving; if she was really secretly hoping that the dragon queen would kill him so she could take the north, she wouldn't have done that. We also saw her reaction when he did leave; clearly distraught that her big brother and protector was leaving, possibly never to return.

Furthermore, she knows that there is a threat north of the wall (and she continued Jons preparations for that particular fight, even predicting that people will be fleeing to Winterfell, which means she is at least considering the possibility the Wall may fall) and she knows that both Cersei and Dany are potentially very deadly adversaries. If Jon doesn't return because Dany would have roasted him, she would have 3 sets of enemies: Cersei, Dany with 3 dragons and a horde of foreign savages, and the Night King with his army. Sansa is smart enough not to desire leadership of the north under those circumstances. Even if she believed the Wall would stop the NK (and as her preparations show, she is at least acting like it may not), she has to realise the winner between Cersei and Dany will be coming for her, most likely with fire breathing dragons.

[YaddaYadda]

5 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

To be fair, the only lords we saw sucking up to Sansa was Royce of the Vale and Glover, both of whom are being played by LF.  Royce is going to say whatever LF wants him to say and Glover has proven himself to be a coward, a malcontent and disloyal.  Sansa should have checked both of them hard, but especially Glover.  Why is he still hanging around WF anyway instead of going to his own keep and getting his people organized?  I don't like him and I hope he crosses Jon and gets his ass handed to him.

Jon should try and capture wight Waymar Royce and stick him in front of his father. Maybe Royce will get killed by his own son next season. 

Glover is a disloyal fuck. The way he even spoke to Sansa when they went looking for men...they wanna take a castle to reward those who fought valiantly during the battle of the bastards? They should start with his. The man should lose his head. "I'll stand behind Jon Snow", that's what he said last season. He was all about how wrong he was and and asked for forgiveness. 

Words are truly wind in some cases.

[TaurusRose]

44 minutes ago, screamin said:

And I think the fact that she publically disagreed with Jon in the past actually INCREASES her credibility with the lords now. She has shown in the past that she's not Jon's mindless little yes-man, so the fact that she refuses to join in the public disagreement with Jon's decision now presents a stronger united front with Jon than if she'd never disagreed with him publically before.

Or gave them a whiff of dissent and showed her to be a weak link, an easy way to divide the Starks. 

[FnkyChkn34]

4 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I guess I am not understanding the complaint about using dragons that was voiced by Jon and Tyrion on the show and by people here.  Daenerys is trying to win a war.  She has weapons that are vastly superior to anything possessed by the other side.  As horrible as it was to see people being roasted, is she not supposed to use them because it "isn't fair"?  She destroyed a large portion of Cersei's army.  When Cersei runs out of army, Cersei surrenders.  Isn't that the point of war?

I am not understanding why Daenerys doesn't just fly over to the Red Keep, look through a window for Cersei sitting on the throne, and then "dracarys".  Would end the war pretty quickly.   The entire city wouldn't have to suffer and a minimum amount of people would die. Cersei herself had no qualms blowing up a whole bunch of innocent people and recently killed Olenna, Ellaria and Tyene, so why is Daenerys expected to be merciful?  Yes, whoever else is in the throne room would get roasted as well, but in the immortal words of Colonel Mustard, "This is war, Peacock!  Casualties are inevitable.  You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.  Every cook will tell you that!"

I don't have a problem with her using them in a battle, like she did.  And I certainly would like to see her use them against the Army of the Dead (or whatever it's name du jour is).  But Jon and Tyrion's complaint was that she wanted to use them on the entire Red Keep, which would inevitably kill hundred or thousands of innocent civilians.

If a dragon could have the pinpoint accuracy like you describe, then I'm all for that too.  I just don't get the impression that it would be that simple. 

[that one guy]

39 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

1 hour ago, Oscirus said:

The problem with arguments comparing dany to other conquerers/rulers is that she's the  one  going  out of her way to tell everybody she's different. If she's using the same tactics that they used, how is she "breaking the wheel? "

The fact that she's not as bad as a known psychopath is a low bar to clear in terms of being  revolutionary. 

Well, Cersei seems to think she's one.  But then she's a psychopath, so what does she know?

Personally, I would have liked it if Dany had joined forces with the KiTN to battle the larger threat to Westeros.  Perhaps that would have proven her goodwill to those fearing her.  Maybe she could have managed a bloodless coup.  But somehow I rather doubt it. That said, I believe Dany will do her best to bring peace and change for the good once the dust settles. Will she succeed?  I don't know, but until she does something truly egregious by Westeros standards, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I have to disagree with the arguments being made around the net that Dany used Drogon like a nuclear weapon, or that she's been more kill-happy than anybody else. 

First of all, the Dothraki would have smashed the Lannister army without Drogon's help. Bronn knew the day was lost as soon as he saw the horde, before he saw the dragon, and told Jaime to flee. More Dothraki would have been killed in the attack, but approximately the same number of Lannister troops. So the dragon attack saved lives - Dothraki lives. Dany more or less owed it to her men to do that for them.

The legacy of the Mad King means it was politically stupid to burn the Tarlys alive. (And she should've split the difference and thrown Dickon in a cell, because he was obviously just a dumb kid as opposed to an actual motivated traitor. But we know him and his family, where Dany hasn't been watching the show.) But the problem was the method of execution.

Jon would have executed Tarly too - remember Janos Slynt? But he would have beheaded him. Dany probably isn't strong enough to wield a hand and a half bastard sword like Longclaw, however. Dany trying to behead someone would have gone like - well, like Theon trying to behead Roderick Cassel. Nobody wants that.

Can't decide if Robb would have executed them or thrown them in a cell.

Cersei would have though up a gruesome bespoke method of execution, almost certainly involving thorns somehow since they betrayed the Queen of Thorns.

Stannis would also have burned them alive.

Ramsay Bolton would have fed them to his hounds, his father would have stabbed them.

Robert Baratheon would have had Illyn Payne behead them.

So I question where it's coming from that Dany's becoming the Mad King when she does what everyone else does. She's maybe becoming a hypocrite when she says she wants to change things but does the same shit. But Jon would be in no position to judge, hell, Dany would probably be more shocked if she found out he hanged a 10 year old.

[screamin]

13 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

Or gave them a whiff of dissent and showed her to be a weak link, an easy way to divide the Starks. 

Giving dissent now would do so. She does not.

OTOH, if she'd never given ANY dissent to anything Jon said in public, including things that ALL the lords thought was a really bad idea (like when Jon wanted to meet Dany and ALL the lords objected, including Lady Mormont, Jon's biggest fan) then she'd NOW look like a mindless idiot ready to go along with ANYTHING Jon said. The fact that she voiced her objection to Jon's actions previously but now demands (however politely) that all the lords abide by Jon's command NOW shows her solidarity with  and faith in Jon better than if she'd always parroted "Whatever King Jon said is by definition the right thing to do." Just IMO.

Besides, we haven't yet been shown that Sansa's approach to the lords is the wrong thing to do. I think we all pretty much agree that beheading the lords is not, currently, the right thing to do. Whether or not Sansa is giving too much carrot to the lords and not enough stick, IMO, still remains to be seen.

Edited August 15, 2017 by screamin

[evilmindatwork]

7 minutes ago, that one guy said:

So I question where it's coming from that Dany's becoming the Mad King when she does what everyone else does. She's maybe becoming a hypocrite when she says she wants to change things but does the same shit. But Jon would be in no position to judge, hell, Dany would probably be more shocked if she found out he hanged a 10 year old.

 But if she calls herself the breaker of wheels, or whatever else it was that she called herself, then she has to do much better than all of them. I don't have a problem with holding her to a higher standard because she's claimed a higher standard for herself. She can't say that people should turn to her and behave like her father who was so insane that the entire realm rebelled against him. 

[Wouter]

2 minutes ago, screamin said:

Giving dissent now would do so. She does not.

OTOH, if she'd never given ANY dissent to anything Jon said in public, including things that ALL the lords thought was a really bad idea (like when Jon wanted to meet Dany and ALL the lords objected, including Lady Mormont, Jon's biggest fan) then she'd NOW look like a mindless idiot ready to go along with ANYTHING Jon said. The fact that she voiced her objection to Jon's actions previously but now demands (however politely) that all the lords abide by Jon's command NOW shows her solidarity with  and faith in Jon better than if she always parroted "Whatever King Jon said is by definition the right thing to do." Just IMO.

Besides, we haven't yet been shown that Sansa's approach to the lords is the wrong thing to do. I think we all pretty much agree that beheading the lords is not, currently, the right thing to do. Whether or not Sansa is giving too much carrot to the lords and not enough stick, IMO, still remains to be seen.

I think we can all agree that beheading Royce - or attempting to, at least - is a very bad idea. With his knights, he may have as much fighting power within the walls of Winterfell as all the northerners combined.

And Sansa has no reason to be angry with Royce, who has always been honest with her and who was decisive in the battle of the bastards.

Moreover, if she tells him to wait for Jon it's not like he is going to start a rebellion. The person who he would want in charge just said no, thanks.

And lord Glover is a weasel after he swore to Jon last season, but to behead him would cost the Glover garrison, which can easily be kept.

[PatsyandEddie]

^^ Sounds like it did. When Gilly was reading, it seems to have happened quickly, the annulment, then the wedding by the same Maester. 

[TarotQueen]

31 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

To be fair, the only lords we saw sucking up to Sansa was Royce of the Vale and Glover, both of whom are being played by LF.  Royce is going to say whatever LF wants him to say and Glover has proven himself to be a coward, a malcontent and disloyal.  Sansa should have checked both of them hard, but especially Glover.  Why is he still hanging around WF anyway instead of going to his own keep and getting his people organized?  I don't like him and I hope he crosses Jon and gets his ass handed to him.

Hey this just made me wonder .... where tf is little Lyanna, Lady-Mormont-if-you're-Glover to stand up for King Jon?

[TaurusRose]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

Giving dissent now would do so. She does not.

OTOH, if she'd never given ANY dissent to anything Jon said in public, including things that ALL the lords thought was a really bad idea (like when Jon wanted to meet Dany and ALL the lords objected, including Lady Mormont, Jon's biggest fan) then she'd NOW look like a mindless idiot ready to go along with ANYTHING Jon said. The fact that she voiced her objection to Jon's actions previously but now demands (however politely) that all the lords abide by Jon's command NOW shows her solidarity with Jon better than if she always parroted "Whatever King Jon said is by definition the right thing to do." Just IMO.

Besides, we haven't yet been shown that Sansa's approach to the lords is the wrong thing to do. I think we all pretty much agree that beheading the lords is not, currently, the right thing to do. Whether or not Sansa is giving too much carrot to the lords and not enough stick, IMO, still remains to be seen.

I can't stand Sansa and I've been giving her serious side eye, but I'm willing to wait and see how the season plays out for her. Does she show major growth and a strong sense of loyalty to family and king, or does she become Cersei-lite and LF's puppet? As it stands, I haven't a clue.  She is probably the worst written and portrayed character on the show.

Edited August 15, 2017 by taurusrose
Clarification

[MadMouse]

With the the questioning of Jon's rule. I think at this point you have to ask this question again, do the Northern lords truly believe in the threat of the White Walkers? If we go by what Jon and Davos said they have fewer than ten thousand men to fight. So are the Northern and Vale lords so proud and egotistical to think that's enough to stop them? If so that shows how stupid they really are and if they don't who else would Jon go to for support? The Riverlands are in chaos, Dorne is too far away, the Reach until recently was allied with the crown, the Ironborn who sacked their lands?, Cersei? Dany was the only logical choice. But then there's the question do they actually believe she has dragons? I go back to Jon and Davos's reaction which to me was the most realistic up to that point, wtf they're real? 

I think its very telling that Varys's a enuch from Lys,a cynical dwarf from the Westerlands and a Targaryen seem to believe more in the threat of the WW than the Northmen.

[sumiregusa]

Here's what I'm wondering: since when is it unfair in war for someone to use whatever tools they have to win? Are we seriously penalizing Dany for having dragons and using them? And not even abusing her use of them. Just using them period because they are hers. Some rulers behead traitors, she chose to burn them AFTER they refused all other options. Since when is she obligated to negotiate with traitors? She did it anyway.

But she can't be participate in the fighting unless everyone is starting from an even playing field and everyone has the same weapons in their arsenal?? What the hell kind of battles are those? I have never seen any war movies where they make a point of saying how horrible the battle was because both sides weren't on the same level with each other. Like seriously. Why is this even a discussion? I'm so confused.

[Nanrad]

Unless the person is the hand, it's not the rulers responsibility to go to someone to make sure that they don't defy them publicly. Jon doesn't have to consider Sansa at all, but he does so because he respects her opinion and experience. No one said that no one can say anything bad about Jon or disagree, but for someone in her psotuom, whether they've expressed their sentiment before or not, it's her responsibility to check them. The credibility she is building isn't one that is good.

Futhermore, when I said arya doesn't know what happened with Sansa, this is in reference to people criticizing Sansa for sleeping in their parents room because that was probably the only place she hadn't been raped. Why would arya make that assumption??? She'd be understanding if she knew the truth, but that's only Sansas business to tell it she feels necessary.

[Chris24601]

2 hours ago, Constantinople said:

Is this the same Jon Snow who killed untold numbers of Northerners to win the Battle of the Bastards, and with the support of outsiders such as Wildlings and the Knights of the Vale?

Good to know it's OK for Jon to kill but not for Daenerys

Don't pretend Dany deciding to conquer Westeros has any moral equivalency to the root cause behind the Battle of the Bastards.

Jon didn't declare war on Ramsey. Jon just wanted to go away to somewhere warm.

Then Ramsey sent the letter threatening to murder Jon's little brother and all the Wildlings and to have Jon's sister raped to death while Jon was forced to watch before killing him and he fully intended to carry out the threat with an army of 5000 men behind him unless Jon gave his sister back to a monster who had beaten and raped her for months.

Jon's goal wasn't "Retake the North because it belongs to me" it was "Stop Ramsey so he doesn't kill us all."

Jon didn't demand the Northern lords fight for him and kill any who refused; he went around asking them for their help and left when they refused. As a result, the vast majority of the forces under Jon's command for the battle were people under direct threat of death by Ramsey (people who were legally brought through the Wall on the decision of the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and settled on lands belonging to the Night's Watch).

Jon also didn't ask for the assistance of the Knights of the Vale to win him the battle. Sansa called them in without his knowledge (which ended up being to his benefit, but he wasn't the one who decided to field them in the battle).

Jon didn't even want to be King afterwards... its rather funny that he and Sansa were disagreeing over who got to be in charge; not because they both wanted to be in charge, but because neither of them did. Jon just wanted to unite the North to fight the real enemy... it was Lyanna Mormont who suggested that Jon Snow should be their King and the rest of the lords agreed.

So yeah... the deaths in the Battle of the Bastards were regrettable, but "we don't want ourselves and our families to be horribly murdered" is as just a cause for war as you'll ever find and the defeated side was fighting on the side of "Let's horribly murder innocent people."

"I want to run other people's lives because I think I have the right to force people to do what I say and to murder anyone who disagrees with me"... Not so much.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Chris24601
clarity

[Stardancer Supreme]

On 8/14/2017 at 0:23 AM, Oscirus said:

I'm more confused about his getting pissed at Dickon for doing what he did. What did Randyl think was going to happen?

Randyl was beaten and he really didn't want to be under the thumb of either Queen.  He expected his son to care more for their House than for him. Dickon of the unfortunate name was his only heir since he booted Samwell to the Wall.  But Dickon apparently didn't want to live without his daddy.   

[screamin]

28 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

Unless the person is the hand, it's not the rulers responsibility to go to someone to make sure that they don't defy them publicly. Jon doesn't have to consider Sansa at all, but he does so because he respects her opinion and experience.

I beg your pardon, but I disagree. If the person is the king's sister AND the Lady of Winterfell, then yes, the king damn well does have to have some consideration for her. He has the responsibility to tell her what he wants to do in private and get her opinion about it BEFORE he goes public with it if he wants her to agree with him in public when he makes a public decision. His decisions affect her life as much as they affect any of his lords. To make all his decisions in public and not allow her any input until AFTER the decision is made and it's a done deal is allowing her less input than any of his lords, which is disrespectful to her as the Lady of Winterfell AND disrespectful to her as her brother. (I mean, would Ned publically decide and announce that he accepted the position of King's Hand before discussing it with Catelyn? His decision affects her life as much as his own).

As for the Hand being the only person allowed to disagree with the king publically - that doesn't apply to any of Jon's lords, all of whom disagree with him freely in public on the regular. If Jon wants Sansa to be different from the lords, then he should treat her differently by keeping her more in the loop than the lords.

Edited August 15, 2017 by screamin

[Shimmergloom]

1 hour ago, taurusrose said:

Sansa should have checked both of them hard, but especially Glover.  

How?  What can she do?  Make Royce mad so he just leaves?  He's only there out of 'kindness' cause she asked(in reality because LF said to  answer Sansa's call).  And Glover was already not loyal.  What exactly can she do other than placate them?

1 hour ago, YaddaYadda said:

Glover is a disloyal fuck. The way he even spoke to Sansa when they went looking for men...they wanna take a castle to reward those who fought valiantly during the battle of the bastards? They should start with his. The man should lose his head. "I'll stand behind Jon Snow", that's what he said last season. He was all about how wrong he was and and asked for forgiveness. 

Which she knows.  And she knows he's not loyal.  He has 500 men.  If she moves against him, what army does she use other than the Vale Lords, which makes her more beholden to LF?

Right now there's 2 arguments in this thread.  Some people saying Dany was too mean and some people saying Sansa wasn't mean enough.  They can't win.

[Constantinople]

18 minutes ago, Chris24601 said:

Don't pretend Dany deciding to conquer Westeros has any moral equivalency to the root cause behind the Battle of the Bastards.

Jon didn't declare war on Ramsey. Jon just wanted to go away to somewhere warm.

Then Ramsey sent the letter threatening to murder Jon's little brother and all the Wildlings and to have Jon's sister raped to death while Jon was forced to watch before killing him and he fully intended to carry out the threat with an army of 5000 men behind him unless Jon gave his sister back to a monster who had beaten and raped her for months.

Jon's goal wasn't "Retake the North because it belongs to me" it was "Stop Ramsey so he doesn't kill us all."

Jon didn't demand the Northern lords fight for him and kill any who refused; he went around asking them for their help and left when they refused. As a result, the vast majority of the forces under Jon's command for the battle were people under direct threat of death by Ramsey (people who were legally brought through the Wall on the decision of the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and settled on lands belonging to the Night's Watch).

Jon also didn't ask for the assistance of the Knights of the Vale to win him the battle. Sansa called them in without his knowledge (which ended up being to his benefit, but he wasn't the one who decided to field them in the battle).

Jon didn't even want to be King afterwards... its rather funny that he and Sansa were disagreeing over who got to be in charge; not because they both wanted to be in charge, but because neither of them did. Jon just wanted to unite the North to fight the real enemy... it was Lyanna Mormont who suggested that Jon Snow should be their King and the rest of the lords agreed.

So yeah... the deaths in the Battle of the Bastards were regrettable, but "we don't want ourselves and our families to be horribly murdered" is as just a cause for war as you'll ever find and the defeated side was fighting on the side of "Let's horribly murder innocent people."

"I want to run other people's lives because I think I have the right to force people to do what I say and to murder anyone who disagrees with me"... Not so much.

 

Sansa wanted to retake her home and Jon was fully on board with that.  Rickon was a dead man regardless

[Nanrad]

13 minutes ago, screamin said:

I beg your pardon, but I disagree. If the person is the king's sister AND the Lady of Winterfell, then yes, the king damn well does have to have some consideration for her. He has the responsibility to tell her what he wants to do in private and get her opinion about it BEFORE he goes public with it if he wants her to agree with him in public when he makes a public decision. His decisions affect her life as much as they affect any of his lords. To make all his decisions in public and not allow her any input until AFTER the decision is made and it's a done deal is allowing her less input than any of his lords, which is disrespectful to her as the Lady of Winterfell AND disrespectful to her as her brother. (I mean, would Ned publically decide and announce that he accepted the position of King's Hand before discussing it with Catelyn? His decision affects her life as much as his own).

As for the Hand being the only person allowed to disagree with the king publically - that doesn't apply to any of Jon's lords, all of whom disagree with him freely in public on the regular. If Jon wants Sansa to be different from the lords, then he should treat her differently by keeping her more in the loop than the lords.

Which I clearly said Jon considers her, but he doesn't have to. But, it's not his responsibility to go to her about shit all of time in fear of her publicly disagreeing. That's HER responsibility. Futhermore, these things could be discussed at a small council meeting as well. I've literally never said she can't disagree with him, but that she needs to do it at appropriate time and places. 

Ive also said that Jon is responsible for keeping his hand up to date more than anyone else not that only that person can disagree. You are literally arguing against points I never made. 

[LoveLeigh]

Dany demanded loyalty and they bent the knee out of fear. She is a cruel tyrant and her need for absolute power reminds me of another dictator who used sadistic methods to rise to power. She may be a "conquerer" but does the end justify her means? 

Dany demands loyalty

[Nanrad]

The reasons Jon didn't kill the karstarks and umbers is because they were children and the situation could be flipped in favor of the north and because of the imminent WE battle. If these had been adults and there wasn't he threat of WW, they most likely would've have been killed. 

This is war, people die. If you cannot kneel, whether your loyalties are true or not, being imprisoned or set free to do what you want isn't going to change shit for the better. Both of these men were adults and made their choices as well as their beds. It was harsh, but they were given an option. 

Dany has not only listened, but taken the council of several people and took major losses i.e. one allied being killed and another being captured. I don't think Danys think she'll get legit obedience in the beginning, but she does need compliance in order to continue her claim on the throne. She doesn't have time for the defiant. Then again, dany has been called mad since almost the beginning of the series with very little proof. 

Most of danys murders have been soldiers, slavers, etc. I believe very few civilians have been harmed. She locked up her dragons to protect the people from them. Most of her attacks avoids hurting people she is planning to rule over. She does care about who she hurts. Her humanity is still intact.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Nanrad

[Colorful Mess]

Its not just about using WMDragon, its her justification for it. She knows its terrible but does it anyway in the name of protecting people. Using hard power (Sansa’s foil!) to create an image of the world she describes is a contradiction. What military regime in our world has ever helped people in a pure, uncomplicated way? Rather than ponder this dilemma, Dany does not stop and reflect on how others see her, through the looking glass. She cant be bothered to envision other ways of ruling other than martial ones.

I understand where this comes from, considering the ladder she had to climb. But that ladder ended up on the top of a pyramid, with her looking down. She may be the queen you want when a population is enslaved, but imagine Dany trying to bring the Free Folk to her side, or any other group with diverse loyalties. And did any common folk in Westeros ever ask for her protection? Will they understand her justification for using her strength? More importantly, will Jon agree with her on this? Up to a point, perhaps, but just like Ned he has a firm moral line he wont cross.

[screamin]

Just now, Nanrad said:

Which I clearly said Jon considers her, but he doesn't have to. But, it's not his responsibility to go to her about shit all of time in fear of her publicly disagreeing. That's HER responsibility. Futhermore, these things could be discussed at a small council meeting as well. I've literally never said she can't disagree with him, but that she needs to do it at appropriate time and places. 

Ive also said that Jon is responsible for keeping his hand up to date more than anyone else not that only that person can disagree. You are literally arguing against points I never made. 

If Jon HAD small council meetings that Sansa could attend where she could give her input on Jon's decisions (for him to decide for or against, as he pleases) before he goes public to the lords with his decision, then your position would be quite reasonable. But we've seen that Jon makes a lot of his decisions on the fly in front of ALL his lords while they give their input. Telling her and ONLY her to shut up during those meetings with his lords is telling her and ONLY her that she is not allowed to participate in his decision-making - that she's only free to give her opinion about his decision in private AFTER the decision is made, when Jon can't change his decision anymore because he'd look weak and wishy-washy. It is depriving her of any input into his decisions till after they're made.

If Sansa were not his beloved sister but his third cousin who just happens to be Lady of Winterfell and have a friendship with the Regent of the Vale who saved Jon's ass at the battle of the Bastards, he'd be really dumb to alienate her by telling her to keep her trap shut while he makes the decisions and complain afterwards in private before sucking it up, because he's not changing them. If Sansa were his beloved sister with NO Regent of the Vale at her command, he'd be really a dick to alienate her by saying that her opinion is of no consequence to how he makes his decisions, he'll make them regardless and she can complain afterwards in private before sucking it up, because he's not changing them.

Since Jon is neither dumb nor a dick, I think he's shown that he can listen to her and change his mind about her - which he did by giving her command in his absence, which shows he trusts her despite her heinous public voicing of her opinion :)

[YaddaYadda]

21 minutes ago, Shimmergloom said:

How?  What can she do?  Make Royce mad so he just leaves?  He's only there out of 'kindness' cause she asked(in reality because LF said to  answer Sansa's call).  And Glover was already not loyal.  What exactly can she do other than placate them?

Which she knows.  And she knows he's not loyal.  He has 500 men.  If she moves against him, what army does she use other than the Vale Lords, which makes her more beholden to LF?

Right now there's 2 arguments in this thread.  Some people saying Dany was too mean and some people saying Sansa wasn't mean enough.  They can't win.

Royce isn't going anywhere because he doesn't have the control of the army. He can't take them anywhere without LF's saying so. 

Glover should have been put back in his place because he's faithless and sworn oaths mean nothing to him.

I'm not even aggravated by Sansa in this. I'm aggravated by Glover and his fickleness. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by YaddaYadda

[Constantinople]

26 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

Dany demanded loyalty and they bent the knee out of fear. She is a cruel tyrant and her need for absolute power reminds me of another dictator who used sadistic methods to rise to power. She may be a "conquerer" but does the end justify her means? 

Dany demands loyalty

 I recall St Jon Snow demanding loyalty from Alys Karstark and Ned Umber with the implied threat they'd lose their homes if they didn't

[AshleyN]

35 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

 

Sansa wanted to retake her home and Jon was fully on board with that.  Rickon was a dead man regardless

No he wasn't. Post-resurrection Jon was pretty traumatized and wanted nothing more to do with fighting. His plan was to peace the hell out of the North altogether until he found out that Ramsay had Rickon.

[Ambrosefolly]

19 hours ago, MadMouse said:

If you buy into the notion that Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughing tree, you could easily see how he might have fallen for her.

So what? He still barely knew her. To bad he never met Brienne. At least she wasn't engaged to someone else. He was married for several years, and considering his position, it was an incredibly immature thing to do. He is like a 4 year old in a grown man's body. 

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

 As horrible as it was to see people being roasted, is she not supposed to use them because it "isn't fair"? 

This is where I am at with the whole "weapons of mass destruction" argument.

You would be a moron not to use whatever tools you have at your disposal. That's how you win a war. Should Jon have not used Wun Wun to take back Winterfell because the Ramsey's didn't have a giant? If you have dragons, fucking use your dragons. Otherwise, a lot more people are going to have to die in slow, drawn out sword fights that they really don't have time for because the WW are coming.

Dany listened to Jon and targeted a military target instead instead of the Keep. That is smart war tactics. Jon is already a better adviser than Tyrion. I thought Tyrion was going to be good but he turned into a wimpy little shit who can't advise her because of conflict of interest. Or he's just a total idiot who thinks you can take back a kingdom with handshakes and hugs.

The soldiers Dany killed just massacred House Tyrell so I'm not going to be crying about them getting the same treatment, via fire instead of sword. War is hell. Life sucks. You're a Lannister soldier so basically Cercei is going to get you killed one way or another.

I think Dany is doing the best she can to take Westros away from a tyrant who killed anyone who got in her way, and anyone who happened to be standing next to them, and anyone who was unfortunate enough to be in several city blocks of them, or anyone who makes fun of her Vulcan fashion statement, or little kids who happen to see her doin it doggy style with her twin brother, a fact she now flaunts in front of anyone unfortunate enough to go to her bedchamber.

Unfortunately, Dany is going to have to kill a lot more soldiers before Cercei is finally taken down. Seriously, though, Dany needs to hunt down Euron because his magical cloaking device, teleporter and psychic tracking devices are just as big a cheat as Dany's dragons. If we're going to play fair, Cercei has to give up Euron, and the Mountain and that creepy wizard of hers and Dany has to give up her dragons. Then we will count out all the soldiers to make sure each side is equal and give them all the same swords and shields, oh, and training, and then we can have a fair fight.

[Nanrad]

54 minutes ago, screamin said:

If Jon HAD small council meetings that Sansa could attend where she could give her input on Jon's decisions (for him to decide for or against, as he pleases) before he goes public to the lords with his decision, then your position would be quite reasonable. But we've seen that Jon makes a lot of his decisions on the fly in front of ALL his lords while they give their input. Telling her and ONLY her to shut up during those meetings with his lords is telling her and ONLY her that she is not allowed to participate in his decision-making - that she's only free to give her opinion about his decision in private AFTER the decision is made, when Jon can't change his decision anymore because he'd look weak and wishy-washy. It is depriving her of any input into his decisions till after they're made.

If Sansa were not his beloved sister but his third cousin who just happens to be Lady of Winterfell and have a friendship with the Regent of the Vale who saved Jon's ass at the battle of the Bastards, he'd be really dumb to alienate her by telling her to keep her trap shut while he makes the decisions and complain afterwards in private before sucking it up, because he's not changing them. If Sansa were his beloved sister with NO Regent of the Vale at her command, he'd be really a dick to alienate her by saying that her opinion is of no consequence to how he makes his decisions, he'll make them regardless and she can complain afterwards in private before sucking it up, because he's not changing them.

Since Jon is neither dumb nor a dick, I think he's shown that he can listen to her and change his mind about her - which he did by giving her command in his absence, which shows he trusts her despite her heinous public voicing of her opinion :)

So her only solution is to undermine Jon in public gatherings and she can't...suggest he have small council meetings. She's the one who has all of these grievances with how Jon rules as she someone who is close to him, it is on HER to find a way to make her voice her. Jon has always told her in so many words that her voice can be heard, but they needed to be United. 

Sansa is basically in jons inner circle, which means she needs to conduct herself different from those outside of the circle. That's why she can't openly defy him or undercut him. How often do we see these other hands and trusted advisors do that? Hell, even tyrion and Varys voice their displeasure privately, but with Sansa, it's trying to shut her up??? Jaime doesn't even publicly defy cersei because of her position and it would be undercutting her even tho he doesn agree with some of her actions. Hell, I don't even think Ned did so either. Yet, asking Sansa to understand this and be smarter about how she objects to Jon is a problem???

Well, let's not forget: Jon only fought because she asked him, and then appealed to him with rickons life. :) if they hadn't had that familial connection, he wouldn't had went to war. And she the fact that she had to save his ass would be even more on her. Soooo....this sword doesn't only cut one way.

No one but Jon is allowed to partake in the decision making. Lol. You can give your opinion and are allowed consideration, but only Jon makes the final decision. It's not just Sansa. Davos may agree with Jon, but he has no decision making power. Lol. In both of the instances, Jon said "this is happening." He didn't just "ignore" Sansas input, but everyone's. why? Because none of them minus the freefolk and davos have a clue what they're up against. 

Despite having the last say, people ARE allow e to voice their opinions, I've said before that Sansa needs to be proactive and not reactive. When you're in charge, you have a lot of shit to do--why does Jon have run every decision by her???

why can't Sansa ask, "are there any important decisions being made regarding winterfell? "

She knows where to find him. When Jon is in winterfell he has a lot more going on than her. It doesn't make any sense for him to actively look for her rather than her coming to him. 

This insistence that jon accommodate Sansa rather than Sansa showing a United front for Jon just shows that not even some fans take the whitewalkers seriously. Lol. Jon spared the two families 1. To not punish the kids for their fathers sins 2. They need all of the men that they can get. Jon went to dragonstone because 1. a king needs to appeal to a Queen for help in this particular situation she 2. He has actually fought the WW 3. It is on him to ensure ad many allies he can get especially when his own people don't believe him. 

Hell, cersei loathed Robert, but she demanded that people put respect on his name. 

[Colorful Mess]

Does anyone else think that the Tarleys are just a slippery slope the show has gone down since Season 1? Prior seasons she burned nameless Redshirts. The Tarleys were something more to us, but still distant, assholish, or foolish enough to make us comfortable with her. 

What if, after something majorly pisses her off, she flies straight up to Winterfell and threatens the Starks - who just got reuinted all in one place? I am actually nauseous from fear, just thinking about it. But the show, and GRRM, would LOVE doing this to us.

Hoping Dany comes out a hero. Hope GRRM loves her too much to let her go down that path. But being a sadist is his favorite pastime, too so...I dunno.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Colorful Mess

[Wulfsige]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

"This is war, Peacock!  Casualties are inevitable.  You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.  Every cook will tell you that!"

Also according to Stalin. Who killed 20 million (lowest estimate) of his own people. 

[Nanrad]

I don't think dany would blatantly target the starks like that. Besides, her eye is on KL and the North are just having petty squabbles and not battles. It's bad optics.

 

question: do we think sansa would bend the knee???

Rhaegar was loathsome and self centered. The more I revealed, the more I'm disgusted. 

[Francie]

2 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

I don't think dany would blatantly target the starks like that. Besides, her eye is on KL and the North are just having petty squabbles and not battles. It's bad optics.

 

question: do we think sansa would bend the knee???

Do we think Lyanna "Bear Island Knows No King But the King of the North" Mormont would?

Just let that sink in. 

[Francie]

2 hours ago, Chris24601 said:

Don't pretend Dany deciding to conquer Westeros has any moral equivalency to the root cause behind the Battle of the Bastards.

Jon didn't declare war on Ramsey. Jon just wanted to go away to somewhere warm.

Then Ramsey sent the letter threatening to murder Jon's little brother and all the Wildlings and to have Jon's sister raped to death while Jon was forced to watch before killing him and he fully intended to carry out the threat with an army of 5000 men behind him unless Jon gave his sister back to a monster who had beaten and raped her for months.

Jon's goal wasn't "Retake the North because it belongs to me" it was "Stop Ramsey so he doesn't kill us all."

Jon didn't demand the Northern lords fight for him and kill any who refused; he went around asking them for their help and left when they refused. As a result, the vast majority of the forces under Jon's command for the battle were people under direct threat of death by Ramsey (people who were legally brought through the Wall on the decision of the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and settled on lands belonging to the Night's Watch).

Jon also didn't ask for the assistance of the Knights of the Vale to win him the battle. Sansa called them in without his knowledge (which ended up being to his benefit, but he wasn't the one who decided to field them in the battle).

Jon didn't even want to be King afterwards... its rather funny that he and Sansa were disagreeing over who got to be in charge; not because they both wanted to be in charge, but because neither of them did. Jon just wanted to unite the North to fight the real enemy... it was Lyanna Mormont who suggested that Jon Snow should be their King and the rest of the lords agreed.

So yeah... the deaths in the Battle of the Bastards were regrettable, but "we don't want ourselves and our families to be horribly murdered" is as just a cause for war as you'll ever find and the defeated side was fighting on the side of "Let's horribly murder innocent people."

"I want to run other people's lives because I think I have the right to force people to do what I say and to murder anyone who disagrees with me"... Not so much.

I'd like permission to take your post out for dinner and a drink. Somewhere nice, with linen napkins and everything. 

Look, I think a lot of this Dany & WMD debate comes down to:  1) What's her purpose; and 2) How does she want to be perceived. 

Let's say the president of the United States gets ousted (oh man, let's just say ... okay let me start over).  Let's pretend it's 2021 and the president of the United States gets ousted. And he/she wants to come and "take back" the country. And the Governor of Louisiana calls out the state militia to fight him or her, and the ousted President drops a bomb that obliterates those militia members, do you think that's the right call? Just because New Orleans wasn't hit, does that suddenly make it ok? Those milita members are the President's own citizens. They are being called upon by the person they understand to be a leader. And you want to call them treasoners and dismiss their deaths by saying, "War is hell?"  

The President, in that case, has a responsibility to all citizens. Now, if hold the office is more important than the lives of its citizens, then by all means proceed. And take and own the label of tyrant and despot. 

[LanceM]

So it has happened again. Episode 6 apparently aired accidently in Spain.  Beware of spoilers as you roam the internet.

[MrsR]

I want to play Westeros RISK!!! Where we all have the same number of plastic pieces, I'm sorry men, and we each take turns crushing our enemies to smithereens and it's all fair and square or at least it as fair as the die casting is.

 All's fair in love or war. You got dragons, you use dragons.

And Dany had a death sentence placed upon her the instant she was born. As a baby. As a little girl. As a teenager. As a refugee. As a young bride.

 

You go for it Dany. Crush them all!

Edited August 16, 2017 by MrsR

[Francie]

1 hour ago, Constantinople said:

 I recall St Jon Snow demanding loyalty from Alys Karstark and Ned Umber with the implied threat they'd lose their homes if they didn't

And I don't recall any contention over who was the ruler of the North. It wasn't like Sansa was saying, "It's me," and Jon was saying, "It's me. Now kneel or I'll take your houses." 

Except replace "take your houses" with put you in armor and burn you so that your skin melts into the metal. 

[screamin]

1 hour ago, Nanrad said:

So her only solution is to undermine Jon in public gatherings and she can't...suggest he have small council meetings. She's the one who has all of these grievances with how Jon rules as she someone who is close to him, it is on HER to find a way to make her voice her. Jon has always told her in so many words that her voice can be heard, but they needed to be United. 

Sansa is basically in jons inner circle, which means she needs to conduct herself different from those outside of the circle. That's why she can't openly defy him or undercut him. How often do we see these other hands and trusted advisors do that? Hell, even tyrion and Varys voice their displeasure privately, but with Sansa, it's trying to shut her up??? Jaime doesn't even publicly defy cersei because of her position and it would be undercutting her even tho he doesn agree with some of her actions. Hell, I don't even think Ned did so either. Yet, asking Sansa to understand this and be smarter about how she objects to Jon is a problem???

Jaime is not Cersei's Hand, or anything officially except her Queensguard. He's also unequivocally her bitch no matter what atrocity she commits, so we can't really take him as a good example to follow. As for "even tyrion and Varys voice their displeasure privately?" In this very episode we see Tyrion (supposedly one of the most intelligent characters) repeatedly and persistently voice his objections to Dany's decision publically. Catelyn would not voice an objection to Ned's decisions publically - but OTOH, Ned would not make an important decision (like, for example, becoming Hand of the King and moving to KL) without consulting her if it were at all possible (as he DID before becoming Hand of the King). His decisions affect her as much as himself. Refusing to even ask her opinion before making those decisions (even if he decides not to heed her advice) would make Ned a douchey husband. It's been a long time since Jon has been with family, and he's never been head of the family at all. There's a learning curve involved, and the fact that he's the king IMO doesn't mean all the effort must be on one side only.
 

Quote

So her only solution is to undermine Jon in public gatherings and she can't...suggest he have small council meetings. 

Sansa did very nicely ask him, in private, whether asking her opinion before making a decision would be so terrible. She left how he could ask her opinion up to him. He tried to laugh it off.  You want to absolve him from any obligation to even meet her halfway.

See, when you said Jon has no obligation to listen to Sansa or have consideration for her, you are right in a way. Jon is the king and head of the family, and by law he can do what he likes. As king, if he wants to, he can single out an important ally and bannerman and tell him or her to shut up in meetings with the other lords, his opinion isn't wanted, is an embarrassment and has no importance in the decisions of the king. He can do that, there's no law against it. But it would be seriously stupid of the king to alienate an important ally by treating him or her as inferior to the other lords. As the head of the family, Jon is by law under no obligation to talk to his beloved sister about the decisions he plans to make that will affect her life and perhaps even her survival. He can tell her to shut up and wait till he gives his orders to the lords, and if she doesn't like them or thinks she has a suggestion, she should keep it to herself till they're in private, when she can complain uselessly about the decision already irrevocably made. He can totally do that as head of the family, if he's willing to be a douche to his sister, deprive her of any chance to have influence in her own life and to make his relationship with his only known family miserable.

I can't see why Jon doing what would be stupid to an important ally and douchey to a beloved family member is totes okay when doing it to Sansa - who is both ally and beloved family. Mind, I would think it was just as douchey and stupid if it were a non-psychic Bran there instead of Sansa. I'd think it just as stupid and douchey if Jon thought it was okay to tell Bran to shut up when he makes decisions in public and refuses to discuss his decisions with him in private beforehand.

Thankfully, since Jon is neither stupid nor douchey, he is capable of being flexible and re-evaluating his positions. So IMO he did the right thing by appointing Sansa Regent in his absence.

Edited August 16, 2017 by screamin

[Constantinople]

24 minutes ago, Francie said:

And I don't recall any contention over who was the ruler of the North. It wasn't like Sansa was saying, "It's me," and Jon was saying, "It's me. Now kneel or I'll take your houses." 

Except replace "take your houses" with put you in armor and burn you so that your skin melts into the metal. 

Except Alys Karstark and Ned Umber were too young to fight in the Battle of the Bastards, and Daenerys only executed those who fought against her and reused to kneel.  As Jon said, the penalty for treason is death

[screamin]

22 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

Except Alys Karstark and Ned Umber were too young to fight in the Battle of the Bastards, and Daenerys only executed those who fought against her and reused to kneel.  As Jon said, the penalty for treason is death

Not to mention that in the show Dany even offered a third option at Tyrion's insistence - to go to the Wall if they refused to bend the knee to her but did not want to die. IMO, that's quite an expansive menu of options for a ruler to offer in Westeros (witness Tywin's total obliteration of the family of the rebellious Reynes of Castamere, in contrast - and Tywin was nobody's idea of an incompetent ruler).

Edited August 16, 2017 by screamin

[Hecate7]

On 8/14/2017 at 0:30 PM, FnkyChkn34 said:

Maybe this is slightly off-topic, but he was in this episode and I don't know where else to ask it - what is Gilly's son's name?  His name is also Sam, right?  But what is his last name?

Ought to be Flowers, since Sam is from the Reach.

[LanceM]

Just now, doram said:

I don't think he has a last name. Last names are only given to children of nobles, trueborns and bastards but smallfolk don't have last names. 

 

But isn't Sam claiming him as his son? 

[Nanrad]

42 minutes ago, screamin said:

Jaime is not Cersei's Hand, or anything officially except her Queensguard. He's also unequivocally her bitch no matter what atrocity she commits, so we can't really take him as a good example to follow. As for "even tyrion and Varys voice their displeasure privately?" In this very episode we see Tyrion (supposedly one of the most intelligent characters) repeatedly and persistently voice his objections to Dany's decision publically. Catelyn would not voice an objection to Ned's decisions publically - but OTOH, Ned would not make an important decision (like, for example, becoming Hand of the King and moving to KL) without consulting her if it were at all possible (as he DID before becoming Hand of the King). His decisions affect her as much as himself. Refusing to even ask her opinion before making those decisions (even if he decides not to heed her advice) would make Ned a douchey husband. It's been a long time since Jon has been with family, and he's never been head of the family at all. There's a learning curve involved, and the fact that he's the king IMO doesn't mean all the effort must be on one side only.
 

Sansa did very nicely ask him, in private, whether asking her opinion before making a decision would be so terrible. She left how he could ask her opinion up to him. He tried to laugh it off.  You want to absolve him from any obligation to even meet her halfway.

See, when you said Jon has no obligation to listen to Sansa or have consideration for her, you are right in a way. Jon is the king and head of the family, and by law he can do what he likes. As king, if he wants to, he can single out an important ally and bannerman and tell him or her to shut up in meetings with the other lords, his opinion isn't wanted, is an embarrassment and has no importance in the decisions of the king. He can do that, there's no law against it. But it would be seriously stupid of the king to alienate an important ally by treating him or her as inferior to the other lords. As the head of the family, Jon is by law under no obligation to talk to his beloved sister about the decisions he plans to make that will affect her life and perhaps even her survival. He can tell her to shut up and wait till he gives his orders to the lords, and if she doesn't like them or thinks she has a suggestion, she should keep it to herself till they're in private, when she can complain uselessly about the decision already irrevocably made. He can totally do that as head of the family, if he's willing to be a douche to his sister, deprive her of any chance to have influence in her own life and to make his relationship with his only known family miserable.

I can't see why Jon doing what would be stupid to an important ally and douchey to a beloved family member is totes okay when doing it to Sansa - who is both ally and beloved family. Mind, I would think it was just as douchey and stupid if it were a non-psychic Bran there instead of Sansa. I'd think it just as stupid and douchey if Jon thought it was okay to tell Bran to shut up when he makes decisions in public and refuses to discuss his decisions with him in private beforehand.

Thankfully, since Jon is neither stupid nor douchey, he is capable of being flexible and re-evaluating his positions. So IMO he did the right thing by appointing Sansa Regent in his absence.

I've stated in one of my posts as either hand or someone advising/in the inner circle, they don't (or usually don't--for your added benefit) disagree with the ruler publicly. Whether Jaime is her bitch or not, we've seen his facial expressions express displeasure and disagree to which he kept to himself or voices privately. 

youre comparing Ned and catelyns marriage spanning over a decade to a new "partnership." It's going to be rough in the beginning, especially when Jon is in an incredibly stressful and unusual situation.

furthermore, my point of how Jon doesn't have to do anything is to highlight that he IS considering and listening to her. Last season and this season, people argued that Jon doesn't listen to Sansa because she's a girl and doesn't take her input seriously and he literally gives her the most importantly position in winterfell when he leaves. There's always a new criticism as if Jon has flat out welcomed her opinion, given her the opportunity speak, and gave her a leadership role. 

Basicslly, it seems as people really want Jon to have no opinion of his own or excercise his power and listen to everything Sansa says. Jon is literally concerned with the survival of humanity, but lets act as if he's a misogynist who doesn't want to listen to women and have them shut up because he doesn't respect them rather than the fact he's focused on a threat that the entire continent doesn't take seriously.

[sumiregusa]

2 hours ago, Francie said:

 Look, I think a lot of this Dany & WMD debate comes down to:  1) What's her purpose; and 2) How does she want to be perceived. 

Let's say the president of the United States gets ousted (oh man, let's just say ... okay let me start over).  Let's pretend it's 2021 and the president of the United States gets ousted. And he/she wants to come and "take back" the country. And the Governor of Louisiana calls out the state militia to fight him or her, and the ousted President drops a bomb that obliterates those militia members, do you think that's the right call? Just because New Orleans wasn't hit, does that suddenly make it ok? Those milita members are the President's own citizens. They are being called upon by the person they understand to be a leader. And you want to call them treasoners and dismiss their deaths by saying, "War is hell?"  

The President, in that case, has a responsibility to all citizens. Now, if hold the office is more important than the lives of its citizens, then by all means proceed. And take and own the label of tyrant and despot. 

Nobody is dismissing deaths. It's been pretty obviously stated that the Tarlys were made example of because they stood for the reason why Dany was even on that battlefield in the first place. An army sniped her allies and their resources. She returned the favor. The Tarlys betrayed House Tyrell and sided with Cersei out of fear. That is called treason. Ned killed NW defectors, Jon killed the NW members who betrayed him. Traitors die. What show are you even watching?

And how about this? How about we not make modern-day comparisons to a medieval fantasy and leave it at that? It's a different time, it's a different world. There are different rules.

It should also be stated that I'm not even a Dany apologist or sympathizer. She truly bugs the crap out of me a lot of the time. I just can't figure out where the demonizing mission is coming from. It makes no sense so I'm just letting it go based off the fact that everyone is allowed to side with who they want. That's it, that's all.

Edited August 16, 2017 by sumiregusa
Spellzing and clarification

[Scaeva]

27 minutes ago, screamin said:

Not to mention that in the show Dany even offered a third option at Tyrion's insistence - to go to the Wall if they refused to bend the knee to her but did not want to die. IMO, that's quite an expansive menu of options for a ruler to offer in Westeros (witness Tywin's total obliteration of the family of the rebellious Reynes of Castamere, in contrast - and Tywin was nobody's idea of an incompetent ruler).

Sending the two Tarlys to the wall was the right call. Unfortunately Dany didn't take that option.

Randall Tarly could object all he wants that Daenerys is a foreign invader and not his rightful queen and thus has no authority to send him to the wall, but it would not matter, since he was a prisoner with power over exactly nothing. What's he going to do once he gets to the wall? Complain some more? Most of the Night's Watch didn't want to be there either, but they haven't got a choice. The only options Tarly would have at the wall would be to do his duty or desert, and the latter is a death sentence.

Tarly was also a capable general which is what the Night's Watch needs.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scaeva

[MrsR]

"There are no easy choices in war."

Lord Randall Tarly

Right before he got roasted by Drogon.

[screamin]

23 minutes ago, Scaeva said:

Sending the two Tarlys to the wall was the right call. Unfortunately Dany didn't take that option.

It was Tarly's choice. He would have been refusing to serve Dany as he wanted, but if he insists on execution instead of honorable service at the Wall? Up to him. 

[screamin]

29 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

I've stated in one of my posts as either hand or someone advising/in the inner circle, they don't (or usually don't--for your added benefit) disagree with the ruler publicly. Whether Jaime is her bitch or not, we've seen his facial expressions express displeasure and disagree to which he kept to himself or voices privately. 

youre comparing Ned and catelyns marriage spanning over a decade to a new "partnership." It's going to be rough in the beginning, especially when Jon is in an incredibly stressful and unusual situation.

furthermore, my point of how Jon doesn't have to do anything is to highlight that he IS considering and listening to her. Last season and this season, people argued that Jon doesn't listen to Sansa because she's a girl and doesn't take her input seriously and he literally gives her the most importantly position in winterfell when he leaves. There's always a new criticism as if Jon has flat out welcomed her opinion, given her the opportunity speak, and gave her a leadership role. 

Basicslly, it seems as people really want Jon to have no opinion of his own or excercise his power and listen to everything Sansa says. Jon is literally concerned with the survival of humanity, but lets act as if he's a misogynist who doesn't want to listen to women and have them shut up because he doesn't respect them rather than the fact he's focused on a threat that the entire continent doesn't take seriously.

I totally agree that Jon and Sansa's family negotiations are going to be rough in the beginning - and yes, Jon is in an incredibly stressful and unusual situation, but so is Sansa in different ways and degrees. They both owe each other a certain amount of give and take...which I think they both have adequately managed. In other words, I agree with you that he IS considering and listening to her - and her push for him to do so may have helped in that direction, and so was a good thing for both of them.

As for me wanting Jon to "listen to everything Sansa says," I think I made it clear that I didn't think Jon was under any obligation to agree with everything that Sansa says - or indeed, to agree with anything Sansa says...simply that in making important decisions he should listen to her opinion, since his decision will affect her and listening is the respectful thing to do for an ally OR a loved one, regardless of whether or not he decides to agree.

And calling Jon misogynist? I said I think it would be equally objectionable if it were Bran instead of Sansa who was Lord of Winterfell and Jon bulldozed Bran by telling him not to disagree at meetings publically and refuse to discuss his decisions in private before those meetings. If that happened, I'd feel it's totally expected for there to be some push and pull between the brothers both publically and privately till both felt they were giving and getting a balance of respect they both felt comfortable with. I would not feel badly toward either brother for pushing for that...just as I don't feel badly toward Sansa for pushing for the same. 

[GraceK]

Those poor Tarlys. I mean, they betrayed their house Tyrell, killed all the people they were supposed to be loyal too, robbed them of their gold and grain, and aligned themselves with a sadistic murderer...poor guys. Dany is so mean and cruel to burn them! What a tyrant she is, offering them a choice to join her or die as traitors. I mean, they ONLY attacked and murdered her allies in a war, and would have killed her at the first opportunity. Dany should have given them cookies, and hugs, and a safe space to vent their unrest.

i don't get this "outrage ". Dany has literally been pushed to this . All the people labeling her as a tyrant and despot has obviously forgotten the fact that she spent the first couple of episodes trying to AVOID this. She listened to Tyron, and tried a more calm approach that didn't involve her dragons at all. She has literally been fighting with one hand behind her back, trying to be moral and decent against enemies who are cruel, wily and sadistic. What did it get her? She lost 2 important allies, and many people died because Cersi, as she so proudly proclaimed, drew first blood. Cersei is responsible for a list of atrocities too long to go into, and literally claimed the iron throne by genocide and fear....but Dany is the bad one? Hey, remember the last person who tried to be honorable and decent, and was so kind to warn Cersi and tried to protect her children? That was Ned Stark, and look where that good intention got him.  This idea that Dany, mother of Dragons is supposed to fight her enemies with sunshine is ridiculous. 

Also, she is not entitled. Aegon conquered the seven kingdoms centuries ago, her family was the royal family for CENTURIES. That's how dynasty's are built, whether or not you agree with how, the Targaryens were the royal family for over 300 years. It was her family that was overthrown and murdered by Robert, according to every like of succession EVER, she is next in line.( not counting Jon)  Roberts children were bastards borne of Incest, I don't see how she is "entitled". No one is protesting Sansas right to Winterfell...everyone cheered for a Stark to reclaim their BIRTHRIGHT. All those people shrieking that DANY is entitled might as well agree that the Boltons are the true lords of Winterfell and Sansa and Jon were entitled jackasses to fight back. 

 

If the real problem is that you think she is a hypocrite because she preaches peace then fries people, fine. That makes more sense...although you can see from season one Dany has a ruthless nature when push   Comes to shove. 

Also, she takes no pleasure in murder and death. She is not a sadist, unlike Cersi, who even as a child was a psychopath. 

 

This is called Game of Thrones. Every Halfway decent person has gotten brutally murdered or raped or tortured somehow. In my opinion, Danny should have used her dragons years ago and barbecued the hell out of kings landing before Cersi was given free reign to do what she pleases. She at least is attempting to make a difference. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by GraceK